Short Video Lectures on
Dryden's Essay Of Dramatick Poesie,
Quiz and Tasks to 'Think and Write'
1) Short Video Lecture on Dryden as Father of English Criticism, Neo-Classical Critic and definition of Play:
2) Short Video Lecture on Dryden as Critic & Title of the Essay:
3) SVL on Dryden's Definition of Play:
4) SVL on the comparative criticism of the Ancients, the Moderns and the French Playwrights:
5) SVL on the debate regarding appropriateness of rhyme and blank verse:
6) SVL on the controversy regarding the Rhymes lines vs the Blank Verse:
7. BAOU - M.A. Eng - 1
8. BAOU - M.A. Eng - 2
9. BAOU - M.A. Eng - 3
Presentations:
1) Sir Philip Sidney's An Apology for Poetrie:
After viewing these videos and presentation, check your understanding about Dryden's Essay.
Tasks:
Please give your response as a COMMENT below this post:1) Do you any difference between Aristotle's definition of Tragedy and Dryden's definition of Play?
2) If you are supposed to give your personal predilection, would you be on the side of the Ancient or the Modern? Please give reasons.
3) Do you think that the arguments presented in favour of the French plays and against English plays are appropriate? (Say for example, Death should not be performed as it is neither 'just' not 'liely' image, displaying duel fight with blunted swords, thousands of soldiers marching represented as five on stage, mingling of mirth and serious, multiple plots etc.)
4) What would be your preference so far as poetic or prosaic dialogues are concerned in the play?
ans1- Aristotle’s tragedy is exclusive and prescriptive - it is about noble action, moral seriousness, and emotional purification.
ReplyDeleteDryden’s play is inclusive and descriptive - it is about portraying the full spectrum of human passions for both pleasure and moral insight.
In essence: Aristotle tells us what tragedy must be; Dryden tells us what drama can be.
This is my view on the difference between Dryden and Aristotle.
ans 3- From my point of view, while the French dramatists in Dryden’s Essay of Dramatic Poesy present certain admirable qualities such as structural elegance, strict adherence to the unities, and refinement in avoiding overtly “unjust” or “unlively” images their rigidness often sacrifices the vitality and emotional breadth that I value in drama.
ReplyDeleteYes, the French preference for avoiding the onstage depiction of death may be justified in terms of decorum, but as a reader and interpreter, I find that the emotional immediacy of English theatre, especially Shakespeare’s, often comes from precisely these “irregularities.” Seeing a death enacted, even if stylised, can heighten the tragic effect and connect the audience more directly to the human cost of the story.
Similarly, the French neatness in presenting duels with blunted swords or armies reduced to a handful of actors preserves visual plausibility, but it can also feel artificial. English plays’ willingness to break such rules in favour of imaginative engagement allowing the audience’s mind to supply grandeur is, in my view, a strength, not a flaw.
As for mingling mirth with serious scenes or weaving multiple plots together, I think these are marks of richness rather than disorder. Life itself is a tapestry of tragedy and comedy, and English drama mirrors that complexity more truthfully than the tightly controlled French style.
In short, while I respect the French commitment to order and polish, I find the English approach more human, emotionally resonant, and dramatically engaging. The French rules protect dignity; the English “irregularities” ignite the imagination. My critical loyalty, therefore, remains with the English spirit of boldness over the French spirit of restraint.