Absalom and Achitophel

Abstract

Date and publication . The statement in The Second Part of Miscellany Poems (1716) that AA was begun ‘in the year 1680’ has been accepted by some scholars (e.g. Howard H. Schless, POAS iii 278–9), but is unlikely. Malone took it to mean before 25 March 1681 (i.e. 1680 in the old calendar), which would be before the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament. It is more probable that the dissolution prompted D. to begin the poem, and that he worked at it over the summer of 1681. Absalom and Achitophel. A Poem was published by Tonson in 1681 (advertised in The Loyal Protestant 19 November; Luttrell’s copy (in the Huntington) is dated 17 November, and was given him by Tonson). This first edition, in folio (siglum: F ) had one misprint on p. 5 and four (plus an incorrect catchword) on p. 6. The errors on p. 6 were corrected as the book was going through the press, resulting in four different issues (Macdonald nos. 12a (i)–(iv)). The folio edition was reprinted (partly reset) in 1681 ( F 2 ), and some copies of this printing have an extra leaf with commendatory verses by Nathaniel Lee and Richard Duke (Macdonald 12d). ‘The Second Edition; Augmented and Revised’, in quarto ( Q ), was published in 1681, adding twelve lines on Shaftesbury (ll. 180–91) and four on Monmouth (ll. 957–60), and making several verbal alterations which appear to be D.’s revisions (Macdonald 12e (i)–(ii)). Noyes 959 conjectured that ll. 180–91 might have been in D.’s original MS but omitted in order to sharpen the satire on Shaftesbury; Vinton A. Dearing ( Works ii 411–12) developed this into an elaborate hypothesis about royal censorship and last-minute revision; a rival hypothesis about revision was proposed by E. L. Saslow ( SB xxviii (1975) 276–83). Another hypothesis is that ll. 180–91 and 957–60 were added when D. saw that it was both safe and advantageous for the King’s supporters to appear reasonable and magnanimous. The present editors think that Noyes was right in supposing that ll. 180–91 were in the original MS, but suggest that they may have been omitted accidentally: ll. 180–91 do not form a coherent unit, since ll. 180–5 are a strongly worded development of the point in l. 179 about private ambition masquerading as public service, while ll. 186–91 make a generous concession about Shaftesbury’s probity as a judge, and lead smoothly into ll. 192–3. It is therefore unlikely that this passage would have been seen as a unit and omitted in F to sharpen the satire, or composed as a block to be added in Q to show magnanimity. It is more likely that ll. 180–91 were in D.’s original MS but accidentally omitted in F (they would have come between the foot of p. 6 and the top of p. 7, and other errors and signs of haste affected p. 6); they would then have been restored when the poem was reset in a new format for Q . Lines 957–60 need not have had the same textual history as ll. 180–91: they could well have been added in Q to soften the presentation of Monmouth. Q was reprinted in 1682 with the addition of verses by Nahum Tate (Macdonald 12f), and twice again in the same year (Macdonald 12g and h). AA was then reprinted in MP (1684; reprinted 1692) and again in 1692 along with The Medal and MF as part of Tonson’s series of D.’s poems in a uniform format. Two undated editions appeared, probably in Dublin (Macdonald 12b and c), and there is a pirated edition called Absalom and Achitpohel [ sic ] (1681). The poem was also reprinted (n.p., n.d.) with a key (Macdonald 121). The present text is based on F , incorporating the press corrections, but emended from Q to include the additional lines and revisions within square brackets. There is no evidence that D. revised the poem after Q . 151 Paragraphing has been added at ll. 150, 543 and 630. For the commendatory poems see Poems i 540–3.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.