Dryden's Essay on dramatic poesy

DRYDEN'S DRAMATIC POESY

Hello, I'm Emisha Ravani, writing this blog on Dryden's Dramatic Poesy. Which is thinking activity given by Dr. Dilip Barad. Where I will discuss about some of the question like,

1. Your understanding of the views expressed by Dryden in this essay. 

Dr. Jonson called John Dryden as "The Father of English Criticism" because he is the first man after Aristotle(Greek critic) tries to give new definition to Criticism before that Sir Philip sidney who only elaborated what is said by Aristotle and he more renaissance man and his work on criticism is very little. So Dryden was the first English critic who formed a definition and also gave some prefaces and other critical writing.

" Consistant critic "

According to Samuel Johnson, he always says that Dryden is the figure who is the invented A new era of criticism. And he said that, 

" Learn to write well or not to write at all, A thing well said will be wit in all languages "
This work is published in 1668. And in this work is focusing on Drama. And he talked about that how criticism should be done by critics. He says that critic should know that, writers write according to their ages and they produced the various literary works by their own style of writing. 
For example we can see Shakespeare's plays, Edmund Spencer's Fairy Queen , Ben Jonson's Comedy of humour, Francis Bacon's essays have the effects of Elizabethan age as they have been exist at that time. And when we see Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Choucer, we can see that it has the impacts of Medivial England's historical and social background. 
This is the only formal critical work by Dryden. Dryden was influenced by the Greek and latin critics. Also he had influenced by Franch critics. He never insist to follow the rules to do criticism. 

Definition of play by Dryden

“A PLAY ought to be a 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.”

As for Jonson, to whose character I am now arrived, if we look upon him while he was himself (for his last plays were but his dotages), I think him the most learned and judicious writer which any theatre ever had. He was a most severe judge of himself as well as others. One cannot say he wanted wit, but rather that he was frugal of it. In his works you find little to retrench or alter. Wit, and language, and humour also in some measure, we had before him; but something of art was wanting to the drama till he came. He managed his strength to more advantage than any who preceded him. You seldom find him making love in any of his scenes, or endeavouring to move the passions; his genius was too sullen and saturnine to do it gracefully, especially when he knew he came after those who had performed both to such an height. Humour was his proper sphere; and in that he delighted most to represent mechanic people. He was deeply conversant in the Ancients, both Greek and Latin, and he borrowed boldly from them: there is scarce a poet or historian among the Roman authors of those times whom he has not translated in Sejanus and Catiline. But he has done his robberies so openly that one may see he fears not to be taxed by any law. He invades authors like a monarch, and what would be theft in other poets is only victory in him. With the spoils of these writers he so represents old Rome to us, in its rites, ceremonies, and customs, that if one of their poets had written either of his tragedies, we had seen less of it than in him. If there was any fault in his language, 'twas that he weaved it too closely and laboriously in his serious plays: perhaps, too, he did a little too much romanize our tongue, leaving the words which he translated almost as much Latin as he found them: wherein, though he learnedly followed the idiom of their language, he did not enough, comply with ours. If I would compare him with Shakespeare, I must acknowledge him the more correct poet, but Shakespeare the greater wit. Shakespeare was the Homertext annotation indicator, or father of our dramatic poets; Jonson was the Virgiltext annotation indicator, the pattern of elaborate writing; I admire him, but I love Shakespeare. To conclude of him, as he has given us the most correct plays, so in the precepts which he has laid down in his Discoveries, we have as many and profitable rules for perfecting the stage as any wherewith the French can furnish us.

As we have seen Dryden admired Ben Jonson and William Shakespeare. 
Next those four were discuss about their opinion where in, 
Crites has rules in three unities, time, place and action. 
Eugenius says that we don't restricted ourselves by dull emotions like ancient. 
Lisideius again said that French are best. He says that Tragedy does not represent human nature. It's imitation of serious or complete action. This definition is very different from Aristotle's definition. 
At last they four discuss about Rhyme. 
Where Crites says that, in dramas blank verses should be there rather than rhymes. 
So as a response to that Neander ( Dryden) says that in a series plays there might have high characters so rhymes should be there. 

He talks about the four things here, 

1.( Crites) :- Speakes for the ancient dramatits

2.( Eugenius):- for the english literature for the "LAST AGE "

3. ( Lisideivs) :- speaks for the French

4.( Neander) :- speaks for England and liberty

Here Dryden says these four speakers supporting their arguments. Let's see how they four are putting their views. 

Crites : crites supported ancient Greek and Roman authors and he says that old and ancient works are better than the modern works. 

Eugenius: he talks about old and ancient work's faults and he praise the modern works. Further he says that old drama had not acts and all, LAST AGE of drama is the best. 

Lisideius: he argue that French drama is the best, where they don't mix up the genres like tragedy and comedy though it's seperate. We can see it in Renaissance dramas. 

Neander: here Dryden has put himself as Neander. He speaks like he answering Lisideius. He talks about english drama's liberty. Shakespeare and Jonson's tradition is the best. 

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

“Tragedy,” says Aristotle, “is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude…through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation (catharsis)of these emotions.” Ambiguous means may be employed, Aristotle maintains in contrast to Plato, to a virtuous and purifying end.

Dryden defines Drama as: “Just and lively image 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.”

These both definitions are very different from each other like one is saying that it's imitation of series of actions. And another is saying that tragedy represents human nature. 

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.

By my interpretation, I would like to say that both the sides are appreciated. Because it's not everytime the modern took the ideas from the ancient and tries to imitate it but sometimes many new interpretations can be introduced by them to the ancient works. So we would say that if ancients have ideas then moderns have the power to present it in new ways. 

3) Do you think that the arguments presented in favour of the French plays and against English plays are appropriate? (Say for example, Death should not be performed as it is neither 'just' not 'liely' image, displaying duel fight with blunted swords, thousands of soldiers marching represented as five on stage, mingling of mirth and serious, multiple plots etc.)

Whichever arguments are presented in the favour of English plays. In the work it says that old Or ancient works didn't have acts and all the rules.and says that also modern dramas are best.The plots of French plays are barren while English ones are copious to further the same action. The English plays have numbers of plots with the main plot and audience is important because of that in English plays, there are all types of themes.

4) What would be your preference so far as poetic or prosaic dialogues are concerned in the play? 

I would like to preference poetry rather than prose though it's a little bit hard to understand sometimes. And prose are more reliable for illiterate people because it easy to understand if it's easy level of language. But poetry has unique charms to itself so it's poetry I like to preference. 

The video where Pro.Dahiya ,VC of Kurukshetr University ,is explaining very well this text.where he talks about it in veey detail.