Drayden On Dramatic Poesy
This blog is a task given by Dr. Barad sir. In this blog i am going to point out and discuss Dramatic poesy also going through some important topics, describe in task.
This blog is a response to a task given by dr. Barad sir here is sir's blog-Click here
Essay of Dramatic poesie
'An essay of dramatic poesy' was basically written in 1666 during the closure of the London theaters due to plague. Generally it is read as a general defense of drama as a legitimate art form and also it takes up where sir philip sidney's " Defence of poesie" left off as well as Drayden's own defense of his literary practices as well.
This essay is basically structured as a dialogue among four friends on the river thames. Here are those four gentlemen-
Eugenius
Crities
Lisideius
Neander
They begin conversation on the subject of poetry, which turns into a debate on the virtues of modern and ancient writers. They discuss dramatic poetry. This is a relatively New genre which had in some ways broken with classical traditions and was thus in need of its own apologia. Then the group arrives at the definition of drama, French and English drama, and debates over ancient versus modern writers and discusses the value of the "unities" . They also discuss some playwrights such Ben Johnson, moliere, Shakespeare with great insight, and have final debate over the shoot suitability of rhyme to drama.
Here is first question of the task-
Difference between Aristotle's definition of tragedy and Drayden's definition of play.
Here is the definition of tragedy and play by Aristotle and Drayden.
Defination of tragedy by Aristotle-
"A tragedy is the imitation of an action that is serious and also, as having magnitude, complete in itself, in appropriate and pleasurable language. In a dramatic rather than narrative form, with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish a catharsis of these emotions.
Another definition is…
" The ideal man bears the accident of life with dignity and grace, making the best of circumstances."
Aristotle insists that the principal element in the structure of tragedy is not character but plot. Most important of all Aristotle said, " is the structure of the incidents, for tragedy is an imitation not of men but of an action of life. Here Aristotle agrees that plot is most important in tragedy; he says that plot is the soul of a tragedy, and he puts characters in second place. The most powerful element of tragedy is emotional interest. According to Aristotle in tragedy there were many scenes, and each is most effective when it coincides with the other. For example oedipus.
According to Aristotle-
Tragedy relates the 'sad episodes ' of life. The chief mood of tragedy is sadness. In this way tragedy reflects seriousness.
Complete Action-
Aristotle says that the action of tragedy must be complete. In other words it should have a beginning, middle and end.
Magnitude-
Magnitude means size of length. According to Aristotle tragedy should neither be too long nor too short, but it should be governed by aesthetic pleasure.
Embellishment of language-
Language of tragedy is quite different from the language of the lay man. The language of tragedy must grant for lofty.
According to Aristotle every tragedy must have six parts-
Plot
Characters
Diction
Thought
Spectacle
Melody
Aristotle was a great admirer of sophocles "oedipus the king". It is considering the perfect tragedy, and also his analysis fits that play most perfectly.
Tragedy is the "imitation of an action" according to " the law of probability or necessity."
According to Aristotle the medium of tragedy is drama not narrative. Tragedy mainly "shows" rather than "tells". Aristotle tells tragedy is higher and more philosophical than history simply relates what has happened while tragedy dramatizes what may happen. History deals with the particular, and tragedy with the universal.
Therefore tragedy arouses not only pity but also fear, because the audience can envision themselves within this cause and effect chain. Audience get connected with this.
Here is definition of play-
Drayden's definition of play-
" just and lively image of human nature. Representing its passions and humors, and the changes of fortune to which it is subject, for the delight and instruction of mankind."
According to the defination, play is an image of 'human nature' and the image is 'just' and 'lively'. By using the word 'just' drayden seems to imply that literature imitates human actions. For Drayden, 'poetic imitation' is different from an exact, servile copy of reality for the imitation is not only 'just' it is also 'lively'.
Here is second question-
If you were supposed to give your personal predilection, would you be on the side of the ancient or modern? Please give reasons.
John Drayden is an English poet, dramatist and critic. He is the most important in literature of the restoration age. His most important prose work "of dramatic poesy, an essay" gives him the reputation as the father of English literary criticism. Drayden represented the conflicting claims of the two sides as debate among four friends, one modernist preferred French drama as Drayden preferred and liked the lifelike drama of English theater to French tragedy.
He includes the five points in this essay which are as below :
Ancients versus moderns
Unities
French versus English drama
Separation of tragedy and comedy versus Tragicomedy.
Appropriateness of rhyme in drama.
First of all, discussion of ancients and moderns should not be for who is 'better'. It should be more fundamentally about how history itself functioned and should be read thus it should be about the relationship between past and present, humanity and nature and about human understanding and knowledge.
First, if I was supposed to give my personal preference, I would be on the side of the Ancient, because I have some reasons.
Here i describe that.-
The case for the 'Ancients' is basically presented by 'crites'. In controversy Drayden takes no extreme position, follows the golden mean, and is sensible enough to give the ancients their respect. Means That drayden does not disparage the ancients.
Here cites views on the Ancients:
Mainly crites argues in favour of the ancients because he says that they established the unities the three unities are time, place, action. Some dramatic rules were spelled out by Aristotle which are still now followed by the current and french playwrights.
Crites speaks in defense of ancients and his argument are as below, so let's discuss in detail.
The superiority of ancients is established by the very fact that the moderns simply imitate them, built on the foundations laid by them. Ancients are better because they have no models which they follow in giving contributions to improve their writing, seeing the ancient's work.
We should remember that, " Every age has its own genius , its own inclination for some particular branch of knowledge.
The Ancients were genius for drama and in particular a branch of poetry they reached at perfection.
Ancient Greece and Rome poetry was more honored than any branch of knowledge. In that time poets were rewarded according to their merits.
"Emulation is the spur of with
, and sometimes envy, sometimes admiration, quickens our endeavors."
Here poets are guided more by malice than by the spirit of virtuous emulation.
The ancients drama is superior because the ancients closely observed nature and faithfully represented in their work. By comparison of ancients the moderns do not observe and study nature carefully and so they distort and disfigure her in their plays.
The rules of dramatic composition:
Which is not followed by moderns dramatist whereas the ancients follows all that rules.
Crites makes special mention of the unities of time, place, and action which he says,
" ought to be observed in every regular play."
The Ancients followed these rules and the effect is satisfying and pleasing.
The ancients could organize their plays well and from this it follows that they must have also written well. We are unable to appreciate the art and beauty of their language.
Crites also gives the example of the famous playwright Ben Johnson who follows the ancients.
Here is playlist of youtube video's playlist of Dryden's dramatic poesy.
Conclusion-
To conclude I could say that Ancients are superior to modern humans because they closely observe nature and are represented in their work. Ancients are the base of moderns, they are nothing without ancients, drayden favors the modern English plays but does not disparage the ancients, at the end he says that…
' I admire johnson a lot but i love shakespeare."
.png)
.jpg)
