50 pages • 1 hour read
Samuel JohnsonThe History of Rasselas, Prince of Abissinia
Fiction | Novel | Adult | Published in 1759A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
The Philosophical Exploration of Happiness and Its Attainability
Rasselas, Prince of Abyssinia interrogates what constitutes true happiness and whether it is genuinely achievable. Through the journey of Rasselas and his companions, various lifestyles and philosophies are examined, each representing different ways of pursuing happiness, from contemplative solitude to intellectual achievement to pastoral simplicity. The travelers’ encounters with these lifestyles and their representatives highlight the diverse ways people seek satisfaction and the common disillusionment that follows.
The setting of Abyssinia and the broader world serves as a backdrop for this exploration, illustrating that external circumstances and lack of personal agency play a significant role in people’s lives and contribute to a universal sense of dissatisfaction:
Very few live by choice. Every man is placed in the present condition by causes which acted without his foresight, and with which he did not always willingly cooperate, and therefore you will rarely meet one who does not think the lot of his neighbour better than his own (64).
The quote highlights that most people do not live in conditions they have chosen for themselves and that this lack of control contributes to the belief that others are happier, illustrating the inherent discontent within the human experience. Rasselas’s dissatisfaction with the seemingly perfect Happy Valley and his subsequent journey mirror this condition of constant striving and inherent dissatisfaction with the present. The narrative structure further underscores the idea, as each episode reveals another layer of human experience and the limitations of each approach to achieving happiness.
The characters consistently attempt to rationalize their way to happiness, believing that through careful thought and reasoning, they can uncover the secret to a fulfilled life. However, this rationalizing proves abstract and elusive—merely another example of what Imlac calls “visionary schemes.” He reflects: “Such are the effects of visionary schemes: when we first form them, we know them to be absurd, but familiarise them by degrees, and in time lose sight of their folly” (164). This highlights the human tendency to become enamored of grand yet unrealistic visions of happiness. However, the characters’ journey reveals a deeper irony: that rationality itself can become a kind of fantasy that does not facilitate the attainment of happiness. Even as the characters dismiss various pursuits—power, wealth, solitude, etc.—as futile paths to happiness, they fail to see that their very quest to rationalize happiness is also flawed.
Rasselas and his companions ultimately return to their starting point, having engaged in numerous intellectual and experiential attempts to define and achieve happiness without apparent success. Their circular journey suggests that the process of rationalizing itself becomes a cyclical trap: Each new insight or philosophy offers hope but ultimately leads back to the same state of uncertainty. The implication is that the pursuit of happiness often involves chasing ideals that by their very nature are unattainable. However, the conclusion does not suggest that there is no merit to the pursuit. Rather, it emphasizes that happiness is not a destination or a concrete reality to be achieved. Instead, the novel portrays happiness as a complex and ongoing process––a verb, not a noun––suggesting that perhaps the very focus on achieving happiness is what makes it so elusive. The narrative invites contemplation rather than conclusion, reflecting the endless and often ambiguous nature of the human quest for fulfillment.
The Critique of Utopian Thinking
In tandem with its interrogation of what constitutes true happiness, Johnson’s narrative questions the validity of utopian ideals. The big idea underlying the plot is the critique of the notion that a perfect, trouble-free existence is possible. If this is true on the individual level, Johnson implies, the difficulties only magnify when considering society at large. This is also not the only way in which utopian thinking goes astray; rather, the narrative suggests that much utopianism wrongly supposes material conditions to be essential to happiness, when in reality happiness is more related to internal conditions—e.g., one’s ability to make peace with uncertainty or dissatisfaction.
Johnson explores the concept of utopia by transforming it from a philosophical “no-place” into a physical location within the story: the Happy Valley. This setting serves as a controlled experiment in which the ideals of utopian thinking are put to the test. The Happy Valley is designed to be a paradise, with its lush landscapes, abundant resources, and lack of external threats. It is a microcosm of utopian ideals where every physical and sensory desire is catered to. However, the valley’s supposed perfection becomes its own kind of prison. For Rasselas and others, material abundance and perpetual safety breed a pervasive sense of dissatisfaction. This dissatisfaction reveals a critical flaw in utopian thinking: The assumption that external conditions alone can fulfill human needs. The inhabitants are initially content, but as time progresses, the monotony and predictability of their lives lead to Rasselas’s realization that “pleasure has ceased to please” (12), underscoring the paradox that constant comfort and security can become sources of misery. The valley’s environment, meant to eliminate all forms of discomfort, ultimately stifles the natural human need for growth, challenge, and purpose.
In leaving the Happy Valley, the characters do not find exactly what they’re looking for—namely, a formula for happiness. Instead, Johnson proposes that happiness is a state of mind, influenced but not determined by external circumstances. This suggests an even more fundamental problem with utopian thinking: By definition, it concerns societies rather than individuals and is therefore necessarily preoccupied with the material world rather than with subjective experience. At a minimum, this means utopianism risks overlooking the complexity and diversity of human desires and experiences. However, it also means that it fails to address the very area in which Johnson locates discontent: the nature of the human mind itself.
In critiquing utopian thinking, the novel does not suggest that efforts to improve society are without value. Nekayah’s dream of establishing a college for women implies a critique of the limited educational opportunities available to 18th-century women, while Rasselas’s interest in how to govern justly reflects Enlightenment debates about the proper uses of power. However, the novel strikes a cautionary tone in presenting these ideas, reminding readers that no amount of societal progress will eradicate unhappiness.
The Role of Personal Freedom in Achieving Fulfillment
Johnson delves into the theme of personal freedom and its inherent limitations. The narrative ultimately suggests that complete freedom is an illusion, constrained by various uncontrollable forces and the complexity of human existence. However, this does not mean that freedom has no role to play in happiness as Johnson conceives of it.
Both the events of the novel and Johnson’s commentary on them underscore that while people can make choices and pursue their desires, they cannot eliminate the unpredictable and uncontrollable elements of existence that shape their lives. Pekuah’s kidnapping is a clear example of the kind of external forces that may constrain one’s freedom, but not all constraints are so literal. In the conclusion, Johnson suggests that Imlac and the astronomer have grasped the extent of their powerlessness, as they are now “contented to be driven along the stream of life without directing their course to any particular port” (184). Here, Johnson uses the metaphor of a stream to illustrate how life often carries individuals along paths they cannot fully control. Imlac and the astronomer’s acceptance of this, juxtaposed against the other characters’ attempts to engineer their perfect lives, suggests that attempting to dictate every aspect of one’s life is not only futile but perhaps unnecessary for achieving contentment.
Nor is it only external circumstances that limit freedom. Rather, the limitations of human understanding also pose an obstacle. This connection is evident when Rasselas reflects, “The more we inquire the less we can resolve” (96), highlighting how rational inquiry often leads to more questions rather than definitive answers. This notion underscores that life’s complexities cannot be fully understood or controlled through reason alone, which hinders the characters’ freedom to determine their own happiness. This idea is further reinforced by Johnson’s observation:
There are a thousand familiar disputes which reason never can decide; questions that elude investigation, and make logic ridiculous; cases where something must be done, and where little can be said. Consider the state of mankind, and inquire how few can be supposed to act upon any occasions, whether small or great, with all the reasons of action present to their minds (107).
Here, Johnson argues that many aspects of life defy logical resolution, forcing individuals to act without complete understanding of or control over the myriad factors influencing their decisions. Theoretically, complete freedom would entail the ability to control one’s destiny entirely through rational decision-making. However, Johnson illustrates that such control is unattainable because human understanding is inherently limited.
True freedom, therefore, may not lie in the absolute exercise of personal freedom but in recognizing and accepting the constraints of human understanding and the unpredictable nature of life. This philosophical resignation does not necessarily advocate for passivity but rather for a balanced approach to life in which one recognizes and respects the limits of control and embraces the journey with humility and adaptability.
