Bridge Course: John Dryden - Essay on Dramatic Poesie
This blog is written as a task assigned by the head of the Department of English (MKBU), Prof. and Dr. Dilip Barad Sir. Here is the link to the professor's research article for background reading: Click here
Q-1) Discuss any differences you observe between Aristotle's definition of Tragedy and Dryden's definition of Play.
Ans.
Aristotle and Dryden offer distinct definitions of tragedy and play, reflecting their different cultural contexts and artistic philosophies.
1. Aristotle’s Definition of Tragedy – Greek Classical Ideal
Aristotle, writing in the 4th century BCE in his Poetics, defined tragedy as:
“An imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation (catharsis) of these emotions.”
Key elements in his vision:
Imitation (mimesis): Drama is a representation of real human action, but elevated and artistic.
Serious action: The subject must be grave and important, involving noble characters or significant moral dilemmas.
Complete & unified plot: A tragedy must have a clear beginning, middle, and end, following the unity of action — no irrelevant episodes.
Magnitude: The action must be large enough in scale to be impressive but not so vast that it loses coherence.
Language embellished: Poetry, rhythm, and music enhance the beauty of the form.
Action, not narration: The story is shown on stage through the deeds of characters, not merely told.
Catharsis: The emotional core — by arousing pity (for undeserved suffering) and fear (that such fate could be ours), the tragedy purifies and refines the audience’s emotions.
Purpose: For Aristotle, the goal is moral and psychological refinement — tragedy educates the emotions, makes people wiser and more virtuous through deep emotional experience.
2. Dryden’s Definition of a Play – Restoration Neoclassical Outlook
In his Essay of Dramatic Poesy (1668), John Dryden defines a play as:
“A just and lively image of human nature, representing its passions and humours, and the changes of fortune to which it is subject, for the delight and instruction of mankind.”
Key elements in his vision:
Just and lively image: The play should be a truthful and vivid mirror of human life.
Passions and humours: Not limited to pity and fear — includes love, jealousy, pride, ambition, anger, humour, and folly.
Changes of fortune: Human life is in constant flux, and drama should reflect the ups and downs — this allows space for tragedy, comedy, and tragicomedy.
Delight and instruction: Adopts Horace’s principle (dulce et utile) — art should entertain while also improving the mind.
Broad scope: Not confined to noble subjects; ordinary life, mixed tones, and blended genres are allowed.
Flexibility of rules: While respecting classical unities, Dryden accepts deviations if they enhance dramatic pleasure and truthfulness.
Purpose: For Dryden, the stage is a school of both pleasure and moral learning — art’s survival depends on its ability to engage and instruct audiences in equal measure.
3. The Essential Differences
Aristotle’s conception of drama is confined strictly to tragedy, whereas Dryden’s embraces all kinds of plays, including tragedy, comedy, and tragicomedy. For Aristotle, the central aim of tragedy is catharsis — the purification of the audience’s emotions through the arousal of pity and fear. Dryden’s goal, by contrast, follows the Horatian ideal of providing both delight and instruction, thus placing equal emphasis on entertainment and moral improvement.
In terms of subject matter, Aristotle demands serious and noble actions, dealing with weighty moral themes and elevated characters. Dryden is far more inclusive, welcoming any aspect of human nature, whether lofty or lowly, into the dramatic arena. This difference also shapes the emotional palette: Aristotle focuses almost exclusively on pity and fear as the driving forces of tragedy, while Dryden recognizes the dramatic value of all passions and humors — love, jealousy, pride, folly, and more.
Structurally, Aristotle insists on the strict unity of action and a complete, self-contained plot, avoiding unnecessary subplots or digressions. Dryden, however, is flexible, willing to accept mixed plots and looser structures if they enhance the liveliness and truthfulness of the representation. Philosophically, Aristotle’s drama serves as a means of moral and psychological refinement, aiming to shape virtuous citizens. Dryden’s vision blends this moral purpose with entertainment, reflecting a pragmatic approach to an audience’s tastes.
The cultural backgrounds of the two men also explain their differences. Aristotle wrote in the context of Ancient Greek city-state festivals, where theatre was a solemn civic and religious duty, naturally giving drama a serious and moral tone. Dryden, on the other hand, lived in Restoration England, a period that saw the reopening of theatres after Puritan suppression. The emphasis had shifted towards social entertainment, lavish productions, and appealing to a wider, more pleasure-seeking audience.
4. Cultural Background Explains the Difference
Aristotle’s world: Greek tragedy emerged from religious festivals honoring Dionysus, with a civic and moral function. Drama was not mere entertainment but part of the moral education of the polis (city-state). Hence the emphasis on seriousness, unity, and moral catharsis.
Dryden’s world: Writing in post-Puritan Restoration England, when theatres had been reopened after years of closure, Dryden had to appeal to a lively, pleasure-seeking audience. While still valuing moral instruction, he knew that without delight, no one would come to the theatre. His definition reflects this balance between art’s educational and entertaining functions.
Q-2) If you are supposed to give your personal predilection, would you be on the side of the Ancient or the Modern? Please give reasons.
Ans.
If I were to state my personal predilection, I would place myself on the side of the Ancients, though I would not entirely dismiss the merits of the Moderns. The Ancient conception of drama, particularly as expressed by Aristotle, is rooted in the belief that art must serve a higher purpose than mere amusement. For the Greeks, drama was an integral part of civic life, born out of religious festivals and imbued with a moral and philosophical seriousness. Aristotle’s definition of tragedy emphasises mimesis — the imitation of noble and complete actions — with the specific aim of achieving catharsis, the purification of emotions such as pity and fear. This approach ensures that drama becomes not just a mirror of life but a transformative experience, educating the emotions, sharpening moral insight, and reinforcing ethical values. Its strict structural discipline, with unity of action, coherence of plot, and avoidance of irrelevant episodes, gives ancient drama a compactness and artistic perfection that makes it timeless.
While I acknowledge the Moderns’ case, represented by Dryden, their flexibility and inclusiveness have their charm. Modern drama appeals to a wider range of human passions and humours, allows for a mixture of tones, and recognises the practical necessity of delight as a means of attracting audiences. Dryden’s ideal of combining instruction with entertainment (dulce et utile) has a democratic openness that reflects the changing tastes of Restoration England. However, the very looseness of form and pursuit of variety can sometimes weaken the moral and artistic unity that gives ancient tragedy its power.
Therefore, my preference for the Ancients rests on the belief that theatre should aspire to permanence rather than fashion, to moral elevation rather than mere diversion. The Ancients remind us that art can be both beautiful and morally serious, a disciplined craft that refines the spirit. If modern drama can borrow this moral weight without losing its accessibility, it would be the perfect blend — but if forced to choose, I would stand with the Ancients for their depth, dignity, and enduring vision.
Q-3) Do you think that the arguments presented in favour of the French plays and against English plays are appropriate? (Say for example, Death should not be performed as it is neither 'just' not 'liely' image, displaying duel fight with blunted swords, thousands of soldiers marching represented as five on stage, mingling of mirth and serious, multiple plots etc.)
Ans.
Are the French Criticisms Appropriate?
In Essay of Dramatic Poesy, the French school of drama is praised for its elegance, unity, and realism, while the English stage is criticised for its apparent disregard of classical rules. These criticisms include objections to the onstage portrayal of death, the use of stylised combat, the unrealistic representation of armies, the mingling of mirth and seriousness, and the use of multiple plots. While such arguments appear sound within the framework of classical theory, they do not entirely suit the nature and genius of English drama.
1. Depicting Death on Stage
French view: Death is neither a “just” (morally suitable) nor a “lively” (true-to-life) image. They argue it should be narrated rather than enacted to preserve dignity and avoid crude spectacle.
English reply: Death scenes can achieve immense dramatic and emotional power when shown on stage. Shakespeare’s Othello killing Desdemona or the final moments of King Lear strike audiences far more forcefully when acted than when merely described. The English valued emotional engagement over rigid propriety.
Explanation: The French position arises from a desire for refinement and restraint, but English drama prioritizes the audience’s direct experience of human passion, making death scenes legitimate and effective.
2. Duels with Blunted Swords
French view: Stage combat with blunted weapons looks artificial, breaking the illusion of reality.
English reply: While such fights are stylized, they bring energy, suspense, and visual excitement to the stage. The audience, accustomed to theatrical conventions, willingly suspends disbelief for the sake of action.
Explanation: For the French, illusion must be perfect; for the English, dramatic impact outweighs strict realism.
3. Representation of Large Armies
French view: Presenting “thousands of soldiers” as a mere handful of actors is unrealistic and diminishes credibility.
English reply: Theatre is not bound to photographic realism; it appeals to imagination. Shakespeare openly admits this in Henry V’s Chorus: “Think, when we talk of horses, that you see them.” The limitation of stage resources is overcome through poetic suggestion.
Explanation: The French preferred a visual harmony between words and stage picture, but English theatre trusted the audience’s imaginative power.
4. Mingling of Mirth and Seriousness
French view: Tragedy and comedy should remain separate; mixing tones undermines the unity and dignity of the work.
English reply: The combination of tragic and comic elements often enriches the play. The Fool in King Lear deepens the tragedy with bitter wisdom, while the gravediggers in Hamlet heighten the pathos by contrasting humour with mortality.
Explanation: For the English, life itself is a mixture of joy and sorrow; drama should reflect this truth. The French sought tonal purity; the English valued emotional variety.
5. Multiple Plots
French view: Only a single plot is acceptable; subplots distract and violate the unity of action.
English reply: Well-crafted subplots can parallel or contrast the main plot, creating thematic depth. In King Lear, the Gloucester subplot mirrors Lear’s journey, doubling the tragedy and reinforcing the central themes of betrayal and loyalty.
Explanation: French drama prized simplicity and clarity; English drama embraced complexity to mirror the fullness of life.
Conclusion
The French criticisms are appropriate within their own artistic philosophy, which is rooted in the classical ideals of unity, decorum, and realism. Their theatre aimed for elegance, order, and credibility in every detail. However, when judged by the standards of English drama particularly Shakespeare’s these arguments lose much of their force. English drama thrives on variety, contrast, and the active involvement of the audience’s imagination. While it may seem less “perfect” in classical terms, it often achieves greater vitality, emotional richness, and dramatic impact.
Thus, the French approach offers polished restraint, but the English approach offers powerful life. The choice depends on whether one values flawless form or the full, messy, and moving truth of human experience.
Q-4) What would be your preference so far as poetic or prosaic dialogues are concerned in the play?
Ans.
Preference Between Poetic and Prosaic Dialogues in Drama
Drama, from its origins in ancient Greece to the modern stage, has oscillated between poetic dialogue elevated, rhythmic, and often in verse and prosaic dialogue natural, everyday speech. Each has its virtues, and the preference depends on the purpose, tone, and style of the play. However, I personally lean towards poetic dialogue, especially for serious drama, while recognizing the occasional need for prose for realism and variety.
1. Poetic Dialogue – Strengths and Appeal
Poetic dialogue elevates the tone of a play, lending it beauty, rhythm, and memorability.
Heightened emotional impact: Verse can intensify feelings and make speeches more stirring (e.g., Macbeth’s “Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow”).
Musicality and rhythm: The meter (such as blank verse) creates a musical flow that enhances the audience’s aesthetic pleasure.
Memorable lines: Poetry tends to linger in memory, giving drama a lasting afterlife.
Sense of grandeur: Poetic form suits tragedy and heroic drama, where characters deal with lofty themes like fate, honor, or death.
Example: In Shakespeare’s tragedies, the nobility and emotional intensity of characters are often expressed in blank verse, which gives their speech a dignified and timeless quality.
2. Prosaic Dialogue – Strengths and Appeal
Prose dialogue brings naturalness, familiarity, and relatability to the stage.
Realism: Prose mimics everyday conversation, making characters seem more human.
Flexibility: Easier to convey humour, wit, and informal exchanges.
Contrast: When mixed with poetry, prose can provide relief from sustained intensity.
Social distinction: In Shakespeare, lower-class characters often speak in prose, which helps define social status and tone.
Example: The gravediggers in Hamlet speak in prose, creating earthy humour that balances the surrounding seriousness.
3. My Preference – Poetic Dialogue with Occasional Prose
While prose has its merits, my preference is for poetic dialogue as the dominant mode in serious plays.
Reason 1: Poetry lifts drama above ordinary life, giving it an artful, elevated quality.
Reason 2: It aligns with the tradition of great dramatists from Sophocles to Shakespeare, who used verse to express profound truths.
Reason 3: In an age when spoken art competes with cinema and prose fiction, poetic drama retains a distinctive beauty and identity.
Reason 4: The combination of verse for serious parts and prose for comic or practical scenes provides both grandeur and variety, satisfying multiple dramatic needs.
4. Conclusion
I believe that while prose enriches realism and variety, poetic dialogue best serves the higher aims of drama — to move, to delight, and to elevate the human spirit. A skillful playwright will often blend the two: poetry for moments of passion and significance, prose for ease, humour, and grounding. In this way, the audience experiences both the beauty of art and the truth of life.
Additional Video Resources:
References:
1.“Aristotle’s Poetics.” ResearchGate, Aug. 2023
2.Barad, Dilip. “An Essay on Dramatic Poesy: John Dryden.” ResearchGate, June 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment