“Seeing Absalom and Achitophel Clearly”
Absalom and Achitophel was written by John Dryden, the most important poet and critic of the Restoration period. He is remembered as the first official Poet Laureate of England and a master of satire. This poem is one of his greatest works and shows how he used wit and poetry to deal with serious politics. It is a famous satirical poem, written in heroic couplets (two rhyming lines with the same meter, giving the poem rhythm and balance). The poem was first published in 1681, during the Exclusion Crisis, when people were debating whether King Charles II’s Catholic brother should be allowed to inherit the throne. Its genre is verse satire, which means Dryden used the beauty of verse to expose the dangers of political ambition and trickery.
Second Part
A second part of Absalom and Achitophel came out in 1682. This part was mostly written by Nahum Tate, a fellow poet, who continued the story and characters of the first part. However, Dryden himself contributed around 200 lines, which are often considered the best passages in the second part. In these lines, Dryden turned his satire directly against his literary rivals and critics, attacking them with biting humor and sharp portraits. This shows that the poem was not only about politics but also about Dryden’s own place in the world of literature, where he defended his style and authority against competitors.
-
The Restoration of Charles II (1660):The monarchy was restored in 1660 after nearly two decades of political chaos. During the English Civil War (1642–1651), Charles I was executed and England was ruled by Parliament and Oliver Cromwell. His rule was strict, Puritan, and unpopular with many. When Cromwell died, his son failed to govern, and the monarchy was restored under Charles II. The Restoration was welcomed with joy, as it promised stability and cultural revival. However, deep divisions between Royalists and Parliamentarians, Anglicans and Puritans remained. These tensions shaped the political environment in which Dryden wrote.
-
The Question of Succession:A key issue was succession after Charles II. He and his queen, Catherine of Braganza, had no legitimate heirs, despite Charles fathering many illegitimate children. The throne would therefore go to his brother, James, Duke of York. The problem: James was Catholic in a country where most people were Protestant. England’s history (Henry VIII’s Reformation, Elizabeth I’s Protestant rule, and memories of the Marian persecutions under Catholic Queen Mary) made many fear a Catholic monarch would destroy Protestant liberties. Thus, the succession question turned into a national crisis.
-
The Growth of Political Parties:Out of this crisis grew the first true political parties in England:
-
The Whigs, led by Shaftesbury, opposed James and wanted to exclude him from the throne. They often appealed to Protestant fears, warning of “Popery” (Catholic influence) and “arbitrary government.” They were associated with religious dissenters and a broader idea of parliamentary power.
-
The Tories, on the other hand, supported the king and the natural line of succession. They argued that hereditary monarchy was God-given and that Parliament had no authority to alter it. They were closely allied with the Church of England and traditional Royalist ideals.This Whig-Tory divide laid the foundations for Britain’s modern party politics.
-
-
The Exclusion Crisis (1679–1681):The political battle reached its peak in the Exclusion Crisis. Parliament tried several times to pass the Exclusion Bill that would block James from inheriting the throne. Charles II, determined to defend his brother’s right, dissolved Parliament three times between 1679 and 1681 to stop the bill. The crisis created enormous tension—Londoners marched in protest, anti-Catholic riots spread, and the fear of conspiracy was everywhere. The king’s supporters saw the Whigs as dangerous rebels, while the Whigs painted the king’s camp as pro-Catholic tyrants.
-
The Popularity of the Duke of Monmouth:In this tense situation, the Duke of Monmouth, Charles II’s illegitimate son, became the Whigs’ hope. He was Protestant, young, charismatic, and beloved by many people. Crowds cheered him wherever he went, and rumors spread that Charles might secretly legitimize him. But legally, Monmouth had no claim. Still, the Whigs promoted him as an alternative to James, while Tories saw him as a pawn of ambition. Later, in 1685, Monmouth would actually rebel against James II (the Monmouth Rebellion) and be executed, proving Dryden’s warnings in Absalom and Achitophel prophetic.
-
The Role of the Earl of Shaftesbury:Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury, was at the center of the Whig cause. A brilliant but controversial politician, he shifted alliances several times in his career. During the crisis, he became Monmouth’s strongest backer, plotting ways to secure him the throne. Shaftesbury was a master at manipulating public opinion, spreading fear of Catholic plots, and encouraging unrest. To Charles II, Shaftesbury was like a snake in his court a man whose ambition threatened national peace. In Dryden’s poem, Shaftesbury appears as Achitophel, the cunning biblical adviser who lures Absalom into rebellion.
-
The Political Use of Literature:In the Restoration period, pamphlets, poems, and plays were the media of politics. They shaped public opinion as strongly as speeches in Parliament. Whig writers attacked Catholicism and accused the court of tyranny. Tory writers defended the king and portrayed Whigs as disloyal and dangerous. Literature became a battlefield, and poets acted like journalists or propagandists. Dryden, being the most powerful poet of his time, played a crucial role by giving the king’s side not just arguments but also literary prestige.
-
Dryden as Poet Laureate:John Dryden was made Poet Laureate in 1668 and later became Historiographer Royal, meaning he was officially tasked with defending the monarchy through literature. By 1681, the political situation was so heated that Charles needed a literary champion. Dryden wrote Absalom and Achitophel that year, turning politics into art. His poem was not a simple attack it was a masterwork that used wit, satire, and biblical gravitas to defend Charles II and expose the danger of rebellion.
-
The Biblical Allegory Explained:Dryden framed the political crisis as a retelling of the biblical rebellion of Absalom against his father David. This allowed him to criticize real people under the mask of biblical figures:
-
King David = Charles II (merciful king, wise ruler).
-
Absalom = Duke of Monmouth (handsome, loved, but misguided son).
-
Achitophel = Earl of Shaftesbury (scheming, ambitious adviser).
-
Zimri = Duke of Buckingham (foolish and reckless noble).
-
Shimei = Radical politicians who stirred hatred against the king).By using the Bible, Dryden elevated the king’s cause to divine legitimacy and made rebellion appear sinful and doomed.
-
-
The Broader Significance:The poem was more than just propaganda it was a reflection of the fragile state of England. It dealt with issues still relevant today: loyalty versus ambition, religion versus politics, order versus chaos. Dryden’s support for hereditary monarchy and stability echoed the fear of another civil war. The success of Absalom and Achitophel showed how literature could shape political thought. It became the model for later satirists like Alexander Pope.
Political Context of Absalom and Achitophel
Exclusion Crisis
The poem was written during the Exclusion Crisis (1679–1681), one of the most heated political debates in England. The main issue was whether James, Duke of York, who was openly Catholic, should be excluded from becoming the next king. England was a Protestant nation, and many people feared that if a Catholic king came to power, it would threaten their religion, freedoms, and government.
King Charles II’s Position
King Charles II, the reigning monarch, strongly opposed the Exclusion Bill. He wanted to keep the traditional line of succession and protect the rights of his brother James. For Charles, allowing Parliament to choose or reject an heir would weaken the monarchy and open the door to endless political conflicts. His stand was about protecting both the crown and national stability.
The Duke of Monmouth as a Popular Choice
On the other side, many Protestants looked to James Scott, Duke of Monmouth, the illegitimate but Protestant son of Charles II, as an alternative heir. Monmouth was handsome, popular with the common people, and seen as a hopeful figure for Protestant England. In the poem, Dryden presents him as Absalom, the beloved son of King David (Charles), who becomes a symbol of misguided ambition and political temptation.
Earl of Shaftesbury’s Role
The most forceful leader of the Exclusion movement was Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury, represented as Achitophel in the poem. Shaftesbury was clever, persuasive, and highly ambitious. He encouraged Monmouth to challenge his father and supported the Exclusion Bill with all his power. Dryden portrays him as a dangerous figure—like the biblical Achitophel—who betrayed his king out of selfish motives.
Dryden’s Political Purpose
Through Absalom and Achitophel, Dryden sought to defend King Charles II and the monarchy. He used satire to paint the king’s enemies as corrupt, ambitious, and deceitful. At the same time, he highlighted the dangers of rebellion and the importance of loyalty to rightful authority. The poem is therefore not just literature but also a political weapon, supporting the king during a time of national crisis.
- An allegory is a story in which characters and events stand for real people and situations. Dryden used the biblical story of Absalom’s rebellion against King David to represent the political crisis in England during Charles II’s reign.
The Biblical Story (Outer Layer):
-
David is the king of Israel, chosen by God, known for his wisdom and mercy.
-
Absalom, David’s son, is beautiful, popular, and ambitious. He allows himself to be persuaded into rebellion.
-
Achitophel is David’s trusted adviser but betrays him by plotting rebellion and encouraging Absalom’s ambition.
-
The rebellion ultimately fails, and Absalom dies tragically.This biblical framework provides Dryden with a moral lesson: rebellion against lawful authority is both sinful and destructive.
Dryden’s surface story comes from the Old Testament (2 Samuel).
-
-
The Political Reality (Inner Layer):Behind the biblical figures stand real historical people from Charles II’s court:
-
David = King Charles II: Just like David, Charles is shown as merciful and patient, even forgiving his enemies.
-
Absalom = James Scott, Duke of Monmouth: Charles’s illegitimate son, attractive and popular among Protestants, seen as a possible replacement for his Catholic uncle James, Duke of York.
-
Achitophel = Earl of Shaftesbury (Anthony Ashley Cooper): Clever and ambitious, he pushes Monmouth to rebel just as Achitophel pushes Absalom.
-
Zimri = Duke of Buckingham (George Villiers): Portrayed as inconsistent and foolish, always changing sides in politics.
-
Shimei = Radical Whig politicians: Represented those who stirred up public hatred against Charles.Through this mapping, readers could instantly recognize the satire behind the biblical disguise.
-
-
How the Allegory Works:Dryden uses the double meaning of allegory to blend past and present. Readers see a biblical rebellion and an English political crisis happening together.
-
By comparing Charles II to David, Dryden portrays him as God’s chosen ruler, not just a political king.
-
By making Shaftesbury into Achitophel, Dryden transforms a cunning politician into a biblical villain, magnifying his betrayal.
-
Monmouth, like Absalom, is not condemned as evil but shown as misguided and manipulated, which reflects Charles’s love for him despite the danger.Allegory here is not just disguise—it is a powerful tool to elevate Charles’s cause and show the Whigs as rebels against God’s order.
-
-
Purpose of the Allegory:Dryden had clear goals in using allegory:
-
To praise King Charles II by presenting him as merciful, wise, and divinely chosen.
-
To warn Monmouth (Absalom) not to rebel, showing that even beloved sons who turn against their fathers meet tragic ends.
-
To condemn Shaftesbury (Achitophel) as an ambitious traitor whose cunning endangers the peace of the nation.
-
To convince readers that supporting rebellion or the Exclusion Bill was both politically dangerous and morally sinful.In short, the allegory gave Dryden’s poem the force of religious truth + political propaganda combined.
-
-
Effect of the Allegory:The allegory had a strong impact because it was easy to recognize and yet carried the authority of scripture.
-
Ordinary readers and political elites alike could see the parallels between biblical figures and real people.
-
It made Charles’s position seem sacred and unquestionable, as though opposing him was opposing God.
-
It humiliated Shaftesbury and the Whigs, painting them as villains in a story everyone knew.
-
It elevated political poetry into high art, since Dryden was not just insulting opponents but weaving them into a grand biblical drama.This combination of literary brilliance + political relevance is what makes Absalom and Achitophel a masterpiece of allegorical satire.
-
-
Theme of Rebellion and AuthorityThe poem strongly emphasizes that rebellion against lawful rulers is unnatural and destructive. Absalom’s rebellion, like Monmouth’s political ambition, is presented as misguided and dangerous because it goes against both family ties and divine order. Dryden suggests that authority comes from God and must be respected, regardless of personal or political desires. By showing rebellion as sinful and doomed to fail, he reassures readers that monarchy is the safest form of government in a fragile society like Restoration England.
-
Theme of Ambition and ManipulationAmbition is one of the central forces in the poem. Absalom himself is portrayed as brave, handsome, and loved by the people, but he is not naturally rebellious. It is Achitophel’s manipulation that turns his ambition into a threat against his father. This shows how even noble or good-natured individuals can be corrupted by political schemers. The theme reflects the wider truth of politics—that personal ambition, when unchecked, becomes a danger to national peace.
-
Theme of Legitimacy and SuccessionDryden highlights the debate over who has the rightful claim to rule. Monmouth, though popular and Protestant, is illegitimate, while James, Duke of York, though Catholic, is the lawful heir. The poem insists that legitimacy and hereditary succession must be respected, because popularity is fleeting and unstable. In this way, Dryden defends the principle of monarchy as a continuous, God-given order, more reliable than the shifting opinions of the crowd or Parliament.
-
Theme of Religion and PoliticsReligion was deeply tied to politics in Restoration England, and Dryden uses this theme to show how dangerous it can be when religious fears are used for political gain. The Whigs tried to exploit anti-Catholic fears to block James’s succession, but Dryden warns that such tactics divide the nation and create mistrust. By presenting Charles II as a tolerant, merciful king and Shaftesbury as a manipulator of religious fear, Dryden argues for stability over fanaticism. This theme remains relevant today, where religion is often used as a political tool.
-
Theme of Loyalty and BetrayalThe poem contrasts loyalty with betrayal in powerful ways. David (Charles II) is shown as loyal to his people, merciful even to his enemies, and devoted to peace. In contrast, Achitophel (Shaftesbury) is a symbol of betrayal, turning against his king and persuading others to do the same. Absalom’s betrayal is particularly tragic because it is both political and personal—a son rebelling against his father. Through this theme, Dryden warns that betrayal destroys trust and harmony in both family and nation.
-
Theme of Mercy and JusticeCharles II is celebrated in the poem for his quality of mercy, just like King David in the Bible. Instead of punishing rebels with cruelty, he shows patience and forgiveness. This theme elevates Charles as a wise ruler who balances justice with mercy, unlike his enemies who thrive on cruelty and division. By portraying the king as merciful, Dryden appeals to the reader’s sense of morality, making Charles appear not only lawful but also morally superior to his rivals.
-
Theme of Politics as PerformanceDryden recognizes that politics is not only about laws and policies but also about persuasion, image, and rhetoric. Achitophel spreads fear, rumors, and false promises to gain followers, while Dryden himself uses poetry as a weapon to defend the king. This theme highlights how words, speeches, and writings shape public opinion. It is an early recognition of what we now call political propaganda. In this way, the poem anticipates modern ideas about how leaders and parties “perform” to win public trust.
-
Theme of Order versus ChaosThe final theme is the conflict between order and chaos. Dryden makes it clear that rebellion leads to instability, civil war, and national ruin. By contrast, obedience to the rightful king brings peace, order, and continuity. This reflects the Restoration fear of another civil war like the one that led to Charles I’s execution. For Dryden, supporting monarchy is not only political loyalty but also a way of preserving social order against the forces of chaos, ambition, and division.
The Political Landscape from historical context :
The Exclusion Crisis (1679–1681)
The poem is closely linked to the Exclusion Crisis, a major political conflict in England. Anti-Catholic politicians wanted to stop James, Duke of York (Charles II’s brother) from becoming king because he had converted to Catholicism. They feared that a Catholic ruler could threaten Protestantism and the country’s religious freedoms.
The Popish Plot (1678)
The Popish Plot was a fabricated conspiracy that claimed Catholics planned to murder King Charles II and take over the throne. Even though it was false, it caused widespread panic and strengthened anti-Catholic sentiment. Dryden reflects this climate of fear and suspicion in the poem.
The Duke of Monmouth
James Scott, Duke of Monmouth, the illegitimate but Protestant son of Charles II, became popular among the people. Some politicians supported him as an alternative to James, which added to the tension. In the poem, he is represented as Absalom, showing a son who is easily misled by ambitious advisors.
Earl of Shaftesbury
Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury, is represented as Achitophel in the poem. He was a clever and ambitious politician who encouraged Monmouth’s popularity and pushed for the Exclusion Bill. Dryden uses satire to show him as a dangerous manipulator who threatens the stability of the kingdom.
Dryden’s Political Motivation
Dryden wrote Absalom and Achitophel to defend King Charles II and the lawful succession of James, Duke of York. He wanted to warn against rebellion, expose political ambition, and promote loyalty to the monarchy. The poem is both a literary masterpiece and a political statement, reflecting the tension and fears of Restoration England.
-
Poetry with a Satirical PurposeThe poem is written in heroic couplets—pairs of rhymed lines that give the work rhythm, balance, and elegance. But Dryden doesn’t use this verse form for romance or grand epics. Instead, he turns the beauty of poetry into a sharp weapon of satire. The polished verse highlights the ugliness of political deceit and ambition, making the contrast even more striking.
-
Biblical Allegory as Political SatireDryden retells the biblical story of Absalom’s rebellion against his father David as a way to comment on the Exclusion Crisis in England. This use of allegory makes the satire clever because the story feels timeless, but readers of his time could easily recognize Charles II as David, Monmouth as Absalom, and Shaftesbury as Achitophel. By hiding real politicians under biblical masks, Dryden made his criticism safer yet sharper.
-
Sharp Character PortraitsA big part of the satire lies in how Dryden paints his characters. Shaftesbury (Achitophel) is shown as intelligent but dangerously manipulative. Monmouth (Absalom) is described as handsome, brave, and loved by the people but also foolish and weak-willed. Dryden’s portraits are both vivid and biting—they reveal the true nature of people while making readers smile at the cleverness of the comparisons.
-
Irony and Double-Edged PraiseOne of Dryden’s most effective techniques is irony. He often praises characters with qualities that sound good at first but turn out to be criticisms when looked at closely. For example, Absalom’s charm and popularity become signs of his immaturity and recklessness. Achitophel’s intelligence becomes a tool for evil. This double-edged style makes the satire powerful because it exposes flaws without openly shouting abuse.
-
Witty and Polished ToneUnlike angry or vulgar satire, Dryden’s satire is witty, graceful, and full of clever lines. His choice of heroic couplets adds a sense of order and harmony, which contrasts with the disorder caused by political rebellion. This polished style makes his satire enjoyable to read while still carrying a serious warning. Readers are entertained and educated at the same time.
-
Turning Politics into Lasting ArtDryden could have written a pamphlet against Shaftesbury and Monmouth, but that would have been quickly forgotten. By writing in verse, he transforms a temporary political crisis into a timeless work of literature. The poem doesn’t just attack individuals—it reflects on universal themes like ambition, loyalty, succession, and power. That’s why the satire still speaks to readers centuries later.
-
Human Touch in VerseWhat makes this satire stand out is its emotional depth. It doesn’t just mock politicians as empty figures—it shows them as human beings with ambition, temptation, weakness, and betrayal. David (Charles II) is shown as merciful and patient, Absalom as misguided by love for power, and Achitophel as corrupted by selfish motives. The poetic form makes these emotions more vivid, giving the satire both sharpness and humanity.
Absalom as Monmouth
In the poem, Absalom is the son of King David who rebels against his father. This character represents James Scott, Duke of Monmouth, the illegitimate but popular son of King Charles II. Just like Absalom, Monmouth was admired for his charm and bravery but was misguided and manipulated by ambitious advisors to challenge the rightful king.
David as King Charles II
King David symbolizes King Charles II. David is shown as wise, merciful, and patient with his rebellious son. Similarly, Charles II is portrayed as a king who forgives and tolerates his enemies, even while they plot against him. The comparison emphasizes the king’s legitimacy, authority, and moral strength.
Achitophel as Shaftesbury
Achitophel, the cunning adviser in the Bible, is the allegorical figure of Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury. In both stories, this adviser is clever, persuasive, and ambitious, but ultimately dangerous. In the poem, Achitophel convinces Absalom/Monmouth to rebel against his father/king, showing how ambition and manipulation can lead to chaos.
Zimri and Other Figures
Dryden also includes other biblical figures to represent real-life politicians:
-
Zimri = Duke of Buckingham: Seen as inconsistent and foolish, always changing political sides.
-
Shimei = Radical Whig politicians: Represent those stirring hatred against the king.
Purpose of the Allegory
By using biblical figures, Dryden makes his political critique safer, clearer, and more powerful. Readers recognize the contemporary English political struggle in the story of David and Absalom, while the biblical framework gives the poem moral authority. The allegory shows that rebellion against a lawful ruler is both a political and moral mistake.
Major Characters
-
Absalom – Represents James Scott, Duke of Monmouth
-
Achitophel – Represents Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury
-
David – Represents King Charles II
Minor Characters
-
Zimri – Represents Duke of Buckingham
-
Shimei – Represents Radical Whig politicians
-
Ahithophel’s followers / Other advisors – Represent various conspirators and political figures of the time
Absalom (James Scott, Duke of Monmouth)
Absalom represents Monmouth, the illegitimate but popular son of Charles II. He is described as handsome, charming, courageous, and loved by the people, which makes him naturally appealing to the public. However, he is also naive, impressionable, and easily misled by Achitophel, who manipulates his ambitions for political gain. Dryden shows that popularity and charm alone are not enough for wise leadership; without guidance and a sense of duty, they can lead to rebellion and chaos. Absalom’s tragic flaw is his ambition mixed with weakness, which makes him a sympathetic yet flawed figure.
Achitophel (Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury)
Achitophel is the archetype of the clever but dangerous adviser. Representing Shaftesbury, he is intelligent, persuasive, and politically ambitious, using his wit and influence to manipulate Absalom/Monmouth against his father/king. Dryden portrays Achitophel as self-serving and unscrupulous, emphasizing how clever individuals can corrupt others for personal or political gain. He is both admired for his skill and feared for his treachery, showing the double-edged nature of political intelligence.
David (King Charles II)
David symbolizes King Charles II, and is portrayed as wise, patient, just, and merciful. Unlike Absalom or Achitophel, David/Charles acts with restraint and moral authority, forgiving even those who rebel against him. Dryden emphasizes his legitimacy and the stability he provides, contrasting sharply with the impulsiveness of Absalom and the cunning of Achitophel. He embodies the ideal monarch, showing that true leadership combines strength with justice and mercy.
Supporting Characters
Dryden also uses other biblical figures to represent real-life politicians, giving further depth to the story:
-
Zimri = Duke of Buckingham: Shown as fickle and inconsistent, switching political allegiances for personal gain.
-
Shimei = Radical Whigs: Represent those stirring hatred and rebellion against the king, demonstrating how public opinion can be manipulated.
No comments:
Post a Comment