Get complete information on Restoration Criticism

(1) John Dryden:

It was Dr. Johnson who first called Origen, “the Father of English Criticism as the writer who first taught us to determine upon principles the merit of composition,” and critic after critic has agreed with his estimate. Not that there was no criticism in England before Dryden. There had been critics like Sir Philip Sydney and Ben Jonson. But they were critics merely by chance, their critical works were merely occasional utterances on the critical art.

The earlier criticism was “magisterial” or dogmatic. They claimed to lay down rules for the guidance of poets and writers, rules which were dogmatically asserted. Dryden, on the other hand, is never magisterial or pontific; he is “skeptical”; he does not lay down the rules, he rather sets out to discover the rules for his guidance in writing plays, as well as in judging of those written by others.

It was Dryden who inaugurated the era of descriptive criticism. He was qualified for the function by his wide reading and learning. It is in his criticism that literary analysis, the dominant concern of the modern critic, emerges for the first time.

He is also a pioneer in the field of ‘historical criticism.’ Critics up to the time had a very rudimentary sense of literary history. Dryden, on the other hand, shows a well-developed historical sense.

He recognizes that the temperament of the French and the English differ and hence the literatures of the two countries are bound to be different. Indeed, he is the father of ‘Comparative Criticism’ in England.

In the Essay there is constant weighing and balancing of the qualities of the English drama as against those of the French. He is also the pioneer of liberal classicism. He has great respect for classical rules. He had read Aristotle, Horace, the Italian and French critics and has great respect for them, and has profited much from his study of both the ancient and modern critics.

His criticism suffers from well marked faults. He is often prejudiced in favor of his own country, and his age; often his criticism is in the nature of special pleading, sometimes he commits errors of fact or conveniently ignores awkward facts. He is guilty of many inconsistencies, and is often vague and desultory. But despite these faults he will always be known as a great English Critic.

(2) Thomas Rhymer (1641-1713):

According to Macaulay, Rhymer was the worst critic that ever lived. His chief critical works are three: (1) His preface to his own translation of the French writer Rapin’s Reflections on Aristotle’s ‘Poetics’, published in the year 1677, (2) The Tragedies of the Last Age (1678), and (3) A short View of Tragedy, which appeared in 1692.

From these works we find that Rhymer was a man of remarkable learning, for his age and country. He lacked true critical judgment and this faculty of critical judgment is an inborn faculty. Much of his criticism is prejudiced, violent, vituperative and abusive.

In the history of literary criticism, Rhymer, despite all his absurdity and folly, has a secure place, for he has to his credit the distinction of a double or even a triple, first. Says George Watson, “Rhymer’s Tragedies of the Last Age is the first critical book in English which is altogether concerned with analyzing the works of other Englishmen. And its main sequel, A Short View of Tragedy, is the first pure example of literary history in English.

Thirdly, he is the first English critic to quote abundantly in the course of his practical criticism, and though his comments on quotations are merely generalized insults, they are at least particular in their application.

Again and again he poses the right questions, though he fails to give the right answers. He has a strong sense of history, wide reading and erudition, so much so that Dryden was impressed enough by him to reply to his savage attack on Shakespeare. He is a genius, but a perverse genius, who, despite all his gifts, fails to think rightly and judge correctly.

(3) John Dennis (1657-1734):

In his own age, nobody paid any special attention to John Dennis. The critics of the romantic school were not much attracted by him but in modern times a sort of reaction has taken place in his favour.

In the Pamphlet entitled, “Usefulness of the Stage to the Happiness of Mankind, to Government and to Religion,” Dennis replies to Jeremy Collier (see-below) and his standpoint throughout is ethical.

He had the good taste to appreciate Dryden, and in his attack on Pope he has the intelligence enough to point out some of his real weaknesses. He judges Shakespeare by Rhymer’s principle of poetic justice, finds a painful disregard of poetic justice in his plays, and so condemns Shakespeare.

Dennis is an advent of ‘Rules’ and the imitation of the ancients. He accepts the dictum: “To follow nature is to follow them.” His critical doctrines are mostly derived from Aristotle and Horace as well as from their French imitators.

(4) Jeremy Collier (1650-1726):

No account of literary criticism during the Restoration age can be considered complete without a mention of Jeremy Collier’s A Short View of the Profaneness and Immorality of the English Stage.

This frontal attack on the indecency and licentiousness of Restoration Drama did much to focus attention on the many vulgarities and obscenities of the contemporary drama. The attack was so effective that dramatists were compelled to take note of it.

As a result of Collier’s attack, the Restoration drama was considered as something worthless, below the notice of decent people, all through the 18tfi J and the 19th centuries, and it is only in the modern age that it has come to be regarded as literature once again.