Understanding the Passage and its Literary Context

The provided passage discusses a crucial principle for a writer: the importance of distinguishing between "nature" and "custom."

• Nature: This refers to what is inherently right or true, based on universal principles or human experience.
• Custom: This refers to what is considered right simply because it has been established or traditionally accepted, even if it lacks inherent justification.

The passage argues that a writer's primary goal ("first endeavour") should be to make this distinction. Why? To avoid two pitfalls:

1. Violating essential, natural principles just to be new or original ("desire of novelty").
2. Missing out on genuine literary beauties ("attainment of beauties") because of an unnecessary fear of breaking established rules that don't have fundamental authority ("needless fear of breaking rules which no literary dictator had authority to enact").

Essentially, the passage advocates for judging literature based on its truth to nature and its effectiveness, rather than blind adherence to conventional rules or authoritative pronouncements.

Attributing the Passage: The Death-Knell of Neo-Classical Criticism

The passage is significant because it challenges the core tenets of Neo-classical criticism. Neo-classicism often prioritized adherence to classical rules (derived from ancient Greek and Roman authors like Aristotle and Horace), established conventions, and authority. Critics during this period often judged literature based on how well it followed these established norms.

The sentiment expressed in the passage—prioritizing "nature" and inherent rightness over mere "custom" and established but arbitrary rules—directly undermines the foundation of strict Neo-classical rule-following. By suggesting that a writer should not be bound by rules lacking essential authority, it opens the door for a more flexible, reason-based, and experience-driven approach to literature and criticism.

This perspective is strongly associated with Samuel Johnson. Johnson, a prominent figure in the latter half of the 18th century, was a transitional critic. While he respected classical authors and certain principles, he was also a pragmatist who valued reason, common sense, and the observation of nature and human life above rigid adherence to ancient rules or critical dogma. His critical works, particularly his Preface to Shakespeare, exemplify this approach, where he defends Shakespeare based on his universal appeal and truth to nature, even while acknowledging his violations of classical dramatic unities.

Therefore, this passage, which argues for judging literature by its intrinsic merit and truth rather than by established custom or arbitrary rules, aligns perfectly with Samuel Johnson's critical philosophy and is widely attributed to him. Its emphasis on questioning the authority of mere custom over essential principles is seen as a crucial step away from the rigid rule-based approach of earlier Neo-classical criticism, hence the description "death-knell."

Analyzing the Options

Let's briefly consider why the other options are less likely:

• John Dryden: An earlier Neo-classical critic, though more flexible than some, he was still firmly rooted in the traditions of the period and engaged significantly with classical models and rules.
• Alexander Pope: A major poet and critic of the high Neo-classical period, Pope's critical work, like An Essay on Criticism, is a quintessential example of Neo-classical principles, emphasizing rules, order, and classical authority, albeit with a view towards "Nature methodized."
• Joseph Addison: Known for his essays in The Spectator, Addison discussed literary taste and aesthetics, but this specific, forceful articulation of challenging established custom for the sake of nature and reason is more characteristic of Johnson's critical stance.

Based on the critical stance against arbitrary rules and the emphasis on distinguishing nature from custom, the passage is most accurately attributed to Samuel Johnson.

Revision Table: Key Concepts

Additional Information on Samuel Johnson's Criticism

Samuel Johnson's critical perspective marked a significant point in the history of English literary criticism. While respecting the ancients, he grounded his criticism in reason and observation of human nature. Key aspects include:

• Empiricism: Judging literature based on its effect on the reader and its truth to life, rather than solely on its conformity to theoretical rules.
• Rejection of Strict Unities: In his Preface to Shakespeare, he famously argued that the strict classical unities of time and place are not essential for drama's success and that Shakespeare's plays succeed because they depict human nature truly.
• Focus on Morality and Instruction: Johnson believed literature should not only entertain but also instruct and improve the reader.
• Defense of Shakespeare: He is one of the most important early defenders of Shakespeare, providing insightful analyses of his characters and language, while also pointing out what he saw as flaws, but ultimately defending his greatness based on his universal appeal and understanding of humanity.

The passage in the question perfectly encapsulates Johnson's spirit of independent judgment, rooted in reason and nature, which distinguished him from more dogmatic Neo-classical critics and paved the way for later critical approaches.