INTRODUCTION

John Dryden’s "An Essay of Dramatic Poesy," first published in 1668, represents
one of the most significant milestones in the history of English literary criticism.
Written during a period when the London theatres were closed due to the plague,
the essay takes the form of a lively dialogue among four friends who debate the
merits and shortcomings of ancient, French, and contemporary English drama.
Through this engaging and accessible structure, Dryden explores deep
philosophical questions about the nature and function of poetry, especially
dramatic poetry, and in doing so, he lays the foundation for much of the critical
thought that would shape English literature in the centuries to come.At the heart
of Dryden’s essay is a profound inquiry into what poetry is and what it ought to
achieve. For Dryden, poetry is not merely a mechanical imitation of reality, nor
is it a simple vehicle for moral instruction. Instead, he sees poetry as a creative
and imaginative act, one that involves the transformation of reality into something
more beautiful, more engaging, and more meaningful. This conception marks a
significant departure from the rigid neoclassical doctrines that dominated much
of the critical thinking of his time, which often emphasized strict adherence to
classical rules and the primacy of instruction over delight.
Dryden’s views are articulated primarily through
the character of Neander, who is widely recognized as Dryden’s own
spokesperson in the dialogue. Neander argues that the essence of poetry lies in its
ability to present a “just and lively image of human nature.” This phrase, which
has become one of the most frequently cited in English criticism, captures the
dual aspect of Dryden’s theory of poetic imitation. The “just” image refers to the
truthfulness of the representation—poetry must capture the essential qualities of
human nature and experience. The “lively” image, on the other hand, refers to the
vividness and emotional power of the representation—poetry must bring its
subject to life, engaging the imagination and the emotions of its audience.In this
way, Dryden moves beyond the classical notion of mimesis as a mere copying of
nature. He insists that the poet is not a passive recorder of reality but an active
creator, who selects, orders, and transforms the raw material of experience into a
work of art. The poet’s imagination is thus central to the process of poetic
creation, and it is this imaginative power that enables poetry to transcend the
limitations of ordinary reality and offer something richer and more profound.
Dryden’s emphasis on the creative and transformative role of the poet anticipates

[1]
many of the ideas that would later be developed by the Romantic poets, who
likewise saw the imagination as the defining faculty of the artist.
Another key aspect of Dryden’s theory is his view of
the function of poetry. While acknowledging that poetry can and often does
instruct, Dryden is adamant that its primary purpose is to delight. This is a crucial
shift from the prevailing neoclassical view, which tended to subordinate delight
to instruction. For Dryden, the pleasure that poetry provides is not merely a
superficial or secondary effect; it is the very essence of the poetic experience.
Poetry delights by engaging the senses, the emotions, and the intellect, drawing
the audience into a world that is at once familiar and transformed. This delight,
in turn, makes the instruction that poetry offers more effective, for it is only when
the audience is moved and engaged that they are open to learning and reflection.
Dryden’s insistence on the primacy of delight does not
mean that he dismisses the importance of instruction. Rather, he sees the two as
intimately connected. The best poetry, in his view, is that which instructs as it
delights, offering both pleasure and insight. This balanced approach allows
Dryden to appreciate the achievements of a wide range of poets and dramatists,
from the ancients to his own contemporaries. He praises Shakespeare, for
example, not only for his ability to capture the complexities of human nature but
also for the emotional power and beauty of his language. At the same time,
Dryden is critical of those who would sacrifice the vitality and immediacy of
poetry for the sake of rigid adherence to rules or moralizing.One of the most
innovative aspects of "An Essay of Dramatic Poesy" is Dryden’s critical
liberalism. Unlike many of his contemporaries, who were quick to condemn any
deviation from classical norms, Dryden advocates for a more flexible and
pragmatic approach to criticism. He argues that the rules of classical drama—
such as the unities of time, place, and action—should not be seen as absolute laws
but as useful guidelines that can be adapted or even set aside when the demands
of the work require it. This openness to innovation and experimentation is evident
in Dryden’s defense of English drama, which he sees as more lively, varied, and
emotionally engaging than its French or classical counterparts.
Dryden’s appreciation for the vitality and diversity of
English drama is particularly evident in his discussion of Shakespeare and Ben
Jonson. He acknowledges that Shakespeare often violated the classical unities
and mixed genres in ways that would have been unthinkable to the ancients or the
French. Yet, Dryden argues, it is precisely this willingness to break the rules that

[2]
gives Shakespeare’s plays their unique power and appeal. Shakespeare’s genius
lies in his ability to create works that are both true to life and profoundly moving,
works that speak to the deepest emotions and aspirations of the human soul.In
contrast, Dryden is critical of the French dramatists, who, in his view, have
sacrificed the liveliness and emotional impact of drama for the sake of order and
decorum. The French plays, he argues, are often too constrained by rules,
resulting in works that are elegant and refined but ultimately lacking in vitality
and passion. Dryden’s critique of French drama is not merely a matter of national
pride; it reflects his broader belief that the ultimate test of poetry is its ability to
move and delight its audience. Rules and conventions are valuable only insofar
as they serve this higher purpose.
Throughout "An Essay of Dramatic Poesy," Dryden
demonstrates a remarkable ability to balance respect for tradition with a
willingness to embrace change and innovation. He is deeply knowledgeable about
the achievements of the ancients and the French, and he is quick to acknowledge
their strengths. At the same time, he is unafraid to challenge their limitations and
to champion the creative freedom of the poet. This balanced and open-minded
approach is one of the hallmarks of Dryden’s criticism and one of the reasons
why his essay remains so influential.Dryden’s "An Essay of Dramatic Poesy"
offers a rich and nuanced exploration of the nature and function of poetry. By
defining poetry as a “just and lively image of human nature,” Dryden emphasizes
the importance of both truthfulness and imaginative power in poetic creation. He
insists that the primary function of poetry is to delight, and that instruction, while
valuable, is secondary and dependent on the poet’s ability to engage and move
the audience. Dryden’s critical liberalism, his appreciation for the creative power
of the imagination, and his willingness to challenge rigid conventions have made
his essay a foundational text in the history of English criticism. In celebrating the
vitality and diversity of English drama, Dryden not only defends the
achievements of his own age but also lays the groundwork for the development
of a more flexible and dynamic critical tradition. His insights into the nature and
function of poetry continue to resonate, reminding us of the enduring power of
art to both reflect and transform the human experience.

[3]
 Chapter – one
Literature Review
A literature review on decoding Dryden’s views on the nature and function of
poetry, as presented in his An Essay of Dramatic Poesy, reveals a rich scholarly
engagement with his critical ideas and their historical context. Dryden’s essay,
structured as a dialogue among four characters—Eugenius, Crites, Lisideius, and
Neander—serves as both a defense and critique of the dramatic arts of his era,
comparing English, French, and ancient traditions. Scholars note that Dryden’s
method allows him to present multiple perspectives, but Neander, widely
accepted as Dryden’s own voice, ultimately argues for the superiority and vitality
of English drama.A central focus in the literature is Dryden’s neoclassical
orientation, which is evident in his engagement with classical rules such as the
unities of time, place, and action, and his reliance on critics like Corneille and
Horace. However, critics emphasize Dryden’s pragmatic approach—he does not
advocate for a rigid application of classical norms, but rather for a flexible,
commonsense adherence that prioritizes the emotional impact and sensibility of
the audience. This is reflected in his appreciation for Shakespeare’s “lively”
imitation of nature, which Dryden sees as more valuable than the “just” but static
perfection of classical drama. Scholars highlight that Dryden’s preference for
“becoming” (dynamic, evolving art) over “being” (static, idealized art) marks a
significant shift in critical thinking.
Academic commentary also addresses Dryden’s
nuanced discussion of rhyme and verse in drama. While Crites argues that rhyme
is unnatural in dramatic speech, Neander (Dryden) contends that well-chosen
rhyme can elevate dramatic poetry, provided it serves the sense and naturalness
of the dialogue. This debate is often cited as an example of Dryden’s balanced
critical temperament, advocating for innovation without disregarding
tradition.Further, the literature underscores Dryden’s dual conception of poetry’s
function: to delight and to instruct. He champions the emotional depth and
imaginative power of poetry, arguing that its primary aim is to please the
audience, with moral instruction as a secondary benefit57. This stance is seen as
both a continuation and a modification of classical and Renaissance critical
thought, situating Dryden as a transitional figure in the evolution of literary
criticism.scholarly analysis of An Essay of Dramatic Poesy consistently
recognizes Dryden’s essay as a landmark in English criticism, notable for its

[4]
dialogic form, its synthesis of classical and modern ideas, and its advocacy for a
flexible, audience-centered approach to poetic and dramatic art With the
accession of James II to the English throne, Dryden became a catholic. After the
glorious revolution however, his popularity declined. His honours were taken
away and shad will was made poet laureate. Dryden died in 1700, and was buried
in Westminster Abbey. Dryden was the literary dictator of his time, like Ben
Johnson before and Dr. Johnson after him. The age of Dryden roughly spans the
period from the restoration of Charles II in 1660 to the year 1700. Dryden best
represents the English mind of this period. It is necessary to study the social,
political and literary background for “when we reach the works of Dryden we
make a study of his age”, as Nicolle Smith has observed.
John Dryden occupies a rare position in the history of
English literature. He was the greatest man of letters in his age and he was also
the greatest critic. The critical comments and views of Dryden are mainly to be
found in dedications and prefacer to his poems, plays and other works scattered
over the period 1660- 1700. The only formal and complete work of criticism by
Dryden is the “Essay of Dramatic Poesy. Dryden enjoys the reputation of one of
towering figures of the new-classical age. It was Dr. Johnson who first called
Dryden “the father of English criticism as the writer who taught us to determine
upon the principles, the merit of composition.” Despite the scattered nature of his
criticism, “The Essay on Dramatic Poesy” stands as a landmark of his critical
pronouncements covering a variety of aspects of dramatic criticise. Drama, Epic,
Tragedy, comedy and the nature and function of poetry all retrieve due attention
from him. It is said that Dryden inaugurated the era of descriptive criticism. In
the words of George Watson, “Dryden has given use fine specimen of descriptive
criticism.” There is no other literary giant who has more confidence in his own
power and clarity of vision. Dryden’s An Essay on Dramatic Poesy is a critique
of the neoclassical theory of art in general and dramatic art in particular from the
perspective of an English critic. The Essay dramatizes an objective and critical
debate, in a form reminiscent of Platonic dialogue, between four Restoration
gentlemen while floating down the Thames on a barge to catch the sound of
“distant Thunder” as the English and the Dutch “disputed the command of the
greater half of the Globe.” The four characters are usually identified with
contemporary figures. The three “persons of Wit and Quality” are Sir Robert
Howard (Crites), Charles Sackville, Lord Buckhurst (Eugenius), and Sir Charles
Sedley (Lisideius), while the fourth character, Neander, has been identified as
Dryden himself. These four characters, who represent four critical positions

[5]
contend the relative merits of Ancient and Modern drama, of English and French
theatrical practice. What Dryden intends to achieve through this polemics is, as
T. S. Eliot suggested in The Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism, “the necessity
of affirming the native element in literature.” In fact, the Essay remains
speculative in its presentation of antithetical ideas, and is best characterized by
Dryden’s own explanation in his Defence of An Essay of Dramatic Poesy (1688),
“My whole discourse was sceptical… You see it is a dialogue sustained by
persons of several opinions, all of them left doubtful, to be determined by the
readers in general.” In the beginning, Lisideius proposes quite a general definition
for a play- “A just and lively Image of Human Nature”- which everyone accepts.
Then they all provide examples of what they consider to be the best dramatic
representation. Crites begins the debate with his advocacy of the Ancients: the
radically classical viewpoint. It is true that he shows his preference for the plays
of “the last age” (Elizabethan and Jacobean) over the present; he clearly affirms
that in classical drama we find the eternal verities, which have never received
more powerful expression. The current age has found its own genius in scientific
progress, but in the theater it must conform to the rules provided by its
predecessors. The application of the pseudo-Aristotelian “Unities” is an example
of how far short of the classical model the Moderns have fallen. Eugenius, in
response, attempts to turn Crites’ points against him. He says that progress in
science has been equally matched by progress in arts. The Moderns have
improved upon the older dramatists’ hackneyed exploitation of myth. They are
more precise observers of the “Unities,” which are mostly the product of
continental criticism.
Moreover, the modern theater has corrected the
moral laxity of the Ancients, whose plays too often ignored a “Prosperous
Wickedness, and an Unhappy Piety.” Lisideius introduces the second topic of the
debate. He accepts the success of the earlier English stage, but relocates modern
classicism in France. The French are strict observers of the “Unities”. They have
rejected that peculiar English hybrid, the tragicomedy. They have modernized and
simplified their plots to give them a familiar credibility and have engaged in a
more searching exploration of human passion. Narration has, to an extent,
replaced action with the result that death scenes and acts of violence do not
distract the performances. This has helped in securing a new verisimilitude.
Neander offers the concluding reply and summarizes the discussion on Dryden’s
behalf. He acknowledges the superior “decorum” of French drama, but qualifies
his approval by saying that French plays enjoy only the lifeless beauty of a statue.

[6]
With regard to ‘Unity of Place’, he apparently ridicules the scenery moving
around two motionless characters as they continuously orate. The English stage,
on the other hand, is more vital and more exciting. Subplots and tragicomedy
provide variety and contrast; dramatic dialogue is better suited to passion, and
even violent action is justified on the ground that it appeals to popular taste.
Thus, Neander attempts a more realistic definition of a
play by shifting the focus from “just” to “lively,” from an exact but mechanical
verisimilitude to a more dynamic likeness to life Despite Dryden’s claim that the
Essay is a skeptical discourse, Neander’s conclusion point to Dryden’s actual
intention of vindicating English drama. English drama is one which adequately
conform to the rules, but which also tends to be inclusive enough to accommodate
the wilder genius of a Shakespeare who “when he describes any thing, you more
than see it, you feel it too.” Thus, An Essay on Dramatic Poesy, in a dialogical
from, examines different critical arguments of his contemporary England
regarding dramatic poetry. The justification of English theatre by Dryden through
Neander marks a new phase in the British history when writing poetry was as
significant as defining culture and new idioms of art. It is, thus, clear that An
Essay on Dramatic Poesy is an account of neo-classical theory of art in general.
It is important to note that the concept of imitation was central to the neoclassical
literary theory and practice. Mimesis was understood as the imitation of nature as
objects or phenomena. Neoclassicists believed that writers should strive to
achieve excellence by imitating the great writers of the past. Dryden was himself
a neoclassic critic, and as such he dealt with issues of form and morality in drama.
However, he was not dogmatic, imitating mechanically the classical unities or the
notions of what constitutes a "proper" character for the stage. He relied heavily
on Corneille, and through him on Horace, which placed him in the great tradition
of true English critic.
Dryden’s views are articulated primarily through
the character of Neander, who is widely recognized as Dryden’s own
spokesperson in the dialogue. Neander argues that the essence of poetry lies in its
ability to present a “just and lively image of human nature.” This phrase, which
has become one of the most frequently cited in English criticism, captures the
dual aspect of Dryden’s theory of poetic imitation. The “just” image refers to the
truthfulness of the representation—poetry must capture the essential qualities of
human nature and experience. The “lively” image, on the other hand, refers to the
vividness and emotional power of the representation—poetry must bring its

[7]
subject to life, engaging the imagination and the emotions of its audience.In this
way, Dryden moves beyond the classical notion of mimesis as a mere copying of
nature. He insists that the poet is not a passive recorder of reality but an active
creator, who selects, orders, and transforms the raw material of experience into a
work of art. The poet’s imagination is thus central to the process of poetic
creation, and it is this imaginative power that enables poetry to transcend the
limitations of ordinary reality and offer something richer and more profound.
Dryden’s emphasis on the creative and transformative role of the poet anticipates
many of the ideas that would later be developed by the Romantic poets, who
likewise saw the imagination as the defining faculty of the artist.
Another key aspect of Dryden’s theory is his view of
the function of poetry. While acknowledging that poetry can and often does
instruct, Dryden is adamant that its primary purpose is to delight. This is a crucial
shift from the prevailing neoclassical view, which tended to subordinate delight
to instruction. For Dryden, the pleasure that poetry provides is not merely a
superficial or secondary effect; it is the very essence of the poetic experience.
Poetry delights by engaging the senses, the emotions, and the intellect, drawing
the audience into a world that is at once familiar and transformed. This delight,
in turn, makes the instruction that poetry offers more effective, for it is only when
the audience is moved and engaged that they are open to learning and reflection.
Dryden’s insistence on the primacy of delight does not
mean that he dismisses the importance of instruction. Rather, he sees the two as
intimately connected. The best poetry, in his view, is that which instructs as it
delights, offering both pleasure and insight. This balanced approach allows
Dryden to appreciate the achievements of a wide range of poets and dramatists,
from the ancients to his own contemporaries. He praises Shakespeare, for
example, not only for his ability to capture the complexities of human nature but
also for the emotional power and beauty of his language. At the same time,
Dryden is critical of those who would sacrifice the vitality and immediacy of
poetry for the sake of rigid adherence to rules or moralizing.One of the most
innovative aspects of "An Essay of Dramatic Poesy" is Dryden’s critical
liberalism. Unlike many of his contemporaries, who were quick to condemn any
deviation from classical norms, Dryden advocates for a more flexible and
pragmatic approach to criticism. He argues that the rules of classical drama—
such as the unities of time, place, and action—should not be seen as absolute laws
but as useful guidelines that can be adapted or even set aside when the demands

[8]
of the work require it. This openness to innovation and experimentation is evident
in Dryden’s defense of English drama, which he sees as more lively, varied, and
emotionally engaging than its French or classical counterparts.
Dryden’s appreciation for the vitality and diversity of
English drama is particularly evident in his discussion of Shakespeare and Ben
Jonson. He acknowledges that Shakespeare often violated the classical unities
and mixed genres in ways that would have been unthinkable to the ancients or the
French. Yet, Dryden argues, it is precisely this willingness to break the rules that
gives Shakespeare’s plays their unique power and appeal. Shakespeare’s genius
lies in his ability to create works that are both true to life and profoundly moving,
works that speak to the deepest emotions and aspirations of the human soul.In
contrast, Dryden is critical of the French dramatists, who, in his view, have
sacrificed the liveliness and emotional impact of drama for the sake of order and
decorum. The French plays, he argues, are often too constrained by rules,
resulting in works that are elegant and refined but ultimately lacking in vitality
and passion. Dryden’s critique of French drama is not merely a matter of national
pride; it reflects his broader belief that the ultimate test of poetry is its ability to
move and delight its audience. Rules and conventions are valuable only insofar
as they serve this higher purpose.
Throughout "An Essay of Dramatic Poesy," Dryden
demonstrates a remarkable ability to balance respect for tradition with a
willingness to embrace change and innovation. He is deeply knowledgeable about
the achievements of the ancients and the French, and he is quick to acknowledge
their strengths. At the same time, he is unafraid to challenge their limitations and
to champion the creative freedom of the poet. This balanced and open-minded
approach is one of the hallmarks of Dryden’s criticism and one of the reasons
why his essay remains so influential.Dryden’s "An Essay of Dramatic Poesy"
offers a rich and nuanced exploration of the nature and function of poetry. By
defining poetry as a “just and lively image of human nature,” Dryden emphasizes
the importance of both truthfulness and imaginative power in poetic creation. He
insists that the primary function of poetry is to delight, and that instruction, while
valuable, is secondary and dependent on the poet’s ability to engage and move
the audience. Dryden’s critical liberalism, his appreciation for the creative power
of the imagination, and his willingness to challenge rigid conventions have made
his essay a foundational text in the history of English criticism. In celebrating the
vitality and diversity of English drama, Dryden not only defends the

[9]
achievements of his own age but also lays the groundwork for the development
of a more flexible and dynamic critical tradition. His insights into the nature and
function of poetry continue to resonate, reminding us of the enduring power of
art to both reflect and transform the human experience.

He was sensitive enough to realize that the essence of art lies in reinvention
and rediscovery. For him, the complex notion of nature, which closely related to
the notion of imitation, also implied aspects of the real world and human
behaviour, what was central, timeless, and universal in human experience. From
this point of view, it was natural on his part to defend Subplots and tr Dryden’s
Essay provides the reader with a main frame through which it is possible to
analyse his poems and plays. With a unique linguistic style in his poems, Dryden
furthers his manifold ideas to the reader. The beauty of his poems lies not only in
his ability to play with language, but also in his extraordinary style of choosing a
subject matter to dwell upon. Although he famously supports the monarchy and
often praises the deeds of the king, he deftly chooses the minor topics which he
sprinkles all around in his poems and plays. In this part of the study, Dryden’s
Annus Mirabilis, All for Love, “Mac Frecknoe” and Absolom and Achitophel will
be analysed against the background of his Essay.
To begin with, let’s look at how Dryden works out
his idea of the greatness of the English poesy over that of the others. To be more
precise, even though he does not establish the binary oppositions between this or
that, his stance is more than clear in this regard. In other words, although it would
be a difficult task to outline the characteristics of the English poesy that make it
better than the poesy of the other nations or periods, it can be easily seen that
Dryden approaches the English in the same manner in all terms. In other words,
it is possible to see the elevation of the English nation in Dryden’s works.
Dryden’s Annus Mirabilis: The Year of Wonders 1666, an elaboration on the
“wonderful year” as the title suggests, has been regarded as his longest poem. The
poem ardently praises the English fleet for their double victory over the Dutch
while celebrating English people’s stamina to survive the Great Fire of London
in 1666 and to withstand its drastic consequences. Not surprisingly, a poet, for
whom English poesy stands above all other poesies, dramatises the English
nation’s experience in his poem. What is more, Annus Mirabilis celebrates the
coronation of the king, Charles II, as well as his supremacy as a monarch and a

[10]
leader in a war: What Neander says here is quite a loud pronouncement because
he claims the French lack the soul of poesy.
The claim here is that the French poesy belongs to a
limited range of scope and cannot thrive all of sudden where it does not exist. In
other words, it is not influential; it does not evoke a sense of inspiration in a
person. It can also be claimed that while the French just imitate the ancients, the
English imitate them and add their own hue to the poesy. That is why Neander
likens the French poesy to the beauties of a statue and that of the English to a
living man. One of the reasons why the French lack soul in their literature is their
inability or reluctance to blend genres in their plays. As Neander adds, life is not
based only on one genre – tragedy or comedy. Life has a soul when it embraces
both poles, sometimes at the same time. And when the French have come to
understand it, maintains Neander, they started to imitate the English: “But of late
years Moliere, the younger Corneille, Quinault, and some others, have been
imitating afar off the quick turns and graces of the English stage. They have mixed
their serious plays with mirth, like our tragi-comedies, since the death of Cardinal
Richlieu.” Neander concludes that the English literature has reached the stage
from where it influences French literature. Yet, as Neander states, even though
there is a glimpse of comedy in French tragedies, it is so “thin-sown” that it cannot
manifest its profound possibilities as a genre. Indeed, French plays withstand
changes and development to their own dismay. Another reason for French
literature’s lack of soul is its rigidity in terms of plot and content. Unlike the
French plays, the English plays are crowded in terms of content; there are many
characters and many plots.
And related to this, Neander argues: “‘Tis evident that the
more the persons are, the greater will be the variety of the plot . . . you will find
it infinitely pleasing to be led in a labyrinth of design.” Neander links the high
number of characters with the richness of plot and ultimately to the audience’s
pleasure of discovery. It is due to the complexity of the plot that the audience
becomes amazed by the play. In addition, as Neander states, the English like
action in their plays: “I know not; but they will scarcely suffer combats and other
objects of horrour to be taken from them.” Feelings of rivalry, fear, and victory
are the elements of plays through which the audience feels the soul of the work.

[11]
 Chapter – two
Methodology
To decode Dryden’s views on the nature and function of poetry as presented in
his critical essay "An Essay of Dramatic Poesy," a systematic methodology can
be followed. Begin by analyzing the dialogic structure of the essay, which is
presented as a conversation among four characters—Eugenius, Crites, Lisideius,
and Neander (Dryden’s own voice). This structure allows Dryden to present
various perspectives on poetry and drama, and it is important to identify which
arguments are ultimately endorsed by Neander, as these reflect Dryden’s own
critical stance.Next, conduct a thematic analysis by extracting Dryden’s
definitions and assertions about poetry. Focus on his idea that poetry, especially
dramatic poetry, is a "just and lively image of human nature," designed to both
delight and instruct. Pay attention to how Dryden emphasizes the poet’s creative
role—not as a mere imitator of reality, but as someone who refines and heightens
it through imagination. Note his prioritization of delight over instruction, which
marks a shift from the didactic tradition of earlier critics.
A comparative approach is also useful, as Dryden
frequently contrasts ancient and modern drama, as well as French and English
traditions. Examine how he defends English dramatists like Shakespeare for their
emotional depth and creative freedom, even when they break classical rules. This
comparative criticism highlights Dryden’s pragmatic and liberal approach to
literary standards.Placing the essay in its historical context is equally important.
Consider the circumstances of its composition, such as the closure of theaters
during the plague and the influence of French neoclassicism. Understanding the
cultural and historical background helps explain the urgency and relevance of the
debates Dryden addresses.Close reading of key passages will reveal Dryden’s
nuanced arguments about the function of poetry. Focus on sections where he
discusses the importance of emotional resonance, the justification for mixing
tragedy and comedy, and his views on the use of rhyme in drama. These passages
illuminate Dryden’s belief in the imaginative and pleasurable aspects of poetry.
Finally, synthesize these findings to articulate
Dryden’s overall critical philosophy. He sees poetry as an imaginative art that
offers a heightened, pleasurable, and instructive representation of life. He

[12]
advocates for a balance between creative freedom and adherence to certain rules,
ultimately favoring innovation and the genius of individual poets over rigid
classical constraints. This methodology ensures a thorough and nuanced
interpretation of Dryden’s views as propounded in "An Essay of Dramatic Poesy."
It was that memorable day, in the first Summer of the late War, when our Navy
engaged the Dutch: a day wherein the two most mighty and best appointed Fleets
which any age had ever seen, disputed the command of the greater half of the
Globe, the commerce of Nations, and the riches of the Universe. While these vast
floating bodies, on either side, moved against each other in parallel lines, and our
Country men, under the happy conduct of his Royal Highness, went breaking, by
little and little, into the line of the Enemies; the noise of the Cannon from both
Navies reached our ears about the City: so that all men, being alarmed with it,
and in a dreadful suspense of the event, which we knew was then deciding, every
one went following the sound as his fancy led him; and leaving the Town almost
empty, some took towards the Park, some cross the River, others down it; all
seeking the noise in the depth of silence.
Amongst the rest, it was the fortune of Eugenius,
Crites, Lisideius and Neander, to be in company together: three of them persons
whom their wit and Quality have made known to all the Town: and whom I have
chose to hide under these borrowed names, that they may not suffer by so ill a
relation as I am going to make of their discourse.Taking then a Barge which a
servant of Lisideus had provided for them, they made haste to shoot the Bridge,
and left behind them that great fall of waters which hindered them from hearing
what they desired: after which, having disengaged themselves from many Vessels
which rode at Anchor in the Thames, and almost blocked up the passage towards
Greenwich, they ordered the Watermen to let fall their Oars more gently; and then
every one favoring his own curiosity with a strict silence, it was not long ere they
perceived the Air break about them like the noise of distant. Thunder, or of
Swallows in a Chimney: those little undulations of sound, though almost
vanishing before they reached them, yet still seeming to retain somewhat of their
first horror which they had betwixt the Fleets: after they had attentively listened
till such time as the sound by little and little went from them; Eugenius lifting up
his head, and taking notice of it, was the first who congratulated to the rest that
happy Omen of our Nations Victory adding, we had but this to desire in
confirmation of it, that we might hear no more of that noise which was now
leaving the English Coast. When the rest had concurred in the same opinion,
Crites, a person of a sharp judgment, and somewhat too delicate a taste in wit,

[13]
which the world have mistaken in him for ill nature, said, smiling to us, that if the
concernment of this battle had not been so exceeding great, he could scarce have
wished the Victory at the price he knew must pay for it, in being subject to the
reading and hearing of so many ill verses as he was sure would be made upon it;
adding, that no Argument could scape some of those eternal Rhymers, who watch
a Battle with more diligence than the Ravens and birds of Prey; and the worst of
them surest to be first in upon the quarry, while the better able, either out of
modesty writ not at all, or set that due value upon their Poems, as to let them be
often called for and long expected! “There are some of those impertinent people
you speak of,” answered Lisideius, “who to my knowledge, are already so
provided, either way, that they can produce not only a Panegyric upon the Victory,
but, if need be, a funeral elegy upon the Duke: and after they have crowned his
valor with many Laurels, at last deplore the odds under which he fell, concluding
that his courage deserved a better destiny.”
All the company smiled at the conceit of Lisideius, but
Crites, more eager than before, began to make particular exceptions against some
Writers, and said the public Magistrate ought to send betimes to forbid them; and
that it concerned the peace and quiet of all honest people, that ill Poets should be
as well silenced as seditious Preachers. “In my opinion,” replied Eugenius, “you
pursue your point too far; for as to my own particular, I am so great a lover of
Poesy, that I could wish them all rewarded who attempt but to do well; at least I
would not have them worse used than Sylla the Dictator did one of their brethren
heretofore: Quem in concione vidimus (says Tully speaking of him) cum ei
libellum malus poeta de populo subjecisset, quod epigramma in eum fecisset
tantummodo alternis versibus longiuculis, statim ex iis rebus quæ tunc vendebat
jubere ei præmium tribui, sub ea conditione ne quid postea scriberet.” [We saw
him once in an assembly, when out of the crowd a bad poet offered him an
epigram in elegiac verse that he had just written as an attack on Sylla; he
immediately ordered that the poet be given a reward out of the articles that he was
selling, with the condition that he never again write anything—ed.] “I could wish
with all my heart,” replied Crites, “that many whom we know were as bountifully
thanked upon the same condition, that they would never trouble us again. For
amongst others, I have a mortal apprehension of two Poets, whom this victory
with the help of both her wings will never be able to escape.” “’Tis easy to guess
whom you intend,” said Lisideius; “and without naming them, I ask you if one of
them does not perpetually pay us with clenches upon words and a certain
clownish kind of raillery? if now and then he does not offer at a Catachresis or

[14]
Clevelandism, wresting and torturing a word into another meaning: In fine, if he
be not one of those whom the French would call un mauvais buffon; one that is
so much a well-willer to the Satire, that he spares no man; and though he cannot
strike a blow to hurt any, yet ought to be punished for the malice of the action, as
our Witches are justly hanged because they think themselves so; and suffer
deservedly for believing they did mischief, because they meant it.” “You have
described him,” said Crites, “so exactly, that I am afraid to come after you with
my other extremity of Poetry: He is one of those who having had some advantage
of education and converse, knows better than the other what a Poet should be, but
puts it into practice more unluckily than any man; his stile and matter are every
where alike; he is the most calm, peaceable. Writer you ever read: he never
disquiets your passions with the least concernment, but still leaves you in as even
a temper as he found you; he is a very Leveller in Poetry, he creeps along with
ten little words in every line, and helps out his Numbers with For to, and Unto,
and all the pretty Expletives he can find, till he drags them to the end of another
line; while the Sense is left tired half way behind it; he doubly starves all his
Verses, first for want of thought, and then of expression; his Poetry neither has
wit in it, nor seems to have it; like him in Martial: Pauper videri Cinna vult, et
est pauper [Cinna wants to seem to be a pauper; and, sure enough, he is a pauper]:
He affects plainness, to cover his want of imagination: when he writes the serious
way, the highest flight of his fancy is some miserable Antithesis, or seeming
contradiction; and in the Comic he is still reaching at some thin conceit, the ghost
of a Jest, and that too flies before him, never to be caught; these Swallows which
we see before us on the Thames, are just resemblance of his wit: you may observe
how near the water they stoop, how many proffers they make to dip, and yet how
seldom they touch it: and when they do, ’tis but the surface: they skim over it but
to catch a gnat, and then mount into the air and leave it.”
“Well Gentlemen,” said Eugenius, “you may speak
your pleasure of these Authors; but though I and some few more about the Town
may give you a peaceable hearing, yet, assure yourselves, there are multitudes
who would think you malicious and them injured: especially him who you first
described; he is the very Withers of the City: they have bought more Editions of
his Works than would serve to lay under all the Pies at the Lord Mayor’s
Christmas. When his famous Poem first came out in the year, I have seen them
reading it in the midst of Change-time; many so vehement they were at it, that
they lost their bargain by the Candles ends: but what will you say, if he has been
received amongst the great Ones? I can assure you he is, this day, the envy of a

[15]
great person, who is Lord in the Art of Quibbling; and who does not take it well,
that any man should intrude so far into his Province.” “All I would wish,” replied
“As for the third Unity which is that of Action, the Ancients meant no other by it
than what the Logicians do by their Finis, the end or scope of an action that which
is the first in Intention, and last in Execution: now the Poet is to aim at one great
and complete action, to the carrying on of which all things in his Play, even the
very obstacles, are to be subservient; and the reason of this is as evident as any of
the former.
“For two Actions equally labored and driven on by the
Writer, would destroy the unity of the Poem; it would be no longer one Play, but
two: not but that there may be many actions in a Play, as Ben Jonson has observed
in his Discoveries; but they must be all subservient to the great one, which our
language happily expresses in the name of under-plots: such as in
Terence’s Eunuch is the difference and reconcilement of Thais and Phædria,
which is not the chief business of the Play, but promotes; the marriage of Chærea
and Chreme’s Sister, principally intended by the Poet. There ought to be one
action, says Corneille, that is one complete action which leaves the mind of the
Audience in a full repose: But this cannot be brought to pas but by many other
imperfect ones which conduce to it, and hold the Audience in a delightful
suspense of what will be.“If by these Rules (to omit many other drawn from the
Precepts and Practice of the Ancients) we should judge our modern Plays; ’Tis
probable, that few of them would endure the trial: that which should be the
business of a day, takes up in some of them an age; instead of one action they are
the Epitomes of a man’s life,; and for one spot of ground (which the Stage should
represent) we are sometimes in more Countries than the Map can show us.“But
if we will allow the Ancients to have contrived well, we must acknowledge them
to have writ better; questionless we are deprived of a great stock of wit in the loss
of Meander among the Greek Poets, and of Caeilius, Affranius and Varius, among
the Romans: we may guess of Menander’s Excellency by the Plays of Terence..
Cæsar the Half-Menander, and of Varius, by the
Testimonies of Horace Martial, and Velleus Paterculus: ’Tis probable that these,
could they be recovered, would decide the controversy; but so long as
Aristophanes in the old Comedy, and Plautus in the new are extant; while the
Tragedies of Euripides, Sophocles, and Seneca are to be had, I can never see one
of those Plays which are now written, but it increases my admiration of the
Ancients; and yet I must acknowledge further, that to admire them as we ought,

[16]
we should understand them better than we do. Doubtless many things appear flat
to us, whose wit depended upon some custom or story which never came to our
knowledge, or perhaps upon some Criticism in their language, which being so
long dead, and only remaining in their Books, ’tis not possible they should make
us know it perfectly. To read Macrobius, explaining the propriety and elegancy of
many words in Virgil, which I had before passed over without consideration, as
common things, is enough to assure me that I ought to think the same of Terence;
and that in the purity of his style (which Tully so much valued that he ever carried
his works about him) there is yet left in him great room for admiration, if I knew
but where to place it. In the mean time I must desire you to take notice, that the
greatest man of the last age (Ben Jonson) was willing to give place to them in all
things: He was not only a professed Imitator of Horace, but a learned Plagiary of
all the others; you track him every where in their Snow: If Horace, Lucan,
Petronius Arbiter, Seneca, and Juvenal, had their own from him, there are few
serious thoughts which are new in him; you will pardon me therefore if I presume
he loved their fashion when he wore their clothes.
But since I have otherwise a great veneration for
him, and you Eugenius, prefer him above all other Poets, I will use no farther
argument to you than his example: I will produce Father Ben to you, dressed in
all the ornaments and colors of the Ancients, you will need no other guide to our
Party if you follow him; and whether you consider the bad Plays of our Age, or
regard the good ones of the last, both the best and worst of the Modern Poets will
equally instruct you to esteem the Ancients.”Crites had no sooner left speaking,
but Eugenius who waited with some impatience for it, thus began:“I have
observed in your Speech that the former part of it is convincing as to what the
Moderns have profited by the rules of the Ancients, but in the latter you are careful
to conceal how much they have excelled them: we own all the helps we have from
them, and want neither veneration nor gratitude while we acknowledge that to
overcome them we must make use of the advantages we have received from them;
but to these assistances we have joined our own industry; for (had we sat down
with a dull imitation of them) we might then have lost somewhat of the old
perfection, but never acquired any that was new.
We draw not therefore after their lines, but those of
Nature; and having the life before us, besides the experience of all they knew, it
is no wonder if we hit some airs and features which they have missed: I deny not
what you urge of Arts and Sciences, that they have flourished in some ages more

[17]
than others; but your instance in Philosophy makes for me: for if Natural Causes
be more known now than in the time of Aristotle, because more studied, it follows
that Poesy and other Arts may with the same pains arrive still nearer to perfection,
and, that granted, it will rest for you to prove that they wrought more perfect
images of human life than we; which, seeing in your Discourse you have avoided
to make good, it shall now be my task to show you some part of their defects, and
some few Excellencies of the Moderns; and I think there is none among us can
imagine I do it enviously, or with purpose to detract from them; for what interest
of Fame or Profit can the living lose by the reputation of the dead? on the other
side, it is a great truth which Velleius Paterculus affirms. Be pleased then in the
first place to take notice, that the Greek Poesy, which Crites has affirmed to have
arrived to perfection in the Reign of the old Comedy, was so far from it, that the
distinction of it into Acts was not known to them; or if it were, it is yet so darkly
delivered to us that we can not make it out.
All we know of it is from the singing of their Chorus,
and that too is so uncertain that in some of their Plays we have reason to
conjecture they sung more than five times: Aristotle indeed divides the integral
parts of a Play into four: First, The Protasis or entrance, which gives light only to
the Characters of the persons, and proceeds very little into any part of the action:
Secondly, The Epitasis, or working up of the Plot where the Play grows warmer:
the design or action of it is drawing on, and you see something promising that it
will come to pass:
Thirdly, the Catastasis, or Counterturn, which
destroys that expectation, embroils the action in new difficulties, and leaves you
far distant from that hope in which it found you, as you may have observed in a
violent stream resisted by a narrow passage; it runs round to an eddy, and carries
back the waters with more swiftness than it brought them on: Lastly, the
Catastrophe, which the Grecians called lysis, the French le denouement, and we
the discovery or unraveling of the Plot: there you see all things settling again upon
their first foundations, and the obstacles which hindered the design or action of
the Play once removed, it ends with that resemblance of truth and nature, that the
audience are satisfied with the conduct of it. Thus this great man delivered to us
the image of a Play, and I must confess it is so lively that from thence much light
has been derived to the forming it more perfectly into Acts and Scenes; but what
Poet first limited to five the number of the Acts I know not; only we see it so
firmly established in the time of Horace this Art; writing rather by Entrances than

[18]
by Acts, and having rather a general indigested notion of a Play, than knowing
how and where to bestow the particular .

[19]
 Chapter – three
Result
John Dryden presents a nuanced and influential view on the nature and function
of poetry. He builds on classical ideas, especially Aristotle’s concept of mimesis,
but adds his own perspective. For Dryden, poetry is not a mere, literal imitation
of reality. Instead, it is a creative and imaginative reconstruction of life—a "just
and lively image of human nature." By "just," Dryden means poetry should be
true to the essence of life, while "lively" suggests that poetry should be vivid,
engaging, and elevated beyond ordinary reality. The poet, therefore, is not just a
passive recorder of facts but an artist who selects, shapes, and refines material,
making it more beautiful and meaningful.Dryden also discusses the function of
poetry, arguing that its primary purpose is to delight the audience, with instruction
being a secondary goal. This marks a departure from the prevailing view of his
time, which often emphasized the moral or didactic role of poetry. Dryden
synthesizes earlier critical traditions—Plato’s emphasis on instruction, Aristotle’s
on delight, Horace’s on both, and Longinus’s on transport—by asserting that
poetry should ultimately please and move its audience. He values the imaginative
power of poetry, defending the use of the supernatural and the improbable, as
seen in Shakespeare’s plays, because they engage the audience’s emotions and
imagination.
Importantly, Dryden advocates a flexible, liberal
approach to poetic rules. He criticizes rigid adherence to classical unities and
conventions, arguing that the true measure of poetry lies in its emotional impact
and imaginative richness rather than in strict observance of rules. He praises
English dramatists like Shakespeare for their "liveliness" and ability to capture
the full range of human experience, even when they break classical norms.In
summary, Dryden views poetry as an imaginative art that transforms reality, with
its chief function being to delight and move the audience. He champions the
creative freedom of the poet and the importance of emotional and aesthetic
pleasure, marking a significant evolution in literary criticism.
In Indian literary history, myth and folklore have
always kept prominent positions. The two epics Ramayana and Mahabharata as
well as the Purana have been an unending resource for literature as well as plays.
But after the advent of British rule, the themes of Indian Drama changed due to
increased knowledge of the option of use of themes other than myth, and drama

[20]
moved its concentration towards social and political themes. Myths, legends and
folk forms function as a kind of cultural anesthesia and they have been used for
introducing and eliminating cultural pathogens suchas caste and gender
distinctions and religious fanaticism. Girish Karnad makes use of myths and folk
forms in his plays to exorcise socio-cultural evils. He even goes further and
deflates the concept of chastity. He seems to suggest that matriarchy, the lost
paradise of mankind, will come again. In all his plays- be mythical, historical or
legendary – Karnad’s approach is modern. In his play, Hayavadana, he reinforces
the central problem of human existence in a world of tangled relationships . The
play is about Rani, representing a classic Hindu wife. Appanna, a rich young
man of village, marries her and brings her to his house when she reaches
womanhood. After taking his bath and dine, he locks her in and goes to his
concubine. He does not care for her feelings andconsiders her a subhuman slave
who is to serve him with utmost loyalty.
He treats her with thecontempt of a typical male
chauvinist. She feels very lonely, frightened and miserable. When sheexpresses
her fear and loneliness, he ruthlessly disregards and dominates her feelings. She
is literally imprisoned in the house and it is almost a solitary confinement for her
husband Appannaorders, “She won’t talk to anyone. And no one needs talk to
her.” She is deprived of theaffection of her as her fellow human beings and the
knowledge of the outer world. So, her personality remains underdeveloped. She
is just a child mentally. She daydreams that she is takenby an eagle to her parents
who caress her affectionately. She moans in her sleep for her parents. Besides
Rani, Appanna has a mistress whom he visits every night and comes to Rani only
at noon. His treatment with Rani is monstrous and animalistic. He keeps her
locked up inside thehouse so that she cannot express her grievance to anyone. Her
sexual desires are neglected. She is frequently beaten. Her emotions are crushed
mercilessly. And socially, she is not allowed tocommunicate with anyone outside
the house. Rani’s dreams and desires are shattered. She turns voiceless and choice
less. She does not find emotional, social or sexual satisfaction from theinstitution
of marriage. Appanna’s inhuman treatment is witnessed on the first day of their
marriage when instead of being with Rani, Appanna goes to meet his mistress and
locks Rani up inthe house. He says, “…I'll be back tomorrow at noon. Keep my
lunch ready. I shall eat and go”. He doesn’t even tell her the reason. Neither has
he told her where he is going. Because of thepatriarchy conditioned mind, she
even does not gather courage to question his night visit. Her upbringing in
patriarchal setup has made her timid, shy and submissive. She has lost her

[21]
capacity to question. As a result, she fails to gather courage and confidence to
question theexploitative and oppressive system. Women do not have freedom to
question. However, they are questioned in case they deviateslightly from the
prescribed path of patriarchal system. For Appanna, there is no social, ethical or
established taboo. He is free from all limitations and his actions are not subjected
to questions. Karnad very ingeniously raises the issue that our conformist society
and social laws insist loyaltyand dedication from a wife even to a disloyal and
heartless husband. Rani is always locked byAppana in the house. This lock and
key is the symbolical representation. Girish karnad makes use of myths, rituals
and folklore as his source for his plays, not for theglorification of the chosen
myths but to relate the myths to the present and to the part beliefs found in these
myths.
Human values and behavior seem to follow well
set norms. Karnad provides us with the glimpse of the part as past as well as its
relevance to an understanding thecontemporary world. In his play, Hayavadana,
he emphasizes on the central problem of human existence in a world of tangled
relationships. In Hayavadana, he skillfully uses the morality and theme of
Indianmythology, folk tales and folk theatre- masks, curtains, dolls, the story-
within-a-story—to createa bizarre world of incomplete individuals, apathetic
gods, dolls that speak and children who cannot – world which appears to be
indifferent to the desires and disappointments, joys andsorrows of human beings.
The main plot of the play begins with Kapila, who finds his best friend Devadatta
despondently dreaming about Padmini. Kapila, who is a is a wrestler whereas
Devadatta is a scholarly Brahmin and poet but is physically weak. Kapila goes to
arrange Devadatta's marriage to her and realizes that Padmini is as clever as she
is beautiful. Although Kapila is attracted to her, he arranges the match, and
Devadatta and Padmini are married.After the wedding, Padmini finds herself
getting attracted to the strong-bodied Kapila, and Devadatta is consumed by
jealousy. He felt bad on the act of his wife as he decided to offer himself to Kali,
but Kapila too is not left behind. The two men behead themselves in the Kali
temple. The pregnant Padmini, afraid that she might be blamed for their deaths,
then decides to kill herself. However, Kali stops her andoffers to bring the men
back to life. Padmini rearranges the heads so that Devadatta's head is on Kapi la's
body and vice versa and asks the goddess to do her magic. The presence of
goddess Kali reveals the religious sentiment prevalent in Indian society, culture
and psychology. Karnad shows that the individual’s identity depends on the

[22]
 The bodily presenceof any given individual in America
may indeed be tangibly located somewhere in its bountiful topography, but the
soul may well be surfing on tidal waves of murky memories breaking theshores
of genetic inheritance and the collective unconscious Karnad uses the elements
of folk theatre to great advantage, and combines the symbolic andthe absurd quite
effectively within the limits of theatrical credibility. A characteristic feature of the
Indian ethos is the effortless bringing together on the same plane of the human,
thesupernatural and the inanimate worlds, the ‘willing suspension of disbelief ’,
being secured byendowing supernatural beings and inanimate creatures with
human follies and foibles. The dolls are jealous of the baby and watch the growing
flabbiness of the post transposition of Devadatta’s and Padmini’s sinful dreams
of Kapila with ironic glee. Unlike western realistic theatre, there is no attempt to
present the dramatic action as slice of life; the fact of dramatic illusion is
stressedas in Brecht’s epic theatre. In Naga-Mandala, “Rani’s predicament
poignantly reflects the human need to live by fictions and half-truths. Her search
for truth finally goes beyond a point and hence, tumbles down thewhole edifice
of day-to-day life”, says Surendran in his Rani’s Predicament in Nagamandala.
This is so because she has to do two roles of safe-guarding the small cobra and
her family.Karnadbuilds his plays around an image/motif.
As the play progresses, the image/motif, through its waves
of connotations grows into a metaphor. Finally the whole play develops an
extension of this metaphor; and the play, in turn, becomes a metaphor for
something outside the play. The play, The Fire and the Rain, as analysed by
Karnad, is that ‘Agni’ the Sanskrit word for fire, carries the connotations of
holiness and the ritual status of ceremony. ‘Male’ is a Kannadaword meaning rain,
pure and simple. ‘Mattu’ means and. Thus, the phrase ‘Agni Mattu Male’,
inaddition to counter pointing two physical elements normally seen as
antagonistic, also sets upseveral oppositions: between Indo-Aryan (Sanskrit) and
a Dravidian (Kannada) language, betweenthe national and regional points of
view, between the classical ‘marga’ and the less exalted ‘desi’ traditions, between
the elevated and the mundane, and even perhaps, the sacred and the secular (1998,
63). The title is significant as it shows the various aspects of themes dealt with in
theplay.Sacrifices also form a part of such religious practice as seen in the
eradication of the self physically in Hayavadana, the snake ordeal that Rani
undergoes in Nagamandala, the seven years Fire Yagna in The Fire and the Rain
Karnad’s plays are not only good literature but also goodtheatre; asks, Costumes
and Characterisation In Naga-Mandala, the Naga assumes the shape of Appanna

[23]
and transforms Rani from aninnocent, frightened, dreamy girl to a mature woman.
The magical roots given by the blindwoman, Kuruduva help in transforming the
Naga into Appanna. With the ingression of the snakeinto her life, her
transformation begins. The Naga comes at night to meet Rani when her
husbandlocks her in. Rani is naïve, innocent and rigid and is instructed by the
Naga not to ask questions about anything that happens.
Rani is blind to the reality but her blindness seems, as
quoted bySavita Goel, “. . . ambiguous. She is unable to comprehend how the
distant and brutal husbandwho visits her at midday transforms into a sensuous
lover at night” (1986, 113). Rani says, “Youtalk so nicely at night. But during the
day I only have to open my mouth and you hiss like a. . . stupid snake” (II, 22).
She abides by the rules imposed by the patriarchal society and only whenshe is
pregnant does the real problem dawn upon her. Her husband accuses her of being
disloyal as he is very sure that she has found a lover, “Aren’t you ashamed to
admit it, you harlot? I lockedyou in and yet you managed to find a lover!” (II, 33)
Rani is surprised as she could not comprehend as to what had happened. And,
finally she had to accept the words of Naga, and shethe plays harmonise at the
intellectual, symbolic, allegoric levels and external dramaticaction with the
proper balancing of theatrical and literary commitments. undertakes the snake
ordeal to prove herself; she confesses, swearing by the King Cobra that shehas
not touched any one of the male sex, except her husband and this snake. Karnad,
in Hayavadana or in any other play, does not specify the costume of his character,
because he leaves it to suit the director or actor and it is this marked respect for
the directors or producers that makes his text an excellent theatre. Items of
clothing have specific connotations but these can be easily changed, extended or
inverted with the change in the wearer and thesituation. Costumes act as a loaded
signifier. In many ancient settings, many kinds of clothing, head gears, gas styles,
or masks were rendered for particular castes, ranks, ethnic groups,
andregeneration. Drama had ready material to suit its own purpose. They could
then be made toreflect the essential meaning of a persona and its ethos. The same
aim was fulfilled by the use of masks in Greek theatre. Transformation is related
to the supernatural. The crossing of boundaries is perilous, and amagical event. It
might end in death or destruction or unhappiness.
Anybody who transgresses must pay the price. Naga
dies once his transfiguration is revealed. He commits suicide and dies like a true
lover strangling himself by the tresses of Rani’s hair. Thus, he becomes a lover’s

[24]
martyr, and asserts the sublimate, purity, and dignity of his love. Naga’s death
leads to therevelation or enlightening of Rani to an otherwise unnoticed reality
and it is this, that makes her deicide that her son should cremate the Naga and
every year the rituals should be performed. Many critics have analysed Karnad’s
use of characters as symbols and types. Karnad himself says that the characters
do not represent the complex psychological entity but an ethical archetype.
Raykar is of the opinion that Karnad has made the characters generic, i.e.
representative.

[25]
 Chapter – Four
Discussion
The most elaborate and one of the most attractive and lively of Dryden’s critical
works in the “Essay of Dramatic Poesy”, which was first published in 1668 but
written three years earlier. In this work he reveals once again his unsettled views
regarding the drama. The method he adopts for voicing his perplexities is that of
the dialogue, a device obviously suggested by earlier conventional discussions in
several continental writers. It was a form which permitted a full discussion of
conflicting views, without requiring any definite conclusion. Thus Dryden’s
purpose is to debate, not to dogmatize. The discussion takes place against a
pleasant setting. Four characters, mainly, crites their views on drama. The main
theme is to vindicate English plays. The case for the ancients is presented by
crites, the moderns, are supported by Eugeniusz and the respective merits of
French and English plays are argued by Lisideius and Neander. “The Essay of
Dramatic Poesy” is a land mark in the history of English criticism for its
liveliness, shrewd reasoning and urbanity, and for the acute and masterly
appreciations of Shakespeare and Johnson it contains .
Dr. Johnson calls Dryden “The father of English
criticism”. His poetic talents did not prevent him from critically assessing the
worth of real poetry. Sensibility and keen awareness of artistic values can be
considered the most salient features of his critical faculty. His imagination was
highly creative and it is the principal thing that accounts for much that is noble
and great in the literary criticism that Dryden has offered us. The influence of the
ancient or classical Greek and Roman poets is obvious in Dryden’s poetry. But he
was not the blind follower of established critics. Dryden established English
norms for proper criticism. Dryden is undoubtedly the pioneer in the field of
historical and comparative criticism. He shows a well-developed historical sense.
He recognises that the genius and temperament differ from age to age and hence
literature in different periods of history is bound to be different.
They recognise that Elizabethan drama and the
Restoration drama are governed by different literary conventions. He claims that
Aristotle himself might have revised his rules and written differently if he had
lived in the modern era. Thus, Dryden believes the truth that literature is not static
but a dynamic process. Similarly, he recognises that the temperament of the
French and English differ and hence the literatures of the two countries are bound

[26]
to be different. In the essay, there is a constant weighing and balancing of the
qualities of the English drama as against those of the French. “Dryden’s ability to
read any work under consideration with full and sympathetic understanding is
super”. Remarks Daurid Daiches in “Critical Approaches to literature”, he is
obviously the first in England to analyse English and foreign plays and examine
their comparative merits and demerits.” “The Essay of Dramatic Poesy”
demonstrates that Dryden’s claim of being the father of practical criticism is
amply justified. The relative superiority of the English and the French Dramatic
writings was a burning issue of those days. Dryden may not have resolved it but
he added fresh dimensions to the controversy. He deals with a variety of issues
like the relative merit of the ancient and modern writers; the position of the
English school of drama in comparison of the French, the comparative merits of
blank verse and shamed verse as a medium for drama etc.
Four speakers representing four leading writers of the
day including Dryden indulge in a dialogue to discuss these burning issues and
each one has his own opinion. Thus, Dryden frees the criticism from its dogmatic
features. He is able to raise criticism to the dignity of an art and evolve it as a
district literary form. In the essay, Dryden defends the English version of dramatic
art, its violation of the unities and its variety of plot and character. He also offers
cogent arguments in favour of tragic-comedy. The English, he says, are more
sullen than the French and come to the theatre primarily for entertainment. The
tragic-comedy with its greater action and variety of characters suit the genius of
the English people. Thus Dryden’s critical views stemmed the in favour of the
neo-classical criticism and asserted the importance of the native tradition. Dryden
shows himself to be keenly alive to artistic values and at the same time, he is able
to a psychological analysis of those values. “Dryden clears the ground for himself
by brushing away the arbitrary bans upon freedom of Judgement. He refuses to
be cowed by the French playwrights and critics”, remarks R.A. Scott James.
Every writer has his own limitations and Dryden is not an exception as he also
muggers from certain shortcomings. He is often prejudiced in favour of his own
country and age. Moreover, he failed to deal with the ultimate problems of
technique. He also failed to develop certain points systematically. He often took
an issue, dropped it in the interest of another point and returned to it at some later
stage. He also failed to evolve a formal aesthetic principle. His work at best can
be divided into three categories – speculative, prescriptive and explanatory. He
defines drama as plays. He defines drama as “A just and lively image of human
nature, representing its passion and humours and the changes of fortune to which

[27]
it is the subject for the delight and instruction of mankind.” According to this
definition, drama is an image of human nature and the image is “just” as well as
“lively”. Dryden seems to imply that literature imitates human actions. However
it should be noted that drama is not a reproduction or copy of human nature. It is
an imitation which is true to nature in a broad sense. Dryden believes that poetic
imitation is different from an exact servile copy of reality. Moreover, the imitation
is not only just but also “lively”. The term “lively” has been interpreted in various
ways. David Daiches takes it as “interesting” while R.A. Scott James says that it
means “beautiful”. But it is obvious that Dryden wants to emphasise the fact that
the imitation of a thing should involve the heightening of its quality to make it
beautiful. In other words, the poet’s creative efforts come into play to make a
literary piece rise above the servile copy of reality. Dryden underlines the fact
that to make the imitation just and lively, the poet’s creative faculty must work.
The function of imagination has also been used in the very definition of drama. It
is the imagination which shapes the raw material into a more heightened and more
beautiful vision of reality. The image of nature created by the poet is basically
true and hence it is “just”. It is clear that Dryden is more concerned resilience—
a refusal to surrender entirely to nihilism.
The members of Karnad’s theatrical generation
therefore share a number of important qualities that separate them as a group from
their precursors. In varying degrees, these authors approach playwriting as a
serious literary activity and drama as a complex verbal art, potentially connected
to, but also independent of, theatrical practice: the play-as-meaningful-text is thus
detached equally from the genres of commercialized entertainment and topical
political performance. At the same time, they constitute the firstgroup of modern
playwrights in India who belong simultaneously to the economies of print and
performance. about the liveliness of a literary work. He praises Shakespeare’s
plays and readily over loops their irregularities because they satisfy his criteria of
liveliness. On the same ground, he prefers the variety of plot and character of
English plays to the rule-bound French plays. In his “Defence of the Essay on
Dramatic Poesy” Dryden comments “Delight is the chief if not the only end of
Poesy; instruction can be admitted but in the second place”. Thus, it further
becomes clear that a base imitation will not serve the ends of poetry instruction
is secondary while delight is the first and primary function of poetry. Dryden is
far in advance of his age in which instruction was regarded as the chief aim of
poetry. Reality must be selected ordered and shaped by the poet’s imagination
just as a skilled workman shapes his material to make or create beautiful works

[28]
“As for the third Unity which is that of Action, the Ancients meant no other by it
than what the Logicians do by their Finis, the end or scope of an action that which
is the first in Intention, and last in Execution: now the Poet is to aim at one great
and complete action, to the carrying on of which all things in his Play, even the
very obstacles, are to be subservient; and the reason of this is as evident as any of
the former.
“For two Actions equally labored and driven on by the
Writer, would destroy the unity of the Poem; it would be no longer one Play, but
two: not but that there may be many actions in a Play, as Ben Jonson has observed
in his Discoveries; but they must be all subservient to the great one, which our
language happily expresses in the name of under-plots: such as in
Terence’s Eunuch is the difference and reconcilement of Thais and Phædria,
which is not the chief business of the Play, but promotes; the marriage of Chærea
and Chreme’s Sister, principally intended by the Poet. There ought to be one
action, says Corneille, that is one complete action which leaves the mind of the
Audience in a full repose: But this cannot be brought to pas but by many other
imperfect ones which conduce to it, and hold the Audience in a delightful
suspense of what will be.“If by these Rules (to omit many other drawn from the
Precepts and Practice of the Ancients) we should judge our modern Plays; ’Tis
probable, that few of them would endure the trial: that which should be the
business of a day, takes up in some of them an age; instead of one action they are
the Epitomes of a man’s life,; and for one spot of ground (which the Stage should
represent) we are sometimes in more Countries than the Map can show us.“But
if we will allow the Ancients to have contrived well, we must acknowledge them
to have writ better; questionless we are deprived of a great stock of wit in the loss
of Meander among the Greek Poets, and of Caeilius, Affranius and Varius, among
the Romans: we may guess of Menander’s Excellency by the Plays of Terence..
Cæsar the Half-Menander, and of Varius, by the
Testimonies of Horace Martial, and Velleus Paterculus: ’Tis probable that these,
could they be recovered, would decide the controversy; but so long as
Aristophanes in the old Comedy, and Plautus in the new are extant; while the
Tragedies of Euripides, Sophocles, and Seneca are to be had, I can never see one
of those Plays which are now written, but it increases my admiration of the
Ancients; and yet I must acknowledge further, that to admire them as we ought,
we should understand them better than we do. Doubtless many things appear flat
to us, whose wit depended upon some custom or story which never came to our

[29]
knowledge, or perhaps upon some Criticism in their language, which being so
long dead, and only remaining in their Books, ’tis not possible they should make
us know it perfectly. To read Macrobius, explaining the propriety and elegancy of
many words in Virgil, which I had before passed over without consideration, as
common things, is enough to assure me that I ought to think the same of Terence;
and that in the purity of his style (which Tully so much valued that he ever carried
his works about him) there is yet left in him great room for admiration, if I knew
but where to place it. In the mean time I must desire you to take notice, that the
greatest man of the last age (Ben Jonson) was willing to give place to them in all
things: He was not only a professed Imitator of Horace, but a learned Plagiary of
all the others; you track him every where in their Snow: If Horace, Lucan,
Petronius Arbiter, Seneca, and Juvenal, had their own from him, there are few
serious thoughts which are new in him; you will pardon me therefore if I presume
he loved their fashion when he wore their clothes.
But since I have otherwise a great veneration for
him, and you Eugenius, prefer him above all other Poets, I will use no farther
argument to you than his example: I will produce Father Ben to you, dressed in
all the ornaments and colors of the Ancients, you will need no other guide to our
Party if you follow him; and whether you consider the bad Plays of our Age, or
regard the good ones of the last, both the best and worst of the Modern Poets will
equally instruct you to esteem the Ancients.”Crites had no sooner left speaking,
but Eugenius who waited with some impatience for it, thus began:“I have
observed in your Speech that the former part of it is convincing as to what the
Moderns have profited by the rules of the Ancients, but in the latter you are careful
to conceal how much they have excelled them: we own all the helps we have from
them, and want neither veneration nor gratitude while we acknowledge that to
overcome them we must make use of the advantages we have received from them;
but to these assistances we have joined our own industry; for (had we sat down
with a dull imitation of them) we might then have lost somewhat of the old
perfection, but never acquired any that was new.
We draw not therefore after their lines, but those of
Nature; and having the life before us, besides the experience of all they knew, it
is no wonder if we hit some airs and features which they have missed: I deny not
what you urge of Arts and Sciences, that they have flourished in some ages more
than others; but your instance in Philosophy makes for me: for if Natural Causes
be more known now than in the time of Aristotle, because more studied, it follows

[30]
of art. Poetic imagination transforms and transmutes reality. “The instruction
which poetry gives is psychological. It is a better understanding of human nature,
a keener insight into the working of human mind and heart.” remarks David
Dakhes. 3. Conclusion To be concluded that the definition of drama given by
Dryden may not be perfect but it has its own importance in dramatic criticism. It
is significant that Dryden emphasises on the craftsmanship of the artist. It is the
workmanship which can make sure that the function of drama is properly
fulfilled. Dryden also believes that the definition of drama may fit the poetry as
well. It is, on the whole, clear that Dryden wanted poetry to imitate nature in such
a way as to transform it into something more beautiful. Despite the faults, it must
be admitted that Dryden is one of the greatest figures in the history of literary
figures in the history of literary criticism. His native sensibility, his classical
liberalism, his conversational case and his easy style provide him an honourable
place in the field of criticism. He was the first man to draw attention to the higher
function of criticism which is the appreciation of positive literary excellences. He
established the English fashion of criticising as Shakespeare did the English
fashion of dramatising. “His reputation as a critic rests on sure and lasting
foundations”, remarks Atikins.
All of them have had notable success on the stage, while
their work has also circulated in print and become available for analysis,
commentary, and interpretation outside the boundaries of performance. Each
playwright is committed to an indigenous language (rather than English) as his
medium of original composition, and hence to the literary and performative
traditions of the region where that language is dominant. But each has also
participated actively in the process of interlingual translation that gives his plays
national (and often international) visibility, and establishes them as contemporary
classics. In yet another perspective, Karnad and his contemporaries have rendered
the role of ‘dramatic author’ largely synonymous with that of ‘theorist’ and
‘critic’. By advancing theoretical and polemical arguments about form, language,
style, purpose, and influence in a range of rhetorical genres, they have offered the
first fully developed, often antithetical theories of dramatic representation and
reception in the modern period in India, and formulated competing conceptions
of the role of theatre in cultural and national life. With drama as his chosen literary
form and Kannada as his principal language of original composition, Karnad
certainly exemplifies the transformative practices of his generation, but he has
also carved out a distinctive niche for himself with respect to subject matter,
dramatic style, and authorial identity

[31]
 Conclusion
In conclusion Dryden’s approach is not dogmatic; he resists strict rule-bound
criticism and instead values flexibility, variety, and the emotional truth of
art. Through the voices of Eugenius, Crites, Lisideius, and Neander (Dryden’s
own persona), the essay examines five central issues: the merits of ancient versus
modern dramatists, the classical unities, French versus English drama, the
separation of tragedy and comedy, and the appropriateness of rhyme in
plays. Eugenius favors the moderns, arguing they have learned from the ancients
and surpassed them in some respects. Crites defends the ancients, emphasizing
their establishment of dramatic rules and unity. Lisideius supports French drama
for its order and decorum, while Neander (Dryden) champions English drama for
its variety, emotional range, and lifelike qualities.Dryden’s definition of poetry,
and especially dramatic poetry, centers on the idea of imitation. However, he
insists that imitation must be creative, not slavish. Poetry should present a "just
and lively image of human nature," capturing both its truth and its vitality. The
poet’s imagination is crucial, transforming raw material into something more
beautiful and meaningful. Dryden argues that drama should reflect the
complexities of real life, which often blends tragic and comic elements—hence
his defense of tragicomedy and his resistance to the rigid separation of genres.
On the function of poetry, Dryden asserts that its primary
purpose is to delight, with instruction as a secondary aim. He synthesizes earlier
critical traditions, ultimately contending that poetry’s greatest achievement is to
move and please its audience, rather than simply to teach or to follow rules. He
admires the emotional depth and imaginative power of English dramatists,
especially Shakespeare, who, in Dryden’s view, surpasses even the ancients in
capturing the full range of human experience.
Dryden also addresses the issue of rhyme in drama, a
hotly debated topic in his time. While he initially supports the use of rhyme for
its artistic qualities, he later acknowledges its limitations, especially in expressing
intense passion. Ultimately, he suggests that the "naturalness" of rhyme depends
on how well it serves the sense and emotion of the play, not on adherence to a
rule for its own sake.Dryden’s essay is a defense of English dramatic art and a
call for critical openness. He respects the achievements of the ancients and the
French but argues that English drama’s richness, variety, and emotional truth are
its greatest strengths. He advocates for a pragmatic, flexible criticism that values
the imaginative and emotional power of poetry above rigid formalism. Dryden’s
[32]
"An Essay of Dramatic Poesy" thus marks a turning point in English criticism,
championing the creative freedom of the poet and the primacy of delight and
emotional engagement in poetry and dramathrough the story of Rani, Karnad
brings forward the silenced voices of women, using myth not just as a narrative
tool but as a means to question and subvert traditional gender roles. The play
exposes the mechanisms of male chauvinism, particularly through characters like
Appanna, whose neglect and suspicion highlight the injustices women endure
within the confines of marriage and society. By placing Rani at the center of a
magical and transformative journey, Karnad allows her agency and a voice,
ultimately leading to her empowerment. "Nagamandala" thus becomes a
powerful commentary on the need to reinterpret cultural narratives, urging society
to recognize and challenge the biases that perpetuate gender inequality., the play
not only critiques the oppressive structures of male dominance but also offers
hope for transformation, suggesting that through storytelling and self-realization,
women can reclaim their identities and assert their rightful place in society. The
ideology of people in a patriarchal society is influenced by group consciousness.
They scarcely take any decision on individual perception but influenced by social
norms. It’s visible when the elders and villagers who were ready to declare Rani
a whore, exclaims, “A Miracle! A Miracle! She is not a woman! She is a Divine
Being!” .
She is designated as the incarnation of goddess and her
husband Appanna accepts her and the child in her womb. She is proclaimed to be
a goddess. Villagers raise her to the status of Goddess. When they announce,
“Appanna your wife is not an ordinary human. She is goddess incarnate. Don't
grieve that you judged wrongly and treated her badly. That is how goddesses
reveal themselves to the world” . Appanna seeks her pardon and lives happily
with her and says: “Forgive me. I am a sinner. I was blind…”. Now he appreciates
the splendor of her long locks and dignity as a human being. Rani’s victory in the
cobra trial and her consequent rise to the category of a goddess indicates women
empowerment and accuses unreasonable male supremacy. The institution of
marriage is eventually vindicated. Rani gets everything she wished for, a devoted
husband and a happy life .

[33]
 Work – Sited
Primary sources
1 John Dryden. The major works, edit. By Keith walker, Oxfort: Oxford
University Press, 1987.
2. Eliot TS, John Dryden. In selected Essays London: Faber and Faber, 1932.
3. John Dryden. Brithish author Enajclopedia Britannica.com retrieved, 2014.
4. Dryden. In Samuel Johnson, The Major Works ed. Donald Greene
5. Essay of Dramatic Poesy text, edited by Jack Lynch, 1668. Secondary Sources

Secondary sources
The Works of John Dryden, 20 vols., ed. H. T. Swedenberg Jr. et al., (Berkeley
and Los Angeles: University
of California Press, 1956–2002)
Daiches, David, A Critical History Of English Literature (Volume - II) ISBN:
8189930443, 2010, Paperback
John Dryden The Major Works, ed. by Keith Walker, (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1987)
The Works of John Dryden, ed. by David Marriott, (Hertfordshire: Wordsworth
Editions, 1995)
John Dryden Selected Poems, ed by David Hopkins, (London: Everyman
Paperbacks, 1998) Of Dramatic Poesy: An Essay, 1667: revised edition, 1684; as
An Essay of Dramatic Poesy, edited by
Thomas Arnold, 1889, P D Arundell. 1929, George Watson, 1962, and John L.
Mahoney, 1995.
Aden, John M., “Dryden, Corneille, and the Essay of Dramatic Poesy,” Review
of English Studies 6
(1955):147–56
Aden, John M., The Critical Opinions of John Dryden: A Dictionary, Nashville,
Tennessee: Vanderbilt
University Press, 1963
[34]
[35]