John Dryden “Essay of Dramatic Poesy” (1668)

BY: TO: AYTEKIN ALIYEVA Prof. SHAHIN KHALILLI

QAFQAZ UNIVERSITY

SPRING, 2013

Briefly about “Glorious John”…

John Dryden, an English poet and dramatist, the carrier of the literary efforts of The Restoration, was born on August 19, 1631, in Aldwinkle, Northamptonshire, England. He received a classical education at Westminster School and Trinity College, Cambridge, and then moved to London in 1657 to begin his career as a professional writer. His first play, “The Wild Gallant” (1663), was a failure when first presented, but Dryden soon found more success with “The Indian Queen” (1664) which served as his first attempt to found a new theatrical genre, the heroic tragedy. The young playwright's reputation grew quickly, and in 1668 Dryden was appointed Poet Laureate of England. That same year, he agreed to write exclusively for Thomas Killigrew's theatrical company and became a shareholder. Both his first offering, “Tyrannick Love” (1669), and “The Conquest of Granada by the Spaniards” (1670), are examples of heroic tragedy. In 1672, however, perhaps sensing the demise of his short-lived genre, Dryden turned his hand to comedy and produced “Marriage A-la-Mode”, a brilliant battle of the sexes. Dryden's relationship with Killigrew's company continued until 1678 at which point he broke with the theatre and offered his latest play, “Oedipus”, a drama he had co-authored with Nathaniel Lee, to another company.

In his later years, Dryden turned to poetry and solidified his reputation as the leading writer of the day with such masterpieces as “Absalom and Achitophel”. However, he continued to write for the theatre, producing such plays as “Don Sebastian” (1689), and “Amphitryon” (1690). He also adapted a number of Shakespeare's plays including “The Tempest” and “All for Love” (1677). In addition, he wrote the libretto for several operas.

John Dryden died in London on May 12, 1700, and was buried in Westminster Abbey next to Chaucer. He left behind almost 30 works for the stage as well as a major critical study ( Essay of Dramatic Poesy) and a number of translations including the works of Virgil.

“Perhaps no nation ever produced a writer that enriched his language with such a variety of models”.

(Samuel Johnson)

Essay of Dramatic Poesy…

John Dryden’s “Essay of Dramatic Poesy” gives a definite explanation of neoclassical theory of art in general. He defends the classical drama standing on the line of Aristotle saying it is an imitation of life, and reflects human nature clearly. He also discusses the three unities, rules that require a play take place in one place, during one day, and that it develops one single action or plot.

The Essay is then given as a series of speeches in which the companions put forward what they consider to be the best examples of dramatic representation and it is written in the form of dialogue. It is a sophisticated debate between four Restoration gentlemen as they float down the Thames on a barge. They are Eugenius, Crites, Lesideius and Neander. Neander seems to speak for Dryden himself. Crites begins the debate with his advocacy of the Ancients: the radically classical viewpoint. He states a preference for the plays of “the last age” (Elizabethan and Jacobean) over the present. Crites defends the ancient and pointed out that they invited the principles of dramatic art declared by Aristotle and Horace. Crites opposed to rhyme in plays and argues that though the moderns exceed in science; the ancient age was the true age of poetry.

Eugenius, in response, attempts to turn Crites’ points against him by stating that progress in science has been matched by progress in the arts. Eugenius persistently takes the side of the modern English dramatists by criticizing the faults of the classical playwright, who did not themselves observe “The Unity Principles”.

Lesideius defends the French playwrights and attacks the English tendency to mix genres. He accepts the success of the earlier English stage, but emphasizes modern classicism in France. Lesideius defines a play as a just and lively image of human and the change of fortune to which it is subject for the delight and instruction of mankind. 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 familiarity.

He declares them the best of all Europe because of their adherence to the unities, and the most important point here is that they maintain the unity of action by not adding confusing subplots. Here he begins the discussion of the English tragicomedy, which he calls "absurd". He commends the French as well for basing their tragedies on "some known history," that in this way fiction is combined with reality so that some truth can be revealed. He compares Shakespeare's history plays, saying that "they are rather so many chronicles of kings". He reports that the French do several things much better than the English. First, they keep the plot to one action which they then develop fully where the English add all kinds of actions that don't always follow from the main one. The French also focus on one main character and all the characters have some connection with him and have a purpose that advances the plot. Additionally, the French use narration (reporting by the characters) to describe things that happen, like battles and deaths, that Lisideius says are ridiculous when shown on stage and also it prevents inappropriate death scenes and acts of violence in performances. If the representation of incidents will not be realistic or believable it is better omit them.

Further, he says the French never end their plays with "conversions" or "changes of will" without setting up the proper justification for it. The English, by contrast, show their characters having changes of heart that are over-reactions to circumstances and therefore not believable. Also, in the French plays, the characters never come in or leave a scene

without the proper justifications being supplied. Finally, he compliments the "beauty of their rhyme" suggesting that it would help English poetry, though he doesn't think there's anyone capable of doing it properly.

Neander has the last word, suggesting that based on the definition of a play, the English are best at the lively imitation of nature. While French poesy is beautiful; it is beautiful like a "statue" and even French writers are imitating the English. One fault he finds in their plots is the regularity that makes the plays too much alike and a sequence of motionless speeches. But the English stage is more vital, more exciting. He also finds subplots as an inseparable part to enrich a play. He suggests that the use of subplots, if they are well-ordered, make the plays interesting and help the main action. Subplots and tragicomedy make variety and contrast, dramatic dialogue is better suited to passion.

Neander argues that tragicomedy is the best form for a play; because it is the closest to life in which emotions like joy and sadness are mixed up. Further, he suggests that English plays are more entertaining and instructive because they offer an element of surprise that the ancients and the French do not. Ultimately, in discussing the English habit of breaking the rules, he suggests that it maybe there are simply too many rules and often that following them creates more absurdities than they prevent.

Neander gives superiority to the moderns, respects the ancients, criticize fixed rules of dramas. He favors the violation of the unities because it leads to the variety to the English plays. The unities have a narrowing effect on the French plays. The violation of unities helps the English playwright to present an absolute, just and lively image of human nature.

In his comparison of French and English drama, Neander characterizes the best proofs of the Elizabethan playwrights. He praises Shakespeare ancients and moderns. Neander comes to the end for the superiority of the Elizabethans with a close examination of a play by Johnson which Neander believes a perfect demonstration that the English were capable of following classical rules.

Dryden blames the critics, who attack the use of rhyme both in tragedy and comedy. Since nobody speaks in rhyme in real life, he supports the use of blank verse in drama and says that the use of rhyme in serious plays is justifiable than the blank verse.

Primarily focusing on drama, the poetry of plays, Dryden ultimately wants to make a case for the achievements of the British in that respect. In somewhat "Platonic" method, he creates a dialogue between poet/critics of the day who have different viewpoints about the strengths and weaknesses of British poesy. The benefit of this is to raise an argument which takes a variety of positions into consideration. Rather than attempting to create a new set of "rules" for drama, comedy, or verse, he chooses instead to review the existing, generally accepted conventions and decide in what respects they are being followed, or whether they should be followed by English writers. He uses the way of solving this problem in society by showing them different opinions through his imaginative characters.