Staggering. I so enjoy reading "complete" approaches to Shakespeare by well-read academics, particularly those like the late Tony Tanner who really want you to enjoy the works as much as they do. All too often with modern interpreters of Shakespeare, the desire is either to see the work entirely "as Shakespeare did" (a ludicrous aim that usually reveals more about the interpreter's own neuroses), or otherwise to completely reject the idea of a 1590s audience, and strive for only the bits that are still "relevant" (whatever that means -- should I stop watching British television from the '90s because I'm an Australian living in 2013?).

Tanner was of the old guard, and his work resounds with a respect for the creator's intention while also acknowledging the work as literature, as poetry, as a living, changing mass whose intention and effect will vary with each passing generation and audience. In this, he succeeds. Tanner elucidates the comedies, histories, tragedies, Greek and Roman plays, and finally romances, with a fine toothcomb. He intelligently plucks out lines for multiple meanings and sharp insights, while always acknowledging the basic necessities of analysing older material:
1) Not everything is intentional, no, but often the little moments reveal so much to us;
2) Even when elements are often unintentional, an artist (I can personally attest to this) may make connections unconsciously that later reveal themselves; and
3) Despite our best guesses, we can rarely - if ever - know what Shakespeare was thinking. He died 400 years ago. Let's accept that.

Within this framework, Tanner gives a gloriously old-school introduction to each one of Shakespeare's generally accepted plays.

Like any work, of course, there are elements that could be seen as flaws. Tanner is cannier (or at least, more clear) on some genres - the comedies and romances particularly - than perhaps in the tragedies and the Greek plays, but perhaps this is just because of the elements he has chosen to highlight. There are certain words and phrases he overuses, although these prefaces were not originally - or even, really, now for most readers - intended to be read together. His lack of providing footnotes and references could occasionally leave younger readers confused, as he may reference a literary or classical point without providing context. And - although it's not Tanner's fault - his archaic use of words (particularly verbs) would undoubtedly be perplexing to many readers. To me, that last one is a plus: I love that when Tanner says "of all Shakespeare's tragedies, this is the worst", he doesn't mean "play sux, y'all", he means "is most filled with a sorrow and grief that has no justification".

Fascinating stuff. And, at the end of the day, it's increasingly rare to read intelligent material that treats the reader as equal while discussing this greatest of playwrights. Tanner is an academic almost without bias, writing with fervour and passion for his subject. These prefaces - read in the larger context of Shakespearean scholarship - have a lot to teach us. ( )