In Elizabethan English there was no figure standing for 'nothing'. But through the influence of Indian philosophy and mathematical concepts the sign '0' was established in Europe. This introduction had a strong impact - not only in mathematics. The idea assigned to it brought strong dispute with it. Especially in philosophy a lot of questions were being asked: What was the nature of 'nothing'?, Was 'nothing' really nothing?, Could one talk about 'nothing'? Didn't it become something thereby? etc.
Questions like these appeared during the Nihilist movement in the 16th century, which eventually led to Nietzsche's statement "God is dead".
Shakespeare used the term 'nothing' about forty times in different contexts within his tragedy King Lear. However, in most student guides and source books on King Lear, 'nothing' is not regarded as leitmotive.
As Brian ROTMAN points out, William Shakespeare was "in the first generation of children in England to have learned about zero from Robert Recorde's Arithmetic." In addition to his frequent use of 'nothing', Shakespeare lets two of his main characters deal with the aspect of 'nothing': the play dramatizes "[...] reductions to nothing, charting the annihilation of human warmth, the dissolution of social, natural, familial bonds, the emptying of kindness, sympathy, tenderness, love, pity, affection into hollow shells, into substitutes for themselves[...]."
The main thesis of this essay is based on the mathematical concept of 'nothing' in which zero is the narrow borderline between positive and negative. Hence, Edgar can not be right when stating "Edgar I nothing am."
Although in most secondary sources relevant for King Lear Gloucester usually is regarded as Lear's counterpart in the subplot, the focus in this essay will be put on the comparison of King Lear and Edgar and their individual development throughout the play.
In order to proof this thesis, the concept of nothing and its sources will be introduced and explained. Chapter I will give a short overview of the ideas of the mathematical concept of 'nothing'. It will explain where the idea of a thing as 'nothing' comes from, how and when it became known in Europe and especially in Elizabethan England and why the sign '0' was chosen.
Chapter II transfers the concept to the play. Although in Shakespearean times mathematics and literature are often regarded as diametral sciences, mathematics are relevant in deed for the reading of Shakespeare's King Lear. The hints on mathematics within the text will be examined in detail.
Table of Contents
I First Chapter: Introduction
II Second Chapter: 'Nothing'
II.1 The different concepts of 'nothing'
II.2 Indian philosophy and zero
II.3 Establishing 'nothing' in Europe – 'nothing' in Shakespeare’s time
II.4 The mathematical concept of 'nothing' in King Lear
III Third Chapter: The diametral development throughout the play
IV Fourth Chapter: Rather 'something' than 'nothing'
IV.1 "Nothing will come of nothing" – the love test
IV.2 "If it be nothing, I shall not need spectacles" – treachery
IV.3 "I am a fool, thou art nothing" – the fool tells the truth
IV.4 "Nothing almost sees miracles" – Cordelia comes to help
V Fifth Chapter: Conclusion
VI Sixth Chapter: Bibliography
VI.1 Literature
VI.1.1 Primary
VI.1.2 Secondary
Objectives and Themes
This essay explores the multifaceted concept of 'nothing' in Shakespeare's King Lear, analyzing how the mathematical introduction of the sign '0' during the Elizabethan era informs the tragic trajectory of the characters. By comparing the developmental arcs of King Lear and Edgar, the work investigates whether 'nothing' serves merely as an absence or as a pivotal transformative force in the play's philosophy.
- The historical influence of Indian philosophy and the concept of zero on Renaissance literature.
- A comparative character study of King Lear and Edgar throughout the play.
- The use of mathematical concepts and irony in Shakespearean dialogue.
- The structural impact of 'nothing' on the play's themes of identity and madness.
Excerpt from the Book
IV.3 "I am a fool, thou art nothing" – the fool tells the truth
After the love test, Lear lives with his hundred knights and his fool at Goneril's. He is joined by Kent, who is disguised in order to not being recognized by Lear but to stay a loyal servant at the same time. They are accompanied by a fool, who, as usual in Shakespeare's plays, is the one to tell the truth.
In scene 1.4 the fool enters and makes fun of King Lear and the situation Lear has put himself in. He tells Lear and Kent a poem that souns very much like a proverb. They both do not understand the meaning of what the fool tells them:
KENT This is nothing, fool.
FOOL Then 'tis like the breath of an unfee'd lawyer, you gave me nothing for't. [to Lear] Can you make no use of nothing, nuncle?
LEAR Why no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing.43
For Kent, the fool's poem is 'nothing', because it means 'no thing' to him. The fool contradicts him and explains to him that although Kent did not give him something for the poem, it is nevertheless there, it is not 'nothing'.
Summary of Chapters
I First Chapter: Introduction: This chapter introduces the historical and mathematical context of the term 'nothing' and presents the thesis that the characters of King Lear and Edgar undergo diametral developments linked to this concept.
II Second Chapter: 'Nothing': This section details the origins of zero from Indian philosophy to its arrival in Europe and examines how this mathematical entity began to shape philosophical and literary thought in Shakespeare's time.
III Third Chapter: The diametral development throughout the play: This chapter analyzes the parallel yet opposite paths taken by Lear and Edgar, contrasting Lear's decline into a state of 'nothing' with Edgar's rise from a beggar to his restoration.
IV Fourth Chapter: Rather 'something' than 'nothing': The chapter provides a close reading of specific scenes, such as the love test and the fool's riddles, to demonstrate how 'nothing' is used linguistically and ironically by the characters.
V Fifth Chapter: Conclusion: The conclusion synthesizes the arguments, suggesting that Shakespeare uses the ambiguity of 'nothing' to mirror the scientific and philosophical disputes of his era within the drama of King Lear.
VI Sixth Chapter: Bibliography: A comprehensive list of primary and secondary sources utilized in the analysis of Shakespeare's work and the history of mathematical concepts.
Keywords
King Lear, William Shakespeare, Nothing, Zero, Indian Philosophy, Mathematical Concepts, Edgar, Cordelia, The Fool, Identity, Renaissance, Hamartia, Nihilism, Elizabethan English, Diametral Development
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this academic work?
The work examines the concept of 'nothing' in Shakespeare's King Lear, specifically analyzing how the mathematical emergence of the zero influenced the play's philosophical and thematic structure.
Which characters are central to the analysis?
The essay focuses primarily on the diametral character developments of King Lear and Edgar throughout the tragedy.
What is the main objective of the thesis?
The thesis aims to prove that 'nothing' is not merely an absence but a significant, transformative concept that influences the characters' actions and their understanding of existence.
What methodology does the author employ?
The author uses a literary analysis approach, contextualizing Shakespearean text with historical and mathematical developments of the time, such as the introduction of '0' into European thought.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The main body examines the history of the concept of zero, provides a character study of Lear and Edgar, and offers a close reading of pivotal scenes where the term 'nothing' is used.
How would you describe the key terminology?
The work is characterized by terms linking mathematics to literature, such as zero, 'nothing', negative identity, and diametral development.
How does Cordelia's use of 'nothing' differ from Lear's?
Cordelia uses 'nothing' to express modesty and the impossibility of quantifying her love, whereas Lear initially interprets 'nothing' in a strictly mathematical, materialistic sense, leading to his tragic error.
How does the fool contribute to the understanding of 'nothing'?
The fool is presented as the wisest character who uses the concept of 'nothing' to hold a mirror up to Lear, forcing him to confront the loss of his power, majesty, and intelligence.
What does the "negative identity" of Edgar imply?
It refers to Edgar's disguise as 'Poor Tom', where he effectively discards his former status as a nobleman to adopt a beggar's identity, paradoxically finding truth within this 'nothingness'.
- Quote paper
- Stefanie Klering (Author), 2006, Rather Something - On "nothing" in King Lear , Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/77249
