AP Essay Review: 1994 King Charles II

large view

Review Target: Reading Comprehension

The greatest obstacle to this prompt is simply understanding what Charles Saville is saying. This begins with a recognization of Saville's audience; viz., subjects who thought poorly of Charles. The entire selection is a defense of Charles, as Saville counters criticism and then attacks the critics.

To write a passing paper, students need to recognize two or three of Saville's arguments. To write a higher scoring paper, students need to explain the paradox: How a bad king and an immoral man was actually the right person at that time to rule England.

Very few students wrote about the first sentence: "A prince neither sharpened by his misfortunes whilst abroad, nor by his power when restored, is such a shining character that it is a reproach not to be so dazzled with it as not to be able to see a fault in its full light."

Several footnotes were attached to this sentence. BE SURE TO READ THEM! (They were added by the test writers for a reason, no?) We are told that King Charles II's father was executed and that the son was sent into exile. Eleven years later, Charles II returned to England and was anointed king. This is the time of Oliver Cromwell, who sought to end the English monarchy through rebellion. The Crown was restored after Cromwell's failure and execution.

Consider how Charles II COULD have reacted upon his return. He COULD have rounded up and executed all persons who were a part of the Cromwell government. He COULD have tortured or imprisoned sympathizers. He COULD have sought vengeance and settled scores.

But...he didn't.

And that's Saville's point. "A prince neither sharpened by his misfortunes whilst abroad, nor by his power when restored,..." Charles did NOT become harsh or cruel (see the footnote) despite being forced to live abroad and experience his own father's execution.  So what should we think of a person who can forgive and forget as he could?    "...is such a shining character that it is a reproach not to be so dazzled with it as not to be able to see a fault in its full light."

The latter part acknowledges that Charles II had faults. But so what? We should be dazzled at how he handled the situation. He showed shining character in being personally able to set aside personal grievances and allow England to heal when he assumed the throne. It's why Saville says that we should ignore his other faults--no matter how large. "It would be a scandal in this case to have an exact memory of him." (Note that Saville NEVER denies Charles's faults.)

MANY people wrote about Saville's diction (e.g., shining, dazzled), but they removed the words from the reason. This shows a lack of comprehension (words apart from the ideas they are intended to capture) and is characteristic of a lower scoring paper.

The remainder of the selection is mostly Saville "spinning." He addresses a fault laid out by Charles's critics, but contends that it should be forgotten or set aside.

"What therefore an angry philosopher call lewdness, let frailer men call a warmth and sweetness of the blood that would not be confined in the communicating itself; an overflowing of good nature, of which he had such a stream that it would not be restrained within the banks of crabbed and unsociable virtue...."

Perhaps 2-3 students recognized that Saville was acknowledge Charles's numerous adulterous affairs, including those with wives of close friends, advisors, etc. You might call it lewdness, but he loved so passionately that he could not help himself. Poor guy. This is classic spin: Taking a negative but actually arguing that it's a positive.

"If he loved too much to lie upon his own down bed of ease, his subjects had the pleasure during his reign of lolling and stretching upon theirs."

So, if he was lazy and did nothing, then you could do the same. So why be upset? He could have dragged men to war, raised taxes unfairly, etc. But he didn't. Be glad he did nothing. Saville further addresses that his "pliantness" brokes the "present mischief." In other words, the anger and furor of the Age of Cromwell and his rebellion dissipated during Charles's time because Charles didn't do anything to stoke the fires.

"If he dissembled, let us remember, first, that he was a king, and that dissimulation is a jewel of the crown...."

Remember that a king is a politican. Do politicians lie? Of course! To keep people happy, a politician needs to dissemble. It's a "jewel," or aspect, of political life. Saville goes on to add that all people tell lies anyway--so why should we be angry that Charles did? Isn't he a human being like us?

"Should nobody throw a strong at his faults but those who are free from them, there would be but a slender shower."

The final paragraphs develop this idea. Charles's faults were human faults. Just because he is king does not mean he is a better human being. It would be unfair and unjust to hold him to higher expectations.

Most students wrote about these ideas to some extent. It would be proper to address the closing line: "...which though they should not be unjust, can never clear themselves from being indecent."

Here, Saville clearly acknowledges that there IS TRUTH to all the criticisms; however, they are indecent. Charles is dead. We should appreciate him for what he did well (see above) and forget his human faults and weakness. We all have the same faults and weaknesses, anyway. (Go to the previous paragraph where Saville suggests that we "hide" the less shining parts of Charles's life instead of continuously "exposing" them. Let's focus only on the "shining" parts of his life.)

To get a 6 or higher, students needed to address the points above in some fashion, or at least show awareness. To omit these ideas indicates a lack of comprehension that obviously impacts the content of the written analysis.

LESS IS MORE

Write only about things that you understand. Sometimes, papers earn lower marks due to a single paragraph that suggests a misreading or errant comprehension. That paper actually improves without this paragraph. Ignore sections that you don't understand. Yes, this does limit your score; however, it may rescue you from disaster (a 4 or lower).

For example, in this paper, students could earn a 5 simply by addressing the content of the five paragraphs, which are largely direct.

Sometimes we have to take what we are given. The difficulty of prompts varies considerably. The key is to avoid a disastrously low score and always earn a minimum of 5.

Teacher Websites © 2009 SchoolWorld