Nahum Tate c. 1652-1715
(Born Nahum Teate; also known as Nathaniel or Nat Tate; wrote as N. Tate) Irish playwright, poet, essayist, and librettist.
Tate's History of King Lear (1681) is widely considered the best-known, most successful, and most maligned adaptation of a Shakespeare work. For 150 years after its first production, Tate's adaptation dominated the stage, and contemporary audiences preferred it to the original. Nevertheless, the term “Tatefication,” coined in the nineteenth century, describes the practice of attempting to improve upon, but actually harming, Shakespeare's texts. Modern critics have shown interest in Tate's work mainly because of the insight it offers on the stage history of King Lear—much contemporary staging of Shakespeare's Lear is indebted to Tate's version. While Tate produced an enormous body of work in many genres, only his adaptations of Shakespeare have garnered critical attention—Tate's adaptations of Shakespeare provide insights into seventeenth-century tastes and the stage history of Shakespeare's plays.
Tate was born in Dublin in 1652, the son of Faithful Teate, a clergyman, and Katherine Kenetie Teate. Faithful Teate was rector of Castleterra, Ballyhaise, until the Catholic rebellion of 1641; when Teate informed on a group of rebels, they responded by plundering the Teates' home, resulting in the deaths of three of their children. Tate probably spent his early childhood in both England and Ireland, although details of his life before 1672 are uncertain. He likely entered Trinity College, Dublin, in 1668, and in 1672 moved to London to become a writer. It was at this time that he changed his name to Tate. He began publishing poems in 1676, issuing a volume of collected verse in 1677. The following year, his first play, Brutus of Alba; or, The Enchanted Lovers was produced. It was by all accounts a critical and commercial failure. After the failure of his second dramatic effort, The Loyal General (1679), Tate turned from composing original dramatic works to adapting Renaissance texts. In 1681 his adaptations of Shakespeare's King Lear, Richard II, and Coriolanus were produced for the stage. Tate's Lear was a success, but his Richard II was banned after two performances and his version of Coriolanus failed to attract audiences. Tate continued to compose and adapt plays, but apart from the modest popularity of the farce A Duke and No Duke (1684), they failed to achieve popular success. In 1692 Tate was appointed poet laureate, and spent much of the rest of his career writing poetry to commemorate birthdays and other occasions for noble personages. He also collaborated with his mentor John Dryden, among others, on translations of Latin classics, edited various collections of poetry, and wrote literary criticism. He produced two important works during this period, A New Version of the Psalms of David (1696) in collaboration with the clergyman Nicholas Brady, and the mock-heroic A Poem Upon Tea (1700). Despite his appointment as laureate, Tate was plagued with financial problems during his last years. In 1713 he founded a poetry journal, The Monitor, but it published only a few issues. Tate died at the Mint, the area of London where debtors could stay without fear of arrest, on July 30, 1715.
Tate produced an enormous body of work, but little of it is thoroughly studied by modern critics. The work for which he is best known is The History of King Lear. In his preface to the play, Tate describes Shakespeare's text as “a Heap of Jewels, unstrung and unpolisht; yet so dazling in their Disorder, that I soon perceiv’d that I had seiz’d a Treasure,” and explains the principles underlying his changes, which he would later apply to his other adaptations of Renaissance texts. Tate rejects Shakespeare's disregard for poetic justice, and thus provides the play with a happy ending: Cordelia and Edgar marry, and Lear leaves his kingdom to them. Tate also adapted Shakespeare's language for the more refined taste of the late seventeenth century, and clarified the motivations for characters' actions. One of the most significant omissions in Tate's version is the character of the Fool, who brings an element of levity to Shakespeare's play. The changes Tate made in his version of Lear were intended to bring the play closer to seventeenth century tastes in tragedy. Although the work has been maligned by critics through the ages, it has also been the most successful Shakespearean adaptation of all time. For 150 years, well into the eighteenth century, audiences preferred it to the original; as Johnson noted, “In the present case, the publick has decided.” In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, theaters returned to Shakespeare's originals, and there was considerable resentment against the many Restoration writers who had attempted to improve on the Bard's works. The word “Tatefication” was coined to describe such revisions. However, Tate's Lear continued to play a such major part in the performance history of Shakespeare's play that elements of his version are retained in stagings to this day.
King Richard II, Tate's second Shakespeare adaptation, did not enjoy the same success. Tate's Richard II is a far more sympathetic character than Shakespeare's, as he tries to spare his subjects from civil war. Plays about usurpation were never popular with the crown, however, and the timing of Tate's Richard II was particularly bad—the play appeared during the Exclusion Crisis, when political parties were divided over whether to exclude the duke of York from the royal succession. The play was banned after two performances, but Tate reissued the play after changing the names of the characters, moving the location to Sicily, and retitling it The Sicilian Usurper and The Tyrant of Sicily. However, the changes made were not significant enough, and the authorities reimposed the ban. The Ingratitude of a Commonwealth, Tate's version of Shakespeare's Coriolanus, is a melodramatic work of political intrigue. The central character represents the duke of York, and the play is an apology for Tory political ideas. Although the authorities did not ban the work, it failed to become a popular success.
Tate's original dramatic works, Brutus of Alba, a reworking of the story of Dido and Aeneas, and The Loyal General, about a weak king opposed by his adulterous queen, were not popular during their own time and are of scant interest today. Tate's libretto for the opera Dido and Aeneas, a collaboration with composer Henry Purcell, has achieved some measure of critical success. The work was adapted from part of Virgil's Aeneid. Dido and Aeneas, was the first true English opera and is generally considered a masterpiece. Although the significance of Tate's contribution to the work is considered minimal by many, some critics have argued that he deserves credit for writing one of the great librettos in English. Tate's other adaptations of dramatic tragedies were failures, but his comic farce A Duke and No Duke (1684), adapted from Trappolin Supposed a Prince by Aston Cokain, was well liked by audiences. Tate's “Preface Concerning Farce”—the introduction to the 1693 edition of A Duke and No Duke—was one of the first attempts in English to explain and defend the genre.
Despite his status as poet laureate and the enormous popularity of The History of King Lear, critics have generally considered Tate a poor writer. Alexander Pope attacked his poetry in the Dunciad, and Sir Walter Scott said of him: “He is one of those second-rate bards who, by dint of pleonasm and expletive, can find smooth lines if any one will supply ideas.” There has been general critical agreement that Tate was not an original writer or thinker, and that his strongest efforts were produced in collaboration with those who supplied the creative ideas. The first full-length study of Tate's life and career, by Christopher Spencer, appeared in 1972, and acknowledged the inferior quality of the laureate's writing. The vast majority of critical studies on Tate have centered on his adaptations of Shakespeare, particularly his King Lear. The interest in the work is less a testament to Tate's abilities as a playwright than an abiding interest in Shakespeare. Critics have noted that Tate's adaptation has had a significant impact on the reading and staging of Shakespeare's work. It is argued by some critics that the interiority of King Lear as he is presented by most actors is not so much a product of Shakespeare's script as audiences' and actors' familiarity with the character as he is presented in Tate's version. The “heath” on which so much of the important action in stagings of Shakespeare's play takes place is also a construct credited to Tate. Some critics have maintained that Tate's adaptation is better than it is often assumed to be. They claim that the play must be read as an individual work, not merely in relation to Shakespeare's original. Tate is also praised by several scholars for his talent as a librettist. They argue that while the verse dialogue in Dido and Aeneas is not particularly interesting if read as poetry, Tate's words are appropriate for a musical drama. In general, critics regard Tate as a mediocre writer, but continue to take interest in his works because of the light they shed on those he imitated and collaborated with.
Poems (poetry) 1677; revised and enlarged as Poems Written on Several Occasions, 1684
Brutus of Alba; or, The Enchanted Lovers (play) 1678
The Loyal General (play) 1679
*Ovid's Epistles, Translated by Several Hands [co-translator] (poetry) 1680
The History of King Lear [adaptor; from King Lear by William Shakespeare] (play) 1681
†The History of King Richard II [adaptor; from Richard II by William Shakespeare] (play) 1681
The Ingratitude of a Commonwealth [adaptor; from Coriolanus by William Shakespeare] (play) 1681
The Second Part of Absalom and Achitophel [with John Dryden] (poetry) 1682
A Duke and No Duke [adaptor; from Trappolin Supposed a Prince by Aston Cokain] (play) 1684
Cuckold's Haven [adaptor; from Eastward Ho! by Ben Jonson, John Chapman, and John Marston] (play) 1685
Poems by Several Hands, and on Several Occasions [editor and contributor] (poetry) 1685
‡The Æthiopian History of Heliodorus. In Ten Books [co-translator; from Æthiopics by Heliodorus] (prose) 1686; also published as The Triumphs of Love and Constancy, 1687
Syphilis: or, A Poetical History of the French Disease...
(The entire section is 563 words.)
SOURCE: Austin, Wiltshire Stanton, and John Ralph. “Nahum Tate.” In The Lives of the Poets-Laureate: With an Introductory Essay on the Title and Office, pp. 196-222. London: Richard Bentley, 1853.
[In the following essay, Austin and Ralph offer an overview of Tate's life and literary career, suggesting that while his literary merit is limited, he has been misrepresented and deserves more respect than he has received.]
It is amusing, if not edifying, to observe the manner in which all works of general reference, save a very few, repeat in regular succession the idlest inventions, and the clumsiest distortions of fact. In literary history this is especially the case, and we can trace in dictionary after dictionary, life after life, note upon note, some blunder copied with slight variations by book-makers, who lacked the honest industry to investigate, or the ingenuity to detect falsehood.
So because Tate was put into the Dunciad, and Warburton sought to crush him, he has ever since been treated as a malefactor and impostor. In The Pictorial History of England he is described as “the author of the worst alteration of Shakespeare, the worst version of the Psalms of David, and the worst continuation of a great poem.” Now it nevertheless does so happen, that his alteration of King Lear kept possession of the stage for nearly a century, and that Dr. Johnson admits...
(The entire section is 8268 words.)
SOURCE: Spencer, Hazelton. “Tate's Adaptations.” In Shakespeare Improved: The Restoration Versions in Quarto and on the Stage, pp. 241-73. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927.
[In the following excerpt, Spencer presents an analysis of Tate's adaptations of Shakespeare, detailing how his versions of King Lear, Richard II, and Coriolanus differ from the originals.]
1. KING LEAR
For half a century after the death of Sir William D'Avenant, every one of the poets laureate took a hand in improving Shakespeare. … The name of [Nahum Tate] lives in the hymnals. His treatment of Shakespeare's lines is even worse than his doggerel rendering of David's—the pompous substantive, “Tatefication,” has been coined expressly to describe his bungling.1
Though apparently not the first acted, Tate's Lear was the first written of his adaptations; this is evident from the epistle dedicatory to his Richard II. It was printed in quarto in 1681, the year of its production at Dorset Garden.2 The epistolary dedication is one of a number of documents in which the Restoration adapters explain their mental processes. Tate confesses to embarrassment in finding it necessary to provide dialogue for the old characters in his new scenes. But this humility is not evident as he deals with structure:
(The entire section is 9904 words.)
SOURCE: Scott-Thomas, H. F. “Nahum Tate and the Seventeenth Century.” ELH 1, no. 3 (December 1934): 250-75.
[In the following essay, Scott-Thomas argues that Tate's work clung to the Elizabethan past, that he struggled unsuccessfully to explore in his writings newer ideas and modes, and that his psychological and intellectual preoccupation with the past resulted in a superficial quality in his writing.]
The Restoration contains an appreciable quantity of literary expressions irreducible to the dominant forces at work in the epoch. … The Restoration is unable to forget the Renaissance. Not only does it preserve in its innermost self this subconscious remembrance, but it also possesses the other's creative faculties in a latent state, inhibited but always ready to reawaken; and under one form or another, through the artistic expressions of the moment, this secret quality allows itself to be seen or divined.1
The work of the Laureate, Nahum Tate, was the product of this quality. He stands, Janus-like, with one face turned towards the past and the other looking to the future. Psychologically, he was entirely out of sympathy with the popular modes. Limited intellectual power put rationalism, neo-classical ideals, and the new scientific method almost entirely beyond his reach, and left him bathing himself in the tepid waters of his own equally...
(The entire section is 9352 words.)
SOURCE: Spencer, Christopher. “A Word for Tate's King Lear.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 3, no. 1 (winter 1963): 241-51.
[In the following essay, Spencer claims that Tate's King Lear should not be dismissed as hackery and a mutilation of Shakespeare's version, arguing that the play is coherent, entertaining, and has its own plan.]
In 1959 Kenneth Muir remarked of Tate's King Lear, “The beautiful scene in which the King of France receives the despised and rejected Cordelia is cut, presumably because there was no room for a rival to her affections. … [And Tate] provides a scene with Lear and Cordelia in prison, lest we should be unable to imagine it from Lear's words before and after the death of Cordelia.”1 Whatever the value of this criticism for Shakespeare's play, it is irrelevant to the adaptation. Since Cordelia is pursued and won by Edgar in Tate's version, what happens to France is not a question of “room” but of relevance: France's presence in the adaptation would be absurd. And since Cordelia does not die in Tate's play, the scene we are to “imagine” is not suggested by “Lear's words before and after the death of Cordelia” (which does not take place). The critic is obviously thinking only of Shakespeare's play; yet at stake here is the taste of about five generations of our theater-going ancestors, who supported the adaptation on...
(The entire section is 4035 words.)
SOURCE: Black, James. “The Influence of Hobbes on Nahum Tate's King Lear.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 7, no. 3 (summer 1967): 377-85.
[In the following essay, Black examines the influence of the philosopher Thomas Hobbes on Tate as he was writing his King Lear, maintaining that Hobbesian ideas are seen most clearly in the character of Edmund.]
Nahum Tate's famous adaptation of Shakespeare's King Lear has recently been the object of renewed critical attention.1 Up to now, however, no one has commented upon the decided influence which the writings of Thomas Hobbes appear to have had upon Tate at the time2 when he undertook to reduce Shakespeare's great tragedy into his own History of King Lear. This influence shows up most clearly in the modifications made by Tate in the character of Edmund, who is the one figure of real literary interest in the adaptation.
There are indications that Tate had studied at least Hobbes's aesthetic ideas, perhaps following in the intellectual path of his friend and mentor Dryden, who was a friend and keen student of Hobbes. For example, Tate's use of Hobbesian aesthetic ideas has been observed by Clarence Thorpe: “Writing [in 1689] in praise of Cowley's Six Books of Plants, Nahum Tate uses the terms ‘wit,’ ‘fancy,’ and ‘judgment’ in a quite Hobbian manner.”3...
(The entire section is 3343 words.)
SOURCE: Sharkey, Peter L. “Performing Nahum Tate's King Lear: Coming Hither by Going Hence.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 54, no. 4 (December 1968): 398-403.
[In the following essay, Sharkey examines a 1967 staging of Tate's King Lear, revealing the influence of stage history on modern versions of Shakespeare's Lear.]
Producing Nahum Tate's seventeenth-century adaptation of Shakespeare's King Lear illustrates how much past stage history affects our modern view of Lear. Over the years popular tragedians of the English and American stages developed a declamatory acting style that was born of Tate's modifications, and their success profoundly influenced the philosophy of producing Shakespearean tragedy. Neither the restoration of Shakespeare's text nor a change in rhetorical fashion could reverse a trend started by Tate and fully realized in the radical internalization of Shakespeare's dramaturgy in the modern theatre. The experimental production by students at the University of California, Berkeley, traces another source of the narrowness of the historically influential concept that the generative kernel of each Shakespearean tragedy is to be found solely in the pathology of the central character.
The revival of Tate's operatic version at Berkeley last year was probably the first in over a century. Perhaps it has taken that long to forgive those who...
(The entire section is 3382 words.)
SOURCE: Green, Lawrence D. “‘Where's My Fool?’—Some Consequences of the Omission of the Fool in Tate's Lear.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 12, no. 2 (spring 1972): 259-74.
[In the following essay, Green argues that the omission of the Fool in Tate's King Lear resulted in more focus on the internal workings of Lear's mind, an element that has been retained in productions of Shakespeare's play.]
The major differences between Shakespeare's King Lear and Nahum Tate's redaction of it in 1681 are often viewed with either amusement or horror, and then dismissed as long-gone aberrations of little consequence. Tate's substitution of a happy ending for the play and his addition of a romance between Edgar and Cordelia have shared most of this attention, but his omission of the Fool may be his most enduring influence on King Lear. The Fool has almost all his scenes with Lear, and many of Lear's lines develop as direct or indirect responses to the Fool's dialogue or actions. The omission of the Fool would seem to require considerable alterations of these lines, but comparison of Tate's text with Shakespeare's shows that Lear's lines are substantially intact. The isolation of these lines from their context suggests strange changes for both Lear and the play.
In actual productions actors found it necessary to reconstruct for themselves the context that...
(The entire section is 5852 words.)
SOURCE: Spencer, Christopher. “Short Poems and Translations of Ovid and Juvenal” and “A Poem upon Tea.” In Nahum Tate, pp. 41-53; 141-45. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1972.
[In the following essay, Spencer discusses the two editions of Tate's Poems and his translations of Latin classics, which the critic says show that Tate was not particularly creative or original but had considerable talent for collaboration. The critic then examines Tate's mock-heroic poem, A Poem upon Tea, and offers a brief assessment of the author's place in English literary history.]
SHORT POEMS AND TRANSLATIONS OF OVID AND JUVENAL
Of the sixty-nine pieces in the first edition of Tate's Poems (1677), about half belong to the tradition of melancholy verse that reaches back to the early years of the seventeenth century and forward to the period of Tate's laureateship around 1700, a time whose “widespread fondness for melancholy subjects in literature” and for funeral elegies has been emphasized by Amy Reed and by J. W. Draper.1 The publication of Robert Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy in an eighth edition the year before Tate's poems appeared testifies to the continuing interest in the subject. However, the most respectable and most talented writer of this kind of verse during the 1670's was Tate's friend Flatman, who wrote of death so often that, when...
(The entire section is 6151 words.)
SOURCE: McGugan, Ruth. Introduction to Nahum Tate and the Coriolanus Tradition in English Drama, with a Critical Edition of Tate's The Ingratitude of a Common-Wealth, pp. v-cvii. New York: Garland Publishing, 1987.
[In the following excerpt, McGugan comments on Tate's life and reputation, and discusses his adaptations and scholarly responses to his works.]
NAHUM TATE'S LIFE AND REPUTATION
Perhaps the most striking similarity between Tate and Shakespeare is the paucity of intimate biographical details that historians can provide for either man. Official documents contain some vital statistics, and their publications testify to how they spent their working time, but of their private lives, little is known. The popular conjecture is that anyone whose literary work is as vital as Shakespeare's must have been a lively personality, and the process of reconstructing it has been a fascinating and creatively fruitful project for such researchers as Spurgeon. The case is quite different with Tate. Few have ventured beyond, the DNB account, and only Samuel A. Golden has produced substantial amplification of it. However, after reviewing “the scant material available,” Golden concludes that “the conception of Tate need not be indistinct … [but is] rather, the clear impression of a man who led a dull, hard life with few moments of happiness as he laboured to exchange his...
(The entire section is 7952 words.)
SOURCE: Viator, Timothy J. “Nahum Tate's Richard II.” Theatre Notebook 42, no. 3 (1988): 109-17.
[In the following essay, Viator presents a stage history of Tate's Richard II, which he says reveals important facts about the monarchy's attitude toward the stage and censorship practices during the Restoration.]
The stage history of Nahum Tate's The History of King Richard the Second has long been improperly understood. According to The London Stage, the King's Company produced Tate's adaptation as The Sicilian Usurper in December 1680 and, after the censors banned it, as The Tyrant of Sicily in January 1681. Robert D. Hume suggests, however, that the December dates “are a misconstruction from confusing evidence”.1 After Charles Killigrew, the Master of the Revels, refused to license the play as Richard II, Hume argues, the King's Company staged it twice in January 1681 as The Sicilian Usurper, for which performances, the Earl of Arlington (Sir Henry Bennet), the Lord Chamberlain, silenced the King's Company for ten days. Thus, Tate's Richard II raises three questions: 1) Why did the original revised scripts trouble the Court's censors? 2) Why did the King's Company decide to stage The Sicilian Usurper? 3) And why did the Lord Chamberlain close Drury Lane? The answers to these questions reveal important evidence for...
(The entire section is 4537 words.)
SOURCE: Olsen, Thomas G. “Apolitical Shakespeare; or, The Restoration Coriolanus.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 38, no. 3 (summer 1998): 411-25.
[In the following essay, Olsen argues that Tate's Coriolanus is particularly important because it is representative of political and aesthetic tendencies on the Restoration stage.]
Several recent critical studies of Shakespeare's historical evolution into the figure Michael Dobson calls “the national poet” have considerably enriched our understanding of how Shakespearean adaptations functioned politically and culturally on the Restoration stage. Previously, and in the shadow of early-twentieth-century critics such as George C. D. Odell and Hazelton Spencer, abstract aesthetic considerations had dominated scholarly discussion of late-seventeenth-century productions of Shakespeare, an analytical tradition in which Restoration standards were almost invariably disparaged in comparison with those of the Renaissance.1
Given such a critical climate, it is not surprising that Nahum Tate's adaptation of Coriolanus has long been overlooked, even though Tate as much as John Dryden (both poets laureate, incidentally) has come to stand for the aesthetic principles upon which the Restoration Shakespeare has usually been judged and found wanting. What is more surprising, however, is that even recent scholarship...
(The entire section is 6202 words.)
SOURCE: Massai, Sonia. “Nahum Tate's Revision of Shakespeare's King Lears.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 40, no. 3 (summer 2000): 435-50.
[In the following essay, Massai examines Tate's use of different versions of Shakespeare's King Lear in his revision of the play.]
In his 1975 edition of The History of King Lear (1681), James Black could still claim that Nahum Tate's notorious adaptation was “one of the most famous unread plays in English.”1 Since then, mainly as a result of an unprecedented interest in the afterlife of the Shakespearean text,2The History of King Lear has been studied both in relation to the changed stage and dramatic conventions of Restoration theaters and for its historical and political significance.3 Despite this revival of critical interest in Shakespearean adaptations and Christopher Spencer's advocacy of Tate,4 the stigma of mediocrity which was first associated with Tate in the nineteenth century still discourages critics and editors alike from investigating Tate's competence as a professional reader of Shakespeare.
Tate had the privilege of reading and adapting Shakespeare's King Lear in a preconflationist age, when no theory about the origin of the copy texts behind the Quarto or the Folio had been advanced. His adaptation is the only surviving instance of a...
(The entire section is 6533 words.)
SOURCE: Hardman, C. B. “‘Our Drooping Country Now Erects Her Head’: Nahum Tate's History of King Lear.” Modern Language Review 95, no. 4 (October 2000): 913-23.
[In the following essay, Hardman examines the changes made by Tate to Edmund, Edgar, and Albany in King Lear, considering how Tate's audience might have responded to the characters in light of contemporary political events.]
It was once thought that ‘political considerations’ had ‘a minimum of direct effect’ on Tate's rewriting of King Lear.1 However, for some time now critics have attended to the play's contemporary political significance, placing it squarely in the political context of its period, and particularly of the exclusion crisis in the 1680s.2 This article seeks to extend the discussion of Tate's rewriting of Edmund, Edgar, and Albany and to consider how a contemporary audience might have read them in the light of the politics of the day; for however Shakespeare's audience would have reacted to them, even names could sometimes suggest something different by the 1680s.
Tate seems to have consulted both quarto and folio versions of Shakespeare's play.3 Beginning with the quarto, he then turned to the folio, where the conclusion is precipitated not by invasion but by civil war, which was more to his purpose, and developed that somewhat (iv.2.100). In...
(The entire section is 5963 words.)
SOURCE: Fisk, Deborah Payne, and Jessica Munns. “‘Clamorous with War and Teeming with Empire’: Purcell and Tate's Dido and Aeneas.” Eighteenth-Century Life 26, no. 2 (spring 2002): 23-44.
[In the following essay, Fisk and Munns explore issues of gender and imperialism, the costs of conquest, and the emotional experience of loss in Dido and Aeneas.]
Two notorious problems have beset Dido and Aeneas: assessing its possible political allusions and possible political meanings, and assigning a date for its premiere performance. Early in the last century, W. Barclay Squire argued that the epilogue pointed to the revolution of 1688.1 Other critics have since maintained that the prologue's stage directions for Phoebus' rising “Over the Sea,” his remarks to Venus that her “lustre … half Eclipses mine” (I.14-15), and the Act I song “When Monarchs unite how happy their State / They Triumph at once on [or'e] their Foes and their Fate” (I.20-21) refer to the arrival of William III and to his joint monarchy with Mary.2 Other political interpretations not only link the work's first performance date to the coronation of William and Mary in April 1689, but also argue that the Sorceress' machinations allude to new Catholic plots, while Aeneas' abandonment of Dido warns William III against neglecting England—although it should be noted that that would have...
(The entire section is 8740 words.)
Adler, Doris. “The Half-Life of Tate in King Lear.” Kenyon Review 7, no. 3 (summer 1985): 52-6.
Argues that many of the conventions in Tate's King Lear remain in modern stage productions of Shakespeare's version.
Black, James. “An Augustan Stage History: Nahum Tate's King Lear.” Restoration and Eighteenth Century Theatre Research 6, no. 1 (May 1967): 36-54.
Comments on the eighteenth-century stage versions of Tate's King Lear.
Canfield, J. Douglas. “Royalism's Last Dramatic Stand: English Political Tragedy, 1679-89.” Studies in Philology 82, no. 2 (spring 1985): 234-63.
Argues that many of the works by major and minor dramatists from 1679 to 1689 were feudal and patriarchal; uses Tate's Loyal General and King Lear as examples.
Craven, Robert R. “Nahum Tate's Third Dido and Aeneas: The Sources of the Libretto to Purcell's Opera.” The World of Opera 1, no. 3 (1979): 65-78.
Discusses Nahum's use of Brutus of Alba, the Aeneid, and other works as sources for Dido and Aeneas.
Hicks, Penelope. “Filling in the Gaps: Further Comments on Two Performances of Nahum Tate's King Lear in 1701, Their Dates and Cast.” Theatre Notebook 49, no. 1...
(The entire section is 806 words.)