Editing King Lear (section)

=== 19th century ===
[[File:James Barry 002.jpg|upright=1.35|thumb|left|''King Lear mourns Cordelia's death'', [[James Barry (painter)|James Barry]], 1786–1788]]

[[Charles Lamb]] established the [[Romanticism|Romantics]]' attitude to ''King Lear'' in his 1811 essay "On the Tragedies of Shakespeare, considered with reference to their fitness for stage representation" where he says that the play "is essentially impossible to be represented on the stage", preferring to experience it in the study. In the theatre, he argues, "to see Lear acted, to see an old man tottering about the stage with a walking-stick, turned out of doors by his daughters on a rainy night, has nothing in it but what is painful and disgusting" yet "while we read it, we see not Lear but we are Lear,—we are in his mind, we are sustained by a grandeur which baffles the malice of daughters and storms."{{sfn|Moody|2002|p=40}}{{sfn|Hunter|1972|p=50}} Literary critic Janet Ruth Heller elaborates on the hostility of Lamb, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and William Hazlitt to performances of tragedy, especially Shakespearean tragedy. They believed that such stagings appealed more to the senses than the imagination. However, reading stimulates the imagination. Also, Heller traces the history of the idea that tragedy should be read, not performed, back to Plato and to misreadings of Aristotle's ''Poetics''. See ''Coleridge, Lamb, Hazlitt, and the Reader of Drama'', University of Missouri Press, 1990).{{cn|date=December 2023}}

''King Lear'' was politically controversial during the period of [[George III of the United Kingdom|George III]]'s madness, and as a result was not performed at all in the two professional theatres of London from 1811 to 1820: but was then the subject of major productions in both, within three months of his death.{{sfn|Potter|2001|p=189}} The 19th century saw the gradual reintroduction of Shakespeare's text to displace Tate's version. Like [[David Garrick|Garrick]] before him, [[John Philip Kemble]] had introduced more of Shakespeare's text, while still preserving the three main elements of Tate's version: the love story, the omission of the Fool, and the happy ending. [[Edmund Kean]] played ''King Lear'' with its tragic ending in 1823, but failed and reverted to Tate's crowd-pleaser after only three performances.{{sfn|Potter|2001|pp=190–191}}{{sfn|Wells|1997|p=62}} At last in 1838, [[William Macready]] at Covent Garden performed Shakespeare's version, freed from Tate's adaptions.{{sfn|Potter|2001|pp=190–191}} The restored character of the Fool was played by an actress, [[Priscilla Horton]], as, in the words of one spectator, "a fragile, hectic, beautiful-faced, half-idiot-looking boy".{{sfn|Potter|2001|p=191}} And [[Helena Faucit|Helen Faucit]]'s final appearance as Cordelia, dead in her father's arms, became one of the most iconic of Victorian images.{{sfn|Gay|2002|p=161}} [[John Forster (biographer)|John Forster]], writing in the ''[[The Examiner (1808–86)|Examiner]]'' on 14 February 1838, expressed the hope that "Mr Macready's success has banished that disgrace [Tate's version] from the stage for ever."{{sfn|Wells|1997|p=73}} But even this version was not close to Shakespeare's: the 19th-century actor-managers heavily cut Shakespeare's scripts: ending scenes on big "curtain effects" and reducing or eliminating supporting roles to give greater prominence to the star.{{sfn|Hunter|1972|p=51}} One of Macready's innovations—the use of [[Stonehenge]]-like structures on stage to indicate an ancient setting—proved enduring on stage into the 20th century, and can be seen in the 1983 television version starring [[Laurence Olivier]].{{sfn|Foakes|1997|pp=30–31}}

In 1843, the [[Theatres Act 1843|Act for Regulating the Theatres]] came into force, bringing an end to the monopolies of the two existing companies and, by doing so, increased the number of theatres in London.{{sfn|Potter|2001|p=191}} At the same time, the fashion in theatre was "pictorial": valuing visual spectacle above plot or characterisation and often required lengthy (and time-consuming) scene changes.{{sfn|Schoch|2002|pp=58–75}} For example, [[Henry Irving]]'s 1892 ''King Lear'' offered spectacles such as Lear's death beneath a cliff at Dover, his face lit by the red glow of a setting sun; at the expense of cutting 46% of the text, including the blinding of Gloucester.{{sfn|Potter|2001|p=193}} But Irving's production clearly evoked strong emotions: one spectator, Gordon Crosse, wrote of the first entrance of Lear, "a striking figure with masses of white hair. He is leaning on a huge scabbarded sword which he raises with a wild cry in answer to the shouted greeting of his guards. His gait, his looks, his gestures, all reveal the noble, imperious mind already degenerating into senile irritability under the coming shocks of grief and age."{{sfn|Jackson|1986|p=206}}

The importance of pictorialism to Irving, and to other theatre professionals of the Victorian era, is exemplified by the fact that Irving had used [[Ford Madox Brown]]'s painting ''Cordelia's Portion'' as the inspiration for the look of his production, and that the artist himself was brought in to provide sketches for the settings of other scenes.{{sfn|Schoch|2002|p=63}} A reaction against pictorialism came with the rise of the reconstructive movement, believers in a simple style of staging more similar to that which would have pertained in renaissance theatres, whose chief early exponent was the actor-manager [[William Poel]]. Poel was influenced by a performance of ''King Lear'' directed by Jocza Savits at the Hoftheater in Munich in 1890, set on an [[apron stage]] with a three-tier [[Globe Theatre|Globe]]—like reconstruction theatre as its backdrop. Poel would use this same configuration for his own Shakespearean performances in 1893.{{sfn|O'Connor|2002|p=78}}