'Merits and Demerits of Shakespeare\r'

'Merits and De moral excellences of Shakespe be In Preface to Shakespe atomic number 18, Johnson has shown the merits and demerits of Shakespeare ground on the plays he has edited. Here he grants the readers some sound ideas about the justices and mistakes of Shakespeare. That Shakespeares component set abouts perk up am interaction with nature and that his plant manners throw a universal magic spell 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 audience than to instruct them which is a serious fault because it is always a writers duty to make the world virtuously better.However, what Johnson has seen as the merits and demerits of Shakespeare are given down the stairs: Merits of Shakespeare: At first Johnson explicates Shakespeares virtues after explaining what merit bay window be determined by the Shakespeares enduring popularity. He proceeds accordi ngly to elevate Shakespeare as the poet of nature. â€Å"Nothing ordure please m either, and please long, but meet representations of public nature” (7). He says, â€Å"Shakespeare is supra all writers, at least higher up all modern writers, the poet of nature; the poet that holds up to his readers a faithful mirror of manners and of intent”. 8). Again he says that Shakespeares characters â€Å"are the genuine progeny of general good-will ” In the literary works of other writers , a character is too oft an separate but a character of Shakespeare has a universal appeal, and his characters are the representatives of the common people. and 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, â€Å"from his works may be collected a system of well-mannered and economical prudence. (9) Again he says that by writings Shakespeare brings out the whole knowledge base of life. Moreover his heroes are like common human beings. And the qualities that are appoint in Shakespearean heroes can be found in every human being. As he says , â€Å"Shakespeare has no heroes; his scenes are busy that by men, who act and deal as the reader thinks that he should himself have spoken or acted on the very(prenominal) occasion” (13) In his characterization and dialogue, Shakespeare â€Å"overlooks the perfunctory distinction of country and condition,” striking at the center of humanity (15).The nature captured by Shakespeares characters is exhibited in the â€Å"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 genius of Shakespeare. He lays an gigantic stress on Shakespeares adherence to general nature. He states: â€Å"Shakespeare always makes nature loom over accident; and if he hold the essential character, is not very close of distinctions superinduced and adventitious.His story requires Romans or kings, but he thinks only on men. â€Å"(15) Johnson goes further in his defense of the Bards 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, Shakespeares works cannot be fairly called comedies or tragedies. For this too, his plays take in harsh criticism from Johnsons contemporaries. Johnson, though, sees in the smorgasbord of sorrow and joy a modality which â€Å" access codees secretiveer 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 arg uments; he simply establishes his credentials as a critic. As Edward Tomarken points out, â€Å"for Johnson, criticism requires, not curious sententiae, but evaluative interpretations, decisions about how literature applies to the human dilemma” (Tomarken 2).Johnson is not indecisive to admit Shakespeares faults: his earlier praise serves to maintenance those flaws in perspective. Even without that perspective, however, Johnsons censure of Shakespeare is not discussion sectionicularly harsh. For the most part, Johnson highlights surface- level defects in the Bards works: his â€Å" in the main formed” plots, his â€Å"normally gross” jests, and- most ironically-his â€Å"disproportionate acclaim of diction and a wearisome lease of circumlocution” (Johnson 34, 35). The most egregious fault Johnson finds in Shakespeare, though, is thematic.Unsurprisingly, Johnson exhibits emphatic distaste for Shakespeares escape of moral purpose. Johnson argues that he ” He sacrifices virtue to convenience, and is so more than more diligent to please than to instruct, that he seems to write without any moral purpose ” (33). In tether â€Å"his persons indifferently through right and damage” and leaving â€Å"their examples to operate by chance,” Shakespeare has ramshackle his duty as an author as the righteous Johnson would have that duty specify (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 heedlessly pursued. He neglects opportunities of giving instruction or pleasure which the development of the plot provides to him. He says, â€Å"The plots are often so loosely formed, that a very slight condition may improve them, and so heedlessly pursued, that he seems not always to the full 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 blossom is certainly true.The play of Julius Caesar clearly shows a decline of dramatic interest in its second half. He says, â€Å"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. â€Å"(35) Next, Johnson considers Shakespeares style and expression. harmonise 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 instructive purpose of literature as much as its pleasing quality. In this delight in we cant agree with Johnsons condemnation of Shakespeare. Because all that we can expect from an ar tist is that he should give us a picture of life as he sees it.\r\n'