Shakespeare’s characterization (Dr Johnson)
If plot is the flesh and blood of drama, character is the soul of it. A perfect characterization can often hide the faults of lax plot, but a well-knit plot can be a partial failure if characters are not up to the mark. Shakespeare,” the father of English drama”, has not overlooked this significant aspect of characterization and it is this virtue of character drawing that immortalizes him. Dr Samuel Johnson in his “Preface to Shakespeare” beautifully analysed his art of characterization and justified his claims to being one of the greatest dramatists in the world.
Shakespeare’s characters, he argues, belong not to a particular society or time but “are the genuine progeny of common humanity”. His characters have features related not only to themselves but to each and every man living in each and every time and place in the world. These characters represent a species rather than a particular man but also possess distinctive features so that one is always separated and individualized from the other. He truly holds up a ” faithful mirror of manners and of life”. His characters tread on ground and talk in a language which we understand. Even when the plot calls for a supernatural agent the tone of the dialogues remains life-like and realistic. He never portrays too much idealistic or too much evil figure. His characters are not monomaniac like Jonson’s but multidimensional. Shakespeare shows a man who is just like us- devoid of hyperbolic ornamentation : ” Shakespeare has no heroes, his scenes are occupied only by men, who act and speak as the reader thinks that he should himself has spoken or acted on the same occasion.”
Shakespearean figures are special for no external uniqueness but the depth of their psychological world. He presents human nature not merely as it reacts to the common situations of life but also as it may act in extraordinary situations. Indeed, Shakespeare ” approximates the remote ,and familiarizes the wonderful.” We never think his characters to be unbelievable since he imposes no unbelievable elements in them. He knew that ” the mind can only repose on the stability of truth”. Unlike Pope, Johnson admits that some speeches have ” nothing charecteristical” . But most of the speeches can’t be properly transferred from ” the present possessor to another claimamt” because ” The choice is right, when there is reason for choice”. His characters show both serious and ludicrous features since a real life person cannot be only comical or only serious throughout all situations. Dennis and Rymer criticized his Romans not to be sufficiently Romans and Voltaire’s protest is that his kings are not kings in the strict sense. But Johnson argues that “shakespeare always makes nature predominate over accident” and he exposes the human elements in the kings and Romans. He describes not personal peculiarities but “human sentiments in human language” and in his plays “the whole system of life is continued in motion”. He never over-individualizes to mar the universal quality of a character. Shakespeare neglects incongruous details ” as a painter, satisfied with the figure,neglects the drapery”.
I think that Johnson is discreet in his criticism of Shakespeare’s characterization. What marks his analysis to be unique is his honesty to detect Shakespeare’s drawbacks and to present them fearlessly ,though with respect. He is free from the petty mindedness of critics like Dennis , Rhymer or Voltaire and from the overestimation of Pope. His emphasis on Shakespeare’s psychological insight proves his minute observations of those characters.
