Summary
Lines 302-372
Flattery is dangerous, and young Absalom is too ambitious and desirous of fame. Achitophel helps lead him away from virtue, making him “drunk with honour” and “debauch’d with praise.”
Absalom still struggles, though, and asks Achitophel what right he has to take up arms. He says his father governs rightfully, defending the Faith and the people. David has not wronged anyone: he has even pardoned millions. He is “mild, easy, humble,” and merciful; he shies away from spilling blood. Why should mildness, which is favorable in the eyes of God, be wrong in David? Pharaoh may rule Egypt haughtily, but Jerusalem does not need that.
Continuing, Absalom asks why he should rebel. His father is no tyrant; he does not hurt the Jew and raise the Jebusite. He freely gives Absalom all but his crown, and even in regard to the crown, David had told Absalom that he wished he could give it to him. Sadly, when David rests from his toils, it will be his brother who assumes the throne, but even though David’s brother is spiteful, he still has the right to rule and is loyal to the king. Thus, Absalom concludes, why should he try to go against Heaven when he has no “pretence to royalty?”
A moment later, though, he ruminates that he wishes he did not have a debased birth. He feels that he was made for empire, and he desires greatness.
Lines 373-476
Achitophel sees that Absalom is faltering, so he “pours fresh forces in”: he assures the young man that God blessed him with his gifts on purpose. David’s mildness is admirable, but the throne needs “manly force.” If a king is too forthcoming with gifts and grants, people will see him as witless, negligent, and weak.
Achitophel explains the plan. He will ply David with plots or an expensive war; David will have to seek friends, and Achitophel will make sure the people see those friends as Jebusites and Pharaoh’s men. David will be left naked and scorned. Then, Achitophel will make his successor, whom he hates, obnoxious to the people. The elders will see the successor as a foe and sell off his right. David will have no choice but to turn to Absalom to “pass [his] doubtful title into law.”
This succession will be acceptable to the people, and it will be better for Israel overall. The Jews know what they are doing, after all, for they got rid of God and put Saul where they wanted him.
Achitophel urges Absalom to not let David enchant his mind or sway him with love and kindness. He also points out that God loved David and gave him Israel; David loves Absalom, so why should he not do the same? Why should his brother succeed and Absalom inherit barren land? His brother already sees how much the people love Absalom and is jealous of him. He “marks [Absalom's] progress in the people’s hearts” and like a lion is waiting for his prey. He will wait for that perfect moment and then spring on Absalom.
Because of this, Absalom must try now for the title. He can do nothing if David is gone and David’s brother has the throne. He must state that he will take up arms in David’s defense and protect him from all of the plots that will begin to besiege him. He must pretend loyalty and “secure [David's] person to secure [his] cause.”
Lines 477-543
These last lines affect Absalom the most. He is neither a cruel nor prideful young man; he only wishes destiny had given him a higher birth and allowed his virtues to bless the throne. He is certain that it is a good thing to remove a rival in his uncle and gain the public’s love.
Achitophel begins to unite “the malcontents of all the Israelites,” knowing that they may have different ends but can be yoked together in the same design. Some men think the monarchy is too powerful, and pretend “public good, to serve their own.” Others think all kings are a “useless heavy load” that costs too much and does not do enough good. Others want to have their voices heard.
This “Solymaean rout,” which is quick to quail before a conqueror’s sword but apt enough to disdain a lawful prince, had seen the ethnic plot of the Jebusites and now took up that cant and “zealous cry.” They call for their old Theocracy and oppose form and order. They are deep of mouth, loud of tongue, think little, and talk much. All of these form the Hydra for Achitophel's use.
Analysis
Continuing our analysis of the classical orations present in the text, Achitophel pauses in speech to allow Absalom a chance to reply. Absalom comments that David is a good king and governs with an uncontested right. Achitophel then “concedes that David is a mild man and says that, in principle, he does not condemn mildness. But he is quick to remind Absalom that mildness and gentleness do not suit the kingly nature.” He suggests these characteristics leave David open to his enemies. He also suggests that the people have the right to depose a king and that sometimes lawful succession is not appropriate. He stokes Absalom’s fears of his uncle, assures him the people love him, and urges him to act quickly. In his peroration, or concluding remarks, Achitophel tailors his words to his audience in order to best persuade his audience to act according to his wishes; specifically, he urges Absalom to act in the King’s defense and to feel confident that taking over the crown would not be a terrible thing since David loves his son.
Absalom delivers to the people a formal oration of his own, which critic W. Gerald Marshall sees as perhaps even more brilliant than Achitophel’s. Absalom calls attention to himself using sentimental language and inspires the people to feel sympathy for him. He presents the state of the state as a bleak one, and he then says he only has his tears to offer the people. In his peroration, Absalom “repeats his hope that his countrymen will escape the suffering which monarch may impose and which he explicitly reiterates his concern and love for his countrymen.” It is superb classical rhetoric and highly effective, especially as he knows that his weak proposal will be countered by the people with a stronger one—i.e. that he step up on their behalf.
Despite the brilliance of Achitophel and Absalom’s speeches, Marshall calls these figures “false” orators who “corrupt classical rhetorical principles.” Oratory is supposed to be connected with ethics and virtuous character, and “the use of classical form demands—in the classical humanist tradition, at least—ethical content.” The orator must be morally worthy to address the people, and most classical orators insisted the goal of such speeches was to ensure the common good and uphold the rightful government. The corrupt characters of Achitophel and Absalom most assuredly do not fit that description.
One of the things that Dryden is doing in his poem is acknowledging some of Charles’s foibles, but he is also making a case for his positive characteristics. Those positive characteristics outweigh the negative ones and make a case for Charles’s legitimate claim to the throne. As critic K.E. Robinson points out, Dryden is actually quite honest about Charles’s problems and his rehabilitation at the end of the poem only comes after his acknowledgment of those problems. Robinson notes, for example, that “Charles’s indulgence of Monmouth is also the neglect of more important patriarchal or familial duties. His slowness to react to Monmouth’s progresses…seems to endanger the ‘Hereditary Paternal Monarchy of England’.” By the end of the poem, David/Charles has “contained his natural impulses” and no longer gives free rein to all his natural impulses. Dryden did not think Charles was perfect, but he did think that Charles’s claim to the throne was right, just, and should not be challenged.
Interestingly, Absalom does not want to destroy David but merely to replace him—to take on his role as a Messiah-type figure. Critic Thomas E. Maresca writes, “Dryden then makes of Absalom a baser—a more natural—version of David; he too follows nature, and his motions are ‘all accompanied with grace’ (29), but what David and the reader see in him is not his maker’s image” but rather David as man, not David as god. He is illegitimate, flawed, and prone to disrupting “the dominion of grace in David’s kingdom, just as it did in the garden.” David is God’s proxy, vice-regent, king by divine right, and “rebellion against him equals apostasy from God—setting up the golden calf of a state.” By rebelling against David, Absalom is like Adam rebelling against God.
