Neo-classical Criticism

Neo-classical ideals/rules:

1. Traditionalism: strong distrust of radical innovation and respect for classical writers – of
ancient Greece and Rome. They were thought to have achieved excellence, and
established the enduring models in all the major literary genres.
2. Literature was primary an ‘art’ – that is, a set of skills which, although it requires innate
talents must be perfected by long study and practice and consists mainly in the adaptation
of know and tested means to the achievement of foreseen ends upon the audience.
Neoclassical ideal, founded especially on Horace’s Ars Poetica, demanded finish,
correction, and attention to detail. Special allowances were made for innovative freedom
of natural geniuses, but the view was that natural genius of Shakespeare and Homer were
extremely rare, and that it is better to strive for ‘correctness’ and follow the ‘rules’ of the
art.
3. Human beings as an integral part of social organization was the primary subject matter of
literature. Poetry was an imitation of life, and must be designed to provide both pleasure
and instruction to the people who read it
4. The primary aim of poetry was to give new expression to the great universals of human
wisdom whose universal acceptance and durability are the best proof of their importance
and truth
5. In art, as in life, what was most praiseworthy was the law of measure and acceptance of
limits upon one’s freedom. Writers submitted to ‘rules’ ad other limiting conventions in
literary subjects, structure, and diction

 TIMELINE

 Approximately between 1660-1798

 Includes the Restoration period, the Augustan period, and the Age of Johnson
 Term comes from the combination of the terms 'neo,' which means 'new,' and 'classical,'
referring to the age of Roman and Greek classics
 Neoclassicism is a revival of the many styles and spirit of classic antiquity inspired
directly from the classical period
 Writers of the Neoclassical period tried to imitate the style of the Romans and Greeks
 The Neoclassical period ended in 1798 with the publication of 'Lyrical Ballads' by
Wordsworth

(Refer the PPT on moodle for more details on Neo-classical criticism)

Dryden's Essay on Dramatic Poesy.
Regarded as “the father of English criticism” by Dr. Johnson

 Essay on Dramatic Poesy (1668)

 He aims “to vindicate the honour of our English writers, from the censure of those who
unjustly prefer the French before them”
 Attempts to evolve the principles to guide the reader in judging a play, and discover the rules
to help dramatists to write a good play
 He discusses two issues:

1. The comparative superiority of the ancients and the moderns – Dryden demonstrates the
superiority of the moderns and the superiority of the Restoration English dramatists over the
Elizabethans
2. The comparative merits and demerits of blank and rhymed verse for dramatic purposes.
Dryden upholds the superiority of the rhymed verse

 Critical questions of the essay

 Relative merits of ancient and modern poets
 The superiority or inferiority of the French school of drama as compared to the English
 Whether the Elizabethan dramatists were in all points superior to those of Dryden’s own time
 Whether plays are more perfect as they conform to ancient dramatic rules
 Whether the substitution of rhyme for blank verse in very serious plays is an improvement

 The speakers:
Situation is dramatic with four speakers or interlocutors

 First speaker – Crites (perhaps representing Dryden’s brother-in-law Sir Robert Howard) –
expounds the extreme classical view - Greeks and Romans fully discovered and illustrated
the rules to which modern drama must conform
 Second speaker – Eugenius (perhaps Dryden’s friend Charles Sackville) – ancient poets
fared badly in the illustration of rules prescribed by critics – moderns have better illustrated
the rules
 Third speaker- Lisideius (Sir Charles Sedley, a younger wit of the day_ - classical rules for
the imitation of nature are the fundamentals of correct dramatic creation – perfect realization
in the French drama
 Fourth speaker – Neander (Dryden himself) upholds the superiority of the English over
French drama, and of rhyme over blank verse
 Crites speaks for the Ancients:
 Among ancients – poetry held in high esteem – poets honoured and rewarded – healthy
competition to excel – today poets do not take pains to excel as they have no
encouragement

 Ancients faithfully imitated nature – today it is distorted in drama

 Rules of dramatic composition all from the classics – we have added nothing ot the rules
of Aristotle and Horace

 Ancient observed the unities well

1. Unity of time – acts does not take more than 24 hours – should be equally divided
between the acts

 English did not follow the unity of time and therefore ill-represented nature

2. Unity of place – same scene should be continued throughout the drama – stage
being one place, it cannot be represented as many

 French observe this unity, not the English

3. Unity of action: there should be only one great and complete action – everything
else should subordinate to the main action

 Gross violation of the unities in English drama which makes it unnatural and
improbable, thus making the superiority of the ancients unquestionable

Eugenius takes up the case against the Ancients

#Moderns are superior

 They have the advantage of the learning of the anicents and their own experience of life
 Like in arts and science, they have discovered much in drama. For eg. Plays of the
ancients were divided by Entrances, not Acts – this division into Acts was the innovation
of the Roman Horace. Thus, the Greeks can’t be said to have perfected the art of Poesy
 There was no novelty – their plots were traditional – thus, no pleasure
 They used stock, hackneyed plots and characters
 Though they devised the unities, they did not observe it perfectly. The French made the
unity of place into a rule. They neglected the unity of time, and when they observed it, it
lead them into absurdities
 There is too much narration at the cost of action, and hence monotony and boredom
 There is no poetic justice – they show wickedness prosper and piety unhappy
 They have faulty diction, coinages, metaphors
  Their tragedies lack love-scenes. Their scenes are mostly of lust, cruelty, and bloodshed.
Instead of tempering the horror of such scenes with the moderating passion of love, their
tragedies only arouse “horror, not compassion”

Lisideius supports the Superiority of the French over

the English

 The French observe the unities to perfection.

1. They interpret “single revolution of the sun” (unity of time) to mean 12 hours, not 24 and
try to reduce the play to this compass. They are never guilty of the absurdities of
Shakespeare who cramps the business of thirty years into two or three hours. They are
true to nature
2. The entire action is limited to the spot where it began
3. There are no under-plots or multiplicity of action or incident in their plays and there is
time to represent one passion fully, instead of hurrying from one to another like in the
English plays

 They have nothing as absurd as tragi-comedy

 In their plays, one character is exalted above the rest, but due attention is paid to other
characters, and each one is given a suitable role to play
 There are no sudden conversions or changes in their plays
 They manage their narration skillfully and they avoid the violence of the English stage.
 They use rhyme which is to be preferred to the English blank verse – use fo rhyme
beautifies a play

Neander demonstrates the Superiority of the English

over the French
Neander demonstrates the Superiority of the English over the French, and of Moderns over
Ancients

 He admits that the French plays are more regular and laws better followed, but neither
their virtues not the English irregularities are sufficient to place the French above the
English
1. The French - Lack variety of the English plays – adherence to unities have a cramping
effect
2. They lack variety of humour
3. Their plots are barren and narrow – only a single action. English plots are copious and
varied – they have under plots along with the main action
  Preoccupation with a single theme does not give them any advantage for the expression
of passion – their verses are cold, and the long speeches are tiresome. This may suit the
French, not the English who come to the stage for refreshment
 Short speehces and replies are more likely to move passions and wit and repartee are best
for comedy – the English are superior in the “chase of wit”
 The more characters in the play, the greater the variety – only this variety should be well
managed so that there is no confusion – Ben Jonson did it
 Showing violence on stage should take into account the different temperaments of the
audience – the English are fierce by nature and prefer action on the stage
 Moliere and some other French dramatists have started mixing tragedy and comedy

 Many English plays are as regular as the French and have greater variety of plot
and character. In the irregular plays for Shakespeare and Fletcher, there is greater spirit
and more masculine fancy than in the French. Ben Jonson’s plays are as correct and as
faultlessly constructed as the French (e.g. Silent Woman).

He critically estimates Shakespeare, Beaumont and Fletcher, and Jonson, and declares: “I admire
him [Jonson], but I love Shakespeare”

Neander Justifies Tragic-Comedy

Contraries set off each other

Scene of mirth in a tragedy provides relief

Compassion and mirth do not destroy each other, they are found together in nature also

Just as the eye can pass from an unpleasant object to a pleasant one, so also the soul can move
from the tragic to the comic

The English have perfected a new way of writing

It is a question of progress, of change of tastes

The real test of excellence is not about strict adherence to convention – but about whether the
aims of drama have been met

Dryden’s justification for the Violation of Unities

 Dryden’s liberalism and his opposition to arbitrary bans on the freedom of composition is
seen in his justification of the violation of unities and defense of English tragi-comedy

 The English violation of the unities lent greater copiousness and variety to English plays.
The Unities have a narrow and cramping effect on the French plays, and they are often
betrayed into absurdities by close observation of the Unities
  The disregard of the Unities enables them to present a more ‘just’ and ‘lively’ picture of
human nature.

 There is no harm in introducing ‘by-concernments’ or sub-plots because they lend greater

richness to the play

 Shakespeare’s plays are more true to nature and more delightful than the French plays
though he does not observe the unities.

 The view that the violation of the Unities results in improbability and is a strain on the
imagination of the spectators is absurd, because it is only a question of ‘dramatic illusion’

Debate on Rhyme:

Crites attacks Rhyme

 Rhyme should not be allowed in serious plays, can be allowed in comedies

 It is unnatural in plays – play is in dialogue, and no man speaks in rhyme

 It is artificial and the art is apparent – while true art consists in concealing art

 Blank verse is also unnatural – for no man speaks in verse either – but it is nearer to prose
– Aristotle laid down that tragedy should be written in a verse form closest to prose

 It is said that rhyme helps the poet to control his fancy. But one who has no judgment to
control his fancy in blank verse will not be able to control it in rhyme either. Artistic
control is a matter of judgment not of rhyme or verse

Neander replies to Crites defending Rhyme

 Natural words in natural order make language natural, whether it is verse or rhyme

 The nobility approves of rhyme and it is only their judgment that counts

 It is universally used by all the civilized nations of the world

 Blank verse is fit only for comedies, rhymed verse alone suitable for tragedy –
representing nature exalted to its highest pitch

 Rhyme makes it easier for poets to control free flights of fantasy and is an aid to
judgment
  Preface to the Fables (1700)
Dryden was a pioneer in the field of Historical Criticism – recognizes that literature is not static,
but is ever growing and literary judgment must change accordingly

Essay on Fables prefixed to his translations from Ovid, Homer, Boccaccio, and Chaucer

He compares Homer and Virgil, and Ovid and Chaucer

“With Ovid ended the golden age of the Roman tongue, from Chaucer the purity of the English
tongue began”

Similarities between Ovid and Chaucer:

 Natures alike: well bred, libertines

 Studies were same: philosophy and philology
 Both wrote clearly, but borrowed stories – Ovid from Greek fables, Chaucer from Italian
contemporaries or their predecessors – Yet Chaucer brought something of his originality,
while Ovid never did

Chaucer’s characterization greater – more graphically drawn. “Here is God’s plenty” – presence
of the whole English nation

Chaucer kept the dignity of his writing – would not invoke laughter in serious situations

However he finds Chaucer’s humor bawdy

He is also critical of Chaucer’s satirical attitude to religion