John Dryden: Literary Criticism
.png)
John Dryden (1631 -1700):
John Dryden was a monumental figure in English literature, serving as a poet, literary critic, translator, and playwright. His influence was so profound that he was appointed England's first Poet Laureate in 1668. He dominated the literary landscape of Restoration England to such an extent that the era is frequently referred to by scholars as the Age of Dryden. His immense talent even earned him the nickname "Glorious John" from the famed Romanticist writer Sir Walter Scott.
Versatility and Global Influence
As an author, Dryden was celebrated for his extraordinary versatility, achieving mastery across diverse forms including poetry, prose, and drama. Beyond his original compositions, he played a pivotal role in shaping the English literary canon through his extensive translations. He brought the works of classical and medieval giants—such as Homer, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, and Geoffrey Chaucer—to a wider audience, cementing his reputation as a key bridge between ancient traditions and modern English letters.
The Neoclassical Defense in Prose
In his seminal work, An Essay on Dramatic Poesy, Dryden offers a sophisticated exploration of Neoclassical literary theory. He championing classical drama by arguing that it serves as a vital imitation of life, capturing the complexities of human nature. The essay is uniquely structured as a dialogue between four gentlemen—Eugenius, Crites, Lisideius, and Neander—with the character of Neander serving as the primary mouthpiece for Dryden’s own critical perspectives.
A Dialogue of Dramatic Philosophies
The debate within the essay highlights the competing literary values of the time. Eugenius advocates for modern English dramatists while critiquing the ancients for their inconsistent adherence to the unities. Conversely, Crites defends the classical period as the true age of poetry, upholding the foundational principles of Aristotle and Horace while opposing the use of rhyme in drama. Meanwhile, Lisideius praises the discipline of French playwrights and critiques the English habit of mixing genres, setting the stage for Neander to ultimately defend the richness and variety of the English theatrical tradition.
Function of Poetry:
While earlier thinkers held rigid views on the purpose of art—Plato emphasizing instruction, Aristotle delight, Horace a blend of both, and Longinus transport—Dryden adopted a more moderate and integrated stance. He moved away from the strictly moralistic view, asserting that the true "end" of poetry is delight and transport rather than mere instruction. To Dryden, poetry was not a lecture, but an experience.
He further challenged the traditional idea of "imitation." For Dryden, a poet is neither a didactic teacher nor a passive imitator—much like a photographer capturing a literal image—but a creator. He argued that while a poet uses life and Nature as raw material, they process that material to create something entirely new that, while resembling the original, stands as a distinct work of art.
Ultimately, Dryden’s philosophy anticipated the future of literary theory. He recognized the necessity of "fancy"—the creative energy that allows a writer to transcend literal reality. This concept laid the groundwork for what Samuel Taylor Coleridge would later famously describe as "the shaping spirit of imagination," shifting the focus of criticism from the accuracy of the imitation to the power of the artist’s vision.
Nature of Poetry:
While Dryden generally aligned with Aristotle’s definition of poetry as an act of imitation, he refined the concept to suit a more flexible, creative framework. During the Neoclassical era, the prevailing expectation was verisimilitude—a strict, literal adherence to reality or historical facts. While Dryden respected the need for a sense of truth in art, he argued that poetry should not be a rigid mirror of the physical world.
In his work The Grounds of Criticism in Tragedy, Dryden introduced a more expansive, "double-legged" approach to imitation. He maintained that a poet is certainly free to imitate things "as they are said or thought to be," but he also provided a spirited defense of the artist's right to explore the realm of the possible and the ideal. To Dryden, a poet could—and should—imitate what could be, might be, or ought to be, effectively pushing the boundaries of art beyond the strictly factual.
To support this broader view, Dryden pointed to the genius of William Shakespeare. He noted how Shakespeare skillfully utilized the supernatural, popular superstitions, and folklore to enrich his dramas. Dryden categorized these imaginative leaps as a valid form of "imitation" because the poet is drawing upon "other men's fancies"—the collective myths and beliefs of humanity—rather than just the cold data of history.
On Drama:
Dryden’s formal definition of drama serves as the cornerstone of his critical theory: he describes it as 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." This definition suggests that literature is more than a reproduction of reality; by using the word "just," Dryden implies a faithful imitation of human action, while the word "lively" ensures that the imitation is infused with the poet's creative vitality rather than being a dull, servile copy.
Within the Essay on Dramatic Poesy, this definition sparks a comprehensive debate among the four speakers as they navigate the river Thames. As they discuss the "just and lively" nature of art, the conversation shifts into a comparative analysis of French versus English drama. The group weighs the strict "Unities of Time, Place, and Action" found in French theater—which adhered closely to classical Greek and Roman standards—against the more expansive and varied traditions of the English stage.
The dialogue, modeled after the intellectual depth of Platonic Dialogues, allows Dryden to examine the giants of literature, such as Ben Jonson, Molière, and Shakespeare, with profound insight. A central point of contention arises regarding the technical execution of plays: Crites objects to the use of rhyme, arguing that it breaks the realism (verisimilitude) of a scene, while Neander (Dryden’s persona) defends rhyme as a natural and artistic enhancement that elevates the beauty of the work.
The intellectual journey concludes at twilight as the boat reaches the Somerset-Stairs. After each character delivers their final arguments on the merits of the ancients versus the moderns and the stylistic choices of the era, the four friends part ways, leaving the reader with a nuanced understanding of the evolving standards of Restoration literary theory.
In his An Essay on Dramatic Poesy, Dryden uses four distinct personas to represent the conflicting literary theories of the 17th century. Below is a summary of the speakers and their core arguments:
| Speaker | Real-Life Identity | Primary Stance | Key Arguments & Ideas |
| Crites | Sir Robert Howard | The Ancients | Argues that the Greeks and Romans reached the perfection of literary art. He favors the strict "Unities" and opposes rhyme in plays, believing it destroys realism (verisimilitude). |
| Eugenius | Lord Buckhurst | The Moderns | Defends modern English writers. He argues that the Moderns have surpassed the Ancients by improving on their flaws and benefiting from new scientific and social insights. |
| Lisideius | Sir Charles Sedley | The French | Champions the French Neoclassical drama. He admires their strict adherence to the Three Unities and their preference for "decorum" (avoiding violence on stage) over the "chaos" of English plays. |
| Neander | John Dryden | The English | Defends English drama, particularly Shakespeare and Fletcher. He argues that while English plays may be "irregular," they are more "lively" and "just" representations of human nature than the "statuesque" French plays. |
Key Points of Debate:
- The Unities: While Crites and Lisideius demand strict adherence to the Unities of Time, Place, and Action, Neander (Dryden) believes these rules can be loosened to create a more "lively" story.
- Rhyme vs. Blank Verse: Crites views rhyme as unnatural for drama, whereas Neander argues that rhyme, when handled with skill, adds a layer of artistry and "beauty" to the dialogue.
- Subplots and Genre: Lisideius dislikes the English tendency to mix comedy and tragedy (Tragicomedies), but Neander defends it as being more reflective of the variety found in real life.
Dryden's views on Tragedy:
Dryden’s critical insights into the nature of tragedy are primarily articulated in his Preface to Troilus and Cressida, titled "The Grounds of Criticism in Tragedy." While his foundational definition of the genre aligns closely with Aristotelian thought, he offers a distinct interpretation of how pity and fear operate within the audience. Rather than focusing solely on the classical concept of catharsis, Dryden argues that the true moral utility of tragedy lies in its ability to expel human arrogance and cultivate a sense of compassion. Furthermore, he expresses a degree of skepticism regarding the traditional idea of "purgation," doubting whether such a profound emotional cleansing can be fully realized within the brief duration of a theatrical performance.
In defining the tragic hero, Dryden adheres to the established principles of Aristotle and Horace, emphasizing that the protagonist must be both relatable and elevated. To effectively evoke pity and fear, the hero must be exalted in rank and fundamentally virtuous, ensuring that their downfall feels like a genuine misfortune rather than a deserved punishment. However, to remain "true to life," Dryden insists that this hero must be tainted in one particular aspect. This single flaw serves as the crucial humanizing element, allowing the audience to witness a character who is noble yet vulnerable to the complexities of human frailty.
Dryden's Views on Epic:
Dryden firmly asserts that the Epic is superior to tragedy, arguing that the heroic poem represents the absolute pinnacle of human achievement. He contends that the epic contains every virtue found in tragedy but operates on a much grander scale, effectively humbling pride, rewarding virtue, and punishing vice through a more elaborate structure. While tragedy is confined by the limitations of the stage and a shorter timeframe, the epic uses the power of language to vividly depict scenes that a physical theater simply cannot reproduce. Dryden even suggests that a performance can often detract from a play’s inherent beauty, noting that a mediocre script may only succeed through good acting, whereas the epic relies solely on the majesty of its exalted language and dignified characters to achieve a more lasting impact.
While Dryden acknowledges the visual advantages of theater, he maintains that the epic's breadth allows for greater action and more varied episodes. He notably departs from Aristotle’s rigid insistence on moral instruction, focusing instead on the presentation of sublime subjects through the "sublimest expression." To Dryden, the epic is not merely a story but a massive, architectural feat of literature where the characters, language, and structural complexity far exceed the capabilities of the tragic stage.
In a unique critical move, Dryden classifies Satire as a species of heroic poetry, arguing that it should be constructed with the same massive scale and design as the epic. He advises that a satirist must maintain a sharp, singular focus by targeting only one specific folly or vice; to clutter the work with multiple targets would be as detrimental as an epic losing its central hero. Just as an epic poet elevates one primary character above all others, the satirist should make all other elements subservient to the main vice being critiqued. Finally, Dryden advocates for the use of "fine jesting" as the most effective treatment for the genre, preferring the ten-syllable verse (the heroic couplet) as the most appropriate and dignified medium for satirical expression.
Dryden on comedy:
Dryden defines comedy as a representation of human life focusing on inferior persons and low subjects, designed to nudge people toward better behavior through the power of ridicule. He views it as a "sharp manner of instruction" tailored for the common populace, suggesting that certain social follies are only corrected once they have been sufficiently exposed to public laughter. Aligning with the Platonic view that laughter can be rooted in a sense of malice, Dryden notes that the humor in comedy often arises from the audience's perceived superiority over the characters on stage.
However, Dryden is careful to prioritize the aesthetic experience, asserting that the primary end of comedy is delight, with instruction serving as a secondary goal. He argues that comedy is not bound by the same strict moral obligations as tragedy; since the characters are of a lower social standing and their "vices" are often just the impulsive sallies of youth or common human frailties rather than premeditated crimes, they do not require the same level of severe punishment.
Ultimately, Dryden’s vision for the genre was one of sophistication. He championed refined laughter over the "coarse" humor typical of the Comedy of Humours. Rather than merely mocking the eccentric traits or physical oddities of individuals, he believed comedy should strive for a more polished and intellectual wit that reflects the nuances of human nature.