In line 74 of Shakespeare's The History of King Lear, from the First Quarto, Lear promises his second daughter, Regan, an allotment of land "no less in space, validity, and pleasure than that confirmed on Gonoril," his second daughter. It's an innocuous phrase here; and yet curiously, it is eliminated in the later Tragedy of King Lear, from the First Folio, replaced in line 80 with "conferred on Goneril." Neither phrase is deeply significant within their individual contexts, but the difference raises some interesting questions as to the nature of Lear's behavior, as well as being indicative of changes to the play as a whole.

To understand the importance of this seemingly minor disparity, one must examine the word's specific definitions. The First Quarto's choice of "confirmed" is interesting, as the word is rather loaded: its definition is given as "to make firm or more firm, to add strength to, to settle, establish firmly" (OED, 2nd ed., s.v. "confirm," 1). What's curious is that, while Lear is granting the land to Goneril, the word seems to indicate that the action is only establishing something that was already held to exist. He couldn't confirm Goneril's hold on the land if she hadn't already wielded some control.

This lends a certain emphasis to the play's portrayal of Lear as someone with less power than he thinks, but at the same time it complicates his character by suggesting a personal awareness of his weakened position. Lear spends much of the play ranting about the lack of respect he commands. If he is caught unawares by his complete loss of power following his division, then his rants can be seen as the products of shock; yet if he already believed his daughters to hold some power, then his ranting gains an air of denial. This could be said to make him a more multidimensional character, but it also throws his perspective into some question. After all, throughout much of the play, Lear is portrayed as innocent, if ignorant; making his ignorance willful, however, also impairs his perceived innocence. It is perhaps for this reason that the word is replaced by "conferred" in the First Folio.

To confer is defined, in this context, as "to give, grant, bestow, as a grace, or as the act of a qualified superior" (OED, 2nd ed., s.v. "confer," 3). Thus do we see the simplest suggestion, that Lear has simply given his lands up as a gift. The loss of significance in the transition is major, as it brings to Lear's anger a sense of righteous indignation, rather than the existentialist sense of fighting what had already come to pass. Eliminating this element ties in with the Folio's title change, from that of a History to that of a Tragedy. As Lear's innocence increases, so does the tragedy of the actions surrounding him; at the same time, this minor change subtly weakens the implications of the character, and of the play itself.

There are few words that have such opposite meanings as "do" and "speak," yet these two words appear in the same place in different versions of Shakespeare's King Lear. When King Lear asks his daughters to express their love for him in order to earn their share of inheritance, Cordelia, the third daughter, is at a loss after her sisters speak. In the Quarto, she says, "What shall Cordelia do?" but in the Folio, she says, "What shall Cordelia speak?" (1.1.67). This difference leads to the discussion of which of these words is the better choice for this line.

The sentence directly after this question, also spoken by Cordelia, is "Love and be silent" (1.1.67). Using the word "do" gives this line the meaning that Cordelia can only love her father in silence, and she is unable to adequately put her feelings of love into words. This implies that she is physically unable, rather than unwilling, to speak her love aloud. Choosing "do" also gives the reader a sense of Cordelia's feeling of hopelessness; by being the third daughter, she has never been able to compete with her sisters. They are always before her and better than her, and while she knows that she loves her father more than both of them, she has not the ability or the will to try to match or surpass their lies.

If "speak" is chosen instead, it becomes more difficult to interpret, since "love" cannot be spoken. The most likely meaning is that in attempting to speak her love for her father, she can only remain silent. This choice of words gives the suggestion that Cordelia is trying to think of something that she can say to top her sisters, but is unable, rather than that she cannot attempt to speak of love. If Cordelia is read as trying to compete and failing, rather than honestly being unable to find the words, the reader has a different view of her character. She is no longer the innocent youngest daughter who is honest in her feeling for her father and a character for whom the reader feels sympathy; in this reading, she is merely an inferior version of her older sisters, unable to fabricate fancy, eloquent lies with the same talent. When both versions of the question are considered in context with its following sentence, "do" seems to be a better fit than "speak." Both "love" and "be silent" make more sense, and make the line much more straightforward, when presented as actions rather than speech. It also provides the characterization of Cordelia that seems most consistent with her actions throughout the rest of the play. It shows her as honest and innocent, genuinely loving her father but unable to proclaim her excessive love for him over all others when it would be both inappropriate and possibly a lie.

"What shall Cordelia do? Love and be silent." Every tragedy must have an innocent victim, and this line positions Cordelia to fill that role. She is unable to act or speak, leaving her no agency over her own fate, and she becomes the tragic casualty in her sisters' battle to dominate their father.

Through the evident treachery of Goneril and Regan, Lear is shown to be wise to go ahead and divide his kingdom into shares before his death.

While we unburthen'd crawl toward death. Our son of Cornwall,
And you our no less loving son of Albany,
We have this hour a constant will to publish
Our daughters' several dowers, that future strife
May be prevented now. (1.1 39-43)

By the end of the play, the contest between the sisters becomes so great that Goneril poisons Regan and slays herself. By Lear saying these words, he is implying that there would be strife had he not taken care of his estate before death. He professes that he loves both Cornwall and Albany the same, and as sons. And by giving them both equal shares, Lear will dispatch any claims that he was unfair, or biased in this affair. The very first lines of the play show that there was popular opinion that Lear favored Albany over Cornwall. Kent says, "I thought the king had more affected the Duke of Albany than Cornwall (1.1 1-2)." Gloucester replies that the Dukes' shares are too equal for anyone to decipher which one is preferred.

With Cordelia unmarried, but about to be betrothed, Lear is promising that both Cordelia and her suitor would also be given an equal share; and that neither Cornwall or Albany would be able to contest this. This passage is important, and should be in the play, otherwise the reader sees Lear as just some crazed old man with nothing better to do than listen to how much his daughters love him. With the above statement, Lear is shown to have some wisdom and tact, which is then thrown out the window when Cordelia is the only daughter that is honest with Lear, and the only one who treats Lear with the respect deserved of a father, and a king.

This new suitor, which ended up being France, would not have to be at odds with his new brothers-in-law, because of this decree by Lear. Lear wants to publish his distribution of wealth publically, so that none of the sisters or their husbands can make false claims to the land of the others.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, strife can mean "to take by storm: to take possession of by a sudden attack; to carry by assault. (OED I: 5.b)" Strife seemed to be unavoidable however, because Lear's daughters disenfranchised their father, and took from him all of his power. Not until Cordelia came back from France was Lear even put back into the right state of mind. Without this statement included in the text, the reader would lose much background on why and how Lear was put into this position.

Competition travels hand in hand with civilization. Conflicts have arisen at different times and at different locations. Yet one line may be drawn through them all, men and women were forced to prove themselves. Be it on the battlefield or in the gilded halls of a noble, worthiness must be demonstrated. One literary work that embodies man's determination to verify his status is a Shakespearian play of world renown. This play is known in modern times as King Lear. To achieve the true breath of meaning behind King Lear one must deconstruct a pivotal scene. Using the Quarto and the Folio versions in conjunction with a modern version of King Learone is able to grasp Shakespeare's full meaning.

The severe outcome of Shakespeare's King Lear can be attributed to one moment. On the eve of King Lear's dispersal of power he gathers his three daughters before him and asks: "Since now we will divest us, both of rule, / Interest of territory, cares of state- / Which of you shall we say doth love us most" (1.1.49)? This pivotal moment unveils his one true daughter. Having been praised by his first two daughters the time comes to ask his third. This is a key area where the modern and Folio versions differ from the Quarto. The modern and Folio versions have King Lear saying "our last and least" meaning the youngest and the smallest (1.1.83). To say that this is what Shakespeare intended would be fallacy. Portraying Lear as a kind and honorable father sets the stage for an even grander fall from grace.

The true and noble man falls farther than the average man. The Quartowritten in 1608 shows Lear in a higher light. Within the Folio and the modern renditions of King Lear, the King emotionlessly calls for his third and youngest daughter, however the Quartoshows love: "the last, not least in our dear love." Revealing Lear as an upstanding father allows the audience to grasp the unbridled rage of a father betrayed. Cordelia's refusal to placate her aging father breaks the King: "Come not between the dragon and his wrath. / I loved her most, and thought to set my rest / On her kind nursery. Hence, and avoid my sight" (1.1.122-4)!

One line in a play will change a character profoundly. King Lear in the earlier Quartowas portrayed as a kind and loving father, until he was denied. The later works chose a different path and had Lear treat Cordelia as a courtier, to be thrown out at will. Cordelia forced King Lear's hand even after he asked to reconsider her words: "How, how, Cordelia! Mend your speech a little, / Lest it may mar your fortunes" (1.1.93-4).

The differences in language, definition, and overall tone of the first act in the quarto, folio, and conflated text of King Lear, may seem minor, but a closer look provides great difference in the feel of this play. King Lear can be classified under a number of different genres, pending on how it is looked upon. Those who read the play can think it is one mainly about the destruction of government or family dynamic, though it seems obvious that however looked upon, King Lear is a tragedy.

If I were to edit this play as my own I would focus in on the destruction of family dynamic that in case leads to the overall destruction of Britain as a whole. It seems that the Quarto from 1608 is closer to my reading than the Folio of 1623. When the King asks his daughters to express their love and reasoning to why they deserve land to rule, his youngest daughter Cordelia is asked to speak last. She seems tormented by the idea of proving her love and devotion through begging which as a reader seems fake and non-measuring of a person's worth. She reasonably believes that no words will show her worth, but more likely her actions proceeding of being a good and loving daughter. Clearly she has shown devotion in the past because King Lear does refer to her as his favorite daughter.

In referring to Cordelia when asking her to argue her piece, King Lear says, "Although our last and least,"(1.1.82). This line is found in the Folio and Conflated additions of King Lear. Though, in the Quarto the line reads, "the last, not the least in our dear love"(1.1.82). In simply stating the last and least, Cordelia seems only to be the youngest daughter. Though, readers know that Cordelia was the king's favorite. The Quarto's emphasis on, "not least" further proves that he most definitely does not love his youngest daughter the least, but rather the most.

The emphasis of his feelings toward Cordelia seems extremely important in understanding his downfall. The king was so appalled that his daughter would not argue why she deserves it that he simply casted her away disclaiming her as a daughter and offering her no land. King Lear seems foolish at this. He seems to care only of verbal proof rather than action from all of the time up until this point. Had Lear perhaps been more thoughtful he would judge his daughters' worth based on previous behavior and actions rather than a shallow speech that seems false. The addition of the line, "Since now we will divest us both of rule, Interest of territory, cares of State--," (1.1.47-48) not found in the Quarto, but later edited into the Folio and Conflated texts seems to change the direction of lessons learned in King Lear. The word "rule" when looked up in the OED can be defined as "To govern, to exercise sovereign power over, to control with authority."(OED 2nd ed., s.v. "rule,"4a) With the addition of this line the play again leads towards the focus of government and rule rather than the corruption of family. As the editor of my own version of the play, I would not have added this line into the play. The story is still understood without it. Though with this line comes a much stronger emphasis on the daughters wanting to rule Britain rather than their true love for their father and what they deserve. The play focuses in stronger of ruling and territory which is not necessarily the main importance that I got from my read of this play.

Plays such as this that focus in so importantly on speech and words, especially when read because there is not tone or visual to be seen are very sensitive. The slightest alteration in text whether it be punctuation or full lines being edited into or out of the play will cause great change in the read over all. Editors must be very careful when deciding what to keep and to exclude in newer editions of a play. Word choice can forever alter the feelings that a play provides and these are just two examples found in my editing of King Lear.

When Shakespeare was writing in the early 1600s the position of women was very different that what it is today. Women could not partake in politics, with the exception of Queen Elizabeth, and most professions were barred to them. Even on the stage the roles of females were played by young boys. It's rather interesting to note that the textual difference between the First Quarto and the First Folio in regards to Regan's marital position. In the First Quarto Lear says "Our dearest Regan, wife to Cornwall" (1.1.67), while the First Folio changes it to "Our dearest Regan, wife of Cornwall" (1.1.73).

While the editor may not have intended to do so, this change is actually a rethinking of women's societal role. There is only a difference of fifteen years between the publications and women did not make many progressive strides towards equality within that time frame. So what exactly is the difference between them? Well it has to do with ownership and belonging to someone. Using to connotes a sense of ownership. Circa 1600, to could be used to "indicat[e] the object of a right or claim" (OED, 2nd ed., s.v. "to," 12b). So in this text Regan belongs to Cornwall, for a wife is but property of the husband, having no rights of property herself. This fits in well with the perception of gender in the 1600s where in all cases the female is subservient to the male.

However, the First Folio text opts to use of. Of can also be used in a possessive idea but doesn't have the same relation of nouns. To is a separating word, the first belongs to the second as an object of possession. On the other hand of is a combining word, the first belongs to the second as part of some whole. To say one is the son of so-and-so would mean that the son is a son only because there is a father, the father only because there is a son. Regan still is in the position of being someone's property but the idea is that in the later text she is part of the husband-wife relationship that could not exist without one part.

The difference in meaning isn't apparent at first and there is roughly little change in the meaning of the line from the First Quarto to the First Folio. The importance of the change has to do with the connotations of the prepositions used. Regan is a possessed object when to is used to describe her position; however, Regan becomes a possessed part of a whole when of is used. This slight change may not have represented any gender-bending thought but in a current context it is a big difference once one digs past the surface of the words.

The conflated text read for class uses to, a choice I agree with. It is definitely more possessive sounding and connotes a purely owner-property relationship which fits better with the roles of the sexes in the 1600s. Also to the modern reader is would read quite differently if of was used. Since people today still say "wife of" it doesn't have that possessive nature to it. The choice to use the First Quarto preposition for modern texts is the right choice to make, not only in the context of Shakespeare's day but in the current day as well.

The first problem that arises in editing King Lear is that there is no sure method to determine what Shakespeare intended. There are two opposing arguments that can be made for the 1608 Quarto and the 1623 Folio, respectively. One might assume that because the 1608 Quarto was produced first, that it is closer to the original rendering of the play. And accordingly that, since the 1623 Folio was produced after Shakespeare's death, it must contain superfluous text contributed by editors who were not, in fact, Shakespeare himself. This argument, though, assumes that the 1608 Quarto was an accurate rendering of the play simply because it was produced first, without any hard evidence. It is, then, entirely possible that, because the 1608 Quarto was inaccurate, Shakespeare himself was responsible for the additions contained in the 1623 Folio. This being the case, the editor is left with no choice but to come to the conclusion that the modern editor has to make aesthetic decisions about the play to reconcile the differences between these two texts. Ultimately, the guide for the editor of King Lear must be his or her own reading of the play, given the fact that we simply do not know whether the 1608 Quarto or the 1623 Folio accurately renders the play as Shakespeare wrote it.

The first editorial decision I would make to King Lear is that I would try to keep as much text which appears in the 1623 Folio, but not the 1608 Quarto, as possible. This of course is because we do not know which is closer to the original Shakespeare; and accordingly, the worst thing an editor could do is delete passages which were contained in the original. I think it is a forgivable sin for an editor to add passages, but not to delete passages. The only situation where I would consider deleting passages from the 1623 Folio would be if and when the 1623 Folio made the 1608 Quarto completely unintelligible. If this situation arose then one would have to make an editorial decision based on his or her reading of the play; otherwise the 1608 Quarto should be kept verbatim, with all additions in the 1623 Folio.

The next problem that arises is the variations of individual words. In this case I think the only route to take is to consider each individually and make a judgment based on a reading of the play. For some of these variants one gets the impression that common sense editing took place between the two texts. For example in 1.1.32 the variation is between "my" and "the" as Lear speaks. "My" simply does not make a lot of sense considering that Lear does not have a great affinity with France and Burgundy. The same goes for 1.1.34 where the variant is between "purpose" and "purposes" as Lear says "Meantime we shall express our darker purpose." The plural "purposes" of the 1608 Quarto reads very much like a typo as the phrase " to express one's purposes" seems awkward if not grammatically incorrect. In the Oxford it is clear that in the 16th and 17th centuries an expression like this would use "purpose" in the singular. For example in the OED, "to serve his purpose" is given as an example from 1543 and "the devil can site Scripture to serve his purpose" is given as an example from The Merchant of Venice 1.3.97 (1).

In other examples of variants one has to make a determination based on the context of the play. For example in lines 1.1.36-37 Lear says "'tis our fast intent To shake all cares and business from our age." The variants are "first" for "fast" and "off our state" for "from our age." Within the context of the play we know that "fast" implies how Lear is conferring his authority before he is truly ready to part with it. In the same vein, we know that "from our age" will be a catalyst for the play, as Regan and Goneril use Lear's age as an excuse to diminish his authority. The nice thing about still having the two texts is that we can read them both, knowing that one must be closer to Shakespeare's original text.

In King Lear, there are many major variants between the first folio and the first quarto. These variants can cause the meaning of the script to vastly differentiate. One difference that was major was how both the words draw and win were used in one of the passages.

King Lear was talking about how he was splitting his kingdom between his three daughters. When he asked Cordelia, the youngest, he said, "what can you say, to win a third, more opulent than your sisters" (I.ii.90-91) in the first quarto, but in the first folio the word win was replaced with the word draw. There is a major difference in the meanings of those two words. According to the oxford English dictionary win means, "to be victorious in a contest of any kind" (OED, 2nd ed.S.V.3a) while draw means, "to leave undecided" (OED, 2nd ed.S.V.38).

The word win was used in the first quarto, and has a much stronger meaning in this context than draw. The king claimed to split up his land according to how much his daughters demonstrated their love for him. By using the word win, the king was conveying that he would split up his land solely determined by the daughters' answers. This would cause there to be more competition in order to get the better and larger portion of his kingdom.

In the first folio, the king used the word draw, which sounds like a less competitive word. Draw definition means to tie, which conveys that the king would split the land evenly regardless of what the daughters said. The kingdom would not be split up do to hierarchy and who sweet talked the king. Yet the word draw also means, "To take or obtain from a source" (OED, 2nded.S.V.44a), which is ironic due to the fact that the older two daughters were treacherous. After the older daughters obtained their piece of the kingdom they started to act cold towards their father. They only said great things to him in order to secure a good part of the kingdom.

In a contemporary edition, draw would be a much better word to use. The two meanings of the word perfectly describe the situation at hand. The first meaning, a tie, makes it seem like the king is not going to favor one daughter over another due to hierarchy and sweet talking, but once the two older daughters succeeded in their plot the second meaning comes out. The daughters in essence took the land for their own selfish reasons, and lied to their father when they played 'the game' of who had the silver tongue.

Though intended perhaps as a sample case, the question posed in the introduction to this assignment – that of title selection – encapsulates what is potentially a larger debate about the content of Lear. To wit, while the events of the play are tangled and complicated in the extreme (as suggested by the mention of six different characters in the 1608 title), they are actually best represented by the relatively simple The Tragedie of Lear. Indeed, it is the tragic flaw of Lear himself – misapprehension – that is central to the action of the play. On this flaw turn both the destructive and redemptive forces of the play: the impossibility of communication creates gaps into which alternative discourses can enter unbidden (Cordelia's failure to communicate her love leads her to be a "stranger to [Lear's heart] and [Lear]" (1.1.115). At the same time, however, characters like Kent and Edgar, outcast, each manage some measure of redemption thanks to the misapprehension of their respective identities. Central to all, however, is Lear's relationship with his daughters, and his misrecognition of their intentions toward him, that drives the play, as well as my editorial decision discussed at the close of this document.

While particular productions of the play may vary a great deal in their portrayals of Lear's daughters, it is important to consider that they can equally be read as innocent victims of Lear's misapprehension as they can be power hungry harridans. This is obvious in the case of Cordelia, as Lear himself repudiates his earlier disinheriting of Cordelia by naming her "my child Cordelia" (3.7.71) and begging her forgivness ("Pray you now, forget and forgive. I am old and foolish"). Here, Lear himself acknowledges his misreading of Cordelia. More in doubt, however, is the degree to which Goneril and Regan are read and misread. In the earlier portions of the play, before they are influenced by Edmund, both Goneril and Regan can easily be read as acting with due deference and diligence to their father, practicing in deed Cordelia's argument in 1.1.91-2: "I love your majesty/ According to my bond; nor more nor less." Lear himself draws this comparison when Goneril confronts him over the "disordered rabble" (1.4.231) he has brought into her home, addressing Goneril directly: "O most small fault,/ How ugly didst thou in Cordelia show!" (1.4.243-4).

Though it can be argued that Goneril and Regan's subsequent actions constitute a plot against their father, Goneril's defense should also be considered: "All's not offense that indiscretion finds/ And dotage terms so" (2.4.191-2). It is notable that the sisters at first present a united front to Lear, suggesting while they may be disingenuous with a love for Lear stronger than a love for "eye-sight, space, and liberty" (1.1.54), it is more exaggeration than fabrication. Their sins, then, while not identical to Cordelia's is similar in scope: Goneril and Regan were too effusive, Cordelia too diffident. In both cases, the failure is as to be one of communication (whether in encoding or decoding) as it is a failure of filial love.

On the other hand, Edmund's actions are born of naked ambition. He himself, alone on stage, declares to the audience, "The younger rises when the old doth fall" (3.3.22). It is not until they encounter Edmund that a more ambitious character enters the discourse of the sisters, as in 4.2.26-7 when Goneril speaks thusly of Edmund: "To thee a woman's services are due:/ My fool usurps my body." Even here, however, Goneril's infidelity must be completely divorced from context to ignore the fact that she considers her husband a coward and unworthy of her: in 4.2.52 she refers to him as "Milk-livered man!" thanks largely to his unwillingness to combat the invading forces of France ("With plumed helm thy state begins to threat;/ Whiles thou, a moral fool, sit'st still, and criest/ "Alack why does he so?" – 4.2.57-9). Likewise, Regan's desire for Edmund is not unreasonable considering her widowhood and his quickly rising political star. Quoth Regan: "My lord is dead; Edmund and I have talked;/ And more convenient is he for my hand than for your lady's" (4.5.31-3).

Given these elements, along with Lear's concern with the intersection of heredity and politics, we must consider that the actions of Albany and Cornwall are as important as those of Goneril and Regan. Indeed, while the first scene depicts Lear's daughters professing (or not) their love for him, it is Lear's affection for Albany and Cornwall that are of interest to Kent and Gloucester: "I thought the king had more affected the Duke of Albany than Cornwall" (1.1.1-2). The inheritances of Lear's daughters are explicitly framed as "dowers" (1.1.42), which is the money or property the wife brings to the husband (OED, 2nd ed. s.v. "dower, n.2, 2a). It is not the sisters, but Edgar who destroys; not Cordelia, but Albany who restores social order:

For us, we will resign,
During the life of this old majesty,
To him our absolute power; you, to your rights.
With boot, and such addition as your honors
Have more than merited. (5.3.297-301)

Considering the emphasis in this opening scene on the performative speech acts of Lear's daughters, it is important to acknowledge the illusion, the misapprehension, of feminine agency in Lear's speech. While his speech explicitly grants his daughters control over their own destinies: "Which of you shall we say doth love us most?/ That we our largest bounty may extend" (1.1.49-50). Implicitly, his choice between two prepositions can suggest an important subtext: if Regan is "wife to Cornwall" (1.1.66), as in Shakespeare's 1608 Quarto, this suggests a position or status resulting from the marriage (OED, 2nd ed. s.v. "to, prep., conj., adv.", A11b). I propose instead the model of the 1623 Folio, where the line reads "wife of Cornwall" (1.1.66). In this case, the genitive form of "of" suggests Regan is "belonging to a person or thing," here, Cornwall (OED, 2nd ed. s.v. "of, prep." 35a). This locates Regan (and by extension, Goneril and Cordelia) not as the moral agent Lear misrecognizes her as, but as an object of the political struggles that weave through the text.

King Lear is a man who is used to being in control. This is the territory that comes with being a king. It is all he knows. He decides to give up his power and hand it over to his daughters. He does not seem to realize that doing this will take away his power and respect. Once he gives up the throne, he is no longer King Lear, but simply Lear. This is indicated in the first line of the passage. It states, "Attend variant Lords of France & Burgundy, Gloster." In the 1608 Quarto, the variant reads "my," while in the 1623 Folio the word "the" is inserted. The two words combined only contain five letters, yet there is a different interpretation of the play that can be drawn from each word. If I were the editor of King Lear, I would agree with the 1608 Quarto and use the word "my" in this line.

The word my means "Of or belonging to me; of or relating to myself; which I have, hold, or possess" (OED, 2nd ed., s.v. "my," 1a). This goes perfect with the way in which Lear should be perceived in the beginning of the play. He is the man in charge. England belongs to Lear and this attitude should be displayed in the beginning. This will further display the decline of Lear throughout the play. By putting Lear in the position of power right from the start will only emphasize the fall that he has. After this word is used, the power and prestige of Lear falls off dramatically.

His daughters (Goneril and Regan) take full advantage of their newly-granted powers. They both turn against their father and want to get him out of the picture. Still in the first Act, Lear stays in Goneril's castle. He is accompanied by one-hundred knights. This shows Lear's importance still. Yet, Goneril does not want Lear to have any power whatsoever. By insisting that Lear's knights were "riotous" and trying to send some of them away, she is also trying to further diminish Lear's power. She also has Oswald and the other servants ignore Lear. Goneril says, "Put on what weary negligence you please,/You and your fellows" (I. iii. 12-13). She then goes on to tell Oswald that if Lear does not like the treatment he is receiving, he can go to Regan's (where he will undoubtedly get the same kind of treatment). Lear even begins to question what he has done. He now knows that Goneril is not respecting him and his "power." He says, "Doth any here know me? This is not Lear" (I. iv. 201). He still is under the impression that just because he was king, the he still holds the same prestige and respect that a king is given. This is obviously not the case, especially with daughters like Regan and Goneril now in charge.

Without the title, Lear is an ordinary man. He learns this the hard way. He later realizes that he is no different than a beggar. Underneath all of the clothing and prestige, everyone is human. A king left out in a storm has the same chance of survival as the beggar. Lear's dwindling power is rapidly taken away with the knights. The number goes from 100 to 50 to 25 to Lear being accompanied only by the Fool. This happens in a very short span, and Lear has been completely stripped of his power.

Lear does not realize in the beginning that he is merely a man. He takes his power and everything that comes along with it for granted. He thinks that once he gives up his kingdom, he will still yield the same respect that he once did. His own daughters know that they can treat him however they please once that power is given up. He is only a man. He is no longer king. The use of the word "my" in the beginning would imply this philosophy that he is above everyone. Then, little by little Lear is stripped (both philosophically and literally). He no longer has power, and he learns that at the very core, he is a man. In the end, there is nothing different from him and a simple beggar. This comes as a shocking reality to a person who used to be king of an entire country. However, he does realize this, which makes Lear a character that an audience can relate to. In the beginning, he is not the most likeable character because of what he does to Cordelia, but as the play progresses, Lear becomes human. Thus, he becomes a good character, and a person to root for. He does have a downfall, and he might even be mad, but these things make him human, and by the end Lear embraces this.

One specific variant in the different versions of King Lear that is interesting is when Lear says "Mend your speech a little / Lest it/you may mar you fortunes," the variant obviously being between 'it' and 'you'. This is definitely a curious change, since 'it' refers to the speech itself, while 'you' obviously refers to Cordelia.

By choosing the word 'it,' one would be assuming Lear is blaming Cordelia's speech itself, rather than her, for marring her fortunes. This seems to imply that she may not be at fault for her speech, or perhaps she has no control over it. This also may imply that she is ignorant of her speech, that is somewhat of a separate entity. Moreover, using the word 'you' has a more ominous connotation, it seems more of a specific threat, rather than general advice to watch what she says. By using the word 'you' Lear is saying a direct threat to Cordelia, he is speaking specifically of this occasion, that she must watch her speech in order not to anger him. Using 'you' also seems to isolate them. Although they may be speaking in a public area, by using the word 'you' Lear is acting like there is no crowd at all, like it is just him and Cordelia speaking, as if no one else can hear. The way he makes it so personal is the reason one could construe it as a sort of individual threat, directed ominously and specifically towards Cordelia. In this way there is also a bit of foreshadowing in the passage.

A further interesting fact about the word 'it' is that the Oxford English Dictionary says that 'it' can be a slang for sexual intercourse (OED, 2nd ed., s.v. "it" 1b). This certainly gives a different meaning; in this case Lear would be warning about the dangers of premarital, extramarital, or perhaps just sex in general. This could be taken as a malicious warning against sex, or even as a concerned father being responsible. Continuing on this theme, 'it' implies a sexless object, and Lear could be warning Cordelia that her speech is rendering her unwomanly, and therefore marring her fortunes.

Since 'you' has a more direct meaning, simply referring to the person being spoken to, it leads me to believe 'you' is the better choice. Although 'it' fits in with the traditional Shakespearean method of the multiple entendre, 'you' in this case seems to apply more to the situation. Besides that, it does imply the aforementioned threat. Namely, Lear knows that Cordelia knows what she is saying. Lear knows that she is not stupid, and is warning her specifically to watch her speech; while 'it' infers that Cordelia has little control over her agency of speech.

Scene one, act one of King Lear immediately introduces various issues surrounding loyalty, duty, and divided roles, through the use of specific and heavy language. I find it suiting that the differences between versions of the play also emphasizes these textual themes by demonstrating the strength of Shakespeare's deliberate language in simultaneously conveying multiple meanings. The variation between "confirming them on younger years," as found in the Quarto, and " conferring them on younger strengths," the Folio version of this line, perfectly demonstrates the weight of Shakespeare's language and the implications surrounding deliberately ambivalent meanings.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, confirming is " to make firm or more firm, to add strength, to settle, establish firmly." In the Quarto, it seems that King Lear is confident with his tenure and the strength of Britain's state as the result of his own influence. Lear intends to "shake all cares and business" from the political sphere by "confirming them on younger years"; or marking the strength of his influence, as it will withstand even new, and younger, rule. Yet, "confirming" also implies a certain re-establishment of proof; Lear is certain his influence will resonate through future reign. This can be viewed also, as foreshadowing later events in the play. It seems that Lear has gotten ahead of himself; he aims to declare his own authority in relation to his successors even though the throne has not yet been assumed. Lear's poor decision making is evident even before disowning Cordelia, and the specific language of the Quarto version seeks to emphasize this. The Folio interprets this line somewhat differently: "conferring them on younger strengths." Despite the variation between "youth" and "strength," the use of "confer," over "confirm," alters Lear's meaning and intention. According to the O.E.D., confer is to "to bring together, gather, collect; to add together." The decision to divide Britain evenly amongst his three daughters would signify the culmination of his reign. While this re-phrasing still emphasizes Lear's confidence, his intention is no longer to prove the strength of his office and it's consequential influence, but to finalize, or conclude, his successes through the succession of the throne. In the folio version of this line, the implication that future events will disprove his prematurely established "proof" is no longer evident, even though the plot has not been changed.

The conflated version of King Lear utilizes the folio's phrasing of this line, and is, perhaps, edited to eliminate the self-righteous connotation of "confirming." But, when comparing versions, it becomes apparent that the ambivalent duty of this specific phrase, and it's re-phrasing, is both further confused and resolved in the conflated text. It seems that these "variants" are meant to signify the strength of language, as a single word or letter can alter the entire tone or meaning of a phrase, while also mocking this strength through the conflated edition- where the intentions and attitude of King Lear are neither confirmed nor conferred. However, it is also significant that confirmation and conferral can be objectified and given; as similarly, King Lear plans to give his title away. Both verbs, and their noun forms, can work together and, perhaps, the most appropriate conflated text should realize this significance ( for example: "confirming them on conferring younger years.").

The most striking ambiguity from the selected passage of the opening scene in King Lear was the variation of the phrase "merit doth most challenge it" and "where nature doth with merit challenge" (1.1 58). This is the point in the play when Lear claims that he will give the bigger half of this divided kingdom to the daughter who appears to love him, more. According to the Oxford English dictionary, the word merit means "the quality of deserving well or of being entitled to a reward or gratitude" (OED, "merit" b). If we were to solely rely on the 1608 Quarto, we would find that the daughter who better convinced her father of their love would be deserving of a reward. Also, that Lear is the only judge of merit and who is more 'deserving' of the biggest parcel of land. The variation in the 1623 folio allows "nature doth with merit challenge" (1.1 58). The Oxford English Dictionary defines nature as "senses relating to the physical and bodily power; a person's strength or constitution" (OED "nature" 1). Neither this definition nor any of the other variant meanings of the term nature would work. Instead of the strength of a person, it can be said that nature most alludes to fate. This is because in Edmond's opening speech with his forged letter he proclaims "nature, art my goddess" (1.2 1). In the accompanying footnote, it stated that nature, or natural meant illegitimate. Therefore, the 1623 folio variant foreshadows Lear's findings that Goneril and Reagan were indeed illegitimate in merit (their worthiness was illegitimate). Nature is also fate, and so saying this, Lear's choice will not only satisfy whoever was most deserving of the reward in the first place, but also fate. This is the moment where it can be said that Lear is aware of his hand in his own demise. In the variation of the 1623 folio, with the addition of nature to merit, Lear inadvertently acknowledges a greater force than his own, a force that he cannot control, a force that will turn against him. Goneril and Reagan are forces who he cannot control and have turned against him by banishing him from their kingdoms. The storm towards the end of the play is a good example of nature in that at the storm, Lear longs to die, but lives. So in this way the storm or nature is denying him a escape and thus prolongs his agony. However, the fact that Lear curses his daughters before going out into the storm and demanding death seems like it would set the table for him to come back as a ghost which would give him power over Goneril and Reagan because he would be part of nature, and they would have to submit to his demands. Coming back as a ghost would be another way to get his kingdom back.

Line 38 of King Lear by William Shakespeare features King Lear entering the stage with Lords of France & Burgundy, Gloster. King Lear remarks in the Quarto written in 1608, "Attend my Lords of France & Burgundy, Gloster." In the Folio (1623) he instead remarks, "Attend the Lords of France & Burgundym Gloster." To help understand the context of the meaning, the word attend should be defined. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "attend: to be present in readiness for service, or in answer to an authoritative summons." From that definition, an argument can be made of the variations. In the Quarto, the word my is used. According to the OED, "my: Used affectionately with terms of endearment or (now chiefly literary) relationship; also used affectionately, compassionately, or in a jocular or merely familiar tone, with certain designations otherwise rarely used vocatively, as my man, my girl, my good fellow, my poor man, etc." While the use of attend seems to give the feel that Lear is being condescending to the lords of France & Burgundy, the use of my lightens the mood, as if the cold Lear has some warmth in this heart for these men. However in the Folio edition, the used of my is eliminated, and replaced with the simple word the. Using the eliminates any form of feeling or affection, adding to Lear's character that his emotions are notably hollow—and someone who takes pride of his power and looks down on others.

Personally, the version I would choose is that of the Folio. The reason behind this is because at this point in the play, although the protagonist, King Lear is not looked at as a very caring character. He is a man who enjoys absolute power and being complimented. The use of my would possibly confuse the reader- asking themselves why, all of a sudden, is King Lear being kind?

In King Lear by William Shakespeare, the actions of Lear's daughter, Cordelia, in the first act of the play do much to decide the subsequent events that follow. The simple question of whether or not she will verbalize her love for her father is something that Cordelia feels should not even be asked of her. Cordelia's subsequent actions or lack thereof, are what dictates the proceeding plot. The problem is that King Lear does not feel that actions speak louder than words. In his opinion, the real test of whether or not Cordelia loves him more than her two sisters will be proven with how accurately and eloquently she can express her feelings. Instead of speaking, what Cordelia decides to do will have a profound effect on the subsequent events in the play. The inconsistency explored here between the First Quarto of King Lear and the First Folio is concerning the words "do" and "speak". The word "do" is the word that should be used in contemporary editions of the play because Cordelia's passive inaction is truly what propels the drama in King Lear.

In the First Quarto of King Lear, Cordelia says, "What shall Cordelia do?" (I.i.60). The word "do" indicates an action. Cordelia is asking herself what actions she can take to prove her love for her father. After questioning herself, she makes her decision. "Love, and be silent" (I.i.60). Cordelia decides that her statement will come from silence. Instead of using speech or action, she will choose inaction. She decides not to express herself at all on the principle that her filial duty that she has given to her father should answer his question of her love. Cordelia then quietly fulfills the wishes of her father and marries the King of France. She then continues to be inactive for the rest of the play since she is living in France. The word "do" can be defined as "commotion, stir, trouble, fuss" (OED,2nd ed., s.v. "do," 1). Cordelia decides to participate in the action of still loving her father but chooses the inaction of silence. Despite this non-confrontational approach, Cordelia's decision is the catalyst that shapes the rest of the events in the play. Her inaction causes a plethora of commotion and trouble.

In the First Folio of King Lear, Cordelia says, "What shall Cordelia speak?" (I.i.60). The word "speak" limits the effects of Cordelia's question. The difference between "do" and "speak" is the fact that Cordelia does not only decide to be silent, she also decides to love her father despite the fact that he banishes her. After King Lear asks her to vocalize her love, she says, "Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave / My heart into my mouth" (I.i.90-91). Here, Cordelia vocalizes the fact that she will not act upon what her father has asked. After this, she patiently waits for her father to realize that she truly is the daughter who loves him the most while the sisters that Lear thinks are the most loving are putting their selfish plans into action. Using the word "speak" in this part of the play limits the implications that can be derived from it and downplays the role of Cordelia as an important character in the plot of the play.

Cordelia's decision to not attempt to express her love for her father in words is important because it shows the power that not taking an action has. Instead of being vocal and active concerning this question, Cordelia decides to silently love and obey her father which renders her inactive compared to the actions of Goneril and Regan. By using the word "do" instead of "speak" the audience can compare the decisions of how Cordelia reacts to her father's question to the brewing plots that Goneril and Regan decide to put into action instead of viewing Cordelia's decision as solely connected to the mechanism of speech.

Over the last few centuries, critics have found it difficult to create a universal text of Shakespeare's King Lear. This is because there are great differences from the first Quarto to the first Folio, and it is often difficult to determine which words/phrases are necessary to the meaning of the overall plot. Within the first scene, the variants present can change the meaning completely. One word present in the Folio that was not found in the Quarto is the word "nature." In the Quarto, when King Lear is deciding who to give the dowries to he states that he will reward it "Where merit doth most challenge it?" (1.1.45). However, in the Folio the same line reads "where nature doth with merit challenge?" (1.1.51). I thought it was very significant that this word was placed in the Folio, because the speeches of Gonoril and Regan contradict natural love.

In the Quarto, Lear is only asking whose duties and deeds grant them the dowry. However, within the Folio he is not only interested in their duties but their love for him as well. By integrating the word nature, Cordelia's speech makes the most sense and shows the most natural love. Gonoril and Regan state they love Lear above all else, including their husbands. They also declare their love "makes breath poor, and speech unable," but how can this be true if they are still speaking? (1.1.58). Nature can also represent sexual desire or the sexual urge, which correlates to the elder daughters use of blazon and embellishment of words to win over Lear (Oxford English Dictionary). By using their sexual vocabulary on their father, one can see how their declarations of love are very abnormal and perverted. Cordelia, who can only "Love and be silent," illustrates that the love of her sisters for their father is adulterous and even incestuous, which could be seen as very unnatural. Cordelia finds it hard to verbalize her love, and for me this is the true mark of natural love. Gonoril and Regan are governed by the rhetoric of deception, hyperbole and the exaggeration of truth and using these modes of expression mar the true nature of their feelings.

If I was the editor of King Lear I would definitely include the word nature. Nature can also be defined as the natural feeling or affection between parent and child (Oxford English Dictionary). The inclusion of this word shows the audience that Cordelia is the only daughter who truly and naturally loves her father. She believes her natural responsibility and duty is to her father because he "begot [her], bred [her] and loved [her]," but these things can only go so far; when she finds a husband, she must naturally share half his love with her husband. By stating it is unnatural to love him above all things, she shows that her love is the truest of all three.

It should be obvious to the reader that Lear's agency is one of the central issues of the play. As I was reading I had several question about Lear's intentions in giving away his land to his daughters. Those questions often come to the reader when Lear is being rejected by his daughter and realizes that he lost his power or agency. In trying to asses the root of the protagonist's problem different answers can be found in different editions of the play. There are a few variants in line 44 and 45 that give different impressions about Lear's possession and distribution of land. In the 1608 quarto Lear says; "To shake all cares and business off our state, / Confirming them on younger years," (L44/45). This choice of words is impersonal as it seems that Lear is simply doing what needs to be done for the state inevitably passing on his realm to its natural successor. Assuming that this was Lear's perception of the phenomenon it is harder to understand his reaction later on in the play when his daughter's reject him. How can he be so angry at the natural course of life taking into account that he agreed with it in the first place without appearing reluctant? The effect that these words have on the audience's perception of Lear is big since it highly accentuates how senile or lost he is. This character trait takes much away from Lear's since it portrays him as insane from the start and labels his agency as uncontrolled which causes great frustration later in the play since everything that happens can eventually be blamed on him. I prefer the editorial choice of the folio and as an editor wouldn't hesitate in choosing it. The main reason is that the language of the folio in the lines 44/45 of act one scene one emphasizes Lear's possession of his kingdom which makes a great difference on his decision and reactions later on in the play. The folio says "To shake all cares and business from our age, / Conferring them on younger strengths, while we" (L44/45). The two textual changes that jump out are "from our age" and "Conferring" because both have a great impact on the significance of Lear's decision making. Lear uses "from" instead of "off" which implies that his daughters will be taking something that is desired "from" him as opposed to a burden "off" of him. The other change has a similar effect since "Conferring" is to contribute to someone or something else which implies giving away something positive that you posses, as the Oxford Englsih Dictionary defines it: "To collect, give, or furnish as a contribution; to contribute"(OED, 2ND ed, s.v, 2 a), instead of "Confirming" which here concerns making official the affairs of the state and requires no agency from Lear. The folio edition simply gives Lear the power of decision making by making him chose to pass his land on to his daughters which is a personal choice that is not present in the quarto. This difference makes a great difference when Lear is trying to gain his power back later on in the play by making it ironic therefore more dramatic instead of simply giving the impression that he is just an old fool that can't accept that his power was taken away from him.

In reference to line seven in King Lear, the variant word in the folio of 1623 is the word "speak" as opposed to the quarto of 1608 where the word is "do". Following this line, Cordelia is responding to her father's request of demanding which daughter loves him the most, yet Cordelia fails to offer her father any flattery but the real truthful love for him. According to the OED, the word "speak" refers to the action of speaking, the powers to speak, to talk, discourse, or converse. On the other hand, the word "do" according to the OED refers to commotion, stir trouble, fuss, or the action of doing.

In reference to the rest of the text, I believe the word "do" from the quarto of 1608 better fits with the rest of this scene. Since Cordelia doesn't want to act in the same way her sisters are, by giving mere fake flattery that is only pleasing to the ear with no truth behind the words to their father, Cordelia is the only daughter that acts with sincerity and by doing so she is only banished. Ironically she is only doing the right thing, yet Lear acts by a "doing" based on false questioning of whether his daughters duty to love him as a father and king is authentic. I feel the word "speak" sets up a pretentious fakeness to the words spoken by the character. While the sisters confess their love to their father as the end all be all in their lives, Lear eats up the words spoken by his daughters and when his favorite daughter doesn't say what he wants to hear, automatically she is not doing what she should be doing, and therefore Lear sees it as a lack of love and affection, yet it sets up and establishes her role in the beginning of the play as a virtuous and genuine character.
Cordelia: What shall Cordelia variant? Love and be silent.
Speak folio 1623
Do quarto 1608

Creating a conflated text for Shakespeare's King Lear requires many difficult decisions in choosing between variants, but some differences are straightforward to choose between. An example of this would be Lear's use of either "win" or "draw" as he bids Cordelia to speak, since "draw" is a much better fit with the scene and the whole of the play. This puts a greater emphasis on Lear's failure of favoring Goneril and Regan over Cordelia and her inability to influence him, especially if one reads the play such that the division of the kingdom is decided at the onset of the play.

The reason the Folio's use of "draw" fits the play better than "win" is because it shows the lack of true competition in dividing Lear's kingdom among his daughters. In The OED, draw is defined as, "To take, receive, or obtain (money, salary, revenues, etc.) from a source of supply". The connotation is equivalent to that of inheriting. The receiver has no input on the decision. During the ceremony as it is Cordelia's turn to speak, Lear says, "What can you say to draw / A third more opulent than your sisters? Speak" (1.1.91-92). He wants her to profess her love to gain a share of his kingdom, but it is clear from the opening six lines that he has already determined how the kingdom will be divided. Lear simply wants to be praised by Goneril and Regan and give nothing to his rivals France and Burgundy. Because of this, the use of "draw" fits since Cordelia can do nothing to receive more than what is previously decided upon by Lear. It fits better with Lear's failure to judge his daughters fairly, and his constant tendency to say one thing then do the opposite. It also gives greater meaning to Cordelia's response of "nothing" since words are not able to describe her love for her father, and nothing she says will make a difference in her inheritance since the kingdom has already been divided.

Because the division of Lear's kingdom is already planned out, "win" does not belong in the text. To win implies the existence of a competition that Cordelia can triumph in, which is not the case. The contest is just a ceremony since in the play it is clear that Cordelia is the only daughter to truly love Lear, and she would win any real contest testing the love the daughters have. This is stressed in the asides Cordelia makes as her sisters speak because her love goes beyond words, and her later actions show her undying love for Lear. Lear has failed to see this at the play's outset then later realizes his mistake. Using "win" in the text makes it less clear that Lear has already decided how to split his kingdom, making "draw" the preferable variant to use in this reading of the text.

In this case, the Folio variant of King Lear is preferable to the Quarto's use of "win". This is apparent both in the context of the opening scene and in the rest of the play. Many of the variants create much more difficult decisions for an editor to make, but in this case "draw" supports the surrounding text much better than "win", emphasizing how Lear has already split the kingdom and does not actually favor Cordelia as the play begins.

In The Tragedy of King Lear, the King values public displays of flattery versus displays of real love. Initially he favors his daughter Cordelia over his other daughters Goneril and Regan, but when her silent display of love is disappointing and is overshadowed by her sister's, he turns her out from his kingdom.

The textual variant that stuck out between the Quarto and Folio versions was in Cordelia's line to her father in the first scene of the fist act, "I am sure my love's more richer than my tongue," (I.i.69-70) in which richer was changed to ponderous in the folio version.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word "richer" is defined as plentiful, abundant, and ample (OED, 2nd ed., adj. "rich" 7c). Whereas the word ponderous is defined as having great weight; heavy, weighty, massive; clumsy, unwieldy, or slow-moving due to weight or size (OED 2nd ed, adj. 1c). The OED makes reference to the quotation from the Folio edition.

The variation from the Quarto version to the Folio version is a wise one by the editors. Ponderous shows a wider range of emotion than the word richer. It expresses not only Cordelia's immense love for her father but also her inability to express it because she is literally consumed by its magnitude.

Goneril and Regan find publicly and openly expressing their love for the king when they do not really love him easy to do. Openly expressing falsities is simple and obvious for them because of their evil nature. This is simple mindedness and simple thinking and easy to do for the evil at heart.

Cordelia believes she will be able to one up her sisters by keeping her love for her father a secret. She knows she is the apple of her father's eye and his favorite daughter, so she chooses to keep the love they share a secret between them. Simply by stating "I am sure my love's more ponderous than my tongue" (I.i.75-76). This angers Lear because he is not looking for actual love from his daughter but rather a statement of her love.

More importantly the replacement of the word "richer" with "ponderous" shows not only that Cordelia is consumed by love for her father but that she is unable to speak. Ponderous implies a feeling of heaviness and weight, which brings about that feeling that not only is Cordelia speechless but physically unable to speak. A weight has come over her, bringing about her inability to speak in the presence of everyone else.

The choice of ponderous from the Folio version would also be the best suited choice for a contemporary version of the play. Ponderous gives the illusion of weight, heaviness and inability to move and or speak which relates not only to this scene but also to other characters in The Tragedy of King Lear.

The first scene of King Lear deals with the king dividing the lands of his kingdom among his daughters and their husbands. Lear speaks to his daughters in the order from oldest to youngest. Between the first two daughters, Goneril and Regan, Lear grants equal shares of land even though Regan tries to outdo her sister in professing her love to her father. As Regan states: "Sir, I am made/ Of the self-same metal that my sister is,/ And prize me at her worth. In my true heart/ I find she names my very deed of love;/ Only she comes too short, that I profess/ Myself an enemy to all other joys,/ Which the most precious square of sense possesses" (I.i. 67-72). Her statement of being made of the same metal as her sister is important to the plot of the play, especially when the reader considers Cordelia's response to her father.

Lear sounds as though he favors his youngest daughter when he asks: "what can you say to draw/ A third [of the kingdom] more opulent than your sisters?" (I.i. 84-85) Lear sounds prepared to offer Cordelia and her suitor more land than he has just given her sisters, if she will profess the same unconditional and unequalled love to him that they have. Instead, Cordelia questions her sisters' love: "Why have my sisters husbands, if they say/ They love you all? Haply, when I shall wed,/ That lord whose hand must take my plight shall carry/ Half my love with him…/ Sure, I shall never marry like my sisters,/ To love my father all" (I. i. 98-103). By saying that she must divide her love between her husband and her father, Cordelia tells the truth about what her sisters will eventually do as well. When this response causes Lear to renounce Cordelia as his daughter, Goneril and Regan convene and agree to conspire against their father so that the same may not happen to them. An interesting textual variation between the Quarto and Folio versions of the play uncovers even more about Lear's apparent favoritism turned to spite.

In reference to Cordelia, Lear speaks these lines in the 1608 Quarto: "Now, our joy,/ Although the last, not least in our dear love" (I. i. 81-82). These lines recognize that Cordelia is the youngest of the three daughters, but not the least loved by the King. The 1623 Folio deploys a different line in this place: "Now, our joy,/ Although our last and least" (I. i. 81-82). Here last and least can mean youngest and smallest, and The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word least as: "Lowest in power or position" (OED 2nd ed. "least," s.v. 2a). This definition of least implies that Cordelia's older sisters have more power than she, presumably because of their age. However, as The Oxford English Dictionary cites, a noun form of the word last can mean "A fault, vice, sin; blame; also, a physical blemish" (OED 2nd ed. "last," s.v. 3a). Is it fair to say that Lear could perhaps be referring to his youngest daughter as a sin or a blemish upon himself? Presenting these words prior to his renunciation of her, the reader may call this pure coincidence, unless King Lear could predict that his daughter would disappoint him as she did.

Through this brief analysis, the reader can see how, depending on which version of the text they read, King Lear might be implying more than it seems about his daughter Cordelia. It becomes unclear if Lear were favoring Cordelia over her sisters, or if he were already prepared to disown her from his family. If I were compiling my own edition of the text, I would choose the Folio's variation of those lines since they complicate the play's plot.

In reading William Shakespeare's King Lear, one is not without a certain amount of bias toward the themes of the play due to the hand modern editors have taken in creating a new version from the differences between the quarto and folio texts. One such option is the choosing of how to associate 'nothing' with the remainder of the play. It is the very choosing between the concluding "Nothing will come of nothing" and the questioning "How? Nothing can come of nothing" that decides the underlying tone of the remainder of the play.

Lear's stating "How? Nothing can come of nothing" (King Lear 1.1.89, quarto) immediately sets the remainder of the play up as a question because it charges the audience to discern if anything further will occur since Lear has said that it is not permissible. The idea of possibility comes into the play later with relation to Lear's other daughters, because he banishes his favorite daughter to the 'nothing' of France, but it is his endowed daughters that provide him nothing and take everything from him. The OED states that this context of 'can' is an act of giving permission for events that are to come. Therefore, Lear is not giving permission for Cordelia to be given any lands and therefore be nothing in the eyes of her suitors, and he is not giving permission for changes to be made to his method of dividing his lands.

The folio version of this statement is slightly different in that it states "Nothing will come of nothing." describing what could result from Cordelia's refusal to give her father flattery. By changing this single word the audience is lured into losing interest in the play because the very person after whom the play is named has stated that there is nothing left to happen because his daughter will get nothing and there isn't anything that will occur. The definite nature of this word is shown when Kent attempts to defend Cordelia's statements and is instead banished to nothing as well. This proverbial statement directly contrasts the firm belief of the time that God created the world and everything in it, from nothing but a word. However, one can also conclude that King Lear did not believe that anything would come of it. Despite his tragic end he may believe that once he is dead there will be only oblivion.

This definite exclamation of nothingness would help the audience to decide upon the perfect title for this work. Neither the original title of the Folio or quarto version are adequate to describe the tone of the play in the context that anything will happen. The title "King Lear's Oblivion" would describe his feelings about how the play will unfold, if not how the plot actually occurs. However, The Tragedy of King Lear is appropriate for the idea of what 'can' happen in the play as the audience has seen that Lear's permission ended badly for him because the rules were not followed as he described the events to later happen.

Lear was unable to play god by pronouncing the happenings of the future by a single word. Perhaps Shakespeare changed the phrase from question to conclusion to keep the audience surprised as to what could possibly happen in the play. The main characters are all killed by the end of the play, so perhaps Lear's words can be defined as prophesy that everyone would be in oblivion by plays end.

William Shakespeare's play King Lear opens with a scene showing Lear's desire to abdicate the throne and divide his kingdom between his three daughters; Goneril, the eldest, Regan, and Cordelia, the youngest. King Lear demands that each of his daughters express their love for him through speech, and the one that loves him the most, or expresses their love the best, will inherit the largest amount of the kingdom. Upon King Lear's arrival to his court the following exchange takes place between Lear and Gloucester, "Attend the lords of France and Burgundy, Gloucester." To which Gloucester responds, "I shall, my liege" (1.1.33-34). While Gloucester's statement is identical in the conflated text and the quarto, it reads different in the folio; "I shall, my lord" (1.1.33). While this appears to be a minor detail and difference between the two texts it aids in fully developing the proper meaning of the text.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary the word "liege" is defined as "of the superior; entitled to feudal allegiance and service" (OED, online, s.v. liege 1a.). Gloucester is referring to King Lear as "liege" showing both his inferiority and his service to the king. While looking at this line from the folio the word "lord" replaces liege, changing the meaning of Gloucester's response. The word lord, meaning "the master of servants; male head of a household" (OED, online, s.v. lord 1.) does not show the proper respect for the someone with the power of a King, while the word "liege" has a formal respect tied to it. A male peasant who was a worker of the land could be considered the 'lord' of his household, however he would never be referred to as 'my liege' by another individual because the word 'liege' is associated with those in the upper class and of ruling power over many, not just an individual household. One may also look at the word 'lord' as a word associated with the hierarchical powers of a king. From a religious standpoint Christianity refers to the Supreme Being, their God, as the lord. Because the king has supreme power over his subjects, like God does, Shakespeare may have use the word "lord" in the Folio to show an even greater respect to King Lear by Gloucester referring to the king in the same way that an individual refers to their God.

My opinion is that the word liege should be used in this instance because it is more fitting to the setting. While Lear is a king and a monarch is a very powerful and noble position he should not be referred to as lord. Because of the definitions of both of these words I have come to the conclusion that I agree with the conflated text in The Norton Shakespeare, the word liege should be used in this instance, and not the word lord. When doing a textual analysis of any work, the era in which the original text was written must be considered before a thorough understanding of that text is attained. By understanding the meaning of certain words during a certain time period we as writers and or editors are able to make decisions about which word fits the context more correctly. While both liege and lord have been inserted here in Shakespeare's King Lear and both terms are used as a sign of respect, there are small differences that affect the meanings, but by analyzing the words we, as readers, can fully understand the text that we are studying.

The slight diversities that appear in the many different versions of Shakespeare's texts may seem all but significant to the everyday reader, however once looked at more closely, the importance of these differences seem to jump off the page. It may be strange, for example, to think that by simply switching the modal verb "can" with the modal verb "will" in one single instance, an entirely new conception can be created, but for the sake of King Lear, this is precisely the case.

King Lear is a play that is layered with the theme of character's conceptions of each other and of themselves, and therefore in can be inferred that each character must be very careful in the choosing of their words in order to be understood properly; Lear himself falls especially victim to this. He seems to have trouble throughout the entirety of the play expressing himself in a way that others adhere to, and for this reason, his choosing of words specifically, hold great importance.

"Nothing?" (1.1.87) asks Lear.

"Nothing." (1.1.88) replies Cordelia.

"(Variant) come of nothing. Speak again." (1.1.89) demands Lear.

The first Quarto dictates, "How? Nothing can come of nothing. Speak Again." (1.1.79), whereas the first Folio states, "Nothing will come of nothing. Speak again." (1.1.88). My edition of King Lear would follow that of the Folio in this instance. The interpretation of this line is very meaningful for a reader's perception of Lear later on in the play. When one uses the word "can", an indication of ability is what stands out. A common example would be when a child asks, "Can I go to the bathroom?", which is almost certainly always followed by, "well of course you can, but don't you mean may you?" From the time we are children this meaning is etched into our brains and therefore the word takes on a conclusiveness taking away all instances of possibility. In the case of the Quarto, "can" indicated to the readers that Lear is certain in stating that his youngest daughter's lack of words will take away her ability for everything. For this reason, the implication of the word "will" works much better, as it represents more of an opinion. Lear believes that her lack of elaborate descriptions of her love for him will leave her with nothing, but we as readers are still left with possibility. Of course this is important towards the end of the play when Cordelia seems to be the one left with the most: a father's love and apologies, a loving husband, and a good heart. Although she ends up losing her life in the end, she of all characters gained the most and therefore the importance of possibility in that one single word-choice has great meaning.

Since Cordelia is absent from the bulk of the play, it is vital that readers see Lear's statement as opinion and not finality so that when one reaches the ending, hope can still remain, and therefore the use of "will" is most certainly the intelligent choice.

Cordelia (aside): What shall Cordelia speak? Love, and be silent.

1608 Quarto

Cordelia (aside): What shall Cordelia do? Love, and be silent.
The variation in Cordelia's speech from the 1608 Quart to the 1623 Folio and Conflated text proves to be immensely significant in shaping the attitude and social standing of Lear's outlying daughter. Moreover, Cordelia's fate is inversely subliminally foreshadowed in the 1608 Quarto use of "do," as opposed to the 1623 Folio's use of "speak." The truth is, Cordelia, like many women of her time, is unable to "do," to "bring upon (a person) some affecting quality or condition" (OED 2nd ed., s.v. "do," 5). Her actionless role is to exist in the shadow of her older sisters, her father's dismissal, and her eventual attempts to right the wrongs of her familial ties. Cordelia lacks a forum in which she can take action in any significant way, or inititate progress. Therefore, the use of "speak" in place of the word "do" is more befitting, in terms of a woman's societal role, as well as the play's plot.

In the Conflated and 1623 Folio versions, Cordelia's word "do" is replaced with that of "speak." Considering the societal circumstances, the world selection seems more appropriate since speak signifies "to beg or request; to ask for" (OED 2nd ed., s.v. "speak," 10b). Although women were suppressed in terms of both actions and language, Cordelia has a better chance of somehow validating herself through dialog. Indeed, this is what her father allows her to attempt in his request for his daughters' respective devotional dialogs. Lear wants his daughters at his feet, "speaking" to him—begging for his graces and favor without actually exerting individual rhetoric.

Cordelia's so-called privilege of being allowed to speak in her father's court is juxtaposed by her utter refusal to give in to the false, or immensely exaggerated, admiration expressed by her sisters, Goneril and Regan. In fact, she takes full advantage of this instance in being the only character willing to admit the truth.

Suppose Cordelia, at the conclusion of the play, was able to reconcile with her father and live to see the consequences, be they good or bad, of those circumstances. Then, she could be viewed as an active character, one that remained true to her sentiments, her words, and her actions--one that could "do." Yet, with her life cut short, she is unable to carry out the will of what her character could have been. Also, Lear is left to die without the reader ever knowing the extended results of his reconciliation and peace with his daughter. Thus, Lear becomes just as inactive as Cordelia in living out a life of peace, familial love, and social stability.

Characters' dialogs, especially those of Shakespeare's women, are revelatory through their language in terms of where a woman stands in society, within her family, and the ruling men around her. Cordelia's use of the work "speak," as opposed to the word "do" is telling in terms of her being unable to act on her wishes. The furthest she can move forward is through her speech, and it is obvious this is not enough for her, especially in the opening of the play. In many ways, Cordelia is trapped in the beginning of the play, and her dialog is evident of this fact. It is short, abrupt, but truthful, and, at the same time, unfulfilling in her quest to become a nonconformist, recognized and accepted by her father.