University of Virginia Library

Shakespeare's Art and the Texts of King Lear
by
Ann R. Meyer [*]

The earliest known texts of King Lear exist in essentially two different forms, the 1608 First Quarto (Q) and the 1623 Folio edition (F).[1] Until

recently editors interested in preparing critical editions of King Lear attempted to reconstruct a text that reflected the author's intentions more accurately than either surviving text. Editors drew on physical evidence from both texts for assistance when emending errors and when trying to distinguish between authorial and non-authorial alterations. Traditional editorial practice included the consolidation of variant readings from the separate texts if, after examining the physical evidence of those texts, an editor concluded that a judicious consolidation would further the attempt to recover Shakespeare's work.

Much of the textual scholarship on King Lear in the last decade, however, has advocated a presentation of two different versions, rather than a consolidation of the early texts.[2] Gary Taylor, Michael Warren, Stanley Wells and others have argued that Q and F are not defective versions of a lost text, but "two separate and successive stages in the creation of King Lear" (Division v). Q "represents the play as Shakespeare originally wrote it," but having discerned its theatrical shortcomings he "substantially revised it" (CW 1027).[3] The final version is the theatrically superior Folio Lear. In order to "preserve the separate integrity" of each text, the editors of the Oxford Shakespeare present two versions of King Lear with original spelling and punctuation, one based on the First Quarto and the other based on the Folio text (TC 510). The Oxford editors do not include a consolidated King Lear in The Complete Works since, as Stanley Wells argues, "conflation muddies our understanding of Shakespeare's artistry" (Division 17-19).

It is my view, however, that conflation on the one hand and a presentation of different versions on the other are not mutually exclusive alternatives. All texts, particularly dramatic ones, are the products of many influences, authorial and non-authorial. In the case of the Lear texts, editors have focused primarily on contributions from the author, the printing-house, and the theater. If an editor's aim is to distinguish authorial material from non-authorial material and then construct one or more critical texts that come closest to Shakespeare's, then, I will argue, a judicious consolidation of major passages from both early texts is still necessary, if those passages show evidence of non-authorial influence.[4]

Comparison of readings between Q and F shows that some of the most problematic variants occur in the central and final acts. In this essay I will call attention to sources of non-authorial alterations in these portions of the texts in order to demonstrate why it is necessary for editors to draw on and sometimes consolidate readings from both texts of King Lear when trying to construct an authorial edition. First, I will examine two press variants in sheet G of the First Quarto (sheet G corresponds to III.iii. through III.vii. in Folio Lear). Second, I will argue for including both the Q version of III.vi. (Lear on the heath, including the mock trial) and the F version of V.iii. (the final moments of the play) in any edition of King Lear that is offered primarily as an attempt to recover Shakespeare's work. The presentation of separate texts by the Oxford editors is one way of attempting to recover the author's intentions and, as they have argued, it is the way that they think is most accurate historically. I will argue, however, that the Oxford editors do not fully account for the possibility of non-authorial influence in their treatment of the central and final acts, so that their presentations of these portions of the texts are more inaccurate than judicious consolidations of them.

My call for consolidated presentations of certain readings from Q and F is not incompatible with the goal of trying to reconstruct the historical process of an author's work.[5] Whereas the Oxford editors argue that authorial revision is the primary source of alteration in these scenes, I direct attention to non-authorial influences that have contributed to what we find in the extant texts. My argument does not reinforce the concept of a "definitive" or ideal authorial text, nor does it contradict the concept of the text as a product of many influences, including the possibility of authorial revision. If an editor's attempt to establish an authorially intended text leads to discoveries about non-authorial influences, these discoveries do not rule out, of course, the possibility of authorial revision in other portions of the text or in other works by the same author.[6]

I

The First Quarto was set seriatim and, as Peter Blayney has suggested, the miserable quality of the manuscript probably accounts for Nicholas Okes' departure from the "more customary," type-saving method of setting by formes, or casting off (184). The text required the imposition of twenty-one formes of type and consists of ten and a half sheets (188). Although Q does not include act and scene divisions, sheet G contains text that Folio Lear and all modern editions designate as III.iii. through III.vii. Sheet L includes the final act. My discussion of these portions of the texts will apply, then, to sheets G and L in First Quarto and the corresponding parts in Folio Lear.

The twelve extant copies of the First Quarto differ among themselves in

a number of readings. The outer forme of sheet G, for example, contains several press variants which indicate that at some point during its printing the press was stopped and the forme corrected.[7] There is evidence, however, that some "corrections" yield readings different from those that stood in Q's copy. An examination of two press variants in outer G indicates that a Folio reading need not be an authorial revision, but gives evidence of having been a restoration of an original reading. In short, what we find in F ought to have been in Q. A look now at these press variants in Q's sheet G will inform my subsequent analysis of larger passages by calling attention to sources of alteration other than authorial revision, and in so doing, call into question some of the editorial decisions generated by the two-text theory. Furthermore, an examination of these two press variants reveals patterns of misreadings by Q's compositor B and, therefore, provides notable evidence for approaching Q.

An editor will often accept the corrected form of a reading unless there is evidence that the proof-reader failed to consult the manuscript copy or that certain "corrections" are, in fact, incorrect. During one of Lear's speeches on the heath, the uncorrected state of the forme (Qa) reads, "this crulentious storme" (Q: G1r).[8] The second, or "corrected," state (Qb) reads, "this tempestious storme" (Q: G1r). Virtually all modern editions, however, adopt the Folio reading, "this contentious storme" (F: rr3r; Riverside III.iv.6). While Qa's "crulentious" is obviously nonsense, Qb's "tempestious" is also incorrect; but what is of more importance, "crulentious" is a conceivable blunder for the "contentious" that later, and properly, appeared in F.

Blayney has concluded that two compositors worked on the First Quarto: compositor B set the first half of the play prior to the Christmas holidays in 1607 and compositor C, an apprentice, worked with B to complete the play sometime in early January (85). C worked more slowly and with less competence than B, but misspellings, misreadings, and evidence of faulty memorization throughout Q indicate that B's compositorial ability was not much better than C's (185-187).

One reasonable explanation for "crulentious" argues that compositor B, when setting type, read the "on" in "contentious" as "ru." A carelessly written "o" in secretary hand, open at the top, resembles a "u." And an Elizabethan secretary "r," with its many different forms, is often confused with "v" or "u" and, therefore, with "o." Conceivably, then, the manuscript "o" was misread as "r." Similarly, both a secretary "u" and a secretary "n" appear as two minims and are frequently indistinguishable from one another.

Further, the downstroke of a secretary "l" curves not from left to right, but from right to left, and is terminated by a small spur to the left across the middle of the upstroke. Since a secretary "t" also contains a cross bar and was generally looped, "l" and "t" were commonly confused with one another (McKerrow 348).

Anthony G. Petti, in English Literary Hands from Chaucer to Dryden, confirms such a possibility in his table that lists the letters most commonly confused with one another from the fourteenth through the sixteenth centuries. He shows that the secretary "o," "v" and "r" were frequently mistaken for one another, that the secretary "t" and "l" resemble each other, and that minim confusion often made it impossible to distinguish between "m," "n" and "u" (31).

With the Folio reading ("contentious") restoring the original word in Q's copy, compositor B's initial error in Qa's outer G ("crulentious") is seen to offer a closer reading of the copy than Qb's "correction" of "tempestious." The alteration in Qb needs no explanation other than a proof-reader's attempt to replace nonsense, the result of compositor B's misreading the manuscript when setting Qa. F's "contentious" need not, then, depend on Shakespeare's revision of Qb's "tempestious" to F's "contentious" for the simple reason that the underlying copy for Qa already contained, for one inclined to discover it, the identical word that stood in the copy for F.[9]

In the Oxford edition of Q, Wells and Taylor correctly emend Qa's "crulentious" to F's "contentious" but do not explain their reasons for doing so. Usually, if a variant reading from one text makes reasonable sense, as does Qb's "tempestious," the Oxford editors retain that reading: "We have . . . attempted, as far as possible, to emend Q—where emendation seems desirable—as though F did not exist, seeking in every case the most plausible explanation of the apparent error, and the most economical restoration of sense" (TC 510). But with their treatment of this press variant, the editors provide an example of why it is necessary to consult both texts and to reject a reading from the first one in favor of a reading from the second in order to restore an original reading.

II

This example demonstrates a case in which the Oxford editors were willing to adopt a reading from F while editing Q, but their treatment of another miscorrection in outer G demonstrates an overly conservative editorial decision in defense of Q's integrity. A Folio reading is rejected and an uncorrected reading in Q is retained because Qa makes "local and contextual sense" (TC 517). The uncorrected state of Q (Qa) reads, ". . . thou art the thing it selfe, vnaccom-/odated man, is no more but such a poore bare forked Animall / as thou art, off off you leadings, come on bee true." (Qa: G2r-G2v). In the corrected state of the forme (Qb), the last phrase reads, ". . . off off you lendings, come on" (Qb: G2v). Folio Lear renders the passage in the following manner: "Thou art the thing it selfe; vnaccommo-/dated man, is no more but such a poore, bare, forked A-/nimall as thou art. Off, off you Lendings: Come, vn-/button heere." (F: rr3v; Riverside III.iv.106-109). The proof-reader for Q corrected the impossible "leadings" in Qa to "lendings," and F retains that revision. With respect to Qb's "come on" G2v shows ample space at the end of the line for the compositors to insert type and complete the passage. This fact combined with the absence of terminal punctuation in Qb's reading suggests a partially completed correction. The proof-reader recognized the original error, but the correction was never carried out completely.

In this case there are at least two explanations for why the original reading, which F undoubtedly preserves, was not restored during the correction of Qa. First, the proof-reader may not have been able to read his illegible copy and therefore failed to complete the correction. Or second, the compositor, failing to carry out the proof-reader's instructions for any number of

reasons, simply left the phrase dangling. In Blayney's discussion of this press variant he observes: "It is possible that the proof-reader indicated something a little closer to the presumed reading of the copy (which almost certainly agreed in substance with 'unbutton,' although there is no evidence of 'heere' in the uncorrected Q) but that the compositor somehow forgot to insert it" (246). Usually an editor will remove errors and imperfections such as the one in question for which there is evidence that either a proof-reader or compositor is responsible. While the Oxford editors emend "leadings" to "lendings" in their edition of Q, they preserve Qa's uncorrected "come on bee true," arguing that "come on bee true" makes sense and "leadings" does not. The editors acknowledge their temptation to adopt F's reading, since Qb's dangling "come on" reveals an attempt to correct Qa's "come on bee true" and that this "correction" was instead left incomplete. They choose, however, not to emend Qa with F's "come vnbutton heere," explaining, But the presence or absence of "heere" has no substantive bearing on the sense or significance of F's reading—which is the action of "come unbutton" and not the adverbial place of "heere"—and therefore does not support the decision to preserve Qa's "come on bee true." If one is setting out to edit an edition of Q—or any edition of King Lear—and since there are three different renditions of the passage in question, the first two (Qa and Qb) suggesting error, miscorrection, or an incomplete correction, it follows that one should consult F for additional information and, in this case, to restore the original, correct reading to Q.

Equally important, the editors' claim that "'vnbutton heere' would hardly recommend itself to a palaeographically plausible conjecture, if it did not stand in F," cannot be supported. Written in a secretary hand, "come on bee true" and "come vnbutton" bear close similarity to one another. Paul Hammond identifies this similarity and challenges the Oxford editors on palaeographical grounds:

What is especially remarkable is that with this argument come the second and third examples of a misreading by Okes' compositor B of "on" for "ru": first with "contentious" and "crulentious," second with "tone" and "true," and third, as Hammond points out, with "none" and "true." Combined, these examples serve as significant bibliographical evidence for approaching Q.[10]

As with the previous example of "crulentious" and "contentious," then, evidence exists to suggest that Qa's "come on bee true" represents the compositor's close but erroneous interpretation of the original reading, "come vnbutton heere." Even if one argues that the textual authority of King Lear is divided between two texts, Q and F, these two press variants indicate that it is still necessary to assess each variant textually, bibliographically, and palaeographically, and when these investigations raise serious doubts concerning the authority of one reading, it follows that we rely on the alternate text for assistance.

III

Let us turn now from compositorial misreadings of individual phrases in Q's sheet G to the matter of a large passage in that same sheet—one that was cut from the corresponding scene in F. Although quite a different matter textually, my essential argument is that what we find in one text—here, the mock trial in Q—belongs in the other text, F.

The mock trial appears in Q on the inner forme of sheet G (G3v-G4r). Thirty-one lines of Q's trial do not exist in F (rr4r, III.vi). Unlike the First Quarto, which was set seriatim, Folio Lear was set by formes and in sixes, a method that sometimes resulted in textual disturbances as a result of imprecise casting-off.[11] In rr4r of F, however, there is no indication of crowded text or forced omissions on the page where the lines from Q's mock trial would appear had they not been cut. It has been widely accepted that printing house errors were not responsible for this omission; much recent scholarship on the Lear texts regards the cut as authorial.[12] Shakespeare omitted the

thirty-one lines found in Q, as Gary Taylor argues, "to streamline the plot and increase the narrative momentum," thereby improving the play on stage ("The War in King Lear" 28).[13] But does their absence in F prove that Shakespeare made the cut?

In his essay "The Folio Omission of the Mock Trial: Motives and Consequences," Roger Warren, arguing for authorial revision in this scene, addresses the issue from a literary and theatrical standpoint only (Division 45-57). He claims (a) that the mock trial scene confuses the plot, (b) that its thematic function is incomprehensible to an audience, (c) that the scene is far too difficult for actors to perform successfully, and (d) that the one masterful performance of the trial which he has seen, namely Peter Brook's 1962 production at Stratford, does not "alter the general position that its difficulties usually defeat performers," and therefore should not be staged (55). In this line of argument that does not touch at all on textual and bibliographical evidence, Warren contends that Shakespeare is responsible for the omission—it being clear at least to Warren, if not to Peter Brook, that in the theater the mock trial begets nonsense and chaos.

Such an argument cannot identify who omitted the passages in this scene. Warren simply dismisses the possibility that someone other than Shakespeare is responsible. Textual evidence suggests, however, that Shakespeare did not make the cut.

At the opening of the scene in both texts, Kent informs Gloucester of Lear's altered state of mind: "All the pow'r of his wits have given way to / his impatience . . ." (Riverside III.vi.4-5).[14] Kent's emphasis here on Lear's "impatience" prepares us for the King's performance during the trial (found in Q), namely his refusal to tolerate the iniquity of his daughters and his earnest yet unavailing attempt to enforce justice. In reply to the fool's riddle, "Prithee, nuncle, tell me whether a madman / be a gentleman or a yeoman?" Lear answers, "A king, a king!" and in his next speech, augments this recognition of his own foolishness with a furious expression of his need to see the daughters punished: "To have a thousand with red burning spits / Come hizzing in upon 'em" (Riverside III.vi.9-11, 15-16). This statement, together with the mock trial as it stands in Q, follows from Lear's earlier assertion to avenge himself on "those pelican daughters":

Following Lear's statement, "To have a thousand with red burning spits / Come hizzing in upon 'em," in Q we find thirty-one lines that do not exist in F. Only in Q does Lear attempt to enforce justice by devising the courtroom scene. Q reads: In Q Lear appoints poor Tom as his "most learned Iustice," the fool as his "yokefellow of equity," and begins the imaginary prosecution of the "shee Foxes." Disturbed and baffled by Lear's "reason in madness," Edgar responds, "Looke where he stands and glars, wanst thou eyes, at / tral [trial] madam . . ." (Q: G3v; Riverside III.vi.23-24). And in a line so typical of Kent, always devoted to the protection and service of his "King and master," he pleads, "How doe you sir? Stand you not so amazd, will you / lie downe and rest vpon the cushings?" (Q: G4r; Riverside III.vi.33-34). As always, Lear refuses Kent's assistance. He will see "their triall first," and he will begin with Goneril. The fool calls her to the imaginary bench to stand before the "honorable assembly" and initiates the interrogation: "is your name Gonorill?" She cannot answer, of course, for as the fool reminds us, she is inhuman—a mere "ioyne stoole." So Lear calls on Regan, "another whose warpt lookes proclaime, / What store her hart is made an . . ." (Q: G4r; Riverside III.vi.35, 46-54). It is at this moment, when Lear's insanity becomes indistinguishable from his insight, that Regan escapes him. Lear calls, The trial in Q breaks with the King in an uproar, disgusted that his revelation of what is true and just will lead nowhere, frustrated by his inability to enforce justice upon people who have no humanity, outraged at those who stand by silently allowing corruption to pass unpunished, and all too aware that truth and justice in the world of this play must be expressed through fools and madmen.

F contains none of this. After Lear's statement, "To have a thousand with red burning spits / Come hizzing in upon them," F picks up with Edgar's line, "Bless thy five wits!" (Riverside III.vi.57). The next two speeches, spoken by Kent and Edgar, also appear in F even though the trial was removed from F:

Although these lines are not entirely unmotivated in so far as Shakespeare focuses on suffering and madness throughout Act III, they are more powerfully motivated with the mock trial. In F, Edgar's tears especially seem to be an exaggerated response to Lear's reply to the fool's riddle, "Prithee, nuncle, tell me whether a madman / be a gentleman, or a yeoman?" (Riverside III.vi.9-10). In Q, the King's performance during the trial justifies Kent's statement to Gloucester at the scene's opening as well as the pity and fear Kent expresses here. And it is Edgar, disguised in nakedness and insanity, who can empathize with Lear's condition and "take his part so much."

Perhaps of even more importance textually is the line that Lear speaks in both Q and F shortly after Kent and Edgar express concern for the King's health and sanity: "Then let them anatomize Regan; see what / breeds about her heart. Is there any cause in nature / that make these hard hearts?" (Riverside III.vi.76-78). Surely the sensitive reader or audience of F hesitates and asks, "Then"? "Regan"? Why not also anatomize Goneril? Without the context of the earlier passages from the mock trial, Lear's exhortation creates a confusion—a stumble—that never occurs in Q. In the earlier text, Lear's words make good sense and follow logically from the preceding events. He had already interrogated Goneril, yet Regan had escaped. In keeping with his character, Lear refuses to tolerate this escape; he will not step down from authority. The King insists she be summoned for examination—or more correctly—anatomization. Moreover, Lear's emphasis here on the hardness of Regan's heart parallels his earlier statements during the trial and reinforces the metaphorical significance of the joint stools. Goneril and Regan have no humanity; they are inanimate objects.

Without the mock trial as it is presented in Q, the significance of certain key passages remaining in F is greatly reduced, their effectiveness lost. Clearly, the decision to edit a text of King Lear without the thirty-one lines from Q raises questions: if Shakespeare cut these lines because the scene lacks clarity and coherence with them, why then did he not make further adjustments in the scene to effect a better transition; why did he not alter Kent's and Edgar's expressions to suit the scene with the omission? Why was the text not modified so that both daughters would be "anatomized?" As W. W. Greg observed, authorial revision entails more than simply removing words and passages:

However relevant the omission of the mock trial may have been for staging, we have no knowledge of how Shakespeare perceived that omission; its absence from F tells us nothing about Shakespeare's intention or preference.[15]

The First Folio was printed fifteen years after First Quarto Lear and seven years after Shakespeare died. The copy or copies behind Folio Lear were probably much better than what lay behind Q. Scholarly consensus holds that the F text was set from a marked-up copy of Q2 (see note 1) and a promptbook copy of Q1 (TC 509, 529). But as Greg pointed out,

Roger Warren and others who contend that Shakespeare cut the mock trial while revising Q in order to improve the scene on stage go no further than pronouncing that belief. They provide no evidence that proves Shakespeare cut the mock trial from his play. Yet, comparison of readings in both texts, with particular emphasis on what remains in the cut text, F, indicates that the omission was not authorial. It is my view, then, that those who wish to see Shakespeare's work will read and perform King Lear with the mock trial intact.

IV

There are two major differences between the textual circumstances surrounding the mock trial scene and those connected with the substantive alterations in the final scene of the play. First, it is F, not Q, that offers the superior reading of the ending. Second, theatrical intervention is generally not held responsible for the differences between the two texts in the last scene. Although there are many differences between Q and F throughout the final scene, my analysis will focus on the concluding moments of the play (Q: L4r; F: ss3r).

In both texts, Lear enters carrying the dead Cordelia. He charges the "men of stones" to look upon the horror, for if he had their eyes and tongues he would use them "so that heaven's vault should crack" (Riverside V.iii.258-260). During this last scene, he turns in torment between hope that perhaps she still lives and conviction that she is "dead as earth" and will come no more—dead for no reason while dogs, horses and rats live (Riverside V.iii.262, 307). Here, as in the mock trial scene, what an audience may perceive as clinical madness is Lear's display of an intense, undying charge for justice and a profound revelation of what it means to be human. It is at the moment of greatest anguish that the two texts, Q and F, diverge. Q reads as follows (including in the absence of spacing between some words):

And Folio, According to the Oxford editors, the Q reading reflects Shakespeare's original thoughts and the F reading his improved revision. Rethinking his initial work, the author added one "no," and two "nevers"; reassigned Lear's line in Q, "Breake hart, I prethe breake" to Kent; substituted "Do you see this? Looke on her? Looke her lips, / Looke there, looke there" for Lear's "O, o, o, o"; and then to end the play gave Edgar the final speech rather than Albany. Textual and bibliographical evidence suggests, however, that what was Shakespeare's reading in Q's copy was something other and longer than what is in Q—perhaps what is extant in F. Furthermore, that same evidence indicates that compositorial error and printing house negligence, rather than the author's second thoughts, are responsible for Q's alternate reading.

By studying the First Quarto in conjunction with those works printed by Nicholas Okes before, during, and after Lear, Peter Blayney calculated that the printing of Lear began on 10 December 1607, was interrupted by the Christmas holidays, and was completed sometime in early January (85). It was the first play-quarto Okes had ever printed and, according to Blayney, it is the only play-quarto "which can fairly claim a place among Okes's half-dozen worst-printed books of 1607-1609" (184-185). Blayney compares Okes' work with other seventeenth-century printers and concludes that "there were printers whose worst was worse than Okes's—but not very many, and not much worse" (29; emphasis Blayney's). Moreover, the seriatim method that Okes chose to set Q "caused unprecedented problems of type-supply" (184).[16]

The Oxford editors have acknowledged that Okes' inexperience, his shortage of type, the incompetence of his compositors, and an illegible or confusing manuscript may account for peculiarities in punctuation and lineation.[17] They do not go so far as to argue, however, that the variations in the final scene are the result of Okes' printing-house deficiencies—that the reading in F may have existed in the printer's copy for Q but was unintentionally left out due to carelessness or deliberately omitted to save space and conserve type.

When setting seriatim, or in reading order, usually the inner forme of a sheet will be printed before the outer forme, since the second, third, sixth, and seventh type-pages of the gathering will have been imposed before the outer forme (which contains the eighth type-page) has been completely set. Peter Blayney shows, however, that in the case of Q the outer forme of sheet L, the final sheet, was printed before the inner forme (217-218). Furthermore, the outer forme of sheet L contains only three pages of text; L4v (the eighth type-page) is left blank. Hence, the play ends on inner L4r, the seventh type-page of the gathering.

Blayney also tells us that the ends of L3r, L3v, L4r might have been set by a compositor other than C. In his discussion of sheet L. Blayney adds:

With this information we can reconstruct the order of events during the imposition and printing of Q's sheet L. First, compositor B set L1r of the outer forme. Next, C set L1v and L2r of the inner forme. C then set L2v and L3r of the outer forme. Having completed the imposition of outer L1r, L2v, L3r (the first, fourth, and fifth type-pages) and seeing no need for L4v—the whole text nearly completed—compositor C decided to go ahead and print outer L assuming that the remaining text could be fitted onto the last two pages of the inner form, L3v and L4r. Whatever the reason, the outer forme was in fact printed prior to the inner forme, leaving L4v blank.[18] The outer forme of sheet L having been printed, a different compositor, perhaps B, finished setting inner L3v and L4r (the sixth and seventh type-pages). The imposition of L1v, L2r, L3v, and L4r having been completed, the inner forme was then printed.

The procedure described above proves to be of pivotal importance when deciding who or what is responsible for the variations between Q and F in the final scene. What is most notable about this procedure is the drastic space problems it created when setting the end of the play. The obvious crowding of text in the final two pages of Q shows clearly that when setting inner L3v and L4r, the compositor found himself running out of room. If we examine Lear's final speech as it appears in Q (L4r), for example, we see that verse has been crowded into prose and that the compositors left little or no space between certain words such as "neuer,neuer" and "hart,I." We see also that Edgar's two split lines have been merged with the previous lines.

Since outer L had already gone through the press, the compositor, with more text to set than space allowed, had no choice but to make the necessary adjustments to complete the play on inner L4r. It is not surprising, then, that the most substantive variants, such as those in Lear's final speech, occur on L4r, the last page of text. It is altogether conceivable that the compositor omitted one "no," two "nevers," and inserted a simple "O, o, o, o" for Lear's last words, "Do you see this? Looke on her? Looke her lips, / Looke there, looke there." Furthermore, Q's assignment of "Break hart, I prethe breake" to Lear, rather than Kent, must be a compositorial error. Surely Lear has uttered his final words and is probably dead, just as the F text indicates.

In the Oxford edition of Q the editors have cleaned up the mess that is illustrated plainly in the extant text. Their version reads:

The Oxford editors' reconstruction of this scene in their edition of Q and their claim that it is authorial is incompatible with the physical evidence present in the extant text. They have inserted a "[Lear dies]" where they believe Shakespeare had originally intended the King to die, but it is just as likely—even more likely—that the compositor simply left out the proper stage direction to save space and accidentally assigned Kent's line to Lear; it is illogical for Lear to speak this line after Edgar announces he has fainted. One may argue further that the line in question rightfully belongs to Kent, a character who throughout the play has dedicated himself to the protection and service of the King. In the end that sympathy is expressed in his wish for his master's death: "Breake heart, I prythee breake." Kent's message is clear: death brings peace at last. Edgar resists letting Lear go, just as he kept his father from dying at the cliffs of Dover: "Look vp my Lord," he says to Lear. Remaining loyal to his master, however, Kent insists that Edgar "Vex not his ghost, O let him passe."[19]

A textual and bibliographical examination of the central and final acts provides no evidence that Shakespeare is responsible for the alterations I have discussed in this essay—that he revised "come on bee true" to "come vnbutton heere," omitted thirty-one lines of the mock trial, or altered the play's ending. Indeed, a problem in the Lear texts is that we often have difficulty identifying who or what is responsible for many of the variant readings. Recent scholarship has frequently resolved this difficulty by emphasizing authorial revision: we have no clear evidence that alterations are not authorial. But authorial

revision is only one possible source of alteration. In this essay, I have argued that even if Shakespeare revised other portions of Lear (and other plays), physical evidence does exist which suggests that he was not responsible for the variations between the early texts in these key scenes of King Lear.

The extant texts of King Lear record a history of many influences, including authorial creation and the publication process. But if an editor's aim is to distinguish authorial material from non-authorial material—such as alterations made by a compositor, proof-reader, or through theatrical intervention—and attempt to construct a critical text that comes closest to Shakespeare's, it is necessary to draw on both early texts for physical evidence and to consolidate certain readings. A judicious consolidation of the passages I have discussed in this essay does not falsify Shakespeare's art. Instead, such treatment offers more accurate presentations than does either extant text or the Oxford editions of those texts.

In naming their book The Division of the Kingdoms; Shakespeare's Two Versions of King Lear, Gary Taylor and Michael Warren selected the unrevised Quarto reading of Gloucester's words for their title: ". . . the diuision of the kingdomes [plural] . . ." (Q: B1r)—a reading that makes no sense as far as Lear's purpose is concerned. Let us pay closer heed, then, to the rendition of that same passage in Folio Lear: ". . . the diuision of the Kingdome, / it appeares not . . ." (F: qq2).

Selected Bibliography

• Berger, Thomas L. Review of The Oxford Shakespeare. Analytical and Enumerative Bibliography New Series 3 (1989): 139-170.
• Blayney, Peter W. M. The Texts of King Lear and their Origins. Volume I: Nicholas Okes and the First Quarto. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1982.
• Carroll, William C. "New Plays vs. Old Readings: The Division of the Kingdoms and Folio Deletions in King Lear." Studies in Philology 85 (1988): 225-244.
• Chambers, E. K. William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford UP, Clarendon, 1930. 463-470. 2 vols.
• Doran, Madeleine. The Text of King Lear. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1931.
• Duthie, George Ian. Elizabethan Shorthand and the First Quarto of King Lear. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1949.
• Greg, W. W. The Editorial Problem in Shakespeare; A Survey of the Foundations of the Text. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1954.
• ___. "The Function of Bibliography in Literary Criticism Illustrated in a Study of the Text of King Lear." Neophilologus 18 (1933): 241-262.
• Hammond, Paul. Review of William Shakespeare, The Complete Works: Original-Spelling Edition, eds. Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor, and William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion, by Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor, with John Jowett and William Montgomery. Seventeenth Century Journal 3 (1988): 85-107.
• Hinman, Charleton. "Introduction." The Norton Facsimile: The First Folio of Shakespeare. New York: W. W. Norton, 1968. ix-xxvii.
• Howard-Hill, T. H. "Modern Textual Theories and the Editing of Plays," The Library; The Transactions of the Bibliographical Society 6th ser. 11 (1989): 89-115.
• ___. "Playwrights' Intentions and the Editing of Plays," Text; Transactions of the Society for Textual Scholarship 4, D. C. Greetham and W. Speed Hill, eds. (New York: AMS Press, 1988): 269-278.

---

146




• ___. "The Problem of Manuscript Copy for Folio King Lear." The Library; The Transactions of the Bibliographical Society 6th ser. 4 (1982): 121-124.
• Iappolo, Grace. Revising Shakespeare. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1991.
• Kirschbaum, Leo. "The Origin of the Bad Quartos." PMLA 60 (1945): 697-715.
• McGann, Jerome J. A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism. Charlottesville: UP of Virginia, 1992. Originally published in 1983, Chicago: U of Chicago Press.
• ___, ed. Textual Criticism and Literary Interpretation. Chicago: U of Chicago Press, 1985.
• McKerrow, Ronald B. An Introduction to Bibliography for Literary Students. Oxford: Clarendon, 1965.
• McLaverty, James. "The Concept of Authorial Intention in Textual Criticism." The Library; The Transactions of the Bibliographical Society 6th ser. 6 (1984): 121-138.
• Petti, Anthony G. English Literary Hands from Chaucer to Dryden. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1977.
• Shakespeare, William. The Complete Works: Original Spelling Edition. Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor, eds. Oxford: Clarendon, 1986.
• ___. The Historie of King Lear. Shakespeare's Plays in Quarto; A Facsimile Edition of Copies Primarily From the Henry E. Huntington Library. Michael J. B. Allen and Kenneth Muir, eds. Berkeley: U of California Press, 1981. 664-703.
• ___. The Tragedie of King Lear. The Norton Facsimile: The First Folio of Shakespeare. Charleton Hinman, ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 1968. 801-817.
• ___. The Tragedy of King Lear. The Riverside Shakespeare. G. Blakemore Evans, ed. Boston: Houghton, 1974. 1249-1305.
• Shillingsburg, Peter L. "Text as Matter, Concept, and Action," Studies in Bibliography 44 (1991): 31-82.
• Smidt, Kristian. "The Quarto and the Folio Lear: Another Look at the Theories of Textual Deviation." English Studies 45 (1964): 149-162.
• Stone, P. W. K. The Textual History of King Lear. London: Scolar Press, 1980.
• Tanselle, G. Thomas. A Rationale of Textual Criticism. Philadelphia: U of Penn. Press, 1989.
• ___. "Textual Criticism and Deconstruction," Studies in Bibliography 43 (1990): 1-33.
• ___. "Textual Criticism and Literary Sociology," Studies in Bibliography 44 (1991): 83-143.
• ___. Textual Criticism and Scholarly Editing. Charlottesville: UP of Virginia, 1990.
• Taylor, Gary. "The War in King Lear." Shakespeare Studies (1980): 27-34.
• Taylor, Gary, and Michael Warren, eds. The Division of the Kingdoms; Shakespeare's Two Versions of King Lear. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983.
• Urkowitz, Steven. Shakespeare's Revision of King Lear. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1980.
• Walker, Alice. Textual Problems of the First Folio; Richard III, King Lear, Troilus & Cressida, 2 Henry IV, Hamlet, Othello. Cambridge: UP, 1953.
• Warren, Michael J. The Complete King Lear 1608-1623. Berkeley and Los Angeles: U of California Press, 1989.
• ___. The Parallel King Lear 1608-1623, Part 1 of The Complete King Lear. Berkeley and Los Angeles: U of California Press, 1989.
• ___. "Quarto and Folio King Lear and the Interpretation of Albany and Edgar." Shakespeare: Pattern of Excelling Nature. David Bevington and Jay Halio, eds. Newark, Del.: U of Delaware Press, 1978. 95-107.
• Warren, Roger. "The Folio Omission of the Mock Trial: Motives and Consequences." The Division of the Kingdoms; Shakespeare's Two Versions of King Lear. Gary Taylor and Michael Warren, eds. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983. 45-57.
• Wells, Stanley and Gary Taylor, with John Jowett and William Montgomery. William Shakespeare; A Textual Companion. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987.
• Werstine, Paul. "Folio Editors, Folio Compositors, and the Folio Text of King Lear." The Division of the Kingdoms; Shakespeare's Two Versions of King Lear. Gary Taylor and Michael Warren, eds. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983. 247-312.
• ___. "Narratives About Printed Shakespeare Texts: 'Foul Papers' and 'Bad' Quartos." Shakespeare Quarterly 41 (1990): 65-86.

Notes