This blog given by our prof. Dilip Barad.
Q.1 Do you any difference between Aristotle's definition of Tragedy and Dryden's definition of Play?
Aristotle (Ancient):
In Poetics, he defines tragedy as “an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude,” aiming at catharsis (pity and fear), with unity of plot, action, and time.
Dryden (Modern)
He defines a play as “a just and lively image of human nature, representing passions and humours, and the change of fortune,” with the purpose to delight and instruct.
Difference:
Aristotle stresses moral seriousness & catharsis, while Dryden balances truth with pleasure, making plays more flexible and audience-oriented.
Q.2 If you are supposed to give your personal predilection, would you be on the side of the Ancient or the Modern? Please give reasons.
Personally, I would side with the Moderns, as represented by Dryden, for several reasons:
Variety and realism:
Modern plays depict human nature more fully, including humour, folly, and everyday life, not just solemn moral struggles.
Flexibility in structure:
Unlike strict classical unities, modern plays allow subplots, changes in time and place, and mixtures of serious and comic elements.
Audience engagement:
Modern literature aims to delight as well as instruct, making it more accessible and enjoyable for contemporary audiences.
However, the Ancients (Aristotle and classical dramatists) provide valuable discipline and structure, emphasizing unity, coherence, and moral clarity. Their principles ensure that literature retains seriousness and depth, which modern writers build upon.
Conclusion
Moderns are preferable for richness, variety, and engagement, but the Ancients’ rules offer a necessary foundation for literary excellence.
Q.3 Do you think that the arguments presented in favour of the French plays and against English plays are appropriate? (Say for example, Death should not be performed as it is neither 'just' not 'liely' image, displaying duel fight with blunted swords, thousands of soldiers marching represented as five on stage, mingling of mirth and serious, multiple plots etc.)
French vs. English Plays
French plays:
Follow strict unities, avoid on-stage deaths, and use single plots—neat but sometimes artificial.
English plays:
Mix mirth with seriousness, show battles and deaths, use multiple plots more lively and realistic.
Criticism against English plays (like death or mingling of tones) is not fully appropriate, because audiences value variety, energy, and emotional truth over rigid rules.
In Dryden’s Essay of Dramatic Poesy, the French plays (like Racine and Corneille) represent the “Modern” school because they follow strict rules: unities of time, place, and action, polished style, and moral propriety. They emphasize order, decorum, and reason over lively variety.
The English plays, on the other hand, are more flexible, mixing comic and serious elements, multiple plots, and showing action on stage. They were considered less restrained by French standards but more natural and energetic.
The debate highlights the tension between classical order (French/Modern) and English freedom, showing different tastes in drama: strict morality and form versus vitality and entertainment.
This is from Dryden’s Essay of Dramatic Poesy, where the French plays (Racine, Corneille) are praised for strict rules, and English plays (Shakespeare, etc.) are criticized for being “unrealistic.”
The French criticisms of English plays—such as on-stage deaths being “neither just nor likely,” exaggerated battles, mingling of mirth and seriousness, and multiple plots—are not entirely appropriate. While these points reflect French ideals of order, decorum, and classical unities, they do not consider the purpose of English drama: to reflect life with all its variety, emotion, and energy.
On-stage deaths: French argue it is “unlikely,” but in theatre, imagination allows audiences to witness drama and human conflict, which conveys emotional truth.
Battles and armies: Representing thousands with a few actors may seem unrealistic, yet it symbolizes action and heroism the stage has limits.
Mingling mirth and serious: While French purists reject it, English plays capture the complexity of life, where joy and tragedy coexist.
Multiple plots: French critics see it as confusing, but it enriches the narrative and allows exploration of different characters and themes.
Conclusion
The French criticisms are based on strict rules, but English plays are vigorous, imaginative, and emotionally truthful, and their apparent “errors” enhance the engagement and richness of the drama.
Q.4 What would be your preference so far as poetic or prosaic dialogues are concerned in the play?
Preference: Poetic vs. Prosaic Dialogue
Poetic Dialogue (Verse)
Used for tragedies, noble characters, and serious emotions.
Adds grandeur, rhythm, and elevated tone.
Helps the audience feel the gravity and intensity of the scene.
prosaic dialogue (verse)
In a play, prosaic dialogues primarily serve to advance the plot, reveal character, and create a sense of realism or naturalism in the interactions between characters. They can also be used for social commentary or to express the mundane aspects of life that contrast with more dramatic or heightened moments.
Advancing the Plot:
Prosaic dialogue, like any dialogue, helps move the story forward by revealing information, creating conflict, or prompting action.
Character Development:
The way characters speak, their word choices, and their reactions to each other reveal their personalities, motivations, and relationships.
Realism and Naturalism:
Prosaic dialogue, often characterized by its everyday language and conversational tone, can make the characters and their world feel more relatable and believable to the audience.
Social Commentary:
In some cases, prosaic dialogue can be used to make observations about society, social issues, or the human condition.
Contrast and Juxtaposition:
The use of prosaic dialogue can create a contrast with more poetic or elevated language, highlighting the differences between ordinary life and extraordinary events.
Subtext:
Even in seemingly simple conversations, prosaic dialogue can carry hidden meanings, unspoken desires, or underlying tensions.
Pedagogical Function:
In some dramatic works, prosaic dialogue can serve as a way for characters to learn from each other or to explore philosophical ideas, as seen in some of Plato's dialogues.
Dramatic Function:
While seemingly simple, prosaic dialogue can still contribute to the overall dramatic effect of a play by creating tension, suspense, or humor.
My Preference
I prefer a mix of both poetic and prosaic dialogues. Verse is ideal for serious, emotional, or heroic moments, while prose works best for humour, everyday conversation, and comic relief. This combination keeps the play engaging, realistic, and dramatic at the same time.
Conclusion
A balanced use of poetic and prosaic dialogue makes a play both elevated and relatable. Verse highlights seriousness and emotion, while prose adds realism and humour. Together, they create a richer, more engaging theatrical experience for the audience.
Citations:
Dryden, John. An Essay of Dramatic Poesy. 1668.
Aristotle. Poetics. Translated by S. H. Butcher, 1898.
Lodge, David. The Art of Fiction. Penguin Books, 1992.
Brooks, Cleanth, and Robert Penn Warren. Understanding Poetry. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976.
Abrams, M. H. A Glossary of Literary Terms. 7th ed., Harcourt Brace, 1999.
Worthen, W. B. Drama: Theory and Criticism. Routledge, 2010.
Video resources:
No comments:
Post a Comment