Analysis of Pragmatic Theories as discussed by M H Abrams in ‘The Mirror and the Lamp’

Book Link: The Mirror and the Lamp by MH Abrams

M. H. Abrams, in his seminal work “The Mirror and the Lamp,” explores the evolution of literary theory, with a particular focus on the shift from classical ideas rooted in imitation and rhetoric to the Romantic emphasis on the creative genius of the poet. The section of the text discussed centers around the pragmatic theory of poetry, drawing from the works of figures like Sir Philip Sidney, Horace, and Dr. Samuel Johnson.

Sidney’s assertion that the purpose of poetry is to “teach and delight” encapsulates the pragmatic approach, where poetry is seen as a means to achieve specific effects in the audience. This perspective elevates the poet above moral philosophers and historians, as the poet has the unique capacity to inspire virtue in the audience. Sidney’s stance reflects a utilitarian view of poetry, where the ultimate aim is to bring about a desired response in the readers.

Abrams labels this approach as pragmatic theory, a critical framework that looks at the practical aspects of a work of art. Pragmatist critics, influenced by classical rhetoric, consider a poem as something crafted to create a particular response in the minds of the readers. The poet, in this view, becomes a skilled craftsman shaping words to achieve a predetermined effect.

Horace’s “Ars Poetica” further contributes to this pragmatic orientation, suggesting that poetry should either profit or please. Horace emphasizes the blending of the delightful and the useful, with pleasure being considered the chief purpose of poetry. This aligns with the pragmatic idea that the primary goal of art is to elicit a positive response from the audience.

Dr. Samuel Johnson, a prominent figure in neoclassical criticism, is examined through his “Preface to Shakespeare.” In this preface, Johnson seeks to establish Shakespeare’s rank among poets, and his criteria for judging Shakespeare’s works reflect a pragmatic orientation. Johnson repeatedly speaks of mimesis or imitation, considering Shakespeare’s drama as the mirror of life. He contends that the end of writing is to instruct by pleasing, emphasizing the dual purpose of delight and moral instruction.

However, Johnson’s moralistic stance is evident when he criticizes Shakespeare for writing without a clear moral purpose, considering it a defect. This highlights a tension within pragmatic criticism, as the balance between delight and moral purpose becomes a point of contention. The pragmatic critic, in Johnson’s mold, acknowledges the need for pleasure in art but insists on adherence to moral standards.

The 18th century witnessed the zenith of pragmatic criticism, where the focus was on the practical aspects of art and its impact on the audience. However, Abrams notes that inherent in pragmatic criticism were the seeds of its own undoing. Ancient rhetoric, upon which pragmatism drew heavily, paid detailed attention to the speaker and the art of persuasion. In the course of the 18th century, there was a gradual shift in focus from the audience to the poet himself.

The mental constitution of the poet, including natural genius, creative imagination, and emotional spontaneity, took precedence. The poet’s subjective experience became paramount, and the audience receded into the background. This shift laid the groundwork for the Romantic emphasis on individual creativity and originality.

In conclusion, the section of Abrams’ “The Mirror and the Lamp” delves into the pragmatic theory of poetry, tracing its roots from Sidney to Horace and Dr. Samuel Johnson. Pragmatic criticism, while acknowledging the need for art to delight, grapples with the tension between pleasure and moral purpose. The 18th century witnessed the dominance of pragmatic criticism, but within it were the seeds of a paradigm shift toward the Romantic emphasis on the subjective experience of the poet.