- Edited version, context established. February 1, 2007 -
It is important while analyzing a work with universal impact, such as Macbeth, to pay especially close attention to the reliability of a source. There are plenty of websites out there that simply cut and paste or give an abridged version of the play. Over time, various writers contribute their own interpretations, their own input. For this assignment, we examined the e-text version of University of Virginia and evaluated the reliability of the source compared to the Oxford Shakespeare's edition.
The Electronic Text of the University of Virginia provides a reliable version of Act I scenes one and two of Macbeth. Firstly, the text is from an institute of higher learning, and thus the text would have been thoroughly reviewed and revised. Furthermore, upon first glance, one can see this electronic version is very comprehensive. It contains the entire play, subcategorized by scenes within each act. Lastly, the text itself is very easy to read. It is presented in an organized fashion with appropriate spacing between character headings. The only major drawback to this version of the text is the lack of line numbers, which can be frustrating to readers when examining longer scenes.
Despite being a reliable text for its accuracy of the text, the University of Virginia’s online version is not a carbon copy of the Oxford Shakespeare edition. There are numerous minor differences in punctuation, spelling, and stage directions. In the electronic version, spelling differences occur with some specific nouns, such as Macdonwald on line 9 and Norweyan on line 31. Some words are shortened, such as show’d and compell’d on lines 15 and 30, respectively. In addition, there are a few stage directions that are added and omitted. At the beginning of both scenes in the University of Virginia’s edition, there is an added stage direction which describes the setting, yet these directions are not present in the Oxford print version. It writes, “A desert place” and “A camp near Forres”, giving readers and description of the location of the scene (Macbeth 1.1, 1.2). In the middle of Act 1.2, there is another difference in stage directions between the print version and the e-text version. The Sergeant, or Captain, is directed to exit, and only Ross enters, while in the Oxford Shakespeare copy the stage directions tell both Ross and Angus to enter.
On the whole, these differences do not affect the overall ideas, character information, or understanding of the plot of the two scenes. In conclusion, the University of Virginia e-text presents a reliable version of Act I scenes I and II because it provides accurate text, albeit with insignificant changes in punctuation, spelling, and stage direction.
Works Cited
Shakespeare, William. Macbeth. Edited by Nicholas Brooke. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Macbeth. 1998. Electronic Text Center of University of Virginia Library. 18, January 2007. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/MobMacb.html
P.S. We are very, very sorry that this is late!
4 comments:
Your observations seem quite similar to what us Thanes have also discovered when analyzing our e-text version. But many other groups have made these observations with their e-texts as well. It looks like the most common change is the lack of line numbers, and the shortened words. It certainly makes us wonder where all these e-texts originally came from.
Great work!
While the points made here are valid, I find that my own opinion differs slightly from theirs. Macmedia X stated that "there are numerous minor differences in punctuation, spelling, and stage directions", yet they do not seem to believe this is a large issue. Of course, any online version--except the very worst ones--will maintain the main ideas of Macbeth, therefore I believe that issues of spelling, punctuation and stage directions are the most important errors to address when determining the reliability of a source. If "there are a few stage directions that are added and omitted" in this source, as well as many errors, I personally would not think this source is reliable at all.
However, I did not actually read this version of Macbeth so I am judging this solely from the information provided to us from your (very well done) report.
Thanks,
Jacob Barrett
Like the previous Thane of UTS has already said, your observations are much the same as ours. It seems that not only our observations are similar, but most of the observations from all the groups are similar, showing that though these are different e-texts, they have all been modified in alike ways. This is most likely due to the time difference, and all the editors have made the same changes to make the text easier to read for people of our time.
-Sashi
The observations given in this plog are very interesting. The analysis of the different stage directions and spelling/punctuation is enlightening. The stage directions in particular are intriguing. The addition of stage directions that include setting provide a better understanding of the scene which te audience sohuld see. However, the Oxford edition effectively creates a presence of authenticity. The stage directions conerning setting would not be in the script during Shakespeare's times, so it is not placed in the Oxford edition. The stage directions and scene are very different, and this is important in determining their uses, authenticity, and reliability.
-Vivek
Post a Comment