Easy Analysis of Samuel Johnson's Preface to Shakespeare (1765)

Samuel Johnson's "Preface to Shakespeare" was published in 1765 as an introduction to his edition of Shakespeare’s plays. Johnson, a highly respected scholar, poet, and critic, took it upon himself to analyze the strengths and shortcomings of Shakespeare’s work with honesty and deep insight. This preface is one of the earliest and most balanced critical essays written on Shakespeare. It not only offers appreciation but also provides a critical lens for readers to understand the dramatist’s technique, language, and influence.

Background

In the 18th century, Shakespeare was admired by many for his storytelling and characters, but also criticized for lacking refinement compared to classical writers like Homer or Sophocles. Critics of the time often expected literature to follow strict rules, especially those laid down by ancient Greek and Roman drama. Shakespeare, who lived much earlier in the Elizabethan era, did not follow those classical rules strictly. Johnson set out to defend Shakespeare against these criticisms while being honest about his mistakes. He spent nearly a decade working on editing the plays and researching various versions to create a complete edition. The preface that came with his edition explains Johnson’s understanding of Shakespeare as a writer of enduring importance.

1. Shakespeare’s Universal Appeal

Johnson argues that Shakespeare’s plays go beyond time, place, and cultural background. He believed that the dramatist wrote not just for his age, but for all of humanity. This is why people from different periods and places can relate to the characters, situations, and emotions found in Shakespeare’s work. Johnson calls Shakespeare the “poet of nature,” because he presents life as it is, not just how it should be. His characters are relatable and his stories touch on universal themes such as love, jealousy, ambition, guilt, and forgiveness.

For Johnson, Shakespeare had the rare ability to portray the full spectrum of human emotions and behavior without relying on stereotypes or exaggerated characters. This, he felt, was what made Shakespeare timeless.

2. His Characters Are True to Life

One of the greatest strengths Johnson identifies in Shakespeare is his gift for character creation. Rather than creating idealized or purely evil characters, Shakespeare's figures reflect the real complexity of human beings. Johnson notes that Shakespeare's characters speak and behave like people one might meet in real life. Their emotions are not overly dramatic or unrealistic; they are deeply human. Even when a character is involved in a fantastical or historical setting, their emotions and dilemmas remain genuine and grounded.

This realistic portrayal allows readers and viewers to see themselves in Shakespeare’s plays. His characters make mistakes, feel deep emotions, struggle with choices, and experience joy and suffering just as we do today.

3. Shakespeare’s Strength in Plot and Dialogue

Johnson greatly admired how Shakespeare constructed his stories and the way his characters communicated. He thought Shakespeare had a strong sense of dramatic structure and pacing. The plots of his plays, while sometimes based on known stories, were handled in a way that kept the audience engaged. His ability to move the plot forward while still exploring the inner lives of characters made his plays emotionally and intellectually satisfying.

In addition, Shakespeare’s dialogue was praised for its richness, variety, and expressiveness. Johnson acknowledged that his language could sometimes be challenging, but he believed that the power and beauty of Shakespeare’s words far outweighed their difficulty.

4. Mixing Comedy and Tragedy

One of the major criticisms of Shakespeare in Johnson’s time was that he often mixed tragic and comic scenes in the same play. According to classical rules, this was seen as a flaw. However, Johnson defended this practice strongly. He said that life itself is a mix of happiness and sorrow, so drama should reflect that reality. By including comic relief in tragic plays, Shakespeare made them more relatable and emotionally complex.

Though Johnson felt that a writer should ideally offer moral guidance, he recognized that Shakespeare was more focused on presenting life truthfully. In this honesty, he saw a form of moral teaching in itself.

5. Shakespeare’s Freedom from the Three Unities

Classical drama was expected to follow the unities of time (the action should take place within 24 hours), place (one location), and action (one main plot). Shakespeare ignored these rules in many of his plays, using multiple plots and settings and stretching time over days or years. Johnson defends this as creative freedom and says that the stage is not real life; it’s meant to represent life, and audiences are capable of using their imagination.

According to Johnson, a play’s success lies in its emotional truth and character portrayal, not in its strict adherence to outdated rules. Shakespeare’s plays may not follow traditional structures, but they connect with audiences on a deeper level, which matters more.

6. Shakespeare’s Faults

Although Johnson admired Shakespeare, he did not hesitate to point out his shortcomings. He listed several faults:

• Loose plot construction: Some of Shakespeare’s plays lacked tight structure and seemed confusing.
• Vulgar language: Many jokes were considered inappropriate or low in taste.
• Carelessness with facts: Shakespeare sometimes mixed up names, dates, or settings, especially in historical plays.

Johnson suggested that some of these mistakes came from Shakespeare’s desire to entertain a wide audience quickly. He also reminded readers that these were minor flaws compared to his overall genius and contributions.

7. Language and Style

Many readers in Johnson’s time felt Shakespeare’s language was hard to understand. Johnson agreed but believed that language naturally changes over time. He explained that what seems confusing now may have been perfectly clear in Shakespeare’s era. Rather than criticize, we should try to understand the historical context.

Johnson also included notes and glossaries in his edition to help modern readers understand old or unfamiliar words. This shows his dedication to making literature accessible to everyone.

8. The Role of the Editor

Johnson criticized earlier editors of Shakespeare for introducing errors and changing texts without good reason. He believed a good editor should preserve the original while correcting obvious mistakes. He compared different versions of the same play, consulted manuscripts, and used his critical thinking to make Shakespeare’s plays more accurate and readable.

He also aimed to remove stage directions or additions made by actors and editors after Shakespeare’s death. His focus was always on being faithful to Shakespeare’s own voice and vision.

9. Shakespeare’s Enduring Legacy

Johnson strongly believed that Shakespeare’s work would outlast his critics and remain valuable for generations. He argued that the realistic portrayal of human emotion and behavior would always be meaningful, regardless of changing literary trends. Shakespeare’s understanding of people and his ability to express complex ideas simply made him a universal genius.

Even though Shakespeare didn’t always provide direct moral lessons, Johnson saw in his plays a deep wisdom about life and society.

Conclusion

Samuel Johnson’s "Preface to Shakespeare" is one of the most balanced and thoughtful works of literary criticism in English literature. It celebrates Shakespeare’s timeless genius while also acknowledging his human flaws. Johnson encourages readers to see literature not as a set of rules, but as a mirror of life.

This quote summarizes Johnson’s central idea — we should judge a writer based on the era they lived in, and understand what their audience expected. Shakespeare wrote for his time, but his insights into life and humanity go far beyond that. Johnson’s essay remains a guiding light for students, critics, and lovers of literature even today.