Dhara's assignments

Paper - 3

Assignment  Topic

Dryden’s Essay on Dramatic Poesy

Name –Bhatt  Dhara Janakkumar

Roll No -06  MA-1

Year-2010-11

Submitted To–Dr Dilip Barad

Dryden’s Essay on Dramatic Poesy

Preface:

                In 1668 Dryden published his Essay of Dramatic Poesy.

“The most elaborate and one of the most attractive and lively of Dryden’s critical works. (Atkins)”

        

                The main purpose of the Essay according to the introduction note to the Reader, is historical.

                 “To vindicate the honor of our English writer from the censure of those who injustice prefer the french before him.”

                The method of dialogue has been of great advantage to him because it has allowed him a full liberty of discussing the conflicting views without the necessity of finding a conclusion which reader is to find himself,

       

“The first speaker Crites defends the ancient; Eugenius, who like Dryden, believe in progress in arts defends the superiority of the Elizabethan English   drama  to the English and Elizabethan drama to English and Eiizabethan drama to that of the speaker, finally defends the English as opposed to the French, gives a glowing account of Jonson, Beaumont and Flather and Shakespeare,but defends the recent use of rime in plays.”(M.H.Abrams)

   Dryden’s Essay of Dramatic poesy :

              The essay begins with some preliminary discussion about literature in general and the comparative achievement of the ancient and the moderns in its various branches Eugenius then points out that it would be better if they limits themselves to one particular branch of poetry. All of them agree and crities suggest that they should confine only to Dramatic  poetry Lisideius given the definition of a play that is should be: 

“A just and lively image of humours and the of changes of fortune to which, it is changes subject for delight and instruction mankind.”

 Crites for the Ancient

         Crities undertakes to present the ancients in the beginning he says that the dramatic art had been indignenous to ancient Greece, and it had attained on early maturity there.

“Dramatic poesy had time enough rekoning early from Thespis (who first invented it ) to Aristophans, to be born ,to grow up , and to Flourish in maturity .”

        Then says that now the dramatists are not held in that high esteem in which they used to be ancient Greece ,and therefore the desire to excel has vanished .He thinks that emulation is necessary for artistic deveiopment .this accounts in some measure for the decline in drama in drama .All the rules of drama were invented by the Ancient and the English men have borrowed those rules from them .He discusses at some length the merit of the Three Unities of time ,place and action. When judged by these rules modern play fail Finally he urges that ancient had possessed the power of expression in a superlative degree.

        “But if we allow the Ancient have contrived well .we must acknowledge them to have written better”

                This he proves by reference paid to them by Ben Jonson

“He was not only a professed imitator of Horace , but a learned plagiary of all the other ; you track him every where in their snow.”

Eugenius for the moderns

                Eugenius was listening to the argument of crites  rather impatiently and now he speaks in the favour of modern have profied by rules of ancient but he also feels that they have actually improved on the works of ancient in many respect. The first thing of the superior construction of play by its division in five acts.

                He also finds fault with the poet of ancient play. Their tragedies were mostly based on hackneyed tales of thebes and troy.

“That before it come upon the stage,it was already known to all the audience .”

                In comedies also their characters were to (criticism) certain stock types only, and their was no novelty in them.

“These are plots built after the Italian mode of houses ,you see though them all at once; the character are indeed the imitation of nature ,but so narrow ,as if they had imitated only an eye or a they had imitates only an eye or a hand ,and did not dare to venture on the lines of a face or the proportion of a body.”

                  

                   The modern dramastists are syperior to the ancient in the fact that they can write both tragedies and comedies equally well .The ancients wrote either the one or that is the absence of love scences
"For love sennces you will find few among them  their tragic poets dealt not with that you will find few among them; their poets dealt not with that soft patients, but with lust, cruelly revenge, ambition and those bloody action they produced which were more capable of rising horror than compassion in an audience."

 The discussion in brought to a close by critics who says that the modern dramatists have not only excelled the ancient, they have  deferred from them. He however makes the confession that had they lived in later times they would doubtless made many changes .

LESIDEIUS : FOR THE FRENCH DRAMA :

                Lesideius admits to begin with that English plays of 40 years back clearly surpassed  those of the French but for the last 14 years .The Franch aids by Richelieu and Corneille have reformed their stage and improved the drama so much that it has now become unrivalled in Europe. In the first places, he points out, contempary French dramatists have scrupulously observed the three unites.

                They have been scrupulous in following the unity of place by limiting the action to only one place where it is supposed to have begun. The real time in their plays never exceed 30 hours.They have been more scrupulous in observing the unity of Action. There are on  underplots and subplots in their plays. They do not write tragi comedies, the most absurb thing invented by the English dramatists.
" There is no theate in the world has any thing so absurb as the English tragic comedy; its drama of invention, and the fashion of it is enough to proclaim it so; here is course of mirth, there another of sadness and pations, and third honour and a dual: thus two hours and a half, we run through all the fifts of badlums."

                Then the French dramatics have based the plots their of their tragdies and familiar history, and have modified transformed it for drametics purposes.

          " He so interweaves truth with probable fiction, that he puts a pleasing of fallacy upon us;mends the intriguse of fate, and dispenses with serverity of history, to raward that virtue which has been rendered to us there unfortunate." 

       Even the historical tragedies of  Shakespeare cannot stans comparion with bacause they (the history tragdies of shakespeare.)

“Are rather so many chronicles of kings, or the the business many times of thirty of forty years, cramped into a representation of two hours and a representation of two hours and a half."

        

                They select only those significant parts of an action which produce the unity of effect .They, in this way, achieve greater feedom for the treatment of emotions and passions. They make only the one character,  the hero ,important and central in the play .He alone commands out attention .Then their narration is superior .There are many incidents in a story which cannot properly reprented  on the stege ,such as dules ,battles and sense of cruely, and it is better to relate them as a the French dramatists have done .

The English plays are faulty from this points of view and a death scene in it often the most comic part The French plays never

“End with a conversion or simple changes of will”

                The English plays are faulty from this poits of views with  and a death sene conversions .he praise the French plays for their beauty of rhyme .He prefers rhyme to blanks verse for written tragedies.

Neander ‘s vinidication of English Drama

                The last man Neander  now takes up the challenge and attempt what was the main object of the Essay .namely ,a vinicadition  of English drama .

                In the beginning he admits that the French  plays are very regular. They observe decoram and the like but a play has been described as a “ lively imitation of Nature”  and judging from this point of view, he finds them defective in many respects.

                He then defence the English practice of writing tragic comedies. He does not approved of regid of separation of tragic and comic elements in french plays and think that. It is possible for us to enjoy tragic and comic scene together. The old rule of logic might have convinced him, the contries, when plays near, set off each other.

                He does not admire the bearness and servirity of the Frech plays in excluding underplots and minor episods. He thinks that such a details add a pleasing variety to a play if they contribute to its main design.

                He praises the English plays from this point of view futuralmore he does not agree with the arguments that regid observance of the unity of action gives apportunity for impassioned appeals because such appeals consists of a long declamatory speeches,which tire and bore the English audience who come to see play primarily for amusement. He approves of the brief atterance to express deepemotions graces, passions.

“As for comedy, repartee is one of its chiefest graces, the greatest pleasure of the audience is a chase of wit, keep up on both sides, and swiftly managed”

                   Neander praises the French use of narrative in order to despense with scene of violence. But he think such scene are part of  English tradition and people some how and delight by these things:

                He does not justify the rigid adherence of the French dramatist to the three unities and think that it has been fatal to many artistic effects.

                These qualities from the works of standing English dramatists.

Appereciation of Shakespeare:

                He then expresses his view on Shakespeare in the words of Atkins,

“Neanders well known judgment on Shakespeare, to begin with, has since attend classic rank and this by reason of its keen insight, its suggestive and happy expression”

                About Shakespeare, he says;

“He was the man who of all modern and perhaps ancient poets, had the largest and most compressive soul. All images of nature were still present to him and he drew them not anything, you more than see it, you feel it to. Those who accuse him to have wanted learning, give him the greater commendation; he was naturally learned; he needed not the spectacles of books to read nature; he looked inwards, and found her there. I cannot say he is everywhere a like where he so. I should not do him injury to compare him with the greatest of mankind . he is many times into clenches, his serious swelling when some great occansion is presented to him”

Appreciation of Beaumont and Flether:

                About Beaumont and Flether he says that “the advantage of Shakespeare’s wit” and their natural gifts were improved by study. He says:

“There plots were generally more regular than Shakespeare’s especially, those which were made before Beaumont’s death and they understood and imitated conversation of gentleman much better, whose wild bebaucheries and quickness of wit in repartee, no poets before them could point as they done”

                Their plays are now the most pleasant and frequently entertainment of the stage to theirs being acted through the years for one reason is, because there is a certain gaiety in their more serious plays which suit generally with all men’s humors Shakespeare’s language is like wise a little obsolete and  Ben.

Dryden’s view on Benjohnson:

                On Ben Johnson, he has more to say regards him as
“ The most learnt and judicious writers any theater ever had”

                   He had wit in abundance and rather frugal of it. He made the drama most artistic again he says:

“You seldom find him making love in any of his scenes endeavoring to move the passions, his genius was to sullen and saturnine to do it gracefully. He was deeply conversant in ancients, both Greek and Latin and he borrowed badly from them. He invades authors like a monarch; and would be felt in other poets, is only victory in him”

                He makes a companion between Johnson and Shakespeare and says  :

“ If I would compare him with Shakespeare, I must acknowledge him more correct poet, but Shakespeare the greatest wit. Shakespeare was the father of our dramatic poets: Johnson was the Virgil of the pattern of elaborate writing. I admire him but I love
Shakespeare”

                Atkin’s comments;

“Most significant of all however, is neander’s last word on their respective merits, Johnson he declares I admire, but I love Shakespeare, and here judgment is pronounced not in accordance with rules of technical excellence, but in the light of the general impression and of the emotional appeal to the whole man”

Conclusion:

                Ben Jonson  remarks on Dryden's Eassy of Dramatic poesy ,he says that,

“To concludes of him as he has given us the most correct plays, so in the precepts which he had laid down in his discoveries, we have as many and profitable rules for perfecting the stage as anywhere which the French can furnish us”