Critical Contributions of John Dryden

 

John Dryden

Dr. Johnson called him the father of English Criticism. He was a versatile and voluminous writer who left no branch of literature untouched. He himself was a great poet and dramatist. It was Dryden who began “a regular era of criticism”. He combined the merits of both the native tradition and the classical. His formal work of criticism is ‘Essay on Dramatic Poesy.’ Other critical observations are spread over a number of prefaces, epilogues and letters of dedication. He has commented on every aspect of creative writing – drama, epic, tragedy, comedy, tragi-comedy, satire, criticism and nature and function of poetry.

Poem Paraphrasing 

Grammar

Essay on Dramatic Poesy (1668)

In his address “To the Reader” prefixed to the ‘Essay’, Dryden says that his aim was “to vindicate the honour of our English writers from the censure of those who unjustly prefer the French before them.” The ‘Essay’ is but also an attempt to evolve the principles which ought to guide the readers and critics, in judging a play as well as help a dramatist in writing a good play.

Plan of the Essay

Five critical questions are handled in the ‘Essay’

1.     The relative merits of the ancient and modern poets.

2.     Whether the existing French school of drama is superior or inferior to the English

3.     Whether the Elizabethan dramatists were in all points superior to those of Dryden’s own time.

4.     Whether the plays are more perfect in proportion as they conform to the dramatic rules laid down by the ancients.

5.     Whether the substitution of rhyme for blank verse in serious plays is an improvement.

Occasion

The immediate occasion for the Essay was provided by the contemporary events. It so happened that in the year 1663, a French man named Samuel Sorbier visited England on some diplomatic mission and on returning to France did the undiplomatic thing of publishing an account of his voyage in which he made some unfavourable remarks about English Science and English stage. Sorbier succeeded in provoking one reply, both on scientific and literary grounds, from the historian of the English Royal society, Thomas Sprat. And it was not long after the incident that John Dryden courtly poet and dramatist, having been influenced by Corneille, retired to the country, like Milton, during the Plague years of 1665-66 and in the leisure thus forced upon him wrote the present ‘Essay.’

The Setting: its Dramatic nature

There are four speakers or interlocuters and the setting is dramatic. Taking advantage of one of the most notable international relations of the day, the naval battle fought in the Channel between the British and the Dutch on June 3, 1665, Dryden imagines the four gentlemanly and witty interlocuters of his dialogue as drifting in a barge softly down the Thames. The literary discussion in which they are soon involved comes up through some chance, remarks about certain extravagant poems which have recently appeared in celebration of public events.

Its Form: Dialogue

The Essay is in the form of a dialogue in the manner of Plato’s Republic and by this skilful handling of it, Dryden made it into a popular literary form. The dialogue is sustained by persons of several opinions, all of them left doubtful, to be determined by the readers in general. This is the great advantage of the dialogue form – no one person states the whole truth; every speaker contributes to the discussion, there is a free give and take of views, nothing is stated with any finality and in the end the readers are left to draw their own conclusions. It is the Aristotelian way of practical reasoning which Dryden has successfully used in his Essay. The tone is neither dogmatic, nor magisterial. He displays an openness of mind opposite argument, almost approaching ‘scepticism’ which Wimsatt and Brooks like to call ‘probabilism.’

The first to speak is Crites – (represents Dryden’s brother in law Sir Richard Howard) he upholds the superiority of the Ancients. They faithfully imitate nature, which is disfigured in the works of Moderns. He also finds fault with the latter for violating the three unities of time, place and action, leading to unnatural and improbable situations.

The second speaker is Eugenius – (Dryden’s friend Charles Sackville or Lord Buckhurst) he takes the side of the Moderns. He criticises Ancients of having left the most frequent of passions – love, untouched. The moderns have the rules of ancients as well as the advantage of experience, of life and nature which they skilfully imitate. The plays of the Ancients did not have division of Acts, only entrances. They never perfected Poesy. Their comedies had hackneyed plots and characters. Horace or Aristotle never upheld the rule of Unity of Place. The Ancients too often neglected the Unity of Time and usually used it in an absurd manner. Their plays lacked poetic justice and offered neither delight nor instruction.

Lisideus (stands for Charles Sedley) takes up the discussion observing correct dramatic creation is based on the proper imitation of Nature. In fact, the French are superior to both the Ancients and Moderns in this respect. They observe the unities to perfection. They never intermingle the main plots with the subplots. They discard tragicomedy. The French used rhymed verses and not blank verses for their plays.

Neander (Dryden himself) establishes the superiority of the English over the French and of the Moderns over the Ancients. English plays have a rich variety of humour and also a variety in plots, which is not found in French plays. He justifies English tragicomedy as an innovative way of imitating nature. English plays observe the Unity of Action even in the intermingling of main plots and sub plots. It provides a lot of pleasure and entertainment. The English plays portray a wide variety of characters. The English prefer action on the stage while the French have too little action but long declamations instead. Next Neander gives an assessment of the dramatists of the previous age like Shakespeare, Beaumont and Fletcher and Ben Johnson. He believes that what is good for the French need not be suitable for the English. Dryden does not approve blank verse for plays which are serious. It is good for comedy but rhymed verse is suitable for tragedy. As the dialogue concludes we have the four speakers presenting their arguments for the consideration of the readers.

Dryden’s comments on the Unities

Very much influenced by ancient masters like Aristotle, Longinus and Horace, Dryden seems to uphold the three unities on rational and psychological grounds. It helps to reduce the strain on human reason and imagination and contribute to dramatic verisimilitude. The observance of the Unities adds to the credibility of the plot. At the same time, he is not dogmatic in his views on dramatic rules. He appeals to the laws of the nature and pure common sense when discussing English drama. He justifies the violation of the Unities on reasonable grounds. Aristotle had never mentioned the unity of place and Horace himself had violated the unity of time. Fancy and reason go hand in hand. It is not the rules that should determine the length and location of the plays; the time taken for the events of the play and the shift in scenes from one place to another naturally contend that if three hours can stand for 24 hours action as in Greek plays, why cannot they represent greater length of time to complete and perform the actions of the plot. Mechanical rules can be stretched or broken rather than sacrificing the greater beauty of dramatic art. The English plays have a greater variety of themes, plots etc. the unities had a narrowing and cramping effect on the French plays and made them absurd. If drama is ‘a just and lively image of human nature, representing the passions and humours and the changes of fortunes… for the delight and instruction of mankind,’ then English plays fit the definition of perfection.

On Tragicomedy

Dryden defends the combination of the tragic and comic elements on the same grounds of natural law and logical reasoning. In nature, pity and pain go together. He argues that the English have in fact invented and perfected a more pleasant way of writing for the stage that was ever known to the Ancients and Moderns of any nation and that is tragicomedy. Continued gravity depresses the spirit. A scene of mirth brings relief and refreshes like music. Thus, comic scenes provide dramatic relief. Certainly, the soul can move from tragic to comic with the aid of fancy and reason. But Dryden speaks against unnaturalness in some tragicomedies like ‘a gay widow laughing in a mourning habit.’ Even Aristotle might have revised his rules had he known the scope and feasibility of the plots of tragicomedies. The Ancients need due respect; but what pleased the Greeks would not satisfy an English audience.

            In the case of incorporating subplots in the play, Dryden believes that as long as the unity of action is maintained and their dramatic interest sustained, there is no harm in it. They really impact variety and richness to the plays. Dryden also spoke on the credibility of scenes on the stage. While the Greek, Roman and French dramatists avoided the battles, deaths etc on the stage, Dryden doesn’t find any logic for supporting the same. He wished to avoid the scenes of death on stage not because they were violent but they cannot in any way be ‘justly imitated and often seem comic’. Scenes of physical action do not question credibility as the actors are never doubted for representing superior characters or lesser ones.

Dryden on Tragedy

His comments on tragedy are mainly found in the preface to Troilus and Cressida called ‘The Grounds of Criticism in Tragedy.’ He closely follows Aristotle’s views. ‘It is an imitation of one, entire, great and probable action, not told, but represented which by moving in us fear and pity is conducive to the purging of those two emotions in our minds. Thus, a single action is necessary, two independent stories would distract attention. There should be a natural beginning, middle and end. And the action should be complete, episodic nature of plots without logical sequence are not fit for tragedy. Unlike comedies, the plot is based on great action with great characters and not trivial or unexalted. It should also have a semblance of reality. Aristotle’s theory of Catharsis is not fully accepted by Dryden. Rather he reflects the views of the French critic Rapin. The punishment of vice and reward of virtue are the two adequate ends of the tragedy but to purge the soul from pride, to expel arrogance and introduce compassion, pity and fear cannot be done in 3 hours. He believed that the epic was more effective in this respect than the violence of tragedy.

On the Tragic Hero

Dryden felt that he should be exalted in rank, still not immune to danger, virtuous, but tainted in some so that he can excite pity for his misfortune. Thus, the proper delineation of a tragic hero to excite both pity and fear should come forth through his action and speech. They must be true to the nature in accordance with age, sex, rank and so on. Traditional characters like Ulysses and Achilles should conform to their earlier representations.

On Comedy

Comedy is the representation of human life in inferior persons and low subjects. It helps the unexposed and vulgar (commons) to laugh at themselves and turn to good behaviour. The first end of comedy is delight and instruction is only second. Comedy does not deserve punishment of fates as in tragedy because in it the persons are of low quality and action too little and faults and vices are but sallies of youth and frailties of human nature are not premeditated crimes. Dryden did not approve ‘farce’ which was not popular comic play during his time. The characters are unnatural and the manners exaggerated or false. They are inconsistent with human nature. Farce offers “a kind of bastard pleasures for vulgar gazes and beastly audience.” Dryden wanted English comedy to be more refined than it was. He called Ben Johnson’s ‘Comey of Humours’ not at all a creative process but a sheer imitation of folly and that in which it lacked wits.

On the Epic

It is superior to tragedy. Unlike a tragedy, which is enforced in in its brevity, an epic is a narrative which renders all events, actions and thoughts at a leisurely dignified and stately pace and manner. It creates an impression of magnitude. It is a heroic poem dealing with heroic exploits of a noble character and is the greatest work of human nature. Its structure is more elaborate, action greater, characters dignified, language exalted, episodes more varied and its effects more lasting than a tragedy. Tragedy is the miniature of human life but an epic has larger dimensions. The style of the epic is also sublime with the use of many rhetorical devices.

On Satire

Dryden considers this as a species of heroic poetry conforming to the design and style. The satirist should choose one vice or folly as the main target like the central character in an epic. All other characters should be made subservient to it. In satire, Dryden prefers fine raillery, the method of Horace to severe chastisement which is the method of Juvenal. He preferred the ten-syllable verse for its medium of expression.

On Criticism

He looked upon Aristotle as a master critic. He advocates a close study of the classics not to imitate them blindly but to capture their magic and treat them as a torch to enlighten ourselves. More than the rules it is the spirit of the classics that is relevant. Aristotle’s views are suitable for the Greeks, their age, their culture and disposition but they might not satisfy English audience. Dryden asserts that it is not the business of critics to detect petty faults but to discover those great beauties that make a work immortal. As a critic, he shows respect for rules but puts instruction and delight as the chief aim of a work. That is why he is called a liberal classicist.

Dryden’s views on Poetry/Poet as a Creator

Dryden looked upon poetry as a process of imitation – of what was and is, what is said or thought to be and what is ought to be. It is an ideal imitation of past and present. Since drama is also considered as imaginative literature, his views on drama directly apply to poetry. “A just and lively image of representing its passions and humours and the changes of fortune to which it is subject for the delight and instruction of mankind.” It is an imitation of human nature, not as Plato said a mere copy but an ideal, interesting beautiful resemblance of the whole. The artist or the poet should make things more beautiful than how they appear. He heightens their quality. The poet is like a curious goldsmith or watchmaker; the iron or silver has a certain value but the real price is in its workmanship. True pleasure lies through true imitation – in poetry or painting, there is a happy chemistry – imagination tempered with judgement helps the poet in creating just and lively images. The poet has the faculty of fancy that colours life and relieves it of its dullness. The end of all literature is to delight even as it instructs, not moral instruction but on human nature – like a psychologist rather than a philosopher. It is this aesthetic delight that poetry affords “to affect the soul and excite the passions and above all to move admiration, an appreciation of beauty.”