Talk:King Lear/Archive 1

Taking the Personal Interpretation out of the Summary

I think that calling the opening scene an "auction" is a personal intepretation. He is certainly "dividing" his kingdom, but it is hardly an "auction" since the pieces are given to duaghters before all of the "bids" are in. If this were an auction, Lear would hear all three daughters out before rewarding any of them. Let's figure out a neutral way of describing this opening scene. user:JTyne

Adding Personal interpretation into Points of Debate

I think it's certainly debatable that this is a contest at all. This is not just my personal interpretation, but goes back at least as far as William Ball's "Backwards and Forwards", if not further. As per your instruction when taking the word "auction" out of the Summary, I did not replace it with my own interpretations over what that scene might be instead. I left it as nuetral as possible. We should develop both points of view on this matter (since it has been a point of debate between not just you and I) instead of just striking out each others words. "Points of Debate" seems to be the place to contribute as many possible interpretations as possible. user:JTyne

Jtyne: please read WP:V to get a better idea of what is expected in Wikipedia articles. Your addition states that "it is often thought that this is some kind of auction". If it is indeed 'often thought', then you should rewrite the passage, citing some authors who have published this interpretation: name, titles, dates, page numbers etc. For example, say something like "William Ball, in <insert proper citation here> has argued that the ceremony works like an auction". Wikipedia is not the place for everyone to throw in their own personal opinion, it's a place for summarizing published interpretations: see WP:V. The Singing Badger 15:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Badger: Thank you. I cited David Ball for his thesis for the auction that is not an auction. The idea that it is indeed an auction I left in from someone else's entry and I do not have a citation for it. I left the call for citations in hopes that the earlier person who used the word "auction" (which I personally like less than "contest"...but as you say it's not the place for my personal opinions) will post that a citation for it. JTyne 14:21, 26 April 2006 (CMT)

This is much better, the rewrite is a great improvement and you were right to leave up the citation flag. The Singing Badger 23:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Film adaptations

This section seems hard to read. I think the names of the films should be in the front, allowing for quick referencing. Another alternative could be to make a table with year, name, publisher, main actor, etc. Any opinions? DavidMendoza 16:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alas, there is no general template for movie adaptations created yet. In my opinion, "Movie adaptations" section in Othello article looks better, than here. Cmapm 15:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Neutral?

"Regan and Goneril have never looked more evil and Holm’s performance is chilling." - This isn't exactly neutral, and is based on opinion. Does it have any place in Wikipedia? - User:Chewyman

No, it doesn't. I removed it --Tothebarricades.tk 02:40, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cordelia etymology

Sorry, me again - Is Cordelia really from "ideal heart"? Cor is a romantic rooted word, and the real version of Lear took place centuries before Jesus Christ was born. Also, previous versions (i.e. predating Shakespeare) have given Cordellia as the correct spelling, thus rendering the anagram incorrect. Or am I nitpicking? User:Chewyman

The anagram seems pretty ludicrous to me. I've edited the Characters list and the appended footnote to reflect the etymology my sources generally agree upon. Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare, where would I be without you?

Anville 16:43, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cordelia is a Welsh name meaning "Jewel of the sea", at least according to my sources. However, in early version of the story she was called Cordell or otherwise, which may or may not have been from "ideal heart".--The Wizard of Magicland 16:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if Cordelia is not a play on words, meaning "Heart of Lear". It is a stretch, I know, but it is something to think about. Aericanwizard 21:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

US/British English

Having read the policy of which version of English to use, it seems that this article, being about a British play, should be written in Birtish English. Any objections? Chewyman 13:43, 2 Oct 2004 (NZT)

• Yes. I object to the article being changed into British spelling if it's predominantly in American spelling to begin with. "Articles which focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally aim to conform to the spelling of that country (for instance the British "Labour Party")" is Manual of style policy, but so is this: "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another." Moreover, Shakespeare isn't a topic specific to Britain in the way the Labour Paarty is; he's as much part of the heritage of the rest of the English-speaking world.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 15:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tragic ending

I've described what Nahum Tate's happy-ending version was and how long it ruled the stage (1681—1838), rather than just have Dr. Johnson refer to it in a mystifying way. Also I have removed this sentence: Later yet, Charles Lamb wrote, "To see Lear acted, to see an old man tottering about the stage with a walking stick, turned out of doors by his daughters in a rainy night, has nothing in it but what is painful and disgusting." Perhaps somebody can find another place for it? It's misplaced under this heading. Lamb is talking about the storm scene being painful and disgusting, which doesn't have anything to do with the tragic ending (only Tate's version was staged in Lamb's lifetime).--Bishonen (talk) 15:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ever?

In the Tragic Ending section, it reads

We then have the most devastating line ever written by The Bard: "Never, never, never, never, never!"' (Act V, scene iii, line 308)

I don't find this to be substantiable, or really even practical - it doesn't seem like it should be in here, or at least not in this form. Am I wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.147.235 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 6 December 2004

You're right. And when you see something like that, be bold. The Singing Badger 14:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Character Relationship Map

The map of the complex character relationships in King Lear, and have released it under a Creative Commons license. Any thoughts on whether it would add something to the article? Pdefer | !! 01:31, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Nobody seems to care particularly one way or another, so I added an external link, but didn't add the image to the article. Pdefer | !! 03:19, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Cordelia/Fool doubling

Wikipedia's article reads "The Fool and Cordelia never appear on stage together; it is likely that in original productions they were played by the same actor, Robin Armin."

Shouldn't this very questionable sentence be changed?

Cordelia and the Fool are indeed linked to each other in Lear's emotional rapport to them, but literary analysis, valid though it may be, doesn't amount to factual evidence as to the cast of the original performances.

R. A. Foakes, editor of Lear in the third series of The Arden Shakespeare, page 146: "As Shakespeare conceived it the part of the Fool was probably written for an actor who specialized in such roles, Robert Armin, so it is unlikely that doubling the part of Cordelia was in his mind."

Female parts were taken on by boy actors. If Wiki's article on Robert Armin is right in asserting that "Robert Armin finished his apprenticeship in 1592" he would hardly have been a boy by the time Lear was created. (S.Camus 20:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC))

All of this is correct. I'll change it. The Singing Badger 01:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm no scholar, but someone more knowledgeable please investigate and consider appending this (noticed while writing a paper on Lear): from paper: "The latin root of Cordelia's new title of Fool means something containing air or breath (wiki). Skakespeare makes a play on this meaning just before Lear's death, as the grieving king questions why his daughter--here called his "poor fool"--should "have no breath at all" while "a dog, a horse, a rat have life" (V.iii.311-313)."

Latin root cited from the Court-jester wiki.

Perhaps more evidence to convert a few Corfoolean skeptics?

Cordelia conspiracy

Where does all this stuff on the fool being Cordelia in disguise etc come from? Never seen it before. Is someone having a laugh? Need to see some serious sourcing here, otherwise I suggest we get rid of this fantasy...

Indeed. I removed the following, which reads like original resarch. If it isn't, maybe someone will provide a citation... The Singing Badger 16:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

A more elaborate suggestion is that Cordelia never went to France but stayed behind disguised as Lear's Fool, serving her father in much the same manner as Edgar served his father Gloucester in the subplot. It has been suggested that Cordelia was aided in this service by the King of France who was disguised as a Servant/Knight/Gentleman. Near the end of the play, Lear says "and my poor fool is hanged", a line which could refer to the Fool (but in context is more likely to refer to the hanged Cordelia). An objection to this interpretation is that the fool was in Lear's service long before Cordelia was dismissed, and one of Lear's knights observes, "Since my young lady [Cordelia]'s going into France, sir, the fool hath much pined away.".

I just added a varient back in, before reading this; I'll see if I can find formal documentation, but this is information I've had from at least two seperate and unrelated Shakespeare classes. The fools appearance being marked as changed 'wan and pale with grief' contributes to the idea, as does the fact that 'a woman cross-dressing to be able to act in a powerfull roll' is a recurrent theme in many of Shakespeare's works. Still more amusing-- if the old theory that Shakespeare was a figurehead, and a woman was writing his works is true, then this makes even more sense. Re: is someone having a laugh, I first was taught this possible interepretation in 1991, then heard it again in 1993, so if it is invalid, it's not new. Kweston 17:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Fool

maybe the fool was simply a figment of lear's imagination. Chensiyuan 04:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

How come everyone else in the play notices him then? Group hallucination? ThePeg 12 July 2006

I Am The Walrus - Is Paul dead?

The most audible line from Lear in I Am The Walrus is the right at the end: Edgar: Sit thee down, father. Rest you. This doesn't fit into the Paul-Is-Dead theory much does it? ThePeg 12 July 2006

some more controversial things on King Lear's origins

I know that I have no sources for it. That is why this is not in the article. Now stop pulling my leg and help me by searching the sources. A BBC World Service program on literature William Shakespeare said that the origins of King Lear might be in Shakespeare's personal life. Shakespeare had only daughters and belonging to the old times, he feared being dependent on his daughters in old age. This is a partial explanation to the play. Has anyone else heard anything like this? You can write in my talk page if you want to. --who is kushal? 22:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I repeat that I have no sources to back myself up. However, Shakespeare did have daughters only. See below for my source (which fails under the self-citation criterion but is a good jumping point.).

According to [1]: "He was married to Hathaway until his death and was survived by his two daughters, Susanna and Judith. Susanna married Dr John Hall, but there are no direct descendants of the poet and playwright alive today." According to [2]: "He was married to Hathaway until his death and was survived by his two daughters, Susanna and Judith. Susanna married Dr John Hall, but there are no direct descendants of the poet and playwright alive today."

Advertisement: The BBC World Service is broadcasting King Lear this Sunday December 24, 2006 0900 hrs GMT The production was recorded live at Globe Theater, London. Please listen to the play once again and think whether the link that I showed between Shakespeare's personal life and King Lear holds any water. Thanks for reading. Good day! --who is kushal? 22:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead image

Apparently the Dyce painting was demoted as lead image in July 2006, in favor of the first quarto title page, with no discussion or objection.[3] I've been equally bold and moved it back. The whole page looks better like that IMO, and the painting is more informative, too. Lear and the Fool in the storm are striking-looking and famous and specific to King Lear. The title page is none of these. You seen one early 17-th century title page, you seen' em all. Bishonen | talk 02:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Scofield Lear.jpg

Image:Scofield Lear.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nicanor Parra

Nicanor Parra did a unique translation of King Lear named "Lear: Rey y Mendigo" (Excuse me, i don't speak english)

Garbled fragment under "Readings"

It is a debatable topic where there really are no 'true women' in this play it is in a sense crossing all lines of what it is to be human. human, nature in all its cause that pertains a woman well, to be a woman.

I am removing this fragment. It's agrammatical and doesn't make any sense. Confluence 12:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Gloucester and link

I am removing the link to the Earl of Gloucester. Gloucester is not mentioned in the linked article, which is a link to the real Earls/Dukes of Gloucester and not the semi-fictional one listed here. (I have a feeling that the action of the play is actually real and will be proved to be historical in part; Gloucester was just the chieftain of a tribe of that area but still would have sworn fealty to Leir or Lear.) Owlqueen 13:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

This article does no yet meet the GA criteria for verifiability or for breadth. Several sections lack citations, and there is no discussion of the language and structure of the play. The final sections of the article, about film versions, are still lists and need to be turned to prose. Feel free to renominate once it meets the criteria. Wrad (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Put Tate in one place

The sections "Performance history", "Tragic ending", and "readings" all discuss Tate's modified version. I think Tate should be dealt with in one place, though there's no reason not to mention him in the other sections. Otherwise, it just looks a bit messy. I have to plead guilty, myself, as I started editing one section without having read the entire article! I'll have another look later. I also intend to add references for claims about Kean, Macready, and Phelps having restored Shakespeare's version in full or in part. That information is fully sourced in the article The History of King Lear. Cowardly Lion (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination for article about Tate's adaptation

Just in case anyone is interested and has time, either for improving or for reviewing, I nominated The History of King Lear for Good Article Status in the literature section. Cowardly Lion (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Cultural references

Firstly, this is a trivia section by proxy. Secondly, it was full of spam - links to commercial products from bands etc, with tenuous links to references to the play. These have been removed. There's far too much spam from bands on wikipedia. Their products are commercial, from an industry many regard as evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.137.24 (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:CastleBurn Ran.jpg

The image Image:CastleBurn Ran.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

king lear characterts

€ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.61.33 (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis Clean Up

I feel that the "synopsis" section is clearly lacking in quality. I am about to embark on a study of the play, and will be happy to contribute my opinions and improvements as my knowledge of the play grows. Until then, however, I feel that we need to address the persistent use of passive and informal sentence constructions throughout the section.

Therefore, I have added a "clean up" tag. Docmcconl (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Chararacter list?

Could someone perhaps add a character list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.45.222.60 (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much to whoever added it. -BBX.

== "Points

The "debate" over whether Lear is "auctioning" or "bequeathing" etc. his kingdom does not really belong in this article as much as it belongs to an academic journal that deals in such details. Really, it's nothing more than a plot engine to get Lear out of power, dispossessed of his knights etc., and motivate the tragedy. I am editing some of the more abstruse details out of said section, but really feel that this "point" should be taken out completely. It adds next to nothing, and may subtract from the value of the article. All it does it give an extended exposition of one person's point of view on an abstruse point that does not assist the general reader, and makes a reader already familiar with Lear wonder why one scholar's quibble deserves so much attention. Furthermore, the definition of an "auction" absolutely does not belong anywhere in an article on a play of Shakespeare's. Interested readers can go the auction page. That's the point of a hypertext encyclopedia, for crying out loud. 173.20.132.128 (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points...

• There are no references to Judeo-Christian theology in the play- is this worthy of inclusion/elaboration? Lear does seem to represent a Godless universe, emphasised by the constant references to nothingness in the text, where its protagonists are driven less by fate than selfish —earthly— motivations. Obviously, to avoid original research this would need to be referenced. Also, on a thematic note, Lear contains the most complex "character cycles" (or arcs) of any of Shakespeare's plays; the protagonists are 'doubled-up' (Lear and the Fool, Edgar and Edmund, Gonerill and Regan, etc), move through a genuine cycle from one state to another (madness to sanity/sanity to madness; legitimacy to illegitimacy) and frequently swap identity. Worth a mention?

• Is it also worth noting that the 1982 stage performance of Lear (which may have been directed by Peter Hall, I can't remember - I recall Michael Gambon played Lear and Anthony Sher played the Fool) got round the problem of the Fool's disappearance by having Lear stab him to death in a barrel?

Just thought I'd check these things with other editors first. Absurdtrousers (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It could be argued that Cordelia is a figura Christi - she never steps away from speaking the truth, she implicitly renounces power, she endures dispossession, banishment, captivity and finally she is killed (and her body restored to her father!). If she is a hidden symbol of Christ, that would also shed some light on why Shakespeare pulls through to having her executed, unlike any earlier treatment of the story (just like several heroines in Lars von Trier's films can be read as alternate Christs). It's the one instance in Shakespeare where a woman is deliberately held captive and put to death in cold blood - Othello killing Desdemona is more like a hotblooded crime of passion - and it must have seemed shocking to 17th century viewers.

The figura Christi point was hinted in an essay I've read on the piece (by Swedish critic Anders Olsson) which took a lot of cues from René Girard: he describes the struggle between the daughters and their drive to do away with their old father as a mimetic struggle: they both want to increase their power to be like/outstrip the other one: Goneril and Regan are doubles, as you were on to, and what happens is motivated more by inherent dynamics of power and desire than by the daughters beiung exceptionally evil or Lear being exceptionally gullible.

Olsson sums up: "the sacrificial crisis is present to a higher degree in Lear than in just about any other Shakespeare play. Breakdown is absolute, in political and human terms, and beyond it there is a glimpse of utopian light, of a kind that seems to happen only here in the body of work of the dramatist." The "utopian light", then, is centered on Cordelia, though the ending leads to no recovery in political terms and there is no hint of anything sacred (which confirms your view that it shows a world bereft of God and of grace in the normal sense). Unfortunately, that essay is only available in Swedish I think, and like his predecessor Jan Kott who's also written on King Lear, he's not very fond of stating his conclusions in succinct, sharp points that might easily be used as references here.Strausszek (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Etymology of 'Cordelia', sources?

Hi, I'm currently writing an essay on King Lear and one detail I would like to add is the debated etymology of the name Cordelia. Since we are not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source I need to find the facts elsewhere, which is usually easily done, but in this case I cannot find any other place at all which confirms the note made on the name 'Cordelia' in the list of characters in this article. Name etymology dictionairies say nothing or little about this name, and Google only redirects me to wikis and blogs. Grateful for any help! --83.248.224.223 (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC) "Lear" is also a common last name in many Irish familys, and happens to be my last name, :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.91.57 (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

John Hurt as Fool

Someone inserted [?? John Hurt plays the Fool in this version; fact-check?] into the section about Olivier's second production. Not sure whether this is questioning whether Hurt was in the cast or whether he played the fool. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 20:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

outdated and non-RS section

However, before Kenneth Muir set out the case for the play's indebtedness to Harsnett's 1603 text, a minority of scholars believed the play to be much older. In 1936, A. S. Cairncross argued that "the relationship of the two plays [Leir and Lear] has been inverted": Shakespeare's Lear came first and that the anonymous Leir is an imitation of it.(Source: Alfred S. Cairncross, The Problem of Hamlet, A Solution, 1936) One piece of evidence for this view is that in 1594, King Leir was entered into the Stationers' Register (but never published), while in the same year a play called King Leare was recorded by Philip Henslowe as being performed at the Rose theatre.(Source: Chambers & Alexander, as sourced in Ogburn's The Mystery of William Shakespeare, 1984, page 337) However, the majority view is that these two references are simply variant spellings of the same play, King Leir.(Source: Lee, Sidney. The Chronicle History of King Leir. London: Chatto and Windus, 1908: ix.) In addition, Shakespeare authorship researcher Eva Turner Clark, who believed the plays were written by the Earl of Oxford, saw numerous parallels between the play and the events of 1589–90, including the Kent banishment subplot, which she believed to parallel the 1589 banishment of Sir Francis Drake by Queen Elizabeth.(Source: Eva Turner Clark, Hidden Allusions in Shakespeares Plays, 1930, pgs 866–888) The question of dating is further complicated by the question of revision (see below).

The above section was removed for several reasons.

1. It is a history that begins with the statement that it has been superseded by more current scholarship, and as such is pointless.

2. It is a history of an extreme minority view held by only one person as far as can be told.

3. Ogburn and Clark are not WP:RS sources for King Lear or anything else.

4. Bringing in the Shakespeare authorship question violates WP:ONEWAY and serves only as a WP:COATRACK to mention it.

5. Using sources from 1908 and 1936 on a topic that has been extensively studied is ludicrous.

Tom Reedy (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Fool/foal/Cordelia

I removed this:

In Elizabethan English, "fool" was a term used to mean "child" (cf. foal). For example, in Hamlet, Polonius warns Ophelia that if she does not keep her distance from Hamlet, she'll "tender me a fool," i.e. present him with a child. As Lear holds the dead body of Cordelia, he remembers holding her in his arms as a baby.

There's nothing in the OED that suggests "fool" as a variant of "foal." I also find nothing to support this reading of Hamlet 1.3. In the Arden2 edition of Hamlet, Jenkins notes: "Fool unqualified does not mean 'baby'--when the child in Rom. 1.3.32, 49 is called 'pretty fool', this is a normal term of endearment." The Arden3 editors do not suggest "baby" as a possible gloss on this passage.

--Longwoodprof (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Pere Goriot

I think the list of novels inspired by the play should include Balzac's PERE GORIOT, one of the major novels of French literature. Every discussion I've read of the novel remarks on the plot's simularity to KING LEAR. CharlesTheBold (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)