Scan barcode
A review by meadforddude
King Edward III: Third Series by William Shakespeare
5.0
At first, I wasn't really enjoying this all that much, and was confused about why King Edward III was so besotted by this one woman, only for him to ultimately walk it back late in the 2nd Act. It was just strange, although undeniably well-written. But this does play itself out when it's obliquely referenced in dialogue by King Edward III later in the play as a means of establishing his strength of character. Do I think they drive the point home a bit harder than necessary? Maybe.
Shakespeare's authorship of this play seems to have been - at best - partial, but it's easy to see why scholarship increasingly aims to place it within his canon. It's a great fucking play, and even if Shakespeare's involvement is next-to-nothing, it's worth putting this on more peoples' radars. How many people are going to read something so ancient if it doesn't have the pedigree of someone as world-renowned as Shakespeare to recommend it?
And this also feels in some ways like an evolution of Shakespeare's style. Or an evolution of theatrical presentation of the era, I suppose. Scenes distend from 600+ lines down to less than 15 over the course of this play, but the glimpses we get feel more pointed and specific than the occasionally haphazard iris-in effect occasionally implemented in the Henry VI plays (primarily Part I). And the lengthy scenes of dialogue (frequently launching into outright soliloquy) early on serve to establish Edward III's character much the same way the extended asides of Richard III served to establish his. A case of Shakespeare (and others) placing emphasis on the characters in the play as complement to the overarching narrative structure.
This is my first time reading one of the Arden Shakespeare editions, and I think I may end up collecting hard copies of these at some point. First of all, they've published some of the more "Apocryphal" works such as this, "Sir Thomas More," and "Double Falsehood" (AKA "Cardenio"), where the Folger Shakespeare Library primarily plays the hits, but they also provide a colossal amount of historical and aesthetic research as a lead-in to the play itself. The Folger editions repeat the same handful of contextualizing passages (Theater in the time of Shakespeare; Shakespeare's Life; History of the Quartos; etc.), and only offer a handful of play-specific notes in advance.
Where I'd argue the Folger editions *DO* stand out is in their incorporations of climactic essays from Shakespearean scholars, and in the way they summarize the critical writings on the plays at the end. So, Arden's editions are better for the history of the play (and of the material chronicled therein), but Folger's are better for the critical appraisals and interpretations of the plays.
Either way, Arden's the only one of the two to issue this particular title (so far). Hopefully Folger follows suit at some point.
Shakespeare's authorship of this play seems to have been - at best - partial, but it's easy to see why scholarship increasingly aims to place it within his canon. It's a great fucking play, and even if Shakespeare's involvement is next-to-nothing, it's worth putting this on more peoples' radars. How many people are going to read something so ancient if it doesn't have the pedigree of someone as world-renowned as Shakespeare to recommend it?
And this also feels in some ways like an evolution of Shakespeare's style. Or an evolution of theatrical presentation of the era, I suppose. Scenes distend from 600+ lines down to less than 15 over the course of this play, but the glimpses we get feel more pointed and specific than the occasionally haphazard iris-in effect occasionally implemented in the Henry VI plays (primarily Part I). And the lengthy scenes of dialogue (frequently launching into outright soliloquy) early on serve to establish Edward III's character much the same way the extended asides of Richard III served to establish his. A case of Shakespeare (and others) placing emphasis on the characters in the play as complement to the overarching narrative structure.
This is my first time reading one of the Arden Shakespeare editions, and I think I may end up collecting hard copies of these at some point. First of all, they've published some of the more "Apocryphal" works such as this, "Sir Thomas More," and "Double Falsehood" (AKA "Cardenio"), where the Folger Shakespeare Library primarily plays the hits, but they also provide a colossal amount of historical and aesthetic research as a lead-in to the play itself. The Folger editions repeat the same handful of contextualizing passages (Theater in the time of Shakespeare; Shakespeare's Life; History of the Quartos; etc.), and only offer a handful of play-specific notes in advance.
Where I'd argue the Folger editions *DO* stand out is in their incorporations of climactic essays from Shakespearean scholars, and in the way they summarize the critical writings on the plays at the end. So, Arden's editions are better for the history of the play (and of the material chronicled therein), but Folger's are better for the critical appraisals and interpretations of the plays.
Either way, Arden's the only one of the two to issue this particular title (so far). Hopefully Folger follows suit at some point.