The point is that there are different editions for different kinds of readers, and what might suit one set of people won’t do for others. It’s also good for a general readership like the Penguin Shakespeare. The Folger is, again, a good edition that provides the kind of information that a high school student would benefit from, akin to the Cambridge School Shakespeare editions or Oxford School Shakespeare editions. So, as far as I know, the Bevington is a good complete works by a respected Shakespeare scholar that provides most things an undergraduate student of Shakespeare will need. The Folger edition opts for a simpler general introduction which is great for the high school kind of level it’s aimed at.
Like other complete works, the Bevington has a short introduction before each play. You won’t find introductions of this kind in any complete works, and that’s fine, since there’s limited space in those kinds of editions. The final standard is whether the edition contains an extended introduction (at least a hundred pages in standard paperback size) that deals with the dating, provides a general interpretation, historical textual interpretations, the history of performance, and the approach the editor has taken in editing the text. Again, this is not information an average reader needs, but for a serious scholar, it’s crucial information, and renders the editorial process more transparent, since one can see the kinds of choices editors have made, and the choices they had to choose from, as well as any emendations to the text. I can’t get my hands on a copy, so I don’t know how the Folger and the Bevington deal with this, but don’t think they have it on page with the play text. The second standard is how the edition deals with textual variations. The Bevington puts the notes on the page, and though they’re a little bit more in-depth than Folger, they’re still more geared toward students than scholars. Both the Bevington and the Folger have notes, but the Folger has only the most basic notes that take up a page all by themselves. The first is the presence of comprehensive and in-depth scholarly footnotes (preferably on-page) that gloss the meanings of particular words and provide crucial historical interpretations of the text. I think I’m right in thinking, though, that the Bevington doesn’t include the different versions of King Lear, or many of the texts that are now considered part of Shakespeare’s extended canon (like the speech from Thomas More or Arden of Faversham). So in that sense some scholars, especially those interested in authorship, may consider it a little outdated.Īs I said in my original post, there are a few standards by which I judge the scholarly quality of an edition which one can apply to any edition. I would even go as far as to say that a serious undergraduate should consult some proper single-text editions (in a library if you can’t afford it) instead of relying solely on a complete works. The Bevington seems to be about as good as the Norton Shakespeare or the Riverside Shakespeare, and has about as much information as those tomes contain, with all the limitations of any complete works. And though I introduced one of them (the Norton) in my editions guide, I would say that a complete works edition is not ideal for serious Shakespeareans or anyone who wants to study beyond undergraduate level.
They’re good in their own right, but the standard by which I’m judging is whether they’re suitable for in-depth, high-level study of Shakespeare.
I’ve heard that editions you mention are pretty standard editions in the US, but I haven’t had any personal experience with them since they’re not at all common in the UK where I live and work.įrom what I know of these editions, though, they’re not the same scholarly standard as the Oxford Shakespeare, New Cambridge Shakespeare and Arden Shakespeare editions I covered in my original post on editions. Hello there Good to hear you’ve been enjoying the editions discussion.
0 kommentar(er)
