Dr. Johnson’s Criticism of Shakespeare Essay

Samuel Johnson (1709-1784), a flamboyant and assorted scholar, expresses his view of Shakespe ar in his edition of Shakespeares plays which are enriched by his prefaces. save like other critics he does not eulogize the poet on the contrary, he dwells on the faults in his plays. He shows a very balanced and fair mind capable of judging the merits and demerits of his plays without being influenced by the h allow effect. He reads neither to admire everything, nor does he contradict his excellence he performs the project of weighing and considering what he reads and offers his comments which have a moral bias. In The antecede to Shakespeare  he admires him as  the poet of nature, not of learning the creator of characters who spring to deportment and a writer whose works express the full range of military personnel passions (Norton.1255) His judgment of Shakespeare has both the positive and the negative aspects and he does not pamper in bardolatry like other critics. He accepts that dead writers are unnecessarily glorified and the living ones are neglected. He rightly says, The great tilt of criticism is to find the faults of the moderns and the beauties of the ancients. (Norton.1256) He also advocates the critical theory that an rootage can be evaluated only by comparing his works with others, so in the production of genius, nothing can be styled excellent trough it has been compared with other works of the same kind. (Norton.1256) He  also upholds the view that a literary work can be called great only when it has stood the see of time.He thinks, Shakespeare is, above all writers, at least above all modern writers, the poet of nature, the poet that holds up to his proofreaders a faithful mirror of manners and of life. (Norton.1257) It is backbreaking to surpass this succinct summing up of Shakespeares genius. But Johnson disparages the uncritical credenza of Shakespeare as perfect he points out his faults as well, without undermining h is genius.Johnson praises Shakespeares dodge of characterization highlighting their variety, depth, credibility and the power of delighting his readers. Using his comparative method, he observes, they are the genuine progeny of common humanity In the publications of other poets a character is too often an individual in those of Shakespeare it is commonly a species. (Norton.1257) The characters and the situations are so impressive because Shakespeare has no heroes, his scenes are occupied only by men, who act and speak as the reader thinks that he should himself have spoken or acted on the same critical point(Norton.1258) This culminates in his view, his drama is the mirror of life. (Norton.1258)Being a believer in didactic function of literature, he appreciates how his plays are full of practical axioms and home(prenominal) wisdom (Norton.1257) just now for the same reason he criticizes him when it is absent, He sacrifices impartiality to convenience, and is so much more caref ul to please than to instruct that he seems to write without any moral purpose. (Norton.1259)  It is clear that he does not believe in art for arts sake like Oscar Wilde and Walter Pater. Johnson in vain castigates Shakespeare for not being a moralist, he that thinks reasonably, must think morally, but his precepts and axioms drop casually from him he makes no just distribution of wakeless or evil (Norton.1259)