1
______
The story of this Tragedy has been told in many an ancient ballad, and other
ingenious works; but Mr. Malone
supposes, that Shakspeare is more
indebted for his fable to "The true Chronicle History of King Lear and his three Daughters,
Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia,"2 than to any other production.
Camden, in his Remains,
gives the following account of an English King, which is also similar to the story
of
Leir, or Lear. Ina, King of the West Saxons, had
three daughters, of whom, upon a time, he demanded, whether they did love him, and
so would do during their lives, above all others? The two elder sware deeply they
would; the youngest, but the wisest, told her father flatly, that albeit she did
love, honour, and reverence him, and so would whilst she lived, as much as nature
and daughterly duty at the uttermost could expect; yet she did think that one day
it would come to pass, that she should affect another more fervently, meaning her
husband, when she were married.3
This relation, the Commentator imagines, may probably have been applied to King Lear; whom Geoffrey of Monmouth says, "Nobly
governed his country for sixty years, and died about eight hundred years before the
birth of Christ."4
Notwithstanding the number of histories and books of fiction, that have promulgated
this piteous tale of a monarch and his children, it remains a doubt b 2[Page 4]among the most learned on the
subject, whether such an event, as here described, ever, in reality,
occurred.5
But, if it never did before the time of Shakspeare, certainly something very like it has taken place since. Lear is not represented much more
affectionate to his daughters by Shakspeare, than James the
Second is by Hume. James's daughters were, besides,
under more than ordinary obligations to their king and father, for the tenderness
he
had evinced towards their mother, in raising her from an humble station to the
elevation of his own; and thus preserving these two princesses from the probable
disgrace of illegitimate birth.6
Even to such persons as hold it was right to drive King James from the throne, it
must be a subject of lamentation, that his beloved children were the chief
instruments of those concerned. When the King was informed that his eldest
daughter, Mary, was landed, and
proceeding to the metropolis, in order to dethrone him, he called, as the historian
relates, for the Princess
Anne—and called for her by the tender description of his "dear, his
only remaining daughter." On the information given to his Majesty in return, that
"she had forsook the palace, to join her sister," the king wept and tore his
hair.7
Lear, exposed on a bleak heath,
suffered not more than James, at
one of our sea-ports, trying to escape to France. King Lear was only pelted by a storm,
King James by his merciless
subjects.8
Not one of Shakspeare's plays more
violently agitates the passions than this Tragedy; parents and [Page 5]children
are alike interested in every character, and instructed by each. There is,
nevertheless, too much of ancient cruelty in many of the events. An audience finds
horror prevail over compassion, on Gloster's loss of his eyes:9 and though Dr.
Johnson has vindicated this frightful incident, by saying, "Shakspeare well knew what would
please the audience for which he wrote;"10 yet this argument
is no apology for the correctors of Shakspeare, who have altered the Drama to gratify spectators more refined,
and yet have not expunged this savage and improbable act.
The nice distinction which the author has made between the real and the counterfeit
madman in this tragedy, is a part of the work particularly admired by the experienced
observers of that fatal disorder; and to sum up the whole worth of the production,
the reader may now say of it, with some degree of qualification, what Tate said before he had employed much time
and taste on the alteration: "It is a heap of jewels, unstrung and unpolished, yet
so
dazzling in their disorder, that I soon perceived I had seized a treasure."11
It is curious and consolatory for a minor critic to observe, how the great
commentators on Shakspeare differ
in their opinions.
Tate alters the Play of King Lear, and instead of
suffering the good Cordelia to die of grief, as Shakspeare had done, he rewards her
with life, love, and a throne. Addison,
in his Spectator, condemns him for this;12 Dr. Johnson commends him for
it;13 b 3[Page 6]both showing excellent
reasons. Then comes Steevens, who
gives a better reason than all, why they are all wrong.14