I've never read it before, and my complete Shakespeare (the Pelican) includes three versions; the 1608 Quarto, the 1623 Folio, and a conflated text. Which one should I read? Is any of them generally considered the best?
I've never read it before, and my complete Shakespeare (the Pelican) includes three versions; the 1608 Quarto, the 1623 Folio, and a conflated text. Which one should I read? Is any of them generally considered the best?
You can look all this up on the internet. Here is one from Wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Lear
The modern text of King Lear derives from three sources: two quartos, published in 1608 (Q1) and 1619 (Q2)[11] respectively, and the version in the First Folio of 1623 (F1). The differences between these versions are significant. Q1 contains 285 lines not in F1; F1 contains around 100 lines not in Q1. Also, at least a thousand individual words are changed between the two texts, each text has a completely different style of punctuation, and about half the verse lines in the F1 are either printed as prose or differently divided in the Q1. The early editors, beginning with Alexander Pope, simply conflated the two texts, creating the modern version that has remained nearly universal for centuries. The conflated version is born from the presumption that Shakespeare wrote only one original manuscript, now unfortunately lost, and that the Quarto and Folio versions are distortions of that original.
But that only lists the differences, what I'm looking for is opinions about which version is the best.Originally Posted by Dreamwoven
I should start reading the conflated version, that seems to be the universally accepted one. I never knew anything about the two other.
If you are reading it for a paper or even for pleasure but want to have a more genetic outlook (have an idea about how the different manuscrits of a literary work evolve and succeed each other, what is added, what left out and what is changed) you can then proceed to compare it with the earlier ones.
"I seemed to have sensed also from an early age that some of my experiences as a reader would change me more as a person than would many an event in the world where I sat and read. "
Gerald Murnane, Tamarisk Row
Leopard, there is no single true version, all opinions are judgements. Which do you think is the best?
I'll probably read that one, though I'm a bit wary of it since Shakespeare likely never intended for them to be mixed like that.
I haven't read any of them, which is why I'm asking other people which they would recommend.
By very ancient texts it happens more frequently as one knows, that the universal version is not necessarily the original one.
Have you ever paused to think how many different versions of the Bible exist? Which of them is most faithful to the original, if there is only one original? Which is the best one? I donīt know.
Last edited by Danik 2016; 01-17-2017 at 08:21 AM.
"I seemed to have sensed also from an early age that some of my experiences as a reader would change me more as a person than would many an event in the world where I sat and read. "
Gerald Murnane, Tamarisk Row
You make a very good point here, Danik.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote