When looking at Shakespeare’s King Lear, we must first decide whether we
can attribute the final revision to Shakespeare at all. Unlike many revisionist critics, I
propose that it is possible to conflate the two distinct versions of the play (although I
base my editing predominantly on “the final version ... the theatrically superior Folio
Lear” {Meyer 129}). But I do so not in order to find an ideal text, formed purely from
the author’s original intention, because, as Warren writes, “there may be no single
‘ideal play’ of King Lear (all of ‘what Shakespeare wrote’), that there may never have
been one, and that what we create by conflating both texts is merely an invention of
editors and scholars” (96). Rather, I have strived to create a conflation in which the
theatrical performance of the play will prevail, because even if the Folio was an
authorial revision of the Quarto, it was because “[Shakespeare] revised the play after
seeing how it worked in performance” (Clare 36) and that “the experience of
theatrical production informed the author’s own revision” (35).
Barbara Mowatt has written that “the Oxford William Shakespeare: The
Complete Works sets itself apart ... by accepting the theory that Shakespeare
revised his plays and by choosing to print the version (imagined) to be closest to the
theatre rather than the one closest to Shakespeare’s original manuscript” (24). Such
is my justification for choosing to insert several elements or “interesting variants”
(Mowatt 14) of the Quarto into my revised Folio, in order to enhance theatrical
performance. Firstly, F uses blank verse throughout V.III, a choice that allows a
distinction to be made between refined and unrefined characters. However, Lear’s
“clinical madness” and “intense, undying charge for justice” (Meyer 14) should surely
demonstrate that as a king now devoid of power, he is of no higher social standing
than his dead fool. Consequently, it seems more apt to replace F’s use of blank
verse with Q’s use of prose, only for Lear’s lines. In contrast, Edgar, Kent and Albany
retain their status along with their use of blank verse, which would be theatrically
obvious next to the deteriorating and babbling Lear.
Similarly, I have chosen to include the few textual variants that the Quarto has
to offer, such as Lear’s grief-stricken last line “O, o, o, o”. Stanley Wells argues the
revisionist view that “conflation muddies our understanding of Shakespeare’s artistry”
(Meyer 129); however, I oppose this because Shakespeare “wrote texts for
performance... texts were collaborative, were in effect commissioned and owned by
the company (not the scriptwriter), and were inevitably always under revision”
(Mowat 23). Conflation is valid not because it muddles Shakespeare’s “artistry” and
creativity, but because choosing to print the performance-based text actually results
in the author’s “final intentions” (Mowat 24) – the final intention for the play to be
dramatically performed on stage, and the inclusion of additional expressive lines only
further this sense of drama.
The role of the editor is traditionally thought to be to correct “errors likely to
have been introduced into each [version] by the author’s carelessness, the scribe,
the playhouse bookkeeper, and/or the compositors” and from there must “use his or
her editorial judgement in selecting the ‘Shakespearian’ word or line at every point
where the two texts differ” (Mowat 22)
Works Consulted
Blayney, Peter. The Texts of King Lear and their Origins: Volume 1 Nicholas Okes
and the First Quarto. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1982. Print.
Clare, Robert. "‘Who is it that can tell me who I am?’: The Theory of Authorial
Revision between the Quarto and Folio Texts of King Lear." Library 17.1 (1995):
34-59. Oxford Journal. Web. 7 Feb. 2011.
Foakes, R. A. "Review: Shakespeare Editing and Textual Theory: A Rough Guide."
Huntington Library Quarterly 60.4 (1997): 425-42. JSTOR. Web. 7 Feb. 2011.
Howard Hill, T H. "Reviews: The Challenge of King Lear." Library 7.2 (1985): 16179. Oxford Journals. Web. 7 Feb. 2011.
Howard Hill, T H. "The Problem of Manuscript Copy for Folio King Lear." Library 4.1
(1982): 1-24. Oxford Journals. Web. 7 Feb. 2011.
Ioppolo, Grace, ed. William Shakespeare's King Lear : a Sourcebook. London:
Routledge, 2003. Print.
Meyer, Ann R. "Shakespeare's Art and the Texts of "King Lear"." Studies in
Bibliography 47.1 (1996): 128-46. JSTOR. Web. 7 Feb. 2011.
Mowat, Barbara A. "The Reproduction of Shakespeare’s Texts." The Cambridge
Companion to Shakespeare. Eds. Margreta Grazia de and Stanley Wells.
Cambridge UP, 2001. Cambridge Collections Online. Web. 7 Feb. 2011.
Tanselle, G. Thomas. A Rationale of Textual Criticism. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania
UP, 1989. Web. 7 Feb. 2011.
Warren, Michael J. "Quarto and Folio King Lear and the Interpretation of Albany and
Edgar." Shakespeare, Pattern of Excelling Nature. Ed. David Bevington and Jay
L. Halio. Cranbury: Associated University Presses, 1978. Web. 7 Feb. 2011.