Dr. Samuel Johnson

1. Dr. Samuel Johnson

Introduction: Who Was Dr. Samuel Johnson?

Dr. Samuel Johnson (1709–1784) was one of the most important writers and thinkers of 18th-century England. He was known for many roles: a dictionary-maker (lexicographer), essayist, biographer, editor, and especially as a literary critic. His Dictionary of the English Language (1755) was a huge achievement. His two most famous critical works are Lives of the Poets and the Preface to Shakespeare. He believed that literature should teach moral lessons and help people become better. While some like T. S. Eliot said that Johnson didn’t influence critics after his time, many agree that his ideas shaped 19th-century literary criticism deeply.

His Views on Art and Life:

Johnson believed that literature is closely connected to real life. Stories and poems should reflect truth, not just give pleasure. In his criticism of Milton’s poem Lycidas, he said it didn’t feel sincere or real. He wrote:

“It is not to be considered as the effusion of real passion… Where there is leisure for fiction there is little grief.”

This means that real emotion doesn't use complicated or artificial words. Johnson wanted literature to be realistic and honest.

Johnson's Moral Approach to Literature:

1. Johnson believed that literature should have a moral purpose. Writers should help improve society through their work.

2. In the Preface to Shakespeare, he said Shakespeare cared more about pleasing the audience than teaching lessons:

“He sacrifices virtue to convenience… he seems to write without any moral purpose.”

3. Johnson wanted “poetic justice” in stories—good characters should be rewarded and bad ones punished. He disliked the sad ending of King Lear, and he disapproved of Tom Jones because it didn’t follow proper moral behaviour.

Johnson’s Views on Realism and Universality:

• Johnson didn’t believe writers should just copy the ancient (classical) authors. He thought literature should show human life as it truly is, and not just imitate others.

• He praised Shakespeare’s characters because they were universal, not just individual. He wrote:

“In the writings of other poets a character is too often an individual, in those of Shakespeare it is commonly a species.”

• Johnson believed that stories should reflect general human nature, so that they can appeal to many people for a long time:

“Nothing can please many, and please long, but just representations of general nature.”

Johnson’s Views on Drama Rules and Tragicomedy:

1. He did not agree with the strict rules of drama from Aristotle, such as the unities of time and place.

2. Johnson believed that the most important goals of literature were to teach and entertain, not to follow old rules:

“The unities of time and place… are always to be sacrificed to the nobler beauties of variety and instruction.”

3. He defended Shakespeare for mixing tragedy and comedy, saying that life is also a mix of joy and sorrow. He wrote:

“Shakespeare’s plays… exhibit the real state of sublunary nature, which partakes of good and evil, joy and sorrow.”

Johnson’s Thoughts on Language and Style:

• Johnson believed in clear and proper language in writing. As a dictionary-maker, he cared about words and grammar.

• He criticized Shakespeare for using too much wordplay or puns. He said this distracted from the main story.

• Johnson preferred poets like Alexander Pope, who he believed reached a level of perfection in verse.

The “Common Reader” as Judge:

• Johnson believed that regular readers, not just scholars, should decide which works are great.

• He wrote:

“The common reader will finally decide all claims to poetical honours.”

• Later critic Virginia Woolf also agreed with this idea. She said the “common reader” was someone honest and fair in judging literature.

Johnson and the Romantics: Points of Disagreement:

• Johnson did not support the Romantic idea of poetry as a personal, emotional expression.

• He saw poetry as a skillful art, not as something that came from personal feelings or spiritual inspiration.

• He said:

“The essence of poetry is invention… that surprises and delights.”

• He also believed that devotional or religious poetry had little room for creativity because its topics were too limited.

• Critics from the Romantic period later rejected Johnson’s ideas, calling them outdated or narrow.

Johnson as a Neoclassical Critic:

1. Johnson followed many neoclassical ideas, such as order, reason, and moral teaching.

2. However, he was not overly strict. He allowed for flexibility in judging literature.

3. Critic René Wellek said that Johnson was not boring or dogmatic but thoughtful and balanced.

4. Another critic, W. R. Keast, said Johnson had a clear system of literary thinking but was also open-minded.

5. Johnson believed literature should be moral, realistic, and understandable to all readers.

6. Critic George Saintsbury said:

“We may freely disagree with his judgments, but we can never justly disable his judgment.”

Why Johnson Still Matters:

Dr. Samuel Johnson is still respected today for his deep understanding of literature. He believed that good writing should be truthful, moral, and clear, and that readers should learn something valuable from it. Even though later critics, like the Romantics, moved in a different direction, Johnson’s views continue to influence how we read and judge literature.

As Wimsatt and Brooks said, he was:

“the Great Cham of 18th-century English literary criticism… more capacious than any abstract dimension of critical theory.”

Johnson showed that a great critic does not just follow rules blindly but uses reason, experience, and honesty to judge literature. That’s why he remains one of the most important voices in English literary criticism.

2. Dr. Samuel Johnson’s Preface to Shakespeare: Praise and Criticism

Dr. Samuel Johnson's Preface to Shakespeare, written in 1765, is one of his most famous works of literary criticism. In this preface, Johnson praises Shakespeare for his creativity and insight into human nature, but he also points out some flaws in Shakespeare’s works. Johnson’s writing is both appreciative and critical, showing his deep respect for Shakespeare while also addressing the weaknesses he sees in his plays.

Johnson’s Praise for Shakespeare:

1. Understanding of Human Nature

One of the things Johnson admires most about Shakespeare is his ability to understand and represent human nature. Johnson believes that Shakespeare’s characters are not just unique individuals, but representations of general human traits. He says, “In the writings of other poets, a character is too often an individual, in those of Shakespeare, it is commonly a species.” This means that Shakespeare’s characters reflect the general nature of people, not just specific individuals. They are more relatable because they capture common human experiences and emotions.

2. Shakespeare’s Creativity and Language

Johnson also praises Shakespeare for his creative genius and his skill in language. He acknowledges that Shakespeare’s works are full of surprises and new ideas. Shakespeare’s ability to create characters, plots, and language that engage the audience is something Johnson deeply respects. He writes, “The essence of poetry is invention; such invention as, by producing something unexpected, surprises and delights.” Johnson admires how Shakespeare surprises the audience with his creativity and delights them with unexpected developments.

3. Emotional Depth

Another reason Johnson admires Shakespeare is the emotional power of his works. Shakespeare’s ability to make audiences feel a wide range of emotions, from joy to sorrow, is one of his greatest strengths. Johnson recognizes that Shakespeare’s characters are complex and evoke deep emotional responses from the audience. He writes, “Nothing can please many, and please long, but just representations of general nature,” showing that Shakespeare’s emotional depth and accurate portrayal of human feelings make his works timeless.

Johnson’s Criticism of Shakespeare:

1. Lack of Moral Purpose

While Johnson praises Shakespeare’s creativity, he is critical of the lack of clear moral guidance in Shakespeare’s plays. For Johnson, literature should teach moral lessons, but he believes that Shakespeare sometimes focuses more on entertainment than on instructing the audience about right and wrong. Johnson writes that Shakespeare “sacrifices virtue to convenience” and is more concerned with pleasing the audience than with providing moral lessons. He believes Shakespeare’s characters often do not face clear moral consequences for their actions, which weakens the moral value of his plays.

2. Weak Structure and the Unities

Johnson also criticizes Shakespeare’s plays for their lack of strict structure. He believes that good plays should follow certain rules, such as the classical unities of time, place, and action, which help organize a play. While Johnson acknowledges that Shakespeare does not always follow these rules, he argues that a play should focus on the bigger goals of telling a powerful and meaningful story. Johnson writes, “The unities of time and place are not essential to a just drama, though they may sometimes conduce to pleasure.” This suggests that while the unities can improve a play, they should not be strictly followed at the expense of the play’s broader artistic and moral goals.

3. Inconsistent Moral and Emotional Resolution

Johnson also points out that Shakespeare’s plays often do not provide clear resolutions to the moral and emotional struggles of the characters. In some plays, the good and bad characters do not face clear consequences, which makes the ending feel unsatisfying or morally unclear. Johnson criticizes this, saying that Shakespeare leaves his characters without any clear judgment at the end. For example, in King Lear, Johnson feels that the tragic ending is emotionally powerful, but it lacks a clear moral conclusion.

Admiration and Critique:

Despite his criticisms, Johnson still admires Shakespeare's talent. He acknowledges that Shakespeare’s works are extraordinary and influential, but he believes that Shakespeare could have been more careful with moral lessons, structure, and resolution. Johnson sees Shakespeare’s flaws as part of his artistic freedom, but he also argues that literature should have a clear moral purpose. This balance of admiration and critique is what makes Johnson’s Preface to Shakespeare so important in the history of literary criticism.

Critics’ Views on Johnson’s Preface to Shakespeare:

Some critics have praised Johnson's Preface to Shakespeare for its careful analysis of Shakespeare’s strengths and weaknesses. René Wellek, for example, noted that Johnson’s criticism was balanced and thorough, offering a deep understanding of both the artistic and moral dimensions of Shakespeare’s work. According to Wellek, Johnson “constantly reinterprets” neoclassical principles in a way that was “liberal,” reflecting a flexible approach to criticism that allowed for both praise and critique.

Other critics, like Wimsatt and Brooks, have highlighted that Johnson’s Preface shows his deep understanding of Shakespeare's genius, but also his commitment to the neoclassical values of order, morality, and structure. They agree with Johnson that literature should instruct as well as entertain, but they also recognize that Shakespeare’s works sometimes challenge these traditional values.