By the time that it came to be printed, the script of Macbeth was in a sorry state. One scene at least had been incompetently cut about; some passages and some whole scenes had been inserted. It is not to be assumed that all of these additions were changes for the worse, but some of them certainly were. They fail to articulate properly with the rest of the play; and therefore they make it more difficult – in some cases they make it impossible – to understand what is happening. It would be hopeless to think of restoring Macbeth to its primordial form, but some of the alterations made to the text can easily be reversed. Once the damage has been undone, people will be more able to follow the plot of the play, whether they are reading it or acting in it or watching a performance of it. The better they understand it, the more they are going to enjoy it.
The files in this folder are all to be regarded as works in progress: they are liable to get revisted from time to time, for one reason or another.
Notes about some typographical facts which the reader needs to be aware of in advance.
This is a fairly straightforward reproduction of the script of Macbeth, as it appeared in print for the first time. I have modernized the spelling, adjusted the punctuation, made a few small corrections (blue), and numbered the printed lines, scene by scene. Nothing more than that.
The second file contains a list of the corrections, with brief explanatory notes.
These two files may be helpful for anyone who wants to try reading the script in something close to its original form. (If you think that my suggestions are all obvious, apart from the ones which are wrong, take that to mean that these files were meant for somebody else, not you.) The first file contains some hints for scanning the verse: these are the words which I suppose should be shortened, or, in a few cases, lengthened, to make them fit the metre. And those hints may serve as an introduction to the second file, which is a list of all the adjustments that I suppose should be made in the lineation, wherever the adjustment involves something more than just joining up two half-lines. (Most of these changes were originally made by one or other of the eighteenth-century editors: a reference to Furness’s (1903) edition will reveal who should get the credit.) I hope it may be instructive to see the alternative versions side by side, rather than having to decipher a cryptic footnote.
There are places where the rhythm of the verse is lost but the compositor carries on regardless, setting up ragged-right lines of type which only look like verse. It will be seen that the larger blunders all occur in the stretches of text set by compositor A. On the face of it, therefore, they are to be blamed on him. But there is (as there usually is, with evidence of this kind) an alternative explanation. It is possible that the manuscript which A and B were using was already faulty, that A copied it as it stood, and that B was enough of a poet that he could try to put things right. On that view, compositor B would count as Macbeth’s first known editor.
However the dichotomy came about, the upshot is that modern editors should think themselves permitted – not just permitted but required – to use some violence on the text set by compositor A. The text set by compositor B is to be treated more respectfully. That rule – deal roughly with A, gently with B – was applied unconsciously by editors, from Rowe onwards, long before it was understood what the reason for the rule might be.
This is my initial attempt at a revision of the script. I have overhauled the division into scenes (blue), altered the lineation where some change seems to be required, and marked an assortment of passages – including four whole scenes – which I am proposing to omit (grey). For completeness, I have added lyrics for the songs sung by Hecate and her companions, as they were reproduced by Davenant; but I intend to discard them straight away, with the rest of the Hecate business.
These two files are meant to be read alongside my initial revision of the script. The first file explains the division into scenes. The second file includes notes explaining the reasons for the cuts that I have in mind; in most cases, however, it should only be necessary to put the question for the answer to be obvious enough.
After making the prescribed cuts, I take this stab at a second revision of the script. I have tried to knock some sense into scene 2, introduced some changes to the peripheral text (blue), and marked some passages – including one block of eighty odd lines in scene 22 – which, to say the least, it would do no harm to omit (grey).
The second file contains some explanatory notes.
For anyone who has not read the play before, my advice is to read this version first. (For anyone who has read it before, my advice is to pretend that you have not.) Feel free to skip the grey bits. Above all, do not boggle. The play is 400 years old. You cannot expect every word and every line to be instantly comprehensible. (Besides, some bits are missing.) Just aim to catch the drift of what is happening. Read it again (and again and again) if that is what you need to do. A play which has lasted for 400 years has to be worth the effort. Just try, and you will find that this version makes sense – which is more than can be said for the version printed in 1623.
You should disregard this advice, however, if you are studying the play for an exam. In that case you have no choice but to read the version which does not make sense. Your teacher pretends to understand it. The examiners pretend to understand it. You are not going to score any points by calling their bluff.
The play exists, not to be read in the classroom, but to be performed on the stage. The construction of a performable script will involve numerous decisions, large and small, which, in the end, it is the actors’ business to make. But I do have some suggestions which perhaps they may want to think about. (Following the example set by some acting editions, I have expanded Seyton’s part, so that he becomes Macbeth’s principal henchman. But I am not sure that this is a good idea. If Seyton is made that prominent, the audience is going to expect to be told what happens to him – and will be vaguely puzzled when he just disappears. (Orson Welles let him be seen to have hanged himself. Polanski and Tynan let him be shot in the head while trying to stop a mutiny.))
Some comments on one of the unwanted interpolations – the so-called ‘show of kings’ in scene 20.