English Literature

After giving the qualities of Beaumont and Fletcher, Neander gives his views on Ben Johnson. According to him, Johnson is the most learned and judicious writer. He could judge the work of others and also his own. He is particularly known for his comedy of humours. Neander says that Ben Johnson was better then Shakespeare as a writer but he lacked his wit. Neander considers Shakespeare as Homer (father of our dramatic poets) while Johnson as Virgil (the patron of elaborate writing). After this, he speaks about ‘Silent Women’ in order to vindicate the English plays.

Dryden mentions about Beaumont and Fletcher. Both of them had the knowledge of Shakespeare’s wit but they excelled by their own study. Their plots were much more regular as compared to Shakespeare’s. They represented the conversation of men better than Shakespeare. The English language reached its highest landmark during the time of Beaumont and Fletcher. Their plays were very successful on the stage because they had a certain gaiety in their comedies and pathos in their more serious work. The language in the plays of Shakespeare was a little obsolete and the plays of Ben Johnson lacked in wit.

Neander then gives an illuminating account of Shakespeare, Beaumont and Fletcher, and Ben Johnson. To begin with Shakespeare, he says that he was perhaps the most comprehensive poet of the ancient and the modern age. He was gifted with the soul of nature. He could portray the nature without any effort. The things which he described looked real. It was not that he was always perfect in everything. Many a times, his comedy went into clenches and tragedy appeared as bombast. However he was great and could attain greatness from any where when required.

Neander defends the mingling of the tragic and comic elements by the English playwrights unlike the separated genres of the French dramatists. According to Neander, gaiety and sadness can be enjoyed together. It actually resembles the nature. A comic scene in a tragedy refreshes the mood of the audience. Compassion and mirth do not destroy each other. Tragi-comedy is a new form of writing not known to the ancients or the moderns of any other nation. The English have invented it, worked on it and perfected it. The English plots are copious and varied while the French plots are barren and narrow. There is only a single plot in the French plays while there are sub plots in the English plays which add to the charm of the play. These sub plots move with the action of the play. They add variety to the play provided they are related to the main plot of the play. The pre-occupation of the French dramatists with a single theme does not give them advantage in the expression of passion. Their v...

Neander (Dryden) vindicates the English drama. (i) He acknowledges the decorum and the laws of comedy practised with more regularity by the French than the English. However he says that the faults of the English combined with the virtues of the French does not make the French playwrights better then the English. (ii) The French plays do not have the humour which is present in the English play. The French plays might be more regular but they lack in humour and passion. Their beauties are of like statute and not of men. They are not animated with the soul of poetry which is the essential source of humour and passion. They do not have life and variety.

Other then this, the French plays are not common like the English. They do not introduce any character without any reason. The villain at the end does not undergo any drastic psychological conversion. Each and every aspect of the plot is carefully planned without any flaws. This is the reason that the French plays appear natural.