The earliest possible composition date for King Lear is 1604, but most scholars believe it was written in 1605 or 1606. The first recorded performance of the play was in December 1606. Two of the earliest printed editions of the play-the First Quarto in 1608 and the First Folio in 1623-differ remarkably in the number of lines and whole passages included or omitted, as well as in assignment of speeches to specific characters. The tale of a legendary king Lyr, or Ler, and his three daughters appears in many English fairytale or folklore versions, as well as in Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles (1577, 1587) and John Higgins's Mirror for Magistrates (1574). In addition to these sources, Shakespeare was likely familiar with an anonymous play, The Chronicle History of King Leir, written sometime in the 1500s and published in 1605. Critics generally agree that Shakespeare derived the Gloucester subplot from Philip Sidney'sArcadia (c. 1580).
Shakespeare altered his sources freely, representing the traditional story in a unique way and introducing new characters and dramatic action. But in 1681 his version was eclipsed by Nahum Tate's adaptation. Tate eliminated the Fool and the blinding of Gloucester, introduced a love affair between Edgar and Cordelia, and brought Shakespeare's play to a "happy ending," with Cordelia's forces victorious and Lear restored to his throne. Critics as well as audiences endorsed Tate's changes, and it was nearly 150 years before Shakespeare's King Lear was restored to the British stage.
The play's tragic ending has been the focus of critical commentary through the centuries and up to the present. Some scholars have judged it as the natural culmination of Lear's suffering. Others, especially those who regard Lear as a pessimistic or nihilistic play, view the ending as proof of their argument. In contrast, critics who claim there is a providential or Christian design in Lear contend that the ending underscores the redemptive power of love. Many commentators emphasize the ambiguity of the play's ending, arguing that it reflects neither an optimistic nor a pessimistic view of life, but the mystery of human existence.
Other principal topics of critical debate include the function of the Gloucester subplot, the issue of Lear's madness, and the characters themselves. Earlier commentators tended to disparage the subplot as vulgar or distracting. Modern critics, however, generally view it as an enhancement of the principal plot. There is a broad range of opinion on Lear's madness: when it begins, its extent and effects, and even whether Lear is ever truly insane. The king's misjudgments and his progress toward self-knowledge are also frequent subjects for discussion. Although some commentators have neatly divided the other characters into categories of "good" and "evil," most contemporary scholars emphasize their subtleties and complexities.
This complete Introduction contains 453 words. This
study guide contains 88,062 words (approx. 294 pages at 300
words per page).
