Critical appreciation of the poem ‘Absalom and Achitophel’

 

        Dryden wrote Absalom and Achitophel in 1681. This long poem consists of more than two thousand lines in two parts. The work is an allegorical satire in heroic couplets. There are many more inspired writers but there appeared no English writer who succeeded so well in so many different branches of writing. His Absalom is his greatest achievement that finds hardly any parallel in the whole range of English literature. It has various literary qualities.

            Dryden’s poetry has the representative character. In Absalom and Achitophel, historical facts have been depicted in literary manners. David Nichol says, “When we read the works of Dryden, we make a study of his Age.” The occasion of the poem was Charles II’s suppression of a rebellion headed by Shaftesbury. Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660. He had no child from his queen Catherine though had many illegitimate children. He had many mistresses. Absalom’s mother was also a mistress. But Absalom was a bastard, he was not entitled of succession. There were two political parties Tory and Whig. The Tories favoured the King but the Whig was opposite party. Its leader was Shaftesbury who supported Absalom for the succession Tories were in favour of James II, the younger brother of Charles II. Shaftesbury was arrested but acquitted by the Grand Jury. After the death of Charles II, James II became the King of England. These historical facts have been elaborated in the poem. It produces the true picture of the age. It bears not only political background but also social and religious position of the Restoration age.

            Allegory, fable, classical imitation, mock-heroic, parody and burlesque are the usual forms for satires as a satire cannot be depicted in a direct narrative form. In direct narration an another may be put into trouble. Dryden adopted the form of a Biblical allegory. It comes out from Jewish history. The analogy between Jewish history in the reign of David and the conditions of England in 1681 has given Dryden the incentive to employ the form of allegory. The parallel between David and Absalom and Charles II and Monmouth had already been described by other writers before Dryden took it up. Dryden found a similarity in the political situations of both regimes. Having adopted the same method of depiction, Dryden took it up in his own style.

            Dryden was over fifty when he wrote his great satires-Absalom and Achitophel-in two parts in 1681 and 1682. The poem succeeds in creating an impression of the inmate goodness of an indulgent King, and of his beneficent majesty, and arousing the reader’s sympathy. This great satire contained in ‘Absalom and Achitophel’ was motivated by the political events of the time. Dryden assailed the political figures of his time-Shaftesbury, Monmouth, and others who were opposing Charles II. For this satire, he used the Biblical story of ‘Absalom and Achitophel’. Through the allegorical method, he condemned the evil designs of the enemies of Charles II. As a political satire ‘Absalom and Achitophel’ has no rival. The poet has been able to maintain artistic excellence in his political satire. He has roused the tone of the satire by different devices.

            The supreme excellence of Absalom and Achitophel lies in its sketches of character. Sir Walter Scott has said that there is a gallery of portraits. The portraits with which this poem abounds especially reveal the art of Dryden. We can watch there a fine sense of delicate touch and the felicity of picturesque characterization. There is living truth of organic wholes. Dryden’s characterization is the variety of treatment.

            Dryden has maintained the epical quality in his poem. It is a heroic-poem the subject of which is lofty-the futile plot against a legal king. A critic says, “Dryden uses the highlighting that is required for epic poetry, as for tragedy, there is 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 proportion to verisimilitude.

            Some critics have thrown light on some faults in the poem. According to them its end is defective. The end has no poetic justice and no conclusion, no plot and from the beginning to the end no action. Some characters only speak but do nothing. The descriptions of Jave nods, Olympus tramples, and the cloudy scenes have no significance.