Absalom and Achitophel: Absalom and Achitophel Summary & Analysis

Like King David, King Charles II was notoriously promiscuous and had several mistresses and illegitimate children. Opponents of the monarchy often cited Charles II’s sexual history as a reason to condemn him, but here Dryden implies through David’s exploits that promiscuity was completely accepted in holy, or “pious,” times, and that the modern association between sex and sin is a fabricated product of religious fanaticism. By referring to David as “godlike” and mentioning his “Maker’s image,” Dryden implies that David, and by extension Charles II, are touched by God and, as divine kings, represent God’s image on earth.

In the Bible, Absalom murders his half-brother Amnon after he rapes Absalom’s sister. David forgives Absalom because he considers the murder “just” and Amnon’s actions despicable, but with this reference Dryden also implies David’s merciful nature.

The “Good Old Cause” refers to the Puritan Rebellions of the English Civil War. The war ultimately dethroned Charles I (Charles II’s father), and he was later executed. Parliament then took over governing England, and through this reference Dryden suggests that Parliament is again trying to overthrow the king. Saul, who was the first king of Israel, represents Oliver Cromwell, who ruled over England as a Commonwealth after Charles I’s execution. After Cromwell’s own death, his son Richard ruled for a time before Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660. Here, Ishbosheth stands in for Richard. David had been in exile during Ishbosheth’s rule (just as Charles II was in exile during Cromwell’s reign), but the Jews called him back to be king. As David is not the son of Saul, some Jews consider him a false king and want the freedom to choose their own king. Dryden calls these Jews “Adam-wits,” which refers to someone who isn’t happy with the freedom given to them by God and selfishly want more.

The Jebusites represent Roman Catholics, who were unfairly discriminated against in Dryden’s time. The “chosen people,” or the Protestants of England, overpower and marginalize the Jebusites, but Dryden is sympathetic to their plight. The Jebusite priests are upset because there is really no fundamental difference between their religion and that of the Jews, and Dryden likewise implies there is no fundamental difference between a Catholic priest and a Puritan priest and thus implies that England’s discrimination of Catholics is ridiculous and unfounded.

Egypt represents France in Dryden’s poem, and France was Catholic. The ratio of Catholics to Protestants in England during Dryden’s time was 10 to 1, just as the ratio between Jews and Jebusites is in the poem. Here, Dryden refers to the Popish Plot, which alleged a Catholic conspiracy to assassinate Charles II. The conspiracy was a farce that was intended only to drum up anti-Catholic sentiments in England, and Dryden indirectly tells England, metaphorically the Jews, to wake up. English citizens bought into the plot (“fools” who hated Catholics ate it up and “wise” people without bigoted views were duped). Dryden doesn’t deny the strife between the Catholics and Protestants, thus there is some truth to the plot, but Charles II’s life was never in danger.

Dryden again refers to the Popish Plot, and the “dangerous consequence” he speaks of here is the Exclusion Crisis. Anti-Catholic hysteria (anti-Jebusite hysteria in the poem) leads England and Parliament to try to exclude Charles II’s brother James II (David’s brother in the poem) from the crown because he is Catholic. Dryden claims the plot is nonsense, but it still has enough steam to seriously threaten the monarchy.

Achitophel represents Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, the founder of the Whig party and main advocate of the Exclusion Bill. Through Achitophel, Dryden implies that Shaftesbury is mad and is trying to bring down Charles II to satisfy his end goal of keeping James II, who is Catholic, off the throne. During Dryden’s time, a “patriot” referred to someone who supported the abolishment of the monarchy.

Achitophel again serves as a metaphor for Shaftesbury; Achitophel is a member of the high court, and Shaftesbury was a Member of Parliament. Shaftesbury, too, was ambitious, and he spearheaded many bills presented to Parliament that sought to exclude James II and other Catholics from the throne. By stoking anti-Catholic sentiments and accusing Charles II of being a Catholic like his brother, Shaftesbury riled up England with the very same “weak” argument.

With the reference to the Jews picking a new king every so often, Dryden again refers to the execution of Charles I and the reign of Oliver Cromwell. Achitophel wants Absalom to be king because he is not a Jebusite. In Dryden’s time, the Duke of Monmouth was a Protestant, so Shaftesbury supported him for king, not James II.

Throughout the poem, Dryden claims that King David is divine and godlike (thus Charles II is as well), and Achitophel uses the same rhetoric here. Achitophel claims that Absalom (who is illegitimate) is a royal with a bright future, and when he refers to him as the “second Moses,” he makes Absalom appear nearly divine. Achitophel wants Absalom to “reign” as king, and convincing Absalom he has a blood right to the divine role is his first step.

Here, Dryden again refers to Charles II through David. David was in exile in Gath (an ancient city near present-day Palestine) after the death of Saul, but the people called him back to be king. Charles II was in exile after the execution of his father, Charles I, during Cromwell’s rule of England but took the throne back during the Restoration. Achitophel tells Absalom to be like David when he was young because David took the throne from Saul’s son Ishbosheth, and Achitophel wants Absalom to take it from David, or more importantly, from David’s brother. Egypt once again represents France in Dryden’s own time, which was a Catholic country and an ally of Charles II’s. Additionally, Dryden refers to David, and therefore Charles II, as being “anointed” by God, which implies a divine right to the crown.

Achitophel makes the royal line of succession appear antiquated, as he refers to it as “mouldy” and coming from ancient times. Absalom’s father is royal, therefore so is Absalom, Achitophel figures. Absalom, however, represents a modern twist to royalty—he is just royal enough to fit the bill while also allowing the people to feel as if they have power and liberty and picked the king themselves. This also downplays the importance of David and his brother’s divine right to the throne, as Achitophel clearly believes this opinion to be outdated.

Absalom claims that David’s only crime is being like God—merciful and good. Through this reference, Dryden also implies the same about King Charles II, who, like David, has an “unquestioned right” to the crown by way of his royal birth and divine right. Neither Absalom nor Monmouth, whom Absalom represents, can claim this right, Dryden argues.

Dryden implies that the crown isn’t Absalom’s to have, regardless of how badly Absalom wants it or how badly David wants to give it to him. With this, Dryden implies the same of the Duke of Monmouth, King Charles II’s son. Monmouth was heavily encouraged to usurp the throne in Dryden’s time, and through his poem Dryden implies that the crown is “justly” meant for James II, a “worthier head” because of his legitimate royal birth.

David and his brother (metaphorically Charles II and James II) have a “collateral” or equal right to the crown. David is older, thus when his reign is over, the crown goes to his brother. Absalom knows this is the legal and just succession, but his ambition for power clouds his judgement. He wishes his mother was not a commoner, or that he was feeble minded so he wouldn’t be aware of his inability to be king. It boils down to this: to take power rightfully held by David or his brother, even though he is “oppressed with vulgar spite” (i.e., James II is Catholic) “is a godlike sin.”

Achitophel mistakes David’s mercy, good nature, and lack of “manly force” for weakness, which is later confirmed not to be the case. David is powerful, but he is also kind, and Dryden therefore says the same of Charles II. Charles was also mistaken for weak because of his mild temperament, but through David Dryden reminds the English of Charles II’s innate power.

Achitophel is banking on David going broke and having to appeal to the government to provide for the people, and when he does, David will be forced to sacrifice his own political agenda in exchange for money. Dryden’s language that it will cost David a “limb of his prerogative” connotes the limb of a tree, in this case David’s family tree, as Achitophel ultimately wants to force David to sign a law (the Exclusion Bill in Dryden’s time) that excludes David’s brother from royal succession. 

Contrary to what Achitophel thinks, Dryden suggests that the people do not have a right to choose their king. Kings are endowed with divine power from God, Dryden argues, and that divine power is ignored when a true king is dethroned to make room for another. This does, however, throw David’s own power into question, as he is not Saul’s son and thus didn’t follow the usual protocol to assume the throne. David was anointed by the sacred oil, and Dryden implies David’s holiness and power is drawn from this consecration.

As Saul was the first king of Israel, Achitophel claims that the Jews chose Saul over God, which means the Jews should have no problem choosing Absalom over David. Dryden draws a parallel between the power of the Jews to choose Saul as their king and the power of the English people to choose their own king, which they had done in the past when they chose Oliver Cromwell to rule and ousted Charles I.

Ironically, when Monmouth (symbolically Absalom in the poem)) rebelled against James II after King Charles II’s death in 1685, the rebellion was considered a crime, and Monmouth was subsequently executed for treason. Dryden had no way of knowing this in 1681 when he wrote the poem, but he does appreciate the danger, and as it turns out, that danger was not unfounded.

Of course, David’s “secret foes” don’t really exist; they are fabricated by Achitophel and the “plot.” Achitophel’s comment that they will “commit a pleasing rape upon the crown” underscores what a disgrace and complete affront their plan is to the crown, and Dryden implies that the Exclusion Bill is likewise a “rape upon the crown” of England.

In the preface, the poet admits he didn’t satirize each figure equally in his poem, and Dryden indeed was criticized for going easy on Monmouth in his representation of Absalom. Dryden’s Absalom isn’t a malicious man, he is simply blinded by his ambition and taken advantage of by Achitophel. Many in Dryden’s contemporary England didn’t think Monmouth was so innocent.

Dryden paints the Jews, symbolically the English, as largely unhappy. They each have a different grievance, but each argument ultimately ends with the government. This adds to the social division of Israel and makes it easier for Achitophel to stir up trouble, which Dryden implies is the problem in England as well.

The “Solymæan rout” is a reference to the mobs of London, and Dryden directly accuses them of treason in their attempts to exclude James II from the throne. Many English people in Dryden’s time preferred Monmouth to James because of James’s Catholicism, but Dryden implies that neither Absalom nor Monmouth are “lawful princes.” “Hot Levites” refers to the Puritan preachers who punished after the Act of Uniformity of 1662. The law forced all public prayers and rites to follow the Book of Common Prayer, a prayer book used by Anglican Christians. Two thousand Puritan preachers refused to conform and were ejected from the Church of England. These preachers, represented in Achitophel’s men, want their form of religion back. Dryden refers to these men as Achitophel’s “Hydra,” one monster with many heads working toward a common cause.

Each of the men who help Achitophel advance his plan to place Absalom on the throne represent someone from Dryden’s contemporary England, and he implies these men are fools and “buffoons.” In Dryden’s time, the word “porridge” was used to describe the Book of Common Prayer by those who refused to conform to the Act of Uniformity, which implies that Achitophel and his men are nonconformists and working against the government instead of for it.

Shimei stands for Slingsby Bethel, the sheriff of London during Dryden’s time, and Dryden here implies that both Shimei and Bethel are crooked. Shimei is interested in only money and power, and he manipulates justice to hurt David and protect his enemies. In this passage, Dryden paints the Jews (by extension the English), as foolish for placing Shimei (and Bethel) in an elected position after proving himself so dishonest.

Corah represents Titus Oates, the Englishman who devised the Popish Plot in Dryden’s time. Like Corah, Oates was a Puritan priest, or “Levite,” and was highly respected. Oates’s father was a weaver, and Dryden’s reference to Corah as a “weaver’s” son squarely identifies him as Oates.

Oates, too, was known for his impeccable memory. His story of the Popish Plot never once changed, which was one of the reasons why people believed it. Oates claimed a rabbinical degree that could never be confirmed, and Dryden here implies that it is a lie. “The temper of the times” is to hate Jebusites/Catholics, and since Oates’s/Corah’s plot condemns Catholics/Jebusites, the people fail to see it as “apocryphal,” or a complete farce.

Dryden’s language here reflects Absalom’s ambition; he wants to ascend the throne, thus he has “high hopes.” Absalom is secretly happy that the people are embracing him and see him as the change they need, but he hides his happiness so that he can convince the people that he is upset about their individual plights. Absalom only cares about realizing his dream of absolute power and cares very little about the people’s struggles. “Hybla” is an old word for honey; Absalom’s voice is sweet and syrupy as he lies to the people.

Absalom’s claim that he wishes he could suffer on behalf of the Jews makes him appear Christlike, just as Dryden describes David as godlike. Absalom stokes their current fears, which reflect the contemporary fears of Dryden’s time. France (here, Egypt) and Holland (here, Tyrus) were major foreign powers and often seen as a threat, and like the Jews, the English Protestants feared a Catholic takeover if James II, David’s brother in the poem, ascended the throne. Achitophel convinces Absalom that Absalom also has a divine right to the crown, and for David to deny him is to betray that right. Absalom’s rhetoric and tears make him appear as an underdog and a champion of the people, and it effectively wins them over.

Dryden’s language throughout this passage refers to Absalom as both holy and royal. To the people, he is a “messiah,” a “god,” a “prince,” and their caravan is a “moving court.” Absalom is of common birth, but he wants to appear as a divine king like David. The threat to David’s life, supposedly by his brother and wife, is another reference to the Popish Plot. During the Plot, Titus Oates accused both Charles II’s brother James II and Charles’s wife, Queen Catherine, of plotting to kill Charles.

Here, Dryden talks directly to contemporary England and calls them fools for buying into the Popish Plot and supporting the Exclusion Bill. Dryden implies the crisis is a threat to the country and the crown. If the king’s power can be “dissolved” with an act of Parliament, then no one is safe. Dryden was an adamant supporter of Charles II and James II, which is reflected in the word “faultless.” Dryden refers to the plot and crisis as a type of infection, which he again implies his poem is the treatment for.

The description of the throne as a “foundation” suggests its importance in society, which Dryden implies is the case in England as well. He again refers to the rebellion of the Jews (English) as a disease, which is only worsened by their continued dissent.

Each of David’s friends represent the supporters of Charles II in Dryden’s time. Barzillai is likely a stand-in for James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormond, who was in exile with Charles II during the rule of Cromwell. Ormand’s eldest son, Thomas Butler, died in 1680. Dryden dedicated his book of poems, Fables, to Thomas Butler.

In the Bible, Zadock is David’s friend who helps him carry the Ark of the Covenant. Here, Zadock likely represents William Sancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury. Sancroft was the dean of students at Westminster School in London (he leads the “prophets’ sons”), which is represented here in the “western dome.” Amiel is likely Edward Seymour, who was speaker of the House of Commons in Parliament.

Dryden’s language again makes David, and by extension Charles II, the “lawful” and “true” king, and he implies “the plot,” the Popish Plot in Dryden’s time, is merely a ploy to disrupt royal succession. By describing Achitophel as a “false” man who propagates “pernicious hate,” Dryden therefore says the same of Anthony Ashley Cooper, the Englishman on whom Achitophel is based, and a major supporter of the Exclusion Bill.

In the Bible, Samson brought down a pagan temple by shaking it after praying to God for strength. And while Absalom may be trying to take down David’s reign like Samson did to the temple, Absalom is not backed by God. Here, David is strong and fierce; he has been lenient, but Absalom and Achitophel have forced him to respond more strongly. Achitophel and Absalom’s plans can’t hurt David (he is a king not a camel), and he warns Absalom that if he continues to rebel, he will be struck down.

Again, a “patriot” during Dryden’s time was someone who opposed the monarchy. Here, Dryden implies that Absalom/Monmouth is not truly against the crown; he has merely been manipulated by Achitophel/Shaftesbury. As David reminds the Sanhedrins of his power, Dryden effectively reminds Parliament of Charles II’s power as well.

Here, Dryden again implies that the Exclusionists of his own time and their propagation of the Popish Plot represents treason. David, and therefore Charles II, is a peaceful king, but he can handle rebels and lay down the law. Dryden’s comparison of David to God implies that Charles II is also “godlike,” and the English people surely don’t deserve him.

Belial and Beelzebub are devil figures in Christianity, and here Dryden implies that opponents to the throne are likewise evil. David, metaphorically Charles II, isn’t really weak, only kind and “patient,” but he isn’t afraid to face the rebels and fight. Since David’s power is divine and therefore superior, he can’t be defeated, and he will ultimately destroy the rebels when they stop to rest. The thunder that strikes as David speaks appears as if God himself is backing up David’s power and authority, and Dryden argues that Charles II’s power and authority is equally strong and endowed in God.