Comparative analysis of Johnson's "London" and Gray's "Elegy written in a Country Churchyard".

Note: "Elegy" would represent "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard" in my answer.

"Elegy" and "London" both are poems that represent the typical style associated with the Augustan age. They put forward rational sentiments of Neoclassical poetry. "London" written in imitation of the third satire of Juvenal ( a classical text) clearly says so. The classical atmosphere used in the poem provides respectability and helps in making it universal rather than just being a topical poem. The allusions to Licencing Act of 1737 and Excise Bill of 1733 describes the general tone of Augustan age. In "Elegy" too, Gray mentioned John Hampden( a parliamentary leader who defended the people against abuses of Charles I), John Milton( author of Paradise Lost) & Oliver Cromwell( Lord protector of England). These all provide it a topical as well as classical theme. It was written in the period of intellectual development dubbed as " Age of Enlightenment" due to many scientific discoveries coming forth. Rationalism was growing in the field of Philosophy. John Locke proposed that learning is acquired through experience and is not God given. Newton came up with his universal law of Gravitation. Descartes gave his famous statement, I think therefore I am that says I can be only sure of the world in which I exist. So, when Gray emphasizes in the poem that rural poor too can be successful by education if given a chance, he is saying nothing new. Krutch says that, "His poem has strong romantic qualities but it's more identifiable with the 18th century. It has nothing transcendental but is stubbornly rational. It says life close to nature is good because it is free from temptation not because God dwells in the sunset." He was just reverberating Locke's theory of mind as a "blank state" that is ready to grow. In these times, Enlightenment enthusiasts were also considered dangerous radicals because they blurred class distinction which is the very basis of political & religious institutions. So, Gray was not just reverberating but questioning too but still we can't say that he was a revolutionary as such as he was just saying that the memorial of the poor could be a little more nice and that's a very pessimistic approach. It is similar to saying, we can't do anything about those who are already dead. All we have is just a 'sigh'. Johnson on the other hand, is more revolutionary than Gray is. He mentions what he is displeased with by alluding to them openly. We don't have to scrounge for what his poem is trying to say. At one glance, we are made to agree that "London" is giving out a political statement in support of Pope's Tory & Pro-Jacobite convictions. Though he is not considered as predating the Romantic movement which provides a mystical belief in individuality as Gray is but Johnson was himself very poor so what he says is keenly felt by him whereas Gray is just being sympathetic, he was himself dependent upon upper class for patronage that forced him to remain distanced. Johnson felt the pain of what lack of adequate funds could do to one's career as he had to quit oxford. Still, he maintained his artistic integrity even when the Wadpolian government in the name of the Licencing Act punished every dissent. Only flatterers could see their careers soar. 

Johnson and Gray both resort to idealizing the Pastoral tradition. Pastoral tradition is considered as a nostalgia of a past that either doesn't exist or is lost. On this note, Gray refutes Plato's "Ambition & Grandeur" and is heard asking what they are anyway? Rural life is represented as fulfilling than 'chilling'. He is one from the urban audience longing for rural retreat. Johnson too invokes this idealized concept of countryside. Britain was functioning on the principles of Mercantilism at the time "London" was written. More and more farmers were becoming agricultural labourers due to the Enclosure acts. London saw a large influx of immigrants that gave way to the unhappy men in this mercantilist society angling for their dream of a bright future somewhere. But, little did they know the dream they are looking for is long lost. So, when Johnson prefers the 'Rustic country' than the corrupt 'Urban society' he is echoing this very lost dream. But, this 'Crisis of paternalism' ( lost economic independence of the lower orders)  also gave way to a 'Crisis in poetic discourse of pastoralism' as the real world can never be the same. Johnson recognized this very cultural & social fragmentation. He agrees to the fact that a place of retirement cannot provide perfect happiness. As Thales the speaker of the poem despises mercantilism that promotes greed but still somewhere seeks for the  very 'empty praise'. His hatred is resentment only. He also dreams of wealth & power as much as any tradesmen or corrupt politician. Is Johnson conveying that now we can't help but be servile to the very notions we have been rejecting so far? On the very same logic, is he really praising the British past which was against the Spaniards? Can we doubt him? His idea of pastoralism is very complex. 

Universal theme of "Death" is portrayed in "Elegy" whereas "Worth" is the universal theme in "London". Samuel Johnson himself was heard telling that Gray's poem has an universal appeal. He also praised it for its originality. Critics said that "Elegy" presents us with 'restrained & dignified expression of simple truths (of life)'. He personified death like it has a mind of its own. He was successful in bridging the gap  between the fear of death and the acceptance of death. He tells us that "Death" sees no difference in great & common people. This is also echoed in Johnson's London. Poverty used to be considered a crime in his times. It did not use to be normal as it is now. Poors were considered as the lowest community for just being born poor. It was as what now being black is or being of a lower caste is. Poors were punished for being born poor. Many laws were made against the vagabonds and the rogues to make them stay poor otherwise it was considered that they wouldn't accept their penury which would result in disruption of overall social harmony. People were judged from their appearances rather than what they are worth. Contrary to this argument, Johnson tells us that "Worth" is not affected by any position of class. Just like flatterers are being considered worthy by the monarchs but in reality they are of no value. He satirizes them by saying that flatters would shake in dog-days and sweat in winters just because their lords feel so. If this is what "worth" is then Johnson would prefer to revel in his penury than resenting it.