OXFORD VS. MIT: Credibility in Shakespeare
Macbeth was written in the early 1600s by William Shakespeare, and since then, many different versions of the play have been produced. Little changes are made over time, and as these changes begin to build up, they can greatly change the play. So we have decided to compare two texts, the Oxford print version and the MIT online text. From the offset the MIT and Oxford versions are quite similar versions. However the careful observer will be quick to note that the MIT version has several additions that make a much more specific and complete text.
The stage directions are the first major difference between the two texts. The MIT version has one thing that Oxford lacks: mise-en-scène. For example at the beginning of Act I, Scene I the MIT version specifies “A desert place” as the setting. Another slight presumed error in the Oxford edition is the character known simply as the “captain”. However, in the text proper he is named the “sergeant”, which the MIT edition recognises. There are also slight differences in the time of exits and some punctuation is changed for emphasis. Although these small differences do not make a huge difference, the MIT version will most likely be a much longer lasting text. It is also more reliable as a purer form of the text. The MIT text of Macbeth is plain, and quick to load, and easy to read. They provide a table of contents which links to specified scenes so the reader can quickly get to the preferred scene, but it still provides the whole play on one page, which makes browsing very convenient when analyzing multiple scenes. Nonetheless, some major flaws are the lack of footnotes, which would aid the reader’s understanding, and the absence of line markings, which would make it difficult to locate specific sections of text.
Regarding the language used, MIT caters their version to pronunciation, and thus it is geared towards the performance of the play. This variation in language also affects the meter and rhythm of the text. The Oxford text is by far the more reader-friendly edition of the play, as it converts certain older spelling to a 21st century common spelling. Accordingly, the rhythm and meter in the Oxford text are manipulated to allow for more dramatic stresses and pauses.
However the biggest discrepancy between the two texts is the mysterious character Angus. The Oxford text enters Angus along with Ross in scene 1.2. Angus does not have any lines and has practically no influence. Interestingly enough, the MIT text does not include this character. The most mysterious fact about this character is the reference to the name Angus in the Oxford text’s dedications. The editor, Stanley Wells writes “To Angus Wilson and Tony Garrett for their enduring friendship and to Angus for the greatest English novels of my time” (Oxford 1990). Is this a coincidence? Not likely.
Another example of this inconsistency occurs when Oxford refers to a place as Saint Colum’s Inch while MIT refers to the same place as Colme’s inch. Notably, Google searches only returned relevant results for Colme’s inch.
On the whole, the MIT version is definitely truer to the original text, as proved by some secondary research and characters like Angus. Of course, the lack of footnotes limits the use of the MIT page to a source for performers, which may limit its’ lifespan for analysis readers, while the Oxford edition changes a lot to accommodate the average reader. Ultimately though, the MIT is more specific, making it the better text to get a more complete, original version of the play.
Shakespeare, William. Macbeth. Ed. Nicholas Brooke. New York: Oxford, 1998.
Macbeth: Entire Play. 2000. MIT. Jan. 18, 2007 <http://www-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/macbeth/index.html>.
Dear Macbeth Five,
ReplyDeleteWe (Maclordz) studied the MIT version as well, but we found that the slight changes MIT made altered the text in a way we believe Shakespeare had not intended to do. For example, the scansion is changed in a few places due to the spelling changes. Although the setting is more descriptive, the missing entrance of a character makes it much less reliable as this changes the whole cast in the scene! If MIT added in line numbers and the missing Angus in 1.2, I believe it would be a much more credible e-version of Macbeth.
- Denise (Maclordz)
Macbeth 5,
ReplyDeleteAfter comparing the MIT and Oxford editions of Macbeth, as you did, I found that I must agree with you in regards to the Oxford edition being reader-friendlier than the MIT version that is both lacking in explanatory notes as well as paying less attention to rhythm and meter. However, I am not entirely in agreement with your claim that the MIT version will most likely be a more long lasting version of the text for a few reasons. Although aspects such as the mise-en-scene are included, they are not crucial to the text, while a missing character may and altered stage directions prove to be problematic.
Personally, I found the Oxford version easier to read, both because of its coherent and visually pleasing formatting and, mainly due to its superior use of punctuation that I found greatly helpful with respect to the fluidity and interpretation of the text.
-Ana
Macbeth Five,
ReplyDeleteOur group also compared the MIT and Oxford editions, however, our opinion differed greatly from yours. Firstly, although you state that "There are also slight differences in the time of exits and some punctuation is changed for emphasis. Although these small differences do not make a huge difference..." there are a few examples where the change in punctuation suggests a different pronunciation of a word, and resulting in a different number of syllables.
Also, despite a comment on our page, I remain convinced that the presence of Angus in Act 1 Scene 2 is necessary. Angus is definitely not "merely a character created by the editor of the Oxford text", as you comment on our page, since he has many lines in Act 1 Scene 3 and Act 5 Scene 1, for instance. In fact, as stated on our page, his presence in Act 1 Scene 2 is necessary because of the fact that he refers to what he heard in Act 1 Scene 2 in Act 1 Scene 3.
In addition, as "which which?" points out, the Oxford edition does recognize the use of the title "sergeant" in the footnotes. The editors write "the title [sergeant] does not contradict 'captain': a sergeant was originally a tenant by military service, attending a knight...".
Fourthly, although this is a completely personal opinion, I did not find the MIT version amazingly attractive. Although it is simple, plain, and quick to load, details such as the use of large, distracting capital letters for specific character's names and the fact that the majority of the page is blinding white space makes it difficult to concentrate on. In contrast, the Oxford version is visually pleasing to the eye because the formatting is intuitive.
Despite these differences in our opinions, I agree with your analysis that the MIT version is a version much more oriented towards performers rather than readers because of the spellings in favour of pronunciation, and the use of mise-en-scene. Another point to add to this argument is that often, in the Oxford version lines which are split between characters or interrupted by an action often continue like this:
CHARACTER 1
Macbeth is really,
CHARACTER 2 really exciting.
This clearly indicates that it is meant to be one line, whereas the e-text, which simply starts the continuation of the line on a new line is verging on counter-intuitive.
In conclusion, it was interesting how, although we found similar differences and similarities between the texts, we interpreted them completely differently.
-Michael Wong (Maclordz)
Macbeth Five,
ReplyDeleteYou claimed that the MIT version of Macbeth offered a purer form and a better Shakespearean expearience for the reader. Even after admitting that this E-text version was not reader friendly, you failed to understand that it is through the readers' deep understanding that they can truly gain a positive experience. Perhaps if there were notes, line numbers, superior punctuation, and the presence of ALL the characters, like in the Oxford edition, the reader would gain a better understanding, and thus have a more effective reading experience.
-Bhavika
Dear Macbeth Five, I thought that your findings about Angus and Colme's Inch were interesting to note. Although the MIT version may be more specific and truer to the original version of the text, as you have stated, in my opinion the Oxford version is the more comprehensive version for readers like us, who do not have a background in studying Shakespeare, as the specific details hardly change the meaning of the text, and as well since the Oxford version is complete with notes that aid our understanding.
ReplyDelete-Lena
Having also compared the MIT and the Oxford texts, I agree with your assessment of the two for the most part. I agree that the MIT text is quick to load, easy to navigate through due to an included table of contents (plus your browser’s “find” function as well), has “mise-en-scène” and is more catered towards the performance of the play. I also agree with you that that the Oxford version is generally more reader friendly; offering line numbers on every tenth line (as opposed to none), modernized spelling, footnotes for comprehension, punctuation that allows for more dramatic pauses and of course I must also ask: “who is Angus?” However, I disagree with you on two main points. First, I do not believe that the use of “captain” as opposed to “sergeant” in the Oxford text is an error. It states lower down in the footnotes that “3 sergeant The title does not contradict ‘Captain’: a sergeant was originally a tenant by military service, attending a knight, and so equivalent to a commissioned officer in modern ranking (OED 3)” (Shakespeare 96). This shows that the use of “sergeant” as opposed “captain” is not an error, but intentional. Also, I did a similar Google search on “Saint Colum’s Inch” but after sifting through some sites I did in fact finds hits for both locations. “Saint Colum’s Inch” or “Colme’s inch” refers to the Inchcolm island of the coast of Scotland (east of Forth Bridge, south of Aberdour Fife and north of the capital Edinburgh). This island was founded by the Gaelic missionary Saint Columba in the 6th century. My Google search turned up many more Macbeth-related hits for “Colme’s inch” thatn for “Saint Colum’s Inch.” This means that Shakespeare probably originally referred to it as “Colme’s inch,” while “Saint Colum’s Inch,” is historically and geographically more correct. This is another example of Oxford modernizing the text. On the whole I agree with your overall assessment that the MIT version is more suitable for professional productions that require the text exactly as it was written and with the “mise-en-scène,” while the Oxford one will last longer in the teaching level, given the footnotes to allow for easier comprehension of the text.
ReplyDelete-Thilo
I find it really interesting that Thilo notes how one text seems to be more geared towards performance. This is a really great distinction and something we really need to keep in mind when addressing a play - is it for reading or seeing?
ReplyDeleteLady Mac