“Biblical Allegory, Political Intrigue: Understanding Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel”
This blog is written as a task assigned by the head of the department of English(MKBU), Prof. and Dr. Dilip Barad Sir. Here is the link of the professor's research article for background reading: Click here.
- Here is Mind Maping of this blog:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SqAvxxTSYQ0N74kZVvCPJ0ubi6VsQVxH/view?usp=sharing.
⚫Introduction:
John Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel, first published in 1681, is celebrated as one of the greatest political satires ever written in the English language. Rendered in the elegant precision of heroic couplets, this verse drama uses biblical allegory to reflect Restoration England’s turbulent political stage during the Exclusion Crisis (1679–1681), when Parliament sought to prevent the Catholic James, Duke of York, from inheriting the throne. In the poem, Dryden casts himself as both storyteller and moral physician, using the rebellion of Absalom against King David an episode from 2 Samuel 13-19 to dramatize the real-life power struggles of his time. Here, David stands in for Charles II, Absalom for the charismatic yet illegitimate Duke of Monmouth, and Achitophel for the cunning Earl of Shaftesbury, the chief instigator of the Exclusion movement. Through this layered allegory, Dryden delivers sharp critique, royalist advocacy, and vivid satire all while exploring themes of divine right, ambition, and loyalty.
⚫Basic Information:
- Author and Publication: The Story Behind the Satire:
John Dryden, widely celebrated as England’s first Poet Laureate and a dominant literary figure of the Restoration era, crafted Absalom and Achitophel as a forceful political satire. The poem was first published in 1681 and is hailed as a landmark work in the genre of verse satire, distinguished by its use of heroic couplets rhymed iambic pentameter pairs that lend clarity, balance, and rhetorical power to its message.
Set against the backdrop of the Exclusion Crisis when Parliament sought to exclude James, Duke of York, from the line of succession in favor of Charles II’s Protestant, though illegitimate, son Monmouth Dryden's poem uses the biblical tale of Absalom’s revolt against King David (from 2 Samuel 13–19) as an allegory.
This historical alignment rendered the poem instantly relevant, doubling as both literary achievement and political commentary.
Because of its timely resonance and refined artistry, Absalom and Achitophel quickly gained acclaim as a “celebrated satirical poem”, melding classical poetic form with sharp political insight.
Due to its success, a second part was published in 1682, primarily penned by Dryden’s collaborator Nahum Tate, who later became Poet Laureate himself. Notably, Dryden contributed around 200 lines in Part II, aimed at satirising his literary adversaries, including Thomas Shadwell and Elkanah Settle.
- The Second Part (1682): Nahum Tate and Dryden’s Response:
Buoyed by the extraordinary success of Absalom and Achitophel (1681), Dryden’s peers urged him to continue the tale to keep pace with the shifting political landscape. Though Dryden declined, his friend and later Poet Laureate Nahum Tate took up the challenge. In 1682, Tate published a sequel, Absalom and Achitophel: Part II, with editorial guidance from Dryden himself.
According to the poet’s publisher, Jacob Tonson, Tate’s work was not created in isolation; Dryden offered advice and oversight to ensure continuity of tone and political relevance.
Dryden himself slipped into the pages of Part II contributing about 200 lines of pointed satire, notably targeting his literary rivals Thomas Shadwell and Elkanah Settle, whom he mockingly reimagined as “Og” and “Doeg".
Despite these contributions, critical reception of Part II has been lukewarm at best. Tate's sequel tends to retread Dryden’s original ideas and borrow lines from the first poem, but ultimately lacks the original’s incisive force. Nonetheless, Dryden’s own disguised satire stands out for its vigor and wit.
A more evaluative view from literary scholarship further underscores this contrast: while Tate copied Dryden’s style occasionally lifting entire lines his continuation nonetheless lacks the “burning fire of polemics” that made Part I so powerful. Still, critics concede that certain passages, especially those involving Shadwell and Settle, bear the unmistakable mark of Dryden's satirical mastery.
⚫Historical & Political Context:
In the late 1670s and early 1680s, England was roiled by rumors, political division, and fierce debate over who should succeed King Charles II. The Popish Plot of 1678 a fabricated Catholic conspiracy to assassinate the king and install his brother James, Duke of York sparked widespread panic and anti-Catholic fervor. In response, Parliament launched the Exclusion Crisis (1679–1681), attempting to block James from the throne in favor of Charles’s Protestant, though illegitimate, son. Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel (1681) transforms these real tensions into a bold satirical allegory: presenting the biblical rebellion of Absalom against King David as a mirror of attempts to undermine rightful succession. Through the lens of sacred narrative, Dryden defends legitimate rule and warns that upending divine order could lead to chaos.
- The Popish Plot (1678):
In 1678, England was gripped by fear following Titus Oates’s fabricated conspiracy—the so-called Popish Plot which claimed Catholics planned to assassinate King Charles II and install Catholic rule. Though later revealed as a hoax, the rumor-mongering led to mass hysteria, the wrongful executions of innocents, and the intensification of anti-Catholic sentiment. Dryden satirizes this in the poem, likening the Plot to a “pageant show” and "a war in masquerade," suggesting it was little more than a political spectacle that threatened national stability.
- The Exclusion Crisis (1679–1681):
In the aftermath of the Popish Plot, Parliament introduced three Exclusion Bills between 1679 and 1681 to prevent the Catholic James, Duke of York from succeeding to the throne. Despite passing in the Commons, Charles II dissolved Parliament multiple times to block it. Dryden crafted Absalom and Achitophel as an allegorical defense of the monarchy and of James's right to rule portraying the Whig-led Exclusion movement as deeply misguided and perilous to the nation’s order.
- The Monmouth Rebellion (1685):
Though occurring after the poem’s publication, the Monmouth Rebellion serves as a prophetic epilogue to Dryden’s allegory. In 1685, Charles II’s illegitimate Protestant son, James Scott, Duke of Monmouth, attempted to usurp the throne in a rebellion quickly suppressed at the Battle of Sedgemoor. The failed uprising, and its brutal aftermath (the “Bloody Assizes”), validated Dryden’s warnings of chaos unleashed by rebellious ambition and undermined claims to disrupt lawful succession.
- Dryden’s Political Purpose :
John Dryden composed Absalom and Achitophel in 1681, amid the height of the Exclusion Crisis (1679–1681) a time when anti-Catholic sentiment surged across England. Influenced by the fabricated Popish Plot of 1678, Parliament embarked on a mission to exclude James, Duke of York, from the line of succession solely due to his Catholicism. In response, Dryden authored a satirical masterpiece in the form of a biblical allegory, replete with heroic verse, to defend the Duke’s right to ascend the throne and to satirize the extremists who sought to thwart lawful inheritance. His allegory is pointed: undermining James was tantamount to rebellion against the natural and divine order.
By casting King Charles II as David, Monmouth as Absalom, and Shaftesbury as Achitophel, Dryden transformed a political crisis into a biblical drama, accusing the Whig faction of fomenting mutiny under the guise of political reform. His satire served dual purposes as lyric art and as royalist propaganda reinforcing the sanctity of monarchical succession. Literary scholars note that Dryden’s ultimate aim was to expose exclusionist schemes as treacherous and short-sighted: he insisted that such maneuvers threatened not only the throne but the stability of the realm.
Dryden’s literary strategy was subtle yet powerful: he elevated his political allies and simultaneously discredited his enemies through the classical dignity of biblical allegory. By cloaking his satire in the authority of scripture, he avoided outright confrontation while delivering a persuasive defense of James. In doing so, the poem became a cultural tool designed to sway public opinion during one of the most volatile episodes in Restoration politics.
⚫Key Themes in Absalom and Achitophel:
John Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel is more than a masterful satire it’s a tapestry of themes weaving together politics, morality, religion, and ambition. Dryden transforms a biblical story into a layered political allegory that examines the fragility of authority, the dangers of divided loyalties, and the sacred nature of kingship. Through his poetic lens, the ongoing clash between rightful rule and rebellion becomes a timeless exploration of how power, ethics, and hierarchy collide. His overarching themes political allegory and satire, divine monarchy, ambition, and loyalty versus betrayal invite readers to reflect not just on Restoration-era turmoil, but on the recurring tensions in all systems of governance and society.
- Politics, Allegory, and Satire:
On the surface, Absalom and Achitophel reads like a dramatic Biblical narrative depicting Absalom's revolt against his father, King David. But John Dryden transforms this story into a fierce political allegory aimed squarely at the events of his time namely, the Popish Plot and the Exclusion Crisis (1679–1681), when Parliament attempted to block James, Duke of York a Catholic from succession. Through allegory, Dryden doesn’t just retell scripture; he exposes the political theater of his own era, making his satire both biting and timely.
In this allegorical world:
-
Achitophel (Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury) appears as the crafty counselor, manipulating Absalom and fueling the rebellion for his own political benefit.
-
Absalom becomes a stand-in for the Duke of Monmouth, Charles II’s illegitimate yet Protestant son portrayed as impressionable, ambitious, and tragically misled.
Dryden, ever the master of wit, sharpens his satire with moral precision. As he states in the poem’s prologue, “The true end of satire is the amendment of vices by correction.” He positions himself not as an enemy, but as a moral physician sparing no hypocrisy or flawed ambition while aiming to heal the political body.
Through vivid allegory and sharpened wit, Dryden delivers a powerful critique: political upheaval disguised as reform is inherently dangerous. By cloaking his commentary in biblical drama, he made his critique both accessible and profound, defending legitimate rule and cautioning against the seductive logic of rebellion.
- God, Religion, and the Divine Right of Kings:
In Absalom and Achitophel, Dryden elevates political commentary into a theological defense, illustrating monarchy as divinely ordained. He casts King David his allegorical stand-in for Charles II precisely as a God-anointed sovereign, whose authority transcends earthly judgment. The crown, more than a symbol of power, embodies divine legitimacy, and any attempt to seize it such as Absalom’s and Achitophel’s conspiracy is portrayed not merely as political overreach, but as a direct challenge to God’s will.
Rebellion, in Dryden’s worldview, is not a political tactic it’s sacrilege. He warns that allowing the “rabble” to overturn monarchy amounts to resisting “God’s representative on Earth.” This theme of absolute sovereignty is reinforced through repeated invocations of the divine right of kings, an idea later later resisted by Enlightenment thinkers but powerfully asserted in Dryden’s work. Through his allegory, Dryden’s satire demands that political dissent be seen not as civic critique, but as a threat to divine order itself.
"By buzzing emissaries fills the earsOf list’ning crowds with jealousies and fears...My father governs with unquestioned right,The faith’s defender and mankind’s delight,Good, gracious, just, observant of the laws,And heav’n by wonders has espoused his cause."
Here, Absalom (Monmouth in disguise) acknowledges his father’s divine sanction—recognizing that David’s (Charles II’s) rule is affirmed by both moral merit and heavenly support.
- Power and Ambition:
In Absalom and Achitophel, Dryden masterfully examines how ambition, though often rooted in promise, can degrade into devastating political manipulation. The character of Achitophel serves as the embodiment of unscrupulous ambition he flatters the impressionable Absalom (a stand-in for the Duke of Monmouth), playing upon his vanity and sense of destiny to incite rebellion. As Dryden succinctly observes,
"What cannot praise effect in mighty minds, / When flattery soothes, and when ambition blinds?"
This line underscores how misplaced praise can erode moral judgment, steering even a well-intentioned figure like Absalom away from loyalty and into treachery. Dryden reinforces this message further through a powerful metaphor:
"Kings are the public pillars of the state... if my young Samson will pretend a call / To shake the column, let him share the fall."
Here, David warns that Absalom’s ambitions could bring structural collapse altering the kingdom's stability and possibly ending in shared ruin. Together, these lines warn that unchecked ambition even with noble beginnings can lead to betrayal, chaos, and the dismantling of social order.
⚫The Allegorical Framework: Biblical Foundation:
John Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel (1681) is one of the greatest examples of political allegory in English literature. At its very foundation lies a biblical episode from the Second Book of Samuel, chapters 13–19, which narrates the tragic rebellion of Absalom against his father, King David. Dryden adopts this biblical framework, not to retell it as a religious story, but to provide a powerful parallel for the political crisis in Restoration England during the reign of Charles II.
⚫The Biblical Story (2 Samuel 13–19):
1. Absalom: The Beloved Son:
-
Absalom was one of King David’s many sons, but he stood out for his extraordinary beauty and charm. The Bible describes him as a man “in whom there was no blemish,” with long hair that became a symbol of his attractiveness and vanity.
- He was greatly admired by the people of Israel, who saw in him a natural leader.
-
Absalom’s resentment grew after a family tragedy: his sister Tamar was violated by their half-brother Amnon. When David failed to punish Amnon adequately, Absalom took revenge by killing Amnon and later went into exile.
- Though David eventually allowed him to return, the father–son relationship remained strained. Absalom began to feel neglected and overlooked as a potential heir to the throne.
-
Absalom’s ambition to seize power was encouraged by Achitophel (Ahithophel in the Bible), a cunning and politically shrewd advisor in David’s court.
- Achitophel, though outwardly loyal, secretly resented David’s rule. He saw in Absalom a chance to overthrow the king and advance his own influence.
- Using flattery and persuasion, Achitophel planted the seeds of rebellion in Absalom’s mind.
-
Absalom carefully built his popularity among the people. He presented himself as a just and approachable alternative to David, winning over many hearts.
- With Achitophel’s advice, he declared himself king in Hebron and marched toward Jerusalem with a growing army.
- David, to avoid bloodshed, fled the city with his loyal followers.
-
Despite initial success, Absalom’s revolt faltered. Achitophel’s counsel was rejected in favor of another adviser’s, which weakened the rebellion.
- In battle, Absalom met his tragic end: while fleeing on a mule, his long hair got caught in the branches of a tree. He was left hanging helplessly, where David’s men killed him despite the king’s command to spare him.
- King David was devastated, mourning deeply for his son with the famous cry: “O Absalom, my son, my son!”.
⚫The Allegorical Framework: Contemporary Equivalents:
Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel (1681) takes the biblical story of King David, Absalom, and Achitophel and reworks it into a political allegory for the crisis facing England in the late 17th century. Each biblical figure corresponds to a real political figure, making the poem a pointed commentary on the events of Dryden’s day.
1. David: King Charles II (r. 1660–1685):
-
In the allegory, King David represents Charles II, the restored monarch of England after years of civil war and republican rule.
-
Like David, Charles II was a ruler with both strengths and weaknesses: charming, politically shrewd, but often accused of moral laxity and indulgence.
-
Just as David faced rebellion from within his own family, Charles faced political unrest involving his own illegitimate son.
2. Absalom: James, Duke of Monmouth:
-
Absalom, David’s beloved but rebellious son, symbolizes James Scott, Duke of Monmouth, Charles II’s illegitimate but most adored son.
-
Like Absalom, Monmouth was exceptionally popular with the people handsome, charismatic, and Protestant at a time when England feared Catholic succession.
-
He became the figurehead for those who wanted to exclude Charles’s Catholic brother, James, Duke of York, from the line of succession, and instead crown Monmouth as king.
3. Achitophel: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury:
-
Achitophel, the scheming advisor in the Bible, corresponds to Shaftesbury, a leading statesman and fierce opponent of Catholic succession.
-
Shaftesbury was deeply influential in promoting the Exclusion Crisis (1679–1681), a movement to prevent the Catholic Duke of York from becoming king.
-
Like Achitophel, he encouraged Monmouth to see himself as a rightful alternative heir, fanning the flames of rebellion.
At the heart of the allegory and of the real political crisis was the question of Monmouth’s legitimacy.
1. Parentage:
-
James Scott, Duke of Monmouth (1649–1685), was the son of King Charles II and Lucy Walter, a Welsh woman with whom Charles had an affair during his exile in the 1640s.
-
Because Charles II had no children with his queen, Catherine of Braganza, the succession question became urgent.
2. Rumours of a Secret Marriage:
-
Supporters of Monmouth spread the claim that Charles II had secretly married Lucy Walter before his restoration, which would make Monmouth a legitimate heir.
-
This alleged marriage, however, had no legal proof. Most historians and Charles himself dismissed it as a fabrication.
-
Nevertheless, the rumour gave Monmouth’s followers hope and justification for pressing his claim to the throne.
3. Religious & Political Appeal:
-
Monmouth was Protestant, while Charles’s brother and official heir, James, Duke of York, was Catholic.
-
In a time of widespread anti-Catholic sentiment (fueled by the Popish Plot and fear of Catholic absolutism), Monmouth’s Protestant identity made him highly attractive to the public and politicians like Shaftesbury.
-
He became a symbol of Protestant security and national identity, even if his claim lacked legal basis.
4. Charles II’s Position:
-
Charles II consistently denied Monmouth’s legitimacy, refusing to recognize any marriage to Lucy Walter.
-
Despite his affection for Monmouth, Charles insisted on loyalty to the rightful line of succession (his brother James, Duke of York).
-
This tension mirrors King David’s conflict in the Bible—torn between personal love for his son and the duty of upholding divine and political order.
Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel stands as a monument of political satire in English literature. Published in 1681 amidst the fraught Exclusion Crisis, the poem uses biblical allegory Absalom’s rebellion against David to mirror contemporary political events. Here, King David symbolizes Charles II, while Absalom represents the Duke of Monmouth, and Achitophel embodies the Earl of Shaftesbury, leader of the exclusionist movement together dramatizing the struggle over succession and religious-political legitimacy.
Dryden’s satirical method is both masked and precise. He cloaks his political critique in scripture, allowing him to target the machinations of Shaftesbury and his allies under the plausible guise of biblical narrative. The Popish Plot shakes the nation in the poem, symbolized by Achitophel's deceptive counsel, casting it as a revival of the earlier civil strife (“the Good Old Cause”) hoping to reignite rebellion, thus exposing the absurdity and danger of factional conspiracies.
A key strength of the work lies in its masterful character sketches. Dryden’s portraits of Achitophel and Monmouth are incisive Achitophel is drawn as “resolv’d to ruin or to rule the state,” reflecting Shaftesbury’s manipulative ambition, while Absalom’s populist charm masks moral fragility. Their biblical forms amplify the satire, as Dryden invites readers to see through superficial attractions to the darker truths of political manipulation .
Form and tone bolster the satirical impact. Written in heroic couplets, the poem’s tightly structured verse pairs lend rhetorical weight and wit to every line, enhancing its satirical edge while maintaining poetic elegance a hallmark of Restoration satire. Moreover, Dryden’s deployment of irony, particularly in “praising” Absalom and Achitophel while exposing their flaws ("fine raillery"), sharpens his critique under a veneer of balanced respectability.
Underlying these strategies is a moral intent. In the prologue, Dryden likens satire to a physician’s medicine necessary though bitter, aimed at correcting societal ills rather than indulging personal rancor. He deliberately tempers his attack not everyone is equally culpable thus blending ethic with artistry.
In summary, Absalom and Achitophel succeeds as a political satire through its deft allegory, vivid characterization, formal precision, ironic tone, and principled purpose. By weaving biblical parallels with Restoration politics, Dryden crafted a poem that defends monarchy, critiques rebellion, and endures as one of the most brilliant and influential satires in English literature.
⚫Conclusion :
In summary, Absalom and Achitophel endures as a monumental work in political literature universally acknowledged as one of the greatest political satires in the English language by veiling Restoration England’s turbulent politics in a compelling biblical allegory. Dryden ingeniously recasts the story of David and Absalom to comment on the Exclusion Crisis, positioning Charles II as David, Monmouth as Absalom, and Shaftesbury as Achitophel a strategic move that allowed him to critique political rebellion and manipulation while subtly defending the crown. Beneath the surface, the poem champions loyalty to legitimate authority, denounces populist plots, and affirms the moral gravity of order and justice within the state. Dryden’s choice of heroic couplets provides the poem with formal polish and rhetorical impact, granting each line persuasive weight. Rooted in the belief that “the true end of satire is the amendment of vices by correction,” Dryden tempers his satire with restraint and dignity, invoking laughter and reflection rather than spite. Ultimately, Absalom and Achitophel triumphs as a work that not only shaped political discourse in its day but also achieved lasting literary distinction through its blend of allegory, formal mastery, and moral clarity.
- Here is the video overview of this blog:
References:
1. Absalom and Achitophel, second part composed by Nahum Tate https://www.britannica.com/topic/Absalom-and-Achitophel
2. Barad, Dilip. "Absalom and Achitophel: Worksheet." Dilip Barad https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394929948_Worksheet_on_Absalom_and_Achitophel_by_Dryden
3. Barad, Dilip. "Absalom and Achitophel: Worksheet." Dilip Barad | Teacher Blog, https://blog.dilipbarad.com/2021/01/absalom-and-achitophel-worksheet.html
4. Dryden, John. Absalom and Achitophel. First published 1681 https://www.britannica.com/topic/Absalom-and-Achitophel
5. The Holy Bible. 2 Samuel chapters 13–19 https://bible.usccb.org/bible/2samuel/13
THANK YOU!
No comments:
Post a Comment