In his ‘Poetics’, Aristotle declares that all kinds of art are imitations. Aristotle's view of poetry was different than that of Plato. He claimed that art imitates characters, emotions and actions that are taken from real world. According to Aristotle, poetry imitated the world of  the human spirit. He believes that literature is true, serious and useful. He divides poetry into epic, tragedy, comedy and religious poems; these kinds, as he says, are only different in the medium of their representation which involves rhythm, language and music. The second difference lies in showing man and his actions either as they are, better or worse. The third difference is the way of representation. Therefore, Aristotle's division depends on the various modes of imitation.

In Aristotle's opinion, if the poet imitates noble actions of noble men, that means he is within the mode of Tragedy. On the other hand, if the writer (poet) imitates wicked men and their follies he is following the mode of comedy. The ‘Poetics’ compares between Tragedy and Epic poetry. Both of them are written in verse, however they differ in length. Moreover, tragedy takes place in one day, whereas epic observes no limit of time. The tragedy, also, is dramatic, while the epic is narrative. Both the tragedy and epic share the feature of having an entire action which has a beginning, middle and end. Concerning the language and style, the epic is written in heroic couplets and due to the narration it can represent several parts of the action at the same time, also, its writers are allowed to lie to the readers for the sake of entertainment. On the contrary, tragedy is written in iambic pentameters, it is impossible to represent several parts of the action at the same time and it never attempts to impossible (lies).

Aristotle has his own ideas about ‘Tragedy’, from which he explained its function. According to him, the function of tragedy is the purgation of feelings through the arousing of pity and terror. He thought about tragedy as a representation of a serious action that is complete in itself and of proper length. The language of tragedy is used through different artistic devices. It does not depend on narration but mainly on action. Aristotle divides ‘Tragedy’ into six parts: fable, manners (characters), diction or language, sentiments (thoughts), decoration or spectacle, and song. What is of maximum importance is the plot and the ordering of the incidents. ‘Tragedy’, according to Aristotle, is a representation of action and life.

A plot must have a beginning, a middle and an end. It must, also, be reasonable in size and, at the same time, since it is a representation of an action, it must present it as a unified whole. Plots could have a reversal or a discovery, in other words, the plot may include a change from one state to the opposite of it (a reversal), or a change from ignorance to knowledge (a discovery). Plots are of three kinds; the first is the simple, in which the change of fortune does not involve a reversal or a discovery. The second kind is the complex, which may involve a reversal, a discovery, or both. The last is calamity, it is an action of destructive or painful nature.

Aristotle divides ‘Tragedy’ into four kinds, the complex, which depends on reversal and discovery, the tragedy of suffering, tragedy of character, and spectacular tragedy. The best tragedy possible could be formed out of combining these kinds. The separate sections into which the work is divided are the prologue, which represents the first entry of the chorus, the episode, which comes between complete choral songs, the epilogue which is the final part of the tragedy followed by the exode or the total end. The tragedy must have its complication, that is to say, the development of action before the change of fortune, climax or the peak of the plot. It also must have a denouement, which means a part that starts after the climax and shows the unraveling of the plot till the end.

Tragedy should represent actions that arouse pity and fear. This could happen when the tragedian represents an undeserved misfortune, this will excite the audience's pity and fear. Consequently, the tragic should neither be perfectly good nor utterly bad. His change of fortune should be through some error of human judgment, but the hero should be a person of high rank and nobility. The character should enjoy being good, his portrayal should be appropriate possessing manly qualities that are suitable for a woman to be given such qualities. Moreover, the character should be life-like and his character should not suffer sudden changes.

Diction or language is closely connected to sentiments. Language must be clear without being common, this could be achieved through the skillful use of figures of speech. If this aim is attained, sentiments will be aroused and the function of tragedy will be fulfilled by the awakening of emotions such as pity, fear and anger. Finally, music and decoration or spectacle, are pleasurable additions, but they have the least to do with the playwright's skill.

The plot is the arrangement of incidents, also it is the most important constituent in tragedy; as there would not be any play without the plot. These incidents should be well connected and if any part is omitted or taken away it will destroy the whole play.

The plot should have a certain magnitude, that is to say, a certain length. It should not be too short or too long. If the plot is too short, it would be meaningless and if it is too long, the audience would forget its beginning when they get to its end. The plot should be of a reasonable length in order to be understood and retained by the memory. Moreover, the plot should have a beginning, a middle and an end. The action of the plot should be sufficiently extended to be enough to admit a change of fortune from happiness to unhappiness or the opposite. The incidents should, also, be necessary and probable, and they should be well connected.

There are three kinds of a plot. First, the episodic plot, it is the worst kind of plot because the episodes or events follow each other without any connection. Second is the simple plot, it is the plot in which catastrophe is produced without either revolution or discovery. The third is the plot in which catastrophe is produced with either a revolution or a discovery or both and the incidents of its good plot follow from each other and they are well connected. This type is considered the best type of plot.

The plot of tragedy should be so formed that it arouses emotions of pity and fear among the spectators. The best tragic plot is the one that shows a good man, not perfectly good, suffering as a consequence of some error or fault on his part.

The plot should have the unties of tragedy. The unity of action which means that the tragedy should have one action and one plot only. The unity of time, that is the action of the plot must not exceed twenty-four hours. Concerning the unity of place, Aristotle never mentions it.

Plato's remarkable book ION represents a conversation between Socrates and Ion. Here Plato presents the theory of inspiration. In it, he shows the poet as a recipient who is inspired, or, as a magnet that attracts iron rings. It is noted that Plato's works are written in the form of a conversation. He believed that knowledge could not be taught except through discussions in order to reach the truth. In ION, Socrates says “For all good poets compose their beautiful poems not by art, but because they are inspired and possessed”. The conversation, also, showed that this inspiration is divine. According to the common views about poets in Plato's time; the poet is divinely inspired and not wholly responsible for what he utters; “for not by the art does the poet sing, but by power divine”.

In spite of Plato's praise of poetry. He believed that it does not offer reality but unreal imitations, far removed from the real idea or form. This kind of imitation is reached through steps. The world we see in the form of objects is a reflection of the ultimate truth, fixed principles and ideas. That means, the object in front of our eyes are a first hand imitation of the ultimate truth. Anyone, a poet, for instance, imitating those individual objects is imitating an imitation and so he produces something far removed from reality. He charges poetry of giving, through fiction, stories about things that did not happen and fantasy that can mislead us. That is why he banished poets from his ideal state. His conclusion is that art could be a dangerously deceptive force. Plato's opinion is that reality is found only in the world of ideas; not the objects that reflects ideas. The poet is a person who deals with the world of appearance, and thus makes only copies of the copies. Since the poet leads man twice away from truth, Plato considers him dangerous to society. Although Plato is an admirer of poetry, he finds that he must banish the poet from his ideal republic. It is the limited moral and educational value of poetry that leads to Plato's theory of art and his rejection to the presence of poets in his ideal state.

Plato banishes literature and art because they have no political utility, also they may influence the virtue of people in a negative way and that will contradict with the idea of his ideal republic. Because poetry is a second hand imitation, Plato goes on to argue that poetry appeals to the lower and less rational part of our nature. It strengthen the lower elements of feelings and passion at the expense of reason. Poetry has a bad moral influence on those who hear it because they admire it and try to model themselves on the weakness and the fault it represents. He finally points out that since the poets ability for doing harm seems to be great, Plato excludes the poet from his ideal republic.

Plato did not find better than the traditional system for the education of the heroes; which has two divisions, gymnastic for the body and music for the soul. Especially in the case of young and tender thing, the beginning is the most important part, as it is the time at which the character is being formed and the desired impression is more readily taken.

He begins by teaching music before gymnastic. This includes to parts, literatural part which may be true or fable, and musical part. For the literature part, he had to put some principles for his education. First, concerning gods, that god is not the author of all things, but he is the creator of good things only and cannot be the creator of bad and evil things. Second, that god is not a magician who appears in various and many shapes and deceives us with these transformations, but he remains absolutely and forever in his own unchangeable form. Third, he taught them that they must be brave and courageous men who must take away the fear of death from their hearts. Fourth, he taught them that slavery is a very discarded thing and they must prefer to die free than to live in slavery and that they should fear slavery more than death.

Moreover, Plato adds that the feeling that life is worthless and without any meaning or true aim, is the most terrible and horrible feeling at all. His fifth principle is that they must believe that life is a mixture of good fortune and bad fortune. Life is not always happy and not always miserable. He taught them that they must avoid crying, weeping, wailing and lamentations upon the dead people. Further, he said that good men must not consider death as a terrible thing even if it attacked one of their comrades. The seventh principle was to encourage them to be temperate and moderate in dealing with every thing in life; their obedience to their commanders, their eating, drinking, and even in their sexual relations.

Plato's eighth principle was concerning the endurance. He taught them to endure their sadness and their sorrow in a very brave way as, for example, what the verse says “He smote his breast, and thus reproached his heart, Endure, my heart, for worse hast thou endured”. The ninth and the last principle is that they must not be receivers of bribes or lovers of money. He encourages them to be good and honest people.

According to Horace, if the writer was careful and used his taste in arranging words, moreover, if he coined (used new words), he will express himself effectively. He says “Charm of words always endure. Many words that have lapsed in use will be reborn, and many........will die”. But, for him, concerning Comedy and Tragedy, he says that the iambic meter is to be used because it “it best fitted for dialogue”, “able to drown out the noise of the audience” and “suitable for action”.

The style of Tragedy and Comedy should be different. According to Horace, Tragedy could be written in verse, while verse is not suitable for Comedy. With characters, Horace argues that the dramatic characters should be convincing, true to life and probable. They must convey themselves “Sad words are appropriate to a sorrowful face, furious words are fitting to the angry, jests to the merry”.....etc. Horace advises the author, if he is attempting something new he has to keep it close to reality he says “You must mark the characteristics of each period of life and present what is fitting to the various natures and ages”.

The essay moves forward to the use of the Chorus and of music. The Chorus must have a function and must help to advance the action. While the music, the flute, for instance, adds movement and decoration, and may accompany the Chorus. Further more, the use of wisdom and intellectual insight will not succeed if the writer did not take real manners as his model and followed the living language.

According to Horace, “The aim of the poet is to inform and delight, or to combine together in what he says, both pleasure and applicability to life”. He adds “He who combines the useful and the pleasing wins out by both instructing and delighting the reader”.

Longinus does not want for the sublime writer to write through his inspiration, but he wants him to learn a certain system that consists of two things; first there must be some defect in the subject, and second there must be some indication of the methods by which we may, ourselves, reach the desired god.

Sublimity is the excellence in thought and distinction in expression. From this source only, the greatest poets and historians have won for themselves an eternity. Concerning the effect of sublimity on the reader, Longinus does not want to persuade them but to be able to enter them all the time, and in every way. What transports us with wonder is more telling than what merely persuades us. The reason is because the extent of us to be persuaded is under our own control.

True sublime must fill the reader with a sense of grandeur. It must fill the reader with a sense of joy and leave a reflection in the reader's mind than the mere words convey. It must please all men at all times, all men who differ in their way of life, their ambitions, their ages and their languages. All must think in one and in the same way about the same work.

There were fine sources of sublime. First, and the most important, is the ability to form ground conception. Second, comes the powerful inspired emotion. These two elements of the sublime are very largely innate. Third, the proper formation of the two types of figures, figure of thought and figure of speech. Fourth, the certainty of the noble language which in its turn maybe restored to the choice of words, the use of imagery, and elaboration of style. The fifth source of grandeur is the total effect resulting from dignity and elevation.

Sidney is considered the first of the great English poet-critics, because of his Apology For Poetry. The work is a ‘defense’ or ‘apology’ for imaginative writing in general. The body of Sidney's argument or defense falls under three general titles. First, he notes that poetry has been the first educator that leads to more civilized state and more sensitivity to knowledge. The second argument is represented as a philosophical argument about the aim of poetry. Sidney's third argument is about the moral value of poetry as based on the first two arguments. He attempts to establish poetry as the highest of all arts. He thinks that poetry is the best form of art that could please and instruct.

Sidney argues for the supremacy of poetry. He says that poetry is the first light given to ignorance, and the first great works of science, philosophy, history, and law, were all written in verse. Sidney stresses on the value of poetry referring to the Greeks who called their writers ‘makers of creations’. He says that the poet has an advantage over both, the philosopher and the historian. He wanted to defend poetry against the charge of being immoral, corrupting, lying and encourages idleness.

In answer to Plato's objections that poetry tells lies, Sidney answers that the poet invents; that is to say that the work of poetry is the telling of a story that is not literary true. Sidney believes that untruth may be valuable as a means of communicating wisdom. For Sidney, lies could be valuable if they are used as allegorical ways of teaching morality. Sidney defends imaginative literature, he investigates the nature and value of poetry. To him, the poet does not imitate, express, or discuss things that already exists; he invents new things. Invention is the main feature of a poet, he creates new things by drawing on his wit. The world of poetry, for Sidney, is better than the real world. The ideal world of the poet is of value because it is better than the real world and it is presented in a way that leads the reader to try to imitate it. The imitation is not done by the poet, it is something that the reader has to do to benefit from poetry. In the world of the poet, goodness prevails and wickedness is punished; this is the meaning of ‘poetic justice’.

Aristotle believes that all kinds of poetry involve imitation or representation. The objects imitated are men in action, “men doing or experiencing something, they are either better, worse or the same”. He does not describe what has happened but what might happen, “what is possible as being probable”, meaning what a man probably or necessarily do. He does not imitate particular events or situations that he views or invents. He presents them in a way that brings out their universal characteristics, and within this the truth kindly recognized and appreciated. He believes that by proper selection and organization of incidents, the poet can achieve a reality, more profound than the ordinary surface of things which we meet in ordinary experience.

Plato: Reality, for Plato, consists of the idea of things of which individual objects are more reflections. Anyone who imitates these objects, is imitating an imitation. For instance, any human example of courage, or any other virtue, represents an imitation not of virtue, but of the idea of that virtue. In this sense, the poet, according to Plato, imitates reality without understanding it; this shows a lack of knowledge and useful purpose.

According to Plato, the real artist should be interested in realities not imitations. For example, if Homer had understood what makes men behave well instead of just describing them; he would have been a good instructor, so poetry is far removed from the truth because it springs from improper knowledge and lack of understanding of how to use this knowledge.

Sidney: According to Sidney, the poet does not imitate or represent things as they are, he invents new things and creates a new world. This world is better than the real one, a world in which friends are more constant, and warriors are more valiant. In creating this world, he has his own idea of the quality he is presenting. The ideal world according to Sidney, is better than real life because he represents the essence of reality in such a way that the reader is driven to try and imitate, and this leads to an improvement in their actions. He believes that poetry is a superior means of communication, and poetry is justified if it represents or communicates historical, philosophical or moral truth. Thus, Sidney changes Aristotle's probable ‘should’ to a moral ‘should’. To Sydney, the poet wrote of what thought to be in a purely moral sense.

Dryden: Image means the appearance of human nature, meaning: what human nature is as reflected through their actions, it shows people acting in such a way that reveals what they are like. In doing this, Dryden emphasizes appearance, disregarding Plato's notion that to do so is to imitate an imitation. Dryden believes that if the appearance is exact (just) then it is true. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the appearance and truth about human nature.

How can we get exact representation of human nature through actions (passion and humours)? By viewing the character's action to the change of fortune, we can see his passions and his humors, and how this exhibits its true nature. It is a revealing and telling situation that sheds light on the true nature of the character. The image must be, then, a representation of reality because he represents and informs the reader about what human nature is like. Thus, it is a sort of psychological realism. The image is revealed through men's acting and suffering. The aspects for human nature, for poetry, must be illustrated by people whose fate involves more than just their own personal fortunes, and their conflicts involve a larger outer world possessing nature's representation of human possibilities on a large scale. This could be achieved by choosing characters exalted in their position for their fate to affect whole countries. The story becomes more interesting and far reaching in its effect because it deals with characters who are interesting, and because they involve the fortunes of so many others. The image must be lively conveyed in a pleasing and a delightful manner. The knowledge partly pleases because it is pleasant to increase our awareness of human nature, and partially because of the delightful manner in which it is conveyed. A psychologist may give an exact image of human nature, but it could not be entertaining or pleasant, it would be dull. The function of poetry would be to inform the reader in a lively, agreeable and entertaining manner, what human nature is like. The delight is desired from the liveliness with which human nature is presenting, and from recognizing, in imaginary and fictional characters, fundamental and universal psychological truth about human nature. Here the instruction is not moral, but it is an instruction in facts about the human nature. The critics of the period used the word instruction in connection with moral teaching. Dryden, however, meant that by providing a delightful and agreeable representation of human nature as revealed under testing circumstances, the poet delights through the element of recognition of what is already known about this nature, and at the same time the reader is instructed in human nature; i.e.: He tells us what we did not know before.

Wordsworth and Coleridge had certain agreements concerning poetry and they delivered them in a preface. But, after twenty years Coleridge wrote an argument against him; this argument lies in three main points.

The first point concerns the language of poetry and the language of prose. Coleridge said if Wordsworth meant that the language of poetry and the language of prose are the same in their subject matter and diction, this is true. But Coleridge added that he had something different in his mind and believes that what he means is the arguments of words in lines, so it is not true that poetry is the same as prose.

The second argument concerns the figures of speech, particularly personification. Wordsworth was against personification, but Coleridge agreed saying if a certain image is used it can have different effect. He adds that borrowing itself is not bad if the word is used in the right place and gives the effect needed. This happens by following a system or a method. He said it has to be grammatically right, logic, philosophic and it must apply to logic and feelings. It should appeal to good sense and great taste, and he called this the rules of imagination.

The last argument concerns the educated and uneducated language used by the poet. He says that the poet is made of what he learns. According to Wordsworth, the poet should go back to the language of simple people in everyday life. Coleridge was against this, because the poet must not neglect or disregard what he learns. Wordsworth was against poetic diction and the language of educated people, but, Coleridge says that the poet cannot make a separation between what he learns and what he uses.

Coleridge was clever enough to pick up a contradiction done by Wordsworth that in the preface he uses the word selection and he is choosing education. Wordsworth admits indirectly in his preface that we should not use the clumsy words of rustics, so he must select to be natural as possible and this is a contradiction. Wordsworth based his language on rustics and farmers but Coleridge objected this saying that: Rustics and farmers are not the real men, they are only a section of society and he continued his objection and gave it in three points. First, the use of the language of rustics can be done only in pastoral poetry and this is not all kinds of poetry. Even in pastoral poetry we cannot use only the rustic's language. There is no pastoral poetry from the beginning to the end written only in rustic language, sure it will include some ordinary words used by every one. The second point is that we cannot use the rustic language with ordinary language, it might be used in some words not all the language of the poem. Lastly, it is still useless because not all people will understand this language; it is colloquial and low. If you are refined and read this language your language will not be elevated but it will be degraded.

Coleridge, moreover, says that if we select words from the rustic language, it is still a low one. According to Wordsworth the pleasure excited from this poetry will have three reasons: the first reason is that the excitement naturalness which lies on simple, primitive people, the rustic people. When people appreciate such naturalism they will appreciate the poem and the poet. The second reason is that in describing nature, the poet adds some of his experience, ideas and thoughts. This made the poem not mere imitation but something unique, new and different. The third reason for excitement lies in the reader himself, he should be conscious of his superiority to this kind of language. That is why Wordsworth used the rustic's language in his poems.

Finally, to conclude, Coleridge said that the language of poetry should not be that of rustics, but it should be refined; of poetic diction, philosophers and kings. On the other hand he gave an example of Shakespeare who when used the language of common people he used it in prose. He also adds that the best poem written by Wordsworth does not have the rustics. He points out that the rustics can be only used if they are natural and have religious education which he called sensibility but this does not exist in them now. Therefore, unless they be educated and sensible they should not be used. He meant by education, morals learned from their ancestors not reading or writing; that is why he was completely against them. The only thing he admired in them was that they are independent farmers, no one moves them or control their lives.

John Dryden is considered the father of English criticism. During the time between Sidney's Defense of Poetry and Dryden’s first essay An Essay on Dramatic Poesy, France became the place of revival for literary criticism and drama. England was bound to be influenced by neo-classicism, but this influence grew gradually. This development can be shown by stages of Dryden’s long critical career.

Dryden’s Essay on Dramatic Poesy takes the form of a dialogue between four characters. These characters are Crites, Eugenius, Lisideius and Neander. The essay begins by a definition of the play on which all agree. This definition is a typically neo-classical definition in so far as it emphasizes the necessity of truth to nature or exact imitation of human nature.
 

Opposition Between Ancient and Modern Drama
 

Defense of Ancient Drama (Crites):

Crites leads the following arguments in defense of ancient drama. Crites states that Greece and Rome are the native countries of drama, ancient drama has there attained an early maturity. In ancient times, Art and Poetry are regarded as the greatest of human activity. The artists were, therefore, greatly respected. This urged them to excel, and the survival of their works of art proves the extent of this excellence. In ancient times all interest fell on art, while in the 17th century the interest shifted to science, and art occupied a secondary place. Moreover, the ancients established the form, the rules, and the three unities which the moderns greatly respected and attempt to imitate.
 

Defense of Modern Drama (Both English and French) (Eugenius):

Eugenius answers back Crites. He bases his defense of modern drama against ancient drama on technical and moral bases, following, thus, the neo-classical approach of criticism. Modern drama is better than ancient drama both technically and morally.

Technically, ancient drama is defective. In structure, ancient plays lack the unity of time and place, which are French in origin and not Aristotelian or ancient. Ancient plots are defective as well, in tragedy they depended on myth and in comedy the plot depends on stock types and flat characters.

Morally, modern drama is superior to ancient drama because ancient drama lacks moral technique. The themes of ancient works of art are full of lust and revenge and instead of arousing pity they arouse horror. At this point of the essay Crites makes a concession which reveals Dryden’s attitude as a broad-minded neo-classicist. Crites admits that the modern have improved on the ancients in morality. This makes modern drama different from, but yet, not better than ancient drama.
 

Opposition Between French Neo-classical Drama and Elizabethan or English Drama

Defense of French Neo-classical Drama (Lisidius):

Lisidius leads the following arguments in defense of French drama. He believes that the French drama is too far superior than English drama. Technically, they insist on the observation of the three unities and hence regularity of plot. Thus the play represents one unified action. A French play is distinguished in so far it is pure, either comic or tragic. The practice of mixing tragic and comic elements is an English practice that is refused by French dramatists. A French play is either tragic or comic. The two elements are never mixed in a French play. The French modify historical events to serve dramatic end. History is subjected to the three unities and does not extend to cover many years and places, as the case in English drama.
 

Defense of English Drama (Neander):

To defend English plays against French plays, Neander uses the neo-classical test of truth to nature. Testing both kinds of drama, he finds English drama truer to life. Neander begins by admitting the regularity of French plays, the purity of their plots, the excellence of their technique and their observation of the principle of decorum and propriety. But, he insists that English plays have qualities of their own that make them more effective. He leads the following points to support his argument: The first is that the strict observation of the rules deprive French plays from artistic excellence. Second, the purity of plot is not always a measure of attaining either excellence or truth to nature. Mingling the two elements makes the play truer to nature, for life is far from being pure; our tears end with a smile and our smiles with tears. In this sense the impurity of English plots is more effective than the purity of French plots. Third, French plays are regular, as they follow the unities and are dependent on one unified action. On the other hand, English plays use sub-plots and minor elements. Sub-plots and such devices make the play richer and maintain its unity and regularity if well integrated into the main plot. Fourth, what counts is the production of great works of art and not strict observation of rules. The English can produce regular and pure plays. Jonson’s Silent Woman is cited as an example of an English play strictly following the rules. The English can follow the rules but they prefer not for artistic reasons and also not to be boring. Lastly, the fact remains that the English plays are more original, more varied and full of life than French plays.

Neander expresses the view of Dryden at the early stage of his development as a critic. Dryden, later changed his view in favor of the French neo-classical drama and in favor of following the rules strictly. But, he maintained his respect for Shakespeare as an individual genius, whose uniqueness can not be followed or imitated. Before ending the essay, Dryden makes his speaker discuss the question of the verse most suitable for dramatic purpose.
 

The Most Suitable Verse for Dramatic Purposes

Crites defends blank verse against rhyming verse which is said to be an artificial form of expression. He rejects the argument that rhyming verse is good in so far as it controls the wild fancies of the poet.

Neander (Dryden), on the other hand, defends rhyming verse against blank verse. He denies that rhyming verse is artificial. He points out that rhyming verse is universally used in serious plays. Blank verse has been exhausted as a form by Shakespeare and his contemporaries, and a new form has to be explored. What he states is attached to his definition of tragedy. Neander defines tragedy as a representation of nature, but nature brought up to a higher pitch. He concludes by saying that rhyming verse is thus suitable for tragic purposes. A dramatist who uses blank verse deprives tragedy from its high pitch and intensity.

Johnson believes that Shakespeare surpassed his age, his works are still read and still appreciated up till now. This is because the way he dealt with in his plays is universal and generic. When Johnson praises Shakespeare, it was not by rules that he respects greatly, but, he judged him by applying the test of durability which distinguishes the great poet. Shakespeare endures the test of time. Johnson agrees with Dryden that the play must be pleasing, entertaining and has to be just and of a general nature. But, Dryden cannot give us a general representation of nature. Shakespeare represents traits of characters that do not have individual characteristics, but we can learn from them something universal.

Johnson praises Shakespeare because he fulfills Dryden’s requirements of a just and lively image of human nature. According to Johnson, what is general is what is in common among people in all ages. Johnson learned from Shakespeare the universal truth of human nature. He is not referring to moral instruction but to general and universal ideas. Shakespeare's real power does not lie in detached passages but in total effect of style, in his skill in dialogue and in his development in his plots, this contributes to the effect of reality. When we say that Shakespeare's plays have no hero, we mean that they are not exaggerated nor are they demi-Gods or supermen as in the plays of Sidney in which heroes are totally good or totally bad. Shakespeare takes the supernatural element and translates it to common ordinary manner.

Johnson and Dryden believes that literature is a form of knowledge, it has no moral effect but instruction here means knowledge. When Shakespeare represents a king, he does not represent him as a king but as a human being who drinks and likes women as any ordinary character, also, when he portrays Caesar, he does not portray him as a Roman but as a human being. Shakespeare forgets about the minor details in order to represent universal characteristics. Shakespeare was blamed for having no poetic diction, violation of rules and mingling tragedy with comedy. Johnson was not against breaking the unities or mingling comedy with tragedy, but he did not forgive Shakespeare for his loose plots and no poetic justice. Shakespeare mingled comedy with tragedy because he is representing real life and there is no separation between them in real life. Johnson agreed with Shakespeare that in real life we experience both pleasure and pain together. Johnson also agreed with Neander and Eugenius that in tragedy people must be relieved from the tension of the play. He also said that Shakespeare must not be judged on the grounds of the ancients, because he did not follow their unities or write tragedies and comedies as they did. Shakespeare mixed wise men and foolish men.

When Shakespeare mentioned poetry, he meant giving us knowledge about human nature (facts), but when he mentioned other kinds of literature, he meant that at the end of writing there must be a moral lesson or moral instruction. Johnson says that you learn from what you get from human nature, like Dryden, he insists that there must be pleasing. The end of poetry is to instruct and please.

Johnson, now, will move to Shakespeare's defects. He said that he did not follow the unities strictly and this is not important. The defect that Johnson could not forgive is that Shakespeare did not use the poetic justice in his plays, he did not care to teach us a moral lesson or to show us that virtue is rewarded and vice is punished. The second defect is that, disregarding the unities, when he makes the place in Rome he is not accurate in describing the place. Another defect is that in his comedies, the conversation is light and they have no intelligence or wit. In sub-plots the jests are not lively because they have sexual features, not only fools but characters that belong to the sub-plots, they are not distinguished. Here we are against Johnson, because there is a difference between the refined characters of the sub-plot, they did not make any sexual reference so there is a distinction.

Shakespeare believes that through imagination the reader can accept anything that happens on stage. For instance, we can believe it is Alexandria and the next scene is in Rome and if we do not use our imagination the dramatic illusion will be broken.

According to Johnson, if I am always aware that it is a play on the stage, this does not lessen the pleasure or feelings of delight and instruction. But, according to Dryden, if you are aware that you are on the stage you would not have any entertainment. Johnson means by fancy and imagination, the ability of the reader to believe that what happens is on the stage, (this stage is not real life). He also believes that if he represents real life as it is, he will be presenting mere facts.