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 credited
with the honour of Poet Laureate of England in 1668. John Dryden’s An Essay of 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 people:
1.) Eugenius,
2.) Crites,
3.) Lisideius
4.) Neander.
Neander
speaks for Dryden himself. Eugenius favours modern English dramatists by
attacking the classical playwright. But Crites defends the ancients for 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’ is the best form for a
play. 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.
My
Views:-
There is a
difference between Aristotle’s definition of tragedy and Dryden’s definition of
play. According to Aristotle tragedy is an imitation of an action which is
serious, complete and of certain magnitude; he emphasises on serious action
which can arouse pity and fear in the audience. While Dryden says that a play
should be just and lively image of human nature. For Aristotle tragedy is
imitation of serious action and for Dryden imitation is not only “just” but
“lively” also. For Aristotle the function of “catharsis” is important in
tragedy, but the reading of the play hardly give catharsis. As per Dryden play
is just for the delight and instruction of the audience. Play is the
representation of life as it is as per Dryden and on the other hand, Aristotle
did not support representation of realistic situation of life.
According to
my personal opinion, I am on the side of the ancients as far as literature and
music are concerned. The language is the gift from the ancients through which
the writing has progressed. Ancients imitated their history in their work from
where we get idea of the history, and through reading them we come to know
about past. It is necessary to know your past to brighten your present. The
knowledge of words we use for writing is the gift of ancients. For e.g.:-
Dr.Johnson’s “The dictionary of the English Language”. The root is the part
which holds the tree, same way ancients are the root which helps the moderns to
grow. If consider science and technology than we can see that moderns are
better. In ancient times many people died due to cancer and other deadly disease.
The moderns have made tremendous progress in this field which the ancients were
not able to do.
We can say
that modern excels in science and technology, ancients excels in art whether it
is literature, music or painting. “Moderns are the dwarfs standing on the
shoulder of the giants; the shoulder of the ancients”.
The
arguments presented in the favour of the French plays by Lisideius against
English plays are appropriate at some extent. For example the death scene, it
is not possible to show it. No one can express the feeling of death without
going through. As per sub-plots are concerned I would like to support English
plays. Audience enjoys the mixture of sub-plots with the main plot. It makes
play interesting, if presented well.
As per my
opinion, prosaic dialogues are more preferable in the play. According to
Dryden, play is the representation of life as it is. Imagine if our teachers or
parents or friends talks with us in poetic way. Prosaic dialogues connect the
audience with the play. Poetic lines limit the thoughts of the writer as he has
to complete the lines as per rhyme scheme. In day to day no one uses poetic
lines. All the audience cannot understand the spirit of poetry. Gandhiji said
that literature should be written in a simple way that even a farmer could
read. As far as play is concerned I agree with this thing that prosaic lines
bring simplicity which can be understood by all the type of audience.
Reference:-
http://dilipbarad.blogspot.in/2015/09/drydens-essay-on-dramatic-poesy-short.html
Comments
Post a Comment