1)Do you any difference between Aristotle's definition of Tragedy and Dryden's definition of Play?
1. Aristotle’s Definition of Tragedy (Poetics)
Aristotle defines tragedy as:
“Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation (catharsis) of these emotions.”
Key Features:
Imitation (Mimesis): Drama imitates real action and life.
Serious Action: The subject must be weighty (not comic or trivial).
Completeness & Unity: The plot must have a beginning, middle, and end, with unity of action.
Embellished Language: Use of verse, rhythm, song, and diction.
Action (Not Narrative): Events are enacted on stage, not merely told.
Catharsis: Purpose is to evoke pity and fear and thereby purge these emotions in the audience.
👉 For Aristotle, Tragedy is not just entertainment; it has a moral, psychological, and emotional function.
2. Dryden’s Definition of Play (Essay of Dramatic Poesy, Preface to Troilus and Cressida, etc.)
Dryden, writing in the 17th century, defines a play more broadly than Aristotle:
“A play ought to be a just and lively image of human nature, representing its passions and humours, and the changes of fortune to which it is subject, for the delight and instruction of mankind.”
Key Features:
Image of Human Nature: Drama mirrors real life, characters, and passions.
Representation of Passions & Humours: Focus on psychology, wit, and social manners.
Changes of Fortune: Drama shows reversals in human life (rise and fall).
Delight & Instruction: Purpose is both to please (delight) and to teach (instruction).
Broader Genre: Dryden does not restrict himself to tragedy only; comedy, tragicomedy, and heroic plays are also valid.
👉 For Dryden, theatre is a blend of truth and pleasure—its aim is aesthetic enjoyment along with moral teaching.
In short:
Aristotle is philosophical and prescriptive, focusing on the essence and purpose of tragedy.
Dryden is practical and broad-minded, focusing on theatre as a reflection of life meant to entertain and instruction
2)If you are supposed to give your personal predilection, would you be on the side of the Ancient or the Modern?
If I lean toward the Ancients (Aristotle’s side):
They give us clarity, universality, and order.
Aristotle’s principles (unity, catharsis, imitation) are timeless — we still use them in film and literature studies today.
Their focus on moral seriousness ensures drama is not just entertainment but also a shaping force for society.
Tragedies like Oedipus Rex or Hamlet still hold unmatched power, proving Aristotle’s insights endure.
The Ancients remind us that art must elevate the human spirit.
If I lean toward the Moderns (Dryden’s side):
They are flexible, open-minded, and realistic.
Dryden insists that drama should mirror life in all its humours—serious or comic, lofty or ordinary.
Modern critics emphasize delight + instruction, recognizing the audience’s need for entertainment as well as wisdom.
They allow for variety (tragicomedy, prose dialogue, witty comedy), which is closer to what we enjoy in today’s theatre, novels, or even movies.
The Moderns remind us that art must connect with human experience and give pleasure.
🌿 My(Personal Standpoint):
If I had to choose, I’d stand with the Ancients in principle but with the Moderns in practice.
Aristotle gives us the ideal blueprint—the laws of dramatic art.
Dryden gives us the practical flexibility—art adapted to living audiences.
So, I’d say:
I admire the Ancients for their foundation,
but I follow the Moderns for their freedom.
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.)
Arguments in Favour of French Plays
Neatness & Order: French drama follows Aristotelian unities of time, place, and action.
Probability : They avoid showing things that would look false on stage (like duels with blunt swords, or five actors representing an army of thousands).
Decorum: Death, murder, or anything shocking is narrated rather than shown—so the stage remains “just and lively” without breaking realism.
Purity of Genre: No mixing of comedy and tragedy; French drama maintains seriousness and dignity.
By these rules, English plays seem careless, excessive, and sometimes absurd.
Arguments Against French Criticism (in Defence of English Plays)
Life’s Complexity: English drama (Shakespeare, Fletcher, Jonson) reflects life more truly and fully, where joy and sorrow are often mingled.
Emotional Power: Showing death or battles on stage may break strict “likeness,” but it moves the audience more strongly than narration does.
Richness of Plot: Multiple plots give variety, suspense, and depth—mirroring the unpredictability of real life.
National Taste: English audiences delight in the spectacular, the comic relief, and the mingling of high and low.
My Judgement
The French criticisms are appropriate if we judge by classical rules of decorum and probability. However, theatre is not only about correctness—it is also about moving the heart and reflecting life in its breadth. On this ground, English plays—though less “regular”—are often more powerful and human. Dryden himself leans toward Shakespeare and Fletcher, appreciating their natural genius despite their irregularities.
In short: The French plays are “correct,” but the English plays are “vital.” The criticisms are technically valid, but not strong enough to diminish the greatness of English drama.
Conclusion:
The French may teach us rules, but the English teach us life.
4)What would be your preference so far as poetic or prosaic dialogues are concerned in the play?
Poetic Dialogue in Plays
Strengths:
Elevates the tone; gives grandeur and intensity.
Suited for tragedy, heroic passion, and moments of heightened emotion.
Makes speeches memorable through rhythm and imagery.
Shakespeare’s blank verse, for example, creates majesty and depth.
Limitations:
Can feel artificial or distant from natural speech.
If overused, it may reduce realism and spontaneity.
Prosaic Dialogue in Plays
Strengths:
Natural, flexible, closer to real conversation.
Ideal for comedy, wit, humour, and everyday life.
Allows subtle irony and psychological realism.
Used by Shakespeare in comic scenes or by Dryden for lively repartee.
Limitations:
May lack elevation or poetic charm in moments requiring grandeur.
Risks being too plain or ordinary
My Preference
If I had to choose, I would stand midway:
Poetic dialogue for tragedy, passion, and elevated situations.
Prose dialogue for comedy, wit, and natural conversation.
In short: Poetry dignifies, prose humanises. A great play should harmonize both, using each where it is most effective.
.jpeg)
