Dryden's essay on Drametic Poesy

1) Do you find any difference between Aristotle's definition of tragedy and Dryden's definition of play?

Yes there is huge difference between Aristotle's definition of tragedy and Dryden's definition of the play. Aristotle gives the definition in a very conservative manner. he says that "tragedy is an imitation of an action that is serious and also having magnitude complete in itself...." and he ended his definition with the word 'catharsis'. Whereas Dryden gives the definition of the play in a wider sense. he added two new words in the definition that is just and live. He says that a play must represent just and lively image of human nature. And he ended his definition with the word 'delight'. he added that onlookers will feel good if we ended our play with delight and instruction of mankind. In this way Dryden moves further from Aristotle's ways of thinking and thus differentiate his work of art.

2) If you are supposed to give your personal predilection, would you be on the side of the Ancient or the Modern? Please give reasons.

f I suppose to give my personal predilection, I would like to be on the side of modern, because ancients have followed the rules and disciplines, and moderns have not only followed or imitated them but also have given something new with the help of new inventions in that era like in science and changes in the social world. Ancient used to write in different kind of boundaries like unities and as per the Greek tradition some scenes were not allowed to perform on stage. So the freedom of action is not there.

3)Do you think that the arguments presented in favour of the French plays and against English plays are appropriate?

I think arguments are presented in the favour of English plays. The plots of French plays are barren while English ones are copious to further the same action. The English plays have numbers of plots with the main plot and audience is important because of that in English plays, there are all types of themes.

4) What would be your preference so far as poetic or prosaic dialogues are concerned in the play? 

I would like to go with poetic dialogues in the play. There are two critics who argued in terms of rhymes and blank verse. Crites favors blank verse style of writing whereas Neander favors rhyme. Crites says that rhyme makes the play unnatural, if someone use rhymes then the naturality of dialogues goes out. But what Neander says that if we choose appropriate word at appropriate place, then there is no point of unnaturality. Same thing what I feel that to use rhyme makes the play more beautiful and live. It affects the reader's soul if we used appropriate rhyme. So the poetic dialogues are more capable to make readers active and live than the prosaic dialogues which sometimes bored a lot.