The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works 2nd Edition (William Shakespeare)
2
The general editors, those being Stanley Wells, Gary Taylor and John Jowett, have become, thanks to this project, sort of superstars in the world of Shakespeare criticism, for better and worse. In this review I shall first take my stand against the discrepancies in the performance critical approach by the editors, partly influenced by my reading of Lukas Erne's excellent Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist, which I shall refer to and recommend to each reader who is serious about Shakespeare. Then I shall proceed to the edition itself, apart from its textual content, but rather give my evaluation of matters concerning printing, layout, et cetera.
Let me begin with what I think is wrong in the editors' motifs. My issues with the Oxford edition are several, most of which have been elegantly expressed in Lukas Erne's groundbreaking and paradigm-shattering Shakespeare As Literary Dramatist (Cambridge University Press, 2003). Firstly, they argue that they have "devoted [their] efforts to recovering and presenting texts of Shakespeare's plays as they were acted in the London playhouses" (General Introduction, xxxvii.) This requires a tremendous leap of faith from any reader, however blindly following the now-fashionable paths of performance criticism. The problem is, and this is one of the theses elaborately argued by Erne, that they fail to see Shakespeare as a literary dramatist, that Shakespeare only exists on and for the stage. Any reader of Shakespeare with any common sense should disagree, and I advice you see Erne's book on the subject of the length of Elizabethan plays, which convincingly argues that Shakespeare's plays were too long in their literary form (the 1605 Q2 Hamlet, for example) to be performed. I simply cannot embrace the idea that, firstly, they would ever be able to recover the texts to their "original" forms in the theater (abridged, as Erne argues and I believe, or not), and secondly, that these texts would be the texts that Shakespeare would have wanted us to read, that he did not intend them as literary artifacts. In the Textual Companion they admit that their editing policy, their "restoration", sometimes "requires the omission from the body of the text of lines that Shakespeare certainly wrote", yet then have the nerve to argue, of the lines omitted and removed to additional notes, that "[Shakespeare] and his company found that the play's overall structure and pace were better without them." (Textual Companion, 15) This is harmful, really, because I see no point in their grand endeavour, and what they do in the name of scholarship is disturbing - the question everyone should be asking is that "how could we ever know which parts were abridged for sure?", and "based on what evidence should we think that Shakespeare did not intend his plays to be exist both on stage and paper?"
The second problem I have with the editors is that they indeed assume that the plays, even such behemoths in length as "Hamlet" and "Antony and Cleopatra" were played on-stage as they stand (Textual Companion, 276): the Hamlet Folio at 3,537 lines is, as pointed out by Erne (2003:176-78) and Vickers (1999:404), still too long to be performed on stage in two or even three hours. This is not to argue that some of the cuts were not of artistic integrity, but to argue that a shorter text would somehow improve a play is absurd; it does in many occasions improve the dramatic plot, yet they may also confuse and take away from the characters. This problem is closely connected to that of deciding which passages have been cut, and the sheer nerve to argue that Shakespeare felt this and that is stunning and not as academically sound as people would like it to be. I disagree with their decision to print "Edward III" and "Sir Thomas More" or to change "Oldcastle" to "Falstaff"; it is true that Falstaff was most certainly originally named Oldcastle, yet what is almost as certain is that it was Shakespeare who made the change. Curiously the editors abandon the change we know Shakespeare himself presumably approved of (I do acknowledge that in the end no one knows), something that is amongst the clearest of evidence the Shakespeare scholars keep throwing at us. This is, I suppose, a matter of religion, and your religion in the Shakespearean world determines if it bothers you or not.
This is the end of my tirade concerning the editorial principles of the Oxford team. If you are not bothered with the principles as much as I am, you might want to hear whether it is worth buying for what it is worth. I will give my impressions, and you can, as a reasonable human being, either adhere or reject the advice that I wish to give in a friendly spirit. I will touch upon the following matters that I find crucial in the definition of a so-called "Collected Works": firstly, I do not mind about the size nor weight of the volume, yet if economy has been a conscious effort and goal of the editors, it should at least be acknowledged even if with dissatisfaction; secondly, whether the print is in one column or two; thirdly, what kind of supplemental material there is to the plays and culture; fourthly, how the plays themselves are annotated and glossed, and fifthly, how the edition is bound and how it fits in your hand.
Firstly, this is not a huge volume. It is economical in its size, and if you purchase your edition of Shakespeare on such grounds, this is a option possible. The intention has been to print a clean and rather small, budget volume, and this shows especially in how the text has been laid on the page, and this brings us to the second point. The print is small and on two columns, which I find very distracting; the Arden, albeit giving us excellently edited texts, suffers from this similar problem, although here the text has been crammed very close not only to the edges but to the gutter; the two-column Bevington (I can only vouch for the fifth edition) has sufficient space, I might add, yet Norton and RSC offer one column perpage, which not only clarifies but increases my reading pleasure. This is, after all, 1,344 pages in length. Compare this to the 3,392 pages of the Norton or the 2,552 pages of the RSC. In the margins there is barely any space for personal annotation. Bevington gets the two-column layout right whilst providing ample space not only for your pen but for your eye. Reading this might be daunting even for those who have read the plays through and know them by heart. Thirdly, this is not an edition to buy for lengthy supplemental materials nor glosses. There is a glossary at the back which is neither exhaustive nor useful if you need an edition that glosses at the same page. The grandson of this edition, the Norton, does this the best by glossing at the same line (this is not as intrusive as it may sound, thanks to the single-column layout). This is more for reference than study.
The sixth point is the binding and overall reading experience considering how it fits in your hand. This is a rather small edition yet a hefty one, and as someone who has not spent time with this volume on the road, I cannot vouch for neither way. It is dreadful to read, I know that much, and not very comfortable in my hands because the text runs so close to the gutter; as has already been pointed out in one customer review, this makes it uncomfortable to either read without opening the spine and the pages up to 180 degrees or more, and my volume does not lie too comfortably on the table by itself being open.
The Collins Shakespeare might be the best portable Shakespeare I know of, and it gives you a wondrously edited text by Peter Alexander. But if you are looking for a Complete Works that you do not require to follow you whenever you go jogging, by all means acquire for example the Norton (which is based on the Oxford edition, and no matter how attractive the edition I cannot recommend it on textual basis but on supplementary alone), Bevington (now in its sixth edition as of autumn 2008) or the Riverside (in its second edition as of 1996). The Oxford Shakespeare, now in its second edition, I would give 2 1/2 stars if I were permitted. I believe three would be too generous of me and against my better judgment. Thus, I shall settle with two stars only.
Bibliography*:
Erne, L. 2003. Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist. Cambridge University Press.
Vickers, B. 1999. (ed.) English Renaissance Literary Criticism. Oxford University Press.
Wells, S., G. Taylor, J. Jowett, W. Montgomery. 1988. William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion. Oxford University Press.
* I do not link these because I am not allowed to have more than ten links per review, leaving the Bibliography incomplete.
With best regards,
Antti
