# Reading > General Literature >  Shakespeare

## Veho

I posted this question somewhere else, but no one has replied and I'm getting more and more confused. :Frown: 

So, the question is, which complete Shakespeare is the best? Some say they have modernised language and such things, which kinds of puts me off those because I want it to be as close to the originals as possible.

Which editon/volume do you have, and is it good?

Please help! :Biggrin:

----------


## OrphanPip

I hate modernized versions of Shakespeare. First of all, the Elizabethan English isn't difficult to understand. All you really need is a basic edition with a few foot notes to explain some archaic expressions and words that have gone out of usage. Although, I find Shakespeare readable even without the notes.

----------


## Modest Proposal

I believe the Riverside Shakespeare is the best. Most professors I know who have an opinion, feel this is the best version.

----------


## Dinkleberry2010

I agree. The Riverside Second Edition is the best.

----------


## dfloyd

I want to be as close to what Shakespeare wrote as I can be. Most people who have problems with Sharkespeare have problems because they don't understand the alusions to myths, not because the language is archaic

----------


## Lokasenna

If you don't fancy buying them all in one volume (i.e. the Riverside) then the individual Arden editions are the ones to go with!

----------


## kasie

I recently replaced my forty-plus year old Complete Works which was falling apart with the _Royal Shakespeare Company Complete Works_, first published 2007, edited by Jonathan Bate and Eric Rasmussen - it's one of the best things I've ever bought. (I know at least one other Forum member will agree with me  :Biggrin:  .) It's easy to read, has copious footnotes but these do not intrude on the text and can be used or ignored as you wish and has not only an extensive general introduction but also a separate shorter introduction for each play. It's based on the 1623 First Folio and the texts are those followed by the RSC in their productions. Its only drawbacks are that it is a Mighty Tome (nearly 2500 pages) and heavy with it, so it's not a volume for carrying around or reading at ease in your favourite arm-chair; and it's pricey, but shop around, you can pick up offers on-line, etc. I used to find the Arden Editions useful for studying individual texts, carrying to seminars, etc, but I don't know how the modern editions of Arden have been developed. ( Ed: Sorry, Lokasenna, our posts overlapped!)

----------


## kelby_lake

I have a very old one- the layout of which is stupid; basically layed out like a Bible, with tiny writing and two columns.

School editions are good if you want some theatrical perspective, because they have photos of certain scenes from various productions of the play (I think the series is the New Cambridge series?). Once you understand it theatrically, then you can understand it from a scholar's point of view.

----------


## Petrarch's Love

Hi Veho--I'm a scholar in Renaissance literature and teach Shakespeare at the college level, so I'm familiar with a lot of the different editions. In terms of single volume editions of the complete works, I would go for either the Longman edited by David Bevington, or the Norton edited by Stephen Greenblatt. I believe the RSC volume Bate and Rasmussen put out not too long ago, which has already been mentioned by a few others, is also a good edition, though I don't have a copy on hand to refresh my memories of its qualities. 

In terms of single volume copies of the plays, it depends upon what you're looking for. I often use the Bantam editions for teaching and would highly recommend them for the general reader/most undergraduates in terms of footnotes that are concise but helpful (they are also very affordable). The Arden editions of the individual plays are definitely the ones to get if you want the most detailed, in-depth information. Arden will give you a lengthy (in some cases nearly 100 pages) introduction about the play's textual and performance history, notes that inform you of every variation between the different original texts for that play, and the most extensive footnotes anyone could wish for (sometimes taking up more of the page than the text itself), so it's a good choice if you are doing advanced level work or want a lot of information about a particular play.

I would avoid modernized editions unless you want to use it to refer to while you're reading the original when you're first getting into the older style of language. If you're not getting to see the way Shakespeare is using his language, then you're missing out on a lot of what makes Shakespeare so great. If you find you're struggling with the older style of language, then you might check out this page: http://www.bardweb.net/language.html which has links to many other sites that may prove helpful for getting you into all those thees and thous. You will probably find that once you've read it enough, it really isn't too hard to read except for some archaic words or phrases that an edition with good footnotes will gloss for you.

----------


## mel_allen

I've got the Norton Shakespeare (ed. Stephen Greenblatt) which is a little chunky, but so useful! It doesnt use any modernised versions, yet in the margins it has synonyms for some of the words that arent used today/had different meanings - which I find makes it more accessible, and it doesnt intrude on the text either. 
It also offers a few pages of analysis/history/contextual knowledge/dramatisation facts before each play so you understand it further.

----------


## mayneverhave

The Norton Shakespeare

----------


## Veho

Thanks for all the replies, although, I have to say, I'm confused even more now! :Redface:  In a good way though, because you've all given me things to consider. And thanks for all your suggestions, I've been looking in to them all.

*Petrarch's Love*, I definitely want to avoid modernised versions but how do I know which are modernised and which are not, because the descriptions of the books never seem to say if they are or not?

----------


## mal4mac

> _Royal Shakespeare Company Complete Works_, first published 2007, edited by Jonathan Bate and Eric Rasmussen - it's one of the best things I've ever bought. (I know at least one other Forum member will agree with me  .) It's easy to read, has copious footnotes but these do not intrude on the text and can be used or ignored as you wish and has not only an extensive general introduction but also a separate shorter introduction for each play. It's based on the 1623 First Folio and the texts are those followed by the RSC in their productions. Its only drawbacks are that it is a Mighty Tome (nearly 2500 pages) and heavy with it, so it's not a volume for carrying around or reading at ease in your favourite arm-chair; and it's pricey, but shop around, you can pick up offers on-line, etc. I used to find the Arden Editions useful for studying individual texts, carrying to seminars, etc, but I don't know how the modern editions of Arden have been developed.


I can read the hardback version with reasonable ease in my armchair, and I'm far from a weightlifter! It's the best thing I ever bought. It cost me £7.99, new, after shopping around. I'm about 2/3 of the way through and it has been the highlight of most of my days over the past year. I have an Arden Hamlet, but stopped reading it because I found the RSC version so much more readable. The lightly scattered notes are amazing. They avoid weighing down the text with excess scholarship, and simply tell me what I need to know to follow the drama. And that doesn't need a hundred page introduction, or more notes than text.

Most published editions of the plays explain, in excruciating detail, exactly how they relate to what might have been Shakespeare's original. Just read the 100 page introduction  :Smile:  Some like the RSC Complete Shakespeare keep these explanations to a minimum, thankfully.

----------


## Dinkleberry2010

One of the reasons I like the Riverside second edition is that it includes the play Edward III, which in recent years many have come to think is a play Shakespeare wrote--perhaps the last play he wrote.

----------


## mayneverhave

> Thanks for all the replies, although, I have to say, I'm confused even more now! In a good way though, because you've all given me things to consider. And thanks for all your suggestions, I've been looking in to them all.
> 
> *Petrarch's Love*, I definitely want to avoid modernised versions but how do I know which are modernised and which are not, because the descriptions of the books never seem to say if they are or not?


Unless the edition explicitly states that it is a "modernized translation" of the text, it is almost undoubtedly in the original. Most of the versions given: like the individual Arden plays (which are phenomenal) and the Norton/Riverside/Oxford collected plays, are all in the original. Honestly I can't even think of a modernized edition except for the No Fear Shakespeare series. Actually, an entire collected "modernized" Shakespeare would probably be quite hilarious to read through.

----------


## Veho

> Unless the edition explicitly states that it is a "modernized translation" of the text, it is almost undoubtedly in the original. Most of the versions given: like the individual Arden plays (which are phenomenal) and the Norton/Riverside/Oxford collected plays, are all in the original. Honestly I can't even think of a modernized edition except for the No Fear Shakespeare series. Actually, an entire collected "modernized" Shakespeare would probably be quite hilarious to read through.


Thanks, that's good to know. I'm going to go book shopping tomorrow ( :Banana: ), so I'll take a lot at all the ones mentioned.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

Yes, it is usually just the spelling that is modernised and not the language. So in the original spelling for instance you get:



> IF Musicke be the food of Loue, play on,!
> Giue me excesse of it: that surfetting,
> The appetite may sicken, and so dye.
> That straine agen, it had a dying fall:
> O, it came ore my eare, like the sweet sound
> That breathes vpon a banke of Violets;
> Stealing, and giuing Odour. Enough, no more,
> 'Tis not so sweet now, as it was before.
> O spirit of Loue, how quicke and fresh art thou,
> ...


Whereas the spelling is modernised to:




> If music be the food of love, play on,
> Give me excess of it, that surfeiting,
> The appetite may sicken, and so die.
> [To the Musicians] That strain again! It had a dying fall;
> Oh, it came o'er my ear like the sweet sound
> That breathes upon a bank of violets,
> Stealing, and giving odor. [To the Musicians] Enough, no more.
> 'Tis not so sweet now as it was before.
> O spirit of love, how quick and fresh art thou,
> ...


Even with the original spelling it is quite readable though the modernised spelling for most is much easier on the eyes.

To truly "modernise" Shakespeare would leave many with the question of whether to laugh or get extremely angry. I have seen comic strip style Shakespeare, complete with truly "modernised" language used to help convey the story to lower sets of students, which is just about OK, but for much else it is a very big fat no.

As for which Shakespeare, there has been some good suggestions. I have the complete works in the Collins and RSC volumes, (one for upstairs and one for downstairs!) but have a number of single other works including the wonderful Arden editions, whose individual volumes are about the best going. I also have some very thin Penguin editions which fit neatly into the back pocket - something for every occasion. I have also heard that the Riverside is a great collection too. 

Have fun shopping!

----------


## Veho

> Yes, it is usually just the spelling that is modernised and not the language. So in the original spelling for instance you get:
> 
> 
> Whereas the spelling is modernised to:
> 
> 
> 
> Even with the original spelling it is quite readable though the modernised spelling for most is much easier on the eyes.
> 
> ...


Ahh, I see. The Shakespeare I've read so far had the modernised spelling then. I like the original; I think it's best to read it as close to how the author wrote it as possible. I'm torn between the Riverside and the RSC now, after looking in to them all. Unfortunately for me I can only buy one, so I guess I'll just have to lug mine up and down the stairs whenever necessary. :Tongue: 




> Have fun shopping!


Thanks, book shopping is the only fun type of shopping.

----------


## kasie

> ......Thanks, book shopping is the only fun type of shopping.


Hear, hear!  :Biggrin:

----------


## mal4mac

> I'm torn between the Riverside and the RSC now, after looking in to them all. Unfortunately for me I can only buy one...


The RSC Shakespeare should be enough, if you just want to read a good version of the plays. It's also "the text nearest to Shakespeares stage, to
Shakespeares ownership, to Shakespeares authority". I don't really want to encourage too much concentration on scholarship ("the play's the thing") But as you are on the fated quest for "the original", then this might help you choose:

www.rscshakespeare.co.uk/pdfs/Case_for_Folio.pdf 

Riverside provides "conflated texts of Hamlet and Lear that stitch together Quarto and Folio." RSC sticks to the folio. "The three great virtues of this approach are consistency of choice, respect for the theatrical origins of
Folio copy and rigorous rejection of the long tradition of conflation that has created texts, particularly of Hamlet and Lear, that Shakespeare never wrote."

Maybe the closest one can get to "the original" is a first edition of the folio? But as that could cost £2.8 million you might prefer an online facsimile, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Folio points to some. The RSC Shakespeare, being a modernised version of the folio, might be your best learning tool for understanding the actual first folio?

I think having the old spelling makes it *much* harder for anyone but a Renaissance scholar to understand and enjoy Shakespeare. Surely the important thing is to *hear* Shakespeare, not to see what he wrote. Look at:

IF Musicke be the food of Loue, play on,!
Giue me excesse of it: that surfetting,
The appetite may sicken, and so dye.

You have to think hard to get through this - why the capital M, is the e silent at the end of Musicke? What's a Loue? What's a Giue? And so on... The modern spelling indicates how an olde days actor would have spoken these words - music, love, give. Reading Shakespeare "complete" is hard enough without having to fight with the old spellings, which weren't fixed anyway!

----------


## mal4mac

> ... the wonderful Arden editions, whose individual volumes are about the best going.


I disagree. The RSC Complete has made all my Ardens redundant, for me. I can't see that Arden is any better than the other redundant editions I own - from Penguin, Oxford, whoever... There's no God of Shakespeare who can declare any edition "the best". Except me, and it's the RSC  :Smile:

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

RSC fanboy!




> Unfortunately for me I can only buy one, so I guess I'll just have to lug mine up and down the stairs whenever necessary.


I can't be doing with hard labour...

----------


## Petrarch's Love

> Ahh, I see. The Shakespeare I've read so far had the modernised spelling then. I like the original; I think it's best to read it as close to how the author wrote it as possible. I'm torn between the Riverside and the RSC now, after looking in to them all. Unfortunately for me I can only buy one, so I guess I'll just have to lug mine up and down the stairs whenever necessary.


Hi Veho--Looks like others have answered your questions about modernized language versus modernized spelling. Modernized spelling isn't a problem in terms of enjoying a good reading experience and certainly not an issue in any of the fine editions suggested thus far, and reading the actual original with, not only different spellings but old fashioned script ("v"'s and "u"'s are interchangeable, "i" is also used for "j," and there's a type of "s" we no longer use) can be seriously uphill for people not too familiar with Shakespeare or the period. A sample of Hamlet's "To be or not to be" soliloquy from the first folio:



Either the Riverside or the RSC would be a good choice. Let us know what you decide to go for and, more importantly, how you are enjoying your reading once you have the book! 




> The RSC Shakespeare should be enough, if you just want to read a good version of the plays. It's also "the text nearest to Shakespeare’s stage, to
> Shakespeare’s ownership, to Shakespeare’s authority". I don't really want to encourage too much concentration on scholarship ("the play's the thing") But as you are on the fated quest for "the original", then this might help you choose:
> 
> www.rscshakespeare.co.uk/pdfs/Case_for_Folio.pdf
> 
> Riverside provides "conflated texts of Hamlet and Lear that stitch together Quarto and Folio." RSC sticks to the folio. "The three great virtues of this approach are consistency of choice, respect for the theatrical origins of
> Folio copy and rigorous rejection of the long tradition of conflation that has created texts, particularly of Hamlet and Lear, that Shakespeare never wrote."





> I disagree. The RSC Complete has made all my Ardens redundant, for me. I can't see that Arden is any better than the other redundant editions I own - from Penguin, Oxford, whoever... There's no God of Shakespeare who can declare any edition "the best". Except me, and it's the RSC


Rasmussen told me he was afraid he and Bate were turning the First Folio into the Shakespeare holy grail. Now I know what he meant.  :FRlol:  (He also said he hoped the RSC ed. wasn't going to encourage anyone to think they could toss their Ardens...but it seems they just did too good a job in defense of the FF :Tongue: ). 

There is certainly a lot of merit to the approach of taking one particular text, in this case the first folio, and using that text as the basis for an edition. I do think there's a lot to be said for not giving conflated versions of the plays and, as mal4mac says, an edition like the RSC certainly provides a good grounding, not only for experiencing the plays but for beginning to develop a reading of the First Folio text. 

For those who may not be familiar with the textual history of Shakespeare's works, many of the plays were published in more than one version in and around his lifetime. There were many different quarto editions (so called because they were put together with large sheets that had been folded into quarters to make the pages, thus making them small books, about like the modern paperback) and then there is the First Folio edition (a folio book was made of the same large sheets that had only been folded once, and thus was twice as large as the quarto), published in 1623 seven years after Shakespeare's death in 1616. The folio text provides the most complete collection of Shakespeare's works (several plays that are in the folio do not appear in the quarto) and there are many good reasons for considering the First Folio a good source text in many cases. 

The problem for scholars and editors is that there are many differences between the versions of the plays that appear in the quarto texts and the version in the folio text. In some cases these are small differences, such as a difference in spelling, or the use of a different word from one version to another. In other cases, _King Lear_ being the most notable, there are big differences in terms of the inclusion or exclusion of whole speeches and significant changes to the dialogue. 

We have no manuscripts in Shakespeare's own hand, apart from possibly a fragment from the unfinished play _Sir Thomas More_, so a person trying to edit Shakespeare is faced with the problem of having multiple and varied texts and trying to determine how to give the reader of his or her edition the best and/or most authentic version of the play. The essay by Bate that mal4mac posted above gives a good, if biased, sense of the history of the debates and issues surrounding various editorial decisions in the past along with a persuasive argument in favor of using the First Folio as the basis for an edition. 

However, having spoken with both men about the subject, I can attest that the editors of the RSC edition are among the first to say that the First Folio can not and should not be considered _the_ one authoritative master text for Shakespeare (though my sense is that Bate is more reluctant than Rasmussen to let go of a folio centered reading). The First Folio is clearly not a perfect text itself and liable to some of the same sorts of issues (most commonly printer's errors or lines that are being reconstructed from the sometimes faulty memories of actors who played the roles) that occur in the quartos, though the folio is less flawed than certain quartos. Indeed, as Bate points out near the end of his essay, the RSC edition also relies on quarto readings in many places where the FF is clearly flawed or where they don't feel they can adequately defend a folio reading. Since the FF was put together by Shakespeare's friends after his death and it's unclear whether some quartos were put out with his knowledge or consent at all, it's also pure guesswork as to what version of any particular play is closest to the author's intent. We have no way of knowing how reliable the various sources used for the First Folio were. The compilers could have been referring to anything from manuscripts and performance scripts in Shakespeare's hand to uncertain print editions and the oral memories of company actors, and the sources probably varied from play to play. The folio also leaves out _Pericles_ and _Two Noble Kinsmen_, plays which most now recognize are Shakespeare's work, either entirely or as a collaboration (both these plays and the sonnets and other non-dramatic poems which also weren't a part of the first folio are included in the RSC edition). 

For the reader just being introduced to Shakespeare or who is reading for enjoyment on a more general level, probably these textual differences don't matter a tremendous amount. As mal4mac rightly notes, "the play's the thing." Whatever edition you get will have been shaped in some way by the editorial decisions favoring one text over another. The RSC edition favors a more consistent presentation of one text over a hybrid selection from multiple texts to create a composite version, but this means it also excludes potential readings based on quarto texts that may provide interesting and viable variations on certain passages. Different readers will prefer different versions, and any of the big name collected works that people have mentioned on this thread are responsible editions that have made legitimate attempts to present the reader with a good version of what has been passed down to us. So really it's up to personal preference in terms of, not only the text itself, but the footnotes, introductory material and other apparati. 

Anyone who wants to move beyond reading for more general interest and entertainment purposes, and to think about the plays on a more thorough and in depth level (whether for putting on a performance, writing criticism, or out of simple intellectual curiosity) will eventually have to simply consult different versions of the plays in order to decide for him or herself what he or she likes best. This is one of the invaluable features of the Arden editions, which provide detailed notes indicating both where there are textual variants from the edited version presented in that edition and what those variations are. The Norton also usefully handles the textual issues with _Lear_ (the play with the most differences between quarto and folio) by providing the reader with three different versions: the quarto text, the folio text and the editor's conflated text, thus allowing the reader to choose which version he or she wants to read or to compare the versions easily for him/herself. For anyone, scholar or not, who has already spent some time with Shakespeare's work, comparing some of the differences in a play like Lear can be fascinating because it suggests the way the plays, rather than being monolithic and unchanging stone-like monuments, were changing and malleable in their own time. Whether because of authorial revisions, improvisation or mistakes in oral performance that became perpetuated in print, or editorial revisions at the time and afterward, the textual sources for the plays we know and love today "never stale in [their] infinite variety." 




> Maybe the closest one can get to "the original" is a first edition of the folio? But as that could cost £2.8 million you might prefer an online facsimile, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Folio points to some. The RSC Shakespeare, being a modernised version of the folio, might be your best learning tool for understanding the actual first folio?


mal4mac--In case you didn't already know it, you can buy a very nice facsimile of the First Folio, put out by Norton, which, though it costs a fair deal (~$100 USD), is well under £2.8 million. The British Library also has put out some very handsome slim editions of facsimile copies of the individual plays from the First Folio which are nice if there's only one particular play you want to consult the original for (though to buy them all would cost much more than buying the single volume Norton) . It's certainly a worthwhile thing to spend some quality time with the First Folio text, and will give you a different, richer, general sense of the language as it was written in Shakespeare's own time.

----------


## Voivod30

Sorry if this is a double post. I have the complete Yale collection. It's nice and has footnotes as well as introductions to all of the plays. It was purchased at B. Dalton (i.e. Barnes and Nobel) for ten dollars which was cheaper than buying just two of the paperbacks. My only complaints are that it's heavy and the large pages sort of trick my mind into thinking the plays are longer than if I was reading a standard size page. I'm currently reading the Tempest (which was influenced by this thread which I appreciate) and it's not modernized although apparently that particular play has different versions of certain text or some thing like that.

----------


## OrphanPip

A tangentially related question Petrarch, do you know if the Longman Shakespeare uses the original spelling? I have the Longman Faerie Queene and it uses the original spelling. I'm wondering if they made the same decision with Shakespeare. Although, I think the original spelling works better with Spenser who was deliberately writing in an archaic fashion, whereas I don't think modernized spelling hurts a reading of Shakespeare.

----------


## mal4mac

> Rasmussen told me he was afraid he and Bate were turning the First Folio into the Shakespeare holy grail. Now I know what he meant.  (He also said he hoped the RSC ed. wasn't going to encourage anyone to think they could toss their Ardens...


It's heavy & a wonderful golden yellow colour. It just might be the holy grail  :Smile: 

Tell Lord Rasmussen he has failed. I tossed my Arden Hamlet half way through my latest re-read when I picked up the RSC version at the local library. I found the notes not only *far* more concise, but more helpful.

The RSC edition *does not* exclude "potential readings based on quarto texts that may provide interesting and viable variations on certain passages." It includes the famous bits that aren't in the folio at the end of the play. The common reader (me!) can just skip these unless he is *really* worried he is missing something... 

I looked at several different versions before obtaining the RSC, concentrating especially on the footnotes. I wasn't too bothered, initially, about whether it was 'pure folio' or not. I suggest anyone in doubt about which version to get should look at versions in the library, bookshops, Google books, and Amazon 'Look Inside'... Also, it's important that you like the weight, font and paper. It takes a long time to read, you need to be comfortable with it! For me, the RSC is a perfect fit in these respects -- the hardback not the paperback -- but others have complained about the weight and 'show through' (the latter has not been a problem, for me, in practice). I also like the unique 'one column' format, which makes it seem like you are reading a real book rather than some kind of Shakespearean Bible...

I do have intellectual curiosity, but I'm motivated to direct it at great literature rather than gradgrind scholarship. Life is too short for the notes in the 'Arden playgoers edition'. Obviously we do need some scholars, like Bate and Rasmussen, sorting out the textual variants and spellings, but why should these machinations be brought up front to bore the 'common reader'?

----------


## Petrarch's Love

> A tangentially related question Petrarch, do you know if the Longman Shakespeare uses the original spelling? I have the Longman Faerie Queene and it uses the original spelling. I'm wondering if they made the same decision with Shakespeare. Although, I think the original spelling works better with Spenser who was deliberately writing in an archaic fashion, whereas I don't think modernized spelling hurts a reading of Shakespeare.


Hi OrphanPip--No, the Longman Shakespeare does not preserve the original spelling as they do in the Spenser for the reasons you surmise. The archaisms really matter for an understanding of Spenser in a lot of cases. There's just no getting around his use of Middle English throwbacks, but there isn't really much lost with Shakespeare if you update the spelling in most cases. 




> It's heavy & a wonderful golden yellow colour. It just might be the holy grail


 :FRlol:  Well, I think I may have heard a heavenly choir and it seemed as though there was some sort of holy aura about the book when I first picked up the Newberry's copy. (Incidentally, if you're ever in Chicago, it's one of the few places where it's really easy to not only see, but leaf through a First Folio, since anyone over 18 with a valid ID can access the Newberry Library's special collections. Might be worth a pilgrimage.  :Wink: )



> Tell Lord Rasmussen he has failed. I tossed my Arden Hamlet half way through my latest re-read when I picked up the RSC version at the local library. I found the notes not only *far* more concise, but more helpful.


 :FRlol:  :FRlol:  Oh my goodness, is there a picture of him on the RSC cover, or have you met him? He looks so much like a "Lord Rasmussen" with that reddish beard and all. I hope that doesn't pop out of my mouth next time I run into him at a conference or something.  :Tongue: 

As for tossing the Ardens, I would certainly never claim that the Arden editions were "concise." Certainly this is why there are multiple editions of Shakespeare. The Ardens have always been aimed at the reader with more in-depth or scholarly interest and they are still best for that purpose. Versions like the RSC edition are aimed to be helpful but enable people to move along quickly and spend time with the text. Even as a scholar, I often do readings of the plays in different texts for different purposes. Sometimes I find I need/want the extensive background of the Arden. Sometimes that will get in the way too much and I grab one of the more "concisely" edited editions. Other times I need to go straight to the folio or quarto texts themselves without the luxury of quick glosses suggesting how to interpret a word and without any editorial voices around the margins. All these texts have different purposes and are equally good texts in their own right. What I (and Rasmussen) meant about not throwing out the Arden was simply that the RSC edition is serving a different purpose than the Arden, which is a good purpose, but shouldn't be construed as a replacement for the detail of the Arden notes in that it won't give you the same thing. Some readers aren't looking for/don't especially want what the Arden offers, so they'll do just fine without it, but those who do want what it offers won't find it in the RSC ed. 



> The RSC edition *does not* exclude "potential readings based on quarto texts that may provide interesting and viable variations on certain passages." It includes the famous bits that aren't in the folio at the end of the play. The common reader (me!) can just skip these unless he is *really* worried he is missing something...


I'll have to take a close look at the edition again. By pure coincidence I had finally ordered a copy of my own a few days before this thread cropped up, so I should have it soon. I looked through it when it first came out and I gave it a rather thorough going over when Rasmussen came out for a discussion about it a little while ago, but I haven't looked at it more recently. I do seem to recall that there were some quarto excerpts included, though this still doesn't mean that there isn't editorial decision shaping the text or that a folio centered edition doesn't mean that certain things don't end up on the cutting room floor. 




> I looked at several different versions before obtaining the RSC, concentrating especially on the footnotes. I wasn't too bothered, initially, about whether it was 'pure folio' or not. I suggest anyone in doubt about which version to get should look at versions in the library, bookshops, Google books, and Amazon 'Look Inside'... Also, it's important that you like the weight, font and paper. It takes a long time to read, you need to be comfortable with it! For me, the RSC is a perfect fit in these respects -- the hardback not the paperback -- but others have complained about the weight and 'show through' (the latter has not been a problem, for me, in practice). I also like the unique 'one column' format, which makes it seem like you are reading a real book rather than some kind of Shakespearean Bible...


I completely agree with you that these are the kind of things most readers should be looking at when selecting an edition. I think the RSC edition is an excellent edition, and I listed it among those I thought were good general reader editions in my initial post. I thought that both editors did a fine job with their choices in presenting the text and the footnotes and I think it's wonderful that you've found it a helpful and engaging way to experience the plays, which is obviously what it's intended to do. 

My only quibble with the edition is the way it's been promoted as though the reader is somehow going to get closer to the "original text" through this version than through any other (partly the publisher's fault), when what the reader is in fact getting a different spin from other editions, but still an edited text with the kinds of bias and choices that no editor can avoid. I posted a little background in response to your post about the FF because I thought readers of this thread who don't know anything about the textual history might appreciate being a bit more informed about what the original texts were so that they could understand what it is that an edition like the RSC is trying to do and what it is and is not presenting of the originals that have come down to us through the centuries. 




> I do have intellectual curiosity, but I'm motivated to direct it at great literature rather than gradgrind scholarship. Life is too short for the notes in the 'Arden playgoers edition'. Obviously we do need some scholars, like Bate and Rasmussen, sorting out the textual variants and spellings, but why should these machinations be brought up front to bore the 'common reader'?


Absolutely we need editors! As I said in my post, I don't think all these textual questions are tremendously important to the general reader, and I think among the major editions of the complete works, it's probably a matter of personal preference whether someone likes the text, the notes, the introduction etc. for a particular edition. Clearly the RSC edition is the one for you. 

I'm afraid I may have been unclear in the way I ended my post. I hope you don't think I was implying that people who aren't interested in the textual variants lack intellectual curiosity, because that is absolutely something I never intended to say. I didn't mean to say that if you have intellectual curiosity you will therefore be interested in textual history. Certainly one can be intellectually curious about all sorts of things in Shakespeare that can be explored within the context of a single edition and still be deeply satisfying. What I meant in the section near the end of my post was that people who do have intellectual curiosity in a particular direction about the origins of Shakespeare's text and want to think more deeply about the sources for the plays will not be able to accomplish that with a single text, but will need to compare different texts. I completely agree that many readers probably don't have this kind of curiosity, but some may find that they are interested. There are many reasons that non-scholars may find the textual question interesting. They may be trying to decide what version of the play to produce on the stage and want to think through the pros and cons of using various editions. They may have become especially interested in a certain passage and find that different texts provide very different possibilities for interpreting and understanding that passage, etc. I intentionally used the term "intellectual curiosity" rather than referring simply to "scholarly interest" because, while I don't believe everyone needs to take an interest in the nitty gritty of textual "gradgrind" scholarship ( :Tongue: ), I don't think people should feel as though understanding this stuff is something closed off to the general reader and incapable of being interesting to or understood by anyone but scholars either. I agree that probably it's only scholars who are interested in spending huge amounts of time sorting through the really "gradgrind" detailed textual differences in the originals, indeed even most scholars aren't interested in that, which is why we're glad there are meticulous and industrious textual editors out there willing to do the job. I've found, however, that it is not true that only scholars can be interested in the fact that there isn't just one authoritative Shakespeare text out there or in thinking about large differences between versions of a play like Lear. So, I did not mean to imply that there's anything especially good or bad about reading more generally and enjoying the plays via an edited edition versus taking a more thorough or rigorous look at the different texts and sources of the plays. Nor did I mean to imply that one approach or the other has anything to do with the intellect of the reader or that reader's appreciation for and enjoyment of Shakespeare, which it clearly doesn't. I just meant that if a reader _does_ want to develop a deeper understanding of the sources and the variations in order to deepen his or her understanding of the plays, then probably consulting multiple versions of the plays is in order.

----------


## mal4mac

Feeling I had been a bit hard on Arden, I looked closely at their paperback 'complete' edition in the library, hoping I could find nice things to say about it. But unfortunately I can't. It has that boring old double column format, small print, and no notes at all...

----------


## Petrarch's Love

Oh, I would never recommend the single volume Arden Complete Works. I have no idea what the point of that is, and from what I've seen of it there are not only no notes but the text isn't especially well prepared. It's like the antithesis of the single play editions and it boggles me why they bothered to put it out when there are such wonderful accessible editions of the Complete Works (like the RSC  :Smile: ).

----------

