LITERARY CRITICISM

What, according to Dr. Johnson, are the merits and demerits of Shakespeare?

Samuel Johnson gives some thoughts about the morals good and fault about Shakespeare’s work he
believes that Shakespeare’s character have more interaction with nature and his work have a universal
appeal are the major cons of Shakespeare popularity at same time he also insists that he always focus to
please his audience than to instruct them which is considered as an serious fault because Samuel
believes that it is always a writer’s duty to make the world morally better

MERIT’S PF SHAKESPEARE:

Samuel Johnson 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 manners and of life". Again he says
that Shakespeare's characters "are the genuine progeny of common humanity” In the writings of other
writers, a character is too often 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 worldly wisdom and the principles which are of value in
society and at home. He says that "from his works may be collected a system of civil and economical
prudence then he started to explain about the protagonists of Shakespeare’s work more often they are
always represented as common folks and the qualities that are found in the Shakespearean protagonists
can often seen in every one of us it’s like "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" In his characterization and dialogue, Shakespeare "overlooks the casual distinction of country
and condition. The nature captured by Shakespeare's characters is exhibited in the "ease and simplicity"
of their dialogues Johnson goes further in his defense of the Bard's merit, extending his argument from
the characters within his plays to the genre of the plays themselves.  In the strictest, classical sense of
the terms, Johnson admits, Shakespeare's works cannot be fairly called comedies or tragedies. For this
too, his plays earned harsh criticism from Johnson's contemporaries. Johnson, though, sees in the
mixture of sorrow and joy a style which "approaches nearer than either to the appearance of life"

DEMERITS OF SHAKESPEARE:

Johnson is not hesitant to admit Shakespeare's faults; his earlier praise serves to keep those flaws in
perspective. Even without that perspective, however, Johnson's criticism of Shakespeare is not
particularly harsh. For the most part, Johnson highlights surface- level defects in the Bard's works:
his "loosely formed" plots, his "commonly gross" jests, and- most ironically-his "disproportionate pomp
of diction and a wearisome train of circumlocution"

The fatal fault Johnson finds in Shakespeare, though, is thematic. Unsurprisingly, Johnson exhibits
emphatic distaste for Shakespeare's lack of moral purpose. Johnson argues that He sacrifices virtue to
his convenience, and he is so much more careful to please than to instruct, that he seems to write
without any moral purpose ". In leading "his persons indifferently through right and wrong" 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. This is, in his eyes, Shakespeare's greatest flaw, though
it does not replace his other merits.
 LITERARY CRITICISM

Shakespeare’s pots are often very loosely formed and carelessly pursued The plots are often so loosely
formed, that a very slight consideration may improve them, and so carelessly pursued, that he seems
not always fully to comprehend his own design.  Again he says that in many of his plays, the latter part
does not receive much of his attention. This charge is certainly true. The play of Julius Caesar clearly
shows a decline of dramatic interest in its second half. It may be observed that in many of his plays the
latter part is evidently neglected 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 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 as he sees it.