Imppppp Ooo
Imppppp Ooo
Imppppp Ooo
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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.