Activity on Dryden's Essay

(1) Do you find any difference between Aristotle's definition of Tragedy and Dryden's definition of play?

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2)  If you are supposed to give your personal prediction, would you be on the side of the Ancient or the modern?  

My personal prediction in favour towards Modern because  As in Essay Eugenius ( Charles Sackville) was in favour of Moderns over the Ancient,  arguing that the modern exceed the ancient because of having learned and profited from their example. 

Coming generation is watching scenario from the shoulder of old generation and that's the way they can watch the far than the ancient. Moderns do not repeat the mistakes which done by ancient... They learn from their and experienced new things. 

(3)Do you think the Argument presented in favour of the French plays and against English plays are appropriate? 

In the essay Lisideius speaks in favour of the French. He agreed with Eugenius that forty years ago... 

In the last generation , the English drama was superior.  Then they have their Jonson, Beaumont and Fletcher but English drama decayed and declined since then. They live in horrible age,  an age of bloodshed and violence and poetry is an art of peace.In the next age, Drama flourished in France and not in England. The French have their Corneille 1606-84 and the English have no dramatist. 

In further discusion he discussed many appropriate point like... 

*Rules of Ancients : the three unities

*english tragic comedy

*plot of tragedies

*matter of character etc., 

By reading all this argument I agree that..Argument presented in favour of the French plays and against English plays are appropriate.