Dryden's Essay on Dramatic Poesy

Dramatic Poesy By John Dryden

This blog is response to Bridge Course: Dryden's Essay on Dramatic Poesy Assigned by Dilip Barad Sir 

•  INTRODUCTION:

Let's elaborate how John Dryden, in his essay 'An Essay of Dramatic Poesy' delves into the ongoing debate between the Ancients(Greek and Romans) and the Moderns(contemporary playwrights of the Restoration period) concerning the principles of drama. Dryden's work is structured as a dialogue among four characters- Crites, Eugenius, Lisideius and Neander- each representing different perspectives on drama. Through this dialogues, how Dryden explores critical issues such as the definition of tragedy, the nature of dramatic unity, the merits of French versus English plays and the stylistic preferences between poetic and prosaic dialogues. We'll observe that Dryden's essay also contrasts Aristotelian rules with modern interpretations and questions whether strict adherence to classical principles is always necessary.

• Discuss any difference you observe between Aristotle's definition of Tragedy and Dryden's definition of Play.

To discuss the differences between Aristotle's definition of Tragedy and Dryden's definition of Play, here's the AI generated image sharing the both definitions...

Aristotle's definition of Tragedy

“A tragedy is the imitation of an action that is serious and also, as having magnitude, complete in itself; in appropriate and pleasurable language;... in a dramatic rather than narrative form; with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish a catharsis of these emotions.”

Dryden's definition of Play

"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.”

The difference I observed in the two is shared here with an image of table.. 

1. Scope: Aristotle specifically defines tragedy, whereas Dryden offers a broader definition encompassing plays in general.

2. Purpose: Aristotle emphasizes the cathartic effect of tragedy (purgation of emotions), while Dryden focuses on both entertainment and instruction.

3. Emotional Focus: Aristotle identifies pity and fear as the primary emotions, whereas Dryden more generally discusses passions and humors.

4. Structure: Aristotle’s definition includes distinct structural elements (like embellished language and action-based presentation), whereas Dryden is less focused on these formal aspects.

5. Subject Matter: Aristotle emphasizes the seriousness and magnitude of the action, while Dryden highlights the representation of human nature and its changes.

6. Historical Context: Aristotle’s definition is rooted in classical Greek dramatic theory, while Dryden’s reflects the Renaissance and Restoration-era perspectives on drama.

7. Philosophical Approach: Aristotle’s definition is more prescriptive and analytical, while Dryden’s is more descriptive, concentrating on the play’s impact on the audience.

summarizing this we can say- while both definitions address dramatic representation, they diverge in focus, scope, and the cultural contexts from which they emerged. Aristotle offers a more specific and structured definition of tragedy, while Dryden presents a broader, audience-centric view of plays in general.

• If you were to express your personal preference, would you side with the Ancients or the Moderns? Provide reasons for you choice.

With the strong arguments from both Crites, who supports the Ancients, and Eugenius, who sides with the Moderns and the Neander's also given a favour to Moderns.. I can see the value in both perspectives. However, based on the discussion and what is important in today’s literature, I believe I would likely prefer the Moderns. Here’s why:

1. More freedom and creativity: The Moderns are not as strict about following traditional rules, allowing for more innovative and varied storytelling. 2. Relatable themes: The Moderns often focus on love, making their stories more emotionally engaging and relevant to contemporary audiences. 3. Richer character development: Writers like Shakespeare and Fletcher explore emotions and character depth, which are key elements in modern literature. 4. Easier to connect with: I would likely find it easier to relate to and understand works that are closer to my cultural and historical context. 5. Complex storytelling: The Moderns use subplots and experiment with structure, creating layered stories that many readers, including myself, enjoy. 6. Practical storytelling: The relaxation of rigid rules (like the unities of time, place, and action) allows for more dynamic and flexible plots. 7. Vibrant language: While Crites believes we might miss the nuances in ancient languages, Eugenius argues that good writing is always clear. I would probably find the language of more recent works more lively and accessible. 8. Critical thinking and growth: The Moderns respect the past but also adapt and innovate, which shows a thoughtful engagement with tradition that I find appealing.

Even with these points, I could also make a case for the Ancients, especially if I value:

1. The historical importance and lasting influence of classical works.

2. The clear structure and discipline of classical forms.

3. The challenge of interpreting older texts from different cultural contexts.

4. The timeless themes that have endured for centuries.

I would appreciate both perspectives, recognizing the strengths of each and how the Moderns build on the foundation set by the Ancients.

• 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.

The arguments in favor of French plays and against English plays raise significant points about the differences in how each tradition approaches dramatic representation. These arguments highlight the French emphasis on refinement, subtlety, and adherence to certain dramatic rules, while critiquing the English plays for their more direct and sometimes chaotic style.

1. Portrayal of death: The French preference for the narration or depiction of death rather than showing it on stage is based on the belief that certain actions, such as death, cannot be represented in a way effective and may seem clumsy or even unreal. This approach emphasizes the emotional content and avoids the show of violent scenes. In contrast, English plays often depict death on stage, which, although more direct, can sometimes seem exaggerated or distracting if the performance is not skillfully done. The French argument for removing such scenes seems appropriate when considering the risk of undermining the impact of the play with poorly executed actions.

2. Duel fights and blunted swords: The French avoid seeing violent scenes as duels, opting instead for this narration. This approach reduces the risk of unpleasant or unrealistic descriptions that can damage audience engagement. In contrast, English plays often involve staged combat, even if it requires sharp swords or other unrealistic props. While these scenes add excitement and drama, they can sometimes seem unconvincing or contrived. The French critique here holds weight, particularly when considering that poorly executed fight scenes can diminish a play’s credibility.

.3. Representation of large armies: French plays generally avoid large spectacles such as large armies, which are difficult to portray convincingly with a limited number of actors. Instead, they focus on smaller, more manageable scenes and chronicle larger events. In contrast, English plays often try to represent large-scale battles or conflicts with many actors, which may seem unconvincing. The French strategy of relying on narration to hint at larger events instead of directly showing them is more practical and helps maintain the play's realism.

4. Mingling of mirth and serious tones: French plays generally maintain a clear separation between comic and tragic elements, while English plays often mix the two, resulting in abrupt shifts in tone. This mixture of humor and seriousness is criticized for causing inconsistencies in the narrative, which can confuse or alienate the audience. However, proponents of the English style argue that this mixture reflects the complexity of real life, where moments of light and darkness often coexist. If the French argument for our consistency is valid, the English approach also has its strengths in creating a more dynamic and relevant story.

5. Use of multiple plots: French plays usually stick to a single, unified plot, thus maintaining focus and coherence. In contrast, English plays often have many intertwined subplots, which can enrich the narrative, but also risk complicating it. The French approach is more direct and disciplined, avoiding unnecessary distractions, while the English method offers more variety and depth. The preference here depends on the taste of the public, whether they appreciate the simplicity and the clarity or that appreciate the complexity of multiple storylines.

In conclusion, the arguments for French plays emphasize elegance, control and the avoidance of scenes that can be considered ridiculous or unrealistic. While these criticisms of English plays are valid in some respects, the English tradition also carries a vitality, energy, and emotional range that the French style may lack. Each approach has its strengths and weaknesses, and the importance of these arguments ultimately depends on what is valued more in dramatic storytelling: refined detail or bold expression.

• State your preference for poetic or prosaic dialogues in a play and explain your reasoning.

The choice between poetic and prosaic dialogues is another key issue in Dryden’s essay. Poetic dialogues can elevate the language of drama, adding beauty and intensity to the emotions expressed. However, some argue that prose is more suitable for natural dialogue, allowing characters to speak in a way that is closer to real life. The preference ultimately depends on whether one values the artistic embellishment of poetry or the realistic simplicity of prose in conveying dramatic content.

• CONCLUSION:

Dryden's "An Essay on Dramatic Poesy" is an important discussion about how drama was changing. It tries to balance old classical traditions with new modern tastes. People might prefer either Aristotle's strict rules for tragedies or Dryden's more flexible idea of drama, depending on what they like in literature. The essay also talks about differences between French and English styles of drama and whether plays should use poetic or everyday language. These debates show how complex and varied drama can be. Dryden's approach is balanced, valuing both old and new ideas. This reminds us that discussions about what makes good literature are ongoing. There's no single right answer about what drama should be. Instead, Dryden suggests that drama has many possibilities and can change over time.

• REFERENCES:

https://art810943965.wordpress.com/2019/03/09/john-drydens-an-essay-on-dramatic-poesy/

Thank you..