King Lear (Folger Shakespeare Library) Mass Market Paperback – 1 Dec. 2003

Super to read again.

A Folger deve ser a pior edição que já encontrei das peças de Shakespeare.Encadernação ruim, tinta de baixa qualidade, notas com poucas informações sobre as peças, papel ruim (10 reais seria um bom preço para o produto, não 20-50). Melhor tentar as edições já famosas: Norton, Arden, Oxford (na versão individual, comentada), Riverside etc.

I am engaged on a project to read all of the literature that I was supposed to read in school but didn’t. ‘King Lea’r was the Shakespeare play assigned for the English literature course in Grade 13 during the 1964-65 school year. I honestly cannot remember the teacher who was assigned to my English class. It may have been Mr. Lloyd but I cannot remember. With ‘King Lear’, I have completed reading all of the five Shakespeare plays assigned to me in high school. I am very glad to have done this.In my DVD collection, I have two productions of ‘King Lear’. One is with Ian Helm and the other with John Gielgud. I find the Gielgud production much the superior. Ian Helm’s Lear shouts at the beginning of the play, shouts in the middle of the play and shouts at the end of the play. There is no emotional development in his Lear. Lear’s descent into madness and his recovery from is masked by constant shouting. The Gielgud Lear is quite different. There is the development from narcissistic certainty to puzzlement that others are not as he sees them to a refuge from these contradictions in irrationality. For me anyway, the power of the play resides in this emotional journey. And the Gielgud production captures that. The depiction of the madness of Lear as a refuge from emotional pain is true to the nature of mental illness.Lear has been understood as a redemption story. Lear overcomes his narcissism and finds his true relationship with his daughter Cordelia. But with this, how are we to understand Cordelia’s murder. Why was she to die. For me, the redemption in the play is not just that of Lear but of society as a whole. It is not a redemption that has been accomplished but a redemption that can be hoped for. Both Lea and Cordelia die but the Duke of Albany lives and rejects the ambition of Edmund and the sisters to rule the state on moral and legal lines. Earlier in Act 4 Scene 6, Lear, in his madness, describes the functioning of society. Authority is this society works for its own interest. Its basis is its hypocrisy.==================And the creature run from the cur? There thoumightst behold the great image of authority: adog's obeyed in office.Thou rascal beadle, hold thy bloody hand!Why dost thou lash that whore? Strip thine own back;Thou hotly lust'st to use her in that kindFor which thou whipp'st her. The usurer hangs the cozener.Through tatter'd clothes small vices do appear;Robes and furr'd gowns hide all. Plate sin with gold,And the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks:Arm it in rags, a pigmy's straw does pierce it.None does offend, none, I say, none; I'll able 'em:Take that of me, my friend, who have the powerTo seal the accuser's lips. Get thee glass eyes;And like a scurvy politician, seemTo see the things thou dost not. Now, now, now, now:Pull off my boots: harder, harder: so.===========================Sin plated with gold goes unpunished. Kings abandon their duties and revel in frivolity. Their countries are racked by civil wars. Edmund and the sisters die, and Albany succeeds to the throne. There is hope that the rulers can reject their personal ambition. Perhaps society can be redeemed.

"King Lear" is Shakespeare's most profound utterance. It is a work whose theme is love; its major concern is with the centrality of love in the formation of character and with justice, both social and divine. The final scene, which confirms this reading, is one of the great achievements of world literature. The play opens with the aging king dividing his kingdom among his three daughters in return for their declarations of love. King Lear gives love uncontrollably and expects to be loved in the same fashion. He tells us that he loved the little one, Cordelia, best (I.i.137, 245, & 336) and we must thus assume the most violent resentment on the part of the two elder daughters, who have learned to say not what they feel but what they ought to say. Cordelia's honestly proclaims that her future husband will of necessity have to share in her love with her father and this is understood by the latter as a complete rejection, worthy of curses and banishment. The "subplot" concerning Gloucester's two sons, Edgar and Edmund. We can understand Gloucester's love for both of his children as a relatively recent phenomena having required the gradual overcoming of his embarrassment at his younger son, Edmund's, illegitimacy (I.i. 10). That Edmund has overheard his father's disparaging opening comments to Kent is confirmed by his paraphrasing of them in the second scene (I.ii. 18) and that this shaming has been a part of Edmund's experience since childhood appears probable in light of his final, transformative reaction to the unexpected and unknown feelings of love and pity experienced by him at the end of the play.The motif of "nothing," "nothingness" is hammered throughout the play. Having given away his love and receiving none from his remaining daughters Lear becomes 'nothing,' ontologically empty ("Lear's shadow"). Edgar, likewise experiences his rejection by his father - on faulty and conspiratorial premises - as an annihilation of his being ("Edgar I nothing am"). "He childed like I fathered," says Edgar of his godfather Lear. The comparison is that between two egos who know only the need to love and have been annihilated by the rejections they have experienced from the individuals whom they love. Edgar's transformation into Tom of Bedlam is not only a practical disguise but an acting out of this loss of identity (consider that he continues to use mad Tom's vocal mannerisms even in soliliquy [III.vii.126]) and his refusal to reveal himself to his father perhaps until he is ready to undertake an act which will justify his being loved again (III.vii. 121-124).Those who love give away all; those who feel no love take everything in order to make up for the emptiness. Edmund, Regan, Goneril and Cornwall seem always conscious of their desire to conquer even more power. Yet those who suffer hardship in this play seem to react in two ways - 1) they experience *ever increasing degrees of empathy,* by which they commit themselves to the relief of others through acts of, and belief in, social justice, and 2) they *imagine a system of divine justice,* by which they attempt to reconcile themselves to what's been lost. Edgar testifies that he has witnessed madmen, buffeted by nature, threatening others to do them enforced "charity" by piercing their own numbed arms in terrifying display. We have just seen such a thing occur with Edmund in Act II, scene i. We also know that he has called upon Nature as his goddess. Thus what we have here (like 'the Turk' in "Othello") is a rare Shakespearean metaphor: Edmund is Nature. King Lear's own pronouncement to the howling storm on the heath - "Nor rain, wind, thunder, fire, are my daughters... I never gave you kingdom, call'd you children/ You owe me no subscription: then, let fall/ Your horrible pleasure" further illustrates the point. In "King Lear," Nature is the lack of love. It is loveless and existential. It is godless; god and the astrological being an ego defense. It is "nothing."The poetry of "King Lear" is magnificent, perhaps not quite achieving the measureless heights of "Macbeth" or "Othello," but sonorous and extraordinarily beautiful. The two feuding brothers, Edgar and Edmund, are among Shakespeare's most profound creations. The Duke of Cornwall is one of his great monsters. And King Lear is one of his most tragic heroes. The Folgers editions conflates the Quarto and Folio editions. This is common practice for Shakespeare but both versions are so different (Shakespeare died before he could edit his complete ouvre for publication) that many editors have recommended to their readers that they embrace either one or the other. I personally would not recommend this since I think thematically the work is more difficult to interpret without the combining of a few lines found in only one or the other of the two editions (Q's "He childed like I fathered," not found in F, goes a long way towards explaining Edgar's character). There are so many classic scenes in this masterpiece of masterpiece, and so much characterization filled with insight and wisdom, and subtlety in its construction and beauty in its poetry, that reading or re-reading this play is an experience quite unlike any other. It is *the* major work by one of *the* major artists in world culture.

This is a very helpful edition, the notes and other material were a real aid in understanding what’s going on, and in understanding the way Shakespeare uses language allowing you to access and appreciate the text more fully. And the text has already been written about so much, I don’t need to add anything. This will suffice.