[ اللغة الانجليزية ] : Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand

[اخت فجر]

ايــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــه <<بس ش السآآآلفه

[رحلة عمر]

ايه

بنات انا عندي ملازم النقد الى 10 بس
باقي لي درايدن موب عندي والي مشتركة معها مارسلتهم لي
ياليت الي عندها الله يسعدها تحطهم

[آم سلوم]

<~نعم

نتفاءل بالنعم وش ورانآ!!!

[never give up]

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة رحلة عمر

ايه

بنات انا عندي ملازم النقد الى 10 بس
باقي لي درايدن موب عندي والي مشتركة معها مارسلتهم لي
ياليت الي عندها الله يسعدها تحطهم

انتي مع هيفا ولا نجلا ؟

[رحلة عمر]

بنات هذا نموذج اسئلة عام 1428_1429
لماده النقد .. يقولوا د نجلاء تكرر الاسئلة

write an essay

-to show the nobleness of the poet,sidny compares him with the philosopher and the historian.explain.
-in dryden's essay on dramatic poesy,Crites and Eugenius represent two opposite points of view concerning the superiority of either the ancients or the modrens in illustrating the rules of writing drama.explain.

short notes:

the argument in Sidney's essay between the historian and the philosopher where each tries to prove that he is better than the other.

-describe the construction of the plot according to Aristotle.

answer five of the following giving short answers without details;

1-what is meant by magnetic chain according to plato?
2-what are the four characteristics of manners or characters according to Aristotle?
3-what arethe accusations against poetry that are given in Sidney's essay?
4-how are discoveries achieved according to Aristotle?
5-why does plato cosider the artist an immitator?
6-what does Neander in Dryden's essay say about tragic- comedy

[رحلة عمر]

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة never give up

انتي مع هيفا ولا نجلا ؟

نجلاء

[never give up]

John Dryden was a dramatist, a poet and a critic. He is considered the founder of the prose style because he wrote many prose articles. He wrote criticism. He wrote about literature about the rules of writing poetic drama.
His most interesting critical work is his *An Essay on Dramatic Poesy*
In the first part of his essay, he gives us his aim why he intended to writer about dramatic poetry.
He said that his aim in writing this essay was to vindicate= defend by arguing, giving reason= justifying. His aim is to vindicate the honor of the English writers.
He gives reasons. By giving reasons he is justifying, defending his ideas. By justifying he is setting the rules. He had wider aim that is to give us the, principles rules that guide the writers, how would writers write their work of art.
He was defending against certain attack, certain accusation.
When he found that literature was tackled at his time, he started defending it. The kind of poetry that was tackled was dramatic poetry= poetry that is used in drama- many of his ideas he is tackling are based on Aristotle.
Because he was man of letters, the way he wrote this essay is very artistic. He wrote it in an artistic form. He borrowed this form from the classics. The whole essay is written in the form of argument. He imagines that there were four friends. They were going on as trip in as a boat in the Thames- an English river. The boat is something symbolic; A symbol of life. He was imaging that those friends were on the boat in the river. They are all arguing about certain point- poetry. Through the four friends we are given four different points of views. At that time there was an event= a battle between the English and the Dutch. He used this occasion to imagine that there were four friends and that they were trying to move from one place to another. They took a small boat. They were sailing in the Thames= an English river. While they were sitting in the boat, they were talking about many things. One of them mentions poetry. The four of them had different views. One of them is giving us the classical point of view, he prefers the classical writers and he says why. The other says that the French is better and he says why. The third says that the modern English drama is better and he says why. The fourth represents Dryden himself. He tells us his point of view.
The four friends are:
1- Crites = he represents the classical views.
2- Eugenius= he represents the modern English- the time of Dryden
3- Lisideius= he represents the French.
4- Neander= he represents Dryden.
Each stands for a different type of literature. We are never told through out the essay which one is better. We are given different points of view. Each one of them defends his own point of view without showing that he is better than the others. It is left for the reader to decide for himself what kind of art he wants to side with.
It is a very clever technique used by Dryden. He used this artistic technique to show the different trends that were found at that time. There were people who were siding with the ancient against the modern, there were people who were siding with the English the French, and others were siding with the French against the English.
He is giving us these different points of view and his own point of view without enforcing his own point of view as being the best one.
The first opinion is given by Crites showing the superiority of the ancient over the modern.
The second view of showing us the superiority of the French over the English
The third view – we have the ancient against the French and the English.
Then we have Neander- Dryden’s point of view. He stands for the superiority of modern English over the French and the ancient, the superiority of blank verse over rhyme.
The essay is in a dialogue form, argumentative method.
Crites represents the extreme classical view of the Greeks and the Romans that they are superiors to the modern because they have set down the rules of writing poetry.
Eugenius, is taking the negative position. He says that the ancient poets failed to illustrate the rules because they did not follow what they did not follow the rules they set.
Then we have the French point of viewLisideiuswho said that the English drams is not the best, French is better.
Then we have Neander who speaks Dryden’s point of view- that the English drama is superior to other European drama.
Then he makes a comparison between rhymed and blank verse.
The first who starts his view was Crites.
Before they go in their argument, they have to define poetry and then they start giving their own point of view concerning poetry.
] Lisideius, after some modest denials, at last confess'd he had a rude Notion of it; indeed rather a Description then a Definition: but which serv'd to guide him in his private thoughts, when he was to make a judgment of what others writ: that he conceiv'd a Play ought to be, A just and lively Image of Humane Nature, representing its Passions and Humours, and the Changes of Fortune to which it is subject; for the Delight and Instruction of Mankind.
Then they will all agree on that definition. Then each of them will start expressing his own point of view. It is Dryden’s definition. It echoes very much Aristotle definition.
It is a lively image of human nature= life, action.
It represents passion and hum our, character and sentiment of people. It also stands for the changes of fortune- from happy to unhappy- the discovery- the aim is to delight and instruct.
They say that some people followed that definition and some people who did not follow that definition. Crites said that those who follow this definition are the classics. Eugenius said that they are the modern who are following this definition. Lisideius said that it is the French who are following this definition.
Crites praised the ancient. He started urging his opinion. he speaks on behalf of the ancient.
Crites, being desired by the Company to begin, spoke on behalf of the Ancients, in this manner:
Crites is praising the ancient saying that they were the best. All the people are following the ancient. They were praised and imitated by all the other following generations. They have arrived to great perfection. All people through out history are imitating the classics. They are taking them as models. They are the best playwrights. They highly honored their poets this is why they had competition.
1- The first reason is that they are models and imitated by others. We are not only following their rules but imitating their models. They are considered as models for the English writers. Modern English writers followed the rules that the ancient set.
If Confidence presage a Victory, Eugenius, in his own opinion, has already triumphed over the Ancients; nothing seems more easie to him, than to overcome those whom it is our greatest praise to have imitated well: for we do not onely build upon their foundation; but by their modells. Dramatique Poesie had time enough, reckoning from Thespis (who first invented it) to Aristophanes, to be born, to grow up, and to flourish in Maturity. It has been observed of Arts and Sciences, that in one and the same Century they have arriv'd to a great perfection; and no wonder, since every Age has a kind of Universal Genius, which inclines those that live in it to some particular Studies: the Work then being push'd on by many hands, must of necessity go forward.
If Confidence presage a Victory, Eugenius, in his own opinion, has already triumphed over the Ancients; nothing seems more easie to him, than to overcome those whom it is our greatest praise to have imitated well: for we do not onely build upon their foundation; but by their modells. Dramatique Poesie had time enough, reckoning from Thespis (who first invented it) to Aristophanes, to be born, to grow up, and to flourish in Maturity. It has been observed of Arts and Sciences, that in one and the same Century they have arriv'd to a great perfection; and no wonder, since every Age has a kind of Universal Genius, which inclines those that live in it to some particular Studies: the Work then being push'd on by many hands, must of necessity go forward.
Dramatic poetry had started with the old Greek writers. Who started writing plays using poetry. Starting from these people, poetry started to develop and be mature.
The ancient did not only start poetic drama but they also perfected it. It reached maturity and perfection during that century.
Is it not evident, in these last hundred years (when the Study of Philosophy has been the business of all the Virtuosi in Christendome) that almost a new Nature has been revealed to us? that more errours of the School have been detected, more useful
This is the first point why he stands on the side of the ancients.
Add to this the more than common emulation that was in those times of writing well; which though it be found in all Ages and all Persons that pretend to the same Reputation; yet Poesie being then in more esteem than now it is, had greater Honours decreed to the Professors of it; and consequently the Rivalship was more high between them; they had Judges ordain'd to decide their Merit, and Prizes to reward it:
2-This is the second reason why the ancient are better, because the poets at that time were highly honored and esteemed. They were greatly looked upon. The good works were rewarded. This made the competition between them high so that they perfected their works. The competition made them do better. There were relationships that took place between writers of that time.
But now since the Rewards of Honour are taken away, that Vertuous Emulation is turn'd into direct Malice; yet so slothful, that it contents it self to condemn and cry down others, without attempting to do better: 'Tis a Reputation too unprofitable, to take the necessary pains for it; yet wishing they had it, is incitement enough to hinder others from it.
Now poets are not encouraged and rewarded, so people are not interested in writing poetry. People are now envying each other and are not good as before. There were no competitions any more but just malice between poets. Instead of competitions and rivalry, it had turned into malice. This malice had caused many people to be called names. They called each other names. This affected the reputation of some poets at that time.
It was the condition of English poetry at that time. They had few poets but more critics. They were not just but severe, always critical, always finds faults. They were criticized only but not judged correctly.
Those Ancients have been faithful Imitators and wise Observers of that Nature, which is so torn and ill represented in our Plays, they have handed down to us a perfect resemblance of her; which we, like ill Copyers, neglecting to look on, have rendred monstrous and disfigur'd. But, that you may know how much you are indebted to those your Masters, and be ashamed to have so ill requited them:
3- The third point is that those ancients imitated nature. . They handed down to us a perfect resemblance of nature. They were faithful imitators of nature. But the modern disfigured nature. The English did not imitate nature faithfully. The ancients had given in their works certain resemblance, perfect imitation of nature; Where as the English people at that time ill copied nature and they neglected to look at nature faithfully. the outcomes was monstrous and disfigure.
I must remember you that all the Rules by which we practise the Drama at this day, either such as relate to the justness and symmetry of the Plot; or the Episodical Ornaments, such as Descriptions, Narrations, and other Beauties, which are not essential to the Play; were delivered to us from the Observations that Aristotle made, of those Poets, which either liv'd before him, or were his Contemporaries:
4- This is the fourth reason why the ancients are better. They set all the rules of drama, and the modern added nothing to these rules. The ancients gave the rules of writing drama- Aristotle- either from his own observation or from what he had seen in the works of his time. The English people did nothing. What they were using then were the rules of Aristotle. They did not put any rules.
5- He takes on of these rules to show how the ancient set rules and that the modern should follow it. it is the rule concerning the three unities.
Out of these two has been extracted the Famous Rules which the French call, Des Trois Vnitez, or, The Three Unities, which ought to be observ'd in every Regular Play; namely, of Time, Place, and Action.
The ancient observed the three unities- of time, place, and action.
He takes them one by one and described how they were used by the ancients and now they are disregarded by the modern.
He takes them one by one. He starts with the unity of time.
] The unity of Time they comprehend in 24 hours, the compass of a Natural Day; or as near it as can be contriv'd: and the reason of it is obvious to every one, that the time of the feigned action, or fable of the Play, should be proportion'd as near as can be to the duration of that time in which it is represented; since therefore all Playes are acted on the Theater in a space of time much within the compass of 24 hours, that Play is to be thought the nearest imitation of Nature, whose Plot or Action is confin'd within that time; and, by the same Rule which concludes this general proportion of time, it follows, that all the parts of it are to be equally subdivided; as namely, that one act take not up the suppos'd time of half a day; which is out of proportion to the rest: since the other four are then to be straightned within the compas of the remaining half; for it is unnatural that one Act, which being spoke or written, is not longer than the rest, should be suppos'd longer by the Audience; 'tis therefore the Poets duty, to take care that no Act should be imagin'd to exceed the time in which it is represented on the Stage, and that the intervalls and inequalities of time be suppos'd to fall out between the Acts.
concerning the unity of time, the ancient limited the work to 24 hours, a play should not take more than 24 hours= one day. It should be equally divided between three actions= to be equally subdivided. One act takes not up to the supposed time of half a day. The ancients limited their plays to the unity of time, but in modern drama, this unity was disregarded.
Concerning the unity of place,
For the Second Unity, which is that of place, the Antients meant by it, That the Scene ought to be continu'd through the Play, in the same place where it was laid in the beginning: for the Stage, on which it is represented, being but one and the same place, it is unnatural to conceive it many; and those far distant from one another. I will not deny but by the variation of painted Scenes, the Fancy (which in these cases will contribute to its own deceit) may sometimes imagine it several places, with some appearance of probability;
The play should not move from one place to another. One scene should be confined to one place. The English did not follow this unity. Only the French dramatists made use of this unity.
As for the third Unity which is that of Action, the Ancients meant no other by it then what the Logicians do by their Finis, the end or scope of an action: that which is the first in Intention, and last in Execution: now the Poet is to aim at one great and compleat action, to the carrying on of which all things in his Play, even the very obstacles, are to be subservient; and the reason of this is as evident as any of the former.
Concerning the unity of action, the action should be one, great and complete action. Two actions destroy the play. Very few of the modern consider the unity of action. It is the unity that should tie all the parts of action together. It is the logical consequence of events; That every event should be the logical consequences of the one before it and leads to the one next to it.
If by these Rules (to omit many other drawn from the Precepts and Practice of the Ancients) we should judge our modern Playes; 'tis probable, that few of them would endure the tryal: that which should be the business of a day, takes up in some of them an age; instead of one action they are the Epitomes of a mans life; and for one spot of ground (which the Stage should represent) we are sometimes in more Countries then the Map can show us.
Very few of the modern writers abide to these rules. There are many violations of these rules.
This was Crites and his argument why the ancient classical works are better than the French and English modern writings of plays because of these five reasons.
Then we have Eugenius, he begins his argument. He takes the side of the modern against the ancient. He is defending the modern playwrights.
There are two parts in his argument, in the first part he agrees to what Crites said that the modern imitate the ancient, but in the second part of his argument he did not agree that the ancient excel the modern.
I have observ'd in your Speech that the former part of it is convincing as to what the Moderns have profitted by the rules of the Ancients, but in the latter you are careful to conceal how much they have excell'd them: we own all the helps we have from them, and want neither veneration nor gratitude
He aggress that the ancients are good and that the moderns are imitating them. He agrees that the modern takes from the ancients and that they are their models. But the modern excelled them, became superior to the ancient. He said that the modern plays are superior to the ancient because they took advantage of the experience of the ancient and added to them. So the modern have the privilege, the advantage that they have the old rules plus what they can add. They added more to the ancient which they did not have. If they followed them blindly, it means that they would not have any works of art, but only copies. They can add new features to their art.
while we acknowledge that to overcome them we must make use of the advantages we have receiv'd from them; but to these assistances we have joyned our own industry; for (had we sate down with a dull imitation of them) we might then have lost somewhat of the old perfection, but never acquir'd any that was new. We draw not therefore after their lines, but those of Nature; and having the life before us, besides the experience of all they knew, it is no wonder if we hit some airs and features which they have miss'd: I deny not what you urge of Arts and Sciences, that they have flourish'd in some ages more then others; but your instance in Philosophy makes for me: for if Natural Causes be more known now then in the time of Aristotle, because more studied, it follows that Poesie and other Arts may with the same pains arrive still neerer to perfection,
6- He said that the ancient did not divide the play into acts. They divided them into what they called entrances. But the modern- English divided the play into acts. The ancient did not have science. They only had philosophy.
By having this scientific development, this give the modern writers something new to write about and make them reach perfection because the scientific developments to be followed requires perfection of the work.
for (had we sate down with a dull imitation of them) we might then have lost somewhat of the old perfection, but never acquir'd any that was new. We draw not therefore after their lines, but those of Nature; and having the life before us, besides the experience of all they knew, it is no wonder if we hit some airs and features which they have miss'd: I deny not what you urge of Arts and Sciences, that they have flourish'd in some ages more then others; but your instance in Philosophy makes for me: for if
The English drama benefited from science to reach perfection. They used scientific methods in reaching perfection.
Although the English added the rules, yet they added to them.
The first thing they added is the perfection of science.
The second thing he added is
Be pleased then in the first place to take notice, that the Greek Poesie, which Crites has affirm'd to have arriv'd to perfection in the Reign of the old Comedy, was so far from it, that the distinction of it into Acts was not known to them; or if it were, it is yet so darkly deliver'd to us that we can not make it out.
They did not divide their plays into acts. They first had entrances=, they had protasis; secondly they had epitasis, thirdly, catastasis, lastly, the catastrophe. These are the classical divisions of the play. They did not have acts. They did not know how to divide their plays correctly. It is the modern English writers who divided the play.
All we know of it is from the singing of their Chorus, and that too is so uncertain that in some of their Playes we have reason to conjecture they sung more then five times: Aristotle indeed divides the integral parts of a Play into four: First, The Protasis or entrance, which gives light onely to the Characters of the persons, and proceeds very little into any part of the action: 2ly, The Epitasis, or working up of the Plot where the Play grows warmer: the design or action of it is drawing on, and you see something promising that it will come to pass: Thirdly, the Catastasis, or Counterturn, which destroys that expectation,
From thence much light has been derived to the forming of it more perfectly into acts and scenes
The English had perfected the play by dividing it into acts and scenes.
Next, for the Plot, which Aristotle call'd to mythos and often Tôn pragmatôn synthesis, and from him the Romans Fabula, it has already been judiciously observ'd by a late Writer, that in their Tragedies it was onely some Tale deriv'd from Thebes or Troy, or at lest some thing that happen'd in those two Ages; which was worn so thred bare by the Pens of all the Epique Poets, and even by Tradition it self of the Talkative Greeklings
3- The plots of the ancients were traditional, so they lacked novelty and pleasure. All the plays were based on well-known stories. The main aim of the play is to teach and delight. If we already know the story, where does the delight come from?
But the English modern writers did not write about stories that wer written before.
The stories they talked about were already known. Since they knew the stories, they knew no delight. So the aim of writing the play was destroyed. if the delight part is missing and only the teaching part was there, the play has made half of its aim.
In their Comedies, the Romans generally borrow'd their Plots from the Greek Poets; and theirs was commonly a little Girle stollen or wandred from her Parents, brought back unknown to the same City, there got with child by some lewd young fellow; who, by the help of his servant, cheats his father, and when her time comes, to cry Juno Lucina fer opem; one or other sees a little Box or Cabinet which was carried away with her, and so discovers her to her friends, if some God do not prevent it, by coming down in a Machine, and take the thanks of it to himself.
4- They used the same plots, stories and the same characters. In tragedies, they used the same stories but in comedies it was worse, the plots were based on well-known plots, the characters used were taken from every day life. People, who went to watch a comedy, knew the plot and the characters previously, before going. They had certain plots and stories that were repeated in all their comedies. If you know the plot, so you can tell the characters who can present this plot.
We neither find it in Aristotle, Horace, of any who have written of it, till in our age the French Poets first made it a Precept of the Stage. The unity of time, even Terence himself (who was the best and the most regular of them) has neglected: His Heautontimoroumenos or Self-Punisher takes up visibly two dayes; therefore sayes Scaliger, the two first Acts concluding the first day, were acted over-night; the three last on the ensuing day: and Eurypides, in trying himself to one day, has committed an absurdity never to be forgiven him: for in one of his
Even Aristotle and Horace did not follow the unity of place. It is the French writers in the modern time that followed the unity of place. But the old classical writers did not follow the unity of place.
Even the unity of time was neglected by the best writer of that time. The only unity that was kept was the unity of action.
Even Aristotle and Horace did not follow the unity of place. It is the French writers in the modern time that followed the unity of place. But the old classical writers did not follow the unity of place.
Even the unity of time was neglected by the best writer of that time. The only unity that was kept was the unity of action.
The characters `were very few. We don not find many characters in old plays. The acts were shorter than that were written by the English modern writers. This is because trying to stick to the unities. They were cramped.
Now the Plots of their Plays being narrow, and the persons few, one of their Acts was written in a less compass then one of our well wrought Scenes, and yet they are often deficient even in this: To go no further then Terence, you find in the Eunuch Antipho entring single in the midst of the third Act, after Chremes and Pythias were gone off: In the same Play you have likewise Dorias beginning the fourth Act alone; and after she has made a relation of what was done at the Souldiers
The acts were very short, the characters were very few. The old play is equal to one scene in the modern play. He considers this to be a defect in the ancient writings.
The ancient classical plays had many details and interruptions that made it boring.
and to acquaint them with what was necessary to be known, but yet should have been so contriv'd by the Poet as to have been told by persons of the Drama to one another, and so by them to have come to the knowledge of the people) she quits the Stage, and Ph&aelig;dria enters next, alone likewise
In the ancient plays, there were many things narrated by the chorus. by having all these details narrated it becomes unnatural.
But as they have fail'd both in laying of their Plots, and managing of them, swerving from the Rules of their own Art, by mis-representing Nature to us, in which they have ill satified one intention of a Play, which was delight, so in the instructive part they have err'd worse: instead of punishing Vice and rewarding Virtue, they have often shown a Prosperous Wickedness, and Unhappy Piety: They have set before us a bloudy image of revenge in Medea, and given her Dragons to convey her safe from punishment
They are repeating the story. The ancient have changed the intention of the play. If you go to watch a story whose story is known for you, it will reduce your interest in the play. Part of the play is destroyed. The aim of the play is to teach and delight. If you know the story, you won’t be delighted.
To the instructive part, they had a bigger, a worse mistake in the part of instruction. They made a mistake in the part of delight by repetition, by repeating their stories, by not having any new stories, so they have destroyed the delight. The bigger mistake is in the teaching part, because as they are teaching virtue, they must give a reward to the good and punish the bad. But in their plays, instead of punishing vice and rewarding virtue, they have shown wickedness prosperous and vice reward, morality fighting. They did not have what we call poetic diction. The English plays had poetic justice while the ancient plays did not stick to poetic justice.
Tragedies and Comedies were not writ then as they are now, promiscuously, by the same person; but he who found his genius bending to the one, never attempted the other way. This is so plain, that I need not instance to you, that Aristophanes, Plautus, Terence, never any of them writ a Tragedy; &AElig;schylus, Eurypides, Sophocles and Seneca, never medled with Comedy; the Sock and Buskin were not worn by the same Poet: having then so much care to excel in one kind, very little is to be pardon'd them if they miscarried in it; and this would lead me to the consideration of their wit,
He said that during the time of antiquity, each writer wrote different kinds of poetry. The writer who wrote tragedy did not write comedy. Each writer wrote one kind of drama. But this is not the case. At the ancient time, tragedies and comedies were never mixed. Those who wrote comedies never wrote tragedies.
In modern English drama, they mix between comedy and tragedy. They have tragic-comedy, and in tragedies they have comic scenes.
10- The language
Why they were not perfect, because they have mistaken the language
Classics writing were translated, if we read them in Latin, we will find mistakes in diction. He gives examples of Latin with wrong diction, wrong metaphor, and wrong images
11- The object of tragedy
In antiquity, the object of tragedy was to introduce as much terror as possible. They did not use love scenes. They used to arouse terror by scenes of violence, cruelty, bloodshed.
Their tragedies – the ancient tragedies-all are lacking love scenes; whereas in the English plays, we have love scenes. Love scenes make a kind of relief. They soft the element of tragedy, they gentle with tenderness the horror of the tragic scenes. They only have scenes of bloodshed.
for Love-Scenes you will find few among them, their Tragique Poets dealt not with that soft passion, but with Lust, Cruelty, Revenge, Ambition, and those bloody actions they produc'd; which were more capable of raising horrour then compassion in an audience: leaving love untoucht, whose gentleness would have temper'd them, which is the most frequent of all the passions, and which being the private concernment of every person, is sooth'd by viewing its own image in a publick entertainment.
He gives examples from Shakespeare how he has love scenes in his plays.
The plays did not have passion. There were few love scenes. Love is untouched.
Shakespeare wrote tragedies with horrifying scenes, but at the same time, there were love scenes to make the play acceptable to the audience. In the old plays there were only horrifying scenes.
In modern plays they compromise between terror scenes and love scenes.
Then we come to Lisideius. He said that the French drama is better than the ancient drama.
He started saying that the English were better forty years ago.
He gave his reasons why the French are better than the ancient and the English
Though, said Eugenius, I am at all times ready to defend the honour of my Countrey against the French, and to maintain, we are as well able to vanquish them with our Pens as our Ancestors have been with their swords; yet, if you please, added he, looking upon Neander, I will commit this cause to my friend's management; his opinion of our Plays is the same with mine: and besides, there is no reason, that Crites and I, who have now left the Stage, should re-enter so suddenly upon it; which is against the Laws of Comedie.
He says that if this comparison is made 14 years ago, he would chose the English not the French. Now, they had become bad English men and worse English poets.
He gives example to show how the French is better. The first thing why the French is better,
1-The French observed the three unities.
They kept the unity of time. Not any play has extended the time to thirty hours. They kept the unity of place; they limited the place to that very spot of ground where the play is supposed to begin. None of them exceeded the compass of the same town or city. They kept the unity of action. They had only one plot. They did not have sub-plots
The unity of Action in all their Plays is yet more conspicuous, for they do not burden them with under-plots, as the English do; which is the reason why many Scenes of our Tragi-comedies carry on a design that is nothing of kinne to the main Plot; and that we see two distinct webbs in a Play; like those in ill wrought stuffs; and two actions, that is, two Plays carried on together, to the confounding of the Audience; who, before they are warm in their concernments for one part, are diverted to another; and by that means espouse the interest of neither. From hence likewise it arises that the one half of our Actors are not known to the other. They keep their distances as if they were Mountagues and Capulets, and seldom begin an acquaintance till the last Scene of the Fifth Act, when they are all to meet upon the Stage.
He considered that having both the elements of tragedy and comedy in one play is something absurd. They got happiness and sadness in the same play, love and killing. This is something absurd
There is no Theatre in the world has any thing so absurd as the English Tragi-comedie, 'tis a Drama of our own invention, and the fashion of it is enough to proclaim it so; here a course of mirth, there another of sadness and passion; a third of honour, and fourth a Duel: Thus in two hours and a half we run through all the fits of Bedlam. The French affords you as much variety on the same day, but they do it not so unseasonably, or mal a propos as we: Our Poets present you the Play and the farce together; and our Stages still retain somewhat of the Original civility of the Red-Bull;
2-He considered that having both the elements of tragedy and comedy in one play is something absurd. They got happiness and sadness in the same play, love and killing. This is something absurd. the English had both tragedy and comedy mixed together. He considered this a point of weakness. The English plays became absurd because they included both tragedy and comedy Where as the French presented them with reasonable manners. In English tragic- comedies we have many things in a very short time. Because the French confined their plays to the three unities, retained one kind of drama, they did not give much diversity, many different elements. But because the English had a long duration of time, many places, this admits many different feelings and different passions. So the French are better than the English.
But to leave our Playes, and return to theirs, I have noted one great advantage they have had in the Plotting of their Tragedies; that is, they are always grounded upon some known History: accarding to that of Horace, Ex noto fictum carmen sequar; and in that they have so imitated the Ancients that they have supass'd them. For the Ancients, as was observ'd before, took for the foundation of their Playes some Poetical Fiction, such as under that consideration could move but little concernment in the Audience, because they already knew the event of it. But the French goes farther;
3- French writers imitated the classics by basing their plays on well-known stories taken from history. The French used well-known historical stories. They excelled the ancient in that point.
The French give historical events not like the ancient who based their plot on a well known facts, plot. But the French take from history- like the ancient, but they add to them some fiction.
The English plays, like the historical plays of Shakespeare are chronicles because he cramped 30 years in one play, in two and a half hours. Instead of making a play delightful, renders it ridiculous.
The French plays are better because they are based on history, they took historical elements mixed with fiction and made their plays.
He criticizes Shakespeare and other writers who went back to history and took stories of kings that made the plays absurd. They are history plays.
Instead of making the play delightful, this make the play ridiculous.
Another thing in which the French differ from us and from the Spaniards, is, that they do not embaras, or cumber themselves with too much Plot: they onely represent so much of a Story as will constitute one whole and great action sufficient for a Play; we, who undertake more, do but multiply adventures; which, not being produc'd from one another, as effects from causes, but barely following, constitute many actions in the Drama, and consequently make it many Playes.
4- The English plays have many plots. So there is not enough time to present the different actions, whereas the French, as being abide to the three unities, they did not have time for many actions. They did not have time to develop these many actions. The French gave time to develop one action
But by pursuing close one argument, which is not cloy'd with many turns, the French have gain'd more liberty for verse, in which they write: they have leisure to dwell upon a subject which deserves it; and to represent the passions (which we have acknowledg'd to be the Poets work) without being hurried from one thing to another, as we are in the Playes of Calderon, which we have seen lately upon our Theaters, under the name of Spanish Plotts. I have taken notice but of one Tragedy of ours, whose Plot has that uniformity and unity of design in it which I have commended in the F
5-The French plays concentrated on one hero. We don’t have heroes and counter heroes
All the other characters are set to develop that character. There is one person in the play who is of greater dignity than the rest.
The narrations of events were used better by the French than the English.
The ancient used narrations. It was presented through the chorus. The English did not have chorus. Narration was presented and acted on the stage. He said that the French were better than the ancient and the English. They made their narration part of the design. It came naturally through the plot. It was part of the plot. The English used to act battles on the stage. It was ridiculous. The French did not present battles on the stage. They were supposed to happen behind the scene= off stage. They were given as parts of the conversation.
, That if one part of the Play may be related, then why not all? I answer, Some parts of the action are more fit to be represented, some to be related. Corneille sayes judiciously, that the Poet is not oblig'd to expose to view all particular actions which conduce to the principal: he ought to select such of them to be seen which will appear with the greatest beauty; either by the magnificence of the show, or the vehemence of passions which they produce, or some other charm which they have in them, and let the rest arrive to the audience by narration. 'Tis a great mistake in us to believe the French present no part of the action upon the Stage: every alteration or crossing of a design, every new sprung passion, and turn of it, is a part of the action, and much the noblest, except we conceive nothing to be action till they come to blows; as if the painting of the Heroes mind were not more properly the Poets work then the strength of his body. Nor does this any thing contradict the opinion of Horace, where he tells us,
6- The French neither had the narration of the chorus- as in the ancient plays- nor had the battles being presented and acted on the stage. The French give their narration in a more skilful way than the English.
Those people who used to narrate are like parrots. We do not have strong relation between the incidents. But the French avoid all these. They present this narration through the characters of the play. They sort of narrate and relate between the incidents. They do not have characters especially for narrating these events. Incidents are performed and narrated by characters in the play not by an outside character like the chorus. The French tried to avoid those incidents that should be narrated by the chorus. If something to be narrated, it has to be done by the characters themselves.
he thinks that it is better to present these action- these violent acts in words not action, they should be narrated in a lively way better than acted on the stage. When they are acted on the stage they will make a deeper impression of belief. They would be believed more. They can never be convincing if acted on the stage. We can not have two armies on the stage having battle. There will be only five men representing the army. it will not be convincing for the audience that it is an army.
If these actions narrated in words, they would be more effective than being presented to him on the stage.
The English prefer neither narration nor related, they perform those actions on the stage. There are actions, battles performed on the stage. The French tried to avoid such scenes.
This is to be considered by him a defect of the Englishthe French plays
That is, those actions which by reason of their cruelty will cause aversion in us, or by reason of their impossibility unbelief, ought either wholly to be avoided by a Poet, or onely deliver'd by narration. To which, we may have leave to add such as to avoid tumult, (as was before hinted) or to reduce the Plot into a more reasonable compass of time, or for defect of Beauty in them, are rather to be related then presented to the eye. Examples of all these kinds are frequent, not onely among all the Ancients, but in the best receiv'd of our English Poets. We find Ben. Johnson using them in his Magnetick Lady, where one comes out from Dinner, and relates the quarrels and disorders of it to save the undecent appearing of them on the Stage
There is too violence presented. They would not make the audience believe in them.
It fits more to the duration of time.
7-We have one plot, one character; the plays are based on historical events. We do not have many changes in the play. We do not have unpredicted events in the play. They are smoothly developing, going on from one event to the other. He considers this a good point.
We can never see a French play ending with the opposite; we do not have conversation, change of wills.
Their plays don’t have ends like the ends of the English plays. We never see any of their plays end with a conversion, we do not have sudden changes. .
The French are better than the English because they wrote in verse, while the English used blank verse.


8- The rhyme.
] I should now speak of the beauty of their Rhime, and the just reason I have to prefer that way of writing in the Tragedies before ours in Blanck verse; but because it is partly receiv'd by us, and therefore not altogether peculiar to them, I will say no more of it in relation to their Playes. For our own I doubt not but it will exceedingly beautifie them, and I can see but one reason why it should not generally obtain, that is, because our Poets write so ill in it. This indeed may prove a more prevailing argument then all others which are us'd to destroy it, and therefore I am onely troubled when great and judicious Poets, and those who acknowledg'd such, have writ or spoke against it; as for others they are to be answer'd by that one sentence of an ancient Authour,
He prefers the French plays because they used rhyme whereas the English used blank verse.
Then comes Neander. He represents Dryden’s point of view. He stands for modern English drama, but not all the modern drama. He is not comparing the moderns to the ancients. He is mentioning the rules of the ancients that used by the modern with some variation. The modern are more excellent than the French.
He speaks about the superiority of the English over the French, the modern over the ancient and of blank verse over the rhyme.
I shall grant Lisideius, without much dispute, a great part of what he has urg'd against us, for I acknowledg the French contrive their Plots more regularly, observe the Laws of Comedy, and decorum of the Stage (to speak generally) with more exactness then the English. Farther I deny not but he has tax'd us justly in some irregularities of ours which he has mention'd; yet, after all, I am of opinion that neither our faults nor their virtues are considerable enough to place them above us.
1- He starts by saying that there is no doubt that the French were more regular. They followed the rules, although the English had irregularity, but that they did not have the faults of the French. Not all the irregularities are bad. The irregularity of the English did not make them worse. They are better than the French.
The French were limited to the rules with more exactness than the English. The faults of the French are not enough to put the French above them. Although they are regular, yet they have faults. Whereas the English, in spite of their irregularity, they did not have these faults.
which is imitation of humour and passions: and this Lisideius himself, or any other, however byassed to their Party, cannot but acknowledg, if he will either compare the humours of our Comedies, or the Characters of our serious Playes with theirs.
2-The first fault in the French plays is the lack humor, but the English plays have humor. It is one of the faults he found in the French drama. The French plays have the beauty of the statue, but not of man, real flesh and blood. They are beautiful because they are regular, perfect, but they do not have the soul of poetry. a perfect tragedy must have humor and passion, to be realistic, part of human nature. Perfection is never part of human nature.
If they compare the English to the French comedies and tragedies, they will find that the French had the beauty of a statue. It lacks soul= reality, humor, passion
He gives examples of some French writers
But of late years de Moliere, the younger Corneille, Quinault, and some others, have been imitating of afar off the quick turns and graces of the English Stage. They have mix'd their serious Playes with mirth, like our Tragicomedies since the death of Cardinal Richlieu, which Lisideius and many others not observing, have commended that in them for a virtue which they themselves no longer practice. Most of their new Playes are like some of ours, deriv'd from the Spanish Novells. There is scarce one of them without a vail, and a trusty Diego, who drolls much after the rate of the Adventures. But their humours, if I may grace them with that name, are so thin sown that never above one of them come up in any Play:
3- Some French writers like Moliere mixed the serious plays with humor. They were imitating the English .they recognized their faults and tried to overcome it by including humor in their plays. They lack the soul of poetry.
I grant the French have performed what was possible on the groundwork of the Spanish Playes; what was pleasant before they have made regular; but there is not above one good Play to be writ upon all those Plots; they are too much alike to please often, which we need not the experience of our own Stage to justifie. As for their new way of mingling mirth with serious Plot I do not with Lysideius condemn the thing, though I cannot approve their manner of doing it
4- He comes to the idea of delight
Like the ancient, the French based their plots on well-known stories. Their plays were too much alike. There is too much alike to please. Plays are alike so they do not please the audience. It is not found in English plays. It is a defect of the English plays that they are all similar so they lack delight. This defect is not found in the English plays.
5- Mixing mirth with serious plot.
As for their new way of mingling mirth with serious Plot I do not with Lysideius condemn the thing, though I cannot approve their manner of doing it: and to enjoy it with any relish: but why should he imagine the soul of man more heavy than his Sences? Does not the eye pass from an unpleasant object to a pleasant in a much shorter time then is requir'd to this? and does not the unpleasantness of the first commend the beauty of the latter?
According to Lisideius It is a fault to mix serious plot with mirth. He did not agree with Lisideius. He does not agree with Lisideius in condemning tragic-comedy. He is defending tragic comedy.
Neander gives four reasons why tragic-comedies are not bad.
1- He tells us we cannot so speedily recollect our selves after a Scene of great passion and concernment as to pass to another of mirth and humour,
When Lisideius tells us that we can not change recollect ourselves after a scene of great passion. To pass another of mirth and humor; Mingling tragedy with comedy was bad because we can not shift quickly from a scene that we laughed at to a scene of that we weep with. We can not enjoy that.
The old Rule of Logick might have convinc'd him, that contraries when plac'd near, set off each other. A continued gravity keeps the spirit too much bent; we must refresh it sometimes, as we bait upon a journey, that we may go on
When putting contrary together, they set of each other. They are not against the other. They complete each other= to understand virtue, we have to understand vice. It is a rule of logic that if we put two contrary things together, we will give each due respect. They can be found in the same place but they can not come closely to each other. It is impossible to give something that we cry at with something that we laugh at next to each other. They will be separated.
We might have a comic scene in a tragedy and a tragic scene in a comedy, but they will not put together because they will rebel. But if we have such a scene, this helps like music in the scene. It is a relief. It prepares us for what is coming. We try to take our breath, to relax.
A Scene of mirth mix'd with Tragedy has the same effect upon us which our musick has betwixt the Acts, and that we find a relief to us from the best Plots and language of the Stage, if the discourses have been long.
A scene of mirth mixed with tragedy has the same effect upon us. It gives a kind of relief to us.
2- Compassion and mirth in the same subject destroy each other.
I must therefore have stronger arguments ere I am convinc'd, that compassion and mirth in the same subject destroy each other; and in the mean time cannot but conclude,
It is a mistake to say that compassion and mirth destroy each other. Compassion can be found with mirth. to be compassionate does not mean that we should always be serious, having a sense of joke and laughter does not mean that he is not passionate.



to the honour of our Nation, that we have invented, increas'd and perfected a more pleasant way of writing for the Stage then was ever known to the Ancients or Moderns of any Nation, which is Tragi-comedie.
3- Writing tragic=comedies were not known to the ancients. It came only in the English plays. It is not known to other nations. It is a point of making them different. It is the English contribution to drama. It was not found in the ancient. It is only found in English drama.
This is why tragic-comedies are not bad
And this leads me to wonder why Lisideius and many others should cry up the barrenness of the French Plots above the variety and copiousness of the English. Their Plots are single, they carry on one design which is push'd forward by all the Actors, every Scene in the Play contributing and moving towards it: Ours
The English plots are varied. They have many plots. The French are barren and narrow. They had only a single action and one plot. They repeat themselves. They do not have anything new. They did not have the variety of the English. The English had under plots that go with the main action.
The French set only one form. English are better. Having many plots is a merit.
Ours, besides the main design, have under plots or by-concernments, of less considerable Persons, and Intrigues, which are carried on with the motion of the main Plot: just as they say the Orb of the fix'd Stars, and those of the Planets, though they have motions of their own, are whirl'd about by the motion of the primum mobile, in which they are contain'd: that similitude expresses much of the English Stage: for if contrary motions may be found in Nature to agree; if a Planet can go East and West at the same time; one way by virtue of his own motion, the other by the force of the first mover; it will not be difficult to imagine how the under Plot, which is onely different, not contrary to the great design, may naturally be conducted along with it.
The preoccupation with one theme doesn’t mean the advantage of the French. According to Neander, it is a disadvantage. It makes the play cold. It doesn’t have passion. Their speeches are long and tiresome.
Having one theme doers not give enough space for different passions. This make them fall.
As for his other argument, that by pursuing one single Theme they gain an advantage to express and work up the passions, I wish any example he could bring from them would make it good: for I confess their verses are to me the coldest I have ever read: Neither indeed is it possible for them, in the way they take, so to express passion, as that the effects of it should appear in the concernment of an Audience: their Speeches being so many declamations, which tire us with length; so that instead of perswading us to grieve for their imaginary Heroes, we are concern'd for our own trouble, as we are in the tedious visits of bad company; we are in pain till they are gone

The English plays give different characters, different passions. This makes the English better than the French.
, if they may not twice or thrice in a Play entertain the Audience with a Speech of an hundred or two hundred lines. I deny not but this may sute well enough with the French; for as we, who are a more sullen people, come to be diverted at our Playes; they who are of an ayery and gay temper come thither to make themselves more serious:
The French plays have long speeches, but in English, this is not suitable because the English people are mot active. The long speeches will diver their attention from the play. The idea of long speeches is more suitable to the French audience but they don’t suit the English audience. They need to enjoy. They need something to make them happy. The long speeches are boring and tiresome.
9- Short speeches are more likely to move the passions of the audiences. In order to have a good play, the audience must shake their wit.
it cannot be deny'd that short Speeches and Replies are more apt to move the passions, and beget concernment in us then the other: for it is unnatural for any one in a gust of passion to speak long together, or for another in the same condition, to suffer him, without interruption. Grief and Passion are like floods rais'd in little Brooks by a sudden rain; they are quickly up, and if the concernment be powr'd unexpectedly in upon us, it overflows us: But a long sober shower gives them leisure to run out as they came in, without troubling the ordinary current.
Long speeches do not go with passion. When we have strong passion we have short speeches. This is found in English not in French. The English plays had more characters. The more characters in the play, the more the variety and the more the audience will enjoy the play. Having one hero according to Neander is not an advantage. It is a defect. Having one hero limits the perfection of the play.
As for Comedy, Repartee is one of its chiefest graces; they greatest pleasure of the Audience is a chase of wit kept up on both sides, and swiftly manag'd. And this our forefathers, if not we, have had in Fletchers Playes, to a much higher degree of perfection then the French Poets can arrive at.
There is a chase of wit; you have to think all the time.
There is another part of Lisideius his Discourse, in which he has rather excus'd our neighbours then commended them; that is, for aiming onely to make one person considerable in their Playes. 'Tis very true what he has urged, that one character in all Playes, even without the Poets care, will have advantage of all the others; and that the design of the whole Drama will chiefly depend on it.
The French plays have only one hero. The unifying element should not be the hero, but the action. There should be a hero, but there should be other important characters in the play. this is an obstacle, a defect not a good point. It stops the faith of having other good characters. If we only have one character, it means that we try to avoid any other characters. They are characters who are equal in importance to the hero- like in Julius Caesar. The play will be more perfect if it depends on one action not one hero.
In the English plays we have many characters, many plots, but still they maintain the unity.
for examples many of our English Playes: as the Maids Tragedy, the Alchymist, the Silent Woman; I was going to have named the Fox, but that the unity of design seems not exactly observ'd in it; for there appears two actions in the Play; the first naturally ending with the fourth Act; the second forc'd from it in the fifth: which yet is the less to be condemn'd in him, because the disguise of Volpone, though it suited not with his character as a crafty or covetous person, agreed well enough with that of a voluptuary: and by it the Poet gain'd the end he aym'd at, the punishment of Vice, and the reward of Virtue, which that disguise produc'd. So that to judge equally of it, it was an excellent fifth Act, but not so naturally proceeding from the former.
He gives examples- The Alchemy- the Silent Woman-
Dryden says that the English plays that have variety of characters are better than the French. It was set by Lisideius as an advantage of the French= using one hero.
He gives examples of English plays that have different characters that are equally important as the hero.
Like Lisideius, he agrees than on the stage there should not be violent action. He chooses to have it rather made by narration to the audience. The audience should be told by these things through narration. All incredible actions should be removed.
So Neander doesn’t contradict all the views of Lisideius. He sometimes agrees, sometimes disagrees.
To conclude on this subject of Relations, if we are to be blam'd for showing too much of the action, the French are as faulty for discovering too little of it: a mean betwixt both should be observed by every judicious Writer, so as the audience may neither be left unsatisfied by not seeing what is beautiful, or shock'd by beholding what is either incredible or undecent. I hope I have already prov'd in this discourse, that though we are not altogether so punctual as the French, in observing the lawes of Comedy; yet our errours are so few, and little, and those things wherein we excel them so considerable, that we ought of right to be prefer'd before them. But what will Lisideius say if they themselves acknowledge they are too strictly ti'd up by those lawes, for breaking which he has blam'd the English? I will alledge Corneille's words, as I find them in the end of his Discourse of the three Unities; Il est facile aux speculatifs d'estre severes, &c. "'Tis easie for speculative persons to judge severely; but if they would produce to publick view ten or twelve pieces of this nature, they would perhaps give more latitude to the Rules then I have done, when by experience they had known how much we are bound up and constrain'd by them, and how many beauties of the Stage they banish'd from it." To illustrate a little what he has said, by their servile observations of the unities of time and place, and integrity of Scenes, they have brought upon themselves that dearth of Plot, and narrowness of Imagination, which may be observ'd in all their Playes. How many beautifull accidents might naturally happen in two or three dayes, which cannot arrive with any probability in the compass of 24 hours? There is time to be allowed also for maturity of design, which amongst great and prudent persons, such as are often represented in Tragedy, cannot, with any likelihood of truth, be brought to pass at so short a warning. Farther, by tying themselves strictly to the unity of place, and unbroken Scenes, they are forc'd many times to omit some beauties which cannot be shown where the Act began; but might, if the Scene were interrupted, and the Stage clear'd for the persons to enter in another place; and therefore the French Poets are often forc'd upon absurdities: for if the Act begins in a chamber all the persons in the Play must have some business or other to come thither, or else they are not to be shown that Act, and sometimes their characters are very unfitting to appear there; As, suppose it were the Kings Bed-chamber, yet the meanest man in the Tragedy must come and dis***** his busines rather t
He agrees with Lisideius in this point, that there should not be any incredible action to be presented on the stage but through narration.
He gives examples from a French play, a French writer who did not stick to the unity, so not all the French writers were limited to the three unities. He admits that sticking to the unities is a disadvantage. It limited and constrains the play.
13- Many regular English plays are as regular as the French and they have greater varieties of plots and characters.
But to return from whence I have digress'd, I dare boldly affirm these two things of the English Drama: First, That we have many Playes of ours as regular as any of theirs; and which, besides, have more variety of Plot and Characters: And secondly, that in most of the irregular Playes of Shakespeare or Fletcher (for Ben. Johnson's are for the most part regular) there is a more masculine fancy and greater spirit in all the writing, then there is in any of the French. I could produce even in Shakespeare's and Fletcher's Works, some Playes which are almost exactly form'd; as the Merry Wives of Windsor, and the Scornful Lady: but because (generally speaking) Shakespeare, who writ first, did not perfectly observe the Laws of Comedy, and Fletcher, who came nearer to perfection, yet through carelessness made many faults; I will take the pattern of a perfect Play from Ben. Johnson, who was a careful and learned observer of the Dramatique Lawes, and from all his Comedies I shall select The Silent Woman; of which I will make a short Examen, according to those Rules which the French observe.
There are two points that make the English plays better than the French.
1- They have regular plays like the French but English plays are better as they have variety of plot and characters.
2- There is great masculine spirit; enthusiasm in the English plays more than the French.
He gives examples and examines the Silent Woman of Ben Jonson.
If then Verse may be made natural in it self, how becomes it improper to a Play? You say the Stage is the representation of Nature, and no man in ordinary conversation speaks in rhime. But you foresaw when you said this, that it might be answer'd; neither does any man speak in blank verse, or in measure without rhime. Therefore you concluded, that which is nearest Nature is still to be preferr'd. But you took no notice that rhime might be made as natural as blank verse, by the well placing of the words, &c. all the difference between them when they are both correct, is the sound in one, which the other wants; and if so, the sweetness of it, and all the advantage resulting from it, which are handled in the Preface to the Rival Ladies, will yet stand good. As for that place of Aristotle, where he sayes Playes should be writ in that kind of Verse which is nearest Prose;
14-Blank verse is better than verse. Neander preferred blank verse to rhyme. Lisideius preferred rhyme to blank verse.
Putting rhyme was a kind of restriction. It makes limitation. It puts some boundaries on the imagination of the poet.
Neither is that other advantage of the Ancients to be despis'd, of changing the kind of verse when they please with the change of the Scene, or some new entrance: for they confine not themselves alwayes to Iambiques, but extend their liberty to all Lyrique numbers, and sometimes, even to Hexameter. But I need not go so far to prove that Rhyme, as it succeeds to all other offices of Greek and Latine Verse, so especially to this of Playes, since the custome of all Nations at this day confirms it: All the French, Italian and Spanish Tragedies are generally writ in it, and sure the Universal consent of the most civiliz'd parts of the world, ought in this, as it doth in other customs, include the rest.
[106] But perhaps you may tell me I have propos'd such a way to make rhyme natural, and consequently proper to Playes, as is unpracticable, and that I shall scarce find six or eight lines together in any Play, where the words are so plac'd and chosen as is requir'd to make it natural
. I answer, no Poet need constrain himself at all times to it. It is enough he makes it his general Rule; for I deny not but sometimes there may be a greatness in placing the words otherwise; and sometimes they may sound better, sometimes also the variety it self is excuse enough. But if, for the most part, the words be plac'd as they are in the negligence of Prose, it is sufficient to denominate the way practicable; finished

All the Best

[حكايا الورد]

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة ThE lEgEnD

والله انك صادقه اما بنات تحضير عليهم غش اعوذ بالله

كانت مره وحده جنبي وهاتك يااجوبه للي قدامها حتى رقمها التسلسلي قالتلها!!!!

انا من زود الغرابه بس اناظر فيهم
والجوالات ماشاء الله رسايل ويكلمون بعد..


اليوم وحده جنبي وبدايه الاختبار حطتها المس غشاشه ع تكلمت مع وحده المهم نهايه الاختبار يهز جوالها ب\داخل الدرج الا وترد وتقول انا باختبااااااااار


انا قعدت اضحك من شر البليه...



المهم انا حابه من خلال هذا الرد ان ابين مدى كرهي وبغضي لهذه المراقبه اللتي احاول الا ادعي عليها وانما فقط انني اقول حسبي الله ونعم الوكيل لانها انسانه الله يستر علينا اجمعين
وبهذه المناسبه احب اعطي نصيحه لجميع القراء والقارئات انكم لا تسكتوا عن حقكم ابدن واذا احد حاول ان يتعدى عليكم ويسوي نفسه (الصائل) ردوها له بعشر وخلوا لسانكم زي بعض اخواننا الاشقاء اذا احد داس على طرفهم...

بليييييييز بنات واخر طلب......

ابي كل وحده تقول ايه او لا
yes or no
ع شي ببالي واخر موعد لحساب الاستفتاءات هو اذان العشاء باذن الله


انا ببدأ.....

لا

آآآآه هي نفسها ديك المراقبه الحلوه الي تراقب علينا في الـ م ق ا ل ؟ > مع د أحمد ههههههه
والله انهاا أنسانه و ***> ما أبي أكم الكلمه > نفس هالكلمه قالتها لي وطبعاً اكيد ماتقصد الا نفسهااا ... أكرههااااا من قلب ومــآآآرآح أسامحهاا ابداً ابداً على الي سوته فيني
ومارديت عليهااااااااااا وهذا الي يقهر وهي الي غلطانه علي .،




موفقــــآآآت مع النقد والله يوفقني مع تـآريخ الأدب .,
[/COLOR]

[Just a Lady ~]

مساء المطرْرْرْ ~


بنات الله يعافيكم ممكن أحد يفهمني كيف نجاوب عن سؤال الباك قراوند حق Philip Sidney و John Dryden ؟

أيش النقاط اللي لازم أتكلم عنها ؟

هي تبي حياته من يوم ما انولد مع حياته التعليميه لين مات مع كتبه و أعماله ؟

:/

[ThE lEgEnD]

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة ريحة المطر

بنآت هيفاء هي قالت انو بتجيب بالامتحان
باك قراوند سدني ودرايدن شورت نوت

كيف نحلهم ؟؟

كنت ابي اروح عند دكتورة نجلاء ع اسألها ع هالشي لكن الشيطان وعمايلوه راح عن بالي




وشكرا للبنات اللي ردوا وبقولكم النتايج بعد الصلاه..