Understanding An Essay on Dramatic Poesy

Introduction

Criticism flourished in England during the restoration of Stuarts. An Essay of Dramatic Poesy deals with the views of major critics and the tastes of men and women of the time of Dryden. The work is in the form of semi-drama thus making abstract theories interesting. In the late 17th century, Shakespeare was severely criticised for his careless attitude towards the mixing of genres. It was Dryden who elevated Shakespeare to height for his natural genius.

The narrative of An Essay of Dramatic Poesy has four debaters among whom, Neander is the one who holds the views of Dryden. Unlike other characters, Neander does not diminish the arguments that are on contrary to his views. Though he himself favours modern drama, he does not blame others.

Summary of An Essay on Dramatic Poesy

The beginning of the narrative An Essay of Dramatic Poesy or Of Dramatic Poesie is as follows. A battle is going on between England and Netherlands. Four gentlemen namely Crites, Eugenius, Lisideius and Neander are travelling by boat to see the battle and start a discussion on modern literature. 

Crites opens the discussion by saying that none of his contemporaries (i.e. moderns) can equal the standards and the rules set by ancient Greeks and Romans. Eugenius restrains him from wasting time on finding demerits. He asks him to find relative merit in Greeks and Moderns.

·         Views of Crites

Crites favours classical drama i.e. the drama of Aristotle who believed that drama is “imitation of life”. Crites holds that drama of such ancients is successful because it depicts life. He says that both classical and neoclassical favour rules and unities (time, place and action). 

According to Crites, modern dramatists are shadows of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Seneca and Terence. E.g. Elizabethan dramatist Ben Jonson borrowed from Classics and felt proud to call himself modern Horace.  The classical is more skilful in language than their successors. At this, he ends up his conversation.

·         Views of Eugenius

Eugenius favours modern dramatists. However, instead of telling about the virtues of moderns, he criticises the faults of Classical playwrights. According to him, the Classical drama is not divided into acts and also lacks originality. Their tragedies are based on worn-out myths that are already known to the audience and their comedies are based o overused curiosity of stolen heiresses and miraculous restorations.

There disregard poetic justice. Instead of punishing the vice and rewarding the virtue, they have often shown prosperous wickedness and an unhappy devotion.  The classical drama also lacks affection. The Heroes of Homer were lovers of appetite, food etc, while the modern characters of French drama gave up everything (sleep, water and food) for the sake of love.

---

Views of Lisideius

Lisideius favours French drama of earlier 17th century. French drama led by Pierre Corneille strictly followed unities of time, pace and action.  The French dramatists never mix tragedy and comedy. They strictly adhere to the poetic justice i.e. reward the virtue and punishment the vice. For this, they even alter the original situation.

The French dramatists interweave truth with fiction to make it interesting bringing elements that lead to fate and borrow from history to reward the virtuous which he was earlier deprived of.  They prefer emotions over plots. Violent actions take place off stage and are told by messengers rather than showing them in real.

Views of Neander

Neander contradicts Lisideius’ arguments favouring superiority of French drama. He talks about the greatness of Elizabethans. For him, Elizabethans fulfil the drama’s requirement i.e. imitation of life. French drama raises perfection but has no soul or emotions as it primarily focuses on plot.  For Neander, tragicomedy is the best form of drama. Both sadness as well as joy are heightened and are set side by side. Hence it is closest to life.

He believes that subplots enrich the drama. This French drama having single plot lacks this vividness.  Further Samuel Johnson (who defended Shakespeare’s disregard of unities), he believes that adherence to unities prevents depth. According to him, deviation from set rules and unities gives diverse themes to drama.  Neander rejects the argument that change of place and time diminishes dramatic credibility in drama.

For him, human actions will seem more natural if they get enough time to develop. He also argues that Shakespeare is “the man who of all the modern and perhaps ancient poets, and largest and most comprehensive soul”. Francis Beaumont and John Fletchers’ dramas are rich in wit and have smoothness and polish in their language.

Neander says, “I am apt to believe the English language in them arrived at its highest perfection”. If Ben Jonson is a genius for correctness, Shakespeare excels him in wit.  His arguments end with the familiar comparison, “Shakespeare was the Homer, or father of our dramatic poets; Jonson was the Virgil, the pattern of elaborate writing; I admire him, but I love Shakespeare.”  Thus for him, Elizabethans are superior because they have a variety of themes, emotions, deviations, wit. They do not adhere to rules as well. Thus their drama is really an imitation of life.

Views on Rhyme in Drama

At the end of the discussion, there is an argument between Crites and Neander over rhyme in plays. Crites believes that Blank Verse as the poetic form nearest to prose is most suitable for drama.  On the other hand, Neander defends rhyme as it briefly and clearly explains everything.  The boat on which they all were riding reaches its destination, the stairs at Somerset House and the discussion ends without any conclusion being made.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes prepared from reading of the text and Internet Sites.

The Canonization

The Canonization

(Introduction and Appreciation)

Development of Thought

       

The Canonization is one of the best known poems of Donne. Coleridge admired the poem, and it was one of his favourite readings. It is a love poem expressing Donne’s positive attitude towards love, an attitude of satisfaction and absorption in a love-relationship. Critics have taken it to be an expression of the poet’s love for Anne-Moore, whom he loved passionately and devotedly, an elopement and subsequent marriage with whom ruined his fortunes. But nothing can be asserted with any certainty in this respect.

The poem is based upon a paradox( A paradox is a self-contradictory statement). Its very title is paradoxical. As Cleanth Brooks points out a clever paradox underlines the poem, for the poet daringly treats profane love as it were divine love. Love of women is a profane activity denounced by the church. The lovers have not renounced the world and the pleasures of the flesh, they indulge in the joys of love-making, still they are called “Saints”. But the poet cleverly argues his case, and succeeds in establishing that devoted lovers, like the poet and his beloved, are saints, though they are saints of love. They have renounced the world for each other, and the body of each is a hermitage for the other. They are as devoted to each other as a saint is to God, and hence they may rightly be called saints oflove. Thus a physical relationship is treated like a spiritual relationshipof a devotee with his God, and so some critics have taken the poem to be a parody of Christian sainthood. But if it is at all a parody, it is an intensely serious parody. Donne is most in  earnest, when he seems to be the most mocking and ironical.

The poem begins abrubtly and colloquially in the characteristic manner of Donne, the purpose being to startle and surprise the readers, and in this way to capture their attention. For God sake hold your tongue, the poet tells the worldly-wise friend or well-wisher who tries to dissuadehim from love making. Such is the emotional situation and the poet proceeds to give arguments after arguments in support of his point of view.

First, love making is as natural to him as physical weakness and disease is to an old man and therefore no purpose would be served by rebuking him for it.

Secondly, the friend should mind his own business instead of trying to interfere with his pleasure. He may do what he likes, the poet will not mind as long as he permits him to continue with his love-making undisturbed.

Thirdly, says the poet, his love making is an innocent activity. It does not cause any harm to any one. His sighs do not cause storms and sink any ship, his tears do not cause any floods, his chills do not effect the weather and the warmth of his passion does not cause plague. All human and natural activity goes on as usual undisturbed. Then why should anybody object to his love making.

Fourthly, their love is true and all absorbing. They are two bodies and one soul. Such a love may be destructive, but it destroys themselves alone and not anybody else. The analogies in which the lovers are likened first to flies, and then to the eagle and the dove, and then finally to the phoenix, are among the finest instances of Donne’s wit and his use of conceits.

They may, “die” by their love , but after their death it would be realized that their love was a holy passion, a religious passion, and they would be regarde as saints of love: All approve us canonized for love. The story of their love may not be recorded in the books of history, and big monuments may not be built in their honour, but they would be remembered by poets who would write lyrics and sonnets to the glory of their love. When the people would hear these songs, they would regard them as hymns to the martyred saints of love. They would then invoke them and ask them to pray to god on their behalf, to send them a pattern of their love. In times to come their love would be regarded as a model by all lovers who would desire the same devotion from the objects of their love.

The poem has all the characteristic qualities of Donne’s poetry. We have already noted its abrubt, dramatic opening and Donne’s use of conceits. Don’s wit is also seen in expressions like, a king’s real or his stamped face. It is an ingenuous, thought provoking statement, which makes the readers sit up and reflect. The poem also illustrates Donne’s use of hyperbole. The very thought of the possibility or otherwise of his sighscausing storms and sinking ships, or his tears causing floods, is highly amusing. Such exaggerated statements are the grains of salt which Donne adds to the poetic dish he offers to his readers.

The poem, in short, richly deserves the praise that have been universally awarded to it. it is a great love poem and its last stanza beautifully sums up Donne’s philosophy of love.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes prepared from reading of the text and Internet Sites.