Dryden’s defense on Ancient vs. Modern
Preface
JOHN
Dryden was a English poet and a Dramatist and a Critic also. He was the most
important figure of restoration age. His most excellent prose work is “Of
Dramatic Poesy, An Essay “,by this work he is called the father of English
literary criticism. In his work he represented the conflicting claims of a two
sided debate among four friends. All of them have their own way of thinking so
their views are different. One of them favors the ancient over the modern
theater. One modernist prefers the French drama where as Dryden himself likes
the lifelike drama of English theater of French tragedy, which Dryden considers
beautiful lifeless.
Dryden
included these five points in the essay which are given below.
- Ancient vs. Modern
- Unities
- French vs. English drama
- Separation of tragedy and comedy vs.
Tragicomedy
- Appropriateness of Rhyme in Drama
The Discussion between ancient and modern
should not be for who is better. It should be more fundamentally about how
history itself functioned and should be read thus it should be about the
relationship between past and present humanity and nature and human
understanding
Now let us see the conflict between ancients
and moderns and discuss in detail
Ancient and Modern:-
In this case of ancient in presented by Crites
in controversy. Dryden takes no extreme position follows the golden mean, and
is sensible enough to give the Ancients their respect Means.. Dryden does not
disparage the ancients. Through his dispassionate balanced and sane attitude;
and makes us see clearly the achievement of the Ancients and the indebtedness
of the moderns to them as well as significant advanced which have been made in
modern times.
Crites views:-
He argues in favor of
ancient because he says that ancients established the unities: - Time, Place and Action. French playwrights are
still following the rules made by Dryden.
Crites arguments in defense are as below:-
“Moderns
stand on shoulder of Ancients.”
The
superiority of Ancients is established by the very fact that that the moderns
simply imitate them, build on the foundations laid by them. The Ancients are
the acknowledge models of the moderns.
Ancients
are better because they have no models which they follow in giving contribution
to literature. Modern playwrights can improve their writing, seeing the
ancient’s work.
“Every age has its own genius, its own
inclination for some particular branch of knowledge.”
It should be remembered that, the ancients had a
special genius for drama, and in their particular branch of poetry they could
reach perfection.
The poetry of Greece and Rome was more
honored than other branch of knowledge. Ancient poets were rewarded according
to their merits and now a day’s Modern are neither suitably honored nor are
rewarded.
The ancient’s drama is superior
because the ancients closely
observed nature and faithfully represented
in their work. The moderns do not observe and study Nature carefully and so
they distort and disfigured her in their plays. No faith to represent in their
works.
The Rules of Dramatic Composition followed all the rules but the moderns were
not following the rules.
“Ought to be observed in every regular
play.”
Ancients follow the rules of unities. Ancients have one plot where as modern
play does not follow the unities because there are number of actions and
sub-plots in the play.
The stage is supposed to represent many countries.
In modern plays have no unities of time, place action, so it looks
Unnatural and they can’t be called a just and true representation of Nature.
The ancients followed these rules and the effect is satisfying and pleasing.
The ancients could organize their plays well and from this it follows
that they must have also written well. We unable to appreciate the art and
beauty of their language, only because of many customs, stories, etc are not
known to us.
He also gives the example of the famous playwright – Ben Jonson who
follows the ancients.
Ben Johnson had great admiration for the ancients;
he imitated them and borrowed heavily from them. He considered them superior to
the moderns in all things.
·
Eugenius arguments on The Moderns:
“The ancient’s imitated nature more perfectly
than the moderns has not established.”
He favors the moderns over the ancients so he replies to Crites that,
in the beginning, he believed that the moderns have learned much from the
ancients. The moderns are indebted to them for rules of dramatic composition
and must be grateful to them for it. The moderns are not followed with
blind way but they excel new things in many way.
Because of the greater pains they take, they are nearer to perfection
than the Ancients. Their greater labor makes them superior in science as well
in poetry. But Crites proves that….
Eugenius proceeds to bring out some defeats of the Ancients and some Excellencies
of the moderns:-
In ancient plays, we did not find the
division of the play into ‘ACTS’.
Many of their plays the chorus sung more than five times so the number of ACTS
in a Greek play is not certain.
The moderns have perfected this division and divided their plays not
only into Acts but also into Scenes. But Spaniards and Greeks wrote without any
definite plan and when they could write a good play their success was more a
matter of chance and good fortune than of ability.
The plots of the comedies dealt with the
lack of originality and plot or fable of the ancients is concerned it also
lacks originality. Their plot always based on well known myth or story. So
their tragedies had no the charm of novelty. ‘The Pleasure Vanished’ so that one main end of Dramatic poesy in
its definition which was to cause delight
was destroyed.
“As
their plots are narrow and their characters are few, even their whole Acts are
often shorter than individual scenes in the well-wrote modern plays.”
In characterizations, Ancient no doubt
imitate nature but their imitation is only narrow and partial as if they
imitated only an eye or a hand and did not dare to venture on the lies of a
face , or the proportion of the body.
Even their observance of the three unities
of Time, Place, and Action is not perfect. Ancient Crites like Horace and
Aristotle make not mention of the unity of Place. The Moderns have perfected this division and
divided their plays not only into Acts but also into Scenes. The Spaniards and
Italians have Excellency plays to their credit, and they divided them into
three Acts and not into five.
TERENCE was one of the most
regular of the ancient dramatists but even he does not faithfully observe the
unity of Time.
No doubt they have maintained better than the moderns, the continuity of their
scenes but this is so only because they seldom have more than once or two
scenes in each “Act.”
Their play becomes monotonous and tiresome
because instead of providing the necessary information, they inform audience
through dialogues- monologues. There is too much of narration at the cost of
Action For example Terence in
his ‘EUNUCH and ADELPHI’ is guilty of the sin.
Ancients plays do not perform one of the
function of drama, that of giving delight, nor more that of giving instruction.
There is no poetic justice in their plays. Instead of punishing vice and
rewarding virtue, they have often shown a prosperous wickedness and an unhappy
piety.
In past, comedies and tragedies were written by separate individuals
and not by the same person as at present. They worked in a narrow field and so
could easily get perfection in it. And their failure therefore is a proof of
their inferiority to the moderns.
Eugeius
agrees with Crites that they are not components to judge their language since
it is dead, and many of their stories, customs. However, they have certain
glaring faults which can’t be denied. They are often too bold in their
metaphors and in their coinages.
Finally, their themes are equally
defective. The proper end of the tragedy is to arouse “admiration and concernment”. Their themes are
lust, cruelty, murder and bloodshed which instead of arousing admiration and
pity arouse “Horror and Terror.”
In treatment of Ancients play they are
many inferiors to such modern as Shakespeare and Fletcher. In their comedies,
no doubt they introduce a few scene of tenderness but then their lovers talk
very little.
'No doubt, when the heart is too full, the words are few’
AS the plots are narrow and the characters are
few, even the whole Acts are often shorter than individual scenes in the
well-wrought modern plays. Their plays do not perform of the function of drama,
that of giving delight, nor that of giving instruction.
“To depict the
movement of the soul is the true work of a poet, but the Ancients fail to
perform it.”
As we discuss, they should not harshly decide against these great men, but
preserve to them the dignity of masters, and give that honor which they
themselves expect to be paid to them in times to come.
Dryden’s contribution:
“The Moderns were more perfect, but he conceded
that they (moderns) have altered the mode of writing.”
Eugenius wanted to proceed
with the discussion but Crites could not agree with him in the view that,
Ideas and Values have changed and this
accounts for much of the difference between the Ancients and Moderns. It is not
a question of good or bad but of a change in cultural value.
“‘Ancients were heartier’ in their love scene
but Moderns are more talkative.”
So, as above discussion, we define
the controversy between ancients and moderns. And now we discuss the Dryden’s
defense on ancients and moderns.
Dryden’s defense on ancients and moderns:
“They are indeed the beauties of a
statue, but not of a man.”
Dryden favors the modern – English plays but does not disparage the ancients.
He has some critical things to say of French drama.
He
criticizes French drama and ancient’s drama for its smallness because French
drama has one plot without sub-plots and due to this tendency the play shows
little action, the servile observation of the Unities, dearth of plot and
narrowness of imagination are all qualities which render it inferior to
ENGLISH DRAMA.
“Shakespeare had the largest and
most comprehensive soul; while Jonson was the most learned and judicious writer
which any theater ever had.”
English drama has sub-plots; broadness in
imagination and unities (rules of Shakespeare). Dryden stands for his criticism
of French drama into his reasoning for his preferences for Shakespeare over Ben
Jonson.
Dryden gives the first priority to Shakespeare
because of his greater scope his greater faithfulness to life as compares to
Jonson’s relatively small scope and classical tendency to deal in “the beauties
of statue, but not of a man.” He
admires Ben Jonson but he loves Shakespeare.
Conclusion:
AThus we may conclude that, in Dryden’s work “Of
Dramatic Poesy, An essay’ gives the claim of the two sides as a debate among
four friends. And Dryden himself likes the lifelike drama of English theater to
French tragedy which he considers beautiful but lifeless.
So,
we can conclude that Dryden’s work Of Dramatic Poesy was an Essay given
arguments of two sides, as a debate among four friends. And in this debate they
talks about modern and ancient drama and which is superior among them both. Their
characteristics and the
views of both Eugenius and Crites.
Dryden also gives his views on ancient and modern. And criticizes French drama
as lifeless and says that he himself like English drama which are fulfilled
with lifelike parts in it.
References
:-
