There is a difference between Aristotle’s definition of tragedy and Dryden’s definition of play. According to Aristotle tragedy is an imitation of an action which is serious, complete and of certain magnitude; he emphasises on serious action which can arouse pity and fear in the audience. While Dryden says that a play should be just and lively image of human nature. For Aristotle tragedy is imitation of serious action and for Dryden imitation is not only “just” but “lively” also. For Aristotle the function of “catharsis” is important in tragedy, but the reading of the play hardly give catharsis. As per Dryden play is just for the delight and instruction of the audience. Play is the representation of life as it is as per Dryden and on the other hand, Aristotle did not support representation of realistic situation of life.
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.
According to my personal opinion, I am on the side of the ancients as far as literature and music are concerned. The language is the gift from the ancients through which the writing has progressed. Ancients imitated their history in their work from where we get idea of the history, and through reading them we come to know about past. It is necessary to know your past to brighten your present. The knowledge of words we use for writing is the gift of ancients. For e.g.:- Dr.Johnson’s “The dictionary of the English Language”. The root is the part which holds the tree, same way ancients are the root which helps the moderns to grow. If consider science and technology than we can see that moderns are better. In ancient times many people died due to cancer and other deadly disease. The moderns have made tremendous progress in this field which the ancients were not able to do.
We can say that modern excels in science and technology, ancients excels in art whether it is literature, music or painting. “Moderns are the dwarfs standing on the shoulder of the giants; the shoulder of the ancients”.
3) Do you think that the arguments presented in favour of the French plays and against English plays are appropriate? (Say for example, Death should not be performed as it is neither 'just' not 'lively' image, displaying duel fight with blunted swords, thousands of soldiers marching represented as five on stage, mingling of mirth and serious, multiple plots etc.)
The arguments presented in the favour of the French plays by Lisideius against English plays are appropriate at some extent. For example the death scene, it is not possible to show it. No one can express the feeling of death without going through. As per sub-plots are concerned I would like to support English plays. Audience enjoys the mixture of sub-plots with the main plot. It makes play interesting, if presented well.
4) What would be your preference so far as poetic or prosaic dialogues are concerned in the play?
As per my opinion, prosaic dialogues are more preferable in the play. According to Dryden, play is the representation of life as it is. Imagine if our teachers or parents or friends talks with us in poetic way. Prosaic dialogues connect the audience with the play. Poetic lines limit the thoughts of the writer as he has to complete the lines as per rhyme scheme. In day to day no one uses poetic lines. All the audience cannot understand the spirit of poetry. Gandhiji said that literature should be written in a simple way that even a farmer could read. As far as play is concerned I agree with this thing that prosaic lines bring simplicity which can be understood by all the type of audience.
No comments:
Post a Comment