An Essay on Criticism by Alexander Pope

An Essay on Criticism by Alexander Pope
Published when Alexander Pope was twenty-two years of age, An Essay on Criticism remains one of the best known discussions of literary criticism, of its ends and means, in the English language. It is the source of numerous familiar epigrams known to the reading public. Pope was young when he wrote the work; existing evidence points to 1708 or 1709 as the probable period of composition. Pope wrote of its composition: “The things that I have written fastest, have always pleased the most. I wrote the Essay on Criticism fast; for I had digested all the matter in prose, before I began upon it in verse.”

Although Pope may seem to rely too heavily upon the authority of the ancient authors as literary masters, he recognizes, as many readers fail to note, the “grace beyond the reach of art” that no model can teach. True genius and judgment are innate gifts of heaven, as Pope says, but many people possess the seeds of taste and judgment that, with proper training, may flourish. The genius of the ancients cannot be imitated, but their principles may be.

The poem is structured in three parts: the general qualities of a critic; the particular laws by which a critic judges a work; and the ideal character of a critic. Part 1 opens with Pope’s indictment of the false critic. He remarks that as poets may be prejudiced about their own merits, so critics can be partial to their own judgment. Judgment, or “true taste,” derives from nature, as does the poet’s genius; nature provides everyone with some taste, which, if not perverted by a poor education or other defects, may enable the critic to judge properly. To be a critic, one’s first job is to know oneself, one’s own judgment, tastes, abilities; in short, to know one’s personal limitations.

The second task of the critic is to know nature, which is the critic’s standard as it is the poet’s. Nature is defined ambiguously as

Unerring Nature, still divinely bright,One clear, unchanged, and universal light,Life, force, and beauty, must to all impart,At once the source, and end, the test of Art.

Nature thus becomes a universal or cosmic force, an ideal sought by poet and critic alike in the general scheme, things universally approved throughout history by all persons. This ideal must be apprehended through the critic’s judicious balance of wit and judgment, of imaginative invention and deliberative reason.

The rules of literary criticism may best be located in those works that have stood the test of time and universal approbation, the works of antiquity. From the ancient authors, critics have derived rules of art that are not self-imposed at the whim of the critic but are discovered justly operating in the writings of the best authors. Such rules are “Nature still, but Nature methodized.”

Formerly, critics restricted themselves to discovering rules in classical literature; in Pope’s time, however, critics had strayed from the principles of these earlier critics whose motive was solely to make art “more beloved,” and prescribed their own rules, which are pedantic, unimaginative, and basely critical of literature. What was once a subordinate sister to creative art has replaced or turned against its superior, assuming a higher place in the order of things. Criticism, once destined to teach the “world . . . to admire” the poet’s art, now presumes to be master.

The true critic must learn thoroughly the ancients, particularly Homer and Vergil, for “To copy nature is to copy them.” There are beauties of art that cannot be taught by rules; these intangible beauties are the “nameless graces which no methods teach/ And which a master-hand alone can reach.” Modern writers should avoid transcending, unless rarely, the rules of art first established by the great artists of the past.

SUMMARY ON PARADISE LOST

PARADISE LOST

INTRODUCTION

        Paradise Lost is about Adam and Eve--how they came to be created and how they came to lose their place in the Garden of Eden, also called Paradise. It's the same story you find in the first pages of Genesis, expanded by Milton into a very long, detailed, narrative poem. It also includes the story of the origin of Satan. Originally, he was called Lucifer, an angel in heaven who led his followers in a war against God, and was ultimately sent with them to hell. Thirst for revenge led him to cause man's downfall by turning into a serpent and tempting Eve to eat the forbidden fruit.

SUMMARY

        The story opens in hell, where Satan and his followers are recovering from defeat in a war they waged against God. They build a palace, called Pandemonium, where they hold council to determine whether or not to return to battle. Instead they decide to explore a new world prophecied to be created, where a safer course of revenge can be planned. Satan undertakes the mission alone. At the gate of hell, he meets his offspring, Sin and Death, who unbar the gates for him. He journeys across chaos till he sees the new universe floating near the larger globe which is heaven. God sees Satan flying towards this world and foretells the fall of man. His Son, who sits at his right hand, offers to sacrifice himself for man's salvation. Meanwhile, Satan enters the new universe. He flies to the sun, where he tricks an angel, Uriel, into showing him the way to man's home.

        Satan gains entrance into the Garden of Eden, where he finds Adam and Eve and becomes jealous of them. He overhears them speak of God's commandment that they should not eat the forbidden fruit. Uriel warns Gabriel and his angels, who are guarding the gate of Paradise, of Satan's presence. Satan is apprehended by them and banished from Eden. God sends Raphael to warn Adam and Eve about Satan. Raphael recounts to them how jealousy against the Son of God led a once favored angel to wage war against God in heaven, and how the Son, Messiah, cast him and his followers into hell. He relates how the world was created so mankind could one day replace the fallen angels in heaven.

        Satan returns to earth, and enters a serpent. Finding Eve alone he induces her to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree. Adam, resigned to join in her fate, eats also. Their innocence is lost and they become aware of their nakedness. In shame and despair, they become hostile to each other. The Son of God descends to earth to judge the sinners, mercifully delaying their sentence of death. Sin and Death, sensing Satan's success, build a highway to earth, their new home. Upon his return to hell, instead of a celebration of victory, Satan and his crew are turned into serpents as punishment. Adam reconciles with Eve. God sends Michael to expel the pair from Paradise, but first to reveal to Adam future events resulting from his sin. Adam is saddened by these visions, but ultimately revived by revelations of the future coming of the Savior of mankind. In sadness, mitigated with hope, Adam and Eve are sent away from the Garden of Paradise.

Differences between Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis

Differences between Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis (DA), or discourse studies, is a general term for a number of approaches to analyze written, vocal, or sign language use or any significant semiotic event.

The objects of discourse analysis—discourse, writing, conversation, communicative event—are variously defined in terms of coherent sequences of sentences, propositions, speech, or turns-at-talk. Contrary to much of traditional linguistics, discourse analysts not only study language use 'beyond the sentence boundary', but also prefer to analyze 'naturally occurring' language use, and not invented examples. Text linguistics is related. The essential difference between discourse analysis and text linguistics is that it aims at revealing socio-psychological characteristics of a person/persons rather than text structure.

Discourse analysis has been taken up in a variety of social science disciplines, including linguistics, education, sociology, anthropology, social work,cognitive psychology, social psychology, area studies, cultural studies, international relations, human geography, communication studies, and translation studies, each of which is subject to its own assumptions, dimensions of analysis, and methodologies.
Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics and semiotics which studies the ways in which context contributes to meaning.

Pragmatics encompasses speech act theory, conversational implicature, talk in interaction and other approaches to language behavior in philosophy, sociology, linguistics and anthropology. Unlike semantics, which examines meaning that is conventional or "coded" in a given language, pragmatics studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on structural and linguistic knowledge (e.g., grammar, lexicon, etc.) of the speaker and listener, but also on the context of the utterance, any pre-existing knowledge about those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, and other factors. In this respect, pragmatics explains how language users are able to overcome apparent ambiguity, since meaning relies on the manner, place, time etc. of an utterance.

Characteristics of Modern Drama in English Literature

Characteristics of Modern Drama in English Literature

1.#Realism

Realism is the most significant and outstanding quality of the Modern English Drama. The dramatists of the earlier years of the 20th century were interested in naturalism and it was their endeavour (try) to deal with real problems of life in a realistic technique to their plays. It was Henrik Ibsen, the Norwegian dramatist who popularised realism in Modern Drama. He dealt with the problems of real life in a realistic manner of his play. His example was followed by Robertson Arthur Jones, Galsworthy and G. B. Shaw in their plays.

Modern drama has developed the Problem Play and there are many Modern Dramatists who have written a number of problem plays in our times. They dealt with the problems of marriage, justice, law, administration and strife between capital and labour in their dramas. They used theatre as a means for bringing about reforms in the conditions of society prevailing in their days. Henrik Ibsen’s play A Doll’s House is a good example of problem play. The problem play was a new experiment in the form and technique and dispensed with the conventional devices and expedients of theatre.

2. #Play_of_Ideas

Modern Drama is essentially a drama of ideas rather than action. The stage is used by dramatists to give expression to certain ideas which they want to spread in the society. The Modern Drama dealing with the problems of life has become far more intelligent than ever it was in the history of drama before the present age. With the treatment of actual life, the drama became more and more a drama of ideas, sometimes veiled in the main action, sometimes didactically act forth.

3. #Romanticism

The earlier dramatists of the 20th century were Realists at the core, but the passage of time brought in, a new trend in Modern Drama. Romanticism, which had been very dear to Elizabethan Dramatists found its way in Modern Drama and it was mainly due to Sir J.M. Barrie’s efforts that the new wave of Romanticism swept over Modern Drama for some years of the 20th century. Barrie kept aloof from realities of life and made excursions into the world of Romance.

4. #Poetic_Plays

T.S. Eliot was the main dramatist who gave importance to poetic plays and was the realistic prose drama of the modern drama. Stephen Phillips, John Drink Water, Yeats etc were from those who wrote poetic plays.

5. #History_and_Problem_Plays

Another trend, visible in the Modern English drama is in the direction of using history and biography for dramatic technique. There are many beautiful historical and biographical plays in modern dramatic literature. Shaw’s Caesar and Cleopatra are historical plays of great importance. John Drink Water’s Abraham Lincoln and Mary Stuart are also historical plays.

6. #Irish_Movement

A new trend in the Modern English Drama was introduced by the Irish dramatists who brought about the Celtic Revival in the literature. In the hands of the Irish dramatists like Yeats, J.M. Synge, T.C. Murrey etc. drama ceased to be realistic in character and became an expression of the hopes and aspirations of the Irish people from aspirations of the Irish people from remote ways to their own times.

7. #Comedy_of_Manners

There is a revival of Comedy of Manners in modern dramatic literature. Oscar Wild, Maugham, N. Coward etc. have done much to revive the comedy of wit in our days. The drama after the second has not exhibited a love for comedy and the social conditions of the period after the war is not very favourable for the development of the artificial comedy of the Restoration Age.

8. #Impressionism

It is a movement that shows that effects of things and events on the mind of the artist and the attempt of the artist to express his expressions. Impressionism constitutes another important feature of modern drama. In the impressionistic plays of W.B. Yeats, the main effort is in the direction of recreating the experience of the artist and his impressions about reality rather than in presenting reality as it is. The impressionistic drama of the modern age seeks to suggest the impressions on the artist rather than making an explicit statement about the objective characteristics of things or objects.

9.#Expressionism

It is a movement that tries to express the feelings and emotions of the people rather than objects and events. Expressionism is another important feature of modern drama. It marks an extreme reaction against the naturalism. The movement which had started early in Germany made its way in England drama and several modern dramatists like J.B. Priestly, Sean O’ Casey, C.K. Munro, Elmer Rice have made experiments in the expressionistic tendency in modern drama.

Marxism literary and the new criticism theory

Marxism literary and the new criticism theory

Marxism literary theory and the new criticism theory are among many wide schools of theory with historical importance. These theories differ in their methods and conclusions as well as their text. Different theories complement and supplement each other in their goals, methods, conclusions and text. The present day literary theory dates back in the 1960s. Literary theory was at its highest peak in popularity in some of the leading universities in America such as John Hopkins and Yale. It is from these universities that the influence of literary theory started spreading and by 1980s it was being taught almost everywhere. During this time, literary theory was supposed to be an academically cutting-edge, and as a result the majority of university literature departments wanted to teach and learn theory and integrate it into their curricula.

The goal of Marxist literary theories is to represent class conflict as well as to reinforce class distinctions through literature. Marxist theorists frequently champion writers who are sympathetic to the working classes and those whose works challenge the economic equalities in capitalist societies. In maintaining the spirit of Marxism, literary theories developing from the Marxist paradigm have sought Modern ways of understanding the relationship between literature and economic production as well as cultural production. Literary theory has drawn a lot of influence from the Marxism analyzes society.

New Critics in their works usually include inherent moral dimension, and occasionally a religious dimension. For instance, New Critic may read a poem by Thomas Eliot for its level of honesty in expression of torment and contradiction of a serious exploration of belief in the present world. On the other hand Marxist critic might see New critics' point of view as ideological instead of critical. They would argue that critical distance should be kept from the poet's religious standpoint for the poem to be understood. New criticism theories look at literary works in the view of what is written and not upon the authors' goals or biographical issues. In contrast, the Marxists emphasize themes of class conflict.

Marxist literary criticism

Marxist literary criticism is used to describe literary criticism influenced by the philosophy of Marxism. Twentieth century leading proponents of Marxist theory are also literary critics. They include, George Lukács, Terry Eagleton, and Raymond Williams. Marxist theory has different goals. One of its simplest goals is literary assessment of the political "inclination" of a literary work, hence determining whether its literary form is progressive.

According to Marxists legal systems, religious beliefs, and cultural frameworks are determined by social and economic conditions. Therefore Art should represent these conditions truthfully and also seek to better them. The popularity of Marxist aesthetics has reduced in nowadays consumerist society; however it continues to pose responsible questions.

Marxist basis of evaluation is hard to establish although it is one of the vigorous and varied 20th century school of aesthetics. Marxist theory has not been able to explain how the political, artistic, and legal superstructure of a nation reflects in its economic constitution. Â Assumptions from its generalizations have been stunningly inaccurate. For instance the hypotheses with which Marxism explained the rise in living standards of capitalist working class; the Russian-Chinese conflict revolution in Russia; and the uprisings in Berlin. The fact that Marxism fails intellectually is a prove that it has weaknesses in literary criticism.

Despite Marxist critism theories having weaknesses it is a good thing that it allows intellectual freedom. Sometimes the authors writing may have been influenced in some way by the state. For instance, the communist world was totally different from what writers were allowed to show. This means that the literary work of time could not be analyzed by simply looking at the author's goal as it is proposed by new criticism. Reading the literary work very closely and particularly the language used by the author would help to analyze the work more critically. In this case Marxism is very crucial because what people read that is what they practice.

Some contemporary Marxists such Terry Eagleton have tried to rehabilitate or revise marx. She recognizes the fact that literary work like that of Shakespeare create value because by reading them we are made to think and get something out of them thus getting some values from them. This supplements new criticism theory that looks at the moral and sometimes the religious dimensions such as honesty.

Georg Lukacs contribution

In his contribution towards Marxism and literature, Georg Lukacs, maintained that the text contained in classic realist writings in describing events of ordinary occurrence and social conditions give a vivid picture of the entireness of a society and its evolution. He argues that the literature of naturalism shows the contradictions that exist in societies and within the individual in the context of a dialectical unit. He acknowledged the fact that realist novels present a partial image of a society. However, he also supported the idea that the value of a novel lies in its description of the nature of a society in a historic period. He also argued that any literary work does not reflect individual phenomena in isolation as modernist text depicts, but should be the whole process of life found in realism. However, Lukas was opposed by Bertolt Brecht, who argued that society is dynamic and hence reality also changes. This is why Bertolt maintained that modes of representation should change accordingly. The methods and goals of representation are always changing in the quest to describe present-day realities.

Raymond Williams contribution

According to Williams, any literature potraying an ever changing culture has the counter-hegemonic and dominant ideology. Therefore Marxist criticism leaning towards William's theories considers literature as an important vehicle for ideology.

Williams' believed that where there was no common culture, a cultural and literary tradition is founded on selections made in the present and shaped by value decisions and power interests. This way he deconstructed the idea that truth is integral in a literary tradition. This contribution complements the new criticism theory that seeks to understand moral dimension of every literary text.

He also suggested the term "structure of feeling" for analysis of literature. Even though she acknowledges that the term cannot be equated to an ideology since it lacks specificity of class and it is not universal; the term gives the dimension of experience more emphasis. Structure of feeling supplements new criticism theory since it emphasizes the experience dimension. This means that the text is not subjected to critical interpretations but instead the primacy of the text is upheld.

New criticism

New Criticism as a school of thought of literary interpretation stresses the significance of studying texts as comprehensive works of art in themselves . They argued for upholding primacy of text other than analysis based on context. According to proponents of this theory literary texts are usually comprehensive in and of themselves. They elevate the purpose of criticism in academics such as in the maintenance of language and poetry at the same time helping their development. Criticism is very important as it forms an inherent part of social development. Majority of new criticism studies see the theory as one that focuses on close reading of structure, theme, technicalities and the message contained in the literary works.

New criticism supplements the Marxism criticism theory in its objective. Marxism theory interprets every literary work on the basis of how it responds to social inequalities. Social development is therefore an inherent part of the Marxism theory. New criticism also gives some focus to social development though indirectly. New criticism theory expects that by focussing on criticism at the academic level, the same will trickle down to the society at large and hence leading to social development.

Unreasonable assumptions of Marxism and new criticism

One of the assumptions of the New Critics is that biographical and historical information is not important in the study of a literary text. This assumption restricts the reader so much and is often seen as excessively authoritarian. Historical and biographical information is necessary as it can create an experience dimension that can pass some values to the reader. In so doing social development occurs. Marxism emphasizes the use of historical and biographical information in analyzing literary works. Marxism assumes that a literary work is a reflection of the society that produces it. This assumption is not always true. Some literary works may have had some external influenced thus depicting a society in a way that people wants to see it and thus may not be a true reflection of the society. Since new criticism does not emphasis the historical and biographical information of text, but instead on close reading of structure, theme, technicalities and the message contained in the literary works, it complements the Marxism assumption. Therefore the blend of both Marxism and new criticism can complement each other as mentioned above.

Humanism

Marxism does not put emphasis on the use of Marx ideology of class conflict for academics but instead for social development. Therefore proponents of Marxism criticism theory believe it is most useful in the humanist world outside the academy. As discussed earlier, the new criticism is so much focussed on academics and not the society. It is so restrictive to the reader and does not use biographical and historical information in analysis of a literary work. On the other hand, Marxism can be referred as being humanistic. It is humanistic because it empathizes with the victims of social inequalities. Marxism therefore seeks to analyse literary works using the Marx ideology of class conflict. The Marxists hope that by analyzing literary works using class conflict ideology, the reader will be able to recognize the inequalities existing in the society and thus can find ways of overcoming them and bring about an equal society.

According to Patricia Waugh humanism is not only found in Marxism but rather in all theories. She sees theories as a means by which one can exercise crucial capacities of being human. One can reflect or be rational about life through a theory and in the process one can stand back to make second order judgements about the world and our behaviour in it.

In conclusion, Marxism criticism theory and New Criticism are different in many ways. These differences are what complements and supplements each other. For instance, since New Criticism does not emphasize on the use of historical and biographical information in analyzing literary works, Marxism complements it. On the other hand, New Criticism supplements Marxism's structure of feeling by emphasizing moral dimension in the analysis of literary works. Raymond Williams a proponent of Marxism acknowledge values such as truth as integral to the literary tradition.

Essay on Dramatic Poesy by John Dryden

Essay on Dramatic Poesy by John Dryden.

John Dryden was one of the most shining stars of the Restoration Age, that’s why this age is also known as the age of Dryden. He was the great critic. So, Dr.Samuel Johnson quotes as...

“The Father of English Criticism, who first taught us to
Determine upon principles the merits of composition”

His Life:

Born-9, August, 1631, Aldwincle, Thrapston, Northampire, England.
Death-1 May,1700(aged 68 years) London, England.
Occupation-Poet Laureate, Critic, Dramatist.
Education-At Cambridge University.

His Creative Works:

Ø  Preface to the Fables
Ø  Preface to the Indian Emperor
Ø  The Wild Gallant
Ø  An Essay on Dramatic Poesy
Ø  All for Love
Ø  Absalom and Achitophel
Ø  Macflecknoe.

But, here we are Only Concerned with ‘An Essay on Dramatic Poesy’. So let’s discuss this essay in detail.

An Essay on Dramatic Poesy,
Introduction:

Dryden developed a very ingenious plan of writing his essay. In 1665 great plague broke out in London. In order to escape from the infection of the plague, many people left London. So, Dryden takes this situation and develops a plan to write a great treatise on drama. He imagines the  he and his friends sails out  of London in a boat on the river of thames.so,to avoid boredom the journey, they decide to hold some useful discourse on the theory of drama in different ages in Greece,Rome,France and of England. They decide to allot one age to each of the four friends.

Each taking up the defense of dramatic Literature of one country or one age. Crites speaks for the Greek and the Roman dramatists and their principles.  Lisideius expresses his view that the French drama is superior to the English drama. So, he favors French dramatists. Eugenius claims that the English Drama of the last age in England is better than the Ancient Dramatists. Neander (For Dryden himself) pleads for England and Liberty. So, Dryden holds that ancient principle should be respected, but should not be followed blindly.

Dryden’s definition of drama

Here, Dryden expresses his views on Drama that what a play should be, therefore, he defines drama as

“Just and Lively Image of human nature,
Representing its passions and humors,
And the changes of fortunes to which it
Is subject, for the delight and instruction Of mankind”.

Therefore, Dryden and his friends talk about what a play should be, further, Lisideius conveys his view about Drama as ‘a just lively image of Human nature ‘.after this discussion, they start to give their views and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of French and English Drama. At last the debate goes on about the comparison between Ancient and Modern writers.

Violation of the three unities

As far as the unities of the time, place and action are concerned. This group further discusses the playwrights like Ben Jonson, Moliere and Shakespeare with a deeper insight. John Dryden himself.

Also defenses English tragic-Comedy.

He comments that the French plays may be more regular but they are not as lively as that of English. For example in William Shakespeare’s Plays the more lively and just images of life can also be observed. Therefore, Dryden here condemns French Plays s lack of just and lively image.
         
Eugenius’s arguments on the superiority of the Moderns over the Ancients
           
Eugenius defends the English dramatists of the last age with a highly penetrating insight. It is true, he says that the Ancients Greek and Roman scholars laid down many basic principles of Drama. The English authors gave due respect to them, but they had no clear-cut concept of dividing a Play into Acts. The Dramatist set the voyage of dividing a play into five acts. Most of the Ancient Greek Playwrights wrote their plays on highly popular episodes of Thebes or troy on which many narrative poems, epics and plays had already been written. Therefore, the spectators found nothing new in them. Many times they spoke out the dialogues before the actors spoke them. The English Dramatist wrote their Plays on new Themes. In Comedies, the Greek and Roman playwrights repeated common theme of lost children coming back to their home after gap of many years. This often repeated theme lost its interest to the spectators.so,the English Dramatist invented new and interesting themes. In all these respects the English Dramatists of the last age were better than the Greek or Roman Dramatists.

Crites’s arguments in favor of the Ancients

Crites begins defending the Ancient Greek and Roman Poets and dramatists, and expresses his views that Ancients are better than the Modern one. The Ancient writers set rules of drama like, Aristotle also laid down the principles of the three unities of time place and action. By the unity of Time he meant that the action of a play should not be exceed “Compass of a natural day”, By the Unity of Place he meant that scene ought to be continued in the same place from the beginning to the end for the stage s “But one and the same Place”. It is Unnatural to shift the action from one place to another, especially to distant places. This will give the greatest likelihood to untruth. By the Unity of action, he meant that there should not be two or more actions. There should be only one action at a time to cover the whole Plot. The Ancient observed the three dramatic unities faithfully, and The Romans, The French, and The English dramatists tried their best to observe them, though not always successfully.Thus, The Ancients are our first law-givers as well as models for the Moderns to follow.
 
Lisideius view in favor of the superiority of the French drama over the English Drama

Defending the French Drama and Dramatist, Lisideius says that they far surpass the English and even the Greek dramatists.Corneill and some other French dramatists have so reformed their theatre that no European theatre stands comparison to it. So as far as the three dramatic unities are concerned, the French Dramatists observe them more faithfully than the Greeks themselves who propounded them. In observing the unity of time, they are so scrupulous that the action in some of their plays is limited to only twelve hours. The French are equally faithful in observing the unity of place. Many of them limit to the very spot of ground where the play is supposed to begin.However, none of them exceeds the compass of the same town. Equally conspicuous is the observance of the unity of action. There are under plots in their plays.

Further, the French generally write their tragedies on well-known historical facts which the people can easily comprehend. They do not make their plots so complicated that the spectators may lose their patience. In their plays the hero is most important, and rest of the characters are marginalized to him.Finally,The French write their plays in beautiful rhyming verse which is far sweeter than the blank verse in which the English plays are written. To Sum Up, The French playwrights are superior to the English.
  
Neander’s view in favor of English Drama

Dryden in the person of Neander rises up in defence of English dramatists and strongly pleads that English Dramatist are fully justified in not slavishly accepting the classical principles in many respects. They have developed their own principles and proved themselves to be superior to the Greek and French dramatists in many ways. In the First place French drama, whether comic or tragic, lacks in emotion and passion. English dramatists surpass them in both. The English tragedies produce fear and pity more powerfully, and their comedies excel in producing delightful humors and Romantic love. He equally defends the insertion of under plots which highlight the main plot.

Coming to the dramatic unities of Time and Place, he says that their observance might adversely affect the total impact of a play. It is unbelievable that sufficient material for the plot of a good play.Finally, coming to Shakespeare, he says “He was the man who of all modern, and perhaps ancient poets, had the largest and most comprehensive soul. He was naturally learned; he needed not the spectacle of books to read literature; he looked inwards and found him there.

The Ancient versus Modern Playwrights

Here, by this essay, John Dryden makes comparison between Ancients versus Modern Playwrights.Crites makes favor of the Ancients by giving some views about them.

A. Crites favors the Ancients

The first significant thing which favors Ancients that they are acknowledged models of the modern. They had a special technique for writing drama is that of perfection. And further, Crites expresses his views that the Ancients were honored and rewarded by the merits of their drama. They closely observed nature and depicted faithfully in their plays. The Rules and unities of composing drama, which were made by the Ancients. Therefore, Crites favors Ancients rather than Moderns.

B. Eugenius favors Moderns

Eugenius tries to reply to Crites by making Modern dramatists better than that of Ancients. Of course, Moderns have written drama the way the Ancients were written. But, they have not blindly imitated them. Their themes of the drama were similar, but not Moderns tried to present the same thing in a better way and in a different way. They have perfected the division of plays and divided their plays not into acts but into various scenes. The Ancient observed the three unities of time place and actions are not perfect. In fact, the Moderns tried to get perfection of these unities in their dramas.Ancients’s plays do not perform one of the function of drama, that of giving delight as well as instruction. There was no rule to punish vice, but even, they have mostly shown a prosperous wickedness. Therefore, by giving the reply to Crites in favor of Moderns, Eugenius tries to differentiates Moderns from the Ancients.

Mixture of tragedy and comedy

Being a liberal Critic, Dryden, who tries to give his view on mingling of tragedy and comedy.sometimes, it may be possible that one becomes bore after watching comedy drama. so here, the same thing is told by Dryden that the eye can pass from an unpleasant object to  pleasant one.so,also the soul can move from the tragic to the comic. There were no rules of mixing tragedy and comedy in their plays. But, they had written play of tragedy, no comic elements were there. But, perhaps, Aristotle would have revised his rules. That’s why, Dryden puts here that “Had Aristotle seen the English plays, He might have changed his mind”.Hence,the views of John Dryden proves that he is more frank as well as liberal as he suggests the mixture of Tragedy and Comedy must be there.

Rhymed verse versus Blank verse

Heroic couplet was used as a form of poetry in the Restoration Age as this form was mastered by John Dryden. He puts his idea on Rhyme through the mouth of Neander, while Crites attacks on Rhyme and puts forward his ideas that Rhyme must not be used in the drama. Of course, it may be utilized in comedy plays, because a play is made up of dialogues, if Rhyme is used, than the play seems unnatural or we may call a Rhymed Verse play, which is not permitted to use it.

Neander’s Defence

In making attempt to give reply to Crites, Neander favors Rhyme and further says that Rhyme makes the play natural.Therefore, it must be used in the play.Moreover, he puts forward his view that Rhyme is different from Blank Verse. Rhyme is a type of similar word at the end of the lines, while a Blank Verse stand alone, which was used by Christopher Marlowe and other Elizabethans. In a form of tragedy they used Rhyme.So, at last, Neander makes a comment and it indicates that he favors Rhyme.

Comparison between Shakespeare and Ben Jonson

In this essay, Dryden makes comparison between two great Elizabethan Dramatists like William Shakespeare and Ben Jonson. So let’s discuss this comparison in detail.

A. Shakespeare:

William Shakespeare was one of the prominent dramatists of the Age of Elizabeth. He describes the thing in such a way that not only one can see, but also you feel it. He wrote 37 Plays and in which he portrayed all the things in his Dramas and Sonnets. Though, he was not considered a great writer in the days of Elizabethan.
B. Ben Jonson:

Another writer of high quality in the Elizabethan Age was Ben Jonson, who was considered superior to William Shakespeare in those days. Because, Wit; Humour in his Dramas makes him a learned man. Jonson was a judge himself, therefore, as one can observe in his Dramas that he wrote plays, which contain Homour and Wit also.
      
One critic Atkins states,
“If I would compare him with Shakespeare,
I must acknowledge him with the more correct   
Poet, but Shakespeare the great wit, 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”.

So, Neander expresses his view about this comparison. Now let’s explain his ideas about another comparison between Fletcher and Beaumont in detail.

A. John Fletcher

John Fletcher belonged to the Age of Elizabeth, who was Dramatist of high quality and poet too. Fletcher wrote most of his play as a comedy and of course his real talent lay in it. By writing tragicomedy he generates laughter and power of arousing emotions. John Fletcher was the first person, who Customized 10 syllable line of Elizabethan Dramatic Blank Verse. The Themes of his plays were love or honor .sometimes both theme or subject can be observed in a tragicomedy. So, he was a man of technical abilities too.

B. Francis Beaumont:

The most influential play Wright and poet of Elizabethan Age. He also more wrote comedies and his comedies help Beaumont to stand as a man of talent. He was more famous for his tragicomedies, which he wrote with Fletcher. They both have written ten Plays in collaboration. So these collaborations had helped to establish both men in the ranks of the best dramatists. Therefore; Dryden makes comparison of both the Dramatists.

Doctor Faustus by Christopher Marlowe

Doctor Faustus
             ----Christopher Marlowe
      
Summary:

Doctor Faustus, a talented German scholar at Wittenburg, rails against the limits of human knowledge. He has learned everything he can learn, or so he thinks, from the conventional academic disciplines. All of these things have left him unsatisfied, so now he turns to magic. A Good Angle and an Evil Angel arrive, representing Faustus' choice between Christian conscience and the path to damnation. The former advises him to leave off this pursuit of magic, and the latter tempts him. From two fellow scholars, Valdes and Cornelius, Faustus learns the fundamentals of the black arts. He thrills at the power he will have, and the great feats he'll perform. He summons the devil Mephostophilis. They flesh out the terms of their agreement, with Mephostophilis representing Lucifer. Faustus will sell his soul, in exchange for twenty-four years of power, with Mephostophilis as servant to his every whim.

In a comic relief scene, we learn that Faustus' servant Wagner has gleaned some magic learning. He uses it to convince Robin the Clown to be his servant.

Before the time comes to sign the contract, Faustus has misgivings, but he puts them aside. Mephostophilis returns, and Faustus signs away his soul, writing with his own blood. The words "Homo fuge" ("Fly, man) appear on his arm, and Faustus is seized by fear. Mephostophilis distracts him with a dance of devils. Faustus requests a wife, a demand Mephostophilis denies, but he does give Faustus books full of knowledge.

Some time has passed. Faustus curses Mephostophilis for depriving him of heaven, although he has seen many wonders. He manages to torment Mephostophilis, he can't stomach mention of God, and the devil flees. The Good Angel and Evil Angel arrive again. The Good Angel tells him to repent, and the Evil Angel tells him to stick to his wicked ways. Lucifer, Belzebub, and Mephostophilis return, to intimidate Faustus. He is cowed by them, and agrees to speak and think no more of God. They delight him with a pageant of the Seven Deadly Sins, and then Lucifer promises to show Faustus hell. Meanwhile, Robin the Clown has gotten one of Faustus' magic books.

Faustus has explored the heavens and the earth from a chariot drawn by dragons, and is now flying to Rome, where the feast honoring St. Peter is about to be celebrated. Mephostophilis and Faustus wait for the Pope, depicted as an arrogant, decidedly unholy man. They play a series of tricks, by using magic to disguise themselves and make themselves invisible, before leaving.

The Chorus returns to tell us that Faustus returns home, where his vast knowledge of astronomy and his abilities earn him wide renown. Meanwhile, Robin the Clown has also learned magic, and uses it to impress his friend Rafe and summon Mephostophilis, who doesn't seem too happy to be called.

At the court of Charles V, Faustus performs illusions that delight the Emperor. He also humiliates a knight named Benvolio. When Benvolio and his friends try to avenge the humiliation, Faustus has his devils hurt them and cruelly transform them, so that horns grow on their heads.

Faustus swindles a Horse-courser, and when the Horse-courser returns, Faustus plays a frightening trick on him. Faustus then goes off to serve the Duke of Vanholt. Robin the Clown, his friend Dick, the Horse-courser, and a Carter all meet. They all have been swindled or hurt by Faustus' magic. They go off to the court of the Duke to settle scores with Faustus.

Faustus entertains the Duke and Duchess with petty illusions, before Robin the Clown and his band of ruffians arrives. Faustus toys with them, besting them with magic, to the delight of the Duke and Duchess.

Faustus' twenty-four years are running out. Wagner tells the audience that he thinks Faustus prepares for death. He has made his will, leaving all to Wagner. But even as death approaches, Faustus spends his days feasting and drinking with the other students. For the delight of his fellow scholars, Faustus summons a spirit to take the shape of Helen of Troy. Later, an Old Man enters, warning Faustus to repent. Faustus opts for pleasure instead, and asks Mephostophilis to bring Helen of Troy to him, to be his love and comfort during these last days. Mephostophilis readily agrees.

Later, Faustus tells his scholar friends that he is damned, and that his power came at the price of his soul. Concerned, the Scholars exit, leaving Faustus to meet his fate.

As the hour approaches, Mephostophilis taunts Faustus. Faustus blames Mephostophilis for his damnation, and the devil proudly takes credit for it. The Good and Evil Angel arrive, and the Good Angel abandons Faustus. The gates of Hell open. The Evil Angel taunts Faustus, naming the horrible tortures seen there.

The Clock strikes eleven. Faustus gives a final, frenzied monologue, regretting his choices. At midnight the devils enter. As Faustus begs God and the devil for mercy, the devils drag him away. Later, the Scholar friends find Faustus' body, torn to pieces.

Epilogue. The Chorus emphasizes that Faustus is gone, his once-great potential wasted. The Chorus warns the audience to remember his fall, and the lessons it offers.