Thursday, October 24, 2013
Much Ado About Nothing in Lear
In the very first scene of King Lear Lear asks his daughters the measure of their love. The older sisters try to outdo each other in the hyperbolic humungousness of their lover, but the youngest Cordelia can only manage to assert "Nothing, my Lord." Lear, not quite believing his ears retorts "Nothing?" Cordelia affirms her original "nothing" to which Lear responds "Nothing comes from nothing"(1.1.96-99). In rapid success we have five mentions of "nothing" that begins a veritable feast through out the play. What do you make of the use of "nothing" in this scene? Does it reflect a similar use of "nothing" in other parts of the play? Is nothingness a theme of this play? Why make such a big deal out of "nothing"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Shakespeare’s uses “nothing” in Act 1 Scene 1 to show King Lear’s unusual relationship with his daughters. As the king, he is extremely possessive and measures his own self-worth based on possession; he either gets everything or nothing. Before Cordelia refuses to plead her love for the king, he considers her “the argument of your praise, balm of your age,/The best, the dearest”(1.1.248). She is the youngest, the most beautiful daughter that Lear has, and is herself one of his most prized possessions. However, when Cordelia decides to “Love, and be silent.”(1.1.68), Lear jumps to a heated conclusion that “Nothing will come of nothing.”(1.1.99). Lear even ties together emotions with material possessions, threatening to take away Cordelia’s inheritance if she doesn’t declare an undying love for her father. It is almost as if Cordelia, who has Burgundy and France vying for her, is an object that Lear is not okay with completely handing over for marriage if he cannot keep control of her and have a claim over her.
ReplyDeleteThe strange part about Lear’s episode is that Cordelia admits to loving him, just not in the same exact way that he wants to hear. She knows that he has been a suitable father and “returns those duties back as are right fit:/ Obey you, love you, and most honor you.”(1.1.106). She is strictly sticking to a father-daughter relationship and nothing beyond that bond. She says that she will, “never marry like my sisters,/ (To love my father all).”(1.1.114). Because she refuses to act the same as her sisters and tell Lear that he is the most important, most loved thing in her life, Lear angrily jumps to the conclusion that she is an undeserving, unloving mistake. It is almost as if he is competing with Burgundy and France to keep Cordelia’s absolute love and is not okay with sharing, similar to how he isn’t okay with sharing his land if he is not in control of the ruler’s emotions. Because she won’t submit to exactly what Lear is asking of her, he tells her suitors that she is “a wretch whom Nature is ashamed”(1.1.242). Not only is he angry because he is not getting what he wants, but he wants Cordelia to end up with nothing as well. He is bad-talking her to her suitors, and giving her nothing if she cannot give him her everything.
If Lear cannot have everything, he forces himself to take nothing. If he cannot have his daughter’s absolute love, then she has no place in his life and cannot have any of his land.
…What can you say to draw
ReplyDeleteA third more opulent than your sisters? Speak.
Nothing, my lord.
Nothing?
Nothing.
Nothing will come from nothing (1.1.94-99).
For someone who has just heard this dialog for the first time, this can sound like a whole bunch of nothing. But in reality nothing is really something quite big. In this scene between King Lear and his daughter Cordelia there is much use of the term nothing. In our minds nothing means does not mean anything yet in the world of Shakespeare it means a great deal of things. In this case King Lear expects his daughters to profess their love for their father and in turn get a portion of their fathers land. When it is Cordelia’s turn to express her adoration for her father she simply says “nothing”. Cordelia feels that the love she has towards her father is trivial in comparison to the other loves of her life. She cannot express something that does not exist. When her father questions the nonexistence of her love she simply affirms it. Lear replies that, “nothing will come from nothing”, implicating that her lack of love will not get her any land. Nothing is made use of in other parts of King Lear like in Act 3 Scene 4 when Lear questions the decisions he has made in life saying, “Has his daughters brought him to this pass?-/ Couldst thou save nothing? Wouldst thou give ‘em/ all” (3.4.68-70)? He later answers his own question when he proclaims, “Death, traitor! Nothing could have subdued nature/ to such a lowness but his unkind daughters” (3.4.76-77). In this sense nothing is what Lear could have saved which is literally nothing. When answering his own question he understands that nature is in control of everything so he has no control. Nothingness plays a major theme in this play and it seems as though the course of events that takes place in this play all happens because of nothing. The whole reason that nothing is such a big deal is because in the society of King Lear there are ethical materialists and idealists. One believes in the preciousness of material objects and the other is more concerned about the idea of thought and consciousness. These are two opposing ideologies that have completely different outlooks and are represented by both Lear and Cordelia. Although Lear is more of a materialist while Cordelia is more of an idealist, both share the idea of how nothing controls everything.
In the beginning acts of King Lear, Shakespeare uses the idea of nothing as the main criteria of someone who is going downhill on the wheel of fortune, eventually heading to total despair. This sequence of 5 “nothing’s” in the course of just a few lines is the beginning of, slowly and slowly, every character ending up with nothing. We see through the first 3 acts, characters like Lear, Cordelia, Kent, Edgar, and Gloucester are reduced to nothing. Lear loses his entire kingdom, the love of his children, and most of all, his wits and sanity. All of this starts right from this string of nothings. After this, Lear exiles Cordelia, and when this one thing leads to another and another, Lear ends up with nothing. The Fool puts it nicely, saying “I had rather be any kind o’ thing than a Fool. And yet I would not be thee, nuncle.” 1.4.189-90 Characters like Cordelia and Kent, who are both exiled, want to serve Lear, and do try to later in the play, but as of the end of this first act, they are unable to do anything for the King’s benefit. With cases like Edgar and Gloucester, Edmund has ruined their ability to do anything at all for the time being. Gloucester gets fooled by Edmund and banishes the son that loves him, Edgar, and also is blinded. Gloucester loses both his sight, and his figurative sight into the hearts of his children, and is unable to see Edmunds true intent. Only later will he be able to see everyone’s ulterior motives. Edgar on the other hand, has just been dealt a bad hand in life. Gloucester banishes him, and he can do nothing about it. He disguises himself as a beggar, and only later is he able to reunite with his father before he dies. From the point of these “nothing’s” to the beginning of the fourth act, all of these characters get reduced to nothing. Then, while in Act 4, things become better for these characters, all but Edgar and Kent die in the last act, and even Kent seems partially suicidal. Looking at all this, Lear’s use of the word nothing in this first scene sets a precedent that all the characters in the end will die, or be left with nothing to live for.
ReplyDeleteFrom the very first scene of Shakespeare’s King Lear, it is clear that Lear believes that having nothing is completely useless. He thinks that nothingness is not functional and, especially in those times, won’t enhance your status at all. However, many other characters take advantage of times when they have or are “nothing”, which shows how Lear is mistaken and something can actually come from nothing. In the very first scene, when Lear asks his daughters to express their love to him, Cordelia at first says, “Nothing,” (1.1.96). Lear then responds, “Nothing will come of nothing,” (1.1.99). This clearly shows that Lear believes that nothingness has a negative connotation associated with it, and that nothingness has no place in a kingdom. However, Cordelia disproves this in this exact scene. She goes on to argue that she, “love your Majesty according to my bond, no more nor less,” (1.1.101-2). Here, Cordelia is showing that by speaking nothing, she is actually saying a lot of things. She refuses to tell Lear how much she loves him because she believes that it is implied that she loves him as much as she is supposed to. Cordelia feels that she doesn’t need words to express her love, and that Lear should simply know that she loves him, which is why saying nothing actually says something. However, Lear being the stubborn king that he is, refuses to listen to Cordelia’s reasoning and banishes her.
ReplyDeleteAnother instance of a character in the play using their nothingness is Edgar. After Edgar is banished from Gloucesters castle, Edgar decides to disguise himself as a beggar to avoid being killed. While he does this, he comes up with a strategy to get back at Edmund, and at the end of this he says, “I nothing am,” (2.4.21). Edgar, instead of being frustrated that he has nothing, he takes advantage of his nothingness by making himself a beggar to eventually get back at Edmund. This strategy will be effective because unlike many of the other characters in the play, Edgar will in fact survive. This proves that, contrary to what Lear believes, having or being nothing isn’t always a disadvantage. Nothingness is, in fact, something that can be used to gain power, and many characters in this play utilize that tool effectively.
Act 1 Scene 1 introduces Shakespeare’s perpetual use of the word ‘nothing’; Cordelia brings up the word, not because she truly feels nothing for her father, but because she cannot put her feelings in to words. Cordelia assures her father, “you have begot me, bred me, loved me. I return those duties as are right fit” (1.1.106-108). She feels love in her heart that is greater than either of her sisters’. However, her humility and loyalty to a potential future husband prevent her from voicing how much she loves Lear, and so her response is literally ‘nothing’. For this reason, I think the notion of ‘nothing’ is not used in King Lear as the absence of thought or feelings on a subject, but rather a placeholder of sorts, for when characters cannot quite express what they’re thinking or feeling.
ReplyDeleteThis idea is reflected later in the play, when Lear has lost his kingdom, estate and men. He has gone from a powerful man with everything, to a poor man with the concept of ‘nothing’. Because Lear thinks he has ‘nothing’, he begins to go insane—he has banished his one faithful daughter and been stabbed in the back by his other two. The concept in his mind of having nothing drives him to insanity, causing him to make very poor decisions, such as wandering around outside in a storm. Lear laments the loss of his daughters, saying, “Nor rain, wind, thunder, fire, are my daughters: / I tax you not, you elements, with unkindness” (3.2.14–15). However, when Cordelia returns to him, he no longer possesses ‘nothing’, and his sanity is restored. The nothingness In Shakespeare’s play acts as a placeholder for emotions, as can be seen both in Cordelia’s refusal to voice her love for Lear and in Lear’s putting everything on hold to despair in his having nothing.
In this scene, King Lear mistakes her daughter's speech of her love to him to mean that she does not care for him at all. But this is not the case whatsoever. She knows that her sisters are kissing up to her father just for the kingdom, but to her, she tells the truth. "I love your Majesty according to my bond,no more nor less"(1.1.101-2). I think the use of the word "nothing" in this play means something different for each character. For Lear, he says: "nothing will come of nothing. Speak again"(1.1.99). So for Lear, he thinks that because Cordelia says: "nothing, my lord" (1.1.96), she does not care for him at all. When in fact, she says: "nothing", she means so many other things then just what "nothing" definitionally means. Nothing for her is just in place of words she cannot describe to him. She does not want to lie and kiss up, so she just says: "nothing". She is the only daughter in fact that does truly love and care for her father, but her father will not look under the surface and just assumes that just because she will not kiss up to him, she does not love him. Nothing is truly powerful in this story and the characters, and reader, have to look at the true meaning of the word, rather then for what they assume it means.
ReplyDelete