How does John Dryden differentiate between Tragedy, Comedy and Tragicomedy inAn Essay of Dramatic Poesy? / How far can John Dryden’s ‘An Essay of DramaticPoesy’ be called neo-classical in its intent? / Any Question.

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 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 Eugenius, Crites, Lisideius and Neander
representing four critical positions. These four critical positions deal with five issues. Eugenius (whose name
may mean “well born”) favours the moderns over the ancients, arguing that the moderns exceed the ancients
because of having learned and profited from their example. Crites argues in favour 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 as absurd as the English tragicomedy; in two
hours and a half, we run through all the fits of Bedlam.”


Neander favours the moderns, but does not disparage the ancients. He also favours 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
theatre ever had.” Ultimately, Neander prefers Shakespeare for his greater scope, his greater faithfulness to
life, as compared to Jonson’s relatively small scope and Freneh/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 favour 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 nondramatic
poetry: the test of the “naturalness” of rhyme is how well-chosen the rhymes are. 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). Dryden prescriptive in nature, defines dramatic art as an imitation with
the aim to delight and to teach, and is considered a just and lively image of human nature representing its
passions and humours for the delight and instruction of mankind. Dryden emphasizes the idea of decorum in
the work of art.

Share

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading