KE Robinson's Reading

8/12/2019 KE Robinson's Reading

1/11

A Reading of 'Absalom and Achitophel'Author(s): K. E. RobinsonSource: The Yearbook of English Studies, Vol. 6 (1976), pp. 53-62Published by: Modern Humanities Research AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3506388.Accessed: 16/09/2011 05:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Modern Humanities Research Associationis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access

to The Yearbook of English Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhrahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3506388?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3506388?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhra


2/11

A Reading of Absalom ndAchitophelOne of the most forthright comments on AbsalomandAchitophels Yvor Winters sremark that the whole poem is designed to praise a monarch who was a corruptfool .1 It may not representWinters at his best, but it does state honestly not onlythe question of sinceritywhich so often confronts the critic of Dryden but the answeroffered by the critical orthodoxy - except that the orthodox view praises whereWinters condemns. It has become commonplace to regard the opening lines ofAbsalomand Achitophel s a witty transvaluation of Charles s adulteries into apolygamy in the tradition of the patriarchsand to disregardthat this implies thatDryden evaded - not to say wilfully overlooked- the immorality involved.2 Inorder to show that Dryden was morallysincerein his praiseof Charlesit is necessaryto demonstrate that he faced up to the failings of his monarch but discernedqualities in the man or his role (or both) which more than compensated for them.There are indeed strong reasons to suggest that the opening lines have preciselythis balanced perspectiveand that upon it hinges the structureof the whole poem.Even a passing examination of the poem s historical context emphasizes thetenuousness of the normal reading of its beginning. No one would deny thatAbsalom ndAchitophels a public poem on a very serious subject, and yet the wittyreading is at variance with such a view. Not that wit and seriousnessare mutuallyexclusive, but the reading does depict Dryden as resorting to a device more inkeeping with the conceited valedictory poems of the earlier century (so oftenunderpinned by precisely those nice speculations which he had rejected) than theperspicuous style which, increasinglyan individuating factor of his age, he himselfconceived of as a better tool for reasoning man into truth.3It is true that Burnetcomposed a defence of polygamy with Charles very much in mind, and similardefences were written as themes by Oxford undergraduates, but Burnet was wellaware that he was being tendentious and the themes were little more than pyro-technic displays.4For Dryden to begin on such a note would have been to risk thestatus of the whole piece, especially since more than one commentator hadcounselled against the misuse of David s example.5 Although the conventional1 Formsof Discovery Chicago, 1967), p. I26. Compare Herbert Grierson, Cross-Currentsn EnglishLiteraturef theSeventeenthenturyi929; reprinted Harmondsworth, 1966), pp. 297-300.2 See, for example, Ian Jack, AugustanSatire(Oxford, I952), p. 75 and Earl Miner, Dryden sPoetry(Bloomington, Indiana, I967), pp. 115-22. Compare Bernard Schilling, Drydenand the ConservativeMyth (New Haven, Connecticut, 1961), pp. I48 and 28I.3 Of DramaticPoesyandOtherCriticalEssays,edited by George Watson, 2 vols (London, 1962), II, 76;Preface to ReligioLaici, in ThePoemsof ohnDryden,edited byJames Kinsley, 4 vols (Oxford, 1958), I,311. All quotations from Dryden s verse are from the Kinsley edition.4 Two Cases of Conscience , in Memoirsof the SecretServiceof John Masky, edited by S. Masky

(London, 1733), Appendix ii, pp. xxiv-xxxiii (cf. Miner, pp. 119-20); C. E. Mallet, The Historyofthe Universityof Oxford, 3 vols (Oxford, 1924-7), II, 424; BishopBuret s Historyof His Own Time,2 vols (London, 1850), I, 177.6 See, for example, Desiderii Erasmi RoterodamiOperaOmnia, 10 vols (Leyden, I703-6; reprintedLondon, I962), v, 583(D)-584(A) and Thomas Brooks, PreciousRemediesAgainst Satan s Devices(1652; reprinted London, 1968), p. 45.


3/11

54 A Readingof Absalom ndAchitophelattitude towards AbsalomandAchitophel s far from denying that the final passages ofthe poem deal with Charles s virtues as monarch restoring order to his realm , thequality of these virtues, and the quality of Dryden s response to them, is called intodoubt if they are shown as belonging to a man whose earlier moral aberrations canonly be wittily praised. The credibility of the poem s ending rests upon the poet sholding stable criteria of judgement. The opening lines must extenuate Charles sfaults against a stature which is beyond or transcends them; a sense of moral growthis essential if Charles s final position is to achieve the strength that Dryden obviouslyintended.

It should now be clear that, on my reading, the balanced perspective of theopening lines consists of an admission of Charles s sexual incontinence in such acontext that it is extenuated without being excused. The biblical analogue providedDryden with an objective source for his extenuation. Its power as a historicalprecedent stems from Dryden s regard for history as a prospective-glass carryingyour soul to a vast distance, and taking in the farthest objects of antiquity :It informs the understandingby the memory. It helps us to judge of what will happen, byshewing us the like revolutions of former times. For mankind being the same in all ages,agitated by the same passions,and moved to action by the same interests,nothing can cometo pass but some precedent of the like nature has already been produced, so that having thecauses before our eyes, we cannot easily be deceived in the effects, if we have judgmentenough but to draw the parallel.2By exercising the memory and looking back to events in the historical (or biblical)past, it was possible, if the parallel were chosen with sufficient care, to understandthe pattern and significance of contemporary situations. The Davidic analoguethat Dryden inherited offered him a means of focusing the nature of events in theExclusion Crisis, including Charles s misdemeanours.3

Dryden employs a dull narrative , claims Winters (p. I26), which elaboratelyand clumsily parallels the biblical narrative because it lacks any really unifyingprinciple ; but Dryden did not restrict himself to a literal application of theanalogue, preferring to concern himself with the pattern of key incidents. Thispattern pivots upon Absalom s rebellion, biblically a function of David s adulterywith Bath-sheba and his murder of Uriah. If the relationship between Absalom srevolt and Nathan s prophecy in ii Samuel 12. 10-14 is at all obscure, the exegesisshows no doubt about the connexion. In Thomas Lodge s translation ofJosephus,for example, Nathan pronounces that David should be punished by God, and hiswives should be violated by one of his own sonnes, who should likewise lay a snarefor him: so that he should suffer a manifest plague for the sinne he had committedin secret . And closer to the date of Absalom and Achitophelboth Milton (in DeDoctrina Christiana) and Matthew Poole s commentary give essentially the sameaccount.4 David s triumph over Absalom and Absalom s death restate David s

1 Schilling, p. 28I.2 The Life of Plutarch (I683) in Of DramaticPoesy and OtherCriticalEssays, I, 4. See Miner,pp. 107-8 and I39-40, and Anne T. Barbeau, The IntellectualDesign of John Dryden sHeroicPlays(New Haven, Connecticut, I970), pp. 50-51.3 See R. F. Jones, The Originality of AbsalomandAchitophel ,MLN, 46 (I93I), 2I I-I8.4 Thomas Lodge, The FamousandMemorableWorksofjosephus (London, I640), p. 171; The Works fJohn Milton,edited by F. A. Patterson et al., I8 vols (New York, 193I-8), xv, 78-9; Matthew Poole,A Commentaryn theHoly Bible, 3 vols (London, I962), I, 608.


4/11

K. E. ROBINSON 55quasi-divinity and record the end of his purgation to produce a basically simpleanalogical pattern. It consists of a sinful lapse from the stance required by thesacred office of kingship, its punishment through Absalom, and the monarch sregeneration.Dryden invokes this pattern proleptically to soften Charles soffences,harnessing all the authority of a historicalprecedent to subordinate his immoralityto the satisfactionof the role of king which marks the pattern s fulfilment.It is, of course, one thing to state, another to show that this analogical patternapplies to Absalom ndAchitophel. he greatest difficulty about the opening lines isto understand the experienceof reading them. The prefaceassumesthat the readerwill bring the received correspondencebetween David and Charles to bear on thepoem, but that does not mean that David is Charlesin any simple way. It is clearthat Dryden will assert the correspondence rather than address himself to it asinapposite, and yet the opening lines so presentthe Davidic period by contrast withthe Restorationera that by the time Israel sMonarch is introduced in the seventhline there is a firm sense of the differencesin social institutions which make certainaspects of the Davidic analogue inapplicable. It is precisely because the openinglines seem to assert the inapplicable as applicable that they become so complex.To discard this sense of the inapplicable at the seventh line, to retreat into somestatementabout the wit of the opening, would be to falsifythe experienceof reading.What follows is an attempt to realize the full impact and importance of thiscomplexity.When Mandeville observed Of Paradys ne can I not speken propurly I was notthere; it is fer beyonde and that for thinketh me ,1 he summed up the problem ofthe writer dealing with the paradisial or quasi-paradisial estate. He could havewritten of it - others have - but it would only have been possible to do someaningfully through negative definition. For Milton such negativity involved afallen perspectivewhich, far from being obstructive, lent itself to his concern withthefelix culpa.On a differentscale Dryden too is able to contain such a perspectivein the first few lines of Absalom ndAchitophel.He adapts the relativity of temporalperiods implicit in the perspective to distinguish the mores undamental to theDavidic period and the Restoration.2 Priest-craft (whatever its signification) hasbegun; polygamy is a sin. David s polygamy may have been legitimate, butCharles s analogous behaviour is not. There is nothing to suggest that either thelaw prohibiting polygamy or the moral censure of adultery does not apply toCharles,nor would it be permissibleto bring into play the regenerative expectationsof the analogical pattern on the evidence of the Davidic correspondencealone as itappears in the opening lines. But what might have been a heavy judgement onCharles s sexual exploits is lightened by a carefully controlled point of view, anurbane perspectivewhich the analogical pattern finally justifies.3Although there isno escape from the law (civil and moral) as it stood in the Restoration period, theopening lines look back nostalgically, as Miner (p. 18) rightly observes, to theahistorical pious times which appeal to the daydreams of masculine desires ,when to act naturally was to pursue a purely appetitive course unfettered byrestrictions.This poised nostalgia (so characteristicof the earlier Cavalier wits) is1 Quoted in David Jones s preface to In ParenthesisLondon, 1937), p. xiii.2 See Alan Roper, Dryden sPoeticKingdoms London, 1965), p. 13.3 See Ruth Nevo, The Dial of Virtue Princeton, New Jersey, 1963), pp. 250-5I.

5


5/11

56 A Readingof Absalom ndAchitophelfinely captured in cursedly . It is not concerned with literal truth; instead thepunctuation of the I68I folios ( E er one to one was, cursedly, confin d ) makes itclear that it operates as a parenthetical aside closer to the urbanely mock-seriousthan an imprecation. It is this attitude that informs the nebulous reference toPriest-craft ,which as an extension of the wishful desire for a naturalisticjuris-prudence implicitly attacks argument from authority at the diametrical oppositeof the naturalistic. It is hinted that polygamy is a sin, has become adulterous, onlybecause those who exercise Priest-craft designate it so. But Dryden does notcrudely enlist anti-clerical feeling .1The effect of Priest-craft s emotional ratherthan logical: like cursedly it expressesa positive but judicious attachment to thevital natural qualities underlying Charles squasi-polygamy (and so utterly foreignto Shaftesbury s huddled procreative activities) whilst maintaining a strictadherence to the moral law. It is characteristicof Dryden s regard for the tradi-tional social fabric that he should contain the natural within the limits of thereceived moral code in contrast to the deists emerging examination of the customsand systems of national law in terms of natural law (which Geoffrey Bulloughdates from the I67os onwards).2Charles, then, shares meritorious attributes with David in a context whichshows them to be misplaced. Dryden preservesthis balance in the earlier parts ofthe poem by hinting that beneath the elevation of the heroic couplet and biblicalallusion all is not as it ought to be. It is especially difficult here to describe orindeed understand the complex experience of reading the poem. David s polygamyinvolves the promiscuous [or mixed] use of concubine and bride , but althoughCharles s polygamy stems from the same natural outgoing warmth, it is promis-cuous in a differentsense. In his case the warmth is allowed a less than discriminaterein. But this separation of temporal perspective is not so pronounced in the linesthat follow. David and Charlesare fused so that David s as well as Charles s faultsare exposed within the same extenuating framework. What makes David afterHeaven s own heart in the biblical version is not sexual vigour but a quality ofsoul which equips him to be captain over his people (i Samuel 13. 14). Sincevigorous procreative activities are specifically presented as an example of beingafter Heaven s own heart , David no less than Charles is guilty of misvalues.Siiilarly, although Miner (p. I2I) is in part correct to assert that the phraseScatter d his Maker s Image through the Land indicates how much the king canbe regarded as a type of God the Father, creating like Him, after his own image,and indeed after His image , it is morally ambivalent. Scatter d both strengthensthe sense of indiscrimination and takes on ribald sexual overtones as a part of theimagery of sowing and reaping which provided the century with a rich source ofbawdy. The effect is to maintain a suggestion of careless sexuality withoutdestroying that magniloquence, both in couplet and allusion, which representsDavid s and Charles strue stature, thus keeping alive the delicate balance between

1Jack, p. 75. Dr Johnson felt that Dryden indeed discovered, in many of his writings, an affectedand absurd malignity to priests and priesthood (Livesof theEnglishPoets,edited by George BirkbeckHill, 3 vols (Oxford, I905), I, 403).a Polygamy amongst the Reformers , in Renaissance nd Modem Essays Presented o Viviande SolaPinto,edited by G. R. Hibbard (London, I966), pp. 5-23 (p. 23). See also A. O. Aldridge, Polygamyand Deism , JEGP, 48 (1949), 343-6o.


6/11

K. E. ROBINSON 57the reprehensible and meritorious. The tiller possessesa sexuality which provokeshim to illicit extra-marital relationships but at the same time he shows a sensitiveregard for his wife. Although this recommends itself as an incisive portrait ofCharles sparadoxical character,l it cannot but refer too to David whose adulterouslapse provides the first stage of the analogical pattern. By dealing with David sadultery at several removes from the surface of the poem Dryden places itsimportance relative to his life as a whole. He puts his emphasis firmly upon thepositivequalitiescommon to David and Charles,and, the correspondencebetweenthem as adulterersestablished, these positive qualities activate the expectationsofregenerationcontained in the analogical pattern. Charles s mmorality, likeDavid s,becomes inseparable from the total pattern.It is self-evident that the remainder of the pattern is to be found in the poem.Although Charles is guilty of nothing so depraved as David s murder of Uriah, hislicence has involved him in a threat to the Britishsystem of monarchy and the lawfounded upon it, not only because of his susceptibility to feminine wiles - he isthe poor Priapus King , not so much the ruler as ruled in his indiscretions2- butbecause his indulgent attitude towards Monmouth has exacerbated the successionproblem. Monmouth is well suited to be the unwitting agent of judgement onCharlesfor, born out of wedlock and viewed so indulgently by his father, he is boththe outcome and the occasion of Charles s sinfulness. On to this skeleton Drydenbuilds his narrative; but although the credibility of his statement about the Exclu-sion Crisis rests upon as full as possible an application of the analogue, he is farfrom justifying Winters s strictures. The emphasis on pattern allows him con-siderable freedom to work within those facts which yield themselves readily to hisdrawing of the parallel, without any essential distortion.The analogical pattern permits Dryden to maintain the civilized and apparentlyobjective balance of the opening lines throughout the poem. He can juxtapose theessentially praiseworthyqualities of Charles s character and the pernicious resultswhen they are misplaced in the knowledge that they have been reassertedin theirproper context. The worst result is, of course, Absalom s defection at Shaftesbury sinstigation, the abortive outcome of natural generosityand mildness in his begettingand upbringing. Since Monmouth mirrorsCharles sown appearanceand characteras a youth, in Charles too, it may be assumed, twas Natural to please .3Yet if thenative mercy and mildness to which this gives rise have a stabilizing effect and ifthe moderate sort of Men ... Inclin d the Ballance to the better side , Drydenhints that Charles is not in control of his mildness, that its effect is unintentional:

David smildnessmanag d t so well,The Badfoundno occasion o Rebell.(1.77)1 See TheDiary of SamuelPepys,edited by Henry B. Wheatley, 8 vols (London, I904-5), vII, 37 andcompare J. P. Kenyon, The Stuarts(London, 1958), p. II5.2 An Historical Poem in Poemson Affairsof State: AugustanSatirical Verse,166o-7r4, edited byGeorge de F. Lord (New Haven, Connecticut, I963-), II (1965), I58. See also Dryden, Poems, v1879.3 The extent of the actual likeness between Monmouth and Charles can be judged by comparingWilliam Dobson s portrait of Charles at fourteen with Samuel Cooper s miniature of Monmouth atseven, bearing in mind that Cooper may have emphasized the similarity. The portraits are con-veniently reproduced side by side in Lord George Scott, LucyWalter: WifeorMistress(London, I947),facing p. I28.


7/11

58 A Readingof Absalom ndAchitophelSuch laisser-fairegovernment invites the participation of a Shaftesbury, and only apractical reaffirmation of kingship in Charles s second restoration can stop thebalance inclining to the worst side once the political situation is such

That no Concessionsfrom the Throne woud please,But Lenitives fomented the Disease. (1.295)But at no stage do Charles s natural virtues lose their essential merit.The critics concentration upon Dryden s skill in satiric portraiture has tended toobscure the remarkable honesty which the extenuating framework of the analogicalpattern permits him to bring to his presentation of governmental chaos as theupshot of Charles s faults. As moral, religious, and political head of his countryCharles dictates in his own outlook and behaviour the outlook and behaviour ofhis subjects. In the analogue itself Absalom s revolt is visited upon David for hissins, but Dryden deepens this relationship to show that the masses attitude towardsAbsalom (and hence towards the traditional fabric of their country) reflectsDavid s attitude. The indiscriminate exercise of natural instinct in his sexualenterprises and his self-absorbed and indulgent bearing towards His youthfulImage in his Son renew d , bordering on narcissistic idolatry, provoke paralleltendencies in the body politic. His subjects see him in terms of a graven imagewhose existence is dependent upon their wishes:

Those very Jewes, who, at their very best,Their Humour more than Loyalty exprest,Now, wondred why, so long, they had obey dAn Idoll Monarch which their hands had made:Thought they might ruine him they could create;Or melt him to that Golden Calf, a State. (1.6I)

Charles s natural behaviour precipitates such governmental idleness and hisworship of Monmouth is so idolatrous that his authority is threatened and he sinkstowards becoming a redundant symbol. In David the Lord had sought him a manafter his own heart, and commanded him to be captain over his people , but Charleshas become (to use a term Dryden borrowed from an earlier Royalist writer) aweathercock of state . His epicurean abdication from captaincy threatens at leasta decline to limited monarchy whereKings are slaves to those whom they Command,And Tenants to their Peoples pleasure stand. (1.775)or at worst a retrogression to a lawless state of nature , for

If they may Give and Take when e er they please,Not Kings alone, (the Godheads Images,)But Government it self at length must fallTo Nature s state; where all have Right to all. (1. 791)

1 TheConquestf Granada,II..Io (Mermaidedition,editedby GeorgeSaintsbury, vols (London,1904),I, 62). The phrasederivesfromthe dedicatoryepistleto John Collop sPoesisRediviva;r,PoesieReviv dLondon,I656), sig. A4r.


8/11

K. E. ROBINSONNaturalistic kingship breeds naturalistic politics.Dryden s interpretation rests upon a well-defined political theory. Jean Bodinhad pointed out that to confound the state of monarch with the popular aristo-cratical estate , as Charles offers to do in acting simultaneously as both ruler andruled, is a thing impossible, and in effect incompatible, and such as cannot beimagined :forsovereignty eingof itself ndivisible,how can it at one and the same time be dividedbetwixt one prince,the nobilityand the peoplein common?The first mark of sovereignmajestys to be of powerto give laws,and to commandovertheminto the subjects:andwhoshould hosesubjectsbe that shouldyield their obedience o the law, if they shouldhave alsopowerto make the laws? Who should he be that couldgive the law, being hehimselfconstrainedo receive t of them,unto whom he himselfgaveit?1Charles s indiscretions neglect the indivisible quality of his role. The commonbase of the sexual and political, private and public forms of materialism whichCharles shares with his people is implied in the echo of the line When man, onmany, multiply d his kind in Charles ssummary of the dissidents ideology: Thatone was made for many, they contend . This contention seems to be a deliberateinversion of Bellarmine sbelief, as quoted by Sir Robert Filmer (p. 84), that God,when he made all mankind of one man, did seem openly to signify that He ratherapproved the government of one man than of many . Charles s rejection of theinversion and his affirmation of the true monarch send are themselvesa dismissalof his earlier aberrations.The idea of the king aspaterpatriae,propounded by Bodin and Filmer, is centralto Dryden s presentation of his analogue. Filmer s Patriarchawas, according toPeter Laslett (pp. 33-5), widely influential in the Exclusion Crisis,and it must haveappeared particularly attractive to Dryden. Its familial theory of monarchy fittedwell not only with his own outlook but with the basically familial analogue ofAbsalomandAchitophel. ilmer s argument is summed up by the quotation fromBellarmine: just as Adam and the patriarchs had right of fatherhood, royalauthority over their children , so by the ancient and primeright of lineal successionto paternalgovernment kingshave succession to theright of that fatherhood whichtheir ancestors did naturally njoy (pp. 57, 60, 6i). Given this stature for Charlesit is easy to see the seriousnessof his misapplication of fatherhood in his relationshipwith Monmouth. Although Kingly power is by the law of God, so it hath noinferior law to limit it , the King, as a father, isbound by the law of nature to do hisbest for the preservationof his family :all Kings,eventyrantsand conquerors,are]boundto preservehelands,goods, ibertiesand livesof all theirsubjects, otby any municipalawof theland,butbythenatural aw ofa Father, which binds them to ratify the acts of their forefathers and predecessors n thingsnecessary for the public good of their subjects. (p. 103)Charles s indulgence of Monmouth is also the neglect of more important patri-archal or familial duties. His slowness to react to Monmouth s progresses, forexample, seems to endanger the Hereditary Paternal Monarchy of England.2Dryden s honesty about the extent of Charles s responsibility for the faction ofthe times prepares the way for his rehabilitation of Charles as the regenerated1 The Necessity of the Absolute Power of All Kings and in Particular of the Kings of England , inPatriarcha nd OtherWorksof Sir RobertFilmer,edited by Peter Laslett (Oxford, 1949), p. 322.2 Edward Chamberlayne, AngliaeNotitia orthe PresentStateof England,Part I (London, I674), p. 72.

59


9/11

60 A Readingof Absalom ndAchitophelDavid at the end of the poem. Culpability is necessary f the analogical pattern is tocarry its full weight. Since this culpability is a matter of virtues misdirected, it isquite consistent that having seen (or in terms of the analogue been punished by)the results of his earlier misdeeds, Charles With all these loads of Injuriesopprestshould be restored to grace as an embodiment of the same virtues rightly placed.And the relationship between Charles sand his subjects attitudes presupposesthecountry s felicitous reaction to his regained stature. Broadly speaking, then, thedifference between Charlesat the beginning and at the end of the poem is that hehas contained his natural impulses. As a paternal monarch he ought to haveembodied a godlike perfection, but he comes close to forfeiting this stature bytrusting the promptings of nature. The line When Nature prompted, and no lawdeny d sumsup his position. Characteristicallypoised, it maintains an attachmentto natural warmth whilst insisting that adultery is not acceptable; but it alsorefers to the well-known passageon innate goodnessfrom St Paul which lies behindthe following lines from ReligioLaici:Not onelyCharityidshopethe best,Butmorehe greatApostlehasexprest:That, f theGentiles, whomno Lawinspir d,)ByNature idwhatwasby Lawrequir d;They,who hewritten ulehadnevernown,WereothemselvesothRuleandLawalone:ToNatureslain ndictmentheyhallplead;And,bytheirConscience,econdemn dr reed. (1. 198)Instead of doing By nature ... what [is] by law requir d Charles acts against abackground of external restraints. Because he needs external law to indicate histransgressions,he cannot properly ensure the safety of the Ark, which is best doneby keeping the covenant of the ark ... the law which the arkpreserves .lIn failinghe allows both anarchy and the Satanic, in the guise of Achitophel, to exert theirinfluences.2 His explicit recognition of Monmouth s status and his adoption of truepaternal stature in relation to his country prevent, however, those who wouldtouch our Ark . At the end of the poem he is, in the fullest sense of the word,lawful . He is no longer subjected to but is the law; and because he has himselfasserted his lawful function,he is regardedas lawfulby his subjects.In an importantsense, however, he is now beyond the law. It is implicit that as a man Charles haspassed through the stages of development from sinfulness to being dead to sin (andhence the law) through grace. As a king he can, therefore,become an embodimentof Grace, self-controltransmutinghis desire to please into a truly godlike mercy andmildness. Despite the fact that, his clemency despised,justice has to take the throne,he remains a most humane embodiment of the law. It was precisely the healingBalm of Charles smercy that Dryden was to declare superiorto David s deathbedcrueltyin Threnodia ugustalis:That Kingwholiv d to Gods ownheart,Yet lessserenelydies thanhe:1 Edmund Calamy, Trembling for the Ark of God , in Sermons f the GreatEjection,edited by IainMurray (London, I962), p. 34. For a discussion of the ark image, see Roper, pp. 17-18.2 See particularly B. K. Lewalski, The Scope and Function of Biblical Allusion in AbsalomandAchitophel ,English LanguageNotes, 3 (1965-6), 29-35 and A. B. Chambers, AbsalomandAchitophel:Christ and Satan , MLN, 84 (1959), 592-6.


10/11

K. E. ROBINSONCharleseft behind no harshdecreeFor Schoolmenwithlaborious rtTo salvefromcruelty:Those,forwhom ovecou dno excuses rame,He graciously orgot o name. (1. 239)

It is interesting that whereas at the beginning of the poem Charles had to beviewed through a carefully balanced perspective, at the end the poise belongs toCharles himself, recognizing and realizing his natural propensities within theexigencies of the situation that he faces. The shift is significant of the monarch snew self-control.Any attempt to describe the ending of Absalom ndAchitophel ust take account ofJohnson s remarkson the poem, which have exercised a profound effect on criticalthinking to the presentday. Only in more recent studieshas it become common todefend Dryden s structuralpowersagainst thejudgement that because the originalstructure of the poem was defective ... there is an unpleasing disproportionbetween the beginning and the end .1 Schilling proposesthe solution that the effectof the apparent imbalance in favour of evil is to emphasize the force of Charles svirtuous power. The sudden breaking off of the poem shows , he claims, theking s total command; the greatestpossible structureof opposition has risen againsthim; yet the moment he chooses to speak, this becomes meaningless. 2But correctas his solution might be, it is only, since it relies upon a purely theoretical strengthattaching to kingship, moderately convincing in terms of the poem s effect. Thepattern and movement that have been outlined mean, however, that Absalomand

Achitophel nacts Schilling s reading. The ending benefits from the additionalstrength that comes from the completion of the pattern and its analogical expecta-tions. Moreover, the attitude of Charles speople towardshim hasbeen shown to be adirect function of the degree to which he fulfils or fails to fulfil his paternal role.When he neglects them to indulge Monmouth, they themselves feel a slackeningof obligation towards him; and his positive statement in lines 939-I025 containstheir reaction: And willing Nations knew their Lawfull Lord . His assumption ofthe full obligations and power of paternalmonarchyis accompanied by exactly thateffect his contemporariesfelt it ought to be accompanied by, a kind of UniversalInfluence,ver all his Dominions , so that every Soul within his Territories,may besaid to feel at all times his Powerand his Goodness .3 is actions have becomeconsistent with his divinely ordained role, and he is truly after Heaven s ownheart : ThusfromhisRoyalThroneby Heav ninspir d,The God-likeDavid poke:with awfull earHis Traintheir Maker n their Masterhear. (1.936)Dryden s assertion that a Series of new time is consequent upon his sovereign schanged stature is much more than a Virgilian platitude: Charles smoral growthmakes retrogression mprobable within the terms of the poem.I Lives f thePoets, d. Hill, I, 437.2 Drydennd heConservativeyth,p. 306. For otherdiscussions f structure, ee Lewalski,and alsoMorrisFreedman, Dryden sMiniatureEpic ,JEGP, 57 (1958),2II-19.8 Chamberlayne,AngliaNotitia,p. 0o7.


11/11

62 A Readingof Absalom ndAchitophelAnd yet the ending of the poem is not without its difficulties. It is true thatDryden s concern with the relationship between the law and natural impulsesuggestsmoral growth in Charlesat the poem s end, but it is equally true that his

explicit treatmentof thisgrowthis limited to Charles srelationshipwith Monmouth.Dryden does not deal explicitly with the regenerated Charles s sexual appetite,although the analogical pattern requires the fullest rehabilitation. He could havesettled pragmatically for a stature in which Charles was at one with the civil butnot necessarilythe moral law, realizing that complete restorationwas improbable,if not humanly impossible. On this account immorality would be allowable, albeitnot desirable, so long as the law was not threatened. Dryden obviously preferredeven a partially regenerated monarch to contractual monarchy, but within thepoem the emphasis on the connexion between materialistic actions in the moralsphere and materialistic politics and the stress on Charles s position as ethico-religious as well as political head of his country demand complete regeneration.Dryden was clearly aware of the disparity, but he chose neither to make a virtueof pragmatismnor to claim a stature Charlesdid not merit. His concern was not somuch to defend Charles as to describethe optimum social order, in the full know-ledge that Charles did not quite match up to his part despite the re-establishmentof his proper relationshipwith his country.F. R. Leavis has implicitly (and rightly) insisted on the opposition betweenpolitics defined as the art of the possible and imaginative literature creative ofpossibilities.1 Absalomand Achitophels generally regarded as a political poemaddressed to the political debate which was eventually to issue in contractualmonarchy, but it standsabove the mass of political verse of the period as concernedwith much more than the art of the possible. Dryden uses the analogue, as otherwriters use the myth, to structure perceptions about the ethical, religious, andpolitical welfare of his nation, perceptions sensitive to human potentiality andincisively evaluated against the political theoristsof his day. If the ending is ideal,2it is self-consciouslyso. It representsa projectionof Dryden s profound concern foran order which would preserve the dynamism of the traditional social structure,asking (in Lawrence s terms) why and not how , about the organic needs of hissociety rather than about how the social structuremight be changed to accommo-date the period sincreasinglyreductiveview of human capabilities.On this readingAbsalom ndAchitophelresentsa much more sensitive and honest Dryden than theparty apologist of the orthodox criticism. K. E. ROBINSONNEWCK.ASTLE-U.N-TYNENEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE1 Nor ShallMySwordLondon,I972), p. I70.2 See Schilling, p. 281.

Documents

KE Robinson's Reading