What do you think?
Rate this book
Preface to Shakespeare
Samuel Johnson (1709-1784), often referred to simply as Dr Johnson, was one of England's greatest literary a poet, essayist, biographer, lexicographer and a critic of English literature. He was also a great wit and prose stylist, well known for his aphorisms. Between 1745 and 1755, Johnson wrote perhaps his best-known work, A Dictionary of the English Language. During the decade he worked on the Dictionary, Johnson, needing to augment his precarious income, also wrote a series of semi-weekly essays under the title The Rambler. These essays, often on moral and religious topics, tended to be more grave than the title of the series would suggest. They ran until 1752. Initially they were not popular, but once collected as a volume they found a large audience. Johnson's final major work was his Lives of the Poets (1781), comprising short biographies of about 50 English poets, most of whom were alive in the eighteenth century. Amongst his other works are The Idler (1758-1760), Rasselas, Prince of Abissinia (1759) and The Patriot (1774).
68 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1778
59 people are currently reading
485 people want to read
About the author
Samuel Johnson
4,719 books403 followersPeople note British writer and lexicographer Samuel Johnson, known as "Doctor Johnson," for his
Dictionary of the English Language
(1755), for
Lives of the Poets
(1781), and for his series of essays, published under the titles
The Rambler
(1752) and
The Idler
(1758).
Samuel Johnson used the first consistent Universal Etymological English Dictionary , first published in 1721, of British lexicographer Nathan Bailey as a reference.
Beginning as a journalist on Grub street, this English author made lasting contributions to English literature as a poet, essayist, moralist, novelist, literary critic, biographer, and editor. People described Johnson as "arguably the most distinguished man of letters in English history." James Boswell subjected him to Life of Samuel Johnson , one of the most celebrated biographies in English. This biography alongside other biographies, documented behavior and mannerisms of Johnson in such detail that they informed the posthumous diagnosis of Tourette syndrome (TS), a condition unknown to 18th-century physicians. He presented a tall and robust figure, but his odd gestures and tics confused some persons on their first encounters.
Johnson attended Pembroke college, Oxford for a year before his lack of funds compelled him to leave. After working as a teacher, he moved to London, where he began to write essays for The Gentleman's Magazine. His early works include the biography The Life of Richard Savage and the poem " The Vanity of Human Wishes ." Christian morality permeated works of Johnson, a devout and compassionate man. He, a conservative Anglican, nevertheless respected persons of other denominations that demonstrated a commitment to teachings of Christ.
After nine years of work, people in 1755 published his preeminent Dictionary of the English Language, bringing him popularity and success until the completion of the Oxford English Dictionary in 1905, a century and a half later. In the following years, he published essays, an influential annotated edition of plays of William Shakespeare, and the well-read novel Rasselas . In 1763, he befriended James Boswell, with whom he later travelled to Scotland; A Journey to the Western Islands of Scotland , travel narrative of Johnson, described the journey. Towards the end of his life, he produced the massive and influential Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets , which includes biographies and evaluations of 17th- and 18th-century poets.
After a series of illnesses, Johnson died on the evening; people buried his body in Westminster abbey. In the years following death, people began to recognize a lasting effect of Samuel Johnson on literary criticism even as the only great critic of English literature.
Samuel Johnson used the first consistent Universal Etymological English Dictionary , first published in 1721, of British lexicographer Nathan Bailey as a reference.
Beginning as a journalist on Grub street, this English author made lasting contributions to English literature as a poet, essayist, moralist, novelist, literary critic, biographer, and editor. People described Johnson as "arguably the most distinguished man of letters in English history." James Boswell subjected him to Life of Samuel Johnson , one of the most celebrated biographies in English. This biography alongside other biographies, documented behavior and mannerisms of Johnson in such detail that they informed the posthumous diagnosis of Tourette syndrome (TS), a condition unknown to 18th-century physicians. He presented a tall and robust figure, but his odd gestures and tics confused some persons on their first encounters.
Johnson attended Pembroke college, Oxford for a year before his lack of funds compelled him to leave. After working as a teacher, he moved to London, where he began to write essays for The Gentleman's Magazine. His early works include the biography The Life of Richard Savage and the poem " The Vanity of Human Wishes ." Christian morality permeated works of Johnson, a devout and compassionate man. He, a conservative Anglican, nevertheless respected persons of other denominations that demonstrated a commitment to teachings of Christ.
After nine years of work, people in 1755 published his preeminent Dictionary of the English Language, bringing him popularity and success until the completion of the Oxford English Dictionary in 1905, a century and a half later. In the following years, he published essays, an influential annotated edition of plays of William Shakespeare, and the well-read novel Rasselas . In 1763, he befriended James Boswell, with whom he later travelled to Scotland; A Journey to the Western Islands of Scotland , travel narrative of Johnson, described the journey. Towards the end of his life, he produced the massive and influential Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets , which includes biographies and evaluations of 17th- and 18th-century poets.
After a series of illnesses, Johnson died on the evening; people buried his body in Westminster abbey. In the years following death, people began to recognize a lasting effect of Samuel Johnson on literary criticism even as the only great critic of English literature.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
September 21, 2019
Samuel Johnson’s Preface to Shakespeare was not meant to be read absent his version of the Shakespeare plays. That there are or were versions is not something I had ever considered, but it is a main topic for Samuel Johnson. In this essay he is initially an insightful, more like an insider critic of The Bard. Then he writes as a historian and critic of prior editors using their versions as both comparative benchmarks and as a sounding board to express his understanding of the duties of an editor.
Samuel John wrote well. If nothing else reading any thing by him is a chance to expose yourself to a thoughtful writer. Yes, the style can seem unnatural and affected but given the habits of his time, Johnson can pass as a better educated modern. Conclusion: Reading Johnson for the pleasure and learning to is a worthy use of your time.
That said, my pleasure was limited to the heretofore obvious reality that over time, editors will have had their will with Will. Just as directors will modernize productions, shifting emphasis sometimes create new meanings. Actors will seek to individualize their personification of characters. E’en so what is on the page can and has varied over time. Given what I have read of playwrights taking their work into production, there may not exist such a thing as an original script. Scripts may never leave re-write.
As interesting as this is to ponder; and how well one can ponder with Johnson taking lead, having this preface with no plays is more than somewhat disembodied. If this is to be a standalone document, and I recommend against, a few pages of introduction would help. Some history and with some estimates of the ultimate or relative opinion about the Johnson version of the Bard.
Samuel John wrote well. If nothing else reading any thing by him is a chance to expose yourself to a thoughtful writer. Yes, the style can seem unnatural and affected but given the habits of his time, Johnson can pass as a better educated modern. Conclusion: Reading Johnson for the pleasure and learning to is a worthy use of your time.
That said, my pleasure was limited to the heretofore obvious reality that over time, editors will have had their will with Will. Just as directors will modernize productions, shifting emphasis sometimes create new meanings. Actors will seek to individualize their personification of characters. E’en so what is on the page can and has varied over time. Given what I have read of playwrights taking their work into production, there may not exist such a thing as an original script. Scripts may never leave re-write.
As interesting as this is to ponder; and how well one can ponder with Johnson taking lead, having this preface with no plays is more than somewhat disembodied. If this is to be a standalone document, and I recommend against, a few pages of introduction would help. Some history and with some estimates of the ultimate or relative opinion about the Johnson version of the Bard.
September 25, 2022
Lo compré para apoyar mi curso monográfico de Shakespeare en la u y literal todo lo que dice, mi profe lo explicó en clases. Las cinco estrellas van para ella
August 10, 2018
The fact that this (fre)e-book was supplemented by a selection of Johnson's notes to Shakespeare makes me suspect that it was transcribed from an actual book, the kind of short, hardbound 'student edition' used by colleges and maybe high schools in the 1920s.
(I can see it in my mind's eye)
At any rate, the Preface itself is a deserved classic, never mind if it was used to bore your great-great grandpa.
Here is his judgement of Theobald (Shakespeare's third editor):
Pope was succeeded by Theobald, a man of narrow comprehension and small acquisitions, with no native and intrinsick splendour of genius, with little of the artificial light of learning, but zealous for minute accuracy, and not negligent in pursuing it. He collated the ancient copies, and rectified many errors. A man so anxiously scrupulous might have been expected to do more, but what little he did was commonly right.
In his report of copies and editions he is not to be trusted, without examination. He speaks sometimes indefinitely of copies, when he has only one. In his enumeration of editions, he mentions the two first folios as of high, and the third folio as of middle authority; but the truth is, that the first is equivalent to all others, and that the rest only deviate from it by the printer's negligence. Whoever has any of the folios has all, excepting those diversities which mere reiteration of editions will produce. I collated them all at the beginning, but afterwards used only the first.
Of his notes I have generally retained those which he retained himself in his second edition, except when they were confuted by subsequent annotators, or were too minute to merit preservation. I have sometimes adopted his restoration of a comma, without inserting the panegyrick in which he celebrated himself for his achievement. The exuberant excrescence of diction I have often lopped, his triumphant exultations over Pope and Rowe I have sometimes suppressed, and his contemptible ostentation I have frequently concealed; but I have in some places shewn him, as he would have shewn himself, for the reader's diversion, that the inflated emptiness of some notes may justify or excuse the contraction of the rest.
And, just one more thing. It seems to be conventional wisdom, even now, that Shakespeare was 'neglected' until the Germans 'discovered' him. Johnson disproves this:
It is not very grateful to consider how little the succession of editors has added to this authour's power of pleasing. He was read, admired, studied, and imitated, while he was yet deformed with all the improprieties which ignorance and neglect could accumulate upon him; while the reading was yet not rectified, nor his allusions understood; yet then did Dryden pronounce "that Shakespeare was the man, who, of all modern and perhaps ancient poets, had the largest and most comprehensive soul. All the images of nature were still present to him, and he drew them not laboriously, but luckily: When he describes any thing, you more than see it, you feel it too. Those who accuse him to have wanted learning, give him the greater commendation: he was naturally learned: he needed not the spectacles of books to read nature; he looked inwards, and found her there. I cannot say he is every where alike; were he so, I should do him injury to compare him with the greatest of mankind. He is many times flat and insipid; his comick wit degenerating into clenches, his serious swelling into bombast. But he is always great, when some great occasion is presented to him: No man can say, he ever had a fit subject for his wit, and did not then raise himself as high above the rest of poets...
(I can see it in my mind's eye)
At any rate, the Preface itself is a deserved classic, never mind if it was used to bore your great-great grandpa.
Here is his judgement of Theobald (Shakespeare's third editor):
Pope was succeeded by Theobald, a man of narrow comprehension and small acquisitions, with no native and intrinsick splendour of genius, with little of the artificial light of learning, but zealous for minute accuracy, and not negligent in pursuing it. He collated the ancient copies, and rectified many errors. A man so anxiously scrupulous might have been expected to do more, but what little he did was commonly right.
In his report of copies and editions he is not to be trusted, without examination. He speaks sometimes indefinitely of copies, when he has only one. In his enumeration of editions, he mentions the two first folios as of high, and the third folio as of middle authority; but the truth is, that the first is equivalent to all others, and that the rest only deviate from it by the printer's negligence. Whoever has any of the folios has all, excepting those diversities which mere reiteration of editions will produce. I collated them all at the beginning, but afterwards used only the first.
Of his notes I have generally retained those which he retained himself in his second edition, except when they were confuted by subsequent annotators, or were too minute to merit preservation. I have sometimes adopted his restoration of a comma, without inserting the panegyrick in which he celebrated himself for his achievement. The exuberant excrescence of diction I have often lopped, his triumphant exultations over Pope and Rowe I have sometimes suppressed, and his contemptible ostentation I have frequently concealed; but I have in some places shewn him, as he would have shewn himself, for the reader's diversion, that the inflated emptiness of some notes may justify or excuse the contraction of the rest.
And, just one more thing. It seems to be conventional wisdom, even now, that Shakespeare was 'neglected' until the Germans 'discovered' him. Johnson disproves this:
It is not very grateful to consider how little the succession of editors has added to this authour's power of pleasing. He was read, admired, studied, and imitated, while he was yet deformed with all the improprieties which ignorance and neglect could accumulate upon him; while the reading was yet not rectified, nor his allusions understood; yet then did Dryden pronounce "that Shakespeare was the man, who, of all modern and perhaps ancient poets, had the largest and most comprehensive soul. All the images of nature were still present to him, and he drew them not laboriously, but luckily: When he describes any thing, you more than see it, you feel it too. Those who accuse him to have wanted learning, give him the greater commendation: he was naturally learned: he needed not the spectacles of books to read nature; he looked inwards, and found her there. I cannot say he is every where alike; were he so, I should do him injury to compare him with the greatest of mankind. He is many times flat and insipid; his comick wit degenerating into clenches, his serious swelling into bombast. But he is always great, when some great occasion is presented to him: No man can say, he ever had a fit subject for his wit, and did not then raise himself as high above the rest of poets...
July 22, 2008
Nothing that will blow your hair back, but a very insightful critique of Shakespeare's genius AND his faults.
"A quibble [or pun] is to Shakespeare what luminous vapors are to the traveler: he follows it at all adventures; it is sure to lead him out of his way, and sure to engulf him in mire. It has some malignant power over his mind, and its fascinations are irresistible."
"A quibble [or pun] is to Shakespeare what luminous vapors are to the traveler: he follows it at all adventures; it is sure to lead him out of his way, and sure to engulf him in mire. It has some malignant power over his mind, and its fascinations are irresistible."
December 18, 2024
evet bunu da logladım
March 13, 2022
This preface, first appearing in Johnson’s 1765 edition of “The Plays of William Shakespeare,” is written in the “grand style.”
“I have adopted the Roman sentiment that it is more honourable to save a citizen than to kill an enemy, and have been more careful to protect than to attack.”
“I have adopted the Roman sentiment that it is more honourable to save a citizen than to kill an enemy, and have been more careful to protect than to attack.”
June 4, 2023
This book is predominantly a critical valuation of Shakespeare's dramatic art; it is also an attractive and sumptuous quintessence of his ways and methods as an editor.
Besides, it also appraises the works of earlier editors with their advantages and disadvantages. Johnson regrets the bitterness of controversy that he could sense among some of the editors.
Although Johnson disapproves those who have taken emendatory liberties he makes a sensible selection of their acute notes and comments and includes them in his own edition. He turns an acrimonious tongue towards the conceited and arrogant editors while he leaves his own edition for public judgement.
He unpretentiously admits that he is by no means flawless and he even expects rancorous and harsh comments from some judges who may read his work.
His work, he says, may be improved and revised by greater scholars.
One difference between Johnson and most other literary critics, especially those of his own time, is the fullness and depth with which he responds to work of literature and to its author. Johnson's personality can be seen in his Shakespeare editing in a number of ways:
**His frequent rejoinders and admonitions,
**His acerbic discharges of the erstwhile editors,
**His fervent bewilderment at their narcissism and their inexperience
Johnson is a man of influential and unprompted rejoinders to Shakespearian drama, but his expressive retorts are more like the standard one of his time: they are impartially adjacent to the hypothetical neoclassic standard, to the ideal of coherent uniformity, the contemporary spirit of optimism.
In his preface the readers have a response to Shakespearean drama, but his emotional responses are more like the customary ones of his time; they are impartially close to the theoretical neo-classic norm, to the ideal of rational orderliness, the contemporary spirit of optimism and benevolism.
In his preface we have a response to Shakespeare in the most undeviating, the least theoretical fashion. Although Johnson has for long enjoyed a reputation as the last of the neoclassic giants, there is a trend among learned readers of Johnson today to see his classicism as very much altered from the Augustan norm. In his wfiontation of Shakespeare, particularly, we discover Johnson to be far from the faultless neoclassic critic, and, in a much profounder sense, far from the archetypal illuminator of that day.
Nevertheless, Johnson's Preface to Shakespeare is an eternal contribution to English literary criticism. Though Johnson is a neo-classical critic, his valuation of Shakespeare is neutral on the whole. Johnson praises plus points out flaws. For him the greatest judge is the reader. Johnson's duty was to uncover Shakespeare under the light of neo-classical taste. Johnson does this adequately though in some instances he is not completely justified.
Besides, it also appraises the works of earlier editors with their advantages and disadvantages. Johnson regrets the bitterness of controversy that he could sense among some of the editors.
Although Johnson disapproves those who have taken emendatory liberties he makes a sensible selection of their acute notes and comments and includes them in his own edition. He turns an acrimonious tongue towards the conceited and arrogant editors while he leaves his own edition for public judgement.
He unpretentiously admits that he is by no means flawless and he even expects rancorous and harsh comments from some judges who may read his work.
His work, he says, may be improved and revised by greater scholars.
One difference between Johnson and most other literary critics, especially those of his own time, is the fullness and depth with which he responds to work of literature and to its author. Johnson's personality can be seen in his Shakespeare editing in a number of ways:
**His frequent rejoinders and admonitions,
**His acerbic discharges of the erstwhile editors,
**His fervent bewilderment at their narcissism and their inexperience
Johnson is a man of influential and unprompted rejoinders to Shakespearian drama, but his expressive retorts are more like the standard one of his time: they are impartially adjacent to the hypothetical neoclassic standard, to the ideal of coherent uniformity, the contemporary spirit of optimism.
In his preface the readers have a response to Shakespearean drama, but his emotional responses are more like the customary ones of his time; they are impartially close to the theoretical neo-classic norm, to the ideal of rational orderliness, the contemporary spirit of optimism and benevolism.
In his preface we have a response to Shakespeare in the most undeviating, the least theoretical fashion. Although Johnson has for long enjoyed a reputation as the last of the neoclassic giants, there is a trend among learned readers of Johnson today to see his classicism as very much altered from the Augustan norm. In his wfiontation of Shakespeare, particularly, we discover Johnson to be far from the faultless neoclassic critic, and, in a much profounder sense, far from the archetypal illuminator of that day.
Nevertheless, Johnson's Preface to Shakespeare is an eternal contribution to English literary criticism. Though Johnson is a neo-classical critic, his valuation of Shakespeare is neutral on the whole. Johnson praises plus points out flaws. For him the greatest judge is the reader. Johnson's duty was to uncover Shakespeare under the light of neo-classical taste. Johnson does this adequately though in some instances he is not completely justified.
April 25, 2021
longevity of popularity, realism of characterization, mingling of tragedy and comedy, naturalness and modernity of dialogue.
"The work of a correct and regular writer is a garden accurately formed and diligently planted, varied with shades, and scented with flowers; the composition of Shakespeare is a forest, in which oaks extend their branches, and pines tower in the air, interspersed sometimes with weeds and brambles, and sometimes giving shelter to myrtles and to roses; filling the eye with awful pomp, and gratifying the mind with endless diversity. Other poets display cabinets of precious rarities, minutely finished, wrought into shape, and polished into brightness. Shakespeare opens a ine which contains gold and diamonds in inexhaustible plenty, though clouded by incrustations, debased by impurities, and mingled with a mass of meaner minerals."
"Perhaps it would not be easy to find any author except Homer who invented so much as Shakespeare, who so much advanced the studies which he cultivated, or effused so much novelty upon his age or country."
"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. His characters are... the genuine progeny of common humanity... His persons act and speak by the influence of those general passions and principles by which all minds are agitated, and the whole system of life is continued in motion. In the writings of other poets a character is too often an individual; in those of Shakespeare it is commonly a species.
"It is from this wide extension of design that so much instruction is derived. It is this which fills the plays of Shakespeare with practical axioms and domestic wisdom.... from his works may be collected a system of civil and economical prudence."
"The end of writing is to instruct; the end of poetry is to instruct by pleasing."
"The work of a correct and regular writer is a garden accurately formed and diligently planted, varied with shades, and scented with flowers; the composition of Shakespeare is a forest, in which oaks extend their branches, and pines tower in the air, interspersed sometimes with weeds and brambles, and sometimes giving shelter to myrtles and to roses; filling the eye with awful pomp, and gratifying the mind with endless diversity. Other poets display cabinets of precious rarities, minutely finished, wrought into shape, and polished into brightness. Shakespeare opens a ine which contains gold and diamonds in inexhaustible plenty, though clouded by incrustations, debased by impurities, and mingled with a mass of meaner minerals."
"Perhaps it would not be easy to find any author except Homer who invented so much as Shakespeare, who so much advanced the studies which he cultivated, or effused so much novelty upon his age or country."
"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. His characters are... the genuine progeny of common humanity... His persons act and speak by the influence of those general passions and principles by which all minds are agitated, and the whole system of life is continued in motion. In the writings of other poets a character is too often an individual; in those of Shakespeare it is commonly a species.
"It is from this wide extension of design that so much instruction is derived. It is this which fills the plays of Shakespeare with practical axioms and domestic wisdom.... from his works may be collected a system of civil and economical prudence."
"The end of writing is to instruct; the end of poetry is to instruct by pleasing."
July 15, 2023
I don’t know how to rate this because its main function is to be a preface to Shakespeare. And I haven’t read Shakespeare, I intend to but I read this one first and I got to say, this Johnson fella is a very insightful dude. I would’ve loved to have a cup of coffee and a chat with him. My curiosity is definitely peaked to read Shakespeare right now, which, Is something I never thought I would say :)
January 5, 2024
Johnson says,
"I have adopted the Roman sentiment, that it is more honourable to save a citizen, than to kill an enemy, and have been more careful to protect than to attack."
Later he quotes Dryden who pronounces,
" 𝘚𝘩𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘦 was the man who of all modern, and perhaps ancient poets, had the largest and most comprehensive soul.”
And he succeeds in defending his favourite literary compatriot throughout the commentary.
Where love is thick, faults are thin.
"I have adopted the Roman sentiment, that it is more honourable to save a citizen, than to kill an enemy, and have been more careful to protect than to attack."
Later he quotes Dryden who pronounces,
" 𝘚𝘩𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘦 was the man who of all modern, and perhaps ancient poets, had the largest and most comprehensive soul.”
And he succeeds in defending his favourite literary compatriot throughout the commentary.
Where love is thick, faults are thin.
January 29, 2021
Una exquisitez leer esta lectura crítica de Shakespeare escrita en el siglo XVIII. La pluma de Samuel Johnson era, además de sagaz, amable. Siempre habrá ganas de releer a Shakespeare y de leer aquello que ni siquiera sabía que existía.
January 26, 2018
Loved how impartial this piece of criticism was: both praising Shakespeare yet bringing to light certain critiques (though most were refuted in the end!)
January 24, 2018
I have no shame and you will have to deal with that just as Johnson is terrified by bill's use of time and place to create characters not as individuals but entire SPECIES
March 29, 2018
I know this is important and all but I hated every second I spent reading it
December 28, 2019
A classic work of English literary criticism. Johnson introduces a comparison which later becomes an essential tool for modern critics. Nicely written, with a lot of interesting observations.
January 3, 2021
More like 3.5*
November 1, 2022
No vale la pena leerlo si no lees las obras después
March 7, 2024
2,5 🌟 bc he made me laugh
August 29, 2024
I had expected a critical analysis of some plays but it is a preface to his editing of the plays and as such more interesting for scholars than for the average reader.
October 12, 2017
Second time reading, star rating moved from 3 to 4.
"A play read, affects the mind like a play acted." Words to remember.
I enjoy reading Preface to Shakespeare , maybe because I agree with most of it (or maybe just because I find Johnson's writing more enjoyable than his contemporaries - satires excluded). I like his criticism of Shakespeare though I find his negative comments to be reasonable but difficult to share. Overall, Johnson is an enjoyable read. Some of his criticism for Shakespeare's plays can also be related to contemporary artworks and I find that particularly interesting. Is it good or bad?
"A play read, affects the mind like a play acted." Words to remember.
I enjoy reading Preface to Shakespeare , maybe because I agree with most of it (or maybe just because I find Johnson's writing more enjoyable than his contemporaries - satires excluded). I like his criticism of Shakespeare though I find his negative comments to be reasonable but difficult to share. Overall, Johnson is an enjoyable read. Some of his criticism for Shakespeare's plays can also be related to contemporary artworks and I find that particularly interesting. Is it good or bad?
Antiquity, like every other quality that attracts the notice of mankind, has undoubtedly votaries that reverence it, not from reason, but from prejudice. Some seem to admire indiscriminately whatever has been long preserved, without considering that time has sometimes co-operated with chance; all perhaps are more willing to honour past than present excellence; and the mind contemplates genius through the shades of age, as the eye surveys the sun through artificial opacity. The great contention of criticism is to find the faults of the moderns, and the beauties of the ancients. While an authour is yet living, we estimate his powers by his worst performance, and when he is dead we rate them by his best.
October 2, 2008
Johnson claims that Shakespeare is good and true because he elevates the common and transcends the everyday. His characters and situations are derived from man's general nature, therefore his works act as a "mirror of life." Johnson's appraisal is pretty accurate and it is interesting to read how the English looked at Shakespeare in the eighteenth century.
February 8, 2013
I actually enjoyed this one more than I enjoyed some of the other books I've read for my theory class. Samuel Johnson's claims are very interesting and I enjoyed reading this more than most of the books I've read for this class lately.
October 24, 2011
I tolerate Shakespeare. I loathe Shakespeare criticism.
Also. Blargh.
Also. Blargh.
November 4, 2014
okurken yaşlandı dersiniz.
March 31, 2016
Extraordinario. Deleita enseñando.
May 8, 2023
its giving ✨closed minded✨
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews