What according Samuel Johnson are the admiring qualities of Shakespeare as dramatist-

what are his defects/faults.

Dr. Johnson may be correctly said to be the culmination of tendencies of the Shakespeare
criticism of the hundred years before him. Though a neo-classical critic in the tradition of
Ben Jonson and Dryden he was endowed with a healthy level-headed attitude and strong
common sense for which he could easily overcome indivisions of classical rules and look
frankly to the qualities of the great dramatist. Quite unbiased he looks at the dramas and
delivered his well considered opinion. Unfortunately he was not endowed with poetic
sensibility and consequently missed much of the nuances and subtle poetry of Shakespeare.
But he never was worried by the rules and regulations of the classicists and spoke his mind
quite freely thus contributed considerably to the Shakespeare criticism for which posterity is
still bashful to him.

His Shakespeare criticism is contained in the long preface to his edition of

Shakespeare. As an editor Dr. Johnsons contribution was not much, but as a critic, he had
many new things to tell. Thus when the neo-classical critics so much emphasised the
importance of the imitation of the ancient writers, it was significant that Johnson
categorically said. no men ever yet became great by imitation. Johnson did not think it
necessary to adhere to the unities of time and place which were almost sacrosanct (sacred) in
his age. Defending the writers who refused to observe the unity of place, Johnson wrote, the
truth is that the spectators are always in their senses, and know from the first act to the last
that the stage is only a stage and that the players are only players.

He also defends mingling of tragic and comic elements in dramas. But whereas
Dryden spoke of the aesthetic principle behind such mixture of elements, Johnson pleaded
with examples of leaving reality with life itself. Shakespeares plays, he says, are not in
the rigorous and critical sense either tragedies or comedies, but compositions of a distinct
kind exhibiting the real state of sublunary nature which partakes good and evil, joy and
sorrow. Thus Dr. Johnson goes to the deeper plane of criticism.

But Dr. Johnson was rather uncompromising as regards style and decorum. Here
was a neo-classicists who could not bear with the language of a great Elizabethan bubbling
with passion and prejudices, emotions and sentiments which are wringed out of the heart.
Moreover he was obviously blind to the poetic beauties of Shakespeares plays. Miltons
sweet and grand music left him cold. Pope was to him the model of correctness and polished
harmony. Then so he found fault with the bombast of Shakespeares tragedy, with the low
jesting and profane hilarity of Shakespeares comedy. He also could not take kindly the
tendency of Shakespeare to pun and quibble and he said a quibbles was to him the fatal
Cleopatra for which he lost the world and was contempt to lose it.
 As Dr. Johnson was a moralist, he frankly critical of the immorality of
Shakespeares plays. The current notion of the barbarity of the age could not satisfy him. To
him it was the paramount beauty of an author to teach these didactic attitudes towards
literature led him to detect many faults with Shakespeare. It was because of his strong sense
of morality that he could not appreciate the depth of Shakespeares tragedy:

His tragedy seems to be his skill , his comedy to be his instinct

His vigorous defences of Shakespeare against the attacks of Voltaire is memorable, Voltaire
expresses his wonder that our authors extravagances are endured by a nation which has
seen the tragedy of Cato. Let him be answered, that Addison speaks that language of poets,
and Shakespeare, of men.

Finally, we find in his plays certain trends and stresses in his criticism
through which he anticipated certain movements in the later period. His stress on
characterization connect him with the romantic critics of the next century . Secondly he
anticipated the historical school when he insisted upon the generic aspect of the
characterization of Shakespeare or when he said: every mans performances to be rightly
estimated must be compare with the state of the age in which he lived and his own particular
opportunities.

Thus we may conclude that Dr. Johnson was undoubtedly a neo- classicist in his
criticism of Shakespeare. But he was not a slavish follower of them; nor did he merely sum
up tendencies before him. In many respect he shows his individuality and independent point-
of-view. His vigorous defence of the mingling of tragic and comic elements and his
declaration of the great place of Shakespeare because of his non-conformity to the rules of
unities have a special value to his Shakespeare criticism. Unfortunately Dr. Johnson could
not transcend the limitation of moral outlook of his age and was devoid of the feeling for
Shakespeares poetry.