Critical Evaluation of dryden’s essay “Dramatic poesy”

Critical evaluation of Dryden’s easy “Dramatic poesy “

v Introduction

           John Dryden (1631-1700) was poet, dramatist, critic of restoration era. He wrote his most important work during 1668 nammed dramatic poesie (dramatic poesy).with the help of this easy he recognized as father of English literary criticism.  Easy of dramatic poesy elaborate and one of the attractive and lively of his work. eassy is based on literary debate with dramatic touch as well as conversation between four friends.

·       Evaluation of the easy :

        As I earlier say that easy is written in the form of diolouge which is between Eugenius (Charles Sackville),crites (sir Robert howard)lisideius (sir Charles sedley).all of them has their own point of view regarding drama. Eugenius favors the moderns over the ancients, crites argues in favour of the ancients, Lisideius argues that French drama is superior in English drama,neander, Dryden himself favors the moderns but he does not forget to respects the ancient.

                     The dialogue between them begins with crites complain regarding two type of “bad poet”. The first one is poets who “perpetually” pay as grasp tightly and a certain type of funny metaphysical. And the second is uses smoothness and easiness to  cover his need imagination. The suggest that no one can better than the ancients or previous generation of English writer he belives in

                               “old is gold”

kind of thing. In respons to crites argument eugeninvs  respons that. He might be rejecting everything recent just because it is recent and then  they four decides to limits their argument to discussion of “dramatic poesy” who is superior ancient or moderns? In addition to their discussion john  Dryden defines drama.

‘just’ and ‘lively’ image of human nature, representing its passions and instrument of mankind.

              Drama represents human nature in  ‘its as it is form’ but actions or act are more ‘lively’ literature imitates but not recreates. Human action. She admits that poetic imitation defers from copy at reality. For the imitation its

                    “liveliness” is necessary. It must

                                    “true to life”

·       Ancient Vs Modern :-

               in john Dryden’s easy on “dramatic poesy” crites stands for ancient and for on the contrary eugenius stands for modern. Crites defining ancient by saying that moderns are still depended on ancients like Aristotle and Horace. Because moderns are still imitating form, and subject of ancient. Modern donate follow the. Unity of time, place and action violations of three unities.

o  Unity of time : it suggest that all the action should be portrayed within a ‘single’ revolution of sun but moderns attempt to use long periods of time.

o  Unity of place:- it terns of place setting shown be the same from beginning to end, the English try to have all kind of place. Even far off countries shown within a single day.

o  Unity of action:- it requires that the play “clim at one great and complete action” but English have all kinds of sub-plots which destroy the unity of the action.

·       Dryden' view regarding unities are below:

             Perhaps, French plays, are regular but not as lively. At does- pleasant and delights as that of English.

Every thing depends on the ‘genius’ of or skill of playwright. He gives reference of ben-jonson ‘the silent woman’ at shows greater art and skills then French.

It the play is full of liveliness than there is no harm in introducing ‘sub-plot’.

              In response to crities,eugenius favors modern. He acknowledges that the moderns have learned from ancients so I can say that there is no chance of error because they learned from ancient. Modern have not strictly follow then.

Excellence of moderns defects of ancients:-

Ancient did not aware about division during time with the help of chorous which was supposed to devide a play.

              The modern have perfected this division $ divited their plays not only in to acts but also in to secne.

Plot of ancients is coneerned with lacks of originality. Tragedy is based on famous short story. So, the pleasure of tragedy vanished. Plot of comedies also lack of ‘ originality ‘ or liveliness.

In the characterization they imitates nature. they only depicts eye or hand. So,they are inferior to the moderns.

Ancients does not strictly follow unities time, place and action. Terence was most regular among ancients dramatist, but even though does not faithfully observes the unities. no doubt they have the maintained better than the moderns. it shows the continuity of their scenes.

As their plot are narrow and charlatans are few, even their whole acts are often shorter then individuals scenes in the well wrought modern plays.

Instead of provider needed in formation through dialogue they used monologue and mush narration. So sometime audiences are getting bored and tire some.

Ancient of teach us moral lesson, punishing vices and rewarding virtue rat he than to delight the audience or instruct audience.

He also saw defect in the themes of ancient time. Tragedy end with admiration and concernment arouse in the mind of audience. But their themes do not provides admiration or pity because their themes are lust, cruelty murder, and blood shed. It arouses horror and terror.

Lovers never speak out and reveal that’s going on their mind and heart to spectacle.ancient fail in depiction of true soul so, we can say that it doesnot touch audience heart.

Crites does not agree with eugenius but he admits that moderns made of writing is different. Time changes so we can say that obviously idea and value chive changes. That’s why ancient and modern differs from each other with passage of time change in cultural values there as nothing about good or bad but ancients were more hearty and modern are talkative.

·       Lisideius’s view:-

Hisideius stands for the superiority of French drama. He agreed with eugenics English drama woo superior. He gives bariovs reasons of superiority of English drama. Most important reason behind is they maintain the unity of action and with out adding confusing sub-plot.

                 An English tragic-axmic is two plays, instead of remaining one play. For in is two actions are carried on together. Because of this double action rise another fault many of the characters are remain unknown at the end hisidelus, no drama in the world is so absurd as the English tragic-comedy and duel; thus, in two hours and a hay, we run though all the fit of bedlam. We play who have variety but it dose not portrayed in such a ridiculous manner. According to aristotal’s  tragedy pity and fear arouse. But mirth or comparisons are very different from pity and fear. Introduction tragedy and comedy in one. It spoils the very and ambition of tragedy. English are guilty of this folly but French are not.

               French do not burden with too much plot but on the other side English burden their plays with actins and connected with prominent as not ‘one play’ but ‘all in one’. The French play Wright strictly follows to one action and the live attention towards their diction and verse.

                    Another, reason behind the superiority of French play is play Wright devote themselves to one single passion and they portray very well. But English play Wright hurried from one passion to another and that way they in represent well any of them. In other words, their even the great Ben Jonson him safe has guilt of this ridiculous and unnatural mistune tragedy and comedy. In his sone of the tragedies like ‘Sejanus’ and ‘cat line’, there are some element of frail and hence there is boss in tragic intensity.

Telling about the characters of French play only one character is in center and others are woven around that main character. But Hisideius view is different and does not agree. Hisideius says that there is no doubt that in their plays. Center character is more important because most to the part of the action is concerned with that character. But in French plays, the other characters are also important and their action are perform vital rove in the play. For example plays of Corneille, there is not single one character who dose not have some in action, and who is not essential for working out of the plot. In the plays of ancient there is allays some introductory character who does take any part in the action , but in French plays the narration are made by who are in some way are the related with main action so, in this way French are superior on skilled than the ancient one.

             Narrations of French drama well arranged and skill full than the English. There is two kinds of narration, the first one is narration of events which happened be you’re the opening of the action of the play and other is narration of the things happening during the course of the play, act but behind the curtain. The second kind of narration considered as a beautiful and artistic. In this way French neglected the sconce of bloodshed, violence and murder on the stage.

Most of the English plays represents death on the stage. The audience connect help laughing when it sees a man dying on the stage. Here my point of view is that the

            ‘livery’ image is shattered of English  play Wright all passion can be lively represented on the stage, only it the actor has the necessary skill, but there are many action which dying is one of them.

         Their ways that gives reasons that French is batter than ancient.

neander favor the moderns but does not show negativity.he vevours English drama but he also things critically. he says that according to definition of play, English are best. He also gives reason for considering English best English are best at lively imagination of nature? (human nature). He criticize French posey and says that  ‘it is beautiful like a statue. My view is that it is not like man so, how can we say that human nature is involve in French poesy.so, It is life less. He further says that French writers are imitating the English. Dryden saw fault of regularity which is complimented and looks like uncivilized or uncultured.

                     He defends English tragic-comedy by saying that laughter or mirth gives relief from heaviness of straight tragedy. I am agree with dryden’s because after long duration of seriousness it is necessary of something light. Dryden also says that the use of sub-plot is helpful in understanding of the prominent action. But at the same time it also become complicated so it is difficult to understand. dryden examines that if the sub-plot are well organized than it make the play more interesting. further he says that French and ancients plays are not entertaining and interesting because they do not offer element of surprise. But English plays provides surprise. Dryden’s view about rules is that some rules are creates absurdities than they are privent.

                      At the end of the discussion of essay Dryden and crites discussed about the proper use of rhyme and verse. Crites want to eliminate the use of rhyme because for him its sounds artificial. Neander’s view is different he says that rhyme and verse are on the same ground.     

·       Views on rhyme & verse

Rhyme verse versus blank verse controversy. Elizabethan dramatized had used blank verse for their play on the other land restorations used rhymed verse or heroic couplet as weapon of expression of tragedy.

·       Rhyme verse : critic’s view

He belived that rhyme is only allwed in comedies not in a serious play.

Rhyme is not tobe allowed in serious plays, thought it may be allowed in comedies.

Rhyme is unnatural in a play, for a play is in dialogues, and on man without premeditation speaks in rhyme.

Blank verse is also unnatural for on man speaks in verse either, but it is nearer to which is nearer to prose – “Aristotle , ‘tis best to write tragedy in that kind of verse which is the least such, or which is nearest prose: and this amongst the ancients was the Lambique, and with us is blank verse.”

Drama is a ‘just’ representation of nature, and rhyme is unnatural, for nobody in nature expresses himself in rhyme. It is artificial and the art is too apparent, while ture art consists in hiding art.

It is said that rhyme helps the poet to control his fancy. But one who has not the judgment to control his fancy in blank verse will not be able to control it in rhyme either. Artistic control is a matter of judgment and not of rhyme or verse.

·       Neander’s defence:

It is the choice of words and the placing of them – natural words in a natural order – that makes the language natural, whether it is verse or rhyme that is used.

Rhyme itself may be made to look natural by the use of run on lines, and variety, and variety resulting from the use of hemistich, manipulation of pauses and stresses, and the change of matter.

Blank verse is no verse at all. It is simply poetic prose and so fit only for comedies. Rhymed verse alone, made natural or near to prose, is suitable for tragedy. This would satisfy aristotle’s dictum.

Rhyme is justified by its universal use among all the civilized nation of the world.

The great Elizabethan achieved perfection in the use of blank verse and they, the moderns, cannot excel; them, or achieve anything significant or better in the use of blank verse. Hence they must perforce use rhyme, which suits the genius of our age.

Tragedy is a serious play representing nature exalted to its highest pitch; rhyme being the noblest kind of verse is suited to it, and to comedy.

Rhyme is an aid to ‘judgment’. Men of ordinary judgment as even the best of poets are, require some help to write better. Rhyme helps the judgment and thus makes it easier to control the free flights of their fancy.

At the end of ‘essay’ , Dryden gives one more reason in favour  of rhyme i.e. rhyme adds to the pleasure of poetry. The primary function of poetry is to give ‘delight’. And rhyme enables the poet to perform this function well.

Comment upon Dryen’s compearative criticism of Shakespeare, Ben Johnson, Beaumont and Fletcher in ‘An easy of Dramatic Poesy’.

John Fletcher (1579-1625), English poet and playwright. Although he wrote many works alone and with several different dramatists, he is best known for his collaborations with fellow plau wright Beaumont. Francis Beaumont (1584-1616), English poet and playwright, best known for the tragicomedies he wrote together with john Fletcher. From about 1606, to 1614, the two collaborated on several plays (the exact number is disputed) that were very popular with audiences of the time.

Most scholars acknowledge the Fletcher`s real talent lay in comedy, especially in the genre of tragicomedy. His style of tragicomedy at its best manges to generate considerable power through the sheer variety of the emotions it arouses. Fletcher is noted as a master of plot contrivance and character manipulation and of exaggerated speech used for dramatic effect. The customary 10 syllable line of Elizabethan dramatic blank verse overflows, in Fletcher’s hands, into lines of 11 and sometimes 12 syllables, and he frequently employs run-on lines to achieve his goal. but for all the appearance of wild abundance and headlong extravagance in his use of languge, his is a highly mannered style.

Fletcher’s works strongly influenced his successor. His heroes, preoccupied with the themes of love or honor both, are the immediate forebears of the protagonists of the plays of the restoration period. Fletcher’s particular technical abilities served him well in handlng plots of comic intrigue, and his delight in verbal display found its proper aim in the banter with which the sophisticated young men and women in his comedies match their forces in the game of love.

The team of beumont and Fletcher probably collaborated on about ten plays. By the time Beaumont retired in 1614, these collaborations had helped establish both men in the ranks of the best dramatists. The production dates of nearly all of these works are uncertain. The two playwrights coauthored popular work such as philaster, the maid’s tragedy, and a king and no king. Other collaborations include the coxcomb, the captain, and cupid’s revenge.

Beaumont and Fletcher’s collaborative efforts are characterized by ingenious plots, diversified characters, and realistic dialogue. Their comedies, witty and sophisticated, foreshadow the licentious comedies of the restoration. Most of the duo’s major plays consist chiefly of a series of incidents, rather than sustained development of character and action. Their plays remained incredibly popular until the closing of the theaters under the puritan commonwealth in 1642. Restoration dramatist john Dryden, in his essay of dramatic poesy, explained the favorable public response to the plays vy citing their universal appeal. He made following observation on Beaumont and Fletcher.

“Beaumont and Fletcher of whom I am next to speak, had with the advantages of Shakespeare’s wit, which was precedent, great natural gifts, improved by study. Beaumont especially being so accurate a judge of playes, that ben Johnson while he lived submitted all his writings to his censure, and ‘tis thought, us’d his judgment in correcting, if not contriving all his plot. What value he had for him, appears by the verses he writ to him; and therefore I need speak no farther of it. The first play which brought Fletcher and him in esteem was their philaster: for before that, they had written two or three very unsuccessfully: as the like is reported of ben Johnson, before he writ every man in his humour. Their plots were generally more regular then Shakespeare’s plot.

Conclusion

            By summing up critical evaluation of essay we can say that Dryden four speaker in this essay different views. Benjonson  points out that they are symbolic figure representing the different ideas popular in the day. The essay significantly is the “first regular and valuable treatise on the art of writing.