Summarize The Reading: The Classicism Of The Cinquecento

Summary
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Summary
When compared with the seventy-seven heroic, pastoral and picaresque novels, the middle-class novel of manners and family life indicated an entire innovation. These various forms of heroic novels were highly common within the light-fiction category, however, by the middle of the eighteenth century, this dominance was drastically reduced (Hauser, 1999). This change was not deliberate nor methodically as opposed to older literature, and this was common in the middle-class drama novels.
The popularity of these middle-class novels was entirely different for classical tragedy literature and ultimately became the primary source of literature of the revolutionary bourgeoisie. In elevated dramas, most of the protagonists were members of the middle class, and to them, this was an expression of the rights of the middle-class to be taken seriously and be considered highly just like those heroes of tragedy in the old literature novels.
The entire history of middle-class dramas was analyzed by its origins which were in the bourgeois class-consciousness. However, middle-class dramas were not the only form of literature that originated from social conflicts (Hauser, 1999). However, these novels were the first examples of a drama that made social disputes which placed itself due to the service of a class struggle. During this period, the theatre was propagated continuously by the identity of the particular class that had financed its operations. However, class differences were never created before due to the explicit content of its productions. Hauser, (1999) stated that due to the programmatically and polemic characters, the middle-class dramas eventually evolved and had issues which were not common in the older forms of this type of drama. This new type of middle-class drama did not have suitable thesis to utilize during plays.
Middle-class dramas are among the strangest dramatic form due to its dialectic element. This makes it a suitable vehicle for polemics; however, the dramatist had to be impartial in public and this fostered objectivity. Supporters of this drama disputed the admissibility of propaganda compared to other forms of art. Challenges in middle-class drama arose when the enlightenment had altered the stage into a lay-pulpit and a suitable platform. This drama also renounced the Kantian apathy of art entirely (Hauser, 1999).
Compared to the past, this form of drama was highly educative and helpful especially. Before middle-class dramas were popular, previous forms of literature were cynical and doubted the effectiveness of critical moral teachings. The primary comparison between the bourgeoisie and the pre-bourgeoisie dramas is that pre-bourgeoisie did not regularly campaign for political and social equality (Hauser, 1999). Middle-class dramas currently do not take place between single people, but it focused on the hero and numerous institutions. The hero in such dramas now fought against unknown forces, and therefore, he had to develop his point of view as an abstract concept, and this denounced the prevailing social systems.
These dramas also do not have lengthy speeches and indictments since they now utilize a different form of language such as starting with a plural ‘Ye’ instead of using the singular ‘You.’ However, in spite of such changes, these dramas of the eighteenth century no longer implies the criteria of the public’s theatre which the proletarian dramas of the nineteenth century. Both of these dramas were developed in which all associations with ordinary individuals were lost entirely (Hauser, 1999). Additionally, both of the dramas are based on various theatrical conventions which most ordinary people have now forgotten conceding such elements. Both of these dramas are based on theatrical connections rooted deeply in classicism.
Hauser, (1999) stated that middle-class drama was established within the literary genre whereby the principles of court society whereby the service of absolute monarchy was indicated as the most direct and imposing form of expression. The dramas represented the whole genre since it was used for presentation. The presentation was conducted with a highly impressive social structure, and theatrical performances provided the chance for highlighting the splendor of the monarchy. Most motifs found in such drama became the symbol of a highly feudalistic heroic life. This was done based on the comprehension of authority, service, and loyalty (Hauser, 1999). These dramas foster the idealization of heroes of a social class which was exempted from the small cares of the daily lives of people.
The society regarded people that did not devote their lives to worshipping the principles of such dramas as people that lacked dramatic dignity. England also followed the French model as most of their dramas had a tendency towards absolutism and also focused on making court culture more exclusive (Hauser, 1999). In both of these countries, this situation led to the displacement of popular theatre which was a different case in the sixteenth century which had been fused with literature of upper classes.
As an essential component of tragedy, the peripeteia was widely known, however, until the eighteenth century all dramatic critics highlighted that the sudden twist of destiny for the hero makes the impression more profound due to the higher position in which the protagonist falls (Hauser, 1999). In an age with numerous ideologies on absolutism, this feeling was highly influential, and within the poetic theory of the baroque, tragedy is defined as a genre whereby the heroes are generals, princes and other similar nobilities.
Hauser, (1999) indicated that the definition appears pedantic today; however, it lays hold of the fundamental aspect of tragedy and points towards the ultimate origin of the tragic experience. Therefore, when middle-class ordinary citizens were made protagonists in the eighteenth century, this was highly significant. Most of these people were protagonists of severe and massive dramatic action and middle-class dramas portrayed them as victims of tragic destinies and champions of high moral values.
Hauser, (1999) mentioned that in most of Molière’s plays, he characterizes the bourgeois as intelligent, witty and honest. He combines these descriptions typically with a sarcastic thrust directed at the upper classes. In the older drama, however, a person from the middle class was never characterized to have a vast and profound destiny or to accomplish an exemplary deed.
Currently, most bourgeois drama representatives have separated themselves from the limitations highlighted for the middle-class individuals. They also emancipated themselves from the assumptions of considering the promotion of the bourgeois towards the hero of a tragedy as impossible since these representatives cannot easily comprehend dramaturgical sense towards raising the protagonist above the social class level of an average man (Hauser, 1999).
These people also are prejudiced as they judge the entire issue from a humanitarian standpoint. They usually assume that a high ranking hero will reduce the interest of the spectators to discover the destiny of the hero. They make such assertions since it has become possible to be genuinely sympathetic towards individuals in similar social standing as these representatives (Hauser, 1999).
This democratic perspective is associated with the dedication of ...