Merits and Demerits of Shakespeare

Merits and Demerits of Shakespe are In Preface to Shakespeare, Johnson has sh give birth the merits and demerits of Shakespeare based on the plays he has edited. Here he gives the readers some lead ideas ab emerge the virtues and faults of Shakespeare. That Shakespeares typefaces adjudge am interaction with nature and that his works let a universal draw in are the major assertions of Johnson in favour of Shakespeares merits and what he says about the demerit of Shakespeare is that Shakespeare tries more to please his reference than to instruct them which is a serious fault because it is always a writers duty to make the world chastely better.However, what Johnson has seen as the merits and demerits of Shakespeare are given below Merits of Shakespeare At first Johnson explicates Shakespeares virtues after explaining what merit brook be determined by the Shakespeares enduring popularity. He proceeds thence to elevate Shakespeare as the poet of nature. Nothing plenty please man y, and please long, but just representations of general nature (7). He says, Shakespeare is above all writers, at least above all modern writers, the poet of nature the poet that holds up to his readers a faithful mirror of readiness and of manners. 8). Again he says that Shakespeares characters are the genuine progeny of common humanity In the belles-lettres of other writers , a character is too oft an individual but a character of Shakespeare has a universal appeal, and his characters are the representatives of the common people. Moreover Shakespeare is a prophet figure and from his writings we find the ideas of economic wisdom and the principles which are of value in society and at home. He says, from his works may be collected a system of civil and economical prudence. (9) Again he says that by writings Shakespeare brings out the whole sphere of life. Moreover his heroes are like common human beings. And the qualities that are found in Shakespearean heroes can be found in every human being. As he says , 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 occasion (13) In his characterization and dialogue, Shakespeare overlooks the casual distinction of artless and condition, striking at the center of humanity (15).The nature captured by Shakespeares characters is exhibited in the ease and simplicity of their dialogues (10) Indeed, Johnson points out, the distinctions of character stressed by such critics as Voltaire and Rymer impose only artificial burdens on the natural wit of Shakespeare. He lays an enormous stress on Shakespeares adherence to general nature. He states Shakespeare always makes nature dominant over accident and if he preserves the essential character, is non very careful of distinctions superinduced and adventitious.His story requires Romans or kings, but he thinks only on men. (15) Johnson goes further in his defense of the Bards merit, extending his argument from the characters within his plays to the writing style of the plays themselves. In the strictest, classical sense of the terms, Johnson admits, Shakespeares works cannot be fairly called comedies or tragedies. For this too, his plays earned harsh criticism from Johnsons contemporaries. Johnson, though, sees in the mixture of sorrow and joy a style which approaches roughlyer than either to the appearance of life (20).Demerits of Shakespeare His praise for Shakespeare, which centers on the Bards sublunary approach to character, dialogue, and plot, does not blind him to the poet of natures weaknesses. Johnson airs Shakespeares imperfections without hesitance. In doing so, though, he does not weaken his arguments he simply establishes his credentials as a critic. As Edward Tomarken points out, for Johnson, criticism requires, not prying sententiae, but evaluative interpretations, decisions about how lit applies to the human dilemma (Tomarken 2 ).Johnson is not hesitant to admit Shakespeares faults his early praise serves to keep those flaws in perspective. Even without that perspective, however, Johnsons censure of Shakespeare is not particularly harsh. For the most part, Johnson highlights surface- level defects in the Bards works his loosely formed plots, his commonly gross jests, and- most ironically-his disproportionate pomp of diction and a wearisome train of circumlocution (Johnson 34, 35). The most egregious fault Johnson finds in Shakespeare, though, is thematic.Unsurprisingly, Johnson exhibits emphatic distaste for Shakespeares neglect of moral purpose. Johnson argues that he He sacrifices virtue to convenience, and is so much more careful to please than to instruct, that he seems to write without any moral purpose (33). In leading his persons indifferently through right and wrongfulness and leaving their examples to operate by chance, Shakespeare has abandoned his duty as an author as the righteous Johnson would have that duty defined (33). This is, in his eyes, Shakespeares greatest flaw, though it does not supercede his other merits.Shakespeares plots, he says, are often very loosely formed and carelessly pursued. He neglects opportunities of giving instruction or pleasure which the victimization of the plot provides to him. He says, The plots are often so loosely formed, that a very slight contemplation may improve them, and so carelessly pursued, that he seems not always fully to comprehend his own design. (34). Again he says that in many of his plays, the latter part does not receive much of his attention. This concern is certainly true.The play of Julius Caesar clearly shows a decline of dramatic interest in its second half. He says, It may be observed, that in many of his plays the latter part is evidently neglected. When he found himself near the end of his work, and, in view of his reward, he shortened the labour, to snatch the profit. (35) Next, Johnson considers Shakesp eares style and expression. According to him there are many passages in the tragedies over which Shakespeare seems to have laboured hard, only to ruin his own performance.The moment Shakespeare strains his faculties, or strains his inventive powers unnecessarily, the result is tediousness and obscurity. However, Johnson adopts purely a neo-classical point of view which emphasizes the didactic purpose of literature as much as its pleasing quality. In this respect we cant agree with Johnsons condemnation of Shakespeare. Because all that we can expect from an artist is that he should give us a picture of life as he sees it.