My View on Two Lears
According to Richard Knowles, many people doubt that Shakespeare revised the Quarto version of King Lear in order to produce the version found in the folio.
The added lines in F amount to 110 in all. After debates by so many scholars, It is still quite impossible to say whether Shakespeare made the adjustments or someone else did.
The difference can be:
In the Q, Kent warns of an impending foreign invasion.
Yet in the F, Kent is concerned not with the French army but with a civil war being plotted by Albany and Cornwall.
According to Richard Knowles, the kinds of cuts in F Lear are mainly those for which it is easy to imagine purely theatrical motives. More than twice as many lines are cut from Acts3 and 4 as from the other three Acts combined. Acts 1 and 2 retain their careful preparation, Act 5 the full resolution, but cuts are increased in Act 3 and then redoubled in Act 4 as the play moves toward its climax. The cut part are descriptions, generally. These descriptions with no action accompany makes the stage static. The whole static episodes are cut at the ends of 3.7 and 4.7.
These explains why I found the performance I watched is different the Oxford Shakespeare. It must be Q.
The performance, along with Zhu Shenghao’s translation, belongs to F.
Albany, whose character confuses me the most, may also be a result of the two versions.
According to Philip Edwards, F’s cuts in Albany’s part represent a deliberate and consistent recharacterization of Albany.
I agree with Edwards, Albany appears to be two different men in Q and F. Plus, I prefer the character in Q.
In Q, he turns a blind eye to his wife’s sick treatment to the king. He neither helps the King nor helps his wife. Then, when the King is taken down, he turns his back on his unfaithful wife Gonoril and claims his love on his wife’s sister Regan. He is a base person. He is a villain.
However, in F, which is the text that the National Theatre used, Albany turns out to be an integrity man, who is kept out of the evil plans of the sisters. He never knows it until he sees that Gloucester is dead and Edgar kills Edmund in a fight. Besides, he doesn’t have an affair with Regan. I believe the cut of his role is due to theatrical reasons. If there are too many monologues or descriptions, the stage will look static and boring. Dramatic is good for drama. Despite the theatrical reasons, I feel the character of Albany is pale in F. He is a man of no importance, but he appears in vital scenes. It doesn’t make sense. In the end, when Lear dies, Albany stands by, watching. I am thinking, what on earth is this man DOING HERE?
In short, I vote for Q. F can be adjusted by company members due to theatrical reasons. It creates amazing stage effect, but it seems to be too hard a task to cut such an enormous work. The play is like needlework. It is so well-knitted by the maker. If you cut it, you will leave some loose end.
Ioppolo, Grace. The Idea of Shakespeare and the Two Lears [A].Lear From Study to Stage: essays in Criticism ed. James Ogden Arthur H. Scouten. London: Associated University Presses, 1997. 45-57
Knowles, Richard. Two Lears? By Shakespeare? [A].Lear From Study to Stage: essays in Criticism ed. James Ogden Arthur H. Scouten. London: Associated University Presses, 1997. 57-79
The added lines in F amount to 110 in all. After debates by so many scholars, It is still quite impossible to say whether Shakespeare made the adjustments or someone else did.
The difference can be:
In the Q, Kent warns of an impending foreign invasion.
Yet in the F, Kent is concerned not with the French army but with a civil war being plotted by Albany and Cornwall.
According to Richard Knowles, the kinds of cuts in F Lear are mainly those for which it is easy to imagine purely theatrical motives. More than twice as many lines are cut from Acts3 and 4 as from the other three Acts combined. Acts 1 and 2 retain their careful preparation, Act 5 the full resolution, but cuts are increased in Act 3 and then redoubled in Act 4 as the play moves toward its climax. The cut part are descriptions, generally. These descriptions with no action accompany makes the stage static. The whole static episodes are cut at the ends of 3.7 and 4.7.
These explains why I found the performance I watched is different the Oxford Shakespeare. It must be Q.
The performance, along with Zhu Shenghao’s translation, belongs to F.
Albany, whose character confuses me the most, may also be a result of the two versions.
According to Philip Edwards, F’s cuts in Albany’s part represent a deliberate and consistent recharacterization of Albany.
I agree with Edwards, Albany appears to be two different men in Q and F. Plus, I prefer the character in Q.
In Q, he turns a blind eye to his wife’s sick treatment to the king. He neither helps the King nor helps his wife. Then, when the King is taken down, he turns his back on his unfaithful wife Gonoril and claims his love on his wife’s sister Regan. He is a base person. He is a villain.
However, in F, which is the text that the National Theatre used, Albany turns out to be an integrity man, who is kept out of the evil plans of the sisters. He never knows it until he sees that Gloucester is dead and Edgar kills Edmund in a fight. Besides, he doesn’t have an affair with Regan. I believe the cut of his role is due to theatrical reasons. If there are too many monologues or descriptions, the stage will look static and boring. Dramatic is good for drama. Despite the theatrical reasons, I feel the character of Albany is pale in F. He is a man of no importance, but he appears in vital scenes. It doesn’t make sense. In the end, when Lear dies, Albany stands by, watching. I am thinking, what on earth is this man DOING HERE?
In short, I vote for Q. F can be adjusted by company members due to theatrical reasons. It creates amazing stage effect, but it seems to be too hard a task to cut such an enormous work. The play is like needlework. It is so well-knitted by the maker. If you cut it, you will leave some loose end.
Ioppolo, Grace. The Idea of Shakespeare and the Two Lears [A].Lear From Study to Stage: essays in Criticism ed. James Ogden Arthur H. Scouten. London: Associated University Presses, 1997. 45-57
Knowles, Richard. Two Lears? By Shakespeare? [A].Lear From Study to Stage: essays in Criticism ed. James Ogden Arthur H. Scouten. London: Associated University Presses, 1997. 57-79
