Judicial Criticism
Judicial criticism is a type of literary criticism where the critic judges and evaluates a literary work based on certain rules, standards, and principles. The critic looks at the quality, correctness, and worth of the work and decides if it is good or bad. This method tries to be fair, balanced, and reasonable rather than emotional or personal.
Main Features of Judicial Criticism
Judgment Based on Standards – The critic uses accepted rules of literature, such as unity, clarity, harmony, and style, to judge the work.
Objective Approach – The critic tries to avoid personal feelings and judges the work with fairness.
Attention to Craft – The critic studies how well the writer has used plot, character, language, and structure.
Moral and Artistic Value – The work is judged not only for its beauty but also for its message and effect on readers.
Famous Judicial Critics and Works
Aristotle – In "Poetics", he set rules for tragedy, such as unity of plot and proper use of catharsis.
Horace – In "Ars Poetica", he gave advice on how poetry should be written with balance and order.
Samuel Johnson – In "Preface to Shakespeare", he praised Shakespeare but also pointed out his faults, showing balanced judgment.
Matthew Arnold – In essays like "The Function of Criticism at the Present Time", he stressed the importance of high standards in literature.
Importance in Literature
Judicial criticism helps readers understand what makes a literary work excellent or weak. It teaches careful evaluation and respect for literary art. While modern critics often mix different approaches, judicial criticism still plays a role in helping readers think clearly and judge literature with reason and fairness.