A pragmatic approach to literary criticism enhances the 21st century reader's understanding of Shakespeare's King Lear in multiple ways. The pragmatic approach was the popular canon at the time of Shakespeare's composition and continued to dominate the perspectives of critics and authors throughout the Neoclassical period, until the rise of Romanticism. An exploration of the characteristics of Shakespeare's audience will enhance the modern reader's appreciation of the author's intentions, themes, and structure; furthermore, it will demonstrate that pragmatic views directly influenced the writings of King Lear. Finally, a review of pragmatic critiques of Shakespeare's work, notably S. Johnson's Preface to Shakespeare (1765), will illustrate how Shakespeare deviates from the "rules" of pragmatic perspective, thereby adding to the quality timeless aspect of his work. no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on 'Why violent video games should not be banned'?Get the original essayShakespeare wrote King Lear between 1604 and 1606. By this time, theater in London had become a popular institution, despite some religious and moral objections. The Globe Theater welcomed various social classes. The gentlemen of the court and the nouveau riche gathered to show off in the boxes. The middle classes, including a number of women accompanied by their husbands and students from the Inns of the Court drama school, regularly filled the stands. The working classes, who made up a significant proportion of Shakespeare's audience, stood on the ground in front of the stage. Among them were unemployed people, apprentices, prostitutes and pickpockets. Disturbances often broke out and sometimes resulted in riots. The pickpockets caught in the act were tied to a pole on the stage; for the Elizabethan public, accustomed to public executions and torture, such treatment was not unusual. In fact, the public was rather fond of unusual spectacles and brutal physical suffering. They loved battles, murders, ghosts and madness, but since these things were part of their daily lives, they did not go to the theater for the purpose of seeing them. It can be assumed that, accustomed to such spectacles, pragmatic playwrights had an interest in including these elements in their plays in order to increase the relevance and entertainment value of the work. The Elizabethan public did not have access to newspapers or magazines. , and even novels were rare. Theaters were therefore their main – and often only – source of knowledge. They went to the theater to learn and have fun; That said, it is obvious why the pragmatic theory of aesthetics has become so popular. Shakespeare's audiences knew the story of King Lear and his daughters long before his own dramatization was written. Early British chroniclers recounted it several times and were the subject of an earlier play, The True Chronicle History of King Leir (1594). In 1603, James VI of Scotland became James I of England and proposed a political union of the two countries. Neither country was prepared to accept union, and the king's speeches between 1604 and 1607 frequently referred to the woes brought upon Britain by the division. Therefore, the division of Lear's kingdom would have been significant to the air of national loyalty that reigned among Shakespeare's audiences. It is possible - and even probable - that this political climate influenced the playwright's thematic and historical choices for his play. In his Preface to Shakespeare (1765), Samuel Johnson posits that Shakespeare chosewell-known tales because "his audience could not have followed him through the intricacies of the drama, if they had not held the thread of the story in their hands." He also claims that Elizabethan audiences "perhaps wanted a visible and discriminating presence at events, as commentary on the dialogue. He knew how he should please most. » It is impossible to know the extent of such reflection on Shakespeare's authorial intentions, but an analysis of his work offers some insight. The tale of King Lear has been borrowed, while the interweaving of Gloucester's subtitle Gloucester's plot in King Lear adds interest and sophistication to the play while conveying the concerns of the action central in more familiar terms. providing the audience with a visual representation. The Gloucester plot receives a more conventional treatment than the main plot; Edmund's evil is partly explained by his conditions of birth and his exclusion from society, unlike the villainy of Goneril and Regan, which is never fully explained. recognizable as Lear, because he is not prey to royal illusions and reacts more rationally to his emotions. Note that when Edmund deceives him, he first demands more proof: “I declared myself to be in the right resolution” (1.2). ,93).In Act 3, Scene 4, Edgar's assumed madness contrasts with Lear's and reinforces the audience's perception of a darker mental stripping of identity and spiritual chaos. Likewise, Gloucester's blindness in Act 3 is visually symbolic of the severe lack of perception that he and Lear demonstrate. It also presents the audience with a visual example of the corrupt sense of justice that underlies the play. During Lear's mad visions of the heather, he exposes the omnipresent distorted justice: "Tremble, wretch, / Who have undisclosed crimes in thee, / Not scourged with justice" (3.2.50 - 52). Additionally, it refutes traditional concepts of morality by questioning the status of adultery as a moral sin. Gloucester's lines are written in simpler language (appropriate to his position); therefore, audience members who might not understand the meaning expressed by Lear have the opportunity to understand the rather profound statements about the necessity of suffering if one wishes to achieve insight. Consider the following dialogue, spoken by Lear: O, I cared too little! Take medicine, splendor; Expose yourself to feel what the miserable feel (3,4,32 - 34). This contrasts sharply with Gloucester's "I stumbled when I saw" (4.1.20). It seems logical to assume that this subplot, full of visual manifestations of Lear's complex plot, was added to the original story for the benefit of the audience's understanding and to satisfy their desire for spectacle. also serves to satisfy the Elizabethan desire for poetic justice to a much greater extent than the main plot. Gloucester is punished for his lust and blind gullibility – albeit excessively. His wronged son beats and fatally wounds his wicked son, reunites with his father, and lives to prosper. Gloucester himself dies, but not before having the opportunity to help the king and develop a clear perception of the world, indicating an element of redemption. Edmund's feeble attempt to save Cordelia and do "good" (5.3.43) before dying can also be interpreted as slight redemption. Lear's plot offers no such comfort to the audience. Lear's suffering far outweighed his crime, and his enlightenment is little consolation for Cordelia's death. If the subplot was included to provide the Elizabethan audience with enough comfort to allow them to endurethe ambiguity of the main plot was in vain. Shakespeare has been the subject of much criticism for not allowing “good” to emerge victorious from his plays; a tendency that is particularly visible in King Lear. Samuel Johnson remarked that "Shakespeare suffered for Cordelia's virtue...contrary to the ideas of justice, the reader's hope, and...the faith of the chronicles." Johnson concedes that the portrayal of the thriving villain "is a true representation of...humanity's life", but says he does not believe it will appeal more to audiences, and refers to Nahum Tate's version and his popularity Earlier in the preface, Johnson takes a much more contemptuous tone when he states that Shakespeare "is so much more concerned to please than to instruct, that he seems to write without any moral purpose" and that "it is. always a writer’s duty to make the world a better place.” The irony of this situation for a modern critic is twofold; general perception The way of knowing has changed radically since the 18th century, and we now view it as relative and changing. We understand that raising a question will cause members of the public to think about its merits. Today, it is considered a valuable form of learning. Modern audiences understand that the ambiguity of justice in King Lear adds to its didactic quality and would likely be dismissive of Tate's happy ending. A 21st century critique of the play from a pragmatic point of view would therefore find that King Lear entertains and teaches in doing so. highlighting the power of the audience and the changing culture we live in. Shakespeare had the extraordinary ability to “reflect life” with such precision that he defied the conventions of his time, giving his work a universality that has endured for centuries. It is worth noting that the evidence from the prologues, choruses, and epilogues reveals Shakespeare's desire to please his audience: "And we will try to please you every day." However, there is no indication that he intended to use his work as a teaching tool. Pragmatic theory experienced a shift in values ​​around the rise of neoclassicism (1660), which shifted the priority from pleasing the public to that of educating them. Emphasis has been placed on the examples given by ancient Greek and Roman artists, and this has been the theoretical conviction of most Shakespeare critics. His disregard for the classical unities of time, place and action and his mixing of genres were strongly disapproved. In response to this, Johnson defends Shakespeare, thus attesting to his own foresight and objectivity. He first writes that Shakespeare "has preserved the unity of action fairly well", then he then dispels the importance of the other two unities, stating that they derive from "false hypotheses" because "it is false that any representation be taken as reality." Johnson argues that Shakespeare's work evolves more naturally than the artificial unities of time and place would have permitted, and even foreshadows that a closer examination of the principles of the two unities "will diminish their value” – which is indeed the case Johnson also praises Shakespeare for challenging the purity of the genre, proclaiming that he “brought together the powers of exciting laughter and sorrow…in one composition.” This is evident in the fool of King Lear, who often provides frivolous comic relief ("Come on the bourn, Bessy, to me") or, more often, reiterates the serious issues of the play Johnson brings home his argument. to the truth of Shakespeare's representation: The end of poetry is to instruct while giving pleasure. It cannot be denied that mixed drama can convey all the instructions of tragedy.