رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

طيب يا نور العيون يا حلوه
ممكن تقولين لي ايش الافكار الرئيسية لموضوع الانترنت ؟ :mh318:

:106:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

اممممممممم المقال 5 برجرافات

الاول انترودكاشن >>> وبيحاسب ع الثيثز وطريق كتابتة

الثلاث برجرافات البودي >> دفلووب يوور ايدة >> انجليزي معرب :(269):

بس مايبي موضوع الانترنت بشكل عام يبغاة بشكل ليمتد

مثلا تحطين مساؤى ومحاسن النت وتتكلمين عن حاجة حلوة فية مثلا مسنجر او فيس بوك

هذول يصير 3 برجرافات

واخر شي الكونكلوجن نفس المقدمة بس تختمينها باسلوبك يعني يووور اوبينين


:71:
والله اني خطيرة هههههههه

يارب يجي ماذاكرت الا هو

بالتوفيق ياعسل

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

طيب unpleasant camping experience وش نكتب فيه ؟ قصه والا ايش ؟

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

:mh12:

والله مدري رتبت افكاري ع الانترنت

واذا جا شي ثاني بيكون الكلام وليد اللحظة :bawling:


بالتوفيق مافي الا احنا فاتحين الكتاب واللاب :sdfgdsf:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

نور العيون ... ثانكس حبيبتي وانا بعد جهزت للإنترنت بس ما اتوقع بيجي لأن سليم اعطانا هوموورك عنه :000:

بنااااات .. من اللي كتب هالموضوووع ؟

camping experience -
:biggrin:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

الله يوفقك يا نور العيون :106:

انني اتمنى ان يلهمني الله قريحة الكتابه
زي ربعنا اللي بالشعر يكتبوون ملاحم بمدري كم كتاب :biggrin:
بس انا ابي هالقريحة نثرية مو شعريه :cheese:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

:g2:


ع السريع بحاول ادور لي كم فكرة تساعدني

عن الفيوتشر بلان وكامبنق


:sdfgdsf:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

نور العيون شوفي هالموضوع

camping experience -

<< اشك اني اللي كاتبته وحده من المنتدى :biggrin:

شوفي الردود

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

اراكم على خيييييييييير :53:

ان شاء الله الكل يطلع من القاعه مبتهج هكذا :71:

و ان شاء الله قريحتي ما تخذلني لاني ماجهزت شي

احب اتبع اسلوب الارتجال و اخلي الكلمات تتدفق

وتنسكب وتنهمر على الورق

مثل المطر اللي قاعد ينهمر برا :biggrin:

الله يستر بس مدي كيف بوصل من الخبر للكلية مه هالاجواء :mh12:

يلا حبايبي فووووتكو بعافية :love080::love080::love080:

:106:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

ههههههههههههههههههه :71:


100 % انها وحده منا


يعطيج العافية حياتي

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

المشكلة ان حمودي على قولتك يفجع بالفاينلز ترا تتوقعين منه اي شي

شدعوة سؤاله بالميد ترم يستاهل 5 كانك تذكرينه كان السؤال الثاني


اما بالنسبة يابنات ان بلزنت كامبينق احس الموضوع قديم ويفشل لاتسألوني ليه



بنااااااات المطر باقي ينزل

والله صرنا نخاف اذا ماجانا مطر ونقول غضب

واذا جانا وصب ماوقف قلنا غضب


الله صيبا نافعا


اللهم حوالينا ولا علينا يآآرب ببطون البحار


وبنفس هالوقت الأسبوع الجاي حناااااا كذا ان شاللله :71:

أنني أحبكم قداا :love080:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

وش صار امس كلن قلب فصحاوي باقي من اثار كتاب ومحاضرات العربي


l00000lz



بالتوفيق لنا جميعا باختباراتنا

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

بنات اخباركم مع المقال

رحت اليوم حتى اكلم عليا عن الشعر
طبعا قالت صححت بس ماقريت أسماء

المهم يقولون هيفاء كانت معلقه درجات النقد , ماكانوا مبسوطين البنات فيها

علامات تجيب الهم قبل الأمتحان :(204):
ماأمداني اشوف علاماتي :icon9: كان سواقي برا وبيمشي

المهم كنت بسالكم
الشهري كم كان عليه
واخر اختبار القصيده كم كان عليه
واللي كان معلق هذا مجموع كل شي

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

:(284):

باك

مرحباااااااااااا



اتمنى اللي شافو ردي الصبح يدعووون لي بالنجاح


كنت متأكده بيجي موضوع الانترنت :71:

المهم بالنسبة للنقد مع مس هيفاء :icon9:

هي جد صدمة قبل الاختبار بس حلو عشان ندرس من قلب :41jg:

كان الميد من 14 و البراكتيكل 6
و 20 مدري حق شنو تقووول برزنتيشن ومدري وشو حضور واجبات :(177):
عمري ماسمعتها تقول هذا واجب

الواجب بس تحضير واتوقع اعطت البنات اللي يشاركون بالكلاس معها الدرجة كاملة ع هالاساس :icon9:


كان معلق التوتل من 40

بس نصيحة الكل يشد ع نفسة ويدرسة من قلب لان الدرجات مووش ولابد :Cry111:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

بنات ممكن ملزمه 11 نقد هيفا
الله ينجحكم ويوفقك بالهماده
لاتبخلووووووون:Cry111:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

بنات اللي مع هيفا الله يعافيكم وحدة منكم ترسل لها خل تسوي سكان وترسل لنا الاسامي مع الارقام عشان نحطهم بالمنتدا
انا رسلت لها واجد فشله
انا شفت درجتي بس اخاف افرح ويطلع رقمي خطا:sdfgdsf:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

بنات ملازم النقد نجلا كم وحده ؟
:sdfgdsf:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

يووومهـ ووين معلقـــين :(177):
خووفتووني مع اني مسوويه زين مره بالميد لاكن البراكتيكل مو شيء :mad:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

اي والله يا ليت تقولون لها تحط الدرجات هنا بالمنتدى خصوصا انه مافي اسماء بس ارقام :<

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

دعواااتك

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

بنااات هيفآء وش نركز عليه بالضبط :(

آحس مررررررره كلام كثيييير ومو عارفه اذاكر !

مآحضرت عندها محاضرات لاني إستثنآئي :(

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

:love080::love080: يارب ينجحك و يارب يسهل عليك المذاكره

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

بقول شي هو فاصل كذا من الدراسه :biggrin:

يوم الأثنين كان عندي امتحان نظام

المهم جنبي تحضيري , والمراقبه اعرفها ذيك العصبيه تقولون كأن كل يوم تتهاوش مع رجلها وتجي تحط حرتها بالمراقبه :017:

المهم وهالبنت تحضيري حاطه ورقه وانتوا بكرامه بالجزمه وكل شوي مطلعه ومدخله فيها انا عيوني تسذا !!!!

جلست اقول بخاطري انا سنه 3 مرا وهي مرا بس جبت برشامه ومن الروعه فتحتها وقطيتها وبالأرض بعد ولاقدرت اشيلها شتها برجلي بعيد جهة الجدار :biggrin: مالت علي طول الليل الناس يذاكرون وانا اكتب بالبرشامه
وطول الليل اهوجس يمكن المراقبه شافت برشامتي يمكن خذت اسمي :bawling:

وانتي ماشالله تحضيري اول سنه ورقه ماسكتها بيدك تنقلين منها تقرين تقولون open Book :biggrin:

وكل ماجت المراقبه انا اللي صرت اخاف وارجف :000: :bawling: خبركم المراقبات يجون وقعوا وازعاجهم واسمك ونموذج مدري كم:mad:

والبنت يامدخله يامطلعه بهالورق :mh001:
والحياه عند اختي بالله زي الحلاوه ماشيه :biggrin: واللي من جد ضحكني يوم خلصت نقل طلعتها حتى تراجع الاجوبه :mh001::53:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

:hahahahahah::hahahahahah:

بالله كثري من فوآصلك :hahahahahah:

الله يسعدك ضحكتيني وآنآ كآن ودي آنتحر من هالنقد :biggrin:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

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...

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

^^

آي > متري وش السالفه :biggrin:


//

الا صح كم عدد ملازم نقد لنجلآلآلآْ ؟؟؟

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

اي <~ أعقلهآ وتوكل خخخخخخخخخ

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

عسى دوم الضحكه ماتفارقك :biggrin:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

ليجند ..~> انا لااااااااااع :biggrin:


بنآت الرميح فيه شي ركزت عليه ولآآآآ

آنآ مع د.نقلآآآ :biggrin:

بس آذكر بنآت العآم يقولون الفآينل فيه بهآرآت الرميح :biggrin:







بليز ردوآ بسسرعه السوبر ويمن جمول ورآهآ شعر رآبعه :biggrin:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

بنااات الله يعافيكم شفت وحده منزله ملزمة لهيفا نقد
ف الله يعافيها اللي عندها الملازم ممكن تنزلها لي = (
متوهقه ومحتاسة خلقه في المنهج
انا في الميد ترم جاني تفريغ كان روووعة ونفس المحاضرات مافي زيادة
بس مدري هل هو من العام ولا هالسنه
فاللي أي عندها اي تفريغ الله يوفقها تحطها = (

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

أنا جوجو مافتحت المادهـ للآن

لاكنــ]ــي أول ماافتحها واشوف الاشياء المهمه شوووور بقووولك عيني

ياااااارب سهااالات عليـكـ واثنينهمـ فل مارك :106: :106:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

الله يسهل علينآ بس :(
قسم محتآسه حتى انا

~

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

بنات اكره الحوسه :mad: < فيس ينآظر لوست

هو النقد عباره عن ثيوريز

كل ثيوري .. ركزي على الاسبلينق حق اسم الثيوري وكاتبها

ثم مضمونها


ذآكرو بطريقه النقاط بتفهمون آن شآ آلله


وسسسهآلآآآت ..~

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

وخري ذآ الفيس عني :Cry111:
:biggrin:

طيب آستآذه جموول <~ خخآفت :icon9:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

آتذكر هالنقطه قالتهآ ونشبت عندهآ:biggrin:
بس المشكله اني مدري وش سالفتهاا

وكأنه والله اعلم انها جابتها في الفاينل العام

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

ايــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــه <<بس ش السآآآلفه :biggrin:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

ايه :(284):

بنات انا عندي ملازم النقد الى 10 بس
باقي لي درايدن موب عندي :bawling: والي مشتركة معها مارسلتهم لي
ياليت الي عندها الله يسعدها تحطهم :love080:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

نجلاء :119:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

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

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

آآآآه هي نفسها ديك المراقبه الحلوه الي تراقب علينا في الـ م ق ا ل ؟ > مع د أحمد ههههههه :lllolll:
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 :41jg:
ومارديت عليهااااااااااا وهذا الي يقهر وهي الي غلطانه علي .،:41jg::41jg::41jg:




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

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

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




وشكرا للبنات اللي ردوا وبقولكم النتايج بعد الصلاه..:(204):

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

مااتوقع ابدددن لانه بيجي السؤال مع الشورت نوتس ومااتوقع يبيله تفاصيل حياته وولادته وهالاشياء اصلا محد يحب يذكرها من الدكاتره

.....احس يمكن اشياء السياسيه الحروب ولا من ذا العلوم..

هو عن عصر
Renaissance & Restoration

وفيها باكقراوند ويذ ريفيرينس
يعني اتوقع والله اعلم شي صار بهالزمن وانعكس ع هالاعمال ولا هالرجال


مدر الله اعلم هاذا استنتاج..:cheese:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

never give up

الله يعطيك العافية و يوفقك ويسعدك يارب
هذي اخر شي ولا باقي ..؟

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

رقم 9
Last time we started Sidney’s Apology where he starts with speaking about the importance of poetry. It is antiquity; how it is the most ancient time of knowledge and it is the first teacher of knowledge and how people started learning from poetry and he gives different examples. He says that in all countries and in all languages we have poetry and he gives examples from different places, different civilizations, different countries, and different languages like in Turkey, India, Ireland, and in Scotland, different places where each kind of people have their own kind of poetry to show that poetry is something universal; it is found all over the world and everywhere. And he gives example of how poetry was important since antiquity by showing the name of the poet in the old times, the Greeks called him what and the Romans called him what? So, this is what we will start today.
P6
“Among the Romans a poet was called vates, which is as much as a diviner, foreseer, or a prophet.”
Because the poet was supposed to be something important and he was doing a very important job, so they called him vates.
What is the meaning of vates? ‘Vates’ is diviner or foreseer.
And Plato called him diviner; he called him half-prophet. So, to the Romans the poet was considered as a divine person; a person who speaks the words of God, or a foreseer, why? Because he uses his imagination so, he can say something that will happen in the future. He would say if you do this, what will happen. So, he can foretell the future so, he is a foreseer of the future and he is also like a prophet.
P7
“But now let us see how the Greeks named it and how they deemed of it. The Greek called him a Poet,”
What is the meaning of poet? The word ‘poet’ is not English. It is Latin; it comes from the Latin word ‘poiein’. So, ‘poiein’ is poetry in Latin. They called the poet, poiein in Latin which means to make, but Plato’s maker is different. Remember what Aristotle said, not Plato, that a poet is a maker; a poet creates and uses his imagination to invent. So, the English people took this word; a poet.
“which name hath, as the most excellent, gone through other languages. It cometh of this word poiein, which is ‘to make’; wherein I know not whether by luck or wisdom we Englishmen have met with the Greeks in calling him a maker.”
The name of the poet in Greek was to make which something of value. Then, he moves to speak about another point which is all arts depend on nature. sciences were called arts at that time because it was a talent. They did not go to a school of medicine to become a doctor. They say ‘I want to know the art of medicine’. So, they studied the art of medicine. All sciences were called arts because they depended on talents at that time. And you can find an artist with a philosopher and a physician. And this went through even with the Arabs.
So, everything was called art. What is the material on which all arts depend? It is nature. Any art works on what nature provides whether it is external nature or internal nature. So, nature is the basic material for all arts. And he gives examples from different arts, like astronomy, geometry, mathematics, music, natural philosophy, law, rhetoric, and physics. All those make use of nature.
“Only the poet, disdaining to be tied to any such subjection, lifted up with the vigour of his own invention, doth grow, in effect, into another nature,”
All arts work with nature as it is, but poetry creates another nature. Poets take nature and they add to it from their imagination. So, by so doing this they do what? They create a different kind of nature. Is not this what Aristotle said? What did Aristotle say? Poetry is a representation or an imitation of action. Poetry is representing those manners as they should be, not as they are. What is the meaning of this? The ideal form; the best form. So, is this ideal form really found in nature? Do we find a perfect human being? No. where do we find a perfect human being? Only in poetry. So, poetry presents the ideal things as they should be, not as they are, even if in poetry we have the representation of vicious person, he has to be the ideal vicious person, why? So that when he is punished, he deserves his punishment. So, this is the world of literature; the world of poetry according to Aristotle. Sidney is saying the same thing. He says that the nature that is presented in literature; in poetry, is a better nature than the one that we have in reality, why? Because the poet creates his own nature; he adds to the nature. There is imagination, he adds from his imagination. This is what Wordsworth also says later on. They all ttake the idea from Aristotle. So, here he says, ‘Only the poet, disdaining to be tied to any such subjection’. Now, he is not ties to those subjects of nature as they are. But what does he do? He is lifted up with the vigour of his own invention. What is this vigour? Where does he get it from? From his imagination.
“doth grow, in effect, into another nature, in making things either better than nature bringeth forth, or, quite, forms such as never were in nature,”
This is the nature that is found in poetry. And of course he is Sidney; he is a poet, so of course he does not forget to put an image here and there and a metaphor here and there and he says,
“Nature never set forth the earth in so rich tapestry as divers poets have done;”
He imagines that the poets are like divers and they dive into nature to bring the best of it and represented it from their own imagination to bring a perfect picture of nature. So, he gives another image. He says,
“neither with pleasant rivers, fruitful trees, sweet-smelling flowers, nor whatsoever else may make the too-much-love earth more lovely; her world is brazen, the poets only deliver a golden.”
If I want to describe the world of nature, I will say, for example, it is like a precious valuable metal and he has two metals here; he says, if the world of nature is like bronze; it is like brazen, what would be the world of poetry? It would be golden. He says, ‘her world is brazen, the poets only deliver a golden.’
If I say that nature in the world is very precious and I want to liken it to certain method, I say it is like bronze which is a valuable metal, now if I want to compare this quality of nature which is like bronze to the quality of nature that is found in poetry, I will find that in poetry the nature there is more precious because it is more perfect. And this is why in poetry we have heroes like Cyrus.
Cyrus: hero
Cyrusمن حوال 10 سنين، كان في الكمبيوترات فايروس، أول فايرو يكتشفوا لخبط الدنيا كلها، كان اسموا
They called it Cyrus because it damaged.
So, in poetry the poets create Cyruses; they create heroes, why? To teach people. Now, these heroes are perfect models for people to follow whether they are good or bad. If they are good, they follow and if they are bad to avoid. Then, he moves to Aristotle and he quotes Aristotle a lot and he says that he agrees with Aristotle.


P9
“Poesy, therefore, is an art of imitation, for so Aristotle termeth it in his word Mimesis,”
Mimesis: This is the word for imitation. This is the Latin word given by Aristotle for imitation. Aristotle said poetry is imitation of action. The word Aristotle used for imitation in Latin was the word ‘Mimesis’. It is very famous word and nowadays, we have ‘to mimic’. You can have it in English ‘mimicking’. What is the meaning of ‘to mimic’? to imitate. And there are many kinds of arts depending on mimicking like the pantomime. (Panto) one person without a voice. Mime: imitate. So, he was the first to use the ‘Mimesis’.
“that is to say, a representing, counterfeiting, or figuring forth; to speak metaphorically, a speaking picture, with this end, to teach and delight.”
He said that poetry is imitation. It is Mimesis. And it has an aim. What is the aim of poetry? To teach and delight. Now, he says that there are three kinds of arts that teach. What are these arts? The first one is religion; religion teaches. It is an art and teaches. It is given through verse; it is given through poetry. Philosophy is given also through poetry and it teaches. And here he says that philosophy has three kinds; moral philosophy, natural philosophy, and historical philosophy. And they all teach. But poetry teaches and delights. So, this is what he says here,
“Of this have been three several kinds. The chief, both in antiquity and excellency, were they that did imitate the inconceivable excellence of God. Such were David in is Psalms; Solomon in his Song of Songs, in his Ecclesiastes and Proverbs; Moses and Deborah in their Hymns;”
These are different religions which imitate the words of God, like David in is Psalms; Solomon in his Song of Songs, Moses, all those prophets who imitate the words of God.


P10
“The second kind is of them that deal with matters philosophical: either moral, as Tyrtaeus, Phocylides, and Cato; or natural as Lucretius and Virgil’s George; or astronomical as Manilius and Pontanus; or historical,”
These all are arts that teach. But the third indeed is the poet.
“For these third be they which most properly do imitate to teach and delight; and to imitate borrow nothing of what is, hath been, or shall be; but range, only reined with learned discretion, into the divine consideration of what may be and should be.”
This is how it teaches and he takes this delight to woo an end. What is the difference between poetry, philosophy and religion? delight. Now, what is the meaning of delight according to Sidney? To delight is not just to make happy but to delight according to Sidney is to move people to action. If you are delighted, you will be convinced, so you will imitate. This is the imitation; the connection between delight and imitation. You can just read, but you never try to imitate, why? Because you are not convinced; you are not delighted. But to be delighted is a step towards action. So, this is what he says here.
“These be they that, as the first and most noble sort, may justly be termed vates; so these are waited on in the excellentest language and best understandings with the fore-described name of poets. For these, indeed, do merely make to imitate , and imitate both to delight and teach, and delight to move men to take that goodness in hand, which without delight they would fly as from a stranger; and teach to make them know that goodness whereunto they are moved;”
What is the use of telling you that this is good or bad without making you do the good and stay away from the bad? Now he moves to this important thing. ‘To imitate’ is to teach. What the aim of imitation? It is to teach. And poetry not only teaches us, but it also delights. What is this delight? It is to move people to act because if you are taught without being moved to action, then what is the use of being taught? You have to use what you have learned into action; connect and write, use all the information and all the knowledge you have in your mind. Use it and act. If you do not do this, there is no use of what you are taking. This is Sidney. We have to benefit from those people; these are philosophers and critics, they have said something that has lived from 16th century up till now. There must be something of value in it. We have to look for that value and make use of it. Then, he moves to another point and that is the different kinds of poetry. He says the different arts that teach, the last one is poetry. What does poetry do? It teaches and delights. How does it teach and how does it delight? What are the different kinds of poetry? So, he is speaking about poetry. He says,
“These be subdivided into sundry more special denominations. The most notable be the heroic, lyric, tragic, comic, satiric, iambic, elegiac, pastoral, and certain others, some of these being termed according to the matter they deal with, some by the sorts of verses they liked best to write in-”

Some of them are named or termed after the kind they are describing and some according to the meter they are using, but all they are different kinds of poetry which is different from verse; poetry is something and verse is another thing. What is the meaning of verse? Rhymed poetry is verse. Not all poetry is verse. Shakespeare’s dramatic poetry was written in blank verse. Many of the modern poets do not have particular rhyme. So, not all poetry is verse and not all verse is poetry. Poetry teaches and delights. Sometimes we have rhymes, not all sentences, that are rhyming, are called poetry. You can have to two words that rhymed that have no connection. You can have two sentences with rhyme in them, but they do not teach anything and they do not delight. So, here he says,
“Indeed but apparelled, verse being but an ornament and no cause to poetry,”
It is an ornament; it is a way of decoration. Itis rhyming.
“since there have been many most excellent poets that never versified, and now swarm many versifiers that need never answer to the name of poets.”
Many poets at Sidney’s time were writing what appears to be poetry, but it was only rhyme; verse but not poetry. There is no depth in it; there is no meaning, there is no delight and so on.
So, he is explaining here the difference between rhyme and verse and poetry because later on this particular point is going to be used in the objection. So, I will not explain it again. Now let us go another thing concerning poetry. What is the aim of poetry according to Sidney? Now all those critics, who spoke about poetry, spoke about what is the nature of poetry, what is the aim of poetry, who is the poet, what is a poem, and this is why we call them critics. But they never actually criticize the works of other people. This is why we say the criticism as a genre, that we are doing now, was only found in the 20th century. It was not found then. Then, they were writing about poetry. When Wordsworth wrote, he wrote about poetry. He did not write about anybody else’s poetry, but about what he was doing. So, Sidney here is trying to explain to people what he thinks poetry should be.
Now, he moves to what he thinks to be the aim of poetry.
“Now, therefore, it shall not be amiss, first to weight this latter sort of poetry by his works, and then by his parts; and if in neither of these anatomies he be condemnable,”
Now, he says if we take the poem and we try to find out what it speaks about,
“I hope we shall obtain a more favourable sentence.”
What will we find if we read a poem? If we read a poem, what should we look for? What is the aim that the poet writes the poem for?

1-Purification of wit.
2-Enriching of memory and enabling of judgement.
3-Enlarging of conceit, which commonly we call learning, under what name soever it come forth or to what immediate end soever it be directed.
(this is an imagination, having many images and enlarging our knowledge because the more we have conceits, metaphors and images, the more we gain knowledge. The more we connect between words, the more we come to know.
4-To lead and draw us to as high perfection as our degenerates souls, made worse by their clayey lodgings.

But what is the final; the most important of all of these is to lift our soul. Now, here of course as a poet he gives it in a kind of metaphor. And this is reminding us of Plato’s division of the soul, the inferior and the superior. But according to the 16th century and the beginning of modern science, the body was divided into two parts; the higher which includes the mind /reason and the lower which includes the emotions and the desires and the instincts. Now, our body is made of what? Our body is made of clay. So, he calls it here the clayey lodging. ‘Lodging’ is a place to live in. What is living in that body which is made of clay? The soul. So, poetry lifts up the soul towards perfection which our bodies are falling it (the soul) down by its desires. Do you remember the chain of being? Now, man is in state where above him there are angels and below him animals. If he tries to transcend, he is perfecting himself and trying to be an angel. And if he is degrading himself, he is trying to become like an animal. So, the soul inside the body, the body falls it down to the animalistic desires whereas its reason is following it upward. What is the thing that feeds the reason and nourishes the reason? According to Sidney, it is poetry because it is giving the knowledge that lifts it up. He is using this image to show the quality of poetry and the aim; what poetry should be doing. Now, this is the aim of poetry. In order to show this noble aim of poetry, he makes a comparison poetry, philosophy, and history.

P12
“wherein, if we can show, the poet is worthy to have it before any other competitors.
Among whom as principal challengers step forth the moral philosophers; whom, me thinketh, I see coming toward me with a sullen gravity,”
So, he starts with philosophy. He gives first the different kinds of sciences and arts and he says that poetry comes above all of them. And from all these arts, the best arts that really teach are philosophy, history and poetry. And in order to show that poetry is the best, he makes this comparison with philosophy and history. He starts with philosophy saying that what does philosophy teach? Now, the aim of philosophy is to teach, to teach what? What is the utmost value that he should learn in our life? What is the best kind of manner? What is morality? What is the best thing that we should be learning? Virtue. So, all kinds of learning should be teaching virtue. And this is the aim of philosophy. Philosophy teaches virtue. Why did Plato banish poets? Because it does not teach virtue. It keeps you away from virtue and from truth. So, here he says,
“These men, casting largess as they go of Definition, Divisions, and Distinctions, with a scornful interrogative do soberly ask whether it be possible to find any path so ready to lead a man to virtue, as that which teacheth what virtue is,”
In order to teach virtue, what did they do? They teach what is virtue; the definition of virtue. Philosophy teaches the definition of virtue. Each philosopher gives his own definition.
P13
“and teacheth it not only by delivering forth his very being, his causes and effects, but also by making known his enemy, vice, which must be destroyed, and his cumbersome servant, Passion, which must be mastered, by showing the generalities that containeth it,”
Philosophy is not only teaching what virtue is. But to explain what virtue is, they have to give also together with virtue its opposite; its enemy, vice which must be destroyed. You have to learn virtue and destroy vice. How would you destroy vice? What is the main element of the body that serves vice? Passions. So, they teach virtue and its causes and effects and they teach also its enemy; vice, and it cumbersome servant, passion. How do they teach this? By showing the generalities that contain it. They give general ideas; abstract ideas. So, this is the main aim of philosophy= to teach virtue, vice and to speak about passions in general ideas; how to be virtuous, what are the causes of becoming virtuous and what are the effects.
What is about history? What does history teach?
“The historian scarcely giveth leisure to the moralist to say so much,”
The historian is not a moralist. The philosopher is a moralist; he teaches virtue, so this is morality. But the historian is not a moralist. The historian simply tells you what is happening, giving you facts whether what is happening good or bad. He does not comment on that. He does not tell you to do this or not to do that. He only gives you facts.
“but that he, laden with old mouse-eaten records, authorizing himself for the most part upon the notable foundation of hearsay, better acquainted with thousand years ago than with the present age,”
So, the historian depends on what? Does he depend on new facts or old facts? On hearsay; what we inherit, very old facts. But the historian does not speak about what is now or what is coming in the future. So, he is better acquainted with a thousand years ago. The historian is acquainted only with history; what happened in the past. But he never tells us about virtue. If people are to be virtuous, what should be doing or the actions that are happening, are they good or bad, he never tells us this. He only simply tells us what is happening.
Sidney as a poet again imagines a comparison between the historian and the philosopher. He imagines a conversation between them and he has the historian here speaking to the audience comparing himself with the philosopher. So, let us see what he is saying and of course from this we come to learn what philosophy is and what history is.
“The philosopher, saith he, ‘teacheth a disputative virtue, but I do an active.”
The philosopher only teaches virtue in abstract general way. But I teach people by giving them examples; giving them action.
“His virtue is excellent in the dangerless Academy of Plato, but mine showeth forth her honourable face in the battles.”
When do people learn philosophy? In schools and academies which is very safe. You are here sitting and learning and there is no danger. So, philosophy is taught in academies which are dangerous. But where does the historian get his material from? From history; from real action.
“He teacheth virtue by certain abstract consideration, but I only bid you follow the footing of them that have gone before you. Old-aged experience goeth beyond the fine-witted philosopher; but I give the experience of many ages.”
Now, the philosopher is giving you his own opinion; his own experience, which depends on his age. If he is an old man, then he is going to use his own experience to try to convince you. But in history, the historian depends on the old experiences of all the people who came before.
“Lastly, if he make the song-book, I put the learner’s hand to the lute;”
So, the philosopher writes the book; shows you the words. He writes the sons; the words, but it is the historian who shows you the way as if he has an a music instrument like a lute and he puts your finger on the keys to show how to play the lute. The philosopher tells you only what the lute is. He writes the words, but can you sing those words. It is the history that shows you the way.
“If I be the guide, I am the light.”
Philosopher guides you and tells you where to go. If you go this way, you will reach virtue and if you go that way you will reach vice. He tells you where to go. But how to do that? This is the history. History gives you the light and shows you the way. It lights your way to tell you put your step here and put your step there. So, this is the comparison between history and philosophy.
What’s about poetry? Where does poetry stand from all this?
“Now whom shall we find, since the question standeth for the highest form in the school of learning, to be moderator?”
Who here is the best in the school of learning? Who is to be called the moderator?
P14
“Truly, as me seemeth, the poet; and if not a moderator, even the man that ought to carry the title from them both, and much more from all other serving sciences. Therefore compare we the poet with the historian and with the moral philosopher; and if he go beyond them both, no other human skill can match him.”
He will say why the poet is better than the philosopher and the historian.
“The philosopher therefore and the historian are they which would win the goal, the one by precept, the other by example;”
If we compare philosophy and history with all other arts, they are the best in teaching. One teaches virtue by giving the precept; the idea and the concept, and the other by showing the example which is history. They both teach virtue; one by telling you what virtue is, giving the concept of the virtue, and the other by showing you the examples of virtuous people. But they do not tell you what to do.
“but both, not having both, do both halt.”
One has the idea without the example and the other has the example without teaching you the concept or the idea.
“For the philosopher, setting down with thorny argument the bare rule, is so hard of utterance and so misery to be conceived,”
The philosophy gives you hard words to be understood. Philosophy is very difficult.
“that one that hath no other guide but him shall wade in him till he be old, before he shall find sufficient cause to be honest.”
If I want to be honest and I want to be virtuous and I am following philosophy, it will take me a long time to understand, so I will be very old when I will become honorable and honest. So, the road of philosophy is too long because it is very difficult. And this is what he will say later on. He says, only the learned can understand philosophy.
“For his knowledge standeth so upon the abstract and general, that happy is that man who may understand him,”
Philosophy is abstract.
“On the other side, the historian, wanting the precept, is so tide, not to what should be but to what is, to the particular truth of things and not to the general reason of things, that his example draweth no necessary consequence,”
He gives the example, but what is the consequence of the example? What is the lesson I learn from this example the historian never thinks? He leaves it for you to discovery.
“Now doth the peerless poet perform both;”
He gives the concept and the example, how? By giving what he calls here the perfect picture.

“for whatsoever the philosopher saith should be done, he giveth a perfect picture of it in some one by whom he presupposeth it was done, so as coupleth the general notion with the particular example. A perfect picture, I say; for he yieldeth to the powers of the mind an image of that whereof the philosopher bestoweth but a wordish description,”
The philosopher describes the perfect picture only by words whereas the poet describes the perfect picture by images; examples. So, this is done by images and by different examples and we have here many examples given by history. The n he says another thing which is different from history that in poetry we have poetic justice. In history, history tells us only what has been done without showing us the consequence, without showing us the result, but in poetry we have the result which is in poetic justice; the reward of the good and the punishment of the bad.
P16
“For conclusion, I say the philosopher teacheth, but he teacheth obscurely, so as the learned only can understand him; that is to say, he teacheth them that are already taught. But the poet is the food for the tenderest stomachs;”
(For the weak mind) He makes them understand.
“But now may it be alleged that if this imagining of matters be so fit for the imagination,”
Aristotle himself calls poetry very philosophical, why? Because poetry deals with universal consideration and particular examples. The philosophy teaches and poetry gives examples, this is why it is a perfect picture; it gives perfect patterns; perfect examples to be followed and this is the best way of teaching which is to move to action. And he concludes this two pages later.
At the end of page19:
“I conclude, therefore, that he excelleth history, not only in furnishing the mind with knowledge, but in setting it forward to that which deserveth to be called and accounted good; which setting forward, and moving to well-doing, indeed setteth the laurel crown upon the poet as victorious, not only of the historian, but over the philosopher, howsoever in teaching it may be questionable.”
In conclusion, he says that poetry is better because first of all it gives the idea and the example and it excels that by showing the way, and by moving people to act. So, this is a comparison he gives between philosophy and history.

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

The 10th lecture: د.نجلاء
Now let us move to Sidney. The last thing we discussed was the comparison made by Sidney between poetry, philosophy, and history. And the part where we stopped was when he gives examples, he says:
P20
“Now therein of all sciences is our poet the monarch.”
He is the most important person.
And he gives different arts and different sciences. Until then, they called all sciences arts until the scientific revolution when science was separated from arts. So, during antiquity with Plato and Aristotle and at 15th and 16th centuries we still call all sciences arts because they needed talents. They did not go to a faculty of engineering to become engineer but they became engineers because it was a kind of art they developed it. So, all those sciences were considered arts. So, here he says, of all the other sciences of arts and he mentioned music and different kinds of music. We have poetry as the best. Of all those kinds, poetry describes nature better than all other sciences and arts because it creates another nature; it does not simply copy nature but it creates another kind of nature which is better. And he describes here the element of delight. What makes poetry better than other arts is that it does not only teach like Aristotle says but it has also this element of delight.
“That imitation whereof poetry is, hath the most conveniency to nature of all other; insomuch that, as Aristotle saith, those things which in themselves are horrible, as cruel battles, unnatural monsters, are made in poetical imitation delightful.”
So, this is the element that makes poetry superior to all other kinds of arts, it is that it makes things delightful. It presents a delightful nature because it does not simply copy nature as it is. The poet creates and adds from his imagination the element that makes a work of art more delightful even if he is describing the most horrible scenes yet he adds from his imagination that makes these scenes delightful.
Now, he continues the same idea of delight and he says that poetry like philosophy and history is a teacher of knowledge. What is the knowledge; the information, that is included in all kinds of learning? What is the most important thing that any kind of learning should teach? What is the moral that all kinds of learning should be teaching? Virtue. So, what makes you virtuous and what makes you vicious and how to become virtuous and how to stay away from being vicious, why? Because this will lead you to heaven and this will lead you to hell. This is the basic learning we get from any kind of learning whether it is philosophy, religion, or history. What do we learn? To imitate the good and to stay away from the bad. So, this is the basic learning in any kind of art or science that teaches. Now, according to Sidney, poetry is teaching like philosophy and all other kinds of learning; it is teaching virtue but it is not only teaching it, like philosophy, but it is presenting it in a delightful way. This makes people move to action. It is not like philosophy; philosophy says (this is good and this is bad), but what makes you do that, this is poetry. According to Sidney, poetry moves people to action, which makes poetry superior to all other kinds of learning. And that it is teaching virtue in a delightful manner that moves people towards action. Let us see where he says this.
P23
“By these, therefore, examples and reasons, I think it may be manifest that the poet, with that same hand of delight, doth draw the mind more effectually than any other art doth.’
All arts are supposed to teach and here the poet with a hand of delight teaches people more.
“And so a conclusion not unfitly ensueth: that as a virtue is the most excellent resting-place for all worldly learning to make his end of, so poetry, being the most familiar to teach it, and most princely to move towards it, in the most excellent work is the most excellent workman.”
What he concludes here is that all learnings should be teaching virtue. And poetry teaches virtue but it teaches it in a delightful manner and by so doing, it moves people towards virtue; to be virtuous, and this is why it is the most excellent work and the poet is the most excellent workman.
Now he moves to the parts and kinds of poetry.
“Now in his parts, kinds, or species, it is to be noted that some poesies have coupled together two or three kinds,”
What are these kinds of poetry? At first we have tragical and comical and then we have pastoral, elegiac, satiric, comic, tragic, lyric, and heroic. And then we have the conclusion of the first part.
P27
“Since, then, poetry is of all human learnings the most ancient and of most fatherly antiquity,”
The whole paragraph is very long and it is a conclusion of the first part.
There are no new points that I have to explain in the parts that I do not read in class but this does not mean that you do not read and study. The parts I skip, I skip them because there is nothing new to say. I do not have time to read everything. But when I say this is a conclusion, you have to read it because from it you can study the main sentences that you can use in your exam.
Then, we come to the second part of his essay and this is concerned with the objections that were raised against poetry at Sidney’s time by Gosson first and his contemporary critics who attacked poetry and used Plato’s argument. And of course Sidney defends against those accusations.
“First, truly, I note not only in these misomousoi, poet-haters, but in all that kind of people who seek a praise by dispraising others, that they do prodigally spend a great many wandering words in quips and scoffs,”
Now these people who are attacking poetry he considers them as fools because they do not understand poetry; they are just attacking poetry without good knowledge of it and he calls them good fools.
Now, the first accusation against poetry comes in the following paragraph:
“But that which giveth greatest scope to their scorning humours is rhyming and versing.”
He says that people are laughing at poetry and it has become as he said the laughing scoff of children. Why was poetry turning into something to laugh at? So, the first accusation is that poetry is full of rhyme. And what is the difference between poetry and verse? We usually use them together for the same meaning, but they are different. What is the difference between them?
Can poetic language have rhyme or not? If it does not have rhyme, how do we know it is poetic? It is figurative language. Here Sidney is writing an essay; he is not writing a poem but he is using figures of speech. He is using figurative language. It is very poetic. Shakespeare wrote most of his plays in blank verse. We say it is poetic drama or dramatic poetry. So, it is a kind of poetry. Verse is what distinguishes the rhyme, and the rhythm, whether it is end of line rhyme or interior rhyme or the division of a sentence into feet and each foot is divided into syllables, how many syllables and each syllable is either stressed or unstressed, we look for the accentuated syllables and so on. So, this is verse. But it is not poetry. Poetry can make use of verse but verse is not always poetry. You can have two lines rhyming with no meaning. So, it does not necessarily be poetry and this is what Sidney is figuring here. He is going to tell us that not all verse is poetry and not all poetry is given in verse. But what is more important to Sidney, verse or poetry? Poetry is more important. Because people are used to use verse in poetry, so it became one of the elements that are found in poetry. And people at his time were laughing at this kind of rhyming and versing, saying anybody can write two rhyming lines and would call himself a poet. This was actually happening at that time. What was happening at that time? What was the most outstanding quality found in the 16th century? What was the most famous kind of poetry? Sonnets, lyrics, and ballads. They were fond of music; songs. So, everybody wrote rhyme to be song. Shakespeare in all his plays has songs in them and sonnets. And they all wrote sonnets sequences. This was the most famous kind. So, the critics at that time were criticizing this saying that poetry of the time was mainly verse. Now you have taken the sonnets of that time, what was the most important topic of those sonnets? Courtly love. What was courtly love about? The situations of courtly love, what were they? Everyone was falling in love with the wrong person and this is why they were rejected. Because they cannot continue the relation but they have relations. This was the corruption of the court at that time. People at that time in the court were the people who can read and write because the common people cannot read and write. So, who was writing poetry at that time? The nobility; the people of the court, who can read and write, who were educated. What kind of poetry did they write? Courtly love, songs and sonnets. And then why did they write songs and sonnets? Why did they write about the courtly love? They use them as letters to their lovers. Poetry was very important at that time; it was a way to a woman’s heart. So, all people at that time were trying to write poetry and if they could not, they would go and buy poems.
“But that which giveth greatest scope to their scorning humours is rhyming and versing.”
So, many people are making fun of poetry because it is full of rhyme and verse. He says there is a difference between rhyme and verse. Not all poetry is rhyme and not all verse is poetry. But if we have verse in poetry, what is wrong in there? He says,
P29
“It is already said, it is not rhyming and versing that maketh poesy. One may be a poet without versing, and a versifier without poetry. But yet presuppose it were inseparable truly it were an inseparable commendation.”
If we do not separate between verse and poetry, if we poetry that have a verse in it, what is wrong in that? He says that verse takes music. And what is music? Between brackets he defines the music.
“(music I say, the most divine striker of the senses,)”
So, if I have music in poetry which strikes the senses and alerts the senses and makes people want to move and want to act, what is wrong in that?
“thus much is undoubtedly true, that if reading be foolish without remembering, memory being the only treasurer of knowledge, those words which are fittest for memory are likewise most convenient for knowledge.”
Now, music helps people to memorize. Wherever you have rhymed words, it is easy to remember them. If I have two passages; one written in prose and the other written in verse, which one you are going to memorize quickly and will stick to your mind? Verse.
So, if verse with its music helps people to memorize, then what is better than a poem which includes knowledge that is going to stick to your mind because of its music? What is wrong in that? So, here he is defending verse and rhyme saying that they are different. Verse is different from poetry. But if we have verse, what is wrong in that? It helps people to memorize and it makes the knowledge stick in your mind; stick in the memory.
“now that verse far exceedeth prose in the knitting up of the memory, the reason is manifest;”
If we have a passage of prose and a passage of verse, which of them will stick to the memory better? The reason is manifest.
“the words being so set, as one cannot be lost but the whole work fails.”
When I have a whole poem with a whole meaning given to us as one whole, the whole meaning will stick to our mind. But sometimes, you read a whole text with many ideas, you cannot memorize all but if it is all concentrated in a rhymed verse, then it will stick better to your mind.
At the end of the same paragraph, he says,
“So that verse being in itself sweet and orderly, and being best for memory,”
Verse makes the words arranged in an orderly manner and it is sweet; it has a nice sound in it. And it sticks to the mind better than any other form.
“the only handle of knowledge, it must be in jest that any man can speak against it.”
So, since it gives us knowledge, it is the best way to handle knowledge; it is the best way to give knowledge. So, why do people speak against verse? Why do people attack verse?
Then, he moves to the following accusation. This was the first accusation; versing and rhyming. The second accusation is a combined accusation made of five points. So, you can divide the accusations into two or you can divide them into six. You take (versing and rhyming) as number on and the following five as two, three, four, five, and six. Or one and two, and two is divided into five. It is up to you.
“Now, then, go we to the most important imputations laid to the poor poets: for aught I can yet learn they are these.
First, that there being many other more fruitful knowledge, a man might better spend his time in them than in this.”
So, the first of these accusations is that poetry is a waste of time; that man can find better things to do with his time, to spend his time in better ways and his mind would be devoted to another kind of learning better than poetry.
“Secondly, that it is the mother of lies.
Thirdly, that it is the nurse of abuse, infecting us with many pestilent desires,”
And lastly and chiefly, they cry out with an open mouth, as if they had overshot Robin Hood, that Plato banished them out of his Commonwealth.”
So, these are the accusations; waste of time, mother of lies, nurse of abuse, and Plato has banished the poets from his republic.
Now, let us see he answers them one by one.
“First, to the first: that a man might better spend his time is a reason indeed; but it does, that no learning is so good as that which teacheth and moveth to virtue, and that none can both teach and move thereto so much as poesy,”
How can it be a waste of time if we say it is a best way of moving people to virtue?
If all kinds of learning are supposed to be teaching virtue, poetry does not only teach but it even moves people to virtue and it is better than other arts. So, how can we say it is a waste of time and there is another kind of art that we can waste our time in it better than poetry or spend our time in it?
“then is the conclusion manifest that ink and paper cannot be to a more profitable purpose employed.”
There is no other purpose better that writing poetry, that would make me waste my time and employ ink and paper. If you want to write a poem, you use ink and paper. So, it is not a waste of time.
“And certainly, though a man should grant their first assumption, it should follow, (me thinks), very unwillingly, that good is not good because better is better.”
If philosophy and history are good, poetry is better. And good is not good if better is better. If sometimes I have an hour and I am given the choice to read a work of philosophy, a work of history, or a work of poetry, according to Sidney, which one I chose? He says, philosophy and history are good but poetry is better. So, good is not good if there is something better.
“But I still and utterly deny that there is sprung out of earth a more fruitful knowledge.”
Nothing is more fruitful than poetry.
“To the second, therefore, that they should be the principal liars, I answer paradoxically, but truly, I think truly, that of all writers under the sun the poet is the least liar,”
Poetry is accused of being liar. He says how can the poet be a liar if he never says or never affirms that what he is saying is the truth?
In order to be lying, it means that you are not saying the truth. Now, the poet says, I am creating, I am using my imagination, and I am inventing. So, what is the truth here? Things as they really happen? He never says that. He never copies nature; he never copies things as they really happen. So, he never says that you have to believe what I say to be the true. So, how can he be lying?
“for the poet, he nothing affimeth, and therefore never lieth.”
He never affirms anything. He says I create.
“The poet never maketh any circles about your imagination,”
He never says that you have to imagine what I am saying to be true. Can you reach the meaning of the poem directly? Does the poet tell all people what he wants to say directly in a poem? Never. But he leaves every reader to use his imagination to reach whatever meaning he wants. So, he never affirms this is right and this is wrong. He never says this. So, how can he be lying?!
“The poet never maketh any circles about your imagination, to conjure you to believe for true what he writeth. He citeth not authorities of other histories, but even for his entry calleth the sweet Muses to inspire into him a good invention,”
Before writing, he asks the Muses to come and help him to invent. So, whatever he is writing, it is an invention of all his mind; it is not something that he obliges people to believe. So, how can be lying?! And he gives an example. He says, if people believe what he says to be true, whose fault is that?
Let me give you an example which he gives here. He says, if I have a child and I take him to the theater and the child watches the play performed and on the stage there is a door and on the door it is written Thebes, if you open that door, you will go to Thebes, if the child believes that if you go to the stage and open the door, he will find Thebes, whose problem is that? Whose fault is that? The play, the writer or the child? It is the child fault that he believed. Whereas another person who is sitting next to him, he know that this is not true. So, is it the writer who is lying or the person who is not understanding?
Thebes= طيبة
So, he says if it is written on the door and the person believes and here he says the child to show ignorance, innocence, you can easily be fooled. If grown-up believes, then he is stupid. It does not mean that the writer is lying by saying that this place is there; it is the child who is believing something that is not true. So, it is not the poet’s problem.
“What child is there that, coming to a play, and seeing Thebes written in great letters upon an old door, doth believe that it is Thebes? If then a man can arrive, at the child’s age, to know that the poet’s persons and doings are but pictures what should be,”
If a man would understand to be like this, then he is of the age of the child. If you believe that this is true, then you are mistaken; it is your own problem, not the poet’s problem because all poets use names and things as he says here, ‘not affirmatively, but allegorically and figuratively.’
The critics of his time, who accused poetry of being lying, say the proof of these lies is that they give the character’s names of true people, which is true. Now, let men give you an example, not from Sidney, but from your own studying. You have studied Shakespeare’s play; “Hamlet”. Where did Shakespeare get the name of Hamlet from? From real life; from history. There was a prince called Hamlet in Denmark. But is the story of Shakespeare the true story of Hamlet? No. he only borrowed certain elements, names, figures, situations, and events, but he turned them into a play and he added from his own imagination for the dramatic convenience, to make a play; to make a story. Now, if anybody after reading the story thinks that this story is the real story of prince Hamlet, whose problem would it be? Is it Shakespeare’s problem or the reader’s? It is the reader’s. We know before reading it that it is just a play or before going to see it on the stage, it is only a play. And if you think of it for a while, this particular play has been performed on the stage hundreds of times by hundreds of actors in hundreds of languages and each time with a different interpretation, why? If it was the real story, nobody could have changed it, but because it is not a real story, every reader can interpret it in different way. So, we can act it in a different way. So, how can Shakespeare be a liar? Can we call Shakespeare a liar? No. So, this is what Sidney is explaining to us; that in poetry we can change history, but in history we cannot change.
“But hereto is replied that the poets give names to men they write of, which argueth a conceit of an actual truth, and so, not being, proveth a falsehood.”
People say that writers give names to the characters; they are lying. They are not giving the truth and this is why the play is a falsehood; it is not true.
So, he answers this, three lines later.
“Their naming of men is but to make their picture the more lively,”
Any writer cannot bring characters on the stage, saying first character, second character, and third character. He has to give them names, so that they would be like reality, not exactly reality. And this is to make their plays more lively; like life.
“and not to build any history,”
The poet is not writing history.
“painting men, they cannot leave men nameless.”
By creating characters, he cannot keep them nameless; he has to give them name. So, this is done to make the characters more lively.
The third accusation:
“Their third is, how much it abuseth men’s wit, training it to wanton sinfulness and lustful love.”
Remember that all those accusations were said by Plato, but for different reasons. Plato here in this accusation said that poetry addresses the inferior part of the soul which is emotion and it weakens the soldiers in battles and people in real life. The people in Sidney’s time did not use this same argument; they use only the title, it is abusing people for different reasons according to the age. He said according to that age, the main topic of all the poems was love. But what kind of love was it? He said courtly love which was lustful love, not true love. People accused poetry of that time, of abusing people. When you are speaking about lust, vanity and about bad behavior, then you are abusing people, abusing honest people, abusing good people, so this is not a good kind of poetry. So, here Sidney is answering that saying that it is true that there are certain poems which include lust instead of love, but is this the fault of poetry or the fault of the writer? It is the fault of the poet; the person who is writing this poem. He says that there were many poems at that time written which were not good poems; they are only written to impress a lady. And even they went and bought them. They were not expressing their own emotions; they were taking expressions putting them in letters and sending them.
Poetry is abusing men’s wit by training their minds to think of the sinful and lustful love. And he says that most of the comedies, the lyrics and the elegies are full of those kinds of poems. But alas!
“Alas! Love, I would thou couldst as well defend thyself as thou canst offend others!”
He is wondering. He says يا خسارةif love can defend itself as people are accusing it. Many people are accusing poor love and love cannot defend itself.
“I would those on whom thou dost attend could either put thee away, or yieldgood reason why they keep thee! But grant love of beauty to be a beastly fault,”
Now, love is something beautiful, this is the true love. And love here is not only love between man and woman. We have friendly love, we have parental love, and we have sisters-and-brothers love. So, love itself as a value and as a human passion is something good. People have to love each other. If they hate each other, الدنيا حتولع. So, it is the human passion that has to be found between people. but if people misuse it, then this is wrong. So, here he says, love here is something beautiful. The love of beauty has been changed and turned and accused of being beastly. What is the meaning of ‘beastly’? beastly= animalistic (like animals). People are behaving like animals, only thinking of lust, not love.
“(although it be very hard, since only man, and no beast, hath that gift to discern beauty);”
Beasts do not have the love. Love is a human quality. So, how can we describe a human quality as being beastly when beasts do not have this quality?
“I say that not only love, but lust, but vanity, but, scurrility, possesseth many leaves of the poets’ books;”
It is true that many of the poems that were written at that time; many of the pages of books of poetry at that time were full of lust and scurrility.
“yet think I, when this is granted, they will find their sentence may with good manners put the last words foremost, and not say that poetry abuses man’s wit, but man’s wet abuseth poetry.”
It is man’s way of thinking that is abusing poetry. Those who are using poetry for that reason are the people to be blamed. These are the people who are abusing poetry, not poetry is abusing people. And he gives an example for that (the sword). And you have many examples. You can take many examples from there. He says let us take the example of the sword. Sword is like the poetry. The power of the words is like a sword. If this sword is used to kill a person, is this a good or a bad means of using? And the person would be punished for it. And if the same sword is used to defend one’s country or one’s honor, then it is a good use. So, the sword in itself can be used positively or negatively. It depends on the person and how he is using it.
So, he gives the sword as an example to show how poetry can be misused. And he gives many examples of works of art that are good and others are bad where poetry was used in a correct way or in a bad way. Then, we come to the last accusation which is Plato’s accusation.

P35
“But now, indeed, my burden is great, that Plato’s name is laid upon, whom, I must confess, of all philosophers I have ever esteemed most worthy of reverence; and with great reason, since of all philosophers he is the most poetical.”
So, now he has to answer back Plato’s accusation which he considers to be the most serious and the most important because he likes Plato and he considers him the most poetical of all philosophers, because Plato was a poet and in teaching philosophy, he used poetry. So, he says why did Plato banish poetry? Plato gave us his reasons. Now, Sidney here is giving us different reasons for why Plato banished poetry. One time I got this in an exam; what are the reasons given by Plato and what are the reasons given by Sidney? And they are different; they are not the same.
*(You have two backgrounds; Renaissance background for Sidney then, we have Dryden; we have restoration background. This will come in a paragraph. Prepare a paragraph about the Renaissance background and a paragraph about a restoration background. In the paragraph, you have to mention Sidney and to give examples of what he has done.)
Now, how he did answer Plato’s accusations and how he explained the reasons for Plato’s banishment of poetry. He says,
“First, truly, a man might maliciously object that Plato, being a philosopher, was a natural enemy of poets.”
Now, the first reason is that Plato was a philosopher and philosophers were natural enemies to poets. So, as a philosopher he has to banish poetry. And he explains how he the philosophers came to hate poetry.
“For indeed, after the philosophers had picked out of the sweet mysteries of poetry the right discerning true points of knowledge, they forthwith, putting it in method, and making a school-art of that which the poets did only teach by a divine delightfulness, beginning to spurn at their guides, like ungrateful prentices were not content to set up shops for themselves, but sought by all means to credit their masters;”
All the philosophers, where did they first learn and where did they gain their knowledge? From poetry. Where did they take their methods from? From poetry. So, they learned from poetry and then, they constructed their school of philosophy based on poetry, and then, they used even the methods of poetry and after sometime, like bad students; bad prentices, discredited their masters. They turned against their masters and they were trying to prove that they are even better. So, they tried to discredit their teachers; they tried to say that we know better and this is why of course they show enmity to poetry.
“which by the force of delight being barred them, the less they could overthrow them the more they hated them.”
Were they really able to show that poetry is not as good as philosophy? They did not succeed. So, what did they do? They became the enemies of poetry. They hated poetry. Because they could not prove that they are better than poetry. Now, what is the proof of that? We have an example here is given to us by Sidney, saying that in the time of Plato people hated philosophy. So, philosophers hated poetry, and people hated philosophers and loved poetry. As an example for this we have Homer. Homer was a great poet. More than seven cities at that time were quarreling to whom Homer belong. Each city was trying to say Homer belongs to our city, why? They were trying to show that because he is so great, he belongs to our city. They were proud of that; they were honored to have Homer a citizen in them. But at the same time, they banished philosophers; they kicked them out of their cities.
“For, indeed, they found for Homer seven cities strove who should have him for their citizen; where many cities banished philosophers, as not fit members to live among them.”
This is the main reason Sidney gives for Plato’s banishment because he is a philosopher and he hated poetry. Why did he hate poetry? Because as philosopher, they started as poets but turned against poetry and hated it because people honored and loved poets and they quarreled over Homer. They hated philosophers and banished them from their cities.
The third reason for hating the poetry is that many poets were able to affect people more than philosophy. This is what Plato was afraid of. Do you remember that he said the most important reason for banishing poetry is the effect of poetry; the power of poetry over people. So, here Sidney is mentioning this. This is one point that is common in both. Now, here he says poetry has a very powerful effect. Some poets were able to affect tyrants and change them into being good kings and other philosophers try to do the same but they failed. Let us see hoe he says this.
“Certain poets as Simonides and Pindar had so prevailed with Hiero the First, that of a tyrant they made him a just king;”
These were poets and they were able to change and to convert Hiero the great (he was a king); to convert him into being a kind and good king instead of being a tyrant whereas at the same time Plato could not do anything; he could do so little with Dionysius. (Dionysius was a tyrant; he was another king). Plato with his philosophy tried to change him but he failed, not only he failed but Dionysius made him his slave and imprisoned him. So, of course this was another reason why philosophers hated poetry. And then the last poet comments and he says, ‘again, what is a man who might ask out of his commonwealth, the poet when he admitted the company of women.’ Women at Plato’s time were of inferior status; they were treated as slaves, they were bought and sold, like a father can sell his daughter in marriage; he will take money and give her to a person. Now, this person sometimes can give his wife to another person, to become a wife of another person. He will give her as a wife, not as a slave. So, women at that time were not free; they were of inferior status. So, he says what commonwealth, what government would be that of Plato which allows women who are of inferior status and would not allow poets! Of course this is not a good commonwealth.
“Again, a man might ask out of what commonwealth Plato did banish them. In sooth, thence where he himself alloweth community of women.”

Now, the last argument of Sidney about Plato: he says, ok, I love Plato and I love his works, so I would not say that Plato is against poetry, but he is only against the poets who misuse poetry and to prove that he says that Plato allowed divine poetry in his government. He was not against poetry, but he was against the misuse of poetry. And he says here that there people at Plato’s time who wrote poetry against the gods and goddesses. Remember Hercules and how people were fighting each other, taking sides of the gods and the gods fighting each other, and you are familiar with Ulysses, for example, and he was against the god of the water; the god of the sea, so the god of the sea made him lost in the sea for ten years as a punishment for that. So, people could be enemies with gods, and gods with gods, and gods with people. So, people who wrote poetry sometimes sided with one god against the other or wrote bad things about one god. This is what Plato was against, why? Because he was trying to establish a government; republic, which is ideal, and he wanted it to b a good commonwealth or a good government to teach the youth and to bring up good people. So, if the youth hear the bad words against the gods, so this is not a good kind of poetry. So, this is why he banished poetry. This is Sidney’s explanation.
P36
“So doth Plato upon the abuse, not upon poetry. Plato found fault that the poets of his time filled the world with wrong opinion of the gods, making light tales of that unspotted essence, and therefore would not have the youth depraved with such opinions. Herein may much be said; let this suffice: the poets did not induce such opinion, but did imitate those opinions already induced.”
Some poets wrote that things about gods and people started to imitate the same words and say them, so this was wrong. It was wrong to speak about the gods in a bad manner.
In conclusion of that, he says,
“Plato therefore, (whose authority I had much rather justly construe unjustly resist,) mean not in general of poets, in those words, but only meant to drive out those wrong opinions of the Deity,”
What Plato really meant was what was said wrongly about the god Deity; not about poetry. And to prove that, Sidney gives an example from Ion; from Plato’s dialogue, where he says that poetry is divine inspiration. So, if it is divine inspiration, how it can be bad!
“who, in his dialogue called Ion, giveth high and rightly divine commendation unto poetry. So as Plato, banishing the abuse (the result, the power, the effect), not the thing (not the poetry), not banishing it, but giving due honour unto it,” (which is calling a divine inspiration).
In Plato’s time, people misused poetry, so he was against it. In Sidney’s time, also people misused poetry and used it for lust instead of love, so he was against this. He says it poetry is not abusing people; it is the people who are abusing poetry.
Now, Plato concludes this saying that:
“For, indeed, I had much rather, show their mistaking of Plato, than go about to overthrow his authority;”
It is better to say that people understand Plato. This is because it is inspiring of divine force and Plato himself agreed with that. And he says that there were many philosophers at Plato’s timewho were not against poetry and he mentions Aristotle. Aristotle was not against poetry; he was against Plato’s opinion. So, he was a philosopher who advocated poetry. And then we have a whole conclusion concluding this part; the accusations, and how he answers this.
Then, we come to the third part; why he speaks about the English poets and why the English poetry has defects. At e beginning he was speaking about poetry in general and then he was speaking about the accusations about poetry in general also. Now, he speaks about English poetry.
‘But since I have run so long a career in this matter, ------”
Since I have been a poet for a long time, I have to think now before putting my pen of why England should be grown so hard a stepmother to poets; why England now has become like a stepmother. The stepmother is the father’s wife.
Now, what is the stereotypical concept of stepmother? At that time who was the very famous story? Cinderella. So, he is using this metaphor to describe England as becoming so harsh and hard on its own poets.
And he says that since antiquity, poetry was honored. Kings and emperors were themselves poets and Queen Elizabeth was herself a poet. And he gives examples from history of England, starting from Chaucer. He says he had great poets and poetry was honored. But why is it now that poetry attacked and accused? Now, he defends poetry and he says, maybe there are some bad poets. He tries to find the reason why there are defects in English poetry. This does not mean that all English poetry was wrong, but there are certain defects.
The first defect is that there are people who write poetry without having the talent; without having the gift. Remember that in the beginning he said it is a talent; it is a gift. And because at that time many people were writing poetry whether they were gifted or not, so we had bad poetry and we have good poetry. So, he says that the first reason that we have defect in poetry is that some people are not gifted.
P39
“But I, as I never desired the title, so have I neglected the means to come by it;”
I never thought why I am called a poet, but now I have to think why I have become a poet. What is the first thing you should have to become a poet? The talent; the gift.
“Marry, they that delight in poesy itself should seek to know what they do and how they do; and especially look themselves in an unflattering glass of reason, if they be inclinable unto it.”
Everyone who writes poetry should look himself into the mirror and judge himself, ‘are you a good poet or not?’ he should look into himself and see whether he deserves to be called a good poet or not, why? Because poetry must not be drawn by the ears. It is not only rhyme that makes poetry. He comes again to the same idea of verse and poetry; not all verse is poetry, not everybody who can write rhymes is a poet.
“For poesy must not be drawn by the ears, it must be gently led, or rather it must lead; which was partly the cause that made the ancient learned affirm it was a divine gift, and no human skill,”
It is not a skill; you do not learn how to write poetry. You do not learn writing poetry. How do you write poetry? First of all, you must have the talent, the divine gift; the gift given to you by God. You cannot go anywhere and try to look for that talent. And then what would they do? After discovering the talent, he says that there are three things and actually as a poet, he says:
“That Daedalus, they say, both in this and in other, hath three wings to bear itself up into the air of due commendation: that is, art, imitation, and exercise,”
Poetry has three wings to carry itself into the air. What are these three wings? If you want to become a poet, you must have three things or do three things.
Art which is the talent.
Imitation.
Exercise.
Imitation here is learning and imitating the masterpieces of others and then you can write poetry. So, you cannot write poetry without having the gift and without learning. You can have the gift, but if you do not have enough vocabulary, how can you write? So, you must learn how to write. Can you just think of two or three words rhyming and can you rhyme without knowing the rules of rhyming poetry?! (How it is written? How the line is divided? What are the kinds of feet you can follow? What are the kinds of syllables you can use? How many are stressed and how many are unstressed? How many are lines in a stanza? How many stanzas can you have?) You can improvise and you can change, but then you must originally have the basics. So, without knowing and without knowledge, you cannot write poetry. So, it is a gift first and then knowledge and imitation, by knowledge you know and then you try to follow. This is one of the very famous theories of art concerning or of poetry given to us by Sidney. Poetry is art, imitation and exercise.
And he gives examples from English writers, like Chaucer’s ‘Troilus and Criseyde’, Surrey’s ‘Lyrics’, Spenser’s ‘Shepheardes Calender’. He takes examples from Greek writers, Latin and Italian to show that those people were really gifted and talented and they read and then they move to write poetry.
So, the first thing we must know in writing poetry is to have the gift. Unfortunately, some writers are not gifted. So, their poetry is not good. This is the first defect. The second defect is that at his time people abused poetry (at that time it was dramatic poetry) of not following Aristotle’s unities. What are the unities given by Aristotle? Place, time, and action. At his time, people were accusing poetry of not following the unities the place and time. And this is very clear even in Shakespeare’s’. He followed only the unity of action, but never of place and time. So, this was a defect seen by people. Now, he answers this defect. He says,
P40
“Our tragedies and comedies not without cause cried out against, observing rules neither of honest civility nor of skilful poetry: excepting Gorboduc, which notwithstanding as it is full of stately speeches and well-sounding phrases,”
Many of these comedies and tragedies are full of faults with exception of ‘Gorboduc’. ‘Gorboduc’ is written at his time. These plays are faulty because they do not have morals; they do not teach morals and they do not have skillful poetry. Most of them are not talented with the exception of Gorboduc.
Now, what is the defect? He says,
“For it is faulty both in place and time.”
He says that even ‘Gorboduc’, although it is full of morals, according to the critics of his time, it is still faulty, why? Because it does not follow the unities of place and time.
And he mentions Aristotle’s percept of common reason where he said that the poem should have those unities.
Now, those who are not following those unities, can we consider them bad poets according to Sidney? He says I test the poem or the play; if it is morally bad or and it does not teach and it does not delight, then it is bad. But if does not follow the unities of place and time, still it can be a good poem. Why? Because after explaining all this, at the end of the paragraph he says,
p41
“But they will say, How then shall we set forth a story which containeth both many places and many time?”
Now, how can the writer write a story which includes many places and many times?
“And do they not know that a tragedy is tied to the laws of poesy, and not of history;”
Now, these writers; these dramatists, who write their plays without using the unities of time and place say that we are writing drama, we are not writing history, we are following the rules of writing dramatic poetry, not the rules of writing history.
The rules of writing history you have to stick to facts.
But the rules of writing drama,
“They are not bound to follow the story, but having liberty either to feign a quite new matter, or frame the history to the most tragical conveniency?”
This is the rule of tragedy; the rule of drama. You can frame, you can make up, and you can invent. But you have to stick to the rule of tragical convenience and this is why I told you about Shakespeare. He wrote plays taking incidents from history and changing them. How did he change them? According to the conveniency of the drama, but not according to the place or time. This brings us to a third point and that is those people who accuse drama of not following place and time may do not know the difference between presenting and narrating. They want only what can be presented to be there on the stage. So, they limit the play to a certain time and certain place. But he says that there are other things that can be mentioned in the play, but not presented on the stage; they can be narrated, like battles and themes of killing, like things that happened long time ago. These can be done through narration. This means that you are referring to things that happened a long time ago or the play starts and then the second scene starts after three month and then we know what happened during those three months through narration. So, this is not wrong. The people who find poetry bad are the people who cannot differentiate between narration and representation.
“Again, many things may be told which cannot be showed, if they know the difference betwixt reporting and representing.”
P41
We can extend the play for a long time and in different places if we know how to differentiate between what can be presented on stage and what can be narrated in words. A good dramatist should know the difference and should be able to perform it and in this case his play will not be defected.
So, we said the first defect is that people do not have the talent. And the second one is that they do not follow the unities. Now, the third one is that some people are confused between laughing and delighting. Some people think that in order to delight, you have to make people laugh. And this is completely wrong. This brings us to the mixture between comedy and tragedy or the defect (some people find it as a defect); that there was at that time what was called tragic-comedy. Notice that one mistake in spelling can change the meaning. The word ‘tragi-comedy’ is a mixture of comedy and tragedy; have and half between tragedy and comedy. But if you say ‘tragic comedy’, it is a tragic with a comic end. If you say comic tragedy, it is a tragedy with death at the end but with hilarious and laughing events that lead to this end. So, every expression has a meaning. If you use tragic comedy instead of tragicomedy, it gives completely different meaning. So, be careful when you use the words.
P42
“But, besides these gross absurdities, how all their plays be neither right tragedies nor right tragedies nor right comedies, mingling kings and clowns, not because the matter so carrieth it, but thrust in the clown by head and shoulders to play a part in majestical matters, with neither decency nor discretion; so as neither the admiration and commiseration, nor the right sportfulness, is by their mongrel tragic-comedy obtained.”
At that time, they had plays with tragedy and comedy together. They are neither tragedies nor comedies; they are in between. They have both elements. They mingle and mix both elements together. Now, he explains this and says, it is not a matter of laughing that would make us be delighted. Tragedy can be delighted without having laughter in it. So, what is the difference between delight and laughter? And this is what he explains here. He says some people use comedy in tragedy to make people delighted, thinking this is how to delight. Or in comedy they make people laugh hilariously to be delighted, thinking that this is how people are delighted. He says there is a big difference between laughter and delighted. And he even defines what delight is and what laughter is. He says,
“where the whole tract of a comedy should be full of delight, as the tragedy should be still maintained in a well-raised admiration.”
Some think that a comedy should be full of laughter and tragedy should be only to be admired; full of admiration.
“But our comedians think that there is no delight without laughter, which is very wrong; for though laughter may come with delight, yet cometh it not of delight.”
You can have laughter and delight together, but not necessarily. Laughter is not necessarily the result of delight; you can be delighted without laughter.

“as though delight should be the cause of laughter;”
Of course this is wrong.
“For delight we scarcely do, but in things that have a conveniency to ourselves, or to the general nature;”
When do we have delight? When we have something mutual between what we have in human nature and what we are seeing; when we can communicate, when we can relate to what is said to us. Because we are human beings and what is said in front of us affects us as human beings. So, there is a relation. So, this makes us delighted. We admire what we see, so we are delighted. But laughter is the opposite. You laugh at things that you do not connect with, like a person who walks in a funny way. And if you see people having good chance and then you admire, but if you see mischance (people who are all the time finding obstacles and having bad luck), you laugh at that. The effect of delight is permanent, but the effect of laughter is like tickling the child. When you tickle a child, once you stop tickling, he will stop laughing. So, this is laughter. The effect only when it is done.
“laughter almost ever cometh of things most disproportioned to ourselves and nature. Delight hath a joy in it either permanent or present; laughter hath only a scornful tickling. For example we are ravished with delight to see a fair woman,”
He is a man and when he sees a fair woman, he is delighted, but would he laugh? No. it does not arouse laughter.
“and yet are far from being moved to laughter. We laugh at deformed creatures, wherein certainly we cannot delight. We delight in good chances, we laugh at mischances. We delight to hear the happiness of our friends and country, at which he were worth to be laughed at that would laugh.”
You are delighted to know about the happiness of others, but you do not laugh at them. And he quotes Aristotle here who says that it is sinful to stir laughter on things that do not deserve laugher. You have to have a reason for laughing.
Now, this is the fourth defect. He speaks about the kind of poetry that was famous at that time which is songs and sonnets. He says: P44
“Other sorts of poetry almost have we none, but that lyrical kind of songs and sonnets,”
We do not have other poems other than songs and sonnets, very few are written in other form, but the most famous form was songs and sonnets. Of course these songs and sonnets are all about courtly love. So, it was presented in a good manner, then it is a good poem, but if love is presented in a bad way, then it is a bad poem. So, most of songs and sonnets at that time would spoke about courtly love. So, he defends it that in some of them when they spoke about love in a bad manner and it turned to be lust and not love.
“But truly, many of such writing as come under the banner of unresistible love, if I were a mistress would never persuade me they were in love;”
He is making fun of those poems. He says if I was a lady and somebody tell me such a bad poem full of this kind of love, I will not believe because this is a vicious love; it is not true love.
“so cold they apply fiery speeches, as men that had rather read lovers’ writing, (and caught up certain swelling phrases,”
So, these works were not written by true poets or people who had true feelings, these people who are only quoting. Do you know what to quote means? To take the same expressions from other writers, just simply add them and put them together to make a poem. And this of course is not correct. Also the diction; the language, of those poems is full of flowery diction and full of far-fetched words, full of extreme expressions of love. And they are, as he says, winter-starved flowers. Flowers that grow in winter, they are starved, they are not bright flowers. They use many figure of speech, they use flowery language, so the diction is not poetry. Also the metaphors and the conceits, the similitude they used are also very fragile. They keep using them and repeating them. They do not use fresh conceits. They use very worn-out conceits which are not good.
Now, if I have a good poet, what is the use of the conceit and the metaphors? Why does a poet use the metaphor which is the main element of poetry? Because he wants to say his meaning indirectly. This is why I keep telling you if you say it is a simple poem, it is wrong. No poet writes a poem without figure of speech. The main using for figure of speech is to hide the meaning; to hide behind a figure of speech. So, if I just say whatever I want using different expressions, this is not a good poetry. This is not an art. The art; the gift, is to know how to say it in a hidden way. And this is what he says here, I have found in divers; in poets, small poets, I found in their poems better poems than poems written by professors. Why? Because the professors are not gifted; they do not have the talent. Some professors have the talent and many others do not.
And he makes the difference between writing poetry and oratory. They all use language, but in oratory you have to be very clear.
Oratory= الخطابة
When you want to give a speech, you have to be very clear; you do not use figure of speech. Poetry makes use of words and you want to convince but indirectly. So, they use the same words but one is in direct manner and the other is in indirect manner. And the last thing he says that many people like to use foreign language thinking that the foreign language is better than the English one. He says the English language is a good kind of language and the rhyme is applicable to the English language, so why do we go to other languages?! He says the language is a good tongue, it has beauty of its tongue and the grammar here is worth using, so why do we go and use other languages? Then, we have the conclusion of the whole essay.
This is Sidney and next time the presentation will be about Dryden and then we will discuss Dryden essay.

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

اخر ملزمه وصلتني حقه dryden :119:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

الوهقة مس هيفاء قالت لاترسلون لي لأني ماراح ارد عليكم :Cry111:

بس اتوقع والله اعلم انها ماتبي حياتة وهالسوالف تبي بس الاشياء المتعلقة باعمالهم فالنقد والاعمال الادبية بذيك الفترة

وقالت اكيد بيجي واحد منهم يا درايدن او سدني

:41jg:


كل وحده تبدأ تذاكر ولاتبخل علينا بالاشياء المهمة

:bawling:تكفوون خلنا نتساعد الدرجات ماعجبتني :bawling:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

احنا مشكلتنا بهالسؤال ان وش بيجي مثلا... هل لازم نقرا النت ونفتش ولا من المعلومات اللي عندنا.؟.

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

? arethe accusations against poetry that are given in Sidney's essay
بنات ايش المقصود بسؤال هل عيوب الشعر اللي اقر فيها سيدني ولا العيوب اللي الناس قالوها عن الشعر :sdfgdsf:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

وكيف هو دافع عنها

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

أهليين بنات

الله يوفقنا جميعا


بس معليش سؤال خارج نطاق النقد

ممكن اللي عندها ترجمة الخمس القطع الاولى حقين سلوى تحطهم في المنتدى أو يعني تصورهم في فجر وتخليهم في المكتبة عشان الكل يستفييد :sdfgdsf:


:mh12:

واللي تشوف يوم السبت اذا الله أحيانا سلوى تسألها شسالفة الامتحان لأني مرررررة خااايفة منه





وجزاكم الله خير

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

.ExternalClass DIV{;}
Dear Students,


Hope your exams are all going well!


I posted your grades on the 3rd year bulletin board. Please note that in the interest of confidentiality, I have not printed out your names next to your grade. Look for your class number (the number you wrote on your tests) and you will find your score next to your number.


If you still do not know your number by now, please do not email me requesting it as I will be too busy to reply.


(For non-CRN students your names have been printed.)


I will be sending another email this weekend with a few remarks before your exam. A lot of students have emailed me requesting the points on the Dryden slides and InshaaAllah I will send them to you.

ادعو الله مع نزول هذا المطر المبارك ان يباركالله في جهدكن و وقتكن

Regards,
Haifa Al-Rumaih

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

انا كتبت شنهو بيجي مع مسز هيفا بس للأسف دفتري اللحين مو عندي

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

اليوم سلمونا اوراقنا تقريبا الساعة 8 وربع اذا مو اكثر الساعة 10 جلست تزن المراقبة سلموا سلموا

قلت لها : عفوا .!!! بدينا الساعة 8 وربع ع الأقل 10 وربع

طبعااا حنا غلطانين ومانعرف نحسب الوقت وهي حتى لو ماعندها ساعة تقدر الوقت بذهنها طلعت من مكتبها الساعة 8 ووصلت عند 8 وعشر يآ سبحاااااااااان الله

ماحبيت بصراحة اجادلها لأني عارفة بتنرفز وبتوتر وانااااااااااا باقي ماحبرت الإسسسسساااااي :bawling:


اماااا بنااااات تحضيري حدثثث ولا حرج

طيب غشي حبيبتي بس بدووون صووووووووووت :017:

نبغى نررررركز

بغيت اقوم عليهم بأمتحان الدراما

شايلة هم النقد معاهم

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

بنات ابي نفريغ نقد لهيفا حق اخز محاضزنين ضرووووري

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

اذا انت انتساب لجامعة فيصل فــ موادكم تختلف عننا تماما

هنا حنا ندرس أدب أنجليزي بس انتوا لغة

انا اطلعت على موادكم بس مادري اذا المواد تتغير مع كل مستوى او اذا تاخذون ادب

في تجمع لأنجليزي انتساب فيصل راح يفيدونك أكثر مننا


بس اهم شي تكون تعرف انجليزي يعني تمشي حالك وثاني شي تشد حيلك لأن هذي لغة

بالتوفيق

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

يآليتنآ ندرس لغه زيهم ^^ :mad:

<~ مفقوعه مرآرتهآ من الادب:bawling:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

ترا اهل لغة ينكرفون بالأدب بس بمستوى أقل ويتخرجون بشهادة لغة اما الأنتساب مادري

ترا حنا بنعمة ع الأقل انتظام


وترا كذا كذا دارسة الأدب
:biggrin:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

exit
العفو انشاءالله اذا جاتني ملازم جديده بنزلها :oao:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

بنات ابي أعرف كيف احسسب المعدل
مادري اذا هوا اجمع مثلا معدلي حق السنه اللي طافت مع حق السمستر ذا مثلاا اعطيي نفسي النسبه اللي بجيبهااا ذا السمستر .. بعدين ناتج جمع السمسترين اللي طافو اقسمهم على 2

بنات ابي اععرررف اذا هوا كذاا بليييززز:sdfgdsf:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

Never GiveUp ...


Heartily thanx
:106:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

بنات ابي تفويغ نقد حق هيفا اخر محاضرتين ضروري وكم عددهم؟؟؟؟

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

ابي أعرف كيف احسسب المعدل
مادري اذا هوا اجمع مثلا معدلي حق السنه اللي طافت مع حق السمستر ذا مثلاا اعطيي نفسي النسبه اللي بجيبهااا ذا السمستر .. بعدين ناتج جمع السمسترين اللي طافو اقسمهم على 2

بنات ابي اععرررف اذا هوا كذاا بليييززز:sdfgdsf:

انا العام كنت تحضيري



ردوو بنات اللي تعرف تحسسب معدل

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

هذي آخر شي عندي
10 و 11
مددددري اذا فيه 12 آو لآ :(177):

بالتوفيق و دعوااتك

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

avirl

انا ماقد حسبت معدلي يدووي كذا <:biggrin:

فيه لينك بس مدري وينه حآليآ .. يعني اتوقع لو تكتبين بقوقل بتحصلينه

يحسب المعدل مع المعدل اللي تتوقعينه حق الترم الحالي ويطلع التوتل

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

لو كنت آعرف كآن قلت لك :biggrin: بس للآفس آنآ نظآم قديم مآعندنآ معدل:cool:

بنآت اللي تعرف تقوولهآ:mad::biggrin:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

مساءكم نقد :tongue:

هلوو صبايا اخبار النقد معكم ؟
حبيت اذكركم ان الهمورك اللي كانت تعطينا اياه والاشياء اللي نحضرها للكلاس
انكلوووووووووووووووديد ( يعني داخل :biggrin: ) ودوقي يامزيكا :mh001:

:106:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

heeeey Gulz

what are u talkin about !!!?


as I know the Questions will be unified

and Dr.Najla didn't mention anything Out of the text

except the Background of Sydney and Dryden




?

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

هذي بس للبراكتيكل
يعني تدربي عليهم بس في التحليل
يعني مو داخلين في الامتحان

اللي في الامتحان بيكون ان سييييييييييييييين :biggrin:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

آهآآآآ:biggrin:

البرآكتيكآل يكون عليه آقل شي 20 :000:
ياااااااااااااااارب يكون سهل :(204):

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

الله يعطيج العاافيه ع الرد

بس اللنك اذا تقدرين تجبينه اسسدحيه واكوون لك من الشااكرات الواقرات :(204):

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

جوجو

ركزت هيفاء ع باكرواااند سيدني

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

طب بنات وشو باكقراونده؟؟

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

مشااركة بنت بسنه راابع

الله يجزااها خير

قلت انسخه لكم هنا للافادهـ :106:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

مشوره lost الله يعطيك العافيه

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

يااااااااااااااااااااااااااارب
وفق كل وحده عندها نقد يوم السبت
الله يسهل عليكم ياااااااارب :love080::love080::love080:
انا ما عندي نقد بس حاسه فيكم
و حبيت اشارككم وجدانيا :mh318::106:


على فكره ما بشرتكم :biggrin:
.

.

.

.

.

قريحتي ما خذلتني في اختبار المقال :mh001:
لقد كتبتو ذالك المقال الاكاديمي اللي ما فيش منوووو :(204):
الحمد لله اسلوب الارتجال نجح معاي :biggrin:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

حبيبتي الي سألتي عن كيف تحسبين المعدل تقدرين تدخلين موقع جامعة فيصل في بالخدمات الطلابيه حساب المعدل دايم احسبه هناك :biggrin:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

وش الجواب بلييييييز :(

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

لعيونك يا قمر اول 3 قطع الرابعه والخامسه ما بعد احصلهم اذا حصلتهم بحطهم لك



يواجه مجلس الأمن هذا الإسبوع تحديا خطيرا للمصداقية والطريقة التي سيتعامل بها مع الازمة العراقية ستحدد بشكل نهائي إذا ما كانت مسؤليته هي الحفاظ على السلام العالمي من كونه مجرد منفذ لسياسات تصوغها وزارة الخارجية الامريكية .
كان من المقرر امس ان يتلقى مجلس الامن ادله من وزير الخارجية الامريكية كولن باول تثبت صدق مزاعم واشنطن بان بغداد قد خرقت قرار مجلس الامن رقم 1441 ولاكن ومن منطلق البيانات التي صدرت من واشنطن حتى الان فمن الواضح أن باول عاد لواشنطن مسلح بالمؤشرات وهي مجرد ادله ظرفيه وليست بالادله الدامغة على صدق ادعائات واشنطن .
مثل هذه المؤشرات لاتهمنا في الوقت الراهن بل نريد أدله دامغه من النوع الذي أظهرته واشنطن أمام مجلس الامن عام 1960 لتثبت تواطئ كوبا في اخفاء الصواريخ الروسية .

كان الخطاب الذي ألقاه وزير الخارجية السوري فاروق الشرع في مستهل محادثات السلام مع إسرائيل في واشنطن خير تعبير عما يشعر به معظم العرب إزاء الصراع مع إسرائيل . كما أثبت أن السوريين يتحمسون لإتمام سلام الشجعان بين الدول التي ما زالت رسميا في حالة حرب .
على أية حالة ، لم تكد إسرائيل تعلن انصياعها للقانون الدولي وتسليم مرتفعات الجولان للشعب السوري حتى بدأت وسائل الإعلام بإثارة مشاعر القلق بشأن أزمة ال17 ألف مستوطن يهوديسيتم إجبارهم على الرحيل من الجولان ، فتساءل الشرع وهو محق : ( وماذا عن 500 ألف سوري دمرت قراهم في الجولان وأجبروا على ترك بيوتهم عندما احتلتها إسرائيل ، لماذا لم يذكر الإعلام العالمي ولم يذكر أزمتهم ؟ )
نفس المنطق ينطبق على قصف إسرائيل لمدرسة لبنانية في الجنوب بالقنابل مما أسفر عن جرح 20 طفلا منهم وسيظل بعضهم معاقا مدى الحياة . ترى ماذا سيكون ردة فعل العالم المتحضر ، لو أنطلق صاروخ كاتيوشا على مدرسة في شمال إسرائيل وجرح نفس العدد من الأطفال .
سترى في أولى صفحات الصحف العالمية صوراً للأطفال مع عائلاتهم وهم يهتفون بالموت للعرب ، ورغم إدعاء الموضوعية من جانب هذه الصحف لكنها لم تذكر أبدا معاناة أطفال المدرسة اللبنانية .
وبالطبع فإن إسرائيل لن ترضى باعتذار سطحي ، كما أجبر الشعب اللبناني على قبول اعتذارإسرائيل في هذه الحادثة .
اعربت اللجنة الدولية للصليب الاحمر على لسان رئيسها عن قلقها البالغ من تداعيات القتال الحاصل في العراق . والاخفاقات المتكرره من قبل جميع الاطراف المعنية في احترام قوانين حقوق الانسان الدولية حيث ان القوانين الانسانية الدولية تحرم قتل المدنيين واوضح في بيان اصدره في انه مع استمرار العمليات العسكرية بالفلوجة وغيرها من المدن العراقية ؛ واضاف قائلا اننا نسمع كل يوم اخبار انتهاكات حقوق الانسان ونحن قلقون جدا من اثار القتال المدمره على نفسية شعب هذا البلد.
وياتي هذا البيان بعد أن صعق العالم بمقتل مديرة فرع منظمة الرعاية والتعاون والانقاذ في العراق مارقرت حسان وظهر شريط الفيديو الذي يعرض جنديا أمريكيا يطلق النار على جريح عراقي اعزل في مسجد بالفلوجة وقال مدير العمليات أن القوانين الدولية لاتسمح لاي شخص كان باللجوء الى العنف او التعذيب او الاهانة في تصفية الحسابات وتسوية النزاعات واكد على ضرورة توفير الاطراف المتحابة بمواد الاسعاف الاولية اللازمة لانقاذ المصابين من كلا طرفي الصراع مشددا على ان احتجاز الرهائن أمر محضور تحت أي ظرف

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

أخت أخوها


يألبي والله , ميغسي حبيبتي
:love080:

لكل اللي شاركونا وجدانياا :106: :106:

أتكلوا على الله وخلوا همتكم عالية والنية بوزتيف

والتوفيق قدامكم حبايبي
:119:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

بنااااااااااااااات البشااااااارة


وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله و بركاته

InshaaAllah I will provide the list (with the names) on Saturday. As for emailing the grades, the group leaders can contact me today if they need the numbers/grades for the members of the group.

Regards,
Haifa Al-Rumaih

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

Good morning girls,
hope u have done well in the first week of the exams. elhamdulillah, still we have 1 week and that's it.........
for the criticism exam on sat., it will be as follow:
1 essay question fo the practical part
3 questions and we choose 2 to be answered in short notes.
6 short questions and we choose 5
i think, it will be nice insha'Allah....i'm so optimistic...lol
considering the translation exam, there are 4 paragraphs to be translated; two A-E and two E-A.
Should we memorise the paragraphs we have taken by heart? NO, but you should know the political terms, the economical ones....and so on. It means, just read and try to know the new words so that u will be able to translate in the exam....best wishes for u all
PRAY FOR ME PLEASE
:106:

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

سؤال بخصوص أسئلة النقد

هل بيكون فيه سؤال إيسساي ؟ > غير البراكتكل بارت ..

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

:biggrin:ايوووه بوه مقالي

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
 

صبآيآ بقولكم على البرآكتيكل الآسآبيع الآخيره نشبت للدكتوره نجلآآ لين جتهآ الفوبيآ من خشتي :cheese:

وآلين عرفت آنقد زي العـآلم ولله الحمد .. وطبقت على الكويز الصغير اللي سوته بآخر آسبوع :(204):


قبل لآتقرين القصيده ..

آكتبي على جنب ..
آنترودكشن > خلي سبيس
بدي >
ثم كنكلوجن >
التآريخ والكآتب > القرن والمميزآت اللي تتذكرينهـآ في هالقرن

آبدي آقري القصيده مرتين 3 , 4 , 10 آليمآ تفهمينهـآ

وآنتي تقرين كل مآكتشفتي شي .. فكري هل هو تبع الثيم ولآ التآيتل ينحط بالمقدمه
هل هو من التولز والفيقرآتيف سبيتش في البدي
هل هو المعنى اللي خلف السطور ينحط بالكنكلوجن

ولآتمسحين الآوت لآين عشآن تعرف آنج فآهمه .. آبدي آكتبي وآربطيهم مع تآريخ القصيده ..

آهم آهم آهم شي عند هالدكتوره تشوف الإجآبه على شكل مقآل مرتب متبعه فيه طرق كتابه المقال الصحيحه
وتشوفك مرتبه افكارك زي ماعلمتنا ..~

وعلى فكره لو ضآق الوقت لآسمح آلله
مب ضروري لآين بآي لآين ولآضروري تتكلمين عن الكآتب بآكثر من جمله ..~




نقدآ ممتع ــآآ ...~

رد: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand