CRITICISM

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 (1995): 3-10.

Examines in detail the performances of Tate's King Lear by Thomas Betterton's company at the Lincoln's Inn Fields theatre.

Hodson, Geoffrey. “The Nahum Tate Lear at Richmond.” Drama, no. 81 (summer 1966): 36-9.

Describes a drama course in which educators learned about Tate's King Lear by studying the play and then staging a live performance.

Holst, Imogen. “Purcell's Librettist, Nahum Tate.” In Henry Purcell 1659-1695: Essays on His Music, edited by Imogen Holst, pp. 35-41. London: Oxford University Press, 1959.

Argues that part of the greatness and success of Henry Purcell's opera Dido and Aeneas must be attributed to Tate's libretto, which often brings the music to life.

Hook, Lucyle. “Shakespeare Improv'd, or A Case for the Affirmative.” Shakespeare Quarterly 4, no. 2 (summer 1953): 289-99.

Examines adaptations of Shakespeare Plays, including Tate's King Lear, noting the dominance of Cordelia in Tate's version.

Johnson, Odai. “Empty Houses: The Suppression of Tate's Richard II.” Theatre Journal 47, no. 4 (December 1995): 503-16.

Discusses the banning of Tate's revision of Richard II and other works that were deemed offensive to the king.

Leaver, Robin A. “The Failure that Succeeded: The New Version of Tate and Brady.” Hymn 48, no. 4 (October 1977): 22-31.

Offers a textual history of Tate and Nicholas Brady's The New Version of the Psalms of David.

Maguire, Nancy Klein. “Nahum Tate's King Lear: ‘The King's Blest Restoration.’” In Appropriation of Shakespeare: Post-Renaissance Reconstructions of the Works and the Myth, edited by Jean I. Marsden, pp. 29-43. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991.

Argues that Tate wrote his version of King Lear to comment on the 1678-83 Exclusion Crisis and that this contributed to the play's success and popularity among contemporary audiences.

Nameri, Dorothy E. Three Versions of the Story of King Lear (Anonymous ca. 1594/1605; William Shakespeare 1607/1608; Nahum Tate 1681) Studied in Relation to One Another. Vol. 1. Salzburg: Institut für Englische Sprache und Literatur, Universität Salzburg, 1976, 271 p.

Attempts to establish a relationship between three versions of King Lear; considers whether Tate was aware of the anonymous 1594/1605 work The True Chronicle History of the King Leir and his three daughters, Gonorill, Raga, and Cordelia.

Ogden, James. “Lear's Blasted Heath.” Durham University Journal 80, no. 1 (December 1987): 19-26.

Claims that the use of the heath in productions of Shakespeare's King Lear was derived from Tate's version of the play.

Rosenthal, Laura J. “Reading Masks: The Actress and the Spectatrix in Restoration Shakespeare.” In Broken Boundaries: Women and Feminism in Restoration Drama, edited by Katherine M. Quinsey, pp. 201-18. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1996.

Includes a discussion of male-female relations in Tate's adaptations of King Lear and Coriolanus.

Shershow, Scott Cutler. “‘Higlety, Piglety, Right or Wrong’: Providence and Poetic Justice in Rymer, Dryden and Tate.” Restoration: Studies in English Literary Culture, 1660-1700 15, no. 1 (spring 1991): 17-26.

Discusses the use of poetic justice in the works of three seventeenth-century dramatists; includes comments on Tate's King Lear as the most infamous example of poetic justice as it rectifies Shakespeare's original, both morally and poetically.

Spencer, Christopher. Nahum Tate, New York: Twayne Publishers, 1972, 184 p.

First book-length study of Tate's life and works, with individual chapters on the poems, adaptations, psalms, and his poem on tea.

Walkling, Andrew R. “Political Allegory in Purcell's Dido and Aeneas.” Music & Letters 76, no. 4 (November 1995): 540-71.

Reexamines Dido and Aeneas, arguing that it conceals a political commentary about the event it was written to celebrate—James II's Declaration.

Wikander, Matthew H. “The Spitted Infant: Scenic Emblem and Exclusionist Politics in Restoration Adaptations of Shakespeare.” Shakespeare Quarterly 37, no. 3 (autumn 1986): 340-58.

Claims that the adaptation of Shakespeare to the Restoration stage in the 1680s was primarily a political activity; includes discussions of Tate's versions of Richard II, King Lear, and Coriolanus.

Additional coverage of Tate's life and career is contained in the following sources published by Thomson Gale: Dictionary of Literary Biography, Vol. 80; Literature Resource Center; and Reference Guide to English Literature, Ed. 2.