Discuss John Dryden’s Essay on Dramatic Poesy

Discuss  John Dryden’s Essay on Dramatic Poesy..

          Preface:

                   John Dryden was a prominent English Poet, critic, Translator and also playwright who dominated  the literary life of the restoration age and that’s why this age is also known as the age of Dryden. He was a Cambridge scholar , literary terms genius and critic . so Dr. Samuel Johnson quote him as…

“ The father  of English  Criticism ,

Who first taught us to determine

Upon principle the merit of composition  ”

About Dryden’s life

Born                  : 9 August,1631, Northanptoshire, England

Death                :  1 may, 1770,London , England

Occupation       : Poet Laureate, Critic, Dramatist

Education         : At Cambridge university

   Dryden’s  work

• ‘ Prface to the fables’
• ‘ Preface to the Indian emperor’
• ‘ The wild Gallant ’
• ‘ An Essay on Dramatic poesy’
• ‘ All for  Love’

    He was a critic of contemporary reality. His critical observation of contemporary reality is reflected in ‘ Mackfleknoe’ (1682). p mature thoughts of literary criticism on ancient , modern and English literature , especially on drama  are presented  in dialogue from in ‘ An Essay on Dramatic  poesy ’. in this essay there are four speakers each on argues strongly  as which one is better.

“Ancient or Modern ? and French or English? ”

    Here we discuss only ‘An Essay on Dramatic Poesy’ .so let’s discuss in detail .most of his critical interpretation are found in interest in general issue of criticism rather than in close reading of particular texts . Dryden just puts emphasis on the neoclassical rules.

An Introduction of An Essay on Dramatic Poesy

     John Dryden’s An Essay on Dramatic Poesy resents a brief discussion on the Neoclassical theory  of literature. He defends the classical drama saying that it is an imitation of life reflects human nature clearly.

     An Essay on Dramatic poesy is written in the forms of a dialogue among four gentlemen , Eugenius , Crites, Lisideius , Neander(Dryden).

      Eugenius favors modern English dramatists by attacking the classical playwright , who did not themselves always observe the unity of place. But they invited the principles  of Dramatic art paved  by Aristotle and Horace .  Crites opposes rhyme in the plays and argues that though  the modern excel in science,  the ancient  was the true age of poetry. Lisideius defends  the French playwright and attack tendency to mix genres.

 Neander speaks in favor of the moderns and respects the ancients; he is however critical of the rigid rules of dramas and favors rhymes. Neander who is spoke person of Dryden , argue that ‘ Tragic-Comedy’ is the best for play ; because it is closer to life in which emotions  are  highlighted by mirth and sadness . he also find sub plot as an integral part to enrich a play .    finds single action in French dramas to be rather inadequate since it is so often has a narrowing comparing effects.

 Neander speaks and gives his palm to the violation of three unities because it leads to the variety in English plays. Dryden thus  argues against the  neo claasical critics. Since nobody speakes 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 in place of the blank verse.

 So, Dryden holds that  Ancient principles should be respected , but should not be followed blindly.

Dryden’s definition of Drama

 Dryden express his views on drama that what a play should be, therefore  he defines drama as…..

“ Just and lively image of human nature,

Representing it’s passion and humorous ,

And the change of fortune to which it is subject,

For the delight and instruction of mankind”

  According to the definition , drama is an image of human nature, and the image is just and lively. By using the word just Dryden seems to imply that literature imitates human actions. For Dryden , poetic imitation is different from an exact servile copy of reality, for the imitation is not just , it is also lively.

 Therefore , Dryden and his three friends talks about  what a play should be  , further Lisideius  convey his views about drama as a just and lively image of human nature , they start to give their views and discuss the advantages  of French and English drama.

Violation of The Three unities  

    Here , the unities of time, place, and action are  concerned . this group discusses  the playwright like Ben Johnson , Moliere and william Shakespeare with a deeper in sight . John Dryden himself also defenses English  tragic  comedy.

 To the view that observe of the unities is justifies on the ground that

• Their  violation result improbability
• That it places too  great a strain on the imagination of the spectators
• That credibility is stretched too far , replies that it is all a question of dramatic  illusion.   

  There is no harm in introducing ‘ subplots ’ for they impart Variety , richness and live  to the play. In this way the writer can present a more just and lively picture than French with their narrow and cramped plays.

Eugenius’s   Argument on the superiority  of the modern over the Ancients

Eugenius put his argument on the superiority of the modern over the ancients . and Eugenius said that ..

“The  Modern have profited by

The rules of the Ancients”

   But the modern  have excelled them  .he points first to some discrepancies in the application of the unities , mentioning that there seem to be four parts in Aristotle’s method. As regards  the action , Eugenius contends  that they are transparent , everybody already having  known what  will happen , that roman borrowed from the Greeks and that the deus ex machina convention is wrek escape.

   As far as the unity of place is concerned , he suggested that the Ancients were not the ones to insists on it too much as the French , and that insistence  has caused  some artificial entrances and exist of characters. Ancients  many emotions , they neglected love, which is the most frequent  of all passion.

Crites ‘s Arguments  in favor of the Ancients..

  In this argument he develops the main points in defending the ancients and raises  objections to modern plays . the modern are still imitating the ancients  and using  their forms and subjects, replying on Aristotle and Horace. The third unity that of action , requires  that the play “ aim at one great and complete action  ” but the English have all kind of sub-plots which destroy the unity of the action.

    In anticipating the objection that the ancients language is not as vital as the modern ‘s crites says that we have to remember that we are probably missing a lot of subtitles because the language are dead and the custom as far form this time.

Lisideius ‘s views in favor of the superiority  of the French Drama  over the English Drama

   Lisideius   speaks in favor of the French . he argues that and agrees with  Eugenius that in the last generation the English drama  was superior . had their Johnson, Beaumont and Fletcher , but English drama has decayed and declined . since then they live in an awful age full of bloodshed  and violence, and the poetry is an art of peace . in the present age , it flourished in Frances and  not  in Engrland . the French have no dramatist equal to him .

Neander ‘s views in favor of modern Drama

    Neander’s   views in favor of modern drama based on the definition of the play , Neander suggests that English playwright s  are best at the lively image and imitation of nature . French poesy is beautiful ; it is beautiful like a statue . he even says that the newer French writer are imitating the English playwright one fault in their plots is that the regularity also makes the plays too much alike .

                 He defends the  English invention of  Tragic-Comedy  by suggesting  that the use of mirth tragedy provides contraries that  the set each other off and gives the audience relief from the heaviness of straight  tragedy. While the audience may know that none of them are real, why should they  think  scene of death or battles any less real than the rest? Ultimately  he suggests that it may be there are simply too many rules and often following them creates more absurdities than they prevent .

      Advocacy  of writing  plays I rhyme verse   

 

 In restoration era rhymed verse or heroic couplet was generally  used as the medium of expression for heroic tragedy . while  the great Elizabethan dramatist had used blank verse for their plays. Dryden himself  used rhyme for his  plays up to ‘ Aurangzeb’ , but the preface to this play he bids farewell to his mistress rhyme , and express  his intention  of turning to blank verse . however in the essay , he has  expressed himself strongly in favor of rhyme through the mouth of Neander.

  At the end of the essay , Dryden gives one more reasons in favor of rhyme . rhyme add to the pleasure of poetry , the primary function of poetry is to give delight and rhyme , enable the poet to perform function well.

       To Sum up..

          John Dryden in his essay “ An Essay on Dramatic Poesy ”, gives an account of Neo-classical drama saying that it is an imitation of life, and reflects human nature clearly. He also discusses the three unities, rules that requires  a play to take in one place , during  one day and that it develops  one single actions  or plot. In this way, Dryden ‘s commitment  to the neo-classical tradition is displayed.

Discuss the characteristics of Anti-Sentimental comedy with reference to 3 plays

 Discuss the characteristics of  Anti-Sentimental comedy with reference to …..

·      She stoops to conquer

·      The Rival

·      The School for Scandal

Introduction:

          When we discuss about the Anti-sentimental comedy, first we clear the idea about, what is sentimental comedy?

          The sentimental comedy of 18^th century was, in fact, reaction against the comedy of manners which had been voyage during the restoration period. It appeals especially to our feeling of sorrow, pity, compassionate sympathy.

          Anti-sentimental comedy is reaction against sentimental comedy.

          The sentimental comedy did not last language. The sentimental soon degenerated into sentimentality. The aim of writers of the comedy of manners was to make fun of pious and holy character. Middle class mortality was ridiculed and the writers of the schools made attempts to bring virtue and virtuous characters, under the withering scorn their cynical attitude towards morality.

Anti-Sentimental Comedy….

          Anti-Sentimental comedy is reaction against sentimental comedy . The comedy of humor which goldsmith and Sheridan cultivate in eighteen century was the reaction against the sentimental comedy of clibber, Steele, Kelly. Goldsmith opposed sentimental comedy because it place of laughter and humors.

          So, this way there is new  and success output in Anti-Sentimental comedy, it takes old forms of comedy , comedy of manner , which is also called, generally for Anti-Sentimental Comedy.

          Anti-Sentimental Comedy is going to   old forms, it is a low force, situational humor . it is high polished in restoration comedy.

“  Anti-Sentimental Comedy is one that does not use emotions to evoke reflection in an audience . instead of an Anti-Sentimental comedy will use cynicism  to achieve it’s message.”

         

          Anti-Sentimental Comedy is comedy of manners less the vulgarity and the profanity. We know that it deals with the relation and intrigues and many more things.

Characteristics of Anti-Sentimental Comedy…

•  Amusing intrigues and situations                 
•  Satirical comedy and Irony
•  Marriage for Love and Marriage for Money
•  Wit of Language and verbal dialogue
•  Farce and disguise
• Emotions have boundaries

Generally the Anti-Sentimental comedy deals with the , and it is always focus on major character as lover. And it is divided into subplot like the dramatic way and the relations with the pathos.

          So, let’s discuss the Anti-Sentimental comedy with its  characteristics  .So here it is Anti-Sentimental comedy.

1.  The Rival
2.  The school for scandal
3. She stoops to  conquer

She Stoops to Conquer

          This wonderful comedy by genius playwright , Oliver Goldsmith, in it’s time ; heal ding the era of laughing comedies and being contemporary to other plays.

          The story Revolves around the  family of Hardcastle and their friends. Goldsmith brings out  the comic effect in depicting these character, their foibles and schemes and in which lend them in more troubles .in the very beginning of play In the first scene  speech by Mr.Hardcastle….

“ I love everything that is old ; old friends , old times, old manners

Old books, old wine, and I believe, Dorothy , you‘ll own I have been

Pretty fond of an old wife  ”

Though not written by Goldsmith, the play's prologue is useful in the way it provides insight into Goldsmith's purpose in the play. Obviously, the most explicit purpose is to make the audience laugh. The speaker – Mr. Woodward, who would have been portrayed by a different actor – comes out in mourning, already having been crying, which in a way poses a challenge to the play. If we, as actors and audience, are in a state of sadness, can the play lift our spirits?

However, most relevant is the state of affairs sculpted here. The prologue mirrors the trend in theatre that writers like Goldsmith were desperately trying to change. At the time of She Stoops to Conquer, popular theatre comedy was separated into what was commonly termed "sentimental comedy" and "laughing comedy." The former was concerned with bourgeois (middle-class) morality and with praising virtue. The latter, which dated back to the Greeks and Romans and through Shakespeare, was more willing to engage in “low” humor for the sake of mocking vice.

Woodward suggests that a certain class of actor (and by extension, then, audience and writer) were dying out as sentimental comedy became more popular. So Goldsmith's play has an extra purpose: it must rejuvenate the joy taken in “laughing comedy,” which could be willing to be more stupid, to dramatize base characters and characteristics, and to mock even the characters who profess to be moral.

It's worth reviewing the "About 'An Essay on the Theatre'" section of this Classic Note that explains in more detail the context of the theatre of the time, since it will provide an even more in-depth understanding of the purpose suggested in this prologue. But even without such extensive historical research, the prologue brings the audience in with a particular question: can this play remind us that true comedy, which is willing to be silly and unpretentious, is the most entertaining of all?

          Though in this play Goldsmith presented image through the character . love is central theme, but for money also. There are amusing intrigues and plans in the play ,it is also satirical one .

 

The Rival 

Undoubtedly Sheridan’s purpose in writing “The Rivals” was to entertain the audience by making them laugh and not by making them shed tears. “The Rivals” was written as a comedy pure and simple. Though there are certainly a few sentimental scenes in this play yet they are regarded as a parody of sentimentality. The scenes between Falkland and Julia are satire on the sentimental comedy.which was in fashion in those days and against which Sheridan revolted.

A brief examination of this sentimental  would clearly reveal that Sheridan’s intention was to poke fun at the sentimental comedy of the time. We find both Faulkland’s and Julia absurd. The true character of Faulkland is indicated to us by Absolute’s description of him as the “most teasing, captious, incorrigible lover”. Faulkland’s own description of his state of mind about his beloved Julia also makes him appear absurd. He says that every hour is an occasion for him to feel alarmed on Julia’s account. If it rains, he feels afraid lest some shower should have chilled her. If the wind is sharp, he feels afraid lest a rude blast should adversely affect her health. The heat of the noon and the dews of the evening may endanger her health. All this is funny and certainly no to be taken seriously. Sheridan is here ridiculing the excessive solicitude and concern which an over-sentimental lover like Faulkland experiences when separated from his beloved. Sheridan seems to be pleading for mental equilibrium even in the case of an ardent lover. 

Sheridan continues to portray Faulkland in the same satirical manner. When Acres appears and is questioned by Absolute regarding Julia’s activities in the countryside, Acres replied that Julia has been enjoying herself thoroughly and been having a gay time. Now, a normal lover would feel extremely happy to learn this. We expect the same reaction from Faulkland because he had assured Absolute that he would feel happy “beyond measure” if he were certain that Julia was hale and hearty. But his actual reaction is quite different and greatly amuses us by its absurdity. 

In both his interviews with Julia, Faulkland betrays the same absurdity. In the first interview, he complains to her of the mirth and gaiety that she as been enjoying during his absence. He wants to be loved for his own sake and for no particular reason and he also expects her love to be “fixed and ardent”. In short, his whole manner of talking to her and his soliloquy at the end of this scene reveals him in a still more comic light. 

The second interview again shows him a ridiculous light. He subjects Julia to a test in order to convince himself of the sincerity of her love. The author’s intention is to show the absurd length to which an over-sentimental lover can go, and the author expects us to laugh at this kind of lover. 

Even Julia suffers from an excessive sentimentality and she too is made to appear absurd and ridiculous for that reason. The manner in which she describes her lover toLydia shows the kind of mentality that she has. In the two interviews with Faulkland, Julia is again over-flowing with emotion. We smile at the way she behaves; we are amused by her excess of emotion; we mock at the abject surrender to her lover and her repeated attempts to make up with him. 

Lydia too is an over-sentimental girl though in a different way; and she too becomes the subject of ridicule in the play. Her romantic ideas and her romantic planning appear absurd to us. She wants not the usual routine marriage but a runaway marriage. Now all this makes us laugh at her superficiality and silliness. These absurd notions have been derived by her from the sentimental and romantic stories to which she is addicted. The collapse of her romantic hopes disappoints her greatly but amuses us a good deal. 

The manner in which the other characters have been portrayed is also evidence of the anti-sentimental character of the play. Captain Absolute is a practical man and though he assumes the name and status of Ensign Beverley, he would not like to forfeit the rich dowry which Lydia will bring him. Mrs. Malaprop is a conventional, practical woman whose attitude to marriage is business-like. Sir Anthony to is a practical, worldly man. Bob Acres is a country boor with no romantic or sentimental pretensions but towards the end of the play he shows that he is more practical than anybody else by saying:

“If I can't get a wife without fighting for her, by any valour, I’ll live a bachelor.”

Then there is Sir Lucius who is absurd but not because of nay sentimentality. One reason why he is absurd is because of his insistence on fighting duels. But he does not want to fight duels for the sake f any sentiment. 

When Sheridan himself fought a couple of duels for the sake of Miss Elizabeth Linley, there was a strong emotion behind them, but here we have a mockery of dueling and we are made to laugh at the manner in which these duels are arranged.

The School  for scandal

Lady Sneerwell, who in her youth was the target of slander, has set her life upon a course to reduce the reputations of other women to the level of her own. Aided by her intimate, Snake, she intrigues to involve the Teazles in scandal, to bring Joseph Surface’s true character to light, to wreck the love between Charles and Maria, and to gain Charles for herself along with Sir Oliver’s fortune. To her the world consists of nothing but scandal and scandalous intrigues, and she does her best to make her vision a reality. She is not successful, however, when she abuses Charles Surface to Sir Peter Teazle’s ward Maria, who refuses to listen to her. Instead, Maria trustingly confides in Lady Candour, whose defense of a reputation ensures its complete annihilation.

Sometimes Sir Peter Teazle ponders the wisdom of his marriage to Lady Teazle, doubting the judgment of an old bachelor in marrying a young wife. Lady Teazle is a country-bred girl who is enjoying London life extravagantly and to the full. Sir Oliver Surface is concerned about his two nephews, his problem being the disposal of his great fortune. Sir Oliver has been abroad for the past fifteen years and feels that he does not know his nephews’ real natures; he hopes by some stratagem to catch them unawares and thus be able to test their characters. 

One day, Sir Peter and Lady Teazle quarrel because Sir Peter violently objects to her attendance at the home of Lady Sneerwell. Lady Teazle accuses Sir Peter of wishing to deprive her of all freedom and reminds him that he has promised to go to Lady Sneerwell’s with her. He retorts that he will do so for only one reason, to look after his own character. When they arrive, Lady Sneerwell’s rooms are full of people uttering libelous remarks about their enemies and saying even worse things about their friends. Sir Peter escapes as soon as possible.

When the rest of Lady Sneerwell’s guests retire to the card room, leaving Maria and Joseph alone, Joseph once more presses his suit. He insinuates that Maria is in love with Charles and is thus running counter to Sir Peter’s wishes. Lady Teazle walks in just as Joseph is on his knees avowing his honest love. Surprised, Lady Teazle tells Maria that she is wanted in the next room. After Maria leaves, Lady Teazle asks Joseph for an explanation of what she has seen, and he tells her that he was pleading with Maria not to tell Sir Peter of his tender concern for Lady Teazle. 

Sir Oliver consults Rowley, Sir Peter’s shrewd and observing servant, in an attempt to learn more about his nephews’ characters. Rowley himself believes that Joseph does not have as good a character as his reputation seems to indicate and that Charles has a better one. Sir Oliver also consults Sir Peter, who declares that he is ready to stake his life on Joseph’s honor. He is much put out, therefore, when Maria once more refuses to marry Joseph.

Sir Peter, Sir Oliver, and Rowley plan to test the worthiness of the nephews. Charles is, as usual, in dire need of money, and Sir Oliver arranges to accompany a moneylender who is going to see Charles; Sir Oliver will claim to be Mr. Premium, a man who can supply the money that Charles needs. When they arrive at Charles’s lodging, a drinking party is in progress, and some of the guests are playing games of dice. Sir Oliver is not at all impressed with Trip, Charles’s footman, who gives himself the airs of a fashionable man-about-town.

Upon investigating, Sir Oliver discovers that Charles has, with the exception only of the portraits of his ancestors, turned all of his inherited possessions into cash. Convinced that Charles is a scamp, Sir Oliver, still calling himself Premium, agrees to buy the paintings, and he purchases each picture as presented except his own portrait, which Charles will not sell for any amount of money. Sir Oliver is pleased by this fact and on that ground discounts Charles’s reputation for extravagance. Charles receives a draft for eight hundred pounds for the portraits and immediately sends one hundred pounds to Mr. Stanley, a poor relation whose financial circumstances are even worse than his own. 

During an assignation between Joseph Surface and Lady Teazle in Joseph’s library, Joseph advises her to give her husband grounds for jealousy rather than to suffer his jealousy without cause. He argues that to save her reputation she must ruin it and that he is the man best able to help her. Lady Teazle considers such a doctrine very odd.

While they are talking, Sir Peter arrives unexpectedly, and Lady Teazle hides behind the screen that Joseph orders placed against the window. Joseph then pretends to be reading when Sir Peter walks in. Sir Peter has called to inform Joseph of his suspicions that Lady Teazle is having an affair with Charles; Sir Peter also shows Joseph two deeds he has brought with him, one settling eight hundred pounds a year on Lady Teazle for her independent use, the other giving her the bulk of his fortune at his death. Joseph’s dissimulation before Sir Peter and Sir Peter’s generosity to her are not lost on Lady Teazle. When Sir Peter begins to discuss Joseph’s desire to wed Maria, Lady Teazle realizes that Joseph has been deceiving her.

Below stairs, Charles inopportunely demands entrance to the house to see his brother. Not wishing to see Charles, Sir Peter asks Joseph where he can hide. Sir Peter catches a glimpse of a petticoat behind the screen, but Joseph assures him that the woman behind the screen is only a French milliner who plagues him. Sir Peter hides in a closet, and Lady Teazle remains in her hiding place behind the screen.

When Charles comes in, he and Joseph discuss Lady Teazle and Sir Peter’s suspicion that Charles is her lover. Charles mentions that he believes Joseph to be her favorite and recounts all the little incidents that lead him to think so. Embarrassed by this turn in the conversation, Joseph interrupts to say that Sir Peter is within hearing. Placed in a difficult position, Charles explains to Sir Peter that he has merely been playing a joke on Joseph. Sir Peter knows a good joke on Joseph, too, he says: Joseph is having an affair with a milliner. Charles decides that he wants to have a look at the milliner and pulls down the screen, revealing Lady Teazle. Joseph is undone because Lady Teazle refuses to agree with any of the excuses he makes. She angrily informs her husband of the whole nature of Joseph’s intentions and departs. Sir Peter follows her, leaving Joseph to his own conscience.

Sir Oliver, masquerading as Mr. Stanley and badly in need of assistance, gains admittance to Joseph’s apartment. Joseph refuses to help Mr. Stanley, saying that he receives very little money from Sir Oliver and claiming that he has advanced all his funds to Charles. After Sir Oliver leaves, Rowley, who is a party to the whole scheme, comes to tell Joseph that Sir Oliver has arrived in town.

Sir Oliver goes again to see Joseph. Still believing that his uncle is Mr. Stanley, Joseph is showing him out just as Charles enters. Charles, surprised to see the man he knows as Mr. Premium in his brother’s apartment, also insists that he leave, but at that moment Sir Peter Teazle arrives and addresses Sir Oliver by his right name. Both Sir Oliver and Sir sPeter are now aware of Joseph’s real character. Charles, promising to try to reform, gets Maria and his uncle’s inheritance as well. Lady Sneerwell is exposed by Snake, who is paid double to speak the truth, and Lady Teazle returns her diploma to the School for Scandal, of which Lady Sneerwell is president. Everyone is happy except Lady Sneerwell and Joseph Surface. 

To wind up….

Anti-Sentimental comedy this forms is becomes popular with the comedies that were presented by oliver goldsmith ‘s she stoops to conquer and Richard  Brinsley sheridan’s  The Rival and school for scandal it is kind of comedy representing complex and  sophisticated  code of behavior  current in fashionable circle of society.