 |
[email protected] |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Samuel Johnson on Shakespeare: “A Poet of Nature”
ZHANG Xiu-fang
Full-Text PDF
XML 1549 Views
DOI:10.17265/2159-5836/2020.08.002
Southwest University, Chongqing; Hebei University of Engineering, Handan, China
Though many scholars and critics have made efforts explaining its connotation and influence from philosophical, religious and historical perspective about Samuel Johnson’s statement that Shakespeare is “A Poet of Nature”, it is still worthy of discussion. As a Neoclassical critic, Johnson revealed Shakespeare’s genuine faculties through comparison with Homer following John Dryden and Alexzander Popeto illustrate the dramatic writing process. Then Shakespeare’s genius in natural acquisition of human nature and literature tradition, adaptation and concatenation to make something novelty, and selection of original language and characters is exemplified to analyze mixed genre, irregular structure, natural dialogue and characters under the principle of general nature.
Samuel Johnson, Shakespeare, acquisition, adaptation and concatenation, general nature
Aristotle. (2007). Poetics. In D. H. Richer (Ed.), The critical tradition: Classic texts and contemporary trends (pp. 59-82). Boston and New York: Bedford/ST. Martin’s.
Davis, M. M. (2000). Conflicts of principle in Samuel Johnson’s literary criticism (Dissertations & Theses: University of Virginia).
Donaldson, I. (1986). Samuel Johnson and the art of observation. ELH, 53(4), 779-799.
Dryden, J. (1971). The works of John Dryden: Prose 1668-1691: An essay of dramatic poesieand shorter works (Vol. XVII). Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.
Engell, J. (1978). Johnson on novelty and originality. Modern Philology, 75(3), 273-279.
Evans, S. D. (1997). Samuel Johnson’s “general nature” in its context (Dissertations & Theses: Arizona State University).
Farrelly, J. P. (1972). Johnson on Shakespeare: “Othello”. Notre Dame English Journal, 8(1), 11-21.
Ferrero, B. (1991). Johnson, murphy, and Macbeth. The Review of English Studies, 42(166), 228-232.
Johnson, S. (1908). Johnson on Shakespeare. W. Raleigh (Ed.). London: Henry Frowde.
Johnson, S. (Ed.). (1755). A dictionary of English language. London: M, DDC, LXV, sixth edition, digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from Microsoft Corporation.
Johnston, S. W. (1976). Samuel Johnson’s text of “King Lear”: ‘Dull Duty’ reassessed. The Yearbook of English Studies, 6, 80-91.
Klingel, J. E. (1983). Reconciling Johnson’s views on poetic justice. Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature, 37(4), 195-205.
Knoblauch, C. H. (1980). Samuel Johnson and the composing process. Eighteenth-Century Studies, 13(3), 243-262.
Krieger, M. (1970-1971). Fiction, nature, and literary Kinds in Johnson’s criticism of Shakespeare. Eighteenth-Century Studies, 4(2), 184-198.
Payne, M. (1990). Imaginative licentiousness: Johnson on Shakespearean tragedy. College Literature, 17(1), 66-78.
Piper, W. B. (1978). Samuel Johnson as an exemplary critic. Texas Studies in Literature and Language, 3(20), 457-473.
Smallwood, P. (1996). Shakespeare: Johnson’s poet of nature. In G. Clingham (Ed.), Cambridge Companion to Samuel Johnson (pp. 143-160). Cambridge: Cambridge UP.