Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing: The Name-of-the-Father in King Lear

Lacan’s conception of Eros revolves around “a presentification of lack.” It is my contention that King Lear invites a theoretical reading of kin(g)ship 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 be-tween desire and jouissance, leads him to misappropriate the rules of both kingship and kinship. Interestingly enough, it is Cordelia, the daughter and subject with whom he is erotically involved, who brings home to him the truth of his error. As an incestuous drama of signification, then, King Lear not only relates to the Phallus as master signifier, but also to the Name-of-the-Father as referent of the law.