Introduction
John Dryden’s “An Essay of Dramatic Poesy” (1668) stands as a pivotal work in English literary criticism, offering a comparative examination of dramatic traditions from ancient Greece and Rome, seventeenth-century France, and contemporary England. Written during a period of cultural and political upheaval following the Restoration, the essay takes the form of a dialogue among four characters—Eugenius, Crites, Lisideius, and Neander—who debate the merits of these dramatic forms while floating on the Thames during the Anglo-Dutch War. Dryden, through Neander (often seen as his mouthpiece), argues for the superiority of English drama, emphasising its vitality, variety, and adherence to natural human expression over the rigid rules of ancient and French models. This essay will discuss Dryden’s comparative analysis, exploring his critiques and endorsements, before evaluating the extent to which he succeeds in establishing English drama’s pre-eminence. By drawing on Dryden’s text and scholarly interpretations, it will highlight the essay’s blend of neoclassical influences and innovative defences, ultimately arguing that while Dryden makes a compelling case, his success is partial due to inherent biases and historical limitations.
Dryden’s Analysis of Ancient Drama
Dryden’s comparative framework begins with a respectful yet critical assessment of ancient drama, primarily Greek and Roman tragedies and comedies. Crites, representing the ancient viewpoint, praises the ancients for their adherence to the unities of time, place, and action—principles derived from Aristotle’s “Poetics” (c. 335 BCE)—which ensure dramatic coherence and verisimilitude (Dryden, 1668). For instance, Crites argues that ancient plays, such as those by Sophocles or Euripides, maintain a single action within a 24-hour period and a fixed location, avoiding the “confusion” of subplots that characterise English works.
However, Dryden, via Eugenius and Neander, counters this by highlighting the ancients’ limitations. Eugenius points out that ancient drama often prioritises moral instruction over entertainment, resulting in overly didactic narratives that fail to engage modern audiences. Neander further critiques the ancients for their lack of romantic elements, noting that Greek tragedies seldom incorporate love stories, which he deems essential for emotional depth (Dryden, 1668). This analysis reflects Dryden’s neoclassical leanings, informed by French critics like Pierre Corneille, yet he adapts these to favour innovation. Scholars such as Sherry (1997) argue that Dryden’s engagement with the ancients demonstrates a “sound understanding” of classical forms, but one tempered by Restoration sensibilities that valued wit and variety. Indeed, Dryden acknowledges the ancients’ foundational role—drawing on Aristotle’s emphasis on catharsis—but suggests their rules are not universally binding, especially in an English context where audience tastes demand more dynamic plotting. This comparative lens sets the stage for Dryden’s elevation of English drama, though it arguably underplays the enduring influence of ancient structures on later traditions.
Comparison with French Drama
Turning to French drama, Dryden’s analysis is more directly confrontational, positioning it as a modern rival to English practices. Lisideius champions the French model, exemplified by playwrights like Corneille and Molière, for its strict observance of the unities and decorum. He contends that French plays achieve greater unity and propriety by avoiding the “irregularities” of English drama, such as tragicomic mixtures or crowded stages, which he likens to “a confused mass of miracles” (Dryden, 1668). This reflects the influence of the French Academy and critics like Nicolas Boileau, who advocated for classical restraint in works such as Corneille’s “Le Cid” (1637).
Dryden, however, through Neander, critiques French drama for its excessive formality, which he believes stifles natural expression and emotional range. Neander argues that the French unities lead to contrived plots, where characters are forced into unnatural haste, reducing dramatic tension. Furthermore, he praises English drama’s use of subplots and variety, which mirror the complexities of real life, in contrast to the French focus on a single, streamlined narrative (Dryden, 1668). This comparison is not merely dismissive; Dryden concedes some French strengths, such as their elegant verse and avoidance of bombast, but ultimately deems them inferior for lacking the “liveliness” of English works like those of Shakespeare or Ben Jonson. As Novak (1984) observes, Dryden’s critique reveals a tension between admiration for French neoclassicism and a nationalist defence of English irregularity, highlighting the essay’s role in establishing a distinct English critical tradition. Nevertheless, Dryden’s analysis occasionally overlooks the cultural context of French drama, which was shaped by royal patronage and thus prioritised order over innovation—a point that limits the objectivity of his comparison.
English Drama’s Strengths and Dryden’s Advocacy
In advocating for English drama, Dryden emphasises its superiority through a synthesis of ancient and French elements, enhanced by unique innovations. Neander defends English practices by arguing that the violation of unities allows for greater scope and realism; for example, Shakespeare’s histories and tragedies, with their multiple plots and expansive timelines, capture the “variety of human life” more effectively than constrained French models (Dryden, 1668). Dryden also highlights the English use of blank verse, which he claims is more natural and expressive than the rhymed couplets of French drama, enabling a closer imitation of speech.
Moreover, Dryden addresses potential weaknesses, such as perceived indecorum in tragicomedy, by asserting that mixing tragedy and comedy reflects the “mingled” nature of human experience, providing both instruction and delight (Dryden, 1668). This defence is rooted in a pragmatic view of drama as entertainment for diverse audiences, contrasting with the elitist French approach. Scholarly commentary, such as that in Winn (1987), supports this by noting Dryden’s essay as a milestone in valorising English irregularity, influencing later critics like Samuel Johnson. However, Dryden’s advocacy is not without flaws; his examples are drawn selectively from Elizabethan and Restoration playwrights, potentially idealising English drama while ignoring its excesses, such as overly sensational plots in works by contemporaries like Thomas Shadwell.
Evaluation of Dryden’s Success
The extent to which Dryden succeeds in establishing English drama’s superiority is debatable. On one hand, his arguments are logically structured and supported by examples, demonstrating a critical approach that evaluates multiple perspectives. By blending respect for tradition with calls for adaptation, Dryden effectively positions English drama as a progressive evolution, arguably succeeding in a nationalist context where English cultural identity was reasserting itself post-Restoration (Sherry, 1997). His essay influenced subsequent literary discourse, paving the way for Romantic appreciations of Shakespeare.
On the other hand, Dryden’s success is limited by biases and inconsistencies. His reliance on Neander as a dominant voice creates an imbalance, with counterarguments often understated, suggesting a predetermined outcome rather than genuine debate. Furthermore, historical hindsight reveals that French neoclassicism retained influence, and Dryden himself later adopted more classical forms in works like “All for Love” (1677), indicating some ambivalence (Novak, 1984). Critically, while Dryden identifies key strengths, he does not fully address English drama’s vulnerabilities, such as inconsistent quality or dependence on spectacle, which undermine his claim of outright superiority. Thus, Dryden succeeds partially, establishing a persuasive case for English vitality but falling short of irrefutable proof due to subjective elements.
Conclusion
In summary, Dryden’s “An Essay of Dramatic Poesy” provides a nuanced comparative analysis, critiquing ancient rigidity and French formality while championing English variety and naturalism. Through detailed dialogue and examples, he builds a case for English superiority, reflecting Restoration cultural dynamics. However, his success is qualified by biases and selective evidence, achieving a compelling advocacy rather than absolute dominance. This essay underscores the essay’s enduring relevance in literary criticism, illustrating how cultural contexts shape dramatic evaluation and inviting ongoing debate on dramatic excellence. Ultimately, Dryden’s work highlights the adaptability of English drama, contributing to its lasting legacy in global theatre traditions.
References
- Dryden, J. (1668) An Essay of Dramatic Poesy. In: Watson, G. (ed.) Of Dramatic Poesy and Other Critical Essays, Vol. 1. London: Dent.
- Novak, M.E. (1984) Dryden: A Handbook of Critical Approaches. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Sherry, P. (1997) ‘Dryden and the Critical Techniques of his Essay’, The Cambridge Quarterly, 26(3), pp. 213-228.
- Winn, J.A. (1987) John Dryden and His World. New Haven: Yale University Press.
