Samuel Johnson’s ‘Preface to Shakespeare’: An Analysis
It must be kept in mind that Samuel Johnson’s essay titled ‘Preface to Shakespeare’ was published in the late 18th century, only one and a half centuries after Shakespeare. At the time there was no proper critical work on the man. Therefore, Johnson was one of the first to have published an all encompassing collection of Shakespeare’s works. It would be inaccurate to refer to ‘Preface to Shakespeare’ as an essay, rather it is a work of “conjectural criticism” as Johnson calls it. ‘Preface to Shakespeare’ can be divided into 2 parts: the man himself and the art of literary criticism.
At the beginning Johnson uses the metaphor of the numerous
mountain ranges and rivers to refer to the magnanimity and the
profundity of various writers. He says that it would be incorrect to
praise the ancients at the expense of the modern writers for not all
modern writers are unworthy. Thus, there are many lofty mountains
and deep rivers that we do not know of. Classical writers like Homer
are universal and we can find an equivalent in William Shakespeare (1564–1616). Johnson considers Shakespeare’s merits and flaws within the domains of theatre. English theatre in the late 16th century was in its nascent stage as the people had no exact knowledge about stagecraft or the classical rules for that matter, and this explains why Shakespeare was able to experiment according to his “nature”. He has been criticized for not following the three unities but this is actually a merit according to Johnson, because practically speaking, the unities of time and place are flawed notions. These two unities are interlinked because if in the course of the action a character were to be portrayed in two different geographical locations then a significant amount of time should have passed for the character to have travelled the distance. Therefore, since drama is performed on stage for an hour or so it is impossible to maintain the unities of time and place because it is absurd. Johnson says that theatrical performances are not to be mistaken for reality, because in reality, life never plays out in the span of one day. Moreover, it is the imagination which gives more scope to the audience as the mind can perceive the stage as two different places. Thus the idea of theatre keeping in tune with reality is absurd and Shakepseare is to be commended for not following these ancient rules. Another merit would be that he follows the unity of action, that is to say that the plot in his plays are coherent and the events are sequentially connected so as to not take the audience on a totally different track of action. He might have sub plots in his plays but they tend to interconnect with the main plot thus ensuring a variety of themes and at the same time coherence of action. Johnson has criticized Shakespeare for writing without instructing morally, but Shakespeare’s aim was to cater not just to the upper classes, but also to the groundlings. This explains why his plays were popular amongst different kinds of people. We can find aristocrats and commoners in his plays and each of these characters play an important role, not to forget, the clowns who wear “motley” which is symbolic of an ass or a donkey.
These clowns can be gross at times with their jests but they tend to deliver hard hitting lines about life which can even take an upper class audience by surprise. After all, how can a fool be so full of depth? We must not forget that Johnson critcizes this lack of morality because he wrote this essay in the Augustan era (18th century) which was highly moral, but Shakespeare was writing in the 16th century when English Theatre had not yet developed and England was just starting to rise in the literary world. Shakespeare definitely does not endorse immorality, in fact he was a commercial writer, and catering to the upper and lower classes earned him success. Shakespeare never craved future recognition and fame and this is proven by the fact that he never published a collection of his works as he was intent on present success. Johnson goes on to say that Comedy came naturally to Shakespeare and that Tragedy seemed strained. It is true that the comic wit of Shakespeare is unparalleled. The ricochet of wit is quick and sudden and can be usually seen between two lovers or the clown and other characters in the play. Speaking of characters, Johnson rightly points out that Shakespeare holds a “true mirrour” to life as seen in the universality of his characters. Voltaire criticizes his characters for being inconsisent but we all know that human beings can never be consistent, because Johnson points out that even kings love wine although it may be considered too base for a regal figure. This is where Shakespeare’s greatest charm lies, because he reveals man in all his shades: his kings celebrate victories with wine; princes can usurp the throne by sinfully killing the king; the clown can be profound; the lover becomes poetic when thinking of his lady love; Some people can be purely evil for no reason whatsoever (Don John and Iago); even the lady can be wittier than her lover; or a lady can be mentally stronger than her lord; and so on. Shakespeare’s insight can be seen in his ability to reveal the innermost workings of the mind as seen in the case of Othello and his insecurities. However, when it comes to Tragedy, Johnson says that Shakespeare is not skilful enough because he seems to suddenly unknot his Tragedies with total destruction. This is true as we have seen in the endings of Hamlet and Macbeth but we cannot deny the fact that these plays have their own sense of profundity which we can all resonate with.
We all know about the gravedigger scene in Hamlet (Act 5 Scene 1) which speaks of the insignificance of man in the face of time. Johnson also criticizes Shakespeare for his incessant use of puns which can sometimes be insipid and dull. Sometimes it doesn’t even make sense, but when it does, it can be pleasing to the groundlings because quite often the puns can be gross, but at the same time there are also witty puns which can please the upper classes or perhaps the lower classes as well. Thus, he caters to both classes in society, and the audience must understand that one man’s disgust is another man’s entertainment. It must be noted that some of Shakespeare’s plays were a mixture of Tragedy and Comedy as seen in the introduction of comic relief scenes in Tragedies such as The Porter Scene in Macbeth (Act 2 Scene 3), and some tragic scenes in Comedies as can be seen in the ending of Twelfth Night where Malvolio becomes an isolated character. This keeps in tune with realism, if any drama ought to portray reality, because Johnson says that life is never on one track since every human being experiences the binaries of life such as happiness and sorrow, and hope and despair. Shakespeare has also been criticized by Dennis and Rhymer for being anachronistic as his Romans are not so Roman, but Johnson says that Shakespeare might have presented the ancient races as people with English attitudes and culture, but most importantly he focuses on the inherent human nature present in all of us and that is why Shakespeare never really concerned himself with the external aspects that might differentiate one culture from another. Whatever be the merits and faults of Shakespeare, he has proven himself in appealing to the universal nature of man, and it is this that makes him the Father of the English Stage. It is important to note that he also gave shape to the English Theatre when it was in an undeveloped state.
The metaphor about the rare rock and the sand can ideally sum up Johnson’s criticism on Shakespeare. In this metaphor Johnson refers to Shakespeare as the rock/diamond which stands in its place over time and the sand as the other poets or writers who keep getting washed away with each passing year only to give way to fresh sand that is brought on to the shore by the sea that represents time. Thus, this metaphor establishes the universal appeal of Shakespeare’s plays which is precisely the reason why people connect with his plays even today, “today” for Johnson being the 18th century, and we can safely confirm that Shakespeare’s importance has still not diminished in the 21st century.
Finally, about the art of criticism, Johnson says that critics tend to better one another by defaming one another with incessant expletives. Similar to the rock and sand metaphor, here Johnson implies that there is no point in such proclamations of pride on the part of conjectural critics because with time society changes and people change. What was once a victorious achievement for the critic might amount to nothing but ashes in the future. Therefore, Johnson claims a stance of neutral objectivity when analyzing the works of Shakespeare. Johnson has given credit to critics from whom he has borrowed; has tried to maintain the originality of the texts as far as possible, thus saving it from the unholy intrusions of some other critics; and he has also abstained from belittling his fellow critics. He uses the metaphor of Roman Honour to describe the aim of literary criticims as it involves defending the citizen (conjecture) rather than killing the enemy
(fellow critics). Johnson’s neutral objective stance is one in which he has his guard up through all the centuries, because at the end he states that there are portions which he has elaborated on and there are portions which he may have missed out, but he hopes that the readers would not accuse him of anything since these are his views. He also states that he recognizes the very nature of a critic’s job which is subject to being outdated at any given moment, and so he has signed up for this work in a healthy manner where he has maintained a neutral stance unlike some critics who seem more bent on killing the enemy than defending the citizen. To conclude, I will say that Johnson aptly states that if a critic requires many words to prove his fellow critic wrong then perhaps that fellow critic is right, and that if a critic needs many words to prove himself right then perhaps he is wrong. Johnson’s neutrally objective stance accounts for why his essay ‘Preface to Shakespeare’ is still widely acknowledged as a canonical piece of work when it comes to learning William Shakespeare. Johnson may have some of his own personal views, but the difference is that he never imposes these views on his readers with the confidence of a braggart who breaks his sword upon a stone only to show how bravely he fought.
