An essay on dramatic poesy

Einführung

John Dryden’s An Essay on Dramatic Poesy presents a brief

discussion on Neo-classical theory of Literature (Neoclassical literature was
written between 1660 and 1798. Neoclassical literature is characterized by order,
accuracy, and structure. In direct opposition to Renaissance attitudes, where man
was seen as basically good, the Neoclassical writers portrayed man as inherently
flawed. They emphasized restraint, self-control, and common sense. This was a
time when conservatism flourished in both politics and literature.) . He defends

the classical drama saying that it is an imitation of life and reflects

human nature clearly.   An Essay on Dramatic Poesy is written in the form
of a dialogue among four gentlemen: Eugenius, Crites, Lisideius and
Neander.

A. Dryden Views about drama

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.”

According to the definition, drama is an ‘image’ of ‘human nature’, and

the image is ‘just’ and ‘lively’. By using the word ‘just’ Dryden seems to
imply that literature imitates (and not merely reproduces) human
actions. For Dryden, ‘poetic imitation’ is different from an exact, servile
copy of reality, for, the imitation is not only ‘just’,  it is also ‘lively’.
1. Views of Neander

Neander is the spokesperson of John Dryden who favors the English

drama. Neander contradicts Lisideius arguments favoring superiority of
French drama. He talks about the greatness of Elizabethans. For him,
Elizabethans fulfil the drama’s requirement i.e. imitation of life. French
drama raises perfection but has no soul or emotions as it primarily
focuses on plot.  For Neander, tragicomedy is the best form of drama.

 Neander favors the moderns, but does not disparage the ancients.
He also favors English drama-and has some critical -things to say of
French drama: "those beauties of the French poesy are such as will
raise perfection higher where it is, but are not sufficient to give it
where it is not: they are indeed the beauties of a statue, but not of a
man."
 Neander goes on to defend tragicomedy: "contraries, when placed
near, set off each other. A continued gravity keeps the spirit too
much bent; we must refresh it sometimes." Tragicomedy increases
the effectiveness of both tragic and comic elements by 'way of
contrast. Neander asserts that “ we have invented, increas'd and
perfected a more pleasant way of writing for the Stage then was ever
known to the Ancients or Moderns of any Nation, which is
Tragicomedie.”
 Neander criticizes French drama essentially for its smallness: its
pursuit of only one plot without subplots; its tendency to show too
little action; its "servile observations of the unities…dearth of plot,
 and narrowness of imagination" are all qualities which render it
inferior to English drama. 
 Neander extends his criticism of French drama - into his reasoning
for his preference for Shakespeare over Ben Jonson. Shakespeare
"had the largest and most comprehensive soul," while Jonson was
"the most learned and judicious writer which any theater ever
had." Ultimately, Neander prefers Shakespeare for his greater scope,
his greater faithfulness to life, as compared to Jonson's relatively
small scope and French/Classical tendency to deal in "the beauties of
a statue, but not of a Man." His arguments end with the familiar
comparison, “Shakespeare was the Homer, or father of our dramatic
poets; Jonson was the Virgil, the pattern of elaborate writing; I
admire him, but I love Shakespeare.”  

 Neander favors the violation of the three unities because it leads to

the variety in the English plays. The unities have a narrowing and
crumpling effect on the French plays, which are often betrayed into
absurdities from which the English plays are free. The violation of
unities helps the English playwright to present a mere, just and lively
image of human nature. For him, human actions will seem more
natural if they get enough time to develop. 
 In his comparison of French and English drama, Neander
characterizes the best proofs of the Elizabethan playwrights. He
praises Shakespeare, ancients and moderns. Neander comes to the
end for the superiority of the Elizabethans with a close examination
of a play by Jonson which Neander believes a perfect demonstration
that the English were capable of following the classical rules. In this
way, Dryden’s commitment to the neoclassical tradition is displayed.
 Further, he suggests that English plays are more entertaining and
instructive because they offer an element of surprise that the
Ancients and the French do not. He brings up the idea of the
suspension of disbelief.

Thus for him, Elizabethans are superior because they have a variety of
themes, emotions, deviations, wit. They do not adhere to rules as well.
Thus their drama is really an imitation of life.

2. Lisideius’ views

 Lisideius speaks in favour of the French. The French are superior to the
English for various reasons:

 The French writer's close adherence to the classical separation of

comedy and tragedy. For Lisideius "no theater in the world has
anything so absurd as the English tragicomedy…….; in two hours and
a half, we run through all the fits of Bedlam."

 They follow the Ancients. They favour the Unity of time and they
observe  it so carefully. When it comes to the Unity of Place, they are
equally careful. In most of their plays, the entire action is limited to
one place. And the Unity of Action is even more obvious. Their plays
are never over-loaded with sub-plots as is the case with the English
plays.

 The Plots of the French tragedies are based on well-known stories

with reference to the theory and practice of the Ancients. But these
stories are transformed for dramatic purposes; in this regard they
 are superior even to the Ancients. So their stories are mixture of
truth with fiction, based on historical invention. They both delight
and instruct, at one and the same time. But the English dramatists
for example Shakespeare, do not modify and transform their stories
for dramatic purpose. In order to satisfy the human soul, the drama
must have verisimilitude (likeness to reality). The French plays have
it, while the English do not.

  Further, the French narrations are better managed and more skilful
than those of the English. The narration may be of two kinds. The
action of the play which is dull and boring, and is often not listened
to by the audience. The narration of things happening during the
course of the play. while French are able to avoid the representation
of scenes of bloodshed, violence and murder on the stage, such
scenes of horror and tumult has disfigured many English plays. In this
way, the French avoid much that is ridiculous and absurd in the
English plays.

 The English devote considerable attention to one single character,

and the others are merely introduced to set off that principal
character. But Lisideius does not support or favour this practice. In
the English plays, one character is more important than the others,
and quite naturally, the greater part of the action is concerned with
him. Since in real life it is not so it is only very proper and reasonable
that it should be so also in the drama. In French plays, very correctly
the other characters are not neglected. Also, unlike in the English
plays in the French plays such narrations are made by those who are
 in some way or the other connected with the main action. Similarly
the French are more skilled than the Ancients.

3. Views of Eugenius

 Eugenius favors modern dramatists. According to him modernist

playwrights follow some rules of ancient drama but they introduced
new perfection in the drama “Moderns have acquir'd a new
perfection in writing, Eugenius says that "the moderns have profited
by the rules of the ancients" but moderns have "excelled them."
However, instead of telling about the virtues of moderns, he criticizes
the faults of Classical playwrights.

 According to him, the Classical drama is not divided into acts and also
lacks originality. Their tragedies are based on worn-out myths that
are already known to the audience and their comedies are based o
overused curiosity of stolen heiresses and miraculous restorations.

 There disregard poetic justice. Instead of punishing the vice and

rewarding the virtue, they have often shown prosperous wickedness
and an unhappy devotion.  

 The classical drama also lacks affection. The Heroes of Homer were
lovers of appetite, food etc, while the modern characters of French
drama gave up everything (sleep, water and food) for the sake of
love. He said that, “they have alter'd the mode of it. Homer
describ'd his Heroes men of great appetites, lovers of beef broild
upon the coals, and good fellows; contrary to the practice of the
 French Romances, whose Heroes neither eat, nor drink, nor sleep, for
love.”

 Eugenius said Crites by suggesting that even if we do not know all the
contexts, good writing is always good, wit is always discernible, if
done well. He goes on to say also that while the Ancients portrayed
many emotions and actions, they neglected love, "which is the most
frequent of all passions" and known to everyone. He mentions
Shakespeare and Fletcher as offering "excellent scenes of passion."

 He points first to some discrepancies in the applications of the

Unities, As regards the action, Eugenius contends that they are
transparent, everybody already having known what will happen As
far as the unity of place is concerned, he suggests that the Ancients
were not the ones to insist on it so much as the French, and that
insistence has caused some artificial entrances and exits of
characters. The unity of time is often ignored in both. As to the
liveliness of language,

Crities’ views

 Crites develops the main points in defending the ancients and raises
objections to modern plays.

 The Moderns are still imitating the Ancients and using their forms
and subjects, relying on Aristotle and Horace, adding nothing new in
the drama. “Eugenius and I are never like to have this Question
decided betwixt us; for he maintains the Moderns have acquir'd a
new perfection in writing, I can onely grant they have alter'd the
mode of it. Homer describ'd his Heroes men of great appetites, lovers
 of beef broild upon the coals, and good fellows; contrary to the
practice of the French Romances, whose Heroes neither eat, nor
drink, nor sleep, for love.”

 They ,yet not following their good advice closely either, especially
with respect to the Unities of time, place and action. While the
unity of time suggests that all the action should be portrayed within
a single day, the English plays attempt to use long periods of time,
sometimes years. In terms of place, the setting should be the same
from beginning to end with the scenes marked by the entrances and
exits of the persons having business within each. The English, on the
other hand, try to have all kinds of places, even far off countries,
shown within a single play. The third unity, that of action, requires
that the play "aim at one great and complete action", but the English
have all kinds of sub-plots which destroy the unity of the action.

 In anticipating the objection that the Ancients' language is not as

vital as the Moderns’s, Crites says that we have to remember that
we are probably missing a lot of subtleties because the languages are
dead and the customs are far removed from this time.
 Crites uses Ben Jonson as the example of the best in English drama,
saying that he followed the Ancients "in all things" and offered
nothing really new in terms of "serious thoughts". “without any
reason given for it, that Rhyme is proper for the Stage. I will not
dispute how ancient it hath been among us to write this way;
perhaps our Ancestours knew no better till Shakespeare's time. I will
grant it was not altogether left by him, and that Fletcher and Ben.
 Johnson us'd it frequently in their Pastorals, and sometimes in other
Playes.”

Views about rhyme

Crites objects to rhyme in plays: "since no man without premeditation

speaks in rhyme, neither ought he to do it on the stage." He cites
Aristotle as saying that it is, "best to write tragedy in that kind of verse . .
. which is nearest prose" as a justification for banishing rhyme, from
drama in favor of blank verse (unrhymed iambic pentameter). Even
though blank verse lines are no more spontaneous than are rhymed
lines, they are still to be preferred because they are "nearest nature":
"Rhyme is incapable of expressing the greatest thought naturally, and
the lowest it cannot with any grace: for what is more unbefitting the
majesty of verse, than to call a servant, or bid a door be shut in rhyme?"

Neander respond to the objections against rhyme by admitting

that "verse so tedious" is inappropriate to drama (and to anything
else). "Natural" rhymed verse is, however, just as appropriate to
dramatic as to non-dramatic poetry: the test of the "naturalness" of
rhyme is how well-chosen the rhymes are. Is the sense of the verses tied
down to, and limited by, the rhymes, or are the rhymes in service to, and
an enhancement of, the sense of the verses?

B. Dryden views about poetry

Dryden follow Aristotle’s definition of poetry as poetry is a process of

imitation. It imitates things in their ideal form. The accepted view of
poetry in his day was that it kept close to facts past or present. Dryden
talks about the freedom allowed to poet to imitate things as they are
said or thought to be.

Dryden defends Shakespeare’s use of supernatural for it is still an

imitation though of other men’s fancies. Dryden says, “as truth is the
end of all thoughts, so the discovery of it is the pleasure of them”.
Since a true knowledge of Nature gives us pleasure, a lively imitation of
it in poetry or painting must produce a much greater pleasure. These
arts are imitation of the best Nature. They present us with images more
perfect then the life in any individual. We are happy to see all the
beauties of Nature united by a happy chemistry without any faults. Thus
poetry imitates not only things but the ideal pattern itself.

According to Dryden, the true end of poetry is delight and transport

rather than instruction. It did not merely imitate life but offered its
own version of it. The poet is neither a teacher nor a bare imitator but a
creator. A poet produces a new thing. A work of art may resemble the
original in its basis, but difference from it in the superstructure. It is a
work of art, not a copy. It is in this part of the poet’s work that Dryden
feels the necessity of fancy. Dryden says that it is fancy that breathes life
into shapeless material from life or Nature.

C. Dryden views about neoclassical theory

In “the Essay of Dramatic poesy” he acknowledges the contribution of

ancient Greece, Rome and France to the dramatic form.
  John Dryden’s An Essay on Dramatic Poesy presents a brief discussion

on Neo-classical theory of Literature. He defends the classical drama

saying that it is an imitation of life and reflects human nature clearly.
        An Essay on Dramatic Poesy is written in the form of a dialogue
among four gentlemen: Eugenius, Crites, Lisideius and Neander. Neander
speaks for Dryden himself. Eugenius favours modern English dramatists
by attacking the classical playwrights, who did not themselves always
observe the unity of place. But Crites defends the ancients and points
out that they invited the principles of dramatic art paved by Aristotle and
Horace. Crites opposes rhyme in plays and argues that though the
moderns excel in sciences, the ancient age was the true age of poetry.
Lisideius defends the French playwrights and attacks the English
tendency to mix genres.
        Neander speaks in favour of the Moderns and respects the Ancients;
he is however critical of the rigid rules of dramas and favours rhyme.
Neander who is a spokesperson of Dryden, argues that ‘tragic-comedy’
(Dryden’s phrase for what we now call ‘tragi-comedy’) is the best form
for a play; because it is closer to life in which emotions are heightened by
mirth and sadness. He also finds subplots as an integral part to enrich a
play. He finds single action in French dramas to be rather inadequate
since it so often has a narrowing and cramping effect.  
        Neander gives his palm to the violation of the three unities because
it leads to the variety in the English plays.  Dryden thus argues against
the neo-classical critics. Since nobody speaks in rhyme in real life, he
supports the use of blank verse in drama and says that the use of rhyme
in serious plays is justifiable in place of the blank verse.