Abstract

lack.” Lacan’s conception of Eros revolves around “a presentification of 1 It is my contention that King Lear invites a theoretical reading of kinship as such “presentification of lack.” Indeed, the dialectic of desire in the text derives from King Lear’s discovering that his own kingly signifier signifies nothing. This error of judgment, which stems from a confusion between desire and jouissance, leads him to misappropriate the rules of bothkingship and kinship. Interestingly enough, it is Cordelia, the daughter andsubject with whom he is erotically involved, who brings home to him thetruth of his error. As an incestuous drama of signification, then, King Learnot only relates to the Phallus as master signifier, but also to the Name-ofthe-Father as referent of the law. Moreover, the truth Cordelia speaks is “a half-said” that leads to the “abolition of discourse”: muteness, madness anddeath. 2 Thus, if the violence implicit in the erotics of the play strikes at “the self-contained character of the participators,” it strikes first at the core of language. 3