وقت هرى COPYRIGHT, 1909, BY BIGELOW, fen wied's sin. Nationdism revival economic grou ideals into action. SMITH & CO. putting ideas & jeak embutions of idles salofthags right out politics string central issue thime ho PRINTED IN THE J. J. LITTLE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY Tragedy & stops time Themes of courage Sacred dime defect, problems of life is seen in its ultimate THE TRAGEDY OF KING LEAR orgi saret, reinactment of Pentilly rituals Tragedy comes from cycles the need to understand why things happen vistence Theater is communal exprience. يزات -> daisical forms mixt tragedy, comedy, explosion tremes of humenismis. christintis All the unsigned footnotes in this volume are by the writer of the article to which they are appended. The interpretation of the initials signed to the others is: I. G. = Israel Gollancz, M.A.; H. N. H. Henry Norman Hudson, A.M.; C. H. H. C. H. Herford, Litt.D. PREFACE By ISRAEL GOLLANCZ, M.A. THE EARLY EDITIONS Two quarto editions of King Lear appeared in the year 1608, with the following title-pages:-(i) "M. William Shak-speare: HIS | True Chronicle Historie of the life and death of King LEAR and his three Daughters. | With the unfortunate life of Edgar, fonne | and heire to the Earle of Gloster, and his sullen and assumed humor of | Toм of Bedlam: | As io was played before the Kings Maieftie at Whitehall vpon | S. Stephans night in Christmas Hollidayes. By his Maiesties Seruants playing vsually at the Gloabe | on the Bancke-fide. [Device.] LONDON, Printed for Nathaniel Butter, and are to be sold at his fhop in Pauls | Church-yard at the figne of the Pide Bull neere | St. Auftins Gate, 1608.” (ii) The title of the second quarto is almost identical with that of (i), but the device is different, and there is no allusion to the shop "at the signe of the Pide Bull.” It is now generally accepted that the "Pide Bull" quarto is the first edition of the play, but the question of priority depends on the minutest of bibliographical criteria, and the Cambridge editors were for a long time misled in their chronological order of the quartos; the problem is complicated by the fact that no two of the extant six copies of the first quarto are exactly alike; 1 they differ in having one, two, three, or four, uncorrected sheets. The Second Quarto was evidently printed from a copy of the 1 1 Capell's copy; the Duke of Devonshire's; the British Museum's two copies; the Bodleian two copies. First Quarto, having three uncorrected sheets. A reprint of this edition, with many additional errors, appeared in 1655. The Folio Edition of the play was derived from an independent manuscript, and the text, from a typographical point of view, is much better than that of the earlier editions; but it is noteworthy that some two hundred and twenty lines found in the quartos are not found in the folio, while about fifty lines in the folio are wanting in the quartos.1 Much has been written on the discrepancies between the two versions; among modern investigations perhaps the most important are those (i) Delius and (ii) Koppel; according to (i), “in the quartos we have the play as it was originally performed before King James, and before the audience of the Globe, but sadly marred by misprints, printers' sophistications, and omissions, perhaps due to an imperfect and illegible MS. In the Folio we have a later MS., belonging to the Theater, and more nearly identical with what Shakespeare wrote. The omissions of the Quartos are the blunders of the printers; the omissions of the Folios are the abridgments of the actors;" according to (ii), "it was Shakespeare's own hand that cut out many of the passages both in the Quarto text and the Folio text. The original form was, essentially, that of the Quarto, then followed a longer form, with the additions in the Folio, as substantially our modern editions have again restored them; then the shortest form, as it is preserved for us in the Folio." 2 1 To the latter class belong I. ii. 124–131; I. iv. 347–358; III. i. 22– 29; III. ii. 80-96; to the former, I. iii. 17–23; I. iv. 155–171, 256–259; II. ii. 150-153; III. vi. 19-60, 110-123; III. vii. 99–108; IV. i. 60–67; IV. ii. 31–50, 53–59, 62–69; IV. iii.; IV. vii. 88–95; V. i. 23–28; V. iii. 54-59, 207-224. Vide Prætorius' facsimiles of Q. 1 and Q. 2; Vietor's Parallel Text of Q. 1 and F. 1 (Marburg, 1886), Furness' Variorum, etc. 2 Delius' Essay appeared originally in the German Shakespeare Society Year-Book, X.; and was subsequently translated into English, (New Shak. Soc. Trans. 1875-6). |