Dryden

 

Question .1 Do you any difference between Aristotle's definition of Tragedy and Dryden's definition of Play?

             I think there is no difference between both the definition because Aristotle and Dryden both are wrote their definition of Play and Tragedy On the base of Human nature and Imitation of an action. Merely this both the thing is same.. Emotions of mankind is the center... Whereas pity,fear,delight and instruction. for better understand it... First Let be clear about both the definition

 

Aristotle's definition of Tragedy

             "A tragedy is the imitation of an action that is serious and also as, having magnitude ,complete in itself... In appropriate and pleasurable language... In Dramatic rather than narrative form, with incident arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish a catharsis of these emotions. "

Dryden's definition of Play.

             " just and lively image of human nature, representing it's passions and humorous and the change of fortune to which it is subject, for the delight and instruction of mankind. "

            According to this Dryden's definition, play is an image of human nature and that the image is just as well as lively ...and According to Aristotle Tragedy is the imitation of an action that is serious and also, as having magnitude, complete in itself. 

             Dryden's concept of poetic imitation is not mere slavish copying of nature, poetic representation is not mere imitation for it is the work of poet or creator whose concern is to produce something that is more beautiful than the life...here Dryden focus on the representation that creation should me more beautiful than the life Aristotle also noted this thing in his defination that 'in appropriate and pleasurable language... In dramatic rather than narrative form.

            Thus, I found that both the critics trying to explaining same thing by using different metaphors.

Question :- .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 me, it is not necessary that Modern always tries to copy from the Ancient, may be that sometimes there is new idea also which is presented by Modern. But generally we find that many times Modern takes ideas from Ancient and tries to present it in a different and unique manner. Thus, Modern tries to explain ideas to people and show them a different way to think. So, according to me , both are appropriate with their own ideas , Ancient gives ideas and Modern tries to represent it in a different way according to current time.