DR.

JOHNSON
He lived in eighteen century and belonged to the same school of criticism as Dryden
and had many views common with him. In eighteen century for the first time the works
of Shakespeare were interpreted when Shakespeare died he had not leave any
authentic copy of his works. Shakespeare is such an important writer that
Shakespearean criticism has become an independent branch of literature and literary
criticism. Much has been said and written about Shakespeare by many critics. He has
been studied and criticized from different point of views, for attitudes have been
changing.

GENERAL SURVEY OF SHAKESPEAREAN CRITICISM OR THE CONTEMPORERY

PLAYWRIGHT VIEW OF SHAKESPEARE

Shakespeare wrote for theatre. It was the age of drama. In his own age, he was
recognized as the greatest among his contemporaries, off course there was no question
of idealizing Shakespeare. He was a successful and popular playwright. People know
him very well. He wrote plays for money. His contemporaries also know his greatness.
They also know his weaknesses as a man and a writer, but generally they admired him,
the man who left behind him. Critical views on Shakespeare are from his
contemporaries:

(a) "BEN JONSON" was also a great playwright. He was the junior contemporary of
Shakespeare. He tried to restore classical drama yet he had no hesitation in declaring
Shakespeare not only the great writer of his age but of all ages and times. Ben Jonson
was very different from Shakespeare. He says that Shakespeare was very richly gifted
and writing came to him naturally, as for as the gift of nature is concerned. Shakespeare
was far more superior to Ben Jonson but as far as art is concerned. He thinks he is
superior to Shakespeare. But on the whole he regarded Shakespeare much better then
himself and his age. He regarded him equal to his masters. His masters were
Sophocles and Euripides. I would like to quote some very bright remarks of Dryden on
Shakespeare.

(b) Then after Ben Jonson the puritan revolution came with him, the great age of
Elizabethan came to an end. Theatres were closed down. Poetry and Art were thought
to be the weapon of Satan. All gaity and joy was considered sinful. The writers who ran
away with king’s family, took refuge in France. It was the great age of French drama.
The English developed their tastes in France. By the 90 storm of the puritans subrided
and the people realized the folly, they welcomed the restoration. Kingship was better
than theocracy. People get fed up of theocracy. So a new age had begun. There was no
gradual evolution, so with the restoration when these people came back to England.
They adopted the French fashion. They brought with them new literary ideas and those
new ideas were very different from the Elizabethan ideas. Their age was the age of
reason and enlightenment. Elizabethan age on the other hand, was compared to the
dark ages.

They judged Shakespeare not on his standards but they applied absolutely
different standards, standards of their age to Shakespeare, so naturally they found
different faults with him. They judged him on the standards of Aristotle and of the Greek
playwright. They thought of Shakespeare as a rough diamond and they were cutting him
into shape. Some judged him on the basis of Greek drama.

(1) They said that Shakespeare had too much violent and strong passion. They thought
that these qualities should be kept away from the stage, for all these were thought to be
uncivilized and vulgar and against art.

(2) The second objection was on Shakespeare is maxing of tragedy and comedy.
Greeks did that. The two could not be write because there is the difference between
characters, actions, emotion and purpose of tragedy and comedy. They were critical of
his mixing the two.

(3) The third was the absence of unity of time and place. In his plays in the different
scenes he takes us to different places, wide apart. There was no unity of time.

(4) They also objected to his plots, which they thought to be loose, clumsy and very
badly organized. There were number of plots in a single play.

(5) The fifth objection was against his too much use of imagination and fantasy. This
age was the age of realism, which gave birth to novel. All art must be realistic.
Imagination takes a man away from reality. They believed into a world of make-belief.

(6) They also found faults with his language and with his humor. His language was
crude and not elegant. His jokes were vulgar and crude. After all, they were aware of his
greatness. They said that there was a great deal in him which should be improved. This
was the general attitude about Shakespeare.

(c) "DRYDEN" was one of these critics and writers but he was different from others. He
had no hesitation at all in recognizing the greatness of Shakespeare. Dryden said that
rules are not the same for all times. He says that Aristotle wrote while he had Euripides
and Sophocles before him. He says that there are many ways to greatness and
Shakespeare did not take the way of Euripides and Sophocles yet he achieved
greatness. Dryden finds faults with Shakespeare that is with his language and wit. This
is inevitable for these people, for they consider themselves and their age matchless as
far as wit and language was concerned. This was the age of wit and humor. There was
intellectual humor. He says almost the same thing as he had said of Chaucer.

The judicial school of Shakespearian criticism begun with Dryden. But again we see that
there is no idealization. He plays a great tribute to him, he is proud of him as an
Englishman but he is also conscious of his faults and he tries to strike a balance
between his merits and demerits. This sort of criticism begun with Dryden and continued
for a whole century.

(d) "DR.JOHNSON" is the last of this school. He has summed up all that was
significant in his predecessors. He was a man of very sound judgment. He was talented
and had genius of literature. He was a man of strong mind and expounded his views in
a forceful manner. He dominated his age, was in fact, a detector among his
contemporaries. He silenced many critics forever. He recognizes the greatness and
uniqueness of Shakespeare. His praise of Shakespeare is that of a devotee and it is on
same ground as Dryden. When Jonson admires Shakespeare, it is whole-hearted but
when he criticizes, he is doing it out of the sense of duty. Because otherwise he would
not be considered just. He does not have that enthusiasm in finding faults as when he
admiring.

(e) With Dr.Johnson this age comes to an end. After him we have the romantic outburst.
Now there was no question of finding faults with Shakespeare. They idealized and
worshiped Shakespeare. In fact they have religious reverence for him. They said that a
critic who takes the name of Shakespeare without reverence is disqualified for the office
of criticism. There was all love and admired for him. They studied him not to find faults
with him but to understand him. Who is a critic to pass judgment on a writer like
Shakespeare, they said it is the writer who is great not the critic and so the critic first
understand the writer. The more he reads the Shakespeare, the more he will fill with
wonders. This was the 19th century view. This was the attitude of people like Coleridge,
Lamb, and Hazlitt etc.
Another view is that Shakespeare is primarily a poet then a playwright. So they thought
that he should be read and not acted. Every presentation of Shakespeare will be only
one interpretation of Shakespeare. No stage can do justice with him. It is his poetry,
which gives understanding to mass. Acting narrows down the field to only one
interpretation, Lamb, Dequinicy etc. had this view.

Some held the view that Shakespeare flowered into a genius because of the difficulties
he had to face the obstacles are challenges to a great man and he is stimulated by
these challenges. In his struggle against obstacles, he had created new laws, moral
code and words. They are all responses to the challenges of the age. A new challenge
demands a new response. Shakespeare was faced with obstacles, they did not restrain
his imagination but he became great because of them. This is what romantics believed.

Dr.Johnson is between the two extremes of Shakespearean criticism, the neo classical
criticism and romantic criticism, he stands in the middle. This is DR Johnson‘s place in
the history of Shakespearean criticism.

Standard of time, Dr.Johnson begins by judging the greatness of Shakespeare on two

standards. The standard of time and standard of nature. He first of all applies the test of
time to prove Shakespeare’s greatness. This test had also been suggested by Longinus
for establishing the greatness of a writer. That writer who involves all and always must
be great, that writer who never becomes stale but always remains fresh. Every time he
is read, he moves and inspires as the first time we read. Every time he gives some new
thought to the reader. A writer who defies time who does not become outdated even
with the passage of time must be great because time destroys everything. Even after
centuries he effects in the same way as he affects the people of his time, the people of
different ages. Different professionals who have nothing common yet they found to be
moved by reading such a writer. If they are swept off their feed and filled with ecstasy.
Then that author must be great. This is the test of time which Dr.Johnson applies to
Shakespeare.

This test applies to Shakespeare is true and he has passed this test. Many years have
passed since the death of Shakespeare but his hold has, in no way, weakened.
Fashions, literary, literary fashions have changed, new schools of criticism have taken
birth which is diifferent and yet they all admire and enjoy Shakespeare. They have no
doubts of his supreme genius so he must be really great. Dr.Johnson does not merely
apply the test of time but also gives us the justification. Because there were people who
did not agree to this test. It is quite easy to say that this test is not proper. The people
said that it was just a superstitious veneration of the past. There is a tendency in human
mind to overrate the past they felt it not a real test because it was merely an admiration
of the past. It is true also because we idealize things of the past. We make them into
gods and demi-gods. We make past into golden age. It is common to find critics finding
nothing but faults and defects in a living author but after he is dead, they find nothing
but beauty. We tent to judge a living author by his worst, ignoring his merits and a dead
author by his best, ignoring his faults. All this is true but the test of time is the only test
through which we can judge the greatness of a writer. The general rule is that minor
authors die with the time. They may be considered great by their own contemporises
but with the passage of time they sink into oblivion. This is human experience. So this
test was not just superstitious respect of the past. In fact it is the only test.

Literary judgments are different from scientific judgments. Scientific judgments

are objective and absolute, having uniformity. They are the same for all. For example
when I say this table has four feet. I am giving a scientific judgment. It is the same for
all. But if I say this table is big, it is a meaningless statement. The table in itself is
neither big nor small. It is big when it is used as a dinner-table and if used as a tea-table
then it is small. So this is not valuable judgment. So this is meaningless, unless we
compare it to another. So my statement that this table is big, is meaningless unless the
purpose of the table is known.

In literature we deal with profound ideas, not big or small, we deal with the aesthetics
values. Literary judgments of beauty, love etc. is not objective but relative. The
statements become meaningless only by comparison beauty, truth, goodness etc. are
value judgments. The greatness of writer can be compared with the greatness of other
and time gives us the opportunity and chance to compare one writer with the other not
with the contemporaries only but also with those “who” appear after him. With the
passage of time large number of other writer appears and if among these writers one
stands holding his head high, then he must be great. It seems to be the only valid test.
As time passes the author is compared to more and more writers appearing after him.
He