King Lear
King Lear’s stage history presents a curious case of reinterpretation. The original is a famously grandiose bloodbath, so ambitious that many have thought it unsuitable for the stage. From 1681 to 1838, however, the primary version performed on stage was something rather different. Written by Nahum Tate, The History of King Lear makes substantial changes to Shakespeare’s play, the most notable being the infamous “happy ending.”
The basic plot holds for both versions: at the outset, King Lear has abdicated his throne, dividing his power among his three daughters. When his youngest, Cordelia, refuses to give him the praise he wants, he becomes enraged and perhaps mad, and is cast out of his own home by his elder daughters. As Lear lives outside his court, his mental state deteriorates to the point of insanity. In Tate’s Lear, impending tragedy is resolved in the end. Instead of the deaths of Cordelia and Lear, Lear’s sanity appears restored and Cordelia and Edgar marry.
Lear’s intriguing jester, known as the Fool, is entirely absent from Tate’s play. As you view some of the artwork and read on, notice what is lost when the Fool is removed and the tragedy averted, and how these changes affect meaning in the play.
__________________________
Tate, Nahum. The History of King Lear, Reviv’d with Alterations. London, 1689.
This 1689 edition of Tate’s The History of King Lear, published eight years after the original, is a fascinating object for the study of “versions” of Shakespeare. The letter at the beginning of the edition is telling. Some of the Fool’s functions – namely, acting as the critic who points us to Lear’s instability in the opening act – are fulfilled by Cordelia. For example, in the second scene Tate writes new lines for Cordelia to let us know that the king is “chol’rick,” since the Fool isn’t there to mock him.
__________________________
Shakespeare, William. The Tragedie of King Lear. Woodcuts by Claire Van Vliet. Bangor, Maine, 1986
The top woodcut is especially interesting because of Lear's animalistic features—they seem to mimic the Fool's line, "[Wise men] know not how their wits to wear, their manners are so apish." As Michael Clody* has observed, Lear’s animalistic features ultimately form a sort of primal cry at the point of Cordelia's death, as Lear shouts "Howl, Howl, Howl, Howl!" in the scene pictured in the woodcut below.
*Michael C. Clody. "The Mirror and the Feather: Tragedy and Animal Voice in King Lear." ELH 80.3 (2013): 661-680.
__________________________
Howard, Henry. Lear and Cordelia. Watercolor on board. 1820. (A proprietary study for the large oil painting which now hangs in the John Soane Museum in London.)
Gloucester’s and Lear’s eyes demand attention in this portrayal of Lear holding the dead Cordelia. Gloucester’s empty sockets are dim but grotesque, while Lear’s are wide and wild. Laying his eyes upon his daughter, it seems Lear finally sees the inevitable tragedy that arose from his folly. Gloucester, however, didn’t need to see this moment to grasp Lear’s folly. “O, ruined man!” he cries, understanding that Lear has gone mad. In contrast to other characters in the play, Lear seems the only one who had to see this tragic moment to know his folly.
__________________________
Souvenir of Shakespeare's tragedy, King Lear: presented at the Lyceum Theatre, 10th November, 1892, by Henry Irving. London, 1892.
This souvenir program for theatre-goers in the audience for Henry Irving’s performance as King Lear on November 10th, 1892, was available for purchase. The price: one shilling. The booklet includes a list of the Dramatis Personae, a Synopsis of Scenery, and many illustrations from the performance. Ellen Terry, the leading Shakespearean actress of the time, performed the role of Cordelia.
__________________________
Shakespeare, William. The Tragedie of King Lear. Woodcuts by Claire Van Vliet. Bangor, Maine, 1986.
Shakespeare, William, The Works of William Shakespeare. Edited by Henry Irving and Frank A, Marshall. Illustrated by Gordon Browne. New York, 1889.
Pictured here are images of Lear’s fool, following the king when he ventures out of the court, offering insults, riddles, and prophecies throughout the play. The latter perhaps are the most telling as to why he was removed from the Nahum Tate version: he predicts “great confusion” for the realm, and repeatedly assails the king’s folly, suggesting he foresees the destruction that is to come. For Tate to remove the tragic ending requires that he also remove the means of its prediction.
That experience of inevitable doom, though, is something we might find important in Lear, particularly if we agree with Stanley Cavell’s notion that the play provides us a certain feeling of “blamelessness”--that we cannot reasonably expect the characters to act more reasonably in their circumstances. The inability to place the weight of blame on any one person or thing, Cavell writes, is not a bad way of understanding the “experience of tragedy.”*
*Stanley Cavell. “The Avoidance of Love.” Disowning Knowledge in Seven Plays of Shakespeare. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. 39-124.