always something wanting, but his comedy often surpasses expectation or
desire. His comedy pleases by the thoughts and the language, and his
tragedy for the greater part by incident and action. His tragedy seems
to be skill, his comedy to be instinct." As a theatre-goer, Johnson
could also say in the Preface that "familiar comedy is often more
powerful on the theatre, than in the page; imperial tragedy is always
less." One might logically assume, then, that Johnson's greater
enjoyment of Shakespeare's comedies would be easily remarked in his
commentary--and even, possibly, that they would be singled out for more
annotation and comment than the tragedies or the histories. The most
heavily annotated plays are, however, the tragedies, and it is curious
to observe that the sombre "problem comedy," _Measure for Measure_,
commands more notes than any other comedy. Further, Johnson's moral and
religious sensibilities were offended by profanity and obscenity in the
drama, and Shakespeare's comedies, far more than his tragedies and
histories, transgress in this direction. One recollects, finally, that
the dramatic genre favored most by Johnson was the "she-tragedy." Was
Johnson lauding Shakespeare's comedies because the tragedies had been
excessively praised? I do not know.

I an most grateful to the Research Board of the University of Illinois
for a grant which greatly expedited my work.




COMEDIES


Vol. I