Actually, Samuel Johnson’s 1765 Preface to Shakespeare
fits into a tradition of presenting Shakespeare’s plays in modernized or more accessible
versions. Treatises by John Locke, David Hume and Edmund Burke were extant at the time
Johnson produced his edition of the Bard; these earlier critics established a working
definition of a "common sense," which describes universal experience. So Johnson was
adhering to an established rubric that assessed literature in "reasonable"
terms.
Johnson’s Preface echoes many neo-classical sentiments,
especially in his application of mimetic values, and in his axiom that “nothing can
please many, and please long, but just representations of human nature.” Johnson also
states that “it is always a writer’s duty to make the world better, and justice is a
virtue independent on time or place.” He notes that Shakespeare’s plays follow
Horace's miscuit utile dulce: “The end of writing is to instruct; the end of poetry is
to instruct by pleasing.” Most audiences expected and enjoyed this
principle.
to Johnson, Shakespeare does have several faults that do
not meet Enlightenment moral standards: “He sacrifices virtue to convenience, and is
so much more careful to please than to instruct, that he seems to write without any
moral purpose.” “To the unities of time and place he has shown no regard.” In other
words, Shakespeare played too loose with classical precepts, and thus could not appeal
to the "common sense" of readers of Johnson's day.
No comments:
Post a Comment