2.1.2 : Dryden on The Nature of Poetry
2..0 Objectives
2..1 Introduction
2.1.1 Dryden as a Critic
Self-Check Questions for 2.1.1
2.1.2 Dryden on The Nature of Poetry
Self-Check Questions for 2.1.2
2.1.3 Dryden on The Function of Poetry
Self-Check Questions for 2.1.3
2..2 An Essay on Dramatic Poesy: An Introduction
Self-Check Questions for 2.2.1
2..2..2 Violation of the Three Unities
Self-Check Questions for 2.2.2
2.2.3 Eugenius Arguments on Superiority of Moderns over the Ancients
Self-Check Questions for 2.2.3
2.2..4 Crites’s Arguments in favour of the Ancients
Self-Check Questions for 2.2.4
2..2.5 Lisideius’s view in favour of Superiority of the French Drama over English Drama
Self-Check Questions for 2.2.5
2.2..6 Neander’s view in favour of Modern (English) Drama
Self-Check Questions for 2.2.6
2...3 The Ancients versus Modern Playwrights
2..4 Mixture of Tragedy and Comedy
2..5 Advocacy of writing plays in Rhymed Verse
(A) Bibliography
(B) Further Reading
Dryden agrees in general terms with Aristotle’s definition of poetry as a process of imitation though he has to add some qualifiers to it. The generally accepted view of poetry in Dryden’s day was that it had to be a close imitation of facts past or present. While Dryden has no problem with the prevalent neo-classical bias in favour of verisimilitude (likeness/fidelity to reality) he would also allow in more liberties and flexibilities for poetry. In the The Grounds of Criticism in Tragedy he makes out a case for double-legged imitation. While the poet is free to imitate “things as they are said or thought to be”, he also gives spirited defence of a poet’s right to imitate what could be, might be or ought to be. He cites in this context the case of Shakespeare who so deftly exploited elements of the supernatural and elements of popular beliefs and superstitions. Dryden would also regard such exercises as ‘imitation’ since it is drawing on “other men’s fancies”.
Previous Home Next