Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Samuel Johnson (1709–1784) stands as one of the most significant literary critics of the 18th century, renowned for his intellectual rigor, moral insight, and neoclassical principles. His criticism was deeply rooted in the belief that literature should both instruct and delight, emphasizing truth to human nature and ethical value. Unlike rigid theorists of his time, Johnson balanced classical ideals with practical judgment, making his work enduringly influential. His major critical contributions include The Rambler essays, The Idler, the Preface to Shakespeare, and Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets, each showcasing his analytical depth and distinctive prose style. Among Johnson’s most important works, the Preface to Shakespeare (1765) remains a landmark in literary criticism. Here, Johnson defends Shakespeare’s genius while acknowledging his imperfections, praising his profound understanding of human nature and his ability to create timeless characters. At the same time, Johnson critiques Shakespeare’s occasional disregard for poetic justice and his loose plot structures. This balanced assessment set a precedent for later critics, bridging neoclassical and Romantic approaches. Similarly, in Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets (1779–1781), Johnson combined biography with critical analysis, examining the works of poets like Milton, Dryden, Abraham Cowley, and Pope. His judgments were both evaluative and personal, often reflecting his belief that a writer’s life and character influenced their art. Johnson’s significance as a critic lies in his ability to merge moral, aesthetic, and psychological insights. He insisted that literature should uphold virtue, but also recognized the importance of emotional and imaginative power. Unlike strict formalists, he argued that rigid adherence to classical rules could stifle creativity, advocating instead for a more flexible approach that prioritized the reader’s experience. His defense of Shakespeare’s deviations from Aristotelian norms demonstrated this openness, foreshadowing later Romantic criticism.
Moreover, his biographical method in Lives of the Poets pioneered a new way of understanding literature through the lens of an author’s life, influencing future critics like Matthew Arnold and T.S. Eliot. Ultimately, Johnson’s legacy as a critic rests on his intellectual independence, ethical seriousness, and enduring influence on literary thought. His works not only shaped 18th-century literary standards but also laid the groundwork for modern criticism. By valuing both tradition and innovation, moral purpose and artistic excellence, Johnson established himself as a foundational figure whose insights continue to resonate in the study of literature today.
Preface to Dictionary: In his Dictionary of the English Language, Samuel Johnson defined words in a distinctive and often witty manner. For example, he described an essay as a "loose sally of the mind, an irregular indigested piece," capturing both its informal nature and intellectual spontaneity. Similarly, he defined the Augustan period as "English poetry embellished by Dryden," highlighting Dryden’s influence in refining English verse. These definitions reveal Johnson’s sharp intellect and his tendency to blend scholarly precision with personal judgment.
History of Rasselas: In The History of Rasselas, Johnson presents his views on poetry through the character Imlac, who declares that a poet must not only entertain but also enlighten—echoing Horace’s principle of utile et dulce (useful and pleasing). Imlac states, "The business of a poet is to examine, not the individual, but the species; to remark general properties and large appearances… He must write as the interpreter of nature and the legislator of mankind."
For Johnson, poetry must transcend personal expression and instead capture universal truths about human nature. Imlac further asserts that "Poetry is the highest learning," noting that in nearly all cultures, the most ancient poets are revered as the greatest. He emphasizes that judgment in poetry should come not from books alone but from "reason," meaning one’s own practical experience of life. He also critiques imitation, declaring, "No man was ever great by imitation," and insists that true poetic excellence comes from observing "nature and life." This challenges rigid Neoclassical conventions, advocating instead for originality and deep engagement with reality. Imlac argues that a poet must study the world closely, blending knowledge with imagination. "He must divest himself of the prejudices of his age or country; he must consider right and wrong in their abstracted and invariable state… and rise to general and transcendental truths." Unlike historians, who record facts, poets distill life’s essence, presenting an idealized yet recognizable reality.
Moreover, Imlac rejects the Romantic notion that poets must live in isolation to produce great work, stating, "The poet must acquire a familiarity with all scenes of life… He who sits in solitude may form wild theories, but the just representations of nature must be drawn from the knowledge of mankind." Johnson, through Imlac, insists that poetry demands active engagement with society, not withdrawal from it. Johnson (via Imlac) dismisses poetry that prioritizes ornamentation over substance, arguing, "The aim of every artist is to increase the splendour of beauty, but the poet must teach the means of happiness." This aligns with Johnson’s broader criticism of metaphysical poets like Cowley, whose elaborate conceits he found intellectually clever but morally hollow.
Samuel Johnson on Poetry: Johnson famously stated, "Poetry is the art of uniting pleasure with truth by calling imagination to the help of reason." For him, poetry must delight through aesthetic qualities (rhythm, imagery, diction), instruct by revealing moral or universal truths, and balance imagination and reason, avoiding mere fancy. He believed that true poetry "pleases many and pleases long," enduring because it combines artistic beauty with enduring wisdom.
Lives of the Poets is a monumental work of biographical criticism, covering 52 poets from Abraham Cowley to Thomas Gray, spanning roughly a century of English literature. Originally titled Prefaces, Biographical and Critical, to the Works of the English Poets, the work was intended to present an uncompromising truth about each poet’s life and literary contributions. Johnson arranged the biographies chronologically by birthdate, evaluating each poet’s style, themes, and impact on English poetry.
As the first English critic to attempt a systematic study in practical criticism—analyzing individual works to assess their merits and flaws—Johnson set a new standard for literary evaluation. His approach combined biography with critical analysis, arguing that understanding a writer’s life and character could illuminate their work.
Johnson on Milton: Admiration and Criticism
Johnson’s assessment of John Milton in Lives of the Poets remains one of his most controversial critiques. While he acknowledged Milton’s genius, he was unsparing in his disapproval of Milton’s politics, personality, and even aspects of his poetry. Johnson remarked that Milton "was very frugal of his praise," suggesting a cold and self-important demeanor.
On Lycidas
Johnson’s harshest criticism was reserved for Lycidas, Milton’s pastoral elegy. He dismissed the poem as "easy, vulgar, and therefore disgusting," attacking its "uncertain rhymes," "unpleasing numbers," and "harsh diction." He particularly disliked its abrupt shifts in tone, such as the sudden condemnation of corrupt clergy ("Blind mouths!"), which he found jarring. Johnson also rejected the pastoral tradition itself, calling it artificial and unsuited for genuine grief: "Where there is leisure for fiction, there is little grief." He concluded that Lycidas owed its reputation solely to Milton’s fame, stating, "Surely no man could have fancied that he read Lycidas with pleasure had he not known its author."
On Comus
In contrast, Johnson praised Comus for its moral defense of virtue, declaring that "had this poem been written not by Milton, it would have claimed and received universal praise." His approval here reflects his belief that literature should uphold ethical principles.
On Paradise Lost
Johnson recognized Paradise Lost as a monumental achievement, admiring Milton’s mastery of blank verse and the epic’s grand scale. Yet his praise was tempered with reservations:
"Paradise Lost is one of the books which the reader admires and lays down, and forgets to take up again. None ever wished it longer than it is."
Despite this backhanded compliment, he acknowledged the poem’s sublimity and its exploration of universal themes. However, he criticized Milton’s portrayal of Satan ("offensive to a pious ear") and dismissed his sonnets as lacking "nature" and "truth." Johnson also controversially preferred rhymed verse over Milton’s unrhymed lines, revealing his neoclassical biases.
On Metaphysical Poets: Samuel Johnson’s most extensive critique of metaphysical poetry appears in Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets (1779–1781), particularly in his assessment of Abraham Cowley, whom he regarded as the last major figure of this school. Johnson was the first to coin the term "metaphysical poets" to describe a group of 17th-century writers—including John Donne, George Herbert, Andrew Marvell, and Richard Crashaw—whose work was marked by intellectual complexity, elaborate conceits, and the fusion of seemingly unrelated ideas. In Lives of the Poets, Johnson observed that at the beginning of the 17th century, "there appeared a race of writers that may be termed as metaphysical poets." However, he strongly disapproved of their style, claiming that "all these poems were full of unruly versification, metaphoric distortions, and elaborative conceits." He argued that these poets prioritized displaying wit and learning over genuine poetic expression, turning their verses into philosophical puzzles rather than emotionally resonant art. Johnson famously criticized their forced and unnatural metaphors, writing, "The most heterogeneous ideas are yoked by violence together; nature and art are ransacked for illustrations, comparisons, and allusions."
He found their comparisons strained and artificial, lacking the natural harmony he valued in poetry. Additionally, he believed metaphysical poets neglected aesthetic refinement, producing lines that were metrically awkward and harsh to the ear. Unlike classical and neoclassical poetry, which sought to instruct and delight, Johnson saw metaphysical poetry as overly obscure, lacking both moral clarity and universal appeal.
Despite his general disdain for metaphysical poetry, Johnson made an exception for Abraham Cowley, whom he praised for his intellectual vigor and occasional brilliance. While he acknowledged Cowley’s wit and learning, he still lamented his indulgence in excessive conceits. Johnson wrote:
"Cowley’s miscellanies contain much of what criticism may justly blame, but they contain likewise many passages which poetry will never suffer to be forgotten."
On John Dryden
Johnson credited Dryden with perfecting English verse, particularly the heroic couplet, which became the dominant form in the 18th century. He wrote, "Dryden may be properly considered as the father of English criticism, as the writer who first taught us to determine upon principles the merit of composition." He praised Dryden’s ability to balance poetic vigor with precision, calling him the poet who "refined the language, improved the sentiments, and tuned the numbers of English poetry." Johnson admired Dryden’s critical essays (such as An Essay of Dramatic Poesy), considering them foundational to English literary criticism. He noted that Dryden wrote prose with the same elegance as his poetry, calling him "the first who joined argument with poetry." Dryden excelled in multiple genres—epic, satire, drama, translation, and lyric poetry—and Johnson respected his adaptability and wrote, "What was said of Rome, adorned by Augustus, may be applied by an easy metaphor to English poetry embellished by Dryden: ‘He found it brick, and left it marble.’" Johnson considered Dryden’s satires (Absalom and Achitophel, Mac Flecknoe) unmatched in wit and force, declaring, "If the reader… requires the satirist to whom no other satirist is superior, and few equal, he may safely name Dryden." Johnson noted that Dryden often wrote too quickly, leading to uneven quality. He criticized Dryden’s tendency to prioritize speed over polish, leading to occasional "negligences." As a moralist, Johnson disapproved of Dryden’s comedies (like Marriage-à-la-Mode), which he saw as licentious and pandering to Restoration decadence. Johnson disliked Dryden’s habit of writing extravagant praise for patrons (e.g., Astraea Redux for Charles II), calling some of his dedications "servile" and "degrading to genius.
On Alexander Pope:
Johnson considered Pope the supreme craftsman of the heroic couplet, praising his precision, harmony, and conciseness. lauded Pope’s satires (The Dunciad, Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot) and moral essays (An Essay on Man, An Essay on Criticism) for their wit and wisdom. He wrote, "Pope’s satire is perpetually animated with imagery and diversified with episodes. His strokes are vigorous, but they are pointed with delicacy." Like Dryden, Pope elevated English verse, but Johnson argued that Pope surpassed even Dryden in polish and elegance. Johnson respected Pope’s ability to condense complex ideas into memorable lines, calling An Essay on Man "a system of ethics at once comprehensive and concise." Though Pope attempted epic grandeur in The Rape of the Lock and The Dunciad, Johnson believed he lacked the sublimity of Milton or Homer. Johnson noted that Pope’s most famous works (The Iliad, The Odyssey) were translations, and even his original pieces borrowed heavily from classical and contemporary sources. Despite these reservations, Johnson placed Pope among the greatest English poets, concluding, "If Pope be not a poet, where is poetry to be found?”
On Speech and Rhyme
Samuel Johnson believed that poetic language should strike a balance between familiarity and novelty. He argued that "speech should not be too remote from the speech of daily life" and cautioned against excessive use of new or obscure words, stating "there should not be many new words." For Johnson, the language of poetry must avoid extremes—neither too commonplace nor too artificially elevated. "Not all words are fit for poetry," he maintained, emphasizing the need for clarity and naturalness in verse. Johnson was a vocal critic of blank verse, dismissing it as "verse only to the eyes." He believed that rhyme was essential to poetry’s pleasure, arguing that without it, verse lost its musicality and distinction from prose. In his view, "poetry is preferred to prose only for the pleasure it provides, and that pleasure comes from rhyme." He even suggested that well-crafted prose—being more natural and fluid—was superior to uninspired blank verse. "A good prose is one which is a proper representation of nature," he declared, valuing writing that reflected universal truths rather than artificial embellishment.
Johnson extended his criticism to literature that prioritized eccentricity over universal appeal. He famously dismissed Laurence Sterne’s Tristram Shandy for its focus on idiosyncratic experiences rather than general human nature, remarking: "Nothing odd will do long; Tristram Shandy did not last." His disapproval stemmed from his belief that great art must resonate broadly rather than indulge in peculiarity. Johnson’s conservative literary principles did not go unchallenged. The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer sharply rebuked him, asserting: "A man stunned [by genius] is worth thousands of pageants and commonplace fellows like Doctor Johnson."
Doctor Johnson’s work remains indispensable—not as a final word, but as the foundation upon which all serious English criticism is built. In an age of niche scholarship and theoretical fragmentation, Johnson’s vision of criticism as a public moral enterprise—one that refines taste while elevating society—offers a bracing corrective. As he wrote in The Rambler, “The purpose of literature is to equip us for life.” Few critics have fulfilled that mission more brilliantly.
So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of Literary criticism. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!
No comments:
Post a Comment