Lakhasly

[to Kent] Prithee tell him, so much the rent of his land comes to:he will not believe a Fool.The connection between these entities and the balance-based metaphors in the text is not accidental, fortuitous, or the product of what Fish (1980: 251) criticises as responsive only to 'the pressure of the question "how do they relate?" and a relation will always be found'. The connection results from the same process, metaphoric projection from the BALANCE schema, into many distinct domains of the play: into the abstractions of Lear's idea of paternal love, and the ways in which his daughters' responses play into and resist it; into the abstractions of plot-construction,character relations, and narrative sequence; into psychological and social settings, and into many other structural elements (for discussion of these elements and cognitive-metaphoric analysis, see Wye 1992 chapters 3 and4). The second part of my claim for cognitive metaphor is perhaps more important. The metaphoric impulse is grounded not in intellectual abstractions but in the body that is in the mind. Because cognitive-metaphoric analysis proceeds from the elements and structure of schematised bodily experience to their projection into such abstractions as (for King Lear) family relationships and parental and filial love, these analytical claims can be confirmed or disconfirmed according to the accuracy with which those elements and structure and their projection are articulated. The same falsifiability applies, mutatis nutandis, to claims made for metaphoric projection into larger abstract structural units. In short, this analysis can be falsified if its topological analysis proves to be wrong. It can be invalidated if the patterns it posits exist only at the level of text and not in larger structural units, or if a competing candidate source domain and metaphoric projection better explains these patterns at all levels of the literary Work. On this second point, we can, for example, trace a pattern of textual metaphors in King Lear that depend on the core metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY,which is based on the PATH schema: 'we came crying hither' (IV.vi.176);'I have no way, and therefore want no eyes;I stumbled when I saw'(IV.i.18-19);'she's [Cordelia] gone for ever . . . Thou'lt come no more'(V.iii.258, 306),and many others.But very little connects this pattern of metaphoric projection in the text with larger structural elements in the play. The PATH schema entails such salient aspects as starting and terminal points and a sequence of locations that connect the beginning and the end (for discussion, see Johnson 1987: 113-17).The lives of all of King Lear's major characters have terminal points: most of them die.But we see little of the source points of these paths, the beginning of these journeys. A contrasting example, Macbeth, is not only replete with textual metaphors based on the PATH schema, but the LIFE IS A JOURNEY metaphoric projection dominates the play's plot and characters (the extreme case is Macduff, who begins the journey of his life by an alternate route to the conventional birth canal-for discussion, see D.C. Freeman forthcoming). Thus for King Lear we can make a principled argument for two candidate source domains, BALANCE and LINKS (they exist independently and the play manifests both a pattern of projections from them at the textual level and an equally rich pattern of the same projections at different levels) and against a third, the PATH (the play manifests a pattern of projections from it at the same level, but few if any at different levels), as the defining 'conceptual universe' (M.H. Freeman forthcoming) of the play. Of course te choice of dominant source domains and hence of the abstract entities into which they are projected is interpretive, even if we grant the currently all-encompassing sense of that term (see Fish 1989: 320).These choices can change over time: for me, they liave changed in 35 years of watching,reading and teaching King Lear from the SCALE schema ("Thy life's a miracle.(I.i.112-15) Later,when Goneril begins the process of stripping him of his retainers,Lear seeks to destroy not only the father-daughter link, but the link of common membership in the human race -'degenerate bastard'- and to extend this curse into the next generation, so that Goneril either may have the mother-child link denied her or have the parental link become for her an instrument of exquisite torture.Lear prays that the gods may give his own daughter a 'child of spleen'who will be 'thwart disnatured torment' to her, yet linked to her by the very constitutive linking structures that she has denied her father: nature, honour,pains and benefits, and thanks.Lear demonstrates this same patter-from physical sensation to mental feeling, from concrete to abstract, from his own physical suffering to a spiritual empathy with the suffering of another-as he begins to reverse the operative definition of kingship that has so far dominated the play: a status in which the links between a king and his subjects (and a father and his daughters) are constituted by the abstractions of courtly ceremony, of debits and credits.He then recognises and rebuilds his place in that world in terms of these links, bonding himself first with physical feeling (cold), then with spiritual feeling (empathy), then with individuals (the Fool), then with the rags and hunger of his kingdom's subjects ('the poor naked wretches' with 'houseless heads and unfed sides' (III.iv.28, 30)), and finally with the irreducibly human, unaccommodated, primal human condition figured in Mad Tom.Historically, 'reason' had as one of its nominal meanings a monetary reckoning.The term 'need' bespeaks a link of desperate desire between Lear and 'th' name and addition of a king', represented for this king by the number of his retainers, which defines for Lear the nature of kingship beyond what a debit-credit, accounts-book,cost-benefit analysis would show, and represented for human beings by more than the entitlement of their mere physical requirements.When Lear's understanding of the world in terms of the empty abstractions of the balance sheet and kingly ceremony fails him,he progressively denies first the abstract and then the physical links of fatherhood, his own marriage, his ungrateful daughters' legitimacy, their humanity and their progeny, and finally the linking structures of the created world and the human species.When he strips off his garments in the play's climactic scene and stands naked against the elements, he is clothed in his solidarity with the physical nakedness of Tom o'Bedlam, linked to him in spiritual nakedness and vulnerability of 'unaccommodated man' before the random cruelties of the gods.The same concept, or 'activated pattern inhering in thought' (Turner 1991: 45), underlies both the dozens of examples in King Lear of metaphors of financial accounting that instantiate the BALANCE schema and many larger structures in the play.These would include, by way of example, the Gloucester-Edmund-Edgar subplot balanced against the main plot, and the play's balanced sets of characters: the 'unnatural' children - Edmund on one side, Goneril and Regan on the other; the rejected, despised, and then redeemed fathers-Gloucester and Lear; the 'natural' children - Edgar and Cordelia; and the good and bad servants-the Fool and Oswald.What I would claim for this article as an analysis from the standpoint of cognitive metaphor is that this theory enables us not merely to describe, but to explain patterns of this kind, and to explainthem and their interconnections at different structural levels of the play using the same theoretical apparatus.As his daughters reduce his retainers - and with them,his humanity- from the number one hundred to the number zero, it dawns on Lear that in family relationships, a deal is not necessarily a deal, irrespective of what the account-books say or what reservations are spelled out in contractual visiting arrangements: I gave you all -Made you my guardians my depositaries, But kept a reservation 4 to be follow'd With such a number.'True need' cannot be reasoned,accounted for, reckoned up. 3 The LINKS schema Early in the play, the links-based metaphors involving Lear have to do more with breaking links than with creating them.Instead,Lear both physically and spiritually breaks the filial bond and denies the bonding structures of both ownership and family: Here I disclaim all my paternal care, Propinquity and property of blood, And as a stranger to my heart and me Hold thee from this for ever.Lear seeks the ground of human community and kingship in the concrete links of shared physical suffering in the storm, between his nakedness and his subjects' 'loop'd and window'd raggedness' (III.iv.31), between man and man, and between a King and his subjects.This severing of links is carried even further in Act II: Lear threatens to deny the bond of marriage with Regan's mother and thus his bond of fatherhood to Regan, and turns this destruction of human bonds upon himself.Lear, the great valuer, is now without value, an '0', a zero, 'without a figure' (I.iv.189-90), a king with no kingdom, a father with no daughters, a man with no standing, a cipher without a number to give it value, to whom the Fool applies Lear's own principle of accounting: 'I am better than thou art now: I am a fool,thou art nothing' (I.iv.190-1).The currency in which Lear will repay his older daughters' professions of love comes at a much higher rate of exchange than he anticipated: Fool But for all this,thou shalt have as many dolours for thy daughters as thou canst tell in a year.(II.iv.52-3) Lear's world is destroyed in the same terms of balance and numbers in which he sought to build it, as Goneril and Regan strip him of the numbers of his retainers: Regan ...I have hope You [Lear] less know how to value her [Goneril's] desert Than she to scant her duty...Lear does not 'tax [the] elements with unkindness' (III.ii.16) because they are not of Lear's kind, they are not linked to him as his daughters should be, by gratitude, by blood, by the duty of subjects to their king.(II.iv.248,249-51) We recall that the Fool has already told Lear that he is 'an 0 without a figure'; now,Lear begins to realise that the 'all' he has given Regan and Goneril is being balanced-if that is the word - by nothing at all (and will come to know that Cordelia's 'nothing' is everything).The bonds that link Lear with Goneril now are only those of 'disease', 'plague', and 'corrupted blood' (II.iv.220,222,223).ten?....

[to Kent] Prithee tell him, so much the rent of his land comes to:he will not believe a Fool. (I.iv.126-32)
The linguistically nimble Fool entraps Lear with a specifically financial phrase,
and reminds his king of the deeper sense of the 'nothing' he now has. Lear, the
great valuer, is now without value, an '0', a zero, 'without a figure'
(I.iv.189-90), a king with no kingdom, a father with no daughters, a man with
no standing, a cipher without a number to give it value, to whom the Fool
applies Lear's own principle of accounting: 'I am better than thou art now: I am
a fool,thou art nothing' (I.iv.190-1). The currency in which Lear will repay his
older daughters' professions of love comes at a much higher rate of exchange
than he anticipated:
Fool
But for all this,thou shalt have as many dolours for thy daughters as thou canst tell in a year. (II.iv.52-3)
Lear's world is destroyed in the same terms of balance and numbers in which he sought to build it, as Goneril and Regan strip him of the numbers of his retainers:
Regan ...I have hope
You [Lear] less know how to value her [Goneril's] desert
Than she to scant her duty...
I cannot think my sister in the least
Would fail her obligation. (II.iv.135-9)
Goneril and Regan, however, indeed know how to value their father's desert;
they know just the issue that will torment him most- the number of his
followers. As his daughters reduce his retainers - and with them,his humanity-
from the number one hundred to the number zero, it dawns on Lear that in
family relationships, a deal is not necessarily a deal, irrespective of what the
account-books say or what reservations are spelled out in contractual visiting
arrangements:
I gave you all -Made you my guardians my depositaries,
But kept a reservation 4 to be follow'd
With such a number. (II.iv.248,249-51)
We recall that the Fool has already told Lear that he is 'an 0 without a figure';
now,Lear begins to realise that the 'all' he has given Regan and Goneril is being
balanced-if that is the word - by nothing at all (and will come to know that
Cordelia's 'nothing' is everything). With his daughters' final and specifically
numerical slashes at his selfhood, 'What need you five-and-twenty? ten? or
five?... What need one?' Lear begins to see the human condition as going
beyond what 'moral mathematics' or the balance sheet will justify:
O! reason not the need; Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous:
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man's life is cheap as beast's. Thou art a lady;
If only to go warm were gorgeous,
Why,nature needs not what thou gorgeous wear'st,
Which scarcely keeps thee warm. But,for true need,-
You Heavens,give me that patience, patience I need!- (II.iv.262-9)
Like Cordelia's use of 'bond' in Act I scene i, Lear's agonized 'O! reason not the need' epitomizes the competition between the financial accounting and links metaphors crucial to the play's conceptual structure. Historically, 'reason' had as one of its nominal meanings a monetary reckoning.The term 'need' bespeaks a link of desperate desire between Lear and 'th' name and addition of a king', represented for this king by the number of his retainers, which defines for Lear
the nature of kingship beyond what a debit-credit, accounts-book,cost-benefit
analysis would show, and represented for human beings by more than the entitlement of their mere physical requirements. For the first time, Lear begins to weigh the links of humanity more than account balances. 'True need' cannot be reasoned,accounted for, reckoned up.
3 The LINKS schema
Early in the play, the links-based metaphors involving Lear have to do more
with breaking links than with creating them. From his first entrance, Lear sees
only the financial side of Cordelia's rich-languaged assertion of the 'bond'
between them, and ignores her attempt to couch the father-daughter link in
language that he will understand ('I return those duties back as are right fit').
Instead,Lear both physically and spiritually breaks the filial bond and denies the
bonding structures of both ownership and family:
Here I disclaim all my paternal care,
Propinquity and property of blood,
And as a stranger to my heart and me
Hold thee from this for ever. (I.i.112-15)
Later,when Goneril begins the process of stripping him of his retainers,Lear seeks to destroy not only the father-daughter link, but the link of common membership in the human race -'degenerate bastard'- and to extend this curse into the next generation, so that Goneril either may have the mother-child link denied her or have the parental link become for her an instrument of exquisite torture.Lear prays that the gods may give his own daughter a 'child of spleen'who will be 'thwart disnatured torment' to her, yet linked to her by the very constitutive linking structures that she has denied her father: nature, honour,pains and benefits, and thanks.
This severing of links is carried even further in Act II: Lear threatens to deny
the bond of marriage with Regan's mother and thus his bond of fatherhood to
Regan, and turns this destruction of human bonds upon himself. Lear converts
his physical links of flesh and blood to Goneril to highly particularised,
loathsome diseases of that same flesh and blood. The bonds that link Lear with
Goneril now are only those of 'disease', 'plague', and 'corrupted blood'
(II.iv.220,222,223). Finally, in the midst of the storm, Lear would shatter the links that hold together the world, the bonds of nature and the human race,the very 'germains' or gene-pool of life itself. He stands alone, 'the pattern of all patience', divested of links of any kind, to his daughters, to his household, to his kingdom,to the elements of the created world. Lear does not 'tax [the] elements with unkindness' (III.ii.16) because they are not of Lear's kind, they are not linked to him as his daughters should be, by gratitude, by blood, by the duty of subjects to their king.
As Lear's reintegration with the human condition begins, we likewise
understand that reintegration through the schema of LINKS. As the nature of the
metaphors based upon that schema begins to change, Lear first identifies himself
with the Fool through shared physical needs of warmth and safety, and sees
himself as linked to the Fool in suffering and sympathy:
Come on,my boy. How dost, my boy? Art cold?
I am cold myself. Where is this straw,my fellow?
The art of our necessities is strange,
And can make vile things precious. Come, your hovel.
Poor Fool and knave, I have one part in my heart (III.ii.68-73)
That's sorry yet for thee.
Lear demonstrates this same patter-from physical sensation to mental feeling,
from concrete to abstract, from his own physical suffering to a spiritual empathy
with the suffering of another-as he begins to reverse the operative definition of
kingship that has so far dominated the play: a status in which the links between
a king and his subjects (and a father and his daughters) are constituted by the
abstractions of courtly ceremony, of debits and credits. Lear seeks the ground of
human community and kingship in the concrete links of shared physical
suffering in the storm, between his nakedness and his subjects' 'loop'd and
window'd raggedness' (III.iv.31), between man and man, and between a King
and his subjects. When he strips off his garments in the play's climactic scene
and stands naked against the elements, he is clothed in his solidarity with the
physical nakedness of Tom o'Bedlam, linked to him in spiritual nakedness and
vulnerability of 'unaccommodated man' before the random cruelties of the gods.
The progression is crucial. When Lear's understanding of the world in terms
of the empty abstractions of the balance sheet and kingly ceremony fails him,he
progressively denies first the abstract and then the physical links of fatherhood,
his own marriage, his ungrateful daughters' legitimacy, their humanity and their
progeny, and finally the linking structures of the created world and the human
species. He then recognises and rebuilds his place in that world in terms of
these links, bonding himself first with physical feeling (cold), then with spiritual
feeling (empathy), then with individuals (the Fool), then with the rags and
hunger of his kingdom's subjects ('the poor naked wretches' with 'houseless
heads and unfed sides' (III.iv.28, 30)), and finally with the irreducibly human,
unaccommodated, primal human condition figured in Mad Tom. This condition and bond are epitomized in Lear's 'We came crying higher'and in that 'very foolish fond old man' of Act IV, linked to Cordelia now in human mortality and imperfection.
4 On description and explanation
Few of the critical analyses in the foregoing are startling; indeed, Lear's restoration to humanity is an important part of any discussion of the play. Some of the financial language in King Lear (although not its critical significance) has
been described before, as have the play's larger structural entities and the relationships between them. But to describe the play's financial language is merely that: description. What I would claim for this article as an analysis from the standpoint of cognitive metaphor is that this theory enables us not merely to describe, but to explain patterns of this kind, and to explainthem and their interconnections at different structural levels of the play using the same theoretical apparatus. The analyses produced by a cognitive-metaphoric approach are, moreover, better grounded than earlier purely critical work.
As to the first of these assertions, cognitive metaphor proceeds on the
hypothesis that '. . . metaphor is not just a matter of language, but of thought
and reason' (Lakoff 1993:13). The same concept, or 'activated pattern inhering
in thought' (Turner 1991: 45), underlies both the dozens of examples in King
Lear of metaphors of financial accounting that instantiate the BALANCE schema
and many larger structures in the play. These would include, by way of example,
the Gloucester-Edmund-Edgar subplot balanced against the main plot, and the
play's balanced sets of characters: the 'unnatural' children - Edmund on one
side, Goneril and Regan on the other; the rejected, despised, and then redeemed
fathers-Gloucester and Lear; the 'natural' children - Edgar and Cordelia; and
the good and bad servants-the Fool and Oswald. The connection between these
entities and the balance-based metaphors in the text is not accidental, fortuitous,
or the product of what Fish (1980: 251) criticises as responsive only to 'the
pressure of the question “how do they relate?” and a relation will always be found'. The connection results from the same process, metaphoric projection from the BALANCE schema, into many distinct domains of the play: into the abstractions of Lear's idea of paternal love, and the ways in which his daughters' responses play into and resist it; into the abstractions of plot-construction,character relations, and narrative sequence; into psychological and social settings, and into many other structural elements (for discussion of these elements and cognitive-metaphoric analysis, see Wye 1992 chapters 3 and4).
The second part of my claim for cognitive metaphor is perhaps more important. The metaphoric impulse is grounded not in intellectual abstractions but in the body that is in the mind. Because cognitive-metaphoric analysis proceeds from the elements and structure of schematised bodily experience to
their projection into such abstractions as (for King Lear) family relationships and parental and filial love, these analytical claims can be confirmed or disconfirmed according to the accuracy with which those elements and structure and their projection are articulated. The same falsifiability applies, mutatis nutandis, to claims made for metaphoric projection into larger abstract structural units. In short, this analysis can be falsified if its topological analysis proves to be wrong.
It can be invalidated if the patterns it posits exist only at the level of text and not
in larger structural units, or if a competing candidate source domain and
metaphoric projection better explains these patterns at all levels of the literary
Work.
On this second point, we can, for example, trace a pattern of textual metaphors in King Lear that depend on the core metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY,which is based on the PATH schema: 'we came crying hither' (IV.vi.176);'I have no way, and therefore want no eyes;I stumbled when I saw'(IV.i.18-19);'she's
[Cordelia] gone for ever . . . Thou'lt come no more'(V.iii.258, 306),and many
others.But very little connects this pattern of metaphoric projection in the text
with larger structural elements in the play. The PATH schema entails such salient
aspects as starting and terminal points and a sequence of locations that connect the beginning and the end (for discussion, see Johnson 1987: 113-17).The lives
of all of King Lear's major characters have terminal points: most of them die.But we see little of the source points of these paths, the beginning of these journeys. A contrasting example, Macbeth, is not only replete with textual metaphors based on the PATH schema, but the LIFE IS A JOURNEY metaphoric
projection dominates the play's plot and characters (the extreme case is Macduff,
who begins the journey of his life by an alternate route to the conventional birth
canal-for discussion, see D.C. Freeman forthcoming). Thus for King Lear we
can make a principled argument for two candidate source domains, BALANCE
and LINKS (they exist independently and the play manifests both a pattern of projections from them at the textual level and an equally rich pattern of the same projections at different levels) and against a third, the PATH (the play manifests a pattern of projections from it at the same level, but few if any at different
levels), as the defining 'conceptual universe' (M.H. Freeman forthcoming) of the
play.
Of course te choice of dominant source domains and hence of the abstract
entities into which they are projected is interpretive, even if we grant the
currently all-encompassing sense of that term (see Fish 1989: 320).These
choices can change over time: for me, they liave changed in 35 years of
watching,reading and teaching King Lear from the SCALE schema (“Thy life's a
miracle. Speak yet again . .. Do but look up' [IV.vi.55,59], and 'The worst is
not/ So long as we can say “This is the worst” ' [IV.i.27-8],both instances of
the orientational metaphors GOOD IS UP, BAD IS DOWN) to the PATH schema (in
particular, the LIFE IS AJOURNEY metaphor), instantiated in the lines cited above.
These changes arise from autobiography, from deepening insight, from changing
views that arise from many causes. I have 're-cognised' King Lear several times,
and I probably will do so again. But these progressive acts of 'interpretation',
acts of choice, are far from being unconstrained. My choice of source domains is limited to those that are independently motivated. BALANCE, LINKS, PATH, and SCALE all lead richly documented lives as image-schemata underlying similar source domains outside King Lear. My choice of target domains into which a candidate source domain is projected must be consistent in form with that source domain (the source domain for 'I love you according to my bond' cannot arise from a CONTAINER schema because we do not conceive of 'bond' as having the shape of a container).
On the theory of cognitive metaphor, both my changed 'interpretations' over
time and the very different 'interpretive' choices that might be made within a
different interpretive community from mine are situated in the body and in
bodily experience. Interpretations that depend on evidence from
cognitive-metaphoric analysis are constrained both by that experience and by the
requirement that the topology of that schematised experience in a metaphoric
source domain be mapped into the topology of the target domain. The relative
validity of particular source domains and metaphoric projection can be assessed
with reference to their independent motivation and internal consistency. Of
course there is no one valid God's-eye interpretation of a literary work, whether
the evidence for such a claim arises from cognitive metaphor or anything else.
But there is a range of plausible interpretations and a scale of valid ones.
Cognitive metaphor constrains the interpretive community to the body of the
embodied imagination.

Notes
1 Research for this article was conducted at the Institute of Cognitive Studies, University of California,Berkeley, while I was on sabbatical leave from the University of Souther California. I am grateful to both institutions for their support of this work, part of a longer study of cognitive metaphor in Shakespeare's major plays. Quotations from King Lear are taken from the Arden Shakespcare edition of the play (Muir 1985).
2 The body of recent literature on metaphor is enormous. A bricf summary of this field as of a decade ago may be found in Levinson (1983: 147-62). An unsurprisingly partisan account of more recent work may be found in Lakoff forthcoming.
3 The play's financial language was noted as long ago as 1928 by Fr. Gundolf (Shakespeare,Sein Wesen und Werk), cited in Clemen (1951: 135), and most recently and felicitously in Colie (1974: 185-219). But these studies fail to capture two systematic relationships: first,between that language's source domain in financial accounting and the schema of BALANCE; second,between this source domain and the schema of LINKS.
4 Throughout what follows I use the term 'scenario' for what cognitive grammarians usually call a 'frame' or 'cognitive model' or 'idealised cognitive model', a way of understanding a concept or scene that structures our thinking about it.
5 Frost (1958) perceives that predictable outcomes such as the already determined awards of territory are the nature of rituals like this scene. Cordelia thus not only disrupts the ritual but,more seriously, disrupts the participants' (and the audience's) settled expectation of its outcome.
6 Reported in Brown(1905:78).
7 Lear is to use precisely this word to describe his actions to Cornwall and Albany after he has disinherited Cordelia:
I do invest you jointly with my power,Pre-eminence, and all the larg effects (1i.129-31)
That troop with majesty.
8 See OED,s.r.short, III.C.8.c., 1579: 'They will all come to short in their reckoning.'9 Cordelia is one to whose young love
The vines of France and milk of Burgundy (I.i.82-4)
Strive to be interess'd;
'Interessed'is glossed in the OED (1) as 'To have a right or share.' It is cognate with a noun that captures the moder sense of 'interest' as 'legal concern.'
10
A word that in Shakespeare's time also collocated with 'payment' or 'salary', just as it does today; this passage is cited in OED (B.I.45) for the 'payment' sense.
11
But she remains her father's daughter. When Cordelia wields executive authority late in the play she displays some of Lear's bad habits. To any of her retainers who will help the mad Lear she offers 'all [her] outward worth', (IV.iv.10) when by the link of service they should help their mistress's father (who remains, in Cordelia's view, their king as well) gratis. She seeks to balance Kent's service to her with good works of her own, a world-view he rejects with dignified irony:
Cordelia O thou good Kent! how shall I live and work
To match thy goodness? My life will be too short,
And every measure fail me.
Kent To be acknowledg'd, Madam, is o'er-paid. (IV.vii.1-4)
12 A specifically financial sense, meaning in Shakespeare's time as well as ours 'to offer (moncy,etc.) in discharge of a debt or liability, especially in exact fulfilment of the requirements of the law and of the obligation'. OED. s.r. tender,v.,1.
13 They pledge to Lear as consideration for their inheritances a bond that Cordelia demonstrates is already half-encumbered. Cordelia's 'audit' of Lear's balance sheet demonstrates that his assets are subjct to an old adage of financial audits: the troubles are usually found in the receivables.
14A term in English property law conferring a residual right in land, such as an easement,that can have a monetary value (Black's Law Dictionary 1981:1175).
15 OED 2c. The only citations are late fourteenth century. The same sense is not recorded for the verb, but the functional shift, from noun to verb, is one of the most general in English.
16 I am often taxed on this point with being 'totalising' or 'essentialist'. Guilty as charged.I take these terms to mean 'general, ignoring particulars that do not fit the theory.' Noam Chomsky's early work in linguistic theory is often held up to me as an example of this 'fault'(c.g.Chomsky 1957;I blush at the comparison), where he focuses on syntax and gives short shrift to semantics and pragmatics. Chomsky took the strongest position consitent with the reliable facts that he had. Subsequent research produced more, and more reliable,facts,better theoretical accounts of areas of linguistic structure that his early work ignored,etc.But the theory of government and binding, a more recent incarnation (see Chomsky 1981), bears a recognisable resemblance to its 1957 ancestor, as does a libraryful of books and articles produced in the intervening three decades. None of these developments would have been possible,in my view, had not Chomsky been an unrepentant 'totaliser' from the start.Any theory of anything worth anything begins as totalising, essentialist, and universalist, and progressively qualifies its claims as rescarch proceeds. Among the many problems of contemprary literary 'theory' is that in seeking to keep in play exceptions and purported anomalies it explains nothing, and is less 'theory' than 'general talk'.
References
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edn. (1981),West,St.Paul,Minnesota
Brown, R. (1905) History of Accounting and Accountants, Cass,London
Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures,Mouton,The Hague Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Governrent and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht Clemen, W.H. (1951) The Development of Shakespeare's Imagery, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Mass Colie, R. (1974) Reason and need: King Lear and the 'crisis' of the aristocracy,Some Facets of King Lear: Essays in Prismatic Criticism, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 185-219
Fillmore, C. (1982) Frame semantics, in Linguistic Society of Korea,(ed.) Linguistics in the Morning Calm,Hanshin,Seoul,111-38
Fish, S. (1980) Is There a Text inThis Class?, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass
Fish, S.(1989)Doing What Comes Naturally, Duke University Press, Durham, NC
Freeman, D.C. (1991) Songs of experience: new books on metaphor, Poetics Today, 12(1):145-64Freeman,D.C. (forthcoming) 'Catch[ing] the nearest way': Macbeth and cognitive metaphor,in Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Linguists, Quebec, August 1992 Freeman, M.H. (forthcoming) Metaphor making meaning: Dickinson's conceptual universe, in Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Linguists,Quebec Frost, W. (1958) Shakespeare's rituals, Hudson Review 10(4):577-85 Green, W.(1930) History and Survey of Accountancy, Standard Text Press, Brooklyn, NY Johnson, M. (1987) The Body in the Mind,University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Knight,W.N.(1973) Shakespeare's Hidden Life: Shakespeare at the Lan; 1585-1595,Mason and Lipscomb, New York
Lakoff, G. (1987) Women,Fire, and Dangerous Things, University of Chicago Press, Chicago Lakoff,G.(forthcoming) The contemporary theory of metaphor, to appear in A. Ortony (ed.)Metaphor and Thought, 2nd edn., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Lakoff, G.and Turner, M. (1989) More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Levin,S.R. (1964) Poetry and grammaticalness, in H.G. Lunt (ed.), Proceedings of he Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Mouton, The Hague, 308-16
Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Muir, K. (ed.) (1985) King Lear, revised edn. The Arden Shakespeare, Routledge, London
Rosinger, L. (1974) King Lear, PMLA 89(3): 585
Schön, D.A. (1979) Generative metaphor: a perspective on problem-solving in social policy, in A.
Ortony(ed.) Metaphor and Thought, Ist edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 254-83Turner, M. (1991) Reading Minds:The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science, Princeton
University Press, Princeton,New Jersey
Wye, M.E. (1992) Jane Austen's Emma: embodied metaphor as a cognitive construct, unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California
Yamey, B.S. (1949) Scientific bookkeeping and the rise of capitalism, Economic History Review, 2nd series 1(2):99-113