One of the most critical aspects of accurately enjoying the work of William Shakespeare is being able to put yourself in the shoes of his audiences. The intended audience of any form of public rhetoric will often be the most appreciative thereof, and this is especially true in the cases of historical works. Modern American culture is increasingly differing from that of preceding societies, and without the knowledge of who the arts they were intended for, and their mindsets and attitudes, many nuances and complex themes in Shakespeare are not fully appreciated. Most obviously, this presents itself in his archaic and flowery language; however, useful tools such as No Fear Shakespeare can help to overcome this. Deeper cultural issues are often
…show more content…
They can be so different than how our society functions, that the viewers have no frame of reference to interpret them. Understanding such topics is essential to being able to enjoy the works as they were intended. In King Lear, the concept of primogeniture is one that many readers do not entirely grasp. Firstborn sons are not typically given any particular preference over their younger siblings in the American nuclear family. However, Shakespeare’s audiences would not need an explanation of the idea; it would have been an understood part of everyday life. For modern audiences, knowing the history of primogeniture creates a better understanding of Edmund’s motives in King Lear, and through that analyze what the original intent of his character could be. The word primogeniture translates to “first-born” from its Latin roots, refers to the practice of a first-born son inheriting of his father’s property and possessions upon their demise (McDonald, 263). Sir Thomas Smith, a Tudor legal scholar, presents a synopsis of the system’s implementation in early English history. “Of lands as ye have understood before,” he explains, referring to this system …show more content…
In his first soliloquy, Edmund laments to the audience about his unfortunate position and claims he is at least equally as capable of protecting the legacy of his father. The only charges against him receiving, he bemoans, are the months between Edgar's birth and his, and secondly the circumstances of his conception. (1.2.1-23) While he is not incorrect, his rebellion against the inheritance law leaves initial sympathy to his cause open to interpretation. Many modern audiences watch from a perspective that encourages those that strive to improve their social standards and promotes equality for those regardless of the circumstances of their birth and social constructs. Edmund's monologue creates a feeling of sympathy for them, and through this lens, his later actions can be seen as a misguided solution to a reasonable problem. Conversely, primary audiences of King Lear would not have this interpretation. Primogeniture was “one of the foundations of English law,” (McDonald, 263) and the rebellion against it would not have been considered a positive action by most. McDonald says that the modern notion of attempting to improve social stature had been guided out of Shakespearean society: “Social conditioning tended to keep people in their places, and one aspect of the patriarchy that reinforced class boundaries was the
They can be so different than how our society functions, that the viewers have no frame of reference to interpret them. Understanding such topics is essential to being able to enjoy the works as they were intended. In King Lear, the concept of primogeniture is one that many readers do not entirely grasp. Firstborn sons are not typically given any particular preference over their younger siblings in the American nuclear family. However, Shakespeare’s audiences would not need an explanation of the idea; it would have been an understood part of everyday life. For modern audiences, knowing the history of primogeniture creates a better understanding of Edmund’s motives in King Lear, and through that analyze what the original intent of his character could be. The word primogeniture translates to “first-born” from its Latin roots, refers to the practice of a first-born son inheriting of his father’s property and possessions upon their demise (McDonald, 263). Sir Thomas Smith, a Tudor legal scholar, presents a synopsis of the system’s implementation in early English history. “Of lands as ye have understood before,” he explains, referring to this system …show more content…
In his first soliloquy, Edmund laments to the audience about his unfortunate position and claims he is at least equally as capable of protecting the legacy of his father. The only charges against him receiving, he bemoans, are the months between Edgar's birth and his, and secondly the circumstances of his conception. (1.2.1-23) While he is not incorrect, his rebellion against the inheritance law leaves initial sympathy to his cause open to interpretation. Many modern audiences watch from a perspective that encourages those that strive to improve their social standards and promotes equality for those regardless of the circumstances of their birth and social constructs. Edmund's monologue creates a feeling of sympathy for them, and through this lens, his later actions can be seen as a misguided solution to a reasonable problem. Conversely, primary audiences of King Lear would not have this interpretation. Primogeniture was “one of the foundations of English law,” (McDonald, 263) and the rebellion against it would not have been considered a positive action by most. McDonald says that the modern notion of attempting to improve social stature had been guided out of Shakespearean society: “Social conditioning tended to keep people in their places, and one aspect of the patriarchy that reinforced class boundaries was the