Text and plot analysis of the Quarto and the Folio King Lear

Based upon Stuart Elden’s, The Geopolitics of King Lear: Territory, Land, Earth I endeavour to list the textual references which may add new content to the source and at the same time shed light upon the main differences of the Quarto and the Folio texts.

In the Folio edition, King Lear is one of only two plays in Shakespeare’s entire work that uses the word ‘‘territory.’’ The plural ‘‘territories’’ is more common, appearing in six plays in eleven separate instances. Almost all these are places where ‘‘territories’’ means effectively the same thing as ‘‘lands.’’ Richard II banishes the Duke of Hereford (the future Henry IV) from his ‘‘territories … upon pain of life, / Till twice five summers have enriched our fields.’’8 Banishment from territories also occurs in Henry VI, Part II, and is threatened in As You Like It—‘‘or turn thou no more / To seek a living in our territory’’—and in Two Gentlemen of Verona. 9 In other places people are welcomed into the territories of a kingdom,10 and there is the constant threat of conquest or conflict.11 However, in Henry VI, Part II, Lord Somerset reports on the situation in France: ‘‘That all your interest in those territories / Is utterly bereft you—all is lost.’’12 Although this may appear to be another use of ‘‘territories’’ in a sense of lands, or as a battlefield fought over and surrendered, the relation of interest shows that it is not simply property or a strategic sense, but the political control of and stake in those places. This same phrasing is the one used regarding ‘‘territory’’ in King Lear. Lear is discussing his plans for the inheritance of his kingdom among his three daughters.

 Joseph Quincy Adams points out that “aside from the fact that the Folio omits something more than two hundred lines found in the Quarto, and adds approximately fifty lines (readily explained as due either to alterations in a late promptbook or to the peculiar way in which the manuscript for the Quarto was secured), and (2) that the Quarto throughout corrupts the metre, mutilates the verse-lining, and spoils the punctuation, the two texts are identical-except in one very curious respect: giving the same sentences, in the same sequence, they nevertheless exhibit a constant variation in verbal forms (has, hath; ye, you; wrote, writ) and in individual words (smite, strike; caitiff, coward; tax, task), for the most part unimportant, or at least not affecting the sense. So numerous are these minor differences that Miss Madeleine Doran, in her recent study, The Text of „King Lear” (1931), contends that the Quarto represents Shakespeare’s first hurried draft.”

This scholar differentiates the two texts based on the words having been used for multiple meanings by Shakespeare, eg. Heaven- sky, heaven, etc. or the choice of words and phrases in the Folio text are even more interesting as they are often merely contracted forms of full words.

As a result of the stenographers’ inability to tell from the writer’s notes exactly the form in which a word was spoken, scholars tend to believe that Shakespeare would tend to write the full rather than the contracted form. According to Miss Doran, in ninety-two instances he gives the full where the Folio gives the contracted form, usually, as in the following examples to the injury of the metre: 

By her is poison’d; she confesses [Q. hath confessed ] it. 

Sir, I love [Q. do love] you more than words can wield the matter. 

That hast this fortune on me? If thou’rt [Q. beest] noble What mean’st [Q. thou] by this? Thoud’st [Q. Thou hadst] shiver’d like…

In addition to all these, regarding verbs and tenses, mainly Present Tense was being used in the following witty way. First Folio verbs are cited, secondly verbs taken out from the Quarto:

“I love, I do love; comes, came; fall, fallen; needed, needs; sleep, slept; wake, waked; declined, declining; writ, wrote; writes, writ; strucken, struck; did, hath done; prais’d, praise; tended, tends; hear, heard; heard, hear; was, is; taken, took; look’d, look; drown, drown’d; contented, content; leapt, leaps; subscribe, subscrib’d; send, is sent; make, made; stolen, stole; did challenge, had challenged; starv’d, starve; had, has; wast, art; etc.”

The researcher thus found many mistakes in the text, too. Hereby we will list   few examples only:

Many errors are due to the failure of the stenographer to change the „primitive” forms of pronouns into the correct „derivatives”: Let her who [Q. that] would be rid of him. Gods, who make them [Q. their] honours of men’s impossibilities. I am none of these [Q. this], my lord. Upon these [Q. those] eyes of thine. Sometimes his failure to guess the proper „derivative” led him into still further error: Folio: Come, your hovel! Poor fool and knave, I have …. Quarto: Come, you hovel poor; fool and knave, I have . Folio: A plague upon you, murderers, traitors all. Quarto: A plague upon your murderous traitors all. Folio: I beseech your pardon. Quarto: I beseech you pardon me. Folio: Or your fore-vouch’d affection falls into taint. Quarto: Or you for vouch’d affections fallen.

It is highly interesting to see the challenges of the two texts, how they use variants of structures, word order being in constant alternation, which makes text analysis a beautiful though demanding work. These were much likely to be revised by Shakespeare himself:

Folio: Ay, my good lord. 

Quarto: Ay, good my lord. 

Folio: Than doth within a dull, stale ….

 Quarto: Than doth within a stale, dull ….

 Folio: Then must we look from his age to receive.

 Quarto: Then must we look to receive from his age.

 Folio: I have heard him oft.

 Quarto: I have often heard him. 

Folio: Nuncle, give me an egg.

 Quarto: Give me an egg, nuncle. 

Folio: That justly think’st, and hast most rightly said.

 Quarto: That rightly thinks, and hast most justly said. 

Folio: Which is the justice, which is the thief? 

Quarto: Which is the thief, which is the justice?

 Folio: I tripped up thy heels and beat thee. 

Quarto: I beat thee and tripped up thy heels.

 Folio: Maugre thy strength, youth, place, and eminence. 

Quarto: Maugre thy strength, place, youth, and eminence. 

Folio: But I have a son, sir. 

Quarto: But I have, sir, a son.

 Folio: Our flesh and blood, my lord, is grown so vile. 

Quarto: Our flesh and blood is grown so vile, my lord. 

Folio: And bring you where both fire and food is ready.

 Quarto: And bring you where both food and fire is ready. 

Folio: They could not, would not.

 Quarto: They would not, could not.

 Folio: If ever I did hate thee. 

Quarto: If I did ever hate thee.

As for the language used by Shakespeare, just like other Renaissance authors he also expanded language borrowing from Latin. He makes use of the process of affixation and conversion. Eg. Lear uses “accommodated” with a prefix “un” thus explaining human fragility: “Unaccommodated man is no more but such a poor, bare, forked animal as thou art” (3.4.98-100). His usage of “un” is for negating concepts.The language of the writer does not differ much from nowadays English, merely in morphosyntactic options that he used, favouring the auxiliary “do.”

There are scholars who opt out of the possibility of accepting Shakespeare’s texts as they are and they rather scrutinise its grammatical appropriateness or deficiencies. Thus, one wrote a journal article reflecting upon improper syntax in King Lear, which was aligned with confusing stage directions that made twentieth century’s directors apply their own interpretation when staging the play.

The question of a grammar for tragedy is a complex one; for the language of theatre is more than words; it is a syntax which employs gesture, sound, music, design, colour, light, and suggestion. Tragedy is, therefore, dependent not only upon the quality of literature provided by the playwright, but also upon its corollaries: the kind of language employed in production, and the kind of inferential patterns brought by the spectator into the theatre. While the dramatic form is, in one sense, static, the theatrical form is, as Harley Granville- Barker noted, also dynamic. Theatre is, therefore, a complex possessing both permanent and ephemeral traits. It is for this reason that the great dramas are critically affected by performance. Such has been the case of Shakespeare’s tragedy, King Lear, which has, perhaps, more than any other major work in Western dramatic literature, been adversely affected by the quality of theatrical language to which it has been subjected.

Lamenting on the different editions of King Lear, Margareta de Grazia concludes:

The technology of photoduplication has been fully exploited in Michael Warren’s awesome Complete KING LEAR 1608-1623. The play has been duplicated as four units: the 1608 quarto True Chronicle Historie, the 1619 quarto True Chronicle Historie, and the 1623 Folio Tragedie, and Warren’s own two-in-one Parallel Texts of the first and last of these three facsimiles. Furthermore, since all but the fourth unit consist of loose rather than bound pages, the materials can be assembled into any number of additional textual units. The Complete KING LEAR achieves with photography what the Globe Shakespeare achieved with typography. As the Globe attained standard fixity in print, so the Complete KING LEAR has attained combinatorial diversity in photo. We know how many lines make up the definitive Globe Shakespeare; the question cannot even be intelligibly asked of the infinitely variable Warren LEAR. In order to represent textual multiplicity, the Complete KING LEAR has broken out of the codex format that has dominated Western literary culture for some twelve or thirteen centuries.

In the forthcoming part of the first chapter we may consider the Quarto and Folio text separately, in order to progress with the symbolic interpretations of the two texts in the second chapter and examine characters of Folio in the third chapter to be able to draw a conclusion at the end of the dissertation regarding which variant is the more authentic and which one is more readable, a literary masterpiece.

The Quarto King Lear is often considered one of Shakespeare’s most puzzling plays, as S.A.Small regarded it:

King Lear commonly known as the Pide Bull Quarto (1608). It shows the traces of many attempts to improve (?) the reading of the text. Though not as ‘liter ary’ in its diction as the Folio version, it is full and rich in suggestive readings, revealing changes made by a reporter, an actor, a compositor, a press reader, a scribe, and even by the author himself. Since Charles Knight in 1841 noted that the „metrical arrangement is one mass of confusion” and Nikolaus Delius in 1874 concluded his study in the Jahrbuch „gegen die Annahme einer spàteren Revision des Dramas von Shakspere’s Hand,” critics have given much analytical study to its text and cannot agree on its authenticity nor on how much influence it had on the editors of the First Folio. A thorough study of the textual problem of this play has recently been made by Leo Kirschbaum in his book, The True Text of „King Lear”, 1945, published by The Johns Hopkins.

Small laments on why there is no authentic copy of the text as in Shakespearean times manuscript circulations resulted in much different printed copies as the original. The textual problem of King Lear has been brought closer to solution by Leo Kirschbaum. He considered the publication of many vital articles on the same subject, including those of Daniel, Greg, Chambers, Van Dam, and Miss Doran, to say nothing of Nikolaus Delius and Alexander Schmidt who did the pioneer work. W. W. Greg in several studies, especially in his „The Function of Bibliography in Literary Criticism Illustrated in a Study of the Text of King Lear,” Neophi lologus, XVIII (1933), and in the publication: The Editorial Problem in Shakespeare, 1942, summarised the various issues and contentions in the problem but failed to make a final solution of the problem of the Quarto text. Miss Madeleine Doran has placed high authority on the Quarto text in her „The Text of King Lear,” Stanford University Publications, 1931. This estimation is rejected by Leo Kirschbaum who reduces the value of the Quarto to the category of a „bad” quarto.

Alice Walker reflects upon the problematic features of the Quarto text as follows:

It is generally agreed that the Folio text of King Lear was printed from a copy of Q1 (1608) which had been corrected by collation with the prompt-book. The transmission of the manuscript from which the 1608 quarto was printed is prob- lematical. It has been held that the manuscript was based on a stenographic ‘report’ of the play as acted and the alternative suggestion has recently been made that the manuscript represented (like that from which Q1 of Richard III was printed) a corporate effort on the part of the actors to replace a lost prompt-book. There is undoubtedly every indication in the Lear quarto of actors’ perversions and vulgarisation, and any theory of the transmission of the Q1 text must take this feature into account.

She discusses the weakness of the text as for instance in II. v, a short scene of twenty odd lines, there are only four readings in which the quarto and Folio texts differ, none of them significant.

As an example, she quotes twice from the quarto, the second one is Poor Tom’s words which make evident that in much of the quarto text in adjacent scenes there are corrections by reference to the prompt-book which is apparent in the Folio text. In the scene before the Hovel (III. iv), for instance, over considerable stretches the Q1 and Folio texts agree as closely as in III. v: 

Edg. Poore Tom, that eats the swimming frog, the tode, the tod pole, the wall-newt, and the water, that in the furie of his heart, when the foule fiend rages, eats cow-dung for sallets, swallowes the old ratt, and the ditch dogge, drinkes the greene mantle of the standing poole, who is whipt from tithing to tithing, and stock-punisht and imprisoned, who hath had three sutes to his backe, sixe shirts to his bodie, horse to ride, and weapon to weare. But mise and rats, and such small Deere, Hath beene Toms foode for seuen long yeare. Beware my follower, peace snulbug, peace thou fiend. 

The only Folio variants are ‘stockt, punish’d’, the omission of ‘had’ in the phrase ‘who hath had three sutes’ (both generally regarded as errors), the substitution of ‘Haue’ for ‘Hath’ in the second line of the rhyme, and ‘Smulkin’ for ‘snulbug’ in the last line. If this was a ‘report’, then Edgar would appear to have remembered the number of his suits and shirts better than Lear remembered the terms of Kent’s banishment in I. i.

After these Alice Walker laments about the Oakes copy, she expresses her views as reflecting upon the bad handwriting of the one who copied the text, thus many mistakes were generated, yet there are no signs of memorial contamination:

Q 1 text is extraordinarily uneven in a very strange way. The better parts of Q 1 seem to me remarkably free from memorial contamination and they are, I think, ‘good’ text which can only be reconciled with the undoubtedly ‘bad’ text of much of Acts I-II and v. iii in one way: by supposing that the manuscript from which Q1 was printed was dictated to a scribe from an authoritative manuscript, that the reader was an actor familiar with parts of the play, and that (either from haste, laziness or over-confidence) he used his memory rather than his eyes for those parts of the play with which he was well acquainted but perforce paid more attention to his manuscript when his memory did not serve. This only will explain the paradox that what should have been most memorable, like the opening scene, is least well transmitted. Given dictation, with memorial contamination, to a scribe who was a phonetic speller, had a bad handwriting (or wrote in haste), who had no feeling for metre and was apt to misapprehend what he heard, what emerged in Q 1, printed from his manuscript, is understandable in the light of the Folio. We cannot suppose that Okes’s manuscript was, in the material sense, composite because he had the same difficulty with its bad handwriting and ‘aurigular’ spellings throughout. We must therefore suppose that his manuscript was written in the same hand and ‘copied by the ear’ throughout.

In her paper published in 1952 Walker examines the Quarto omissions supposing the correction of Shakespeare’s hands, and also stating that these texts were corrected in theatre since the King’s Men’s policy was to prevent the publication of their plays. She also considers actor’s role in corrupting the text, compositor’s error, or copying hurriedly, coming to the conclusion that Folio is “our best authority.”

Sidney Thomas notes that the pioneering work by such authors as Michael Warren, Steven Urkowitz and Gary Taylor show a radically new approach to the textual problems of King Lear, with such far-reaching implications as that the Quarto text (Qi, 1608, and its derivative Q2, 1619) and the Folio text constitute two different versions of the play, the Folio version being a deliberate and careful revision by Shakespeare himself of his earlier version of the play as represented by the Quarto. All the differences between Quarto and Folio, except for obvious compositorial errors, are therefore authorial in origin and show a significant change in characterization and dramaturgy between the two versions. In his paper Shakespeare’s Supposed Revision of King Lear Thomas gives and analyzes examples from both texts and concludes:

But at IV.ii, the Gentleman reports to Albany that the servant was slain by Cornwall, who received his wound as he „feld him dead” (sig. H4v). These two contradictory accounts of the Servant’s death are unchanged, again with only minor variations (for example, „Killes him. ” in place of the longer Quarto stage direction) in the Folio. Other examples can be cited. There is, to mention one, the named character Curan, who makes a brief appearance at II.i in both Quarto and Folio and then as abruptly disappears from sight for the remainder of the play. It is, however, unnecessary to multiply examples: those I have discussed, it seems to me, unmistakably suggest that whatever Folio revision there may have been has been carried out hastily and carelessly and has not achieved its presumed purpose of creating a tighter dramatic structure.

Thomas quotes Gary Taylor, one of the strongest supporters of the two-text theory, that the Folio-only passages do not include new narrative material or major, structurally important incidents; they do not consist of new scenes, but of alterations, they make not the slightest change in the characterizations of Lear, Cordelia, Goneril, Regan, Cornwall, Edmund, Edgar, Kent, or Gloucester.Alterations according to Thomas fall into two categories: the treatment of the war set off by the invasion from France, and the characterization of Albany. He is strongly convinced that the role of Albany in the two variants is a major difference that shall be considered:

The case for major differences in the characterization of Albany between the two texts („the Folio variants radically alter the pattern of his development”22) has been most fully and persuasively’ argued by Urkowitz in the key chapter of his book. I cannot here engage in a point-by-point 15 S. W. Reid, „The Texts of King Lear: A Review Es- say,” Shakespeare Studies, 15 (1982), 328. 16 Honigmann, p. 155. 17 Op. cit. p. 376. 18 „The War in King Lear,” Shakespeare Survey, 33(1980), 27-34. 19 „Time, Place, and Politics in King Lear,” Collected Papers, ed. J. C. Maxwell, p. 333. 20 The Text of „King Lear” (Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1983), pp. 73-76. 21 Op. cit., p. 335. 22 Urkowitz, p. 83. discussion of Urkowitz’s reasoning. However, the heart of his argument is his analysis of IV.ii and V.iii, the two scenes in which the Quarto and Folio texts diverge most markedly in their treatment of Albany. I find this analysis, despite its ingenuity and sensitivity to details of staging, fatally flawed in two respects. It ignores the possibility, in some instances the near certainty, that many of the differences between Q and F are due to corruption in the Quarto text or theatrical cuts in the Folio text, none of them necessarily attributable to Shakespeare. And it consistently exaggerates the significance of these differences for the characterization of Albany and the meaning of the play as a whole.

Differentiating the two texts one may argue that both are to be considered as the masterpiece of the writer, the plot is not altered yet the topic that these describe should be analysed further. The topic or topics of the text can be listed both in the plot and subplot. First of all, we shall consider the metaphysical elements of the play. The main characters each have their own theory about their place in the world, the meaning of their experience, and the relation between man and the higher powers; the play’s action is thus subjected to continuous philosophical scrutiny by those who take part in it. As Paul Delany puts it, critics have been much concerned with this intricate debate about human destiny, which is carried on through the play both explicitly and by the implications of dramatic action. Ultimately, it is argued, the play makes a „statement” about life, though there has been scant agreement on what the statement is. At one pole, Bradley and the neo-Christians have claimed that the play asserts the redemptive value of suffering; at the other, Jan Kott makes of it an absurdist drama about the loss of value that anticipates the modern apotheosis of the mode in the grotesque farces of Samuel Beckett. It would be obtuse to deny the importance of this metaphysical preoccupation in King Lear; obviously the play does explore the universal significance of individual experiences of pain or loss.

The second notion the play is centred upon is the social issues that it describes. The mediaeval social values and deficiencies are rated as important by Danby as the opposition of organic community and atomistic state, and the shift from one to another, which is also to be found in the text. Delany calls it a double vision when speaking about social issues by the dramatist. He claims that the adherence to traditional values combined with a distaste and fear of the acquisitive, unscrupulous bourgeois values shows a class conflict in Lear’s world.

The social meaning of this recurrent opposition of character types has already been explored by critics, though usually from the somewhat nostalgic viewpoint of Christian humanism. E. M. W. Tillyard, for example, defines the action of Richard II as the superseding of Richard’s world of „mediaeval refinement” by the more realistic, modern-minded statesmanship of Bolingbroke.6 John F. Danby takes a similar approach to King Lear, attributing Lear’s faith in „Benignant Nature” to the ordered mediaeval world view of Bacon and Hooker, while seeing in Edmund’s „Malignant Nature” an anticipation of Hobbes’s concept of primitive culture as a war of all against all. Danby’s premises are neo- Christian rather than Marxist-he says the play „is at least as Christian as the Divine Comedy…

Delany calls these characters such as they have a tragic ambiguity set in the neo capitalist economy of the Renaissance. He marks that the negative characters Edmund, Regan, and Goneril “extend their political ruthlessness to the personal realm by espousing a strict and often brutal functionalism in social life.”

The above mentioned functionalism can be added to our list of elements that have a major role in the dramatic action. Edmund’s functionalism in social life, seek of power and greediness results in duplicity of assertion, how formalist critics regarded the works of Shakespeare. It was Stanley Fish who argued: “to probe ever deeper the incorrigible duplicity of assertion even as it presents itself as univocal and single.” He referred thus to the method Shakespeare built his characters.

Delany calls attention to the emerging puritanism, or its elements in the text: “There is a tinge of puritanism in her distaste for the moral laxity of the ancien regime-a laxity made prominent at the very start of the play by Gloucester’s lustful reminiscences. Like Philo in the opening scene of Antony and Cleopatra, she sees the health of the state threatened by vice and luxury in high places.”

Many themes and sub-themes come to our attention, such as the negative symbolism of the will to power embodied in the king’s two older daughters, the erroneous royal decision, selfishness and hunger for love, the icon of the foolish king, or even the faithful servant Kent’s samples, all of which testify the fact that this time, too, Shakespeare had the wit to weave several sub-themes and motifs into the text, and he managed to incorporate them all into his drama in a beautifully curved form. It is not up to us to decide whether he intended to articulate marked social criticism in negative characters, or he wanted to weave Gloucester’s personal tragedy into the text precisely to achieve a dramatic effect, but the binary opposition that lies between moral and de facto blindness extends to the whole drama.

The simple elements of storytelling make this piece easy to read and interesting, as both the quarto and the folio text can be interpreted by today’s reader. For the sake of authenticity, we shall mention popular words from Shakespeare, such as “hath,” “adder,” “countenance,” “vile,” which are glorious examples of the age of Shakespeare, but we could still list more of them. Both texts have similar features, we do not find significant differences in their grammatical structure, the plot is the same, with the exception of the mock trial act, which, as already mentioned, is not to be found in the folio. Therefore, we already find a conflated version in the Norton Shakespeare edition in act 5. We used several sources when writing the current dissertation, basically Norton Shakespeare, but sometimes we were reaching for Folger Shakespeare or even Arden edition, the latter for folio version.


  1. The Norton Shakespeare. Tragedies. Based on the Oxford Edition. Ed. Julia Reidhead. 2nd edition. New York.
  2. Stuart Elden’s, The Geopolitics of King Lear: Territory, Land, Earth. ≤ file:///C:/Users/orsolypl/Downloads/Elden2013-TheGeopoliticsofKingLear.pdf≥
  3. Joseph Quincy Adams, The Quarto of „King Lear” and Shorthand. Source: Modern Philology , Nov., 1933, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Nov., 1933), pp. 135-163 Published by: The University of Chicago Press: 135.
  4. Jonathan Hope, Shakespeare and language in Margarata de Grazia, The New Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001): 83.
  5. Esther Merle Jackson, King Lear: The Grammar of Tragedy. Shakespeare Quarterly , Winter, 1966, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Winter, 1966), pp. 25-40 Published by: Oxford University Press.
  6. Margareta De Grazia, The Question of the One and the Many: The Globe Shakespeare, The Complete King Lear, and The New Folger Library Shakespeare. Source: Shakespeare Quarterly , Summer, 1995, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Summer, 1995), pp. 245- 251. P. 248. “Meanwhile the works of Shakespeare are currently being reproduced in an edition that attempts to represent the diversity of multiple-text plays without dismantling the book structure: the New Folger Library Shake- speare, edited by Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine. The edition intro- duces a system of square, angled, and half brackets ([ ] ( ) r 1) to designate passages incorporated from different texts, either from early texts or from later editions. While the system is new to editing Shakespeare, it is standard II Roger Chartier, „From Codes to Screen: Trajectories of the Written Word” in Forms and Meanings: Text, Performance, and Audience from Codex to Computer, forthcoming from the Uni- versity of Pennsylvania Press. This content downloaded from on Wed, 17 Feb 2021 09:23:45 UTC All use subject to http TOOLS 249 practice in transcribing manuscripts to indicate various irregularities: for example, words written in another hand, words deleted, words written between lines or in the margins.” P. 249.
  7. S. A. Small, THE „KING LEAR” QUARTO in The Shakespeare Association Bulletin , October, 1946, Vol. 21, No. 4 (October, 1946), pp. 177-180 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: p.177.
  8. Alice Walker, „King Lear”: The 1608 Quarto in The Modern Language Review , Jul., 1952, Vol. 47, No. 3 (Jul., 1952), pp. 376-378 Published by: Modern Humanities Research Association Stable URL: p. 376.
  9. Sidney Thomas, Shakespeare’s Supposed Revision of King Lear in Shakespeare Quarterly , Winter, 1984, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Winter, 1984), pp. 506-511 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: p. 508.
  10. aul Delany, King Lear and the Decline of Feudalism in PMLA , May, 1977, Vol. 92, No. 3 (May, 1977), pp. 429-440 Published by: Modern Language Association Stable URL: p. 429.
  11. Stanley Fish qtd in Michael Taylor, Shakespeare Criticism in the Twentieth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.): 94.
scroll to top