An Essay on Dramatic Poesy by John Dryden
John Dryden – Introduction:
John Dryden (1631–1700) was one of the most influential literary figures of the Restoration period. Often called the “father of English criticism” and England’s first Poet Laureate (appointed in 1668), he excelled as a poet, playwright, and critic. His career spanned the turbulent years of the English Civil War, the Commonwealth under Cromwell, and the Restoration of Charles II, giving him a unique vantage point on literature and politics.
- Poetry: Dryden perfected the heroic couplet and used it in satire, panegyric, and didactic verse.
- Drama: He experimented with heroic drama, tragicomedy, and adaptations of Shakespeare.
- Criticism: His prose criticism shaped literary taste for decades, combining classical learning with practical theatrical experience.
Dryden’s criticism is balanced neither blindly imitating ancient rules nor fully rejecting tradition. He stands between neoclassicism and modern realism, valuing both decorum and naturalness in art.
An Essay of Dramatic Poesy – Overview:
Written in 1666 during the plague year (when theatres were closed) and published in 1668, An Essay of Dramatic Poesy is a dialogue that defends the English stage against critics of its artistic legitimacy. It’s often considered the first major piece of modern English literary criticism.
Structure and Form:
The work is presented as a conversation between four fictional speakers each representing a viewpoint in the debate about drama.
- Eugenius – Supports the moderns over the ancients.
- Crites – Defends the classical (ancient Greek and Roman) drama.
- Lisideius – Praises French drama for its adherence to classical rules and unities.
- Neander (Dryden’s own voice) – Defends English drama, especially Shakespeare.
The dialogue takes place on a barge ride on the Thames after a sea battle with the Dutch blending art criticism with a vivid contemporary setting.
Main Debates and Points:
1. Ancients vs. Moderns:
- Ancients had perfection of form and respected the unities; moderns have expanded subject matter and natural dialogue.
- Dryden (Neander) sides with the moderns, especially English dramatists, while respecting ancient models.
- French plays (like Corneille) follow strict classical unities of time, place, and action; they focus on decorum and elegance.
- English plays (like Shakespeare) are more varied, energetic, and emotionally powerful, even if they break the rules.
- Dryden argues that rhymed verse (heroic couplets) is suitable for serious plays, giving them elegance and control.
- Later, he revised his stance, favoring blank verse.
- Drama is an imitation of life through action, blending pleasure and instruction.
- The best plays combine truth to nature with artistic shaping.
"An Essay of Dramatic Poesy" marks the first sustained English defence of literary modernity while still showing deep respect for classical tradition. In this work, Dryden shifts the focus of criticism from moral judgment to artistic analysis, evaluating drama on the basis of its form, style, and capacity to reflect life rather than on purely ethical grounds. By balancing admiration for the structural discipline of the ancients with appreciation for the creative freedom and emotional richness of modern English drama, Dryden positions himself as a mediator between classical restraint and English vitality.
Q.1.| Do you any difference between Aristotle's definition of Tragedy and Dryden's definition of Play?
Ans.
Aristotle’s Definition of Tragedy:
Aristotle defines tragedy in Poetics as “an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament… in the form of action, not of narrative; through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions.” This foundational definition can be unpacked through its critical dimensions:
- Imitation (Mimesis): Death and suffering are not mirrored blindly. Tragedy is an artistic re-creation of life’s universal truths it imitates human actions, not events as they happened.
- Seriousness, Completeness & Magnitude: The dramatic action addresses weighty themes and unfolds as a coherent narrative with a clear beginning, middle, and end. Its scale is sufficient to impart profound meaning without fragmenting comprehension.
- Embellished Language: Greek tragedy elevates its speech through poetic devices meter, rhythm, song enhancing its aesthetic and emotional potency.
- Dramatic, Not Narrative: The tragedy is enacted, not narrated characters embody actions and choices, creating immediacy and engagement.
- Catharsis: The ultimate goal is emotional purification: inducing pity and fear leads to catharsis a moral and psychological cleansing.
- Structul Eralements: Aristotle emphasizes six key components Plot, Character, Thought, Diction, Song, and Spectacle with Plot as the soul of tragedy and Character as its second pillar.
Dryden’s Definition of a Play:
In his 1668 essay Essay of Dramatic Poesy, Dryden (as the character Neander) engages in a rich dialogue on drama’s nature. One key statement stands out: a play should be a “just and lively imitation of human nature in action.” This definition highlights:
- True-to-Life Representation: A just imitation faithful to human nature combined with liveliness dynamic and engaging performance.
- Wide Scope: Dryden’s view applies across dramatic genres from tragedy to comedy unlike Aristotle’s tragedy-exclusive focus.
- Balance of Delight and Instruction: Plays should delight (entertain the audience) and simultaneously instruct (convey moral or philosophical insight) a synthesis central to Restoration drama.
- Flexibility in Form: Though influenced by classical unities, Dryden appreciates English drama’s flexibility capable of both preserving unity or expanding beyond it, depending on dramatic needs.
Key Differences:
1. Scope:
Aristotle strictly defines tragedy as a specific genre of drama one that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude, designed to evoke catharsis through pity and fear.. By contrast, Dryden, in his Essay of Dramatic Poesy, widens the lens. He envisions plays in general not just tragedies but also comedies and tragicomedies as “just and lively images of human nature, representing its passions and humours, and the changes of fortune to which it is subject, for the delight and instruction of mankind”. Thus, Aristotle’s focus is genre-specific and narrow, while Dryden’s is inclusive and broad.
2. Core Aim:
Aristotle’s central aim in tragedy is to elicit pity and fear in the audience, resulting in catharsis an emotional purgation that leads to moral and psychological renewal . Conversely, Dryden advocates drama that both delights and instructs balances moral lessons with entertainment, bringing enjoyment and didactic value in equal measure.
3. Structure:
Aristotle demands a tightly unified structure: unity of action (a single coherent plot with a beginning, middle, and end) and magnitude sufficient to convey significance. Dryden, however, embraces structural flexibility. Rather than conforming strictly to unity, he values realism and narrative variation that reflect human nature's complexity allowing the dramatic form to serve truth and audience appeal .
4. Language:
For Aristotle, tragedy employs embellished, poetic language—rhythm, melody, and elevated speech used as artistic ornamentation (songs, chorus, verse). Dryden, on the other hand, accepts both elevated and conversational modes of speech. He suggests that language in drama varies with subject and purpose either grand or colloquial, depending on what is most effective in engaging the audience.
5. Effect on the Audience:
Aristotle contends that tragedy effects emotional and moral refinement through catharsis audiences leave the theater cleansed and psychologically renewed. Dryden’s ideal play, by contrast, seeks to both capture the audience’s delight and impart insight, offering an emotionally engaging and intellectually enriching experience rather than a profound emotional purge.
6. Historical Context:
Aristotle’s framework emerged in the context of classical Greek theatre, where drama held a philosophical, ritualistic, and moral dimension. His definitions reflect a worldview that prioritized order, universal truths, and moral instructiveness in structured formats. Dryden’s ideas, however, emerged during the English Restoration, a time characterized by more socially driven, audience-centric theater. Restoration drama valued adaptability, entertainment, and engagement with everyday human experience hence Dryden’s broader, more flexible aesthetic for the play
Conclusion:
Aristotle and Dryden both view drama as an imitation of life presented through action but their visions lead to very different emphases. Aristotle’s tragedy, firmly rooted in ancient Greek philosophy, pursues emotional purification through catharsis, achieved via a serious, unified plot enacted in elevated poetic language (aesthetically ornate) that fosters moral elevation in its audience. In contrast, Dryden’s Restoration-era conception of a play is broader and more flexible: drama should not only imitate human nature vividly but also delight and instruct, capturing the complexities of human passions and humours in a form accessible to varied dramatic genres. In Aristotle’s world, structure and depth lead to moral insight; in Dryden’s, realism and balance between entertainment and instruction reflect the lively, audience-centered spirit of his age.
Q.2.|If you are supposed to give your personal predilection, would you be on the side of the Ancient or the Modern? Please give reasons.
Ans.
The long-standing quarrel between the Ancients and the Moderns a prominent literary and cultural debate of the late 17th and early 18th centuries has continued to resonate in contemporary critical thought. While the Ancients upheld the enduring value of classical models, the Moderns advocated for literary progression and adaptation. Today, a balanced synthesis of both traditions may offer the most enriching and nuanced path forward.
1. The Ancients: Structure and Classical Lawfulness:
In Aristotle’s Poetics, the hallmark of a tragedy is its coherent and unified structure namely, an imitation of "an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude." Aristotle emphasizes the unities of action, time, and place, which together foster narrative clarity and emotional focus. The tragic effect, he argues, resides in catharsis the purgation of pity and fear, cultivated through the moral and logical cohesion of plot and character.
Although Aristotelian principles originated within a distinct cultural context, they have profoundly influenced the structure of Western drama. Even in Shakespearean tragedies such as Hamlet or Macbeth, one finds echoes of unified tragic design and psychologically resonant arcs that evoke emotional depth and moral complexity.
2. The Moderns: Innovation, Realism, and Flexibility:
The Moderns emblematically represented by John Dryden in his Essay of Dramatic Poesy position literature as a mirror to life rather than a fixed mechanism dictated by classical rules. Dryden proposes that "the best plays are those that are most like life," allowing character and dialogue to guide form in ways that reflect human complexity.
Dryden critiques overly rigid adherence to the classical unities of time and place as potentially stifling. He argues instead for flexibility in dramatic structure, including acceptance of subplots, varied settings, and a naturalistic tone. Furthermore, while respecting decorum and unity, Dryden champions innovation such as his famous use of the heroic couplet or nuanced character development which amplifies emotional and intellectual resonance.
3. Toward a Balanced Synthesis:
A truly compelling literary approach arises when we fuse the structural stability of the Ancients with the dramatic flexibility and realism of the Moderns.
-
Structural Integrity: Classical principles of plotted unity and dramatic coherence yield narratives that are emotionally powerful and aesthetically organized.
-
Formal Adaptability: Modern emphasis on realism and psychological depth allows works to resonate with contemporary sensibilities, accommodating stylistic diversity, thematic complexity, and varied narrative forms.
This synthesis aligns with Dryden’s own critical posture: he does not reject tradition but reinterprets it acknowledging the Ancients' foundational influence while advocating for creative expansion in line with evolving cultural needs.
Conclusion :
While the Ancients offer invaluable guidance in plot coherence and emotional depth, the Moderns propel literature forward by embracing realism, stylistic freedom, and innovatory forms. A balanced approach one that preserves the classical foundations while allowing innovation to reshape tradition—minimizes dogmatic restrictions and maximizes expressive potential.
By weaving together the strengths of both, contemporary writers and readers can enjoy works that are simultaneously structured, sophisticated, emotionally stirring, and relevant to the present moment. Such a synthesis champions continuity without sacrificing creativity the very essence of a nuanced and intellectually satisfying literary tradition.
Q.-3.|Evaluate whether the arguments presented in favor of French plays and against English plays are appropriate. For example, consider the portrayal of death, duel fights with blunted swords, the representation of large armies by a few actors, the mingling of mirth and serious tones, and the use of multiple plots.
Ans.
1. Portrayal of Death:
In French drama, death is typically portrayed offstage to preserve decorum and prevent shocking the audience. Dryden, in "An Essay of Dramatic Poesy", acknowledges that this practice ensures refinement and elegance, aligning with classical ideals of restraint. However, he argues that such an approach diminishes the emotional intensity of the scene. In contrast, English plays often present death vividly onstage such as Hamlet’s duel with Laertes which amplifies dramatic effect and strengthens audience engagement. Thus, while the French method is appropriate for maintaining classical decorum, it inevitably limits the realism and impact that onstage depictions can achieve.
Dryden himself prefers a combination of poetic and prosaic dialogues, using verse for noble or serious characters and prose for common or comic characters. This approach allows the play to balance elevated expression with natural realism, enhancing both aesthetic beauty and audience engagement.
With reference to Dryden, I prefer poetic dialogue in plays for serious and noble situations, as it elevates emotions, adds artistic beauty, and makes the drama memorable. Prose should be used selectively for comic relief or ordinary conversations, providing contrast and naturalism. This combination, as Dryden suggests, creates a harmonious and effective dramatic experience.
References:
1. Barad Dilip. "An Essay on Dramatic Poesy: John Dryden." ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373767836_An_Essay_on_Dramatic_Poesy_John_Dryden
2. Barad, Dilip. “Aristotle’s Poetics.” Research Gate, Aug. 2023. Research Gate,https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.31696.28164
THANK YOU!
No comments:
Post a Comment