A pragmatic approach to literary criticism enhances 21st century readers' understanding of Shakespeare's King Lear in a multitude of 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 King Lear's writing. Finally, an examination of pragmatic criticism of Shakespeare's work, particularly S. Johnson's Preface to Shakespeare (1765), will illustrate how Shakespeare departs from the "rules" of the pragmatic perspective, which consequently enhances the timeless quality of his work.Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Shakespeare wrote King Lear between 1604 and 1606. By that time, the London theater had become a popular institution, despite some religious and moral objections. The Globe theater accommodated a variety of social classes. Courteous gentlemen and nouveau riche gathered to perform on the stages. The seats in the gallery were regularly occupied by the middle class, including some women accompanied by their husbands and students from the Inns of the Court drama school. The lower classes, who made up a significant percentage of Shakespeare's audience, stood on the floor in front of the stage. Among them were the unemployed, apprentices, prostitutes and pickpockets. Riots often broke out and occasionally resulted in riots. Pickpockets caught in the act were tied to a pole on stage; for the Elizabethan public, accustomed to public executions and torture, such treatment was not unusual. Indeed, the public was very fond of unusual spectacles and brutal physical suffering. They liked battles, murders, ghosts and madness, but since these things were part of their daily lives, they did not visit the theater for the purpose of seeing them. It can be assumed that, since they were accustomed to such performances, it was in the playwrights' pragmatic interests to include these elements in plays in an attempt to increase the work's relevance and entertainment value. The Elizabethan public had no access to newspapers or magazines. , and novels were also in short supply. The little houses were therefore their main – and often only – source of knowledge. They went to the theater to learn and have fun; That said, it is clear how the pragmatic theory of aesthetics has become so popular. Shakespeare's audience knew the story of King Lear and his daughters long before his dramatization was written. It was repeatedly recounted by early British chroniclers and was the subject of an earlier work, 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 willing to accept the union, and the king's speeches between 1604 and 1607 frequently referred to the misfortunes caused to Britain by partition. Thus, the division of Lear's kingdom would have been significant to the air of national loyalty that stirred among Shakespeare's audience. It is possible - and even probable - that this political climate influenced the playwright's thematic and historical choices for his work. In his Preface to Shakespeare (1765), Samuel Johnson postulates that Shakespeare chose famous tales because "his audience could not follow them." him through the complexities of the drama, if they had nothad the thread of the story in their hands." He further states that the Elizabethan audience "perhaps wanted some visible and discriminatory events, such as comments on the dialogue. He knew how he should please more." It is impossible to know the extent of such thinking about Shakespeare's authorial intentions, but an analysis of his work offers some insight. The tale of King Lear was borrowed, while the plot of the underground of Gloucester The plot was original. This supports Johnson's comments on Shakespeare's audience need for a recognizable story and some visual enhancement of the dialogue. The Gloucester plot in King Lear adds interest and sophistication to the play by translating the concerns of the central action in more familiar terms, providing the audience with a visual representation. The Gloucester plot receives more conventional treatment than the main plot. Edmund's wickedness is partially explained by his birth conditions and his exclusion from society. unlike the wickedness of Goneril and Regan, which is never fully explained recognizable than Lear, as he is not afflicted by royal delusions, and reacts more rationally to his emotions. Note that when Edmund deceives him, he first asks for further proof: "I would declare myself to be in due resolution" (1.2). ,93). In Act 3, scene 4, Edgar's supposed madness contrasts with that of Lear and reinforces the audience's perception of the darkest mental stripping of identity and spiritual chaos. Likewise, Gloucester's blinding in Act 3 is visually symbolic of the severe lack of perception that he and Lear display. It also presents audiences with a visual example of the corrupt sense of justice that underpins the show. During Lear's mad visions on the moor, he exposes the pervasive distorted justice: "Tremble, wretch, / Who hath within thee crimes untold, / Unwhipped by justice" (3.2.50 - 52). Furthermore, it refutes traditional concepts of morality by undermining the status of adultery as a moral sin. Gloucester's lines are written in simpler language (appropriate to his position); therefore, those audience members who may not grasp the meaning expressed by Lear have the opportunity to understand the rather profound statements about the necessity of suffering if insight is to be gained. Consider the following dialogue, spoken by Lear: O, I have cared too little for this! Take physics, pump; expose yourself to feel what the wretched feel (3,4,32 - 34) This is in stark contrast to 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. This subplot, however, 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. The wronged son defeats and mortally wounds the evil 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. Even Edmund's feeble attempt to save Cordelia and do "some good" (5.3.43) before dying can be interpreted as a slight redemption. Lear's plot offers the audience no such comfort. Lear's suffering far outweighs his crime, and his enlightenment is hardly any consolation for Cordelia's death. If the subplot was included to offer theElizabethan audience enough comfort to allow them to tolerate the ambiguity of the main plot, it was useless. Shakespeare came under great criticism for not allowing the "good" to emerge victorious in his works; a trend particularly evident in King Lear. Samuel Johnson observed that "Shakespeare suffered from Cordelia's virtue... contrary to the ideas of justice, the hope of the reader, and... the faith of the chronicles." Johnson admits that the portrayal of the prosperous villain "is a faithful representation of human life", but says he doesn't believe this will appeal more to audiences, and refers to Nahum Tate's version and its popularity. Early in the Preface, Johnson takes a much more dismissive tone when he states that Shakespeare "is much more careful to please than to instruct, that he seems to write without any moral purpose," and that "it is always the duty of a writer to make the world improve." The irony of this for a modern critic is twofold; the general perception of knowledge has changed radically since the 18th century, and we now consider it relative and changeable. We understand that raising an issue will lead members of the audience to reflect on its merits, today this is considered a valuable form of learning The ambiguity of justice in King Lear adds to its didactic quality and would likely discount Tate's happy ending. A 21st-century critique of the play from a pragmatic point of view would therefore find that King Lear both entertains and teaches, thus emphasizing the power of the audience and the changing culture in which we live. Shakespeare had the uncanny ability to "mirror life" so accurately that he challenged the conventions of his time, giving his work a universality that has endured for centuries. It should be noted that the evidence of prologues, refrains and epilogues reveal Shakespeare's desire to please his audiences: "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 educating them. A strong emphasis developed on the examples provided by ancient Greek and Roman artists, and this was the theoretical belief of most of Shakespeare's critics. His contempt for the classical unities of time, place and action and his mixing of genres were strongly frowned upon. In response to this, Johnson defends Shakespeare, thus attesting to his own foresight and objectivity. He first writes that Shakespeare "preserved the unity of the action quite well", and then goes on to debunk the importance of the other two unities, declaring that they derive from "false assumptions" because "It is false that any representation is mistaken for reality ." Johnson argues that Shakespeare's work moves more naturally than the artificial unities of time and place would allow, and even predicts that a closer look at the principles of the two unities "will diminish their value" - which in effect they have. Johnson also praises Shakespeare. for challenging the purity of the genre, proclaiming that he "has united the powers of exciting laughter and pain...into a single composition." This is evident in the madman of King Lear, who often provides frivolous comic relief ("Come o'er the bourn, Bessy, to me") or, more often, reiterates the play's serious problems in song. Johnson reports his argument on the truth of Shakespeare's representation: The end of poetry is to instruct by pleasure. There is no denying that mixed drama can convey all the lessons of tragedy or comedy, because it includes both... and comes closer than either to the appearance of life. It became evident, therefore, that where Shakespeare.