Morally chaotic world In King Lear

Shakespe atomic number 18 presents a variety of ways in which moral chaos is brought about, including the disruption of the natural order and the characters possession of typically subvert morals, even going as far as questioning the morals of his own society. However, having disparate principles in a modern audience, we t finis to project different interpretations of moral chaos to that of a contemporary audience. In force Lear, Shakespeare arguably does piddle a virtuously chaotic world, particularly trough the mental picture of the natural order beingness disrupted.The betrayal of the children against their lets illustrates a significant disruption of nature, as it was considered natural and necessary for children to have unfaltering obedience for their parents, particularly their fathers. When Cordelia publically refuses to obey her fathers wishes, she goes against the true qualities of a 17th century daughter in the natural order and it is arguably this initial rebellio n that causes the excruciation and tragedy throughout the rest of the play.According to feminist critics, Cordelias refusal to flatter Lear can be interpreted as an opposition to Lears authority and thence a direct challenge to the natural patriarchal order of the seventeenth century, the short emphatic sentence Nothing stressing this assertiveness. We also see this betrayal of the father in the character of Edmund. By claiming I find it not fit for your oer looking, not only does Edmund feign innocence, but he also portrays himself with overt concern for his father, reinforcing his false virtue.Edmunds initial silence makes his soliloquy in the next scene in which he exclaims Legitimate, Edgar. I essential have your land exciting and surprising to the audience. The audience is privy to the Edmunds scheming which creates a sense of dramatic irony, however in most productions the Machiavellian Edmund is played as a suavely intelligent, rather dashing figure, creating a paradox as he is clearly evil yet tempting to the audience at the same time.Illegitimates were problematic for the rigid early modern social structure and were viewed as extras that society struggled to accommodate. Therefore to a contemporary audience, the little treatment of Edmund would come as no surprise however a modern audience would interpret such(prenominal) extreme views on illegitimacy as immoral. As modern critic Foakes comments, Edmund is the most dangerous and treacherous of the characters.Yet, he begins from a cause that we cannot identify as unjust, illustrating how to a modern audience, Shakespeare does create a morally chaotic world through the poor treatment of Edmund, as the seventeenth century societal norms are so foreign from that of ours. Lears abdication can also be viewed as morally chaotic, as it was strongly believed in Jacobean society that Kings were chosen by noble right. In Lears pledge to express our darker purpose the use of the adjective darker to describe his actions illustrates the unnatural nature of such a decision.In Jacobean society, a king was an agent of God, and so it was seen as Gods responsibility to decide when his reign should end. A kings handing power down the throne was against the divine order, and it was believed that Satan, through various evil spirits, was responsible for all attacks on the divine order. In Macbeth, a similar play, when King Duncan is murdered, the natural order is breached and chaos ensues the twenty-four hour period becomes as dark as night, Duncans horses turn wild and eat each other and a civil war breaks out.From a New Historicist stance, critics such as Tennenhouse argue that Shakespeare illustrates what happens when there is a catastrophic redistribution of power, therefore promoting the oppressive structures of the patriarchal hierarchy. However, other critics suggest that the tragedies occur because of societys already faulty ideological structure, particularly emphasised in the David Far r production through the skewed girders, broken windows, sizzling strip-lighting and the eventual collapse of the flimsy solid ground walls.Moreover, Shakespeare appears to be presenting a morally chaotic world through the way in which the characters can be seen as possessing seen corrupted morals, motivated purely by materialism as opposed to moralistic values. We see this in the elegant and superficial speeches of Gonerill and Regan who claim to love Lear Dearer than eyesight, the hyperbole in these statements highlighting their manipulative nature and greed for worldly goods. Their actions throughout the rest of the play prove the fabrication of these initial promises.Johnson comments that King Lear is a play in which the Wicked boom and virtuous miscarry. I find this view accurate as the audience can witness how the Machiavellian characters such as Gonerill and Regan are rewarded for their materialism, and granted total rights over the kingdom, whereas the virtuous characters such as Cordelia and Kent are punished for their honesty and moralistic values, consequently demonstrating a world of chaotic morals.Lear himself is presented as morally ambivalent, similar to Claudius in Hamlet, initially valuing riches and reputation, which were the very things that fuelled his disillusionment and moral blindness. The love test he uses to bribe his daughters with the largest bounty can be seen as an obvious attempt to buy their love and consequently boost his self-image. His rash reaction to Cordelias refusal to perform, pledging to disclaim all paternal care illustrates how his hubris stops him from being able to differentiate between his honest daughter and his deceitful daughters.It also demonstrates the way in which the antagonists exploit the hamartia of the protagonist, heightening the tragic nature of the play. However, towards the end of the play, Lears character undergoes anagnorisis and so he comes to possess more virtuous principles. In Act 3, for the first time he recognises the plight of the Poor bare-assed wretches that are forced to bide the pelting of thepitiless storm, the alliteration in pitiless and pelting demonstrating the extreme suffering endured by those in poverty.Through Shakespeares emotive lexis, Lear is presented as regretful, empathetic, and compassionate, which directly contrasts with his initial selfishness and fixation with worldly things, and it is this contrast that presents a sense of moral confusion. On the other hand, through employing moral characters that stay on virtuous throughout the play, Shakespeare doesnt present a completely morally chaotic world.Cordelias character is the personification of virtue and morality, creating a direct apposition with the immoral, Machiavellian characters such as Gonerill and Regan. When required to bargain her love for rights over the kingdom, she comments I cannot heave my bosom into my mouth, portraying her honest nature. The idiom heart in your mouth, which s uggests nervousness or fear, demonstrates that Cordelia does not see any reason to fear losing the land, emphasising her lack of materialism and strong moral compass.Expanding on this, Lear later on describes her tears as The holy water from her heavenly eyes, the alliteration of holy and heavenly stressing her virtue and linking her to the Gods. Foakes comments The optimistic thrust of Edgars moralizing hints at the initiative of a happy ending. The play concludes with the moralistic character Edgar reigning over England, and although good characters such as Cordelia die, (which wasnt received well by Shakespeares original audience), evil is ultimately eradicated whilst good triumphs.By the end of the play, Evil can even be seen to be eradicated by evil itself. Gonerill poisons Regan, and mentions in an out after Regan feels the effects If not Ill neer trust medicine, the secretive nature of this aside presenting her murderous and calculating nature. Shortly after, she commits suicide, which would have been seen as a great act of sin by a Jacobean audience, but ultimately evil defeats itself, evoking a rebalancing of morals and a function back towards the natural order.The play clearly descends from the embodied values of medieval morality plays, which was a popular form of drama in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. These plays present a direct conflict between good and evil, and ultimately the evil and chaos must be destroyed, and a moral lesson is learned. Overall, there are many aspects of King Lear that evoke a seeming moral chaos, however by the end of the play, as in all morality plays, the chaos is remote and moral order is restored, resulting in catharsis for the audience.