“Nothing” seems to have a lot of meaning in this play. I’ve found four ways nothing comes into play in the first act alone. Most notably, Lear expresses his desire to do nothing when he explains his plans to everyone. Second and third, both Cordelia and Edmund refer to “nothing” when questioned by their fathers. The forth ties into Edmund’s significance in the eyes of the law: Absolutely nothing.
For a monarch to say he wishes to give up his property and royal responsibility in his first speech without just cause (he appears to be healthy at this point) is way beyond unusual- It’s plain stupid. Kent in lines 144-153 of the first scene urges him to reconsider. Even after saying that he is only trying to look out for the king’s best interests a few lines later, all he gets for his pains is banishment. In the last scene of this act, the fool has much to say to Lear ranging from the semi vague “Thou shouldst not have been old till thou hadst been wise” (1.5.37) to the fairly blunt
Fool: ...I can tell why a snail has a house
Lear: Why?
Fool: Why, to put his head in; not to give it away to his daughter and leave his horns without a case. (1.5.23-26)
When introduced to Lear’s game of expressing love, his oldest daughters tell him in flowery speeches how much they care about him. What does Cordelia say? “Nothing, my lord” (1.1.86). I do tip my hat off to her for refusing to flatter her father for a few reasons. First, she later defends her lack of verbal affection with the claim that she has proven her love in actions, something Kent later supports. Second, she really had no other choices. Obviously she is too honest to say anything to please Lear unlike her sisters. This left her at a huge disadvantage in the game. If her father went as far as staking his future on the outcome of a session of “who loves daddy more?”, he’s too far gone to listen to reason at this point, a device Cordelia was probably hoping would work.
Edmund piques his father’s interest in “nothing” in two ways at once. Initially when Gloucester asks about the letter he is holding, he responds with “Nothing, my lord” (1.2.31). In a sense, he’s right. He forged that letter so, at the moment, it truly is nothing of any importance. Once his father actually reads what it says, “nothing” turns into something troubling: Conspiracy. By vaguely answering his father’s questions in a way that seems to defend his step brother, he again succeeds to turn another nothing into something: Himself. Because Edmund was born to someone other than Lady Gloucester, he is automatically illegitimate in the eyes of the law. He receives no land or much respect socially if any due to this birth status. Therefor, for all intents and purposes, he is nothing at the beginning of the play. Once he plants the suggestion that Edgar, the legitimate son, is double crossing Gloucester, Edmund is beginning to become something in the eyes of his father and, if his plans go right, society by evidence of inheriting the land.
4 comments:
I especially like your discussion of Cordelia's attempts to reason with Lear. I've never read this play before, so when that scene came up I (stupid me) thought something very nice and special would come out of it. But instead, nothing. Just a load of insanity and disappointment. If there is truly anything in this play, it's insanity, betrayal, and nothing else of importance. Lear goes through the play as a nervous wreck, Edmund, Goneril, and Regan go through the play betraying their fathers, anything seen as pure and right is condemned, called not important. It is a morality play, "told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
I couldn't help but notice how many times the word "nothing" was said too. I also do agree that the letter that Gloucester asks Edmund about is nothing. But I also think that this play shows how nothing can amount to something (if that makes sense?).
You have alighted on what I take to be one of the most important words in the play, Jazzi. Thinking about tragedy, it is often the case that the world of the play, in the end, is reduced to nothingness. I'd be interested to hear more, too, about what Erica thinks the "something" that comes from "nothing" ends up being in this play.
I also noticed how often the word "nothing" was used throughout the play, and I really like your discussion about "nothing" becoming "something," and how both cordelia and edmund tell their father's "nothing" when questioned. It kind of reminds me of when parents ask their children what they were doing when out with friends and they respond with "oh, you know, nothing"
Post a Comment