Reading the complete plays of Shakespeare

[Yulehesays]

This has been my intention for some time. What's the best way to do this? Is there a good complete works complete with notes available anywhere? Better off on kindle or with paper?

[Charles Darnay]

There are many good editions in paper that contain wonderful notes and supporting essays (if you just want to read all that much more). Oxford is decent: Arden is good if you are interested in the acting side of things (not sure if there is a complete set though or if you have to get them individually). My personal favourite is Norton's - I love the essays and the notes are very useful.

Of course, you can always get a digital copy much cheaper (free?) but with few notes. PlayShakespeare has an app out if you have an android or apple device. I use their complete Shakespeare when I am on the go and don't want to lug my Norton's around. The text is very clean, and comes with a glossary of many difficult words.

Good luck. I decided that in 2012 I would reread/read all of his plays. Took me seven months (on and off).

[MorpheusSandman]

I read through all of Shakespeare (in rough chronological order) about 5 years ago. It's definitely a time investment, but equally definitely worth it. There are lots of good versions out there depending on what you want. As for single-volume editions, the major ones are:

Riverside aka Wadsworth Shakespeare (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0395754909/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=)
Bevington Shakespeare (http://www.amazon.com/The-Complete-Works-Shakespeare-Edition/dp/0321886518/ref=dp_ob_title_bk)
Pelican Shakespeare (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0141000589/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=)
Norton Shakespeare (http://www.amazon.com/Norton-Shakespeare-Oxford-One--Clothbound/dp/0393929914/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374312443&sr=1-1&keywords=norton+shakespeare)

Of these, I own the Oxford and the Pelican. When I read through Shakespeare initially I bought the Oxford, primarily because it was the cheapest (at the time) as well as the longest (it's over 1400 pages longer than the next longest competitor, the Riverside!). It definitely has extremely thorough introductions and notes to help a first-time reader through certain difficulties in Shakespeare, perhaps more than an average reader would need. I bought the Pelican to read along with the Arkangel Shakespeare recordings as they used that as their text, and it presents a cleaner, more streamlined approach (more reader friendly, less student friendly--it should be at 1600 less pages!).

Since then, I have had a chance to look through the Bevington and Riverside at book stores, and they seem to take a more in-between approach, ie, the middle ground between the "reader friendly" Pelican and the "textual/critical/footnoted overload" of the Norton. When this issue comes up, I seem to hear more general recommendations for the Riverside, but I also know there are several people and professors that swear by the Bevington. For whatever reason, I rarely hear the Norton mentioned, but it's probably the volume I'd recommend, if only because I'm most familiar with it and didn't recall having any qualms with it (well, except maybe the sheer heft; make sure you have a place to lay the book down to read it!).

As for individual volumes, The Arden is usually considered THE standard. I do have several volumes and they are extremely helpful with their abundance of essays and notes, but each edition goes for between $11-$14, so you're probably better off only investing in them for your favorite plays (all 40 volumes, including sonnets, other poems, and the "disputed" plays, would cost between $500-$600!). Other individual editions worth considering are the Oxfords (excellent from what I've seen), and the Norton Critical Editions (though they only have select plays). I tend to swear by Norton Critical Editions for authors/books, in general, but I don't yet own any of their Shakespeare editions.

As for Kindle, I read through Shakespeare long before I'd bought a Kindle. Since getting an iPad (with Kindle app) I have yet to get any electronic editions. Based on what I've seen from the reviews, no edition has really "got there" yet. Digitizing Shakespeare requires more than getting just the words on the page; but even that is quite a task. Whenever a major version comes out (ie, one from Norton, Riverside, Arden, etc.) I suspect it will be priced as high as the print editions. I wouldn't even bother with any cheap/free editions.

Hope that helps. :)

[Yulehesays]

Thanks guys, excellent info!

Would you recommend they be read in chronological order?

[MorpheusSandman]

Thanks guys, excellent info!

Would you recommend they be read in chronological order?I would. You get an excellent sense of Shakespeare's development from a promising dramatist in his earliest plays, to the best writer of his time in his middle plays, to arguably the greatest writer of all time in his late tragedies and romances. The thing about chronology, though, is that it's somewhat of an educated guess; there are some dates for which the dating is unknown and very imprecise, and it's impossible to know the exact order. I tend to group them like this:

Early (1589-1595) (Light Comedies, First Tragedy, First History Tetralogy)
Two Gentlemen of Verona
Taming of the Shrew
I Henry VI
II Henry VI
III Henry VI
Richard III
Titus Andronicus
Comedy of Errors
Love’s Labour’s Lost

Early-Middle (1595-1599) (Tragedies, Comedies, Second History Tetralogy)
Romeo and Juliet
Midsummer Nights’ Dream
Merchant of Venice
King John
Richard II
I Henry IV
II Henry IV
Merry Wives of Windsor
Much Ado About Nothing
Henry V

Middle-Late (1599-1607) (Great Tragedies, Early Problem Plays)
Julius Caesar
As You Like It
Hamlet
Twelfth Night
Troilus and Cressida
Measure for Measure
Othello
King Lear
Macbeth
Antony and Cleopatra

Late (1607-1613) (Romances, Late Problem Plays, Last Tragedy)
Timon of Athens
All’s Well That Ends Well
Coriolanus
Pericles
Winter’s Tale
Cymbeline
Tempest
Henry VIII
Two Noble Kinsmen

I think as long as you read those, eg, in the first category before those in the second you'll get a good feel for that progression. There is certainly debate to be had over certain plays (whether they belong in one or another), but this is a good approximation and it's what I use. Once you hit the second category, it's mostly masterpiece after masterpiece from then on (with only a few, occasional duds; most towards the very end).

[Charles Darnay]

I agree with the above. reading Shakespeare in order really gives you a sense of the development, and you will begin to notice more interesting patterns as the work develops. You can also break up the genres, so you have a nice balance of history/comedy/tragedy.

On a side note: Morpheus, I have never seen Love's Labour's Lost lumped in with the early comedies. I know the dates are often vague and the categories a convenience rather than meaningful, but I often think that LLL has more in common with Merry Wives and Much Ado as far as tropes and style goes.

[MorpheusSandman]

Morpheus, I have never seen Love's Labour's Lost lumped in with the early comedies. I know the dates are often vague and the categories a convenience rather than meaningful, but I often think that LLL has more in common with Merry Wives and Much Ado as far as tropes and style goes.IIRC, LLL is thought to be contemporary with AMND and R&J, while MAAN dates from a few years later and MWW was performed about the same time as MAAN. One could put it either at the end of his first/early period or the beginning of his early-middle period, but I'd definitely put it before MAAN and MWW. FWIW, I still think LLL has more in common with his lighter, earlier comedies. MWW is somewhat atypical in that it was written by request, but MAAN is certainly a play with a certain amount of darkness/drama in it similar to Merchant of Venice and some of the later problem plays.

[kasie]

I have found the RSC edition of the Complete Works to be very readable - plenty of accessible notes but these are not intrusive and can be ignored if you prefer to read the text straight through without breaking the momentum of the reading.

I tried to get an Arden version of The Scottish Play to use in my theatre group a few months back and found I could get only second-hand copies as Arden are apparently revising the series and as yet only a few revised titles are available.

My ambition is to see the Complete Works on the stage. I have five titles left that I have not yet seen, Love's Labour's Lost, Cymbeline, King John, The Two Noble Kinsmen and Timon of Athens. Seeing the works staged is the culmination of any amount of study, my own and all those scholars that have dedicated a lifetime's work, imo.

As for reading the plays in order, I'm in two minds about this. The OP did not say how much of the Works he has already read. If he/she has already read/seen most of the favourite plays and wants to read with the thought of making a complete overview, an academic study, then I'd agree with previous posters and say read in chronological order, bearing in mind the order is something of a dispute. If however he is coming to them as a first reading, may I suggest that the 'favourites' are more accessible - they are not the favourites for nothing. I think I'd find Two Gentlemen of Verona quite a difficult reading as a starter if I were not already attuned to Shakespeare's 'voice'.

With the Histories, I'd recommend reading them in their historical chronology as a first approach - Richard II, Henry IV i and ii, Henry V, Henry VI i, ii, iii, Richard III - the relationships and the story line would be so much clearer. I saw them performed in this way at Stratford a few years ago, eight plays over four days, an intense but unforgettable theatrical experience. The Company went on to present them in the order the plays were written the next week - I would happily have sat through all eight again for an equal but totally different experience but time and money were running out....

[Charles Darnay]

You left out King John (first chronologically) and Henry VIII (last) in your list of histories.

Reading the histories in chronological order is interesting, and what I did in my latest read through. However, you get a much better sense of Shakespeare's development if you start with the York plays. The difference between 1 Henry VI, and Henry V for example is huge, and you really see how Shakespeare evolved over 9 years.

[Minnesänger]

You left out King John (first chronologically) and Henry VIII (last) in your list of histories.

Reading the histories in chronological order is interesting, and what I did in my latest read through. However, you get a much better sense of Shakespeare's development if you start with the York plays. The difference between 1 Henry VI, and Henry V for example is huge, and you really see how Shakespeare evolved over 9 years.

this is, however, illusory, because the corpus history has labelled 'Shakespeare' was most likely contributed to by many minor playwrights. in fact, evidence suggests the man from Stratford-upon-Avon never penned a single work.

[Calidore]

Of these, I own the Oxford and the Pelican. When I read through Shakespeare initially I bought the Oxford, primarily because it was the cheapest (at the time) as well as the longest (it's over 1400 pages longer than the next longest competitor, the Riverside!). It definitely has extremely thorough introductions and notes to help a first-time reader through certain difficulties in Shakespeare, perhaps more than an average reader would need. I bought the Pelican to read along with the Arkangel Shakespeare recordings as they used that as their text, and it presents a cleaner, more streamlined approach (more reader friendly, less student friendly--it should be at 1600 less pages!).

Since then, I have had a chance to look through the Bevington and Riverside at book stores, and they seem to take a more in-between approach, ie, the middle ground between the "reader friendly" Pelican and the "textual/critical/footnoted overload" of the Norton. When this issue comes up, I seem to hear more general recommendations for the Riverside, but I also know there are several people and professors that swear by the Bevington. For whatever reason, I rarely hear the Norton mentioned, but it's probably the volume I'd recommend, if only because I'm most familiar with it and didn't recall having any qualms with it (well, except maybe the sheer heft; make sure you have a place to lay the book down to read it!).


OP: The links Morpheus posted are worth following just to check the reviews. Lots of comparisons there.

Agreed about Riverside and Bevington being a good middle ground. I ended up choosing Bevington, but you can't go wrong either way.

How are the Arkangel plays anyway?

[Charles Darnay]

this is, however, illusory, because the corpus history has labelled 'Shakespeare' was most likely contributed to by many minor playwrights. in fact, evidence suggests the man from Stratford-upon-Avon never penned a single work.

What an interesting theory? I'm sure you have good evidence to back it up? No? Oh.

I'm sorry, I cannot tolerate the Baconian conspiracy theories (or the Marlowe, Elizabeth, Oxford &c.) conspiracy theories. Yes, some works were done in collaboration: collaborating was a big thing at the time. There is strong textual evidence to support the notion that Fletcher was a collaborator on Two Noble Kinsmen and Henry VIII, and Pericles may only be 3/5 Shakespeare, but to say he didn't pen a single word is absurd.

[Bustrofedon]

I read most of them piecemeal. Although I did the English kings in order. I would like to go back chronologically, though.

[MorpheusSandman]

How are the Arkangel plays anyway?Consistently excellent. I borrowed them from my local library and ripped them all (~100 discs!) to my PC and listened to one every day/every other day over the period of a few months. Personally, I prefer them quite a bit to the BBC Complete Shakespeare (which I also own/have watched). I think the Arkangel boasts consistently better, more engaging performances, and without the visual production aspect it puts the emphasis more on the language, which is where one's attention belongs with Shakespeare.

[kasie]

You left out King John (first chronologically) and Henry VIII (last) in your list o histories......

Well, no, not really, that was deliberate - they are 'stand alone' plays, huge gaps between the end of 'King John' and the beginning of 'Richard II' and a lesser but significant gap between the end of Richard III and the action in Henry VIII. The themes are different too.

I suggested reading the two tetralogies in historically chronological order for a beginner as the history is so confusing unless you are well informed about that period of English History - I was very vague about it (school was a long time ago and we passed rather quickly over the Wars of the Roses) and found it easier to grasp what was going on that way.

I agree that reading them in the order they were written is very relevant to an appreciation of the development of Shakespeare as dramatist. It struck me forcibly while watching Henry V how parallel in style it is to Hamlet - the Self Questioner moving forward to Action as opposed to the Self Questioner frozen in Inaction.

[Charles Darnay]

Well, no, not really, that was deliberate - they are 'stand alone' plays, huge gaps between the end of 'King John' and the beginning of 'Richard II' and a lesser but significant gap between the end of Richard III and the action in Henry VIII. The themes are different too.

I suggested reading the two tetralogies in historically chronological order for a beginner as the history is so confusing unless you are well informed about that period of English History - I was very vague about it (school was a long time ago and we passed rather quickly over the Wars of the Roses) and found it easier to grasp what was going on that way.

I agree that reading them in the order they were written is very relevant to an appreciation of the development of Shakespeare as dramatist. It struck me forcibly while watching Henry V how parallel in style it is to Hamlet - the Self Questioner moving forward to Action as opposed to the Self Questioner frozen in Inaction.

This is fair. I'm really not one to comment, when I first read the histories, it was in a really muddled order so I was both confused historically and in terms of Shakespeare's style.

[Charles Darnay]

IIRC, LLL is thought to be contemporary with AMND and R&J, while MAAN dates from a few years later and MWW was performed about the same time as MAAN. One could put it either at the end of his first/early period or the beginning of his early-middle period, but I'd definitely put it before MAAN and MWW. FWIW, I still think LLL has more in common with his lighter, earlier comedies. MWW is somewhat atypical in that it was written by request, but MAAN is certainly a play with a certain amount of darkness/drama in it similar to Merchant of Venice and some of the later problem plays.

I wanted to come back to this after re-reading Love's Labour's Lost for it has been awhile. I think there is more experimentation in Love's Labour's Lost that you don't find in the earlier comedies, or even A Midsummer Night's Dream. Not only is there experimentation in language, and there is, but the disrupted ended is very strange to a comedy (even a Shakespearean comedy). The entrance of death into Navarre is so jarring and disrupts everything, followed by the fact that the play does not end with a marriage (even though the idea of one hangs over the ending). But the play does inherit a certain darkness, particularly if you consider this somewhat "green world" to the pastoral of As You Like It. The veil is never really thrown off Arden: it remains as untouched at the end as it did in the beginning. But Navarre grows too big in jests (capped off by the ridiculous Nine Worthies) that it bursts, exposing everyone for who they are. This to me is much more in line with Much Ado About Nothing than Taming of the Shrew.

But yes, upon searching, I see that the composition date is placed rather early on, and the first performance was probably before that of Midsummer Night's Dream.

[MorpheusSandman]

I wouldn't deny that LLL definitely contains more experimentation than his earliest comedies. It may be Shakespeare's most linguistically daring and even ostentatious display. IIRC, Shakespeare had written it to be performed for a graduate class, which may explain the linguistic showiness. While there is the "death" of the father near the end, this only comes by way of a news report; it's not as if the father was an actual "character" the way Hero was in MAAN (and I still find the whole broken marriage/renunciation scene in MAAN much darker than the reported death in LLL, and maybe the darkest moment in any Shakespeare comedy). It also seems to serve as an, albeit strange, way to "end" the festivities, whereas in MAAN the broken marriage is the hinge that the entire second half of the play turns on. However, I do think LLL's end is one of the first examples of Shakespeare having the random, bleakness of death interrupting the Edenic lives of his characters (maybe a "wake up call" to the graduating class? A kind of "now the real world starts" message?); so, in that sense, it does show a development from his earliest comedies. As you mention, AYLI is really his only "untroubled" late(r) comedy.

[wreade1872]

I tried this before but didn't get very far, plus should you really be READING shakespeare. I've read a number of plays on my 'stuff referenced in the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen graphic novels' reading list and found that what i really should have done was to see them performed instead, surely thats the only way to absorb them as they were intended to be. Maybe read them afterwards just to see if you missed anything.
I'm currently watching the Globe plays on skyarts which i'm finding really good. I tried watching baz lurmans Romeo and Juliet at least three times and never made it to the end but the 3 hour version at the Globe was somehow much easier to watch.
They had Henry IV part I, the other day and the second part is on next weekend.

[Charles Darnay]

I can certainly agree with the pleasures of watching Shakespeare's plays, but reading them offers a different type of joy. There is a notion that "Shakespeare was meant to be seen not read" which is not entirely accurate. Even in the late 16th century, his plays were extremely popular in quarto (print) form. In fact, 1 Henry IV faired better in print than on stage.