The motives of Absalom and Ahithophel are clearly political. More precisely, Dryden (1631-1700) intended to glorify the reign of Charles II and curse his most implacable enemies. When Dryden wrote his parody-epic masterpiece, Charles had already been on the throne for 21 years and thus inevitably became the target of a growing chorus of criticism from his more volatile subjects. Critics condemned what they saw as an atmosphere of immorality and corruption in the royal court. Even by the traditionally weak moral standards of King Charles, “Mary the Monarch” was a whore, engaged in polygamy, and gave birth to a large number of illegitimate children.
But seriously, in the eyes of his critics, Charles was trying to make himself an absolute monarch, like his cousin Louis XIV of France. In general, Charles was attacked from different sides, and what he really needed was good old propaganda that would defend his rule and expose his opponents to universal ridicule and contempt.
Read More: Drydens Art of Characterization: Absalom and Achitophel
Enter John Dryden. In writing Absalom and Ahithophel, he sought to portray Charles II as King David: a flawed but ultimately sympathetic character who, despite his many shortcomings, deserves the loyalty and respect of his subjects. In this case, it is simply inconceivable that someone like Absalom, the allegorical figure representing the Duke of Monmouth, the pretender to the throne, or Ahithophel, representing the Earl of Shaftesbury, would try to overthrow the God-appointed king.
Both Monmouth and Shaftesbury took part in the rebellion against Charles, as neither wanted his Catholic brother James, Duke of York to succeed the king. As a Catholic and staunch monarchist, Dryden began to expose what he saw as the folly and betrayal of such undertakings, linking it to the biblical story of Absalom and Ahithophel, who similarly tried to overthrow King David.
