The history of King Lear

by Gary Taylor

The 18th century was a wealth of knowledge, exploration and rapidly growing technology and expanding record-keeping made possible by advances in the printing press. In its determination to preserve the century of revolution, Gale initiated a revolution of its digitization of epic proportions to preserve these invaluable works in the largest archive of its kind. Now for the first time these high-quality digital copies of original 18th century manuscripts are available in print, making them highly accessible to libraries, undergraduate students, and independent scholars.Western literary study flows out of eighteenth-century works by Alexander Pope, Daniel Defoe, Henry Fielding, Frances Burney, Denis Diderot, Johann Gottfried Herder, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, and others. Experience the birth of the modern novel, or compare the development of language using dictionaries and grammar discourses. ++++The below data was compiled from various identification fields in the bibliographic record of this title. This data is provided as an additional tool in helping to insure edition ++++British LibraryT062225Vertical chain printed and sold by W. Oxlade, 1775. 61, 1] ill.; 12

Genres: Plays, Drama, Tragedy, Romance

111 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1681

About the author

Gary Taylor is George Matthew Edgar Professor of English at Florida State University.

There is more than one author with this name

Reviews

[max theodore · Rating 2 out of 5]

did i read this? yes. why did i read this? good question. i'm five weeks into a lear hyperfixation. that said - this may shock you - shakespeare did it better. my general opinion on tate's changes are that they're slightly better for cordelia's character, but, like, worse for everyone else's.

[Olive · Rating 3 out of 5]

The beginning is alright, but Lear is such a cartoonishly bad character, it's hard to really get anything meaningful out of his plot or get very invested in the first place. His development's conclusion in this version also feels very unconvincing. The side plots and characters however are all the more compelling. The story of Earl Gloucester and his sons is quite gripping, pretty much overshadowing the main plot.
It is nice to see more of Regan and Goneril in this version. The way the two are led to become the 'villains' - in their motivations and actions – is more understandable and they as 'villains' more interesting than they previously were. Removing the fool was also a good decision. I don't know, he never really clicked with me and doesn't serve a purpose the other characters can't substitute. A little weaker however are the changes made to Cordelia and Edgar. While there is a purpose to adding a romance between the two, it has not been elaborated/incorporated enough to make much of a difference.
The ending is fine but really bland and generic. It's so unapologetically happy in a very contrived way. It is completely unearned and as a result completely unrewarding. Everything is steering the characters towards tragedy until they very suddenly become good people with no catalyst for that change. Even without knowing the original ending, its tone is noticeably different from the rest of the story. You can really tell that it was just tacked on because Nahum Tate didn't like the original ending and put minimal effort into writing a new one.

[Pádraic · Rating 2 out of 5]

Can't really see this being of interest to anyone other than, for instance, theatre historians and Shakespeare academics, although perhaps there are a few snippets here that'd work for a director: an increased role for Cordelia being the main thing, although I'm sure there are other nuances I'm not getting, due to it being a while since I've had any direct encounter with King Lear itself.

[Danielle · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is a thing...
Fun fact: Did you know this version was the version of King Lear performed for about 150 years? It was and it isn't as good as the Shakespeare version, so unless you have to, I don't recommend reading this.

[Leah Mensch · Rating 4 out of 5]

It wasn’t meant to improve, it was meant to appeal to audiences at the time who like things wrapped up with a bow.

[Nicole · Rating 4 out of 5]

I mean I’m here for Edgar/Cordelia bc they are the best characters in the play but it was not as good as the original Shakespeare so....?

[Michaela · Rating 3 out of 5]

Edgar x Cordelia gives me life

[Nadine Treef · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think now I know why it's been performed for more than 150 years... I loved it. It's ending is more satisfying than Shakespeare's Lear.

[Lacey Liberty · Rating 1 out of 5]

boring.

[Dr Janice Flux · Rating 3 out of 5]

This gets an extra star because Cordelia actually gets to have a character and do things.

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tate's rewriting of Shakespeare's King Lear - a rewrite that was for around 150 years (c. 1681-1838) the standard staged version - is generally derided as a travesty, and rightly so: the characters are "the same", and most parts of the story too, but it is reshaped in the most crucial points, to provide a conventional happy ending where Shakespeare had offered us no relief from intense bleakness.

Two remarks on that though: (1) Shakespeare was himself travestying his own sources, which also had the happy ending which Tate reinstates (in fact his happy ending is different, but trivially so, from that given in Shakespeare's sources); (2) I wonder whether we are now ready for a revival of the Tate version, in this "smile or die" world we are so privileged to live in.

I give this 5 stars in recognition of its availability and historical interest, not as an evaluation of Tate's text, which is, however, fascinating, and not entirely ropy.

PS Given the dates mentioned in my first sentence, I assume the date of 1749 in the title refers to the printing of which this book is a facsimile.

[Courtney Stout · Rating 3 out of 5]

Another variation of King Lear. This version, so far, seems to move much more quickly since it is a lot shorter.

[Ella · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked it well enough, but it's a lot like the original, except shorter and a tad bit less doomy.

[Lea Dokter · Rating 2 out of 5]

Meh. It fills some holes in the original play, but it doesn't improve much.