French neoclassicism

Nothing is more modern than to claim that one is not constrained by rules. In our era, many of us find it so self-evident that artists should be free to do whatever they want that the notion of an academy setting standards for good art seems manifestly perverse.

During the next two weeks as we look as French neoclassical theatre and English restoration theatre, I challenge you to move beyond whatever instant reaction you might have, and try to understand why most of Europe was convinced until the late 18th and early 19th centuries that theatre should adhere to neoclassical standards. What is actually RIGHT about neoclassicism? What neoclassical beliefs are still with us, informing plays, movies and television shows that we see? In what ways, despite ourselves, do we actually behave as if we think that good art should follow certain standard conventions?

Part of any answer to such questions might be a recognition that "conventions" play a role in all artistic traditions, regardless of how modern they are. For proof of this, just think about how movies are marketed as "comedies" or "horror" or "romance," and we are disappointed if they don't fulfill certain conventions of these genres. Theatre artists may intentionally break conventions in order to shock audiences or create interest, but the truth is that most spectators have limited patience for this sort of thing, and prefer to have their expectations fulfilled.

* * *

The two most significant ancient authorities invoked by neoclassical theatre folk were Aristotle and Horace.

It is Aristotle who defined tragedy as a representation of a serious and complete action, accomplishing through pity and terror the catharsis of these emotions. Neoclassicists argued over whether or not Aristotle actually advocated "the three unities" (time, action and place) and whether these should be followed. In general, they agreed that Aristotle advocates unity of action (i.e. that everything that happens in a play should contribute to telling one clear story of an appropriate magnitude with no unnecssary embellishment and no distracting subplots). Unity of time (action of a play should take place in 24 or 12 hours) and place (it should take place in locations that could be realistically reached within that time) produced a bit more controversy. Aristotle defines tragedy and comedy as completely separate genres, each with appropriate characters (i.e. no kings in comedy, no clowns in tragedy). And, above all, he defines tragedy as serving a moral social purpose: to bring about a catharsis of anti-social emotions.

Horace, in contrast, gives much greater weight to the duty of theatre to entertain. To be fair, he also acknowledges that it should "educate," but seems a bit more interested in the entertainment part. For theatre to be entertaining, it does need to follow rules of the trade, such as characters adhering to behaviors appropriate to their types. It is more from Horace that neoclassicists get their notions of "decorum" and "verisimilitude" (which to them has more to do with behaving appropriately than naturally). When Lope de Vega defends his comedias as conforming to the expectations of his public, he may be defending himself against the authority of Aristotle, but he does so in Horatian terms.

Finally, as the Le Cid controversy demonstrates, the French neoclassicists adopted the Greek bias towards tragedy, and were much more concerned with enforcing these rules within that genre. As we will see, Moliere faced different concerns in writing his comedies.