Dryden's Essay on Dramatic Poesy

 John Dryden’s “An Essay on Dramatic Poesy” presents a brief discussion on Neo-classical theory of Literature. He defends the classical drama saying that it is an imitation of life and reflects human nature clearly. 

An Essay on Dramatic Poesy is written in the form of a dialogue among four speakers: Eugenius, Crites, Lisideius, and Neander. The four speakers are Sir Robert Howard [Crites], Lord Buckhurst or Charles Sackville [Eugenius], Sir Charles Sedley [Lisedeius], and Dryden himself (neander means "new man" and implies that Dryden, as a respected member of the gentry class, is entitled to join in this dialogue on an equal footing with the three older men who are his social superiors). Eugenius favors the moderns. Crites favors the ancients, blank verse French vs English. Lisideius Favors French drama. Neander favors the modern-English plays, rhyme 

Do you any difference between Aristotle's definition of Tragedy and Dryden's definition of Play? 

“Aristotle says that "Tragedy is an imitation [mimesis] of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude…through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation [catharsis] of these emotions.” 

As Aristotle suggest that poetry is mere copy of an action or whatever one has seen, poetry is not pure creation. Dryden on contrary uses the words like ‘lively image’. Advancing his definition, he says that it is representing its passion and humors and it is for delight and instruction of mankind. 

Dryden defines Drama as: 

"Just and lively image of human nature, representing its passions and humors, and the changes of fortune to which it is subject, for the delight and instruction of mankind." 

According to the Dryden, drama is an ‘image’ of ‘human nature’, and the image is ‘just’ and ‘lively’. By using the word ‘just’ Dryden seems to imply that literature imitates (and not merely reproduces) human actions. For Dryden, ‘poetic imitation’ is different from an exact, servile copy of reality, for, the imitation is not only ‘just’, it is also ‘lively’. 

 

If you are supposed to give your personal predilection, would you be on the side of the Ancient or the Modern? Please give reasons. 

If I were to give to give my personal preference, I would be on the side of the modern. Ancients has already played their role. They have paved the way for the future generation. Now the moderns are not supposed merely copy them but we have to create a better way for next generation and also have to show the realty in every possible way. In short, we should not live in the past, that would be in vain. The world should always move forward not backwards. 

Do you think that the arguments presented in favor of the French plays and against English plays are appropriate? 

Lisideius speaks in favor of the French. He agrees with Eugenius that in the last generation the English drama was superior. The French are superior to the English in various reasons. One of them being they follow the Ancients. They favor the Unity of time and they observe it so carefully. When it comes to the Unity of Place, they are equally careful. In most of their plays, the entire action is limited to one place. 

The French do not burden the play with a fat plot. They represent a story which will be one complete action, and everything which is unnecessary is carefully excluded. But the English burden their plays with actions and incidents which have no logical and natural connection with the main action so much so that an English play is a mere compilation. Hence the French plays are better written than the English ones. 

It is wrong to believe that the French represent no part of their action on the stage. Instead, they make proper selection. Cruel actions which are likely to cause hatred, or disbelief by their impossibility, must be avoided or merely narrated. They must not be represented. The French follow this rule in practice and so avoid much of the tumult of the English plays by reducing their plots to reasonable limits. Such narrations are common in the plays of the Ancients and the great English dramatists like Ben Jonson and Fletcher. Therefore, the French must not be blamed for their narration, which are judicious and well managed. 

In short, the English drama has decayed and declined because they live in an awful age full of bloodshed and violence, and poetry is an art of peace. The French dramas did not decline because they stick to the ancient unities. The English tried to do something new in order to differ from them.