Talk:King Lear

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the King Lear article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

More information Article milestones, Date ...

King Lear is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 30, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
January 30, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 26, 2007, December 26, 2008, December 26, 2009, December 26, 2012, December 26, 2015, December 26, 2017, December 26, 2018, and December 26, 2020.

Current status: Former featured article candidate

Close

Shakespeare Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elizabethan theatre (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Elizabethan theatreWikipedia:WikiProject Elizabethan theatreTemplate:WikiProject Elizabethan theatreElizabethan theatre articles

Theatre High‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Resolved

– Genre quibbling yields no fruit. Quarto version is not an incomplete folio version. Untitled50reg (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead never states that the original incomplete Quarto version of the play King Lear was categorized as a history rather than a tragedy. If the quarto is worth mentioning then shouldn't the fact that it was called a historical play also be mentioned?

MaryamHasan97 (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I think, it lays emphasis on the tragedy and deaths of the play. That is why it is not characterized as a historical play. Also. if it is characterized as a historical play, it seems vague and has no specifics as to what the play is about (Fahmed19 (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC))

The scholarly consensus, excluding Brian Vickers' controversial monograph, is that the 1608 Quarto version is not an 'incomplete version' but a complete variant in itself, probably derived from either an early authorial draft or a later revision (for court performance, for example). As for genre, it's not at all unheard of for plays of the period to be marketed as both "history" and "tragedy", besides which the term "history" was understood much more loosely at the time (Marlowe's The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus being a notable example). However, today Shakespeare's plays are conventionally categorised following the divisions made in the First Folio, which lists Lear, A&C, Coriolanus, JC, etc. as "tragedies" as opposed to the medieval English chronicle "histories" (Richard II - Henry VIII). Whether these F1 genre divisions are robust or arbitrary is perhaps a debate for elsewhere. Adt1605 (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

917 words

The play begins with the Earls of Gloucester and Kent discussing King Lear's plans to divide his kingdom among his three children. Gloucester introduces Kent to his own illegitimate son, Edmund. The King's procession enters and Lear announces that he will decide upon the marriage between his youngest daughter, Cordelia, and her suitors, the Duke of Burgundy and the King of France. Lear then proclaims that he will retire from government with immediate effect, granting a third of his kingdom to each of his daughters, but that they must first compete by publicly avowing their love for him. Goneril and Regan both eloquently declare their love, but Cordelia says only that she loves him according to her duty. Outraged, Lear disowns Cordelia, dividing her third between her two sisters. Lear sets conditions on his retirement: that he retain the title of king, that he alternate between the homes of Goneril and Regan month by month, and that he be served by a retinue of a hundred knights. The Earl of Kent chastises Lear, both for giving away his majesty and for disowning Cordelia, and Lear banishes him on pain of death. The king then offers Cordelia without a dowry to her suitors, an offer only France is willing to accept, out of respect for her honesty. Goneril and Regan privately agree that Lear was mistaken in disowning Cordelia and banishing Kent but that even in his prime he was prone to anger.

Edmund resents his bastardy, and plots to supplant his legitimate older brother Edgar. He tricks their father Gloucester with a forged letter, making him think Edgar planned to usurp the estate. In the intervening time, Goneril has begun to resent hosting the king, whose knights and Fool she finds boisterous and disruptive. Instead of exile, Kent has taken on a disguise and the name of Caius. Lear hires him after he helps to beat Goneril's servant, Oswald, for lack of manners. Goneril orders Lear to mend his behaviour and to dismiss half his knights. Enraged, Lear curses Goneril with sterility and threatens to take back his power, before then departing to meet Regan. In a private conversation, Lear admits to the Fool that he fears he might be going mad. Edmund frames Edgar for a murder attempt, encouraging him to fly the castle. Convinced, Gloucester disinherits Edgar, proclaiming him as an outlaw.

Regan and her husband, the Duke of Cornwall, soon arrive at Gloucester's home. Their arrival is quickly followed by Kent and Oswald, who quarrel, leading Cornwall and Regan to place the disguised Kent in the stocks against Gloucester's advice. Edgar, in the meantime, is being pursued across the countryside, leading him to adopt the persona of a mad beggar named Tom o' Bedlam. When Lear arrives at Gloucester's castle and sees Kent stocked, he struggles to control his temper, but secures Kent's release. When Goneril arrives and his two daughters decide together to dismiss his knights, Lear runs out into a growing storm, ranting to the skies. Regan, Goneril, and Cornwall shut the gates after him, despite Gloucester's protests. Lear and the Fool are found on the heath by Kent, who leads them to shelter. There, in the hovel, they encounter Edgar as the mad beggar, who Lear believes is another betrayed father. During the long stormy night, Gloucester arrives and encourages Kent to take Lear to Dover, where he has intelligence that a French army will land to restore the king.

While Gloucester is away, Edmund reveals Gloucester's information to Cornwall and Regan. When Gloucester returns from the heath, Cornwall gouges out his eyes as retribution. One of Cornwall's servants attempts to intervene and, although dying in the ensuing fight, he mortally wounds Cornwall. Told that Edmund turned him in, Gloucester realises that Edgar was innocent. The blinded earl is then thrown out and told to "smell his way to Dover". Receiving assistance from an old tenant, Gloucester hires Poor Tom, whom he cannot recognise as his outlawed son, to lead him to Dover.

Goneril meets Edmund and discovers that she finds him more attractive than her honest husband Albany, whom she regards as cowardly. Albany is disgusted by the sisters' treatment of Lear, and the mutilation of Gloucester, and denounces Goneril. Kent leads Lear to the French army, which is accompanied by Cordelia. But Lear is half-mad and terribly embarrassed by his earlier follies. Albany leads the British army to meet the French. Regan too is attracted to Edmund, and the two sisters become jealous of each other. Goneril sends Oswald with letters to Edmund and also tells Oswald to kill Gloucester if he sees him. Edgar pretends to lead Gloucester to a cliff, then changes his voice and tells Gloucester he has miraculously survived a great fall. They meet Lear, who is now completely mad. Lear rants that the whole world is corrupt and runs off.

Oswald tries to kill Gloucester but is slain by Edgar. In Oswald's pocket, Edgar finds a letter from Goneril to Edmund suggesting the murder of Albany. Kent and Cordelia take charge of Lear, whose madness seemingly abates. Regan, Goneril, Albany, and Edmund meet with their forces, and Albany urges that they fight the French invaders without harming Lear or Cordelia. The two sisters lust for Edmund, who has made promises to both. He considers the dilemma and plots the deaths of Albany, Lear, and Cordelia. Edgar gives Goneril's letter to Albany. The armies meet in battle, the British defeat the French, and Lear and Cordelia are captured. Edmund sends them off with secret orders for execution.

The victorious British leaders meet, and Regan now declares she will marry Edmund. But Albany exposes the intrigues of Edmund and Goneril and proclaims Edmund a traitor. Regan collapses; Goneril has poisoned her. Edmund defies Albany, who calls for a trial by combat. Edgar appears to duel with Edmund and mortally stabs him. Albany shows Goneril's letter to her, who flees in shame and rage. Edgar reveals himself; Gloucester dies offstage from the overwhelming shock and joy of this revelation.

Offstage, Goneril stabs herself and confesses to poisoning Regan. Dying Edmund reveals his order to kill Lear and Cordelia, but it is too late: Cordelia is dead though Lear slew the killer. Lear carries the dead Cordelia in his arms onstage. Lear recognizes Kent. Albany urges Lear to resume his throne, but Lear, too far gone in grief and hardship, collapses and dies. Albany offers to share power between Kent and Edgar. At the end, Albany (Quarto version) or Edgar (Folio version) is crowned King.

Above is our working synopsis. It should be a good deal shorter, in my opinion. Say 500-700 words, but we'll see. See for the policy on summary writing. Wrad (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

So do we edit directly on the above synopsis? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, this is how we've done it in the past, I suppose because it just gives us one spot where we can focus on the synopsis without worrying about it being changed by fly-by editors. If you have another idea, that's fine as well, of course. Wrad (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've edited and tightened up the sequential accuracy for the first four paragraphs. Much of my doctoral thesis has been on Lear, so this has been quite fun to do! :) Adt1605 (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Here are the sources I just ordered off Amazon. Feel free to add, annotate, or strike items from the list.

Foakes, R.A., ed. (1997). King Lear. Arden Shakespeare Third Series. Arden Shakespeare. ISBN 9781903436592.
Wells, Stanley, ed. (2008). The History of King Lear. The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199535828.
Halio, Jay L., ed. (2001). King Lear: A Guide to the Play. Greenwood Guides. Greenwood. ISBN 9780313316180.
Halio, Jay L., ed. (1997). The First Quarto of King Lear. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521587075.
Halio, Jay L., ed. (2005). The Tragedy of King Lear. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521612630.
Hopkins, Lisa (2009). Hunter, Ian (ed.). Shakespeare's King Lear. Screen Adaptations. Methuen Drama. ISBN 9781408105924.
Weis, Rene, ed. (2009). King Lear: 1608 and 1623 Parallel Text Edition. Longman. ISBN 9781408204122.
Muir, Kenneth; Wells, Stanley, eds. (1982). Aspects of King Lear. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521288132.
Werstine, Paul (2005). Mowat, Barbara A. (ed.). King Lear. Folger Shakespeare Library. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 9780743484954.
Ioppolo, Grace, ed. (2007). King Lear. Norton Critical Editions. W. W. Norton. ISBN 9780393926644.

The first two are the Arden and Oxford editions, which I would say are the core sources we should consult as a minimum. Absent an indication of their relative quality I would propose we primarily source the article to the Oxford simply because its edition is more recent (by a decade or so). --Xover (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with the Oxford but The Oxford Shakespeare: the Complete Works is the same, right?

I've got several of those but won't be able to post the list until I get home. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The standalone edition may have a more up to date text (in Foakes' judgement) than the Complete edition, but as far as I know both Oxford and Arden use the most current text from the standalone scholarly editions for their Complete Works; but the Complete lacks the surrounding scholarly apparatus that is, IMO, the most critical feature. Trawling the journals for what is the many (potentially) conflicting opinions on, say, the sources for the play would be original research, so the idea is to use the Oxford edition as an arbiter of sorts: if they say “this is the current consensus” then we adopt that stance (but obviously note any significant controversies as needed). By singling it out I'd also intended it to be the one suggested source for interested editors to get if they only got one, and use its bibliography as the jumping off point for finding more specific sources. --Xover (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No prob, I have the Oxford standalone edition; I just didn't know I had it. BTW, it was published in 2000 and the 2008 edition is a reprint, not a revision. I've also got the 3rd Arden. If I get any other it will be Grace Ioppolo's, but I'll wait until you tell me it's worth it! I've also got Rowse's annotated complete works that has literally thousands of old pictures. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Worth noting the Wells Oxford edition is only of the Quarto text. Foakes conflates the Quarto and the Folio, marking lines that only appear in one or the other with superscript Fs or Qs as appropriate. My recommendation for most readers would be the Foakes.Adt1605 (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

– Question put ten years ago and not kept up-to-date. Untitled50reg (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

As someone who had to sit this "syllabus", I have to ask - is there an actual scholarly Marxist reading of King Lear? --Malkinann (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of “scholarly”; all this litcrit stuff is unscholarly to one degree or another. The latest Arden edition gives brief mention of a Marxist reading on p.45 (and gives a relevant cite), and the Oxford mentions it in passing. They key, for me, to all these readings, is to realize that they are all just different perspectives and value systems from which to interpret the play; and that the “truth” is both none of them and all of them. Lear, for instance, isn't to me a particularly Marxist play: a Marxist reading of it tells you a lot more about the Marxist than about King Lear. But, hey, I'm a biography wonk and tend to zone out whenever the topic gets anywhere near litcrit. --Xover (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm about 7 years too late for your syllabus, Malkinnan, but I have to gently disagree with Xover. Lear is absolutely a play about concentrations of power, the movement of inheritance, and the legitimation of authority — all big sociological features that Marx helped define and analyse! I'd say the most significant Marxist reading would be Jonathan Dollimore's on Humanism and King Lear from his book Radical Tragedy but there are plenty more! Adt1605 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Adt1605: You've no idea how glad I am to hear someone disagree with me! :)

I wouldn't dream of denying the validity of a Marxist reading, I just, personally, didn't feel it was particularly apposite perspective. But I hasten to add that I am not particularly versed in literary criticism (biography and historiography are more my speed), so my opinion on this is worth very little.

However, I note that the article currently doesn't contain a section on Marxist readings. Any chance you'd be interested in adding one? In our articles on the plays we try to cover all significant critical approaches (see, for instance, Critical approaches to Hamlet), so if you see any obvious missing perspectives in the article it would be useful to list them. Pointers to good overviews or particularly significant works would also be very useful.

There are almost 1500 Shakespeare-related articles on Wikipedia and only a handful of editors working in the area: any assistance would be welcomed with open arms! --Xover (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Xover: My apologies for the slow response, I'd be delighted to help as and when I can. I'll have a little think about Marxist readings, and any other critical approaches, and see what I can add. :) --Adt1605 (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

– 1619 Quarto based on 1608 quarto. 1608 quarto has problems which 1619 help to fix. Untitled50reg (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

So what is the textual importance of this edition, since this article states it is used in modern editions? Was it practically a reprint of the 1608 Quarto, or does it possess any significant variants? -- llywrch (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

More or less a reprint. Definitely some interesting variants between Q1 and Q2 but more in terms of phrasing and word-choice — whereas the Folio has hundreds of entirely different lines. Adt1605 (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

– These are now in the article. Untitled50reg (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I love the play, but in the interests of completeness, there are two opera adaptations that I feel should be mentioned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lear_(opera)

I love Reimann's opera, it's done in a totally 12-tone, "modern" style and is one of the few operas in that style that is regularly performed.

There's also an excellent adaptation by the fine Finnish composer Aulis Sallinen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuningas_Lear

If it's agreed that they should be added, would they get their own section, say "Opera adaptations" or would they be folded in to the 20th and 21st century section of Performance History?

Thanks for your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry Holland (talk • contribs) 04:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

@Henry Holland: Thanks for the headsup Henry. You should just go ahead and add these to the chronological sections (be bold!). When someone gets around to a real copy-edit there they may end up being refactored out again, as there are far too many adaptations to include every single one, but in that case the superfluous ones often get moved to a separate article on adaptions of the play. In other words, no need to wait for "permission" for small uncontroversial edits like these; and what you propose to change will be useful in some way or another eventually. As you can see, the Shakespeare articles have few active editors so any contribution is very much appreciated! --Xover (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

– Gloucester tells Edmund of a letter received. Edmund gives a letter to Cornwall and says that it is the letter which he spoke of. Gloucester confesses to Cornwall that he received a letter.Untitled50reg (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The section "Synopsis of dual plot" states that Edmund "shows a letter from his father [Gloucester] to the King of France asking for help against them". I may be misunderstanding something (either in the play or in the synopsis); but I think the letter referred to is from the end of Act III scene 3, and is addressed to Gloucester, informing him of the French invasion; I don't see in the play reference to a letter written by Gloucester. If my interpretation is right, I think this should be corrected in the synopsis; does anyone have any feedback first? Vichordius (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I made the proposed change, having not received any replies to my earlier post. Vichordius (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Glou.
Go to; say you nothing. There is division betwixt the dukes, and a worse matter than that: I have received a letter this night;—'tis dangerous to be spoken;—I have locked the letter in my closet...

Untitled50reg (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Corn.
Come, sir, what letters had you late from France?
Reg.
Be simple-answer'd, for we know the truth.
Corn.
And what confederacy have you with the traitors
Late footed in the kingdom?
Reg.
To whose hands have you sent the lunatic king?
Speak.
Glou.
I have a letter guessingly set down,
Which came from one that's of a neutral heart,
And not from one oppos'd.
Corn.
Cunning.
Reg.
And false.

Untitled50reg (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Resolved

– Untitled50reg (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

There's a repetition of sources in this paragraph: Philip Sidneys is citated twice in the text for the same reason. I think one should be erased, but I wanted to be sure and ask another opinion.--MNepi (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks MNepi. I've removed Sidney from the long list of "possible" sources and left the embryonic standalone paragraph that gives a little more information. This list should probably be pruned of the more speculative and loose entries, and what remains expanded upon, but that's a much bigger task. --Xover (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

– Untitled50reg (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on King Lear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110930183651/http://www.cchs.co.uk/subjects/docs/english/english-john-danby.doc to http://www.cchs.co.uk/subjects/docs/english/english-john-danby.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The link was to a summary of the actual source cited from a school curriculum, so I just removed it altogether. --Xover (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems like there could be more discussion regarding the decline of King Lear's mental state - especially the piece regarding Freud's assertion that Cordelia symbolizes death. There could be an overall expansion of how death is thought of in the play; furthermore, there could be potential analysis regarding how there was a lack of an original mother figure for King Lear's daughters (as far as we know) in their formative years that led to both their flattery of Lear and their lack of care for him, taking his love for Cordelia into consideration. All information in the "psychoanalytic and psychosocial interpretations" section seems unbiased and clear - could use further explication. Adreyer2 (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Annie Dreyer

I agree, I also think that we are just criticizing King Lear from one point of view. There is no exploration of the other perspectives (Fahmed19 (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC))

Though, "psychoanalytic and psychosocial interpretations" seems clear and unbiased, we are not presented with every alternative/interpretation of the play's depiction of psychological and social behaviors.(Fahmed19 (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC))

Resolved

– Untitled50reg (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Edwin Austin Abbey King Lear, Act I, Scene I The Metropolitan Museum of Art.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 18, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-09-18. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Act I, Scene I of King Lear, a play by William Shakespeare first performed in 1606, as depicted by Edwin Austin Abbey. Based on the legend of Leir of Britain, it depicts King Lear's gradual descent into madness after he disposes of his kingdom to two of his three daughters based on their flattery. This tragedy has frequently been adapted for the stage and motion pictures, with the title role coveted by many of the world's most accomplished actors.

In this scene, Cordelia, the youngest of Lear's three daughters, is banished for refusing to profess her love in return for one third of the kingdom. Instead, she proclaims that there is nothing to compare her love to, nor words to properly express it.Painting: Edwin Austin Abbey

Archive – More featured pictures...

Some one (I can't remember who) wrote a play called "Lear's Daughters" speculating on what the personalities of the three daughters would have been like before the start of the play. Does any one think this could be mentioned in this article?Vorbee (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Vorbee: You're probably thinking of Elaine Feinstein's 1987 production for the Women's Theatre Group.

Billington, Michael (20 November 2003). "Lear's Daughters, Soho, London". The Guardian.

Please do feel free to add some information about it. --Xover (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

– I have just reformed the lead and cut this quote therefrom. Untitled50reg (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The last sentence in the Lede: "George Bernard Shaw wrote, "No man will ever write a better tragedy than Lear."

Is repeated word-for-word in the Section "Performance History", subsection "20th Century". It's an isolated little "factoid" (there's a word for it, that escapes me atm, "triviata" is what my brain is outputting and I know it's wrong. "irrata"? "errata"?, one of those "literary words" used to describe the mechanics of writing...) Anyways, my "style" sense is that it's distracting, and irritating. Mentioning it once is an interesting little fact to think about while reading, but having it mentioned twice removes focus from the Article and makes the Reader (me, at least) wonder if it's some kind of typo, or what. Stylistically, I just don't like it. It's distracting, and annoying. I wonder if it was done on purpose, or if it's the result of some kind of oversite, and if case B, should something be done about it?2605:6000:6947:AB00:75A9:D270:2421:59E (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

In Wikipedia 2401:4900:2755:7D65:0:49:EA61:4001 (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:King Lear

Wikiwand in your browser!

Talk:King Lear

Wikiwand in your browser!

[resolved] 1608 Quarto Version

Synopsis (Sandbox)

Sources

[resolved] Marxist reading?

[resolved] The 1619 Quarto

[resolved] Opera versions

[resolved] Gloucester's letter

[resolved] Sources

[resolved] External links modified

Expansion of the decline of King Lear's mental state

[resolved] File:Edwin Austin Abbey King Lear, Act I, Scene I The Metropolitan Museum of Art.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Lear's Daughters

[resolved] George Bernard Shaw Quote, Twice.

King Lear summary