Saturday, 5 November 2022

Assignment writing: Paper no. 101 (Literature Of The Elizabethan And Restoration Periods)

 Assignment writing: Paper no. 101 (Literature Of The Elizabethan And Restoration Periods)


This blog is Assignment writing on paper 101 (Literature Of The Elizabethan And Restoration Periods) assigned by Professor, Dr. Dilip Barad sir, Head of the English Department of Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University.


Name: Archana Dave

Paper: Elizabethan & Restoration Literature

Roll no: 03

Enrollment no: 4069206420220008

Email ID: archanadave1212@gmail.com

Batch: 2022- 24( M.A. Sem - 1)

Submitted to: Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University.


Absalom and Achitophel as a Satire.


Introduction

Written in 1681, Absalom and Achitophel is a witty heroic poem. It is a grand satire by John Dryden. It is about the biblical rebellion of Absalom against King David. This story is used as an allegory to represent the then contemporary situation concerning King Charles II. The poem also has references to the Popish Plot and Monmouth Rebellion. The main purpose of writing the poem was “the amendment of vices by correction”. His satire is sharper as per the degree of corruption. Monmouth is Absalom, Charles is David and Shaftesbury is Achitophel. The most common reading of the poem is the connection between fatherhood and kingship. Through the biblical allusion Dryden is connecting fatherhood and the royal’s responsibilities. Dryden has used the fatherly affection of David and the legitimacy of Absalom’s succession. The object of the poem was to praise the king and his party at the same time satirising his adversaries. Index Terms: satire, heroic, rebellion, succession, allusion, Old Testament, allegory, witty, parallel, temptation, characteristics, panegyric.

What is Satire ?

Satire is a form of literature, the proclaimed purpose of which is the reform of human weaknesses or vices through laughter or disgust. Satire is different from scolding and sheer abuse, though it is prompted by indignation. Its aim is generally constructive, and need not arise from cynicism or misanthropy. The satirist applies the test of certain ethical, intellectual and social standards to men and women, and determines their degree of criminality or culpability. Satire naturally has a wide range; it can involve an attack on the vices of an age, or the defects of an individual or the follies common to the very species of mankind.

Absalom and Achitophel is a satirical poem

Absalom and Achitophel is a satirical poem written by John Dryden published in 1681 and is written in heroic couplet. It narrates the Biblical rebellion of Absalom against King David. It is an allegory used to represent the story that was contemporary to Dryden [1679-1681] that concerned King Charles II. It also has reference to the Popish Plot [1678] and the Monmouth rebellion [1685]. In 1681, a crisis occurred in the conflict between Shaftesbury and his followers, who wished to exclude the Catholic Duke of York from succession to the throne and those who stood with the King himself in favour of true succession. Towards the end of the year, Shaftesbury was to be brought before the Grand jury and Dryden was asked by the King himself to write a poem in opposition to the pamphlets stating the Whig case. Its publication was timed to influence the case of Shaftesbury’s trial but he was acquitted by the Grand jury. Dryden wrote a narrative poem describing the events which had led to that particular situation in the manner in which the King’s followers wanted them to be viewed. He paints the official picture. 

The poetical intention of the poem is emphasised by the fact that the concluding speech from the throne summarises several of the arguments put forward in the official defence of the dissolution of the Parliament. In England, the use of political allegory increased greatly during the Civil War and the controversies which succeeded it. King Charles and his courtiers brought a taste for this species of writing with them from France. It is a narrative poem written in heroic couplet, in which an Old Testament allegory is used to describe contemporary events as they appear to a partisan. King Charles likened himself to David early in his reign. Charles had the morals from the story of David drawn on his mind by the contemporary preachers. For the loyal subjects of the King, the story of David seemed too fit for the present times. The analogy between David’s indulgent attitude to his son and Charles’s to Monmouth was so obvious that Dryden just did not need the idea but the permission or encouragement to use it. The Old Testament allegory helped Dryden to raise his poem to a dignified level without collapsing into “bathos”. It also acted as an instrument of Dryden’s brilliant wit and helped the poem with an air of objectivity more impressive than the direct exclamations so common in political satires. The fact that the figures such as the King, The tempter and the mob are so readily recognized and carries the action a step further from the realm of mere political wrangling in the direction of universal philosophical or poetic truth. In the allegory that he took over and remodelled it he found a powerful ally in the task of raising the political satire to a new level. Although this poem is always known as a satire, the style in which it is written is by no means a characteristically satiric idiom. The object of his first official production as the Poet Laureate is not merely to attack the men who plotted against the King, but to present the whole constitutional position in a certain way. 

While the King’s enemies are represented in an unfavourable light, the Royal Party is egotistically portrayed. It is basically written in a heroic style with occasional baser details in the portraits of Shaftesbury’s followers. Like an epic or a heroic play, Dryden’s poems represent ‘Nature wrought up in a higher pitch’, as a natural consequence, the plot, the characters ,the wit ,the passions, the descriptions are all exalted above the level of common converse as high as the imagination of the poet can carry them with due proportion to verisimilitude. The verse is marked by what Dryden called “the smoothness, the numbers, and the turn of heroic poetry”. One finds a dignified verse which rises as occasion offers to that long majestic march and energy divine. He devised a new heroic idiom and chose his diction as much for their music as for their meaning. Sounding words is a frequent phrase used throughout by his critics.Once or twice as in the Miltonic description of the temptation, the unusual arrangement of the words makes it heroic. 

The whole poem is not uniformly elevated. When the characters such as Corah and Shimer are described, the style is accordingly lowered. Still the truth remains that the basis of the idiom is heroic. . This can be verified by a glance at the imagery. It has lively and apt descriptions dressed in colours of speech which sets before the eyes the absent object more perfectly and delightfully. An elaborate simile is used to emphasise the effects of the plot. The relation of Absalom and Achitophel to heroic poetry is particularly evident in the five speeches which can be easily compared to classical epics or ‘Paradise Lost’. They are every bit as grand as the heroic characters. Achitophel’s first speech to Absalom is fairly representative. It begins with flattery and passes to artful temptation to betrayal to his father. The imagery is perfectly adapted to the purpose of courtly oratory. It emphasises that it was in the theatre that Dryden learnt the art of dramatic rhetoric. The magnificent hypocrisy in these lines are brilliant, the style that suits the speaker, the subject and circumstances simple and yet each line is like a blow on softened steel. 

Dryden varies his treatment of different characters which is more remarkable than anything else. He makes clear about the complexity of his object in the poem rather than being a mere lampooner. The measure of a man’s merit or guilt, the nature of Dryden’s own relations, his social position, the degree of royal favour which he enjoyed are taken into consideration before treating them. The presentation of Absalom is a good example. It is done so suavely that we hardly notice what a remarkable case of special pleading such a contention is, so in the poem itself Dryden lays emphasis on the cunning of Achitophel. He refrains from inventing a conclusion to the story which would show Absalom unfortunate. Not content with this, he lavishes some of the most brilliant lines of panegyric on Absalom. He emphasises his ‘goodly person’ and describes his reception by the crowd as ‘their Messiah’. None of the members of the King’s party receives such eloquent praise. Yet in their brief characterizations, a proper need of praise is allotted to each. Although they lack the tremendous power which has immortalised the hostile “characters”, these portraits are done very skillfully. 

Dryden was under personal obligations to several members of the King’s party. He repays one of his debts by describing Barzillai in an exalted style. In these lines, which form a brief funeral panegyric on the Duke's son, the usual characteristics of the genre-exclamations, the heavenward flight of the soul, the fiction that the poet’s life has terminated with that of the dead man and even the circle image beloved of Donne and his imitators. He wishes to praise the King’s friends while censuring his enemies. Like the Royal Party, Shaftesbury and his followers are introduced as characters in a heroic poem. With the exception of the cruel couplet about his son, there is no trace of the low style in the description of Achitophel. Practically there is no ridiculing. 

Dryden is intent on portraying Achitophel as an evil man whose existence is a perpetual threat to the safety of the state. Several points or parallels are suggested between Shaftesbury’s temptation of Monmouth and the fall of man with Charles himself in the background as the representative of the Deity. He follows the lead of a hundred Tory preachers and pamphleteers in casting Shaftesbury as “Hell’s dire Agent”, the Satan of the plot. The description of Achitophel is a reminder that satire can exist without humour. The portrayal of the Duke of Buckingham is very different. Achitophel is essentially a picture of an individual, and secondly a representation of ruthless Ambition is the character of Zumri . It is general rather than particular. It is a humorous character of an inconstant man. He wanted to avoid any mortal offence to Buckingham. He claims for Zimri, a subtlety and indirectness which cannot be justified. The style is slightly lowered as it is emphasised by the presence of two pairs of feminine rhymes. Serious scorn distinguishes the characters of Shimmer and Corah from that of Zimuri, while an indirectness of approach involving some degree of humour marks them off even more clearly from the unsmiling Achitophel. There is a contemptuous humour in the lines devoted to Bethel and Titus Oates which is completely absent from the description of Shaftesbury. 

The character of Shimer begins with explicit and emphatic criticism. The effect of irony which informs the whole portrait, however, modulates from pure scorn to scornful ridicule. The portrait of Corah, that “Monumental brass” is a similar compound of direct name calling and devastating irony. Such irony is found in the hostile characters of the poem, practically directed at religious non conformists. Absalom and Achitophel have characteristics which are largely akin to those of heroic poetry. It is because of this poetic quality that the poem owes its supremacy amongst the political satires in the English language. The structure of Absalom and Achitophel has little in common with a heroic poem. Except in the speeches there is practically no portrayal of character in action or of the development of character and motive. Most parts of the poem are not concerned with characters or speeches. They are more dignified and moralising. 

The poem as a whole may be compared to a masterpiece of historical painting. It is written solely with the purpose of pleasing its patron. The canvas which is a very large one is crowded with figures, clearly divided into two opposing groups painted in varying perspectives. The blending of the heroic basis with wit gives the poem its characteristic tone. The main object of his poem is to praise the king and his party, at the same time he satirises his adversaries. It was deliberately written in this manner as King Charles was a witty man. Dryden was free to use a new alloy for his poem, a skillful blend of panegyric, satire, discourse and witty commentary. The whole poem is a consummate example of adaptation of means which have been perfectly mastered to a perfectly mastered to the achievement of a clearly conceived end. The close relationship between the art of oratory and the art of poetry is maintained throughout. 


                                  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 are 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.

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 a 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 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 is 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 :

  “In pious times are priestcraft did begin

    Before polygamy was made a sin;

    When man on multiplied his kind,

    Here one to one was cursedly confined ....”

 

The ironic undertone cannot be missed; Dryden is obviously laughing up his sleeve at Charles himself, who, as a witty patron, could not have missed it, nor failed to enjoy it.


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 have no rival in the field of political satire. Apart from the contemporary interest of the poem and its historical value, its 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.


Words Count - 3274


REFERENCES :
-

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Thinking activity - For Whom the Bell Tolls

Yesha Bhatt, ma'am, has been given the task of this blog. I'm responding to one question.  What is the attitude of Robert Jordan tow...