Samuel Johnson discusses Shakespeare’s treatment of the three classical unities - unity of action, unity of time, and unity of place - in his Preface to Shakespeare (1765). His discussion is one of the most important statements of eighteenth-century English literary criticism.
Johnson considers Unity of Action the only essential unity. He argues that Shakespeare generally observes it. A Shakespearean play may contain subplots and numerous incidents, but the events are sufficiently connected to form a coherent whole. Johnson observes that Shakespeare's plots usually possess what Aristotle requires: “a beginning, a middle, and an end.” According to Johnson, unity does not mean that a play must contain only one incident; rather, all the major events should contribute to the overall dramatic movement.
Shakespeare frequently violates the classical rule of Unity of Time that the action of a play should take place within a single day. Johnson does not regard this violation as a serious defect. The defenders of the unity of time argued that audiences could not believe that events covering months or years had taken place within the few hours of a theatrical performance. Johnson rejects this argument because the audience knows that the drama is an imitation or representation of reality, not reality itself. A reader can accept that years pass while reading a narrative in a few hours; similarly, a theatre audience can accept the passage of time between scenes or acts.
Johnson also rejects the necessity of Unity of Place, restricting a play to a single geographical location. Shakespeare freely moves his characters from one place to another. Johnson famously gives the example of a play whose first act is set in Venice and the next in Cyprus, arguing that such movement should not be condemned merely because it violates a formal rule.
According to Johnson, the unities of time and place are based on a false assumption about dramatic credibility. They restrict the dramatist's freedom and reduce the variety that drama can offer.
Johnson's position can be summed up in his famous assertion:
“As nothing is essential to the fable, but unity of action...”
He therefore maintains that unity of action is essential, whereas unity of time and place are optional. They may sometimes contribute to dramatic effect, but they should be sacrificed when they interfere with variety, instruction, and the larger artistic purpose of drama.
Johnson consequently defends Shakespeare against neoclassical critics who condemned his disregard for the rules. He suggests that Shakespeare's violations of time and place are justified by his “comprehensive genius.” For Johnson, rigid adherence to dramatic rules can produce an elaborate and technically correct play, but it may sacrifice the richer qualities of variety, imagination, realism, and instruction.
In short, Johnson does not reject all dramatic structure. He accepts unity of action as fundamental but regards unity of time and place as non-essential rules that should not restrict the dramatist's creative freedom. This defence of Shakespeare marks Johnson's movement away from rigid neoclassical criticism toward a more flexible and empirical understanding of literature.
