Dryden--An
Essay of Dramatic Poesy
Four Critics:
1) Eugenius--favors the moderns over the ancients, arguing
that the moderns exceed the ancients because of having learned
and profited from their example.
2) Crites--argues in favor of the ancients: they
established the unities; dramatic rules were spelled out by
Aristotle which the current--and esteemed--French playwrights
follow; and Ben Jonson--the greatest English playwright,
according to Crites--followed the ancients' example by adhering
to the unities.
3) Lisideius--argues that French drama is superior to English
drama, basing this opinion of the French writer's close
adherence to the classical separation of comedy and tragedy. For
Lisideius "no theater in the world has anything so absurd
as the English tragicomedy . . . in two hours and a half, we run
through all the fits of Bedlam."
4) Neander (thought to represent Dryden)--favors the moderns,
but does not disparage the ancients. He also favors English
drama--and has some critical things to say of French drama:
"those beauties of the French poesy are such as will raise
perfection higher where it is, but are not sufficient to give it
where it is not: they are indeed the beauties of a statue, but
not of a man."
Five issues:
1)Ancients vs. Moderns
2) Unities
3) French vs. English Drama
4) Separation of Tragedy and Comedy vs. Tragicomedy
5) Appropriateness of Rhyme in Drama
Dryden is a
neoclassic critic, and as such he deals in his criticism with
issues of form and morality in drama. However, he is not a rule
bound critic, tied down to the classical unities or to notions
of what constitutes a "proper" character for the
stage. He relies heavily on Corneille--and through him on
Horace--which places him in a pragmatic tradition.
Dryden wrote
this essay as a dramatic dialogue with four characters
representing four critical positions. these four critical
positions deal with five issues. Eugenius (whose name may
mean "well born") favors the moderns over the
ancients, arguing that the moderns exceed the ancients
because of having learned and profited from their example. Crites
argues in favor of the ancients: they established the
unities; dramatic rules were spelled out by Aristotle which the
current--and esteemed--French playwrights follow; and Ben Jonson--the
greatest English playwright, according to Crites--followed the
ancients' example by adhering to the unities. Lisideius
argues that French drama is superior to English drama,
basing this opinion of the French writer's close adherence to
the classical separation of comedy and tragedy. For Lisideius
"no theater in the world has anything so absurd as the
English tragicomedy . . . in two hours and a half, we run
through all the fits of Bedlam." Neander favors the
moderns, but does not disparage the ancients. He also favors
English drama--and has some critical things to say of French
drama: "those beauties of the French poesy are such as
will raise perfection higher where it is, but are not sufficient
to give it where it is not: they are indeed the beauties of a
statue, but not of a man." Neander goes on to defend
tragicomedy: "contraries, when placed near, set off
each other. A continued gravity keeps the spirit too much bent;
we must refresh it sometimes." Tragicomedy increases the
effectiveness of both tragic and comic elements by way of
contrast. Neander asserts that "we have invented,
increased, and perfected a more pleasant way of writing for the
stage . . . tragicomedy."
Neander
criticizes French drama essentially for its smallness: its
pursuit of only one plot without subplots; its tendency to show
too little action; its "servile observations of the unities
. . . dearth of plot, and narrowness of imagination" are
all qualities which render it inferior to English drama. Neander
extends his criticism of French drama into his reasoning for his
preference for Shakespeare over Ben Jonson. Shakespeare
"had the largest and most comprehensive soul," while
Jonson was "the most learned and judicious writer which any
theater ever had." Ultimately, Neander prefers
Shakespeare for his greater scope, his greater faithfulness to
life, as compared to Jonson's relatively small scope and
French/Classical tendency to deal in "the beauties of a
statue, but not of a man."
Crites
objects to rhyme in plays: "since no man without
premeditation speaks in rhyme, neither ought he to do it on the
stage." He cites Aristotle as saying that it is
"best to write tragedy in that kind of verse . . . which is
nearest prose" as a justification for banishing
rhyme from drama in favor of blank verse (unrhymed iambic
pentameter). Even though blank verse lines are no more
spontaneous than are rhymed lines, they are still to be
preferred because they are "nearest nature":
"Rhyme is incapable of expressing the greatest thought
naturally, and the lowest it cannot with any grace: for what is
more unbefitting the majesty of verse, than to call a servant,
or bid a door be shut in rhyme?"
Neander respond
to the objections against rhyme by admitting that "verse
so tedious" is inappropriate to drama (and to anything
else). "Natural" rhymed verse is, however, just as
appropriate to dramatic as to non-dramatic poetry: the test
of the "naturalness" of rhyme is how well-chosen the
rhymes are. Is the sense of the verses tied down to, and limited
by, the rhymes, or are the rhymes in service to, and an
enhancement of, the sense of the verses?
The main point
of Dryden's essay seems to be a valuation of becoming (the
striving, nature-imitating, large scope of tragicomedy and
Shakespeare) over being (the static perfection of the
ideal-imitating Classical/French/Jonsonian drama). Of course, I
could be wrong. |
|
| | |