NEOCLASSICAL LITERARY CRITICISM

Neoclassicism refers to a broad tendency in literature and art enduring from the early
seventeenth century until around 1750. Most fundamentally, neoclassicism comprised a
return to the classical models, literary styles, and values of ancient Greek and Roman
authors. Many of neoclassicists reacted sharply against what they perceived to be the stylistic
excess, superfluous ornamentation, and linguistic over-sophistication of some Renaissance
writers.

John Dryden (1631–1700)

John Dryden occupies a seminal place in English critical history. Samuel Johnson called him
“the father of English criticism,” and affirmed of his Essay of Dramatic Poesy (1668) that
“modern English prose begins here.” Dryden’s critical work was extensive, treating of
various genres such as epic, tragedy, comedy and dramatic theory, satire, the relative virtues
of ancient and modern writers, as well as the nature of poetry and translation. In addition to
the Essay, he wrote numerous prefaces, reviews, and prologues, which together set the stage
for later poetic and critical developments embodied in writers such as Pope, Johnson,
Matthew Arnold, and T. S. Eliot.

Dryden was also a consummate poet, dramatist, and translator. His poetic output reflects his
shifting religious and political allegiances. Born into a middle-class family just prior to the
outbreak of the English Civil War between King Charles I and Parliament, he initially
supported the latter, whose leaders, headed by Oliver Cromwell, were Puritans. Indeed, his
poem Heroic Stanzas (1659) celebrated the achievements of Cromwell who, after the
execution of Charles I by the victorious parliamentarians, ruled England as Lord Protector
(1653–1658). However, with the restoration of the dead king’s son, Charles II, to the throne
in 1660, Dryden switched sides, celebrating the new monarchy in his poem Astrea Redux
(Justice Restored). Dryden was appointed poet-laureate in 1668 and thereafter produced
several major poems, including the mock-heroic “Mac Flecknoe” (1682), and a political
satire Absalom and Achitophel (1681). In addition, he produced two poems that mirror his
move from Anglicanism to Catholicism: “Religio Laici” (1682) defends the Anglican
Church while The Hind and the Panther, just five years later, opposes Anglicanism.
Dryden’s renowned dramas include the comedy Marriage a la Mode (1671) and the tragedies
Aureng-Zebe (1675) and All for Love, or the World Well Lost (1677). His translations
include Fables, Ancient and Modern (1700), which includes renderings of Ovid, Boccaccio,
and Chaucer.

Essay on Dramatic Poesy

1. The first of these debates is that between ancients and moderns. In Dryden’s text, one
of these concerns the classical “unities” of time, place, and action; another focuses on
the rigid classical distinction between various genres, such as tragedy and comedy;
there was also the issue of classical decorum and propriety, as well as the use of rhyme
in drama. All of these elements underlie the nature of drama.
Lisideius offers the following definition of a play: “A just and lively image of
human nature, representing its passions and humours, and the changes of fortune to
which it is subject, for the delight and instruction of mankind” (36). Even a casual
glance at the definition shows it to be very different from Aristotle’s: the latter had
defined tragedy not as the representation of “human nature” but as the imitation of a
serious and complete action; moreover, while Aristotle had indeed cited a reversal in
fortune as a component of tragedy, he had said nothing about “passions and humours”;
and, while he accorded to literature in general a moral and intellectual function, he had
said nothing about “delighting” the audience. The definition of drama used in
Dryden’s Essay embodies a history of progressive divergence from classical models;
indeed, it is a definition already weighted in favor of modern drama, and it is a little
surprising that Crites agrees to abide by it at all. Crites, described in Dryden’s text as
“a person of sharp judgment, and somewhat too delicate a taste in wit” (29), is, after
all, the voice ofclassical conservatism.
2. Crites notes that poetry is now held in lower esteem, in an atmosphere of “few good
poets, and so many severe judges” (37–38). His essential argument is that the
ancients were “faithful imitators and wise observers of that Nature which is so torn
and ill represented in our plays; they have handed down to us a perfect resemblance of
her; which we, like ill copiers, neglecting to look on, have rendered monstrous, and
disfigured.” He reminds his companions that all the rules for drama – concerning the
plot, the ornaments, descriptions, and narrations – were formulated by Aristotle,
 Horace, or their predecessors. As for us modern writers, he remarks, “we have added
nothing of our own, except we have the confidence to say our wit is better”.

Response: It is Eugenius who first defends the moderns, saying that they have not
restricted themselves to “dull imitation” of the ancients; they did not “draw after their
lines, but those of Nature; and having the life before us, besides the experience of all
they knew, it is no wonder if we hit some airs and features which they have missed”
(44). This is an interesting and
important argument which seems to have been subsequently overlooked by Alexander
Pope, who in other respects followed Dryden’s prescriptions for following the rules of
“nature.” In his Essay on Criticism, Pope had urged that to copy nature is to copy the
ancient writers. Dryden, through the mouth of his persona Eugenius, completely
topples this complacent equation: Eugenius effectively turns against Crites the latter’s
own observation that the arts and sciences have made huge advances since the time of
Aristotle. Not only do we have the collective experience and wisdom of the ancients to
draw upon, but also we have our own experience of the world, a world understood far
better in scientific terms than in ages past: “if natural causes be more known now than
in the time of Aristotle . . . it follows that poesy and other arts may, with the same
pains, arrive still nearer to perfection”.

3. Unity of Time, place and Action

The most fundamental of these classical rules are the three unities, of time, place, and
action. Crites claims that the ancients observed these rules in most of their plays (38–39).
The unity of action, Crites urges, stipulates that the “poet is to aim at one great and complete
action,” to which all other things in the play “are to be subservient.” The reason behind this,
he explains, is that if there were two major actions, this would destroy the unity of the play.

Response: Turning to the unities, Eugenius points out (after Corneille) that by the time of
Horace, the division of a play into five acts was firmly established, but this distinction was
unknown to the Greeks. Indeed, the Greeks did not even confine themselves to a regular
number of acts (44–46). Again, their plots were usually based on “some tale derived from
Thebes or Troy,” a plot “worn so threadbare . . . that before it came upon the stage, it was
already known to all the audience.” These are strong words, threatening to undermine a long
tradition of reverence for the classics. But Eugenius has hardly finished: not only do the
ancients fail to fulfill one of the essential obligations of drama, that of delighting; they also
fall short in the other requirement, that of instructing. Eugenius berates the narrow
characterization by Greek and Roman dramatists, as well as their imperfect linking of scenes.
He cites instances of their own violation of the unities. Even more acerbic is his observation,
following Corneille, that when the classical authors such as Euripides and Terence do
observe the unities, they are forced into absurdities. Hence, in Dryden’s text, the ancient
philosopher’s definition itself is made to appear starkly unrealistic and problematic for
ancient dramatists, who persistently violated its essential features.