There are many similarities in the style of writing between the essays due to the two critics aiming for one thing; to get across their point and try to persuade the readers, influencing their opinion to agree with them. However, the differences that do occur are mainly due to the times they were written in. Johnson uses archaic words due to the fact he was a writer during the eighteenth century; “the poet that holds up to his readers a faithful mirrour of manners and of life,” ‘mirrour’ is an old version of spelling mirror, the difference in language does affect the style, especially when reading the text in a different time to which it was written in, the persuasive techniques may not be easily portrayed and therefore may not work when people from modern day are reading. Overall Johnson has a mostly positive opinion, this, in turn, affects his style as he praises Shakespeare’s work which makes the atmosphere upbeat, almost making Johnson seem excitable and passionate. Jardine goes for a completely different approach, she, on the other hand, has a completely different view as I have discussed previously, unlike Johnson, she criticises Shakespeare’s portrayal of women. This negative opinion allows Jardine to create a completely different atmosphere, using more modern persuasive techniques such as informing the reader her strong views straight away; “Shakespeare takes no position on women, any more than on any other issue,” Here Jardine does not allow the reader to form their own opinion, she is using an imperative technique to influence the readers to view in favour of hers. Comparing two critical texts that were written in different eras gives us an insight into the different ways of writing taking into consideration the context. Furthermore, the political views and social structure of society are drastically dissimilar when comparing the context of the two books and the eras they were written in. Women before the twentieth century did not have many rights and were considered naturally weaker than men, mentally and physically, even more so during Shakespeare’s life. It was typical to see women in literature as a femme fatale, usually a damsel in distress in need of a strong male character to save her. In addition Jessica Bomarito builds on this and argues women “were challenged with expressing themselves in a patriarchal system that refused to grant merit to women’s views,” when women were used in literature, they did not have a say in what was happening due to the lack of women writers during the seventeenth century what Bomarito and Jardine are addressing is that women were not able to stand up for themselves, they had to let stereotypes in literature appear and often conformed to them. Even during the eighteenth century, when Johnson wrote Preface to Shakespeare women did not see much in term of societal oppression towards them, it was only in the twentieth century that we saw a dramatic turn in women’s rights. Still Harping on Daughters was written in the late twentieth century, therefore, has the privilege to be able to address the lack of women in Shakespeare’s because it is seen as unusual that women were not represented.The significance of Samuel Johnson’s Preface to Shakespeare contributes to Shakespeare, building from him as it the most well-known critical essay that applies the principles of the time, comparing Shakespeare’s work with others and drawing on matters both classical and contemporary. Johnson seems to be addressing issues beyond Shakespeare’s plays but using them as a foundation to make general statements about society and the nature of his time. The intended purpose was to explain how a person who wants to critic an author’s work must first have some knowledge on how to write themselves, in order to compare writers and discuss their style and authenticity they should do their own research to determine if the literature is original. In addition to this Johnson tries to explain the Elizabethan era and its societal dynamics that were portrayed in Shakespeare’s plays to his audience in the early years of the Georgian era. He argued he was able to understand the universality of Shakespeare’s works more so than those of the seventeenth century, this was because he was able to read the plays out of context and take them out of one century and put them in another seen as Johnson was two centuries after Shakespeare. The characters of his plays are not limited to context and now can be applied to any society and are “the genuine progeny of common humanity”.