Q. Explain and comment upon Dryden‟s definition of drama as “a just (exact) and lively image of human nature, representing its passions and humours and the change of fortune to which it is subject, for the delight and instruction of mankind”? Ans: Throughout,

„The Essay of Dramatic Poesy‟,

Dryden treats

drama as a form of imaginative literature and hence his remarks on drama apply to poetry as well. Dryden‟s Definition of Drama: its implication: According to this definition, drama is an „image‟ of „human nature‟, and that the image is „just‟ as well as „lively‟. By using the word „just‟ Dryden seems to imply that literature imitates (and not reproduces) human actions. For Dryden, „poetic imitation‟ is different from an exact, servile copy of reality, for the imitation is not only „just‟ , it is also „lively . DAVID DAICHES examines the implication of these words in detail. In his view, the image of human nature implies that drama , or imaginative literature in general, „shows people acting in such a way as to reveal what they are like‟ Dryden seems to be emphasizing the „appearance of human actions‟, quit untroubled by plato‟s notion that to do so is simply to imitate an imitation. Dryden makes no distinctions in fact, between an image or appearance of human nature and the truth about human nature, the former if it is „just‟ gives the latter (lively). i.e, if the image is „just‟ , it gives truth about human nature. Further the image is not only to be just; it must also be „lively‟. While David Daiches takes „lively‟ to mean interesting- antithesis to dull – R.A.Scott – JAMES takes „lively‟ to mean „beautiful‟ and so delightful. The poet is a maker or a creator, and he aims at making something more beautiful. He says, “the poet does not leave things as

he finds them , but handles them, treats them, „heightens‟ their quality, and so creates something that is beautiful, and his own. The role of imagination:It is not slavish imitation, but imaginative creation that Dryden means by „just‟ and „lively‟ image of human nature is „just‟ because it is basically true, and it is also „lively‟ for it is more „heightened‟ and beautiful re-production. Dryden‟s essay makes it quite clear that he lays more emphasis on the „liveliness‟ of the image then of its „justness‟. Thus the irregular plays of Shakespeare and praised for their „liveliness‟. Its function: According to David Daiches the „instruction‟ which poetry gives is psychological , it is a better understanding of human nature , a keener insight into the working of the human mind and heart that we get from poetry. Learned critic writes-“you obtain a just and lively image of human nature by representing its „passion and humor‟s, (humor‟s meaning, state of mind or mental characteristics), and by presenting the changes of fortune to which men are subject. It is only when we see a characters reaction to change of fortune that we get real view of his, „passion and humors‟. It is the testing circumstances that illuminate character”. The function of poetry would thus be to inform the reader, in a lively and agreeable way, of what human nature is like. Literature would be a form of knowledge, and it would bear the same relation to psychology as in Sidney it does to ethics. However Scott – James seems to be nearer the truth when he emphasizes that it is aesthetic delight at which the poet aims. He says” But the pleasure which a work of art possess is of certain kind – it is which that we arises from a sense of the beautiful”. Dryden does not for a moment consider the possibility that the end of art can be dissociated from beauty. For him, as for Aristotle, it goes without saying that when you speak of poetry, or art, you are speaking of beauty, and if you speak of the pleasure of poetry, you mean a pleasure arising out of the beautiful. It is only such an aesthetic

delight that has the power to move, to transport the power, in Dryden‟s words, “ To affect the soul, and excite the passion, and above all to move admiration” to the appreciation of the beautiful. The beautiful in human actions and passions. They are also, ‟the noble‟ , „the good‟ , and „ the moral‟. Hence, an appreciation of the good , and the moral and the noble also. It is in this that poetry “ instruct as it delight” for this purpose a fare imitation of reality will not do , but reality must be selected , ordered and shaped‟ by the poets imagination. Thus imagination enables a poet to give a „lively‟ picture of human nature, while his judgment keeps the picture „just‟. Q. It is not patriotism but practical and artistic sense which controls Dryden‟s view on the three unities? Ans: In an age of pseudo- classic criticism; with its precise rules and definitions, Dryden had the boldness to defend the claims of genius to write according to its own convictions, without regard for the prescription and rules which had been laid down for good writing. He cleared the ground for himself by brushing away all the arbitrary bans upon freedom of judgment, the refused to be coved down by the French play writers and critics. Violation of three unities:- Dryden‟s Defense: Dryden„s liberalism, his free critical disposition, is best seen in his justification of the violation of three unities on the part of the English dramatist and in his defense of English tragic-comedy. As regards the unities , his views are as under: a) The English violation of the three unities lends greater copiousness (existing in large amounts, profuse in speech) and variety to the English plays. The unities have narrowing and cramping effect on the French plays, and they are often betrayed into absurdities form which English plays are free. b) The English disregard of unities enables them to present a more „just‟ and „lively‟ picture of human nature. The French plays may be more regular but they are not as lively, not so pleasant and delightful

as that of English. E.g SHAKESPEAR‟s plays which are more lively and just image of life and human nature. c) The English when they do observe the rules as Ben Jonson has done in „The Silent Woman‟, show greater skill and art then the French. It all depends upon the „genius‟ or „skill‟ of the writer. d) There is no harm in introducing „sub-plot‟, for they impart variety, richness, and liveliness to the play. In this way writer can present a more „just‟ and „lively‟ picture than the French with their narrow and cramped plays. e) To the view that observance of the unities is justified on the ground, that their violation results in improbability , that it place too great a strain on the imagination of the spectators , and that credibility is stretched too for, he replies that it is all a question of „dramatic illusion‟. Lisidius argues that „we cannot so speedily recollect ourselves after a scene of great passion and concernment to pass to another of mirth and humour, and to enjoy it with any relish. Neander replied to it by saying that why should he imagine the soul of man more heavy than his senses? Does not the eye pass from an unpleasant objet to a pleasant in a much shorter time?” – „gratification

of sense is primary, secondary that of soul‟. Sensory perception helps in dramatic illusion Dramatic Illusion: In the essay, Dryden asks, ”why should he (Crities ?) imagine the soul of man more heavy than his senses?” In this sentence says David Daiches is worthy to stand beside Dr. Johnson observation, „he that imagines this, may imagine more?‟ Dr. Johnson says the last word on the problem of dramatic illusion when he writes that the spectators are always in their senses and they know full that, “the stage is a stage and the play is a play.” “The delight of tragedy proceeds from our consciousness of fiction ; if we thought murders and treasons real, they would please no more . Imitations produce pain or mistaken for realities , but because they bring realities to mind.” In this respect Dryden anticipates Johnson , though he does not say all this clearly and elaborately. But this view is implied in the sentence quoted above. Summing Up:-

In short, Dryden ‟s view of the unities amounts to this the rules of Aristotle are not absolute; there is always an appeal open from rules to nature. If the ends of drama are better fulfilled by a violation of the unities, then there is no harm in violating them. Shakespeare has produced more „just‟ and „lively‟ plays, even though he has utterly disregarded the unities. Question. 8:- Discuss how Dryden defends the English tragic-comedy or mingling of “mirth with serious plot”. Or “In his defense of Shakespeare mingling of the tragic and the comedy, Dryden ceases to be a classicist and goes over to the other camp.” Answer:Dryden is more liberal in his attitude towards the mingling of the tragic and the comic. In this respect he, “ceases to be a classicist and goes over to the other camp”. He defends tragic-comedy on the following grounds: a) Contrast when placed near, set off each other. b) Continued gravity depresses the spirit, a scene of mirth thrown in between refreshes. It has the same effect on us as music. In other words, comic scene produces relief, though Dryden does not explicitly say so. c) Mirth does not destroy compassion, i.e. the serious effect which tragedy aims at is not disturbed by mingling of tragic and comic. d) Just as the eye can pass from an unpleasant object to a pleasant one, so also the soul can move from tragic to the comic. And it can do so much more swiftly. e) The English have perfected a new way of writing not known to the Ancients. If they had tragic-comedies, perhaps Aristotle would have revised his rules.

f) It is all a question of progress of the change of taste. The ancients cannot be a model for all times and countries, “What pleased the Greeks would not satisfy an English audience”. Had Aristotle seen the English plays “He might have changed his mind”. The real test of excellence is not strict adherence to rules or conventions, but whether the aims of dramas have been achieved. They are achieved by the English drama. Conclusion:Dryden‟s view on Tragic-Comedy clearly brings out his liberal classicism and his greatness, shrewdness and penetration as a critic. Dr. Johnson (“Preface to Shakespeare”) accepted Dryden‟s view that mingling of the tragic and the comic provides dramatic relief. But he makes a further point, which is foreshadowed in Dryden, but which has not been clearly stated - his appeal to Nature.

Dr. Johnson asserts

tragic-comedy is truer to nature, for in nature is also good and evil, joy and sorrow, mingle in countless ways. Dryden himself hinted at this very truth to nature, while defending the irregularities of the English drama and in(?) speaks against the cold formalities of the French stage. “They are indeed the Beauties of a statue, but not of a man.” Question. 9:- Discuss how Dryden defends the variety and copiousness of the English Plays. Defense of English plots: Answer:After defending English tragedy and comedy, Neander (Dryden) proceeds to demonstrate the superiority of the English plots. The French plots are barren, while the English ones are copious and more varied. French plays have only one action, every scene and every character contributes to further the same action. Therefore their plays lack the charm of variety.

In English plays, on the other hand, there are a number of subplots in addition to the main plot, and sub-plots are carried forward along with the main action with Great Spirit. It is wrong to suppose that sub-plot hinders the main action. Just as the „Primum Mobile‟ (the highest sphere; the prime source of movement according to medieval belief.) in its motion carries forward with it the other planets. So also the main action carries forward with it the sub-plots. And it must also be remembered that the sub-plots are only different, and not contrary or opposite to the main action. Further, it would have to be admitted, as even the French have acknowledged, that in English plays all the actions are closely and coherently knit together to form one organic whole. (Aristotle had also put stress on unity of action only). Had this unity and coherence been wanting, there would have been sufficient reason for condemning the English. But at present we must admire them for their copiousness and variety which is a source of great pleasure for the audience. Dryden sums up this discussion by saying that, “I dare boldly affirm these two thing of the English Drama: first, that we have more plays of our as regular as any of theirs (French); and which besides, have more variety of plot and character. And second, that in most of the irregular plays of Shakespeare and Fletcher (for most of the Ben Jonson‟s are regular) there is a more masculine fancy and greater spirit in all the writing, then there is in any of the French. ”

Q. Consider critically CRITES view in favors of the ancient dramatists in Dryden‟s essay. OR consider critically eligible Eugenius dramatists in Dryden „s an essay. OR the ancient versus modern controversy :Dryden ‟s contribution. Ans.

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 human understanding and knowledge. The Ancient and Modern Controversy – Dryden „s sanity:In the age of Dryden there raged a hot debate on the comparative merits and demerits of the Ancients and the Moderns. Swift has treated this debate satirically in his well-known work „THE BATTLE OF THE BOOKS‟. In his Essay of dramatic Poesy‟ Dryden has agued moderately on behalf of moderns, through the mouth of EUGENIUS, one of the four debtors in the essay. The case for the „Ancients‟ is presented by Crites. In the controversy Dryden takes no extreme position , follows the golden mean, and is sensible enough to give the Ancients their respect. Through his dispassionate, balanced & sane attitude; and penetrating & shrewd analysis , he removes the cobwebs which had confused the issue, and makes us see clearly the achievement of the Ancients and the indebtedness of the moderns to them, as well as the significant advances which have been made in modern times. Thus he sets the controversy at rest , and makes us see the comparative merits and demerits of each in a clearer light. Cases for the Ancients :- Crites: Crites then takes up the case of the Ancients and speak in their defence. (i)

The superiority of Anients is established by the very fact that the moderns simply imitate them, and build on the foundations laid by them. The Ancients are the acknowledge models of the moderns. (ii) It should be remembered that “every age has its own genius, its own inclination for some particular branch of knowledge. Thus in the modern age, their genius is for the study of natural sciences as medicine, anatomy , astronomy and in these studies they have more progress than could be made during all the centuries from Aristotle to the modern time, Similarity. The Ancients had a special genius for

drama, and in their particular branch of poetry they could reach perfection. Just as they excel them in drama. (iii) Thirdly, in Ancients Greece and Rome poetry was more honoured than any other branch of knowledge. Poets were encouraged to excel in this field through frequent competitions, judges were appointed and the dramatists were rewarded according to their merits. There are historical records to show how Aeschylus , Euripides , Sophocles , etc. were rewarded and honoured. Such competitions and rivalry encouraged dramatic production for , says CRITICS, “Emulation is the spur of wit, and

sometimes envy , sometimes admiration , quickens our endeavors.” But in modern times there is no such spirit of healthy rivalry and competition. Poets are neither suitably honored nor are rewarded. Poets are guided more by malice then by the spirit of virtuous emulation. They criticize and denounce others, instead of themselves trying to do better. In other words there is much destructive criticism. As poets are not suitably rewarded and honored, they do not take pains and put in their best efforts. That is why there are so few good poets of so many harsh judges. (iv) The Ancient drama is superior because the Ancients closely observed Nature and faithfully represented her in their work. The moderns do not observe and study Nature carefully and so they distort and disfigured her in their plays. There is no faithful representation in their work. (v) The RULES of Dramatic Composition which the Modern now follows have come down to them from the Ancients. Moderns have devised no new rules nor, in any way, added to, or modified, any of their rules. (vi) 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. But in Modern plays the Unity of Time is violated and often of the Action a play covers whole ages; instead of one action there are a number of actions, and one spot of ground, i.e. the stage, is supposed to represent many countries. The Modern plays are, therefore, unnatural; they cannot be called a „just‟ and „true‟ representation of Nature. (vii) 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, only because many of their customs, stories, etc, are not known to us. There is much that is highly proper and elegant in their language but we fail to appreciate it because their language is dead, and remains only in books. The greatest man of last age, BEN JOHSON, had great admiration for the Ancients; he imitated them and borrowed (take and use another‟s (writing) as his own) heavily from them. He considered them superior to the Moderns in all things. Since Eugenius prefers him as best of all other poets, his examples should be sufficient to convince him of the superiority and excellence of the Ancients. Both the best and the worst of the Modern poets, teaches one to admire the Ancients. Case for the Moderns: - (Eugenius) Eugenius then replies to Crites and speaks in favor of the Moderns. In the very beginning, he acknowledges that the Moderns have learned much from the Ancients. The Moderns are indebted to them for rules of dramatic composition and must be grateful to them for it. He further says that by their own labor they have added to what they have gained from them, with the result that they now excel them in many ways. The Moderns have not blindly imitated them. Had they done so, they would have lost the old perfection, and would not achieve any new Excellencies. Just as in natural science they excel the previous ages because of their greater study and painstaking, so also in poetry,

because of the greater pains they take, they are nearer to perfection than the Ancient. Their greater labor makes them superior in science as well as in poetry. Further, the point that the Ancients imitated nature more perfectly than the Moderns have not been established. Crites must prove this point. Eugenius proceeds to being out some defects of the Ancients, and some Excellencies of the Moderns. (i)

In the plays, the Ancients did not know the division of play into ACTS. It was the entrance and singing of the Chorus which was supposed to divide a play into parts and in some of their plays the Chorus sung more than five times. Hence the number of Acts in a Greek play is uncertain.

The Moderns have perfected this division and divided their plays not only into Acts but also into scenes. The Spaniards and the Italians have Excellency plays to their credit, and they divided them into three Acts and not into five. The fault of the Greeks was not that they did not divide their acts into five acts. Their real fault was that did not confine themselves to any fixed number. They wrote without any definite plan and when they could write a good play their success was more a matter of chance and good fortune, than of ability. (ii)

As far as the PLOT or fable of the Ancients is concerned it lacks originality. The plot of their tragedies is based usually upon some well-known story which had already been worn thread bare by numerous poets. Therefore, their tragedies lacked the charm of novelty: “the pleasure vanished; so that one main end of Dramatic Poesy in its definition, which was to cause „delight‟, was destroyed”.

The plot of their comedies also lack originality. Certain stockcharacters such as an old-father, corrupt son, an intriguing servant and a boastful solider, makes their appearance in one comedy after another. “As for the poor honest maid on whom the

story is built and who ought to be one of the principle, actors in the play, she is commonly a mute in it:” and dumb as any wellbred Elizabethan Maiden. (iii)

In the characterization they no doubt, imitate nature, but their imitation is only narrow and partial as if they imitated only an eye or a hand and did not dare to venture on the lies of a face, or the proportion of the body. They are inferior to the Moderns in all these respects.

(iv)

Even their observance of the three unities of Time, Place and Action is not perfect. The Ancient critics, like Horace and Aristotle, make not mention of the unity of Place. TERENCE was one of the most regular of the Ancient dramatists, but even he does not faithfully observe the Unity of Time. One of his well-known plays takes two days and the division of time among the various Acts is not proportionate. ERIPIDIES another great dramatist, no doubt, confines his action to one day, but then he commits many absurdities. No doubt they have maintained better than the moderns, the continuity of their scenes but this is so only because they seldom have more than one or two scenes in each Act. “As their plots are narrow and their characters are few, even their whole Acts are often shorter than individual scenes in the well-wrought modern plays.”

(v)

There is too much of narration at the cost of Action. Instead of the providing the necessary information to the audience through dialogues they do so through monologues. The result is their play becomes monotonous and tiresome. For example,

Terence

in

his

„EUNUCH‟

and

„Adelphi‟

(or

brothers) is guilty of this sin. (vi)

Their plays do not perform one of the function of drama, that of giving delight, nor that of giving instruction. There is no poetic justice in their plays. Instead of punishing vice

and rewarding virtue, they have often shown a prosperous wickedness, and an unhappy piety. This is all more surprising if we keep in mind that in the past, comedies and tragedies were written by separate individuals, and not by the same person as at present. They worked in a narrow field and so could easily have achieved perfection in it. Their failure therefore is a proof of their inferiority to the Moderns. (vii) Eugenius agrees with Crites that they are not components to judge their language since it is dead, and many of their stories, customs. Habits, etc. have been lost to them. However, they have certain glaring faults which cannot be denied. They are often too bold in their metaphors and in their coinages. As far as possible, only such words should be used as are in common use, and new words should be coined only when absolutely necessary. Horace himself has recommended

this

rule,

but

the

Ancients

violated

it

frequently. This makes their language as pedantic and difficult to follow, as that of Cleveland (Cavalier Poet), the cotemporary satirist whom they condemn for this very reason. True wit consists of “deep thoughts in common language” and, “a

thing

well-said

will be

wit in

all

language”. (viii) Finally, their themes are equally defective. The proper end of the tragedy is to arouse, “admiration and concernment (pity)”. But their themes are lust, cruelty, murder, and bloodshed, which instead of arousing admiration and pity arouse “horror and terror”. The horror of such themes can be softened a little by the introduction of love scenes, but in the treatment of this passion they are many inferiors to such Moderns as Shakespeare and Fletcher. In their comedies,

no

doubt

they

introduce

a

few

scene

of

tenderness but then their lovers talk very little. No doubt, when the heart is too full, the words are few. But there are a thousand other occasions, when the lovers should speak out and reveal the working of their minds and heart to the audience. “To depict the movement of the soul is the true work of a poet, but the Ancients fail to perform it.” Conclusion: - Dryden‟s contribution to the controversy:Eugenius wanted to proceed with the discussion, but Crites cut him short. He could not agree with him in the view that the Moderns were more perfect, but he conceded that they, the Moderns, have altered the mode of writing. Ideas and values have changed, and this accounts for much of the difference between the Ancients and the Moderns. For example, Virgil and Homer represent their heroes as men who liked to eat and drink well, and who often boasted of their own exploits, while the Moderns represent them as moderate and modest in their ways and habits. It is not a question of good or bad, but of a change in cultural values. Similarly “the Ancients were more hearty” in their love scene but the moderns are more talkative. This accounts for the difference in their love-scenes. Had they written in the Modern age they might have altered their ways of writing in keeping with modern values. Therefore, they should not harshly decide against these great men, but preserve to them the dignity of masters, and give that honour which they themselves expect to be paid to them in times to come.