Religio Laici by John Dryden | Summary and Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. John Dryden was the first official poet laureate of England and he was a loyal Tory supporter of the crown. He was active at a time when England was facing religious and political turmoil. The power struggle between Catholics and Protestants was incessantly increasing. King Charles II wished his brother James, Duke of York to succeed him but the strong Protestant fraction was totally against it as James II was a Catholic. John Dryden was a Protestant but he was a supporter of King Charles II. During the same time, the Catholic faction of Britain was also gaining strength. In 1682, ‘Histoire critique due Vieux testament’ by French cleric Father Richard Simon was translated and published in English. This book was a detailed criticism of the textual history of the Bible and argued that, given the compromised nature of much of the Bible, Christians would do better to base their faith on the history and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church. The book was meant to undermine the Protestant faction that considered the authority of the Bible over the traditions and rituals of the Catholic Church.

As a response, Dryden wrote Religio Laici; or, A Layman’s Faith which was essentially a literary defense of the Protestant Anglican Church against arguments made by Deists, Catholics, and Dissenting factions against the throne of England. While John Dryden offers strong support to the Anglican Church in Religio Laici, he converted to Catholicism three years after writing this poem. The poem contains 456 lines composed in 23 uneven stanzas. It is a narrative poem written in epic form.

Summary:

Dryden first offers a prose description (a Preamble) of why he is writing this poem. He says that his writing is supported by both officially sanctified concepts of the Church of England and has been approved by a knowledgeable scholar. However, he acknowledges that he has not followed all the notes offered by that scholar as that would have compromised his own personality.

He then discusses his ideas of faith. He discusses the history of Christianity which according to him reveals that the concept of the chosen people is used in so many contexts that it has become invalid as if in God's plan the devil always had a first choice with which he disagrees. Dryden suggests that the one true religion was given to Noah and that each subsection that came after slowly degraded the holy rite, and hence, could not be near the one true faith. He talks about science and the laws of nature and how they all fit into the scheme, even though certain religious and philosophical figures discourage them. He concludes this section by stating that the word of God, as found in the Holy Scripture is the only anchor a human needs.

Dryden then discusses the philosophy of Athanasius, a Bishop of ancient Constantinople famous for his pursuit against heretics within the old Catholic faith. He expresses his disagreement with Athanasius and says that the words of the apostles are the only source of wisdom as these are easy to understand. He concludes his analysis of History and suggests that it is better to have a worldview simply based on the Holy Scriptures and let the unknown be unknown. However, he says that this makes him an enemy of both the Papacy and the religious fanatics (Puritans). He further says that none of these groups troubles his mind because while the fanatics are entrenched in their own battles and the Catholics have no dominion over England, nor they can ever get.

He then shows some favors for the ‘Good Catholics,’ those who consider the English crown as their sovereign and are loyal to it. He asks them to culminate all their loyalties towards Rome. He then criticizes the religious fanatics of the Anglican church and their crimes against civility and humanity. At the end of this introduction to his poem, Dryden suggests that this poem should be taken as an instruction, he believes that a learned person can be led to the truth by means of reason.

The first stanza of the poem stresses the primacy of reason over a man’s life. Dryden says that reason has led men on the right path and has the opportunity to do this for others as well. In the second stanza, Dryden counters the viewpoint of deists who say that they are chosen with the truth and history and provenance suggests to humankind that only good deeds lead to salvation. In the third stanza, Dryden attacks those who try to explain the way of God. He says that the people who try to decipher the will of God are like those philosophers of ancient Greece who didn’t believe in God and tried to rationalize the concept of God. Dryden says that truth and reason are implanted into humankind by the true God and God encompasses all that is. In the fourth stanza, he questions the reader if he can breach this law and do whatever he wants? In the next stanza, Dryden mentions Christ who took birth to take humankind’s sin over him. He again attacks those who believe they know God’s will. The sixth stanza warns people to only listen to the scripture as truth can only be found in it, followed by a plea that rites, tradition, and philosophy do not contain the truth, but only the word of God can give us this.

In the tenth stanza, Dryden counters those who argue that the truth can only be the truth if it is known by everyone. Since Bible remained unknown in the recently discovered Americas during that time, they say Bible cannot be true. Dryden asserts that Providence always finds a way, exemplified in the journey of the Gentiles, who were not forced by any given law. He also contests the notion that good people who did not know the true word would suffer in eternity, as this goes against the basics of the written word. In the thirteenth stanza, Dryden acknowledges the problem of mistranslation and misinterpretation of the holy words of the Bible. In the fourteenth stanza, Dryden mentions the issue of Apocrypha, those religious texts that were kept out of the Bible by Catholic concepts. Dryden states that these holes in the knowledge are filled with ill-placed traditions and bad rites. In the 15^th and 16th stanzas, Dryden answers these issues and says that a true, fully realized, and bias-free version of the holy text can be found in the lost original. He further says that this doesn’t mean that all translations are wrong or bad. He mentions that Christ is still the lord and still a man. He then praises the Layman and encourages them to remain true to their heart. He says that Layman has the ability to see what is true and just among all the fancy translation errors in the scripture. The common man should keep these truths he finds to his heart and not let the fancy text bring him off the true path.

In the 19th stanza, Dryden offers a strong critique of Catholic belief and says that the Catholic faith believes to own the whole Christian faith when they only are a part of it. In the 20th stanza, he goes on to explain how Catholic history has corrupted this branch of Christianity. They're keeping the real wisdom, as mentioned before, from the common folk leading to a number of problems. People started to have their own interpretations and believed everything they heard. The good and common thread of love and compassion got lost. Dryden complains that this practice caused a thousand sects per day to rise.

In the last two stanzas, Dryden asserts the main message of the poem and says that the layman or the common man must only have the basic truths of Christianity to hold onto. Every addition given from the outside has to be rejected.

The poem deals with the tussle of true Christianity between the Catholics and Protestants. The poet explains the definition of true belief. The narrator leads the reader towards the explanation that true Christianity is only to be found in the pure interpretation of the original word of God, namely the Bible. Dryden also brings up the debate between believers and nonbelievers and rejects the argument that most people that have lived on this planet would be considered to burn in hell for all eternity because they do not believe in Catholic ways. He says that the Provenance of God's word is true in all times and places, transcending the Christian world and allowing all good people to arrive in heaven. He attacks religious eliticism. He complained against the argument that some religious rites are better than others. The poet says that all forms of worship are flawed to some extent and no one can know which one is the least flawed. That is why such elitist explanations about the one true way to worship God, as proclaimed by Catholics or other denominations are discarded by Dryden.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of English literature. Please stay connected to the Discourse. Thanks and Regards.

Mac Flecknoe by John Dryden | Characters, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. John Dryden and Thomas Shadwell were close friends with some political and artistic differences. While John Dryden was a fan of Shakespeare, Thomas Shadwell considered himself the heir of Ben Jonson. Dryden preferred comedy of wit and repartee. On the other hand, Shadwell preferred humor comedy. They also disagreed over the importance of rhymed plays. However, the main contention between the two was their political alignments. John Dryden belonged to the Tory group supporting the Stuart royalty while Shadwell, being a Protestant, supported the Whigs against the possibility of a Catholic monarch. In 1681, Dryden published Absalom and Achitophel. After the acquittal of the Earl of Shaftesbury, he published The Medal (1682). Both of these were a strong satirical attack on the Whigs' supporters. In addition, John Dryden also contributed to Nahum Tait’s Absalom and Achitophel Part II in which he indirectly satirized Thomas Shadwell as the character Og.

In response, Thomas Shadwell published The Medal of John Bayes; a Satire against Folly and Knavery (1682), another political satirical poem that directly attacked the Tories and Dryden’s political satire. As a response, John Dryden published Mac Flecknoe, which became the classic mock Heroic satirical poem. The subtitle and the subject of this poem is “the True-blue Protestant Poet T.S.” This poem carved out a new poetic genre known as mock-epic, or mock-heroic poetry. This poem is a strong hilarious criticism of Thomas Shadwell in which Dryden completely skewers Shadwell, exposing him for what he was: a bad writer with bad taste, who would do anything for the cheap laugh. John Dryden created an incredibly rich, expertly crafted work of satire, layered in so much irony, sarcasm, and wit that at many times, the poem appears to be a genuine epic. The poem has the same grandiose as that of The Illiad or Paradise Lost, however, it is just a satirical joke.

During the Restoration period, Shadwell was a reputed author and playwright, so much so that he replaced John Dryden as England's poet laureate in 1689. But Dryden believed Shadwell was a subpar poet and dramatist who believed much too highly of himself. Dryden uses Mac Flacknoe to point this out, highlighting throughout the satire the ridiculousness of Shadwell’s self-indulgence. Regarding the dueling poets’ thoughts on humor, the satire serves as a defense of wit against humor, which Dryden believed to be a much more noble and intelligent form of co“the True-blue Protestant Poet T.S.”

Characters:

Richard Flecknoe was a lesser-known English dramatist during the Milton age. Andrew Marvel derided and made a mockery of his works and John Milton also made a similar mockery of him in this poem. He is represented as the titular character Mac Flecknoe who is the monarch of the realm of Nonsense. He is getting older and decides he must appoint a successor to one of his sons. He chooses Shadwell because he is the most like him; he is dull and devoid of wit and sense. Thomas Shadwell is the main target of Dryden’s satire and derision and he is represented as T.S., or Sh--, or Shadwell. He is the heir of the fictional "Kingdom of Nonsense," which is presided over by Flecknoe. Shadwell is a large, proud man who revels in the bombast of his coronation. He has no sense, is dull, and runs roughshod over the work of other, better poets. Dryden has mentioned Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, John Fletcher, Thomas Dekker, Thomas Heywood, and James Shirley in this satire. Apart from them, Roman author Virgil, Roman king Augustus, Ancient Greek poet Arion, Troy’s leader Ascanius, British monarch Charles II, and Oliver Cromwell have also been mentioned in the poem. Sir Formal Trifle, Bruce, and Longvil are characters from Thomas Shadwell’s play Virtuoso. Dryden also mentions St. Andre, a French dancing master who choreographed Shadwell’s drama Psyche.

Summary of Mac Flecknoe:

The poem has 217 lines written in rhyming couplets in iambic pentameter. It starts with

All humane things are subject to decay,
And, when Fate summons, Monarchs must obey;

The poet then introduces Mac Flecknoe, the Protagonist of the poem. He is the poet-king of the realm of nonsense. Like the roman ruler Augustus, he was called to rule when he was young and like Augustus, he proved to be a successful ruler. But now, he is getting old and it is time for him to step down. He thinks over which of his sons should succeed him in the eternal war against wit. Ultimately, he chooses his son Shadwell, a poet of unparalleled dreadfulness, as his successor. Shadwell is the worst writer in all the land, and thus, the perfect man for the job. He is the one who resembles Mac Flecknoe most. Shadwell, who even while young in years is mature in the dullness. He is “confirm’d in full stupidity”, and while some of his brothers occasionally grasp the meaning, he never has any sense at all. Other people are illuminated by beams of wit, but Shadwell’s “genuine night admits no ray.” The monarch is very proud of his son and believes Shadwell is “the last great prophet of tautology” The poet then compares Shadwell with James Shirley and Thomas Heywood while admitting that Flecknoe himself is no comparison to his son Shadwell. As Shadwell approaches London (city Augusta in the poem) while sailing down the river Thames, Flecknoe feels as if a new Arion is sailing to claim his state. Mac Flecknoe weeps for the joy of his son, knowing that Shadwell’s plays persuade “that for anointed dullness he was made.

Near the walls of the city of Augusta, there is a pile of ruins that once used to be a mighty watch tower. Flecknoe rejects this place for the coronation of Shadwell. Rather, he chooses a place where a long time ago, Decker prophesied that a mighty prince shall rule this pile, a prince “born for a scourge of wit, and flail of sense” (line 89). The prince’s pen will create misers, humorists, and hypocrites, as well as whole families of Raymond and the tribes of Bruce.

The prince finally appears in all his majesty, sitting atop a throne of his labors. Flecknoe compares Shadwell to Ascanius, son of Aeneas, who famously sat at his father’s right hand and inherited the kingdom. Shadwell’s brows are like thick fogs, and dullness swirls about his visage.

Shadwell swears he will maintain dullness until his death. He will never make peace with wit and never sign a truce with sense.

Then the old monarch offers his son some words of advice. He says that Shadwell should always trust his dull nature and should not let any false friend seduce him by using Ben Jonson’s name and turning him towards wit. Flecknoe says that when Shadwell will fully embraces his nature, Sir Formal Trife’s oratory skills will become his. Flecknoe urges Shadwell that he should remember that he is Flecknoe’s blood and Jonson has no part in it. Flecknoe exhorts his son to remember that this is his place, his way; he gets to add new humor to his plays and indulge in the dullness. Shadwell may be a large, bulky man with a huge belly, but his plays never bite or offend. Even though his heart may have venom, it dies the moment it touches his Irish pen.

Shadwell’s genius does not lie in iambics but rather in simple anagrams. He should not, Flecknoe counsels, worry about plays; instead, he should focus on acrostics. In those, he can be famous and torture words in thousands of ways. If not those, then perhaps songs set to a lute.

The father continues to offer his advice to Shadwell as his words start fading away as Bruce and Longwil captures him in their trap and he sinks down and perishes. He leaves his robe on the ground which rises upward by flatulence, the mantle settles on the son who possesses a “double portion of his father’s art”

Mac Flecknoe is a typical personal satire that has for its target Thomas Shadwell, another poet who had offended Dryden with his aesthetic and political leanings. It is also literary satire and is considered one of the most famous mock-heroic verses in the English tradition. It is 218 lines of rhyming couplets in iambic pentameter. Like Dante’s Inferno, the poem has numerous references to Dryden’s contemporaries. Dryden not only criticizes Shadwell, but he also attacks Shadwell’s literary works and mentions that Shadwell himself by nature is exactly similar to the characters of his plays like Psyche, and has abilities like those of Sir Formal Trifle from The Virtuoso.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards.

The Medal; A Satyre Against Sedition by John Dryden | Characters, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. The Medal was another satirical political poem by John Dryden that was published in 1682. The poem has 320 lines composed in seven different stanzas of different lengths written in Heroic couplets.

In his previous poem (Absalom and Achitophel), John Dryden caricatured the Earl of Shaftesbury and then in Nahum Tate’s Absalom and Achitophel part II, Dryden contributed while satirically criticizing Thomas Shadwell. The Medal is again a satirical poem that targeted Whigs politicians and raised the issue of the controversial acquittal of the Earl of Shaftesbury after he was charged and imprisoned for sedition. The grand jury dismissed all charges against the Earl of Shaftesbury and the Whigs' supporters celebrated the decision during which a medal was struck to commemorate the event. John Dryden was infuriated by the decision and the following outrageous celebration. Thus he wrote a satirical poem that not only criticized the Earl of Shaftesbury and the Whigs' supporters but also targeted the grand jury.

The Medal is a work full of unsparing invective against the Whigs, prefaced by a vigorous and plainspoken prose “Epistle to the Whigs” in which the poet dedicates the poem to the Whigs.  Dryden characterized the jurors who freed Shaftesbury as ignoramuses, and his followers, who cast a medal celebrating his "innocence," as ignorant revelers. The subtitle of The Medall is A Satyre Against Sedition.

Characters: The narrator of the poem is never named. The poem is written in third person narrative speech in which the narrator accuses, satirizes, and criticizes different entities including the Earl of Shaftesbury indirectly mentioned as the Man, the grand jury, and other Whigs supporters. The Earl of Shaftesbury is not directly addressed in the poem. However, he is mentioned as an evil leader of a seditious sect trying to overthrow the crown of London. The narrator whole-heartedly wished that the Earl of Shfestbury was convicted for high treason but he was acquitted. The narrator likened sedition to a sickness that captured the British empire. The narrator also describes the Whigs Party, the sect of evil leaders as a mass of brainless followers of a sect that only seeks to do evil. The Whigs are trying to challenge the absolute monarchy for a constitutional monarchy and their desire is indirectly compared with regicide and the eating of ministers for breakfast. The High Jury is only mentioned in the sidenote. The narrator makes it clear that the high jury didn’t act according to the law while acquitting the Earl. The narrator clearly mentions that much harm could have been avoided if the jury had acted according to the law and likens the witnesses of the High Jury as leeches that suck all blood out of the English system. The Medal isn’t personified but it is the main subject of the poem.

Theme: The main theme of the poem is Absolutism against Constitutionalism. The narrator believes in the absolute power of the King that has been challenged by the Whigs in support of the constitutional monarchy. The narrator criticizes the acts of Whigs that are diluting the absolute power of the ruler. Dryden uses mythological comparisons either explicitly or purely metaphorically to evoke some additional emotional connotation to the topic. Dryden also uses religious symbolism and refers to the values and history of the Christian faith. The Whigs are described as a sect that goes against the word of God, consequently destroying heaven, should they succeed.

Summary:

The narrator begins the poem with a colorful depiction of the Medal in question. He says that a group of idiots has visited to see the medal. These idiots never had a chance to see anything like this medal before and they are awe-struck by it. The narrator depicts the nature and art of the medal and says that it is golden without base and shallow within. The narrator describes both sides of the medal and the inscriptions that have been carved on it. He says that Loetamur is inscribed on the medal, a Polish word meaning Rejoice. He then mentions that though God took one day for the creation of Man and to develop mankind, it took five days to create this medal. He then mentions Lucifer and says that who knows how many days God took to create Lucifer, suggesting a comparison between the Medal and Satan.

In the second stanza, the narrator describes the Man to be honored by the medal. He says that the Man has a shifting personality and it would have been difficult for the engraving artist to exactly describe the Man on the medal. The narrator says that this is the reason why the engraver chose to stick to the regal depiction. The narrator then describes the various personalities the Man exhibits in a criticizing manner and scolding tone. The character is described as a war hero, unwilling to stay loyal, a powerless chief, and a disgusting vermin working with the enemy. This all is hidden behind the golden saint depicted. However, the truth cannot be hidden, according to the narrator.

The narrator further describes the man as traitorous, who used subterfuge and lies to escape punishment for his evil deeds. The narrator then criticizes the jury for granting acquittal to the man and says that the jury is full of corrupt individuals, allowing the clever lies to cloud their judgment.

The narrator then acknowledges the audience and pleads with them to do everything possible to create justice. He mentions interesting Greek mythical stories and explains that the wisdom of the crowd is boundless, but can shift either way and that religion often hinges around these powerful motions started by crowds throughout history. This leads to the conclusion that prudent men allow a succession of kings to lead them, as this creates peace and property. At the end of the first stanza, the narrator warns the public about the evil intentions of the man and claims that his aim for power and anarchy has the potential to destroy England.

In the second stanza, the narrator attacks the rotten justice system and claims that the law is being misused. He likens the witnesses to leeches on the festering wound of justice. The third stanza likens the river Nile to the city of London. Both give life and create prosperity, but also both breed monsters in their slimy depths. The narrator again criticizes the acts of sedition by the man.

The use of similes continues when London is compared to a person with a healthy head, meaning the rich and noble, and some rotten hands, meaning the inconvenient and loud opposition. The latter is compared to a sect, where doing evil like stealing has become so much part of their nature that they are willing to go as far as follow their leader into the depths of high treason against the rightful king.

In the fourth stanza, the narrator questions the arguments of the defendants of the man for his seditious acts. Their argument becomes invalid, and the narrator compares their crime to the betrayal of Jesus in the vineyard, where the betrayer gets rich from the fall of his king. The narrator goes on in describing that their pretend loyalty will end in them limiting the power of the king to become a simple pawn to dispose of. At the end of the fourth stanza, the narrator says that Britain cannot live without its just ruler, as democracy is not meant for the isle.

In the fifth stanza, the narrator directly attacks the man (Earl of Shaftesbury) and says that his evil ways will lead him to his own suffering. The narrator describes him as the leader of a sect that has infiltrated already way too many minds. It is that his godless ways will lead, even in his success, to his friends becoming his foes. In the end, the narrator criticizes the religious bigotry of the seditious leader and says how dull heaven would become, should his vision of religion be the real one.

In the sixth stanza, the narrator explains that the only way Britain can prevail and not sink into madness and chaos is through the rightful ruler at the top. The republican wishes of the traitors will only lead to the utter destruction of all they hold dear. People will cry out for help from God, the traitor’s generals will defy him and all followers will cast him from their lands.

In the seventh (last) stanza, the narrator expresses and describes his loyalty toward the king, who helped the nation out of squalor into a peaceful rest.

John Dryden has used very colorful religious and geographical similes that make this poem very interesting.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards.

Absalom and Achitophel by John Dryden, Characters, Summary and Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Absalom and Achitopel is a political allegory written by John Dryden that comments on the then-political scenario of England. It is a lengthy poem containing 1031 lines framed in Heroic couplets. 'Absalom and Achitophel' was first published in 1681. It is a Biblical allegory in which Dryden describes the rebellion of Absalom against King David and uses it to explain the political situation concerning King Charles II, his illegitimate son James Scott, the Duke of Monmouth, and the Earl of Shaftesbury. The poem also reflects on the Popish plot of 1678. The subtitle of Absalom and Achitophel is A Poem. This poem best captures the sense of political turmoil particularly regarding religion just after the Restoration.

'Absalom and Achitophel' is considered the ‘finest political satire in the English language.’ In the prologue, "To the Reader", Dryden states that "the true end of satire is the amendment of vices by correction". Dryden uses two Biblical stories in this poem to depict the happenings of court during those times. The first story is of Absalom’s rebellion against his father King David, as told in the Old Testament of the Bible. The second allegory is the Parable of the Prodigal Son from the New Testament of the Bible. The second allegory can be found in the poem beginning on line 425.

Major Characters:

David biblically is the King of Israel, he represents King Charles II of England. Absalom is David's beloved son who rebelled against him; he stands for James, the Duke of Monmouth, who sided with the Exclusionists against his father Charles II. He was executed for treason. Achitophel is David's counselor who betrayed him and encouraged Absalom to rebel against his father. He hanged himself when he saw that the rebellion would not succeed. He represents Anthony Ashley Cooper, the first Earl of Shaftesbury. Hushai is David's friend, and represents Lawrence Hyde, Earl of Rochester, Charles II's First Lord of the Treasury. He fought against the Exclusion Bill.

David committed adultery with Bathsheba and sent her husband Uriah into battle, where he was killed. David later married her. Here she stands for Louise de Keroualle, Duchess of Portsmouth, one of Charles's mistresses. Saul was the first king of Israel; he defeated the Philistines in their first battle. He represents Oliver Cromwell, who ruled England after Charles's execution as Lord Protector. Two biblical figures represent Zimri: a murderer in Numbers, and a usurping murderer in 1 King. He is an allegory of George Villiers, the second Duke of Buckingham. Corah led a rebellion against Moses. He stands for Titus Oates, who devised the Popish Plot and led the persecution of Catholics.

Background

Biblical Background: Absalom is the beloved son of King David. He is distinguished by his extraordinarily abundant hair, which is thought to symbolize his pride. He decides to rebel against his father, King David, to acquire ruling power. Achitophel, one of the renowned advisors of King David decides to side with Absalom. When David comes to know this, he plans with his other advisor Hushai. Hushai plots with David to pretend to defect and give Absalom advice that plays into David's hands. While Hushai acts as a double agent, he succeeds in gaining the trust of Absalom who takes the advice of Hushai while ignoring the good advice of Achitophel. Achitophel, realizing that the rebellion is doomed to failure, goes home and hangs himself. King David’s soldiers defeat the rebels and despite David’s explicit command not to harm Absalom, he is killed after getting caught by his hair in the thick branches of a great oak tree. The death of his son, Absalom, causes David enormous personal grief. The other allegoric story is that of the Parable of a Prodigal Son. It is the tale of a son who asks for his birthright early, loses it, and returns to his father, who then takes pity on him and shares with him his remaining fortune.

Historical Background: in 1681, King Charles was 51 years old and his health was deteriorating. He had no legitimate heir while he had many illegitimate sons. His most beloved and popular bastard child was James Scott, the Duke of Monmouth. He was a Protestant and was supported by Whigs. King Charles II wishes his brother James II to succeed him. While King Charles II was a Protestant, his brother James II was openly a Roman Catholic. Whigs supporters and the majority Protestant population were apprehensive about the possibility of a Roman Catholic King ruling over them. So they devised the Exclusion bill that would prevent James from succeeding to the throne. The Exclusion Bill was presented and advocated by Anthony Ashley Cooper, the first Earl of Shaftesbury. But this Bill was opposed by Tories and was blocked by the House of Lords. In 1681, the Earl of Shaftesbury appealed to King Charles II to legitimize James Scott, Duke of Monmouth at the Oxford Parliament. However, the Duke of Monmouth was caught preparing to rebel against King Charles II to seek the throne. The Earl of Shaftesbury was suspected to fan and support this rebellion. He was seized and charged with High Treason, however, he was later acquitted with the help of Whig sheriffs. After the death of King Charles II, it was definite that James II will succeed him. The Duke of Monmouth couldn’t bear it and he decided to revolt. The Monmouth rebellion was put down and in 1685 the Duke was executed.

Summary:

King David is the ruler of Israel at a time when Polygamy is not a sin. He has many offsprings but he has no legitimate heir from his wife Michal. Absalom is one of his illegitimate sons who is most beloved and popular. Absalom has gained name and fame with his wins in foreign lands and King David loves him too much and tries to fulfill all his whims. While David is an able leader, Jewish people are capricious and tempestuous and often throw off their ruler for a new one for political gains. Achitophel is a wise and witty counselor of King David. He is desirous with high aspirations and wishes to gain more power. He decides to ruin King David’s reign and starts swaying Absalom to his side. As Absalom gradually becomes his political pawn, Achitophel instigates him to revolt. Achitophel compliments and charms Absalom, telling him that it is a shame his low birth seemingly precludes him from taking the throne. His father’s legal successor is Absalom’s uncle, a wretched man. Achitophel fills Absalom’s head with praise; even though Absalom loves his father, Achitophel’s subtle comments about his father’s weaknesses begin to affect him. He sees himself as destined for greatness.

Meanwhile, King David comes to know about the design of Achitophel and takes Hushai's help to counter Achitophel. Hushai pretends to be against King David and wins the trust of Absalom. He advises Absalom to win the hearts of people. Achitophel begins to work within the populace, fomenting dissent and unrest. Absalom goes before the people and wins their love easily. His popularity and pomp distract from the plot at hand. Achitophel realizes that Hushai is playing some other game and he tries to warn Absalom. But Absalom ignores Achitophel’s advice. Finally, King David speaks, asserting his legitimacy and power in a manner that brooks no refutation or dissension. This secures his enemies’ downfall and his own long rule.

Dryden makes a satirical comment on Duke of Monmouth (Absalom) and Earl of Shaftesbury (Achitophel) in lines --

“Great wits are sure to madness near alli'd;
And thin partitions do their bounds divide:”

Absalom and Achitophel gained huge popularity and success. John Dryden was requested to continue the story and write another part. However, Dryden declined such offers. Nahum Tate, Dryden’s close friend decided to write the second part of the poem with the help of John Dryden, and this second part was published in 1682. In this second part, Dryden anonymously contributed a few lines that satirize Thomas Shadwell and Elkanah Settle, two of his contemporary authors who were named Og and Doeg in Dryden’s passage.

“Now stop your noses, readers, all and some;

For here’s a tun of midnight work to come;

Og from a treason tavern rolling home.

Round as a globe, and liquor'd ev'ry chink,

Goodly and great he sails behind his link:

These lines of part 2 of Absalom and Achitophel were written by Dryden as a satirical comment on Thomas Shadwell.

\So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards.

Arrowsmith by Sinclair Lewis | Characters, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Arrowsmith was a novel by Sinclair Lewis that was published in  1925. Sinclair Lewis won the Pulitzer Prize for Arrowsmith though he later declined it. Lewis offers a critical viewpoint of the culture of a scientific society in this novel. Arrowsmith is a progressive novel that offers insight into the problems of scientific culture during that age. Science writer Paul de Kruif greatly assisted Sinclair Lewis in writing this novel. In the novel, Lewis describes many aspects of medical training, medical ethics, and scientific fraud. The novel deals with the experiences of a young idealistic doctor who tries to challenge and improve the existing system of medical practice.

Characters:

Martin Arrowsmith is the titular protagonist of the novel. He is a gifted medical doctor with medical ethics and has a strong interest in medical research. Martin begins with a humble background and through his talent and hard work, he writes his success story from undergraduate medical student to a wealthy and highly successful doctor. However, his success doesn’t satisfy him and he decides to give away all the success he earned for a noble pursuit of purity of purpose within the scientific research branch of medicine. Max Gottlieb is a professor of Bacteriology who is an ideologist and prefers ethical medical practices. However, he faces criticism from the less scientifically inclined people working in the field of medicine for pursuing ethical ideas that appear to be eccentric. Professor Gottlieb strongly influences Arrowsmith. Madeline Fox is a young English graduate whom Arrowsmith meets during his college years and falls in love with her. While Madeline pretends as an intellectual, she lacks knowledge. Arrowsmith is impressed by her pretensions and becomes engaged with her, only to get separated once he realizes that she cannot grasp the depth of medical ethics. Leora Tozer is a young nurse, who is not as well educated as Madeline, but she is committed to her career in nursing. Her true heart attracts Arrowsmith who breaks up with Madeline and marries Leora. Leora dies as a result of pandemic bubonic plague while nursing the patients. Joyce Lanyon is a rich widow woman whom Arrowsmith meets after the death of Leora. They marry and try to settle with each other. Terry Wicket is another medical practitioner who likes Arrowsmith and is interested in medical research.

Summary:

The novel revolves around Martin Arrowsmith, a young promising man with a keen interest in science and medicine. He is born and raised in a small town, Elk Mills, and goes on to become a medical student at college, where he meets Max, Gottlieb, a bacteriologist, who becomes his ideal, mentor. He is a brilliant and dedicated medical student who impresses all. He meets a young girl Madeline Fox, an English graduate. They develop a relationship and get engaged. Soon Martin realizes that Madeline isn’t as intelligent as she pretends to be. Her snobbish attitude and behavior of looking down at those she thinks are beneath her, results in their breakup. Meanwhile, he faces some difficulties at college and eventually insults his mentor, Max Gottlieb, and is suspended from school. He starts again as an ordinary worker. He reaches a small town Wheatsylvania in North Dakota and begins private practici9ng medicines. He gets the support of Leora Tozer, a young nurse, and her family. He finds that Leora Tozer’s kind-hearted soul is just opposite to that of Madeline Fox and falls in love with her. Leora’s family agrees to their marriage as he is the only doctor in the area. Leora's family encourages him to complete his graduation and then Leora and Martin move to Winnemac to begin working as medical practitioners. Meanwhile, Martin engulfs himself in a moral dilemma between the commercialism of physicians and his true love for scientific research.

At Winnemac, he is the local doctor but he fails to gain the trust of people. He is met with dislike, as the townspeople continue to gossip about him, and he also loses a patient of his. Things get complicated in his married life too as Leora suffers a miscarriage. Martin feels as if he is a failure but Leora encourages him and they move out to Nautilus to begin afresh.

In Nautilus, he again faces the same dilemma and unhappiness and fails to gain the trust of people. His major interest is in scientific research and he finds that he has no interest in medical practice as a doctor. He then joins Rouncefield Clinic in Chicago which is an exclusive private hospital that allows Martin to spend some time in research work. Soon he publishes a scientific paper. Max Gottlieb reads that paper and invites him to take a post and work with a wealthy and elite research institute in New York City. Initially, he is happy about pursuing his dream in research but soon becomes frustrated by the constant pressure to complete his research and show results. He is also under pressure to sell his work, but he is reluctant to do so.

He manages to make a breakthrough in his research and identifies a treatment for pneumonia and plague. He and Leora then travel to an infected region on the island of St. Hubert to test his treatment. Arrowsmith discovers a phage that can effectively destroy bacteria.

At the same time, Martin learns about the outbreak of bubonic plague on a fictional Caribbean island. He decides to move to that Caribbean island to test the effectiveness of his phage. He settles on the island along with Leora and a few associates. Leora and Martin begin serving and treatings patients suffering from Bubonic plague. Leora suggests that he should use his newly discovered phage to cure the masses. However, scientific principles demand that he avoid its mass use on the Island until thoroughly tested, even at the expense of lives that might be saved. While tests are still going on, Leora suffers from the plague. Only after his wife, Leora, and all the other people who came with him from the institute to the island die of the plague, does he reluctantly abandon rigorous science and begins to treat everyone on the island with the phage. He is too saddened by the death of Leora and decides to forego his phage research. Despite his life-saving, he regards his actions on the island as a complete betrayal of science and his principles.

While on the island, he meets a wealthy widow socialite named Joyce Lanyon. He begins an affair with her. Soon they marry and return to New York where he is heralded as a public hero for his actions on the island. He is first promoted within the laboratory and then offered the directorship of the entire institute. Martin and Joyce soon become parents of a child. While martin wishes to devote all his time to the research work, Joyce is a socialite and wants Martin to accompany her to various parties and social gatherings. Her affluent status and lifestyle bear a constant weight on him. While he has the offer to be the director of the entire research institute in New York, he declines the promotion and abandons his new wife and infant son to work in the backwoods of Vermont

as an entirely independent scientist. He is accompanied by Terry Wickett, another medical practitioner who, like Martin, is more interested in scientific research. In the backwoods of Vermont, they continue with their research, without the pressure of businesses. When his wife finally offers to move to Vermont to be close to him, he tells her that he wants nothing to do with her and she should just go away.

The novel depicts the theme of medical ethics as Martin tries to oppose the commercialization of medical practice. He faces enough temptation to involve in corruption and to be in the race for financial success as the only goal. However, he continues to safeguard his interest in research and his ethical medical code. However, he realizes that the only way to preserve his ethics and avoid corruption is to completely devote himself to the purity of research. At last, he decides to go away from society to the backwoods of Vermont.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of American literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards.

John Dryden | Damatic Works

 John Dryden | Dramatic Works |

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. John Dryden was the most successful author of the Restoration period. He began his career during the rule of Oliver Cromwell and continued after the death of Cromwell, Dryden celebrated the Restoration of Monarchy and the return of King Charles II in 1660. That was the year when the ban on theaters was revoked. Dryden established himself as a poet and began producing dramas too. Dryden turned to dramatically works following the reopening of the theatres at the Restoration; his first attempt, the comedy The Wild Gallant, was presented in 1663 at Drury Lane. It was a comedy that was written in prose. Though the prologue and epilogue of The Wild Gallant were written in verse. It was a derivative work. John Dryden borrowed a lot from Ben Jonson’s Every Man Out of His Humour. In the preface of The Wild Gallant, John Dryden wrote “this is the first attempt I made in dramatic poetry.” The play has a prologue, in the opening scene of which two astrologers are featured who make horoscopes for the play’s fortunes for that day and discuss how the play will be performed. They discuss how the play will be received by the audience when it is performed.

In 1664, The Indian Queen was performed. It was a tragic play written by John Dryden in collaboration with Sir Robert Howard. Sir Robert Howard was Dryden’s brother-in-law. This play gained huge success. After this play, Dryden wrote a sequel to it which was titled The Indian Emperor and was performed in 1665. The Indian Queen was a heroic historic tragedy written in rhymed couplets.

John Dryden returned to comedy as his play The Tempest was performed in 1667. The alternative title of this play was The Enchanted Island. John Dryden wrote The Tempest or The Enchanted Island in collaboration with William Davenant. William Davenant was the unofficial poet laureate of King Charle’s I’s court. The Enchanted Island was an opera adapted from William Shakespeare’s play The Tempest. William Davenant was considered a foster child of William Shakespeare. The Tempest or The Enchanted Island was written partly in blank verse and partly in rhythmic prose. Dryden and Davenant kept a good amount of Shakespeare’s original verse. However, the tone of the play was brought down. They also added an impressive amount of their own rhythmic pattern and added a few new characters to the play including Hippolitto, a man who has never seen a woman, and Dorinda, the second daughter of Prospero. While Miranda, the girl who has never seen a man except her father falls in love with Ferdinand, son of the Duke of Mantua. On the other hand, Hippolitto falls in love with Dorinda. Another character is the ghostly ethereal Milcha, who is Ariel's girlfriend.

Another important dramatic work by John Dryden was The State of Innocence, published in 1677. Dryden started writing it in 1674 and before writing this work, Dryden met John Milton and asked for his permission to write and adaption of Paradise Lost. The full title of this play is The State of Innocence and Fall of Man, an Opera. Originally, it was titled The Fall of Angels and Man in Innocence: An Heroic Opera. The State of Innocence is a five-act drama, chiefly focusing on Books 2, 4, 8, and 9 of Milton's poem. Dryden wrote this adaptation in Heroic couplet. Dryden was an admirer of Milton's, and described Paradise Lost as "one of the greatest, most noble and most sublime poems which either this Age or Nation has produc'd".

In 1676, Dryden again published a tragic drama titled Aureng-Zebe which was loosely based on the Indian Mughal emperor Aurangzeb and tells the story of his succession to the throne of Delhi. The other important characters of the play included Shah Jahan, Aurang-Zebe’s father, and Morat (Murad Baksh(, the youngest brother of Aurang-Zebe.

John Dryden again published a tragic drama in 1678 which was titled All for Love; or, the World Well Lost. It is a heroic play written in blank verse. It is again an imitation of Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra. Dryden stressed more on the last hours of the life of Antony and Cleopatra. The subtitle of this drama was The World Well Lost. John Dryden took the story of Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra in his drama All for Love.

Another important drama by John Dryden was Oedipus which he wrote in collaboration with Nathaniel Lee. Oedipus was published in the year 1679. It was an adaptation of Oedipus Rex, written by Sophocles. The full title of the drama was Oedipus: A Tragedy. In the preface of Oedipus, Dryden refers to Sophocles, who wrote the original work, along with Seneca and Comeillie who adapted the subject of Oedipus to create their own works in Latin and French respectively. Dryden then explains why he considers Sophocles’s original work better than Latin and French adaptations.

So we have briefly discussed seven important plays by John Dryden; namely, The Wild Gallant, The Indian Queen, The Tempest, The State of Innocence, Aureng-Zebe, All for Love, and Oedipus: A Tragedy. We will continue to discuss the poetic works of John Dryden. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards.

Babbitt by Sinclair Lewis | Characters, Summary, Analysis

 Babbitt by Sinclair Lewis | Characters, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Babbitt is a satirical novel by Sinclair Lewis that was published in the year 1922. It is a contentious novel that satirizes American culture and society, criticizing the folly of middle-class life as well as social pressures towards conformity. The word babbitt refers to a businessman who conforms to prevailing middle-class standards without questioning them. The story satirizes the popular American dream and describes how an individual is forced to conform to the norms.

Characters:

George F. Babbitt is a successful middle-class real estate broker with a wife and three children. Despite his success, he is not satisfied with his life and family. Myra Babbitt is George’s wife, she is matronly, kind, diligent, and uninteresting to almost everyone. She is devoted to her family and tries to please George. She doesn’t even confront him when suspects him of having an extramarital affair. Ted Babbitt is George’s 17-year-old son who is not very bright in his studies. He is a natural mechanic and doesn’t want to pursue higher studies. He elopes with Eunice Littlefield, a neighborhood girl. Tinka Babbitt is George’s 10-year-old daughter, and Verona Babbitt is George’s eldest daughter. She is a filing clerk at the Gruenberg Leather Company offices. She is interested in social work and progressive socialist politics. She marries Kenneth Scott an emerging reporter. Paul Riesling is one of George’s close friends who used to be his classmate and roommate at State University. He wished to be a violinist but ended up being another businessman. He is very resentful of his wife Zella Riesling who is a religious zealot and uses religion as a weapon against him. Paul shoots at her and goes to jail. Tanis Judique is a beautiful middle-aged widow with whom George develops an affair. Seneca Doane is a progressive lawyer who fights the standardization of thought. Extremely liberal socialist, he heads farmer-labor tickets and inspires Babbitt to temporarily turn to political rebellion.

Summary:

George F. Babbitt is a middle-aged man, a highly successful real estate agent who sells houses at rates that exceed what people are actually able to pay for them. He enjoys his social status and is proud of his house at Floral Heights, as it is standardized from the architecture to the atmosphere, which appeals greatly to Babbitt. But Babbitt is profoundly dissatisfied. His family irritates him, and he generally has the sense that his life is empty. He consistently dreams of a young fairy girl with whom he is happy and free, and he notices every pretty woman he sees. He is greedily devoted to his work. He closes a deal by forcing a poor businessman to buy a piece of property at more than twice its value. This gives him a sense of pride, as he pockets his earnings, feeling that he has done a good job.

To celebrate his success, he calls his old friend Paul Riesling, a talented musician who could have been a successful violinist but was forced to get into the tar-roofing business to provide for his wife, Zilla. Zilla is an eccentric woman who antagonizes other people and then wants Paul to fight for her. She continuously demeans Paul as a coward and irreligious. When Paul discusses his issues with Babbitt, he gets sad and suggests that the two should take a vacation to Maine, away from their wives.

Although he finds the trip refreshing, he reverts to his former habits and uneasiness shortly after returning to Zenith. Although he has always been an upstanding and moral citizen, Babbitt desires to break with social convention and marital fidelity. Meanwhile, Paul gets involved in a heated argument with his wife, and in a fit of rage, he shoots at her for which he is jailed for murdering his wife Zilla. Myra calls Babbitt at his office and informs him about the incident. Babbitt gets shocked and goes to meet Paul at the jail. Meanwhile, Myra goes away to meet some relatives along with the three children. Babbitt feels that his world is collapsing around him, triggering him to go off the rails, adopting a more bohemian and free-spirited way of living. His faith in the almighty dollar has been demolished, and in its place, he has a newfound respect for the importance of living a life of freedom and integrity.

As Babbitt is living alone, he decides to enjoy his freedom to its fullest. He begins an affair with Tanis Judique, an interesting and attractive widow, he begins an affair with her and becomes entangled in her group of bohemian friends. He goes out every night while Myra is away, drinking and dancing until dawn and reveling in his freedom. With the influence of the progressive Seneca Doane, he also frightens and disappoints all of his conservative friends at the Boosters' club by supporting liberal politics and labor union strikes. When he is invited by Vergil Gunch to join the Good Citizens' League and to bring down men like Seneca Doane, Babbitt refuses.

Yet, Babbitt becomes even unhappier when his former associates begin to ignore him and his business begins to suffer on account of his politics and his infidelity. Even his relationship with Tanis loses its appeal when she becomes emotionally demanding.

He severs the extramarital relationship and longs to rejoin the ranks of solid, standard citizens. When Myra falls ill with appendicitis, he has both the motivation and the excuse to renounce his uncharacteristically immoral behavior and return to his more familiar and comfortable lifestyle. He joins the Good Citizens' League, repairs damaged business relationships, shows greater affection for his wife, and renews his membership in the Church. While he returns back to his normal Babbitt life, he appreciates the value of freedom he enjoyed when he was alone. His brief rebellion does slightly change his view of the world. Babbitt discovers that his son Ted has secretly married Eunice, the daughter of his neighbor. He offers his approval of the marriage, stating that though he does not agree, he admires Ted for living his life on his own terms.

Critical Analysis:

Babbitt proved to be a controversial yet successful novel by Sinclair Lewis and became a reason for his Nobel prize in literature. H.L. Mencken hugely appreciated Babbitt and said that this novel was a stunning work of literary realism. Mencken called Lewis “an old professor of Babbittry.” According to H. L. Mencken, George F. Babbitt was an archetype of the American city dwellers who touted the virtues of Republicanism, Presbyterianism, and absolute conformity because "it is not what he [Babbitt] feels and aspires that moves him primarily; it is what the folks about him will think of him. His politics is communal politics, mob politics, and herd politics; his religion is a public rite wholly without subjective significance.

However, many other critics found Babbitt as an exaggeration in Lewis's depiction of the American businessman. Edmund Wilson mentioned that as a prose stylist, Lewis's literary “gift is almost entirely for making people nasty” and the characters unbelievable. Many other critics also criticized and dismissed Babbitt as “a monstrous, bawling, unconscionable satire” and said, “Mr. Lewis is the most phenomenally skillful exaggerator in literature today.”

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of American English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards.