John Dryden was an influential English poet and playwright during the Restoration period. In his work "Essay of Dramatic Poesy", Dryden explores different viewpoints on dramatic theory through a dialogue between four men on a boat ride. They debate the relative merits of ancient Greek and French drama versus contemporary English drama. While some argue for strict adherence to classical rules like the three unities, others believe English drama is more lively and exciting through its use of subplots and variety. Dryden ultimately seems to favor the English approach through his character Neander.

1. John Dryden
“Essay of Dramatic Poesy”
(1668)
BY: TO:
AYTEKIN ALIYEVA Prof. SHAHIN KHALILLI
QAFQAZ UNIVERSITY
SPRING, 2013

2. Briefly about “Glorious John”…
John Dryden, an English poet and dramatist, the carrier of the literary efforts of The
Restoration, was born on August 19, 1631, in Aldwinkle, Northamptonshire, England. He
received a classical education at Westminster School and Trinity College, Cambridge,
and then moved to London in 1657 to begin his career as a professional writer. His first
play, “The Wild Gallant” (1663), was a failure when first presented, but Dryden soon
found more success with “The Indian Queen” (1664) which served as his first attempt to
found a new theatrical genre, the heroic tragedy. The young playwright's reputation grew
quickly, and in 1668 Dryden was appointed Poet Laureate of England. That same year, he
agreed to write exclusively for Thomas Killigrew's theatrical company and became a
shareholder. Both his first offering, “Tyrannick Love” (1669), and “The Conquest of
Granada by the Spaniards” (1670), are examples of heroic tragedy. In 1672, however,
perhaps sensing the demise of his short-lived genre, Dryden turned his hand to comedy
and produced “Marriage A-la-Mode”, a brilliant battle of the sexes. Dryden's
relationship with Killigrew's company continued until 1678 at which point he broke with
the theatre and offered his latest play, “Oedipus”, a drama he had co-authored with
Nathaniel Lee, to another company.
In his later years, Dryden turned to poetry and solidified his reputation as the leading
writer of the day with such masterpieces as “Absalom and Achitophel”. However, he
continued to write for the theatre, producing such plays as “Don Sebastian” (1689), and
“Amphitryon” (1690). He also adapted a number of Shakespeare's plays including “The
Tempest” and “All for Love” (1677). In addition, he wrote the libretto for several operas.
John Dryden died in London on May 12, 1700, and was buried in Westminster Abbey
next to Chaucer. He left behind almost 30 works for the stage as well as a major critical
study ( Essay of Dramatic Poesy) and a number of translations including the works of
Virgil.
“Perhaps no nation ever produced a writer that enriched his
language with such a variety of models”.
(Samuel Johnson)
Essay of Dramatic Poesy…
John Dryden’s “Essay of Dramatic Poesy” gives a definite explanation of neoclassical
theory of art in general. He defends the classical drama standing on the line of Aristotle
saying it is an imitation of life, and reflects human nature clearly. He also discusses the
three unities, rules that require a play take place in one place, during one day, and that it
develops one single action or plot.

3. The Essay is then given as a series of speeches in which the companions put forward
what they consider to be the best examples of dramatic representation and it is written in
the form of dialogue. It is a sophisticated debate between four Restoration gentlemen as
they float down the Thames on a barge. They are Eugenius, Crites, Lesideius and
Neander. Neander seems to speak for Dryden himself.
Crites begins the debate with his advocacy of the Ancients: the radically classical
viewpoint. He states a preference for the plays of “the last age” (Elizabethan and
Jacobean) over the present. Crites defends the ancient and pointed out that they invited
the principles of dramatic art declared by Aristotle and Horace. Crites opposed to rhyme
in plays and argues that though the moderns exceed in science; the ancient age was the
true age of poetry.
Eugenius, in response, attempts to turn Crites’ points against him by stating that
progress in science has been matched by progress in the arts. Eugenius persistently takes
the side of the modern English dramatists by criticizing the faults of the classical
playwright, who did not themselves observe “The Unity Principles”.
Lesideius defends the French playwrights and attacks the English tendency to mix
genres. He accepts the success of the earlier English stage, but emphasizes modern
classicism in France. Lesideius defines a play as a just and lively image of human and the
change of fortune to which it is subject for the delight and instruction of mankind. The
French are strict observers of the “Unities”; they have rejected that peculiar English
hybrid, the tragicomedy; they have modernized and simplified their plots to give them a
familiarity.
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 subplots. Here he begins the discussion of the English tragicomedy, 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". 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 and also it prevents inappropriate
death scenes and acts of violence in performances. If the representation of incidents will
not be realistic or believable it is better omit them.
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

4. 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. While French poesy is beautiful; it is
beautiful like a "statue" and even French writers are imitating the English. One fault he
finds in their plots is the regularity that makes the plays too much alike and a sequence of
motionless speeches. But the English stage is more vital, more exciting. He also finds
subplots as an inseparable part to enrich a play. He suggests that the use of subplots, if
they are well-ordered, make the plays interesting and help the main action. Subplots and
tragicomedy make variety and contrast, dramatic dialogue is better suited to passion.
Neander argues that tragicomedy is the best form for a play; because it is the closest to
life in which emotions like joy and sadness are mixed up. 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. 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.
Neander gives superiority to the moderns, respects the ancients, criticize fixed rules of
dramas. He favors the violation of the unities because it leads to the variety to the
English plays. The unities have a narrowing effect on the French plays. The violation of
unities helps the English playwright to present an absolute, just and lively image of
human nature.
In his comparison of French and English drama, Neander characterizes the best proofs
of the Elizabethan playwrights. He praises Shakespeare ancients and moderns. Neander
comes to the end for the superiority of the Elizabethans with a close examination of a
play by Johnson which Neander believes a perfect demonstration that the English were
capable of following classical rules.
Dryden blames the critics, who attack the use of rhyme both in tragedy and comedy.
Since nobody speaks in rhyme in real life, he supports the use of blank verse in drama
and says that the use of rhyme in serious plays is justifiable than the blank verse.
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 British poesy. The benefit of this is to raise 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. He uses the way of solving this
problem in society by showing them different opinions through his imaginative
characters.