ABSALOM AND ACHITOPHEL BY JOHN DRYDEN

This blog is in response to the task given by our professor Dilip barad sirhttps://blog.dilipbarad.com/2021/01/absalom-and-achitophel-worksheet.html. In this blog I am going to write about my understanding and my views on political satire Absalom and Achitophel by John Dryden.

John Dryden’s publication of Absalom and Achitophel (1681) had a specific political motivation. He wrote the poem during the threat of revolution in England, connected to the so-called Popish plot and the move to exclude the reigning King Charles II’s Catholic brother, James, duke of York, from his right to follow the Protestant Charles to the throne.

The protesting faction instead supported Charles’s bastard son, James, duke of Monmouth, whom Charles recognized as his son but not his heir. Born in the Netherlands to Lucy Walter, James was a product of only one of many sexual liaisons of his mother’s. While rumours existed that Charles had secretly married Lucy, granting legitimacy to James, others insisted that James could not even be proved Charles’s son. Charles never produced an heir with his wife, the Portuguese Catherine of Braganza. Although Lucy followed Charles to England, where James was raised a pampered member of the court and eventually made a duke, she had died before Charles married Catherine.

Dryden observed the parallel in England’s situation to that of ancient Israel under the rule of King David. The story found in the biblical book of 2 Samuel contained all of the political elements in which Dryden found himself, as a citizen of England, involved. Each of the main characters corresponded to a real-life person in Dryden’s time. David’s bastard son, Absalom, represented Monmouth, and his evil confidant Achitophel represented Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury. Shaftesbury had introduced to Parliament the Exclusion Bill to prevent York from taking the throne.

Other characters and their contemporary references included Zimri as George Villiers, the duke of Buckingham and a longtime opponent of Charles; Amiel, Edward Seymour, speaker of the House of Commons; Cora as Titus Oates, who fabricated the rumours that prompted social unease over the so-called Popish Plot; and Shimei as Bethel, sheriff of London. The biblical ruler of Israel’s enemy Egypt, represented King Louis XIV, ruler of France, an enemy of England.

Dryden’s choice of the Bible as allegory proved appropriate for his era. Most educated individuals agreed that the Bible could be used as a type of gloss to reveal truths civic, as well as religious. No one else, however, had seen the artistic possibilities in the way Dryden did.

The parallel story, as Earl Miner explains, granted a sense of action that the poetry itself lacked. The rhyming couplets in Dryden’s 1,031 lines framed only three incidents from the story of David’s retention of rule. In the first, Achitophel tempts Absalom to overthrow his father. In the second, the two together tempt the Jews to participate in a revolt. And in the third, David makes a moving speech to his reunited subjects, concluding with the lines, “For lawful pow’r is still superior found; / When long driven back, at length it stands the ground.” In this couplet, Dryden expressed the belief, which a struggle with his own religious allegiance eventually confirmed, that the tradition of the Catholic Church gave it a strength his culture badly needed.

Dryden also wants his audience to understand that the monarch’s pampered existence includes fearsome responsibilities, when he writes, “Kings are the public pillars of the state, / Born to sustain and prop the nation’s weight” (953–954). In the biblical story Absalom strangles to death in a bizarre accident in which he becomes fatally entangled among branches. Monmouth would, after his father’s death, attempt to overthrow his uncle and be executed as a result, with eight blows of the ax required to behead him. One gruesome legend has it that after his execution, someone noticed no official portrait had ever been made of Monmouth. Supposedly his head was placed back on his body and the corpse used as a model for the portrait now hanging in the National Portrait Gallery in London.

List of characters' in absalom and achitophel:

1. What is Satire? Is ‘Absalom and Achitophel’ a political satire? Illustrate your answer:

ANS:

Let's start with what is satire?

- Satire is a genre that sets out to improve bad behaviour through sarcasm and Irony. In english literature, satire experienced a bit of a revival during the 18th century. Satire is a way of social commentary for entertain readers. Satire is the use of humour to attack a person, an idea or behaviour that you think is bad or silly.

"A violent attack of words."  *by-R.J.REES.

There are three type of satire which are as below:

 1. Horatian satire.

2. Juvenalian satire.

3. Menippean satire.

1. Horatian satire:

Horatian satire is comic and offers light social commentary. It is meant to poke fun at a person or situation in an entertaining way.

For ex.

Oscar wild's "The Importance Of Being Earnest"

2. Juvenalian satire:

Juvenalian satire is dark, rather than comedic. It is meant to speak truth to power.

For ex.

Jonathan swift's "A Modest Proposal".

3. Menippean satire:

Menippean satire casts moral judgment on a particular belief, such as homophobia or racism. It can be comic and light, much like Horatian satire—although it can also be as stinging as Juvenalian satire.

For ex:

William Blake's "The Marriage Of Heaven and Hell."

Here is video reference for political satire in Absalom and Achitophel:

The poem originated in the political situation of England and one cannot fail to note that several personalities are satirised in it. Published in November 1681, The theme was suggested by the King to Dryden’s. At this time, the question of succession to king Charles had been thrown into prison to face a charge of high treason. There were two contenders for the succession. Firsty, Charles' brother James, Duke of York, 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 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 people’s support.

Dryden’s involvement in politics makes the poem a political satire. The aim of Dryden was to support the King and to expose his enemies. 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 a reckless politician without any principles. However, the King’s strictness and instinct for the rule of law won him popular support and he was able to determine the succession according to his desire.

The choice of Biblical allegory is not original on Dryden’s part, but his general treatment of the subject is beyond comparison. But all the while Dryden takes care to see that the political satire is not lost in the confusion of a too intricate Biblical parallelism.

In conclusion, it may be said that Absalom and Achitophel have no rival in the field of political satire. The poem is certainly a political satire, but it is a blend of dignity with incisive and effective satire.

Thank you so much for reading this blog..

Keep loving literature….

{WORDS:1290}

Dryden's Essay On Dramatic Poesy.

 "Dryden's Essay On Dramatic Poesy"

This blog is in response to thinking activity given by our professor Dr.Dilip Barad Sir.Dryden's essay on dramatic poesy. this is the link you can go there and see more detail about this task.

 

 John Dryden’s “An Essay on Dramatic Poesy” presents a brief discussion on Neo-classical theory of Literature. He defends the classical drama saying that it is an imitation of life and reflects human nature clearly.

 

    (Essay on dramatic poesy)

An Essay on Dramatic Poesy is written in the form of a dialogue among four speakers: Eugenius, Crites, Lisideius, and Neander. The four speakers are Sir Robert Howard [Crites], Lord Buckhurst or Charles Sackville [Eugenius], Sir Charles Sedley [Lisedeius], and Dryden himself (Neander means "new man" and implies that Dryden, as a respected member of the gentry class, is entitled to join in this dialogue on an equal footing with the three older men who are his social superiors). Eugenius favours the modern. Crites favours the ancients, blank verse French vs English. Lisideius Favours French drama. Neander favours the modern-English plays, rhyme.

Do you any difference between Aristotle's definition of Tragedy and Dryden's definition of Play? 

ANS:

Aristotle define tragedy as: 

“Aristotle says that "Tragedy is an imitation [mimesis] of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude…through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation [catharsis] of these emotions.” 

As Aristotle suggests that poetry is mere copy of an action or whatever one has seen, poetry is not pure creation. Dryden on the contrary uses words like ‘lively image’. Advancing his definition, he says that it is representing its passion and humours and it is for delight and instruction of mankind. 

Dryden defines Drama as: 

"Just and lively image of human nature, representing its passions and humours, and the changes of fortune to which it is subject, for the delight and instruction of mankind." 

According to Dryden, drama is an ‘image’ of ‘human nature’, and the image is ‘just’ and ‘lively’. By using the word ‘just’ Dryden seems to imply that literature imitates (and not merely reproduces) human actions. For Dryden, ‘poetic imitation’ is different from an exact, servile copy of reality, for, the imitation is not only ‘just’, it is also ‘lively’.

Do you think that the arguments presented in favor of the French plays and against English plays are appropriate? 

ANS:

 

Lisideius speaks in favour of the French. He agrees with Eugenius that in the last generation the English drama was superior. The French are superior to the English for various reasons. One of them being they follow the Ancients. They favour the Unity of time and they observe it so carefully. When it comes to the Unity of Place, they are equally careful. In most of their plays, the entire action is limited to one place. 

The French do not burden the play with a fat plot. They represent a story which will be one complete action, and everything which is unnecessary is carefully excluded. But the English burden their plays with actions and incidents which have no logical and natural connection with the main action so much so that an English play is a mere compilation. Hence the French plays are better written than the English ones. 

It is wrong to believe that the French represent no part of their action on the stage. Instead, they make proper selection. Cruel actions which are likely to cause hatred, or disbelief by their impossibility, must be avoided or merely narrated. They must not be represented. The French follow this rule in practice and so avoid much of the tumult of the English plays by reducing their plots to reasonable limits. Such narrations are common in the plays of the Ancients and the great English dramatists like Ben Jonson and Fletcher. Therefore, the French must not be blamed for their narration, which is judicious and well managed. 

 

 

 

In short, the English drama has decayed and declined because they live in an awful age full of bloodshed and violence, and poetry is an art of peace. The French dramas did not decline because they stick to the ancient unities. The English tried to do something new in order to differ from them. 

Conclusion:

 

The dramatic poesy has successfully explained the merits and demerits of English and French drama. Also explained that it is not necessary to follow the rules and conventions, more delightful work can be done by coming out of bondages.

 

Thank you so much for visiting...

Keep Loving Literature...😁