Frontmatter
Frontmatter
Frontmatter
general editor
Brian Gibbons
From the publication of the first volumes in 1984 the General Editor of the New Cambridge
Shakespeare was Philip Brockbank and the Associate General Editors were Brian Gibbons
and Robin Hood. From 1990 to 1994 the General Editor was Brian Gibbons and the Associate
General Editors were A. R. Braunmuller and Robin Hood.
Philip Edwards aims to bring the reader, playgoer and director of Hamlet into the closest pos
sible contact with Shakespeare’s most famous and most perplexing play. In his Introduction
Edwards considers the possibility that Shakespeare made important alterations to Hamlet as it
neared production, creating differences between the two early texts, quarto and Folio. Edwards
concentrates on essentials, dealing succinctly with the huge volume of commentary and con
troversy which the play has provoked and offering a way forward which enables us once again
to recognise its full tragic energy.
For this updated edition, Robert Hapgood has added a new section on prevailing critical and
performance approaches to the play. He discusses recent film and stage performances, actors of
the Hamlet role as well as directors of the play; his account of new scholarship stresses the role
of remembering and forgetting in the play, and the impact of feminist and performance studies.
Edited by
Philip Edwards
King Alfred Professor of English Literature Emeritus
University of Liverpool
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521532525
The New Cambridge Shakespeare succeeds The New Shakespeare which began
publication in 1921 under the general editorship of Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch and John
Dover Wilson, and was completed in the 1960s, with the assistance of G. I. Duthie,
Alice Walker, Peter Ure and J. C. Maxwell. The New Shakespeare itself followed upon
The Cambridge Shakespeare, 1863–6, edited by W. G. Clark, J. Glover and
W. A. Wright.
The New Shakespeare won high esteem both for its scholarship and for its design,
but shifts of critical taste and insight, recent Shakespearean research, and a changing
sense of what is important in our understanding of the plays, have made it necessary
to re-edit and redesign, not merely to revise, the series.
The New Cambridge Shakespeare aims to be of value to a new generation of
playgoers and readers who wish to enjoy fuller access to Shakespeare’s poetic and
dramatic art. While offering ample academic guidance, it reflects current critical
interests and is more attentive than some earlier editions have been to the realisation
of the plays on the stage, and to their social and cultural settings. The text of each
play has been freshly edited, with textual data made available to those users who wish
to know why and how one published text differs from another. Although modernised,
the edition conserves forms that appear to be expressive and characteristically
Shakespearean, and it does not attempt to disguise the fact that the plays were written
in a language other than that of our own time.
Illustrations are usually integrated into the critical and historical discussion of the
play and include some reconstructions of early performances by C. Walter Hodges.
Some editors have also made use of the advice and experience of Maurice Daniels,
for many years a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company.
Each volume is addressed to the needs and problems of a particular text, and each
therefore differs in style and emphasis from others in the series.
philip brockbank
Founding General Editor
ROBERT EDWARDS
1829–1908
vi
Contents
vii
Illustrations
1 Suggested Elizabethan staging of the Ghost scenes (1.4 and 1.5). Drawing
by C. Walter Hodges page 44
2 Henry Irving as Hamlet and Ellen Terry as Ophelia in the ‘nunnery’ scene
(3.1), as painted by Edward H. Bell, 1879 (Mander and Mitchenson
Theatre Collection) 49
3 Suggested Elizabethan staging of the play-within-the-play (3.2). Drawing
by C. Walter Hodges 51
4 ‘Now might I do it pat’ (3.3.73). One of a series of lithographs of the play
published by Eugène Delacroix in 1844 (Trustees of the British
Museum) 53
5 Possible Elizabethan staging of the graveyard scene (5.1). Drawing by
C. Walter Hodges 57
6 ‘Do you not come your tardy son to chide?’ (3.4.106). Redrawn by Du
Guernier for the 1714 edition of Rowe’s Shakespeare 65
7 J. P. Kemble as Hamlet, by Sir Thomas Lawrence (Royal Academy, 1801)
(Tate Gallery) 68
8 ‘Go on, I’ll follow thee’ (1.4.86). Forbes Robertson as Hamlet in a 1913
film (Mander and Mitchenson Theatre Collection) 69
9 The burial of Ophelia (5.1). Modern-dress production at the London Old
Vic, 1938 (Mander and Mitchenson Theatre Collection) 70
10 Kenneth Branagh’s film of Hamlet 1996, with Branagh in the title role
between Claudius (Derek Jacobi) and Gertrude (Julie Christie)
(Photofest) 73
11 Simon Russell Beale as Hamlet, with Yorick’s Skull, National Theatre,
2001 (Photo: Zoe Dominic) 75
viii
Preface
The vastness of the commentary on Hamlet gives an editor of the play a rather special
freedom. Even if he could read them all, he could not accommodate within the covers
of a book an account of the multitude of theories and ideas generated by the play;
and to attempt to sum up even the enduring contributions would so overload the work
that it would defeat the main purpose of an edition, which is to make an author’s
work more accessible. This edition of Hamlet is selective in its account of what has
gone before, and the view of the play presented in the Introduction, the Commentary –
and the text – is personal without I hope being idiosyncratic. Everything that I
consider essential to the meaning of the play I have endeavoured to discuss; where
I consider problems insoluble, or not central, I have avoided prolonged debate.
The text of Hamlet presents great difficulties, and any discussion of it affects and
is affected by our understanding of the play. I have not therefore been able to separate
my account of the text from the main part of the introduction, as is the custom in
this series. In trying to offer help towards the understanding of this great and
perplexing play, it is essential to make clear at the outset that there is more than one
Hamlet we might be talking about.
Most of the work for this edition was completed before the appearance of Harold
Jenkins’s masterly edition in the New Arden series in the spring of 1982. It has
nevertheless been of immense benefit to have his work before me since that time, as
my commentary frequently acknowledges. All students of Hamlet are in debt to Harold
Jenkins for the results of his patient and exacting research.
Some of the material in the critical account of the play in the Introduction appears
also in an essay, ‘Tragic balance in Hamlet’, in Shakespeare Survey 36 (1983); I am
grateful to the editor of Shakespeare Survey for accepting this overlap.
In acknowledging assistance in this edition of Hamlet, I ought to start with John
Waterhouse in 1942 and Allardyce Nicoll in 1945, from whom I learned so much about
the play. In recent times, my greatest debt is to Kenneth Muir, an untiring lender of
books, a patient listener, and a generous adviser. John Jowett gave me great help in
checking parts of my typescript, and in sifting through recent writings on the play.
I am grateful to Joan Welford for typing the Commentary.
This edition was prepared during a period of rather heavy administrative duties
in the University of Liverpool. I am most grateful to the University for two periods
of leave, and to the University of Otago, the British Academy and the Huntington
Library for enabling me to make the most of them.
P.E.
University of Liverpool, 1984
ix
All quotations and line references to plays other than Hamlet are to G. Blakemore Evans (ed.),
The Riverside Shakespeare, 1974.