Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    From $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    King Lear
    King Lear
    King Lear

    UNLIMITED

    Ebook230 pages2 hours

    King Lear

    By William Shakespeare

    4/5

    ()

    Switch to audiobook
    Read preview

    About this ebook

    First performed about 1805, King Lear is one of the most relentlessly bleak of Shakespeare's tragedies. Probably written between Othello and Macbeth, when the playwright was at the peak of his tragic power, Lear's themes of filial ingratitude, injustice, and the meaninglessness of life in a seemingly indifferent universe are explored with unsurpassed power and depth.
    The plot concerns a monarch betrayed by his daughters, robbed of his kingdom, descending into madness. Greed, treachery, and cruelty are rife and the denouement of the play is both brutal and heartbreaking. In fact, so troubling is its vision of man's life that, until the mid-19th century, the play was performed most often with a non-Shakespearean happy ending, with Lear back on his throne and Cordelia, the daughter nearest his heart, happily married to the noble Edgar. But there is a dark magnificence to Shakespeare's original vision of the Lear story, and the play is performed today essentially as he wrote it, uncompromised by later "improvements." King Lear is reprinted here from an authoritative British edition, complete with explanatory footnotes.

    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherDover Publications
    Release dateMar 9, 2012
    ISBN9780486110240
    Author

    William Shakespeare

    William Shakespeare was born in April 1564 in the town of Stratford-upon-Avon, on England’s Avon River. When he was eighteen, he married Anne Hathaway. The couple had three children—an older daughter Susanna and twins, Judith and Hamnet. Hamnet, Shakespeare’s only son, died in childhood. The bulk of Shakespeare’s working life was spent in the theater world of London, where he established himself professionally by the early 1590s. He enjoyed success not only as a playwright and poet, but also as an actor and shareholder in an acting company. Although some think that sometime between 1610 and 1613 Shakespeare retired from the theater and returned home to Stratford, where he died in 1616, others believe that he may have continued to work in London until close to his death.

    Read more from William Shakespeare

    Related to King Lear

    Related ebooks

    Poetry For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related categories

    Reviews for King Lear

    4/5

    2,094 ratings53 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 4/5

      Dec 5, 2018

      Shakespeare but I have not read it in a long time and I do not think that I have ever seen it.
    • 5/5

      Dec 5, 2018

      There are three main reasons for the disorder already occurring by the end of Act I. The first and most obvious is Lear's madness. He certain seems to be loosing it a bit, and his crazed banishment of Cordelia and Kent couldn't possibly have done anything but harm to him. The second reason is Cordelia's sister's treachery. It could be argued that they appear to be trying to protect him and their people by taking away his knights, he is crazy after all, if it weren't for Cordelia's parting words to them; "I know you what you are;/And, like a sister, am most loth to call/Your faults as they are nam'd. Love well our father:/To your professed bosoms I commit him:/But yet, alas, stood I within his grace, I would prefer him to a better place." And a few lines later; "Time shall unfold what plighted cunning/Who cover faults, at last shame them derides." These lines seem to indicate that Cordelia knows that Goneril and Regan are not only flattering Lear for gain, but also that they hold him in contempt, and will likely do him harm, and revealing the second harbinger of disorder.

      The third indicator of the chaos to come is Edmund. I feel bad for him, for the contempt others hold him in because of the doings of his parents, but he quickly does what he can to dispel my pity for him with his evil attitudes as he works to turn his father and brother against one another. I find it ironic that he distains his father's belief in fate through astrology, yet confesses that because of when he was born he was supposed to be 'rough and lecherous,' yet doesn't believe himself to have those traits he was just showing.

      Shakespeare's purpose in showing this disorder seems to come from the idea of dividing his kingdom. A divided kingdom would often lead to civil war and chaos, so Lear's deliberate dividing of the kingdom would probably have been viewed as deliberately inviting disorder.

      Power in England was structured in a pyramid. The king on top, and wealth and power went to a few nobles who had all the money. Lear was trying to disrupt that structure in a way that would have alarmed the people watching the play. Cordelia took a great risk in not bowing to her father's wishes, as his denying her dowry could have driven away both her suitors, leaving her alone and destitute in a world that didn't favor lone women. In her case, however Cordelia's suitor from France still marries her, which would be very unusual since she had no dowry, and she wouldn't gain him an alliance with England.

      Family dynamics can change depending on the health of a person, as others may come into their lives and as children grow up. Cordelia was Lear's favorite child, yet when she would not lie to him with flattery, he cast her off. Why? Did he not realize that her impending marriage would change is relationship with her? She would still love him, of course, but even with the play being in pre-Christian era, the belief would probably have been that the wife's foremost alliegence should be to her husband, and Lear should have understood this. In fact, it seems strange that he would have even questioned this part of the structure of society at all.

      No one has a perfect family. This is shown in Edgar and Edmund's family. Gloster (or Gloucester as some versions call him) may have been unfaithful to his wife, it's never stated whether she was alive at the time of Edmund's conception. If Gloster was unfaithful to his wife than he was dishonest and breaking one of the oldest understandings of marriage. If Edgar's mother had already died, that Gloster was not responsible enough to remarry, and to marry Edmund's mother, or at least admit himself Edmund's father when the boy was a child, instead of waiting until Edmund was old enough to distinguish himself, and in doing so, add to Gloster's reputation. It seems very unfair that Edmund, and almost any other illigitmate child born until the the late 1900s should be punished for something that their parents did. Yet neither should Edmund take out his misfortunes on his brother, who was, in all probability, guiltless in tormenting him. After all, Edgar trusts Edmund completely, which does not seem like an attitude he would hold had he tormented Edmund before. I think that Gloster could have stopped his fate had he treated Edmund with kindness from the beginning of his life, rather than waiting until Edmund could add to his reputation to acknowledge him.

      I don't actually seem him mocking Edmund, so much as simply being ashamed of his illegitimacy because it was Gloster's own act that was the cause of Edmund's bastardy. As Gloster was speaking to Kent, he was very frank about the manner of Edmund's conception, to the point that we would say he was being rude to Edmund, but really, for the time, the fact that he had acknowledged Edmund as his son at all was better than many bastards would have gotten. For this reason I think that more than anything it was the fact that he took so long to acknowledge Edmund, that led to Edmund's bitterness and Gloster's downfall.

      (This review is patched up from posts I made on an online Shakespeare class)
    • 4/5

      Dec 5, 2018

      King Lear makes a fateful decision to divide his kingdom between his three daughters. The reaction of one daughter, Cordelia, displeases the king so much that he cuts her out of any inheritance. The kingdom will be divided between the other two daughters, Goneril and Regan. His plan is that they will take care of him in his old age. They soon decide that they don't want to use their inheritance to support their father, and the king finds himself with nowhere to shelter in a violent storm. Meanwhile, the Earl of Gloucester's illegitimate son plots to usurp his legitimate brother's place as their father's heir. As in many of Shakespeare's plays, there are characters in disguise. It's filled with violence and cruelty without comic relief like the gravedigger scene in Hamlet. The family conflict at its heart will continue to resonate with audiences and readers as long as there are families.
    • 3/5

      Dec 5, 2018

      Not my cup of tea, but it was nice to read it because I haven't before.
    • 4/5

      Dec 5, 2018

      Fourth book of the readathon. Read in snatches during a car journey and between acts in a concert! Which is probably not the best way to experience Shakespeare, laying aside the issue that I think the best way to experience it is by watching it, but I enjoyed it. I've always rather liked Cordelia, with her steadfast truthfulness, and I do remember some very vivid mental images regarding eyes being put out when, at the age of nine, I read a children's version of the story.

      And of course, Shakespeare's use of language, his sense of timing, his grasp of what will look good on stage -- that's as expected: he was a master.
    • 4/5

      Dec 5, 2018

      To sum up the play in one sentence: this is the story of a king seeking to divide his kingdom among his three daughters based on who could articulate her love for him the best. Beyond that it is the tragedy of emotional greed - of wanting to be loved at any cost. It is the tragedy of politics and family dynamics. Youngest daughter Cordelia is unwilling to conform to her father's wishes of exaggerated devotion. Isn't the last born always the rebel in the family? As a result Cordelia's portion of the kingdom is divided among her two sisters, Goneril and Regan. The story goes on to ooze betrayal and madness. Lear is trapped by his own ego and made foolish by his hubris.
    • 5/5

      Dec 5, 2018

      Its Shakespeare! What more do you want me to say. He's wonderful!
    • 5/5

      Dec 5, 2018

      At the risk of sounding flippant, I realized that there are two productions of King Lear that need to be done: one set in the Klingon Empire, and the other performed by Monty Python. Go ahead, I dare you, read Poor Tom's lines like Eric Idle and try not to laugh!
    • 5/5

      Apr 21, 2024

      A very enjoyable edition. Unlike most of the Arden editions, Foakes comes across more as an educator than an academic-among-friends. This does mean occasionally that he'll cover ground most professional-level readers already understand, but it makes this a really well-rounded introduction to the play.

      The decision here is to incorporate both Quarto and Folio texts in one, with the differences clearly delineated. It's probably the best possible option for this play, and well done.

      1 person found this helpful

    • 4/5

      Nov 19, 2019

      An intriguing play aptly portrayed by the cast, working with an excellent script.
    • 3/5

      Jan 12, 2019

      A fairly quick read. I didn't love it as much as I remember. Lear was way obsessed with 'nature' and the whole thing was so pompous. But not as bad as some of his other stuff.
    • 5/5

      Jan 8, 2019

      The division of the Kingdom begins the play with first, the Earls of Kent and Gloucester speculating on the basis for the division and second, the actual division by Lear based on professions of love requested from his three daughters. When this event goes not as planned the action of the play ensues and the reader is in for a wild ride, much as Lear himself.

      The play provides one of Shakespeare's most thoroughly evil characters in Edmund while much of the rest of the cast is aligned against each other with Lear the outcast suffering along with the Earl of Gloucester who is tricked by his bastard son Edmund into believing that his other son Edgar is plotting against him. While there are some lighter moments the play is generally very dark filled with the bitter results of Lear's poor decisions at the outset. Interestingly we do not get much of a back story and find, other than his age of four score years, little else to suggest why Lear would surrender his power and his Kingdom at the outset. The play is certainly powerful and maintains your interest through dramatic scenes, while it also provides for many questions - some of which remain unanswered.
    • 3/5

      Jul 16, 2018

      The illustrations are unremarkable.
    • 5/5

      Jan 8, 2017

      This is especially devastating because (sorry, Aristotle's Poetics, but indeed because) it departs from the conventions of good Greek tragedy. Nobody's led astray slickly by their tragic flaw;* Lear's ennobled by suffering perhaps but at the start he's no philosopher king (as I'd envisioned) but a belching, beer can crushing Dark Ages thug lord who definitely brings it on himself, but not in any exquisite "his virtue was his fall" way. Cordelia is, not an ungrateful, but an ungracious child whose tongue is a fat slab of ham and who can't even manage the basic level of social graces to not spark a family feud that leaves everyone killed (surely a low bar!!). Goneril and Regan are straight-up venial malice, Shakespeare's Pardoner and Summoner; Edmund, obviously, charismatic, but a baaaad man; and the default good guys, the ones with the chance to win the day and transform this blood-filled torture show into two hours' pleasing traffic of the stage, obviously fumble it bigly (Albany, unbrave and too subtle; Kent, brave and too unsubtle; Gloucester, a spineless joke; and what is Edgar doing out in that wilderness when he should be teaming up with Cordelia and Kent to plan an invasion that's a MacArthuresque comeback and not a disaster, to go down as the plucky band of good friends who renewed the social compact with their steel and founded a second Camelot, a new England). They're not all monsters, and there are frequent glimmers of greatness, but they fuck it all up; in other words, they're us.

      And then Lear's madness has much too much of, like, an MRA drum circle meeting, with the Fool and Kent and Edgar/John o'Bedlam (that's a name, that) farting around the wastes going "Fuckin' bitches, can't live with em, can't smack em one like they deserve" (though of course this is a Shakespearean tragedy, so everyone pretty much gonna get smacked one sooner or later). Not tragic flaws, in other words, but just flaws, with only glimmers of the good, and all the more devastating for that because all the more real. It's haaard to keep it together for a whole lifetime and not degenerate into a sad caricature of you at your best, or you as you could have been, and I wonder how many families start out full of love and functional relations and wind up kind of hating each other in a low key way just because of the accretion of mental abrasions plus the occasional big wound and because life is long.

      This seems like a family that just got tired of not hating each other, standing in for a social order that's gotten tired of basically working from day to day, and everyone's just itching to flip the table and ruin Thanksgiving. I have little faith, post-play, that Edgar or Albany in charge will salvage the day--historically, of course, their analogues did not--and it's gonna be a long hard road to a fresh start (we don't of course try to find one such in the actual history--I mean, 1066?--pretty sure fresh starts don't happen in actual history--but I trust the general point is clear). This seems like the most plausible/least arbitrary of Shakespeare's tragedies, I am saying here, and thus also the most desolate, and one with lessons for any family (cf., say, Hamlet, with its very important lessons for families where the mother kills the dad and marries his brother and the dad's ghost comes back to tell the son to kill his uncle, a niche market to say the least), and one that I'll revisit again and again.

      *Side note, my friend Dan calls me "My favourite Hamartian," and I'm recording that here because we may grow apart and I may forget that but I never want to forget really and so, hope to find it here once more
    • 5/5

      Jun 1, 2016

      There are three main reasons for the disorder already occurring by the end of Act I. The first and most obvious is Lear's madness. He certain seems to be loosing it a bit, and his crazed banishment of Cordelia and Kent couldn't possibly have done anything but harm to him. The second reason is Cordelia's sister's treachery. It could be argued that they appear to be trying to protect him and their people by taking away his knights, he is crazy after all, if it weren't for Cordelia's parting words to them; "I know you what you are;/And, like a sister, am most loth to call/Your faults as they are nam'd. Love well our father:/To your professed bosoms I commit him:/But yet, alas, stood I within his grace, I would prefer him to a better place." And a few lines later; "Time shall unfold what plighted cunning/Who cover faults, at last shame them derides." These lines seem to indicate that Cordelia knows that Goneril and Regan are not only flattering Lear for gain, but also that they hold him in contempt, and will likely do him harm, and revealing the second harbinger of disorder.

      The third indicator of the chaos to come is Edmund. I feel bad for him, for the contempt others hold him in because of the doings of his parents, but he quickly does what he can to dispel my pity for him with his evil attitudes as he works to turn his father and brother against one another. I find it ironic that he distains his father's belief in fate through astrology, yet confesses that because of when he was born he was supposed to be 'rough and lecherous,' yet doesn't believe himself to have those traits he was just showing.

      Shakespeare's purpose in showing this disorder seems to come from the idea of dividing his kingdom. A divided kingdom would often lead to civil war and chaos, so Lear's deliberate dividing of the kingdom would probably have been viewed as deliberately inviting disorder.

      Power in England was structured in a pyramid. The king on top, and wealth and power went to a few nobles who had all the money. Lear was trying to disrupt that structure in a way that would have alarmed the people watching the play. Cordelia took a great risk in not bowing to her father's wishes, as his denying her dowry could have driven away both her suitors, leaving her alone and destitute in a world that didn't favor lone women. In her case, however Cordelia's suitor from France still marries her, which would be very unusual since she had no dowry, and she wouldn't gain him an alliance with England.

      Family dynamics can change depending on the health of a person, as others may come into their lives and as children grow up. Cordelia was Lear's favorite child, yet when she would not lie to him with flattery, he cast her off. Why? Did he not realize that her impending marriage would change is relationship with her? She would still love him, of course, but even with the play being in pre-Christian era, the belief would probably have been that the wife's foremost alliegence should be to her husband, and Lear should have understood this. In fact, it seems strange that he would have even questioned this part of the structure of society at all.

      No one has a perfect family. This is shown in Edgar and Edmund's family. Gloster (or Gloucester as some versions call him) may have been unfaithful to his wife, it's never stated whether she was alive at the time of Edmund's conception. If Gloster was unfaithful to his wife than he was dishonest and breaking one of the oldest understandings of marriage. If Edgar's mother had already died, that Gloster was not responsible enough to remarry, and to marry Edmund's mother, or at least admit himself Edmund's father when the boy was a child, instead of waiting until Edmund was old enough to distinguish himself, and in doing so, add to Gloster's reputation. It seems very unfair that Edmund, and almost any other illigitmate child born until the the late 1900s should be punished for something that their parents did. Yet neither should Edmund take out his misfortunes on his brother, who was, in all probability, guiltless in tormenting him. After all, Edgar trusts Edmund completely, which does not seem like an attitude he would hold had he tormented Edmund before. I think that Gloster could have stopped his fate had he treated Edmund with kindness from the beginning of his life, rather than waiting until Edmund could add to his reputation to acknowledge him.

      I don't actually seem him mocking Edmund, so much as simply being ashamed of his illegitimacy because it was Gloster's own act that was the cause of Edmund's bastardy. As Gloster was speaking to Kent, he was very frank about the manner of Edmund's conception, to the point that we would say he was being rude to Edmund, but really, for the time, the fact that he had acknowledged Edmund as his son at all was better than many bastards would have gotten. For this reason I think that more than anything it was the fact that he took so long to acknowledge Edmund, that led to Edmund's bitterness and Gloster's downfall.

      (This review is patched up from posts I made on an online Shakespeare class)
    • 4/5

      Dec 17, 2015

      One of my favorite Shakespeare plays, though it had been a long time since I read it. Didn't disappoint on a reread!
    • 4/5

      Oct 13, 2015

      This did not quite top Hamlet as my favorite Shakespeare play but it is way up there. With the exception of the black and white hatted Gloucester boys there is a lot more moral complexity and ambiguity than you normally see in Shakespeare play; it wasn't until well into the play that I had any idea who I was supposed to sympathize with between the king and the daughters and that suspense actually adding a great deal to my interest while reading. Edgar's antic disposition is a lot more interesting and entertaining to me than Hamlet's but he doesn't have anything like Hamlet's soliloquies.
    • 3/5

      Jul 11, 2015

      The version of Lear I saw in 2012 too closely matched the texted: too many story lines, too many gag scenes, and too much talking about how hard it is to be king. The tragedy of Lear is that he gets exactly what he deserved. For me, it lacks much of the intrigue of Macbeth or the poetry of Hamlet or Othello.
    • 4/5

      Nov 8, 2014

      Vain and silly King Lear demands that each of his three daughters describe their love for him. When the youngest and favored Cordelia gives a reply that is less gushing, but more reasonable, than her sisters, the King banishes her. This sets up a chain of miserable events in which the sisters and their husbands scramble to replace Cordelia in their father's heart, but fail because ambition brings out their cruelty.
    • 4/5

      Oct 22, 2014

      Probably the best of Shakespeare's works thematically, but not the easiest to follow. The sub-plots, the various intrigues, makes for a very convoluted plot. Some great roles though -- Lear, Edgar playing a madman, the Fool, the evil Edmund and the scheming daughters ... some serious scene-stealing material.
    • 5/5

      Sep 14, 2014

      One of my favorite Shakespeare plays. King Lear asks his daughters who truly loves him, and the oldest two spin golden words of flattery while the third one cannot do so. Lear abandons his third daughter and this opens the story to the madness that follows. Brilliantly imagined characters and psyches. Worth it
    • 5/5

      May 9, 2014

      Excellent work. I saw this performed at the Great River Shakespeare Festival in Winona, MN. Very powerful performance. I liked this edition in particular because it explained the nuances of the language right next to the original text. That plus the performance made this easier to understand.
    • 5/5

      May 6, 2014

      King Lear
      William Shakespeare
      Thursday, March 27, 2014

      In my Shakespeare class, senior year of college, the professor thought this was the play central to understanding Shakespeare. The tale is familiar; Lear gives up his Kingdom to avoid the cares of ruling, dividing it among his daughters. Cordelia, the most honest, points out that she owes him a duty but also owes her fiancé, the King of France, love and affection. Lear casts her out, because she is not as effusive as her sisters, Regan and Goneril. Goneril, hosts the King first, instructs her servants to ignore his knights, and when he goes to Regan, she sends a letter to ensure he is cast out there as well. Lear goes mad in a storm, succored by Kent, a loyal knight whose advice was unwelcome in the initial scene, and by Edgar, the son of the Earl of Gloucester, who has been usurped by the machinations of Edmund, a bastard son, and who is the lover of Regan and Goneril. Cordelia brings an army to rescue Lear, but is defeated, and in the schemes of Edmund is killed in captivity. Regan dies, poisoned by Goneril jealous of Edmund, Goneril dies by suicide after Edmund is killed by Edgar, Gloucester dies after a blinding, and Lear dies of heart attack. Lear's speeches while mad are the essence of the mature understanding of the human situation
      "Striving to better, oft' we mar what's well"
      "Let me kiss your hand!" Lear, in response "Let me wipe it first, it smells of mortality"
      Leather bound, Franklin Library, Tragedies of Shakespeare ($34.60 4/28/2012)
    • 5/5

      Feb 6, 2014

      When people want to rank Shakespeare's plays, usually Hamlet comes out as number one. This, in my experience, is the only other of his plays that I have seen mentioned as his greatest. If I were to rank his plays solely based upon their impact upon the world, I would probably agree with the usual placement of Hamlet as number one. However, were I to rank them based upon their impact on me, Lear gets the nod. Lear accurately and horrifyingly portrays the primal nature of man like few other works of literature; the only other to come to my mind is Lord of the Flies. Yet it's more than that; Lord of the Flies can afford to ignore the effects of sexual attraction and familial ties upon our nature, but Lear (the work, not the character) meets these head-on and uses them to devastating effect. This play alone would guarantee Shakespeare a place as one of the greatest English authors. With the rest of his body of work, there's no question that he is the greatest.
    • 3/5

      Oct 12, 2013

      There is an abundance of reviews, essays, opinions and prejudicial comments available when talking about Shakespeare. It would seem that the man was incapable of jotting down a bad sentence, let alone a bad story, at least, that's the veil they hand you when calling Shakespeare, morbidly referred to as 'Willy' by those who know the first three lines of Hamlet's 'to be or not to be'-speech, 'the greatest writer of all time'.

      In this review, I shall not beshame my opinion by calling anyone Willy, Shakey, Quilly or by using the word 'Shakespearean'. 'King Lear' is not the strongest play in the exuberant repertoire of Shakespeare. It is, however, one of the more reader-friendly ones, which means you don't need a detailed map of familial relations to follow the plot. The story of King Lear relies heavily on stories that already existed at the time, but had only served as traditional folk tales or as long forgotten myths. For those who are oblivious to the plot - King Lear wants to divide his kingdom between his three daughters, Goneril, Regan and Cordelia. Whereas Goneril and Regan go out of their proverbial ways to flatter their father, Cordelia remains reticent (but honest). Which, of course, is not much appreciated. What follows resembles the story of Oedipus, that other Blind King who slowly wandered into his own destruction. Gloucester, one of the side characters, actually does lose his eyes.

      'King Lear', in the end, is a reflection on power and what one will do to achieve it. Even though it might be a bit stale nowadays, it still holds true to its message, and for those who enjoy Shakespeare's husky metaphor, this play will provide you with all the ammunition needed.
    • 5/5

      Aug 22, 2013

      I enjoy the Folger editions of Shakespeare - to each his own in this matter. Some find Lear to be overblown, I am tremendously moved by it, and haunted by the image of the old man howling across the barren heaths with his dead daughter in his arms. 'I am bound upon a wheel of fire, that mine own tears Do scald like molten lead.' Lear 4.7.52-54
    • 4/5

      Jul 23, 2013

      Thoughts on the play:
      -A classic tragedy in which almost everyone dies at the end.
      -I really didn't have much sympathy for Lear. He acted incredibly foolishly, not just once in turning his back on Cordelia, but many times.
      -At first, Goneral seemed to be acting reasonably. If Lear had restrained his knights, much of the tragedy would have been lessened. (This was one of the foolish actions of Lear's I mentioned above.) However, as the plot moves on, she is revealed as being more and more terrible.
      -Edmund struck me as the villain, and he also acted as a catalyst for villainy. So I found the scene at near the end after he & Edgar had dueled a bit hard to believe - after everything, Edgar just forgives him!?!
      -I was shocked when Cornwall plucks out Gloucester's eyes. I didn't know that was going to happen! Gloucester struck me as the true tragic hero, rather than Lear. Both of them cast off deserving children, but Gloucester realized his error and suffered for it. It wasn't clear to me that Lear recognized his own faults the way Gloucester did.
    • 5/5

      Jun 9, 2013

      Maybe the fifteenth time I've read Lear (this time in the tiny red-leather RSC edition). Always impressed, especially with the curses and curse-like screeds. I can't stand Lear onstage, particularly the blinding of Gloster (so spelled in this edition). How sharper than a serpants teeth it is / to have a thankless child--though having a thankless parent like Lear, Act I Sc I, ain't so great either. I do love the Russian film Lear with music by Shostakovich, and the King's grand route through his bestiary of hawks and eagles.
      I suppose this is Shakespeare's great (that's redundant, since "Sh" is mostly "great") assessment of homelessness. The undeservingly roofless. it is also his only play on retirement, which he recommends against. Or perhaps Lear should have had a condo in Florida? Of course, his hundred knights, a problem for the condominium board, as it was for his daughters. And Shakespeare, who says in a sonnet he was "lame by fortune's despite" also addresses the handicapped here, recommending tripping blind persons to cheer them up.
      Of course, Lear has his personal Letterman-Colbert, the Fool, so he doesn't need a TV in the electrical storm on the heath. That's fortunate, because it would have been dangerous to turn on a TV with all that lightening. The play seems also to recommend serious disguises like Kent's dialects and Edgar's mud. Next time I go to a party I'll think about some mud, which reduces Edgar's likelihood of being killed by his former friends.
      And finally, the play touches on senility, where Lear cannot be sure at first Cordelia is his daughter.
      I'm not sure, but the author may be recommending senility as a palliative to tragedy--and to aging. A friend of mine once put it, "Who's to say the senile's not having the time of his life?"
    • 5/5

      Apr 2, 2013

      Teaching it for the second time. The Folger edition is okay, but it badly needs to be updated; and the illustrations in the facing page are, to my mind, badly chosen, unless they're meant only to promote the grandeur of the Folger library. I think they would have done much better to provide photos of scenes taken from various productions/films/adaptations of Lear; no doubt the students would pay more attention to such things, to say nothing of nonexpert instructors like me.

      Oh, the play: certainly very good at cutting the legs out from under the notion that suffering can be redemptive. Lear discovers compassion and love, Gloucester grows up, but what do they get? Death. And what are we left with? The two appalling milquetoast prigs, Albany and Edgar,* perhaps the two characters in Lear who understand least well what the whole thing is about. At least Kent has the grace to go off and wait to die.

      * Hilarious: I just googled these names and the second hit is some plagiarism mill that's selling an essay that reads "Albany and Edgar both possess honest and kind characters." You have got to be kidding me! Please, please, please let someone try to get this paper past me. How stupid or desperate would someone have to be to pay for a paper that's, at best, a B-?
    • 5/5

      Apr 2, 2013

      My absolute favorite Shakespeare play. Extra love for the fact that this came up when I searched for Stephen King.

    Book preview

    King Lear - William Shakespeare

    e9780486110240_covere9780486110240_i0001.jpge9780486110240_i0002.jpg

    Planet Friendly Publishing

    Made in the United States

    Printed on Recycled Paper

    Text: 30% Cover: 10%

    Learn more: www.greenedition.org

    At Dover Publications we’re committed to producing books in an earth-friendly manner and to helping our customers make greener choices.

    Manufacturing books in the United States ensures compliance with strict environmental laws and eliminates the need for international freight shipping, a major contributor to global air pollution.

    And printing on recycled paper helps minimize our consumption of trees, water and fossil fuels. The text of King Lear was printed on paper made with 30% post-consumer waste, and the cover was printed on paper made with 10% post-consumer waste. According to Environmental Defense’s Paper Calculator, by using this innovative paper instead of conventional papers, we achieved the following environmental benefits:

    Trees Saved: 15 . Air Emissions Eliminated: 2,952 pounds

    Water Saved: 2,410 gallons • Solid Waste Eliminated: 1,031 pounds

    For more information on our environmental practices, please visit us online at

    www.doverpublications.com/green

    DOVER THRIFT EDITIONS

    GENERAL EDITOR: STANLEY APPELBAUM

    EDITOR OF THIS VOLUME: CANDACE WARD

    Performance

    This Dover Thrift Edition may be used in its entirety, in adaptation or in any other way for theatrical productions, professional and amateur, in the United States, without fee, permission or acknowledgment. (This may not apply outside of the United States, as copyright conditions may vary.)

    Bibliographical Note

    This Dover edition, first published in 1994, contains the unabridged text of King Lear as published in Volume XVII of The Caxton Edition of the Complete Works of William Shakespeare, Caxton Publishing Company, London, n.d. The Note and explanatory footnotes were prepared specially for this edition.

    Copyright

    Copyright © 1994 by Dover Publications, Inc.

    All rights reserved.

    Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

    Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616.

    King Lear / William Shakespeare.

    p. cm. — (Dover thrift editions)

    9780486110240

    1. Lear, King (Legendary character)—Drama. I. Title II. Series.

    PR2819.A1 1994

    822.3’3—dc20

    93-41036 CIP

    Manufactured in the United States by Courier Corporation

    28058613

    www.doverpublications.com

    Note

    KING LEAR was most likely written sometime in 1605 and was first performed at court in 1606. The play is considered by many to be the finest tragedy by Shakespeare (1564-1616) and certainly among the most powerful in Western literature. The story of King Lear has its roots in ancient Celtic legend, and is included in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae (c. 1136). However, in Monmouth’s version, Lear is reunited with Cordelia and restored to his throne with the help of her husband, Aganippus, King of the Franks. This happy ending is similar to that of The True Chronicle History of King Leir, the most immediate source of Shakespeare’s play, published in 1605. It has been suggested that Shakespeare’s tragic ending was perhaps derived from the source of the Edmund-Edgar-Gloucester subplot, Philip Sidney’s Arcadia (1590).

    Shakespeare’s finale, however, was too bleak for later audiences, particularly in the eighteenth century when the play’s ending was altered to conform to that Age’s desire for reason and order. For many eighteenth-century critics, Lear’s madness was a curse rather than the Reason in madness perceived by the play’s other madman, Edgar; it wasn’t until 1838 that the Shakespearean ending was restored. For today’s audience, King Lear and Shakespeare’s tragic vision echo the classic view that enlightenment comes only through suffering. That Lear dies and that Cordelia is sacrificed for Lear’s education becomes secondary to the fact that he at last obtains self-knowledge.

    Table of Contents

    Title Page

    Performance

    Bibliographical Note

    Copyright Page

    Note

    Dramatis Personæ

    ACT I

    ACT II

    ACT III

    ACT IV

    ACT V

    DOVER · THRIFT · EDITIONS

    Dramatis Personæ

    LEAR, King of Britain.

    KING OF FRANCE.

    DUKE OF BURGUNDY.

    DUKE OF CORNWALL.

    DUKE OF ALBANY.

    EARL OF KENT.

    EARL OF GLOUCESTER.

    EDGAR, son to Gloucester.

    EDMUND, bastard son to Gloucester.

    CURAN, a courtier.

    Old Man, tenant to Gloucester.

    Doctor.

    Fool.

    OSWALD, steward to Goneril.

    A Captain employed by Edmund.

    Gentleman attendant on Cordelia.

    A Herald.

    Servants to Cornwall.

    e9780486110240_i0003.jpg

    Knights of Lear’s train, Captains,

    Messengers, Soldiers, and Attendants.

    ACT I

    SCENE I—King Lear’s Palace

    Enter KENT, GLOUCESTER, and EDMUND

    KENT. I thought the king had more affected¹ the Duke of Albany than Cornwall.

    GLOU. It did always seem so to us: but now, in the division of the kingdom, it appears not which of the dukes he values most; for equalities are so weighed that curiosity in neither can make choice of either’s moiety.²

    KENT. Is not this your son, my lord?

    GLOU. His breeding, sir, hath been at my charge: I have so often blushed to acknowledge him that now I am brazed³ to it.

    KENT. I cannot conceive⁴ you.

    GLOU. Sir, this young fellow’s mother could: whereupon she grew round-wombed, and had indeed, sir, a son for her cradle ere she had a husband for her bed. Do you smell a fault?

    KENT. I cannot wish the fault undone, the issue of it being so proper. ⁵

    GLOU. But I have, sir, a son by order of law, some year elder than this, who yet is no dearer in my account: though this knave came something saucily into the world before he was sent for, yet was his mother fair; there was good sport at his making, and the whoreson must be acknowledged. Do you know this noble gentleman, Edmund?

    EDM. No, my lord.

    GLOU. My lord of Kent: remember him hereafter as my honourable friend.

    EDM. My services to your lordship.

    KENT. I must love you, and sue⁶ to know you better.

    EDM. Sir, I shall study deserving.⁷

    GLOU. He hath been out nine years, and away he shall again. The king is coming.

    Sennet. ⁸ Enter one bearing a coronet, KING LEAR, CORNWALL, ALBANY,

    GONERIL, REGAN, CORDELIA, and Attendants

    LEAR. Attend the lords of France and Burgundy, Gloucester.

    GLOU. I shall, my liege. [Exeunt Gloucester and Edmund.]

    LEAR. Meantime we shall express our darker purpose.

    Give me the map there. Know we have divided

    In three our kingdom: and ’t is our fast⁹ intent

    To shake all cares and business from our age,

    Conferring them on younger strengths, while we

    Unburthen’d crawl toward death. Our son of Cornwall,

    And you, our no less loving son of Albany,

    We have this hour a constant will to publish

    Our daughters’ several dowers, that future strife

    May be prevented now. The princes, France and Burgundy,

    Great rivals in our youngest daughter’s love,

    Long in our court have made their amorous sojourn,

    And here are to be answer’d. Tell me, my daughters,

    Since now we will divest us both of rule,

    Interest of territory,¹⁰ cares of state,

    Which of you shall we say doth love us most?

    That we our largest bounty may extend

    Where nature doth with merit challenge.¹¹ Goneril,

    Our eldest-born, speak first.

    GON. Sir, I love you more than words can wield the matter,

    Dearer than eye-sight, space and liberty,

    Beyond what can be valued, rich or rare,

    No less than life, with grace, health, beauty, honour,

    As much as child e’er loved or father found;

    A love that makes breath poor and speech unable;

    Beyond all manner of so much I love you.

    COR. [Aside] What shall Cordelia do? Love, and be silent.

    LEAST. Of all these bounds, even from this line to this,

    With shadowy forests and with champains¹² rich’d,

    With plenteous rivers and wide-skirted meads,

    We make thee lady. To thine and Albany’s issue

    Be this perpetual. What says our second daughter,

    Our dearest Regan, wife to Cornwall? Speak.

    REG. I am made of that self¹³ metal as my sister,

    And prize me at her worth. In my true heart

    I find she names my very deed of love;

    Only she comes too short: that I profess

    Myself an enemy to all other joys

    Which the most precious square of sense possesses,¹⁴

    And find I am alone felicitate¹⁵

    In your dear highness’ love.

    COR. [Aside] Then poor Cordelia!

    And yet not so, since I am sure my love’s

    More ponderous than my tongue.

    LEAP. To thee and thine hereditary ever

    Remain this ample third of our fair kingdom,

    No less in space, validity and pleasure,

    Than that conferr’d on Goneril. Now, our joy,

    Although the last, not least, to whose young love

    The vines of France and milk of Burgundy

    Strive to be interess’d,¹⁶ what can you say to draw

    A third more opulent than your sisters? Speak.

    COR. Nothing, my lord.

    LEAR. Nothing!

    COR. Nothing.

    LEAR. Nothing will come of nothing: speak again.

    COR. Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave

    My heart into my mouth: I love your majesty

    According to my bond;¹⁷ nor more nor less.

    LEAR. How, how, Cordelia! mend your speech a little,

    Lest it mar your fortunes.

    COR. Good my lord,

    You have begot me, bred me, loved me: I

    Return those duties back as are right fit,

    Obey you, love you, and most honour you.

    Why have my sisters husbands, if they say

    They love you all? Haply, when I shall wed,

    That lord whose hand must take my plight shall carry

    Half my love with him, half my care and duty:

    Sure, I shall never marry like my sisters,

    To love my father all.

    LEAR. But goes thy heart with this?

    COR. Ay, good my lord.

    LEAR. So young, and so untender?

    COR. So young, my lord, and true.

    LEAR. Let it be so; thy truth then be thy dower:

    For, by the sacred radiance of the sun,

    The mysteries of Hecate, and the night;

    By all the operation of the orbs

    From whom we do exist and cease to be;

    Here I disclaim all my paternal care,

    Propinquity and property of blood,

    And as a stranger to my heart and me

    Hold thee from this for ever. The barbarous Scythian,¹⁸

    Or

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1