Literary criticism

Topic:
General introduction to the preface to Shakespeare
Submitted to: Mr. Akhtar
Submitted by: Waseem Ahmad

Roll no: 163066

Asad Saleem

Roll no: 163063

M. Rashid

Roll no: 163065

Abid Ali

Roll no: 163077

Class: BS: English

Session: 2016-20

Govt. Post Graduate College

Bahawalnagar
 General introduction to the preface to Shakespeare
Johnson’s Approach:
The preface to Shakespeare is a serious, methodical and scholarly
approach to Shakespearean criticism. In many respects it marks the highest
point in Shakespeare criticism at that time as well as for a long time to come.
Johnson is inevitably influenced by the neo-classicist canons of criticism
which held the field then, but he shows considerable independence of
judgment and is not afraid of departing fundamentally from accepted
opinions when his convictions dictate it. He approaches Shakespeare as a
fallible human being and there is in the preface none of the idolatry which
often characterises Shakespearean criticism. Johnson takes due notice of the
labours of earlier critics and incorporates their findings into his criticism as
well as his notes on the plays. The tome of the preface is distinguished from
some of the earlier editions by scholarly impartiality.

Earlier Critics:
Among critics of Shakespeare who wrote before Johnson one may
mention Dryden and Rymer. Dryden maintained that Shakespeare was
mighty but untutored genius, a point of view which was later to be advocated
by Hazlitt. Dryden took note especially of Shakespeare’s poetry his
character-drawing and his dramatization of the passion. He himself shows his
admiration for Shakespeare as well as the difference in the taste of his own
age from that of Shakespeare in his “All for Love”. Rymer has some valid
objections but on the whole his approach is narrow and pedantic. He does
not take into consideration the fact that Shakespeare’s plays founded a new
tradition but dogmatically applies the rules of Aristotle, or what the neo-
classicists made of them, to the tragedies of Shakespeare.

Mirror of Nature:
Johnson basic stand is that Shakespeare plays faithfully mirror both
nature and life. It is only in appearance that this stand of Johnson conforms
to the neo-classicist criteria of criticism; in essence it is a foreshadowing of
the romantic approach. Thus we are faced with the delightful paradox of a
neo classicist blazing a trail of romantic critics; ''To Johnson as to the whole
century; just representations of general nature were the essential
characteristics of the classical ideal; and Shakespeare appealed to all as the
great poet of nature. Who held up to these readers a faithful mirror of
manner and life.

The Unities:
Johnson takes up to aspects of Shakespeare which had so far been the
chief targets of hostile criticism, both in England and over continent. one of
these is Shakespeare’s violation of the so called their unities. The other is
Shakespeare’s violation of the purity of genres by mixing together tragedy
and comedy in the same work. Johnson denies that the unities have any
fundamental validity. He implies that the crux of the question is not realism,
which is impossible where time and place are concerned, but dramatic
illusion. Critics, who object that change of scene from one country to another
within a play, or along duration of action in the story, is not acceptable to the
audiences, are not only bad psychologists but also close their eyes to actual
facts. He asserts his view in words that have become famous. Addressing the
advocates of the unities he declares.

The Mixing of Genres:

Neo-Classical theory follows classical rules in maintaining that comedy
and tragedy must never be mixed in the same work. The neo-classicist are
therefore critical of the play of Shakespeare because in them we have a
mingling of the genres. Johnson denies that this is a defeat. He holds that we
can always appeal from rules to nature, and that mingled drama is more true
to life than pure tragedy or unalloyed comedy. Shakespeare is greater
because his first allegiance was to life rather than to man-made rules. He
asserts: “The end of writing is to instruct: the end of poetry is to
instruct by pleasing.”

Silent Arguments in the preface:

Johnson castigates Pope for speaking of “the dull duty of an
editor”. He himself approaches his work as editor with circumspection and
the highest sense of responsibility. He lends new dignity and scholarliness to
the task of the editing the work of the greatest dramatist of the world. He
does not enter into much less take sides, in the acrimonious debates of the
various commentators and editors who had already worked on Shakespeare’s
plays. His principle of emendation is not only sound but admirable. He
worked on the principles that is always better to save a citizen than to
condemn and enemy. He make good fun of speculative editors by saying that
he has always believed that reading to be wrong which requires a lot of
words to establish that it is right. At the same time, he shows real
magnanimity in his estimate of the endeavours of earlier critics : “l can say
with great sincerity of all my predecessors what I hope will hereafter be said of
me, that no one has left Shakespeare without improvements, nor is there one to
whom I have not been indebted for assistance and information.” In commenting
on Shakespeare’s achievement he stresses the fact that Shakespeare makes
nature predominate over accident, and that he shows the general human
passions at work.

Shakespeare’s Faults:
Johnson does not regard Shakespeare as an idol who is above adverse
criticism. He frankly points out what appear to him to be Shakespeare’s
faults. He is especially severe on one of them. This is Shakespeare’s great
love of work-play, what Johnson calls the fascination of the ‘fatal Cleopatra’
of a pun. He also regards Shakespeare’s ‘obscurities’ as a blemish. Here
Johnson is not a little inconsistent. Shakespeare’s lack of historical
authenticity. Although Johnson prefers the comedies he does not like the
contests of wit and sarcasm which take place in some of them.

Conclusion:
Although Johnson is somewhat hampered by his neo-classicist belief,
he on the whole displays a great deal of independence of judgment and
critical maturity, impartiality and sound judgment in commenting on
Shakespeare. The greatest merit of Shakespeare, according to him, is his
faithful adherence to the truth of general nature,..i.e.. his universality and
realism: whatever be his purpose, whether to depress, or to conduct the
story without vehemence or emotion, through tracts of easy and familiar
dialogue, he never fails to attain his purpose; as he commands us, we laugh
or mourn, or sit silent with quiet expectation, in tranquility without
indifference.