Texts discussed: Lear Act V, and “Natural Justice and King Lear” http://www.jstor.org.p-libpxy.piercecollege.edu/stable/pdf/743407.pdf
KING LEAR ACT FIVE SUMMARY: In the beginning of Act 5, Regan questions Edmund about Goneril. Noticing her jealousy, Edmund quickly denies and claims that he has never loved Goneril. Soon after Goneril and Albany join them and we are able to further witness the sister’s jealousy and awareness of one another since they don’t want to leave Edmund alone while the other is still around. Later, Albany receives a letter from Edgar, stopping him from fighting the battle and letting him know that his wife is not loyal to him. The letter also stated that if they won the battle to sound the trumpet and his champion would arrive to fight Edmund. Furthermore, the battle continues, Edgar and Gloucester are caught in the middle of the conflict and Edgar protects Gloucester. Soon after the war comes to an end and the French along with King Lear lose the battle. King Lear and Cordelia are captured and ordered to be killed by Edmund. Albany returns and upon hearing Edmunds orders and his treason he calls for Edgar. Edgar and Edmund battle, and Edgar wins the fight by stabbing Edmund. Edmund confesses that he ordered the death of Lear and Cordelia but upon imminent death he repents and sends a messenger to stop his previous orders, but it’s too late. After Edmunds death Goneril becomes overwhelmed with guilt and she confesses she poisoned her sister and kills herself. Lear gets over whelmed with the sadness of his daughters dying and dies of a broken heart.
Except from “Natural Justice and King Lear”:
The debate between the natural law tradition – asserting a necessary relationship between law and morals – and positivism – asserting that law is simply whatever the sovereign commands – is as old as Western Civilization.’ This debate asks whether law has a necessary moral core. If justice means reaching results in accord with proper application of the law, justice can be confined as a conclusion both within and about law. That, in caricature, is the core of positivism. Natural law insists that judgments about results reached under the law are the subject of judgments based on some other standard. These principles, upon which results reached under the law can be judged, themselves are universal in application, hence “natural.”
I suggest in this paper that the conflict between natural law and positivism appears as one of the themes within King Lear.2 In the swirl of controversies about law and legitimacy that followed from both the Renaissance and the Reformation, these ideas were organized around the categories of traditional rights and royal absolutism emerging in its divine right moment. So long as people could persuade themselves that tradition defined what was natural and just, and so long as kings saw their role was to enforce traditional rights, the tension between law and morals remained hidden. One consequence of the ferment created by both the Renaissance and the Reformation was the destruction of the idea that the actual and the ideal state could be one. Natural law and positivism, though anachronistic terms, nonetheless serve as convenient short hand for ideas that already were very much in the air.
I make no claim concerning the meaning of King Lear. All I want to do is point to yet another strand of meaning. I join those who argue that “Any Elizabethan use of the Lear ‘matter’ could hardly avoid key contemporary issues of politics: the succession to the throne, the division of sovereignty, foreign invasion, and domestic loyalty.”3 King Lear was written in 1605 and an examination of the circumstances in England at the time it was written suggest that what we today would call the debate between natural law and positivism was an issue in then-contemporary politics. While a part of this paper establishes the plausibility of this conclusion, that exploration of 17th century thought is not my main point. I want to understand why the 18th century could not tolerate the play as written, preferring instead Nahum Tate’s version that ends with Cordelia living and marrying Edgar. The answer lies, at least in part, in recognition of this jurisprudential theme. Finally, recognition of the theme helps to explain why Cordelia’s death is a necessary part of the Shakespearean tragedy. It is her death, rather than Lear’s, that closes off this theme.
- What shocking information does Goneril reveal to the audience discretely and what does this information disclose about her character?
- Edmund asks an officer to determine whether the Duke of Albany is still on their side since “he’s full of alteration and self-reproving” Why does Albany stay on the side of Edmund, Regan, and Goneril even though he despises their actions?
- At the end, does Edgar show justice or injustice? How?
white bunny hole 
1. I think that the shocking information that Goneril allows to be known by the audience is that she too is in love with Edmund as her sister is also. Goneril becomes aware that Regan has feelings for Edmund and that causes her to become jealous because she also has feelings for him or so she decides. Deciding that she now has feelings for the same guy that her sister has feelings for allows us to see how selfish she really is. Her character is selfish and we see this especially when she tells us in the play that it would be better for Edmund to be with her instead of her widowed sister, completely disregarding anyone else’s feelings but her own.
2. I believe that the duke stays on their side because he knows that they actually get things done. Whereas everyone else just sits around and watches everything happen. Albany is full of alteration because he likes to play both sides because he only wants to come out on top. Throughout the whole play he is on one side to the next and usually it is the side that seems to be ahead at the present moment. Albany doesn’t like the way that Edmund, Goneril or Regan do things because it isn’t the way that he would rather do things but they are getting things done so therefore he see’s it best that he sticks with them.
3. I think that Edgar shows some injustice just because it seems to me that he was aware of everything not only going on in the kingdom but also on the outside. He was there throughout the whole play and he knew that tensions were running high but he chose to hide out and pretend to be someone else, especially in front of his father when he knew that he needed him. Of course he was there for him when he needed someone to be but he wasn’t himself and that may have helped his father in the end. Edgar is still standing alive while almost everyone else is dead, I think that a little bit of that is him getting what he deserves just because he never took bad actions into his own hands that maybe could have saved another.
1. Goneril reveals that she poisoned her sister; this reveals that she wants to atone for her sins in some way. Or that she’s a coward who needs to reveal her wrongdoings before she dies.
2. Albany stays on their side because he is unaware of all that is happening behind the scenes, once he figures out what is going on he waits for the perfect time to strike.
3. Edgar shows justice because he takes down the man responsible for this whole mess; he carries out revenge on behalf of his father, Lear, and Cordelia.
1. The information that Goneril gives reveals how she poison her own sister. In my interpretation, Goneril is a character that has done so many bad things, but in the end, tries to help the people left in the aftermath of the battle (Lear, Kent, etc.) by revealing that she poisoned her sister.
2. Edgar gave Albany a letter explaining Edmund’s plot and when to make a signal. Albany doesn’t go against Edmund and his wife because he can wait for the right time to give Edgar a cue to fight Edmund.
3. At the end of the fight, Edgar does show justice to those who have fallen due of Edmund’s scheme. The death of his father is avenged along with the betrayal of his trust.
1. Goneril reveals that she has poisoned Regan, in an attempt to ensure that Edmund will love her instead of her sister. This evil act not also demonstrates her vile persona but also the disloyalty between her and Regan. This act also displays the domestic instability within the family. Ultimately, Goneril’s poisoning of her sister serves as a parallel to Edmund’s betrayal of his brother.
2. Although Albany undoubtedly disapproves of the actions performed by Edmund, Regan, and Goneril, he chooses to stay on their side in order to defend his own territory. Despite the fact that Albany is taking the side of his competitors, he must fight no matter what in order to protect his country from defeat and destruction. This decision proves Albany’s loyalty, rationale, and logic because he still does the right thing for his country even though his heart belongs of the side of his opponents.
3. Throughout the play, Edmund conspicuously shows injustice, dishonor, and malevolence in his journey to inherit the wealth of his father. He doesn’t seem to care the least bit in regard to family bonds or loyalty and only cares for his plan to succeed. Nonetheless, Edgar demonstrates justice from the very beginning throughout the entirety of the play. At the end, Edgar ensures that justice is served by ending the life of his bastard brother.