King Lear [Mass Market Paperback]

I have reviewed several current editions of King Lear and other Shakespearean plays, and was somewhat disappointed in the Folger edition of King Richard III. Nevertheless, the Folger Shakespeare Library edition of King Lear appears to be both accessible and scholarly, with solid reasoning behind its balance of the First Quarto with the First Folio versions of this intense and telling tragedy which we do well to revisit now.

My first love will always be Prof. Tucker Brook's redaction in the The Tragedy Of King Lear (The Yale Shakespeare) which against the academic preferences of the time chose the First Quarto over the First Folio. The reasons given by the Late Prof. are compelling, and brought about a generation of conflated editions which combined the two versions. The Quarto came first in publication, of course, and is longer; the Folio is later and does not contain several lines present in the Quarto (I believe about three hundred) yet introduces several (perhaps one hundred) of its own.

And so we have a generation of productions which sought to combine the two. For instance we have an early recording of Paul Scofield as the King using a conflated edition and a later recording from his eighties in which only the Folio is used: King Lear (Naxos AudioBooks), following as it states the The Tragedy of King Lear (The New Cambridge Shakespeare), a strictly First Folio presentation. The greatest available recording is of course the Branagh - Gielgud production King Lear (BBC Radio Presents) which must be purchased and repeatedly heard, as it is real. Be certain to get the accompanying brochure.

Be that as it may, with this brief description of the history of this tortured text, let me state this present edition from Folger presents solid reasons for its always arbitrary choices. While stating their preference for the First Folio edition, they actually publish here a conflated version, with variant readings in a variety of brackets and poiinted parentheses, with explanations. They have produced therefore something here of great value, yet at a small price and therefore accessible to any classroom, production company or reader.

As usual the Folger diverges from the usual Critical Edition format of a third of a page of text, a strip of variorum and a third of a page of notes to the text above. Folger correctly fids more readable a diptych approach. In opening the book to the play, the reader discovers on the right hand page the text and on the left hand page notes. Further specific notes are discovered in the back.

In short (if it is not too late to write that) this book may approach any other critical edition, and passes many (let us not mention the unfortunate Joe Pearce's attempt). It presents a thorough examination of Shakespeare's life and theatre, suggestions on reading "his" language, and on reading Lear, this great tragedy for our times. A critical essay by Susan Snyder is included in the back, as well as suggestions for further readings. I find this edition in brief very useful for any new scholar of Lear, and I only wish I could now afford the new King Lear: New Critical Essays (Shakespeare Criticism), or even Critical Essays on Shakespeare's King Lear (Critical Essays on British Literature), and the rest.

Lear starts his tragedy with a lie. He has divided his kingdom into one larger and two smaller equal parts and promises to give the larger part to that of his daughters who vows the strongest love for him. Yet after Goneril speaks he immediately awards her one of the smaller parts, instead of listening to her sisters and then deciding the fate of the largest bounty. He thus negates his word and turns the auction into a formality for his pre-arranged plan of giving Cordelia the largest part and her sisters the two smaller parts. The whole scene is crass and the king is doubly crass (once for the auction, once more for the lie). He gives his word on the auction on line 52, breaks it on line 69 and forgets about his lie on line 193 where he rages at Kent for urging him to renege on his allegedly never broken word.

Lear starts his tragedy a crazy man. Cordelia's attempt at expressing that she "obeys, loves and most honors" the king only earns her being disowned half a page later. This precipitous fall from being the favorite daughter slated to receive the largest part of the kingdom to the one who "better ... hadst not been born" is incredible.

Most of all, this is a tragedy of detachment. Lear and Cornwall obviously do not have a relationship with their children and know nothing about their children's true feelings for them. Lear does not hear Cordelia and Gloucester does not try to hear Edgar out. Both have to face devastating atrocities before they see their children for who they are. "To willful men the injuries that they themselves procure must be their schoolmasters". They both suffer when they feel unloved by their offspring, they both die before they can enjoy their children's love. The suffering of the two old men is unrelenting, and in this sense "Lear" is as heartbreaking as "Macbeth" is macabre and "Othello" is insidious.

The balance of power, 4:4 (Cordelia, Fool, Kent and Edgar against Gonereil, Reagan, Edmund and Cornwall, with Lear and Glocester in the middle and Albany largely on the fence), is tilted towards the higher ranked evil four. In a game of chess, the former four would have been pawns, knights and bishops and the latter queens and rooks. In the end, Kent and Edgar, a knight and a pawn, save the day.

And yet, the end of the play offers no redemption. The two old men are dead. All those devoted to them are either dead or despondent. The Fool, his spirit giving out as he urged Lear to go back to the two evil daughters and ask their blessing, disappears from the play without a grace. Kent is preparing to follow Lear into the world of shadows. Cordelia is murdered and Edgar predicts an uninspiring future for himself and the young that remain. There is no consolation for dead or living.

The Folger Shakespeare Library editions of all of Shakespeare's plays are excellent for use in the classroom. The notes are very illuminating, and there is much scholarship invested in being true to the original text. However, this printing of the play is too small. The pages are essentially 4 x 6 index cards (truly 4 x 6 1/2). The font is too tiny to encourage students to engage the text with confidence.
If you are already familiar with the play, this printing will suffice for reference. If you are new to the play, look for a larger book with larger font and margin space for notes.

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 16 reviews  4.2 out of 5 stars