The French vs The English
Lisideius argues in favour of French drama and Neander (Dryden himself) argues in favour of English drama.
Lisideius says that the French dramatists like Boileau have reformed the French drama to such an extent that it stands exceptional in Europe.
French dramatists have strictly followed the Three Unities. The plays took place in a single location without moving from one country to another far-off country. It didn't try to compress geography.
The time of the play didn't exceed to thirty hours. The use of various plots and subplots is unheard of in French plays. One can't see a child growing up and becoming a king in French plays. One can't see mingling scenes of laughter and tragic sufferings in French play. The mongrel breed of Tragic-comedy can only be seen in English plays. Lisideius supports French historial tragedies because they're based on familiar history and are modified to suit dramatic purposes.
He says that Shakespeare's historical plays can't stand in comparison with French plays. Shakespeare's historical plays were based loosely on the lives of the kings. He showed 'business of thirty to forty years, cramped into a representation of two hours and a half'.
The French dramatists excell in narrative techniques. Their plays are dominated by the hero alone and all the other characters are of lesser stature. That's why, there's a great scope of treatment of emotions and passions. The narration is brief. Scenes like death scenes, duals and battles are not shown on the stage, in French plays, because they can't be realistically shown.
Lisideius mocks at English plays by saying that they represented two huge armies by showing two lean and lanky soldiers fighting on the stage with rusty swords. The death scenes are the most comic part of the English plays. Instead of evoking tears, it evokes laughter. The villains of English pkays transfrom themselves overnight. Such transformation is psychologically incredible.
Neander comes forward to argue in favour of English drama. He says that French drama ardently follows the Three Unities and so they lack passion and humour. French drama has the beauty of a statue and not of a human being with flesh and blood.
He defends the mixing of tragic scenes and comic scenes by saying that they're true to life. In reality, our eyes get tired of unpleasant scenes and try to shift their attention to things that are lovable and pleasant. He supports Shakespeare's intermingling of tragic and comic.
He is in favour of using subplots and underplots. He says that there's nothing wrong with having many characters in the play unless we are avoiding confusions.
He says that the hero of French tragedies made very long speeches which is unbearable after a certain limit is reached.
He defends English plays by saying that English tragedies are suited to the character of the English. The English are very fond of horseplay and too much action on stage. In reply of Lisideius's mockery, he says that just as the audience can imagine an actor to be a king, the same way, they can imagine two soldiers to be two big armies.
According to him, only death scenes shouldn't be shown on stage. All the other scenes can be represented through in conformity with the limitations of the stage.
English drama had too much action and French, too little. A middle path should be chosen between the two. The indolent and incredible should be avoided and what is beautiful must only be shown.
He gived examples of the plays of Shakespeare, Beaumont and Fletcher and Ben Jonson. Neander praises Shakespeare ardently. He says that Shakespeare is a man, who of all the ancient and modern poets, had the largest and the most comprehensive soul. By comprehensive, he means encompassing all objects and all experices.
Neander also praises Ben Jonson because og his representation of remarkable humor. His language was borrowed from Latin and Greek like a monarch.
No comments:
Post a Comment