Customer Reviews

Hamlet: The Oxford Shakespeare Hamlet (Oxford World's Classics)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The Oxford Shakespeare editions are in my opinion the best for scholarly work. They all include introductory matter intended to catch the reader up with current Shakespearian research. This Hamlet edition is edited by G. R. Hibbard. It includes a general introduction that outlines the great tragedy's sources and history, including a lot of material concerning its early and contemporary production history. The text is taken from the Folio edition, but the volume also contains a textual introduction that explains the differences between the various Quarto editions and the Folio. In the text itself there are even notes to point out these differences. The footnotes do a great job of translating Shakespeare's English into more contemporary renderings. Even those new to Shakespearean English should have little trouble making their way through the text. The appendices outline even more distinctions between the various historical sources, sheet music for the songs in the play, and even material concerning the alterations made to the play's lineation. Once again, this edition was clearly designed with the serious scholar in mind. But even the casual Shakespeare reader will gain much from this edition.

The cover-art alone is worth the price. Moreover, the quality of the paper is very good, with clear, sharp printed text.
One drawback might be that the Oxford editors use the F version of the play and have included parts of Q2, such as Hamlet's 4.4
soliloquy in the appendix. Overall a very good value.

The actual presentation of the text in this work is great. The editors have drowned the play in footnotes; this is a clearly thoughtful edition. There are several appendices to aid in understanding the play. The great fault of this volume is the introduction: a dry, 130-page lecture on the early history of the play and existing manuscripts. For new readers, this introduction is extremely disappointing, and invites a skeptical analysis of the play that, for the first time, makes reading it less enjoyable.