➥“ABSALOM AND ACHITOPHEL” LINES (150-476) – DRYDEN
About the Author
John Dryden, (born Aug. 9, 1631, Aldwinkle, Northamptonshire, Eng.—died May 1, 1700, London), British poet, dramatist, and literary critic. The son of a country gentleman, Dryden was educated at the University of Cambridge. His poetry celebrating the Restoration so pleased Charles II that he was named poet laureate (1668) and, two years later, royal historiographer. Even after losing the laureateship and his court patronage in 1688 with the accession of William III, he succeeded in dominating the literary scene with his numerous works, many attuned to politics and public life. Several of his nearly 30 comedies, tragedies, and dramatic operas—including Marriage A-la-Mode (1672), Aureng-Zebe (1675), and All for Love (1677)—were outstandingly successful. His Of Dramatick Poesie (1668) was the first substantial piece of modern dramatic criticism. Turning away from drama, he became England’s greatest verse satirist, producing the masterpieces Absalom and Achitophel (1681) and Mac Flecknoe (1682). He also produced extensive translations of Latin poetry, including Virgil‘s Aeneid.
Summary of the Text
The poet John Dryden wrote this satirical poem with noble couplets. The book came out in 1681. The fake Achitophel is smart, funny, restless, and has morals that change all the time. He won’t stand for shame and always wants more power. “Fiery soul” and “daring pilot in extremity” describe him. He loves storms more than calm. Without a doubt, the author says, “Great minds are sure to go crazy soon; and thin walls do their bounds separate.”Achitophel works hard and puts up with chaos; all he wants is to destroy or rule Israel. As he plans, he breaks the triple bond, puts the safety of the people at risk, and lets a foreign power into Israel.
Of all the people who work for the Jewish High Court, not even one of them is as clean and honest as Achitophel. He would have been happy to serve David if the weed hadn’t killed the good seed. “Wild ambition loves to slide, not stand,” I guess, and Achitophel is bored and restless. Because he wants to be famous, he “lent the crowd his arm to shake the tree.” He gets back to the old sins and goes against his prince while saying he wants what the people want. He hides behind the law and speaks loudly to the crowd. Even though this is a weak case, it is easy for him to get people to agree with him. The scribes write that it looks like the Jews get a new lord every twenty years. But Achitophel needs a leader, and Absalom seems like the best choice. In these words, Achitophel starts to spew his poison.
In the beginning, Achitophel praises Absalom’s birth, calling him a second Moses and a hero that the kingdom loves (parents even teach their children to lisp his name!). Achitophel isn’t sure how long Absalom will keep the Jews without a king. Soon, his glory will fade, and his young fruit will rot on the tree. Heaven wants this “lucky revolution” to happen. If it isn’t, luck will slip away, leaving only “repenting folly” behind. Absalom should learn from the young David in how to take power. David knew when to do it.
But it’s important that he doesn’t look at David right now. People don’t like their king; they see him as Satan falling and losing his light. A public plan let him down, and he shouldn’t be in power anymore. He won’t be able to stand up to Absalom, Achitophel says, because he has no friends but enemies. David could ask the Pharaoh of Egypt for help, but Achitophel is sure that Egypt would not really be his friend.Because he is king, Absalom is the “champion of the public good.” There is no real reason for David to be king; his only claim to power comes from “the moldy rolls of Noah’s Ark.” It’s risky to flatter someone, and young Absalom wants to be famous too much. His friend Achitophel helps him turn away from virtue, getting him “drunk with honor” and “debauched with praise.”
But Absalom is still having trouble, so he asks Achitophel why he should take up guns. He says that his father is a good leader who protects the Faith and the people. David has done no harm to anyone and has even forgiven millions of people. He is “mild, easy, humble,” and kind. He doesn’t like to kill people. Why should David be wrong for being mild, which is good in God’s eyes? Egypt may have a proud leader like Pharaoh, but Jerusalem doesn’t need that.
Absalom then asks himself why he should rebel. His dad isn’t a tyrant; he doesn’t hurt Jews and teach Jebusites. He freely gives Absalom everything but his crown. In fact, David told Absalom that he wished he could give him the crown. That’s too bad that when David takes a break, his brother will take over the throne. But even though his brother is mean, he is loyal to the king and has the right to rule. Absalom then asks himself why he should try to rebel against Heaven when he doesn’t “pretend to be a king”?
But a moment later, he thinks that he wishes he hadn’t been born in a shameful way. He believes he was born to rule, and he wants to be great. When Achitophel sees that Absalom is weakening, he “pours fresh forces in” by telling the young man that God gave him his gifts on purpose. David is very gentle, which is good, but the throne needs “manly force.” People will think a king is stupid, careless, and weak if he gives out too many gifts and handouts.
Achitophel tells us what the plan is. It will cost a lot of money to fight Achitophel, so David will have to look for friends. Achitophel will make sure that people think David’s friends are Jebusites and Pharaoh’s men. Everyone will look down on David and leave him naked. Achitophel will then make his replacement, whom he hates, a pain for everyone. The elders will hate the new king or queen and sell off his rights. David will have to ask Absalom to “make his uncertain title law.”
The people will be fine with this change, and it will be better for Israel as a whole. It turns out that the Jews are smart after all—they got rid of God and put Saul where they wanted him. Achitophel tells Absalom not to let David charm him or make him feel good with love and kindness. Also, he says that David loves Absalom because God loved David and gave him Israel. Absalom should love David because David loves him. Why should his brother win and Absalom get land that isn’t useful? He is already envious of Absalom because he knows how much people love him. He “marks [Absalom’s] progress in the hearts of the people” and waits for his meal like a lion. He is going to wait for the right time to attack Absalom.
So, Absalom needs to try for the title now. He has no power if David is not there and his brother is on the throne. To defend David, he must say that he will take up guns and keep him safe from all the plans that will start to come after him. He has to act like he is loyal and “protect David’s person to protect his cause.”
Critical Analysis
Dryden’s poem is interesting enough if it were a retelling of the biblical story of David, Absalom, and Achitophel. But that’s not what he’s doing here; he’s writing a satirical, brilliant, and damaging song about King Charles II, Monmouth, and Shaftesbury. In the end, his allegory proves Charles’s right to the throne by telling the story of the Popish plan, the Exclusion Crisis, and what happened after it.
First, let me quickly talk about the characters in this part. First, David is Charles II, who is famous all over the country for having sexual relationships and having children outside of marriage. Catherine of Braganza is David’s wife, Michal. Both of them “failed” to give their husband a child. Absalom is James, Duke of Monmouth, Charles’s oldest son who is not his biological child. The fame in other areas comes from Monmouth’s battle with the Dutch in the 1670s. Anthony Ashley Cooper is Achitophel. He is the first Earl of Shaftesbury.
This part talks about the historical background of David’s (Charles’s) reign and how he behaved. He introduces the charming and handsome Absalom (Monmouth), whom everyone, including David (Charles), loves. He also talks about some of the problems that the Jews (the English) were having and makes a reference to the Popish plot. He also talks about how angry the Jebusites (Catholics) were and why the Jews might be afraid of them. Finally, he talks about Achitophel’s (Shaftesbury’s) reasons for wanting to bring David down and his aMany writers at the time didn’t think it was wrong to use scripture to comment on current events, but Dryden “ignores the implications of scriptural text that he presumably draws upon and, indeed, changes the traditional meaning of the text when it seems useful to do so,” says Leon M. Guilhamet, a critic. Dryden also uses the song to criticize the Church of England, implying that the Jewish priests don’t care about the wrongdoings of the Jebusite priests and that it should be under the control of the government. That the Church is only important “as a principle of order insofar as it is subordinate to the king and the law” and “the king himself becomes the most important figure, outdoing God instead of relying on Him for support; and the Church is pushed into the background as a mere appurtenance of David-Charles’s authority.” All actions and power are based on reasons, which means that God’s Will is not enough.
Even though Dryden released his poem without giving his name, people quickly figured out that it was him. Censorship of both Tory and Whig writing made this widespread, and as critic Randy Robertson points out, it could even help the writer. Aside from giving Dryden “at least the veneer of objectivity” and “fostered impartiality in the reader,” remaining anonymous gave him more than that. Most readers thought that only Dryden, as Charles’s laureate, could have written such a brilliant song. This means that “in effect, Dryden got the fame and fame he deserved for his poem without having to pay the price in a London courtroom.” Since the introduction makes it clear that Dryden is anonymous, “he sets up a puzzle about who wrote the poem that he wants readers to solve.”
The first lines of Dryden’s poems are some of his most famous. He points out right away that Charles is having a lot of affairs, but he says it wouldn’t be a problem if he wereborn in a different time. It wasn’t thought wrong to have more than one wife in David’s time because priestcraft hadn’t started yet. Some experts think that Dryden was trying to draw attention away from how wrong Charles was acting, but Robertson thinks that he was actually emphasizing it: during the Exclusion Crisis, some of Monmouth’s followers said that Monmouth was really Charles’s real son. Dr. Dryden wants to fix the issue: Monmouth is not a legitimate heir, so he should not have the throne. The crisis over succession should end.Another important thing to keep in mind is that the main lines in the poem have a classical oratory style. This will also be a part of the other analyses. We will talk about four speeches: Achitophel’s two-part speech to Absalom, Absalom’s response, Absalom’s speech to the people, and David’s last speech. According to critic W. Gerald Marshall, all of them are classical orations because they have the main parts of exordium, narration, claim, formal proof, and peroration. However, Absalom and Achitophel are “false” orators while David is a “true” orator. David’s speech is meant to “sustain the state and to maintain political order,”while Absalom and Achitophel, who are like Milton’s anti-Christ figures, use their speeches to stir up discontent and rebellion. We’re going to look at Achitophel’s first speech now. As we already said, it sounds a lot like Milton’s Satan.
Achitophel starts with the insinuation to make Absalom feel good about himself and boost his pride. In line with the exordium form, he tells him about the chance to be king and “introduces the argument in a manner that will gain the favor, good will, and interest of the audience [i.e. Absalom].” Then he gives the “facts” that show David is not fit to be king and says Israel needs a strong, armed leader. The formal statement that comes next is Achitophel’s suggestion of the logical conclusion that follows from his claim: Absalom needs to step up.
Achitophel stops talking to give Absalom a chance to respond. This is part of our critical analysis of the traditional speeches in the text. Absalom says that David is a good king who rules with clear authority. Achitophel then “agrees that David is a mild man and says that he doesn’t normally dislike mildness.” But he quickly reminds Absalom that being soft and gentle is not what a king should be like. He says that David’s enemies can get to him easily because of these traits. Additionally, he says that the people have the power to remove a king and that legal succession is not always the best option. He makes Absalom even more afraid of his uncle and tells him that everyone loves him. He also tells him to act quickly. In his peroration, or closing remarks, Achitophel tailors his words to the people he is speaking to in order to get them to do what he wants. For example, he tells Absalom to defend the King and be sure that taking over the throne would not be a bad thing because David loves his son.
Absalom gives his own official speech to the people, which critic W. Gerald Marshall thinks might be even better than Achitophel’s. Absalom draws attention to himself by using emotional language, which makes people feel sorry for him. He tells the people that the state is in a bad place and that all he has to give them is his tears. In his speech, Absalom “repeats his hope that his countrymen will escape the suffering that monarch may impose and makes it clear that he cares about and loves his countrymen.” It’s great classical rhetoric, and it works very well, especially since he knows that the people will respond to his weak plan with a stronger one—one that asks him to stand up for them.
Even though Achitophel and Absalom gave great talks, Marshall calls them “false” orators who “corrupt classical rhetorical principles.” People believe that oratory is linked to morality and good character, and that “the use of classical form demands—in the classical humanist tradition, at least—ethical content.” To speak to the people, the orator must be morally good, and most ancient orators said that the point of these speeches was to promote the common good and protect the legitimate government. Achitophel and Absalom, who were both bad people, definitely don’t fit that description.
Some of the things that Dryden does in his poem are to point out some of Charles’ flaws while also making the case for the good things about him. There is a case for Charles’s valid claim to the throne because these good traits outweigh the bad ones. Dryden is very honest about Charles’s problems, as reviewer K.E. Robinson points out; at the end of the poem, Charles only gets better after he admits to having problems. Robinson says that Charles’s kindness to Monmouth is also an example of him ignoring more important fatherly or family responsibilities. He took too long to respond to Monmouth’s progress, which puts the “Hereditary Paternal Monarchy of England” at risk. David/Charles has “contained his natural impulses” by the end of the poem. He no longer lets all of his natural urges run wild. Charles wasn’t perfect in Dryden’s eyes, but he did believe that Charles’ claim to the throne was fair and right, and others should not question it.
It’s interesting that Absalom doesn’t want to kill David; he just wants to replace him as a Messiah-like figure. Some critics, like Thomas E. Maresca, say that Dryden gives Absalom a lower, more natural version of David. Like David, he follows nature and is “all accompanied with grace” (29), but David and the reader don’t see his creator’s picture in him. They see David as a person, not as a god. He is not real, has flaws, and is likely to mess up “the dominion of grace in David’s kingdom, just as it did in the garden.” God’s representative, vice-regent, and king by divine right is David, and “rebellion against him equals apostasy from God—setting up the golden calf of a state.” When Absalom turns against David, he is like Adam when he turns against God.
Comments
Post a Comment