Content uploaded by A S M Mahbubur Rahman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by A S M Mahbubur Rahman on Oct 22, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Research Paper
The Role of Achitophel in Dryden’s Absalom and
Achitophel: A Representation of the Unscrupulous and
Ambitious Politicians with Extraordinary Intellect
*1Md. Nawsher Oan, 2A.S.M. Mahbubur Rahman, 3Dipak Kumar Sarkar and 4Md. Faisal Haque
*1Associate Profesor, Dept. of Language, Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University, Dinajpur
Dinajpur-5200, Banladesh.
2Lecturer, Dept. of Language, Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University, Dinajpur Dinajpur-5200,
Banladesh.
3Assistant Profesor, Dept. of Language, Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University, Dinajpur-5200,
Banladesh.
4Assistant Profesor, Dept. of Language, Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University, Dinajpur
Dinajpur-5200, Banladesh.
Accepted 23 March 2017
It was indisputable to infer the role of Achitophel in Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel as the portray of
a certain political practice that emerged from a sort of political thought of the Restoration England. This
poem was written in a particular political situation which striked the people of the age. In this poem the
relationship between father and son attracted our attention. Achitophel here acted as a catalyst to
instigate the rebellion of son against the father. Actually this paper was going to explore the role of
Achitophel, the Earl of Shaftesbury, as a cunning politician who represents the politicians of the age of
Restoration. A. B. Chambers opines, “the story of Absalom and Achitophel found seventeenth-century
political application with sufficient frequency to establish a tradition in which Achitophel was a type for
the rebellious and wily politician” (592). His cunningness and unscrupulousness regarding the anti-
royal movement against King David on the one hand evoked the rebelliousness of some other rebels
towards the King and on the other hand prepared Absalom’s state of mind to rev olt against his God like
father. However, in this poem we observed a conflict between Whig and Tory, Catholicism and
Protestantism, son and father, royal power and Shaftesbury, Absalom and Achitophel. It reminded us
the great theory of Hobbes where everybody is against everybody means war against all. Along with
Dryden’s own view of politics, one of the most prominent political theorists of his time had been
consulted to expose its influence on the political history of the Restoration England.
Keywords: Absalom and Acidophil, Hobbes, Cunningness, Unscrupulousness
Cite This Article As: Md. Nawsher Oan, Mahbubur Rahman ASM, Sarkar DK, Md. Faisal Haque (2017). The Role
of Molana Abd-ul-Hamid Badayuni in politics of All India Sunni Conference under the platform of All India Muslim
League (1937 to 1947). Inter. J. Eng. Lit. Cult. 5(2): 30-35
INTRODUCTION
Dryden writes Absalom and Achitophel by the request of
Charles II in order to defend the King and his followers against the Whigs led by the Earl of Shaftesbury. From
the history, we know that Charles had no legitimate son
International Journal of English
Literature and Culture
Vol. 5(2), pp. 30-35, March 2017
DOI: 10.14662/IJELC2017.011
Copy© right 2017
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article
ISSN: 2360-7831
http://www.academicresearchjournals.org/IJELC/Index.htm
who could ascend the throne after his death. Therefore,
the King was in a problem and nominated his brother
James, the Duke of York, as the legal heir of the throne.
But in general the people of England were not in favour of
James because he was a Catholic. The Catholics wanted
James as their King but the Whigs did not want James.
The Whigs were vigorously against the Duke of the York.
They now want to succeed the throne the Duke of
Monmouth an illegitimate son of Charles. Though the
king loved his illegitimate son, he opposes this. At this
time, Dryden was Poet Laureate and so he was asked to
write a poem in support of the King attacking king’s
opponents. Dryden did this ridiculing the opponents
depicting a mirror like poem Absalom and Achitophel.
According to Hobbes, in every society there is an
absolute monarch and this monarch governs the society.
Its power must be neither divided nor limited. And at the
same time he imagines a state of nature in which each
person is free to decide for himself/herself what s/he
needs and where all the members of the community
essentially depend on each other. In this poem,
Achitophel is a treacherous conspirator whose name was
cursed not only by the people of his contemporary age
but also by the succeeding generations.Dryden says
“Sagacious, Bold, Turbulent of wit:/Restless, unfixt in
Principles and place;/In Power unpleas’d, impatient of
Disgrace./ A fiery Soul, which working out its way, Fretted
the Pigmy Body to decay”(153-157).Achitophel here is
represented as sagacious, bold, a fiery soul, a great wit
blessed with wealth and honour. As every man is free in
his will, his mind was always busy for making secret
plans and for wicked advice. At the same time he was
restless and had a lust for power but when he was in
power he wasted of it. Outwardly, he appeared to be
prudent and courageous, noted for taking risk, but he was
mischievous by nature. Dryden argued that Shaftesbury
had a weak and sickly body but he never cared it and he
was always busy in planning intrigues against the King
and the Crowd and against Absalom for his personal
gain.
According to Hobbes, “The Power of man, to take it
Universally, is his present means to obtain some future
apparent Good” ( X, 48). We can connect this with the
nature of Shaftesbury. Dryden explains in this passage
that why Achitophel wanted to use Absalom in the
struggle against the King. “Achitophel still wants a chief,
and none/ Was found so fit as Warlike Absalom/ Not that
he wished his Greatness to create,/ For Politicians
neither love nor hate:/But, for he knew, his Title not
allow’d,/Would keep him still depending on the
Crowd:”(220-225). Achitophel knows that he is unpopular
and as such he could not be able to lead the revolt
against the King. Moreover, his loyalty was suspected
and he was to face the treason. He therefore wanted a
suitable person to become the leader and to use him.
Here, Dryden also added that politicians neither love nor
Nawsher Oan et al. 31
hate any one and they are only interested in their own
good. Achitophel knew that Absalom had no legal claims
to the throne and would have to depend on the support of
the people. Regarding this, Achitophel actually would like
to use Absalom as a weapon. So, Achitophel thinks in
this way, the authority of the king would be undermined
and it may pave the way for the rule of the mob.
Hobbes says, “So that in the nature of man, we find
three principal causes of quarrel. First, Competition;
Secondly, Diffidence; Thirdly, Glory. The first maketh
men invade for Gain, the second for Safety; and the third
for Reputation”( XIII, 70). And then in these lines “He
stood at bold Defiance with his Prince/ .../ Against the
Crown: and sculk’d behind the Laws” (205-207) we get
an impression that the crimes which Achitophel had
planned now became obvious and he openly defied the
authority of the King. He further tried to protect himself by
supporting the rights of the people against the King and
tried to take shelter behind the laws of England. He
found some evidence in support of the plot of the
Catholics against the King but added to it, evidence
fabricated by him to strengthen the case. In this case, he
used agents who went round whispering into the ears of
the common people. And additionally he is trying to
convince the common people that how the King is
becoming arbitrary. In such a way Achitophel is trying to
prove the King as a Jebusite or Roman Catholic. He
says, “Of listening Crowds, with jealousies and Fears/Of
Arbitary Counsels brought to light,/ And proves the King
himself a Jebusite”(A&A, 212-214). So, according to
Hobbes the desire for power happened between Absalom
and King David created in the mind of Absalom by
Achitophel is a kind of competition which exists all the
time and in all the society among all.
According to Hobbes, “And therefore, any two men
desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot
both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their
End, …, endeavour to destroy or subdue one another”
(XIII, 69). So, here Dryden reveals the cunning and
intriguing nature of Achitophel through some expression
in this poem from lines “If not when the King are negligent
or Weak?/Let him give on till he can give no more,/The
Thrifty Sanhendrin shall keep him poor:/And every
sheckle which he can receive,/Shall cost a limb of his
Prerogative./To ply him with new Plots, shall be my care,/
Or plunge him deep in some Expensive War;/Which
when his Treasure can no more Supply,/ He must, with
the Remains of Kingship, buy./His faithful Friends, our
Jealousies and Fears Call Jebusites; and Pharaoh’s
Pentioners:/Whom when our Fury from his Aid has torn,/
He shall be Naked left to publick Scorn”(388-400). One of
the arguments stated by Absalom is that the King is
becoming generous to his subjects and is in turn loved by
them. Achitophel meets this argument very cleverly in his
second speech. He thinks that he will devise some ways
by which the King will become unpopular and will lose the
32 Inter. J. Eng. Lit. Cult.
affection of his subject. Achitophel assures Absalom that
it will be his business to create trouble for the King by
starting conspiracies against him. Such plots will involve
the King in some expensive war for which he will not be
able to pay for long. If he wants money for the war from
the public treasury he will have to come to Parliament for
it and naturally he will have to bargain with his authority
for a grant of money from Parliament and from the public
fund. On account of the jealousies and fear of the king,
the anti-royalist group will call his supporters as Roman
Catholics and as the agents of the will of France. This will
create a conflict between the King and his supporters
because he will not be able to give his patronage to them
for want of money. So, in such a position his followers will
leave him and he will be left alone to face the hatred of
the people. So, we can here points out that Achitophel
has an inventive brain and he is being able to create a
gulf between the King and his supporters. Thereby, the
king will become unpopular and his supporters will join to
revolt against him. This will ultimately lead to his own
unpopularity which will indirectly help the struggle of
Absalom against the King. So, Achitophel is instigating
the crowd against the King because of taking Absalom’s
side and to make conflict between the King and Absalam
for desiring the same thing, “power”.
However, Achitophel actually tried to manipulate the
crowd and, at the same time, Absalom also. Hobbes
says, “Also Riches joined with liberty, is Power: because
it procureth friends and servants: Without liberality, not
so; because in this case they defend not; but expose men
to Envy, as a Prey. Reputation of power is power;
because it draweth with it the adherence of those that
need protection” ( X, 48). In the following lines
Achitophel addresses Absalom, “Auspicious Prince! At
whose Nativity/ Some Royal planet rul’d the Southern
sky;/ Thy longing Countries Darling and Desire:/ Their
cloudy Pillar, and their guardian Fire:/ Their second
Moses, whose extended Wand/ Divides the Seas and
shews the promis’d Land:” (230-235) as a lucky prince, a
star in the southern sky, and a Saviour in such a way so
that he might turn him into his prey. He then further
added, the people look upon you as a second Moses and
you are result of the prayers of the general people. By
saying this he is evoking the embodiment and the hidden
ambition of the young Prince. Then Achitophel says,
“Believe me, Royal Youth Thy Fruit must be/ Or gathered
Ripe or rot upon the Tree”( 250-251). Here actually
Achitophel is precipitating or forcing the will of Absalom
by persuading his thought for taking arms against the
King.
Moreover, Dryden portrays the struggle in the mind of
Absalom after he had heard the speech of Achitophel in
these lines, “Th’ Ambitious Youth, too Covetous of
Fame,/ Too full of Angels Metal in his Frame;/Unwarily
was led from Vertues ways;/Made Drunk with Honour,
and Debauch’d with Praise./ Half loath, and half
consenting to the Ill, For Loyal Blood within him struggled
still/He thus reply’d – And what Pretence have I/To take
up Arms for Publick Liberty?”(309-316) . Achitophel has
given solid arguments for advising the prince to revolt
against the father though sometimes he feels that his
arguments are weak. The seeds of ambition struck root in
the fertile brain of Absalom and he began to think
seriously about the proposal made by Achitophel.
Actually Absalom was undoubtedly an ambitious young
man who had a great desire for winning fame. He had an
angelic temperament also. But he was led astray
unknowingly just as the angels in heaven were led astray
by Satan. There is an implied comparison between
Satan’s temptation and the sweet words of Achitophel.
Unknowingly, Monmouth drifted from the right path on
account of his being intoxicated with the prospect of
winning, and the corruption of excessive words of praise
used by Achitophel. There was a great hesitation in his
mind. So, here we can compare the mental state of
Absalom as a pendulum half unwilling and half willing to
respond to the proposal of Achitophel. His feeling of
loyalty rose uppermost within him. So, in the sense of
Hobbes this is a conflict in the state of mind of Absalom
against his father and against his own will and we can
consider this as desires the same thing the son and the
father. Dryden shows here Achitophel’s power as a
psychologist.
In addition, in these lines, “In Friendship False,
Implacable in Hate:/ Resolv’d to Ruine or to Rule the
State./ To Compass this the Triple Bond he
broke”(A&A,173-175) Dryden portrays Achitophel as a
false friend and a revengeful enemy and he thinks in a
way that either to rule a state or to ruin the country. To
achieve his end, he broke the Triple Alliance between
England, Sweden and Holland by instigating war against
Holland. Therefore, he dealt a blow to the security of
peace and paved the way for bringing England under the
rule of a foreign power. Overcoming the fear of the
consequence of his action, he assumed the name of a
patriot and posed as a champion of the people’s cause.
In the time of political trouble, it is easy to hide one’s
wicked action by pretending a concern for public welfare.
Crimes against the state and evil deeds can be excused
if they are done under the cover of fulfilling the wishes of
the public. In such a period people shut their eyes to
treason and wickedness because they themselves are
wicked, corrupt and vicious. So, Achitophel’s showing
goodness to Absalom is actually a kind of false
friendship. It’s not from the core of his mind. He can do
anything for his own sake. This is a kind of pretension
also for achieving his goal.
And in the same manner, Achitophel was portrayed as
a bold leader in the time of danger in these lines, “
Pleas’d with the Danger, when the Waves went high/ He
sought the Storm but for a Calm unfit” (A&A, 160-161). In
fact, he welcomed crisis when the political atmosphere
became stormy. Undoubtedly it can be argued that he
liked to catch fish in troubled water and was unfit for the
time of peace because then his actions were too reckless
in his attempt to show his wisdom. He thinks his mind
was confused and was born as an unnatural, shapeless
lump of flesh like an embodiment of anarchy. Achitophel
actually would like to take advantage when the situation
is bad. Hobbes says regarding this, “For that were to
erect two Soveraigns, and every man have his person
represented by two actors, that by opposing one another,
must need divide that power, which… is indivisible; and
thereby reduce the Multitude into the condition of War,…
instituted” (XIX, 103).
Thus Achitophel plans to rebel against the royal power
with multitude. “To farther this Achitophel Unites/ The
malecontents of all the Israelites;/ Whose differing Parties
he could wisely Joyn,/ For several ends, to serve the
same design”(491-494)in these lines we see to achieve
this object, Achitophel united the discontented people of
Israel (England) into a single party which had been
working separately, now began to work together to
achieve one and the same goal. The best people among
them included persons of royal blood who were of the
view that the king was exercising too much power. Some
of the men were really patriotic but they were misguided.
They were not evil minded but they were won over by
unholy tricks and intrigues. These people made
extraordinary claims on the basis of their property and the
result was that the government could not stand this
pressure and broke down. According to Hobbes, “A
Multitude of men, are made one Person, when they are
by one man, or one Person, Represented ; so that it be
done with the consent of everyone of that Multitude in
particular. For it is the Unity of the Representer, not the
Unity of the Represented, that maketh the Person One.
And it is the Representer that beareth the Person, and
but one Person: And Unity, cannot otherwise be
understood in Multitude”(XVI, 90).
According to Hobbes, “Competition of Riches, Honour,
Command, or other power, enclineth to Contention,
Enmity, and War: Because the way of one Competitor, to
the attaining of his desire, is to kill, subdue, supplant, or
repel the other (XI, 56). In these lines we see that
competition leads men to do something worse. The group
of people was motivated by self interest and sometimes
by Achitophel and it wanted to involve the country in a
civil war. In these lines we see, “To sell their Duty at a
dearer rate;/And make their Jewish Markets to the
throne,/ Pretending publick Good, to serve their
own”(503-505), these persons desire to sell their services
at a price and they wanted to have profit by exploiting the
difficulties of the King. Outwardly they posed as well
wishers of the public but in fact they wanted to serve their
own ends. There was another section of people which
firmly believed that kings were useless and heavy burden
on the state because they cost too much and did
Nawsher Oan et al. 33
practically nothing. In these lines, “These were for laying
Honest David by,/ On principles of pure good
Husbandry”(507-508) these people intended to remove
David (Charles) from Kingship on the ground of healthy
economy. They were joined by the mob orators who
thought that they could gain some position through their
speeches. Next to them were those who were even more
dangerous because they not only hated King David but
the very institution of Monarchy according to Hobbes.
The London crowd was well acquainted with religious
strife and disaffection for the King. They had trembled
and shuddered with fear at the sword of a Conqueror like
Cromwell, but they were contemptuous of David who had
been legally brought to the throne.
According to Hobbes, “And Covenants without the
Sword, are but Words, and of no strength to secure a
man at all. Therefore notwithstanding the Laws of Nature
… if there be no Power erected, or not great enough for
our security; every man will, and may lawfully rely on his
own strength and art, for caution against all other
men(XVII, 85). So in these lines we see that the covenant
can do something against the monarchy without sword. In
connection of this argument it can be said that the
general people treated the Popish plot with contempt and
hated to be out done by the Jebusites. These people
were lead by hot headed priests. These priests were
deprived of their positions by the Act of Uniformity passed
in 1662 during the Commonwealth and now they
reasserted their false notions with great enthusiasm in
order to reestablish the theocratic State established by
Cromwell. They wanted to regain the power of the
Commonwealth under which the parliament and the
priests governed the people and justified their misrule by
claiming that their actions were inspired by God. Who
could be better qualified to rule the country than the race
of priests, if spiritual grace was regarded as a basis of
political authority. The Presbyterian priests led the crowd.
They were not sure of their goal; they spoke vehemently
against the government. They used all their strength to
destroy discipline and peace. They did not wish to build
anything, but they were out of destroying everything.
In these lines,“But far more numerous was the herd of
such,/ Who think too little, and who talked too much./
These out of meer instinct, they knew not why, ador’d
their father’s God and Property;/And by the same blind
benefit of Fate,/ The Devil and the Jebusite did
hate:”(533-538) the largest crowd consisted of those who
talked too much and thought too little. They, out of sheer
instinct, worshipped the God of their ancestors and they
respected property. On account of the blind instinct, they
equally hated the Devil and the Jebusites means Roman
Catholics. They believed that they were born to be saved
though they did nothing to save themselves. They opined
that their instinct led to right belief. These were the types
of people which played into the hands of Achitophel (Earl
of Shaftesbury). Besides, there were numerous others
34 Inter. J. Eng. Lit. Cult.
beyond any count who seemed to appear from nowhere,
like Hydra, the monster with innumerable heads.
Some of the rebel leaders belonged to the aristocracy.
The most important among them was Zimri who is the
Duke of Buckingham. In these lines, “In the first Rank of
these did Zimri stand:/ A man so various, that he seemed
to be/ Not one, but all Mankinds Epitome./ Stiff in
Opinions, always in the wrong;/Was everything by starts,
and nothing long:/ But in the course of one revolving
Moon,/Was Chymist,Fidler, States- Man, and
Buffon:”(544-550) Zimri is depicted. He had so many
qualities that he seemed to be a symbol of all mankind.
He was rigid and inflexible in his opinions but
unfortunately he held the wrong opinions. He tried his
hand at everything but did not stick to any activity for any
length of time. Within a month, he would perform the
duties of a chemist, fiddler, statesman and a verses and
drinking. Besides this, he had numerous other fancies
and ideas which he had never put into practice. He was
indeed a happy madman who, every hour, was either
wishing or enjoying something new. He was either
praising people or condemning them. In expressing
judgments he always held extreme opinions. He was
either over critical or over polite. In his opinion every man
was either God or the Devil. According to Hobbes, “
whatsoever is the object of any man’s appetite or desire;
that is it, which he for his part calleth Good: And the
object of his Hate, and aversion, Evill; And of his
Contempt, …nor any common Rule of Good and Evill, to
be taken from the nature of the objects of themselves(VI,
32). So, he possesses the two qualities good and evil.
His great skill lay in wasting money. He rewarded all,
excepting those who were meritorious. He was looted by
foolish persons or flatterers but he found this out too late.
He ridiculed the people and had his fun while they
cheated him of his money and property. He was expelled
from the Royal Court on account of his folly. He tried to
form parties but could not be the leader of any one of
them. Despite this effort to gain leadership the burden of
the plot fell on wise Achitophel and Absalom. He was
wicked only in his intensions, because he had no
resources to put his ideas into practice. He did not leave
the party but it was the party that ignored him and chose
other leaders. Dryden wishes to show that the anti-
royalist party contained people of such characteristics
that their success in the revolt would really be doubtful.
There were many other leaders of small status, and it
will be very boring to give their names and titles. It would
be below the dignity of the poet to take notice of such
people. The best of them would fall under the categories
of wits, warriors, and champions of the commonwealth.
The rest could be described as kind husband and
members of the nobility. In the lines 372 to 382 Dryden
talks about the following persons. In order to avoid boring
the reader, the poet omits the wicked Balaam, Earl of
Huntingdon, and cold Caleb, Lord Grey, and hypocritical
Nadab (Lord Howard). Such persons may be
remembered as a group of anti-royalist feelings. Some of
them will be remembered for their worthlessness while
others for their hatred. There is no place in this verse for
the rascally crowd who had neither royal title nor the
grace of God. So, ill tempered Jonas or Sir William Jones
prepared statutes or Acts in favour of the revolt against
the King and to make treason lawful.
Although Sir William Jones was bad enough, there was
one worse than he namely Shimei (Singsby Bethel), a
rascal who had the courage to curse the divinely
ordained King David. Dryden gives us an ironical portrait
of Shimei or Slingsby Bethel who was the Republican
Sheriff of London. In these lines, “Shimei, whose youth
did early Promise bring/ Of Zeal to God, and Hatred to his
King;/ Did wisely from Expensive Sins refrain,/ And never
broke the Sabbath, but for gain:/ Nor ever was he known
an Oath to vent,/ Of Curse unless against the
Government.” (585-590). Dryden says in his youth, he
showed signs of devotion to God and great hatred
against monarchy. He was wise enough to keep away
from sins which cost money. He would only indulge in
those sins which cost nothing. On Sunday, he would not
do any secular act unless it brought him some money.
However , during the tenure of his office , crimes against
the state and the King were left unnoticed by him
because he himself was against the King. Whenever
some persons gathered together to shout against King
Charles, Shimei was always seen in their midst. Hobbes
says regarding this, “Contempt, or little sense of the
calamity of others, is that which men call Cruelty;
proceeding from Security of their own fortune. For, that
any man should take pleasure in other men’s great
harms, without other end of his own (VI, 35). Though it
was his duty to arrest the persons denouncing the King,
he would not do. So he is doing wrong and it is a kind of
cruelty according to Hobbes. He was quite mild with his
tongue, but he would use up his entire strength if he had
to utter any oath or curse against the government. Shimei
is one of the contemptible members of the anti-royalist
party.
However a mention of the remaining enemies of the
King would be boring even for a person who had been an
eye witness to the conspiracy against the King. It is better
to forget the other conspirators. However there is one,
namely Corah (Titus Oates) who will not be forgotten. In
these lines, “Yet, Corah, thou shalt from Oblivion pass;/
Erect thy self thou Monumental Brass;/ High as the
Serpent of thy mettall made,/While Nations stand secure
beneth thy shade./What tho his Birth were base, yet
Comet’s rise/ From Earthly Vapoursere they shine in
Skies”(632-637) Corah is described. Dryden has drawn a
dark portrait of Corah who belonged to the anti-royalist
group. Moses had saved his followers from snake-bite by
asking them to stand under the brass serpent. Similarly
Corah had tried to show that he would save the Jews or
the Protestants from the evil designs of Jebusites or the
Roman Catholics. Corah was obviously a man of low
birth from a weaver’s family and yet the appearance of
comets is due to earthly vapours which go up to the sky
and then take the form of comets. There is an irony in his
being compared to a comet. Important deeds may be
done by the son of a weaver as by the son of a prince.
This man witnessed the Popish Plot, declaring that he
had done so for the good of the people, ennobled himself
by this one great action. Whoever bothered about the
high or noble blood of a witness on the strength of which
St, Stephen was sentenced to death. Titus Oates was a
priest and as such his profession was respected and he,
like other priests, was regarded as a respectable child of
God. He had sunken eyes and his voice was rough and
loud and surely these things indicate ironically that he
was neither ill-tempered nor arrogant. His long chin
indicated that he was a man of wit; his shining red
complexion like that of a parson was like the face of
Moses, symbolic of his piety and grace. He had a very
strong and great memory; he could relate the details of
anti-royalist plots which could hardly be believed by his
listeners. These could not be called false plots because
they could not have been invented by him on intelligence.
His saying included some forecast of the future. When he
could not prove such predictions, he claimed that he was
speaking as a Prophet. According to Hobbes, “And
seeing every man is presumed to do all things in order to
his own benefit, no man is a fit Arbitrator in his own cause
: and if he were never so fit; yet Equity allowing to each
party equal benefit, if one be admitted to be Judge, the
other is to be admitted also; & so the controversies, that
is, the cause of War, remains, against the Law of
Nature(XV,86). Some of his speeches seem to be flights
of imagination and it appeared that he spoke like one
divinely inspired. His judgment was even more
remarkable than his memory because it enabled him to
link evidence in a persuasive manner.
Nawsher Oan et al. 35
In fine, we can say that the combination of exceptional
intellectual caliber and stupendous moral bankruptcy is
too rare which we see in Achitophel. It is true that it is not
to be found in the character of every politician. Such men
as Achitophel, pursuing their ambitious and selfish
political goal with extraordinary brilliance through devious
means, do exist. There may be few persons of such
brilliant intellect who put their intelligence to such devious
schemes, but they certainly linger in all lands and in all
times. It is true to some extent that, the Earl of
Shaftesbury cannot be removed from the context in which
Dryden puts him, for we cannot have the same political
situation as existed in England at that time. But most of
the features presented in Achitophel are to be found
universally among politicians – hypocrisy, lack of
integrity, ambition, etc. When an acutely intelligent man
turns his mind to a lust for power, he makes use of his
intellectual ability to gain his ends unscrupulously. Such
men are to be found in increasing numbers in the modern
world of power politics. It proves the universality of
Dryden’s portraiture of the Earl of Shaftsbury.
REFERENCES
Chambers, A. B. (2012). “Absalom and Achitophel:
Christ and Satan”. Modern Language Notes.
74.7(1959): 592-96.
Dryden, John. (1995). Absalom and Achitophel. The
Poems of John Dryden. Vol. 1. Ed. Paul Hammond.
London and New York.
D. Weinbrot, Howard. (2012). “Nature’s Haly Bands in
Absalom and Achitophel: Father and Sons, Satire and
Change” Modern Philology 85.4(1988): 373-92.
Freed man, Morris. (2012). “Satan and Shaftesbury”
PMLA 75.4(1959): 544-47.
Hobbes, Thomas. (1997) Leviathan. Ed. Richard E.
Flathman and David Johnston. A Norton Critical
Edition. New York and London.