A Tale of a Tub

 What are the best religious poems in English literature? 

Obviously religious faith – and, indeed, religious doubt – has loomed large in English poetry, whether it’s in the devotional lyrics of John Donne and George Herbert or the modern, secular musings of Philip Larkin in ‘Church Going’. We’ve excluded longer works such as John Milton’s epic Paradise Lost, although naturally that’s a must-read work of English religious poetry, just conceived on a different scale from what we have here.

 John Donne 

John Donne  was an English poet, scholar, soldier and secretary born into a recusant family, who later became a cleric in the Church of England. Under royal patronage, he was made Dean of St Paul's Cathedral in London. He is considered the preeminent representative of the metaphysical poets. His poetical works are noted for their metaphorical and sensual style and include sonnets, love poems, religious poems, Latin translations, epigrams, elegies, songs, and satires. He is also known for his sermons.

We could easily have chosen one of Donne’s celebrated Holy Sonnets here, but his ‘Hymn to God the Father’ offers something nicely representative of Donne’s style in his best religious verse. Donne is not aiming to sing God’s praises uncritically: rather, he wishes to ask God about sin and forgiveness, among other things. The to-and-fro of the poem’s rhyme schemes, where its stanzas are rhymed ababab, reinforces this idea of question-and-answer. The poem is a sort of confessional, containing Donne’s trademark directness and honesty, and sees him seeking forgiveness from God for his sins, while also confessing that he will continue to sin and that he fears death – another sin to add to the list. Donne then seeks reassurance from God that he will be forgiven and will reach Heaven.

A Hymn to God the Father", also titled "To Christ", is a poem by English poet and clergyman John Donne. It is one of his Divine Poems. Its date of composition is unknown. The poem was set to music by Pelham Humfrey in the 17th century and posthumously published in Harmonia Sacra, Book 1. A typical performance takes about 3 minutes. His setting has been included in 10 hymnals, under such other titles as its opening line, "Wilt Thou Forgive That Sin, Where I Begun", but without always crediting him as composer, or Donne as the author of the words. Another slightly earlier setting of the poem of about the same time was that by John Hilton. In the 20th century there were several more settings, both for chorus and individual performer.

‘A Hymn to God the Father’ by John Donne is a well-loved poem about God and religion. It contains a speaker’s prayers that he be forgiven a series of unnamed sins.

This is a three-stanza poem that is divided into sets of six lines, or sestets. From the title, ‘A Hymn to God the Father,’ it is clear that Donne intended this piece as a hymn. It has a light, musical quality to it which can be found in most of Donne’s work. The perception is in part caused by the rhyme scheme.

The lines follow a consistent pattern of ABABAB, without any alteration in end sounds between the stanzas. Line one of all three stanzas rhymes, and so on through all six lines. Additionally, there is a great deal of repetition in the text. This too adds to the feeling that this is a song with verses and, most importantly in regards to repetition, refrains. 

In regards to meter, this piece is mostly structured in iambic pentameter. This means that the majority of the lines contain five sets of two beats. The first of these is unstressed and the second stressed. There are some exceptions though, such as in the last two lines of each stanza. These lines contain, respectively, four and then two sets of two beats per line, known as tetrameter and dimeter. This change makes the parting words of the speaker all the more impactful. 

A Hymn to God the Father by John Donne

Summary of A Hymn to God the Father

‘A Hymn to God the Father’ by John Donne contains a speaker’s prayer to God that he be forgiven for all of the terrible sins he committed. 

The poem begins with the speaker describing how the world is filled with sin. He might not be responsible for all of humanity’s troubles but he has more than enough of his own to account for. The speaker tells of how he spends most of his life in sin. He runs through it, enjoying almost every moment spent there. This is all part of a confession and the plea to God. The speaker hopes that God will look down on him fondly and take away all the guilt he feels about his life. 

If God were to do so, and make the speaker feel as if Jesus is with him all the time, he could live a happy life. He needs God to resolve all of his troubles. 

Analysis of A Hymn to God the Father

First Stanza 

Wilt thou forgive that sin where I begun, Which was my sin, though it were done before? 

Wilt thou forgive that sin, through which I run, 

And do run still, though still I do deplore? 

When thou hast done, thou hast not done, 

For I have more. 

In the first stanza of ‘A Hymn to God the Father’, the speaker begins by asking God an important question. He needs to know whether God is going to be able to “forgive” the sins of the world. These are the things for which all of humanity suffers but which he was not a part of. The speaker makes sure to add that they were “done” before he was born but unfortunately because he’s on earth, he’s a part of it. 

The next lines describe how the speaker is not without sin himself. He might be separate from the larger sins of the world but that doesn’t mean he is pure. In fact, he states that over and over he is running “though” sin. His inability to escape his own humanity is reflected in the repetitive lines of verse. The use of the same words at the beginning of lines, such as “Wilt though forgive that sin” in lines one and three is known as anaphora. It is used to unify the text as well as enhance its song-like qualities. The repetition is also reminiscent of the structure of a prayer. 

The speaker makes sure that God knows his run through sin is not done because he wants to be a sinner. He “deplore” his own actions but is unable to stop. The last two lines of each stanza are mostly the same. Here, he tells God that when he finishes helping and forgiving sins there will be “more” to do. His sins, and those of the world, go on indefinitely. 

 Second Stanza  

Wilt thou forgive that sin which I have won

Others to sin, and made my sin their door? 

Wilt thou forgive that sin which I did shun 

A year or two, but wallow’d in, a score? 

When thou hast done, thou hast not done, 

For I have more. 

In the next set of six lines, the speaker begins with the same phrase, “Wilt thou forgive that sin…” This time the question ends with the revelation that the speaker has forced others into sin. It is unclear what kind of sin he means but it was made “their door.” He created the opportunity, or the door, for them to walk through. Making it easier for them to go against God than it had been previously. 

The speaker states that he didn’t mean to do harm to anyone’s life by leading them to sin, and the that he’d like to be forgiven for it. Although he is asking to be forgiven, and making himself seem like an okay person, he can’t help admitting the lengths he went to in order to enjoy his own sins. He tells God how he “wallow’d” in the sin for “a score.” This vastly overshadows the meager “year or two” he spent “shun” his sin. 

The stanza concludes with the same two-line refrain informing God that he isn’t finished forgiving sins yet. There are still many more to come. 

 Third Stanza 

I have a sin of fear, that when I have spun 

My last thread, I shall perish on the shore; 

But swear by thyself, that at my death thy Son 

Shall shine as he shines now, and heretofore; 

And, having done that, thou hast done; 

I fear no more. 

The final stanza of ‘A Hymn to God the Father’ tells God of one of the speaker’s most prominent sins. It is that of fear. Specifically, he is afraid that he is going to die before all of his sins are forgiven. They are so numerous that he may “perish on the shore” before God gets to them all. The reference to the “shore” is an important one. He does not end up in heaven or hell but in the space between limbo. This is the worst-case scenario in his mind.

In the next lines the speaker asks God if Jesus, his “Son,” will be able to “shine” on him “now” as he has done “heretofore,” or up until now. Jesus’ presence is a symbol of God’s complete forgiveness. It would allow the speaker to take in some of his shine and stop sinning. The final lines are a bit different from those of the previous two refrains. This time the stanza ends with the speaker stating that he does not fear anymore. With Jesus there to reassure and improve him, his sins are no longer increasing. He is forgiven.

Words:1624

The Metaphysical Poetry

 The Metaphysical poetry

Definition of Metaphysical Poetry.

 The word ‘Metaphysical Poetry’ is a philosophical concept used in literature where poets portray the things/ideas that are beyond the depiction of physical existence. Etymologically, there is a combination of two words ‘meta’ and ‘physical in word “metaphysical”.’ The first word “Meta” means beyond. So metaphysical means beyond physical, beyond the normal and ordinary. The meanings are clear here that it deals with the objects/ideas that are beyond the existence of this physical world. Let us look at the origin of word metaphysical poetry in more detail.

Origin of the Word Metaphysical Poetry

In the book “Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets (1179-1781)”, the author Samuel Johnson made the first use of the word Metaphysical Poetry. He used the term Metaphysical poets to define a loose group of the poets of 17th century. The group was not formal and most of the poets put in this category did not know or read each other’s writings. This group’s most prominent poets include John Donne, Andrew Marvell, Abraham Cowley, George Herbert, Henry Vaughan, Thomas Traherne, Richard Crashaw, etc. He noted in his writing that all of these poets had the same style of wit and conceit in their poetry.

Characteristics of Metaphysical poetry

Metaphysical poetry talks about deep things. It talks about soul, love, religion, reality etc. You can never be sure about what is coming your way while reading a metaphysical poem. There can be unusual philosophies and comparisons that will make you think and ponder.

The most important characteristics of metaphysical poetry is “undissociated sensibility” (the combination of feeling and thoughts).

Even though it talks about serious stuff, it talks about it in a humorous way. The tone is sometimes light. It can be harsh sometimes too. The purpose is to present a new idea and make the reader think.

Another characteristic of such poetry is that it is unclear. Because it provides such complicated themes, the idea of metaphysical poems is somewhat not definite. It is different for every person. It depends on the perception and experiences of the reader. Every person will take something different out of the same poem based on their beliefs and understanding.

Metaphysical poetry is also short. It uses brief words and conveys a lot of ideas in just a small number of words. There are many maxims in this type of poetry too. John Donne introduced sayings into metaphysical poetry.

The unusual comparison of things in poetry is one of its unique and most interesting characteristics. All the metaphysical have ability for unusual witty comparison , juxtaposition, and imagery. These unusual comparison are metaphysical conceits. As Donne in Twicknam Garden uses expression “spider love” that is contrary to the expectations of the readers. In the same poem, Donne also compares a lovers tears to wine of love that is unusual use of juxtaposition. Conceit compares very dissimilar things. For example bright smoke, calling lovers as two points of compass, taking soul as dew drop, etc.

The metaphysical poetry is brain-sprung, not heart-felt. It is intellectual and witty. 

According to Grierson, the two chief characteristics of metaphysical poetry are paradoxical ratiocination and passionate feelings. As Donne opens his poem “The indifferent” with a line with a paradoxical comment. “I can love both fair and brown”

Other unique feature of this poetry is Platonic Love. The word is taken after Plato. Platonic love is a non-romantic love. There is no lust or need of physical contact. It is spiritual love and is mostly for God.

Another feature of the metaphysical poetry is its fantastic lyrics style. As A. C. Word said: “The metaphysical style is a combination of two  elements, the fantastic form and style, and the incongruous in matter manner”. The versification of the metaphysical poetry is also coarse and jerky like its diction. The main intention of the metaphysical was to startle the readers. They deliberately avoided conventional poetic style to bring something new to the readers.  Their style was not conventional and the versification contrast with much of the Elizabethan writers. 

It arouses some extreme level of thoughts and feelings in the readers by asking life-altering questions.

Metaphysical Poems 

Death (John Donne)

The Flea (John Donne)

The Sun Rising (John Donne)

Ecstasy (John Donne)

The Collar (George Herbert)

To his Coy Mistress (Andrew Marvell)

The First Poem in metaphysical poetry 

Death, be not Proud ( Holy Sonnet 10) by John Donne

‘Death, be not Proud’ by John Donne is one of the poet’s best poems about death. It tells the listener not to fear Death as he keeps morally corrupt company and only leads to heaven.

'Death Be Not Proud' is a sonnet written by the English author John Donne (1572-1631). Donne initially wrote poems based on romance, but moved into more religious themes as his career matured. In his later life, he converted from Catholicism to Anglicanism, the official Church of England. His later poems reflect his deep religious faith and his life as an ordained priest and dean of St. Paul's Cathedral in London. 'Death Be Not Proud' is a piece showing the religious undertones in Donne's poetry.

Summary of the Poem

‘Death Be Not Proud” is one of the nineteen Holy Sonnets written by the great metaphysical poet John Donne. As a typical product of Renaissance, Donne wrote a kind of love and religious poetry that shocked its readers into attention with its wit, conceits, far fetched imagery, erudition complexity, colloquial and dramatic styles. Donne’s poetry exemplifies the rare synthesis of reason and passion – a unique quality which is termed as the “Unified Sensibility.”

This poem forcefully demolishes the popular conception of death as a powerful tyrant. The poet presents an unconventional view of death. By addressing the poem to death, Donne says that Death should not feel proud of itself. Death is neither frightening nor powerful although some people have called it so. It has no power over the soul which is immortal. The poet explains his idea through the examples of rest and sleep. He says that rest and sleep are only the pictures of death. We derive pleasure from rest and sleep. So death itself should provide much more pleasure, which is the real thing. Secondly our best men get death very soon. Their bones get rest and their soul gets freedom. Hence death is not frightening thing.

Now the poet blasts the popular belief that death is all powerful. Death, in fact is a captive, a slave to the power of fate, chance, cruel kings and bad men. It lives in the bad company of poison, war and sickness. Opium and other narcotics are as effective as death in inducing us to sleep. They, actually, make us sleep better. Death cannot operate at its own level. So death should not feel proud of its powers.

In the end, the poet once again says that death is a kind of sleep, after which the soul will wake up to live forever and becomes immortal. Then death has no power over us. In other words the soul conquers death; it is the death which itself dies. Thus Donne degrades death and declares happily the impotence of death. It is, in no way, powerful and dreadful. So we should not fear death as it has no power over our souls.

The Flea Summary

 The speaker tells his beloved to look at the flea before them and to note “how little” is that thing that she denies him. For the flea, he says, has sucked first his blood, then her blood, so that now, inside the flea, they are mingled; and that mingling cannot be called “sin, or shame, or loss of maidenhead.” The flea has joined them together in a way that, “alas, is more than we would do.”

As his beloved moves to kill the flea, the speaker stays her hand, asking her to spare the three lives in the flea: his life, her life, and the flea’s own life. In the flea, he says, where their blood is mingled, they are almost married—no, more than married—and the flea is their marriage bed and marriage temple mixed into one. Though their parents grudge their romance and though she will not make love to him, they are nevertheless united and cloistered in the living walls of the flea. She is apt to kill him, he says, but he asks that she not kill herself by killing the flea that contains her blood; he says that to kill the flea would be sacrilege, “three sins in killing three.”

“Cruel and sudden,” the speaker calls his lover, who has now killed the flea, “purpling” her fingernail with the “blood of innocence.” The speaker asks his lover what the flea’s sin was, other than having sucked from each of them a drop of blood. He says that his lover replies that neither of them is less noble for having killed the flea. It is true, he says, and it is this very fact that proves that her fears are false: If she were to sleep with him (“yield to me”), she would lose no more honor than she lost when she killed the flea.

The Sun Rising Summary

 

Lying in bed with his lover, the speaker chides the rising sun, calling it a “busy old fool,” and asking why it must bother them through windows and curtains. Love is not subject to season or to time, he says, and he admonishes the sun—the “Saucy pedantic wretch”—to go and bother late schoolboys and sour apprentices, to tell the court-huntsmen that the King will ride, and to call the country ants to their harvesting.

Why should the sun think that his beams are strong? The speaker says that he could eclipse them simply by closing his eyes, except that he does not want to lose sight of his beloved for even an instant. He asks the sun—if the sun’s eyes have not been blinded by his lover’s eyes—to tell him by late tomorrow whether the treasures of India are in the same place they occupied yesterday or if they are now in bed with the speaker. He says that if the sun asks about the kings he shined on yesterday, he will learn that they all lie in bed with the speaker.

The speaker explains this claim by saying that his beloved is like every country in the world, and he is like every king; nothing else is real. Princes simply play at having countries; compared to what he has, all honor is mimicry and all wealth is alchemy. The sun, the speaker says, is half as happy as he and his lover are, for the fact that the world is contracted into their bed makes the sun’s job much easier—in its old age, it desires ease, and now all it has to do is shine on their bed and it shines on the whole world. “This bed thy Centre is,” the speaker tells the sun, “these walls, thy sphere.”

Ecstasy Summary

Where, like a pillow on a bed

A pregnant bank swell’d up to rest

The violet’s reclining head,

Sat we two, one another’s best.

Our hands were firmly cemented

With a fast balm, which thence did spring;

Our eye-beams twisted, and did thread

Our eyes upon one double string;

So to’intergraft our hands, as yet

Was all the means to make us one,

And pictures in our eyes to get

Was all our propagation.

As ‘twixt two equal armies fate

Suspends uncertain victory,

Our souls (which to advance their state

Were gone out) hung ‘twixt her and me.

And whilst our souls negotiate there,

We like sepulchral statues lay;

All day, the same our postures were,

And we said nothing, all the day.

If any, so by love refin’d

That he soul’s language understood,

And by good love were grown all mind,

Within convenient distance stood,

He (though he knew not which soul spake,

Because both meant, both spake the same)

Might thence a new concoction take

And part far purer than he came.

This ecstasy doth unperplex,

We said, and tell us what we love;

We see by this it was not sex,

We see we saw not what did move;

But as all several souls contain

Mixture of things, they know not what,

Love these mix’d souls doth mix again

And makes both one, each this and that.

A single violet transplant,

The strength, the colour, and the size,

(All which before was poor and scant)

Redoubles still, and multiplies.

When love with one another so

Interinanimates two souls,

That abler soul, which thence doth flow,

Defects of loneliness controls.

We then, who are this new soul, know

Of what we are compos’d and made,

For th’ atomies of which we grow

Are souls, whom no change can invade.

But oh alas, so long, so far,

Our bodies why do we forbear?

They 'are ours, though they 'are not we; we are

The intelligences, they the spheres

We, two lovers, each thinking of the other as the best person in the world, sat on the river-bank which was raised high like a pillow to enable the reclining heads of violet flowers to rest on it. Our hands were firmly grasped and from them a strong perfume emanated. Our eyes met and reflected the image of each other. It appeared as if our eyes were strung together on a double thread. Our hands were firmly clasped together and this was the means of bringing us close to each other. Our eyes reflected our images and this was the only fusion of our love.

Just as when two equally powerful enemies fight each other while fate holds the victory in a state of balance, undecided which way to turn the scale, in the same way, our souls, which had left our bodies to sublimate to a state of bliss, hung between the two of us uncertain of their future. While our souls, communicated with each other in this situation, we lay quiet and motionless like statues built over the monument of the dead. All thought the day our bodies continued to remain in the same position without movement or speech.

If any stranger, whose soul had been purified by a similar process had stood beside our souls, and had been capable of understanding the language of the souls his purified mind would have forgotten the existence of the body and enlightened and sharpened the faculties of his mind, such a soul may not have understood the conversation of our souls because both our souls meant and spoke the same thing, but that soul might have undergone a fresh process of purification and felt more refined than before.

Our souls have reached a state of ecstasy which revealed to us what we did not know earlier. We realized that love was not sex experience. We discovered the first time that love really is a matter of the soul and not of the body. Souls are made of various elements of which we have no knowledge. It is love which brings together two souls and makes them one, though, in reality, the two have senate existence.

When a violet plant is transplanted (removed from one place and replanted in a better soil) it shows a marked improvement in its colour, size and strength. After transplantation it almost doubles itself and also grows more rapidly. In a similar manner when love brings two souls together it imparts to them a great zeal and life. The stronger (or noble soul) supplements (or removes) the deficiencies of the lesser soul. Love also removes the feeling of loneliness felt by single souls.

As a result of the union of two souls, so to say, a new soul comes into being. This new soul knows of what elements the two souls are composed. It makes us realize that the substances of which we are made are not subject to any change.

Alas, we have so far and so long ignored our bodies. The bodies are ours, but we are distinct from the bodies. We are souls; we are of spiritual substance; we are like heavenly planets while our bodies are the spheres in which we move.

We are thankful to our bodies, because they brought us together in the first instance. Our bodies surrendered their sense in order to enable our love to be spiritual. Our bodies are not impure matter, but they are like an alloy (an alloy when mixed with gold makes it tougher and brighter). The body is useful agent for holy love.

The influence of heavenly bodies on man comes through the air. So when a soul wishes to love another soul, it can contact it through the medium of the body. Hence a union of souls may need the contact of bodies as the first step.

Just as the blood which is an important constituent of our bodies labours to produce the essence (the semen) which helps in uniting two bodies, in the same way a spiritual love produces a kind of ecstasy which binds the two souls together. This subtle knot of love may not be fully understood.

Just as blood produces elements which brings about the union of sense and soul which constitute a man, in the same way the lover’s soul leaves some linking elements like the sense and the bodily faculties to express their love. The sense and faculty of the body come to the aid of the soul, which is like a prisoner. Just as a prince who is imprisoned cannot gain freedom unless somebody comes to his aid, in the same way the senses of the body go to the aid of the lover’s soul and secure freedom for it.

We must now turn to our bodies so that weak men may have a test of high love. Love sublimates the soul but it is through the medium of the body that love is first experienced. The body is as important as the soul in the matter of love.

If some lover like us has heard this discourse (made by two souls with one experience) let him look carefully at us. After our pure love when we go back to our bodies he will find no change in us because we shall not revert to physical self again.

The collar summary

 

In the first sixteen lines of the poem, the speaker (or “the heart”) states that he’s uninterested in the present state of affairs and plans to hunt out his freedom. He laments that he’s “in the suit,” during a lowly position, which he has not reaped greater rewards. As these lines progress, we learn that the speaker has undergone a period of pining and sadness, resulting in his present anger.

In lines 17-26, another inner voice interjects, “not so, my heart,” reminding the primary speaker that there’s an end to sadness in view. If only the speaker will “leave [his] cold dispute” and stop his rebellion, he is going to be ready to open his eyes and see the reality.

In lines 27-32, the desire reappears, commanding the opposite speaker “away!” and restating his commitment to going abroad. within the final four lines of the poem, the irregular vers libre gives thanks to an ABAB rhyme scheme. The second inner voice reveals that, even within the midst of raving, he heard someone calling “Child” and replied “My Lord.” this means a return to God after a period of rebellion. 

The metaphysical poetry a last poem 

 To his Coy Mistress summary:

Andrew Marvell was a metaphysical poet writing in the Interregnum period. He sat in the House of Commons between 1659 and 1678, worked with John Milton, and wrote both satirical pieces and love poetry.

“To his Coy Mistress” is a poem in carpe diem tradition. It is a plea from a lover to his beloved to forget her coyness and engage in the pleasures of love. The poem begins abruptly with these words, “Had we but world enough and time”, he continues, “this coyness lady were no crime”. The reason for such a plea is being established using a series of hyperbolic comparisons. If there is enough time and space, then, the coyness that the lady shows would have been appreciated. Then, the poet would have sat by the river Humber in England and complained about the coyness of the lady who would be sitting on the banks of the river Ganges on the other side of the world. He would begin to love her ten years before the biblical flood and, she, if she wants, could refuse until the comparison of the Jews i.e. the end of time itself. Marvell argues that his vegetable love could slowly grow greater than the empires. If he had time, he would devote a hundred years to praise her eyes, two hundred two each breast, and thirty thousand to the rest of her. He would spend at least an age to admire every part and the last age might praise her heart.

In the second stanza, the poet portrays the picture of a man who lives with the fear of death. The awareness of times winged chariot hurrying near frightens us all. In our destined tombs, the loved one’s beauty will slowly but surely turn to dust. The virginity that she coyly preserves may be taken up by worms. He calls the grave, ‘a fine and private place’ though not a place of ‘embrace’. In the last stanza, Marvell reaches the conclusion that, as they are young and beautiful, rather than languishing as prisoners of time, ‘let us sport while we may’. He suggests that the strength of the man and the sweetness of the woman when united may 'roll-up’ into one ball. The violence of sexual art is described through the image ‘tear our pleasures’ which acts as an image of the desperation with which they try to defeat times winged chariot. Finally, with reference to an incident described in bible (when Joshua made sun stand still), he asserts that even time would not be able to cease their love. The poem convinces the readers about the pleasures of physical love with its syllogistic arguments and its unique tone mixing eroticism and wit.

Words:3872

Absalom and Achitophel

 Absalom and Achitophel

Absalom and Achitophel was written by John Dryden. Absalom and Achitophel is a mock heroic epic by john Dryden that satirizes the British Whig Party, which sought to prevent succession of James, Duke of York, to the English throne.

Dryden’s political satire Absalom and Achitophel  reflects upon politics in England during the era of the Popish Plot, when Whig Party , under the leadership of the earl of Shaftesbury.

• The Whigs, a political party, tried to break the traditional line of succession and prevent James, Duke of York, From ascending to the throne.

• Dryden devotes half of the poem to scathing portraits of Whig leaders, to Whom he applied biblical pseudonyms, such as Absalom and Achitophel.

• Dryden devotes the second section to favorable portraits of James faithful supporters. However. The Whigs are successful, and Charles ll ascends the throne.

Absalom and Achitophel is “generally acknowledged as the finest political satire in the English language”. It is also described as an allegory regarding  contemporary political events, and a mock heroic narrative. 

    John Dryden

 John Dryden was an English poet, literary critic, translator, and playwright who was appointed England’s first Poet Laureate in 1668. He is seen as dominating the literary life of Restoration England to such a point that period came to be known in literary circles as the age of Dryden.

Absalom and Achitophel Poem 

John Dryden’s publication of Absalom and Achitophel (1681) had a specific political motivation. He wrote the poem during the threat of revolution in England, connected to the so-called Popish plot and the move to exclude the reigning King Charles II’s Catholic brother, James, duke of York, from his right to follow the Protestant Charles to the throne. The protesting faction supported instead Charles’s bastard son, James, duke of Monmouth, whom Charles recognized as his son but not his heir. Born in the Netherlands to Lucy Walter, James was a product of only one of many sexual liaisons of his mother’s. While rumors existed that Charles had secretly married Lucy, granting legitimacy to James, others insisted that James could not even be proved Charles’s son. Charles never produced an heir with his wife, the Portuguese Catherine of Braganza. Although Lucy followed Charles to England, where James was raised a pampered member of the court and eventually made a duke, she had died before Charles married Catherine.

Dryden observed the parallel in England’s situation to that of ancient Israel under the rule of King David. The story found in the biblical book of 2 Samuel contained all of the political elements in which Dryden found himself, as a citizen of England, involved. Each of the main characters corresponded to a real-life person in Dryden’s time. David’s bastard son, Absalom, represented Monmouth, and his evil confidant Achitophel represented Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury. Shaftesbury had introduced to Parliament the Exclusion Bill to prevent York from taking the throne. Other characters and their contemporary references included Zimri as George Villiers, the duke of Buckingham and a longtime opponent of Charles; Amiel, Edward Seymour, speaker of the House of Commons; Cora as Titus Oates, who fabricated the rumors that prompted social unease over the so-called Popish Plot; and Shimei as Bethel, sheriff of London. In addition the Pharaoh referenced in line 281, the biblical ruler of Israel’s enemy Egypt, represented King Louis XIV, ruler of France, an enemy of England.

Major Characters                   

Absalom                                  

Achitophel                                  

Divide                                          

Saul                                                 

David’s Brother        

Corah                                      

Shimei                                       

Zimri                                     

The pharaoh             

Ishbosheth                          

Jonas

Barzillai

Minor Characters Balaam

Caleb

Nadab

Zadok

Sagan of Jerusalem

Adriel

Hushi

Amnon

Michal/David’s wife

Annabel

King David Favored characters and his against characters.

This character are against the king Davide 

Absalom

Achitophel

Corah

Shimei

Zimri

The pharaoh

Jonas

Nadab

Caleb

Balaam

This character are supporting king Davide 

Absalom

Barzillai

Jotham

Amiel

Zadoc

The Pharaoh

Hushi

Adriel

Sagan of Jerusalem

Characters

King David

David, the king of Israel , a poetic representation of Charles ll, king of England. Many dissatisfied Jews wish to rebel against him and secure the succession of his illegitimate son, Absalom, to the throne. The wiser Jews see no cause for revolt against king.  

Absalom

David’s illegitimate son and the protagonist of “Absalom and Achitophel.” David does not have any legitimate heirs to the throne, but Absalom is his favorite child. Absalom is handsome and ambitious, and he has made himself a hero at war. The people of Israel love Absalom almost as much as David does, and Achitophel believes that the Jews would accept Absalom as their king. Achitophel begins to encourage Absalom and herald his birth and blood as royal, and he tries to convince Absalom to rebel against David. Absalom, however, is not a malicious man, and he doesn’t initially believe he has a right to the crown, but he is eventually worn down by Achitophel flattery and his own growing desire for more power. Absalom agrees to rebel against David, and as he travels Israel in a procession with Achitophel, Absalom conforms to Achitophel deceitful ways. Absalom and Achitophel mistake David’s mercy and good nature for weakness, but David soon loses patience with both Absalom and Achitophel. David asserts his power as king before the people of Israel and effectively shuts down Absalom’s rebellion, but Dryden never does say what becomes of Absalom. Absalom metaphorically represents Charles II’s illegitimate son James Scott, the 1st Duke of Monmouth, who rebelled against Charles and the throne in Dryden’s time. Through the character of Absalom, Dryden ultimately argues that Charles and his brother James both have a divine right to the crown that is not extended to Monmouth. Dryden’s depiction of Absalom implies that Dryden does not think Monmouth a wholly terrible person, but someone who is merely tempted and blinded by power; however, Dryden also suggests that Monmouth’s common birth automatically excludes him from ascending the throne. Dryden argues through Absalom that Monmouth’s play to power, specifically his attempt to seize a position of power that rightfully belongs to another, is a sin against God. Dryden doesn’t entirely denounce Absalom’s ambition (he even celebrates his exploits at war), but he does argue that usurping the throne is completely unethical.

Achitophel 

A deceitful counselor to King David and the antagonist of “Absalom and Achitophel.” Of all the men who oppose David within the government, Achitophel is the most influential. He is smart, ambitious, and morally flexible. He pretends to be David’s friend, but in actuality, he either wants to rule Israel or completely destroy it. Achitophel stokes the “malcontents” of the Jews and incites anti-Jebusite hysteria in an attempt to ruin David, and then he encourages David’s son Absalom to rebel against him. Achitophel hates David’s brother, the heir presumptive, and he wants to make sure that he never ascends the throne. Achitophel begins his plan to ruin David by claiming David is a Jebusite, and while he knows that his argument is “weak,” he also knows the Jews fear the Jebusites, and his approach proves very effective. As Achitophel works on Absalom, Achitophel trusted men wreak havoc with the Sanhedrin and try to bring David down from inside the government. Achitophel finally convinces Absalom to rebel, and they embark on a procession through Israel to further ingratiate Absalom with the people and identify enemies to their cause. However, Achitophel has mistaken David’s mercy and mild temper for signs of weakness, and when David finally loses his patience, Achitophel is reminded of David’s divine power. Dryden’s Achitophel represents Anthony Ashley Cooper, the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, a Member of Parliament during Dryden’s time and the main supporter of the Exclusion Bill. Shaftesbury was the founder of the Whig party, which sought to exclude Charles II’s brother James from the throne, and he was a major opponent of Charles throughout his reign. What comes of Achitophel is never revealed in Dryden’s poem, but historically speaking, Shaftesbury was tried for treason after encouraging Charles’s son the Duke of Monmouth, to rebel against the crown, but he was later acquitted. Through Achitophel, Dryden suggests that Charles and James both have just claims to the throne and is not for Shaftesbury, Monmouth, or Parliament to infringe on that power.

Saul

The first king of Israel. According to Dryden, God was the first king of Israel, but the Jews, who are “moody” and frequently unhappy with their king, oust God and make Saul their king. In the Bible, Saul favors David over his son Ishbosheth, and David is forced to go into exile. After Saul dies and Ishbosheth is made king, the Jews are again unhappy with their king and choose David. Saul represents Oliver Cromwell, who ruled the Commonwealth of England after Charles I was executed. Like Ishbosheth taking over from Saul and then being replaced by David, Cromwell’s son reigned for a while after Cromwell’s death before Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660. Through Saul and his association to Cromwell, Dryden implies that the English are never quite happy with their king and will find any reason to denounce one and appoint another.

Davide’s brother

The heir presumptive of Israel. David’s brother never actually makes it into the poem, but Achitophel and Absalom refer to him multiple times. The crown will go to David’s brother after David dies, and Achitophel does not want David’s brother to ascend the throne and hopes to place Absalom there instead. Achitophel hates David’s brother, and Absalom claims that David’s brother is “oppressed with vulgar spite.” David’s brother represents James II, the brother of King Charles II and the next heir to the throne of England. James was a Roman Catholic, and the Exclusion Bill before Parliament in Dryden’s time sought to exclude James from the throne.

Corah

The most important of Achitophel men. Corah is a priest, although he lies about his rabbinical degree, and he hatches the plot that helps Achitophel discredit David’s brother and ingratiate Absalom to the people of Israel. Corah’s memory is impeccable, and his account of the plot never once changes, which is why the Jews believe his fictitious plot. In the Bible, Corah leads a rebellion against Moses, and in Dryden’s poem he represents Titus Oates.

Barzillai

Barzillai lived beyond the Jordan River and sustained David during Absalom's rebellion. He stands for the Duke of Ormond, a patron of Dryden and one of the most devoted servants of Charles. He accompanied Charles II during his exile and served him faithfully during his misfortunes.

Zadoc

David's friend who carried the Ark of the Covenant into the wilderness; he was then sent back to Jerusalem for God's judgment. He represents William Sancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury. 

Jotham

Jotham stands for George Savile, Marquis of Halifax, and nephew of Shaftesbury. The Marquis of Halifax had once supported Shaftsbury but, alarmed at his excess, became a supporter of the Court. It was entirely by his eloquence that the Exclusion Bill was defeated in the Lords in 1680.

Hushi

Hushi, David's friend, represents Lawrence Hyde, Earl of Rochester, Charles II's First Lord of the Treasury. He fought against the Exclusion Bill.

Amiel

Amiel traveled through the wilderness to bring David supplies. He represents Edward Seymour, speaker of the House of Commons and treasurer of the Navy.

The Pharaoh

Represents Louis XIV of France.

Zimri

Two biblical figures represent Zimri: a murderer in Numbers, and a usurping murderer in 1 Kings. He is an allegory of George Villiers, the second Duke of Buckingham.

Balaam

A prophet who ignored God. He represents Theophilus Hastings.

Caleb

Moses's servant who entered the Promised Land with Joshua. He represents Arthur Capel, Earl of Essex.

Nadab

Aaron's eldest son; he was an idolater. He represents William, Lord Howard of Esrick, a Puritan preacher.

Jonas

Or, Jonah; he represents Sir William Jones, the attorney general. He prosecuted Catholics in the early stages of the Popish plot, became a member of Parliament, and supported the Exclusion Bill.

Shimei

A man who curses David. He represents Slings by Bethel, a Sheriff of London and Middlesex.

Sagan of Jerusalem

The Sagan of Jerusalem represents the Bishop of Landon. One of David’s loyal men. In the book of Samuel, Sagan of Jerusalem is a priest.

word: 2042

Post- truth

 Post- truth

 Post- truth meaning in Cambridge dictionary.

Post- truth is relating to a situation in which people are more likely to accept an argument based on their emotions and beliefs, rather than one based on facts.

 More examples

• In this post – truth era, science is needed more than ever.

• The world has entered an era of post- truth politics.

• His lectures was entitled “Fake News in a Post- truth World”.

Post- truth  in politics :

 

Post- truth politics is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored.

 Post- truth in political commentators have identified post-truth politics as ascendant in many nation, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Russia, the United kingdom, and the United states.

In India post- truth in politics. Amulya Gopalakrishnan, columnist for Time of India, identified similarities between the Trump and Brexit campaigns on the one hand, and hot-button issues in India such as the Ishrat Jahan case and the ongoing case against Teesta Setalvad on the other, where accusations of forged evidence and historical revisionism have resulted in an “ideological impasse.”

Post- truth politics has been applied as a political buzzword to a wide range of political cultures; one article in The Economist identified post – truth politics in Austria, Germany, North Korea, Poland,  Russia, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United states.

The surprising origins of ‘post- truth’.

“Post- truth” has been announced as the Oxford Dictionaries international word of the year. It is widely associated with US president-elect Donald Trump’s extravagantly untruthful assertions and the working-class people who voted for him nonetheless. But responsibility for the “post- truth” rea lies with middle class professionals who prepared the runway for its recent take-off. Those responsible include academics, journalists, “Creatives”  and financial traders; even the Centre- left politicians who have now been hit hard by the rise of the anti-factual. 

On November 16, 2016 Oxford Dictionaries announced that “post-truth” had been selected as the word which, more than any other, reflects “the passing year in language”. It defines “post-truth” as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”.

The word itself can be traced back as far as 1992, but documented usage increased by 2,000% in 2016 compared to 2015.

We first saw the frequency really spike this year in June with buzz over the Brexit vote and again in July when Donald Trump secured the Republican presidential nomination.

Given that usage of the term hasn’t shown any signs of slowing down, I wouldn’t be surprised if post-truth becomes one of the defining words of our time.

Punditry on the “post-truth era” is often accompanied by a picture either of Donald Trump for example, BBC News Online or The Guardian or of his supporters The Spectator. Although The Spectator article was a rare exception, the connotations embedded in “post-truth” commentary are normally as follows: “post-truth” is the product of populism; it is the bastard child of common-touch charlatans and a rabble ripe for arousal; it is often in blatant disregard of the actualité.

 The Role of  Journalism In A Post- Truth Era

“A lie can travel halfway around the world

While the truth is putting in its shoes.”

                                                            -Mark Twain

You are sipping your morning tea; suddenly, someone approaches you to debate on ‘homosexuality’. You try to censor every opinion you from to pave the way for objects facts. The other person, however, invokes his prejudicial thinking and goes on to find a rationalized rebuttal to everything you say, mostly entrusting his ‘Google University’. he also accuses you of cooking up a personalized version of the truth; therefore, he rejects everything that comes his way. Welcome to the post- truth world, where emotions and opinions influence people way more than facts.

The questions come to mind whenever one thinks of a post- truth world.

The post- truth era is not an exclusive event of the 21st century, people in the past, mostly dictators, have capitalized on this phenomenon to pitch one section of people against the other. One can quote examples of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin who championed the application of selective exploitation of emotion to instigate mass approval of their dictum or disapproval of the feelings of Swathes of populations.

Journalism is the production and distribution of reports on current events based on facts and supported with proof or evidence. The word journalism applies to the occupation, as well as collaborative media who gather and publish information based on facts and supported with proof or evidence. Journalistic media include print, television, radio, Internet, and in the past, newsreels.

Fake news" is also deliberately untruthful information which can often spread quickly on social media or by means of fake news websites. News cannot be regarded as "fake", but disinformation rather.

It is often published to intentionally mislead readers to ultimately benefit a cause, organization or an individual. A glaring example was the proliferation of fake news in social media during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.