PREFACE TO SHAKESPEARE

-SAMUEL JOHNSON
Samuel Johnson was perhaps the most colourful of all English writers of the 18th century. He
was born at Lichfield on September 18, 1709. He was physically handicapped, with bad
eyesight and facial disfigurements. He was good in studies but couldn’t complete his studies
in the university due to lack of money or poverty. He married a widow over twenty years
senior to him. He started his career by writing in Gentleman’s Magazine.

Dr. Johnson in 1746 signed a contract with a group of booksellers to produce a dictionary of
the English language. But it was in 1755 that the dictionary was published. He loved city life
and after the death of his wife, he sorted companionship in coffee houses where met many
eminent men of his age and they formed a literary club. The men were Edmund Burke, Oliver
Goldsmith, Garrick, Joshua Reynolds and Boswell (Dr. Johnson’s biographer). At last, a prey
to asthma, dropsy and other aliments he died in pious resignation on December, 1784, at
London. He was lucky to be buried in ‘Westmister Abbey’.

His major works were:

1. Two poems- London and Vanity of Human.

2. Rasselas (written to bury his mother).

3. Irene (his only tragedy).

4. The Lives of the Poets -1700 (it is the biographical cum critical account of 52 poets).

Preface to Shakespeare – Introduction

The greatest philosophy of Johnson -‘A work that stands the test of time is a classic’.

Dr. Johnson uses this theory to test Shakespeare works. Though Johnson is a Neo-classical
critic, his assessment on Shakespeare is unprejudiced on the whole. Johnson praises as well
as points out the defects. For him the greatest judge is public. The Preface opens with a
tribute to Shakespeare’s enduring appeal. Johnson says we should not speak badly about dead
people, we don’t know the worth of an author when he is alive. It is only after the death of an
author his works are estimated as good performance.

Shakespeare as a Poet of Nature

“Nothing can please many, and please long, but just representations of general nature”.
According to Johnson the basic requirement of aesthetic grandeur is truthfulness to the facts
of nature. He finds it plentiful in Shakespeare. He says “Shakespeare is above all writers, at
least above all modern writers...” Johnson says his work is a ‘mirror to life’. The period of
Queen Elizabeth are shown in his works. Johnson praises the ‘Universal Quality’ in
Shakespeare works (e.g. King Lear – children not looking after their parents, Macbeth-
ambition). Johnson says Shakespeare’s characters are ‘genuine progeny of humanity’. It
means the characters of Shakespeare’s works can be seen in our day to day life. ‘Shakespeare
has no heroes, but men who act and speak like us’. Even the language used is of near life.

Johnson says Shakespeare in his works have used all the passions of the world. Even the
supernatural dialogues in Shakespeare’s works seem real (e.g. Tempest). Johnson says,
“Shakespeare approximates the remote and familiarises the wonderful”. Shakespeare’s drama
is a mirror of life, even a Hermit can learn from his drama. Johnson talks about three critics
who criticize Shakespeare, they are Dennis and Rhymer and Voltaire. [Dennis criticizes on
Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar “Romans are not Romans”, he says that Shakespeare does not
give importance to Romans. Another critic criticized on Shakespeare’s Hamlet- “They don’t
have any kingly manner” (in the context of drinking-Claudius). For this Johnson supports
Shakespeare by saying that, he has brought natural content into the play. Kings do drink so
it’s not wrong to mention it in a play.] Thus Johnson proves that Shakespeare has given
natural content to his plays.

Tragic Comedy
The ancient people did not support comedy; they believed that by using comedy in the plays
the passions and emotions will be lost. It was Dryden and Johnson who supported tragic
comedy. Johnson says “Nature sanctions the fusion of tragedy and comedy, as life is the
mixture of tragedy and comedy”. He also supports tragic comedy by saying that
‘Shakespeare’s drama fulfils its aim by instructing and pleasure’. Johnson says the most
difficult task for Shakespeare was to write a tragedy, he wrote without models and without
rules to guide him. Comedy was his forte. He introduced comic scenes in tragedy mainly to
provide comic relief (e.g. Macbeth- porter’s scene) His tragedies were the products of great
labour and therefore he introduced the comic whenever he found it convenient. Johnson also
says that in spite of the changes in manners and language, Shakespeare’s comic scenes have
retained their value because the characters are represented as affected mainly by passions not
by the adventitious peculiarities. In comedies Shakespeare appears “as one of the original
masters of our language.”

Faults in Shakespeare
In a spirit of candour and impartiality Johnson spoke about the faults in Shakespeare. He
says, Shakespeare did not always observe poetic justice. He wrote without any moral
purpose, he sacrificed virtue for his convenience; his aim was only to delight and please. (Eg.
Cordelia in King Lear.) Shakespeare’s plots were constructed loosely and developed
carelessly. His conclusions were not convincing, he seemed to be in a hurry to complete the
play. Johnson says that Shakespeare was guilty of Anachronisms. (E.g. Julius Caesar – clock
strikes, there was no clock at that age.)

We can see find some contradictions of what Johnson says about Shakespeare. Earlier we see
Johnson saying about Shakespeare’s use of dialogues, we see a contradiction to what he says,
according to Johnson Shakespeare “has a tendency to use high sounding and inflated
vocabulary to express trivial ideas”. He also says that Shakespeare style while writing tragedy
is very stiff. He says sometimes Shakespeare gets too sentimental and then it gets difficult for
him to express his ideas properly, even his declamation or set speeches are very cold.
Johnson also says that Shakespeare forgets the purpose on hand and takes to puns and
quibbles. The puns are always inopportune. “A quibble was to William Shakespeare the fatal
Cleopatra for which he lost the world and was content to use it”.

The Violation of the Three Unities by Shakespeare

Johnson defends Shakespeare in the violations of the unities, he begins the enquiry into the
problem of unities. Johnson says Shakespeare somewhat followed the ‘unity of action’ but
totally neglected ‘unity of time’ and ‘unity of space’. In the case of history plays its difficult
to follow the unities as one scene is naturally the preceding and the characters are distinct and
natural. Johnson says, Shakespeare observes the unity of action and each play has the
Aristotelian beginning, middle and end. But there is no strict coherence of complication and
resolution. In the case of ‘unity of space’ Johnson says that we can imagine the stage to be
Alexandria in one scene, and Rome in another scene. The spectator always knows that the
stage is only a stage and the players are players, so the stage can truthfully stand for different
places. He also defends Shakespeare’s use of ‘unity of time’ by saying that lapse of time is
represented only between the acts. Time can be contracted in our imagination. Johnson at last
says, Shakespeare persisted in violating these unities even though he may have hit upon this
violation by chance. If he does not care for the unities, he cannot be blamed. Such violations
are natural to a great genius like Shakespeare.

Historical Background
Johnson says that ‘When we judge a writer, we need to understand the age in which he lived
and the opportunities that he had’. Shakespeare lived in a time when learning was confined
only to a few. Even the nation was in its infancy. At that age of Elizabeth people liked more
of adventure and fantasy so Shakespeare tried to write such plays. Shakespeare borrowed his
plots from popular novels. Even from manuscript sources he borrowed his plots for As You
Like It and Hamlet. His English plays depended on the chronicles and ballads, he borrowed
from the translations of the classics and his Roman History plays were based on translation of
Plutarch lives. Johnson compares Shakespeare with other writers and says, Shakespeare’s
works are like forest while those of a “correct and regular” writer are like a garden. There is
rich mind in the first, while the second is like a cabinet.

Shakespeare’s Knowledge of Latin and Greek

We have the indisputable authority of Ben Johnson to show that “Shakespeare knew small
Latin and no Greek”. Some lines in Shakespeare appear to be conscious imitations of older
writers. But this can be imitations from translations or coincidences of ideas. Shakespeare
knew a little Latin, but he was not proficient enough to go through the Latin originals. He
chose his plots from translations only. Alexander Pope says that there is enough evidence to
show that Shakespeare had extraordinary knowledge. He was a diligent reader and his
experience is not centred in text only. But he may have gleaned it in the libraries, or in the
sports of the field or even in manufactures of shop.
Editorial Methods
When the texts of Shakespeare were published it was full of ungrammatical expressions and
obscure gaps. Johnson says that the gaps were present because it was mere copies. The
difficulties in understanding Shakespeare arose from the poor editing of his plays in the
earlier Quartos. The recent editors undertook the task of restoring the true text. Johnson
expresses his indebtness to the earlier editors, he says, each editor improved the text of
Shakespeare. Johnson abstained from indulging in too many conjectural readings. The first
Folio was reliable. As Shakespeare had made many new coinages which were new to others,
many miss spelt it. And actors for their convenience made changes in the dialogues by
shortening it, so the text was again edited. This was the ways in which Shakespeare’s text got
edited.

Writers who edited Shakespeare’s texts

1. Rowe’s edition of Shakespeare’s plays corrects many mistakes in the readings.
Johnson retained Rowe’s preface and other valuable material.

2. Alexander Pope tried to bring a revised version, but he omitted good passages as he
thought it was not originally written by Shakespeare. Some were not happy with
Pope’s work. But Johnson retained Pope’s preface and notes.

3. Theobald’s work was not worthwhile. He did not realise that the first folio was the
best. Johnson retained his notes omitting his boastful remarks.

4. Hammer regularised Shakespeare’s metre. Johnson retained his work.

5. Johnson felt different to speak ill of Warburton’s edition. Warburton was well
qualified to edit. But he misused his talents and indulged in will conjectures. Still
Johnson retained his work.

Johnson says all the editors fought each other which resulted in retardation of truth. But
he says all the editions helped in understanding the work of Shakespeare. But even now
there are many passages in Shakespeare’s work which is not yet being understood. He
leaves it in the hands of future generation by saying that “Amendments can be made in
may work by learned people and I won’t be offended”. He concludes by saying that, the
proper way to read Shakespeare’s works is to read the text, then the commentators

Contribution by Dr. Johnson

Johnson helped in making the study of Shakespeare enjoyable and clear. The preface
helped in analysing Shakespeare plays. This preface was an impartial assessment of
Shakespeare by Johnson and it gave freedom to the readers to interpret according to their
will.