“Dryden and Pope are not classics
of our poetry; they are classics of our prose.”
This is how Arnold evaluates Dryden and Pope. He gives Thomas Gray a greater position. He says that Gray is our poetical classics of
the 18th century. Along with
the names of Dryden and Pope, Matthew Arnold mentions the name of Robert
Burns. Burns’ English poems are simple
to read. But the real Burns is of course
in his Scotch poems. His poems deal with
Scotch way of life, scotch drinks, scotch religion and Scotch manners. A Scotch man may be familiar with such
things, but for an outsider these may sound personal. For supreme practical success more is
required. In the opinion of Arnold,
Burns comes short of the high seriousness of the great classics, something is
wanting in his poetry. In his comparative study Arnold gives Chaucer
a better position. The world of Chaucer
is fairer, richer and more significant than that of Burns.
Showing posts with label Dryden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dryden. Show all posts
00165--Comment on "Preface to the Fables" by John Dryden.
Fable: A fable is a brief tale conveying a moral. Usually, in fables beast and birds are made
to act and speak like human beings. But Dryden’s
Fables are in no sense fables, but rather tales in verse. They are verse paraphrases of tales by
Chaucer, Boccaccio and Ovid.
Audio Books
Audio Books
The Background: In the Preface
to the Fables, Dryden explains the background and project of the Fables. He explains how the project was taken up on a
very modest scale which however expanded to the full size of a book. Metaphorically, Dryden says that he had only
planned to build a lodge, but ended up with a house.
Dryden began with a translation of the first
book of Homer’s Iliad. This
was done as an experiment. However it
was a great success. The success gave
him confidence and he soon turned to another writer,
Ovid. He translated into simple
English Ovid’s ‘Metamorphoses’. These experiments and the success he got,
encouraged him to choose five tales from Chaucer’s famous work “Canterbury
Tales”. Later he translated three of Boccaccio’s Tales. At the end of the preface Dryden says that he
makes no claims as to the merits of his translation. He leaves it to the readers to decide.
00074--Describe general characteristics of the literary criticism of 18th century.
Crticism in the early 18th century does not differ substantially from Restoration criticism, except that Neo-classicism grows more severe and stringent, and there is an expansion and diffusion of the critical temper. It accepts and consolidates the revolution that Dryden made, and advances it cautiously on many fronts. It makes ample use of the critical tradition that it has inherited from Dryden.
1. 18th century has inherited the 'cultural nationalism' of Dryden, i.e., a love of English literature and criticism and a contempt for French literary theories and criticism. In this connection, George Matson says that the Augustan contempt for French neo-classical authority is much like Dryden's even in its ambiguities. The attitude of the nineteen year old Pope when he wrote the Essay on Criticism might be Dryden's "cultural nationalism" put into verse. In so far as the rules are French, Pope argues, they are bad; in so far as they are ancient, and judiciously interpreted by Englishmen, they are good.
2. Criticism in the 18th century has also inherited from Dryden; his historicism or historical sense. No Augustan critic can match Dryden in the fitness of his historical sense; but as a result of his work there is widespread awareness in the early 18th century that the sense of the history is a useful and necessary part of the equipment of a critic.
It has acquired a tradition of descriptive criticism - as a result of Dryden's work, the Augustans are able to practise descriptive criticism more casually and naturally than any Restoration critic. The olden legislative criticism, or the older method of judging a work on the basis of the genre to which it belonged, was pushed out, and descriptive and analytic criticism hence forth reigned supreme. Analysis became a fashionable activity, and critics no longer hid their analysis of literary master pieces in some other form. Descriptive criticism could now throw off its mask, and appear in its true colours. A revolution of a far-reaching significance was thus brought about by Dryden.
00046--How does Dryden answer the criticism against his writings by Melbourne and Blackmore?
Melbourne and Blackmore wrote rudely and insultingly against Dryden. Towards the end of his 'preface' he refers to this. Melbourne, who is a priest, pretends among the rest, that Dryden has offended priesthood. If he has done so he is prepared to apologize to the good priests, and he (Melbourne) need not do reparation for it. Dryden says that he is not prepared to quarrel with him on this issue. Melbourne himself said that he preferred the version of Ogilby to Dryden's. But it is generally agreed that he (Melbourne) writes even below Ogilby. Dryden expresses his satisfaction that he will not be judged as the worst poet of his age. He wishes that Melbourne continued to write against some of Dryden's other poems so that they may enjoy better reputation. Melbourne has taken some pains with Dryden's poetry, but nobody will be persuaded to take the same with his.
Then Dryden turns to Blackmore who he refers to as City Bond of Knight Physician. His complaint is that through his "Absalom and Achitophel” he has displeased his fanatic patrons in London. Dryden says that he will deal with Blackmore's two poems more mildly as he is already dead. Dryden drew the plan of an epic poem on King Arthur in his preface to the translation of Juvenal. Blackmore immediately started to write the story. He did not acknowledge his benefactor but introduced him in a libel.
00045--Why did Dryden undertake the translation of the works of Chaucer and Boccaccio?
Dryden translated some of Ovid's tales and found that there were many things common between Ovid and Chaucer. Chaucer in his opinion is in no way inferior to Ovid. Moreover, Chaucer was his countryman, and Dryden always honoured his native country. So he translated some tales of the "Canterbury Tales" into modern English.
Dryden asks his readers to judge for themselves by comparing the stories of Ovid and those of Chaucer and to be convinced of their equal merits. He does not like to be adjudged as being partial to his countryman Chaucer. Both Chaucer and Boccaccio refined their mother tongues. But there is one difference: it was Dante who had already began the refinement of the Italian tongue and it was continued by Petrarch. It was Boccaccio who was responsible for refining Italian prose. Chaucer, on the other hand, was the first to adorn and amplify the English language from the provincial, which was then the most polished of all modern languages. For these reasons Dryden resolved to include both these authors in his "Fables". Dryden claims that he has studied these authors’ works thoroughly before translating them. He also says that he had translated stories with instructive morals from ancient and modern poets.
00044--How does Dryden Compare himself with a builder?
Dryden begins his "Preface to the Fables” by comparing himself with a man who intends to construct a building. The builder begins his work on the basis of precise calculations. But as his work progresses, he finds that his calculations are insufficient to meet his requirements. The builder has to change his mind and will have to add this or that convenience, which he had not thought of at the beginning. This is what happened to Dryden when he began to translate the fables. Though it began a humble way with the translation of Homer's First Book of "Iliad" it became necessary to widen the field and take up more translations. He went on to the translation of the Twelfth Book of Ovoid's "Metamorphoses" because it contains among other things, the causes, the beginning, and ending of the Trojan war. This led him to the translation of the former part of the fifteenth Book. Then there were the "Hunting of the Board", "Gnyras and Myrrha" , "Baucis and Philemon" and translated them. When Dryden translated Ovid, he found that there was much in common between Ovid and Chaucer. So he took up the translation of some tales by Chaucer. Chaucer took many of his tales from Boccaccio and so he undertook the translation of some of his tales. Like this, Dryden had to widen the scope of the translation of "The Fables".
00043--What are Dryden's views on Satire as a literary form?
By 'Satire' we mean a specific from of composition in verse or prose designed to ridicule a particular person or class or group of persons for some folly or eccentricity. Therefore satire is an employment of sarcasm, irony, or keen wit in ridiculing some prevailing vices, absurdities, abuses or follies in an individual or social group. The satire has no ill intention; it is meant only to draw the victim’s attention to his folly with view to reforming him. Thus satire can be best defined in these words: "it is the expression, in adequate terms, of the sense of amusement or disgust by the ridiculous or unseemly provided that humor is directly recognizable and that the utterance in invested with literary form" (Garnett).
In Dryden's satire there is a kind of good-humoured scorn without any sense of triumph over the adversary. Dryden the satirist is no more an enemy to the offender than the physician to the patient, when he prescribes harsh remedies to an inveterate disease, because according to his conception, the true end of satire is the amendment of vice by correction or moral reformation.
Dryden wrote regular satires after he was personally attacked by Butler and Buckingham in their Rehearsal for swindling the style of their heroic play. There upon Dryden wrote a series of satires the most notable of which are Absalom and Achitiphel, Mac Flecknoe, and The Medal. But in his Satires there is a no personal malice, no rancor and no defamation. There is but pure amusement.
00042--What is the true function of poetry according to Dryden? [Poetry/true function/Dryden's concept of poetry/end of poetry/to delight]
There has been a grate controversy amongst literary critics, poets and scholars on the true function of poetry ever since Plato down to our own day. To Plato the function of poetry was to ‘instruct', to Aristotle 'to delight', to Horace both 'to instruct and to delight' and to Longinus 'to transport'. Considering all these views Dryden was led to conclude that the final end of poetry was 'to delight and transport' rather than to teach and instruct. Dryden writes: "Delight is the chief, if not the only end of poetry; instruction can be admitted but in the second place; for poesy only instructs as it delights". As such a bare imitation of nature cannot be great poetry. Poetry should imitate only that part of nature which is beautiful and delighting. The poet is, therefore, not merely an imitator or even a teacher, but a creator, creating a new thing out of life and nature. But this fancy should not run wild. To control this fancy the poet must have the restraining power of good sense, judgment and discretion. Thus the poet presents the images of life and nature more perfect than the real life of man, shorn of all its deformities or faults. The poet imitates the ideal pattern of life. The poet is the creator of not the real but of the ideal.
00041--Discuss the views of Dryden on the use of rhyming verse in drama.
Dryden refutes the contention that rhyming verse is proper for the drama on the stage. The central point of his argument is that normally we do not talk in rhyming verse. Dryden says: “I am of opinion that rhyme is unnatural in a play, because dialogue there is presented as the effect of sudden thought; for a play is the imitation of nature: and since no man without premeditation speaks in rhyme, neither ought he to do it on the stage”. For this reason, says Aristotle, it is best to write tragedy in that kind of verse which is the least such, or which is nearest prose. The verse nearest to prose for the ancients was the Iambic, and with the moderns it is blank verse. A normal person would not speak in rhyme in day-to-day conversation. Would it be natural to call a servant, or bid a door be shut in rhyme? Rhyme may be a better form of writing, but not a more natural form. However, rhyming verse can be recommended for an unmixed serious play. So Dryden says: “In serious plays where the subject and character are great, and the plot unmixed with mirth, rhyme is there as natural and more effectual than verse”. It may be remembered that Shakespeare wrote all his plays in blank verse, and therefore while defending the use of blank verse, Dryden was actually defending Shakespeare and other contemporary dramatists of England.
00034—How does Neander (a character in Dryden’s 'Essay of Dramatic Poesy') or Dryden himself defend English dramatists and plead for freedom from rigorous classical principles and practices?
Dryden in the person of Neander rises up in defence of English Dramatists and strongly pleads that English dramatists are fully justified in not slavishly accepting the classical principles in many respects. They have developed their own principles and proved themselves to be superior to the Greek and French dramatists in many ways.
Secondly, Neander defends the vogue of tragi-comedies in English. He does not agree with Lisideius that it is unnatural to change over from a tragic scene to a comic one or vice versa. A scene is comprehended and enjoyed by human mind and soul, and not by human organs. Those who object to this shifting of scenes seem to presume “the soul to be heavier than the senses.” Furthermore, it is well known that “contraries, when placed near, set off each other.” Neander says, “We have invented, increased, and perfected a more pleasant way of writing for the stage than was ever known to the ancients or moderns of any nation, which is tragic-comedy.
Thirdly, he defends the insertion of under-plots which highlight the main plot. Coming to the dramatic unities of time and place, he says that their observance might adversely affect the total impact of a play. It is unbelievable that sufficient incidents and situations may arise at a single spot within the compass of twenty-four hours only to provide sufficient material for the plot of a good play.
*************************************************************
00033—How does Eugenius (a character in Dryden’s 'Essay of Dramatic Poesy') defend the English dramatists of the last age?
Eugenius defends the English dramatists of the last age with a highly penetrating insight. It is true, that the ancient Greek and Roman scholars laid down many basic principles of drama.
1. The English authors gave due respect to them, but they adhered more to the rules of nature. The ancients had no clear-cut concept of dividing a play into acts.
2. The English dramatists set the vogue of dividing a play into five acts. Most of the ancient Greek playwrights wrote their plays on highly popular episodes of Thebes or Troy on which many narrative poems, epics and plays had already been written. Therefore the spectators found nothing new in them. Many times they spoke out the dialogues before the actors spoke them.
3. The English dramatists wrote their plays on new and interesting themes. In comedies the Greek as well as Roman playwrights repeated a common theme of lost children coming back to their parents as grown up gentleman and ladies after a gap of many years. The spectators lost their interest in this often repeated theme. The English dramatists invented new and interesting themes. So far as the dramatic unities are concerned even the Greek authors who gave their concept, did not always observe them. In the case of moral teaching too the ancients grossly erred. They often presented the wicked prospering and the virtuous suffering and languishing.
4. The English playwrights exhibited poetic justice whereby the virtuous won and the wicked lost in the end. In all these respects the English dramatists of the last age were better than the Greek or Roman dramatists.
****************************************
00032— On what grounds does Crites (a character in Dryden’s 'Essay of Dramatic Poesy') defend the ancient Greek and Roman poets and dramatists?
Crites begins defending the ancient Greek and Roman poets and dramatists by observing at the very outset that “it is our greatest praise to have imitated them well; for we do not only build upon their foundations, but by their models.” He goes on to say that “all the rules by which we practice the drama of this day were delivered to us from the observations which Aristotle made of those poets who either lived before him, or were his contemporaries.
Horace’s Ars Poetica is an excellent comment on the art of poetry which our poets follow and feel honoured. Aristotle also laid down the principles of the three dramatic unities—the Unities of Time, Place and Action. By the Unity of Time he meant that the action of a play should not exceed “the compass of a natural day.” If the action is limited within this compass, “it would be thought the nearest imitation of nature.” By the Unity of Place he meant that the scene ought to be continued in the same place from the beginning to the end for the stage is “but one and the same place.” It is unnatural to shift the action from one place to another, especially to distant places. This will give the greatest likelihood to untruth. By the unity of action he meant that there should be only one action, great and complete enough, to cover the whole plot. Two or more actions should not go side by side in the play. In this respect “both the best and the worst of the modern poets will equally instruct you to admire the ancients.”
00031—Discuss the plan of Dryden's essay on dramatic poesy.
Dryden developed a very ingenious plan for writing his Essay of Dramatic Poesy. In 1665 great plague broke out in London. In order to escape from the infection of the plague, many people left London and moved out to the countryside. Dryden takes this situation and develops a plan to write a great treatise on the theory and practice of dramatic poesy. He imagines he and his three friends sail out of London in a boat on the river Thames. The journey is long and tedious. Therefore in order to to avoid the boredom of the journey, the four friends decide to hold some useful discourse on the theory and practice of drama in different ages in Greece, Rome, France and England.
*********************************************
00030— Why is Dryden called “the Father of English Criticism?”
Dryden’s principal critic work is his Essay of Dramatic Poesy, though his critical observations are also found in the prefaces to several of his works, specially in the Preface to the Fables. The Essay of Dramatic Poesy establishes him as the first historical critic, first comparative critic, first descriptive critic, and the Independent English critic.
The Essay of Dramatic Poesy is developed in the form of dialogues amongst four interlocuters representing four different literatures or literary ages. They are:
·
1. CRITES speaks for the ancient Greek and Roman authors.
2. LISIDEIUS speaks for the French.
1. CRITES speaks for the ancient Greek and Roman authors.
2. LISIDEIUS speaks for the French.
3. EUGENIUS speaks for the English literature of the ‘last age.’
4. NEANDER speaks for England and liberty.
In this way he (Dryden) develops historical, comparative, and descriptive forms of criticism, and finally gives his own independent views through the replies of Neander. He respects the ancient Greek and Roman principles but he refuses to adhere to them slavishly, specially in respect of Tragi-comedy and observance of the three Dramatic Unities. Thus Dryden began a great regular era of criticism, and showed the way to his countrymen how to be great as creative authors as well as critical evaluators and what makes great literature. Thus he is indeed the “Father of English Criticism.”
****************************************