King Lear: Ignatius Critical Editions

Very happy with book and with seller.

Yes, this book does not discuss the difference between Folio and Quatro, as Scanlon complains, but why is that necessary if the other critical editions have already dealt with it? This book wants to deal with Shakespeare's message rather than the medium of the message.Ever since the 1960's, post-modernistic nihilistic commentators have viewed King Lear as a post-modernistic nihilistic play. It is a tragedy where good people die with no hope and no meaning.But Shakespeare did not write in the 1960's. He wrote in Elisabethean England, when Catholics and Puritans were routinely executed for their faith. This was right after the Reformation. Christendom was divided between Catholics and Protestants. The British government came up with a middle way - Anglicanism, which was definitely not Catholic and not quite Protestant. This was not acceptable to many Catholics and Protestants (Puritans). There is evidence that Shakespeare personally knew people who met their deaths because they would not compromise their religion for the government's middle way. So the issue back then was not whether there was meaning in the world. The issue was whether that the government had the right to impose on the people what that meaning should be.King Lear wanted to retire from the throne. Normally, the heir to the throne would be the oldest child, Regan. But Lear had a special love toward his youngest child, Cordelia, and wanted to leave his throne to her. So Lear came up with a third way, just as the Elizabethean government chose a middle way. The middle way was to divide England equally for his three daughters. But he demanded from his daughters an expression of their total love and loyalty to him. The first two daughters complied. Cordelia would only love his father has much as a daughter should love his father - no more and no less. To a Christian audience at that time, this must have reminded them of Christ's admonishment that we should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's. The government at the time of Shakespeare was demanding from its people that they render unto the Caesar that which belonged to God - their faith. They were called the people to abandon their Catholic or Puritan faiths and submit to the Church of England with the Queen as the supreme head of the church. Those who refused were executed, just as Cordelia was banished for not giving all to King Lear.The consequences of Lear demanding from his daughters all their love was tragic. The daughters who complied turned against Lear when Lear was no longer the king. The one who stayed loyal to Lear was the one who would not compromise. Was this a soft message to the Queen that her most loyal subjects were the ones who would not compromise their principles to her?This was just one example of how this book opened my eyes to the message of Shakespeare in the play King Lear. There are many others. I appreciate this series' commitment to find the intention of the author, and how his contemporary audience would have understood that message. I am tired of authors being molded into the minds of their critics, instead of the authors speaking for themselves. Only by letting Shakespeare speak for himself can we understand why Shakespeare was the greatest English writer ever.

Very good!

Amazon.com first recommended this text to me, based on my purchasing history; I did look at it before reading Scanlon's review. I am a second-year graduate student in English (Renaissance/Early Modern British literature). I have loved engaging with King Lear and continue to return to that text. I chose one of the papers I'd written on it as a writing sample for my grad school applications and also selected Lear as one of the plays for my first qualifying exam. The Norton critical editions have been useful to me (especially by providing "The History of King Lear" and "The Tragedy of King Lear" on facing pages, as well as the conflated text). I also have other editions on my shelf for reference. The most useful have been the Riverside Shakespeare and the Arden editions. (Bevington's edition was required for one undergrad class, but I have not come back to that edition lately.) Stephen Orgel's introduction to the Penguin edition motivated me to rework part of my paper, to make my argument more clear.That said, I also have a copy of "The Illustrated Stratford Shakespeare," which contains absolutely no critical information, no textual notes, or editorial comments. I do wonder who decided which edition to include for each poem or play (especially the wildly different Lears) and on what criteria. For the non-specialist, or for a student who will not be held responsible for the publication history or critical history of King Lear, I have recommended the Dover Thrift Edition ($1.50)--as well as Olivier's film. I have not yet recommended the Ignatius edition, though I might. It is not a critical edition of the same comprehensive scope or academic rigor of such editions as the Norton, Oxford, Riverside, but not all readers need that.Scanlon supposes the readership for this Ignatius edition to be a "home schooling or private schooling market of little literary sophistication and preparation." He perceives that Shakespeare's King Lear is somehow inappropriate for home educated students, whom he labels as "ideologically restrained." Yes, please do "imagine" such students reading "the wrenching Lear": some home-educated students have achieved a depth and breadth of historical context, analytical reading skills--indeed, even a high degree of literary sophistication! Scanlon might be surprised to know that these students do read and write about "profound" and difficult texts, even delighting in "anything among the Greeks." Such students may--and do--go beyond the initial assignment and read the Folio, the Quarto, and Tate's revision of Lear. I know they do--I did. So did a colleague. So did another friend, who did not choose to pursue literature studies at the university level. In fact, I chose to focus my analysis precisely on "the Quarto's inexorable tragic ending with the death of the innocent Cordelia." (I even keep a print of a rendition of that tragic scene in a small frame on my bookshelf.)Of course, many other students (whether home-, private- or public-schooled) remain largely uninterested in literature; many are underprepared for reading such texts as Lear. I have worked with home-educated students, as well as at a public high school, a community college and now a public university. It is always a delight to see students engage directly with a literary classic and to become interested in the action, sometimes in spite of themselves. Even lamentably underprepared students can read this play (reading aloud can help). As they find they can understand the basics, such as the meaning of the words and the action of the play, they become more interested in discussing further. As a tutor, I found that students were more likely to become bogged down or discouraged with the text (Shakespeare's play or otherwise), when confronted with a variety of critical approaches too soon, before engaging with the play themselves.While I am not convinced that the Ignatius edition is a necessary addition to the market, I contend that Scanlon's concerns about the content are largely unfounded. Motivated students will seek out the other primary and secondary materials anyway; underprepared students will pick up this "slim volume" and be glad of the explanatory footnotes. It is those students, after all, for whom the explanations of what Scanlon or I might call "obvious" terms were intended.