-
Seasonal Offer:
This title is part of our Seasonal Offers promotion.
 Trade In this Item for up to £0.25
Get an extra £5 when you trade in books worth £10 or more until June 30, 2012. Trade in The Oxford Shakespeare: A Midsummer Night's Dream (Oxford World's CLassics) for an Amazon.co.uk gift card of up to £0.25, which you can then spend on millions of items across the site. Trade-in values may vary (terms apply). Find more products eligible for trade-in.
|
Special Offers and Product Promotions
Frequently Bought Together
Product details
|
More About the Author
Product Description
Product Description
A Midsummer Night's Dream is perhaps the best loved of Shakepeare's plays. It brings together aristocrats, workers, and fairies in a wood outside Athens, and from there the enchantment begins. Simple and engaging on the surface, it is none the less a highly original and sophisticated work, remarkable for both its literary and its theatrical mastery. It is one of the very few of Shakespeare's plays which do not draw on narrative sources, which suggests that it reflects his deepest imaginative concerns to an unusual degree. In his introduction Peter Holland pays particular attention to dreams and dreamers, and to Shakespeare's construction of a world of night and shadows. Both here and in his commentary he explores the play's extensive performance history to illustrate the wide range of interpretations of which it is capable.
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
Suggested Tags from Similar Products(What's this?)Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product)
|
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
Most editors are well disposed towards the plays they are asked to edit and Peter Holland is no exception - he tells us that there was no other title he'd have chosen in preference. Not everyone would agree with him about the play's merits, however. His undergraduate friend considered it 'a pappy play', and there have been plenty of other disparaging comments across the centuries. (Famously, Pepys described Dream as 'the most insipid ridiculous play', while for Malone it was unbelievably thin and trite.) After reading this exemplary edition, which reveals much of its full complexity, Dream should not be mistaken for such simple and unsubstantial fare again.
Holland begins with a succinct account of modern dream theories, before tackling Classical, medieval and Renaissance views. Particularly interesting is his discussion of treatments of dream in the literature of Shakespeare's contemporaries, where Robert Greene's dismissive stance approximates to that of the rational (but limited) Theseus, while Thomas Lodge's more credulous acceptance of dreams and their mystery aligns him more closely with Hippolyta.
The Introduction is astute as well as comprehensive. It observes that doubling the roles of Theseus/Oberon and Hippolyta/Titania has become routine since the 60s, but is critical of those who see this revival of doubling primarily as a solution to financial or pragmatic problems, insisting that it originally had an 'interpretative' function. Holland sees the Elizabethan practice of doubling as a structural device, where 'the audience's recognition of an actor was used to underline the interconnectedness of a series of roles he performed in a play.'
Although I'm no historian of critical thought, it seems to me at least that Holland anticipates some of the more influential work of recent scholars. Louis Montrose's study of the Elizabethan theatre's subversion of patriarchal values is hinted at in this edition's Commentary. (See the note on Bottom's apparently innocent use/misuse of the word 'deflowered', p247n, for example.) Equally praiseworthy are the references made to those filmed versions of Dream, like Reinhardt's (1935), that might be considered too dated for extensive, post-Peter Brook discussion.
Arden's forthcoming Dream will have a difficult job surpassing its Oxford competitor, first published in 1994. It's just a shame that in the intervening 17 years OUP haven't managed to reference page numbers mentioned in at least three sections of the book: Introduction, Editorial Procedures and Commentary. 'See p000' might suffice at proof stage, but it really isn't good enough so many years on. Peter Holland's informed and constantly illuminating edition deserves better.
Holland begins with a succinct account of modern dream theories, before tackling Classical, medieval and Renaissance views. Particularly interesting is his discussion of treatments of dream in the literature of Shakespeare's contemporaries, where Robert Greene's dismissive stance approximates to that of the rational (but limited) Theseus, while Thomas Lodge's more credulous acceptance of dreams and their mystery aligns him more closely with Hippolyta.
The Introduction is astute as well as comprehensive. It observes that doubling the roles of Theseus/Oberon and Hippolyta/Titania has become routine since the 60s, but is critical of those who see this revival of doubling primarily as a solution to financial or pragmatic problems, insisting that it originally had an 'interpretative' function. Holland sees the Elizabethan practice of doubling as a structural device, where 'the audience's recognition of an actor was used to underline the interconnectedness of a series of roles he performed in a play.'
Although I'm no historian of critical thought, it seems to me at least that Holland anticipates some of the more influential work of recent scholars. Louis Montrose's study of the Elizabethan theatre's subversion of patriarchal values is hinted at in this edition's Commentary. (See the note on Bottom's apparently innocent use/misuse of the word 'deflowered', p247n, for example.) Equally praiseworthy are the references made to those filmed versions of Dream, like Reinhardt's (1935), that might be considered too dated for extensive, post-Peter Brook discussion.
Arden's forthcoming Dream will have a difficult job surpassing its Oxford competitor, first published in 1994. It's just a shame that in the intervening 17 years OUP haven't managed to reference page numbers mentioned in at least three sections of the book: Introduction, Editorial Procedures and Commentary. 'See p000' might suffice at proof stage, but it really isn't good enough so many years on. Peter Holland's informed and constantly illuminating edition deserves better.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
Brilliant! I wanted an edition with 'fairly' detailed notes and this edition provided it. Notes are written on the same page as the text for ease of reference. Good intro too. Recommended.
0 of 2 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
This book arrived promptly and in perfect condition. It was offered at a reduced price and, in addition, there was no charge for the postage making it a very economical purchase.
Would you like to see more reviews about this item?
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
