Теория литературы. Текстология | Филологический аспект №12 (128) Декабрь 2025

Влияние социума на литературную критику (на примере английской драмы ХVIIв.)

Зонина Нина Владимировна
Кандидат филологических наук, доцент факультета иностранных языков, Санкт-Петербургский университет, Россия, Санкт-Петербург

Аннотация: В статье затрагивается тема влияния общества (социума) c его запросами и установками на литературную критику. В качестве основного материала рассматривается критика на английскую драматургию 1 половины XVIIв. Исследование демонстрирует кардинально противоположные отклики критиков на драму тех лет: от восторженно похвальных до резко отрицательных. Проведенный анализ показывает, что такое резкое расхождение в оценке английской драмы тех лет было продиктовано запросами и требованиями как противоборствующих общественных сил в стране: промонархического и пропарламентского социума, так и полной сменой социума связанной со сменой эпохи, диктовавшей новые общественные установки. В качестве конкретного примера трансформации литературной критики под влиянием общественных перемен рассматривается судьба пьес и творчества английского драматурга 1 половины XVIIв. Ричарда Брума. Таким образом, анализ литературной критики на приведенных примерах показал, что ее критерии и оценки формируются прежде всего запросами, интересами и идеалами современного ей социума, отражая его идеологию и социально-политическую направленность. Смена социума кардинально меняет подход критики к литературному произведению, его осмыслению и толкованию.
Ключевые слова: социум, литературная критика, английская драма, XVII век, парламент, монархия, Шекcпир, Ричард Брум

Zonina Nina Vladimirovna
PhD in Philology, Associate Professor, the Department of Foreign Languages, St Petersburg University, St.Petersburg, Russia, ninazonina@yahoo.com

Abstract: This article explores the influence of society, with its demands and attitudes, on literary criticism. The primary source material is criticism of English drama of the first half of the 17th century. The study demonstrates radically contrasting critical responses to the drama of those years: from enthusiastically praiseworthy to sharply negative. The analysis demonstrates that such a sharp divergence in the assessment of English drama of those years was dictated by the demands and demands of both opposing social forces in the country: pro-monarchy and pro-parliamentary societies, as well as the complete social change associated with the changing era, which dictated new social attitudes. As a specific example of the transformation of literary criticism under the influence of social change, the fate of the plays and works of the English playwright of the first half of the 17th century, Richard Brougham, is considered. Thus, literary criticism, its criteria and assessments are shaped primarily by the demands, interests, and ideals of the contemporary society, reflecting its ideology and socio-political orientation. The changing social environment fundamentally alters criticism's approach to literary works, their understanding and interpretation.
Keywords: society, literary criticism, English drama, 17th century, parliament, monarchy, Shakespeare, Richard Brome

A serious analysis of a literary work, its comprehension and evaluation by critics, is not limited to a detailed examination of the text, a listing of its artistic merits or shortcomings both in the plot, characters, language, and authorial style. The dominant demands and tastes of society (the community) in a given historical period, with its social, political, and cultural tendencies, play a decisive role in the critic's perception of a literary work and judgment of its author. Political, social and cultural changes in society are responsible for radical changes in the environment facilitating the emergence of a new society with its moral transformation of demands, tastes and expectations for a literary work, actively influencing its assessment by critics. In turn, the changing social environment as a result of all these transformations fundamentally alters the understanding and evaluation of a work written for a different time period. Thus, authors and their works, even the most recognized and indisputable in our opinion, are repeatedly subjected to critical re-evaluation in different eras.

There are many examples of this. One of them is the assessment of Shakespeare and his works, which fluctuates between admiration and complete rejection in various eras depending on the societies’ changings with their new demands on literature. In the late 16th and early 17th centuries, critics hailed Shakespeare as the greatest playwright and poet, unrivaled even among the ancient authors: “Leave thee alone for the comparison// Of all that insolent Greece or haughty Rome // Sent forth, or since did from their ashes come. // Triumph, my Britain, thou hast one to show// To whom all scenes of Europe homage owe. // He was not of an age, but for all time![24].

However, from the second half of the 17th century to the beginning of the 18th century, when the aesthetics of classicism were established in English literature, the perception of Shakespeare differed dramatically. Neoclassicists had a negative attitude towards Shakespeare, seeing his works as a violation of all the rules of classicism and regarding his tragedies, such as "Othello," as "a bloody farce devoid of originality and taste" [7, p.134]. John Dryden, an indisputable authority in the field of English drama of that time, noting Shakespeare's virtues, such as his " largest and, most comprehensive soul", gives precedence to Ben Jonson with his professionalism and adherence to the literary rules and laws [8.], in contrast to Shakespeare, "who … did not perfectly observe the laws of comedy..., being often flat, insipid; his comic wit degenerating into clenches, his serious swelling into bombast” [8]. In order to somehow mitigate the diminishment of Shakespeare's authority, Dryden justifies Shakespeare's "imperfect poetry" by referring to the uneducated public" [8] of the English society during the time of Shakespeare’ writing. Voltaire's opinion of Shakespeare's plays is damning. Without denying the talent of the Englishman, Voltaire did not find in his plays "the slightest glimmer of good taste and the slightest knowledge of the rules of poetry..."[25]. As for "Hamlet", he found it to be "a crude and barbaric play, which would not be tolerated by the lowest servants, both in France and in Italy. One might think that this work is the product of the imagination of a drunken savage" [25].

In the era of 19th-century Romanticism, Shakespeare's criticism changed radically: his genius was once again elevated to an unattainable height not only in England (Coleridge, Walter Scott, Shelley…), but also in all Europe: “By his strength he is a demigod, by his depth of vision he is a prophet, by his all–seeing wisdom he is the patron spirit of high art [9]. Germaine de Stael, a representative of French Romanticism, considered Shakespeare the creator of new literature: "He gave an impetus to English literature and endowed the distinctive features of English dramatic art... Shakespeare was the first to depict moral suffering that reached its highest point ... [1, p. 379]. The literary critics' assessment of Shakespeare's works in the era of realism decreased dramatically again. D. H. Lawrence a leading English writer mentioned: "How boring Shakespeare's people are, how small they are! But the language! It's like using coal tar paints!" [26]. The verdict on the playwright, delivered by the great realist of the 20th century, Leo Tolstoy, was harsh: "After reading his best works, King Lear, Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, and Macbeth, I not only felt no enthusiasm, but also an overwhelming sense of disgust, boredom, and bewilderment..." [23.15.p.281].

The awareness of the connection between literature and society emerges in the 18th century. The same Dryden explained the loss of interest in Shakespeare's work and the underestimation of his talent by the changes in the society [8]. The title of Germaine de Stael's treatise: "On Literature and Its Connection with Social Institutions" also speaks to this. A clear example of the influence of society on literary criticism is the English drama of the 17th century - the most dramatic century in the history of England, filled with a series of epochal historical events: the death of Queen Elizabeth I (1603), with it the end of the reign of the Tudor dynasty and the accession to the throne of the new Stuart dynasty: James I and Charles I, who led the country to revolution, the execution of King Charles I, civil war, dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell, the restoration of the monarchy in the persons of Charles II and James II Stuart, ending with the overthrow of James II and the accession to the English throne of a foreigner, William of Orange, whose death in 1702 closed the 17th century.

The turbulent nature of the 17th century, with its radical shift in socio-political attitudes, resulted in a serious change in society, which put forward new demands on English drama: its themes, style, and artistic techniques, capable of conveying the spirit of the era and satisfying the demands of the new society. Judging by the literary criticism of the drama of the first half of the 17th century, the triumphal march of English drama unexpectedly ended in the beginning of the new century. Shakespeare had hardly died, when according to critics: "the drama had said all, it could" [10. p. 178], "the theater had already collapsed internally" [2. p. 240], and the drama that "dominated in London theaters had slid into a decadent trend" [21. p. 74.]. A very negative perception of 17th-century English drama came both from the Puritan Parliament and also from a number of literary critics, who defined the plays of that time as: “marked with the seal of decline, ... having lost touch with folk traditions, … the advanced ideology representing aristocratic, courtly art” [22. Vol. 1. pp. 392-393], “having lost their social themes” [3. Vol. 1. p. 16.]. So, in 1642, the Puritan Parliament issued a decree closing all theaters in England which did not cause any protest in society and, on the contrary, was regarded by the society as a logical end for the degrading English drama.

But what could have happened of a sudden to the great English drama? Shakespeare was still alive up to 1616, and his talented fellow writers kept on creating successfully. Theatre posters of that time tempted the viewer with the familiar names of drama patriarchs: Ben Jonson, John Fletcher, Thomas Heywood, Philip Massinger, etc. Along with them, the plays by their younger contemporaries: James Sherley, John Ford, Richard Brome were no less popular among drama lovers. The leading figure of English theater of that time was Ben Jonson, whose laurels were equal to Shakespeare's. Having a keen sense of the times, the spirit of the new reality, the demands and interests of the new society Ben Jonson radically reformed English drama [4. p. 111-114]. Its setting became contemporary London of the new century, the plays’ characters were Jonson’s contemporaries whose speeches were as in reality expressing their thoughts and judgments. The playwright himself and his audience, that is his society, lived there. Real London was presented in his plays with all its topography and the way of its society life with their everyday problems, entertainment, holidays, and traditions [5. p. 576-583]. Johnson's innovations were picked up by his contemporary fellow writers, as evidence by the titles of their plays: "Covent Garden" by T. Nabbs, "Hyde Park" by J. Shirley, "Weeding Covent Garden" by R.Brome, etc. London society during the reign of Charles I were very vividly and socially acutely presented in R. Brome’s comedies. His plays touched upon the most pressing problems heatedly discussed by the society: from the prices in taverns to the ideology of Puritanism and the philosophy of libertarianism.

So, the entire activity of English drama in the first half of the 17th century and its popularity contradicts the negative criticism of that time. The serious dissonance between the high quality of drama and the negative nature of its criticism is obvious and leads to the conclusion that it is undoubtedly connected with radical changes in society and the divisions within society caused by the fierce confrontation between the Monarchy and the Puritan Parliament, which soon culminated in revolution and civil war, the victory of which was won by Parliament and its society. The traditional patronage of theater and drama by monarchs and aristocracy in that period was viewed by the Puritan Parliament and its supporters as loyalty of drama to reactionary monarchical forces. The society, siding with Parliament, supported the closure of theaters on the grounds that drama was about to "decline, since the class whose tastes it mainly seeks to please is going to decline" [6. p. 137]. Naturally, the critics, serving the forces of society that won the struggle, immediately relegated drama to the entertainment spectacle of the already doomed court of Charles 1 and the aristocracy: "Masques and other plays were for these people a way of escaping the problems posed by the political situation, as well as a means of cultivating their refinement" [11. p.161].

Thus, negative criticism of English drama contributed significantly to the complete closure of English theaters, seriously hindering the development and reform of English drama, and consigning the work of several talented playwrights of that era to oblivion. A striking example of this is the fate of the works of the playwright Richard Brome, one of Ben Jonson’s bright students, through the prism of literary criticism. His first plays immediately brought him public acclaim, placing him among the greatest masters of the stage. His success is evidenced by the posters of his frequent productions in the best London theatres, as well as by the numerous editions of his plays in the 17th century and the reviews of contemporary critics: "Poetry had never before been so brilliant and so perfect. In it, Jonson, Shakespeare, Fletcher, Shirley, Brome not only surpassed their compatriots, but also left the entire world far behind" [12. p. 33]. No less honorable place is given to Brome by E. Phillips in a treatise ‘Theatrum Poetarum’ dedicated to the theater: “…thanks to his natural gifts, he achieved great mastery in his varied and excellent comedies, and, ultimately, almost equaled him in fame with Ben Jonson” [13. p. 35].

However, in the 19th century, the critical attitude towards the playwright’s work changed radically and was characterized by extremely harsh judgments and assessments, up to a complete rejection of his dramatic legacy. Among the most ardent critics of R. Brome’s plays in the 19th century, John Symonds, an English writer and critic, insisted that R. Brome's perception of English society was alien to art: "his view of the world is more characteristic of a groom than of a gentleman; the scenes and heroes he depicts are taken from the life of servants... All the dirty, seamy sides of life are shown to us with prosaic rudeness." [14. p. 304-305]. This transformation of views on writers and playwrights, as we already mentioned, is not uncommon in in critical practice, and is determined by the changing society that grew and matured during the "Victorian" era. Views, tastes, moral values ​​that did not conform to the "Victorian" standard were erased from culture and literature. The 17^th century drama, including that of R. Brome, depicted a world that was unstable, full of contradictions, ready to explode at any moment, disturbing the peace of the Victorian public, which desired majestic and instructive spectacles that preached family virtues and loyalty to the crown. However, the final words of J. Symonds in his critical article on R.Brome: "The cock in one of the fables scraped a pearl from a dunghill. Perhaps some eminent scholar will succeed in discovering the pearl in the heap of rubbish that is Brome's plays” [14]. turned out to be prophetic "Eminent scholars" were not long in coming. Already in the early 20th century, critical works appeared containing a different view and assessment of the 17th-century drama, including R. Brome’s plays: "in romantic comedy he is a disciple of Shakespeare, Fletcher, Massinger, and in comedy of manners - the successor not only of the theory of humor and methods of Johnson ..., but also of the idealism, pathos, and kindness and depiction of reality inherent in Dekker. On the other hand, he appears before us as a link between us, and as an innovator" [15. v.3. p. xc1]. In the same years, literary criticism increasingly paid tribute to the work of R. Brome, noting his enormous influence on the theater of the Restoration era. Critics of the 20th century classify R.Brome as part of the "Elizabethan tradition" due to the "admiration and reverence for human nature" that permeate all of his comedies. They note that the playwright "paints a multifaceted portrait of his contemporaries," emphasizing the connection between Brome's work and the Restoration era: "Brome's plays, to a greater extent than other works by his contemporaries, bring us closer to the Restoration" [16. p. 251]. R. Brome is given an important place in the evolution of dramatic art from the Renaissance to the Restoration era: from the comedy of Jonson to the comedy of Congreve and Wycherley [17. p. 334].

In modern Western literary criticism, interest in the drama of the first half of the 17th century, including the work of B. Johnson and his followers, in particular R. Brome, has grown significantly. Many critical works at the end of the 20th century define the work of R. Brome as “an integral part of the entire English comic tradition”, characterizing him as “the most brilliant follower and student of Ben Jonson”, who brought “much that was new to the theatre of the era of Charles I, and subsequently exerted a great influence on the comedy writers who worked after him” [18. p. 34]. Brome’s plays are published with extremely positive criticism: “no playwright of that time conveys to us so multifacetedly and vividly the economic and moral situation in London, does not reflect the social consciousness of all of England in the period between the Renaissance and the Restoration as Brome did” [19. p. 334]. "His plays are not only highly perfect," but also "extremely original, representing an entirely new phenomenon on the English stage" [20, p. 120]. His works were widely published in the 20th century.

Thus, the analysis of 17th-century drama criticism demonstrates that literary criticism not only evaluates the artistic and aesthetic components of a work, its strengths and weaknesses, but above all reflects the social and political demands, needs, and opinions dominant in the society of the author's time and the social milieu that largely determine the playwright's subject matter and the demands placed on his work. As society changes, literary criticism's approach to evaluating and interpreting literary works changes dramatically. A correct assessment of a work is possible only in the context of the author’s lifetime and the society for which he created his works.

1.Жермен де Сталь. «О литературе и ее связи с общественными установлениями». О трагедиях Шекспира/ литературные манифесты западноевропейских романтиков. М., Изд-во Московского университета.1980. С.374-383
2. Урнов Д.М. Борьба пуритан против театра в эпоху Шекспира//Культура эпохи Возрождения и Реформации. Л. 1981. С.240.
3. Аникст А.А. Современники Шекспира// Современники Шекспира. В 2-х т. М.1959. Т.1. С. 16.
4. Зонина Н.В. XVII век в английской драме. Бен Джонсон: драматург и реформатор // Маргарита Васильевна Разумовская in Memoriam/ Comparativistica Petropolitana/ Выпуск 5. Межвузовский сборник научных трудов. Из-во Санкт-Петербургского университета. С.111-124
5. Зонина Н.В. «Эволюция диалоговой речи в английской драме начала XVIIв. (Б.Джонсон «Эписин или Молчаливая женщина»)»// Синергия языков и культур:междисциплинарные исследования», Сб.статей. Из-во Санкт-Петербургского университета 2021. С.576-583
6. Булгаков А.С. Театр и театральная общественность Лондона эпохи расцвета торгового капитализма» Асаdemia 1928. С137
7. Rymer Thomas "The Critical Works of Thomas Rymer "//ed. By C.A. Zimansky. New Heaven, 1956. P.134, 150
8. Dryden John ‘Essay of Dramatic Poesie // Ed. by W.H. Hudson, Dent’s Temple Series of English Texts. Internet Archive Python library 1.1.0 (Дата обращения 20.09.2025)
9. Schlegel A. Wilhelm, Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature (trans: John Black). Lecture XXIII. P.178 http://public-library.uk/ebooks/04/42.pdf (Дата обращения 25.11.2025)
10. Thompson A.H. F. History of English Literature. L. 1910. P.178.
11 Leech C. Shakespeare’s Tragedies and Other studies. L. 1950. P. 161.
12. Цит. по: Andrews C.E. Richard Brome: Study of His Life and Work. N.Y. 1913. P.33
13. Langbaine G. An account of the English Dramatick Poets. Oxford.1691. P.35
14. Symonds J.A. Review of the Dramatic Works of Richard Brome. Academy.1874. P. 304-305
15. Gaely Ch. M. Representative English Comedy: In 3vols. N.Y.1903-1914. v.3. P. xc1.
16. Thorndike А. English comedy. L. 1929. P.251
17. Swinburne A.C. The Complete works. Ed. by Sir Edmund Cosso, T.J.L.Wise. L., 1926. P..334
18. Show K. Richard Brome. Boston: G.K. Hall, 1980.P.139
19. Haaker a/ Introduction// Brome R. The Antipodes. Univ.of Nebraska pres. 1966.PXIX. 334
20. Butler M. “Theatre and Crisis 1632-1642” // Cambridge university press.1984. P.120.

List of sources
21. Виппер Ю.Б., Самарин Р.М. Курс лекций по истории зарубежных литератур XVII века. М. 1954. С.74.
22. История западноевропейского театра / Под.ред. С.С.Мокульский. М. 1956. Т.1. С. 392-393.
23. Толстой Л.Н. О Шекспире и драме. Статьи о литературе и искусстве. Т.15. Собр.соч. в 22 томах. М. Художественная литература. 1983, С.281
24. Jonson Ben. “To the Memory of My Beloved, the Author Mr. William Shakespeare: And what he Hath Left Us” // St. Martin’s Anthologies of English Literature. The Renaissance. V.2. St. Martin’s Press, New York.1990. P.209
25. Voltaire, Lettres philosophiques: Lanson, Gustave, 1857-1934; Société des textes français modernes\ Internet Archive/ P.79.9 dix-huitieme letter. (Дата обращения 25.10.2025).
26. Lawrence D.H. When I read Shakespeare …// Pansies: poems. 1929. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/pansiespoemsO0000dhla_s3k3 (Дата обращения 27.10.2025)