Preface to Shakespeare

Overview

About sixty pages, Samuel Johnson’s preface to his 1765 edition of Shakespeare’s plays, arguing that Shakespeare has stood the test of time because he is the poet of general nature, whose characters function as genuine species rather than particular individuals. This central claim inverts a common assumption about dramatic endurance, locating Shakespeare’s continued appeal in his capacity to portray recognizable human nature generally rather than through more topical, individually specific characterization.

Johnson lists Shakespeare’s faults frankly, his carelessness with plot construction, his frequent indulgence in punning wordplay, and his failure to teach clear moral lessons, before dismantling the neoclassical rule of the unities of time and place, observing that spectators always know they are in a theatre rather than being deceived into believing the action is literally happening before them. He also defends mixing comedy and tragedy and describes the genuine textual problems he faced as an editor working with Shakespeare’s often corrupted early printed texts.

What happens

Shakespeare as poet of general nature. Johnson opens his central argument by claiming that Shakespeare has endured because he is specifically the poet of general nature, his characters functioning as recognizable human species rather than narrowly particular individuals defined by topical or period-specific detail.

Frank acknowledgment of faults. Before mounting his fuller defense, Johnson states Shakespeare’s actual faults directly and without softening, criticizing his carelessness with plot construction, his persistent weakness for punning wordplay, and what Johnson considers a genuine failure to teach clear moral lessons through his dramatic plots.

Dismantling the classical unities. Johnson systematically dismantles the neoclassical rule requiring dramatic unity of time and place, building his argument on the observation that theater audiences always know perfectly well they are sitting in a theater, undermining the illusionist rationale these classical rules had claimed to protect.

Defending mixed genre. Johnson defends Shakespeare’s characteristic practice of mixing comedy and tragedy within single plays against neoclassical critics who insisted on strict generic separation, arguing that this mixture more accurately reflects genuine human experience than rigidly separated tragic and comic modes.

Describing editorial textual problems. Johnson candidly describes the genuine textual difficulties he faced as an editor, working with Shakespeare’s often corrupted and inconsistent early printed texts, an honest account of editorial challenge that established a model for subsequent Shakespeare textual scholarship.

How to read it

Read Johnson’s claim that Shakespeare’s characters are species rather than individuals as a genuine critical argument about what makes dramatic characterization endure, worth weighing directly against alternative theories that locate literary lasting power in precisely observed particular detail rather than general human truth.

Pay close attention to how Johnson’s frank acknowledgment of Shakespeare’s faults, stated before his broader defense, actually strengthens rather than undermines that defense; critical honesty about genuine weaknesses makes Johnson’s subsequent praise considerably more persuasive than uncomplicated reverence could achieve.

Notice how simply and devastatingly Johnson’s argument against the classical unities proceeds; rather than complex theoretical counter-argument, he relies on the straightforward observation that theater audiences already know they are watching a play, a point that undoes the illusionist premise the unities had claimed to protect.

Consider Johnson’s defense of mixed comedy and tragedy as extending his broader argument about general nature; just as human life itself mixes comic and tragic elements rather than remaining generically pure, Shakespeare’s plays reflect this genuine mixture rather than artificially separating these modes.

Read this preface alongside Johnson’s Lives of the Poets to see the same exacting, unhedged critical method Johnson brings to Shakespeare here extended across an entire body of English poets, a consistent critical voice and standard of judgment running through Johnson’s considerably varied body of literary criticism.

Questions it raises

• Does Johnson’s claim that Shakespeare’s characters function as species rather than individuals adequately explain his continued appeal, or does this account risk understating the specific, particular psychological depth many readers find in characters like Hamlet or Lady Macbeth?
• How does Johnson’s frank acknowledgment of Shakespeare’s faults, carelessness with plot, excessive punning, failure to teach clear morals, change your reading of his subsequent defense? Does critical honesty about weakness genuinely strengthen praise, or does listing faults risk undermining the overall argument?
• What does Johnson’s simple observation, that theater audiences always know they are watching a play, actually accomplish against the neoclassical unities? Does this straightforward point fully dismantle the case for dramatic unity of time and place, or does it address only one specific justification among several the unities’ defenders offered?
• How persuasive is Johnson’s defense of mixing comedy and tragedy as more accurately reflecting genuine human experience? Does this argument hold up as a general principle for dramatic structure, or does it apply specifically to Shakespeare’s particular achievement rather than serving as universal dramatic theory?
• Given how candidly Johnson describes the textual problems he faced editing Shakespeare’s corrupted early texts, what does this honesty suggest about his broader approach to scholarly and editorial work? Does acknowledging uncertainty and difficulty represent good editorial practice, or does it risk undermining confidence in the resulting edited text?
• How does this preface’s continued influence on Shakespeare criticism and editorial practice compare to its actual persuasiveness as literary argument today? Does its historical importance as a founding document of modern Shakespeare criticism depend on arguments that still hold up, or has its influence outlasted the specific persuasiveness of its individual claims?