This blog task was assigned by Dilip Barad Sir (Department of English, MKBU)Click here
Introduction
John Dryden (1631–1700), often called the Father of English Criticism, stands as a central figure in literary theory during the Restoration age. His essay An Essay of Dramatic Poesy (1668) not only defines his views on drama but also represents the Neo-Classical spirit of order, reason, decorum, and imitation of classical rules. By watching a series of short video lectures on Dryden’s role as a critic, his definitions, and his comparative analysis of Ancients, Moderns, and French dramatists, I was able to grasp the essentials of English critical tradition. Below, I share my understanding and learning outcomes from each video.
1. Dryden as Father of English Criticism, Neo-Classical Critic, and Definition of Play
Dryden is called the Father of English Criticism because he systematized literary criticism in English.
He adopted the Neo-Classical ideals of decorum, order, imitation, and didactic purpose of art.
He defines a play as “just and lively images of human nature, representing its passions and humors, and the changes of fortune to which it is subject, for the delight and instruction of mankind.”
Learning outcome: I understood how Dryden combined Aristotle’s stress on imitation with the Renaissance focus on delight and moral purpose.
2. Dryden as Critic & Title of the Essay
The essay An Essay of Dramatic Poesy is a dialogue among four characters (Eugenius, Crites, Lisideius, and Neander), each representing different critical positions.
Dryden himself speaks through Neander.
Learning outcome: I realized that Dryden used dialogue to avoid dogmatism and present criticism as a balanced debate rather than a rigid judgment.
3. Dryden’s Definition of Play
Dryden modernized Aristotle’s concept of tragedy.
He emphasized probability and realism but allowed some artistic liberty.
Learning outcome: While Aristotle’s tragedy is confined to seriousness and catharsis, Dryden’s play is broader, including both delight and instruction, making it more flexible.
4. Comparative Criticism of the Ancients, Moderns, and French Playwrights
Ancients: admired for order, rules, and grandeur.
Moderns (English): valued for variety, wit, liveliness, and naturalness.
French: praised for following classical unities but criticized for artificiality and lack of vigor.
Learning outcome: I could see how Dryden weighed merits and flaws of each tradition, yet ultimately favored English drama for its richness and vitality.
5. Debate: Appropriateness of Rhyme and Blank Verse
The debate centered on whether rhyme or blank verse is more suitable for drama.
Rhyme provides musicality and order, but can appear artificial.
Blank verse offers naturalness and flexibility.
Learning outcome: I learned that Dryden initially defended rhyme (in heroic plays) but later admitted that blank verse was more natural for dramatic dialogue.
6. Controversy: Rhymed Lines vs Blank Verse
Dryden argued that rhyme elevated heroic tragedy, but his later works shifted to blank verse.
The controversy reflected the larger Neo-Classical tension between decorum and nature.
Learning outcome: I understood the Restoration spirit of experimentation and how criticism itself was evolving.
Dryden argued that rhyme elevated heroic tragedy, but his later works shifted to blank verse.
The controversy reflected the larger Neo-Classical tension between decorum and nature.
Learning outcome: I understood the Restoration spirit of experimentation and how criticism itself was evolving.
Reflection Questions
1. Difference between Aristotle’s definition of Tragedy and Dryden’s definition of Play
Aristotle: Tragedy is an imitation of serious action, evoking pity and fear leading to catharsis.
1. Difference between Aristotle’s definition of Tragedy and Dryden’s definition of Play
Aristotle: Tragedy is an imitation of serious action, evoking pity and fear leading to catharsis.
Dryden: A play represents human nature and passions with changes of fortune, aiming at delight and instruction.
My view: Dryden’s definition is broader, less rigid, and fits both comedy and tragedy, unlike Aristotle’s narrow focus.
2. Would I side with the Ancients or the Moderns?
I would side with the Moderns (English drama) because of their freedom of form, mixture of tragic and comic elements, and lively representation of human life.
Ancients are too rigid with rules, while Moderns give space for creativity.
3. Are the arguments in favour of French plays appropriate?
French plays emphasized decorum, unities, and rules.
But arguments against English plays (like death on stage, duels, or mixing mirth with seriousness) seem less convincing, because these very elements make drama more natural and relatable.
My view: The English style, though messy, reflects life more truthfully.
4. Preference: Poetic or Prosaic Dialogues?
I prefer blank verse over rhyme because it balances artistic elevation with natural speech.
Prose is good for comedy, but blank verse is ideal for serious drama.
Conclusion
Watching the short video lectures helped me understand Dryden’s balanced and dialogic method of criticism. He stands between the strict authority of the Ancients and the experimental liberty of the Moderns, seeking a middle path of decorum and delight. My ma
in takeaway is that criticism is not about imposing rules but about weighing perspectives and finding harmony between art and nature.
Reference
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment