“Dryden”

(1631-1700)
“An Essay on Dramatic Poesy”
Background
In England, Neoclassicism flourished roughly between 1660, when the Stuarts returned to the
throne, and the 1798 publication of Wordsworth's Lyrical Ballads, with its theoretical preface and
collection of poems that came to be seen as heralding the beginning of the Romantic Age.
Regarding English literature, the Neoclassical Age is typically divided into three periods: the
Restoration Age (1660-1700), the Augustan Age (1700-1750), and the Age of Johnson (1750-
1798). Neoclassical writers modeled their works on classical texts and followed various esthetic
values first established in Ancient Greece and Rome. Seventeenth-century and eighteenth-
century Neoclassicism was, in a sense, a resurgence of classical taste and sensibility, but it was
not identical to Classicism. In part as a reaction to the bold egocentrism of the Renaissance that
saw man as larger than life and boundless in potential, the neoclassicists directed their attention
to a smaller scaled concept of man as an individual within a larger social context, seeing human
nature as dualistic, flawed, and needing to be curbed by reason and decorum. In style,
neoclassicists continued the Renaissance value of balanced antithesis, symmetry, restraint, and
order. Additionally, they sought to achieve a sense of refinement, good taste, and correctness.
Their manner was elitist, erudite, and sophisticated. The brooding social unrest that culminated
in the revolutions in the American colonies and in France toppled this artificial refinement, and in
the wake of those wars emerged portraits of the single common worker or wanderer sketched
against the vast natural landscape, a character that came to be one of the chosen subjects of
the Romantics in the nineteenth century.

John Dryden was dominating and leading figure of the Restoration age. The
Restoration is also k own as ‘age of Dryden’. His most important work on prose
work of dramatic poesy, An Essay, gives him the reputation as “the father of
English literary criticism’. (This title was given to him by Dr. S .Johnson). Dr.
Johnson says ‘Dryden maybe properly considered as ‘the father of English
criticism’, as the writer who first taught us to determine upon principles, the
merit of the composition’. Dr. Johnson was justified in giving Dryden this honor
because before him there was no consistent critic in England. Sidney and Ben
Johnson only made occasional observations without producing any consistent
critical work or establishing any critical theory.
Dryden writes this essay as a dramatic dialogue with the four characters
representing four critical issues. (Charles Sackville) Eugenius, favors the moderns
over the ancients. (Sir Robert Howard) Crites argues in the favor of the ancients.
(Sir Charles Sedrey) Lisideius, argues French drama is superior to English drama,
and (John Dryden) Neander favors modern English plays.
In this way, he develops historical criticism, comparative and descriptive forms of
criticism and finally gives his own independent views through the replies of
Neander as a critic.
Dryden includes five issues in this essay.
1- Ancient versus moderns
2- Unities (drama)
3- French versus English Drama.
4- Separation of tragedy and comedy and comedy versus Tragic comedy.
5- Appropriateness of Rhyme in drama.
Discussions of ancients and moderns should not be for “who is better”? It should
be more fundamentally about how history itself functioned and should be read
thus it should be about the relationship between (past and present) humanity and
nature and also between human understanding and knowledge.

1- Crites views on the ancients.

-He argues that the superiority of Ancients is established by the fact the moderns
simply imitate them and have built on the foundation laid by them. The Ancients
are the established models of the moderns.
- Ancients are better because they have no models which they could follow in
giving contribution to literature. Modern playwrights can improve their writing by
reading the ancients work. In short “Moderns stand on the shoulders of
Ancients”.
- It should be remembered that ‘Every age has its own genius, its own inclination
for particular branch of knowledge’. The ancients had a special genius for drama
and in their particular branch of poetry (epic) they reached perfection and
excelled in it just like drama.
- Ancients poetry was more honored than any branch of knowledge. In Ancients,
poets were rewarded according to their merits. Nowadays, Moderns are neither
suitably honored nor rewarded. Poets are guided more by malice than by the
spirit of virtuous emulation.
- The rules of dramatic composition are not followed by modern dramatists
whereas Ancients followed all those rules.
- The Ancient drama is superior because the ancients closely observed nature and
faithfully represented it in their works. The moderns don’t observe and study
Nature carefully so they distort and disfigured her in their plays. There is no faith
to represent in their works.
- Ancients follow the rules of unities. Ancients have one plot where as the modern
plays does not follow the unities because there are number of actions and sub-
plots in the play i.e. Hamlet and Dr. Faustus. Critics pay special attention to the
unities of time, place and action which ought to be observed in every regular
play. So in modern plays there are no unities so it is unnatural and they can not be
called as ‘just’ and ‘true’ representation of Nature.
- The ancients followed these rules and the effect is satisfying and pleasing. The
ancients organized their plays well as it can be asserted that they must have
written well. We are unable to appreciate the art and beauty of their language,
only because of many customs, stories and traditions are not known to us. He
gives the example of the famous playwright Ben Johnson who had great
admirations for the Ancients and he imitated them and borrowed a lot from
them. He considered them superior to the moderns in all things.
2- Eugenius views on the Moderns.
Eugenius favors the moderns over the ancients and replies to Crites that the
modernists have learnt much from the ancients. The moderns are indebted to
them for rules of dramatic composition and must be grateful to them for it. The
moderns have not followed the ancients blindly rather they have written new
things in many ways. He argues that modernist have model so that they learn
from that and give new ideas from their examples.
Then Eugenius gives some defeats of the Ancient and some triumphs of the moderns.
1. In ancient plays, there wasn’t any division of the play into Acts. Some of their plays, the
chorus was sung more than five times so the number of Acts in a Greek play is
uncertain.
 The moderns have perfected this divisions and divided their plays not only into Acts but
also into scenes. But Greeks wrote without any definite plan and when they could write
a good play, their success was more a matter of chance and good fortune then of ability.
2. The plot of the ancients lacks originality. Their plot was always based on a well-known
story, so their tragedies lacked the charm of novelty. “The pleasure vanished” which was
to cause “delight” was destroyed. The plot of comedy also lack originality.
3. In characterization, they no doubt imitate nature but their imitation is only narrow and
partial as if they imitated only an eye or a hand and did not dare to portray the lies of a
face or the proportion of the body.
4. Even their observance of the three unities is not perfect. The Ancient Horace and
Aristotle did not mention of the unity of place. Terence was one of the most regular of
the ancient dramatists but even he didn’t observe the unity of time faithfully. No doubt
they have maintained it better than the moderns the continuity of their scenes but this
is so only coz they seldom have more than one or two scenes in each Act.
♦ As their plots are narrow and their characters are few, even their whole Acts
are often shorter than individual scenes in the well written modern play.
5. There is a lot of narration at the cost of action. Their plays become monotonous and
tiresome because instead of providing the necessary information, they inform audience
through dialogues and monologues.
[6.] The Ancient plays do not perform one of the functions of drama, that is of giving
delight, and giving instruction. There is no “poetic injustice” in their plays. Instead of
punishing vice and rewarding virtue, they have after shown a prosperous wickedness
and an unhappy piety.
6.[7.] In past, comedies and tragedies were written by separate individuals and not by the
same person at present. They worked in a narrow field so they could easily get
perfection in it. Their failure therefore is a proof of their inferiority to the moderns.
7.[8.] Finally, their themes are equally defective. The proper end of the tragedy is to arouse
“admiration and concernment”. Their themes are lust, cruelty, murder and bloodshed
which of arousing admiration and pity, arouse “Horror and Terror”. So in the treatment
of the play, the Ancients are inferior to such moderns as Shakespeare and Fletcher. The
Ancients in their comedies, no doubt introduced a few scenes of tenderness but then
their lovers talk very little.
No doubt, when the heart is full, the words are few.
8.[9.] So they decided that “ The Moderns were more perfect, coz they have altered the
mode of writing”.
♦ In the end, it was decided that ideas and values changed and this was the
main reason for the much of the difference bet the Moderns and the
Ancients. It was not the question of good or bad but of a change in cultural
values. If the Ancients had written in the modern age, they might have
altered their ways of writing in keeping with the modern values.
 2. Dryden’s criticism on French dramas;
● Dryden refused to be impressed with French writers and critics. He declares that
literature develops with the development of a nation, and it is absurd to judge it
by the standards of another nation. French dramatists followed rules strictly and
banished many artistic beauties from the stage. Excessive regularity and
formality destroyed the necessary liveliness of a play.
● Dryden disapproves the rigid separation of tragic and comic elements. He sees
no reason why tragic comedy should be forbidden coz it mingles mirth with
serious plot. English practice of mingling those elements provided a better way
of relief. (comic relief)
● Dryden does not admire the exclusion of the sub plot and minor episodes from
the French plays. He ridicules the servile (serve, servant, servitude, slavish
imitation) observation of the unities of time and place.
● French dramas fell short in employing too little action and scenes of violence. So
on these grounds, Dryden defended irregularities of the English drama in general
against the cold formality of the French stage.
● Dryden appreciates English dramatists and poets. He appreciates Shakespeare,
Fletcher, Jonson, Milton and Chaucer who opened up fresh possibilities in the
critical sphere.
e.g He preferred Shakespeare over Ben Jonson
He says “ Shakespeare had the largest and the most comprehensive(detailed, all
the aspects, wholesome representation of life, observation, observant) soul;
while Ben Jonson(well read) was the most learned and Judicious( just, objective
correctly, organized in representation of life) writer which the theatre ever had”.

Background of Dryden essay of dramatic poesy:

During the period from Ben Jonson to Dryden the Neo-classicists ( followers of classical rules )
flourished in France and had a great influence on the English writers. Scot James said it was a
mark of civilization to submit to the laws of Aristotle and Horace . John Dryden was also a
staunch neoclassicist but he refused to be slave to any authority and pointed out that a writer is
the product of his age and comedy and hence cannot be judged by the canons of ancient. This is
the spirit that pervades his essay of dramatic poesy which is a vindication of English plays in the
introductory note, the real purpose of the essay was given "To vindicate (justify) the honor of our
English writers ( the Elizabethan and Jacobean dramatists) from the censure of those who
unjustly prefer the French before them". The essay was written by Dryden as a reply to some
remarks made by a French man named "samuel sorbiere" who came to England in 1663 and on
returning to France wrote an account of his voyage. In this book he wrote "These comedies of
theirs wouldn't be received quite well in France. Their plots play hell with the unity of place and
the rule of twenty four hours. Their comic plot plots run for 25 years. Dryden, a courtly poet and
dramatist, wrote this essay in reply during the plague years of 1665-1666 which was published in
1668.

Dryden gives more importance to Shakespeare because of his greater scope , his greater
faithfulness to life as compared to Johnson’s relatively small scope and classical tendency to
deal in “The beauties of statue, but not of a man”. He admires ben Johnson but he loves
Shakespeare .

Dryden as a father of English criticism:

In his work “the essay on dramatic poesy” Dryden started the era of “descriptive criticism” by
critically evaluating “drama”. Epic, tragedy , comedy and the nature and function of poetry.

Criticism :
According to Dryden , a critic has to understand that a writer writes to his own age and people of
which he himself is a product of. He advocates a close study of the ancient models, not to
imitate them blindly. He urges to recapture their magic and treat them as a torch to enlighten our
own passage.it is the spirit of the classics that matter more than their rules. Yet these rules are
not without their value , there cannot be art without any rules. Dryden mentions the appropriate
rules are laid by Aristotle, but it is not the observance of rules that make a work great but its
capacity to delight and transport. It is not the business of criticism to detect petty faults but to
discover those great beauties that make them immortal.
Dryden criticism is partly a restatement of Aristotle’s principles,
partly from French neoclassicism and partly from the influence of Longinus and saint evremond.

Historical method of criticism:

Dryden was the first critic to make use of historical method of criticism . He believed that every
literary work is the reflection of the age in which it is produced . a literary work can best be
evaluated by placing it in the socio historical background in which it is produced. Many plays of
Shakespeare or spencer’s poetry can not be evaluated without placing them in the background
of Elizabethan age.

Comparative method of criticism:

He recognises the genius and the temperament differ from age to age and hence literature in
different periods of history is bound to be different so Elizabethan drama and the restoration
drama are governed by different literary convention. He claims that Aristotle himself might have
revised the rules and had written differently if he had lived in the modern era. Thus , Dryden
believes that the truth that literature is not static but a dynamic process. Similarly , he
recognizes that the temperament of the French and English differ and hence the literatures of
two countries are bound to be different. So he is the first in England to analyse English and
foreign plays and examine their comparative merits and demerits.

Dryden views on “Nature of poetry”

Dryden upholds Aristotle's definition of the poetry as a process of imitation. Poetry imitates
facts of the past or present ,popular beliefs, superstitions and things in their ideal form. Dryden
defends Shakespeare's use of the supernatural based on popular beliefs. It's still an imitation
though of others men’s fancies . In his opinion, poetry and painting are not true imitations of
nature but of the best nature.(i.e.) a much greater criticism.
Aristotle’s definition of drama: imitation of an action… imitation can be carried out in three different
ways.. object representation

Function of poetry:
According to dryden,the function of poetry is delight and transport rather than instruction. It
doesn't merely imitate life, but offers its own “ a beautiful resemblance of the whole”. The poet is
neither a teacher nor an imitator, he is a photographer but a creator . He is one who,with life or
nature as his raw material produces a new thing all together, resembling the original in its basis,
a work of art rather than a copy.

Tragedy:
Dryden’s definition of tragedy is the same as Aristotle “ an imitation of one, entire great action;
not told but represented so the audience are moved with emotions of pity and fear. In this way,
we have the purgation of emotions in our mind. Dryden follows Aristotle and Horace in his
opinion about the tragic hero and other characters in Tragedy. Dryden has no use for “chorus in
Greek tragedy.

Comedy:
Following Aristotle, he calls it “a representation of human life of inferior people and low
subjects”. Dryden says that the first end of comedy is delight and instruction only second .the
people in the comedy are from lower class, there is little action and depiction of faults and vices
and vices these faults and vices are part of the human weakness. Dryden wants English
comedy to be more refined than it was. According to him “Ben Jonson had specialised in humor
and what he lacked was wit. One of the chief graces of comedy for the audience is “a chance of
exchange of wit”. Dryden wants a refined laughter rather than the crude display of humor. In a
comedy of ‘humors’ the spectators laughed at a humorous character and in a comedy of wit,
they laughed with the witty one.

Epic:
Dryden is with the French critics in considering the epics superior to the tragedy. He stresses
that the epic is certainly the greatest work of human nature.
Aristotle had preferred the tragedy to the epic .regarding the visual appeal of tragedy, Dryden
urges three points:
It is the actor’s work as much as the poets and so the poet alone can not deserve credit for it .
The stage is handicapped to show many things- big crimes and battles
We can digest what we read in the epic, we may miss the beauties of a play in the performance.
Dryden disagrees with Aristotle again insisting on a moral in the epic.