Usage of ” at the expense of”

ambiguitymeaning-in-contextphrase-meaning

I am reading the poem The Latest Decalogue by Arthur Hugh Clough.
I can't understand the meaning of this line:

Thou shalt have one God only; who / Would be at the expense of two?

Is he saying that to have one God in Christianity means that you have to have three Gods at the same time?

Best Answer

We can only guess as to what exactly was meant by Arthur Hugh Clough (1819–1861). "The Latest Decalogue" by Arthur Hugh Clough is obviously a satire in which he criticises the Victorians, specifically the contrast between the impression they gave of themselves, and their true morality as per this report (website: 123helpme.com).

In it he advises the Victorians to have only one God (God of currency or money God), and also advises not to be bound to do two God's ("money God" and "God of ten commandments") bidding (aka serve). "Would be at the expense of two" can be expanded to "Would be placed at the expense of two (Gods)" or rephrased as "Would be at the disposal of two Gods". Arthur Hugh Clough advises that it is better to serve one God (the money God), follow the new ten commandments (The Latest Decalogue) and make a show of following the original ten commandments.

In the whole of the poem, Arthur Hugh Clough is advising/rebuking/chastising Victorians to make a show of abiding by the "ten commandments", and in their inner core abide by the "The Latest Decalogue". It's wordplay by a poet.

Related Topic