Samuel Johnson: Preface to Shakespeare

Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)

Samuel Johnson, the son of Michael, a bookseller, was born at Lichfield, Staffordshire, on September 18,
1709. At an early age, he contracted a tubercular infection from his nurse that left him physically handicapped
with bad eyesight and partial deafness. Later, a bout of smallpox left him with facial scars. In spite of his
handicaps, he was determined to be independent and did not accept help from others. He was unable to play
regular sports but made up by learning other skills: boxing, swimming, leaping and sliding on frozen lakes
and ponds. He first went to Lichfield grammar schools and later to Stourbridge. At both schools, he was
acknowledged as a leader, both by his teachers and his fellow-students. After a gap of two years, he went to
Pembroke College, Oxford University and studied there for thirteen months but had to leave in 1729 because
of financial difficulties. He was fiercely independent and refused any kind of charity. While at Oxford, he had
only one pair of torn shoes with his toes coming through and one night, a man placed a pair of new shoes in
front of his room and when Johnson found them the next morning, he threw them away in anger and wounded
pride. Once out of Oxford, he went into depression for nearly two years and fearing that he might become
insane, even contemplated suicide. At this time, he also developed a compulsive tic that remained with him
for the rest of his life.
In 1732, Johnson went to Birmingham. Here the Porters helped him get out of his depression and regain his
self-confidence. Elizabeth Porter appreciated and cared for Johnson and in 1735, after the death of her
husband, she married Johnson, twenty years his senior. In the same year, Johnson published his first book, a
translation. With the financial support of his wife, Johnson opened a private school and David Garrick, who
later became a famous actor of the day, was one of his pupils here. However, the school venture was not a
success and he and Elizabeth moved to London in 1737. In London, he earned a meagre livelihood, working
as translator and writer. While at Litchfield and London, he wrote his tragedy Irene. He wrote regularly for
the Gentleman’s Magazine and contributed prefaces, short biographies, essays, reviews, and poems. His poem,
London: A Poem in Imitation of the Third Satire of Juvenal, published in May 1738, made his reputation. Pope
pronounced that the author of this poem would become famous. In 1744, Johnson wrote An Account of the
Life of Mr. Richard Savage, Son of the Earl Rivers, a revealing life account of his mysterious friend, Richard
Savage. Today this is recognized as a significant milestone in the art of writing “critical biography”.
The year, 1745 proved a literary turning point in Johnson’s life. He published a pamphlet on Macbeth that
won him Warburton’s praise, which he valued highly, because it came at a time when he most needed it. At
this time, he also began thinking about publishing an English Dictionary. In 1746, he signed an agreement
with a group of publishers, accepting a payment of 1575 pounds. The Italians published a dictionary in 1612,
which took them 20 years to prepare. The French dictionary published in 1694, engaged 40 scholars, who took
55years to prepare it and then another 18 years to revise it. The Oxford English Dictionary, which was a
collaborative work of more than 70 scholars, took nearly 70 years to complete. Johnson planned to complete
his ambitious project in three years but it took him nearly eight years to complete. This in itself was a
remarkable achievement. The dictionary was published in 1755. His financial condition improved once
Johnson received 1,575 pounds for the project.
In 1749, Johnson published his much-acclaimed poem, “The Vanity of Human Wishes: The Tenth Satire of
Juvenal”. In the following years, he wrote a large number of essays for his journal The Rambler. In 1759,
Johnson published his brilliant work Rasselas, Prince of Abyssinia. In October 1765, Johnson’s last great
work, The Plays of William Shakespeare, which had been delayed for so long, was published. The last period
of Johnson’s life was spent in the company of his friends, especially the Thrales and James Boswell. On 17
June 1783, Johnson suffered a [Link] made great efforts to overcome it, but was also plagued by various
other ailments. He died quietly on 13 December 1784. On his death, his friend William Gerard Hamilton,
Member of Parliament, paid a great tribute to him saying that Johnson had left a chasm that no man could fill.
His friend and admirer Boswell later went on to write The Life of Samuel Johnson, which presents Johnson as
an extra ordinary man.
Preface to Shakespeare (1765)
In 1756, Johnson published his Proposal for printing by subscription, the Dramatic Works of William
Shakespeare, corrected and illustrated by Samuel Johnson. Once the subscription was advertised, he received
a large sum of money personally. He foolhardily promised to bring out the work in a year’s time but unable to
bring it out at the promised time, he came under scathing attacks, especially by the poet Charles Churchill.
The upbraiding in verse by Churchill made him restart work on his edition of Shakespeare. It was finally
published in eight volumes, octavo size in 1765, and nine years after the publication of the Proposal.
The collection has a Preface (72 pages in Johnson’s first edition), which is acknowledged as the best part of
the edition and considered a great piece of neo-classical literary criticism. The Preface enumerates
Shakespeare’s “excellencies” as well as his “defects. His biographer and friend Boswell states: “A blind
indiscriminate admiration of Shakespeare had exposed the British nation to the ridicule of foreigners. Johnson,
by candidly admitting the faults of his poet, had the more credit in bestowing on him deserved and
indisputable praise”.
The Preface has two sections: one dealing with Johnson’s critical analysis of Shakespeare as a dramatist, and
the other part dealing with an explication of the editorial methods used by Johnson in his Edition of
Shakespeare. Johnson begins the Preface by asserting that people cherish the works of writers who are dead
and neglect the modern. Johnson partly agrees with the 18th-century critics that antiquity be honored,
especially in the arts, as opposed to the sciences because the only test that can be applied to them is that of
“length of duration and continuance of esteem”. He states that if a writer is venerated by posterity, it is a proof
of his excellence and he cites the example of Homer. He says the ancients are to be honored not merely because
they are ancient but because the truths that they present have stood the test of time. He then applies this
criterion to Shakespeare: Shakespeare “may now begin to assume the dignity of an ancient, and claim the
privilege of established fame and prescriptive veneration. He has long outlived his century, the term commonly
fixed as the test of literary merit”.
In his analysis of Shakespeare, Johnson adopts a multidimensional approach. He examines the bard’s works
from different angles and presents him as timeless and universal, but he also presents him as a product of his
age and time. As a neo-classicist, he tries to maintain a structural balance of praise and blame for Shakespeare.
He adopts an “ahistorical and a historical” approach to our understanding of Shakespeare (Desai 5). He tries
to make a distinction between the appeal of Shakespeare to his contemporaries and to future generations. He
says that since times and customs have changed, the depiction of the particular manners of Shakespeare’s age,
are no longer of interest to contemporary audiences. In his opinion, Shakespeare continues to be admired not
for depicting the customs and manners of his own age but for the representation of universal truths: “Nothing
can please many, and please long, but just representations of general nature”.
Shakespeare “a poet of Nature”
In the first part of the Preface Johnson praises Shakespeare as “a poet of Nature”, who “holds up to his readers
a faithful mirror of manners and of life”: all his characters be they Romans, Danes or kings represent general
human passions and principles common to all humans. In Johnson’s view, Shakespeare’s scenes are populated
“only by men, who act and speak as the reader thinks he should himself have spoken or acted on the same
occasion”. Another merit he finds in Shakespeare is that though Shakespeare’s characters depict universal
human passions, yet they are distinctly individualized. He also appreciates Shakespeare for not focusing only
on the passion of love but dealing with different kinds of passion exhibited by humankind. He refutes the
charge levelled against Shakespeare by critics that Shakespeare represents noble characters of different nations
as buffoons and drunkards. He considers these charges ‘petty cavils of petty minds”. He says Shakespeare
“always makes nature predominate over accident; and that if he preserves the essential character, he is not
very careful about the accidental distinctions”. He clinches his argument by saying: “a poet overlooks the
casual distinctions of country and condition, as a painter, satisfied with a figure, neglects the tapestry”. He
concludes with a metaphorical tribute to Shakespeare: “The stream of time, which is continually washing the
dissoluble fabrics of other poets; passes by the adamant of Shakespeare”.
He views Shakespeare’s plays as neither tragedies nor comedies but as just representations “exhibiting the
real state of sublunary nature, which partakes of good and evil, joy and sorrow” (17). While the ancients
concentrated on producing either comedy or tragedy and no Greek or Roman author attempted to do both,
Shakespeare possessed the genius to do both in the same composition. His mingled drama violated the rules
of dramatic writing but for Johnson realism supersedes the claim of rules: “there is always an appeal open
from criticism to nature….The end of poetry is to instruct by pleasing”. He further states that “mingled drama
may convey all the instruction of tragedy or comedy cannot be denied, because it includes both in its alterations
of exhibition and approaches nearer than either to the appearance of life”. Johnson considers this mingling
justified as Shakespeare’s plays both “instruct and delight”. Nor does he feel that the mixing of tragic and
comic scenes in any way diminish or weaken the passions the dramatist aims at representing on the other hand
he feels that variety contributes to pleasure.
Shakespeare – A Genius in Writing Comedy
Johnson considers Shakespeare a genius in writing comedy. He agrees with Rhymer that Shakespeare
possessed a natural flair for comedy. He thinks Shakespeare had to toil hard for the tragic scenes but the comic
scenes appear to be written with great spontaneity: “His tragedy seems to be skill. His comedy to be instinct”.
He asserts that Shakespeare obtained his comic dialogues from the common intercourse of life and therefore
their appeal has not diminished over time.
Shakespeare’s Faults
After his praise of Shakespeare, Johnson goes on to point out the faults of Shakespeare. Johnson distinguishes
between art and life. He says the audience is always aware that they are watching a fictionalized representation
and can enjoy tragedy only for this reason, although the enjoyment is directly proportional to the realism with
which the characters are depicted.
As a true neo-classicist, Johnson is extremely didactic in his approach to Shakespeare. He believes that
however true to life an artist proposes to be, the creative artist may not sacrifice “virtue to convenience”.
Johnson thinks Shakespeare is more concerned about pleasing than instructing. In the eyes of Johnson,
Shakespeare lacks a clear and distinct moral purpose and sometimes seems to write without any moral purpose
at all. He disapproves of Shakespeare on moral grounds: “he makes no just distribution of good or evil, nor is
always careful to show in the virtuous a disapprobation of the wicked; he carries his person’s indifferently
through right and wrong and at the close dismisses them without further care and leaves their examples to
operate by chance”. This “barbarity” Johnson cannot pardon for he believes that it is always the duty of the
writer “to make the world better, and justice is a virtue independent on time or place”. In this connection, in
his notes on King Lear, he condemns Shakespeare for sacrificing the virtue of Cordelier: “Shakespeare has
suffered the virtue of Cordelia to perish in a just cause, contrary to the natural ideas of justice, to the hope of
the reader, and, what is yet more strange, to the faith of chronicles”. He goes on to say:
A play in which the wicked prosper, and the virtuous miscarry may doubtless be good, because it is a just
representation of the common events of human life; but since all reasonable beings naturally love justice, I
cannot easily be persuaded, that the observation of justice makes a play worse; or, that if other excellencies
are equal, the audience will not always rise better pleased from the final triumph of persecuted virtue.
Johnson also finds faults with Shakespeare’s plots and thinks they are loosely formed and not pursued with
diligence. He finds this reflected in Shakespeare’s neglect to utilize the opportunities that come his way to
instruct and delight. Additionally, he adds that Shakespeare seems not to labour enough towards the ending of
his plays such that “his catastrophe is improbably produced or imperfectly represented”. He also finds
Shakespeare guilty of violating chronology and verisimilitude relating to time and place for “ he gives to one
age or nation, without scruple, the customs, institutions and opinions of another”(36). He criticizes
Shakespeare for making Hector quote Aristotle in Troilus and Cressida and also critiques him for combining
the love of Theseus and Hippolyta with that of the Gothic mythology of Fairies.
Although Johnson lauds Shakespeare’s skill in writing comic scenes, yet he does not gloss over the faults. He
finds Shakespeare’s language coarse and the jests gross in many comic dialogues. He comments that the
gentlemen and ladies indulging in these coarse exchanges appear to be no different than the clowns. Johnson
cannot excuse Shakespeare even if this coarseness was prevalent in Shakespeare’s time, for he thinks that as
a poet he should have known better. The meanness, tediousness and obscurity in Shakespeare’s tragedies
Johnson considers the undesirable effect of excessive labor. He finds Shakespeare’s narration often verbose
and prolix, full of verbiage and unnecessary repetition. He also accuses Shakespeare of not matching his words
to the occasion. His set speeches he finds “cold and weak” and designed by Shakespeare to show his
knowledge but resented by the reader. At times, he finds Shakespeare’s language high sounding and not
appropriate to the sentiment or the thought he wishes to express.
“Repeatedly Johnson finds Shakespeare’s tragic scenes marred by a sudden drop in emotional temperature
caused by some infelicity of language – a pun,a conceit, a hyperbole” (Desai 77). Johnson directs a scathing
attack on Shakespeare’s fondness for a quibble. He describes Shakespeare’s love for a quibble through various
amusing analogies. He says a quibble was to him “the golden apple for which he will stoop from his elevation”
or “the fatal Cleopatra for which he was willing to lose the world and was content to lose it” (44). Desai
remarks: “had Shakespeare been a lesser poet, Johnson’s expectations would have been proportionately
modest. But with Shakespeare the potential is always so great; the fulfilment sometimes inadequate. In short,
Johnson’s criticism of Shakespeare’s tragic scenes is born out of his admiration for him”.
Shakespeare’s Violation of The Unities
Shakespeare violated the law of the unities of time and place established and recognized by both dramatists
and critics. 18th century critics considered this violation a defect in Shakespeare. Johnson disagrees and thinks
it is possible to defend Shakespeare on this account. He argues that the Histories by virtue of their very nature
need to keep changing time and place and additionally since they are neither comedies nor tragedies, they
remain outside the purview of violation. He believes that Shakespeare, apart from the Histories, maintains the
unity of action and follows the Aristotelian rules. His plots have a beginning, middle and an end and the plot
also moves slowly but surely towards an end that meets the expectations of the reader. Johnson acknowledges
that Shakespeare does neglect to follow the unities of time and place that have been held in high esteem since
the time of Corneille, but according to him, the rules are not founded on tenable principles. His critical analysis
reveals their irrelevance. He says that the critics insist on the observance of the unities of time and place, as
they believe it contributes to dramatic credibility. They hold that the audience would find it difficult to believe
in an action spread over many months and years when the actual stage performance lasts only three hours. In
addition, since the audience is seated in the same place for the duration of the play, their belief would be
strained if one action takes place in Alexandria and the other in Rome. To refute these arguments Johnson
states that all art is artifice and that the audience too is aware of this. His argument is that if the audience sitting
in a theatre in London can believe in the reality of the first act taking place in Alexandria, then they can very
well imagine the second act taking place in another country. By the same logic, the spectators can imagine the
lapse of months or years between acts. However, he argues the audience is not totally incredulous; rather, the
audience is, as would be stated later by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, in a “willing suspension of disbelief”.
Johnson states that tragic actions would not give pleasure if the audience thought that it was all happening in
reality on stage. The real source of pleasure lies in the fact that the enactment brings realities to mind.
Shakespeare and Elizabethan England
In Johnson’s analysis of Elizabethan England, England emerges as a nation “just emerging from barbarity”
where “literature was yet confined to professed scholars, or to men and women of high rank” and the general
public was raised on popular romances. Johnson states that very often Shakespeare uses these familiar and
popular romance sources as the building blocks for his plays so that the not-so-learned spectators could easily
follow the story.
In the absence of any established facts about Shakespeare’s learning, Johnson believes that Shakespeare did
not know French and Italian and that what he borrowed from foreign sources was borrowed from English
translations of foreign works. Johnson asserts that since English literature was yet in its infancy in Elizabethan
England, Shakespeare had no English models of drama or poetry to follow – neither character nor dialogue
was yet understood. Therefore, Johnson considers Shakespeare a pioneer who introduced character and
dialogue into drama. He attributes Shakespeare’s excellence not so much to learning but to his own genius.
Repeatedly, Johnson stresses the fact that Shakespeare’s natural genius was aided by his close personal
observation and experience of life. Johnson states that Shakespeare’s extraordinary presentation of human
nature and character could not have come from reading psychology because no psychology books were
available at this time, but emerged from his talent of observing life, as Shakespeare’s knowledge of the
inanimate world was as wide and exact as that of human beings. Johnson considers Shakespeare, a pioneer.
He says:
Shakespeare is always original; nothing is derived from the works of other writers. He is comparable only to
Homer in his invention.
Shakespeare is the pioneer of English drama – the originator of the form, the characters, the language and the
performances.
Shakespeare was the first playwright to establish the harmony of blank verse and to discover the qualities of
the English language for smoothness and harmony.
Shakespeare was the first successful playwright whose tragedies as well as comedies were successful and
gave appropriate pleasure.
Shakespeare’s Texts
The rest of the Preface concentrates on the lack of availability of authentic texts, Shakespeare’s carelessness
in not getting his plays published, the various emendations made by critics since the time of Shakespeare until
Johnson’s own time, and his own editorial methods.
Background to the publication of Johnson’s edition of Shakespeare
Most of Shakespeare’s plays were published almost seven years after his death. Johnson is critical about
Shakespeare’s indifference to getting his plays published and for writing for immediate profit and pleasure.
He says that not only did Shakespeare not care to leave authentic versions of his plays for posterity; rather,
even the few that were published in his lifetime did not get his attention and scrutiny. As a result, corrupted
texts with alterations and additions based on conjecture survived and created confusion and obscurity. He feels
other causes too contributed to the corruption of the texts: (a) the printing method (b) the use of copiers(c) the
mutilation of speeches by actors who wished to shorten them and (d) Shakespeare’s own ungrammatical style
of writing.
The fourth Folio of Shakespeare’s plays was published in 1685. A number of editions of Shakespeare were
published between 1709, Johnson’s year of birth and 1765, the year of publication of Johnson’s edition. The
following editions were printed between 1709 and 1765:
Nicolos Rowe, First Edition, 1709: “ Rowe divided the play into acts and scenes, modernized the spellings,
marked the entrances and exits of characters, and prefixed a list of dramatis personae to each play; in short ,
he made the text of Shakespeare more intelligible and attractive to eighteenth-century readers than it was
before”(Desai 27). He also added a formal biography of Shakespeare that Johnson retained for his edition
although he was unhappy with its style.
Alexander Pope’s Edition, 1725: Further mutilation of the text as Pope made copious arbitrary emendations.
Lewis Theobald’s Edition, 1734: Unlike his predecessors, did not use the unreliable fourth Folio as his text.
He based his texts on the Quartos and the first Folio.
Sir Thomas Hamner’s Edition, 1744: Was of little value.
Warburton’s Edition, 1747: Was not of much significance.
Johnson’s Editorial Method
Johnson had access to all the above given editions while writing his own edition. In the Preface, he
acknowledges his debt to his predecessors and includes all their Prefaces. In a way, Johnson is to be credited
with bringing out a variorum edition of Shakespeare’s plays. Johnson not only commented on the merits and
faults of the earlier emendatory critics but also included the different versions of lines and passages of the
available texts and the subsequent emendations along with his own notes and emendations. Johnson states that
his edition of Shakespeare’s plays carries three kinds of notes (a) illustrative: to explain difficulties (b) judicial:
to comment on “faults and beauties” (c) emendatory: to correct corruptions in the text. He acknowledges that
he exercised restraint in making the emendations and was “neither superfluously copious nor scrupulously
reserved” (131). Johnson states that he has been successful in shedding light on some obscure passages and
made them more understandable to the readers. However, with great humility he accepts that there are many
others passages that he himself was unable to understand and leaves their interpretation to posterity. Johnson
also states that he treads the middle ground between “presumption and timidity” by trusting in those publishers
“who had a copy before their eyes” and also avoids too much conjectural criticism .
Johnson’s Advice to the Readers
Johnson advises the readers to enjoy the complete play first without interruption and without thinking about
the obscurities. Only when the pleasure of novelty ceases should the reader turn to his notes to understand and
appreciate individual lines and passages and get more enjoyment. Johnson exhorts the readers to form their
own judgement about Shakespeare’s plays. He thinks notes are “necessary evils” and proclaims that he wishes
to serve only as a guide and instructor. He cautions the readers not to go by his judgement of praise or
condemnation, as his judgement might be flawed. He also humbly acknowledges that his work is not perfect.
Johnson ends his Preface by once again acknowledging Shakespeare’s greatness and dismissing the views of
those who did not find him learned by stating that “he was naturally learned; he needed not the spectacles of
books to read nature” and that he possessed the “largest and most comprehensive soul”.
Johnson’s Achievement
Johnson’s Preface to Shakespeare, even by modern standards is an exemplary piece of literary criticism
although it does have its limitations. Johnson boldly went against the grain of his time in defending
Shakespeare for not following the unities of time and place and for mingling tragic and comic elements. He
considered the text superior to any rules and his judgement depended on how the text affected him and not on
whether it followed the rules or not. Johnson can also be credited with giving critics the comparative and
historical basis of criticism. Many of his judgements of Shakespeare are so insightful that modern generations
can only repeat his judgments on Shakespeare’s universality and in-depth understanding of human nature.
Johnson’s editorial method though deficient by modern standards was yet way above that of the earlier editors
and editors of his own time. The restraint he exercised in making emendations is indeed creditable. Many of
Johnson’s pronouncements on Shakespeare reflect neo-classical beliefs, with which many today do not agree,
especially the insistence on moral rectitude. Johnson has also come under criticism for preferring
Shakespeare’s comedies to his tragedies. However, his achievements outdo his shortcomings and the greatest
proof of his greatness is that his age is often called The Age of Johnson.
Reference
 Desai, R. W. Johnson on Shakespeare. Delhi: Orient Longman, 1979.
 Boswell, James. Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D.:A New Edition in Four [Link],1820.
 Desai, R. W. Johnson on Shakespeare. Delhi: Orient Longman, 1979.
 DeMaria, Robert. Samuel Johnson: A Critical Biography. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1993.

******
Why does Samuel Johnson value comedy over tragedy in ‘Preface to Shakespeare’?
In Samuel Johnson's "Preface to Shakespeare", he doesn't value comedy over tragedy, but rather highlights
Shakespeare's natural aptitude for writing comedic scenes. Johnson observes that Shakespeare's comedies feel
instinctual and effortless, often surpassing expectations. On the other hand, Shakespeare's tragedies, while
skillful, appear to be more labor-intensive, always seeking opportunities to inject comedy. Johnson also notes
that the comic characters are more realistic and relatable, portraying a truer reflection of life.

What is the theory of three unities and how does Shakespeare violate it?
The theory of three unities, originating from Aristotle's 'Poetics', mandates unity of action (a single, self-
contained plot), time (events within a single day), and place (a single setting). Shakespeare's plays often violate
these unities. For instance, 'Macbeth' features multiple locations and spans more than a day, while 'King Lear'
includes complex subplots. Samuel Johnson defends Shakespeare's disregard for these unities, arguing that
audiences understand the fiction of plays and can easily adjust to shifts in time and place.
Johnson's analysis of Shakespeare's use of dramatic unities in his ‘Preface to Shakespeare’.
In his "Preface to Shakespeare," Johnson criticizes Shakespeare for not adhering to the classical unities of
time, place, and action. Johnson argues that Shakespeare's plays often disregard these unities, leading to
improbable and disjointed plots. However, he also acknowledges that Shakespeare's genius lies in his character
development and the universal themes that transcend these structural flaws.
Discuss the merits and defects of Shakespeare according to Johnson's ‘Preface to Shakespeare’.
According to Johnson's ‘Preface to Shakespeare,’ Shakespeare's main defects include a lack of moral
instruction, crude language, offensive puns, anachronisms, and melodramatic speeches. However, Johnson
praises Shakespeare's originality, his departure from classical conventions, his lyrical use of the English
language, and the powerful, enduring emotions in his works. Johnson also emphasizes understanding
Shakespeare in the context of his contemporaries and the state of English literature during his time.
Understanding Samuel Johnson's ‘Preface to Shakespeare’.
In Samuel Johnson's ‘Preface to Shakespeare,’ he praises Shakespeare for his profound understanding of
human nature and the timeless appeal of his characters and themes. However, Johnson also criticizes
Shakespeare for his lack of moral purpose and his occasional lapses in plot construction and use of language.
Do you agree that Dr. Johnson is a biased critic of Shakespeare? Reference his ‘Preface to Shakespeare’.
Dr. Johnson is not a biased critic of Shakespeare in his "Preface to Shakespeare". He evaluates Shakespeare's
works on their own merits, acknowledging both strengths and weaknesses. While he adheres to neo-classical
standards and criticizes Shakespeare's lack of morality and adherence to dramatic unities, he also praises the
realism and universal truths in Shakespeare's plays. Overall, Johnson provides a balanced and fair assessment
of Shakespeare's work.
How does Johnson evaluate Shakespeare as an artist in A Preface to Shakespeare?
Johnson evaluates Shakespeare as an artist by highlighting his ability to connect with audiences across time
and his portrayal of the real world. He praises Shakespeare for creating a "mirror of life" and addressing moral
and ethical challenges through relatable characters. Johnson also appreciates that Shakespeare's works
maintain relevance and moral discourse beyond their original context.
Discuss Johnson's view on modern faults and ancient beauty in his ‘Preface to Shakespeare’.
Johnson views modern faults and ancient beauty in his Preface to Shakespeare through the lens of timeless
literary standards. He believes true literary greatness endures over time, and Shakespeare exemplifies this by
representing general nature accurately. Shakespeare's works withstand modern criticism and serve as a
benchmark for assessing contemporary literature, embodying a "stability of truth" that transcends changing
contexts.
Why is Johnson's ‘Preface to Shakespeare’ a landmark in Shakespearian criticism?
Johnson's Preface to Shakespeare is a landmark in Shakespearian criticism because it is an even-handed
assessment of the playwright's work and at the same time contributes to Shakespeare's status as one of the
great writers.
What is Dr. Samuel Johnson's attitude towards earlier editors of Shakespeare and his editing principles?
Dr. Johnson felt earlier Shakespeare editors did not understand how naturally Shakespeare captured and
described human nature through dialogue and narrative. For Johnson, Shakespeare held up a "faithful mirror
of manners and of life.” Johnson felt that Shakespeare’s realistic character portrayals and co-mingling comedy
with tragedy were true and natural reflections of reality. Although earlier critics found fault with this element
of Shakespeare's works, Johnson believed that including sadness with joy more closely approximated life
itself.
What is Dr. Samuel Johnson's attitude towards earlier editors of Shakespeare and his editing
principles?
Dr. Johnson felt earlier Shakespeare editors did not understand how naturally Shakespeare captured and
described human nature through dialogue and narrative. For Johnson, Shakespeare held up a "faithful mirror
of manners and of life.” Johnson felt that Shakespeare’s realistic character portrayals and co-mingling comedy
with tragedy were true and natural reflections of reality. Although earlier critics found fault with this element
of Shakespeare's works, Johnson believed that including sadness with joy more closely approximated life
itself.
How, according to Dryden, did Shakespeare violate the Greek unity of time in his plays?
Dryden does not discuss Shakespeare's violation of the ideal of unity of time in his plays in Johnson's
Preface to Shakespeare. However, Johnson does discuss this violation, explaining that Shakespeare spreads
the action of his play over large periods of time but gets away with it because he conveys realism through
his characters.

*******

AN ESSAY ON CRITICISM~By Alexander Pope

Alexander Pope was born in the year 1688, during the year of revolution in London. He in many respects was
a unique figure of the English literary history. Firstly, because he was considered to be “the poet” of a great
nation. He was an undisputed master in the narrow field of satiric and didactic verse during the early 18th
century. Pope’s influence completely dominated the poetry of his age. Many foreign writers looked to him
and many English poets looked to him as their inspiration. Secondly, he was one of the writers who was a
remarkable reflection of the spirit of the age he lived in. (An Overview of ‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’)
Thirdly, he was the one and only important writer of the age who gave his whole life to letters. Unlike Swift,
Addison and other writers of his age, Pope was someone who chose only literature as his profession. And
fourthly, by the sheer force of his ambition he won his place, and held it, in spite of religious prejudice, and in
the phase of physical and temperamental obstacles that would have discouraged a stronger man. (An Overview
of ‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’)
Alexander Pope’s “‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’” is perhaps the clearest statement of neoclassical principles in
any language. Pope in this essay, not only gives the scope of good literary criticism, but he also redefines
classical virtues in terms of ‘nature’ and ‘wit’ as necessary to both poetry and criticism. “‘‘An Essay on
Criticism’’” was first published anonymously through an obscure book seller. Now, coming to Neoclassicism,
it is basically a political and philosophical movement that developed during the age of enlightenment. One of
the main characteristics of neoclassicism was decorum. But, the central tenant was the imitation of nature.
This was to be achieved by artist modelling their work on the ancients.
Thus, the poets and dramatist were less interested in new forms than in inventing the new forms and were
more into imitating the old ones of epic, eclogue, epigram, elegy, ode, satire, comedy, tragedy and so on.
Indeed an awareness of the characteristics of each genre, and their relation to one another, was an integral
feature of the neoclassicism. The neo-classicists were often termed as traditionalists, and they believed that
literature was an art to be perfected by discipline, vigorous study and continuous practice. (An Overview of
‘An Essay on Criticism’)
‘An Essay on Criticism’ is written in verse, in the form of Horace’s Ars Poetica. It sums up the art of poetry
as first taught by Horace and then Boileau and the 18th century classicists. Though written in Heroic couplets,
we hardly consider this is a poem but rather a storehouse of critical maxims.
Alexander Pope in his “‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’” calls for a “return to nature” is complex. On the cosmic
level Nature signifies the convenient order of the world and the universe, a hierarchy in which each entity has
a proper assigned place of its own. Nature can refer to what is central, common and universal to all human
experience, encompassing the spheres of morality and knowledge. It also signifies the rules of proper moral
conduct as well as archetypal or representative patterns of human reason. (An Overview of ‘‘An Essay on
Criticism’’).
It means having qualities that makes someone one of a kind. Nature for him is thus, is a universal and general
regulation that beyond human beings control or grasp but is indispensable in influencing their literary creation.
It seems more of a divine source of inspiration or a sort of sacred rules than personal skills or individual talent.
Pope says that Nature has the capability to render “life, force and beauty” to an art. Literary creation and
appreciation is redefined and regulated by Nature. Nature constitutes and functions as “the Source, and End,
and Text of art”. (An Overview of ‘An Essay on Criticism’).
To acquire a better judgement and redefined taste of Literature depends on Nature, which is “just”, “unerring”,
“divinely bright”, “clear” and “universal”. Any art that fails to reflect nature is not worth to be called an art at
all. (An Overview of ‘An Essay on Criticism’).
In the essay “‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’”, Pope puts a great emphasis on the word “Wit”. The word wit in
Pope’s time could refer in general to intelligence, it also meant in the modern sense of cleverness, as expressed
in figures of speech and especially discerning unanticipated similarities between different entities. Wit
according to Pope is the general ability of a writer to express the truth and morality. According to Pope, wit is
the reflection of imitation. True wit, exists in the relationship among ideal image and expression. Wit is like
an everlasting sea. (An Overview of ‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’).
Pope’s exploration of wit lines up with the central classical virtues, which are themselves equated with Nature:
“True Wit is Nature to Advantage drest,/ What oft was Thought, but ne’er so well Exprest” (297-298). (An
Overview of ‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’).
Pope subsequently says that expression is the “Dress of Thought” and that “true expression” throws light on
objects without altering them. The lines above are concentrated expressions of Pope’s classicism. If wit is the
“dress” of nature, it will express nature without altering it. (An Overview of ‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’)
While Pope says that the good poets makes the best critics, and while he notice that some critics are failed
poets, he points out that both the best poetry or the best criticism are divinely inspired: “Both must alike from
Heav’n derive their Light” (13-14). Pope sees the endeavour of criticism as a noble one, provided it abides by
Horace’s advice for the poet:
"But you who seek to give and merit Fame,
And just bare a Critick’s noble Name,
Be sure your self and your own Reach to know,
How far your Genius, Taste, and Learning go
Launch not beyond your Depth... (46-56)"
Apart from knowing his own capacities, the critic must also be fully familiar with every aspect of the author
whom he/she is examining. Pope suggests the critic that he base his interpretation on the author’s intention:
“In ev’ry Work regard the Writer’s End, / Since none can compass more than they Intend”. (233-234, 255-
256). (An Overview of ‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’).
Pope notes down two other guidelines to be followed by the writers and the critics. The first is to recognize
the overall unity of a work and thereby to avoid falling into partial assessments based on the writer’s use of
poetic, conceits, ornamented language, meters as well as judgements which are biased towards either archaic
or modern styles or based on the reputations of given writers. (An Overview of ‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’)
Pope, finally advices that a critic needs to possess a moral sensibility, as well as a sense of balance and
proportion, this he indicates in the lines: “Nor in the Critick let the Man be lost! / Good-Nature and Good-
Sense must ever join” (523-525). (An Overview of An Essay of Criticism)
Pope then, ends his advice with a summary of an ideal critic:
"But where’s the Man, who counsel can bestow,...
And Love to Praise, with Reason on his Side? (631-642)"
The qualities of a good critic are primarily attributes of humanity or moral sensibility rather than aesthetic
qualities. Indeed, the only specifically aesthetic quality mentioned here is “taste”. The remaining virtues might
be said to have theological ground, resting on the ability to overcome pride. Pope effectively transposes the
language of theology (“soul” and “pride”). The reason to which Pope appeals is (as in Aquinas and many
medieval thinkers) a universal representation in human nature, and is a result of humility. It is thus, a
disposition of humility – an aesthetic humility, if you will – which enables the critic to avoid the foregoing
faults. (An Overview of ‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’)
Now, Pope goes on to provide advice to both poet and critic. The utmost important advice here is to “follow
Nature,” whose restraining function he explains:
"Nature is all fix’d the Limits fit,
And wisely curb’d proud Man’s pretending Wit;
... One Science only will one Genius fit;
So vast is Art, so Narrow Human Wit ... (52 – 53)"
Pope, designates human wit generally as an instrument of Pride. He, however, clarifies that in the scheme of
nature, man’s wit finds an appropriate place. It is in this context Pope says that:
"First follow NATURE, and your Judgement frame
By her just Standard, which is still the same;
Unerring Nature, which is still divinely bright,
Once clear, unchang’d and Universal Light,
Life, Force, and Beauty, must to all impart,
At once the Source, and End, and Test of Art." (68 – 73) (An Overview of ‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’)
Pope unlike other medieval rhetoricians, does not entirely believe that poetry is a rational process. He seems
to assert the primacy of wit over judgement, of art over criticism, viewing art as inspired and as transcending
the norms of conventional thinking in its direct appeal to the heart. The critic’s task here as Pope suggests, is
to recognize the superiority of great wit. While these emphasis strides beyond many medieval and Renaissance
aesthetics, it must of course be read in its own poetic context. He warns the writers and authors that should
not just rely on their own insights but draw on the common store of poetic wisdom, established by the ancients.
(An Overview of ‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’)
Pope’s exploration of wit lines up with the central classical virtues, which are themselves equated with Nature:
“True Wit is Nature to Advantage drest,/ What oft was Thought, but ne’er so well Exprest” (297-298). Pope
subsequently says that expression is the “Dress of Thought” and that “true expression” throws light on objects
without altering them. The lines above are concentrated expressions of Pope’s classicism. If wit is the “dress”
of nature, it will express nature without altering it. (An Overview of ‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’)
The poet’s task here is twofold: not only to find the expression that will most truly convey nature, but to ensure
that the substance he is expressing is indeed a natural insight or thought.
Another classical ideal urged by Pope is that of organic unity and wholeness. The expression or style must be
suited to the subject matter and meaning: “The Sound must seem an Echo to the Sense ” (365)
Pope advices both Poet and critic to follow the Aristotelian ethical maxim: “Avoid Extremes”. For those who
excess in any direction display “Great Pride, or Little Sense” (384 – 387). (An Overview of ‘‘An Essay on
Criticism’’)
Indeed the central passage in “‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’”, as in the later “Essay on Man”, Pope views all the
major faults as stemming from pride. It is pride which leads critics and poets to overlook universal truths in
favour of subjective whims: pride which cause them to value only certain parts but not the whole, which
disables them to attain a harmony between wit and judgement, and pride which underlies their excesses and
biases. (An Overview of ‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’)
Pope’s final strategy in “‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’” is to equate the classical literary and critical traditions
with nature, and to sketch a redefined outline of literary history from classical times to his own era. Pope
insists that the rules of nature were merely discovered, not invented, by the ancients: “Those Rules of old
discover’d, not devis’d, / Are Nature still, but Nature Methodiz’d” (88-89). (An Overview of ‘‘An Essay on
Criticism’’)
Pope’s advice for both critic and poet is clear: “Learn hence for Ancient Rules a just Esteem; / To copy Nature
is to copy Them” (139 – 140). Pope traces the genealogy of “nature”, as embodied in classical authors.
When was ‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’ published?
‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’ was published on 1711.
What does Pope say about Nature?
Alexander Pope in his “‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’” calls for a “return to nature” is complex. On the cosmic
level Nature signifies the convenient order of the world and the universe, a hierarchy in which each entity has
a proper assigned place of its own. Nature can refer to what is central, common and universal to all human
experience, encompassing the spheres of morality and knowledge. It also signifies the rules of proper moral
conduct as well as archetypal or representative patterns of human reason.
It means having qualities that makes someone one of a kind. Nature for him is thus, is a universal and general
regulation that beyond human beings control or grasp but is indispensable in influencing their literary creation.
It seems more of a divine source of inspiration or a sort of sacred rules than personal skills or individual talent.
Pope says that Nature has the capability to render “life, force and beauty” to an art. Literary creation and
appreciation is redefined and regulated by Nature. Nature constitutes and functions as “the Source, and End,
and Text of art”. To acquire a better judgement and redefined taste of Literature depends on Nature, which is
“just”, “unerring”, “divinely bright”, “clear” and “universal”. Any art that fails to reflect nature is not worth
to be called an art at all.
What did Alexander Pope say about "Wit"?
In the essay “‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’”, Pope puts a great emphasis on the word “Wit”. The word wit in
Pope’s time could refer in general to intelligence, it also meant in the modern sense of cleverness, as expressed
in figures of speech and especially discerning unanticipated similarities between different entities. Wit
according to Pope is the general ability of a writer to express the truth and morality. According to Pope, wit is
the reflection of imitation. True wit, exists in the relationship among ideal image and expression. Wit is like
an everlasting sea.
Pope’s exploration of wit lines up with the central classical virtues, which are themselves equated with Nature:
“True Wit is Nature to Advantage drest,/ What oft was Thought, but ne’er so well Exprest” (297-298).
Pope subsequently says that expression is the “Dress of Thought” and that “true expression” throws light on
objects without altering them. The lines above are concentrated expressions of Pope’s classicism. If wit is the
“dress” of nature, it will express nature without altering it.
What advice did Pope give to critics and poets in his essay "‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’"?
While Pope says that the good poets makes the best critics, and while he notice that some critics are failed
poets, he points out that both the best poetry or the best criticism are divinely inspired: “Both must alike from
Heav’n derive their Light” (13-14). Pope sees the endeavour of criticism as a noble one, provided it abides by
Horace’s advice for the poet:
But you who seek to give and merit Fame,
And just bare a Critick’s noble Name,
Be sure your self and your own Reach to know,
How far your Genius, Taste, and Learning go:
Launch not beyond your Depth... (46-56)
Apart from knowing his own capacities, the critic must also be fully familiar with every aspect of the author
whom he/she is examining. Pope suggests the critic that he base his interpretation on the author’s intention:
“In ev’ry Work regard the Writer’s End, / Since none can compass more than they Intend”. (233-234, 255-
256).
Pope notes down two other guidelines to be followed by the writers and the critics. The first is to recognize
the overall unity of a work and thereby to avoid falling into partial assessments based on the writer’s use of
poetic, conceits, ornamented language, meters as well as judgements which are biased towards either archaic
or modern styles or based on the reputations of given writers.
Pope, finally advices that a critic needs to possess a moral sensibility, as well as a sense of balance and
proportion, this he indicates in the lines: “Nor in the Critick let the Man be lost! / Good-Nature and Good-
Sense must ever join” (523-525). (An Overview of An Essay of Criticism)
Pope then, ends his advice with a summary of an ideal critic:
But where’s the Man, who counsel can bestow,
...
And Love to Praise, with Reason on his Side? (631-642)
The qualities of a good critic are primarily attributes of humanity or moral sensibility rather than aesthetic
qualities. Indeed, the only specifically aesthetic quality mentioned here is “taste”. The remaining virtues might
be said to have theological ground, resting on the ability to overcome pride. Pope effectively transposes the
language of theology (“soul” and “pride”). The reason to which Pope appeals is (as in Aquinas and many
medieval thinkers) a universal representation in human nature, and is a result of humility. It is thus, a
disposition of humility – an aesthetic humility, if you will – which enables the critic to avoid the foregoing
faults.
Now, Pope goes on to provide advice to both poet and critic. The utmost important advice here is to “follow
Nature,” whose restraining function he explains:
Nature is all fix’d the Limits fit,
And wisely curb’d proud Man’s pretending Wit;
... One Science only will one Genius fit;
So vast is Art, so Narrow Human Wit ... (52 – 53)
Pope, designates human wit generally as an instrument of Pride. He, however, clarifies that in the scheme of
nature, man’s wit finds an appropriate place. It is in this context Pope says that:
First follow NATURE, and your Judgement frame
By her just Standard, which is still the same;
Unerring Nature, which is still divinely bright,
Once clear, unchang’d and Universal Light,
Life, Force, and Beauty, must to all impart,
At once the Source, and End, and Test of Art. (68 – 73)
Pope unlike other medieval rhetoricians, does not entirely believe that poetry is a rational process. He seems
to assert the primacy of wit over judgement, of art over criticism, viewing art as inspired and as transcending
the norms of conventional thinking in its direct appeal to the heart. The critic’s task here as Pope suggests, is
to recognize the superiority of great wit. While this emphasis strides beyond many medieval and Renaissance
aesthetics, it must of course be read in its own poetic context. He warns the writers and authors that should
not just rely on their own insights but draw on the common store of poetic wisdom, established by the ancients.
The poet’s task here is twofold: not only to find the expression that will most truly convey nature, but to ensure
that the substance he is expressing is indeed a natural insight or thought.
Another classical ideal urged by Pope is that of organic unity and wholeness. The expression or style must be
suited to the subject matter and meaning: “The Sound must seem an Echo to the Sense ” (365)
Pope advices both Poet and critic to follow the Aristotelian ethical maxim: “Avoid Extremes”. For those who
excess in any direction display “Great Pride, or Little Sense” (384 – 387).
Indeed the central passage in “‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’”, as in the later “Essay on Man”, Pope views all the
major faults as stemming from pride. It is pride which leads critics and poets to overlook universal truths in
favour of subjective whims: pride which cause them to value only certain parts but not the whole, which
disables them to attain a harmony between wit and judgement, and pride which underlies their excesses and
biases.
Pope’s final strategy in “‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’” is to equate the classical literary and critical traditions
with nature, and to sketch a redefined outline of literary history from classical times to his own era. Pope
insists that the rules of nature were merely discovered, not invented, by the ancients: “Those Rules of old
discover’d, not devis’d, / Are Nature still, but Nature Methodiz’d” (88-89).

*****
Lecture 1 on Alexander Pope
Pope, born in 1688, the only son of moderately well-to-do Catholic parents (his father was a linen merchant)
had a London childhood in comfortable circumstances. His family moved to Binfield in Windsor Forest when
he was about 12. He was educated partly by priests in the home, then at a Catholic school in Twyford near
Winchester, and subsequently under the tutelage of a former fellow of University College Oxford who had
setup a school near Marylebone. His youthful literary endeavours were encouraged by his father and fostered
by influential friends. His first publications (The Pastorals in 1709, ‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’ in 1711 and the
first version of The Rape of the Lock in 1712) brought him immediate fame and success. From 1715 till 1726
Pope was chiefly engaged on his translations of the Iliad and Odyssey, which, though wanting in time Homeric
simplicity, naturalness, and grandeur, are splendid poems. In 1728-29 he published his greatest satire—the
Dunciad, an attack on all poetasters and pretended wits, and on all other persons against whom the sensitive
poet had conceived any enmity. In 1737 he gave to the world a volume of his Literary Correspondence,
containing some pleasant gossip and observations, with choice passages of description but it appears that the
correspondence was manufactured for publication not composed of actual letters addressed to the parties
whose names are given, and the collection was introduced to the public by means of an elaborate stratagem
on the part of the scheming poet. Between the years 1731 and 1739 he issued a series of poetical essays moral
and philosophical, with satires and imitations of Horace. He died in 1744 and was buried in the church at
Twickenham. The tripartite design of ‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’ Published when Alexander Pope was twenty-
two years of age, ‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’ remains one of the most well-known discussions of literary
criticism, of its ends and means, in the English language. It is the source of numerous familiar epigrams known
to the reading public. Pope was young when he wrote the work; existing evidence points to 1708 or 1709 as
the probable period of composition. Similar to many writers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Pope
perceives literature as afflicted by uninformed, careless, arrogant, and pretentious critics. These misguided
assessments, according to John Dryden in “The Apology for Heroic Poetry” (1677), lead authors astray in an
era characterized by illiterate, censorious, and disparaging individuals who claim to be critics. In his essay,
Pope expresses
Pope expresses dismay at the state of criticism, attributing it to a broader historical decline from the golden
age of Greek and Roman art when critics generously guided authors and instructed readers on on appreciation.
Pope argues that the best works of art result from a thorough study of Nature, guided by deeply felt and well-
reasoned insights. According to him, studying the masterpieces of the past reveals their adherence to the stable
principles of harmony and order inherent in Nature itself. Pope advocates imitation of ancient authors and
adoption of their critical precepts. Like Swift, Addison, and other significant writers of the eighteenth century,
Pope particularly admires authors such as Virgil, Ovid, and Horace from the reign of the Roman emperor
Augustus, seeking to make his own era “Augustan” in literary production. For Pope, reading Homer and Virgil
enhances taste and judgment, revealing the close relationship between art and Nature. Classic texts serve as
standards and guides, displaying balance, harmony, and proportion in both individual parts and the whole.
The poem is structured in three parts: the general qualities of a critic; the particular laws by which a critic
judges a work; and the ideal character of a critic.
Part 1 begins with Pope’s heavy indictment of false critics. In doing so, he suggests that critics often are partial
to their own judgment, judgment deriving, of course, from nature, like that of the poet genius. Nature provides
everyone with some taste, which may in the end help the critic to judge properly. Therefore, the first job of
the critic is to know himself or herself, his or her own judgments, his or her own tastes and abilities. The
second task of the critic is to know nature. Nature, to Pope, is a universal force, an ideal sought by critic and
poet alike, an ideal that must be discovered by the critic through a careful balance of wit and judgment, of
imaginative invention and deliberate reason. The rules of literary criticism may best be located in those works
that have stood the test of time and universal acceptance: namely, the works of antiquity. Pope points out that,
in times past, critics restricted themselves to discovering rules in classical literature, whereas in his
contemporary scene critics are straying from such principles. Moderns, he declares, seem to make their own
rules, which are pedantic, unimaginative, and basely critical of literature. Pope does admit that certain beauties
of art cannot be learned by rules, intangible beauties that must be found in an individual way by true masters,
but he goes on to warn readers that few moderns are able to acquire such tastes, especially those who exceed
their grasp too quickly.
Part 2 traces the causes hindering good judgment. The reader is advised to avoid the dangers of blindness
caused by pride by learning his or her own defects and by profiting even from the strictures of his or her
enemies.
Inadequate learning is another reason critics err; critics who look too closely at the parts of a poem may find
themselves preferring a poem dull as a whole yet perfect in parts, to one imperfect in part but pleasing as a
whole. What Pope seeks is the unity of the many small parts into one whole, the latter being the more
important. According to Pope, some critics err in loving parts only; others confine their attention to conceits,
images, or metaphors. Still others praise style and language too highly without respect to content. Lines 344-
383 of the poem constitute a digression by Pope to illustrate the “representative meter.” The true critic
generally abides by rules of tolerance and aloofness from extremes of fashion and personal taste. The critic
who indulges in petty predilections for certain schools or kinds of poets sacrifices objectivity. [To put it simply,
be a patron of no separate group, whether ancient or modern, foreign or native, Pope advises.] The critic should
be pledged to truth, not to passing cults. Nor should a critic fear to advance his or her own judgment merely
because the public favours other poets and schools; no critic should echo fashion or be influenced by a writer’s
name. Especially reprehensible is that critic who derives opinions about literature from lords of quality. The
true critic generally abides by rules of tolerance from extremes of fashion and personal taste. Pope advises
that the true critic will not be a patron of a special interest group. He even admits that moderns may have a
contribution to make, along with the ancients. Above all, critics should not err by being subjective. The true
critic must put aside personal motives and praise according to less personal criteria. Finally, part 3 outlines the
ideal character of a critic. It lists rules for manners and contrasts the ideal critic with the bad poet and the
erring critic. This part concludes with a brief summary of literary criticism and the character of the best critics.
It is not enough for critics to know; they must also share the qualities of good people. Integrity stands at the
top of the list of qualities of a good critic. Modesty, tact, and courage are necessary for a true critic. Pedantry
and impertinence are not part of a critic of integrity. The learned fool rushes in “where angels fear to tread.”
Having outlined the characteristics of true critics, Pope then in classic fashion catalogues the most famous
critics of Greece and Rome: Aristotle, Horace, Dionysius, Quintilian, and Longinus. In closing the work, Pope
reminds the reader that at the fall of Rome, most good criticism stopped. Erasmus revived it in the early
Renaissance and Nicolas Boileau of France advanced it more in Europe. England, however, almost entirely
despises and remains untouched by the return to the “juster ancient cause.”
Many later critics [especially the ones writing throughout the nineteenth century] dismissed ‘‘An Essay on
Criticism’’ as a mere collection of well-worn epigrams and dated restatements of literary commonplaces. ‘‘An
Essay on Criticism’’ is not radical, in the way Percy Bysshe Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry (1840) is. It offers
no clear statement of poetics that differs markedly from those of Pope’s contemporaries; it is, in one sense,
little more than an eighteenth-century updating of the precepts espoused by the Latin poet Horace in Apoetical
(c. 17 BCE), a kind of handbook for writers and critics who might want to create art that pleases while it
teaches. Such negative assessment, however, masks the major achievement of the poem. In ‘‘An Essay on
Criticism’’, Pope manages to use art as a means of commenting on it. Most significantly, he provides a
convincing, eloquent statement of what was then a new form of literary evaluation, a method that has been
dubbed “the criticism of judgment.” Pope argues that judgment gives critics an objective, external standard
that permits them to escape the hegemony of authority— slavish adherence to the rules derived from the
writings of the ancients — while not succumbing to the anarchy inherent in accepting the vagaries of taste.
Underlying Pope’s discussion of the nature of criticism is the belief that the function of the critic is essentially
evaluative. Pope is concerned with establishing the overall value of a literary production, as were other
seventeenth and eighteenth-century critics. Therefore, interpretation is, for him, a secondary activity; the chief
role of the discerning reader is to determine if a work of art deserves the accolade of greatness, or if it should
be relegated to the ranks of the merely amusing. In this role, he stands with John Dryden and Samuel Johnson
as one of the chief arbiters of his age. Commentary ‘‘An Essay on Criticism’’ has often been read by later
critics as a study and defence of “nature” and of “wit.” The word “nature” is used twenty-one times in the
poem; the word “wit” forty-six times. Given the numerous meanings accumulated in the word “nature” as it
has passed through various traditions, Pope’s call for a “return to nature” is complex, and he exploits the
multiple significance of the term to generate within his poem a comprehensive redefinition of it. Among other
things, nature can refer, on a cosmic level, to the providential order of the world and the universe, an order
which is hierarchical, in which each entity has its proper assigned place. In An Essay on Man Pope expounds
on the “Great Chain of Being,” ranging
from God and the angels through humans and the lower animals to plants and inanimate objects. Nature can
also refer to what is normal, central, and universal in human experience, encompassing the spheres of morality
and knowledge, the rules of proper moral conduct as well as the archetypal patterns of human reason. The
word “wit” in Pope’s time also had a variety of meanings: it could refer in general to intelligence and
intellectual acuity; it also meant “wit” in the modern sense of cleverness, as expressed for example in the
ability to produce a concise and poignant figure of speech or pun; more specifically, it might designate a
capacity to discern similarities between different entities and to perceive the hidden relationships underlying
the appearances of things. In fact, during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, “wit” was the
subject of a broad and heated debate. Various parties contested the right to define it and to invest it with moral
significance. A number of writers such as Nicolas Malebranche and Joseph Addison, and philosophers such
as John Locke, argued that wit was a negative quality, associated with a corrupting imagination, distortion of
truth, profanity, and scepticism, a quality opposed to “judgment,” which was a faculty of clear and truthful
insight. Literature generally had come to be associated with wit and had been under attack from the Puritans
also, who saw it as morally defective and corrupting. On the other side, writers such as John Dryden and
William Wycherley, as well as moralists such as the third earl of Shaftesbury, defended the use and freedom
of wit. Pope’s notions of wit were worked out in the context of this debate, and his definition of “true” wit in
Essay on Criticism was a means not only of upholding the proper uses of wit but also of defending literature
itself, wit being a mode of knowing or apprehension unique to literature.
 Sir Philip Sidney: ‘An Apology for Poetry’
Biography:
Sir Philip Sidney was born on November 30, 1554 at Penshurst, Kent, England and died on October 17, 1586
at Arnhem, Netherlands. He was a courtier, statesman, soldier, critic, and poet who earned for himself the
reputation of being an ideal gentleman. He belonged to a noble family of statesmen. His father, Sir Henry
Sidney, was appointed Lord President of Wales and three times Lord Deputy of Ireland. His uncle, Robert
Dudley, Earl of Leicester, was Queen Elizabeth’s most trusted adviser. Sidney had his early education at
Shrewsbury School, where he developed friendship with classmate Fulke Greville, who later also became his
biographer. At age 18, he moved on to Christ Church, Oxford and studied there for three years. From 1572-
1575 he went on a tour of Europe and visited France, Germany, Austria, Hungary Poland, and Italy. On this
tour, he gained knowledge of European politics, music, astronomy, geography and perfected his knowledge
of Latin, French, and Italian. During his travels, he became acquainted with prominent European statesmen
and scholars, including the humanist scholar Hubert Languet, who strongly influenced his religious and
political beliefs.
On his return to England, Sidney entered quickly into the political life of the court. His political interests
took him to Ireland and Germany. Besides politics, Sidney had a great interest in literature and had close
contacts with literary men. He associated with writers Fulke Greville, Edward Dyer, and Edmund Spenser. He
desired to create a new English poetry and experimented with new meters. In 1578 Lady of May, a pastoral
playlet, was performed in honor of Queen Elizabeth I. During this time, he also composed a major part of
his sonnet sequence Astrophel and Stella, as the first draft of his prose romance, the Arcadia. In 1579 he
composed Apology for Poetry probably as a rejoinder to the publication of Stephen Gosson’s School of Abuse
, which was dedicated to Sidney without his knowledge or approval. During his lifetime, Sidney’s works
circulated only in manuscript and were published posthumously.
Sidney fell in love with Penelope Devereux, the daughter of the Earl of Essex, and most likely his inspiration
for “Stella”. She, however, married Lord Rich in 1581. Later, Sidney married Frances, the daughter of Sir
Francis Walsingham, Elizabeth’ Secretary of State. In 1583, Sidney was knighted. In 1584, Sidney began a
major revision of the Arcadia. In 1585, he was appointed governor of Flushing, a town that the Dutch had
ceded to the Queen. He fought at the side of his uncle, the Earl of Leicester, in Flanders for several months.
On Sept. 22 1586, in the battle of Zutphen in the Netherlands Sidney was fatally wounded. A musket ball
struck his leg because of which he developed gangrene and died a few weeks later. Biographers relate tales of
his generosity to his fellow soldiers. Sidney was only thirty-one when he died. He was buried at St. Paul’s
Cathedral in London after a magnificent, ceremonial state funeral.
An Apology for Poetry was first published in 1595 under two titles as Defense of Poesie by William Ponsonby
and An Apologie for Poetry by Henry Olney (without authorization).Sidney’s Apology attempts to raise the
value of poetry to the highest level, especially in view of the contemporary criticism directed against it. During
Sidney’s time, imaginative literature, especially poetry and drama, came under attack. Stephen Gosson’s
School of Abuse (1579) attacked actors , playwrights and poets; criticized the social and moral disorder in
fiction; viewed Literature as immoral, irresponsible, unrealistic and corrupting; and represents the
generally held view of literature at this time. Such views were fostered by the absence of good writing in
England. Sidney, a learned man, well versed in the classics, recognised the intrinsic value of poetry and took
up cudgels to espouse it. To raise poetry to the highest level, he set about redefining the function of poetry to
assign it a greater and more aesthetic role. Sidney thought there was ample scope to defend poetry and eulogise
it, as it had fallen from its deserved status. To present a convincing defense Sidney presented his Apology in
the classical style of presenting an argument, a style also followed by the Roman orator, Cicero.
Textual Analysis
An Apology for Poetry is a carefully planned, organized judicial argument in the form of a classical oration.
It falls into the following divisions: (a) exordium: an introduction announcing the topic in such a way as to
gain attention and good will; Sidney begins with a humorous reference to the treatise of John Pietro Pugliano,
written in praise of horses and horsemanship. (b) narration: the statement of the facts of the case; Sidney
states that the poets aim is to teach and delight. (c) propostio : theses or argument; Sidney refers to three kinds
of poets. (d) confirmation: evidence that supports the theses; Sidney gives arguments that show the superiority
of poetry over other disciplines. (e) refutation: answering arguments; Sidney answers all charges levelled
against poetry. (f) digression: digression; Sidney deals with the state of poetry in England in his own time.(g)
perorate : Conclusion.
The Poet and Poetry
Sidney draws on both Plato and Aristotle to define poetry and defend poets. Aristotle defined poetry as an act
of imitation, but for Sidney poetry is an art of imitation with a specific aim:
“Poesy therefore is an art of imitation, for so Aristotle termeth it in his word mimesis, that is to say, a
representing, counterfeiting, or figuring forth – to speak metaphorically, a speaking picture – with this end, to
teach and delight. ( Sidney ). According to Plato’s theory of forms, Art being a reflection of a reflection is
thrice removed from the ideal form and thus is the least real. However, Sidney adapts this theory to state that
the ideal poet is able to create from a pre-existing idea called the fore-conceit. Based on this fore-conceit the
poet creates a world that is golden and not brazen as is the natural world. Thus, through his imaginative
recreation of the ideal golden world the poet comes close to representing Plato’s idea of the ideal form. Sidney
here exploits the idea of mimesis to the full, stretching its very limits and possibly even going past it since he
makes it cover all kinds of imitations from the faithful reproduction of appearances to the implementation of
universals. Imitation is a generalized rendering, in which particular actions and characters are universally
representative. The poet thus not only takes part in the divine act of creation but also provides the link between
the real and ideal. Sidney adopts the language of Renaissance Platonism to draw a parallel between the activity
of god in creating Nature and the activity of the human mind able “to grow in effect another nature”( Sidney
). For Sidney “the imaginative, hallucinatory character of Literature is justified by its utopian desire”(
Sidney ). Sidney then elaborates on the superiority of this kind of mimesis over History and Philosophy.
History is restricted to showing the experiences of past ages and to what happened. Its veracity is doubtful and
it is not possible to draw any conclusions through particular examples. On the other hand, the philosopher
“tells” what virtue and vice is in abstract terms without beauty of clarity and style. The philosopher speaks in
a voice that is moralizing and teaches only those who are already learned. Poetry, however, is superior to both:
It teaches and delights.
Combines the precept with the example
Achieves what cannot be achieved either by the historian or by the philosopher. The poet not only “shows”
and “tells” what virtue is but also turns that gnosis (knowledge) into praxis (performance).
The poet by representing ideal characters leads men to virtuous action. According to Sidney, teaching is of
value only if it leads to action.
Imitation for Sidney is “the representation of moral ideals in heroic characters and actions” (Sidney ). The
poet needs to imitate moral and political abstractions such as the ideal ruler, the just state and civil felicity.
Sidney gives the example of Cyrus, the great, celebrated by Zenophon in his Cryopedia. Cyropaedia was
composed in 365 BCE. It treats the life of the founder of the Persian Empire, Cyrus “the Great”. Xenophon’s
portrayal of Cyrus as a benevolent monarch, ruling through persuasion, rather than by force, built his
reputation as a righteous and tolerant king. Cyropaedia was first considered a true account of Cyrus’s life but
it is now generally agreed that Xenophon did not intend Cyropaedia as history. Classical scholars point out
that a number of the so-called “facts” included in it are incorrect and that the “frequent citation of apparently
exact numbers for armies and the like needs to be regarded as a literary device to inspire confidence to
the reader”( Sidney ). Sidney uses Xenophon’s Cyropaedia to show the superiority of literature over history
by praising it. He feels that Xenophon was justified in taking leeway with history to present an idealized,
fictional account of Cyrus , the great, so as “not only to make a Cyrus, which had been but a particular
excellency as nature might have done, but to bestow a Cyrus upon the world to make many Cyruses”( Sidney).
Sidney defends poetry for its ancient origins and its universality. Sidney stresses the importance of
poetry by stating that no nation is without poetry and asserting that it has been “the first light-giver to
ignorance.” The ancient Greeks and Romans had great reverence for the poets. The Romans called him Vates,
which means a Prophet or a Foreseer, while the Greeks honoured him as Poiein i.e. maker or creator. This
points towards the divine nature of poetry. Sidney makes an analogy of poetry with a gentleman “who may
altogether carry a presence full of majesty, beauty, but perchance we may find in him a defectious piece , a
blemish” so far this reason , poetry must be appreciated not only as a whole but in its various parts(Sidney).
For this purpose he develops a series of stylistic, structural, and thematic categories and each specific category
attempts to bring about a specific ethical response from the reader. Poetry of various kinds pleases for different
reasons. Sidney divides poetry into religious, philosophical or informative and the “right kind”. First come the
religious divine poets, and these include both the poets of Scripture and the pagan religious poets though “in
a full wrong divinity”( Sidney).David’s Psalms and Solomon’s Song of Songs are cited as examples of
religious poetry among others.
Second are the philosophers or knowledge givers. Philosophers, like Plato, use the method of poetry to present
philosophy through imaginary scenarios. Manilus and Pontanes are considered astronomical poets and
Lucan, a historical poet. The third kinds are the “right poets” or the real makers, “for these indeed do merely
make to imitate and imitate both to ‘teach and delight” (Sidney). Based on style, structure and theme, Sidney
makes categories of the “right kind” of poetry. Each kind – pastoral, elegiac, iambic, satiric, comedy, tragedy,
lyric, Epic or heroic pleases and serves a specific purpose. The categories themselves are arranged
hierarchically with the heroic being placed at the top:
Epic: Like most Renaissance writers, Sidney places epic poetry foremost in his list of the most idealized of
all genres. Heroic poetry is the best and most accomplished and presents the loftiest truths in the loftiest
manner. It teaches and moves men to the most high and excellent truth with examples – Achilles, Cyrus,
Aeneas, Turnus, Tydeus and Rinalo. It makes magnanimity and justice shine. The images of heroes “stir and
instruct the mind, and inspire the reader to “be worthy”. Aeneas’s action as presented in Virgil’s Aeneid is an
exemplar of the Roman virtues of devotion to duty and reverence to the gods. It teaches virtue better than the
ancient philosophers Chrysippus and Crantor. Heroic poetry makes virtue triumph and is therefore considered
by Sidney as “the best and the most accomplished kind of poetry”(Sidney).
Pastoral: Pastoral poetry deals with the humble life and arouses understanding and admiration for the simple
life and abhorrence for actions of brutality and tyranny. The “pretty tales of wolves and sheep can include
whole considerations of wrongdoing and patience”(Sidney). Sidney gives examples from Virgil’s Eclogues I
and VII. Eclogue I juxtaposes a herdsman Tyrus, who is currently experiencing good fortune with one
(Meliboeus) who is a recent victim of misfortune. Ecologue VII shows that the glory of greatness is short
lived. It sings of virtue and politics under cover of tales.
Elegiac: A sad poem or song that rouses kindly pity rather than blame for the weakness of humankind and
the misery of the world. Sidney states that Heraclitus, also called “the weeping philosopher”, because of
his melancholy philosophy, must be praised for showing compassion accompanying just causes of
lamentation.
Iambic: Openly attacks wickedness and rubs the galled mind to expose villainy.
Satire: Satire ridicules folly and weeds it out.
Comedy: Comedy through a ridiculous imitation of the common errors of life laughs men out of them.
Observing and despising evil traits like flattery, miserliness and craftiness in others, people desire to give these
up.
Tragedy: Tragedy demonstrates the uncertainty of the world and shows how golden roofs are built on weak
foundations. It stirs the “affect of admiration and commiseration” and gives advice to tyrants and kings: “The
cruel tyrant who wields the sceptre with harsh rules, he fears those who fear him, and terror recoils upon its
author”. To illustrate the moving power of tragedy he gives the example of Alexander Pheraeus , a cruel tyrant,
who was moved to tears after watching Euripides’s play Troades .
Lyric: Lyric sings of all that is praiseworthy and thus enkindles virtue and courage. It gives moral precepts,
teaches honourable enterprises, and is the enemy of idleness. It expresses a moving nationalism. He praises
the old song of Percy and Douglas – the ballad of Chevy Chase that never fails to move him. The ballad is
about a battle fought in the borderlands between the forces of Northumberland’s Earl Percy and Scotland’s
Earl Douglas. In the song Earl Percy is the instigator, hunting in Scottish territory, the woods of Chevy Chase.
A bloody battle follows in which many are killed.
Sidney refutes all Puritan allegations levelled against poetry and states that poetry does not deserve the abuse
hurled on it by its detractors. To the Puritan charge that poetry is mere rhyming and versifying, Sidney responds
by stating that it is not always necessary and that if it is there it provides ornamentation and embellishment
and also aids memory. To the charge that “there are more fruitful knowledges, a man might better spend his
time in them than in poetry” he says that the aim of all teaching/learning is to promote virtue, and poetry as
demonstrated in the Apology does it best out of all sciences, and therefore the study of poetry is the most
profitable . Some consider poetry as “the mother of lies”. To this Sidney replies:”The poet he nothing affirms,
and therefore never lieth” i.e that poets are not liars for they never affirm that they are telling the truth.
Additionally, unlike the historians, the poets truths are ideal and universal in nature. The poet uses veracity or
falsehood to arrive at a higher truth. To the charge that poetry is the “nurse of abuse”, has a “wanton influence”,
debases the mind, and makes men effeminate and unmartial ,Sidney says that it is not poetry that abuses man’s
wit , but men who abuse poetry. To the last charge that Plato banished poets from his “ideal” state, he argues
that Plato was not so much against poetry as the misuse of poetry by the contemporary Greek poets and writers
who abused it to misrepresent the Gods, for Plato in the Ion says that poets are divinely inspired. He also
takes on Plato for defiling that which he himself used to teach and influence. He considers Plato’s Dialogues
a form of poetry.
Sidney acknowledges the decline of poetry and drama in his own age and enumerates the following reasons
for its decline:
Poets are not inspired and lack an ardent and passionate spirit that is necessary for poetic creation. Those
writing poetry lack knowledge and training and do not have the classics as their models.
They lack the genius necessary to produce genius.
Poetry comes from knowing sound models and their imitation, which needs practice and effort: Poets are made
not born: “even the fertiliest ground must be manured” ( Sidney ).
The intricacies of poetic art are unknown to them.
Regarding the state of drama he urges that tragedy arouse the Aristotelian pity and awe and should also show
the fall of tyrants. He berates “the mingling of horns & pipes with funerals or kings with clowns” and
condemns contemporary writers for mixing tragedy and comedy. He urges that that the unities of time, place
and action be followed: (a) The action must be confined to a “single revolution of the sun”(b) The place of
action must be one (c) Characters must announce where they are – a garden, a shipwreck, a monster or a
battlefield. He praises the tragedy of Gorboduc or Ferrex and Porrex (1561) by Thomas Norton and Thomas
Sackville but criticises it for the violation of the unities. He praises Gower, John (1325?–1408) and also
Chaucer for his Troilus and Cressida. He distinguishes between delight and laughter. Delight he defines as
something that lasts and laughter that which only temporarily tickles. Delight, he feels is possible without
laughter. The laughter of comedy should not be at the cost of causing pain to someone. It should deal with the
weaknesses, foibles, and follies of humankind with the aim of correcting them by bringing about self-
knowledge.

Sidney thinks Poetry is important for its four special ethical effects:
It purifies wit
Enriches memory
Enables judgement – literary memories find new and possibly profound meaning in personal experiences
Enlarges conceit
In his Apology Sidney emerges as both a classicist and a romanticist. The ancients serve as his models and he
often quotes the classical writers. Innumerable references are made to classical literature, mythology, and
classical literary theories. Sidney not only borrows from them but also constantly refers to their authority. He
observes the rules devised by them, and urges that the Unities stated by the classical writers be followed. He
follows the classical metres, and stresses the didactic element. He considers the English language superior to
Italian and French, in the use of rhyme and meter. He also attempts to bring the classical meters into English.
Sidney, a theorist of the exuberant imagination, fuses the romantic and the classical tendencies. His
belief is that the poet is divinely inspired and that the poet uses his imagination to create fictionalized ideal
worlds. As a romanticist, he believes that history may be fictionalized, and the chronological sequences may
be changed to present the story in flashback. The Apology is the earliest attempt to deal with the poetic art
practically, not theoretically. Sidney’s judgements are based on contemporary literature, and reveal ample
good sense and sound scholarship. It is not merely abstract empty theorising, Sidney always corroborates by
giving examples. Apart from his rigidity regarding the Unities, his judgements are not governed by
rules and theories. His ultimate test is of a practical kind i.e. the power of poetry to move to virtuous action.
He gives his views on the nature and function of all the existing forms of poetry in his age: on tragedy, comedy
and diction or metre. The Apology is a pioneer in literary criticism. It gives an almost complete theory of neo-
classical tragedy, a hundred years before the Ars Poetique of Nicholous Boileau (1636-1711).
In the absence of critical authorities in England, Sidney draws on the ancient classical writers and the Italian
renaissance writes in particular. He draws on Homer, Plato, Horace and Plutarch among the Greeks; Virgil,
Horace and Ovid among the Romans; and Minturno, Scaliger and Castelvetro among the Italians. Yet Sidney’s
Apology is an original document. It is the first piece of literary criticism. Later writers of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, Dryden, Pope, and Samuel Johnson took up Sidney’s ideas and used them to formulate
their own theories of poetry. The Romantics Wordsworth, Coleridge, Shelley, and Keats are all indebted to
Sidney for assigning a divine status to poetry and for believing in the power of poetry to move people to do
good. The Apology epitomizes the best in the spirit of literary criticism derived from other sources. It is the
earliest attempt to deal with the poetic art practically not theoretically. His judgements as a literary critic are
based on a critical analysis of contemporary literature and show good acumen and sound scholarship. Apart
from the Unities, his judgement is not subject to rulebooks and theories . His ultimate test is of a practical kind
i.e. the power of the poet to move to virtuous action. The Apology is the pioneer in dramatic criticism. In fact,
Spingarn states that “Dramatic criticism in England began with Sidney”. Sidney gives his views on tragedy,
comedy, diction and metre. All later critics are indebted to Sidney for his work. He exercised a great influence
on contemporary writers as well and showed them the way. “He was head and shoulders above other
theoretical treatises of the Elizabethan period , such as those of Gascoigne, Webbe, Puttenham, Campion and
Daniel” – both because he is consistently entertaining which others are not , and because Sidney carries the
debate back to the first principles – the value of the imagination itself – and tackles Plato head-on. Some of
his critical assumptions might appear limited but should be understood in the light of the absence of good
literature in his own time. Sidney concludes his Apology by criticising the affected and artificial diction of
lyric love poetry. He believes that far-fetched conceits used by them are cold and fail to move. In contrast, he
appreciates the restraint and decorum exercised by the classicists in using the right kind of imagery and diction.
Sidney ends his Apology just as he began, with a touch of humour. He promises wisdom, name, fame and
blessings to those who appreciate and value poetry but lays a curse on those who fail to appreciate poetry:
“While you live you live in love, and never get favor, for lacking skill of a sonnet; and when you die, your
memory die from the earth, for want of an epitaph”.