In Absalom and Achitophel, Dryden uses the familiar Old Testament story of David-Absalom-Achitophel as the allegorical framework for his poem. The story relates how the Duke of Monmouth (Absalom), the favored but illegitimate son of Charles II (David), in opposition to the will of his royal father, allied himself with the celebrated Earl of Shaftesbury (Achitophel) and the infamous duke. of Buckingham (Zimri) with the intention of excluding the Duke of York, the king’s brother, from succession to the throne. Here, as in the epic or heroic work, “the plot, the characters, the ingenuity, the passions, the descriptions are exalted above the level of common conversation with a proportion of verisimilitude”. And the happy choice of allegory combined with the efficiently elevated tone gives Dryden’s party poem an air of universal philosophical truth.

The historical setting of Dryden’s poem Absalom and Achitophel was the arrest of the Earl of Shaftesbury in 1681 on a charge of high treason, “for plotting to kill the king and subvert the government”. Charles II had no legitimate children, so the heir to the throne was a Roman Catholic, James, Duke of York, the king’s brother. The Whigs, led by Anthony Ashley Cooper, the Earl of Shaftesbury, who harbored a bitter hatred against the King’s brother for making him lose his Lord Chancellorship, wanted James removed from the throne in favor of the Duke of Monmouth, the illegitimate son of James. Charles. his, which was Protestant.

The ousted Lord Chancellor, Anthony Cooper (Achitophel), tried to exploit this situation of popular enthusiasm resulting from the wave of anti-Catholicism that reached very high, especially after the accusations of Titus Oates in 1678 about the existence of a popish plot against the King. . , and with this end in mind, that of preventing the Duke of York from ascending the throne, his party introduced the Exclusion Bill. However, the House of Lords defeated the bill in 1680, and the following Parliament was dissolved almost immediately. The excitement then led to a reaction in favor of the king, for which Charles had Shaftesbury imprisoned on a charge of high treason. A week before the trial, on November 17, 1681, Dryden’s poem appeared, ridiculing members of Shaftesbury’s party and prophesying his downfall.

This great political satire in English has many elements besides satire. The epic-style heroic undertone and allegorical narrative lifts the poem above the pettiness of partisan strife.

In Absalom and Ahithophel, the satire does not appear in the form of angry insult, but ridiculing jokes. Dryden declared that “the best and most delicate touches of satire consist in fine banter”. Achitophel is the villain of the piece, “because closed designs and crooked advice fit together.” He had worked his way up to great power and, in the eyes of his opponents, he seemed to be “determined to ruin or rule the state”. But then he must have the merits of it, for only then would the portrait become believable. Shaftesbury had been a good Lord Chancellor. Here Dryden was even willing to praise as he satirized, and inserted a passage in the revised edition of the poem praising Shaftesbury as a judge.

We hate the statesman, but we praise the judge

Without bribing, without seeking, the miserable to straighten

Fast shipping and easy access.

In other cases, Dryden has only laughed at their follies instead of denouncing their vices. Among the members of the Shaftesbury group, Sir Slingsby Bethel (Shemei) and Titus Oates (Corah) are depicted with such disdain that they almost seem like comic characters. And certainly his fine mockery is best seen in Zimri’s image. Zimri’s nature was so unstable that

….in the course of a rotating moon

He was a chemist, violinist, statesman and jester;

So all for women, painting, rhyming, drinking

In addition to ten thousand monsters who died thinking

Dryden lampoons Shemei, a cantankerous, skinny man with no belly, saying:

“Cool was his kitchen, although his brain was hot”

All of these portraits delight us with their cunning wit, their overflowing humor, and their truth to human nature.

Lest these characters appear too personal, Dryden has them represent individuals as well as types. The details of their lives are generalized, given without local and temporal references that could embarrass or offend anyone. The poem is a gallery of portraits of the political personalities of the time. If Ahithophel is some kind of astute politician, he is still an individual, omitting details, and the politicians in the poem could be politicians of all time.