Sandhya Bhut : Bridge Course: John Dryden

This blog is written as a task assigned by the head of the Department of English (MKBU), Prof. and Dr. Dilip Barad Sir. Here is the link to the professor's research article for background reading:Click here

Here is the link to the professor's blog for background reading:Click here

1) Do you any difference between Aristotle's definition of Tragedy and Dryden's definition of Play?

Yes, there is a significant difference between Aristotle’s definition of Tragedy and Dryden’s definition of Play, both in form, purpose, and philosophical grounding. Here's a breakdown of their definitions and the key differences:

Aristotle’s Definition of Tragedy

Short Video Lecture on Aristotle’s Definition of Tragedy:Click here

In his Poetics, Aristotle defines tragedy as:

"Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, 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 (catharsis) of these emotions."

Key Features:

Imitation (mimesis): Tragedy imitates serious and significant human actions.

Unity: It must be complete with a beginning, middle, and end (unity of action).

Emotion: Aims to arouse pity and fear to achieve catharsis.

Form: Uses elevated language with rhythm and harmony, appropriate to each part of the play.

Structure: Includes elements like plot, character, diction, thought, spectacle, and melody.

Dryden’s Definition of a Play

SVL on Dryden's Definition of Play:Click here

In his essay Of Dramatic Poesy (1668), John Dryden defines a play as:

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

Key Features:

Imitation of Life: Focus on a "lively image" of human nature, including passions and humour.

Moral and Pleasure: Aims to both delight and instruct (Horatian ideal).

Broader Scope: Not limited to tragedy; applies to drama generally, including comedy and tragicomedy.

Realism: Emphasizes credibility and lifelikeness in characters and events.

Key Differences

Focus:

Aristotle's tragedy centers on emotional impact and moral lessons through suffering, while Dryden's play encompasses a wider range of human experiences, including humor.

Structure:

Aristotle emphasizes a structured plot with a tragic hero, while Dryden allows for more flexibility in character development and thematic exploration.

Purpose:

For Aristotle, tragedy aims for catharsis and moral reflection; for Dryden, plays serve to mirror human nature and entertain while providing moral insights.

These differences highlight the evolution of dramatic theory from Aristotle's classical framework to Dryden's more inclusive approach, reflecting changes in audience expectations and artistic expression.

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

If I were to offer a personal predilection between the Ancient and the Modern, I would lean toward the Modern, but with strong appreciation for the Ancient.

Why Modern?

1. Progress in Knowledge and Science:

Modern times have seen extraordinary advancements in science, technology, and medicine. These developments have vastly improved human life extending lifespans, enhancing communication, and providing tools to solve problems on a global scale.

2. Greater Emphasis on Individual Rights and Equality:

Modern societies (though still imperfect) increasingly value democracy, freedom of expression, gender equality, and civil rights. Ancient societies were often hierarchical, with rigid class systems, limited rights for women, and acceptance of practices like slavery.

3. Access to Education and Information:

Today, knowledge is more accessible than ever before. The internet and modern education systems empower individuals to learn, question, and innovate.

4. Cultural Diversity and Global Connectivity:

Modernity allows for global interaction. Different cultures, ideas, and beliefs can now interact in ways that foster mutual understanding, creativity, and collaboration.

Why Still Respect the Ancient?

Despite choosing Modernity, I deeply value what the Ancients contributed:

Philosophy, Literature, and Art: Ancient thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, and others laid the groundwork for much of today’s ethical, political, and philosophical thought.

Timeless Wisdom:

Ancient texts often explore human nature in ways that remain deeply relevant today.

Cultural Foundations:

Modern civilizations are built on ancient traditions, stories, languages, and values.

Final Thoughts

While Ancient culture offers timeless wisdom and foundational ideas, the Modern world provides tools and values that empower humanity to evolve. Therefore, I would choose the Modern not out of rejection of the past, but because it allows us to build upon it.

3) Do you think that the arguments 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 'liely' image, displaying duel fight with blunted swords, thousands of soldiers marching represented as five on stage, mingling of mirth and serious, multiple plots etc.)

The arguments presented in favour of French plays and against English plays, especially during the late 17th and early 18th centuries, are rooted in the neoclassical ideals of drama particularly those derived from Aristotle’s Poetics and later French critics like Boileau. These criticisms, while logically consistent within their own framework, can be debated in terms of artistic freedom and audience engagement. Let’s examine them:

1. Death Should Not Be Performed On Stage (As It Is Neither 'Just' Nor 'Lively')

French Argument:

French critics believed that death scenes were improper for the stage, as they offended decorum and lacked realism or "just" representation. According to neoclassical decorum, certain actions especially violent or grotesque should only be reported, not shown.

Counterpoint:

English dramatists like Shakespeare believed in emotional immediacy. Presenting death on stage heightened dramatic impact, made the scene more intense, and involved the audience emotionally. It may not be "lively" in the literal sense, but it stimulates moral and emotional reflection, which is very much in line with the purposes of drama.

2. Duel Fights with Blunted Swords / Inauthenticity

French Argument:

They criticized the unrealistic stage combat of English plays mock duels, obvious props, and exaggerated fights. These were seen as lacking in verisimilitude (truth-likeness).

Counterpoint:

While English stage combat may not have been fully realistic, it was symbolically effective and often engaging for the audience. Theatre is a form of illusion not everything needs to be lifelike to be emotionally or intellectually powerful. The emphasis was on drama, not documentary.

3. Thousands of Soldiers Represented by Five Men

French Argument:

This criticism points out the lack of spectacle or believability when large-scale scenes (like battles) are presented with minimal staging.

Counterpoint:

This is more a technical limitation than a dramatic fault. Also, English theatre often relied on the imagination of the audience (e.g., Shakespeare’s use of the Chorus in Henry V to invite the audience to imagine vast armies). It's a different artistic technique evoking grandeur through suggestion rather than showing it literally.

4. Mingling of Mirth and Serious Elements

French Argument:

They followed the unities and believed that tragedy should be pure and serious, while comedy should remain comic. Mixing the two disrupted the tone and violated decorum.

Counterpoint:

This blending is one of the great strengths of English drama. Shakespeare, for instance, used comic relief in tragedies to enhance emotional contrast, provide psychological relief, and reflect the complexity of real life which is rarely purely tragic or purely comic.

5. Multiple Plots and Subplots

French Argument:

They preferred a single, unified plot (Unity of Action). Multiple plots were seen as distracting and weakening the central theme.

Counterpoint:

English drama often uses subplots to mirror or contrast the main plot, adding depth, variety, and richness to the play. While this may reduce structural clarity, it enhances thematic complexity.

Conclusion:

The arguments against English plays make sense within the strict framework of neoclassical rules, which value order, clarity, decorum, and unity. However, these rules can be limiting to creative expression.

English plays, especially those of Shakespeare and his contemporaries, thrive on emotional complexity, poetic imagination, and human realism. They may violate the "rules," but in doing so, they often achieve greater dramatic power and audience engagement.

4) What would be your preference so far as poetic or prosaic dialogues are concerned in the play?

SVL on the debate regarding appropriateness of rhyme and blank verse:Click here

SVL on the controversy regarding the Rhymes lines vs the Blank Verse:Click here

To answer this question thoughtfully, you should consider both the effect and function of poetic vs. prosaic dialogue in the specific play you're analyzing. Since you haven’t mentioned the title of the play, I’ll give you a general framework followed by an example using Hamlet (a common play for this type of question).

General Response Structure:

1. Personal Preference (Clear Answer):

State your preference – poetic or prosaic dialogue – and briefly why.

2. Justification:

Explain how that type of dialogue enhances your understanding or emotional connection to the play.

3. Function in the Play:

Discuss how that form (poetic or prosaic) is used by different characters or in specific scenes.

4. Example(s):

Support your answer with a reference to a character, scene, or a quote.

Sample Answer (Using Hamlet):

Personally, I prefer the poetic dialogues in the play because they offer a deeper insight into the characters' inner conflicts and emotions. Shakespeare’s use of iambic pentameter and rich imagery elevates key moments, allowing the audience to experience the weight of the characters’ thoughts more profoundly.

For instance, Hamlet’s soliloquy “To be or not to be” is written in verse and explores his existential dilemma in a poetic, philosophical manner. The rhythm and language make his inner turmoil more compelling and memorable than it would be in plain prose.

On the other hand, prosaic dialogue, such as that used by gravediggers or Polonius in his comic exchanges, serves to contrast the seriousness of poetic moments and adds realism or humor. But while prose grounds the play, it is the poetry that truly captures its emotional and thematic core.

Additional Video Resources:

Short Video Lecture on Dryden as Father of English Criticism, Neo-Classical Critic and definition of Play:Click here