Patriarchy: Scope, Vulnerabilities, and Dangers - Essay Example

Patriarchy: Scope, Vulnerabilities, and Dangers Absent the father-son motif, there would be little of the allegorical power which permeates Dryden's Absalom and Achitophel. To be sure, the father-son motive is consistently interwoven throughout the text as an essential unifying pattern. One cannot understand the meaning of the poem without pausing to consider the figurative meaning accorded to specific relationships, and the consequences of those figurative meanings. This is true whether it is a King's relationship with his subjects, a father's relationship with his son, or a people's identification with a patriarchal God. The notion of fatherhood is employed broadly; at times, Dryden uses it to refer to leadership, at times to Kingship more specifically, and, most frequently, to King David's relationship with his subjects and his son, Absalom. Ironically, the way in which this motif permeates the poem gives rise to nearly all of the stages of the story. This essay will argue that the father-son motif in Dryden's Absalom and Achitophel demonstrates the implicit vulnerability of all patriarchal relationships; more particularly, this essay will explain how Dryden employs the father-son motif in order to highlight the danger of a patriarch loving uncritically, the danger of a patriarch offering mercy and restraint to enemies, and the painful burdens that patriarchal figures must endure if they are to survive in such a role. 1.1 The Dangers of Uncritical Love: King David and Absalom The poem begins almost as an apology; it is apologetic because patriarchs and fathers are forgiven in advance for the miseries to be encountered in the current age. This reference to simpler times is introduced in the first few lines, when Dryden offers that, "In pious times, ere priestcraft did begin, Before polygamy was made a sin; When man on many multiplied his kind, Ere one to one was cursedly confined; When nature prompted, and no law denied, Promiscuous use of concubine and bride;" (1-6). The implication is that there was a time when fatherhood implied no predominant obligation; indeed, this reference to pious times views the father-son relationship without the imposition of certain conditions or risks. Having a generalized duty to many people, being promiscuous and without the curse of being confined, the father may pursue his life freely. The patriarch, in short, may interact with others when nature prompts, he may choose and discard his relationships arbitrarily, and he will not be judged a legitimate or illegitimate father by others. The pious times, in effect, were without negative consequences. These pious times, on the other hand, are at an end. The father-son motif, particularly with the birth of Absalom, demonstrates the most immediate vulnerability of patriarchy. Patriarchal consequences arise and vest most forebodingly with the birth of Absalom. The indifference notable in pious times is notably absent; quite the contrary, King David, was borne a son described as "So beautiful, so brave,Whether inspired by some diviner lust, His father got him with a greater gust; Or that his conscious destiny made way, By manly beauty, to imperial sway" (18-22). The "imperial sway" language is particularly significant; it is significant because King David is creating a special place in his heart and in his monarchy for Absalom. There is no longer any indifference; more interesting, the son has been elevated to a position higher than that enjoyed by either King David's other children or by King David's subjects. It is easy to ascribe the villainy to come to Achitophel, and yet the first sign of a faction is created by the father himself. To be more precise, rather than maintaining a strictly patriarchal relation to all men, King David instead elevated the son whom would later become his enemy and the cause of much sadness. Thus, if Achitophel might be blamed for taking advantage of this father-son relationship, then King David must accept responsibility for having given so much favor to Absalom in the beginning; had King David opted, for instance, to treat Absalom as men did in pious times, then events would have unfolded with much less personal heartbreak. In addition, there were clear warning signs of which King David was aware, instances of certain weaknesses in the character of Absalom, but once again Dryden relied upon the father-son motif in order to demonstrate the vulnerabilities of patriarchy. Indeed, as stated of Absalom, "What faults he had,--from who from faults is free His father could not, or would not see" (35). Dryden thus injects an element of willful neglect into the patriarchal relationship which damns King David for succumbing to the sentimentalities of flesh and blood, and sets the stage for a new father figure whom might one day rival King David's own role. One can argue that if elevating Absalom was an initial mistake, then ignoring the murder of Amnon was another mistake. In the final analysis, the father-son motif is employed to demonstrate the dangers of elevating one man above another, the need to judge all men by the same standards, and the dangers to any father, whether of a single son or an entire kingdom, of failing to enforce the rules equally. Absalom was more King David's creation than Achitophel's. 1.2 The Dangers of Mercy and Restraint: King David and the Jews The father-son motif is also a critical underpinning in regards to King David's relationship with the Jews. As head of the monarchy, David is again thrust into the patriarchal role. How he treats his subjects, his children, highlights the dangers of patriarchy. Ought a king to treat his subjects with restraint, for instance, or ought he to punish them ruthlessly for their transgressions This is a central tension underlying King David's rule of the Jews, and the fact that he treated them as misguided children rather than as dangerous threats to the legitimacy of his rule fomented rather than discouraged dissent. This fatherly pardoning of his subjects is everywhere in the poem. Despite murmurs of dissatisfaction, large-scale rebellions did not arise in the beginning because, as noted by Dryden, "The moderate sort of men, thus qualified, Inclined the balance to the better side; And David's mildness managed it so well, The bad found no occasion to rebel" (75-78). As with Absalom, King David is also fatherly and balanced towards his subjects. He is mild rather than objective, he is tolerant rather than ruthless; and, most dangerous, he is now compelled to manage competing factions and interests where before there were none. The father is vulnerable now not only to Absalom, but he is now vulnerable to his subjects as well. The father is at risk from all of his children, both close and far. This patriarchal vulnerability is later referred to as the "monarch's fatal mercy" (146) and "the old men's dream!" (239). These vulnerabilities arise from the father figure's relationship with his children. A monarch has certain obligations and these obligations should not be clouded by notions of mercy or restraint. King David's mildness, as events unfold, proves to have been a mistake. Subjects need to ruled and governed, not coddled and nurtured. In sum, the father-son motif is used to demonstrate how a leader ought to rule and govern. Personal preferences and emotions must give way to rationale policies and behaviors. A paternal pattern of mildness or mercy is just as likely to provide the basis for fractious dissent as it is to appease. Finally, people need to be treated like children or they will rebel. The fatherly role is needed in order to maintain order, in order to prevent lies and false causes, and in order for the social family to function harmoniously. It is these political precepts which Dryden so powerfully presents through the medium of the father-son motif. 1.3 The Painful Burdens of Patriarchs: The Necessary Law Even at the end, the father-son motif is employed in such a way as to emphasize the frailty of rulers, the mortality of men, and the constant struggle of human beings in institutionalized systems of government. King David, recognizing that his patriarchal position requires certain sacrifices, laments, "Why am I forced, like heaven, against my mind, To make examples of another kind Must I at length the sword of justice draw Oh curst effects of necessary law!" (1000-1004). That he has prevailed is less significant than how was forced to prevail. He acknowledges that the actions he was compelled to undertake were against his mind, that he was ultimately required to punish rebels as examples to other subjects, and that violence was necessary. These admissions, all in the face of father-son conflicts and resolutions, result in sort of reconciled view of leadership in the mind of King David. He now knows the danger of uncritical love. He now knows the danger of elevating men based upon love rather than merit. He also understands that he may have been too tolerant and too generous. His reference to necessary law is important, because it refers to the complexity of all of the father-son relationships in the text. In the end, King David did lose Absalom and he nearly lost his subjects and his position as monarch as well. In a final twist, Dryden places the mighty King David back in the role of the son, as he reassumes his place as earthly father under the watch of the heavenly father, "the Almighty, nodding, gave consent, And peals of thunder shook the firmament. Henceforth a series of new time began, The mighty years in long procession ran; Once more the godlike David was restored, And willing nations knew their lawful lord" (1026-1031). The implication is that King David has learned from his mistakes, that he will reassume his patriarchal position more in line with the older pious times, and that this renewed commitment has gained the favor of our larger father, God. Pain is a part of ruling, it is a part of assuming a patriarchal role, and trying to avoid pain by trying to alter the necessary law, will only result in more pain and greater risk. These are the essential lessons learned by King David. In conclusion, human nature and relationships are defined by Dryden by constantly repeating and developing the father-son relationship. King David, for instance, is both a father and a son. He is the father of Absalom and all of his subjects. Absalom is a son and he aspires to the ultimate patriarchal position. In short, this motif is used to illustrate the notion of order and threats to order. There simply is no literary masterpiece absent this constant thread of hierarchal symmetry. Works Cited Read More