Reading comprehension

Question

His (Samuel Johnson's) famous argument against the slavish following of the “three unities” of classical drama is a good example, as is his defense of the supposedly illegitimate “tragicomic” mode of Shakespeare’s latest plays. Note, in particular, the basis of that defense: "That this is a practice contrary to the rules of criticism," Johnson wrote, "will be readily allowed; but there is always an appeal from criticism to nature."

According to the author, Johnson’s defense of Shakespeare’s latest plays illustrates Johnson’s reliance on which of the following in his criticism?

The answer is:
His own experience and judgment.

Could we infer from the given context above that Johnson's defense of Shakespeare's latest plays illustrates his reliance on his own experience and judgment. Or do you need additional context? I can put more here.

Thank you so much for your time.

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

Well, I certainly need more.

Jeff_999 · Answer

Thank you, Mr.M. Here's the two whole paragraphs:

"In other ways, too, Johnson’s critical method had much in common with that of the Romantics, with whom Johnson and, indeed, the entire neoclassical tradition are generally supposed to be in conflict. Johnson was well aware, for example, of the sterility of literary criticism that is legalistic or pedantic, as was the case with the worst products of the neoclassical school. His famous argument against the slavish following of the “three unities” of classical drama is a good example, as is his defense of the supposedly illegitimate “tragicomic” mode of Shakespeare’s latest plays. Note, in particular, the basis of that defense: “That this is a practice contrary to the rules of criticism,” Johnson wrote, “will be readily allowed; but there is always an appeal from criticism to nature."

The sentiment thus expressed could easily be endorsed by any of the Romantics; the empiricism it exemplifies is vital quality of Johnson’s criticism, as is the willingness to jettison “laws” of criticism when to do so makes possible a more direct appeal to the emotions of the reader. Addison’s Cato, highly praised in Johnson’s day for its “correctness,” is damned with faint praise by Johnson: “Cato affords a splendid exhibition of artificial and fictitious manners, and delivers just and noble sentiments, in diction easy, elevated, and harmonious, but its hopes and fears communicate no vibration to the heart.” Wordsworth could hardly demur."

This article is really hard for me to crack! I don't even know what it's talking about.

Eimai_Anglos · Answer

You are amongst friends. <img class='emoticon' style='Width:19px;Height:19px;' data-delaysrc='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' src='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' alt='Emotion: smile'/>

Mister Micawber · Answer

Could we infer from the given context above that Johnson's defense of Shakespeare's latest plays illustrates his reliance on his own experience and judgment?

I think so, Jeff, yes:

Johnson’s critical method had much in common with that of the Romantics[;]... a good example...is his defense of the supposedly illegitimate “tragicomic” mode of Shakespeare’s latest plays.... Note, in particular, the basis of that defense: “That this is a practice contrary to the rules of criticism,” Johnson wrote, “will be readily allowed; but there is always an appeal from criticism to nature."...the empiricism [this] exemplifies is [ a] vital quality of Johnson’s criticism, as is the willingness to jettison “laws” of criticism when to do so makes possible a more direct appeal to the emotions of the reader

Jeff_999 · Answer

Well, that the empiricism is vital quality of Johnson's criticism doesn't necessarily mean that his defense of Shakespeare's latest plays illustrates his reliance on his own experience. I think there got to be something that bridges them.

What does Johnson mean by saying "that this is a practice contrary to the rules of criticism will be readily allowed; but there is always an appeal from criticism to nature"?

Goldmund · Answer

Dear friends,

We may perhaps say that «to appeal to nature» is «to refer to the world in support of an argument».

We may not perhaps find «tragicomedy» in the rules of classical drama, but we may find it in the world.

Kind regards,

Goldmund

Jeff_999 · Answer

Thank you Goldmund. You're so kind <img class='emoticon' style='Width:19px;Height:19px;' data-delaysrc='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' src='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' alt='Emotion: smile'/> So you mean that in support of  argument we have to find the answer in the real world. Doesn't it also  imply that we should base on the experience?

MrPedantic · Answer

"That this is a practice contrary to the rules of criticism," Johnson wrote, "will be readily allowed; but there is always an appeal from criticism to nature."

Hello Jeff

When SJ talks about "nature", he inevitably means "nature as I know it". (By "nature", he means "the way things are"; or "the real world", to use Goldmund's phrase.)

If (for instance) I say "the world is tragicomic, like one of Shakespeare's plays", it means: "the world, in my experience, is tragicomic; like one of Shakespeare's plays (in my experience of Shakespeare's plays)".

So to that extent, you can say that SJ relies on his own experience and judgement.

(I suppose the critic means that SJ did not blindly apply traditional criteria in his criticism.)

MrP

Jeff_999 · Answer

Yes. Thank you masters. I got it.

Actually here's the whole acticle:
Many readers assume that, as a neoclassical literary critic, Samuel Johnson would normally prefer the abstract, the formal, and the regulated to the concrete, the natural, and the spontaneous in a work of literature. Yet any close reading of Johnson’s criticism shows that Johnson is not blind to the importance of the immediate, vivid, specific detail in literature; rather, he would underscore the need for the telling rather than the merely accidental detail.

In other ways, too, Johnson’s critical method had much in common with that of the Romantics, with whom Johnson and, indeed, the entire neoclassical tradition are generally supposed to be in conflict. Johnson was well aware, for example, of the sterility of literary criticism that is legalistic or pedantic, as was the case with the worst products of the neoclassical school. His famous argument against the slavish following of the “three unities” of classical drama is a good example, as is his defense of the supposedly illegitimate “tragicomic” mode of Shakespeare’s latest plays. Note, in particular, the basis of that defense: “That this is a practice contrary to the rules of criticism,” Johnson wrote, “will be readily allowed; but there is always an appeal from criticism to nature.”

The sentiment thus expressed could easily be endorsed by any of the Romantics; the empiricism it exemplifies is vital quality of Johnson’s criticism, as is the willingness to jettison “laws” of criticism when to do so makes possible a more direct appeal to the emotions of the reader. Addison’s Cato, highly praised in Johnson’s day for its “correctness,” is damned with faint praise by Johnson: “Cato affords a splendid exhibition of artificial and fictitious manners, and delivers just and noble sentiments, in diction easy, elevated, and harmonious, but its hopes and fears communicate no vibration to the heart.” Wordsworth could hardly demur.

Even on the question of poetic diction, which, according to the usual interpretation of Wordsworth’s 1800 preface to the Lyrical Ballads, was the central area of conflict between Romantic and Augustan, Johnson’s views are surprisingly “modern.” In his Life of Dryden, he defends the use of a special diction in poetry, it is true; but his reasons are all-important. For Johnson, poetic diction should serve the ends of direct emotional impact and ease of comprehension, not those of false profundity or grandiosity. “Words too familiar,” he wrote, “or too remote, defeat the purpose of a poet. From those sounds which we hear on small or on coarse occasions, we do not easily receive strong impressions, or delightful images; and words to which we are nearly strangers, whenever they occur, draw that attention on themselves which they should transmit to things.” If the poetic diction of the neoclassical poets, at its worst, erects needless barriers between reader and meaning, that envisioned by Johnson would do just the opposite: it would put the reader in closer contact with the “things” that are the poem’s subject.

Jeff_999 · Answer

But I have two questions that I still don't get.

1. It can be inferred from the passage that in addition to being a literary critic, Johnson was also a
(A) surprisingly modern poet
(B) poet in the Augustan mode
(C) dramatist
(D) biographer
(E) naturalist
The answer is biographer, but I can't infer it from the article.

2. Which one of the following statements best summarizes the main point of the passage?
(A) Although many of Johnson’s critical opinions resemble those of the neoclassical critics, his basic concerns are closer to those of the Romantics.
(B) The usual classification of Johnson as a member of the neoclassical school of criticism is based on an inaccurate evaluation of his critical theories and ideals.
(C) The Romantic critics were mistaken in their belief that the critical ideas they formulated represented a departure from those propounded by Johnson.
(D) Although many of Johnson’s critical opinions resemble those of the Romantic critics, his basic concerns are closer to those of the neoclassical critics.
(E) Johnson’s literary criticism represents an attempt to unify the best elements of the neoclassical and the Romantic schools of criticism.
The answer is A, but I think B sounds more right.

If you have time, please help me answer 'em. If you don't, that's okay.

'cause I see it's a little too long.

Reading comprehension

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions