John Dryden's Essay of Dramatic Poesy (1668)

Portrait of John Dryden (1631-1700). Despite the prominence the painter gives a volume of Shakespeare, Dryden himself did not praise the Bard as unreservedly as many later critics would.

Here are a few highlight's from Kristy's presentation on Dryden's Essay:

The first significant part of the essay comes in the form of the definition of a play: “A just and lively image of human nature, representing its passions and humours, and the changes of fortune to which it is subject, to the delight and instruction of mankind.” By using the term “image of human nature,” it appears that Dryden is using the word “image” to highlight the fact that the focus of theater is becoming more visually and spectacle based. Also, Dryden refers to “human nature” throughout this essay and it can be said that he is using it as a way to make the experience of theater more universal for all types of audiences.

The third argument centers on the concept of nationalism: Which country’s drama is superior – France or England’s? Lisideius defends the French and Neander defends the superiority of the English stage.

Lisideius’s arguments for the French include: Strict regard for the unities; refusal to mix comic and serious elements; economic plotting; expert narration that permits the avoidance of duels and battles on stage; well-motivated characters and skill in verse.

Neander’s arguments for the English include: that the French follow not nature, but artistic rules and achieve only an artificial beauty; that French plots are bare, passions cold, variety stifled by the strict separation of genres and believability sacrificed to a rigid adherence to the unities. Neander also defends the use of action on the English stage: “If we are to be blam’d for showing too much of the action, the French are as faulty for discovering too little of it.”

That said, Dryden struggled with the argument between classic principles and traditional English practice. He wavered between a traditional Aristotelian understanding of tragedy and a recognition that successful English works by Shakespeare and others involve subplots and some kind of mixture of comedy and tragedy that cannot be reconciled with neoclassicism. For example, in 1681 he admits to mixing serious and comic elements for “the pleasure of variety” since audiences “are grown weary of continu’d melancholy scenes.” He even argues that tragicomedy should be respected as a distinct form, as difficult to create as tragedy, “for ‘tis more difficult to save than ‘tis to kill.”

Dryden seems to be arguing for a movement towards more naturalistic dialogue. However, he stops short of advocating for truly realistic dialogue (prose) on the stage. Keep paying attention to this as we read plays that are closer and closer to our own time. It is very seductive to take the "presentist" perspective that all past practices are steps in a progression culminating in our own culture, which is the best. Obviously, we don't really believe that or we wouldn't keep performing plays written hundreds of years ago. So how do plays like Tartuffe and The Rover work even though they are not yet "realistic" in our modern sense?