An Essay of Dramatic Poesy

John Dryden born August 9th 1631, was an English poet, literary critic, translator and a playwright. He lived during the height of the Restoration Era of England and his works were dominating the period so much so that this time in the literary world came to be known as the Age of Dryden in literary circles. During this time Dryden wrote An Essay of Dramatic Poesy, with it he became known as the Father of English Criticism.

This essay was assumed to be written and published around 1668 during the time of the plague and the closing of English Theatres. The structure of this essay is in dialogue form with four people constructing the story and presenting their views on various subjects. As this essay was written during a period in which the Anglo-Dutch wars had struck England, this event was also present in the essay. The four people journeying on the River Thames, were sailing towards a navy battle between an English and a Dutch army. On their way, they were discussing poetry. This poetry debate shifted to a conversation on virtues of the modern and ancient writers and how these works should be constructed. 

These four people sailing actually represent the critiques of the Restoration Period as discourse and the expression of direct views could be seen as an act of rebellion or a challenge against authority at the time. Dryden uses these four characters to insinuate the views of his fellows. While Eugenius is Charles Sackville, Crites is Sir Robert Howard and Lisideius is Sir Charles Sedley; Dryden chooses to include his views in the essay as the character Neander. By subtly incorporating his views, he dodges the possibility of rioting whilst peacefully representing his points in his works. 

“Among the rest, it was the fortune of Eugenius, Crites, Lisideius and Neander, to be in company together; the three of them persons whom their wit and quality have made known to all the town; and whom I have chose to hide under these borrowed names, that they may not suffer by so ill a relation as I am going to make their discourse.”

While Crites and Eugenius were seen arguing about the classical and modern drama, Lisideius and Neander were more concerned with the subject of French and English influence on drama. Lisideius is quite fond of the French style used in dramas although he dotes on their design, he does agree that certain things they portray are not perfect. Nevertheless, he prefers the French way of drama over English as he believes French theatre is superior to that of the rest of Europe. Unlike Lisideius, Neander is of the belief that French drama is like the beauty of a statue but not of a real man for it is not bodied by the soul of poesy. Neander takes a liking in English drama as he sees that English have borrowed nothing from them while the French have used Spaniard techniques in recent dramas. 

The first thing Lisideius and Neander disagree on is the unity of time as Lisideius explains that the French dramas of the late rarely surpass the time of thirty hours, the English plays try to compact the glorious life of a king that is years into making into just two hours and a half. Lisideius thinks that this cramped lifetime into one play does not paint nature but rather takes it in little as much is lost within the limited framework of the play.

The second thing these two characters cannot agree upon is the unity of place as the French prefer to limit their ground to one setting while the English carry out their plots in their desired setting without caring about the exceeding of the compass of the same setting. As reported by Neander; by strictly bounding the limits of the setting, certain charms of different places cannot be shown in the first location the act takes place in. 

The third thing they cannot find a common ground in is the unity of action for the French choose to focus mainly on the star of the drama without blurring the lines with the plots of side characters as it would burden the play, the English whereas think that the main plot blossoms and almost feeds off of the coming of new subplots of these secondary characters. According to the French one person and their concerns are enough to fulfil the needs of the play therefore the conversations of the side characters should only be present if they serve a purpose to the main character. The main attraction is always set to be the protagonist and the side characters must solely exist to set them off. This French technique is driven from the classical laws of drama as they too avoided subplots and stuck to only one important character. The English find it helpful to have more characters as the variety of people will contribute to the plot.

Lisideius points out that the French do not dwell on too much plot and only present what is needed and one thing that helps the excelling of this is their liberty of verse as they are fortunate enough to discuss the deserving subjects at length to their heart’s desire thanks to it. For the English longer speeches are frowned upon as it halts the passion of the play. Lisideius sees beauty in the French rhyme as opposed to the blank verse of the English used in tragedies. Neander sees the French verse as cold and accounts it to the sullen ways of the French compared to the chipper English. 

Although Lisideius is of the belief that narrations are rarely listened to by the audience and therefore cause the downfall of the play as the audience can never recover to get back into the plot, grotesque subjects like death are better to be only represented by narration. In his words “Those actions which by reason of their cruelty will cause aversion in us, or by reason of their impossibility, unbelief, ought to either wholly to be avoided by a poet or only delivered by narration.” Neander defends the English by uttering “If we are blamed for showing too much of the action, the French are as faulty for discovering too little of it.” While decorum is of grave importance in drama, the audience could also not be satisfied by the lack of sight if everything is done by narration according to Neander. 

“What we hear through the ears stirs the mind less forcefully than what are place before trustworthy eyes. Do not bring on the stage that which should be done off of it; keep many things from sight and presently narrate them with eloquence.” 

Neander closes his speech by praising Shakespeare as he reflects on the regular and irregular plays of the English and the French. In his views, the regular English plays have more variety in terms of plot and characters and furthermore even in irregular plays of Shakespeare he explains that there is a fancy spirit in writing compared to the French. For Neander, Shakespeare is the Homer of dramatic poets.