Merits and Demerits of Shakespeare

Merits and Demerits of Shakespe be In inaugurate to Shakespe are, Johnson has shown the merits and demerits of Shakespeare based on the plays he has edited. Here he faces the readers some belong ideas about the sexual abstentions and faults of Shakespeare. That Shakespeares characters rescue am interaction with disposition and that his works have a ecumenic appeal are the major assertions of Johnson in choose of Shakespeares merits and what he says about the demerit of Shakespeare is that Shakespeare tries more to pl loosening his audience than to study them which is a serious fault because it is everlastingly a spell outrs art to ask the world mor all toldy 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 can be determined by the Shakespeares enduring popularity. He proceeds thence to elevate Shakespeare as the poet of temper ament. postcode can please many, 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 ingenuity and of life. 8). Again he says that Shakespeares characters are the genuine progeny of putting surface humanity In the belles-lettres of other writers , a character is in addition often an individual but a character of Shakespeare has a universal appeal, and his characters are the representatives of the familiar 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 ordering 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 except by men, who act and speak as the reader thinks that he should himself have spoken or acted on the very(prenominal) occasion (13) In his characterization and dialogue, Shakespeare overlooks the casual distinction of country and condition, salient 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 bring down exactly artificial burdens on the natural genius of Shakespeare. He lays an tremendous stress on Shakespeares adherence to general nature. He states Shakespeare always makes nature predominate 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 musical style of the plays themselves. In the strictest, classical sense of the terms, Johnson take overs, 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 contentment a style which approaches nearer than either to the appearance of life (20).Demerits of Shakespeare His adulation 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 intrusive sententiae, but evaluative interpretations, decisions about how literature applies to the human dilemma (Tomarken 2).Johnson is not hesitant to admit Shakespeares faults his earlier 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 organise 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 lack 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 wrong and leaving their exampl es to operate by chance, Shakespeare has abandoned his duty as an author as the righteous Johnson would have that duty be (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 adult instruction or pleasure which the development of the plot provides to him. He says, The plots are often so loosely formed, that a very slight good will 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 last mentioned part does not receive much of his attention. This charge is sure enough 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 o f his reward, he shortened the labour, to snatch the profit. (35) Next, Johnson considers Shakespeares style and expression. According to him at that place 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 redundance 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 check 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.