Conclusion

Abstract

The reader will have noticed some overlapping both between Parts One and Two and within the separate sections of each part. This is unavoidable, but I have also made no special effort to avoid it, though I hope mere repetition is minimal. King Lear is above all things a unified whole, although admittedly one of a distinctive if not unique kind; the categories of analytical criticism will repeatedly come into collision with this unity. At the same time discussion of theatrical interpretation will reflect critical preoccupations. It is part of the express purpose of this book, as of the others in the series, that the reflection should be coherent and deliberate.