SHAKESPEARE SURVEY 55 King Lear and its Afterlife - Assets

17 Pages·2003·0.14 MB·English

S H A K E S P E A R E S U RV E Y
AN ANNUAL SURVEY OF
SHAKESPEARE STUDIES AND PRODUCTION
55
King Lear and its Afterlife
EDITED BY
PETER HOLLAND
published by the press syndicate of the university of cambridge
ThePittBuilding,TrumpingtonStreet,Cambridge,UnitedKingdom
cambridge university press
TheEdinburghBuilding,Cambridgecb22ru,UK
40West20thStreet,NewYork,ny10011-4211,USA
477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,vic3207,Australia
RuizdeAlarco´n13,28014Madrid,Spain
DockHouse,TheWaterfront,CapeTown8001,SouthAfrica
http://www.cambridge.org
(cid:1)C CambridgeUniversityPress2002
Thisbookisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception
andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,
noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithout
thewrittenpermissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.
Firstpublished2002
PrintedintheUnitedKingdomattheUniversityPress,Cambridge
TypefaceBembo10/12pt SystemLATEX2ε [TB]
AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary
isbn0521815878hardback
ShakespeareSurveywasfirstpublishedin1948.Itsfirst
eighteenvolumeswereeditedbyAllardyceNicoll.
KennethMuireditedvolumes19to33.
StanleyWellseditedvolumes34to52.
CONTENTS
ListofIllustrations pageix
Kiernan Ryan KingLear:ARetrospect,1980–2000 1
Richard Knowles HowShakespeareKnewKingLeir 12
William O. Scott ContractsofLoveandAffection:Lear,OldAge,andKingship 36
Andrew Gurr HeadgearasaParalinguisticSignifierinKingLear 43
Drew Milne Whatbecomesofthebroken-hearted:KingLearandthe
DissociationofSensibility 53
John J. Joughin Lear’sAfterlife 67
William C. Carroll SongsofMadness:TheLyricAfterlifeofShakespeare’sPoorTom 82
Peter Womack SecularizingKingLear:Shakespeare,Tate,andtheSacred 96
Janet Bottoms ‘Lookonher,look’:TheApotheosisofCordelia 106
Iska Alter JacobGordin’sMireleEfros:KingLearasJewishMother 114
Richard Foulkes ‘HowfineaplaywasMrsLear’:TheCaseforGordon
Bottomley’sKingLear’sWife 128
Richard Proudfoot SomeLears 139
R. A. Foakes KingLearandEndgame 153
Thomas Cartelli ShakespeareinPain:EdwardBond’sLearandtheGhosts
ofHistory 159
Mark Houlahan ‘ThinkaboutShakespeare’:KingLearonPacificCliffs 170
Michael Cordner Actors,Editors,andtheAnnotationofShakespearianPlayscripts 181
Niall Rudd TitusAndronicus:TheClassicalPresence 199
Robin Headlam Wells JuliusCaesar,Machiavelli,andtheUsesofHistory 209
Kent Cartwright ScepticismandTheatreinMacbeth 219
Simon Shepherd RevelsEnd,andtheGentleBodyStarts 237
Sonia Massai ‘Takingjustcareoftheimpression’:EditorialIntervention
inShakespeare’sFourthFolio,1685 257
Jonathan Holmes ‘Aworldelsewhere’:ShakespeareinSouthAfrica 271
Michael Dobson ShakespearePerformancesinEngland,2001 285
Niky Rathbone ProfessionalShakespeareProductionsintheBritishIsles,
January–December2000 322
vii
CONTENTS
TheYear’sContributionstoShakespeareStudies
1 CriticalStudiesreviewedbyEdward Pechter 336
2 Shakespeare’sLife,TimesandStagereviewedbyLeslie Thomson 367
3 EditionsandTextualStudies(1)reviewedbyEric Rasmussen 386
EditionsandTextualStudies(2)reviewedbyJohn Jowett 392
BooksReceived 397
Index 398
viii
ILLUSTRATIONS
1 JohnPlayford,TheDancing-Master.London,1670.
[BypermissionofTheBritishLibrary] page 87
2 JohnPlayford,ChoiceAyres,Songs&Dialogues...TheSecondEditionCorrectedand
Enlarged.London,1675
[BypermissionoftheFolgerShakespeareLibrary] 88
3 KingLearrejectshisdaughter,illustratedbyHerbertSidney,inCharlesAlias,Scenesfrom
ShakespearFortheYoung(1885)
[BypermissionoftheSyndicsofCambridgeUniversityLibrary] 110
4 ‘KingLear’.IllustrationbyH.C.SelousforCassell’sIllustratedShakespeare,vol.3(1868)
editedbyCharlesandMaryCowdenClarke
[BypermissionoftheSyndicsofCambridgeUniversityLibrary] 112
5 KingLear’sWifebyPaulNash.Pencilandcolourwashfromhisownmodel
[BypermissionofTullieHouseMuseum,Carlisle] 129
6 GormflaithbyPaulNash
[BypermissionofTullieHouseMuseum,Carlisle] 133
7 KingLearbyPaulNash
[BypermissionofTullieHouseMuseum,Carlisle] 134
8 GonerilbyPaulNash
[BypermissionofTullieHouseMuseum,Carlisle] 136
9 TheCorpseWasher(ElderWoman)byPaulNash
[BypermissionofTullieHouseMuseum,Carlisle] 136
10 QueenHygdbyPaulNash
[BypermissionofTullieHouseMuseum,Carlisle] 137
11 3HenryVI,directedbyMichaelBoydfortheRoyalShakespeareCompany.
DavidOyelowoasKingHenry,FionaBellasQueenMargaret
[Photo:MalcolmDavies] 288
12 King John,directedbyGregoryDoranfortheRoyalShakespeareCompany.
GuyHenryasKingJohn
[Photo:MalcolmDavies] 290
13 Hamlet,directedbyStevenPimlottfortheRoyalShakespeareCompany.
KerryCondonasOphelia
[Photo:MalcolmDavies] 297
ix
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
14 Hamlet,directedbyStevenPimlottfortheRoyalShakespeareCompany.SamWestas
Hamlet,MartyCruickshankasGertrude,ChristopherGoodastheGhost
[Photo:MalcolmDavies] 300
15 TheTragedyofHamlet,directedbyPeterBrookattheBouffesduNord,Paris.Thecloset
scene:AdrianLesterasHamlet,NatashaParryasGertrude
[Photo:PVictor] 301
16 KingLear,directedbyBarryKyleforShakespeare’sGlobe.PaulBrennen’sEdgar,as
PoorTom,takesrefugeupthepoleintheyard
[Photo:DonaldCooper] 304
17 JuliusCaesar,directedbyEdwardHallfortheRoyalShakespeareCompany.
GregHicksasBrutus
[Photo:MalcolmDavies] 308
18 Cymbeline,directedbyMikeAlfredsforShakespeare’sGlobe.Thereconciliationscene,
increamsilkpyjamas:(fromlefttoright)FergusO’DonnellasGuiderius,JaneArnfield
asImogen,RichardHopeasCymbelineandAbigailThawasArviragus
[Photo:JohnTramper] 314
x
1980 2000
KING LEAR : A RETROSPECT, –
KIERNAN RYAN
I accounts of Lear over the last two decades, it is
plain that an equally crucial shift in assumptions
Since the 1960s, when it usurped the throne se-
andmethodswastakingplacearound1980.Inthe
curely occupied till then by Hamlet, King Lear has
1960s, the Christian paradigm that had governed
reigned supreme as Shakespeare’s masterpiece and
criticism of the play for most of the century was
thekeystoneofthecanon.Thelasttwentyyearsof
displaced by two new critical dynasties: on the
thetwentiethcenturyhaveseentheplayfallpreyto
one hand, upbeat humanist views of the tragedy
awholenewtribeofcritics,manyofthemhostile
asvindicatingthevalueofhumansuffering;onthe
andbentonBardicide.Butnoneoftheminclines
other,downbeatconceptionsofKingLearasShake-
onetodoubtR.A.Foakes’spredictionthat‘forthe
speare’s Endgame, a vision of existence as a brutal,
immediatefutureKingLearwillcontinuetobere-
pointlessjoke.Butwiththeadventofthe1980s,as
garded as the central achievement of Shakespeare,
the flood tide of theory began to lap round Strat-
ifonlybecauseitspeaksmorelargelythantheother
ford’ssoleclaimtofame,thisdivideddispensation
tragediestotheanxietiesandproblemsofthemod-
surrendered its sway to a fresh generation of crit-
ernworld’.1
ics,forwhomthemeaningofLearwasinseparable
Asthetouchstoneofliteraryvalueandstarwit-
fromquestionsoflanguage,gender,powerandthe
nessindefenceofthediscipline,thetragedyisfated
unconscious.
to be the target of every critical approach keen to
Shakespeare’s greatest tragedy is now densely
stakeitsclaimtopriority.Themostpersuasiveac-
colonized by most breeds – and some curious
count of what Shelley deemed ‘the most perfect
cross-breeds – of poststructuralist, feminist, new-
specimenofthedramaticartexistingintheworld’2
historicist, cultural–materialist and psychoanalytic
seizes the flagship of the entire subject. King Lear
criticism, and within each of these approaches, to
hasconsequentlybecomeanexemplarysiteofcon-
make matters more complex, different tendencies
tentionbetweentheleadingschoolsofcontempo-
canbediscerned.Thediversityofthereadingsthey
rarycriticism;andtoexaminethemostinfluential
have spawned, however, masks a shared commit-
rivalreadingsofLearistobringintofocusnotonly
ment to criticism as an inescapably political activ-
thekeydisputesdividingShakespearestudiestoday,
ity.Itisthisfeatureaboveallthatdistinguishesthe
butalsothecurrentpredicamentofcriticismitself.
In his survey of critical views of King Lear be-
tween 1939 and 1979, G. R. Hibbard noted that 1 Hamlet Versus Lear: Cultural Politics and Shakespeare’s Art
‘acrucialshiftwastakingplaceroundabout1960, (Cambridge,1993),p.224.
2 ‘ADefenceofPoetry’,inShelley’sPoetryandProse,ed.Donald
notonlyinthecontroversyastowhetherKingLear H.ReimanandSharonB.Powers(NewYork,1977),p.489.
is, or is not, a Christian tragedy, but also in crit- 3 ‘King Lear: A Retrospect, 1939–79’, Shakespeare Survey 33
ical assumptions and methods’.3 Looking back on (Cambridge,1980),pp.1–12;p.9.
1
KIERNAN RYAN
newwaveofShakespearecriticismfromtheShake- performed by Shakespeare’s company, and seeing
speare criticism that preceded it, and that attracts nogroundsfordubbingoneversionauthenticand
theantipathyofmoretraditionalscholars.Hitherto, ditching the other, have created a single conflated
critical quarrels about the vision of King Lear had text, incorporating as much of both versions as
beenpursuedwithlittlethoughtforitsbearingon possible and using their best judgement to choose
thesocialandideologicalproblemsofthepresent. between the verbal variants. This might seem a
Butfromthe1980sonwardtheissuewasnolonger reasonablesolutiontoatrickyproblem,especially
whether King Lear counselled affirmation or de- when editors mark the points of conflation and
spair,thewayofthecrossorthewisdomofobliv- emendation clearly and spell out the criteria for
ion.Whatmatteredwaswhethertheplaysustained theirdecisions,sothatreadersmayjudgeforthem-
or subverted oppressive structures of power and selves. But in 1978 Michael Warren published an
perceptioninitsworldandourown. article arguing that such mongrel texts violate the
integrityoftheQuartoandtheFolio,whichshould
beregardedastwodistinctplays,markingsuccessive
II
stagesinShakespeare’sconsciousartisticrevisionof
Foranumberofscholarsandcritics,however,such KingLear.TospliceQuartoandFoliotogetherwas
interpretive issues begged the fundamental ques- topineforasingle,pristineversionoftheplaythat
tion of which text of King Lear one was talking neverexisted.4
about.Newdeparturesincriticismonthetragedy Warren’s contention unleashed a debate which
were accompanied by the revival of doubts about peaked in the mid 1980s, but continued to rever-
the authority of the editions on which the criti- beratethroughoutthefollowingdecade,andisonly
cismwasbased.Thearcaneeruditionofthetextual nowshowingsignsofpeteringout.Withtheback-
scholarandtheradicalscepticismofthepostmod- ing of further articles and books by Warren, Gary
erncriticforgedanunlikely,butmutuallyadvanta- Taylor, Steven Urkowitz, Stanley Wells and John
geous, alliance to scupper complacency about the Kerrigan among others,5 the bi-textual theory of
identity of King Lear. For once, hard-core theory King Lear rapidly became all the rage. It reached
buffs could anchor their abstractions in evidence its apotheosis in the 1986 Oxford edition of The
collatedintheRareBooksRoom,whileeditorial Complete Works, which published the Quarto and
skills disdained as nitpicking drudgery could sell Foliotextssidebyside,andclaimedconfidentlyon
themselvesassexy,asthecuttingedgeoftheoryin the dustjacket that ‘For the first time, King Lear is
practice. here printed both as Shakespeare originally wrote
In point of fact, the textual problem posed by itandasherevisedit,someyearslater,inthelight
KingLearwashardlynewswhenitwasdugupand
dusted down by the ‘new revisionists’ in the late
1970s. Every serious editor of the play since Pope 4 ‘QuartoandFolioKingLearandtheInterpretationofAlbany
and Johnson has had to grapple with the fact that andEdgar’,inShakespeare:PatternofGreatExcellingNature,ed.
it exists in two substantive versions, the Quarto DavidBevingtonandJ.L.Halio(Newark,1978),pp.95–107.
of 1608 and the Folio of 1623, which differ from 5 SeeinparticularGaryTaylor,‘TheWarinKingLear’,Shake-
speareSurvey33(1980),pp.27–34;StevenUrkowitz,Shake-
eachotherinanumberofsignificantrespects.The
speare’s Revision of ‘King Lear’ (Princeton, 1980); and Gary
Quarto contains about 288 lines or part-lines that
TaylorandMichaelWarren(eds.),TheDivisionoftheKing-
are not in the Folio, including the whole of 4.3; doms:Shakespeare’sTwoVersionsof‘KingLear’(Oxford,1983),
theFolioincludessome133linesorpart-linesthat whichcontainskeyessaysbyWells,Kerrigan,Urkowitzand
areabsentfromtheQuarto;andbetweenthetwo the editors. Seminal contributions to the debate were also
texts there are over 850 verbal variants. Most edi- made, from quite different standpoints, by P. W. K. Stone,
TheTextualHistoryof‘KingLear’(London,1980),andPeter
tors, ancient and modern, aware that neither text
W.M.Blayney,TheTextsof‘KingLear’andtheirOrigins.Vol-
represents a reliable transcription of the script as ume1:NicholasOkesandtheFirstQuarto(Cambridge,1982).
2
KING LEAR: A RETROSPECT, 1980–2000
of performance.’6 More parallel-text editions have fewwerepronetolook.Inhis1986article‘Textual
followed in the wake of Wells and Taylor,7 and Properties’, Jonathan Goldberg was swift to infer
the ‘new revisionists’ have not ceased to defend from the proliferation of Lears that the text of the
theirthesisagainsttheassaultsoftheunconvinced.8 tragedywasinnatelyindeterminate,because‘Every
But the ranks of the latter, which include Philip text of a Shakespeare play exists in relationship to
Edwards, David Bevington and Frank Kermode,
haveswelled,andtheirobjectionstothetwo-Lears
hypothesishavedealtitaseriesofbodyblowsfrom 6 Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor (eds.), William Shakespeare:
whichitlooksunlikelytorecover.9 7 TMhoesCt onmoptalebtleyWMorikcsh(aOelxfWoradr,re1n98(6e)d..), The Complete ‘King
It is not simply that there is no way of prov- Lear’,1608–1623(Berkeley,1989)andRene´Weis(ed.),King
ing that Shakespeare himself made the cuts and Lear:AParallelTextEdition(LondonandNewYork,1983).
revisions in the Folio, which could just as well TheNortonShakespeare,gen.ed.StephenGreenblatt(New
have been made by someone else or by several YorkandLondon,1997),whichisbasedontheOxfordedi-
tion,hedgesitsbetsbyincludingaconflatedtextalongside
otherpeopleatdifferenttimes.Theproblemisthat
theQuartoandFolioversions.
most of the cuts and revisions are not convinc- 8 See,forexample,GaryTaylor,‘TheRhetoricsofReaction’,
ingonartisticortheatricalgroundsanyway.Inthe inCrisisinEditing:TextsoftheEnglishRenaissance,ed.Randall
FolioLear,moreover,asRichardKnowleslethally McLeod(NewYork,1994),pp.19–59;GraceIoppolo,‘The
observes: IdeaofShakespeareandtheTwoLears’,inLearfromStudy
to Stage: Essays in Criticism, ed. James Ogden and Arthur
No speech of any length is rewritten to make it sub- H. Scouten (Madison and London, 1997), pp. 45–56; and
StevenUrkowitz,‘PreposterousPoststructuralism:Editorial
stantiallydifferentincontentorstyle,nonewscenesor
MoralityandtheEthicsofEvidence’,inNewWaysofLook-
episodes are added, no changes are made in the order
ingatOldTextsII,ed.W.SpeedHill(Binghamton,1998),
ofexistingscenesorepisodesorspeeches,nonewchar- pp.83–90.
acters are added, no named characters are omitted (or 9 SeeespeciallyPhilipEdwards,reviewofUrkowitz,Shake-
renamed), no new speeches are made to introduce or speare’s Revision, and Stone, Textual History, Modern Lan-
elaborateuponthemesortoprovidenewanddifferent guage Review, 77 (1982), 694–8; Sidney Thomas, ‘Shake-
motives.Thereassignmentofspeechesmayrepresentno speare’sSupposedRevisionofKingLear’,ShakespeareQuar-
morethannormalscribalorcompositorialerror.If fLear terly,35(1984),506–11,and‘TheIntegrityofKingLear’,
represents a new ‘concept’ of the play, it is remarkably ModernLanguageReview,90(1995),572–84;MarionTrous-
limitedinitsmeansofrevision.10 dale, ‘A Trip through the Divided Kingdoms’, Shakespeare
Quarterly,37(1986),218–23;DavidBevington,‘Determin-
Even R. A. Foakes, who finds the evidence for ing the Indeterminate: The Oxford Shakespeare’, Shake-
speare Quarterly, 38 (1987), 501–19; Frank Kermode, ‘Dis-
Shakespeare’srevisionofKingLearpersuasive,con-
integration Once More’, Proceedings of the British Academy,
cludes that ‘the reworking of King Lear is not so 84(1994),93–111;AnnMeyer,‘Shakespeare’sArtandthe
thorough as to mean that we have to think of TextsofKingLear’,StudiesinBibliography,47(1994),128–
two plays’.11 So for his 1997 Arden edition of the 46; Stanley Cavell, ‘Skepticism as Iconoclasm: The Satu-
tragedyhedecided,liketheoverwhelmingmajor- ration of the Shakespearean Text’, in Shakespeare and the
Twentieth Century, ed. Jonathan Bate, Jill Levenson and
ity of recent editors, that the most prudent and
Dieter Mehl (Newark and London, 1998), pp. 231–47;
practical solution was to produce a conflated text.
Robert Clare, ‘Quarto and Folio: A Case for Confla-
Plus¸cachange. tion’,inLearfromStudytoStage,ed.OgdenandScouten,
pp. 79–108; Richard Knowles, ‘Two Lears? By Shake-
speare?’, ibid., pp. 57–78, and ‘Merging the Kingdoms:
King Lear’, Shakespearean International Yearbook, 1 (1999),
III
266–86.
For critics intent on the deconstruction of King 10 Knowles,‘TwoLears?’,pp.63–4.
11 Foakes,HamletVersusLear,p.111.StanleyCavellsumsthe
Lear – an ambition which enjoyed a lively vogue
matterupthus:‘thesensethatitisthesameplayunderchange
in the 1980s – the textual controversy, like the
isasstrongasthesensethateachchangechangestheplay’
DoverCliffscene,wasagifthorseinwhosemouth (‘SkepticismasIconoclasm’,p.237).
3
KIERNAN RYAN
scripts we will never have, to a series of revisions fellows of some critics, but also trapped them in
and collaborations that start as soon as there is a starkcontradictions.NeitherGaryTaylornorTer-
Shakespearean text.’12 For this supposition dove- ence Hawkes might seem to have much in com-
tailed with his contention in ‘Perspectives: Dover mon with their deconstructive brethren, but they
Cliff and the Conditions of Representation’ that dobothsubscribetotheviewthat,asTaylorputsit
KingLearcontrivesinthatscenetodiveoffthecliff inReinventingShakespeare,theBard‘hasbecomea
afterGloucester,vanishingintoavoidinwhichno blackhole’,andthat‘WefindinShakespeareonly
ground of cognition survives: ‘In King Lear noth- whatwebringtohimorwhatothershaveleftbe-
ingcomesofnothing,andtheverylanguagewhich hind.’17In‘Lear’sMaps’,Hawkesisequallyadamant
wouldseem(tous)solidlytolocatetheworldslides that‘No“playitself”iseveravailabletous.’18There
intoanabyss,anuncreating,annihilativenothing- isnoprimalKingLear,weareassured,onlyasucces-
ness.’13 sionofrevisionsandrewritingsonwhichweplace
In ‘Shakespeare, Derrida, and the End of Lan- our self-mirroring constructions. Hence in Rein-
guage in King Lear’, which rode shotgun in the ventingShakespeareTaylordwellsnotonKingLear,
samevolumeasGoldberg’s‘Perspectives’,JacksonI. butontheVictoriannovelBradleyturneditinto;
Cope also drew strength from the gospel accord- while in ‘Lear’s Maps’ Hawkes targets Granville-
ingtoWarrenandUrkowitz.‘Therearetwotexts. Barker’s politically loaded wartime production of
And therefore none. Or, rather, three or five’, the play, which he understandably finds more
he averred, displaying the rampant indecisiveness rewarding than Shakespeare’s non-existent text.
ofthefull-bloodeddeconstructionist.Cope’sKing How Taylor squares his editorial commitment to
Lear is ‘an absent pre-text’, at whose heart lies Shakespeare the reviser with his critical commit-
‘the transcendent absurd which defines language ment to Shakespeare the black hole is as baffling
as nothing come to unrest in never’.14 In this it as his ability to deliver, in Moment By Moment By
differssharplyfromtheLearsconjuredupbyTerry Shakespeare,anacuteconventionalclosereadingof
EagletonandMalcolmEvans,whoprovedthatnot King Lear which exposes the aridity of both these
alldeconstructionsoftheplayneedcomesoinex- pursuits.19ButitisnomorebafflingthanHawkes’s
orably to naught. For Eagleton, the tragedy tosses subsequentshortbookonKingLear,whoseintima-
all and nothing, mind and body, sense and insan- tionsofwhatliesbeyondlanguageHawkesreveals
ity into a vortex of reversals that confounds such through a trenchant analysis of Shakespeare’s dic-
falsedichotomiestoreleaseusfromtheirspell.By tion,makingnonsenseofhisinsistencethat‘thereis
forcingthebinaryoppositionsonwhichitsvision no“playitself”,onlyourdifferentreadingsofit’.20
dependstocanceleachotherout,theplayunder-
mines the mentality that holds hierarchy in place
to this day: ‘only the coupling of two negatives 12 ShakespeareQuarterly,37(1986),213–17;p.216.
can hope to produce a positive’.15 Evans begins 13 Shakespeare and Deconstruction, ed. G. Douglas Atkins and
byproposing,muchlikeGoldberg,that‘Theview DavidM.Bergeron(NewYork,1988),pp.245–65;p.254.
fromthecliff-edge,inscribedinthetheatricaltrope 14 Ibid.,pp.267–83;pp.269,277.
15 WilliamShakespeare(Oxford,1986),pp.76–83;p.78.
ofthesupplement,istheabsentcentreoftheplay, 16 SignifyingNothing:Truth’sTrueContentsinShakespeare’sText
a regress into the “nothing” spoken by the Fool’. (Brighton,1986),pp.224–34;pp.226,228.
But, unlike Goldberg, he goes on to suggest in- 17 ReinventingShakespeare:ACulturalHistoryfromtheRestoration
triguinglythatthevoidinKingLearisaninverted tothePresent(London,1990),pp.410,411.
expression of the ‘utopian plenitude’ obliquely 18 Hawkes, Meaning By Shakespeare (London and New York,
adumbratedbytheplay.16 19 1‘R99e2v)o,luptpi.o1n2s1–o4f0;Ppe.rs1p3e6c.tive: King Lear’, in Moment By
ScepticismabouttheobjectiveexistenceofKing MomentByShakespeare(London,1985),pp.162–236.
Lear as a text has not only made strange bed- 20 WilliamShakespeare:KingLear(Plymouth,1995),p.41.
4