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.

Aristotle's Poetics

Hello, I am Emisha Ravani, writing this blog for the thinking activity givan by Pro. DilipBarad in Bridge Course:Aristotle's Poetics.Where we shell answer the questions like:

1. What is your understanding about Aristotle's Poetics ?

2.With reference to the literary texts you have studied B.A. programme, write brief note on the texts which followed Aristotelian literary tradition. (i.e. his concept of tragedy, catharsis, tragic hero with hamartia etc) 

3. With reference to the literary texts you have studied during B.A. programme , write breif note on the texts which did not follow Aristotelian literary tredition. ( i.e. his concept of tragedy, catharsis, tragic hero with hamartia etc.)

4. have you studied any tragedies during B.A. programme? who was/were the tragic protagonist/s in those tragedies? what was their 'hamartia'? 

The first picture is Aristotle himself and second is his work ' Poetics'. Let's know his thoughts by some of his quotes . 

We can see that how thoughtful mind he had. He had contributed in many fields by his master mind. 

Let's see with which topics he had deal with in his work 'Poetics'. 

1.Response to Plato 'The Repblic' 2.Means of Mimesis 3.Discussion on Tragedy 4.Six different aspects of Tragedy 5.Hamartia and Peripeteia 6.Thought and Diction 7.Epic Poetry 8.Tragedy is superior to epic poetry

Aristotle was the disciple of the great Plato, who wrote work 'The Republic' and to response it Aristotle wrote this work ' Poatics'.which is very famous.where he talks about dramatic theories, different kinds of poetry and tragedt and epic poetries are on focus. and as we know that he wrote to response Plato's work ,where Plato says that poetry and poets are meaningless they they are pretending . so Aristotle didnot believe it wrote the Poetics.

Means of Mimesis

Imitative representation of the real world in art and literature.

Mimesis is a term used in philosophy and literary criticism. It describes the process of imitation or mimicry through which artists portray and interpret the world. Mimesis is not a literary device or technique, but rather a way of thinking about a work of art.

Discussion on Tragedy

says Aristotle, “is an imitation [mimēsis] 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.

Six different aspects of Tragedy

After discussing the definition of tragedy, Aristotle explores various important parts of tragedy. He asserts that any tragedy can be divided into six constituent parts. They are: Plot, Character, Thought, Diction, Song and Spectacle. The Plot is the most important part of a tragedy.

Hamartia and Peripeteia

Aristotle also defines the characteristics of a tragic hero as the following; Hamartia, a tragic flaw that causes the downfall of a hero; hubris, excessive pride and disrespect for the natural order of things; peripeteia, the reversal of fate that the hero experiences; anagnorisis, a moment in time when the hero makes ..

Thoughts and Diction

Thought means what the characters think or feel during their career in the development of the plot. The thought is expressed through their speeches and dialogues. Diction is the medium of language or expression through which the characters reveal their thoughts and feelings.

Epic poetry

Aristotle's Definition of Epic in Poetics and his Consideration of Tragedy as Superior to an Epic. To Aristotle, an Epic is a narrative poem written in heroic hexa-metre. It has four constituent parts namely plot , character, thought, & diction. ... Nor should epics be constructed like the common run of histories.

Tragedy is superior to epic poetry

Tragedy contains all the elements of the epic, but manages to present its story in a much shorter span of time and with a greater degree of unity. The concentration of the tragic plot heightens its impact on the audience.

2.With reference to the literary texts you have studied B.A. programme, write brief note on the texts which followed Aristotelian literary tradition. (i.e. his concept of tragedy, catharsis, tragic hero with hamartia etc) 

Arthur Miller’s “All my sons” is one of the texts which, in some ways, follow a tradition of the Aristotelian Tragedy as the tragic hero of the play; Joe Keller undergoes every major characteristic that a tragic hero of Aristotle faces.

Joe Keller fits in the frames of Aristotle’s concept a tragic hero- he is true to life, is consistent in his thoughts and actions, and is neither an outright saint nor a wicked criminal but a representative of normal human beings.

Though it is considered as a modern tragedy Joe Keller, like Aristotelian hero suffers from-

Hubris- He has an excessive ambition that leads to his downfall, causing his death by committing suicide.

Hamartia- He makes a terrible error of dispatching the faulty parts in his limited views for his business and his family. This way Joe suffers not as a result of any wise but as a consequence of his error in judgment.

Catharsis- an essential function of tragedy is arousing pity and fear in a way to accomplish Catharsis of emotions. In ‘All my Sons’, pity for characters is felt through the hardships of Larry Keller and the future of family members after Joe’s suicide.

In short, the play can be, in some reference, called a model similar to Aristotelian tragedy but it cannot be an Aristotelian tragedy.

Othello as Tragedy

Another illustration is ‘Othello’- a tragedy of an ideal situation where a rather good man meets a terrible end. The hero is a moor with a higher rank, and speaks acts and does in a very probable way which gives the necessary outcome of his character.

Throughout the story, Othello continuously questions Desdemona’s loyalty as he gets manipulated by Iago. Finally, in the end, he kills Desdemona and later on realizes it was all lies and ends up killing himself. His anger and jealousy grow as more lies are told to him, enough that make him stop listening to Desdemona and others telling him the truth. As all that happens, it allows the reader to realize that Othello has different changes throughout the story as well as different characteristics that show him as a tragic hero. In Othello, William Shakespeare characterizes Othello as a tragic hero and as well includes ways that show how Othello had culpability for Desdemona’s murder. Othello changes because of his actions, which results in his downfall, showing how he changes from a sweet and loving husband and then changes to a cruel and abusive husband who eventually goes on to kill his own wife.

 A Tragic Hero with Hamartia- Othello is a man of action; his tragic flaw is extreme jealousy. It is this jealousy that leads to his catastrophic downfall. The villainous deeds of Iago and his constant poisoning of Othello’s ears with monstrous jealousy serve as a medium for murdering his own wife.

Catharsis- Othello’s cruel act of murdering Desdemona arouses pity and fear in reader/spectator’s and causes catharsis in such a way that a group of emotions is disturbed.

3. With reference to the literary texts you have studied during B.A. programme , write breif note on the texts which did NOT follow Aristotelian literary tredition. ( i.e. his concept of tragedy, catharsis, tragic hero with hamartia etc.)

The text which did not follow the Aristotelian literary tradition is ‘The Hairy Ape’ as it does not have a hero of a higher rank; the tragedy is of a layman who suffers from a sense of belonging in the modern world.

According to Aristotle, a tragic hero must suffer because of an error of judgment and this fatal flaw leads to his downfall which causes catharsis.

The play ‘The Hairy Ape’ presents an antihero- Yank, an ideal stoker. He does not have any tragic flaw but he faces conflict with his surroundings and his insult by a wealthy lady Mildred Douglas turns Yank avenge upon her. He feels alienated and an outsider, especially when he is compared with an ape and he is called a ‘hairy ape’. He is constantly reminded that he ‘does not belong’. The subtitle ‘A comedy of Ancient and Modern World’ is a satirical title by Eugene O’Neill which fails to arouse pity and fear and thus catharsis is not as effective as the Aristotelian Tragedy. So it can be considered that “The Hairy Ape” does not follow Aristotelian literary tradition. 

4. Have you studied any tragedies during B.A. programme? who was/were the tragic protagonist/s in those tragedies? what was their 'hamartia'? 

Tragedies	Tragic Protagonists	Hamartia
All My Sons	Joe Keller	Shipping of faulty parts
Tughlaq	Muhammad bin Tughlaq	Idealistic vision of Tughlaq
Othello	Othello	Extremeness of jealousy, Blind trust on Iago
The Hairy Ape	Yank	Excessive pride in his dominant nature

Jude The Obscure

Hello, I'm Emisha Ravani. Writing this blog as response to the thinking activity for the text ' Jude The Obscure' about prominent female characters. 

Sue Bridehead

Sue Bridehead remains a pretty tough nut to crack: even her creator, Thomas Hardy himself questions what, exactly, her deal is.

In Hardy's "Postscript" to the first novel of Jude the Obscure, he quotes a German critic describing Sue as the 'first delineation in fiction of the woman who was coming into notice in the thousands every year – the woman of the Feminist movement…the "bachelor' girl."' In other words, this German critic claims that Sue is the first representation of a new social type of woman becoming more and more common: the unmarried feminist.

In response, here is what Hardy had to say: 'No doubt there can be more in a book than the author consciously puts there.' (Hardy, "Preface to the First Edition")

In other words, it is not that Hardy disagrees with the German critic exactly. Hardy just wasn't intending to present Sue as the first representation in fiction of a feminist. There is more to Sue than even Hardy quite expected—which is a good thing, right? Sue takes on a life of her own in the novel, beyond the strict intentions of her author.

Hardy, like Sue, had some controversial ideas about the institution of marriage, which he uses Sue to voice throughout the novel. However, Sue's complex, frustrating, emotional responses to her relationships with Jude and Phillotson make her much more than a mere mouthpiece for Thomas Hardy to express his social criticism.

Wait, Never Mind About Who—What is Sue Bridehead, Exactly?

One of the most intriguing things about Sue is that she is often described as being like something other than a woman: 'She was not exactly a tomboy, you know, but she could do things that only boys could do, as a rule' . Already, we get the sense that Sue is supposed to stand out among the other women in the novel, that there is something not stereotypically feminine about her.

But beyond whether or not Sue seems womanly by the standards of her time, we find it even more striking that she sometimes appears almost other than human: 'you spirit, you disembodied creature, you dear, sweet tantalizing phantom – hardly flesh at all' . 

Jude's description of Sue in this passage makes her sound like a fantasy, a dream woman. And let's be honest, if this were a fantasy novel, Sue would totally be an elf: beautiful, otherworldly, and distant. What is more, Sue's elf qualities go deeper than her appearance: she also seems to be a shape-shifter when it comes to decisions and emotions.

One minute, Sue wholeheartedly feels one way, and in the next, she completely changes her mind. The best examples of Sue's sudden contradictions probably come from her letters throughout the novel—take, for example, the end of Part Third, Chapter Nine, when Sue absolutely forbids Jude to visit her again. That is, until Part Third, Chapter Ten, when she sends him a letter inviting him to come by. We sometimes get whiplash from Sue's abrupt about-faces.

A Woman Ahead of Her Time

We may not always agree with Sue Bridehead's decisions, but no matter what we may think of her, we have to agree that she is a lady way ahead of her time. Her insight into the ways that marriage will change over the twentieth century is almost dead on—even though she (and Hardy through Sue) are speaking in 1896, before the twentieth century even begins:

I am certain one ought to be allowed to undo what one has done ignorantly! I daresay it happens to a lot of women; only they submit, and I kick….When people of a certain later age look back upon the barbarous customs and superstitions of the times that we have the unhappiness to live in, what will they say!' 

In other words, Sue believes that women should be allowed to undo marriages that are clearly mistakes. She's also sure that lots of women feel this way, only they don't say so and Sue does. Unfortunately for Sue, she lives in the late nineteenth century, and the rules of her social environment won't let her live as she wants.

And here's where the social criticism comes in: Hardy clearly sees it as a problem that Sue isn't supposed to get a divorce, and once she does, that she isn't supposed to be happy again with another man outside the bonds of marriage. Jude the Obscure presents a strong argument against the waste and heartbreak that bad marriages can cause, in both women and men.

(By the way, when it comes to bad marriages, Hardy was no peach: his first wife Emma actually kept a diary about all of his flaws as the two of them grew further and further apart.)

We could argue that Sue's tragedy goes beyond the horrifying death of her children. The true tragedy comes in the end, when she entirely changes who she is.

Sue embraces the same rigid religious views that she criticized when she was younger and trying to build her life with Jude. She chooses to pursue a sexual relationship with Phillotson, even though she absolutely does not want to and he does not ask it of her. In the end, guilt forces Sue to transform herself into all of the things she most seemed to hate in her earlier life. Even though she may survive the end of the novel, she's no longer the Sue Bridehead we have come to know and Jude has come to love—and if that's not tragedy, we don't know what is.

Arabella Donn

They Call me a Schemer…

Whew. Arabella is a piece of work. She is so selfish, thoughtless, and manipulative that it's hard to take her seriously as a character in some ways—she's like a cartoon villain or something. Like, if this were a romantic comedy, she'd be Rachael McAdams from Mean Girls. Of course, this isn't a romantic comedy (again, it doesn't get much less funny than Jude the Obscure), so Arabella's behavior gets a lot worse than backstabbing and prom antics.

Arabella tricks Jude into marrying her…twice. In fact, it is almost impossible at times to know when—if ever—Arabella is telling the truth. After all, this is a woman who fakes the dimples on her cheeks:

As the girl drew nearer to it, she gave, without Jude perceiving it, an adroit little suck to the interior of each of her cheeks in succession, by which she brought as by magic upon its smooth rotund surface a perfect dimple.

How are we supposed to trust someone who deliberately lures Jude in with false dimples?

In the end, Arabella plays an enormous role in Jude's and Sue's downfall. She cares nothing about the consequences of her actions, and she cares about no one other than herself. As Jude lies dying, Arabella is already hitting on another man to take his place, and when she finds Jude dead she just leaves him there so she can go to a boat race.

Still, we have to give Arabella credit for one thing: all of her actions in the novel are despicable and deceitful. But she does understand people and the way the world works about a thousand times better than Jude and Sue do. As Jude and Sue crumble, Arabella is just the same as she ever was at the end of the novel. Hardy uses Arabella to suggest that social conventions can destroy idealistic, good people like Jude and Sue—but they can positively benefit hateful schemers like Arabella.

Keep in mind that Hardy gives her the last line of the book. And she uses her last word to take one last bit of glee in Sue's misery while at Jude's funeral. Talk about cold-blooded:

'She's never found peace since she left his arms, and never will again till she's as he is now!' 

Break, Break Break by Lord Tennyson

Summary of Break, Break, Break

In the first lines of the poem the speaker addresses the waves, a technique known as anaphora, he tells them to continue crashing against the shore while also meditating on his deeper thoughts. He wishes that he could express how he’s feeling. While he looks over the water he sees a fisherman’s son yelling and a young sailor singing—life is going on all around him. 

The speaker also notices some larger boats sailing and considers, imaginatively, that they are headed to a better world. Unfortunately, all of these sights can’t distract him from the pain he’s feeling. The poem concludes with a repetition of the first lines and an expression that he’s never going to feel past happiness again. 

Structure of Break, Break, Break

‘Break, Break, Break’ by Alfred Lord Tennyson is a four stanza poem that is separated into sets of four lines, known as quatrains. These quatrains do not follow a strict rhyme scheme but there are some good examples of perfect rhymes, such as “Sea” and “me” in stanza one. In regards to the meter, there are various patterns that change throughout the poem. There are many instances of trimeter, although the stresses change locations, there are other lines with more or fewer syllables. 

Literary Devices in Break, Break, Break

Tennyson makes use of several literary devices in ‘Break, Break, Break’. These include but are not limited to repetition, juxtaposition, and enjambment. The first of these, repetition, is clearly sen through the use of the refrain “Break, break, break” in line one of the first stanza and fourth stanza. It helps create a strong rhythm to the lines, one that mimics the movement of the waves. 

Juxtaposition is seen through the contrast of different experiences. For example, the speaker is in a deep and un-abating depression which is quite different from the sailing who is singing “on the bay” or the ships that he images are going to a better land. 

Enjambment is a commonly used technique that can be seen in this poem in the transition between lines three and four of the first stanza as well as lines one and two of the third stanza.

Alfred Lord Tennyson

Alfred, Lord Tennyson was an English poet writing during the Victorian period (i.e., during the reign of Queen Victoria, or 1837-1901). Tennyson was one of the most popular poets of his period and was named poet laureate in 1850, after the death of William Wordsworth. He was also given a title and a position in the nobility because of his awesomeness as a poet – "Lord" isn't his middle name; it's his aristocratic title. When he was born, he was plain old Alfred Tennyson. Tennyson deserves props for being a poet – and an incredibly popular one – during a time when the novel was the genre of choice for most people. We often call the Victorian period the "golden age of the novel," and yet here's Tennyson, producing some of the most beautiful poetry ever written in English.

So what made Tennyson so popular? Well, he wrote about a lot of things that are common to everyone: love, loss, grief, and death. You know that old saying, "It is better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all"? It's not really an "old saying," it's a line from one of Tennyson's most famous poems, In Memoriam. Many of his poems seemed to resonate with readers – people found what he said to seem so universal that lines like this one got taken out of context and repeated until they started to sound cliché.

Tennyson was also interested in some of the major questions of the day – new scientific ideas were being discussed, including Darwin's new-fangled theory of evolution (Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1859). Tennyson's interest in science, history, mythology, and social progress – all important topics of debate in Victorian England – is often apparent in his poetry. In other words, there's something in it for everyone, from Queen Victoria herself to the scullery maids who worked in the palace kitchens to us modern readers.

"Break, Break, Break" is a short, sad, lyric poem in which the speaker mourns the loss of a friend or lover, and imagines that everyone has someone to love but him. Sad, right? Well, Tennyson really did lose a friend, and a lot of his sad poetry is about coming to terms with his grief.

Tennyson's best friend from college, Arthur Henry Hallam, died suddenly of a brain hemorrhage while traveling in Vienna in September of 1833. Hallam was engaged to be married to Tennyson's sister, so the whole family felt the loss. Tennyson took years to get over it, composing what some people consider is greatest work, In Memoriam A.H.H., in memory of his friend (the initials A.H.H. obviously stand for Hallam's name). In Memoriam was published in 1850, but Tennyson had been working on it for seventeen years – ever since Hallam died. "Break, Break, Break" was published in 1842, but was written in 1834, only a short time after Hallam's death. Even though Tennyson doesn't come out and say it, it seems like a pretty safe bet that the "vanish'd hand" that the speaker is mourning is Hallam. 

Tennyson wrote ‘Break, Break, Break’ in 1835 and published in 1842. It is often considered to be an elegiac lament for his deceased friend, Arther Hallam (for whom ‘In Memoriam A.H.H.’ was written).  In ‘Break, Break, Break’, Tennyson delves into themes of death, the power of nature, and change. 

Analysis of Break, Break, Break

Stanza One 

Break, break, break,

On thy cold gray stones, O Sea!

And I would that my tongue could utter

The thoughts that arise in me.

In the first stanza of ‘Break, Break, Break’ the speaker begins by talking directly to the waves. This is a technique known as anaphora. He speaks to them although they are unable to respond. The speaker directs them to continue breaking powerfully against the “cold gray stones” of the shore. They hold a gloomy power that speaks to his emotional state at that time. He wishes, in lines three and four, that he could get his tongue to “utter / The thoughts” that are haunting him. He has thus far been unable to express his emotional state. It is too complex, or perhaps too dark, for him to find the words. 

Stanza Two 

O, well for the fisherman’s boy,

That he shouts with his sister at play!

O, well for the sailor lad,

That he sings in his boat on the bay!

In the second stanza, there is a good example of anaphora with the repetition of “O, well for the” at the start of linesmen and three. This phrase introduces the two different experiences that he sees around him. The “fisherman’s boy,” his “sister” and the “sailor lad” are all experiencing the sea differently than he is. These are good examples of juxtaposition, especially the young man who is singing “on the bay”. He’s finding joy in his life and the ability to express his emotions. 

Stanza Three 

And the stately ships go on

To their haven under the hill

But O for the touch of a vanish’d hand,

And the sound of a voice that is still!

In the third stanza of ‘Break, Break, Break,’ the speaker takes note of “stately ships” that are sailing off into the distance. They too are living differently than he is. He hopes that they are going to a new land, somewhere sorrow can’t touch. But, the lovely sight of the ships doesn’t keep the speaker’s mind occupied for long. He is quickly brought back to the experiencing of touching a “vanish’d hand”. Tennyson might have been thinking of the hand of Arthur Hallam, his deceased friend. The voice that is now lost also comes to his mind. It appears that no matter what the speaker does, he can’t escape the memories of the person he lost. 

 

Stanza Four 

Break, break, break

At the foot of thy crags, O Sea!

But the tender grace of a day that is dead

Will never come back to me.

The fourths stanza begins with the repetition of the line “Break, break, break” which began the poem. He tells the waves again to break against the shore at the “foot of thy crags”. Tennyson used an exclamation point at the end of line two in order to emphasize his, or his speaker’s, passion. 

Despite the power of the waves, the damage they do, or the sights that he sees around him, he can’t get back to the “grace of a day” that happened before his close friend died. Things are different now and that time “Will never come back to [him]”.