SALIENT FEATURES OF DRYDEN’S CRITICAL FACULTY
Dr. Johnson calls Dryden “the father of English
Criticism”. His poetic talents did not prevent him from critically assessing
the worth of real poetry. The essay that we have taken up for critical analysis
is the only major work of literary criticism that Dryden wrote. His prefaces,
epistles dedicatory etc. contain some critical material, no doubt, but they
have been written for justifying some of his own standpoints. They cannot be
considered objectively critical works. Dryden established English norms for
proper criticism. Rules and regulations should be taken as general guides and
not as strict disciplinarians. In his plays his aim was to delight the audience
who flocked to the theatre for a full night’s entertainment. He fully
appreciated and made full use of the variety in his patrons at the theatre to
introduce an immense variety in his plays. Discarding arbitrary rules and
regulations, he could make his plays truer to life and nature. He is one of the
champions of liberal classicism. His
limitations. There are many limitations and shortcomings in the art of literary
criticism as Dryden developed. He did not deal with ultimate problems of
literature. He indulged in lengthy discussions on specific matters of technique
and method such as comparative merits of rhyming and blank verse. He took up
several points for discussion but not in a systematically developed manner.
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS OF THE ESSAY
“The Essay of Dramatic Poesy”
had the Horatian motto prominently displayed on the title page. This motto
announces in unmistakable terms what the general public can and should expect.
Practical issues along with theoretical ones should be pondered over and so
Dryden’s aim was to stimulate thought about them. He also proposed criteria for
judging plays as well for writing them because the readers of the Essay at that
time were expected to be his audience at the theatre. Dryden did accomplish his
aim in ways that entertained and convinced those readers.
The main theme. Five points of
discussion emerge from the Essay (a) What are the distinct merits of the
ancient and modem poets? (b) Can the French School of Drama be called superior
to that of the English? (c) Can the Elizabethan dramatists be considered
superior to Dryden’s contemporaries of the seventeenth century? (d) Do plays
acquire more literary worth by strictly adhering to the rules laid down by the
ancient writers and critics? (e) What are the comparative merits of rhyming
verse and blank verse?
The form of the Essay. Dryden
has introduced four persons engaged in a dialogue for the discussion of the
topic mentioned above. The four persons are (1) Crites who defend the ancients.
It is evident that Dryden meant his own brother-in-law Sir Robert Howard. (2)
Eugenius: This is Charles Sackville, Lord Buckhurst to whom Dryden dedicated
his essay. He is the spokesman for the moderns. (3) Lisideius: He stands for
Sir Charles Sedley. He defends the French Drama and is inclined to believe in
the superiority of the French over the English. (4) Neander: This is Dryden
himself. He advocates the superiority of the English over the French and the
modems over the ancients. No one person states the whole truth. Every speaker
makes his own contribution to the discussion. The give and take of views are
freely indulged in and the readers are expected to draw their own conclusions.
SYNOPSIS OF THE MAIN ARGUMENTS OF ‘ESSAY OF
DRAMATIC POESY’
Introduction. Dryden’s Essay of Dramatic Poesy is
concerned with some of the major controversies of the day. The main themes or
critical issues discussed by Dryden in the Essay are: (i) the comparative worth
of the ancients and the modems, (ii) the relative merits of the contemporary
French and English Schools of Drama, (iii) whether the Elizabethan dramatists
were in all respects superior to the dramatists of Dryden’s age, (iv) the
extent to which the worth of a play depends upon its conformity to the dramatic
rules laid down by the ancients, and (v) the comparative merits and demerits of
blank verse and rhyme in serious plays. These issues are discussed in the form
of a debate among four speakers who, while they may stand for real individuals
of the poet's time, are more important for the ideas they represent.
Crites: spokesman for the ancients. Crites
undertakes to present the case for the ancients, (i) Dramatic art was
indigenous to ancient Greece and the drama there had gained an early maturity,
(ii) Dramatists were highly esteemed in ancient Greece and thus encouraged to
excel at their work. In the modem age lacking deserved encouragement and
healthy competition, the dramatists were not interested in doing well. (iii)
The ancients emulated nature, the distortion of which aspect led to the decline
of drama in the present, (iv) Men of the present looked mainly to the ancients
for their rules of the drama. The ancients observed the Unities well. They saw
to it that a play’s action fell as nearly as possible within twenty-four hours,
the natural duration of the day, and was equally divided between the Acts. The
Unity of time, however, was not followed by the modern English dramatists. Nor
did they follow the Unity of place as practiced by the ancients. The French
observed this unity of representing the same scene throughout a play. The Unity
of Action implies that there should be only one great and complete action.
These Unities are violated by the modem dramatists who thus render their plays
unnatural and improbable, (v) The ancients had possessed the power of
expression in a superlative degree. Crites thus argues that the ancients are
superior to the moderns.
Eugenius presents the case for the
moderns. Eugenius replies to the arguments of Crites, (i) The modern dramatists
had actually improved on the work of the ancients though it was always
difficult to assess fairly the value of contemporary writings, (ii) The
ancients too had defects. The division of the play into protasis, epitasis,
etc. was ineffective. Their tragic plots were mostly based on hackneyed tales
of Thebes and Troy, while in comedy characters were limited to certain stock
types, (iii) The Unities were not always observed by the ancients. At times the
strict observance of the Unities of time and place led them into absurdities.
In any case, apart from the Unity of action those rules were not Aristotelian
but French in origin. (iv) Other defects in technique include excess of speech
at the cost of action leading to monotony, many instances of faulty diction and
metaphors. The ancients having had writers exclusively devoted to either
tragedy or comedy, should have achieved perfection in each field, and there is
no justification for their defects. (v) Apart from technical defects the
ancients also exhibited a faulty moral attitude. Instead of ‘punishing vice and
rewarding virtue’ they often displayed “a prosperous vice and an unhappy
piety’’ Their themes of lust, revenge and ambition gave rise to horror rather
than pity in an audience. Love, with its moderating influences, is conspicuous
by its absence in ancient tragedy.
Crites’s
concession. The discussion is brought to a close by Crites’s concession that
whether the moderns surpassed, or merely differed from the ancients, yet the
ancients had they lived in later times would doubtless have made many changes.
The change in ideas and values accounts for much of the difference between the
ancients and modems.
The debate now takes a new turn, and Lisideiqs and Neander enter on a
discussion of the respective merits of French and English plays
Lisideius: Contention of French superiority over
English drama. To begin with Lisideius grants that English plays of forty years
previously had clearly surpassed those of the French. However, political
turmoil at home had since hampered the progress. (i) The French, aided by
Richelieu and Corneille, had lately reformed their stage so that it had become
unrivaled in Europe, (ii) The superiority of the French dramatists firstly lay
in their observance of the three Unities. They had discarded the absurd tragi-comedies
with their mingled passions and yet provided variety in plenty, (iii) The
French based their plots on familiar history but modified and transformed for
dramatic purposes, whereas Shakespeare’s historical plays were nothing but
chronicles, cramping years into hours in an unnatural fashion, (iv) Another
notable feature of the dramatic art of the French was their economy in
plotting, their selection of significant details, which, while constituting a
great and complete action, yet allowed for a more searching treatment of
emotions and passions, (v) The French method of characterization too was
effective as it gave due importance to characters even while exalting one of
them. Each character had a suitable role to play. (vi) No less notable was their
skill in narrative though too much explanation could become tedious. On the
other hand, there were many incidents in a story which could not well be
represented on the stage, such as duels, battles and scenes of cruelty and
these were best related, not acted. Such narratives could be both impressive
and convincing, whereas to represent an “Army with a drum and five men behind
it” was merely ridiculous, while a death-scene in an English tragedy was often
the most comic part of the play, (vii) Other commendable points about French
drama were a logical development of the plot, and the use of rhyme in
preference to blank verse.
Neander (or Dryden) spokesman for England and liberty. Neander now takes up the
challenge and with the skill of a great advocate strikes at the heart of the
question. He grants the French some plus points but vindicates the English at
the same time. (i) The French drama had regularity and decorum, while the
English plays had many irregularities but these virtues and defects were not
enough to place the French above the English, (ii) The beauties of the French
plays were artificial, lacking touch with actual life, hence defective if
considered with the laws of Nature as the ultimate test. Moliere, notably,
followed the English tradition for variety of humor. (iii) Neander disapproved of the rigid
separation of tragic and comic elements in French plays. He preferred the
English characteristic of mingling the serious and the mirthful as (a)
contraries set off each other, (b) the juxtaposition of a comic scene amidst
continued gravity provided relief, (c) compassion and mirth are coexistent in
nature also, and (d) tragic-comedy is a more pleasant way than was known to the
ancients or any modems who have eschewed it.
(iv) Neander could not admire the barrenness and severity of French
plays in excluding under-plots and minor episodes. Provided such details
contributed to the main design, their value lay in adding a pleasing variety,
the effect being similar (as he puts it) to that of the two-fold movements of
planets in the Primum Mobile. (v) That the preoccupation of the French with a
single theme (or Unity of action) gave opportunity for impassioned appeals was
unconvincing, since such appeals consisted mostly of long-winded and boring
declamations. Furthermore, long speeches were untrue to life, while short
speeches were more likely to stir the emotions. As for comedy, repartee was
“one of its chief graces”. (vi) Variety was enhanced by having a large
number of characters. If skilfully managed, as by Ben Jonson, the large number
of characters need not cause confusion. (vii) As regards showing
violence on stage, such scenes had become part of the English tradition, being
a concession to the native temperament which somehow delighted in these things.
As for incredibility, if an audience could imagine an actor as a king, they
could also imagine three soldiers to represent an army. And if the English were
guilty of showing too much action on the stage, the French were guilty of
showing too little action. A mean path must be taken, eschewing the indecent
and the incredible but representing the beautiful. Death, however, must not be
shown on stage. (viii) The French
dramatist Corneille had observed that French dramatists had suffered from too
strict an observance of the rules, and had thereby banished from the stage many
artistic beauties. (ix) Regular English plays were not entirely wanting—an
example being Jonson’s Silent Woman. For the rest, however, English plays were
more original, more varied and spirited. Neander now goes on to illustrate
these qualities from the works of outstanding English dramatists.
Neander’s appreciation of Shakespeare, Beaumont and Fletcher and Jonson.
Neander hails Shakespeare as the largest and most comprehensive soul of all
modem, and perhaps ancient poets. Reference is made to his unlaboured art, his
inborn genius, his life-like characterization, though he is also said at times
to stumble into bombast and punning.
Crites’s attack on rhyme and Neander’s defense.
After vindicating the English dramatists, which is the main object of the
Essay, Dryden is unable to conclude without some reference to the question of
the verse most suitable for dramatic purposes. Crites notes that blank verse
had established itself in popular favor since Shakespeare and others had
written, and rhyming verse was an unnatural and artificial form of expression.
Aristotle too had held that tragedy was best written in verse nearest prose.
Nor could he accept the argument that rhyme was instrumental in curbing wild
fancies; for a dramatist unable to control these fancies in blank verse would not
be able to control them anyway.
Neander marshalls all his arguments in favor of rhyming verse and boldly
asserts that it is more natural and effectual than blank verse in serious
plays. Rhyming verse had been universally adopted abroad and could be made to
resemble prose by varying the cadences, by running the sense on from one line
to another, or by irregular devices. Blank verse was no verse at all, at its
best only poetic prose. The truth was, so Neander felt, that the possibilities
of blank verse had been exhausted by those earlier dramatists. All that was
left for a later age with its different genius was to employ rhyming verse in
which excellence unknown to the earlier age had lately been achieved,
Furthermore, rhyming verse was, according to Neander ‘the noblest kind of modem
verse’, and the only adequate verse-form for tragedy. Tragedy was a
representation of ‘Nature wrought up to a higher pitch’ and for such a
treatment of Nature, rhyming verse was the only verse form. Moreover, rhyme was
an aid to judgment.
Conclusion. The Essay concludes at this moment in a
picturesque fashion, with the moonlight playing on the Thames, as the boat
reaches its destination, and the disputants disperse on their several ways.
