Johnson is one of the most influential critics in English literary history of the Neoclassical period. His literary endeavours include a monumental Dictionary of the English Language, a comprehensive edition of Shakespeare, and the Lives of the English Poets - a set of insightful, vividly written biographical portraits of 17th and 18th century authors. An integral dimension of Johnson's literary output was his literary criticism, which was to have a huge impact on the English men of letters in the subsequent days to come.

                     Samuel Johnson was the eldest son of Michael Johnson, who was born in 1709 at Lichfield, Staffordshire ( a town about 100 miles Northwest to London ). His father was a bookseller and his education consisted largely of the volumes in his father's bookshop, and by what was “ whipped into ” him by the master of grammar school in Lichfield. The Vanity of Human Wishes ( 1949 ) in verse yet another achievement and the most important and characteristic product his genius. This solemn, disquieting rumination on the futility of worldly hopes and endeavours was the first composition that Johnson issued under his own name. Johnson was working on and planning larger projects as well. In 1745, he wrote “ Miscellaneous Observations on the Tragedy Of Macbeth, ” along with a proposal for an edition of Shakespeare. In the following year, he outlined his “ plan of a Dictionary of the English Language. ”

                     During 1950s , Johnson wrote many periodical essays. The best of this work appeared in The Rambler which was published twice weekly from March 1750 to March 1752. Johnson died on 20th December 1784, and he was buried in Westminster Abbey.

                     Shakespeare was a subject of much of critical discussion during Johnson's period and his subsequent reputation in the Neoclassical period rests mainly on the assessments made by Dryden and Johnson. Dryden has made his claims for Shakespeare in his Essay on Dramatic Poesy ( 1668 ) which was to have important implications of his own ideas of drama. However, Johnson's Preface shows how Shakespeare is exonerated from his breaking of the rule of the Unities, and the views contained in it sums up what Johnson's age thought of Shakespeare.

                     Johnson begins his Preface by referring to the debate on the relative virtues of ancient and modern writers. He affirms that the excellence of the ancient authors is based on a “ gradual and comparative ” estimate, as tested by “ observation and experience. ” Inquiring into the reasons behind Shakespeare's enduring success and popularity, Johnson makes an important statement : “ Nothing can please many, and please long, but just representations of general nature. ” By “ general nature ”, he refers to the avoidance of particular manners and customs, and the foundation of one's work on the ‘ stability of truth ’ - truth that is permanent and universal. He claims that Shakespeare is “ the poet of nature : the poet that holds up to his readers a faithful mirror of manners and of life. ” His characters are not molded by the

• accidents of time,
• place,
• and local custom; rather, they are “ the genuine progeny of common humanity, “ and they “ act and speak by the influence of those general passions and principles by which all minds are agitated. ” Johnson views Shakespeare as ” one of the original masters of our language. “ He also considered Shakespeare's drama as the ‘ mirror of life. ’

               Johnson also acknowledges that Shakespeare's plays “ are not in the rigorous and critical sense either tragedies or comedies, but compositions of a distinct kind; exhibiting the real state of sublunary nature, which partakes of good and evil, joy and sorrow, mingled with endless variety of proportion and in numerable modes of combination. “ He also believed that Shakespeare “ has united the powers of exciting laughter and sorrow not only in one mind but in one composition. " It is in his defence of tragicomedy that Johnson appeals to nature as a higher authority than precedent.

               Johnson does consider that Shakespeare had many faults. The faults of Shakespeare, according to Johnson are as follows :

• He is “ more careful to please than to instruct, that he seems to write without any moral purpose. "
• The plots are often so loosely formed that a very slight consideration may prove them, and so carelessly pursued that he seems not always fully to comprehend his own design.
• In many of his plays the later part is evidently neglected.
• He had no regard to distinction of time or place, but gives to one age or nation, without scruple, the customs, institutions, and opinions of another, at the expense not only of likelihood, but also of possibility.
• In his comic scenes he is seldom very successful. Neither his gentleman nor his ladies have much delicacy, nor are sufficiently distinguished from his clowns by any appearance of refined manners.
• In tragedy his performance seems constantly to be worse, as his labour is more. The effusions of passion which exigence forces out are for the most part striking and energetic; but whenever he solicits his invention, or strains his faculties, the offspring of his throes is tumour, meanness, tediousness, and obscurity.
• In narration, he affects a disproportionate pomp of diction, and a wearisome train of circumlocution, and tells the incident imperfectly in many words, which might have been more plainly delivered in few.
• His declamations or set speeches are commonly cold and weak, for his power was the power of nature; when he endeavoured, like other tragic writers, to catch opportunities of amplification, and instead of inquiring what the occasion demanded, to show how much his stores of knowledge could supply, he seldom escapes without the pity or resentment of his reader.
• His neglect of the unities, his violation of those laws, which have been instituted and established by the joint authority of poets and critics. To the unities of time and place, he has shown no regard.
• His histories, being neither tragedies nor comedies, are not subject to any of their laws. Nothing more is necessary to all the praise which they expect than that the changes of action be so prepared as to be understood, that the incidents be various and affecting, and the characters consistent, natural, and distinct. No other unity is intended, and therefore none is to be sought.

                        Johnson acknowledges that from Shakespeare's plays, a “ system of social duty ” is cultivated. Some other faults of Shakespeare cited by Johnson are :

• the looseness of his plots, whereby he “ omits opportunities of instructing or delighting ”
• the lack of regard for distinction of time or place, such that persons from one age or place are indiscriminately given attributes pertaining to other eras and locations
• the grossness and licentiousness of his humour
• the coldness and pomp of his narrations and set speeches ;
• the failure to follow through with scenes that evoke terror and pity ; and a perverse and digressive fascination with quibbles and wordplay.

                        Johnson argues that Shakespeare does observe unity of action : his plots are not structured by a complication and denouement “ for this is seldom the order of real events, and Shakespeare is the poet of nature. ” However, he does observe Aristotle's requirement that a plot should have a beginning, middle, and end.

                        Johnson broadly agrees with the tradition that Shakespeare lacked formal learning; and the greater part of his excellence being a “ product on his own genius. ”

                        Important concepts in Preface to Shakespeare :

1. Importance of Nature : Nature has an important role to play in Johnson's criticism. Nature is seen to be allied with reason and experience, and even truth. Shakespeare is above all writers, at least above all writers, at least above all modern writers, the poet of nature ; the poet that holds up to his readers a faithful mirror of manners and life.
2. Reason and Experience : Reason and Experience are other important aspects in Johnson's criticism in the preface. It is perhaps important to note that during his time, Johnson makes a unique contribution by reminding critics of the role of the audience in the reception of a particular play and of the value of practical experience. Johnson ‘s criticism takes into view the concept of ’ verisimilitude ' or the representation of reality. The discussion of the unities is centered on this problem.
3. Idea of the Universal : On the question of Shakespeare's characterisation in drama, we have to relate Johnson's idea of the ‘ universal ’ or the ‘ typical ’. We may rest with the conclusion that what is ‘ universal ’ or ‘ natural ’ has a relation with “ just representations ” of reality, which is often an unclear premise in Johnson's criticism. This is the difficulty that perhaps leaves us often mystified regarding the depiction of characters in drama in Johnson's Preface.

                              Thus, we may assume that Samuel Johnson's Preface to Shakespeare is a landmark in Shakespearean criticism for one single most dominant idea that he laid the foundations of modern Shakespearean scholarship and textual criticism.