Samuel Johnson often referred to as Dr.

Johnson, was an English writer who made a lot of

contributions to English literature as a poet, playwright, essayist, and literary critic. He was born on
September 18, 1709; in a village of Lichfield .He also studied at Oxford University but could not get
the degree because he was very poor and could not afford the expenses of study. He suffered from
many financial problems at an early age he fought with them and observe the reality of life deeply. This
is the major factor that makes him a great critic. In the beginning hi rot only for the sake of money but
later on he brought many useful books and introduced the first dictionary of the English language. He
wrote a complete work about Shakespeare in preface to Shakespeare.

Literary criticism
Johnson described various features of excellent writing. He believed that the best poetry relied on
simple language, and he disliked the use of decorative or purposefully ancient language. He preferred
poetry that could be easily read and understood.

In Preface to Shakespeare, Johnson rejects the previous belief of the classical unities and argues that
drama should be faithful to life. However, Johnson did not only defend Shakespeare; he discussed
Shakespeare's faults, including his lack of morality and his carelessness in crafting plots.

As well as direct literary criticism, Johnson emphasised the need to establish a text that accurately
reflects what an author wrote. Shakespeare's plays, in particular, had multiple editions, each of which
contained errors caused by the printing process. This problem was compounded by careless editors who
deemed difficult words incorrect, and changed them in later editions. Johnson believed that an editor
should not alter the text in such a way.

Demerits of Shakespeare according to Dr. Samuel Johnson

Preface to Shakespeare by Dr. Johnson represents a totally healthy talk upon Shakespeare, in which
Shakespeare has been made a true person having special great powers of mind but that person having
especially great powers of mind is not made free from faults which are also very common quality of a
man.

Virtue sacrificed to convenience

According to Johnson, Shakespeare’s first and foremost defect is that “he sacrifices virtue to
convenience.”It is the duty of every writer to try to make the world a better place. But it seems that
Shakespeare writes without any moral purpose. Johnson also points out that Shakespeare does not
observe poetic justice. He did not distribute good and evil justly and even his virtuous characters do not
express any moral disapproval of the wicked. He persons pass through right or wrong indifferently, and
at the end they are dismissed without any further care.

Defective Plot with neglecting of concluding parts

The second fault that Johnson finds lies in the looseness in the construction of his plots. Johnson thinks
that he perhaps fails to comprehend his own design because a little care could improve them. In many
of his plays, the latter part doesn’t receive much of his attention. When he finds him near the end of the
play, he doesn’t take the labour to complete it satisfactorily. It was because when he was nearing the
end of his work, the rewards seemed within reach. In order to get the profits sooner, he finishes it
instantly. As a result, the conclusion becomes imperfect and improbable.

Violator of Chronology, Like hood and Possibility

Another defect in Shakespeare’s plays is that in them no distinction of time or place is observed but the
customs, opinions and manners of one age or one country are freely attributed to another. As a result,
the criteria of like hood and possibility have been shattered.
Style and expression

Shakespeare does not often maintain reasonable proportion between his words and the things they
express. Shakespeare’s style and expression is exaggerated sometime. He uses many words to express
those things that can be expressed in fewer words. He seems cold, weak, and rather reserved when the
highest amount of emotional expression was needed.
Shakespeare’s fatal expression for quibble and conceits spoils passages

Johnson turns censorious about Shakespeare’s tendency to use conceits and quibbles. Johnson says that
Shakespeare’s craze for conceit and quibbles spoils many passages which are otherwise sad and tender,
or could have evoked pity and terror. His uncurbed enthusiasm for quibbles leads him to utter
senselessness. A quibble is to him like the golden apple for which he will always turn aside from his
path.
Excessive labor produces undesired effects in the tragic plays

His tragic plays become worse in proportion to the labor he spends on them. Whenever he strains
himself to produce effects, the result is tediousness, and obscurity. It happens just because of the nature
of writing of Shakespeare. His writing is inspired by nature and when he tries deliberately to create
something different from reality and nature it becomes worse.

Narration by diction
His narration shows an undue pomp of diction and unnecessary repetition of words. He uses more
words than are necessary to describe an incident. He uses a single word many times in his writing. And
to explain his character or plot, he uses the weapon of flourish language with exaggeration.

Losing intensity to feebleness

What he does best, he soon ceases to do. In spite of his brilliant beginning to describe pity, he fails to
carry on to the last and suddenly he becomes weak and frigid. Shakespeare cuts short his own highest
excellence in arousing tragic feelings by the spectacle of the fall of a great man, or the misfortune of an
innocent character, or a disappointment in love. The result is that the intense feelings aroused by him
suddenly lose their intensity and become feeble.

Conclusion
Johnson also defends Shakespeare by arguing that some of the shortcomings that we find in his plays
are actually the faults of the age he lived in. However, Johnson adopts purely a neo-classical point of
view which emphasizes the moralistic purpose of literature as much as its pleasing quality. In this
respect we can't agree with Johnson's condemnation of Shakespeare. Because all that we can expect
from an artist is that he should give us a picture of life and true reality as he sees it.
Yet these faults in Johnson’s views do not lessen Shakespeare’s greatness as a unique dramatic genius,
his universal appeal, his understanding and portrayal of human nature, his capacity and ability to
delight.