Dryden's Essay: of Dramatic Poesy

This post is in reference to the questions asked here:
 http://dilipbarad.blogspot.in/2015/09/drydens-essay-on-dramatic-poesy-short.html

          John Dryden was born on 9 August 1631, Aldwincle and died on 12 May 1700, London. He was an English poet, literary critic, translator and playwright who was made England's first Poet Laureate in 1668. He is seen as dominating the literary life of Restoration England to such a point that the period came to be known in literary circles as the Age of Dryden.

Works:

• Absalom and Achitophel
• Mac Flecknoe
• The Hind and the Panther
• Palamon and Arcite
• Annus Mirabilis

Q1.   Do you find any difference between Aristotle's definition of tragedy and Dryden's definition of play?

Ans.  Yes, I find much difference between Aristotle's definition of tragedy and Dryden's definition of play. So let's see the major difference:

• Aristotle's definition:

          "Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornaments, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of  narrative; through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions."   

• Dryden's definition:

          "A play ought to be a just and lively image of human nature, representing its passions and humors and the changes of fortune to which it is subject for delight and instruction of mankind."

  If we see the definition of Dryden we can see this three thing:

1. Just and lively image
2. Passions and humors
3. Delight and instruction

 If we see the definition of Aristotle than it ends with purgation which is related to catharsis, whereas Dryden ended with delight and instruction of mankind. This way we can see the touch of realism in Dryden's definition.

Q2.   If you are supposed to give your personal predilection, would you be on the side of the Ancient or the Modern? Please give reasons.

Ans.  I would like to be on the side of modern because as the time changes the things also change and so for that we should also learn and accept new things. Whenever we see anything at that time we try to connect our self with it. Due to modern way people can also come to know about the current situation and can also learn from it. I'm not completely neglecting ancient it is also important because it gives base or a platform to modern for uplifting.

Q3.   Do you think the argument 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 'lively' image, displaying duel fight with blunted swords, thousands of soldiers marching represented as five on stage, minglingn of mirth and serious, multiple plots etc.)

Ans.  No, I don't think the arguments against English play is appropriate because if we see any thing then it has a good effect on our mind and if we just visualize thing just by listening or reading then we don't get proper idea about that particular scene. If we just here about death or fight it would not have much impact on audience mind but if we watch that scene that we can have it's perfect image about what writer is trying to tell. I think to make the play more effective English plays were showing the scene of death, fight etc.

Q4.   What would be your preference so far as poetic or prosaic dialogue are concerned in the play?

Ans.  I think both are equally important in the play. Prosaic dialogue helps in understanding the play easily but poetic dialogue is like sugar coated words which adds sweetness to the play. If we only use prosaic dialogue then it helps in understanding but sometime it feels boring and if we only use poetic dialogues then it becomes difficult to understand. So the combination of both makes it interesting and gives please and delight to the audience.