An Essay of Dramatic Poesy is a leisurely discussion between four contemporary writers. Dryden wrote it in a semi-dramatic manner and structured it as a dialogue between four friends on the river Thames. The group has taken refuge on a barge during a naval battle between the English and the Dutch fleets. The four gentlemen, Eugenius, Crites, Lisideius, and Neander (all aliases for actual Restoration critics and the last for Dryden himself), begin an ironic and witty conversation on the subject of poetry, which soon turns into a debate on the virtues of modern and ancient writers. Neander is the one who holds the views of Dryden. Unlike other characters, Neander does not diminish the arguments that are contrary to his views. Though he favors modern drama, he does not blame others.
Characters of An Essay of Dramatic Poesy:
The four characters of An Essay of Dramatic Poesy are Eugenius modeled on Sir Charles Sackville, an English poet, and courtier, Crites modeled on Sir Robert Howard, an English playwright, and politician, Lisideius modeled on Sir Charles Sedley, an English noble, dramatist, and politician, and Neander, modeled on Dryden himself. The four people discuss three topics:
(1) the relative merit of classical drama (upheld by Crites) vs. modern drama (championed by Eugenius);
(2) whether French drama, as Lisideius maintains, is better than English drama, and
(3) whether plays in rhyme are an improvement upon blank verse drama. Crites oppose this despite favoring the Ancients earlier while Neander suggests that rhyme in Dramas is certainly an improvement though he initially defended Elizabethans who introduced blank verse in dramas.
In addition, the four also discuss the importance of maintaining the three unities of Time, Place, and Action from Aristotle’s Poetics. In the late 17th century, Shakespeare was severely criticized for his careless attitude towards the mixing of genres and neglect of the three Unities. It was Dryden who elevated Shakespeare to the height of his natural genius. Crites support Ben Johnson and Beaumont and Fletcher for their correctness and maintaining the three Unities. Dryden supports Shakespeare and defends him for mixing the genres and creating Tragicomedies. Dryden further says, “I am apt to believe the English language in them arrived at its highest perfection”. If Ben Jonson is a genius for correctness, Shakespeare excels in wit.
Summary of An Essay of Dramatic Poesy:
The narrative begins during a battle going on between England and the Netherlands. Four gentlemen, probably authors are traveling on a barge down the river Thames, seeking a vantage point from which they can hear the battle safely.
Through these four characters, Dryden defines drama 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. The word ‘just’ suggests that literature imitates (and not merely reproduces) human actions. However, for Dryden, ‘poetic imitation’ is different from an exact, servile copy of reality, for, the imitation is not only ‘just’, but it is also ‘lively’.
Lisideus is the one who claims Drama is a just and lively imitation of human nature and the debate continues to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of French and English Drama, Ancient, and Modern Drama, and the importance of “Unity in French Drama”.
The sound of cannon fire initiates the discussion about the quality of English composition. Crites bemoans the fact that, even in the event of victory, they will be punished “in being subject to the reading and hearing of so many ill verses as he is sure will be made on that subject”. Lisideius seconds this objection, adding that some of these glory-hungry poets will be prepared “either way,” so “they can produce not only a panegyric upon the victory but, if need be, a funeral elegy for the duke”. Thus, Crites and Lisideius criticize the modern writers. However, Eugenius tries to defend the modern writers. Crites attacks Modern English dramatists and says that the Moderns are still imitating the Ancients and using their forms and subjects, relying on Aristotle and Horace, adding nothing new, and yet not following their good advice closely either, especially concerning the Unities of time, place and action. Crites praises Ben Jonson as the best in English drama, saying that he followed the Ancients "in all things" and offered nothing really new in terms of "serious thoughts".
Eugenius says that "the moderns have profited by the rules of the ancients" but moderns have "excelled them." He points first to some discrepancies in the applications of the Unities, mentioning that there seem to be four parts in Aristotle's method: the entrance, the intensifying of the plot, the counter-turn, and the catastrophe. But he points out that somewhere along the line, and by way of Horace, plays developed five acts (the Spanish only 3). As regards the action, Eugenius contends that they are transparent, everybody already knows what will happen; that the Romans borrowed from the Greeks; and that the deus ex machina convention is a weak escape. As far as the unity of place is concerned, he suggests that the Ancients were not the ones to insist on it so much as the French and that insistence has caused some artificial entrances and exits of characters. The unity of time is often ignored in both. As to the liveliness of language, Eugenius countersuits Crites by suggesting that even if we do not know all the contexts, good writing is always good, it is always discernible if done well. He goes on to say also that while the Ancients portrayed many emotions and actions, they neglected love, "which is the most frequent of all passions" and known to everyone. He mentions Shakespeare and Fletcher as offering "excellent scenes of passion."
Lisideius supports Crites and argues in favor of Ancient writers. He agrees with Eugenius that the Elizabethan drama was superior. Then they had their Jonson, Beaumont, and Fletcher. But English drama has decayed and declined since then. They live in an awful age full of bloodshed and violence, and poetry is an art of peace. Since France is relatively at peace, poetry flourishes in France and not in England. He mentions Corneille (1606-84) as the best French dramatist and the English have no dramatist equal to him.
Crites and Lisideius support French dramatists in the following ways:
a) They follow the Ancients and carefully observe the Unity of Time in their plays. In most French plays, the entire action is limited to one place and thus they follow the Unity of Place. French plays are never overloaded with sub-plots and hence the French follow the Unity of Action. English playwrights, on the other hand, continue to divert from one action to the other, and its due effects. Licideius says that no drama in the world is as absurd as the English tragic-comedy.
b) The French comedies are based on well-known Ancient stories. The French playwrights transform these stories for dramatic purposes and thus, in some way, they are superior even to the Ancients. The plots of French plays are a mixture of truth with fiction based on historical invention. Crites criticize English dramatists like Shakespeare, who do not modify and transform their stories for dramatic purposes. He says that English dramatists lack verisimilitude (likeness to reality) while the French plays have it.
c) The French dramatists keep their plots simple and do not burden it with subplots but the English burden their plays with actions and incidents which have no logical and natural connection with the main action so much so that an English play is a mere compilation. Hence the French plays are better written than the English ones.
d) The English plays concentrate on one major character while ignoring the others and thus, the greater part of the action is concerned with him. But in French plays, the other characters are not neglected. In French plays, such narrations are made by those who are in some way or the other connected with the main action.
e) They also criticize Engish drama for having too much bloodshed and gory.
Defense of The English Dramatists:
At this point, Neander (Dryden) intervenes in favor of English dramatists. He stresses on the definition of Drama suggested by Lisideius and says that English playwrights are best at "the lively imitation of nature" (i.e., human nature). French poesy is beautiful; it is beautiful like a "statue" but is not lively. He defends the English invention of tragi-comedy by suggesting that the use of mirth with tragedy provides "contraries" that "set each other off" and gives the audience relief from the heaviness of straight tragedy. He suggests that the use of well-ordered sub-plots makes the plays interesting and helps the main action. Neander says that English plays are more entertaining and instructive because they offer an element of surprise that the Ancients and the French do not. Neander says that the audience knows that nothing of the drama is real yet they feel like it is all real because drama imitates reality. So why should they think scenes of deaths or battles any less "real" than the rest? Neander suggests that it may be there are simply too many rules and often following them creates more absurdities than they prevent.
Crites continues to support Ancient Playwrights and presents the following arguments:
a) Ancients are obviously the best and that is why the Modern playwrights continue to imitate them. They use the foundation built by the Ancients.
b) The Ancients had a special genius for drama, and in their particular branch of poetry, they could reach perfection. Just as they excel in drama.
c) During the Greek and Roman periods, poetry was more honored 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. But in modern times there is no such spirit of healthy rivalry and competition. Poets are neither suitably honored nor are they rewarded.
d) Ancients were a better observer of nature and faithfully represented nature in their work. Modern however are lousy. They do not observe and study Nature carefully and so they distort and disfigure nature in their plays.
e) Crites say that the Modern playwrights continue to follow the same rules of Dramatic composition set by the Ancients yet, they often disregard the Unities, of Time, Place, and Action.
Eugene counters these arguments in support of Modern playwrights. He agrees that the Moderns have learned much from the Ancients. But he adds that by their own labor, the Moderns have added to what they have gained from them.
a) The Moderns have perfected the division of plays and divided their plays not only into Acts but also into scenes.
b) Eugene counters the charge of the three Unities and says that even the Ancients’ observance of the three unities is not perfect. The Ancient critics, like Horace and Aristotle, did not make mention of the Unity of Place. Even the Ancients did not always observe the Unity of Time. Euripides, a great dramatist, no doubt, confines his action to one day, but, then, he commits many absurdities.
c) Eugene attacks Ancient writers and says Ancient dramas have too much narration at the cost of Action. Instead of providing the necessary information to the audience through dialogues the Ancients often do so through monologues. The result is, that their play becomes monotonous and tiresome.
d) He further attacks Ancient writers and says that 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.
e) He attacks the themes of Ancient plays. The proper end of Tragedy is to arouse “admiration and concernment (pity)”. But their themes are lust, cruelty, murder, and bloodshed, which instead of arousing admiration and pity arouses “horror and terror”.
Thus, Dryden took no extreme position and was sensible enough to give the Ancients their respect. He mentions the achievement of the Ancients and the gratitude of the Moderns to them and then he presents the comparative merits and demerits of each more clearly.
Defense of Tragi-Comedy or Mixing the Genres:
Cites and Lisideius criticize Shakespeare for mixing the genres and creating Tragicomedies. Neander supports Shakespeare though. He vindicates tragi-comedy on the following grounds:
a) Tragedy and comedy are contrasting feelings when placed together appropriately, they offer a balance.
b) He says that the continued gravity of a tragedy may depress the spirit of the audience while a scene of mirth placed in between refreshes and energizes the audience. Comic scenes offer relief to the audience.
c) Comedy or mirth does not reduce the value of compassion and thus the serious effect that tragedy aims at is not disturbed by mingling of tragic and comic.
d) One can easily turn their eyes from an unpleasant thing to a pleasant one. Similarly, the audience faces no difficulty in moving from the tragic to the comic, rather it reinvigorates them.
e) The English dramatists have perfected a new way of writing which was not known to the Ancients. If Aristotle could see the works of Modern English writers, he might have appreciated them. He says that tastes change with time. 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”.
Thus, as an intelligent and shrewd critic, Dryden defends the Modern English authors especially Shakespeare, and supports liberal classicism.
Support for Rhymed Verses in Dramas:
Elizabethan dramas were known for the excellent use of Blank Verse which came into vogue right after Thomas Sackville used Blank Verse in Gorboduc. Dryden too followed the trend in his play ‘Aurangzebe’. However, the dramatists and authors of the Restoration period preferred rhymed Heroic couplets over Blank verse and Dryden also defends the use of Heroic couplets in playwrights.
Crites begin attacking modern playwrights on the issue of Rhyme violently on the following grounds:
a) Rhyme is unnatural in plays because a play is in dialogues and nobody speaks in rhyme.
b) Though nobody speaks in Blank Verse either, it is nearer to prose and according to Aristotle, tragedy should be written in a verse form which is nearer to prose.
c) Rhyme can be allowed in comedies but never in tragedies.
Neander then counters the attack and defends the use of Heroic couplets in dramas by saying-
a) The use of verse or rhyme doesn’t make a language natural. It appears natural only when the choice and the placing of the word are natural in a natural order which makes the language natural.
b) One can make use of hemistich, manipulation of pauses and stresses, and the change of meter to make Rhyme appear to imitate nature.
c) The Elizabethans achieved perfection in the use of blank verse but the Moderns cannot excel them, or achieve anything significant or better in the use of blank verse. Hence they must use rhyme, which suits the genius of their age, and should excel in that.
d) Rhyme is the noblest kind of verse while tragedy is a serious play representing nature exalted to its highest pitch. Thus, Rhyme suits tragedy better because both are the best in their sphere.
At the end of his essay, Dryden again says that Rhyme is more suited for dramas because rhyme adds to the pleasure of poetry. Rhyme helps the judgment and thus makes it easier to control the free flights of the fancy. The primary function of poetry is to give ‘delight’, and rhyme enables the poet to perform this function well.
So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!
No comments:
Post a Comment