Lear as Liege lord: textual complexities realized through editing

         The word Gloucester uses to address King Lear before he leaves is particularly interesting; in the Quarto text he uses the word “liege,” but in the Folio he uses the word “lord” (1.1.34). Although the two words are practically interchangeable in that context and very similar in meaning, the conflated text chooses “lord” over “liege,” and I agree with that editorial decision, for the greater richness in the meaning of the word adds interesting connotations to a reading of the play. Although someone watching the play or reading it without an OED would not really register the difference, the slight nuances in definition could potentially add even more depth to a dictionary-aided, close reading.

         In the OED, “liege” is defined as “the superior to whom one owes feudal allegiance and service,” while “lord” is defined as “one who has dominion over others as his subjects, or to whom service and obedience are due; a master, chief, prince, sovereign.” (OED) Both definitions are fairly straightforward, but “lord” can also be associated with “a ‘magnate’ in some particular trade” and “the planet that has a dominant influence over an event, period, region, etc.” (OED). These various commerce-related and astrological connotations reflect both the play and the character of Lear, since the repeated themes of law and money appear frequently and Lear in his maddened state attempts to order the heavens. Also the portents of disaster predicted by Gloucester and Edgar are involved with planetary alignment; perhaps when Lear renounces his duty as lord, or head planet, the stars fall out of line. Finally, despite the obvious pre-Christian setting of the play, the word “lord” can refer to God, which is a part Lear attempts to play in his demands of nature, his daughters, and his former subjects. Although the setting of the play does not include a Christian god (apart from Lear’s striking line “God’s,” 5.3.17), we can assume that Shakespeare would not have expected his audience to escape from their predominately Christian attitudes. “Liege,” although it can be occasionally defined as an adjective “loyal, faithful,” does not have the textual complexity of “lord” and therefore does not add as much interesting subtext, so the word “lord” is a far richer choice (OED). 

         The subtext itself, however, can be dangerous. With our multiple definitions and the OED in hand, we could distort the importance and complexity of the word, adding layers of meaning that Shakespeare never intended to exist in a fairly innocuous line from a loyal retainer to his liege lord.  The role of a good editor is to have a strong grasp of the important themes of the play but also a certain humility before Shakespeare’s text and a willingness to approach it without a potentially biased agenda. The difference between the words “liege” and “lord” is perhaps not great enough to sway an interpretation of the play, but some other words, for instance the decision whether or not to call Edmund Bastard, could seriously affect a casual reading. Using “lord” in this sentence, although loaded with hidden meanings, adds only interesting subtext and is not harmful to an innocent interpretation.