Johnson's Criticism on Shakespeare's Merits and Demerits

 Johnson sets out in a traditional way to interpret the ‘beauties’ and ‘dejects’ of Shakespeare. The excellence of the Preface lies in its lasting appeal and its enviable position in the bulk of Shakespearean criticism. He may have been short-sighted, at times, in his appreciation. But his Preface remains one of historical and intrinsic interest, by virtue of his unerring skill in indicating essentials, his reasoned judicial methods, and the sound foundations he laid for future textual and aesthetic developments. For Shakespeare’s merits, he found Shakespearean works as a just representation of general nature, he never over-emphasized the theme of love, and he liberally mixed tragic and comic elements as well as broke free of the three unities. For his demerits, Johnson disapproved of Shakespeare’s sacrificing virtue to convenience, carelessness about plot development, and coarseness of dialogues.

Shakespeare’s characters do not belong to the society of a particular place or time; they are universal, representing every man. They are the genuine progeny of common humanity such as will always remain in this world. In Shakespeare, the dialogue is not accidental; it is occasioned by the incident which produces it. It is so realistic and lucid that one does not come to think of it as belonging to fanciful fiction. It seems rather that the dialogue has been gleaned out of common conversation through a wise selection.

In a majority of the dramas of other dramatists love is the universal agent that causes all good and evil and hastens or retards every action. In their fables, we meet stock characters such as a lover, a lady, and a rival. These are involved in contrary obligations and haunted by violent but inconsistent desires. They are made to speak out in hyperbolic or exaggerated joy and outrageous sorrow. Actually, by doing so, these dramatists are violating probability and misrepresenting life. They deprive the language too. Love is not the only passion, it is just one among the many. Shakespeare never assigns any excessive role to this passion in his plays, for he catches his clues from the world of day-to-day life and exhibits in his plays what he finds in life. He knew that any passion would cause happiness or disaster depending on its being moderated or left uncontrolled.

Johnson agrees that in the strictest sense, Shakespeare’s plays are neither comedies nor tragedies. They are compositions of a distinct kind that show the real state of nature. Life is an ebb and flow of sorrow and happiness and ill in various permutations and combinations. Hence a portrait of life should consist of both; such an intermingled expression of life is unexceptionable; the loss of one is the gain of another. In this world, the treacherousness of one is sometimes beaten by the frolic of another, and at times people may contrive to help or harm others without in the least intending to do so. Ancient poets used select crimes and foolishness, vicissitudes and lighter incidents, kills of distress, and joys of prosperity and modified them in several of their plays. It must have been thus that tragedy and comedy arose. But it comes to our particular attention that no single lurk or Roman author has attempted depicting both these aspects either in separate plays or in the same composition. Shakespeare’s genius is proved in his power to give rise to joy and sorrow through the same play. Almost all his plays have serious as well as absurd characters and thus sometimes cause seriousness and sorrow, and sometimes levity and laughter.

Johnson claimed that the first impropriety in Shakespeare is his sacrifices of virtue to convenience and the way he is more careful to please than to instruct. To him, Shakespeare seems to write without any moral purpose. Johnson believed that in Shakespeare’s plays there is no just distribution of evil and good. His virtuous characters do not always show disapproval of the wicked ones. His characters pass through right and wrong indifferently and in the end, if they serve as examples, they do so by chance and not by the author’s efforts. According to Johnson, every writer has the duty of trying to make the world a better place to live in.

Johnson said that in many Shakespearean plays, the latter part appears to have been neglected. It seems that when he was approaching the end of his work and the reward seemed near at hand, he exerted less labor on the work in order to complete it quickly and derive the profits immediately. John considered that the conclusion deserves maximum labor, and, in Shakespeare, lack of attention has resulted in the catastrophe in several of his plays being improbably produced or imperfectly represented.

According to Johnson, the dialogues in Shakespeare’s comedies get gross when the characters are made to engage in contests of wit and sarcasm. He thought it indelicate even where ladies join the conversation, and the refined characters speak on the same level as the clowns, and often all distinction between the two is lost. But the coarseness of this conversation in Shakespeare’s plays cannot be approved by Johnson as he believed the writer’s duty extends to make suitable selections even in the forms of gaiety.

Johnson made an exhaustive list of merits and demerits of the Great Dramatist including his personal rationalities to support the arguments. Shakespeare’s merits to Johnson include the just representation of general nature in Shakespearean plays, no over-emphasizing of the theme of love, and liberally mixing tragic and comic elements as well as breaking free of the three unities. For his demerits, Johnson objected to Shakespeare’s sacrificing virtue to convenience, carelessness about plot development, and coarseness of dialogues.