Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Samuel Johnson was an English poet, prose writer, journalist, lexicographer, essayist, editor, and literary critic. While working on A Dictionary Of the English Language, Johnson focussed on Shakespearean plays to determine the origins of words. During this time, his fascination for Shakespeare’s plays increased manifold. In his dictionary too, William Shakespeare is the most quoted author. However, while researching Shakespeare’s plays, Johnson noticed some inherent problems with the currently available versions of Shakespeare’s plays. Johnson, thus, proposed to edit the plays of William Shakespeare. According to Johnson, the then available versions of Shakespeare’s plays were suffering too much a) ‘Textual corruption’ and they lacked authoritativeness. Johnson mentioned that the ‘textual corruption’ arouse mainly because of careless printing. Furthermore, these plays were transcribed for the actors by people who may not be able to understand the original text correctly. b) Johnson also noted that Shakespeare wrote his plays at a time when the language was unified and so used words and phrases which are almost obsolete now. c) Shakespeare used colloquial language that isn’t common in current times. d) Johnson also mentioned that Shakespeare used too many allusions and references to topical events and personalities and after more than 100 years it isn’t easy to understand those allusions. e) Shakespeare had a vibrant mind full of ideas. The rapid flow of ideas often hurried Shakespeare to a second thought before the first had been fully explained. Johnson recognized that many of Shakespeare’s obscurities belong either to the age or the necessities of stagecraft and not to the man.
Because of these problems, Johnson got the idea of editing Shakespearean plays. He began his work with Macbeth which he researched and edited as Miscellaneous Observations or Miscellaneous Observations on the Tragedy of Macbeth which was published on 6 April 1745. With this publication, Johnson also proposed a new edition of all Shakespearean plays with notes, critical and explanatory, in which the text will be corrected. According to Samuel Johnson the duty of an editor was to establish as far as possible what an author had written rather than what, in the opinion of the editor or his contemporaries, he ought to have written. In his proposal, Johnson promised to "correct what is corrupt, and to explain what is obscure".
In 1756, Johnson was contracted for The Plays of William Shakespeare. He was assisted by George Stevens, an English Shakespearean commentator.
Preface to Shakespeare:
Samuel Johnson wrote a preface to the edited version of The Plays of William Shakespeare which became one of the most famous critical essays of the eighteen century. In the Preface, Johnson sets forth his editorial principles and gives an appreciative analysis of the “excellences” and “defects” of the works of Shakespeare. Many of his points have become fundamental tenets of modern criticism; others give greater insight into Johnson’s prejudices than into Shakespeare’s genius. The resonant prose of the preface adds authority to the views of its author. Johnson also discussed the influence of Shakespeare on current poetry. In addition, he also added a brief history of "Shakespearean criticism” till the mid-eighteenth century.
Johnson begins by addressing the issue of antiquity. He says that some people complain that dead artists are praised unreasonably. Such people often claim that the criteria for evaluating a writer should be the excellence of his work and not his antiquity. Johnson then criticizes such people and says that these people have nothing new to offer and thus, they continue to make controversial arguments. Often such writers believe that their works will be appreciated much more after their death but they often fail to realize that their work lacks value. Johnson then accepts that spotlighting the merits of the ancients and the faults of contemporaries is more congenial to many critics. Johnson says that the criteria for judging a work of art cannot be absolute. Unlike science, Jhonson says that in the field of literature, excellence is not absolute, but gradual and comparative. However, Johnson says that there is a certain criterion that can be aptly applied to all literary works and it is the length of esteem that a piece of literature enjoys. He says that it is human nature to compare different old and new works. If people are finding an old literary work enjoyable even now, then the continuation of the esteem of that literary work is proof of the value of that work. Johnson then says that the works of Shakespeare have become classic and they continue to attain enduring fame and respect for more than a century thus the plays of Shakespeare have achieved the prestigious position of antiquity. Johnson says that these plays are so old that the events and topics covered in them are of no interest to the audience. Yet, audiences continue to cherish Shakespeare’s literature because of its literary qualities. Johnson says that it is surprising that Shakespeare’s plays withstood changes of manners and customs, and are read just for the pleasure they offer. Johnson then says that human judgment is not infallible. He says that some works may continue to attain the audience’s interest for a long period because of some prejudice or fashion. Thus, Johnson says that it is necessary o reevaluate and probe into the facts which enable the works of Shakespeare to attain and retain the respect or esteem of his audience.
The Greatness of Shakespeare or His Merits
Johnson introduces Shakespeare as a ‘poet of nature’ and says that It is the “just representation of general nature” that brings immorality and enduring approbation to literary works. Johnson says that Shakespeare is different from other authors because his work reflects life most truthfully as he is the poet of nature. 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 and whom our eyes will always continue to meet. Johnson says that in the writings of other poets, the character is too often an individual and in those of Shakespeare a character is commonly a species.
It may appear contradictory as if Johnson is saying that Shakespeare’s characters lack individuality. However, Johnson says that Shakespeare relied upon his knowledge of human nature, rather than on bizarre effects, for his success. He says that Shakespeare created his characters so near to reality that “Shakespeare has no heroes, his scenes are occupied only by men, who act and speak as the reader thinks that he should himself has spoken or acted on the same occasion.” Because of the life-like sketching of Shakespeare’s characters, Johnson calls him the ‘poet of nature,” and “his drama is mirror of life.” The characters in Shakespeare’s plays are not limited by time or nationality; they are, rather, “the genuine progeny of common humanity, such as the world will always supply, and observation will always find.”
Johnson mentions that Shakespeare didn’t overemphasize the theme of love in his plays. He compares the works of other writers and says that in a majority of dramas of other writers, love is a universal theme and all goodness and evil revolve around it. Johnson says that love is not the only passion instead it is just one of many. Shakespeare never exaggerated the importance of love in his plays. His characters are influenced and motivated by various other passions. Johnson says that Shakespeare knew that any passion would cause happiness or disaster depending on its being moderated or left uncontrolled and he used this knowledge in his plays.
Johnson then mentions other critics like John Dennis and Thomas Rymer who complained that Shakespeare’s dramas are not as ‘Roman’ as they should be. He also mentions Voltaire who complained that Shakespeare’s kings are not kingly. Johnson says that Shakespeare made sure that his characters remain true to human nature, that one can see in real life. Johnson acknowledges that Shakespeare gave rise to the trend of tragicomedies. His plays are neither comedies nor tragedies but a mixture of the two. While some critics criticize this aspect, Johnson appreciates it and says that life is an ebb and flow of sorrow and happiness, and since Shakespeare maintained his plays so near to real life, that they are both tragic and comic. However, Johnson agrees with Thomas Rymer and says that Shakespeare was more comfortable with comedies. In his tragic scenes, there is always something wanting but his comic scenes often surpass our expectations. His comedy pleases through thoughts and language whereas his tragedy pleases mainly through incidents and action. His tragedy is a testimony of his skill; his comedy is the product of his instinct.
Weaknesses of Shakespeare:
Johnson was a neoclassicist who supported 'poetic justice'. Johnson criticizes that Shakespeare’s plays lack moral purpose. He says that the major flaw of Shakespeare is that he sacrifices virtue for convenience, and is more careful to please than to instruct. Johnson believed that the feat of punishment was a necessary stimulus to virtue and that men would desist from evil only if justice was seen to be operating in the world. He mentions 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. Johnson says that in each of Shakespeare’s plays, there are ample opportunities where he could have developed the plot in a manner that could offer a moral purpose to the play. However, Shakespeare was careless about it. Johnson also criticizes anachronism or the violation of chronology in Shakespeare’s plays as he often disregarded history and chronology. Johnson says that Shakespeare is indifferent to the distinctions of time and place and gives to one age or nation the manners and opinions which pertain to another. Johnson says that this reduces the quality of the play being near to reality. Johnson also criticized Shakespeare’s dialogues and diction and says that in many instances, Shakespeare’s dialogues appear indecent and coarse in nature. The main characters of Shakespeare too offer similar dialogues as those of jests and clowns and there is much licentiousness and indelicacy even where ladies are present in a scene. Johnson also criticized the unnecessarily flamboyant speeches and inflated vocabulary that Shakespeare often used in his plays.
After mentioning the greatnesses and weaknesses of Shakespeare, Johnson discusses the issue of the three unities in Shakespeare’s plays. Unlike other critics who criticize Shakespeare’s plays for lacking the unity of time. Unity of place, and unity of action, Johnson defends Shakespeare says that in his History plays, Shakespeare stressed more on consistency and spontaneity of characterization. He further says that Shakespeare maintained the unity of action. His plays have a beginning, a middle, and an end as laid down by Aristotle. He acknowledges that there can be some anomaly but it can be easily ignored. He further accepts that Shakespeare didn’t pay attention to the unity of time and unity of place but says that these unities are not necessary for dramatization. He says that Literature is to be appreciated not in the literal sense but by the imagination. The audience’s imagination is kept very active when he watches a play. The audience knows that he is going to watch a fictitious reality. If an audience in a theatre can accept the stage as a locality in the city of Rome, he will also accept the change from Rome to Alexandria. The unity of time may likewise be violated on the same principle.
In his Preface to Shakespeare, Samuel Johnson’s strongest criticism of Shakespeare was regarding the lack of moral purpose in his plays. Overall, Johnson does recognize and praise the great power of Shakespeare’s work
So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!
No comments:
Post a Comment