I did expect the villains of the play to be killed as is the case in several other of Shakespeare's plays. However, the death of Cordelia definitely shocked me as most others reading the play. It almost seemed as though the death of Cordelia and the rest of the family was almost a cop out on Shakespeare's part. Almost as if he wasn't quite sure what direction to go so to be dramatic just killed everyone off in the final act leading to the rather confusing conclusion.
Because of this ending I was pleased to hear of Nahum Tate's "Happy Lear" in which the King of France and the Fool are omitted while Lear is restored to his Kingship and Cordelia and Edgar are married at the play's conclusion. This effectively turns the tragedy into a romance. At first this seemed good to me considering the morbid ending. However, after looking back on Shakespeare's Lear over the past several days, I just can't envision Tate's Lear. I cannot see Lear performed as a love story. The omission of The Fool specifically bothered me as I felt as though the charachter of King Lear would not have adequate development without The Fool there to show Lear's weaknesses and flaws. Also, Tate's Lear is too far on the opposite end of the spectrum as Shakespeare's. I would prefer the play left as a tragedy however I would like to see Lear's daughter's survive and possibly avenge the death of their father or some other scenario which leaves the play with a tragic ending while keeping a tinge redemption rather than the massacre left at the end by Shakespeare.
3 comments:
I agree that it should work as a tragedy rather than a love story. I'm not entirely sure that Cordelia should live in all cases, however.I think she had to die as a sign that Lear either was beyond help or that the nation had to rebuild on its own. My question is does Cordelia die in both versions? I only have the conflated text. Remember how it was a tragedy and a history before they threw it together?
I like the idea of Nahum Tate more than I like the actuality of him. I wonder if, when his version of the play was staged, the audience was made aware that it was his version, and not Shakespeare's original? It also makes me wonder what it is about that society that made them unable to accept the original ending. "Happy Lear" was published sometime around 1681: this is after the English civil war, after the Restoration, during Charles II's reign. I think maybe the reason "Happy Lear" had to exist is because the english were probably still trying to repair/rebuild their country after the civil war, and something as bleak and devastating as the original simply did not fit in with that mentality. I find it interesting that we in the 20th/21st century have had the exact opposite reaction: the original for us seems not only applicable, but is telling the truth about the human ability for self destruction.
@Jazzi: all three versions (Quarto, Folio, Conflated) end with Cordelia's death. This is one thing that doesn't change across the three versions.
@Therese: The Civil War and Restoration probably were decisive in Tate's version of the story. It's interesting, too, that this shows us a time when Shakespeare's works weren't considered to be sacred texts. Tate's version was not only tolerated, it was embraced and celebrated for its differences from Shakespeare.
Post a Comment