The ancient VS Modern controversy [Assaignment]

Name: Malek Hinaben Ibrahimbhai

Roll No: 12

Batch: 2019-21

Email ID: hinamalek21@gmail.com

Unique ID: 2069 1084 2020 0026

Paper No: 3 Literary criticism and Theory

Topic: Ancient VS Modern Controversy

Submitted to: S. B. Gardi Department of English

Question:1 The ancient versus modern controversy: - Dryden's contribution.

Answer:

Introduction:

       The debate between crites and Eugenius's views on the superiority of the Ancients and the Moderns in 'Of Dramatic Poesy'. Lisideius - the representatives of the conservative Tori and his views in favour of the French plays.

         Discussion of Ancients and Moderns should not be for who is 'Better', it should be more fundamentally about how 'history'. Itself functioned and should be read, it should be about the human understanding and knowledge, humanity and nature, the relationship between past and present.

      It's all in sequence, meaning Dryden is doing in his own age which Philip Sidney in the earlier Era was doing, justify the solid native English tradition of literature of while not disrespecting the incidents contributions….. It was all coming of the oil ongoing discourses and debates within the English tradition. Do we need to go our own or do we need to look back to the incidents only for dictum. Do we need only two follow them or can we built something separately or are we subordinate to them or do we revolt against them, these are some of the answers, answer dilemmas.

     Yes that's why and the argument is initiated by Crites, yeah Crites puts in simple package, that all that the ancient deeds were good. Their simple business is to follow them. That is the most knief argument on the part of the practitioners of Classicism; in fact some of the neo classicists we're proposing that yes. 

But the dilemmatic content is first brought into the pain by Eugenius. Eugenius' position is, you know not free of tension. He's trying to make both poles together. Isase but tries to stay within neo-classical boundary. He puts forth his arguments while not stashing asides the classical bindings. He says, so that's his arguments are modded in a particular capacity. He says the ancients wrote certain rules yes but look the ancient didn't always themselves, you know, pay hundred percent obedience to their own fangled three unities or unity of action, etc. The tragedians were  separated from the comedian and they didn't not paint certain seasons of emotion like love emotions. While saying these things, Eugenius unconsciously, Dryden is playing on it yeah Dryden makes Eugenius put in an argument which comes to be a difference of the Elizabethans. Eugenius perhaps does not mean it to be a particularly of Elizabethan in trying to save the nature practice and Eugenius is not blind to the good things in the Elizabethans, thought himself he's classicist.

The Ancient and Modern Controversy - Dryden's sanity:-

This is the age of Dryden there raged a hot debate on the comparatively merits or demerits of the Moderns And the Ancients. Swift have treated this debate satirically in his well-known work 'THE BATTLE OF THE BOOKS'. Swift was discussed in his Essay of Dramatic Poesy' Dryden has argued moderately on behalf of moderns, through the month of EUGENIUS, one of the four debtors in the essay. The case for the ‘Ancients’ is presented by Crites. In the controversy Dryden takes no extreme position, follows the golden mean, and is sensible enough to give the Ancients their respect. Through his dispassionate, balanced & sane attitude;

Cases for the Ancients: - Crites:

Crites then takes up the case of the Ancients and speak in their defence. So we can all defence in below.

[1]The superiority of Ancients is established by the very fact that the moderns simply imitate them, and build on the foundations laid by them. The Ancients are the acknowledge models of the moderns. 

[2] It should be remembered that “every age has its own genius, its own   inclination for some particular branch of knowledge. Thus in the Modern age, their genius is for the study of anatomy, natural sciences as medicine, astronomy and in these studies they have more progress than could be. Just as they excel them in drama.

[3] In Ancients Greece and Rome poetry was more honoured than any other branch of knowledge. Poets were encouraged to excel in this field through frequent competitions, judges were appointed and the dramatists were rewarded according to their merits. There are historical records to show how Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles , etc. were rewarded and honoured. Such competitions and rivalry encouraged dramatic production for, says CRITICS, “Emulation is the spur of wit, and sometimes envy , sometimes admiration , quickens our endeavors.” But in modern times there is no such spirit of healthy rivalry and competition. Poets are neither suitably honored nor are rewarded. Poets are guided more by malice then by the spirit of virtuous emulation. They criticize and denounce others, instead of themselves trying to do better. In other words there is much destructive criticism.

     As poets are not suitably rewarded and honored, they do not take pains and put in their best efforts. That is why there are so few good poets of so many harsh judge.

[4] The Ancient drama is superior because the Ancients closely observed Nature and faithfully represented her in their work. 

[5] The RULES of Dramatic Composition which the Modern now follows have come down to them from the Ancients. Moderns have devised no new rules nor, in any way, added to, or modified, any of their rules.

[6] Crites makes special mention of the unities, of Time, Place, and Action, which he says “ought to be observed in every regular play”.

The Ancients followed these rules and the effect is satisfying and pleasing. But in Modern plays the Unity of Time is violated and often of the Action a play covers whole ages; instead of one action there are a number of actions, and one spot of ground, i.e. the stage, is supposed to represent many countries.

[7] The Ancients could organize their plays well and from this it follows that they must have also written well. There is much that is highly proper and elegant in their language but we fail to appreciate it because their language is dead, and remains only in books. The greatest man of the last age, BEN JOHSON, had great admiration for the Ancients; he imitated them and borrowed (take and use another’s (writing) as his own) heavily from them. He considered them superior to the Moderns in all things. Since Eugenius prefers him as best of all other poets, his examples should be sufficient to convince him of the superiority and excellence of the Ancients. Both the best and the worst of the Modern poets, teaches one to admire the Ancients.

Case for the Moderns: - (Eugenius)

Eugenius then replies to Crites and speaks in favor of the Moderns.

    In the starting, he acknowledges that the Moderns have learned much from the Ancients. The Moderns are indebted to them for rules of dramatic composition and must be grateful to them for it. He further says that by their own labor they have added to what they have gained from them, with the result that they now excel them in many ways. The Moderns have not blindly imitated them. Eugenius proceeds to being out some defects of the Ancients, and some Excellencies of the Moderns.

         In the plays, the Ancients did not know the division of play into ACTS. It was the entrance and singing of the Chorus which was supposed to divide a play into parts and in some of their plays the Chorus sang more than five times. Hence the number of Acts in a Greek play is uncertain.

         The Moderns have perfected this division and divided their plays not only into Acts but also into scenes. The Spaniards and the Italians have Excellency plays to their credit, and they divided them into three Acts and not into five. The fault of the Greeks was not that they did not divide their acts into five acts. Their real fault was that did not confine themselves to any fixed number. They wrote without any definite plan and when they could write a good play their success was more a matter of chance and good fortune, than of ability.

           As far as the PLOT or fable of the Ancients is concerned it lacks originality. The plot of their tragedies is based usually upon some well-known story which had already been worn thread bare by numerous poets. Therefore, their tragedies lacked the charm of novelty: “the pleasure vanished; so that one main end of Dramatic Poesy in its definition, which was to cause ‘delight’, was destroyed”.

    In the characterization they no doubt, imitate nature, but their imitation is only narrow and partial as if they imitated only an eye or a hand and did not dare to venture on the lies of a face, or the proportion of the body. They are inferior to the Moderns in all these respects.

      Even their observance of the three unities of Time, Place and Action is not perfect. The Ancient critics, like Horace and Aristotle, make not mention of the unity of Place. TERENCE was one of the most regular of the Ancient dramatists, but even he does not faithfully observe the Unity of Time. One of his well-known plays takes two days and the division of time among the various Acts is not proportionate. ERIPIDIES another great dramatist, no doubt, confines his action to one day, but then he commits many absurdities. No doubt they have maintained better than the moderns, the continuity of their scenes but this is so only because they seldom have more than one or two scenes in each Act. “As their plots are narrow and their characters are few, even their whole Acts are often shorter than individual scenes in the well-wrought modern plays.”

          There is too much narration at the cost of Action. Instead of providing the necessary information to the audience through dialogues they do so through monologues. The result is their play becomes monotonous and tiresome. For example, Terence in his ‘EUNUCH’ and ‘Adelphi’ is guilty of this sin.

           Their plays do not perform one of the functions of drama, that of giving delight, nor that of giving instruction. There is no poetic justice in their plays. Instead of punishing vice and rewarding virtue, they have often shown a prosperous wickedness, and an unhappy piety.

       Eugenius agrees with Crites that they are not components to judge their language since it is dead, and many of their stories, customs. Habits, etc. have been lost to them. However, they have certain glaring faults which cannot be denied. They are often too bold in their metaphors and in their coinages. As far as possible, only such words should be used as are in common use, and new words should be coined only when absolutely necessary. Horace himself has recommended this rule, but the Ancients violated it frequently. This makes their language as pedantic and difficult to follow, as that of Cleveland, the contemporary satirist whom they condemn for this very reason. True wit consists of “deep thoughts in common language” and, “a thing well-said will be wit in all language”.

         Finally, their themes are equally defective. The proper end of the tragedy is to arouse, “admiration and concernment (pity)”. But their themes are lust, cruelty, murder, and bloodshed, which instead of arousing admiration and pity arouse “horror and terror”. The horror of such themes can be softened a little by the introduction of love scenes, but in the treatment of this passion they are many inferiors to such Moderns as Shakespeare and Fletcher. In their comedies, no doubt they introduce a few scenes of tenderness but then their lovers talk very little. No doubt, when the heart is too full, the words are few. But there are a thousand other occasions, when the lovers should speak out and reveal the working of their minds and hearts to the audience. “To depict the movement of the soul is the true work of a poet, but the Ancients fail to perform it.”

Conclusion:-

    Eugenius wanted to proceed with the discussion, but Crites cut him short. To be concluded similarly “the Ancients were more hearty” in their love scene but the moderns are more talkative. This accounts for the difference in their love-scenes. Had they written in the Modern age they might have altered their ways of writing in keeping with modern values. Therefore, they should not harshly decided against those great men, and give that honour which they themselves expect to be paid to them in times to come. The Modern plays are, unnatural they cannot be called a 'Just' and 'true' representation of Nature.