“Dryden”

“An Essay on Dramatic Poesy”

John Dryden was dominating and leading figure of the Restoration age. The
Restoration is also k own as ‘age of Dryden’. His most important work on prose
work of dramatic poesy, An Essay, gives him the reputation as “the father of
English literary criticism’. (This title was given to him by Dr. S .Johnson). Dr.
Johnson says ‘Dryden maybe properly considered as ‘the father of English
criticism’, as the writer who first taught us to determine upon principles, the
merit of the composition’. Dr. Johnson was justified in giving Dryden this honor
because before him there was no consistent critic in England. Sidney and Ben
Johnson only made occasional observations without producing any consistent
critical work or establishing any critical theory.
Dryden writes this essay as a dramatic dialogue with the four characters
representing four critical issues. (Charles Sackville) Eugenius, favors the moderns
over the ancients. (Sir Robert Howard) Crites argues in the favor of the ancients.
(Sir Charles Sedrey) Lisideius, argues French drama is superior to English drama,
and (John Dryden) Neander favors modern English plays.
In this way, he develops historical criticism comparative and descriptive forms of
critic and finally givers his own independent views through the replies of Neander
as a critic.
Dryden includes five issues in this essay.
1- Ancient versus moderns
2- Unities (drama)
3- French versus English Drama.
4- Separation of tragedy and comedy and comedy versus Tragic comedy.
5- Appropriateness of Rhyme in drama.
Discussions of ancients and moderns should not be for “who is better”? It should
be more fundamentally about how history itself functioned and should be read
thus it should be about the relationship between (past and present) humanity and
nature and also between human understanding and knowledge.
 1- Crites views on the ancients.
1. -He argues that the superiority of Ancients is established by the fact the
moderns simply imitate them and have built on the foundation alaid by them.
The Ancients are the established models of the moderns.
2. - Ancients are better because they have no models which they could follow in
giving contribution to literature. Modern playwrights can improve their writing
by reading the ancients work. In short “Moderns stand on the shoulders of
Ancients”.
3. - It should be remembered that ‘Every age has its own genius, its own
inclination for particular branch of knowledge’. The ancients had a special
genius for drama and in their particular branch of poetry (epic) they reached
perfection and excelled in it just like drama.
4. - Ancients poetry was more honored than any branch of knowledge. In
Ancients, poets were rewarded according to their merits. Nowadays, Moderns
are neither suitably honored nor rewarded. Poets are guided more by malice
than by the spirit of virtuous emulation.
5. - The rules of dramatic composition are not followed by modern dramatists
whereas Ancients followed all those rules.
6. - The Ancient drama is superior because the ancients closely observed nature
and faithfully represented it in their works. The moderns don’t observe and
study Nature carefully so they distort and disfigured her in their plays. There is
no faith to represent in their works.
7. - Ancients follow the rules of unities. Ancients have one plot where as the
modern plays does not follow the unities because there are number of actions
and sub-plots in the play i.e. Hamlet and Dr. Faustus. Critics pay special
attention to the unities of time, place and action which ought to be observed
in every regular play. So in modern plays there are no unities so it is unnatural
and they can not be called as ‘just’ and ‘true’ representation of Nature.
8. - The ancients followed these rules and the effect is satisfying and pleasing.
The ancients organized their plays well si it can be asserted that they must
have written well. We are unable to appreciate the art and beauty of their
language, only because of many customs, stories and traditions are not known
to us. He gives the example of the famous playwright Ben Johnson who had
great admirations for the Ancients and he imitated them and borrowed a lot
from them. He considered them superior to the moderns in all things.
2- Eugenius views on the Moderns.
Eugenius favors the moderns over the ancients and replies to Crites that the
modernists have learnt much from the ancients. The moderns are indebted to
them for rules of dramatic composition and must be grateful to them for it. The
moderns have not followed the ancients blindly rather they have written new
things in many ways. He argues that modernist have model so that they learn
from that and give new ideas from their examples.
Then Eugenius gives some defeats of the Ancient and some triumphs of the
moderns.

1. In ancient plays, there wasn’t any division of the play into Acts. Some
of their plays, the chorus was sung more than five times so the number
of Acts in a Greek play is uncertain.
The moderns have perfected this divisions and divided their plays not
only into Acts but also into scenes. But Greeks wrote without any
definite plan and when they could write a good play, their success was
more a matter of chance and good fortune then of ability.
2. The plot of the ancients lacks originality. Their plot was always based
on a well known story, so their tragedies lacked the charm of novelty.
“The pleasure vanished” which was to cause “delight” was destroyed.
The plot of comedy also lack originality.
3. In characterization, they no doubt imitate nature but their imitation is
only narrow and partial as if they imitated only an eye or a hand and
did not dare to portray the lies of a face or the proportion of the
body.
4. Even their observance of the three unities is not perfect. The Ancient
Horace and Aristotle did not mention of the unity of place. Terence was
one of the most regular of the ancients dramatists but even he didn’t
observe the unity of time faithfully. No doubt they have maintained it
better than the moderns the continuity of their scenes but this is so
only coz they seldom have more than one or two scenes in each Act.
 As their plots are narrow and their characters are few, even
their whole Acts are often shorter than individual scenes in
the well written modern play.
5. There is a lot of narration at the cost of action. Their plays become
monotonous and tire. some coz instead of providing the necessary
information, they inform audience through dialogues and monologues.
 6. The Ancient plays do not perform one of the functions of drama, that is
of giving delight, and giving instruction. There is no “poetic
injustice” in their plays. Instead of punishing vice and rewarding
virtue, they have after shown a prosperous wickedness and an unhappy
piety.
7. In past, comedies and tragedies were written by separate individuals and
not by the same person at present. They worked in a narrow field so they
could easily get perfection in it. Their failure therefore is a proof of
their inferiority to the moderns.
8. Finally, their themes are equally defective. The proper end of the
tragedy is to arouse “admiration and concernment”. Their themes are
lust, cruelty, murder and bloodshed which of arousing admiration and
pity, arouse “Horror and Terror”. So in the treatment of the play, the
Ancients are inferior to such moderns as Shakespeare and Fletcher. The
Ancients in their comedies, no doubt introduced a few scenes of
tenderness but then their lovers talk very little.

No doubt, when the heart is full, the words are

few.

9. So they decided that “ The Moderns were more perfect, coz they have
altered the mode of writing”.
 In the end, it was decided that ideas and values changed and
this was the main reason for the much of the difference bet the
Moderns and the Ancients. It was not the question of good or
bad but of a change in cultural values. If the Ancients had
written in the modern age, they might have altered their ways
of writing in keeping with the modern values.

2. Dryden’s criticism on French dramas;

 Dryden refused to be impressed with French writers and critics. He
declares that literature develops with the development of a
nation, and it is absurd to judge it by the standards of another
nation. French dramatists followed rules strictly and banished
many artistic beauties from the stage. Excessive regularity and
formality destroyed the necessary liveliness of a play.
 Dryden disapproves the rigid separation of tragic and comic
elements. He sees no reason why tragic comedy should be forbidden
coz it mingles mirth with serious plot. English practice of
 mingling those elements provided a better way of relief. (comic
relief)
 Dryden does not admire the exclusion of the sub plot and minor
episodes from the French plays. He ridicules the servile
observation of the unities of time and place.
 French dramas fell short in employing too little action and scenes
of violence. So on these grounds, Dryden defended irregularities
of the English drama in general against the cold formality of the
French stage.
 Dryden appreciates English dramatists and poets. He appreciates
Shakespeare, Fletcher, Jonson, Milton and Chaucer who opened up
fresh possibilities in the critical sphere.

e.g He preferred Shakespeare over Ben Jonson

He says “ Shakespeare had the largest and the most comprehensive

soul; while Ben Jonson was the most learned and Judicious writer
which the theatre ever had”.

Background of dryden essay of dramatic poesy:

During the period from ben jonson to dryden the neoclassicists ( followers of classical rules )
flourished in france and had a great influence on the english writers. seat james said it was a
mark of civilization to submit to the laws of aristotle and horace . john dryden was also a staunch
neoclassicist but he refused to be slave to any authority and pointed out that a writer is the
product of his age and comedy and hence cannot be judged by the canons of ancient. this is the
spirit that pervades his essay of dramatic poesy which is a vindication of english plays. in the
introductory note, the real purpose of the essay was given "To vindicate (justify) the honor of our
english writers ( the elizabethan and jacobean dramatists) from the censure of those who unjustly
prefer the french before them". The essay was written by Dryden as a reply to some remarks
made by a french man named "samuel sorbiere" who came to england in 1663 and on returning
to france wrote an account of his voyage. In this book he wrote "These comedies of theirs
wouldn't be received quite well in france. their ports play hell with the unity of place and the rule
of twenty four hours. Thier comic plot plots run for 25 years. dryden courtly poet and dramatist,
wrote this essay in reply during the plague years of 1665-1666 which was published in 1668.

Dryden gives more importance to shakespeare because of his greater scope , his greater
faithfulness to life as compared to johnson's relatively small scope and classical tendency to
deal in “The beauties of statue,but not of a man”. He admires ben johnson but he loves
shakespeare .

Dryden as a father of english criticism:

In his work “the essay on dramatic poesy” dryden started the era of “descriptive criticism” by
critically evaluating “drama”. Epic, tragedy , comedy and the nature and function of poetry.

Criticism :
According to dryden , a critic has to understand that a writer writes to his own age ands people
of which he himself is a product of. He advocates a close study of the ancient models, not to
imitate them blindly. He urges to recapture their magic and treat them as a torch to enlighten
our own passage.it is the spirit of the classics that matter more than their rules. Yet these rules
are not without their value , there can not be art without any rules. Dryden mentions the
appropriate rules are laid by aristotle,but it is not the observance of rules that make a work great
but its capacity to delight and transport. It is not the business of criticism to detect petty faults
but to discover those great beauties that make ot immortal.
Dryden criticism is partly a restatement of aristotle’s principles,
partly from french neoclassicism and partly from the influence of longinus and saint evremond.

Historical method of criticism:

Dryden was the first critic to make use of historical method of criticism . He believed that every
literary work is the reflection of the age in which it is produced . a literary work can best be
evaluated by placing it in the socio historical background in which it is produced. Many plays of
shakespeare or spencers poetry can not be evaluated without placing them in the background
of elizabethan age.

Comparative method of criticism:

He recognises the the genius and the temperament differ from age to age and hence literature
in different periods of history is bound to be different so elizabethan drama and the restoration
drama are governed by different literary convention. He claims that aristotle himself might have
revised the rules and had written differently if he had lived in the modern era. Thus , dryden
believes that the truth that literature is not static but a dynamic process. Similarly , he
recognizes that the temperament of the french and english differ and hence the literatures of
two countries are bound to be different. So he is the first in england to analyze english and
foreign plays and examine their comparative merits and demerits.

Dryden views on “Nature of poetry”

Dryden upholds aristotle's definition of the poetry as a process of imitation. Poetry imitates facts
of the past or present ,popular beliefs, superstitions and things in their ideal form. Dryden
defends shakespeare's use of the supernatural based on popular beliefs. It's still an imitation
though of others mens fancies . In his opinion, poetry and painting are not true imitations of
nature but of the best nature.(i.e) a much greater criticism.

Function of poetry:
According to dryden,the function of poetry is delight and transport rather than instruction. It
doesn't merely imitate life, but offers its own “ a beautiful resemblance of the whole”. The poet is
neither a teacher nor an imitator, he is a photograph but a creator . He is one who,with life or
nature as his raw material produces a new thing all together, resembling the original in its basis,
a work of art rather than a copy.
Tragedy:
Dryden’s definition of tragedy is the same as Aristotle “ an imitation of one, entire great action;
not told but represented so the audience are moved with emotions of pity and fear. In this way,
we have the purgation of emotions in our mind. Dryden follows Aristotle and Horace in his
opinion about the tragic hero and other characters in Tragedy. Dryden has no use for “chorus in
Greek tragedy.

Comedy:
Following aristotle, he calls it “a representation of human life of inferior people and low
subjects”. Dryden says that the first end of comedy is delight and instruction only second .the
people in the comedy are from lower class, there is little action and depiction of faults and vices
and vices these faults and vices are part of the human weakness. Dryden wants english
comedy to be more refined than it was. According to him “Ben johnson had specialised in
humor and what he lacked was witt. One of the chief graces of comedy for the audience is “a
chance of exchange of witt”. Dryden wants a refined laughter rather than the crood display of
humor. In a comedy of ‘humors’ the spectators laughed at a humorous character and in a
comedy of witt, they laughed with the witty one.

Epic:
Drydon is with the french critics in considering the epics superior to the tragedy. He stresses
that the epic is certainly the greatest work of human nature.
Aristotle had prefered the tragedy to the epic .regarding the visual appeal of tragedy, dryden
urges three points:
It is the actor’s work as much as the poets and so the poet alone can not deserve credit for it .
The stage is handicapped to show many things- big crimes and battles
We can digest what we read in the epic, we may miss the beauties of a play in the performance.
Dryden disagrees with Aristotle again insisting on a moral in the epic.