Summary of Windhover

The windhover is a bird with the rare ability to hover in the air, essentially flying in place while it scans

the ground in search of prey. The poet describes how he saw (or “caught”) one of these birds in the

midst of its hovering. The bird strikes the poet as the darling (“minion”) of the morning, the crown

prince (“dauphin”) of the kingdom of daylight, drawn by the dappled colors of dawn. It rides the air as if

it were on horseback, moving with steady control like a rider whose hold on the rein is sure and firm. In

the poet’s imagination, the windhover sits high and proud, tightly reined in, wings quivering and tense.

Its motion is controlled and suspended in an ecstatic moment of concentrated energy. Then, in the next

moment, the bird is off again, now like an ice skater balancing forces as he makes a turn. The bird, first

matching the wind’s force in order to stay still, now “rebuff[s] the big wind” with its forward propulsion.

At the same moment, the poet feels his own heart stir, or lurch forward out of “hiding,” as it were—

moved by “the achieve of, the mastery of” the bird’s performance.

The opening of the sestet serves as both a further elaboration on the bird’s movement and an injunction

to the poet’s own heart. The “beauty,” “valour,” and “act” (like “air,” “pride,” and “plume”) “here

buckle.” “Buckle” is the verb here; it denotes either a fastening (like the buckling of a belt), a coming

together of these different parts of a creature’s being, or an acquiescent collapse (like the “buckling” of

the knees), in which all parts subordinate themselves into some larger purpose or cause. In either case,

a unification takes place. At the moment of this integration, a glorious fire issues forth, of the same

order as the glory of Christ’s life and crucifixion, though not as grand.

‘The Windhover’ was written by Gerard Manley Hopkins (1844-89) in 1877, but, like many of Hopkins’s

poems, was not published until 1918, long after his death. It’s one of his most widely anthologised

poems and some analysis of it may help readers to appreciate it as a curious and interesting example of

the sonnet form. So, what follows is a very brief analysis of the poem, designed to act as a short

introduction to its linguistic power and its themes.

A couple of things about the poem’s title and dedication: ‘windhover’ is another name for the kestrel,

and the poem is dedicated ‘To Christ Our Lord’ (Hopkins was a Catholic – indeed, a Jesuit – and many of

his poems are devotional or religious). ‘The Windhover’ is rightly praised as both a great nature poem

(about the ‘mastery’ of the bird of prey in flight, as it ‘hovers’ on, and rides, the wind) and a great

religious poem (the last six lines, along with the poem’s dedication, liken the majesty of the bird to the

masterful power of Christ). Put briefly, the first eight lines of the poem are about the poet catching, one

morning, the majestic sight of the windhover/kestrel in flight; the next three lines suggest that the

kestrel’s flight is like the awesome power and grace of Christ (‘O my chevalier!’); and the final three

lines, more sober and contemplative, reflect that we needn’t wonder that such a sublime thing exists in

nature. After all, the plodding of the horse driving the plough makes the furrows in a ploughed field

(‘plough-down sillion’ – ‘sillion’ is the poet’s own coinage) shine, and the lumps of coal in a fire (‘bluebleak

embers’) can break into new life, and glow a beautiful reddish-gold. Such ‘brute beauty’ is found

everywhere in nature, in other words. But this paraphrase of Hopkins’s actual words is only designed to

be a way into understanding what cannot adequately be paraphrased. The poem’s use of language is

crucial to its success and effectiveness as a piece of poetry, so it’s worth highlighting a few things in the

poem which are particularly interesting or noteworthy.

First, the poem is a sonnet – a poem usually of fourteen lines – and more specifically a Petrarchan

sonnet that rhymes abba abba cdc dcd (Petrarchan sonnets almost always rhyme abba abba in the first

eight lines, or the ‘octave’; the final six lines, or ‘sestet’, rhyme in various ways). We have more about

the curious variability and versatility of the sonnet form here. However, this isn’t immediately obvious,

because, unlike other sonnets which usually contain ten syllables per line (e.g. ‘Shall I compare thee to a

summer’s day?‘ or ‘How do I love thee? Let me count the ways‘), Hopkins’s poem is far more varied in its

number of syllables per line. The first line actually does contain ten syllables, but the word ‘kingdom’ is

cut in two, with the poem’s second line beginning mid-word. That second line contains sixteen syllables.

This is because of Hopkins’s peculiar approach to poetic rhythm and metre, known as ‘sprung rhythm’.

What is the point of sprung rhythm? Well, for one, it allows Hopkins to get closer to the rhythms of

natural speech: indeed, one of Hopkins’s earliest champions, the critic F. R. Leavis, argued that Hopkins

was the only English poet who rivalled Shakespeare for his poetic imitation of natural speech.

Second, to capture the awe the poet experiences when viewing the bird, his language is appropriately

awe-inspired: so, for instance, he writes ‘the achieve of, the mastery of the thing!’ where the stuttering

force of that comma, the exclamation mark, and the unusual use of ‘achieve’ as a noun (not ‘the

achievement’, but ‘the achieve’), all convey his almost breathless excitement at witnessing the bird in

flight. The sense of religious awe is a world away from Thomas Hardy’s bleak view of a godless world in

‘The Darkling Thrush’.

If there is one word we might use to describe Hopkins’s characteristic poetic style, it is ‘headlong’. The

vibrancy of the sprung rhythm, and the unusual word-choices (‘achieve’, ‘sillion’), both seek to convey

the awe the poet felt when he saw the windhover. In turn, we can marvel in awe at the sheer ‘mastery’

of language which Hopkins’s poem demonstrates. This short analysis can only go so far towards

addressing this, but we hope we’ve provided an interesting introduction to Hopkins’s distinct style as it

is displayed in this, one of his greatest poems.

The Way of the World: 

Character List

Mirabell A young man-about-town, in love with Millamant.

Millamant A young, very charming lady, in love with, and loved by, Mirabell. She is the ward of

Lady Wishfort because she is the niece of Lady Wishfort's long-dead husband. She is a first

cousin of Mrs. Fainall.

Fainall A man-about-town. He and Mirabell know each other well, as people do who move in

the same circles. However, they do not really like each other. Fainall married his wife for her

money.

Mrs. Fainall Wife of Fainall and daughter of Lady Wishfort. She was a wealthy young widow

when she married Fainall. She is Millamant's cousin and was Mirabell's mistress, presumably

after her first husband died.

Mrs. Marwood Fainall's mistress. It does appear, however, that she was, and perhaps still is, in

love with Mirabell. This love is not returned.

Young Witwoud A fop. He came to London from the country to study law but apparently found

the life of the fashionable man-about-town more pleasant. He has pretensions to being a wit.

He courts Millamant, but not seriously; she is merely the fashionable belle of the moment.

Petulant A young fop, a friend of Witwoud's. His name is indicative of his character.

Lady Wishfort A vain woman, fifty-five years old, who still has pretensions to beauty. She is the

mother of Mrs. Fainall and the guardian of Millamant. She is herself in love with Mirabell,

although she is now spiteful because he offended her vanity.

Sir Wilfull Witwoud The elder brother of Young Witwoud, he is forty years old and is planning

the grand tour of Europe that was usually made by young men to complete their education. He

is Lady Wishfort's nephew, a distant, non-blood relative of Millamant's, and Lady Wishfort's

choice as a suitor for Millamant's hand.

Waitwell Mirabell's valet. At the beginning of the play, he has just been married to Foible, Lady

Wishfort's maid. He masquerades as Sir Rowland, Mirabell's nonexistent uncle, and woos Lady

Wishfort.

Foible Lady Wishfort's maid, married to Waitwell.

Mincing Millamant's maid.

Peg A maid in Lady Wishfort's house.

Play Summary

Before the action of the play begins, the following events are assumed to have taken place.

Mirabell, a young man-about-town, apparently not a man of great wealth, has had an affair

with Mrs. Fainall, the widowed daughter of Lady Wishfort. To protect her from scandal in the

event of pregnancy, he has helped engineer her marriage to Mr. Fainall, a man whom he feels

to be of sufficiently good reputation to constitute a respectable match, but not a man of such

virtue that tricking him would be unfair. Fainall, for his part, married the young widow because

he coveted her fortune to support his amour with Mrs. Marwood. In time, the liaison between

Mirabell and Mrs. Fainall ended (although this is not explicitly stated), and Mirabell found

himself in love with Millamant, the niece and ward of Lady Wish-fort, and the cousin of his

former mistress.

There are, however, financial complications. Half of Millamant's fortune was under her own

control, but the other half, 6,000 pounds, was controlled by Lady Wishfort, to be turned over to

Millamant if she married a suitor approved by her aunt. Unfortunately, Mirabell had earlier

offended Lady Wishfort; she had misinterpreted his flattery as love.

Mirabell, therefore, has contrived an elaborate scheme. He has arranged for a pretended uncle

(his valet, Waitwell) to woo and win Lady Wishfort. Then Mirabell intends to reveal the actual

status of the successful wooer and obtain her consent to his marriage to Millamant by rescuing

her from this misalliance. Waitwell was to marry Foible, Lady Wishfort's maid, before the

masquerade so that he might not decide to hold Lady Wishfort to her contract; Mirabell is too

much a man of his time to trust anyone in matters of money or love. Millamant is aware of the

plot, probably through Foible.

When the play opens, Mirabell is impatiently waiting to hear that Waitwell is married to Foible.

During Mirabell's card game with Fainall, it becomes clear that the relations between the two

men are strained. There are hints at the fact that Fainall has been twice duped by Mirabell:

Mrs. Fainall is Mirabell's former mistress, and Mrs. Marwood, Fainall's mistress, is in love with

Mirabell. In the meantime, although Millamant quite clearly intends to have Mirabell, she

enjoys teasing him in his state of uncertainty.

Mirabell bids fair to succeed until, unfortunately, Mrs. Marwood overhears Mrs. Fainall and

Foible discussing the scheme, as well as Mirabell and Mrs. Fainall's earlier love affair. Since Mrs.

Marwood also overhears insulting comments about herself, she is vengeful and informs Fainall

of the plot and the fact, which he suspected before, that his wife was once Mirabell's mistress.

The two conspirators now have both motive and means for revenge. In the same afternoon,

Millamant accepts Mirabell's proposal and rejects Sir Wilfull Witwoud, Lady Wishfort's

candidate for her hand.

Fainall now dominates the action. He unmasks Sir Rowland, the false uncle, and blackmails Lady

Wishfort with the threat of her daughter's disgrace. He demands that the balance of

Millamant's fortune, now forfeit, be turned over to his sole control, as well as the unspent

balance of Mrs. Fainall's fortune. In addition, he wants assurance that Lady Wishfort will not

marry so that Mrs. Fainall is certain to be the heir.

This move of Fainall's is now countered; Millamant says that she will marry Sir Wilfull to save

her own fortune. Fainall insists that he wants control of the rest of his wife's money and

immediate management of Lady Wishfort's fortune. When Mirabell brings two servants to

prove that Fainall and Mrs. Marwood were themselves guilty of adultery, Fainall ignores the

accusation and points out that he will still create a scandal which would blacken the name of

Mrs. Fainall unless he gets the money.

At this point, Mirabell triumphantly reveals his most successful ploy. Before Mrs. Fainall

married Fainall, she and Mirabell had suspected the man's character, and she had appointed

her lover trustee of her fortune. Fainall is left with no claim to make because Mrs. Fainall does

not control her own money. He and Mrs. Marwood leave in great anger. Sir Wilfull steps aside

as Millamant's suitor; Lady Wishfort forgives the servants and consents to the match of

Mirabell and Millamant.

Finding Deeper Meaning in Ode on the Death of a Favourite Cat

First impressions are important when meeting new people, applying for jobs, and even when

reading literature. It provides us with an idea of what is going on, where things are taking place,

and who the important characters are. This first impression can be described is the Pre-Critical

Response; the average reader performs this type of analysis every time he or she reads. For

some people, this simplistic perspective is satisfactory; others find the quest for deeper

understanding intriguing and part of the ultimate experience gained through literature.

The Formalistic Approach is one way to analyze literature in order to gain fuller understanding.

This approach examines a piece of literature by identifying its individual structures and form. It

studies sentence structure in terms of verb placement, the multiple meanings and etymology of

words, and the stanza and line breaks. The Formalistic Approach stresses sensitivity to words

and their connotations, denotations, and implications they may have to surrounding words and

phrases. Location, setting, place, and time are other aspects identified through this

approach. Formalistic analysis is referred as "...close reading in practice" (HCAL 73).

The Dialogical Approach recognizes "...the essential indeterminacy of meaning outside of the

dialogic - and hence open - relationship between voices" (HCAL 349). The voices of a novel or

work create a dimension all their own. Dialogical's creator, Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin, uses

the key term of carnivalization to describe the "...diversities of speech and voice reflected in its

structure" (HCAL 351). Mood and tone are derived from this and can be further amplified

through the Formalistic Approach of analysis.

My Pre-Critical Response to Thomas Gray's "Ode on the Death of a Favourite Cat, Drowned in a

Tub of Gold Fishes" is as follows: A cat was playing with a fish in the fish bowl. The cat fell in and

then drowned because none cared enough to save her. When I take a second look, details of

the setting and location; language usage and sentence patterns; tone and mood; deeper

meanings to the poem can be found. The Formalistic and Dialogical Approaches can be used to

find these deeper meanings.

Setting and location are essential when creating atmosphere. Atmosphere influences mood and

mood reflects on tone. The setting in "Ode on the Death of a Favourite Cat, Drowned in a Tub

of Gold Fishes" is described starting in the periphery and then narrowing in to the source of

energy. The surroundings are characterized using an abstract point of view. "'Twas on a lofty

vase's side, Where China's gayest art had dy'd" (Gray l.1-2). The decorations are described in

terms of culture and civilization to add hidden depth to the object in view.

The language usage through word choice, syntax, and style create a dimension all their own.

Gray uses an array of words commonly found in someone who is highly educated and

knowledgeable. He uses descriptive words with hidden meanings and connotations. For

example, he uses the names of Tom and Susan for people who will not come to his aid. Tom

and Susan are generally the names of household servants who should be around to come to his

aid, and yet in fact are not. This implies the relationship and feelings the servants have toward

their Master and toward his possessions. The word choice for the title, ode in particular,

suggests this is a tribute to a loved one or someone of meaningful significance. This in fact is

true; the cat's owner as a tribute writes this poem to his beloved friend the cat. The sentences

are long as well as the complexities of the thoughts. The descriptions are vivid; they come to

life; they leave much to the imagination.

Tonality and mood is set through the interaction of the speaker. The speaker of this poem is the

owner of the cat. He is the only speaker and his tone stays consistent throughout. He uses

parodies by making the simplest things seem so complex, humorous to some degree. Overexaggeration

and colorful descriptions add to the flow of the poem. The speaker is direct with

his feelings. He is honest and open about the world as he sees it. His specific word choice

displays this openness. He makes references to mythology, references to family, and references

to mankind.

Taking a second look at this poem has revealed many new things. The central idea and train of

thought still remains, yet depth has been found. Word choice, sentence structure, and mood

are important things to analyze when reading and re-reading literature. It creates an added

dimension to an elementary viewpoint after only one glance. So, go ahead and take a second

look.

Morals of Ode on the Death of a Favorite Cat (Favourite)

It is very difficult to understand what a writer mean when they write a poem, because you have

to get in to a frame of mind that you think the writer was in when they composed the poem. In

the Ode on the Death of a Favourite Cat, Drowned in a Tub of Gold Fishes, Thomas Gray uses a

cat and fish to teach a moral.

In the Ode on the Death of a Favourite Cat, Drowned in a Tub of Gold Fishes the setting was set

in the first stanza. The poem gave you an idea that it took place in a very nice house that had a

large china vase, that held water, also it give the allusion that in this vase were flowers and fish.

It describes beautiful blue tinted flowers in bloom and the fish as angel like Beta fish, which had

a coat of amour made in gold with the hint of royal purple. When Gray went into describing a

fluffy black and white tabby cat with deep green eyes.

The cat's name is Selima and she is perched at the top of the vase watching the fish glide

through the water. Selima was planning to eat the fish as soon as she could catch them. So she

slowly reached with her paw to nab one of the fishes, her first attempt fails so she thinks again

of how she can reach them. Eventually she falls in and tries to get out eight times while crying

for help from a forgiving soul. No one seems to hear her and she drowns in the water where the

fish swam.

Thomas Gray asks two questions " What female heart can gold despise? What cat's averse to

fish?" (lines 23 and 24) the meaning of those questions are that some gold is not meant for

women and these fishes were not meant to be eaten by Selima. Also the "female" could reflect

the cat since cats are generalized has feminine and "gold" referring to the fish. Gray also states

"Malignant fate sat by, and smil'd" (line 28) which leads me to believe that fate was laughing at

the cat and not helping it cause fate knew what was going to happen. In line twenty-nine "The

slipp'ry verge her feet beguil'd" is an illusion to that the cat thinks it has balance and yet she

does not cause she falls into the fish bowl. In the second to last stanzas it talks about how she

cried out to a "wat'ry God" to send aid to her. "No dolphins came, no Nereid stirr'd: Nor cruel

Tom, nor Susan heard" which in my opinion means that no one heard Selima not even another

cat, servant or even her owner came to help her in her dismay.

The last stanza is basically the moral to the little story. The first two lines make the reader

believe that the beauty of the vase nor the fishes where disturbed and that one false step could

mean your life. The rest of that stanza has the bases of the moral, which is do not always go for

everything that you want cause it could turn out that it is not what it seemed to be in the first

place. An example of this moral in today's society would be a company that relies on its stock to

help it succeed. As the stock goes up the company seem to get cocky with the money they have

until the stock starts to drop. Then eventually they company will have to file for bankrupts

cause they choose to send their money foolishly.

Thomas Gray originally wrote this poem in honor of Selima, Walpole's cat that drowned after

tumbling into a china goldfish bowl. I believe that as he wrote it he put in this underlying moral

to get his readers to think of their choices in life.

 The Way of the World Summary

Mirabell, once a womanizer, seeks to marry a girl he loves, Ms. Millamant. Unfortunately, her aunt, Lady

Wishfort, holds power over her 6,000 pound inheritance and despises Mirabell because he once

pretended to love her. Mirabell and Ms. Millamant devise a plot in which his servant, Waitworth, will

marry Lady Wishfort's servant, Foible, and then woo Lady Wishfort in disguise as Mirabell's uncle, Sir

Rowland. The scheme proceeds as planned until Ms. Marwood, who unrequitedly desires Mirabell,

overhears the plot when Foible fills in Lady Wishfort's daughter, Mrs. Fainall. Ms. Marwood tells the

man to whom she is mistress, Mr. Fainall, about the scheme and the fact that Mirabell was also once

romantically involved with his wife, Mrs. Fainall. Incensed by this situation, the two plan to foil

Mirabell's scheme. Sir Wilfull, a nephew of Lady Wishfort's, comes to town before departing to go

abroad, and Lady Wishfort desires for him, though a bumbling man, to marry Ms. Millamant. The

situation comes to a head when Lady Wishfort, while visiting with "Sir Rowland," receives a letter from

Ms. Marwood revealing Mirabell's scheme. Fainall attempts to use Lady Wishfort and her daughter's

precarious social situation as leverage to gain Ms. Millamant's inheritance and all of Lady Wishfort's

money through control of his wife's inheritance. However, he is foiled by Ms. Millamant announcing she

will marry Sir Wilfull and Mirabell announcing that he has had claim to Mrs. Fainall's inheritance since

before her marriage to Fainall. Once Fainall and Ms. Marwood leave, Ms. Millamant rescinds her offer to

Sir Wilfull and she and Mirabell receive Lady Wishfort's blessing for marriage, her reputation having

been saved by the two lovers.

Absalom and Achitophel Summary

Absalom and Achitophel Background:

“Absalom and Achitophel” is a heroic satire written by John Dryden in 1681-1682. John Dryden is an English poet, playwright, translator, essayist, and literary theorist. Along with Shakespeare and Milton, he is considered as one of the most influential and greatest representatives of English Literature of the 17th century.

"Absalom and Achitophel" includes more than 1,000 poems. For all that, the poem is not finished: the second part was written by Nahum Tate, with Dryden himself writing no more than a few poems. These poems allegorically depict the political struggle in England at that time. For example, the biblical legend of the rebellious son of King David serves as an allegory for the history of the struggle of the Whigs, led by Lord Sheftsberri against the so-called "Catholic conspiracy."

Absalom and Achitophel Summary:

With a steady and mild hand, King David rules Israel in the time before polygamy is a sin and priest-craft begins. He spreads his seed throughout the land and has many offspring, though his true wife is Michal. Of his illegitimate children, none is more glorious and beloved than Absalom. Absalom wins renown in foreign fields and is pleasing in mind and countenance. David loves him and indulges his every whim.

David’s reign does not remain peaceful, however. The Jews are capricious, tempestuous people who often throw off their ruler for a new one. They mutter and complain, but nothing comes of it while they are disunited. However, old plots are revived, stoking the Jews’ fear of the heathen Jebusites, whose land they had taken long ago. Factions stir up and begin to threaten the government.

Achitophel, a wise and witty councilor of David’s, sees this as his moment. He is restless and desirous of fame, so he decides he must find a way to ruin David. He is aware of how easily swayed the people are, and he turns to the handsome Absalom into his pawn. 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.

Achitophel devises his plan and sends Absalom out to the people to curry their favor and turn them against his father. He warns the young man of his uncle and tells him he must try for the crown while his father still lives. 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.

Dryden accounts for some of the most dangerous, corrupt men in the city, as well as the small but loyal band that stays with David as the tensions mount.

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.

Absalom and Achitophel Character List

Corah

Corah led a rebellion against Moses. He stands for Titus Oates, who devised the Popish Plot and led the persecution of Catholics.

Barzillai

Barzillai lived beyond the Jordan River and sustained David during Absalom's rebellion. He stands for the Duke of Ormonde, 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.

The Sagan of Jerusalem

The Sagan of Jerusalem represents the Bishop of London.

Adriel

Adriel was the son of Barzillai. Here he stands for John Sheffield, 3rd Earl of Mulgrave. He supported Dryden and opposed Monmouth.

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.

Hushai

Hushai, 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.

Bathsheba

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.

Michal

She was the daughter of Saul and the wife of King David. She stands for Catherine of Braganza, the daughter of John IV of Portugal and wife of Charles II.

Saul

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.

David

The king of Israel, representing Charles II of England.

Absalom

David's beloved son who rebelled against him; stands for James, the Duke of Monmouth, who sided with the Exclusionists against his father Charles II. He was executed for treason.

Annabel

She represents Monmouth's wife Anne.

Amnon

Absalom's half-brother. Absalom had him killed for raping his sister.

Achitophel

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.

Pharoah

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 Slingsby Bethel, a sheriff of London and Middlesex.

Agag

King of the Amalekites. God wanted Saul to kill him, but when Saul took Agag prisoner, he warned him God was angry with him. He represents Lord Stafford, a Catholic whom Oates accused of treason.

Issachar

One of Jacob's sons; he is greedy and very rich. He stands for Thomas Thynne, a friend of Monmouth's.

 

Another summary

In holy times, before religion made polygamy a sin, one man was not confined to one woman. Law did not forbid a man from taking both a mistress and a wife, and Israel’s monarch, David, spread his royal seed across the land. Michal is his queen, but several women have “godlike David’s” sons. Theses sons, however, are not of royal birth and thus cannot legally ascend the throne. Of all David’s illegitimate sons, Absalom is the most loved and admired, by both the Jews and his father. Absalom is handsome and full of grace, and he has proven himself a hero fighting in foreign wars. David is filled with “secret joy” as he watches Absalom grow into a respected man, and in his son, David sees his own “youthful image.” David’s reign is peaceful and quiet, but the Jews, “a headstrong, moody, murmuring race,” begin to desire more liberty. It is not long before the Jews revive the Good Old Cause to “raise up commonwealths and ruin kings.”

The Jebusites, who are native to Israel, begin to lose their rights. Their taxes are increased, their land is seized, and their gods and religion are discredited. Their priests are incensed, and soon the plot, the “nation’s curse,” begins to circulate. The Jebusites, in a clandestine plan, infiltrate all areas of Israel, including the courts and brothels, looking for converts. The plot ultimately fails because it is lacking “common sense,” but it also has a “deep and dangerous consequence.” The Jebusite plot makes major waves within the government, and the people begin to rise up and rebel against David. Some even oppose David from within the government, and the most influential of these men is “false Achitophel.” Achitophel is smart and accomplished, ambitious of power, and has flexible morals. He wants to either completely take over the government or destroy it, and he pretends to befriend David to accomplish just that. Absalom stokes Israel’s discontent and tells everyone that David is a Jebusite. The Jews have a history of announcing a new king every 20 years or so, and Achitophel decides it is time to do just that. He knows that he can never be king, but if he must have one, he wants it to be Absalom.

Achitophel begins by publicly hailing Absalom’s birth as royal. He claims Absalom will be the Jews’ “savior,” and that he is the answer to their prayers. Absalom’s popularity soars, and even babies learn to say his name. Achitophel flatters Absalom with compliments of his superior virtue and reminds him that David, too, had to answer a call to the throne when he was in exile in Gath. The people are restless and crying for a new king, and Achitophel is sure if Absalom joins their cries with his royal blood, the people will choose him as their king. Absalom is flattered by Achitophel’s words, but David’s right to the crown is “unquestioned.” David is a good king, Absalom says, he is kind and merciful, and he rarely draws blood. Absalom is certain that if the people are turning against David, he should not fan the flames of dissention. Besides, David gives Absalom everything, except his crown, and he has already told Absalom that he would give it to him if he could. The crown is, however, “justly destined for a worthier head.”

After David, the crown moves down a “collateral line” to David’s brother, who, regardless of his “vulgar spite,” has a legitimate claim to the throne. Still, Absalom does wish he had been born into royalty, so he could rightfully assert his own claim to the crown. But to desire power that rightfully belongs to another, Absalom says, is a “godlike sin.” Achitophel can see that Absalom is not yet convinced, so he steps up his game. He tells the young prince that God has made him virtuous for a reason—because he is meant to be king. David is “weak,” Achitophel says, and now is the perfect time to challenge his power. Achitophel plans to wait until David has foolishly given the last of his money to the people, and then he will incite more public discord or bury David with expensive foreign wars. Achitophel admits that he despises David’s brother, and most of the Jews hate him, too. The people have a right to choose their own king, Achitophel says, and they do not want David’s brother. The time to claim the crown is now, if they wait until after David’s brother is on the throne, they might not be able to ensure that Absalom is king.

To realize his plan, Achitophel joins the various “malcontents” of Israel to one final end—to strip David of his power and give it to Absalom. Many men assist Achitophel in his quest, including Zimri, Balaam, and Caleb, but none are as powerful as Shimei. Shimei robs and cheats the Jews every chance he gets, so they decide to make him their magistrate. Under his tenure as magistrate, treason is legal and he stacks juries with “dissenting Jews” to guarantee that the king’s enemies are free and his supporters are imprisoned. Worse yet is Corah, who engineered the plot. He is a priest, and his memory is impeccable. Thus, the people fail to see his deceit. Surrounded by such men, Absalom addresses the people. He claims he is outraged by their troubles, and he wishes he could suffer on their behalf. Absalom tells the people that he loves his father, but their liberty is at stake. Then he wipes a tear from his eye and tells the people his tears are all he has to give. As the people raise their arms to Absalom in praise, he departs with Achitophel and his men in a royal procession, visiting the people of Israel. Everywhere they go, Absalom is received with love and admiration, and Achitophel is easily able to identify any possible enemies to their cause.

“O foolish Israel!” the speaker of the poem cries. Absalom’s procession is a charade, and is merely “war in masquerade.” No one is safe if kings can be “dissolved by might.” Plus, the speaker says, people are often wrong and a “faultless king” could be ruined. No sensible man would disrupt the government and dethrone their king, which will surely make their grievances worse. Despite this public opposition, however, there are still loyal men who stand by David, including Barzillani, who was in exile with David, as well as Zadock and Sagan of Jerusalem. Perhaps most loyal is Amiel, a government official who tirelessly subdues David’s opposition from inside the ranks. These loyal men inform David of Absalom’s ambition and Achitophel’s deceit, and finally, having grown impatient, David addresses the people of Israel.

David tells the people that he has allowed his role as a father to cloud his judgement as a king, but he will now show them that he is “not good by force.” Absalom’s attempt to “shake” up the kingdom and seize the crown is not a threat to David, and if Absalom wants to continue his efforts, he must be prepared to “fall.” David is the king, he says, and God will not allow such treason to come to pass. David is not afraid to draw his sword if he must, and he reminds the Jews to “beware the fury of a patient man.” If the Jews want a fight, David is ready, and while they are “breathless” and exhausted, he will strike them down. As David speaks, thunder rocks the sky, and every Jew knows their rightful king.

One of the themes--  Politics Allegory and Satire:

On the surface, John Dryden’s poem “Absalom and Achitophel” is a rehashing of the story of David, the third king of Israel, and his illegitimate son Absalom, who rebels against his father and tries to usurp his throne. However, this biblical story is merely an allegory, a form of extended metaphor, for the political events that unfolded in Dryden’s time. In 1678, an alleged Catholic conspiracy to assassinate King Charles II, known as the Popish Plot, swept across England, creating mass anti-Catholic hysteria and prompting the Exclusion Crisis of 1679. The Exclusion Crisis lasted until 1681 and consisted of three Parliamentary bills which attempted to exclude James, King Charles’s brother, from royal succession because he was a Roman Catholic rather than a Protestant. Dryden’s poem is a thinly veiled satirical roast of the political drama that pervaded English society in the late 1670s and early 1680s, and no one is spared his wit. According to Dryden, “the true end of satire is the amendment of vices by correction,” and “Absalom and Achitophel” is an attempt to that end. Through the use of satire and allegory in “Absalom and Achitophel,” Dryden ultimately argues that the Popish Plot and the Exclusion Crisis were devious ploys to divert the rightful order of succession and prevent James II from ascending the throne.

Through the deceit of Achitophel, a politician who sows dissention among the Jews, Dryden allegorizes the Popish Plot and implies the fabricated plot is merely an attempt to breed strife between David and the government, or, figuratively, between Parliament and Charles II of England. In Israel, metaphorically England, the “Good Old Cause revive[s] a plot” to “raise up commonwealths and ruin kings.” The “Good Old Cause” is a reference to the Puritan Rebellions of the English Civil War (1642–1651), which pitted King Charles I, who was supported by the Catholics, against Parliament, which was supported by the Puritans, a form of Protestantism. The war was a victory for Parliament; Charles I was executed, and the Commonwealth of England was created. The monarchy was restored in 1660, and Charles II ascended the throne. With this reference, Dryden implies that the Popish Plot is little more than a revival of the Good Old Cause and an attempt to dethrone a king. In the poem, rumor begins to spread that King David’s life is “Endangered by a brother and wife. / Thus in a pageant show, a plot is made, / And peace itself is war in masquerade.” Titus Oates, a priest of the Church of England and the mastermind of the Popish Plot, accused Charles’s brother James and Charles’s wife, Queen Catherine, of involvement in the plot against Charles. Dryden suggests that Oates’s claims are nonsense—the plot is a “pageant show,” a charade—and such claims amount to a “war in masquerade,” as the desired outcome, to remove a man who is destined to be king out of royal succession, is similar to that of the English Civil War. Ultimately, the plot fails “for want of common sense,” but it has a “deep and dangerous consequence.” The Popish Plot, Dryden implies, was destined to fail because it completely lacked wisdom. However, the paranoia and anti-Catholic sentiments the plot churned up led directly to the Exclusion Crisis, which again pitted Parliament against the king. Members of Parliament pushed for James to be removed from royal succession, and Charles adamantly supported his brother.

In the poem, Dryden discusses many of the men who support Achitophel and his plan to strip David of his power. In this way, Dryden also satirizes the politicians who supported the Exclusion Bill, portraying them as despicable men “who think too little and who talk too much.” Thus, Dryden implies that their proposed law—to keep Roman Catholics from the throne—is likewise foolish and dangerous. Achitophel, who encourages Absalom to rebel against his father, is a contemptable man who resolves “to ruin or to rule the state.” Achitophel is a representation of Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, a Member of Parliament and founder of the Whig party, who opposed absolute monarchy in favor of a more democratic approach. Cooper was a major proponent of the Exclusion Bill, and Dryden implies Cooper intended to use the bill to either take the government over, or completely take it down. Achitophel has several supporters, “whom kings no titles gave, and God no grace,” including the “well-hung Balaam and cold Caleb free.” Balaam and Caleb represent Theophilus Hastings and Arthur Capel respectively, both politicians and members of the Whig party who supported the Exclusion Bill. Dryden therefore implies these men are low-level politicians who have little sense and no influence. While Balaam and Caleb may have little sense, “not bull-faced Jonas,” Dryden says, “who could statutes draw / To mean rebellion and make treason law.” Jonas represents Sir William Jones, a Member of Parliament who supported the Exclusion Bill. As Attorney General, Jones prosecuted several Catholics who were falsely accused and executed during the Popish Plot. In this way, Dryden implies that Jones, especially teamed with Cooper, can do real and lasting damage to the country and to the monarchy.

Achitophel and his supporters begin to stoke “the malcontents of all the Israelites” and sway public opinion, and the Sanhedrins, the Jewish high council, becomes “infected with this public lunacy” as well. The Sanhedrins, of course, are a metaphor for the English Parliament, and the “public lunacy” is the Exclusion Crisis. Through his satirical poem, Dryden had hoped the people of England and Parliament would see the Popish Plot and Exclusion Crisis for what they really were—plots devised to keep James II, a Roman Catholic, out of royal succession.