King Leir and Edmund Ironside (pre-print text)


previously unpublished, 2001; © The Estate of Eric Sams

 

[The present text is a pre-print version found among the posthumous papers of E.S., with a final, unfinished section not printed in N&Q 2001; I'm obliged to Richard Sams, owner of the copyright, for the courtesy of a copy]

 

 

 

This essay seeks to show that The True Chronicle History of King Leir was written by the same dramatist as Edmund Ironside, at about the same time. Those inferences can be drawn directly from the following entirely new tabulation, where the left-hand column follows the order of Leir as lineated in Everitt 1965, while the right-hand citations are drawn from my own editions of Ironside, 1985 or (with an added foreword) 2/1986.

 

well declares (34) ... and

since..

I censure [= judge] (36-7)

 

of us and ours [the king's] care (71)

 

everlasting … fame … prince/lose (72-3, 75-6)

 

I am resolved (80, and see 345)

[despite dissuasion]

 

a sudden stratagem (81) [which proves dangerous]

 

hitherto she ne'er could fancy him (143)

 

if we live (170), if I live (808) [there'll be requital], and see 582, 742, 2026

 

fit occasion . . . be revenged (171-2)

 

I will so flatter with [the king] (175, 176, 338, 657, 751, 2157, 2248) as [the king] was ne'er so flattered (176)

 

securely sleep (210, and see 2470)

 

come . . . hastily (224-5) [having just been sum­moned]

 

stock . . . sprung . . . tree green (227-8)

 

blossoms ... nipped frost (229)

 

windy words (241)

 

my heart . . . burns . . quenched (259-61)

 

let this . . . suffice (269)

 

my tongue . . . flattery (304) flattering [of the king] (338)

 

speech . . . reason to rage should not have given place (340-1)

 

dissuade me not . . . I am resolved (345)

 

you have saved me a labour in offering that which I did mean to ask (364, and see 1553)

 

tie . . . eyes (369), tie .. . tongue (371, and see 567)

 

occasion serves (372 and see 962)

 

time cutteth off (396)

 

Enter . . . [with] a letter in his hand (400, 402)

Enter . . . with a . . . letter (410)

 

but how far distant are we from (403)

 

comfort of my life (415) [= the speaker's wife]

 

 

break off . . . delays (434-5) be brief (437)

 

right you can guess (485) heavens do know (540)

 

celebration . . . nuptial rites (550)

celebrate . . . nuptials (576-7)

 

fear ... ties . . . tongues .. . speak (567-8)

 

mortal foe (575)

 

Exeunt . manet (578) Exeunt. Manet (1141)

 

whilst I live (582, 742) (2026) while I live (1822)

[= always]

 

each drop of my . . . blood will I strain forth to do her any good (582-3)

 

Enter . . . disguised (585)

 

I could bite my tongue in two (592)

[because of an incautious remark]

 

fortune . . . fickle queen of chance (604-5)

 

 

maid ... imbecility (607)

 

shift . . . clothes (619 and see 2014)

 

to utter grief doth ease

a heart o'ercharged (642)

 

I could not flatter him [the king] (657)

 

fresh torments (674) .. . new torments (682)

 

young and lusty (677)

 

be advised (692, 1697)

 

go to church [after a quick wooing] (735)

 

I like the wooing that's not long a-doing (740)

whilest I live (742 and see 2026) [= always]

 

Enter . . . solus (746)

 

flattered [the king] (751)

 

old, doting (786) makes him to forget himself (802) age . . . dote (2598-9)

 

myself . . . spread .. . abroad (789)

 

the [banquet's] cost would well suffice for twice (791)

 

fountains . . . spring (806) carry tales (838)

 

sow . . . discord (855)

 

say . . . the best that e'er I can/tis wrested straight into another sense (856-7)

 

force of arms . . . redress your wrong (924)

 

advise . . . I am resolved (925-6)

 

note how all things go (960-1)

 

 

when occasion serves (962)

 

Enter . . . with a letter in his hand (991)

 

hands [etc.] . . . members (1015-16)

 

tongue . . . whetted (1028)

 

kingly . . . mirror (1070-1)

for zeal ... justice .. . kindness ... care

 

[they] whisper (1119)

 

the cause thereof (1123)

 

she reads the letter (1172-3)

her colour comes and goes

 

Messenger: these letters will declare (1169): she reads (1172)

 

alas poor soul (1179) [sympathy from a villain]

 

clouds of sorrow . . . brow (1230-1)

 

[no] kindness . . . bury .. . oblivion (1250-1)

 

any whit (1260)

 

creep into my favour (1297)

[from a villain's soliloquy]

 

a poor man (1303, 1306) . . rich (1306)

 

the hundred eyes of . . . Argos [the peacock] (1347-8) [quoting Ovid, Metamorphoses I]

 

I'll teach him how to dally with his king (1359)

[i.e. by taking punitive measures]

 

tis his pleasure (1363)

[= an example of arbitrari­ness]

 

honourable mind (1423)

[= a special compliment]

 

next tree ... hang myself [said by a villain about a Judas-legend] (1460)

 

brandishing a falchion (1490)

 

[they] proffer to go (1532, 1537)

 

ancient man (1539) [yet not respected]

 

kill yourselves . . . you save me labour [says a hired assassin] (1552-3)

 

Frenchman . . . face . . changed faces (1572-4)

 

spoil . . . face . . . face (1575-6)

 

heinous acts (1627)

 

borne you company (1688)

[says the faithful friend]

 

willingly . . . death (1689)

 

death . . . it skilleth not (1690)

 

who . . . but only I? (1710)

 

why stayst thou to do execution? (1745)

 

courage, my lord; the worst is overpast; (1758)

 

let us give thanks to God (1759)

 

while I live (1822) [= always]

 

Roger, our man (1874-5) come . . . Roger (2106)

 

disguised like a plain coun­try couple [= as peasants] (1873): this device is excel­lent (1877)

 

 

father . . . timeless . . . end (1902)

[= untimely death]

 

base . . . peasant's hands (1972)

 

I will prove her title … naught

(1983 and see 2227)

 

after-ages . . . her penance (1986)

 

become me . . . well . . cloak-(2002, 2004))

 

heir and he changeth [apparel] (2014)

 

whilst I live (2026) [= always]

love be reaped where hatred hath been sown? (2049)

 

join in league (2050)

 

milk of Dame Nature's paps (2060)

 

Enter . . . disguised like country folk (2091): cf. like a plain country couple (1874)

 

suck my blood . . . slake .. . suck the blood (2129, 2131, 2133)

 

hungry jaws . . . human flesh (2131) [human] blood (2133)

 

flatterers [of the king] (2157)

 

now or never … help (2167)

 

yonder is a banquet (2168)

 

daughter- I may call thee so (2220)

 

your title's good (2227)

 

rather see the end (2231)

 

entreated [= treated] well (2260)

 

contumelious terms (2267)

 

flattered [the king] (2248)

 

she kneels (2298) he kneels (2301) he riseth ... rise [from his knees] (2302-3)

 

slave … peasant (2361-2)

 

Sound drums and trumpets . . . Enter the army (2389 and see 2665)

 

[the king will] gain . victory with ease (2395)

 

[king says] loving country­men (2396)

 

justice fighteth on our sides (2397)

 

the meanest soldier (2401) . . . second him (2402)

 

we give the whole command of all the army (2403-4)

 

asleep . . . secure (2470) this tis (2488)

 

y'are tall men (2501)

 

your lawful king (2510, 2516)

 

beholding to . . . grace (2534)

 

armed men (2537)

 

Drum: But hark, I hear the adverse drum approach (2548)

 

for a colour's sake … invasion (2571-2)

 

viper, scum, filthy parricide (2584)

 

hands/tis pity two such   good faces (2605-6)

 

 

Mumford must chase Cambria away (2615)

 

follows him to the door   (2625)

 

but thy due (2626)

 

partner . . . in woe (2653)

 

Sound drums and trumpets.

Exeunt (2665)

well declare (228) . . . and

since . . .

I judge (230-1)

 

king . . . whose care for all (30, 33)

 

everlasting fame … prince … lose (935, 937, 938)

 

I am resolved (714)

[despite impending mutila­tion]

 

this [sudden] dangerous stra­tagem (996)

 

[why should she] fancy him? (421)

 

if I live (134) [there'll be requital]

 

 

occasion fits ... be revenged (2059, 2061)

 

I can . . . flatter with the king (290-1, and cf. 163, 1186-7, 1203) flatter [the king] (779, 1191, 1203)

 

 

securely sleeps (309)

 

coming . . . hastily (1128) [having just been summoned]

 

 

tree . . . green (606-7) stock . . . sprout (613)

 

nips . . . frost . . . springing (743)

 

words . . . windy (842-3)

 

quench … burning … my heart (209) burn my heart (1461)

 

let this suffice (1731, 1762)

 

thy tongue . . . flattery (1064) flattering . . . [the] king (163)

 

 

speech (1809) . . . with rea­son not with rage (1811)

 

 

[despite dissuasion] we are resolved (889)

 

you save me a labour (694) [by agreeing to a request]

 

 

tie . . . ears (1164)

 

serve . . . occasion (2035-6)

 

cut off . . . time (259)

 

Enter . . . with a letter in his hand (1524)

 

 

but . . . how far off are we from (475-6)

 

comfort of my life (1494) [= the speaker's children]

 

 

cut off . . . delays (540) be brief (1867)

 

right did I guess (1368) heavens do know (1576)

 

celebrate . . . marriages (444-5)

 

 

fear . . . tongues . . . speak (630-1)

 

mortal foes (2028)

 

Exeunt, manet (1127)

 

whilst ye live (805) while we live (891)

[= always]

 

I will shed [my blood] drop by drop (131-2) ere I will see you harmed

 

Enter . . . disguised (1270)

 

I wish my tongue . . . had been cut out (1987-8) [because of an incautious remark]

 

fickle chance . . . queen . . . Fortune (769-70, 780) chance of fickle fortune (1937-8)

 

women . . . imbecility (1351)

 

apparel (1220) shift (1225)

 

weep to ease my heart (1468)

to ease and not to load (1474)

 

a . . . flatterer [of the king] (1396)

 

new . . . torturing pain (1276)

 

lusty youthful (1798)

 

be advised (720)

 

straight to church [after a quick wooing] (444)

 

small ado about a weighty matter [i.e. his wooing] (453-4)

whilst ye live (805) [= always]

 

Enter . . . solus (277)

 

flattery [of the king] (799, 1181)

 

you do forget yourself . . age makes ye dote (1387-8)

 

 

spread ourselves abroad (1094)

 

half this [banquet's] expense would well have satisfied (388)

 

fountain . . . spring (1844) carry tales (294)

 

sown . . .discord (2025-6)

 

I cannot speak but one or other straight/misconsters me (86-7)

 

defend your right . . . force of arms (46-7)

 

we are resolved (889 and 897) . . . advise (893)

 

go and understand (1213) how all matters . . . are managed (1215)

 

serve . . . occasion (2035-6)

 

Enter . . . with a letter in his hand (1525)

 

members . . . hands [etc.] (614-15)

 

whet . . . tongue (1912)

 

[king] . . . mirror (250)

for honour . . . fame .. . nobility (249)

 

they whisper (1416, 1418, 1420)

 

the cause thereof (1987)

 

[after reading a letter] his colour comes and goes (1305) enter . . . reading of letter (1738)

 

Messenger: these letters sig­nify: [he] reads (739-40)

 

 

alas poor souls (641) [sympathy from a villain]

 

cloudy brow (1056) cloudy look … woes (1097-8)

 

bury unkindness in oblivion (1725)

 

any whit (1380)

 

creep into . . . favour (522, 525)

[from a villain's monologue]

 

a poor man . . . rich (461, 464)

 

as many eyes (i.e. a hundred) as Juno's bird [the peacock] (1636) [quoting Ovid, Metamorphoses I]

 

I'll teach them what it is to play with kings (678)

[i.e. by taking punitive measures]

 

tis not my pleasure (669, 671)

[= an example of arbitrari­ness]

 

honourable minds (634)

[= a special compliment]

 

night . . . dark . . . stumble not [said to a villain about a Judas-legend] (792)

 

brandished my falchion (1664)

 

offers to depart (842) they offer to depart (1494, 1501, 1519)

ancient men (1350) [yet not respected]

 

I'll [cut my own hands off, says a hostage] (692-3) …  you save me a labour [says an executioner] (694)

 

Frenchmen ... faces .. . change (684, 689)

 

face . . . spoil (377)

 

heinous facts (= acts) (364)

 

bear [him] company (733) [says the servant]

 

 

willingly . . . die (931)

 

die . . . it skills no matter (1579)

 

who . . . but only he? (169-70)

 

do execution on them pre­sently (675)

 

courage, lords, we were and are the same (1358)

 

God fights for us (1361)

 

while we live (891) [= always]

 

Roger [a servant] .. . come . . . (1272)

 

oh tis excellent . . . in disgu­isement of my man's [a peasant's] attire (1210, 1212) device (1841) . . . oh it is excellent (1843)

 

fathers . . . ends . . . timeless (1825-7)

[= untimely deaths]

 

base hands [of a peasant] (685)

 

I would . . . approve his title naught (42)

 

 

after-age . . . my shame (766)

 

cloak . . . becomes me well (1255, 1257)

 

change apparel (1219)

 

whilst ye live (805) [= always]

see peace grow where foul debate was sown (2025)

 

join in league (1895)

 

Dame Nature... breeds . . mother [thrice] (1509-11)

 

Enter ... disguised [as a peasant] (1269-70) yon plain fellow [disguised as a peasant] (1308)

 

thirst . . . drink the blood (1685) drink ... blood (1989, 2029)

 

 

maws . . . hungry lions devours [human] blood (1447-8)

 

 

a flatterer [of the king] (801)

 

now . . . or never, help (1316)

 

Enter a banquet (384)

 

father- now I'll call you so (440)

 

my title . . . good (1950)

 

the end is all (1112)

 

entreat [= treat] them well (1486)

 

contumelious threats (830

 

thy flattery [of the king] (782)

 

they kneel (359) rise up … arise [from your knees] (367) he riseth (18, 38)

 

slave ... peasant (494)

 

sound drums and trumpets

The trumpets sound . . .The armies (1974, 1976)

 

he [the king] wins with ease (310)

 

[king says] loving country­men (1619)

 

justice on my side (1947) .. . fight (1949)

 

the meanest soldier (340) . . second him (929)

 

grant him . . . the leading of our army (1400, 1402)

 

securely sleeps (309) this tis (1267)

 

y'are a tall man (1135)

 

our ... lawful king (262) thy lawful king (826)

 

beholding to ... gracious (978)

 

armed men (917)

 

The drum sounds afar off: Yon drum doth tell us [of the enemy's approach] (1770-1)

 

onset for colour's sake (1405-6)

 

foul mother-killing Viper … scum (167-8)

 

good faces (473-4) hands ... twere pity . . . two such faces . . . hands (682-5)

 

Edmund drives Canutus back about the stage (1996)

 

Enter at one door (1568)

 

but your due (258)

 

partners of your woes (1098)

 

Sound drums and trumpets! (2054)

They go . . . out of the stage (2062)

    

     This list, despite its length, makes no claim to completeness. Other equally clear interconnec­tions have been omitted, for example because they resist tabulation; thus both plays contain such archaisms as “quondam” and “whilom”, or “Troy(novant)” for London (lines 35, 420, and 686 in Leir and 864, 869, 870 in Ironside) while the old-fashioned “whenas”, all one word, occurs seven times in the former and eleven in the latter. Again, many shared expressions (such as “stay behind” or “I warrant you” or “my gracious lord” as an address to a king) remain unmentioned, even though each contributes its own quota in so comprehensively congruent a context.

      This shared background is also inferable from the copious evidence of a personal style common to the two plays, which though entirely different in plot and character both exemplify allitera­tion, antithesis, bawdry, Biblical quotation, bodily action and personification, chiasmus, quotations from Ovid and Plutarch, compound (hyphenated) words, rich (thesaurus-like) dic­tion, mentions of flora and fauna, obsession with flattery of a king, considered as a deadly sin, typical imagery and image-clusters, refer­ences to the law, the ritual language of marriage, noun-verb discords, proverbs, puns and word­play, repetitions of vocabulary, frequent rhym­ing, stage devices (such as the reception and reading of letters, whirlwind wooings complete with male self-congratulation, and a villain's confession to the audience), words and usages antedating OED citations, words beginning with un-, and general overlap of a vocabulary which itself suffices, among much other evidence, to date these two plays c.1587-8. E. B. Everitt offers the same dating for both (1954, 172) together with “a truly coercive demonstra­tion of [their] homogeneity in dramatic tech­niques and ideas” (ibid., 61-8), again on entirely different grounds, namely a close comparison of the pre-battle scenes in Leir 2550-2612 and Ironside 1785-1832. But neither of these two approaches ever seems to have convinced anyone, not even those few who have seriously studied them. Perhaps the present tabulation may help to turn the tables. As the Oxford Textual Com­panion (1988, 138) rightly says about Ironside, the whole subject merits further investigation – which it will never receive so long as imaginary “plagiarists” and “imitations” continue to be invented, together with the necessary but entirely unevidenced dating of the later 1590s' (most recently by Jonathan Bate in his edition of Titus Andronicus, 1995, 81). At least the many citations set forth above should surely serve to confirm that neither mere coin­cidence, nor deliberate plagiarism, nor charac­terization other than the author's own character, can explain the plethora of striking verbal and stylistic similarities between King Leir and Edmund Ironside. On the contrary: it seems clear that these two textual tapestries were woven by the same hand, from the same threads of discourse, at much the same time.

     Now, King Leir was written c. 1590, according to the Oxford editors Taylor and Wells (Complete Works 1986, p. 1025, Textual Companion 1988 p. 128). Other editors offer no definite date. But they need a still earlier one; otherwise Leir could hardly be the 'old play' or 'old piece' they so confidently claim (see, most recently, Halio for Cambridge, 1992, p.3 and Kermode in the Harvard Riverside Shakespeare, 1997 p. 1297). A rational dating, therefore, would agree with Everitt's Young Shakespeare (1954, p. 172): Leir 1587, Ironside 1587-8, in conformity with the evidence set out above. But this cannot be accepted - not for any actual reason but solely because Everitt also said that both dramas, Leir and Ironside alike, were written by Shakespeare in his early twenties. This was exactly the time when - as Aubrey tried to tell posterity, mainly in vain - the poet, who had shown an early talent for the stage, first came to London and wrote popular plays for the groundlings.

     Further, that authorship, at that period, would completely explain all the many difficulties and problems that have so typically obsessed and perplexed orthodox Academia for the last two hundred years and more. First, everyone would feel the force of Everitt's textual arguments for identity of Shakespearean authorship (op. cit. pp. 69-72) not only in Leir and Ironside but also in The Troublesome Reign of King John. This conforms with Everitt's separate argument (ibid. pp. 52-59) that Ironside and Troublesome Reign are both from the same hand, namely Shakespeare's own; and also with the discovery announced by John Munro in his own edition of Troublesome Reign (1913, p. xiii) that a perusal of that play and Leir is 'very persuasive that the same author wrote both'.

     It is often claimed (even by Everitt, ibid. p. 60, who should have known better) that this conviction was a mere conjecture. But it is in fact a well-argued inference from verifiable facts, made by someone who knew both plays extremely well. The actual conjecture, i.e. an opinion unsupported by proof, is the notion that the attributions of Troublesome Reign's second edition, 1611, to W.Sh., or its third edition, 1622, to W. Shakespeare, were dishonest sales devices adopted by lying publishers. No such objections have been levelled at George Steevens's 1760 identification of Troublesome Reign as a Shakespeare play, which was later rewritten as King John.

     Shakespeare's authorship also explains why the first versions of other revisions, like the Lear plays, were written for the Queen's Men - because he himself was a Queen's actor-playwright in the 1580s. Again, it also explains why he felt able to steal these 'old plays' by the heaped handful, apparently without the least qualm on his part or the least protest on anyone else's. Such grand larceny as stealing a colleague's play for one's own aggrandisement and profit would surely be as unthinkable then as it is now. But everyone who had seen both King Leir and Richard III could recognise the extensive correspondences between the murder scenes in both plays (as shown by Law in 1940), especially when the latter was published in 1597. What could possibly justify such shameless plagiarism, save one's own earlier authorship?

     And these questions apply even more clearly to the masterpiece King Lear, which was manifestly founded on, not to say filched from, 'the old play'. It is not just a question of plot and character; experts (such as Greg 1940 and Bullough 1973) have identified over one hundred resemblances of phrase and idea. Shakespeare's authorship of Leirwould also explain why its text says 'tis always known/a man may do as him list with his own'. This purports to mean that the king may if he wishes disinherit his youngest daughter; but the whole point of each play is that he may not. Of course, however, he may revise his own play, in which he owns intellectual and moral copyright.

     That would further explain why Tolstoy said that Leir was 'incomparably and in every respect superior' to Lear. No doubt Tolstoy had less English than his modern detractors, such as the late Professor Kenneth Muir, who called him 'perverse'. But Muir's own standing as a creative artist and aesthetician has remained rather less impressive than Tolstoy's, whose judgements came from the brain as well as the heart, and were well supported by reasons. Besides, many English-speaking editors rank The Taming of A Shrew above its Folio version. Such views call aloud for explanation, for example that the young Shakespeare wrote better than his mature self, in certain respects. Why not?

     That attribution also explains what has come to be commonly accepted about Leir, namely that Shakespeare rewrote it from its manuscript, which happened to be in his possession . But how could this be, unless he wrote it? That hypothesis would also explain why Leir was published in 1605, from a good playhouse manuscript (because Shakespeare, having started his own revision, knew that his unpublished first version, which of course he owned in manuscript, was due to be replaced) and why the first edition of Lear twice spells its hero 'Leir' (B4r, D2r) - because it too was printed from the manuscript of a playwright who during its composition had had his own Leir in manuscript before him. Those would be subconscious slips; but the explanation would also cover the curious fact that in Lear Q1 the eldest daughter is always called 'Gonorill', just as in Leir, and never 'Goneril' as in the First Folio text of 1623.

     That acceptance would also reduce the number of necessary Leir manuscripts to one, as Ockham's Razor requires. It would, further, conform closely with Professor Honigmann's description of Shakespearean spellings from the selfsame period, in the first edition of Othello, written c.1604 but not published until 1622 (a factual time-lag which makes the same eighteen-year difference between the proposed composition c. 1587 of Leir and its factual 1605 publication perfectly plausible.

     In this context Honigmann asks, rhetorically, 'how many other writers shared Shakespeare's preference forshew and vertue and sence and all the other strong or occasional preferences listed above?'. One answer is the writer of Leir, who prima facie shared those same preferences because he was Shakespeare. He writes shew,shewed and shewes (never showshowed or shows)vertue and vertuous (never virtue or virtuous), sences andsenceless as well as expencerecompencesuspence (never sensessenselessexpenserecompencesuspense). His spellings are very variable, as in the More insurrection scene, but he also verifiably shares many of those variants (such as command/commaund, and capital Cs) as well as seventeen of the Othello preferences listed by Honigmann (aboordbattellbeleeuecal'dcommingCountreydeuideextreameshye (=high), intirelylyer(=liar), Lyonmary (=marry, exclam.), mistrispittysaydSouldier) and hundreds of that authority's other examples in five defined categories.

                                                                      

     There is no counter-evidence against Shakespeare's authorship of Leir; there is no trace, anywhere in recorded commentary, of any objective counter-argument. On the contrary; all the literary world would once have had good reason to know who wrote it. And all sensible people still know that impressive verbal utterance is no more to be expected from early Shakespeare plays than memorable melody from early Schubert songs. In reality, artistic development takes time. Leir c. 1587 aimed to please simple souls at the dawn of the drama; and in that aim it manifestly succeeded. 

     Its stylistic components exactly match those of Ironside [here the typescript breaks offED]