In Absalom and Achitophel, Dryden uses the well-known Old Testament story of David-Absalom-Achitophel as the allegorical framework for his poem. The story relates how the Duke of Monmouth (Absalom), the favorite 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 the succession to the throne. Here, as in the epic or heroic work, “the plot, the characters, the wit, the passions, the descriptions are exalted above the level of common conversation with 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 conspiring 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, Earl of Shaftesbury, who harbored a bitter hatred of the King’s brother for losing him as Lord Chancellorship, wanted James removed from the throne in favor of the Duke of Monmouth, the illegitimate son of Charles. his, who 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 ran high, especially after the accusations by Titus Oates in 1678 of the existence of a popish plot against the King . , and with this end in mind, to prevent the Duke of York from ascending the throne, his party introduced the Exclusion Bill. However, the House of Lords rejected the bill in 1680, and the following Parliament was dissolved almost immediately. The excitement then led to a reaction in favor of the king, whereupon Charles had Shaftesbury imprisoned on a charge of high treason. A week before the trial, on 17 November 1681, Dryden’s poem appeared, ridiculing Shaftesbury’s party members and prophesying his downfall.
This great political satire in English has many elements besides satire. The epic-style heroic background and allegorical narrative elevate the poem above the pettiness of party struggle.
In Absalom and Ahithophel, the satire appears not in the form of an angry insult, but in ridiculing jokes. Dryden stated that “the best and most delicate touches of satire consist of fine quips.” Achitophel is the villain of the piece, “because closed designs and crooked tips fit together.” He had worked his way to great power and, in the eyes of his opponents, he seemed “determined to ruin or rule the state.” But then he must have the merits of it, for only then would the portrait become credible. Shaftesbury had been a good Lord Chancellor. Here Dryden was even ready to praise at the same time as he lampooned, and he 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 wretched 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 portrayed with such disdain that they almost seem comic characters. And certainly his fine taunt is best seen in Zimri’s likeness. Zimri’s nature was so unstable that
….in the course of a rotating moon
He was a chemist, violinist, statesman and buffoon;
So all for women, painting, rhyming, drinking
Besides ten thousand monsters who died thinking
Dryden lampoons Shemei, a curmudgeonly, skinny man with no belly, saying:
“Cool was his kitchen, though his brain was hot”
All these portraits delight us at the same time with the cunning of wit, their overflowing humor and their veracity for human nature.
Lest these characters seem too personal, Dryden has them represent both individuals and types. The details of their lives are generalized, given without local and temporal references that might embarrass or offend anyone. The poem is a gallery of portraits of the political personalities of the time. If Ahithophel is a shrewd type of politician, he is still an individual, omitting details, and the politicians in the poem could be politicians of all time.