Aristotle vs Dryden: Definitions, Differences, and Debates in Dramatic Theory
This blog is written as a task assigned by the Head of the Department of English (MKBU), Prof. and Dr. Dilip Barad, based on our classroom discussion and given resources. Click here to view resources.
Introduction
In the long history of literary criticism, two figures stand apart when we discuss drama: Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher whose Poetics laid the foundation for Western drama theory, and John Dryden, the Restoration poet-critic whose An Essay of Dramatic Poesy shaped the understanding of plays in the 17th century. Both offered definitions that have influenced playwrights, critics, and students for centuries — but their views come from very different worlds.
Aristotle lived in ancient Athens (4th century BCE), a city where theatre was deeply connected to religious festivals and civic life. His definition of tragedy in Poetics describes it as an imitation (mimesis) of a serious and complete action, presented in elevated language, and designed to produce catharsis — a purging of emotions like pity and fear. This idea was rooted in the grand tragedies of Sophocles, Aeschylus, and Euripides, such as Oedipus Rex or Antigone.
Dryden, on the other hand, lived in Restoration England (17th century CE), after the theatres had been reopened following the Puritan ban. His definition of play was more flexible, reflecting a blend of ancient influence, French neoclassical ideals, and English dramatic traditions. In An Essay of Dramatic Poesy, Dryden defined a play as “just and lively images of human nature, representing its passions and humours, and the changes of fortune to which it is subject.” This reflects his own experience as a playwright (All for Love, Marriage A-la-Mode) and the debates of his time between ancient and modern models.
Comparing these two definitions is not only an exercise in theory — it helps literature students understand how historical context shapes critical ideas, why different eras value different dramatic qualities, and how such debates still influence our reading and writing of plays today.
Q1: Do you see any difference between Aristotle’s definition of tragedy and Dryden’s definition of play?
The first thing to note is that Aristotle and Dryden were not just separated by centuries; they lived in completely different cultural, political, and theatrical worlds. This means their definitions reflect not only their personal tastes but also the dominant values of their societies.
Aristotle’s definition in detail
Aristotle’s famous definition, from Poetics, says:
“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; in the form of action, not of narrative; through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions.”
Breaking this down:
— Imitation of action (mimesis) — The play mirrors real human actions and moral choices.
— Serious and complete — No loose or trivial storylines; the plot must have unity.
— Of a certain magnitude — The events must be significant enough to matter to the audience.
— Embellished language — Poetry, song, and rhythm are essential.
— Performed, not narrated — Drama must be enacted, not just told.
— Catharsis — The audience experiences an emotional cleansing.
An example that fits perfectly is Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex: the action is serious (a king’s downfall), complete (a tightly unified plot), of magnitude (affecting a whole city), and ends with the audience purged through pity for Oedipus and fear of human fate.
Dryden’s definition in detail
In An Essay of Dramatic Poesy, Dryden defines a play as:
“A just and lively image of human nature, representing its passions and humours, and the changes of fortune to which it is subject.”
Key points here:
— Just and lively image — Drama should be realistic but engaging.
— Human nature — The focus is on character and emotion rather than just plot structure.
— Passions and humours — Reflecting both deep emotions and lighter temperaments.
— Changes of fortune — Drama shows reversals, both tragic and comic.
Dryden’s All for Love (his re-telling of Antony and Cleopatra) fits this: it focuses on passion, moral weakness, and fortune’s reversals — but with Restoration elegance, not the strict unity of an Aristotelian tragedy.
Core differences
1. Purpose — Aristotle focuses on catharsis (emotional purging), while Dryden emphasises representation of life (realistic portrayal of human nature).
2. Structure — Aristotle demands unity of action, time, and place; Dryden accepts more flexibility, influenced by English drama.
3. Language — Aristotle insists on poetic form; Dryden allows for prose as well.
4. Scope — Aristotle’s focus is tragedy; Dryden discusses all kinds of plays.
5. Philosophy — Aristotle is prescriptive (rules for the best tragedy); Dryden is descriptive and comparative, weighing ancient and modern merits.
How context shaped them
— Aristotle’s Athens had a religious, festival-based theatre, requiring moral seriousness and poetic grandeur.
— Dryden’s England had commercial theatres, diverse audiences, and competition between French and English dramatic styles.
In short, Aristotle gives us the blueprint for classical tragedy, while Dryden gives us a mirror of human life that can include both tragedy and comedy.
Q2: If you had to give your personal preference, would you be on the side of the Ancient (Aristotle) or the Modern (Dryden)?
Choosing between Aristotle and Dryden is not simply about liking one definition more; it is about what kind of theatre we value most.
Why I might side with Aristotle
Aristotle’s theory has a timeless elegance. His focus on unity, moral seriousness, and catharsis ensures that a tragedy is powerful and memorable. Plays like Shakespeare’s Macbeth — though not strictly Aristotelian — still draw on his ideas. Macbeth’s rise and fall are unified, his fate evokes pity and fear, and the poetic language elevates the story.
Advantages:
— Clear structure makes the play easy to follow and emotionally strong.
— Moral focus gives plays deeper meaning beyond entertainment.
— Enduring influence — from classical Athens to modern cinema.
Limitations:
— Can be too rigid — modern audiences often enjoy multiple plots or mixed tones.
— Less room for everyday humour or variety.
Why I might side with Dryden
Dryden’s definition feels more human and flexible. He values variety, realism, and the mingling of emotions. His openness to prose and mixed plots suits the diversity of modern theatre and film.
Advantages:
— Realism — characters feel like real people, not distant heroes.
— Flexibility — more room for creative experimentation.
— Balance of tragic and comic elements keeps audiences engaged.
Limitations:
— Can lack the concentrated emotional power of an Aristotelian tragedy.
— Risk of losing moral focus if too much variety is allowed.
My personal stance :
I lean slightly towards Dryden’s modern flexibility, but I deeply value Aristotle’s structural discipline. In other words, I prefer a play that uses Aristotle’s unity and seriousness when needed, but also has Dryden’s variety and human realism. Many modern plays and films combine both — for example, Death of a Salesman has tragic unity but modern realism.
Q3: Are the arguments presented in favour of French plays and against English plays appropriate?
In An Essay of Dramatic Poesy, Dryden’s character Lisideius praises French plays for their order and criticises English plays for their supposed faults. Let’s examine each point.
1. Death should not be shown on stage
French plays often kept violent deaths offstage, using messengers to describe them. This maintained dignity and avoided shocking the audience.
English plays (like Macbeth) show deaths directly, creating immediate impact.
My view: Sometimes showing death can be more powerful (e.g., Caesar’s assassination in Julius Caesar), but restraint can also be effective if description is poetic.
2. Duels with blunt swords
French dramatists avoided showing dangerous fights; English plays showed them with action.
My view: Stage combat, when well-choreographed, adds realism, but safety and believability matter.
3. Small number of soldiers on stage
French plays kept scenes realistic — no ten actors pretending to be an army.
English plays often used small groups to suggest large battles (Henry V).
My view: Audiences can suspend disbelief; even a few actors can suggest an army with good dialogue.
4. Mingling mirth with serious scenes
French plays kept comedy and tragedy separate; English plays mixed them (comic relief in Hamlet’s gravedigger scene).
My view: Mixing tones reflects real life — even in tragedy, moments of humour can deepen emotional impact.
5. Multiple plots
French plays followed one main plot; English plays often had subplots (King Lear’s Gloucester subplot).
My view: Subplots can enrich a play if well-linked to the main theme.
In short, the French approach is elegant but can feel lifeless; the English approach is energetic but risks disorder. Both have value depending on artistic goals.
Q4: What is your preference regarding poetic vs. prosaic dialogues in plays?
Poetic dialogue :
Aristotle favoured elevated, poetic language for tragedy. Poetry gives rhythm, beauty, and memorability. Lines like Macbeth’s
“Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow…”
linger in our minds because of their poetic form.
Advantages:
— Creates grandeur and emotional depth.
— Ideal for serious, symbolic moments.
Limitations:
— Can feel unnatural for everyday speech.
— May distance the audience if overused.
Prosaic dialogue
Dryden was open to prose, especially in comedy or realistic drama. Prose allows for natural conversation, quick wit, and relatable characters. Plays like The Importance of Being Earnest rely entirely on prose for their charm.
Advantages:
— Sounds natural and accessible.
— Suits modern and comic situations.
Limitations:
— Lacks the musicality and elevation of poetry.
— May feel flat in high tragedy.
My stance
I prefer a blend: poetic language for climactic moments, prose for casual or comic scenes. Shakespeare often shifts between the two — nobles speak in verse, commoners in prose — giving variety and texture.
Conclusion
The debate between Aristotle and Dryden is not just about ancient vs. modern tastes — it is about the eternal balance between structure and freedom, elevation and realism, unity and variety. Aristotle gives us the timeless architecture of tragedy; Dryden gives us the living, breathing humanity of theatre.
As literature students, understanding both helps us appreciate plays from Oedipus Rex to Death of a Salesman, and even modern films. The stage may change, but the dialogue between past and present criticism continues to shape our understanding of drama.
References
- Video: Aristotle vs Dryden — Dramatic Theory
- Video: French vs English Plays
- Video: Poetic vs Prosaic Dialogue
- Video: Dryden’s Essay of Dramatic Poesy Summary
- Video: Aristotle’s Poetics Summary
- Sir Philip Sidney’s Defence of Poesie — Slideshare
- An Essay on Dramatic Poesy — John Dryden (ResearchGate)
As explained in the videos above, and especially Dryden’s overview and the Aristotle vs Dryden comparison, these resources complement the discussion without altering the original text.
No comments:
Post a Comment