Lear is equally friendly to both and it seems that he would be happy to have either one as his son-in-law. Each has argued his case for a substantial dowry and after lengthy negotiations mutually satisfactory agreements have finally been reached. When France and Burgundy entered the court to receive Lear's answer, neither knew Lear had disinherited Cordelia only a few minutes earlier.
The news would come as a profound shock. Lear makes it abundantly clear that there is a gigantic difference between the two suitors! But why?
Lear very pointedly and most strongly suggests to France that he not marry Cordelia and yet he unhesitatingly offers her to Burgundy. What could be his reason for making such a clear distinction?
Could it be that the Duke is not the ruler of Burgundy? Perhaps he is the son or brother of the King of Burgundy and under orders not to marry Cordelia unless Lear grants a substantial dowry. The Duke would not be so foolish as to have disclosed this restriction as it would have limited his negotiating position. Lear's refusal to grant a dowry puts an end to his quest.
And what would France be thinking at this time? He is unlikely to be surprised by Burgundy's response. Sir, there she stands. If aught within that little seeming substance, Or all of it, with our displeasure piec'd, And nothing more, may fitly like your Grace, She's there, and she is yours. Will you, with those infirmities she owes, Unfriended, new adopted to our hate, Dow'r'd with our curse, and stranger'd with our oath, Take her, or leave her?
Pardon me, royal sir. Election makes not up on such conditions. King of France. Is it but this- a tardiness in nature Which often leaves the history unspoke That it intends to do? My Lord of Burgundy, What say you to the lady? Love's not love When it is mingled with regards that stands Aloof from th' entire point. Will you have her? She is herself a dowry. I am sorry then you have so lost a father That you must lose a husband.
0コメント