Cite some text to illuminate your inquiry.
Deadline:
Friday, September 4, 2009
For Credit: Questions, Concerns, Bafflement? (Deadline extended; last chance to post for Week 2)
We've covered a lot of material very quickly this week. Post your remaining questions, curiosity, confusion, or puzzlement about Dryden's Absalom and Achitophel here!
Cite some text to illuminate your inquiry.
Deadline:Friday (9/4), start of class Saturday (9/5), midnight.
Cite some text to illuminate your inquiry.
Deadline:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
During Absolom's last speech in the poem, he lists off many of King David's loyal friends, such as Barzillai, Zadock, and the like. I understand that each of these names corresponds to that of a political ally in Dryden's world, however, I do not understand what the point of naming such a list could be. What is the point of stating that "Barzillai [was] crowned with honor and with years" or that "Hushai [was] the friend of David in distress" (817, 887)? Why did Dryden find this addition necessary?
Great question! There's also a similar list of David's enemies elsewhere in the poem. For readers of the time (people familiar with the names and personalities mention, and invested in the outcome of the events), those were some of the most amusing parts of the poem. The connections Dryden draws between the biblical figures (who also would have been readily recognizable to contemporary readers) and these minor political figures and his gently snarky language is pretty funny--but only if you know what he's talking about! It's sort of the Restoration version of something like this SNL skit:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/34465/saturday-night-live-palin--hillary-open
Part of what makes the skit funny is that Tina Fey and Amy Poehler are famous in their own right, so their portrayals of Palin and Clinton get added oomph. If the names Fey and Poehler were totally unknown to you, and you had to look at footnotes to know who Clinton and Palin are, this clip would be fairly uninteresting and meaningless.
If Charles II had no legitimate heir by his wife why didn't he divorce her and marry Monmouth's mother?
Another good question! While divorce did exist legally at the time, it required an act of Parliament and could only be granted on grounds of adultery. Moreover, a divorced person could not remarry in the Church of England if his or her former spouse was still living. As a result, the scenario Alonzo describes would not have legitimated Monmouth and it have even cost Charles II his crown.
As late as 1936, divorce was construed as a threat to the monarchy (Edward VII provoked a constitutional crisis and ultimately had to abdicate the throne in order to marry a divorced woman, Wallis Simpson).
Henry VIII solved a similar problem of succession by executing his wives and founding the Church of England; Charles II didn't quite have the power to carry off a similar workaround.
The one thing that I am still perplexed by is the tone of Dryden's piece. It seems to me that not only does he have a straight forward point but his preface makes me take a step back to think, "Is he really being straight forward or does he have a leniency towards one political perspective?"
In preface or "To the Reader"
"...if you are a malicious reader, I expect you should return upon me that I affect to be thought more impartial than I am."
Dryden TOTALLY has a slant here. He's pro-Charles II, and anti-those Parliamentary voices that wish to avoid a Catholic succession at all costs. In the Preface, Dryden isn't trying to pretend like he's objective, but he is trying to establish that his opinion is more moderate, even-handed, and judicious that that of those who disagree with him.
Post a Comment