This essay attempts to define what Italian, English, and French critics in the 16th and 17th centuries had made out of Aristotle`s Poetics, thus counting for their literary creed commonly known as neo-classicism. As neo-classicism differs from the actual doctrines of classical antiquity because of its imperfect assimilation of Aristotle`s Poetics, pseudo-classicism would be the better term. To make the matter worse, 16th-century Aristotelian critics in Italy overlooked one important fact; i.e. that Aristotle`s Poetics is descriptive, not prescriptive. Italian critics like Scaliger, Robortelli and Castelvetro pioneered for the first time in history at once translating into their own tongue and interpreting Aristotle`s work in question. They were largely and ultimately responsible for the neo-classical emphasis upon, and the rigid implementation of, either non-or pseudo-Aristotelian dramatic rules and precepts like verisimilitude, delightful instruction, decorum, and three unities. Sidney, 16th-century English critic, upheld Italian dramatic rules and precepts in their entirety, saying to the effect that Aristotle`s artistic pleasure should be accompanied by instruction, that decorum forbids kings and clowns to be mingled, and that the unities of time and place should be observed. He dismissed as ``mongrel`` tragi-comedy, which he said fails to achieve the effect of tragedy, i.e. ``the admiration and commiseration``. Jonson and Milton, Sidney`s literary successors, followed suit. 17th-century France like 16th-century England imported the Italian dramatic rules and precepts and saw them become far more rigid in the hands of critics like Chapelain, D`Aubignac, Racine, Rapin, and Dacier. Verisimilitude was to them the essence of the stage, and the unities became established as rules to be strictly kept, for their observance was believed to contribute decisively to verisimilitude. Moreover, they wanted to see ``Virtue Rewarded and Vice Punished`` implemented by all tragedies. This rigid type of French neo-classical formalism began to influence Restoration English stage. Dryden somewhat faithfully followed it for his own plays, but when it came to those of other dramatists like Shakespeare, he proved himself to be a flexible neo-classicist by preferring them to regular 17th-century French plays, unlike Rymer who with his ideas of poetical justice and decorum was ready to find fault with the English tragedies of ``the last age``. His ruthless attack on both Shakespeare and Fletcher was considered infamous and scurrilous even in his time. Dryden believed that Shakespeare should not be judged by the laws Shakespeare was ignorant of, and 18th-century Shakespearean editors like Rowe, Pope and Johnson were also of this opinion. When every thing is said and done, no one could possibly deny that neo-classical dramatic doctrines originated from the various misinterpretations of Aristotle`s Poetics on the part of 16th and 17th century European critics and writers. They had mistaken Aristotle for ur-Horace and Horace for the best interpreter of Aristotle, thus paying less attention to the text of the Poetics.