Le Roi Lear (King Lear in French)

Par William Shakespeare

Traduit par François Pierre Guillaume Guizot (1787 - 1874), historien français et homme d'État. Publié en 1864. Selon Wikipedia: "Le Roi Lear est une tragédie de William Shakespeare: le personnage titre descend dans la folie après avoir bêtement disposé de ses biens entre deux de ses trois filles en raison de leur flatterie, ce qui entraîne des conséquences tragiques pour tous. basé sur la légende de Leir of Britain, un roi celtique pré-romain mythologique, il a été largement adapté à la scène et au cinéma, et le rôle de Lear a été convoité et joué par de nombreux acteurs parmi les plus accomplis au monde.

• Langue: Français
• Éditeur: Seltzer Books
• Date de sortie: 1 mars 2018
• ISBN: 9781455426164

William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare ha sido considerado unánimemente como el escritor más importante de la literatura universal. Se mantiene que nació el 23 de abril de 1564 y consta que fue bautizado, tres días más tarde, en Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. Cuatro años después de su llegada a Londres hacia 1588, ya había obtenido un notable éxito como dramaturgo y actor teatral, lo que pronto le valió el mecenazgo de Henry Wriothesley, tercer conde de Southampton. De haberse dedicado únicamente a la poesía, Shakespeare habría pasado de todas formas a la historia por poemas como Venus y Adonis, La violación de Lucrecia o sus Sonetos. Sin embargo, fue en el campo del teatro donde Shakespeare realizó grandes y trascendentales logros. No en vano es el responsable principal del florecimiento del teatro isabelino, uno de los mascarones de proa de la incipiente hegemonía mundial de Inglaterra. A lo largo de su carrera escribió, modificó y colaboró en decenas de obras teatrales, de las cuales podemos atribuirle plenamente treinta y ocho, que perviven en nuestros días gracias a su genio y talento. William Shakespeare murió el 23 de abril de 1616 en su ciudad natal, habiendo conocido el favor del público y el éxito económico.

Aperçu du livre

cover.jpg

LE ROI LEAR, TRAGÉDIE PAR WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, TRADUCTION DE M. GUIZOT

published by Samizdat Express, Orange, CT, USA

established in 1974, offering over 14,000 books

Other Shakespeare tragedies in French translation (by M. Guizot):

Antoine et Cléopâtre

Coriolan

Hamlet

Jules César

Macbeth

Othello ou le More de Venise

Roméo et Juliette

Timon d'Athènes

Titus Andronicus

Troïlus et Cressida

feedback welcome: [e-mail]

visit us at samizdat.com

Ce document est tiré de: OEUVRES COMPLÈTES DE SHAKSPEARE

NOUVELLE ÉDITION ENTIÈREMENT REVUE AVEC UNE ÉTUDE SUR SHAKSPEARE DES NOTICES SUR CHAQUE PIÈCE ET DES NOTES

PARIS A LA LIBRAIRIE ACADÉMIQUE DIDIER ET Cie, LIBRAIRES-ÉDITEURS 35, QUAI DES AUGUSTINS 1862

NOTICE SUR LE ROI LEAR

PERSONNAGES

ACTE PREMIER

SCÈNE I,  Salle d'apparat dans le palais du roi Lear.

SCÈNE II,  Une salle dans le château du duc de Glocester.

SCÈNE III,  Appartement dans le palais du duc d'Albanie.

SCÈNE IV,  Une salle du palais.

SCÈNE V,  Une cour devant le palais d'Albanie.

ACTE DEUXIÈME

SCÈNE I,  Une cour dans le château du duc de Glocester.

SCÈNE II,  Devant le château de Glocester.

SCÈNE III,  Une partie de la bruyère.

SCÈNE IV,  Devant le château de Glocester.

ACTE TROISIÈME

SCÈNE I,  Une bruyère.--On entend le bruit d'un orage accompagné de tonnerre et d'éclairs.

SCÈNE II,  La tempête redouble.

SCÈNE III,  Une salle du château de Glocester.

SCÈNE IV,  Une partie de la bruyère où l'on voit une hutte.--L'orage continue.

SCÈNE V,  Un appartement du château de Glocester.

SCÈNE VI,  Une chambre dans une ferme joignant au château.

SCÈNE VII,  Un appartement du château de Glocester.

ACTE QUATRIÈME

SCÈNE I, Une vaste campagne.

SCÈNE II,  Devant le palais du duc d'Albanie.

SCÈNE III,  Le camp français près de Douvres.

SCÈNE IV,  Toujours dans le camp.--Une tente.

SCÈNE V,  Un appartement dans le château de Glocester.

SCÈNE VI,  Dans la campagne près de Douvres.

SCÈNE VII,  Une tente dans le camp des Français.--Lear est endormi sur un lit; près de lui sont un médecin, le gentilhomme et plusieurs autres personnes.

ACTE CINQUIÈME

SCÈNE I,  Le camp des Anglais, près de Douvres.

SCÈNE II,  Un espace entre les deux camps.

SCÈNE III,  Le camp anglais, près de Douvres.

NOTICE SUR LE ROI LEAR

 En l'an du monde 3105, disent les chroniques, pendant que Joas régnait à Jérusalem, monta sur le trône de la Bretagne Leir, fils de Baldud, prince sage et puissant, qui maintint son pays et ses sujets dans une grande prospérité, et fonda la ville de Caeirler, maintenant Leicester. Il eut trois filles, Gonerille, Régane et Cordélia, de beaucoup la plus jeune des trois et la plus aimée de son père. Parvenu à une grande vieillesse, et l'âge ayant affaibli sa raison, Leir voulut s'enquérir de l'affection de ses filles, dans l'intention de laisser son royaume à celle qui mériterait le mieux la sienne. «Sur quoi il demanda d'abord à Gonerille, l'aînée, comment bien elle l'aimait; laquelle appelant ses dieux en témoignage, protesta qu'elle l'aimait plus que sa propre vie, qui, par droit et raison, lui devait être très-chère; de laquelle réponse le père, étant bien satisfait, se tourna à la seconde, et s'informa d'elle combien elle l'aimait; laquelle répondit (confirmant ses dires avec de grands serments) qu'elle l'aimait plus que la langue ne pouvait l'exprimer, et bien loin au-dessus de toutes les autres créatures du monde.» Lorsqu'il fit la même question à Cordélia, celle-ci répondit: «Connaissant le grand amour et les soins paternels que vous avez toujours portés en mon endroit (pour laquelle raison je ne puis vous répondre autrement que je ne pense et que ma conscience me conduit), je proteste par-devant vous que je vous ai toujours aimé et continuerai, tant que je vivrai, à vous aimer comme mon père par nature; et si vous voulez mieux connaître l'amour que je vous porte, assurez-vous qu'autant vous avez en vous, autant vous méritez, autant je vous aime, et pas davantage.» Le père, mécontent de cette réponse, maria ses deux filles aînées, l'une à Henninus, duc de Cornouailles, et l'autre à Magtanus, duc d'Albanie, les faisant héritières de ses États, après sa mort, et leur en remettant dès lors la moitié entre les mains. Il ne réserva rien pour Cordélia. Mais il arriva qu'Aganippus, un des douze rois qui gouvernaient alors la Gaule, ayant entendu parler de la beauté et du mérite de cette princesse, la demanda en mariage; à quoi l'on répondit qu'elle était sans dot, tout ayant été assuré à ses deux soeurs; Aganippus insista, obtint Cordélia et l'emmena dans ses États.

Cependant les deux gendres de Leir, commençant à trouver qu'il régnait trop longtemps, s'emparèrent à main armée de ce qu'il s'était réservé, lui assignant seulement un revenu pour vivre et soutenir son rang; ce revenu fut encore graduellement diminué, et ce qui causa à Leir le plus de douleur, cela se fit avec une extrême dureté de la part de ses filles, qui semblaient penser que tout «ce qu'avait leur père était de trop, si petit que cela fût jamais; si bien qu'allant de l'une à l'autre, Leir arriva à cette misère qu'elles lui accordaient à peine un serviteur pour être à ses ordres.» Le vieux roi, désespéré, s'enfuit du pays et se réfugia dans la Gaule, où Cordélia et son mari le reçurent avec de grands honneurs; ils levèrent une armée et équipèrent une flotte pour le reconduire dans ses États, dont il promit la succession à Cordélia, qui accompagnait son père et son mari dans cette expédition. Les deux ducs ayant été tués et leurs armées défaites dans une bataille que leur livra Aganippus, Leir remonta sur le trône et mourut au bout de deux ans, quarante ans après son premier avénement. Cordélia lui succéda et régna cinq ans; mais dans l'intervalle, son mari étant mort, les fils de ses soeurs, Margan et Cunedag, se soulevèrent contre elle, la vainquirent et l'enfermèrent dans une prison, où, «comme c'était une femme d'un courage mâle,» désespérant de recouvrer sa liberté, elle prit le parti de se tuer[1].

[Note 1: Chroniques de Hollinshed, Hist. of England, liv. II, ch. V, t. I, p. 12.]

Ce récit de Hollinshed est emprunté à Geoffroi de Monmouth, qui a probablement bâti l'histoire de Leir sur une anecdote d'Ina, roi des Saxons, et sur la réponse de la plus «jeune et de la plus sage des filles» de ce roi, qui, dans une situation pareille à celle de Cordélia, répond de même à son père que, bien qu'elle l'aime, l'honore et révère autant que le demandent au plus haut degré la nature et le devoir filial, cependant elle pense qu'il pourra lui arriver un jour d'aimer encore plus ardemment son mari, avec qui, par les commandements de Dieu, elle ne doit faire qu'une même chair, et pour qui elle doit quitter père, mère, etc. Il ne paraît pas qu'Ina ait désapprouvé le «sage dire» de sa fille; et la suite de l'histoire de Cordélia est probablement un développement que l'imagination des chroniqueurs aura fondé sur cette première donnée. Quoi qu'il en soit, la colère et les malheurs du roi Lear avaient, avant Shakspeare, trouvé place dans plusieurs poëmes, et fait le sujet d'une pièce de théâtre et de plusieurs ballades. Dans une de ces ballades, rapportée par Johnson sous le titre de: A lamentable song of the death of king Leir and his three daughters, Lear, comme dans la tragédie, devient fou, et Cordélia ayant été tuée dans la bataille, que gagnent cependant les troupes du roi de France, son père meurt de douleur sur son corps, et ses soeurs sont condamnées à mort par le jugement «des lords et nobles du royaume.» Soit que la ballade ait précédé ou non la tragédie de Shakspeare, il est très-probable que l'auteur de la ballade et le poëte dramatique ont puisé dans une source commune, et que ce n'est pas sans quelque autorité que Shakspeare, dans son dénoûment, s'est écarté des chroniques qui donnent la victoire à Cordélia. Ce dénoûment a été changé par Tatel, et Cordélia rétablie dans ses droits. La pièce est demeurée au théâtre sous cette seconde forme, à la grande satisfaction de Johnson, et, dit M. Steevens, «des dernières galeries» (upper gallery). Addison s'est prononcé contre ce changement.

Quant à l'épisode du comte de Glocester, Shakspeare l'a imité de l'aventure d'un roi de Paphlagonie, racontée dans l'Arcadia de Sidney; seulement, dans le récit original, c'est le bâtard lui-même qui fait arracher les yeux à son père, et le réduit à une condition semblable à celle de Lear. Léonatus, le fils légitime, qui, condamné à mort, avait été forcé de chercher du service dans une armée étrangère, apprenant les malheurs de son père, abandonne tout au moment où ses services allaient lui procurer un grade élevé, pour venir, au risque de sa vie, partager et secourir la misère du vieux roi. Celui-ci, remis sur son trône par le secours de ses amis, meurt de joie en couronnant son fils Léonatus; et Plexirtus, le bâtard, par un hypocrite repentir, parvient à désarmer la colère de son frère.

Il est évident que la situation du roi Lear et celle du roi de Paphlagonie, tous deux persécutés par les enfants qu'ils ont préférés, et secourus par celui qu'ils ont rejeté, ont frappé Shakspeare comme devant entrer dans un même sujet, parce qu'elles appartenaient à une même idée. Ceux qui lui ont reproché d'avoir ainsi altéré la simplicité de son action ont prononcé d'après leur système, sans prendre la peine d'examiner celui de l'auteur qu'ils critiquaient. On pourrait leur répondre, même en parlant des règles qu'ils veulent imposer, que l'amour des deux femmes pour Edmond qui sert à amener leur punition, et l'intervention d'Edgar dans cette portion du dénoûment, suffisent pour absoudre la pièce du reproche de duplicité d'action; car, pourvu que tout vienne se réunir dans un même noeud facile à saisir, la simplicité de la marche d'une action dépend beaucoup moins du nombre des intérêts et des personnages qui y concourent que du jeu naturel et clair des ressorts qui la font mouvoir. Mais, de plus, il ne faut jamais oublier que l'unité, pour Shakspeare, consiste dans une idée dominante qui, se reproduisant sous diverses formes, ramène, continue, redouble sans cesse la même impression. Ainsi comme, dans Macbeth, le poëte montre l'homme aux prises avec les passions du crime, de même dans le Roi Lear, il le fait voir aux prises avec le malheur, dont l'action se modifie selon les divers caractères des individus qui le subissent. Le premier spectacle

Avis sur Le Roi Lear (King Lear in French)

[shanaqui_1 · Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles]

Fourth book of the readathon. Read in snatches during a car journey and between acts in a concert! Which is probably not the best way to experience Shakespeare, laying aside the issue that I think the best way to experience it is by watching it, but I enjoyed it. I've always rather liked Cordelia, with her steadfast truthfulness, and I do remember some very vivid mental images regarding eyes being put out when, at the age of nine, I read a children's version of the story.

And of course, Shakespeare's use of language, his sense of timing, his grasp of what will look good on stage -- that's as expected: he was a master.

[scott_hercher · Évaluation : 5 sur 5 étoiles]

At the risk of sounding flippant, I realized that there are two productions of King Lear that need to be done: one set in the Klingon Empire, and the other performed by Monty Python. Go ahead, I dare you, read Poor Tom's lines like Eric Idle and try not to laugh!

[seriousgrace · Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles]

To sum up the play in one sentence: this is the story of a king seeking to divide his kingdom among his three daughters based on who could articulate her love for him the best. Beyond that it is the tragedy of emotional greed - of wanting to be loved at any cost. It is the tragedy of politics and family dynamics. Youngest daughter Cordelia is unwilling to conform to her father's wishes of exaggerated devotion. Isn't the last born always the rebel in the family? As a result Cordelia's portion of the kingdom is divided among her two sisters, Goneril and Regan. The story goes on to ooze betrayal and madness. Lear is trapped by his own ego and made foolish by his hubris.

[nicolesch-1 · Évaluation : 5 sur 5 étoiles]

There are three main reasons for the disorder already occurring by the end of Act I. The first and most obvious is Lear's madness. He certain seems to be loosing it a bit, and his crazed banishment of Cordelia and Kent couldn't possibly have done anything but harm to him. The second reason is Cordelia's sister's treachery. It could be argued that they appear to be trying to protect him and their people by taking away his knights, he is crazy after all, if it weren't for Cordelia's parting words to them; "I know you what you are;/And, like a sister, am most loth to call/Your faults as they are nam'd. Love well our father:/To your professed bosoms I commit him:/But yet, alas, stood I within his grace, I would prefer him to a better place." And a few lines later; "Time shall unfold what plighted cunning/Who cover faults, at last shame them derides." These lines seem to indicate that Cordelia knows that Goneril and Regan are not only flattering Lear for gain, but also that they hold him in contempt, and will likely do him harm, and revealing the second harbinger of disorder.

The third indicator of the chaos to come is Edmund. I feel bad for him, for the contempt others hold him in because of the doings of his parents, but he quickly does what he can to dispel my pity for him with his evil attitudes as he works to turn his father and brother against one another. I find it ironic that he distains his father's belief in fate through astrology, yet confesses that because of when he was born he was supposed to be 'rough and lecherous,' yet doesn't believe himself to have those traits he was just showing.

Shakespeare's purpose in showing this disorder seems to come from the idea of dividing his kingdom. A divided kingdom would often lead to civil war and chaos, so Lear's deliberate dividing of the kingdom would probably have been viewed as deliberately inviting disorder.

Power in England was structured in a pyramid. The king on top, and wealth and power went to a few nobles who had all the money. Lear was trying to disrupt that structure in a way that would have alarmed the people watching the play. Cordelia took a great risk in not bowing to her father's wishes, as his denying her dowry could have driven away both her suitors, leaving her alone and destitute in a world that didn't favor lone women. In her case, however Cordelia's suitor from France still marries her, which would be very unusual since she had no dowry, and she wouldn't gain him an alliance with England.

Family dynamics can change depending on the health of a person, as others may come into their lives and as children grow up. Cordelia was Lear's favorite child, yet when she would not lie to him with flattery, he cast her off. Why? Did he not realize that her impending marriage would change is relationship with her? She would still love him, of course, but even with the play being in pre-Christian era, the belief would probably have been that the wife's foremost alliegence should be to her husband, and Lear should have understood this. In fact, it seems strange that he would have even questioned this part of the structure of society at all.

No one has a perfect family. This is shown in Edgar and Edmund's family. Gloster (or Gloucester as some versions call him) may have been unfaithful to his wife, it's never stated whether she was alive at the time of Edmund's conception. If Gloster was unfaithful to his wife than he was dishonest and breaking one of the oldest understandings of marriage. If Edgar's mother had already died, that Gloster was not responsible enough to remarry, and to marry Edmund's mother, or at least admit himself Edmund's father when the boy was a child, instead of waiting until Edmund was old enough to distinguish himself, and in doing so, add to Gloster's reputation. It seems very unfair that Edmund, and almost any other illigitmate child born until the the late 1900s should be punished for something that their parents did. Yet neither should Edmund take out his misfortunes on his brother, who was, in all probability, guiltless in tormenting him. After all, Edgar trusts Edmund completely, which does not seem like an attitude he would hold had he tormented Edmund before. I think that Gloster could have stopped his fate had he treated Edmund with kindness from the beginning of his life, rather than waiting until Edmund could add to his reputation to acknowledge him.

I don't actually seem him mocking Edmund, so much as simply being ashamed of his illegitimacy because it was Gloster's own act that was the cause of Edmund's bastardy. As Gloster was speaking to Kent, he was very frank about the manner of Edmund's conception, to the point that we would say he was being rude to Edmund, but really, for the time, the fact that he had acknowledged Edmund as his son at all was better than many bastards would have gotten. For this reason I think that more than anything it was the fact that he took so long to acknowledge Edmund, that led to Edmund's bitterness and Gloster's downfall.

(This review is patched up from posts I made on an online Shakespeare class)

[hahnasay · Évaluation : 5 sur 5 étoiles]

Its Shakespeare! What more do you want me to say. He's wonderful!

[katieloucks · Évaluation : 3 sur 5 étoiles]

Not my cup of tea, but it was nice to read it because I haven't before.

[cbl_tn · Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles]

King Lear makes a fateful decision to divide his kingdom between his three daughters. The reaction of one daughter, Cordelia, displeases the king so much that he cuts her out of any inheritance. The kingdom will be divided between the other two daughters, Goneril and Regan. His plan is that they will take care of him in his old age. They soon decide that they don't want to use their inheritance to support their father, and the king finds himself with nowhere to shelter in a violent storm. Meanwhile, the Earl of Gloucester's illegitimate son plots to usurp his legitimate brother's place as their father's heir. As in many of Shakespeare's plays, there are characters in disguise. It's filled with violence and cruelty without comic relief like the gravedigger scene in Hamlet. The family conflict at its heart will continue to resonate with audiences and readers as long as there are families.

[rbeene-1 · Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles]

Shakespeare but I have not read it in a long time and I do not think that I have ever seen it.

[debicates · Évaluation : 5 sur 5 étoiles]

No Kings! Readathon
June 14, 2025

I'm reviewing books about Kings today. How did it turn out for the Kings and the wannabe Kings in classic literature?

[therebelprince · Évaluation : 5 sur 5 étoiles]

A very enjoyable edition. Unlike most of the Arden editions, Foakes comes across more as an educator than an academic-among-friends. This does mean occasionally that he'll cover ground most professional-level readers already understand, but it makes this a really well-rounded introduction to the play.

The decision here is to incorporate both Quarto and Folio texts in one, with the differences clearly delineated. It's probably the best possible option for this play, and well done.

[dinadansfriend · Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles]

Not my favourite play, but I did read it for completeness. A king, worn down by the trammells of office, divides his domain among his children and suffers from the flaws in his parenting. He is eventually reduced to roaming the fields and assailling "Deaf heaven with his bootless cries."

[charlie68_1 · Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles]

An intriguing play aptly portrayed by the cast, working with an excellent script.

[angelarenea-1 · Évaluation : 3 sur 5 étoiles]

A fairly quick read. I didn't love it as much as I remember. Lear was way obsessed with 'nature' and the whole thing was so pompous. But not as bad as some of his other stuff.

[jwhenderson_1 · Évaluation : 5 sur 5 étoiles]

The division of the Kingdom begins the play with first, the Earls of Kent and Gloucester speculating on the basis for the division and second, the actual division by Lear based on professions of love requested from his three daughters. When this event goes not as planned the action of the play ensues and the reader is in for a wild ride, much as Lear himself.

The play provides one of Shakespeare's most thoroughly evil characters in Edmund while much of the rest of the cast is aligned against each other with Lear the outcast suffering along with the Earl of Gloucester who is tricked by his bastard son Edmund into believing that his other son Edgar is plotting against him. While there are some lighter moments the play is generally very dark filled with the bitter results of Lear's poor decisions at the outset. Interestingly we do not get much of a back story and find, other than his age of four score years, little else to suggest why Lear would surrender his power and his Kingdom at the outset. The play is certainly powerful and maintains your interest through dramatic scenes, while it also provides for many questions - some of which remain unanswered.

[deckla_1 · Évaluation : 3 sur 5 étoiles]

The illustrations are unremarkable.

[meditationesmartini · Évaluation : 5 sur 5 étoiles]

This is especially devastating because (sorry, Aristotle's Poetics, but indeed because) it departs from the conventions of good Greek tragedy. Nobody's led astray slickly by their tragic flaw;* Lear's ennobled by suffering perhaps but at the start he's no philosopher king (as I'd envisioned) but a belching, beer can crushing Dark Ages thug lord who definitely brings it on himself, but not in any exquisite "his virtue was his fall" way. Cordelia is, not an ungrateful, but an ungracious child whose tongue is a fat slab of ham and who can't even manage the basic level of social graces to not spark a family feud that leaves everyone killed (surely a low bar!!). Goneril and Regan are straight-up venial malice, Shakespeare's Pardoner and Summoner; Edmund, obviously, charismatic, but a baaaad man; and the default good guys, the ones with the chance to win the day and transform this blood-filled torture show into two hours' pleasing traffic of the stage, obviously fumble it bigly (Albany, unbrave and too subtle; Kent, brave and too unsubtle; Gloucester, a spineless joke; and what is Edgar doing out in that wilderness when he should be teaming up with Cordelia and Kent to plan an invasion that's a MacArthuresque comeback and not a disaster, to go down as the plucky band of good friends who renewed the social compact with their steel and founded a second Camelot, a new England). They're not all monsters, and there are frequent glimmers of greatness, but they fuck it all up; in other words, they're us.

And then Lear's madness has much too much of, like, an MRA drum circle meeting, with the Fool and Kent and Edgar/John o'Bedlam (that's a name, that) farting around the wastes going "Fuckin' bitches, can't live with em, can't smack em one like they deserve" (though of course this is a Shakespearean tragedy, so everyone pretty much gonna get smacked one sooner or later). Not tragic flaws, in other words, but just flaws, with only glimmers of the good, and all the more devastating for that because all the more real. It's haaard to keep it together for a whole lifetime and not degenerate into a sad caricature of you at your best, or you as you could have been, and I wonder how many families start out full of love and functional relations and wind up kind of hating each other in a low key way just because of the accretion of mental abrasions plus the occasional big wound and because life is long.

This seems like a family that just got tired of not hating each other, standing in for a social order that's gotten tired of basically working from day to day, and everyone's just itching to flip the table and ruin Thanksgiving. I have little faith, post-play, that Edgar or Albany in charge will salvage the day--historically, of course, their analogues did not--and it's gonna be a long hard road to a fresh start (we don't of course try to find one such in the actual history--I mean, 1066?--pretty sure fresh starts don't happen in actual history--but I trust the general point is clear). This seems like the most plausible/least arbitrary of Shakespeare's tragedies, I am saying here, and thus also the most desolate, and one with lessons for any family (cf., say, Hamlet, with its very important lessons for families where the mother kills the dad and marries his brother and the dad's ghost comes back to tell the son to kill his uncle, a niche market to say the least), and one that I'll revisit again and again.

*Side note, my friend Dan calls me "My favourite Hamartian," and I'm recording that here because we may grow apart and I may forget that but I never want to forget really and so, hope to find it here once more

[composingcomposer · Évaluation : 5 sur 5 étoiles]

There are three main reasons for the disorder already occurring by the end of Act I. The first and most obvious is Lear's madness. He certain seems to be loosing it a bit, and his crazed banishment of Cordelia and Kent couldn't possibly have done anything but harm to him. The second reason is Cordelia's sister's treachery. It could be argued that they appear to be trying to protect him and their people by taking away his knights, he is crazy after all, if it weren't for Cordelia's parting words to them; "I know you what you are;/And, like a sister, am most loth to call/Your faults as they are nam'd. Love well our father:/To your professed bosoms I commit him:/But yet, alas, stood I within his grace, I would prefer him to a better place." And a few lines later; "Time shall unfold what plighted cunning/Who cover faults, at last shame them derides." These lines seem to indicate that Cordelia knows that Goneril and Regan are not only flattering Lear for gain, but also that they hold him in contempt, and will likely do him harm, and revealing the second harbinger of disorder.

The third indicator of the chaos to come is Edmund. I feel bad for him, for the contempt others hold him in because of the doings of his parents, but he quickly does what he can to dispel my pity for him with his evil attitudes as he works to turn his father and brother against one another. I find it ironic that he distains his father's belief in fate through astrology, yet confesses that because of when he was born he was supposed to be 'rough and lecherous,' yet doesn't believe himself to have those traits he was just showing.

Shakespeare's purpose in showing this disorder seems to come from the idea of dividing his kingdom. A divided kingdom would often lead to civil war and chaos, so Lear's deliberate dividing of the kingdom would probably have been viewed as deliberately inviting disorder.

Power in England was structured in a pyramid. The king on top, and wealth and power went to a few nobles who had all the money. Lear was trying to disrupt that structure in a way that would have alarmed the people watching the play. Cordelia took a great risk in not bowing to her father's wishes, as his denying her dowry could have driven away both her suitors, leaving her alone and destitute in a world that didn't favor lone women. In her case, however Cordelia's suitor from France still marries her, which would be very unusual since she had no dowry, and she wouldn't gain him an alliance with England.

Family dynamics can change depending on the health of a person, as others may come into their lives and as children grow up. Cordelia was Lear's favorite child, yet when she would not lie to him with flattery, he cast her off. Why? Did he not realize that her impending marriage would change is relationship with her? She would still love him, of course, but even with the play being in pre-Christian era, the belief would probably have been that the wife's foremost alliegence should be to her husband, and Lear should have understood this. In fact, it seems strange that he would have even questioned this part of the structure of society at all.

No one has a perfect family. This is shown in Edgar and Edmund's family. Gloster (or Gloucester as some versions call him) may have been unfaithful to his wife, it's never stated whether she was alive at the time of Edmund's conception. If Gloster was unfaithful to his wife than he was dishonest and breaking one of the oldest understandings of marriage. If Edgar's mother had already died, that Gloster was not responsible enough to remarry, and to marry Edmund's mother, or at least admit himself Edmund's father when the boy was a child, instead of waiting until Edmund was old enough to distinguish himself, and in doing so, add to Gloster's reputation. It seems very unfair that Edmund, and almost any other illigitmate child born until the the late 1900s should be punished for something that their parents did. Yet neither should Edmund take out his misfortunes on his brother, who was, in all probability, guiltless in tormenting him. After all, Edgar trusts Edmund completely, which does not seem like an attitude he would hold had he tormented Edmund before. I think that Gloster could have stopped his fate had he treated Edmund with kindness from the beginning of his life, rather than waiting until Edmund could add to his reputation to acknowledge him.

I don't actually seem him mocking Edmund, so much as simply being ashamed of his illegitimacy because it was Gloster's own act that was the cause of Edmund's bastardy. As Gloster was speaking to Kent, he was very frank about the manner of Edmund's conception, to the point that we would say he was being rude to Edmund, but really, for the time, the fact that he had acknowledged Edmund as his son at all was better than many bastards would have gotten. For this reason I think that more than anything it was the fact that he took so long to acknowledge Edmund, that led to Edmund's bitterness and Gloster's downfall.

(This review is patched up from posts I made on an online Shakespeare class)

[jbd1 · Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles]

One of my favorite Shakespeare plays, though it had been a long time since I read it. Didn't disappoint on a reread!

[jhudsui_1 · Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles]

This did not quite top Hamlet as my favorite Shakespeare play but it is way up there. With the exception of the black and white hatted Gloucester boys there is a lot more moral complexity and ambiguity than you normally see in Shakespeare play; it wasn't until well into the play that I had any idea who I was supposed to sympathize with between the king and the daughters and that suspense actually adding a great deal to my interest while reading. Edgar's antic disposition is a lot more interesting and entertaining to me than Hamlet's but he doesn't have anything like Hamlet's soliloquies.

[jscape2000 · Évaluation : 3 sur 5 étoiles]

The version of Lear I saw in 2012 too closely matched the texted: too many story lines, too many gag scenes, and too much talking about how hard it is to be king. The tragedy of Lear is that he gets exactly what he deserved. For me, it lacks much of the intrigue of Macbeth or the poetry of Hamlet or Othello.

[mstrust · Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles]

Vain and silly King Lear demands that each of his three daughters describe their love for him. When the youngest and favored Cordelia gives a reply that is less gushing, but more reasonable, than her sisters, the King banishes her. This sets up a chain of miserable events in which the sisters and their husbands scramble to replace Cordelia in their father's heart, but fail because ambition brings out their cruelty.

[aliceanna-1 · Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles]

Probably the best of Shakespeare's works thematically, but not the easiest to follow. The sub-plots, the various intrigues, makes for a very convoluted plot. Some great roles though -- Lear, Edgar playing a madman, the Fool, the evil Edmund and the scheming daughters ... some serious scene-stealing material.

[rosenstern · Évaluation : 5 sur 5 étoiles]

One of my favorite Shakespeare plays. King Lear asks his daughters who truly loves him, and the oldest two spin golden words of flattery while the third one cannot do so. Lear abandons his third daughter and this opens the story to the madness that follows. Brilliantly imagined characters and psyches. Worth it

[jmcgarry2011 · Évaluation : 5 sur 5 étoiles]

Excellent work. I saw this performed at the Great River Shakespeare Festival in Winona, MN. Very powerful performance. I liked this edition in particular because it explained the nuances of the language right next to the original text. That plus the performance made this easier to understand.

[neurodrew · Évaluation : 5 sur 5 étoiles]

King Lear
William Shakespeare
Thursday, March 27, 2014

In my Shakespeare class, senior year of college, the professor thought this was the play central to understanding Shakespeare. The tale is familiar; Lear gives up his Kingdom to avoid the cares of ruling, dividing it among his daughters. Cordelia, the most honest, points out that she owes him a duty but also owes her fiancé, the King of France, love and affection. Lear casts her out, because she is not as effusive as her sisters, Regan and Goneril. Goneril, hosts the King first, instructs her servants to ignore his knights, and when he goes to Regan, she sends a letter to ensure he is cast out there as well. Lear goes mad in a storm, succored by Kent, a loyal knight whose advice was unwelcome in the initial scene, and by Edgar, the son of the Earl of Gloucester, who has been usurped by the machinations of Edmund, a bastard son, and who is the lover of Regan and Goneril. Cordelia brings an army to rescue Lear, but is defeated, and in the schemes of Edmund is killed in captivity. Regan dies, poisoned by Goneril jealous of Edmund, Goneril dies by suicide after Edmund is killed by Edgar, Gloucester dies after a blinding, and Lear dies of heart attack. Lear's speeches while mad are the essence of the mature understanding of the human situation
"Striving to better, oft' we mar what's well"
"Let me kiss your hand!" Lear, in response "Let me wipe it first, it smells of mortality"
Leather bound, Franklin Library, Tragedies of Shakespeare ($34.60 4/28/2012)

[bradgers-1 · Évaluation : 5 sur 5 étoiles]

When people want to rank Shakespeare's plays, usually Hamlet comes out as number one. This, in my experience, is the only other of his plays that I have seen mentioned as his greatest. If I were to rank his plays solely based upon their impact upon the world, I would probably agree with the usual placement of Hamlet as number one. However, were I to rank them based upon their impact on me, Lear gets the nod. Lear accurately and horrifyingly portrays the primal nature of man like few other works of literature; the only other to come to my mind is Lord of the Flies. Yet it's more than that; Lord of the Flies can afford to ignore the effects of sexual attraction and familial ties upon our nature, but Lear (the work, not the character) meets these head-on and uses them to devastating effect. This play alone would guarantee Shakespeare a place as one of the greatest English authors. With the rest of his body of work, there's no question that he is the greatest.

[worldincolour · Évaluation : 3 sur 5 étoiles]

There is an abundance of reviews, essays, opinions and prejudicial comments available when talking about Shakespeare. It would seem that the man was incapable of jotting down a bad sentence, let alone a bad story, at least, that's the veil they hand you when calling Shakespeare, morbidly referred to as 'Willy' by those who know the first three lines of Hamlet's 'to be or not to be'-speech, 'the greatest writer of all time'.

In this review, I shall not beshame my opinion by calling anyone Willy, Shakey, Quilly or by using the word 'Shakespearean'. 'King Lear' is not the strongest play in the exuberant repertoire of Shakespeare. It is, however, one of the more reader-friendly ones, which means you don't need a detailed map of familial relations to follow the plot. The story of King Lear relies heavily on stories that already existed at the time, but had only served as traditional folk tales or as long forgotten myths. For those who are oblivious to the plot - King Lear wants to divide his kingdom between his three daughters, Goneril, Regan and Cordelia. Whereas Goneril and Regan go out of their proverbial ways to flatter their father, Cordelia remains reticent (but honest). Which, of course, is not much appreciated. What follows resembles the story of Oedipus, that other Blind King who slowly wandered into his own destruction. Gloucester, one of the side characters, actually does lose his eyes.

'King Lear', in the end, is a reflection on power and what one will do to achieve it. Even though it might be a bit stale nowadays, it still holds true to its message, and for those who enjoy Shakespeare's husky metaphor, this play will provide you with all the ammunition needed.

[ron_peters-1 · Évaluation : 5 sur 5 étoiles]

I enjoy the Folger editions of Shakespeare - to each his own in this matter. Some find Lear to be overblown, I am tremendously moved by it, and haunted by the image of the old man howling across the barren heaths with his dead daughter in his arms. 'I am bound upon a wheel of fire, that mine own tears Do scald like molten lead.' Lear 4.7.52-54

[leslie398 · Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles]

Thoughts on the play:
-A classic tragedy in which almost everyone dies at the end.
-I really didn't have much sympathy for Lear. He acted incredibly foolishly, not just once in turning his back on Cordelia, but many times.
-At first, Goneral seemed to be acting reasonably. If Lear had restrained his knights, much of the tragedy would have been lessened. (This was one of the foolish actions of Lear's I mentioned above.) However, as the plot moves on, she is revealed as being more and more terrible.
-Edmund struck me as the villain, and he also acted as a catalyst for villainy. So I found the scene at near the end after he & Edgar had dueled a bit hard to believe - after everything, Edgar just forgives him!?!
-I was shocked when Cornwall plucks out Gloucester's eyes. I didn't know that was going to happen! Gloucester struck me as the true tragic hero, rather than Lear. Both of them cast off deserving children, but Gloucester realized his error and suffered for it. It wasn't clear to me that Lear recognized his own faults the way Gloucester did.

[alanwpowers · Évaluation : 5 sur 5 étoiles]

Maybe the fifteenth time I've read Lear (this time in the tiny red-leather RSC edition). Always impressed, especially with the curses and curse-like screeds. I can't stand Lear onstage, particularly the blinding of Gloster (so spelled in this edition). How sharper than a serpants teeth it is / to have a thankless child--though having a thankless parent like Lear, Act I Sc I, ain't so great either. I do love the Russian film Lear with music by Shostakovich, and the King's grand route through his bestiary of hawks and eagles.
I suppose this is Shakespeare's great (that's redundant, since "Sh" is mostly "great") assessment of homelessness. The undeservingly roofless. it is also his only play on retirement, which he recommends against. Or perhaps Lear should have had a condo in Florida? Of course, his hundred knights, a problem for the condominium board, as it was for his daughters. And Shakespeare, who says in a sonnet he was "lame by fortune's despite" also addresses the handicapped here, recommending tripping blind persons to cheer them up.
Of course, Lear has his personal Letterman-Colbert, the Fool, so he doesn't need a TV in the electrical storm on the heath. That's fortunate, because it would have been dangerous to turn on a TV with all that lightening. The play seems also to recommend serious disguises like Kent's dialects and Edgar's mud. Next time I go to a party I'll think about some mud, which reduces Edgar's likelihood of being killed by his former friends.
And finally, the play touches on senility, where Lear cannot be sure at first Cordelia is his daughter.
I'm not sure, but the author may be recommending senility as a palliative to tragedy--and to aging. A friend of mine once put it, "Who's to say the senile's not having the time of his life?"