This blog Task was assigned by Dilip Barad Sir (Department Of English, MKBU) In this blog I am sharing my own understanding about Dryden's The Dramatic Poesy.
For further Details Click here
Dryden's The Dramatic Poesie
Literary criticism in England reached a new maturity during the Restoration period, and John Dryden (1631–1700) stood at its very center. Often hailed as the Father of English Criticism, Dryden not only experimented with poetry and drama but also established a systematic way of evaluating literature. His most celebrated critical work, An Essay on Dramatic Poesy (1668), is a landmark in English criticism and a mirror of the debates surrounding drama in his time.
What is Dramatic Poesy?
In 1668, Dryden published Essay Of Dramatic Poesie, an Essay, a leisurely discussion between four contemporary writers of whom Dryden (as Neander) is one. This work is a defense of English drama against the champions of both ancient Classical drama and the Neoclassical French theater; it is also an attempt to discover general principles of dramatic criticism and attempts to justify drama as a legitimate form of poetry.
John Dryden (1631-1700)
John Dryden (9 August 1631 – 1 May 1700) was a prominent English poet, critic, translator, and playwright who dominated the literary life of the Restoration Age; therefore, the age is known as the Age of Dryden. He was a Cambridge Scholar, literary genius and critic, considering his extra- ordinary literary contribution was credited with the honour of Poet Laureate of England in 1668.
Dryden as Neoclassical Critic:
Dryden was influenced by classical ideals of Aristotle and Horace, yet he was not a blind follower. He respected the unities of time, place, and action but also believed in the flexibility needed to make drama more engaging and realistic.
Because of his balanced approach—respecting tradition while encouraging innovation—Dryden is often called the Father of English Criticism. His essay represents the first real attempt in English to establish a reasoned and comprehensive theory of drama.
He was a critic of contemporary reality. His critical observation of contemporary reality is reflected in MacFlecknoe(1682). Dryden’s mature thoughts of literary criticism on ancient, modern and English Literature, especially on Drama, are presented in dialogue forms in An Essay on Dramatic Poesy. In An Essay on Dramatic Poesy there are four speakers. Each one argues strongly as to which one is better, “Ancient or Modern, and French.
For more information you can refer this video.
He was known as ‘Father of English Criticism’, and it was coined by Dr. Samuel Johnson.
Who is known as father? The one who originates or propagates in a particular manner. And Dryden was the one who gave a new way or idea about English Criticism. Sir Philip Sidney, before Dryden, considered himself to be a critic but comparing it to Dryden we realize that he has done no critic work. After Aristotle Dryden is the one who gave a well formed definition of the play.
An Essay on Dramatic Poesy
Introduction:
The title itself, An Essay of Dramatic Poesy, shows Dryden’s ambition: he wanted to defend drama as a legitimate art form (a task similar to Sidney’s Defence of Poesy earlier in the 16th century).
Each character in the essay represents a school of thought:
●Crites defends the Ancients,
●Eugenius favors the Moderns,
●Lisideius champions the French,
●Neander (Dryden’s own voice) defends the English tradition.
This device allowed Dryden to present multiple perspectives in a lively, conversational style rather than in a dry, academic manner.
Dryden’s Definition of Drama
Dryden defines Drama as:
"Just and lively image of human nature, representing its passions and humours, and the changes of fortune towhich it is subject, for the delight and instruction of mankin"
According to the definition, drama is an ‘image’ of ‘human nature’, and the image is ‘just’ and ‘lively’. Byusing 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.'
This means drama should not only mirror life (just) but should also do so with vividness and vitality (lively). For Dryden, a play is valuable when it captures both the truth of experience and the emotional energy of performance.
The Three Unities and Their Violation
The Aristotelian unities of time, place, and action become a central point of dispute. Crites insists that the Ancients and the French maintain dignity and clarity in drama by strictly observing these rules. According to him, unity produces focus, coherence, and seriousness. Neander, however, defends the English dramatists for often violating these unities. By allowing multiple locations, longer spans of time, and rich subplots, English playwrights create a variety and fullness that better represents the complexities of real life. For Dryden, the violation of the unities is not a weakness but a strength of English theatre.
The Moderns versus the Ancients
The comparison between the Ancients and the Moderns runs through the essay. Crites strongly supports the Ancients, praising their originality, structural perfection, and their role as founders of dramatic principles. He believes that the Moderns only imitate, and often corrupt, what was already perfected. Eugenius, however, defends the Moderns, claiming that they have refined the art of drama by introducing better division into acts, more variety of plots, and by avoiding overused mythological stories. Modern dramatists, he argues, are more concerned with poetic justice and with appealing to contemporary audiences, which makes their plays more effective and relatable.
Crites’s Arguments in Favor of the Ancients
Crites presents a structured defense of classical dramatists. First, he asserts that the Ancients were the originators of dramatic art and therefore possess an authority that later playwrights cannot surpass. Second, he admires their strict observance of the unities and their clear sense of moral responsibility. Third, he emphasizes their linguistic elegance and the dignity of their style, which modern playwrights often lack. Finally, he rejects the use of rhyme in plays, calling it unnatural for dramatic dialogue. For Crites, the Ancients remain the ultimate models of dramatic perfection.
French Drama versus English Drama
Lisideius praises French dramatists for their discipline and structural order. French plays are usually confined to a single action, with limited characters, no subplots, and neat resolutions. To him, this produces refinement, balance, and elegance. Neander, however, finds French drama lifeless, like a statue—beautiful but cold. In contrast, English plays may appear irregular, but their tragicomic mix, powerful subplots, and lively scenes capture the variety of real life. English audiences, Neander argues, prefer drama that is vivid and engaging, even if it breaks rules.
Tragicomedy: The Blend of Emotions
One of the boldest defenses Neander makes is of tragicomedy. While French critics dismiss it as absurd, Neander claims that tragicomedy is the most natural reflection of human experience, because life itself mingles joy and sorrow. By presenting both laughter and tears within the same play, English dramatists achieve a deeper realism. This mixing of tones, far from being a weakness, enhances the appeal of English drama.
Comparative Criticism: Ancients, Moderns, and French Playwrights
Dryden carefully stages the clash between different traditions:
- The Ancients (Crites): Praised for their adherence to classical rules and moral seriousness. However, Dryden notes they could be repetitive and lacked creative freshness.
- The Moderns (Eugenius): Valued for their inventiveness, richer characterization, and variety of plots. They reflect a deeper psychological understanding of human nature.
- The French (Lisideius): Admired for order, refinement, and observance of the unities. French plays were elegant but often too restrained, lacking passion and variety.
- The English (Neander/Dryden): Defended for their emotional range, use of tragicomedy, multiple plots, and powerful dramatists like Shakespeare. Though less disciplined than the French, English plays were seen as more natural, lively, and engaging.
The Debate: Rhyme vs. Blank Verse
One of the liveliest controversies in the essay is whether plays should be written in rhyme or in blank verse:
Neander’s View (Dryden’s position): Rhyme, when skillfully handled, adds beauty, clarity, and elevation. It is especially suitable for heroic plays, though blank verse may also serve well in other contexts.
Dryden does not dismiss blank verse but prefers rhyme for serious dramatic subjects.
Further I hvae answered the worksheet
1. What is the difference between Aristotle’s definition of tragedy and Dryden’s definition of play?
Aristotle, in his Poetics, gave the first systematic definition of tragedy. He described it as “an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude” which, through the emotions of pity and fear, brings about the catharsis (purging or purification) of such emotions. Aristotle emphasized the three unities—time, place, and action—as the foundation of good tragedy, and he restricted tragedy to serious subjects only.
Dryden, in contrast, broadens the idea of drama. For him, a play is “a just and lively image of human nature, representing its passions and humors, and the changes of fortune to which it is subject.” Unlike Aristotle, Dryden does not limit drama to tragedy alone. His definition allows for tragicomedy and multiple plots, and he focuses on the vividness and truthfulness of representation. In other words, Aristotle stresses structure and rules, while Dryden stresses realism, flexibility, and emotional energy.
2. If you were to choose between the Ancients and the Moderns, whose side would you take? Give reasons.
While the Ancients laid the foundation of dramatic art with clarity, order, and moral seriousness, their plays often seem rigid and formulaic. The Moderns, on the other hand, break away from this rigidity. They experiment with complex plots, psychological depth, and variety of themes. They are less bound by the unities and more concerned with making drama engaging and relatable.
Personally, I would take the side of the Moderns. They represent the spirit of innovation. Their plays allow a more realistic portrayal of human life with its mixture of comedy and tragedy. They speak more directly to audiences, both in Dryden’s time and today, because life itself is rarely bound by rigid rules. Thus, the Moderns feel richer, more diverse, and more human.
3. Are the criticisms of English plays by the French (e.g., on-stage death, duel fights, multiple plots, mixing comedy and tragedy) appropriate?
The French critics valued discipline, refinement, and adherence to classical rules. They argued that English plays were messy—showing deaths on stage, staging large battles with only a handful of actors, mixing comedy with tragedy, and weaving multiple plots into one play. From a strict neoclassical perspective, these criticisms do have some logic.
However, these so-called “flaws” actually gave English plays their unique power. Shakespeare and his contemporaries created works that were lively, emotionally varied, and dramatically effective. Showing death on stage intensified emotional impact, multiple plots enriched the storytelling, and the mixture of comedy and tragedy reflected the real complexity of human life. Therefore, while the French arguments may be valid within their own framework of rules, they overlook the vitality and creativity that made English drama so enduring.
4. What would be your preference in plays—poetic or prosaic dialogue?
Both forms of dialogue have their strengths. Poetic dialogue—whether in rhyme or blank verse—gives a play grandeur, rhythm, and artistic beauty. It elevates emotions and makes serious situations more powerful, which is why it works so well in tragedies or heroic dramas. Prosaic dialogue, on the other hand, is natural, simple, and realistic. It fits everyday situations, comedy, or lighter dramatic moments.
If I had to choose, I would prefer a balanced use of both. Poetry is essential when a play deals with themes of passion, conflict, or fate, while prose brings a sense of realism and relatability. The best dramatists—like Shakespeare—used both, shifting between verse and prose depending on the mood and the character. That flexibility, rather than a strict preference for one form, creates the most powerful dramatic effect.
Conclusion
Dryden’s An Essay of Dramatic Poesy is more than just a defense of English drama; it is a milestone in literary criticism. By staging a lively debate, Dryden explores the richness of dramatic traditions and offers a balanced critical framework. His essay bridges the gap between classical restraint and modern creativity, showing us that great art lies not in rigid rules but in the skillful harmony of truth, vividness, and imaginative freedom.
Even today, this essay reminds us that literature must both reflect life and elevate it—a lesson as relevant in the 21st century as it was in the 17th.
Reference:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373767836_An_Essay_on_Dramatic_Poesy_John_Dryden
No comments:
Post a Comment