AN ESSAY OF DRAMATIC POESY BY JOHN DRYDEN

Dryden’s An Essay on Dramatic Poesy is a critique of the neoclassical theory of art in general
and dramatic art in particular from the perspective of an English critic. The Essay dramatizes
an objective and critical debate, in a form reminiscent of Platonic dialogue, between four
Restoration gentlemen while floating down the Thames on a barge to catch the sound of
“distant Thunder” as the English and the Dutch “disputed the command of the greater half of
the Globe.” The four characters are usually identified with contemporary figures. The three
“persons of Wit and Quality” are Sir Robert Howard (Crites), Charles Sackville, Lord
Buckhurst (Eugenius), and Sir Charles Sedley (Lisideius), while the fourth character,
Neander, has been identified as Dryden himself. These four characters, who represent four
critical positions contend the relative merits of Ancient and Modern drama, of English and
French theatrical practice. What Dryden intends to achieve through this polemics is, as T. S.
Eliot suggested in The Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism, “the necessity of affirming the
native element in literature.” In fact, the Essay remains speculative in its presentation of
antithetical ideas, and is best characterized by Dryden’s own explanation in his Defence of
An Essay of Dramatic Poesy (1688), “My whole discourse was sceptical… You see it is a
dialogue sustained by persons of several opinions, all of them left doubtful, to be determined
by the readers in general.” In the beginning, Lisideius proposes quite a general definition for
a play- “A just and lively Image of Human Nature”- which everyone accepts. Then they all
provide examples of what they consider to be the best dramatic representation. Crites begins
the debate with his advocacy of the Ancients: the radically classical viewpoint. It is true that
he shows his preference for the plays of “the last age” (Elizabethan and Jacobean) over the
present; he clearly affirms that in classical drama we find the eternal verities, which have
never received more powerful expression. The current age has found its own genius in
scientific progress, but in the theater it must conform to the rules provided by its
predecessors. The application of the pseudo-Aristotelian “Unities” is an example of how far
short of the classical model the Moderns have fallen. Eugenius, in response, attempts to turn
Crites’ points against him. He says that progress in science has been equally matched by
progress in arts. The Moderns have improved upon the older dramatists’ hackneyed
exploitation of myth. They are more precise observers of the “Unities,” which are mostly the
product of continental criticism. Moreover, the modern theater has corrected the moral laxity
of the Ancients, whose plays too often ignored a “Prosperous Wickedness, and an Unhappy
Piety.” Lisideius introduces the second topic of the debate. He accepts the success of the
earlier English stage, but relocates modern classicism in France. The French are strict
observers of the “Unities”. They have rejected that peculiar English hybrid, the tragicomedy.
They have modernized and simplified their plots to give them a familiar credibility and have
engaged in a more searching exploration of human passion. Narration has, to an extent,
replaced action with the result that death scenes and acts of violence do not distract the
performances. This has helped in securing a new verisimilitude. Neander offers the
concluding reply and summarizes the discussion on Dryden’s behalf. He acknowledges the
superior “decorum” of French drama, but qualifies his approval by saying that French plays
enjoy only the lifeless beauty of a statue. With regard to ‘Unity of Place’, he apparently
ridicules the scenery moving around two motionless characters as they continuously orate.
The English stage, on the other hand, is more vital and more exciting. Subplots and
tragicomedy provide variety and contrast; dramatic dialogue is better suited to passion, and
even violent action is justified on the ground that it appeals to popular taste. Thus, Neander
attempts a more realistic definition of a play by shifting the focus from “just” to “lively,”
from an exact but mechanical verisimilitude to a more dynamic likeness to life. Despite
Dryden’s claim that the Essay is a skeptical discourse, Neander’s conclusion point to
Dryden’s actual intention of vindicating English drama. English drama is one which
adequately conform to the rules, but which also tends to be inclusive enough to accommodate
the wilder genius of a Shakespeare who “when he describes any thing, you more than see it,
you feel it too.” Thus, An Essay on Dramatic Poesy, in a dialogical from, examines different
critical arguments of his contemporary England regarding dramatic poetry. The justification
of English theatre by Dryden through Neander marks a new phase in the British history when
writing poetry was as significant as defining culture and new idioms of art. It is, thus, clear
that An Essay on Dramatic Poesy is an account of neo-classical theory of art in general. It is
important to note that the concept of imitation was central to the neoclassical literary theory
and practice. Mimesis was understood as the imitation of nature as objects or phenomena.
Neoclassicists believed that writers should strive to achieve excellence by imitating the great
writers of the past. Dryden was himself a neoclassic critic, and as such he dealt with issues of
form and morality in drama. However, he was not dogmatic, imitating mechanically the
classical unities or the notions of what constitutes a "proper" character for the stage. He relied
heavily on Corneille, and through him on Horace, which placed him in the great tradition of
true English critic. He was sensitive enough to realize that the essence of art lies in
reinvention and rediscovery. For him, the complex notion of nature, which closely related to
the notion of imitation, also implied aspects of the real world and human behaviour, what was
central, timeless, and universal in human experience. From this point of view, it was natural
on his part to defend Subplots and tragicomedy which provide variety and achieve
‘verisimilitude’ to nature as one experiences in real life.
.......................................
The four speakers: Crites, Eugenius, Lisideius and Neander.
The critical positions held by the four characters:
Crites- Ancients
Eugenius- Moderns
Lisideius- The French
Neander- The English
ohn Dryden’s An Essay on Dramatic Poesy presents a brief discussion on Neo-classical
theory of Literature. He defends the classical drama saying that it is an imitation of life and
reflects human nature clearly.
An Essay on Dramatic Poesy is written in the form of a dialogue among four gentlemen:
Eugenius, Crites, Lisideius and Neander. Neander speaks for Dryden himself. Eugenius
favours modern English dramatists by attacking the classical playwrights, who did not
themselves always observe the unity of place. But Crites defends the ancients and points out
that they invited the principles of dramatic art paved by Aristotle and Horace. Crites opposes
rhyme in plays and argues that though the moderns excel in sciences, the ancient age was the
true age of poetry. Lisideius defends the French playwrights and attacks the English tendency
to mix genres.
Neander speaks in favour of the Moderns and respects the Ancients; he is however
critical of the rigid rules of dramas and favours rhyme. Neander who is a spokesperson of
Dryden, argues that ‘tragic-comedy’ (Dryden’s phrase for what we now call ‘tragi-comedy’)
is the best form for a play; because it is closer to life in which emotions are heightened by
mirth and sadness. He also finds subplots as an integral part to enrich a play. He finds single
action in French dramas to be rather inadequate since it so often has a narrowing and
cramping effect.
Neander gives his palm to the violation of the three unities because it leads to the variety
in the English plays. Dryden thus argues against the neo-classical critics. Since nobody
speaks 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.
Introduction: An Essay of Dramatic Poesy gives an explicit account of neo-classical theory of
art in general. 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 rulebound 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. Criticism
flourished in England during the restoration of Stuarts. An Essay of Dramatic Poesy deals
with the views of major critics and the tastes of men and women of the time of Dryden. This
work is in the form of semi-drama thus making abstract theories interesting. In the late 17th
century, Shakespeare was severely criticised for his careless attitude towards the mixing of
genres. It was Dryden who elevated Shakespeare to height for his natural genius. The
narrative of An Essay of Dramatic Poesy has four debaters among whom, Neander is the one
who holds the views of Dryden. Unlike other characters, Neander does not diminish the
arguments that are on contrary to his views. Though he himself favours the modern drama.
Summary of the Essay:
The beginning of the narrative An Essay of Dramatic Poesy is as follows : A battle is going
on between England and the Netherlands. Four interlocutors namely Crites, Eugenius,
Lisideius and Neander are travelling by boat to see the battle and start a discussion on modern
literature. Crites opens 3 the discussion by saying that none of his contemporaries (i.e.
moderns) can equal the standards and the rules set by ancient Greeks and Romans. Eugenius
restrains him from wasting time on finding demerits. He asks him to find concerned merit in
Greeks and Moderns.
Views of Crites :
Crites develops the main points in defending the ancients and raises objections to modern
plays. The Moderns are still imitating the Ancients and using their forms and subjects, relying
on Aristotle and Horace, adding nothing new and yet not following their good advice closely
either, especially with respect to the Unities of time, place and action. While the unity of time
suggests that all the action should be portrayed within a single day, the English plays attempt
to use long periods of time, sometimes years. In terms of place, the setting should be the same
from beginning to end with the scenes marked by the entrances and exits of the persons
having business within each. The English, on the other hand, try to have all kinds of places,
even far off countries, shown within a single play. The third unity, that of action, requires that
the play "aim at one great and complete action", but the English have all kinds of sub-plots
which destroy the unity of the action. In anticipating the objection that the Ancients' language
is not as vital as the Moderns’s, Crites says that we have to remember that we are probably
missing a lot of subtleties because the languages are dead and the customs are far removed
from this time.
 Crites uses Ben Jonson as the example of the best in English drama, saying that he followed
the Ancients "in all things" and offered nothing really new in terms of "serious thoughts".
Crites favours classical drama i.e. the drama of Aristotle who believed that drama is
"imitation of life". He says that both classical and neoclassical favour rules and unities- time,
place and action. He further says that modern dramatists are shadows of Aeschylus,
Sophocles, Seneca and Terence. Elizabethan dramatist Ben Jonson borrowed from Classics
and felt proud to call himself modern Horace. The classical is more skilful in language than
their successors.

Eugenius Arguments on Superiority of Moderns over the Ancients

Eugenius says that "the moderns have profited by the rules of the ancients" but moderns
have "excelled them." He points first to some discrepancies in the applications of the Unities,
mentioning that there seem to be four parts in Aristotle's method: the entrance, the
intensifying of the plot, the counter-turn, and the catastrophe. But he points out that
somewhere along the line, and by way of Horace, plays developed five acts (the Spanish only
3). As regards the action, Eugenius contends that they are transparent, everybody already
having known what will happen; that the Romans borrowed from the Greeks; and that the
deus ex machina convention is a weak escape. As far as the unity of place is concerned, he
suggests that the Ancients were not the ones to insist on it so much as the French, and that
insistence has caused some artificial entrances and exits of characters. The unity of time is
often ignored in both. As to the liveliness of language, Eugenius countersfutes Crites by
suggesting that even if we do not know all the contexts, good writing is always good, wit is
always discernible, if done well. He goes on to say also that while the Ancients portrayed
many emotions and actions, they neglected love, "which is the most frequent of all passions"
and known to everyone. He mentions Shakespeare and Fletcher as offering "excellent scenes
of passion. Eugenius favours modern dramatists. However, instead of telling about the virtues
of moderns, he criticises the faults of Classical playwrights. According to him, the Classical
drama is not divided into acts and also lacks originality. Their tragedies are based on worn-
out myths that are already known to the audience. Instead of punishing the vice and
rewarding the virtue, they have often shown prosperous wickedness and an unhappy
devotion. There is no affection in classical drama. The Heroes of Homer were lovers of
appetite, food etc, while the modern characters of French drama gave up everything- sleep,
water and food for the sake of love.
Lisideius’s view in favour of Superiority of the French Drama over English Drama
Lisideius speaks in favour of the French. He agrees with Eugenius that  in the last generation
the English drama was superior. Then they had their Jonson, Beaumont and Fletcher. But
English drama has decayed and declined since then. They live in an awful age full of
bloodshed and violence, and poetry is an art of peace. In the present age, it flourishes
in France and not in England. The French have their Corneille (1606-84), and the English
have no dramatist equal to him.
The French are superior to the English for various reasons:
1.    They follow the Ancients. They favour the Unity of time and they observe  it so
carefully. When it comes to the Unity of Place, they are equally careful. In most of their
plays, the entire action is limited to one place. And the Unity of Action is even more obvious.
Their plays are never over-loaded with sub-plots as is the case with the English plays. The
attention of the English playwrights is constantly diverted from one action to the other, and
has its due effects. This fault of double-action gives rise to another fault till the end. Lisideius
therefore concludes: no drama in the world is as absurd as the English tragic-comedy. The
French plays also have much variety but they do not provide it in such a bizarre manner. The
English are guilty of the folly, while the French are not.
2.    The Plots of the French tragedies are based on well-known stories with reference to the
theory and practice of the Ancients. But these stories are transformed for dramatic purposes;
in this regard they are superior even to the Ancients. So their stories are mixture of truth with
fiction, based on historical invention. They both delight and instruct, at one and the same
time. But the English dramatists for example Shakespeare, do not modify and transform their
stories for dramatic purpose. In order to satisfy the human soul, the drama must have
verisimilitude (likeness to reality). The French plays have it, while the English do not.
3.    The French do not burden the play with a fat plot. They represent a story which will be
one complete action, and everything which is unnecessary is carefully excluded. But the
English burden their plays with actions and incidents which have no logical and natural
connection with the main action so much so that an English play is a mere compilation.
Hence the French plays are better written than the English ones.
4.    The English devote considerable attention to one single character, and the others are
merely introduced to set off that principal character. But Lisideius does not support or favour
this practice. In the English plays, one character is more important than the others, and quite
naturally, the greater part of the action is concerned with him. Since in real life it is not so it
is only very proper and reasonable that it should be so also in the drama. In French plays,
very correctly the other characters are not neglected. Also, unlike in the English plays in the
French plays such narrations are made by those who are in some way or the other connected
with the main action. Similarly the French are more skilled than the Ancients.
5.    Further, the French narrations are better managed and more skilful than those of the
English. The narration may be of two kinds. The action of the play which is dull and boring,
and is often not listened to by the audience. The narration of things happening during the
course of the play. while French are able to avoid the representation of scenes of bloodshed,
violence and murder on the stage, such scenes of horror and tumult has disfigured many
English plays. In this way, the French avoid much that is ridiculous and absurd in the English
plays.
6.    The major imperfection of English plays is the representation of Death on the stage. All
passions can be in a lively manner represented on the stage, only if the actor has the
necessary skill, but there are many actions which cannot be successfully represented, and
dying is one of them. The French omit the same mistake. Death should better be described or
narrated rather than represented.
7.    It is wrong to believe that the French represent no part of their action on the stage.
Instead, they make proper selection. Cruel actions which are likely to cause hatred, or
disbelief by their impossibility, must be avoided or merely narrated. They must not be
represented. The French follow this rule in practice and so avoid much of the tumult of the
English plays by reducing their plots to reasonable limits. Such narrations are common in the
plays of the Ancients and the great English dramatists like Ben Jonson and Fletcher.
Therefore, the French must not be blamed for their narration, which are judicious and well
managed.
Lisideius favours French drama of earlier 17th century. French drama led by Pierre Corneille
strictly followed unities of time, pace and action. The French dramatists never mix tragedy
and comedy. They strictly adhere to the poetic justice i.e. reward the virtue and punishment
the vice. For this, they even alter the original situation. The French dramatists interweave
truth with fiction to make it interesting bringing elements that lead to fate and borrow from
history to reward the virtuous . They prefer emotions over plots. Violent actions take place of
stage and are told by messengers rather than showing them in real.
Views of Neander :
Neander ( Dryden himself) defends England and liberty. He establishes the superiority of the
English dramatists over the ancient Greek and French dramatists. He grants that the French
dramatists have excelled the British dramatists on certain points, but on the whole the English
dramatists are superior to the French. He gives the following arguments in defence of the
English dramatists :
(1) English drama has naturalness while French plays are artificial and does not bear the true
picture of life. The best French dramatist, Moliere followed the English tradition for variety
of humour.
(2) Neander does not approve of the French practice of strictly separating tragedy and
comedy. He defends the English practice of writing tragic-comedies. The juxtaposition of the
tragic and comic scenes produces the much desired dramatic relief. It also produces variety
and provides satisfaction from monotony.
(3) The preoccupation of the French with a single theme produced monotony but the 5
English have a large variety of tastes and themes.
(4) The English dramatists introduce a large number of characters of different tastes and
temperaments, while the French introduce only a few stock characters. (5) If the English
dramatists are criticized for showing too much of action on the stage, the French are guilty of
showing too little of it.
(6) The French dramatists have bound themselves too much with the rules. The English
dramatists have a certain amount of freedom from rigorous rules. The freedom gives an air of
freshness to their plays. Therefore, on the whole, English dramatists are superior to the
French.