ABSTRACT
When Samuel Johnson, citing the authority of Thomas Rymer, asserted that Shakespeare’s natural disposition was for comedy, not tragedy, he was assuming that there were only two genres of drama: comedy and tragedy. The assumption was made apparently without strain and without any sense that its categories imposed undue limitations on the practice of either drama or criticism. Shakespeare was allowed to violate the rules, exculpated by his ignorance of them, and was praised for his fidelity to nature. “Shakespeare’s plays are not, in the rigorous or 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 … in which, at the same time, the reveller is hasting to his wine, and the mourner burying his friend.” 1 If we look closely at Johnson’s “distinct kind,” we shall see that it is not a new genre but a mixture of the two old ones: the kinds remain comedy and tragedy.
