Absalom and Achitophel
Absalom and Achitophel as a political allegory
We can say that it is a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one .Political allegories are stories that use imaginary characters and situations to satirize real-life political events.
M.H.Abrams his book A Glossary of literary terms defines that,,
"An allegory is a narrative, whether in prose or verse, in which the agents and actions, and sometimes the setting as well, are contrived by the author to make coherent sense on the "literal," or primary, level of significa-tion, and at the same time to signify a second, correlated order of signifi-cation."
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.
Allegorical representation in Absalom and Achitophel
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 we 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.
"Michal, of royal blood, the crown did wear,
A soil ungrateful to the tiller's care:
Not so the rest; for several mothers bore
To godlike David several sons before.
But since like slaves his bed they did ascend,
No true succession could their seed attend.
Of all the numerous progeny was none
So beautiful, so brave, as Absalon;
Whether inspired by some diviner lust,..."
In The 1678, an alleged Catholic conspiracy to assassinate King Charles II, known as the Popish Plot, swept across England, creating mass anti-Catholic hysteria and prompting the Exclusion Crisis of 1679.
Popish Plot & The Exclusion Crisis:
The Exclusion Crisis lasted until 1681 and consisted of three Parliamentary bills which attempted to exclude James, King Charles’s brother, from royal succession because he was a Roman Catholic rather than a Protestant.
Propaganda for and against exclusion was produced on all sides for the duration of the crisis, most famously John Dryden’s anti-exclusionist satire Absalom and Achitophel (1681). Because Shaftesbury had lots of supporters in 1679 and it seemed likely that the bill would pass, Charles exercised his royal prerogative to dissolve parliament. Successive parliaments were called in 1680 and were likewise dissolved. In 1681 the Exclusion Bill passed the House of Commons, but was defeated in the House of Lords. James was not excluded from the succession. But the Exclusion Crisis was not an anomaly. The exclusionists, increasingly known by the label ‘Whigs’, continued to lobby against Catholicism and the threat of what they viewed as ‘arbitrary government’. The parties that were crystallized in the debates about exclusion—Whigs and Tories—dominated politics through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Dryden’s poem is a thinly veiled satirical roast of the political drama that pervaded English society in the late 1670s and early 1680s, and no one is spared his wit.
According to Dryden,
“the true end of satire is the amendment of vices by correction,” and “Absalom and Achitophel” is an attempt to that end. Through the use of satire and allegory in “Absalom and Achitophel,” Dryden ultimately argues that the Popish Plot and the Exclusion Crisis were devious ploys to divert the rightful order of succession and prevent James II from ascending the throne.
Through the deceit of Achitophel, a politician who sows dissention among the Jews, Dryden allegorizes the Popish Plot and implies the fabricated plot is merely an attempt to breed strife between David and the government, or, figuratively, between Parliament and Charles II of England. In Israel, metaphorically England, the “Good Old Cause revive[s] a plot” to “raise up commonwealths and ruin kings.” The “Good Old Cause” is a reference to the Puritan Rebellions of the English Civil War (1642–1651), which pitted King Charles I, who was supported by the Catholics, against Parliament, which was supported by the Puritans, a form of Protestantism. The war was a victory for Parliament; Charles I was executed and the Commonwealth of England was created. The monarchy was restored in 1660, and Charles II ascended the throne. With this reference, Dryden implies that the Popish Plot is little more than a revival of the Good Old Cause and an attempt to dethrone a king. In the poem, rumor begins to spread that King David’s life is “Endangered by a brother and wife. / Thus in a pageant show, a plot is made, / And peace itself is war in masquerade.”
Titus Oates, a priest of the Church of England and the mastermind of the Popish Plot, accused Charles’s brother James and Charles’s wife, Queen Catherine, of involvement in the plot against Charles. Dryden suggests that Oates’s claims are nonsense—the plot is a “pageant show,” a charade—and such claims amount to a “war in masquerade,” as the desired outcome, to remove a man who is destined to be king out of royal succession, is similar to that of the English Civil War.
Ultimately, the plot fails “for want of common sense,” but it has a “deep and dangerous consequence.” The Popish Plot, Dryden implies, was destined to fail because it completely lacked wisdom. However, the paranoia and anti-Catholic sentiments the plot churned up led directly to the Exclusion Crisis, which again pitted Parliament against the king. Members of Parliament pushed for James to be removed from royal succession, and Charles adamantly supported his brother.
In Absalom and Achitophel,Dryden discusses many of the men who support Achitophel and his plan to strip David of his power. In this way, Dryden also satirizes the politicians who supported the Exclusion Bill, portraying them as despicable men
“who think too little and who talk too much.”
Thus, Dryden implies that their proposed law to keep Roman Catholics from the throne is likewise foolish and dangerous. Achitophel, who encourages Absalom to rebel against his father, is a contemptable man who resolves “to ruin or to rule the state.”Achitophel is a representation of Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, a Member of Parliament and founder of the Whig party, who opposed absolute monarchy in favor of a more democratic approach. Cooper was a major proponent of the Exclusion Bill, and Dryden implies Cooper intended to use the bill to either take the government over, or completely take it down Balaam and Caleb represent Theophilus Hastings and Arthur Capel respectively, both politicians and members of the Whig party who supported the Exclusion Bill. Dryden therefore implies these men are low-level politicians who have little sense and no influence. While Balaam and Caleb may have little sense, “not bull-faced Jonas,” Dryden says, “who could statutes draw / To mean rebellion and make treason law.” Jonas represents Sir William Jones, a Member of Parliament who supported the Exclusion Bill. As Attorney General, Jones prosecuted several Catholics who were falsely accused and executed during the Popish Plot. In this way, Dryden implies that Jones, especially teamed with Cooper, can do real and lasting damage to the country and to the monarchy. Achitophel and his supporters begin to stoke “the malcontents of all the Israelites” and sway public opinion, and the Sanhedrins, the Jewish high council, becomes “infected with this public lunacy” as well. The Sanhedrins, of course, are a metaphor for the English Parliament, and the “public lunacy” is the Exclusion Crisis. Through his satirical poem, Dryden had hoped the people of England and Parliament would see the Popish Plot and Exclusion Crisis for what they really were plots devised to keep James II, a Roman Catholic, out of royal succession.
Here I would like to share some recorded videos by Dr.Dilip Barad Sir.
No comments:
Post a Comment