Dryden, the father of English criticism

Q1- Do you find any difference between Aristotle's definition of tragedy and Dryden's definition of play?

Yes there is huge difference between Aristotle's definition of tragedy and Dryden's definition of the play. Aristotle gives the definition in a very conservative manner. he says that "tragedy is an imitation of an action that is serious and also having magnitude complete in itself...." and he ended his definition with the word 'catharsis'. Whereas Dryden gives the definition of the play in a wider sense. he added two new words in the definition that is just and live. He says that a play must represent just and lively image of human nature. And he ended his definition with the word 'delight'. he added that onlookers will feel good if we ended our play with delight and instruction of mankind. In this way Dryden moves further from Aristotle's ways of thinking and thus differentiate his work of art.

Q2- If you are supposed to give your personal prediction, would you be on the side of the ancient or the modern? give reasons.

I would like to be on the side of moderns. Yes it is true that moderns somehow imitate things from ancient, but not whole things they imitate. They present some new ideas as well, regarding the present situation which ancient cannot do. So as like Eugenius I favored moderns over ancients. Eugenius says that the moderns exceeds the ancient because of having learned and profited. We knows that the ages and their rules goes on changing and moderns are supposed to live with changes in their lives.

Q3- Do you think that the arguments presented in favor of the French plays and against English plays are appropriate?

No, I do not think that the arguments present in favor of French plays against English plays are appropriate. Here I want to take side of Neander who favors English plays. Lisideus argues that English tragicomedy is very absurd, "in two hours and a half we run through all the fits of bedlam". But it is not true, in real English plays are very lively by nature, it has plot subplots which we do not find in French plays. French plays are like lifeless and doesn't have subplots as well. There is narrowness of imagination, smallness, too little action in the French play according to Neander(which represent Dryden himself). So therefore I found the English play more appropriate.

Q4- What would be your preference so far as a poetic or prosaic dialogues are concerned in the play?

I would like to go with poetic dialogues in the play. There are two critics who argued in terms of rhymes and blank verse. Crites favors blank verse style of writing whereas Neander favors rhyme.  Crites says that rhyme makes the play unnatural, if someone use rhymes then the naturality of dialogues goes out. But what Neander says that if we choose appropriate word at appropriate place, then there is no point of unnaturality. Same thing what I feel that to use rhyme makes the play more beautiful and live. It affects the reader's soul if we used appropriate rhyme. So the poetic dialogues are more capable to make readers active and live than the prosaic dialogues which sometimes bored a lot.