A revolution in Shakespeare studies over the past three decades asks that we take earlier quarto versions of his plays as fully independent texts. In no case can such a change in our outlook yield more illuminating re...A revolution in Shakespeare studies over the past three decades asks that we take earlier quarto versions of his plays as fully independent texts. In no case can such a change in our outlook yield more illuminating results than a serious look at the 1608 Quarto version of Shakespeare＇s King Lear. The 1623 Folio version and the ＂conflated＂ modem editions, which combine the ＂best＂ readings of the Quarto and Folio versions, both anoint his godson Edgar, the Earl of Gloucester, as the new king at the end. However, the 1608 Quarto version elevates, not Edgar, but Lear＇s son-in-law, the Duke of Albany, to the kingship at the end. Shakespeare may be telling the same story in texts that seem strikingly similar, but the difference in the endings shifts the center of gravity in both plays, requiring an interpretation that makes sense out this difference. The title page of the 1608 Quarto version of King Lear describes it as a ＂history＂; yet this ＂same＂ King Lear is listed as a ＂tragedy＂ in the 1623 Folio. The difference between those two words is the key to why Shakespeare＇s two versions could have startlingly different outcomes.展开更多
文摘A revolution in Shakespeare studies over the past three decades asks that we take earlier quarto versions of his plays as fully independent texts. In no case can such a change in our outlook yield more illuminating results than a serious look at the 1608 Quarto version of Shakespeare＇s King Lear. The 1623 Folio version and the ＂conflated＂ modem editions, which combine the ＂best＂ readings of the Quarto and Folio versions, both anoint his godson Edgar, the Earl of Gloucester, as the new king at the end. However, the 1608 Quarto version elevates, not Edgar, but Lear＇s son-in-law, the Duke of Albany, to the kingship at the end. Shakespeare may be telling the same story in texts that seem strikingly similar, but the difference in the endings shifts the center of gravity in both plays, requiring an interpretation that makes sense out this difference. The title page of the 1608 Quarto version of King Lear describes it as a ＂history＂; yet this ＂same＂ King Lear is listed as a ＂tragedy＂ in the 1623 Folio. The difference between those two words is the key to why Shakespeare＇s two versions could have startlingly different outcomes.
