Gayley (R. E. C. i. 422) would like to find in the play the comedy written by Greene and the 'young Juvenall', Nashe. The character Cuthbert Cutpurse the Conicatcher is from the pamphlet (cf. s.v. Greene) entered in S. R. on 21 April 1592, and the story of Titus Andronicus is alluded to in F_{2}^v:
As Titus was vnto the Roman Senators, When he had made a conquest on the Goths.
Leire > 1594
S. R. 1594, May 14. 'A booke entituled, The moste famous Chronicle historye of Leire kinge of England and his Three Daughters.' Adam Islip (Arber, ii. 649). [Islip's name is crossed out, and Edward White's substituted.] 1605, May 8. 'A booke called "the Tragecall historie of kinge Leir and his Three Daughters &c", As it was latelie Acted.' Simon Stafford (Arber, iii. 289). [Assigned the same day by Stafford with the consent of William Leake to John Wright, 'provided that Simon Stafford shall haue the printinge of this booke'.] 1605. The True Chronicle History of King Leir, and his three daughters, Gonorill, Ragan, and Cordelia. As it hath bene diuers and sundry times lately acted. Simon Stafford for John Wright.
S. R. 1624, June 29. Transfer of 'Leire and his daughters' from Mrs. White to E. Alde (Arber, iv. 120).
Editions by J. Nichols (1779, S. O. P. ii), W. C. Hazlitt (1875, Sh. Libr. ii. 2), W. W. Greg (1907, M. S. R.), S. Lee (1909, Sh. Classics), J. S. Farmer (1910, T. F. T.), R. Fischer (1914, Quellen zu König Lear).—Dissertations: W. Perrett, The Story of King Lear (1904, Palaestra, xxxv); R. A. Law, The Date of King Lear (1906, M. L. A. xxi. 462); H. D. Sykes, Sidelights on Shakespeare, 126 (1919).
The Queen's and Sussex's revived 'kinge leare' for Henslowe on 6 and 8 April 1594, shortly before the first S. R. entry (Greg, Henslowe, ii. 162). As the play is not named in the Sussex's repertory of 1593-4, there is a presumption that it belonged to the Queen's. The authorship is quite obscure. Fleay, 90, assigns it to Lodge and Peele; Fleay, 97, to Lodge and Greene; Fleay, ii. 51, to Lodge and Kyd. Robertson, 176, thinks the claim for Lodge indecisive, and surmises the presence of Greene. Sykes argues for Peele. Lee hints at Rankins. The publishing history is also difficult. The entries of 1605 appear to ignore White's copyright, although this was still alive in his son's widow in 1624. Lee suggests that the Stafford-Wright enterprise was due to negotiation between Wright and White, whose apprentice he had been. The play was clearly regarded as distinct from that of Shakespeare, which was entered to N. Butter and J. Busby on 22 Nov. 1607, and it, though based on its predecessor, is far more than a revision of it. It seems a little improbable that Leire should have been revived as late as 1605, and the 'Tragecall' and 'lately acted' of the title-*page, taken by themselves, would point to an attempt by Stafford to palm off the old play as Shakespeare's. But although 1605 is not an
