Book contents
- Frontmatter
- King Lear: A Retrospect, 1980–2000
- How Shakespeare Knew King Leir
- Contracts of Love and Affection: Lear, Old Age, and Kingship
- Headgear as a Paralinguistic Signifier in King Lear
- What becomes of the broken-hearted: King Lear and the Dissociation of Sensibility
- Lear’s Afterlife
- Songs of Madness: The Lyric Afterlife of Shakespeare’s Poor Tom
- Secularizing King Lear: Shakespeare, Tate, and the Sacred
- ‘Look on her, look’: The Apotheosis of Cordelia
- Jacob Gordin’s Mirele Efros: King Lear as Jewish Mother
- ‘How fine a play was Mrs Lear’: The Case for Gordon Bottomley’s King Lear's Wife
- Some Lears
- King Lear and Endgame
- Shakespeare in Pain: Edward Bond’s Lear and the Ghosts of History
- ‘Think about Shakespeare’: King Lear on Pacific Cliffs
- Actors, Editors, and the Annotation of Shakespearian Playscripts
- Titus Andronicus: The Classical Presence
- Julius Caesar, Machiavelli, and the Uses of History
- Scepticism and Theatre in Macbeth
- Revels End, and the Gentle Body Starts
- ‘Taking just care of the impression’: Editorial Intervention in Shakespeare's Fourth Folio, 1685
- ‘A world elsewhere’: Shakespeare in South Africa
- Shakespeare Performances in England, 2001
- Professional Shakespeare Productions in the British Isles January–December 2000
- The Year's Contributions to Shakespearian Study 1 Critical Studies
- 2 Shakespeare’s Life, Times and Stage
- 3 Editions and Textual Studies (1) and (2)
- Books Received
- Index
How Shakespeare Knew King Leir
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2007
- Frontmatter
- King Lear: A Retrospect, 1980–2000
- How Shakespeare Knew King Leir
- Contracts of Love and Affection: Lear, Old Age, and Kingship
- Headgear as a Paralinguistic Signifier in King Lear
- What becomes of the broken-hearted: King Lear and the Dissociation of Sensibility
- Lear’s Afterlife
- Songs of Madness: The Lyric Afterlife of Shakespeare’s Poor Tom
- Secularizing King Lear: Shakespeare, Tate, and the Sacred
- ‘Look on her, look’: The Apotheosis of Cordelia
- Jacob Gordin’s Mirele Efros: King Lear as Jewish Mother
- ‘How fine a play was Mrs Lear’: The Case for Gordon Bottomley’s King Lear's Wife
- Some Lears
- King Lear and Endgame
- Shakespeare in Pain: Edward Bond’s Lear and the Ghosts of History
- ‘Think about Shakespeare’: King Lear on Pacific Cliffs
- Actors, Editors, and the Annotation of Shakespearian Playscripts
- Titus Andronicus: The Classical Presence
- Julius Caesar, Machiavelli, and the Uses of History
- Scepticism and Theatre in Macbeth
- Revels End, and the Gentle Body Starts
- ‘Taking just care of the impression’: Editorial Intervention in Shakespeare's Fourth Folio, 1685
- ‘A world elsewhere’: Shakespeare in South Africa
- Shakespeare Performances in England, 2001
- Professional Shakespeare Productions in the British Isles January–December 2000
- The Year's Contributions to Shakespearian Study 1 Critical Studies
- 2 Shakespeare’s Life, Times and Stage
- 3 Editions and Textual Studies (1) and (2)
- Books Received
- Index
Summary
Lewis Theobald thought that Shakespeare gave a tragic ending to his King Lear ‘to vary from another, but most execrable, Dramatic Performance upon this Story: which I certainly believe to have preceded our Author’s Piece’. From that work, the anonymous True Chronicle History of King Leir (1605), Theobald quotes some lines of ‘such Poetry as one might hammer out, Stans pede in uno’, so ‘That Shakespeare . . . may stand acquitted from the least Suspicion of Plagiarism.’ From the initial doubt that the ‘silly old play’, as Edward Capell called it, had much or any influence on Shakespeare, we have today come to the contrary opinion of a recent critic that ‘The True Chronicle Historie was a remarkably pervasive presence in Shakespeare’s career for well over a decade and exercised considerable power in shaping the formal and thematic structure of several quite different plays.’ Edmond Malone doubted that Shakespeare had ever read the 1605 edition of Leir, preferring to think that it was published after the first appearance of Shakespeare’s play so as to cash in on its stage success. Rather, Malone supposed, Shakespeare had known the old play before its publication in 1605: ‘without doubt he had often seen it exhibited; nor could he have found any difficulty in procuring a manuscript copy of it . . . I suspect, however, the old play had been published in 1594’.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Shakespeare SurveyAn Annual Survey of Shakespeare Studies and Production, pp. 12 - 35Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2002
- 5
- Cited by