Johnson’s Comparison Between Shakespeare’s Comedy and Tragedy

 'Shakespeare is above all writers, at least above all modern writers, the poet of nature' - wrote Johnson (Johnson 3) in 1765, and today, in the 21st century, Shakespeare is still the best of the dramatists of all times in the English language, be it in creating comedies or tragedies, and so is the criticism by Johnson. The definition and characteristics of comedy and tragedy have changed over time from the ones contemporary to the critic. The class-conscious theatre of the 18th century considered comedy as the reflection of the common man's daily trivial emotions that 'merely' pleased the audience with the union of protagonists in love (Johnson 6). On the other hand, tragedy's purpose was to instruct by depicting the tragic fall of a noble hero (Johnson 7) of royal or aristocratic birth due to a hamartia or fatal flaw. The tone of a classical tragedy like Oedipus Rex was purely serious and grim (Barstow 2). Now, Johnson states, "Shakespeare's plays are not in the rigorous and critical sense either tragedies or comedies ..." (Johnson 5) instead "Shakespeare has united the powers of exciting laughter and sorrow not only in one mind but in one composition" (Johnson 6). Such an example is The Marchant of Venice where the happy endings of Bassanio and Antonio lead to the tragic fall of Shylock whose hamartia is to be a Jew (Shakespeare, act V, scene II). Although Johnson lauds the author's mixture in his Preface to Shakespeare (Johnson 6), he criticized the tragedies and comedies from both the strong and the weak ends. Comparing the ingenuity, characters, language, and dealing of emotion in Shakespearean comedy and tragedy, Johnson tries to prove that the dramatist's tragedies were 'always something wanting' or lacking whereas his comedies were best to the length that 'surpasses expectation or desire' (Johnson 7).

According to Johnson, "Shakespeare’s tragedy seems to be a skill, his comedy to be instinct" (Johnson 7). He wrote his tragedies with 'toil' but comedies were produced 'without labour' as it was 'his natural disposition' (Johnson 7). Therefore, 'he seems to repose' in comedies whereas 'in tragedy, he is always struggling after some occasion to be comick' (Johnson 7). Such comic reliefs are found in the last scene of the first act of King Lear as the fool keeps on teaching and entertaining, and right after the regicide in Macbeth in the door-knocking scene (Shakespeare, act II, scene III). On the other side, his genuine capabilities in comedies are in their full bloom in winning Portia by Bassanio's wit in The Marchant of Venice (Shakespeare, act III, scene II) and in Ariel's mischief with Caliban and Stephano in The Tempest (Shakespeare, act III, scene II). To this, Johnson certifies, "His comedy pleases by the thoughts and the language, and his tragedy for the greater part by incident and action" (Johnson 7). The intensity of terror and the upward flow of events in the murders after murders in Macbeth is one best example of this. This way, Johnson praises Shakespeare's comic writings over his tragic ones.

To Johnson, Shakespeare’s characters are 'commonly a species' and are universal and timeless (Johnson 3). This is obviously the idea of stereotyping which Hall shows arise as a result of fixing the 'natural' characteristics (Hall, 1997). But then Johnson compares wonderfully that though Shakespeare's 'characters are praised as natural', 'the sentiments are sometimes forced' and the 'actions improbable' just 'as the earth upon the whole is spherical' but 'its surface is varied with protuberances and cavities' (Johnson 8). Rosalind in As You Like It is one such most beloved comic characters of Shakespearean comedy. And again, the critic complains that 'neither his gentlemen nor his ladies have much delicacy, nor are sufficiently distinguished from his clowns by any appearance of refined manners' (Johnson 9). Here, the cultural hegemonic practices are obvious that a theater had to uphold and circulate the distinction of classes which is to be absorbed and internalized by the audience as 'natural' for mimicry and reproduction of power strata (Gramsci, 1972). He also disapproved of Shakespeare’s 'contest of sarcasm' amongst the comic characters which the critic defines as full of 'gross' and 'licentious' jokes (Johnson 9). Another objection to Shakespeare’s tragic and comic characters was that they were carried 'indifferently through right and wrong' without any poetic justice which was to Johnson the failure of the moral purpose of the author (Johnson 8). This is another reflection of neoclassical ideology that moral and rational are one and the same (Hagstrum, 1950). Thus, Johnson shows Shakespeare's comic characters are relatively successful from multiple dimensions.

Shakespeare's comic dialogue, according to Johnson, upheld the language of 'the common intercourse of life' (Johnson 7). 'A conversation above grossness and below refinement, where propriety resides' (Johnson 7). This, Johnson opines, comes out of 'a certain mode of phraseology so consonant and congenial to the analogy and principles' that it is 'to remain settled and unaltered' (Johnson 7). His comic dialogues are 'smooth and clear, yet not wholly without ruggedness or difficulty' just 'as a country may be eminently fruitful, though it has spots unfit for cultivation' (Johnson 8). But, Shakespeare’s tragic dialogue is 'a disproportionate pomp of diction and a wearisome train of circumlocution' to Johnson that, he believes, 'tells the incident imperfectly in many words, which might have been more plainly delivered in few' (Johnson 9). He does not support the way Shakespeare deals with the narrative parts as he believes they are showing 'dignity and splendor', and, yet, are long and 'tedious' (Johnson 9). Johnson also thinks that Shakespeare's 'set speeches are commonly cold and weak' in tragic dialogues as his 'natural' flow is obstructed by traditional 'amplification' practice (Johnson 9). Moreover, Johnson finds that Shakespeare 'very often neglected' 'the equality of words to things' 'and trivial sentiments and vulgar ideas disappoint the attention as they are 'bulky' in tragic dialogues (Johnson 10). In other words, Johnson suggests Shakespeare's comic dialogues are more appealing and appropriate than tragic ones.

Johnson states that in Shakespeare's comic scenes, the characters 'act upon principles arising from genuine passion, very little modified by particular forms' (Johnson 7). Also, 'their pleasures and vexations are communicable to all times and to all places' (Johnson 7). Besides, 'they are natural'. Thus, they become 'durable' through centuries. These emotions are 'primitive' to Johnson which he believes will not suffer 'decay'. Beautiful examples are Orsino's famous expression of love pursuit in Twelfth Night (act I, scene I) and Miranda's love in first sight in The Tempest (act III, scene I). Opposite to this, the critic thinks that overtly emotional scenes of Shakespeare's tragedy end in 'tumour, meanness, tediousness, and obscurity' (Johnson 9). In tragedy, Johnson finds Shakespeare 'now and then entangled with an unwieldy sentiment, which he cannot well express, and will not reject' (Johnson 10). So 'he struggles with it a while, and if it continues stubborn, comprises it in words such as occur, and leaves it' (Johnson 10). The extremely complex emotions of Othello can be a very relevant example. Johnson also complains that Shakespeare 'is not long soft and pathetick without some idle conceit, or contemptible equivocation' (Johnson 10). Thus, the 'terrour and pity, as they are rising in the mind, are checked and blasted by sudden frigidity' (Johnson 10). An example could be the comic relief of Hamlet in the grave diggers' jokes right after the death news of Ophelia (act V, scene I). In this manner, Johnson implies that Shakespeare's dealing with emotion in comedy is more balanced and universal than in tragedy.

Johnson, being an editor of Shakespeare, neutrally criticizes him as he believed in certain rationality contemporary to his age. But, today, although this very first systematic criticism of Shakespeare is considered invaluable, the rationalities are changed with feminism and other post-modernist critical approaches. The 'common men' praised by Johnson as 'natural' are 'males' in a single-gender dominated universe from a feminist point of view (Coppélia 589) and class conscious stereotyping in the theory of cultural hegemony (Gramsci, 1972). Johnson compared Shakespeare's comic and tragic works' success with a prior declaration that Shakespeare did not much distinguished between them (Johnson 5) himself rather they are imperfectly categorized by later editors (Johnson 6). And yet, the critic upholds Shakespeare's comedy over his tragedy by analyzing their ingenuity, characters, language, and emotional expression. Sometimes, this is done without much exemplification or reference to the actual dramatists' works. In both positive and negative criticism, Johnson justifies Shakespeare's performance as an authoritative voice. However, his final tone stays the same throughout the preface and stays on till this date - "The stream of time, which is continually washing the dissoluble fabricks of other poets, passes without injury by the adamant of Shakespeare" (Johnson 7).

 

References

Barstow, Marjorie. “Oedipus Rex as the Ideal Tragic Hero of Aristotle.” The Classical Weekly, vol. 6, no. 1, 1912, pp. 2–4. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4386601. Accessed 23 Dec. 2020.

Gramsci, Antonio, Quintin Hoare, and Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers, 1972.

Hagstrum, J. H. “The Nature of Dr. Johnson's Rationalism.” ELH, vol. 17, no. 3, 1950, pp. 191–205. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2871953. Accessed 23 Dec. 2020.

Hall, Stuart, ed. Representation: Cultural Representation and Signifying Practices. Thousand Cakes, CA: SAGE, 1999.

Johnson, Samuel, 1765. Preface to Shakespeare. Project Gutenberg eBook. 2004.

Ronan, Clifford. Review of Roman Shakespeare: Warriors, Wounds, and Women, by Coppélia Kahn. Comparative Drama, vol. 32 no. 4, 1998, p. 589-593. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/cdr.1998.0031.

Shakespeare, William. The Merchant of Venice. Harlow, Essex, England: Longman, 1994.

Shakespeare, William, and Rex Gibson. Macbeth. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Print.

Shakespeare, William. The Tempest. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958.

Shakespeare, William, and Horace H. Furness. As You Like It. New York: Dover Publications, 1963.

Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. New Folger's ed. New York: Washington Square Press/Pocket Books, 1992.

Shakespeare, William, and Stephen Orgel. King Lear. New York, N.Y: Penguin Books, 1999. Print.

Shakespeare, William. Twelfth Night. Boston; New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1928.

Shakespeare, William, and Russ McDonald. The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice. New York: Penguin Books, 2001. Print.