King Lear: A Parallel Text Edition (Longman Annotated Texts)
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
A fully annotated, modern-spelling version of the Quarto (1608) andFolio (1623) texts of King Lear, re-examining the continuing textual and bibliographical debate on the relationship between the two texts. The two versions are printed in parallel on facing pages and on-the-page annotations identify and elucidate their major differences.
and Edmund Gloucester Alack, alack, Edmund, I like not this unnatural dealing. When I desired their leave that I might pity him, they took from me the use of mine own house, charged me on pain of perpetual displeasure neither to speak of him, entreat for him, or any way sustain him. 5 Edmund Most savage and unnatural! Gloucester Go to, say you nothing. There is division between the Dukes, and a worse matter than that. I have received a letter this night; ’tis dangerous to be spoken.
199, 208, 242, 246, 253, 256, 282, 291, 296, 310 Halio, Jay L., 9, 36, 38, 43, 46, 50–53, 55, 57–59, 62–63, 69–70 Hanmer, Thomas, 75, 230 Harsnett, Samuel, 52 Harvey, William, 42–43 Hazlitt, William, 1 Hebrews, 254 Heminge, John, 67 Hinman, Charlton K., 38 Holland, Peter, 30 Honigmann, E. A. J., 23, 31 Horace, 222 Howard-Hill, Trevor, 14, 31, 33–34, 69 Hunter, G. K., 1, 5, 25–26, 73, 113, 134–135, 145, 171, 204, 218–219, 227–228, 233, 243, 254, 268, 275–276, 294, 296, 334–335
*crulentious is wrong but closer than Qb’s *tempestious to the surmised word in the printer’s copy, contentious, which F picks up. As Taylor wrote in the headnote to The History of King Lear in A Textual Companion (Wells and Taylor 1987: 510), ‘The preparation and explanation of a text of the Quarto itself constitutes an important part of the case for the existence and integrity of the two versions’. The route from Q1 to F is an arduous one and even now the issue remains wide open. Greg’s view
integral Lears tend to use F as copy text because it sets out verse and prose much more accurately than Q, is more satisfactorily punctuated, and generally free from manifest errors such as, for example, Q’s ‘a dog so bade in office’ for F’s correct ‘a dog’s obeyed in office’.21 Slips in Q of this nature were once interpreted as proof of a memorially reconstructed manuscript behind Q (see below, p. 31, and P. W. K. Stone’s lone voice continuing to assert that Q originates in a reported text), but
expounded by the parabolic lines which follow, the more so since the binary structure of the Fool’s question seems initially to be picked up by the use of ‘two’ in the two ‘crowns’ (i.e. shells) of the egg. But it is clear from Q’s text that this cannot be the case, because the ‘two crowns of the egg’ launches a new train of thought rather than reaching back to the two fools. F’s text does not make sense without the lines in Q. If the censor marked this passage for deletion, the question must