What do you think?
Rate this book
The True Chronicle History of King Leir: 1605
This book is intended for students (graduate level and above) of Shakespeare and Renaissance drama, textual and bibliographical problems, and political and social history. Prepared Greg, W. W.; checked Bond, R. Warner;
80 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1605
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 4, 2023
A very interesting play, and not badly written at all. It's not on the same level as Shakespeare's play, but it is very good in its own way.
The play is aptly called a "history" because it definitely cannot be called a tragedy. Nobody dies, not even the opposing army headed by Cornwall, Cambria, Gonorill, and Ragan. Perhaps in performance some actors did take a fall in the battle scene, but nobody's death is overtly depicted in the script.
Shakespeare largely maintained the dynamic between Gonorill and Ragan, but changed the fact that their husbands (in this play, Gonorill is married to Cornwall and Ragan to Cambria) are both good-hearted men whose only fault, if it is any, is trusting their wives about their relationship with their father. Perhaps that's why the author didn't wish to punish them too harshly. There is nothing of the brutally psychopathic Duke of Cornwall from the Shakespeare play in either man.
There is also no parallel for the Gloucester, Edgar, and Edmund story in this play.
Another major difference between the two works is that King Leir doesn't go mad. Not even close. He's pushed to the limits of despair, physical exhaustion, and hunger, but it doesn't turn his wits.
It's been interesting to see what Shakespeare changed. A great deal of his changes heightened the drama, but one or two points seem to have been better fleshed out in the original source. For example, King Leir's love-test at the beginning of the play had a purpose beyond merely fluffing the ego of an old autocrat. Leir had planned that Cordella would shower him with professions of love and affection and that then he would be able to say, "Well, daughter, if you love me so much as you profess to, then marry the King of Ireland", whom Cordella had been putting off and thus interfering with Lear's diplomatic plans.
Another alteration is that Leir and Perillus (the loyal retainer, like Kent in Shakespeare's play, although Perillus was never exiled) make their way to France to see the King and Cordella. In Shakespeare's play, it's not clear exactly why the French army has landed in England, which is already in preparation by Act III (since Gloucester knows of it).
For what King Leir might lack in dramatic stakes, it makes up for in historical interest and in its own artistic strengths. If I were programming a series of readings of plays by Shakespeare's contemporaries, I'd definitely give this one a slot.
The play is aptly called a "history" because it definitely cannot be called a tragedy. Nobody dies, not even the opposing army headed by Cornwall, Cambria, Gonorill, and Ragan. Perhaps in performance some actors did take a fall in the battle scene, but nobody's death is overtly depicted in the script.
Shakespeare largely maintained the dynamic between Gonorill and Ragan, but changed the fact that their husbands (in this play, Gonorill is married to Cornwall and Ragan to Cambria) are both good-hearted men whose only fault, if it is any, is trusting their wives about their relationship with their father. Perhaps that's why the author didn't wish to punish them too harshly. There is nothing of the brutally psychopathic Duke of Cornwall from the Shakespeare play in either man.
There is also no parallel for the Gloucester, Edgar, and Edmund story in this play.
Another major difference between the two works is that King Leir doesn't go mad. Not even close. He's pushed to the limits of despair, physical exhaustion, and hunger, but it doesn't turn his wits.
It's been interesting to see what Shakespeare changed. A great deal of his changes heightened the drama, but one or two points seem to have been better fleshed out in the original source. For example, King Leir's love-test at the beginning of the play had a purpose beyond merely fluffing the ego of an old autocrat. Leir had planned that Cordella would shower him with professions of love and affection and that then he would be able to say, "Well, daughter, if you love me so much as you profess to, then marry the King of Ireland", whom Cordella had been putting off and thus interfering with Lear's diplomatic plans.
Another alteration is that Leir and Perillus (the loyal retainer, like Kent in Shakespeare's play, although Perillus was never exiled) make their way to France to see the King and Cordella. In Shakespeare's play, it's not clear exactly why the French army has landed in England, which is already in preparation by Act III (since Gloucester knows of it).
For what King Leir might lack in dramatic stakes, it makes up for in historical interest and in its own artistic strengths. If I were programming a series of readings of plays by Shakespeare's contemporaries, I'd definitely give this one a slot.
March 6, 2012
This play is not famous for being (an older) alternate version of the Leir story (and virtually all the Chronicle sources material calls him Leir, as opposed to Shakespeare's innovation, Lear).
And comparison with Shakespeare doesn't help the play. This Leir comes off a petulant, which works against any sense of tragedy, and like later rewrites of Shakespeare will, it has a happy ending. It has crudely comedic moments, too, that stand out, which may have pleased a groundling audience, but would probably cause period polemicists and poets given to strict decorum to go into a passion.
It's quaint, at some points a little interesting, but little more than a sidenote to the grand drama of King Lear.
And comparison with Shakespeare doesn't help the play. This Leir comes off a petulant, which works against any sense of tragedy, and like later rewrites of Shakespeare will, it has a happy ending. It has crudely comedic moments, too, that stand out, which may have pleased a groundling audience, but would probably cause period polemicists and poets given to strict decorum to go into a passion.
It's quaint, at some points a little interesting, but little more than a sidenote to the grand drama of King Lear.
October 11, 2013
One of the sources for Shakespeare's Lear, this play is interesting only as a historical piece. It has some good scenes, but ultimately it lacks the majesty and subtlety of King Lear. Still, it's worth reading if you want to learn more about Shakes' sources.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews