King Lear (Vol. 83)
For further information on the critical and stage history of King Lear, see SC, Volumes 2, 11, 31, 46, 61, and 72.
King Lear (c. 1605-06) is widely regarded as one of Shakespeare's finest artistic achievements and is also considered by many to be his darkest tragedy. Set in ancient Britain, the plot centers upon the foolish and ultimately destructive actions of a delusional king who demands a display of love from his three daughters before dividing his kingdom among them. When his youngest daughter Cordelia refuses to take part in the empty ceremony, Lear banishes her, leaving her devious elder sisters Goneril and Regan to plot his overthrow. In the end, Lear realizes his misjudgment and dies holding the dead body of Cordelia, who is killed after she returns from France to fight for her father. Gloucester, the central figure of the play's subplot, is betrayed by his illegitimate son Edmund, blinded, and sent into the wilderness to die. Since its introduction, King Lear has confounded audiences and scholars with its seemingly hopeless conclusion. Critics remain divided on Shakespeare's intended message: while some commentators view King Lear as representing a pessimistic vision of life, others contends that the play contains an explicit message of hope and redemption. King Lear was not popular on the stage in Shakespeare's day. For more than a century an alternative version of the play, with a more optimistic ending, was performed in its place. Shakespeare's original version was restored to the stage in the mid-nineteenth century, however, and it is now one of Shakespeare's most popular plays in performance.
Shakespeare's delineation of character has long been a central component of scholarship regarding King Lear, particularly the characterization of the title figure. Terence Hawkes (1995) focuses on verbal and non-verbal communication in King Lear, contending that the play reveals a significant change in Lear's character through his movement from understanding only “explicit verbal statement” at the play's beginning to his ability to note unspoken emotions and ideas in the play's final scene. Stephen Booth (1983) illustrates how the audience's original evaluations of the characters in King Lear are thrown into question by later events, a process that mirrors Lear's misjudgment of his daughters. Examining both Lear and Gloucester, Lawrence Rosinger (1968) notes their parallel development in King Lear, pointing out that both characters initially treat others as a means of achieving self-gratification, but are able to express compassion for others by the play's end. Richard Knowles (1999) attempts to uncover Cordelia's motivation to return from France to her native country, which causes her to “lose everything, including her life,” and suggests that Shakespeare left her unexplained return purposefully ambiguous in order to enhance the play's dramatic impact.
Critics have questioned whether King Lear can be successfully staged throughout its performance history. Various issues have made this play a challenge for the stage, including its vastness and complexity as well as the difficulty in representing such elements as the character of Lear, the blinding of Gloucester, and the storm scene. Nonetheless, the play continues to be produced on a regular basis and remains one of Shakespeare's most frequently performed plays in the twenty-first century. Jonathan Miller's 2002 Stratford Festival of Canada production of King Lear drew considerable attention because of the appearance of international film and theater star Christopher Plummer in the title role. John Bemrose (2002) contends that Plummer's portrayal of Lear was “the performance of his life.” Reviewing the same production, Ben Brantley (2002) compliments the clarity, intimate tone, and quick pace of the production, but also reserves his highest praise for Plummer's Lear. In his negative review of the 2000 Alabama Shakespeare Festival staging of the play, Craig Barrow (2000) maintains that the production was weak overall and faults Barry Boys's performance as Lear, noting that the actor was “unable to communicate Lear's painful journey through madness to wisdom.” Lois Potter (2002) favorably reviews the 2001 staging of King Lear at the Globe Theatre, commenting that the production “generally felt ‘right,’ both simple and to the point.”
The controversy over the meaning of the ending of King Lear—whether it represents a negative or positive vision of life—is a major source of critical commentary. Sears Jayne (1964) advocates a pessimistic reading of King Lear, focusing on the lack of charity among the characters. Jayne views the play as an expression of “the desperate need which human beings have for each other, and their paradoxical inability to satisfy that need.” Taking an opposite view, Michael Edwards (2000) disagrees with critics who view King Lear as an expression of a godless existence, contending that the play is “an eminently Christian work” that dramatizes human imperfection and the possibility of redemption. In another Christian reading of the play, Cherrell Guilfoyle (1990) finds a message of Christian redemption in King Lear and contends that several figures in the play assume Christ-like qualities. Jonathan Dollimore (1984) argues against both Christian and humanist interpretations of King Lear, noting that “the play concludes with two events [the deaths of Cordelia and Lear] which sabotage the prospect of both closure and recuperation.” Scholars have also studied the unique dramatic structure of the play's ending. Alan Rosen (2001) examines the unconventional dramatic form of King Lear, particularly the appearance of the climax early in the play instead of at the end, where it traditionally occurs. June Schlueter (1995) discusses the conclusion of King Lear, noting that the play “both embodies and disrupts” literary conventions.
Criticism: Overviews And General Studies
SOURCE: Dollimore, Jonathan. “King Lear and Essentialist Humanism.” In William Shakespeare's King Lear, edited by Harold Bloom, pp. 71-83. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1987.
[In the following essay, originally published in 1984, Dollimore argues against Christian and humanist interpretations of King Lear, noting that “the play concludes with two events [the deaths of Cordelia and Lear] which sabotage the prospect of both closure and recuperation.”]
When he is on the heath King Lear is moved to pity. As unaccommodated man he feels what wretches feel. For the humanist the tragic paradox arises here: debasement gives rise to dignity and at the moment when Lear might be expected to be most brutalised he becomes most human. Through kindness and shared vulnerability humankind redeems itself in a universe where the gods are at best callously just, at worst sadistically vindictive.
In recent years the humanist view of Jacobean tragedies like Lear has been dominant, having more or less displaced the explicitly Christian alternative. Perhaps the most important distinction between the two is this: the Christian view locates man centrally in a providential universe; the humanist view likewise centralises man but now he is in a condition of tragic dislocation: instead of integrating (ultimately) with a teleological design created and sustained by God, man grows to...
(The entire section is 5310 words.)
Show us the love and view this for free! Use the facebook like button, or any other share button on this page, and get this content free!free!
Criticism: Character Studies
SOURCE: Rosinger, Lawrence. “Gloucester and Lear: Men who Act Like Gods.” ELH 35, no. 4 (December 1968): 491-504.
[In the following essay, Rosinger notes the parallel development of Lear and Gloucester in King Lear, pointing out that both characters initially treat others as a means of achieving self-gratification, but are able to express compassion for others by the play's end.]
One of the most debated passages in King Lear is the brief outburst in which Gloucester accuses the gods of wanton murder. Blind, homeless, and on the point of entrusting himself to an apparently half-mad beggar, he exclaims:
As flies to wanton boys are we to th' gods;
They kill us for their sport.(1)
(IV. i. 36-37)
Some writers have seen in this statement a proof of the darkly pessimistic spirit of the play, while others have marshalled arguments to show that the passage proves nothing of the sort. The fact that Gloucester's attitude is a very temporary one may be the decisive consideration in judging between these views. For it is only a few lines, and a short time, since he cried out, “O, my follies! … Kind gods, forgive me” (III. vii. 90-91). And within less than thirty lines of his accusation against the gods he prays to the heavens to punish lustful, unfeeling men of excessive wealth, as they have already punished him:...
(The entire section is 5439 words.)
Show us the love and view this for free! Use the facebook like button, or any other share button on this page, and get this content free!free!
SOURCE: Booth, Stephen. “On the Greatness of King Lear.” In William Shakespeare's King Lear, edited by Harold Bloom, pp. 57-70. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1987.
[In the following essay, originally published in 1983, Booth illustrates how the audience's original evaluations of the characters in King Lear are thrown into question by later events, a process that mirrors Lear's misjudgment of his daughters.]
To make a work of art—to give local habitation and nameability to an airy nothing or a portion of physical substance—is to make an identity. I have argued that King Lear both is and is not an identity—that our sense that it inhabits only its own mental space is countered by a sense that it and those of its elements that I have discussed are unstable, turn into or fuse into other things. The identities of the characters and our evaluations of them belong in the catalogue of elements that duplicate the simultaneously fixed and unfixed quality of the whole of King Lear. By way of transition from discussing an audience's experience of words in Lear and in support of the thesis that all the phenomena I talk about are of one general kind (that to relate an audience's conclusions about characters and events to the foregoing discussions of ends, limits, and terms is to do more than play on words), I will begin by talking about the...
(The entire section is 5792 words.)
SOURCE: Hawkes, Terence. “Something from Nothing.” In King Lear, pp. 52-7. Plymouth, U.K.: Northcote House, 1995.
[In the following essay, Hawkes focuses on verbal and non-verbal communication in King Lear, contending that the play reveals a significant change in Lear's character through his movement from understanding only “explicit verbal statement” at the play's beginning to his ability to note unspoken emotions and ideas in the play's final scene.]
That which is born out of Lear's experience takes us back to the play's beginning. Cordelia's refusal of his world of quantity and calculation had been met by the exasperated proposal that, ‘Nothing will come of nothing: speak again.’ But human beings never simply ‘speak’. Any utterance is always complicated, particularly in a pre-literate society, by the body. Its unignorable presence supplies a living and modifying context for the voice in all face-to-face communication. Drama is the art which is made out of that.
Lear's insistence upon explicit verbal statement, through words alone, thus confirms the reductive mode of his world-view—one which is utterly unable to cope with dimensions of experience lying beyond the reach of the straightforwardly expressible. In such a world, silence, or the use of non-verbal or ‘kinesic’ modes of communication as adjuncts to, or modifiers of, meaning, seems merely...
(The entire section is 2055 words.)
Criticism: Production Reviews
SOURCE: Barrow, Craig. “The 2000 Alabama Shakespeare Festival's King Lear.” Upstart Crow 20 (2000): 179-83.
[In the following review, Barrow contends that “of all the productions of King Lear done by the Alabama Shakespeare Festival, the 2000 production was the weakest.” In particular, the critic faults Barry Boys's performance as Lear, noting that the actor was “unable to communicate Lear's painful journey through madness to wisdom.”]
The day after King Lear opened at the Alabama Shakespeare Festival, Kent Thompson, the Alabama Shakespeare Festival's Artistic Director and the director of King Lear, gave a lecture in the Theatre of the Mind series on his experience directing the play in 1992 and for this season. Since I was going to see the play later that day and had seen and reviewed Thompson's 1992 King Lear as well as all previous productions of King Lear that the ASF had done, I was curious about what he thought of the play and his shaping intent in determining his production's qualities. The lecture was given in the Octagon, a theatre that seats approximately 200 in a U-shaped configuration about a thrust where King Lear would be performed later that evening. This would prove handy, since Thompson could point out features on the stage throughout his hour-long talk.
The background of the stage was filled with a cloudy sky...
(The entire section is 1516 words.)
SOURCE: Potter, Lois. “The 2001 Globe Season: Celts and Greenery.” Shakespeare Quarterly 53, no. 1 (spring 2002): 95-105.
[In the following excerpt, Potter favorably reviews the 2001 staging of King Lear at the Globe Theatre, noting that the production “generally felt ‘right,’ both simple and to the point.”]
It was something of a letdown to find that in 2001 “Shakespeare's Globe” was to be only “Shakespeare's Globe,” gesturing toward other dramatists only in playreadings that were fewer and less well-advertised than in previous years (at least, this is my explanation for my failure to get to any of them). Two thousand and one was also the year when, for some reason, the company apparently agreed not to treat the Globe as a set in its own right but to use it as if it were any other theater, apart from the fact that it happened to have a couple of big pillars on its stage. Perhaps they were tired of reading reviews that described their productions as antiquarian. At any rate, all the directors seem to have been encouraged to do whatever they liked to conceal the fact that they were performing on a reconstructed Renaissance stage. Barry Kyle, whose program note observes that King Lear does not seem much like a “Globe play,” converted the baroque tiring-house front into a stockade located in some outpost of empire. Mike Alpers's Cymbeline kept the set...
(The entire section is 1356 words.)
SOURCE: Bemrose, John. “Magical Monarch: Christopher Plummer is Superb in King Lear.” Maclean's 115, no. 36 (9 September 2002): 43.
[In the following review of the 2002 Stratford Festival production of King Lear directed by Jonathan Miller, Bemrose contends that Christopher Plummer's portrayal of Lear was “the performance of his life.”]
When Christopher Plummer strode out as King Lear on the opening night of Stratford's much-anticipated new production of Shakespeare's tragedy, no one applauded as they so often do at the Festival when a celebrity appears. Never mind that at 72, Plummer remains one of Stratford's favourite alumni, an international film and theatre star whose career, after some decades in the doldrums, has recovered magnificently of late. Never mind that the crowd seemed poised to welcome him home to the stage where he'd first triumphed almost half a century ago as the valiant young king, Henry V. There was simply no Chris Plummer in sight. Right from the start, he'd disappeared so completely into his role that the audience was swept into marvelling silence by this weirdly intent, bearded figure who hunches over a map of his kingdom like a miser over his gold, prior to dividing his realm among his daughters. When, a few minutes later, he erupts in hair-raising fury at the apparent ingratitude of his youngest, Cordelia (Sarah McVie), it's clear we're in the presence of...
(The entire section is 740 words.)
SOURCE: Brantley, Ben. “Every Inch a King, Every Moment a Revelation.” New York Times (12 September 2002): E1.
[In the following review of the 2002 Stratford Festival production of King Lear directed by Jonathan Miller, Brantley compliments the clarity, intimate tone, and quick pace of the production, but reserves his highest praise for Christopher Plummer's Lear.]
The words are spoken lightly, a punch line of sorts in a bantering exchange with a fool. Yet even as it leaves the old man's mouth, the phrase seems to return in reproachful echo: “Nothing can be made of nothing.” The smile on King Lear's face melts into cloudedness. Where has he heard those words before?
A stillness descends on the stage of the Festival Theater here as the title character of King Lear, fully embodied by the wonderful Christopher Plummer, savors his own bewilderment in an early scene in Shakespeare's bleakest tragedy. It is a brief silence, yet it feels outside time.
A window has opened into one man's mind, and for just a moment you share completely his troubled, inchoate sense of his past and his future. “Nothing will come of nothing,” Lear has said earlier, just before banishing his daughter Cordelia. Now, in Mr. Plummer's abstracted expression, there is a premonition of what lies ahead for King Lear, and its frightening name is “nothing.”
(The entire section is 1319 words.)
SOURCE: Jayne, Sears. “Charity in King Lear.” Shakespeare Quarterly 15, no. 2 (spring 1964): 277-88.
[In the following essay, Jayne advocates a pessimistic reading of King Lear, focusing on the lack of charity among the characters.]
In Christopher Morley's novel, The Haunted Bookshop,1 the proprietor of the shop, confessing that he has never read King Lear, gives as his reason, “If I were ever very ill, I would only need to say to myself, ‘You can't die yet, you haven't read Lear.’” The judgment implied in this remark is, of course, that of a man who has read the play, and is perfectly sound in its suggestion that King Lear belongs among the extremities of human experience. It is a play of the most shattering impact. Violent in language and even more violent in action, it staggers the sensibilities with a relentless torrent of quarrels, curses, stabbings, and a blinding. It is as though Shapespeare had herded his characters into a special corrall2 and set out to flay them alive. Lashing and raking them, he writes with a reckless fury rarely seen in his other plays.
What is the object of Shakespeare's rage in King Lear? The play has several important themes, including the dangers of political disorder,3 the infirmities of old age,4 conflicting conceptions of nature,5...
(The entire section is 5831 words.)
SOURCE: Frye, Dean. “The Context of Lear's Unbuttoning.” ELH 32, no. 1 (March 1965): 17-31.
[In the following essay, Frye examines the images of clothing in King Lear, noting the importance of clothing as an element of disguise in Shakespearean drama.]
Everyone feels that the moment when Lear begins to tear off his clothes on seeing Poor Tom is one of almost unlimited significance. The gesture is related to images of clothing that run throughout the play, so here action and poetry meet and reinforce one another. And they convey both emotion and idea in a way which makes the two inseparable. Here is one of the moments at which it is most clear, as clear as that Shakespeare is not a “dramatist of ideas,” that he is a dramatist of attitudes. In perfectly realistic fashion, passions in Shakespeare are regularly related, as cause or effect, to what Arthur Sewell calls “addresses to the world.”1 Generally, abstract formulations that are the equivalents of these attitudes exist in the history of ideas and may provide, not the meaning or cause of the passion, but a background to the attitude and perhaps a vocabulary for its expression. Elizabethan drama characteristically such a drama of attitudes, which gives it some of the quality that is called “universality,” not only the universality of the passions imitated, but also their tendency to point beyond themselves. Lear's...
(The entire section is 5822 words.)
SOURCE: Wittreich, Joseph. “The Reversal of All Histories.” In “Image of That Horror”: History, Prophecy, and Apocalypse in King Lear, pp. 14-46. San Marino, Calif.: Huntington Library, 1984.
[In the following essay, Wittreich suggests that King Lear is a veiled commentary on the actions of King James I, especially his attempt to unite England, Scotland, and Wales. The critic also emphasizes the influence of the New Testament's Book of Revelation on the play, particularly the idea of the Apocalypse.]
The darkness at first has shape, but … falls at last into that Chaos in which the world will end … Here … unrolls … the history of a great King … who, through the darkness of the mind, reaches the Night of the Soul (but not that which is known by the Saints)—and, through the Night of the Soul, reaches the light.
Consider the title page for the 1608 quarto edition of King Lear:
M. William Shak-speare: / HIS / True Chronicle Historie of the life and / death of King LEAR and his three / Daughters. / With the vnfortunate life of Edgar … and his / sullen and assumed humor of / TOM of Bedlam: / As it was played before the Kings Maiestie at Whitehall vpon / S. Stephans night in Christmas Hollidayes. / By his Maiesties...
(The entire section is 16502 words.)
SOURCE: Guilfoyle, Cherrell. “The Redemption of King Lear.” In Shakespeare's Play within Play: Medieval Imagery and Scenic Form in Hamlet, Othello, and King Lear, pp. 111-27. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Western Michigan University Medieval Institute Publications, 1990.
[In the following essay, Guilfoyle examines the theme of Christian redemption in King Lear and contends that several figures in the play assume Christ-like qualities.]
The title of this paper is a quotation from A. C. Bradley's lecture on King Lear: “Should we,” he asked, call “this poem The Redemption of King Lear?”1 Bradley was not alone in detecting an underlying thread of Christian imagery in a play which Shakespeare, working largely from a Christian version of the old story, seemed resolute to express in overtly pagan terms. J. C. Maxwell wrote: “King Lear is a Christian play about a pagan world.”2
Shakespeare's principal source, The True Chronicle Historie of King Leir and his three daughters, was a play set in Britain, ruled by a Christian king. In King Lear, there is no direct indication that the king and his entourage are Christians; on the contrary, the king swears by Jupiter, and there are several references to “the gods.” But Shakespeare appears to have made a double move, first reverting from the Christian Leir of The True...
(The entire section is 7996 words.)
SOURCE: Schlueter, June. “The Promised End.” In Dramatic Closure: Reading the End, pp. 13-18. Cranbury, N.J.: Associated University Presses, 1995.
[In the following essay, Schlueter discusses the conclusion of King Lear, noting that the play “both embodies and disrupts” literary conventions.]
All friends shall taste
The wages of their virtue, and all foes
The cup of their deservings. …
In Shakespeare's King Lear, the final sequence, beginning with Lear's howls and culminating in his death, may well compose the most powerful image of the play. The death of Cordelia, who earlier exchanged love and forgiveness with her father, astonishes even a reader expecting a tragic ending, for she, like Lear, has become “Great thing of us forgot!” (5.3.240).1 Diverted and preoccupied by the unfolding events, the reader gives little thought to the Captain sent off to do “man's work” (5.3.40) or to Edmund's pending hope to do some good. When father and daughter do reappear, Cordelia hanged, the shattering spectacle urges the reader to feel that if this is the “promis'd end” (5.3.267)—of the world or of Lear and Cordelia—then there is no redeeming of sorrow and no hope of cosmic justice.
Never has the prevailing vision of Edgar, the primary spokesman of conventional consolations, seemed so shockingly...
(The entire section is 2128 words.)
SOURCE: Knowles, Richard. “Cordelia's Return.” Shakespeare Quarterly 50, no. 1 (spring 1999): 33-50.
[In the following essay, Knowles examines Cordelia's unexplained return to England in King Lear, suggesting that Shakespeare purposefully left the matter ambiguous in order to enhance the play's dramatic impact.]
I wish to consider a particular textual and structural problem in King Lear, concerning an event that happens offstage, out of the audience's sight or hearing, and yet upon which the whole outcome of the play depends. As everyone knows, in Act 1 King Lear's favorite daughter Cordelia is suddenly disowned by her father, scorned and dismissed by her sisters, and deprived of any claim to British land or power. Then, just as suddenly, her fortunes are reversed: she is taken to wife by a noble and loving man, is thereby made queen of the great country of France, and is forthwith moved safely away from her father's wrath and her sisters' malice. Why then should she return so soon, almost instantly, to her native country, now alien and hostile to her, only to lose everything, including her life? The tragic genre requires it, of course; she must return in order to die and in order for her death to overwhelm Lear. History also required it: in all of Shakespeare's apparent sources she returns—though more happily, restoring Lear to his throne for several years and then succeeding him. In...
(The entire section is 10280 words.)
SOURCE: Viguers, Susan. “The Storm in King Lear.” CLA Journal 43, no. 3 (March 2000): 338-66.
[In the following essay, Viguers theorizes how the storm scene in King Lear would have been staged during Shakespeare's time and maintains that many modern presentations ignore important staging clues in the text.]
The past twenty years have made us acutely aware of written texts as problematic, a perception given even more obvious weight in regard to King Lear by the existence of two primary texts, the First Quarto and the First Folio, and the argument that they represent different playwright-created versions of the play. And, of course, once we look at the play not as literature but as theater, as this article is doing, its problematic status is compounded. Theatrical performance is less stable than literature or even another performance medium such as film. “When one puts on a play,” comments Peter Brook in The Open Door, “inevitably, at the beginning it has no form, it is just words on paper or ideas. The event is the shaping of the form. What one calls the work is the search for the right form. If this work is successful, the result can eventually last for a few years, but no more.”1 Although concerned with modern productions of the play, the argument of this article begins with the play's original form on Shakespeare's stage—which takes us even further...
(The entire section is 9118 words.)
SOURCE: Edwards, Michael. “King Lear and Christendom.” Christianity & Literature 50, no. 1 (autumn 2000): 15-29.
[In the following essay, Edwards disagrees with critics who view King Lear as an expression of a godless existence, contending that the play is “an eminently Christian work” that dramatizes human imperfection and the possibility of redemption.]
Christians are well placed to know that reading, like writing, is never innocent. How we understand a literary work reveals what we think literature to be (why it exists, what it is doing in the world); it also reveals how we conceive of Christianity. The way successive generations approach particular works and reflect in general on literary practice and theory offers more than a study in cultural history. The variety of opinion shows how important it is to think hard about the basic questions, and especially about what kind of world we believe we are living in.
Consider King Lear. Well before a number of directors and critics of the 1960s interpreted William Shakespeare's play as if it had been written by Samuel Beckett or Jean Genet (having missed, into the bargain, the humanity and the untiring, strangely perceptive religious search of the former), there were comments on its closeness to Seneca's “hopeless fatalism” (Eliot), its “hopeless cry to the deaf Heavens for...
(The entire section is 7219 words.)
SOURCE: Rosen, Alan. “King Lear Without End: Shakespeare, Dramatic Theory, and the Role of Catastrophe.” In Dislocating the End: Climax, Closure and the Invention of Genre, pp. 6-26. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2001.
[In the following essay, Rosen examines the unconventional dramatic form of King Lear, particularly the appearance of the climax early in the play instead of at the end, where it traditionally occurs.]
That catastrophe informs the substance and texture of King Lear is clear. First performed in 1605-1606, a few years after James I assumed the throne, the play begins with a kingdom ruled by a majestic figure, presiding over a court of respectful and obedient subjects. However, the respect and obedience that grace Lear's court quickly dissipates; soon there is bitter internecine rivalry and eventually civil and international war. Meanwhile, the characters most worthy of our sympathy are subjected to brutality, afflicted with madness, and separated from those to whom they are closest. Even when reconciliation is in the offing, Shakespeare, deviating from his sources, makes sure that death has the upper hand. Furthermore, as if one story of affliction were not enough, Shakespeare adds a subplot (the story of the Duke of Gloucester and his sons) in which the cruelty is, if anything, more raw and intense. By doubling the tragedy, some commentators suggest,...
(The entire section is 8746 words.)
Buechner, Frederick. “King Lear.” Speak What We Feel (Not What We Ought to Say): Reflections on Literature and Faith, pp. 125-54. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001.
Provides an overview of the principal themes in King Lear, focusing on its mix of tragic and comic elements.
Conrad, Peter. “Expatriating Lear.” In To Be Continued: Four Stories and Their Survival, pp. 95-152. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
Investigates the influence of King Lear on seventeenth- and eighteenth-century works of literature and film.
Craig, Leon Harold. “The Perils of Political Improvisation.” In Of Philosophers and Kings: Political Philosophy in Shakespeare's Macbeth and King Lear, pp. 113-33. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001.
Analyzes the political implications of Lear's decision to divide his kingdom.
Halio, Jay L. Introduction to The Tragedy of King Lear, edited by Jay L. Halio, pp. 1-89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Overview of King Lear that discusses its sources and themes and compares passages from the Quarto and Folio versions of the play.
Hamilton, Sharon. “Plighted Cunning, Playing the Good Girl Role: The Taming of the Shrew and King Lear.”...
(The entire section is 408 words.)