Customer Reviews

Hamlet: The Texts of 1603 and 1623: Third Series (Arden Shakespeare)

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

 

 

The folks at Arden decided to bring forth all three versions of Shakespeare's revenge (or anti-revenge) tragedy so that those who care can study the similarities and differences between the texts for themselves. I teach many Shakespearean plays and using the "bad quarto" of 1603 in conjunction with the oft used conflated text is an eye-opener for students who get a chance to truly engage in the text when comparing, say, Hamlet's third act soliloquy of the Folio (1623) version with the often maligned 1603 version. As usual, the people at Arden do an excellent job at editing the works. This is an excellent companion piece to the recently released third edition of Hamlet by the same editors of the 1604 Quarto text. A welcome addition to any Bardolators library.

This is a must-have for any of us Bardolators.

I'll reserve my thoughts on the play itself for the Second Quarto Edition of Arden, and give here some thoughts on the editions themselves. In brief. Well, to begin with, I've found the ability to read three variations of Hamlet very useful. It's fun, and it's acutely rewarding, especially if you're even slightly obsessed. The beauty of the editions is in the wealth of information; and to clarify, this edition doesn't repeat - in bulk - things already stated in the 1605 edition but concentrates on textual matters that arise from these two texts.

Firstly, I recommend buying both editions. In fact, I own several Hamlets, so I'd recommend buying pretty much what you like of Hamlet. I prefer, just for fun, to go from one edition to the other. It gives you perspective not only to the wealth of literary criticism poured from the heavens in the name of Hamlet, it also gives a healthy perspective on the seemingly infinite possibilities of editorial choice. Arden is succint and it's informative. But I'm still the most interested in the text itself, so if you're looking for an edition in which the annotation doesn't distract from the play, this is a great edition whereas the 1605 is not. That's because this edition is designed as an add-on to the stand-alone Second Quarto edition, thus liberating it from undertaking a thorough annotation. This gives an opportunity to dwell in not the contextual but textual differences, simply put a pseudo-linguist's dream come true.

These are editions that should be both acquired; what you can't get with the 1605 is the extensive research on the textual differences of the quartos/folios. And it's different to have the First Quarto/Folio passages in the appendix (as the 1605 has) to reading them fully in context, having the language and arrangement of action creating a deeper understanding the changes themselves. Whereas the 1605 edition is a treasure chest of supplements, this is constructed more pragmatically; the only qualm I have against the single edition is that if you want to read the text without annotation, which I often do, and only once in a while looking for the overbearing annotation, you can't really do it. This edition gives a chance. I am an Orthodox Shakespearean myself in that I regard Shakespeare might've authored, at least collaborated on, the much-debated Ur-Hamlet, and whether you agree or not, this gives an interesting perspective on the whole idea of how the text of Hamlet has been revised not during hundreds of years, but between the short and artistically fruitful timespan of some thirty years of Shakespeare's life.

No one should read Hamlet in any other form. Arden gives so many explanations for Shakespeare's allusions that it add greater depth to the work and greater appreciation for Shakespeare's genius.