Johnson sets out in a traditional way to interpret the ‘beauties’ and ‘dejects’ of Shakespeare. The excellence of the Preface lies in its lasting appeal and its enviable position in the bulk of Shakespearean criticism. He may have been short-sighted, at times, in his appreciation. But his Preface remains one of historical and intrinsic interest, by virtue of his unerring skill in indicating essentials, his reasoned judicial methods, and the sound foundations he laid for future textual and aesthetic developments. For Shakespeare’s merits, he found Shakespearean works as a just representation of general nature, he never over-emphasized the theme of love, and he liberally mixed tragic and comic elements as well as broke free of the three unities. For his demerits, Johnson disapproved of Shakespeare’s sacrificing virtue to convenience, carelessness about plot development, and coarseness of dialogues.
Shakespeare’s
characters do not belong to the society of a particular place or time; they are
universal, representing every man. They are the genuine progeny of common
humanity such as will always remain in this world. In Shakespeare, the dialogue is not accidental; it is
occasioned by the incident which produces it. It is so realistic and lucid that
one does not come to think of it as belonging to fanciful fiction. It seems
rather that the dialogue has been gleaned out of common conversation through a
wise selection.
In a majority of
the dramas of other dramatists love is the universal agent that causes all good
and evil and hastens or retards every action. In their fables, we meet stock
characters such as a lover, a lady, and a rival. These are involved in contrary
obligations and haunted by violent but inconsistent desires. They are made to
speak out in hyperbolic or exaggerated joy and outrageous sorrow. Actually, by
doing so, these dramatists are violating probability and misrepresenting life.
They deprive the language too. Love is not the only passion, it is just one
among the many. Shakespeare never assigns any excessive role to this passion in
his plays, for he catches his clues from the world of day-to-day life and
exhibits in his plays what he finds in life. He knew that any passion would
cause happiness or disaster depending on its being moderated or left
uncontrolled.
Johnson agrees
that in the strictest sense, Shakespeare’s plays are neither comedies nor
tragedies. They are compositions of a distinct kind that show the real state
of nature. Life is an ebb and flow of sorrow and happiness and ill in various
permutations and combinations. Hence a portrait of life should consist of both;
such an intermingled expression of life is unexceptionable; the loss of one is the
gain of another. In this world, the treacherousness of one is sometimes beaten
by the frolic of another, and at times people may contrive to help or harm
others without in the least intending to do so. Ancient poets used select
crimes and foolishness, vicissitudes and lighter incidents, kills of distress, and joys of prosperity and modified them in several of their plays. It must have
been thus that tragedy and comedy arose. But it comes to our particular attention
that no single lurk or Roman author has attempted depicting both these aspects
either in separate plays or in the same composition. Shakespeare’s genius is
proved in his power to give rise to joy and sorrow through the same play.
Almost all his plays have serious as well as absurd characters and thus sometimes
cause seriousness and sorrow, and sometimes levity and laughter.
Johnson claimed
that the first impropriety in Shakespeare is his sacrifices of virtue to
convenience and the way he is more careful to please than to instruct. To him,
Shakespeare seems to write without any moral purpose. Johnson believed that in Shakespeare’s plays there is no just distribution of evil and good. His virtuous
characters do not always show disapproval of the wicked ones. His characters
pass through right and wrong indifferently and in the end, if they serve as
examples, they do so by chance and not by the author’s efforts. According to
Johnson, every writer has the duty of trying to make the world a better place
to live in.
Johnson said
that in many Shakespearean plays, the latter part appears to have been
neglected. It seems that when he was approaching the end of his work and the
reward seemed near at hand, he exerted less labor on the work in order to
complete it quickly and derive the profits immediately. John considered that
the conclusion deserves maximum labor, and, in Shakespeare, lack of attention
has resulted in the catastrophe in several of his plays being improbably
produced or imperfectly represented.
According to
Johnson, the dialogues in Shakespeare’s comedies get gross when the characters
are made to engage in contests of wit and sarcasm. He thought it indelicate
even where ladies join the conversation, and the refined characters speak on
the same level as the clowns, and often all distinction between the two is lost.
But the coarseness of this conversation in Shakespeare’s plays cannot be
approved by Johnson as he believed the writer’s duty extends to make suitable
selections even in the forms of gaiety.
Johnson made an
exhaustive list of merits and demerits of the Great Dramatist including his
personal rationalities to support the arguments. Shakespeare’s merits to Johnson
include the just representation of general nature in Shakespearean plays, no over-emphasizing
of the theme of love, and liberally mixing tragic and comic elements as well as
breaking free of the three unities. For his demerits, Johnson objected to
Shakespeare’s sacrificing virtue to convenience, carelessness about plot
development, and coarseness of dialogues.
