Which version of King Lear should I read? Quarto, Folio, or the combined one?
>>8755892
Shakespeare's
>>8755892
Modern if you're reading for school since everyone use it, quarto otherwise since it represents initial vision. Folio was most probably modified based on initial public reaction, plus some actor changes. While modern is just a mishmash thrown together by some editor.
>>8756097
>by some editor
>not knowing who Foakes is
I recommend the combined one, since it is an interesting take on the play and Foakes (if by th combined one you mean the Arden edition) does an excellent job as an editor.
There is a pdf in libgen with a parallel text of King Lear, with the Quarto in one side and the Folio in other. You might want to check that.
>>8756212
It's still a mishmash. Editing a thing that's effectively two distinct works into one just for the sake of completeness, is pointless. It has no historical literally value and is firmly and only directed at plebeians.
>>8758077
It's not "just" for the sake of completeness, nor is it pointless. It is an editorial experiment to produce a unified text, and a successful one at that. It is not perfect and there were compromises, but that happens with any editorial decision. Even deciding between folio or quarto is a compromise.
>historical literary value
Whatever that means.
>firmly and only directed at plebeians
Indeed, it is not directed at refined gentlemen such as yourself, I assume.
>>8758077
You should also read Foakes's editorial analysis of the F and Q texts and the editorial history behind the text of King Lear. Since Pope editors have conflated the texts, so your assumption that it has no "historical literary value" it just that, an assumption. You could say that about any play by Shakespeare since editors usually make their own choices when editing a text, and sometimes they distance themselves from traditional editorial practice.
>>8758077
As for the faithfulness of the quarto, see pic related.