University of Virginia Library

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.