These Adam-wits, too fortunately free,
Began to dream they wanted liberty:
According to one key for the poem, this passage is "Apparently a reference to those who, like Adam, could not be satisfied with the true freedom under God's law and wrongly yearned for more. To Dryden the English of the late seventies and early eighties who complained of arbitrary government, like their predecessors of the forties, would have been Adam-wits.” This is one example of how skillfully Dryden utilized biblical allusions and how he was able to subtly but compellingly use them to comment on the people and events of his one day. Not all of his phrases are easily accessible to modern readers, but once they are defined, they yield continual revelations as to Dryden's wit and genius.
2)
"All empire is no more than power in trust."
In this quotation, Dryden explains the nature of authority. Authority is granted to those in power by those who are subject. In other words, those in power only have as much authority as the people will give to them; it's borrowed power. Thus an empire is a large collection of power which is concentrated in the hands of a few but which at any second can be taken back by the people. Another implication here is that empires are temporary establishments because none will last forever, as if they are merely loans.
3)
Oh, that my power to saving were confined!
Why am I forced, like heaven, against my mind,
To make examples of another kind?
Must I at length the sword of justice draw?
Oh curst effects of necessary law!
One of the things that makes David's relatively short speech so effective is that he suggests to the people that he has to go against his natural proclivities of tenderness and mildness and take up the literal and metaphorical sword against his enemies in order to protect the throne. Here, he values the power of the throne as far greater than his own, and he says that he must do as it requires. He knows what is required of him and he will do it, but the people must know he is at heart a peaceful man—he simply knows that there are bigger things than his love of his son. David has undergone the shift from "gentle, longsuffering father-king to severe, forceful executor of justice" (Marshall).
2. Political Allegory :-
It is also described as an allegory regarding contemporary political events, and a mock heroic narrative. On the title page, Dryden himself describes it simply as "a poem".
The definition of allegory has two senses. The first relates to when an author writes an allegory by design as did Edmund Spenser and John Bunyon. In this sense of allegory the characters are usually given titles rather than names: e.g., the Red Crosse Knight and Mr. Worldy Wiseman. The second sense of allegory depends on the reading given a particular work, passage, sentence, line. In other words, a particular reader may find allegory through his/her reading whereas another reader may not recognize allegory in the same work.
Having said this, John Dryden wrote Absalom and Achitophel as a satire to instigate political reform. The era was that during which a faction in England was trying to seat the illegitimate son of Charles II (after the Restoration) on the throne through a rebellion against Charles II. Dryden used a Biblical tale, that of the rebellion of Absalom against King David, in the humor of satire stated with the sweetening leaven of verse to point out the wrongfulness of a rebellion and the disastrous impending outcome of such a rebellion.
As you can see from the excerpted quote below, Dryden did not style Absalom and Achitophel as an allegory, as did Spenser and Bunyon, but he was certainly casting then contemporary figures in the role of Biblical heroes and villains. Therefore, an understanding of Absalom and Achitophel as an allegory revolves around the second sense of the definition of allegory, which is that a reading of allegory rests with the reader, literary analyst, literary critic.
3) as a satire :-
Absalom and Achitophel is a landmark political satire by John Dryden. Dryden marks his satire with a concentrated and convincing poetic style. His satiric verse is majestic, what Pope calls: “The long majestic march and energy divine”. Critics have unanimously remarked on Dryden’s capacity to transform the trivial into the poetical; personal envy into the fury of imaginative creation. The obscure and the complicated is made clear and simple. All this transforming power is to be seen at the very beginning of Absalom and Achitophel. The state of ‘Israel’ is easy to understand and yet Dryden shows himself a master both of the Horatian and the Juvenalian styles of Satire. He is urbance witty devastating and vigorous, but very seldom petty.
Ab & AC : Basically a Political Satire:
Dryden called Absalom and Achitophel ‘a poem’ and not a satire, implying thereby that it had elements other than purely satirical. One cannot, for instance, ignore the obvious epic or heroic touches in it. All the same, the poem originated in the political situation of England at the time and one cannot fail to note that several political personalities are satirised in it. Published in November 1681, the theme was suggested by the king to Dryden. At this time, the question of succession to King Charles had assumed great importance. The Earl of Shaftesbury had been thrown into prison to face a charge of high treason. There were two contenders for the succession. Firstly, Charles’ brother James, Duke of York, a known Roman Catholic; the second contender was Charles’ illegitimate son, the Protestant Duke of Monmouth. The Whigs supported Monmouth while the Tories supported the cause of James in order to ensure stability in the country. There was great public unrest on account of the uncertainty of succession. King Charles II saw to it that the Exclusion bill brought before Parliament, to exclude the succession of his brother James, could not be pushed through. The earl of Shaftesbury, a highly ambitious man, sought to capitalise on this unrest. He also urged Monmouth to rebel against his father. The King, though fond of his illegitimate son, did not support his succession because that would have been against law. The Earl of Shaftesbury was arrested on a charge of high treason and lost popular support.
Dryden’s Aim in Absalom and Achitophel:
The aim of Dryden was to support the King and to expose his enemies. Of course, Charles had his own weaknesses; he was extremely fond of women. But Dryden puts a charitable mantel over his sexual sins. He is mild in dealing with his real vices. The king himself did not think unfavourably of his love affairs. Sexual licence was the order of the age and as such, it did not deserve condemnation. Dryden has nothing but praise for the king’s moderation in political matters and his leniency towards rebels. Dryden’s lash falls on the King’s enemies particularly the Earl of Shaftesbury. He was reckless politician without any principles who, “ having tried in vain to seduce Charles to arbitrary government had turned round and now drives down the current”. Dryden dreads the fickleness of the mob and he is not sure to what extremes a crowd can go. However, the king’s strictness and instinct for the rule of law won for him popular support and he was able to determine the succession according to his desire. Dryden’s reference to the godlike David shows his flattery of the King and his belief in the “Theory of the Divine Right of Kings”.
Political Satire Cast in Biblical Mould:
Dryden chose the well known Biblical story of Absalom revolting against his father David, at the wicked instigation of Achitophel, in order to satirise the contemporary political situation. The choice of a Biblical allegory is not original on dryden’s part, but his general treatment of the subject is beyond comparison, as Courthope points out. But all the while Dryden takes care to see that the political satire in not lost in the confusion of a too intricate Biblical parallelism. The advantage of setting the story in pre-Christian times is obvious as it gave Dryden had at once to praise the King and satirise the King’s opponents. To discredit the opponents he had to emphasise on Monmouth’s illegitimacy; but at the same time he had to see that Charles (who was Monmouth’s father) was not adversely affected by his criticism. He could not openly condone Charles’ loose morals; at the same time, he could not openly criticise it either. With a masterly touch he sets the poem :
Conclusion :-
Dryden is correctly regarded as the most vigorous and polished of English satirists combining refinement with fervour. Dryden is unequalled at debating in rhyme and Absalom and Achitophel displays his power of arguing in verse. It may be said that Absalom and Achitophel has no rival in the field of political satire. Apart from the contemporary interest of the poem and its historical value, it appeal to the modern reader lies in its observations on English character and on the weaknesses of man in general. His generalisations on human nature have a perennial interest. Dryden triumphed over the peculiar difficulties of his chosen theme. He had to give, not abuse or politics,but the poetry of abuse and politics. He had to criticise a son whom the father still liked; he had to make Shaftesbury denounce the King but he had to see to it that the King’s susceptibilities were not wounded. He had to praise without sounding servile and he had to criticise artistically. Dryden achieves all this cleverly and skilfully. Achitophel’s denunciation of the king assumes the shades of a eulogy in Charles’ eyes. Absalom is a misguided instrument in Achitophel’s hands. The poem is certainly a political satire, but it is a blend of dignity with incisive and effective satire.
No comments:
Post a Comment