Dryden

Dryden's Of Drammatick Poesie



John Fletcher
John Fletcher (1579-1625), English poet and playwright. Although he wrote many works alone and with several different dramatists, he is best known for his collaborations with fellow playwright Francis Beaumont. Francis Beaumont (1584?-1616), English poet and playwright, best known for the tragicomedies he wrote together with John Fletcher. From about 1606 to 1614, the two collaborated on several plays (the exact number is disputed) that were very popular with audiences of the time. Most scholars acknowledge that Fletcher’s real talent lay in comedy, especially in the genre of tragicomedy. His style of tragicomedy at its best manages to generate considerable power through the sheer variety of the emotions it arouses. Fletcher is noted as a master of plot contrivance and character manipulation and of exaggerated speech used for dramatic effect. The customary 10-syllable line of Elizabethan dramatic blank verse overflows, in Fletcher's hands, into lines of 11 and sometimes 12 syllables, and he frequently employs run-on lines to achieve his goal. But for all the appearance of wild abundance and headlong extravagance in his use of language, his is a highly mannered style. Fletcher’s works strongly influenced his contemporaries as well as his successors. His heroes, preoccupied with the themes of love or honor or both, are the immediate forebears of the protagonists of the plays of the Restoration period (see Restoration Comedy). Fletcher’s particular technical abilities served him well in handling plots of comic intrigue, and his delight in verbal display found its proper aim in the witty banter with which the sophisticated young men and women in his comedies match their forces in the game of love.

The team of Beaumont and Fletcher probably collaborated on about ten plays. By the time Beaumont retired in 1614, these collaborations had helped establish both men in the ranks of the best dramatists. The production dates of nearly all of these works are uncertain. The two playwrights coauthored popular works such as Philaster (1609?), The Maid’s Tragedy (1610?), and A King and No King (1611). Other collaborations include The Coxcomb (1612), The Captain (1613), and Cupid’s Revenge (1611?). Beaumont and Fletcher’s collaborative efforts are characterized by ingenious plots, diversified characters, and realistic dialogue. Their comedies, witty and sophisticated, foreshadow the licentious comedies of the Restoration. Most of the duo’s major plays consist chiefly of a series of incidents, rather than sustained development of character and action. Their plays remained incredibly popular until the closing of the theaters under the Puritan Commonwealth in 1642. Restoration dramatist John Dryden, in his Essay of Dramatic Poesy (1668), explained the favorable public response to the plays by citing their universal appeal. He made following observation on Beaumont and Fletcher:

“Beaumont and Fletcher of whom I am next to speak, had with the advantage of Shakespeare's wit, which was their precedent, great natural gifts, improv'd by study. Beaumont especially being so accurate a judge of Playes, that Ben Johnson while he liv'd, submitted all his Writings to his Censure, and 'tis thought, us'd his judgement in correcting, if not contriving all his Plots. What value he had for him, appears by the Verses he writ to him; and therefore I need speak no farther of it. The first Play which brought Fletcher and him in esteem was their Philaster: for before that, they had written two or three very unsuccessfully: as the like is reported of Ben Johnson, before he writ Every Man in his Humour. Their Plots were generally more regular then Shakespeare's, especially those which were made before Beaumont's death; and they understood and imitated the conversation of Gentlemen much better; whose wilde debaucheries, and quickness of wit in reparties, no Poet can ever paint as they have done. This Humour of which Ben Johnson deriv'd from particular persons, they made it not their business to describe: they represented all the passions very lively, but above all, Love. I am apt to believe the English Language in them arriv'd to its highest perfection; what words have since been taken in, are rather superfluous then necessary. Their Playes are now the most pleasant and frequent entertainments of the Stage; two of theirs being acted through the year for one of Shakespeare's or Johnson’s: the reason is, because there is a certain gayety in their Comedies, and Pathos in their more serious Playes, which suits generally with all mens humours. Shakespeare’s language is like-wise a little obsolete, and Ben Johnson's wit comes short of theirs.”

Shakespeare:
In his remarks on Shakespeare, Dryden ceases to be a classicist and goes over to the other camp of the romantics. His appreciation of the ‘comprehensive soul’ of Shakespeare is a tribute to his own comprehensive soul and his imaginative sensibility. He writes:

“To begin then with Shakespeare; he was the man who of all Moderns, and perhaps Ancient Poets, had the largest and most comprehensive soul. All the Images of Nature were still present to him, and he drew them not laboriously, but luckily: when he describes any thing, you more than see it, you feel it too. Those who accuse him to have wanted learning, give him the greater commendation: he was naturally learn'd; he needed not the spectacles of Books to read Nature; he look'd inwards, and found her there. I cannot say he is every where alike; were he so, I should do him injury to compare him with the greatest of Mankind. He is many times flat, insipid; his Comick wit degenerating into clenches; his serious swelling into Bombast. But he is alwayes great, when some great occasion is presented to him : no man can say he ever had a fit subject for his wit, and did not then raise himself as high above the rest of the Poets.”

He further adds that: “…however others are now generally prefer'd before him, yet the Age wherein he liv'd, which had contemporaries with him, Fletcher and Johnson never equall'd them to him in their esteem : And in the last Kings Court, when Ben's reputation was at highest, Sir John Suckling, and with him the greater part of the Courtiers, set our Shakespeare far above him.”

These remarks are illuminating and suggestive. They show that Dryden was quite conscious of both the weakness and real greatness of Shakespeare.

Ben Jonson
Next follows illuminating remarks on Ben Jonson who is compared with Shakespeare, and in this way the respective merits of the two are brought out: “As for Jonson, to whose Character I am now arriv'd, if we look upon him while he was himself, (for his last Playes were but his dotages) I think him the most learned and judicious Writer which any Theater ever had. He was a most severe Judge of himself as well as others. One cannot say he wanted wit, but rather that he was frugal of it. In his works you find little to retrench or alter. Wit and Language, and Humour also in some measure we had before him ; but something of Art was wanting to the Drama till he came. He manag'd his strength to more advantage then any who preceded him. You seldome find him making Love in any of his Scenes, or endeavouring to move the Passions ; his genius was too sullen and saturnine to do it gracefully, especially when he knew he came after those who had performed both to such a height.”

“ Humour was his proper Sphere, and in that he delighted most to represent Mechanick people. He was deeply conversant in the Ancients, both Greek and Latine, and he borrow'd boldly from them: there is scarce a Poet or Historian among the Roman Authours of those times whom he has not translated in Sejanus and Catiline. But he has done his Robberies so openly, that one may see he fears not to be taxed by any Law. He invades Authours like a Monarch, and what would be theft in other Poets, is onely victory in him. With the spoils of these Writers he so represents old Rome to us, in its Rites, Ceremonies and Customs, that if one of their Poets had written either of his Tragedies, we had seen less of it then in him. If there was any fault in his Language, 'twas that he weav'd it too closely and laboriously in his serious Playes; perhaps too, he did a little to much to Romanize our Tongue, leaving the words which he translated almost as much Latine as he found them : wherein though he learnedly followed the Idiom of their language, he did not enough comply with ours.”

He, thus, concludes remarks on Jonson: “To conclude of him, as he has given us the most correct Playes, so in the precepts which he has laid down in his Discoveries, we have as many and profitable Rules for perfecting the Stage as any where which the French can furnish us.”

Atkins comments: “Most significant of all, however, is Neander’s last word on their respective merits - If I would compare him withShakespeare, I must acknowledge him the more correct Poet, but Shakespeare the greater wit. Shakespeare was the Homer, or Father of our Dramatick Poets; Jonson was the Virgil, the pattern of elaborate writing ; I admire him, but I love Shakespeare -and here judgement is pronounced, not in accordance with rules of technical excellence, but in the light of the general impression and of the emotional appeal to the whole man.”

Significance of Dryden’s Views :
Dryden’s evaluation of Shakespeare, Jonson, Beaumont and Fletcher, is of significance for number of reasons. 1.	First, the ‘Essay’ completes that historical perspective which Dryden presents in the essay. He talked about the Ancients, the French, and the Moderns. By presenting an evaluation of the Elizabethans, Dryden expresses his views on the age earlier to his own. 2.	His ‘Essay’ is a valuable contribution to the controversies of the day: a.	the Ancients Vs the Moderns; b.	the French Vs the English Drama; c.	the Blank Verse Vs Rhyme and d.	the Elizabethan Vs the Restoration drama. The merits of Elizabethan dramatist as against those of the Restoration is implied rather than directly mentioned. 3.	This ‘Essay’ reveals Dryden’s comparative method of criticism at its best.

Lisideius’s view in favour of the French playwrights
'''Summarize Lisideius’s view in favour of the French playwrights in Dryden’s ‘An Essay’.

'''Lisideius spoke in favour of the French. He agreed with Eugenius that forty years age i.e. in the last generation, the English drama was superior. Then they have their Jonson, Beaumont and Fletcher. But English drama has decayed and declined since then. They live in a horrible age, an age of bloodshed and violence, and poetry is an art of peace. In the present age, it flourished in France and not in England. The French have their Corneille (1606-84), and the English have no dramatist to equal him . The French are superior to the English for various reasons:

1.	They faithfully observed the rules of the Ancients. The Unities of Time – they observed so scrupulously that they often discuss whether Aristotle meant the artificial day of twelve hours rather than the natural day of twenty-four hours. In none of their plays produced during the last twenty years has the time exceeded thirty hours. In the observance of the Unity of Place, they are equally scrupulous. In most of their plays, the entire action is limited to one place, i.e. the place where it began and in none of them the action mover out of the limit f the same town. Their observance of the Unity of Action is eve more conspicuous. Their plays are never over-burdened with sub-plots as is the case with the English plays. An English tragic-comedy is two plays, instead of remaining one play, for in it two actions are carried on together, to the great confusion and bewilderment of the spectator. Their attention is constantly diverted from one action or the other, and so either action produces its due effect. This fault of double-action gives rise to another fault – many of characters remain unknown to each other till the end. Therefore concludes Lisideius, no drama in the world is so absurd as the English tragic-comedy. In it we get “here a course of mirth, there another of sadness and passion, and a third of honour and duel: thus, in two hours and a half, we run though all the fits of Bedlam”. The French plays also have as much variety but hey do not provide it in such a ridiculous manner. According to Aristotle, the end of a tragedy is to arouse admiration and compassion or concernment, but mirth and compassion are the very opposite of each other. The introduction of both in one and the same play is a folly, for it spoils the very end and purpose of a tragedy. The English are guilty of this folly, while French are not.

2.	As regards the PLOTS of French tragedies, they are always based upon some well-known story in accordance with the theory and practice of the Ancients. But this story is suitably modified and transformed for dramatic purposes, and in this respect they are superior even to the Ancients. They so modifies their stories by mixing truth with fiction, vets take from history with those of their own invention, that they show vice punished and virtue rewarded, which might not have been the case with the original story. In this way, they both delight and instruct, at one and the same time. But the English dramatists, even the great Shakespeare, do not modify and transform their stories for dramatic purpose. That is why even Shakespeare’s history plays are chronicle plays, and not dramas proper. In them the business of forty years is represented within the short space f two and a half hours. This is not an imitation of Nature but drawing of it in miniature. It is a distortion of Nature, and not a just and true representation of her. This, instead of making English plays delightful, makes them ridiculous. In order to satisfy the human soul, the drama must have verisimilitude (probability). The French plays have it, but not the English. 3.	The French do not burden the English plays with too much plot. They represent only that part of a story which will constitute one complete action, and everything which is superfluous or unrelated with that action is carefully excluded. But the English burden their plays with actions and incidents which have no logical and natural connection with the main action, and so an English play does not remain one play, but becomes many plays in one. The French confines themselves strictly to one action and this leaves them free to devote more attention to their diction and verse. Hence the French plays are better written than the English ones. For this very reason, the French are free to devote more attention to one single passion, and to depict it well. But the English are hurried from one passion to another, and so fail to represent well any one of them. In other words, their divided attention weakens dramatic effectiveness. Even the great Ben Jonson himself has been guilty of this ridiculous and unnatural mixture of tragedy and comedy. In such great tragedies of his a Sejanus and Catiline, there are intrusions of farcical scenes and hence there is a loss in tragic intensity.

4.	It has been pointed out that the French devote considerable attention to one single character, and the others are merely introduced to set off that character. But Lisideius does not agree with this view. There is no doubt that in their plays, as in the English plays, one character is more important than the others, and quite naturally, the greater part of the action is concerned with him. This is so in life and therefore, it is proper and reasonable that it should be so also in the drama. But in French plays, the other characters are not neglected; all of them are given some part or the other in the action. In the plays of Corneille, there is not eve a single character who does not have some in the action, and who is not essential for the working out of the plot. In the plays of the Ancients there is always some introductory character who does t take any part in the action, but who merely narrates. But in the French plays such narrations are made by those who are in some way or the other connected with the main action. In this respect the French are more skilled than the Ancients.

5.	Further, the French narrations are better managed and more skillful than those of the English. The narration may be of two kinds. It might be the narration of events which happened before the opening of the action of the play, or it might be the narration of things happening during the course of the play, but behind the scenes or off the stage. The narration of the first kind is dull and boring, and is often not listened to by the audience. Hence, it is to be avoided, and the French generally do not have recourse to it. They choose stories as do not require any knowledge of what happened antecedent to the play, ten or twelve years ago. As regards second kind of narration, it is both beautiful and artistic. In this way, the French are able to avoid the representation of scenes of bloodshed, violence and murder on the stage, such scenes of horror and tumult has disfigured many English plays. In this way, they avoid much that is ridiculous and absurd in the English plays, such as, ‘to represent an army with a drum and five men behind hi; or to see a duel fought, and one slain with two or three thrusts of the foils which are, we know, so blunted that we might give a man an hour to kill another is good earnest with them.”

6.	Another serious fault in the English plays is the representation of Death on the stage. The audience cannot help laughing when it sees a man dying on the stage. All passions ca be lively represented on the stage, only if the actor has the necessary skill, but there are may actions which cannot be successfully represented, and dying is one of them. The French show considerable good sense in omitting its representation. Death should better be described or narrated rather than represented. Its representation makes us convinced that it is fiction; but its narration moves the heart ad excites compassion.

7.	It is wrong to suppose that the French represent no part of their action on the stage. Instead, they make proper selection, for as their Corneille has pointed out, only such actions should be presented to the eye on the stage as are worthy to be seen of their beauty, for the intensity of their passion, or for some other charm that they have in them. Cruel actions which are likely to cause aversion, or disbelief by their impossibility, must be avoided or merely narrated. They must not be represented. The French follow this rule in practice and so avoid much of the tumult of the English lays, as well as reduce their plots to reasonable limits. Such narrations are common in the plays of the Ancients and great English dramatist, Ben Jonson, Fletcher also shows great skill in the management of his relationship in ‘The King and No King’ (B&F). Therefore, the French should not be blamed for their narration, which are judicious and well managed. 8.	The French are superior to the English in other ways also: a.	There is no sudden conversion or changes in character it heir plays. Every change of character is psychologically accounted for, and seems natural and justifies. On the other hand, in English plays, such as ‘The Scornful Lady’ (B&F), such unnatural and unjustified changes of character are frequent. b.	In French play the ‘Entrances’ and ‘Exits’ of characters are logically and naturally accounted for. The exits of a character in one scene prepare us for his entrance in the next. Very little is left to chance. The English are not so skillful in this respect. c.	 The French are also superior in their use of rhyme. The English also use rhyme but generally their rhymed plays are badly written.

Rhyme vs Blank Verse
Consider critically Dryden’s views on the use of rhyme in drama.

a.	Rhyme Vs Blank Verse

b.	Write note on Crites’s attack and Neander’s defence of rhyme.

Ans: •	Rhymed Verse versus Blank Verse Controversy: In the Restoration era rhymed verse or Heroic Couplet was generally used as the medium of expression for Heroic Tragedy, while the great Elizabethan dramatists has used blank verse for their plays. Dryden himself used rhyme for his plays up to ‘Aurangzebe’. But in the Preface to this play he bids farewell to his ‘mistress rhyme’, and express his intention of turning to blank verse. However, in the ‘Essay’, he has expressed himself strongly in favour of rhyme through the mouth of Neander.

•	Crites’s attack on Rhyme: Towards the end of the ‘Essay’, the discussion turns on rhyme and blank verse, and Crites attack rhyme violently on the following grounds:

o	Rhyme is not to be allowed in serious plays, though it may be allowed in comedies. o	Rhyme is unnatural in a play, for a play is in dialogues, and no man without premeditation speaks in rhyme. o	Blank Verse is also unnatural for no man speaks in verse either, but it is nearer to prose and Aristotle has laid down that tragedy should be written in a verse form which is nearer to prose – “Aristotle, 'Tis best to write Tragedy in that kind of Verse which is the least such, or which is nearest Prose: and this amongst the Ancients was the Iambique, and with us is blank verse.” o	Drama is a ‘just’ representation of Nature, and rhyme is unnatural, for nobody in Nature expresses himself in rhyme. it is artificial and the art is too apparent, while true are consists in hiding art. o	It is said that rhyme helps the poet to control his fancy. But one who has not the judgment to control his fancy in blank verse will not be able to control it in rhyme either. Artistic control is a matter of judgment and not of rhyme or verse.

•	Neander’s defence:

o	It is the choice of words and the placing of them – natural words in a natural order – that makes the language natural, whether it is verse or rhyme that is used. o	Rhyme itself may be made to look natural by the use of run on lines, and variety, and variety resulting from the use of hemistich, manipulation of pauses and stresses, and the change of metre. o	Blank Verse is no verse at all. It is simply poetic prose and so fit only for comedies. Rhymed verse alone, made natural or near to prose, is suitable for tragedy. This would satisfy Aristotle’s dictum. o	Rhyme is justified by its universal use among all the civilized nation of the world. o	The great Elizabethan achieved perfection in the use of blank verse and they, the moderns, cannot excel; them, or achieve anything significant or better in the use of blank verse. Hence they must perforce use rhyme, which suits the genius of our age. o	 Tragedy is a serious play representing nature exalted to its highest pitch; rhyme being the noblest kind of verse is suited to it, and not to comedy. o	Rhyme is an aid to ‘judgment’. Men of ordinary judgment as even the best of poets are, require some help to write better. Rhyme helps the judgment and thus makes it easier to control the free flights of their fancy. At the end of the ‘Essay’, Dryden gives one more reason in favour of rhyme i.e. rhyme adds to the pleasure of poetry. The primary function of poetry is to give ‘delight’, and rhyme enables the poet to perform this function well.

Summary
Brief Summary of the Essay: Of Dramatick Poesie':

Courtesy: www.core.ecu.edu

Purpose of Thinking

Primarily focusing on drama, the poetry of plays, Dryden ultimately wants to make a case for the achievements of the British in that respect. In somewhat "Platonic" method, he creates a dialogue between poet/critics of the day who have different viewpoints about the strengths and weaknesses of, and influences on, British poesy. The benefit of this is to mount an argument which takes a variety of positions into consideration. Rather than attempting to create a new set of "rules" for drama, comedy, or verse, he chooses instead to review the existing, generally accepted conventions and decide in what respects they are being followed, or whether they should be followed by English writers. Further, through the use of the four-way dialogue, he is able to provide some insight on the prevailing notions of the day. It may be worth noting that the "characters" in this dialogue are associated for the purpose of argument with specific points of view: Crites praises the Greeks and Romans suggesting that they cannot be surpassed; Eugenius recognizes their worth but suggests that they have indeed been exceeded and in many instances are not consistent in their adherence to Aristotle's conventions; Lisideius suggests that the French are superior to the English; and Neander (ostensibly Dryden) counters that, based on their agreed definition of what "a play ought to be," the English are superior. Question at Issue (problem)

What are the merits and demerits of English writing of the time? What are the influences for English writing? Can the English writing during that time be compared favorably or not to the writers of antiquity? Are French drama and verse superior to English? What is the value of the three unities? Are they consistently applied by the ancients? By the French? By the English? If not, why not? Should these conventions be an over-riding consideration? What is, or is not, the value of rhyme in verse and drama? What is its place if any? What about the place of verse in drama? Information/Interpretations/Concepts/Crucial Assumptions

The dialogue begins with Crites complaining about two types of "bad" English poets: the first are the poets who "perpetually pay us with clenches upon words and a certain clownish kind of raillery;" (bad metaphysicals?) and the second is he who " affects plainness to cover his want of imagination" (bad Puritans?) He goes on to suggest that no one writing can surpass the ancients or even the previous generation of English writers, to which Eugenius responds that he might be rejecting everything recent just because it is recent. The debate begins in earnest when the four decide that they will "limit their dispute" to a discussion of dramatic poesy and whether the "ancients were superior to the moderns." Additionally, they must decide on a definition of what a play should be. Lisideius offers the agreed upon terms:

just and lively image 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. Crites develops the main points in defending the ancients and the objections to modern plays. The moderns are still imitating the ancients and using their forms and subjects, relying on Aristotle and Horace, adding nothing new and yet not following their good advice closely enough, especially with respect to the unities of time, place and action. While the unity of time suggests that all the action should be portrayed within a single day, English plays attempt to use long periods of time, sometimes years. In terms of place, the setting should be the same from beginning to end with the scenes marked by the entrances and exits of the persons having business within each. The English, on the other hand, try to have all kinds of places, even far off countries, shown within a single play. The third unity, that of action, requires that the play "aim at one great and complete action", but the English have all kinds of sub-plots which destroy the unity of the action. In anticipating the objection that the ancients' language is not as vital as the moderns, Crites say that we have to remember that we are probably missing a lot of subtleties because the languages are dead and the customs far removed from this time. Crites uses Ben Jonson (Father Ben) as the example of the best in English drama, saying that he followed the ancients "in all things" and offered nothing really new in terms of "serious thoughts". Eugenius responds that though "the moderns have profited by the rules of the ancients" they have "excelled them." He points first to some discrepancies in the applications of the unities, mentioning that there seem to be four parts in Aristotle's method: the entrance, the intensifying of the plot, the counter-turn, and the catastrophe. But he points out that somewhere along the line, and by way of Horace, plays developed five acts (the Spanish only 3). As far as the action, Eugenius contends that they are transparent, everybody already knows what will happen; that the Romans borrowed from the Greeks; and that the deus ex machina convention is a weak escape. As far as the unity of place, he suggests that the ancients weren't the ones to insist on it so much as the French, and that that insistence has caused some artificial entrances and exits of characters. The unity of time is often ignored in both. As to the liveliness of language`, Eugenius counters Crites by suggesting that even if we don't know all the contexts, good writing is always good, wit is always discernible, if done well. He goes on to say also that while the ancients portrayed many emotions and action, they neglected love, "which is the most frequent of all passions" and known to everyone. He mentions Shakespeare and Fletcher as offering "excellent scenes of passion." Lisideius' discussion of the French follows. He declares them the best of all Europe because of their adherence to the unities, and the most important point here is that they maintain the unity of action by not adding confusing sub-plots. Here he begins the discussion of the English tragi-comedy, which he calls "absurd". He commends the French as well for basing their tragedies on "some known history," that in this way fiction is combined with reality so that some truth can be revealed. He compares Shakespeare's history plays, saying that "they are rather so many chronicles of kings," years of history packed into a 2 1/2 hour play so that the point is lost. He reports that the French do several things much better than the English. First, they keep the plot to one action which they then develop fully where the English add all kinds of actions that don't always follow from the main one. The French also focus on one main character and all the characters have some connection with him and have a purpose that advances the plot. Additionally, the French use narration (reporting by the characters) to describe things that happen, like battles and deaths, that Lisideius says are ridiculous when shown on stage. "The representation" of incidents that cannot be portrayed as realistic, possible, or believable anyway, are better omitted. This goes, I think, to the issue of decorum since he says "some parts of the action are more fit to be represented, some to be related." Further, he says the French never end their plays with "conversions" or "changes of will" without setting up the proper justification for it. The English, by contrast, show their characters having changes of heart that are over-reactions to circumstances and therefore not believable. Also, in the French plays, the characters never come in or leave a scene without the proper justifications being supplied. Finally, he compliments the "beauty of their rhyme" suggesting that it would help English poetry, though he doesn't think there's anyone capable of doing it properly. Neander has the last word, suggesting that based on the definition of a play, the English are best at "the lively imitation of nature" (human nature), conceding that while French poesy is beautiful; it is beautiful like a "statue". He even says that the newer French writers are imitating the English. One fault he finds in their plots is that the regularity, which has been complimented as uncluttered, also make the plays too much alike. He defends the English invention of tragi-comedy by suggesting that the use of mirth with tragedy provides "contraries" that "set each other off" and give the audience relief from the heaviness of straight tragedy. He suggests that the use of sub-plots, if they are well-ordered, make the plays interesting and help the main action. Further, he suggests that English plays are more entertaining and instructive because they offer an element of surprise that the ancients and the French do not. As far as decorum, things the French choose not to portray on-stage, he brings up the idea of the suspension of disbelief. The audience knows that none of it is real, why should they think scenes of death or battles any less "real" than the rest? I think here he credits the English audience with a certain robustness in suggesting that they want their battles and "other objects of horror." Ultimately, in discussing the English habit of breaking the rules, he suggests that it maybe there are simply too many rules and often that following them creates more absurdities than they prevent. At the end of the essay, a discussion of the proper use of rhyme and verse ensues, mostly between Crites, who wants to eliminate the use of rhyme, which he sees as sounding artificial, and Neander, who says if you want to eliminate rhyme on that basis, why not verse on the same grounds. Neander suggests that comedy should not be rhymed but that the heroic tragedy should be. To Crites' charge that it is too much invention, Neander says that if a writer must choose every word, that is artificial. If properly done, the additional artifices of verse and rhyme are no less contrived, but can add to the effect of the play. Implications/Consequences/Points of View

That Dryden concerns himself with the influence of the French is no surprise. Charles II, installed as King after the fall of the commonwealth under Cromwell, returned from exile in France, and court society during his reign adopted much of French fashion and taste. Corneille, especially in his heroic tragedies, was a favorite, and in this genre, Dryden would never surpass him. His concerns expressed in the essay about the Roman and Greek influences naturally follow because of Corneille's adherence, and that of the French writers in general, to the conventions of unity and considerations of decorum. Dryden's strength in writing for the stage would be in the comedies which reflected the changing social milieu. As far as discussion of the influences in English plays, he focuses on Shakespeare and Ben Jonson, the Homer and Virgil of English play-writing, respectively. Shakespeare he admits can be inconsistent, sometimes flat and bombastic, yet Dryden says he had "the largest and most comprehensive soul." Jonson, on the other hand, he calls the "most learned and judicious writer which any theatre ever had." Jonson could use all the conventions as well as the ancients of the French. Dryden, commenting on the two together notes that he "admires" Jonson but he "loves" Shakespeare. But for the British loyal to the king, and Dryden was, the restoration was also time of renewed nationalism, and Dryden seems, at least in this essay, to be interested in defending British sensibilities. Dryden was also very concerned in his art with the events of the day. Even this piece of criticism begins at the moment of the second British victory over the Dutch. Some of Dryden's best works are his later ones, particularly Absolom and Achitophel prompted by the Popish plot, and are inspired by specific political and social issues of the day. In that respect, as well as stylistically in the use of heroic couplet, they contrast works of broader scope such as Paradise Lost published in 1666 by John Milton, who Dryden would compare to Homer and Virgil in his 1688 "Epigram on Milton." (By contrast to Dryden, Milton seems clearly from a different era). Dryden's real strengths were translations, the later satires, and the solidifying of a base for continuing British criticism. Although he was Poet Laureate during the reigns of Charles II and James, he was relieved of the honor with the ascension of William and Mary, remained loyal to James, and converted to Catholicism. His (1700) "Secular Masque," written for the turn of the century, registers a disenchantment with the entire age. It is interesting, in light of what he says in "An Essay..." to look at a play like Congrieve's (1700) "The Way of the World" which is marked by the shift from verse to prose, the more natural reflection of conversation that Dryden seems to suggest as a possibility for comedy.