The Invention of the Fable: How Dryden Transformed a Commonplace Biblical Analogy into an Original Conceptual Fiction

📘 Table of Contents

  • Academic Details
  • Assignment Details
  • The Following Information — Numbers are Counted Using QuillBot
  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • Research Question
  • Hypothesis
  • Introduction: The Paradox of Originality
Part I: The Commonplace Background of Dryden’s Fable
  • 1.1 The Widespread Use of the David–Charles II Analogy
  • 1.2 The Pre-Determined Rebels: Absalom and Achitophel
  • 1.3 The Critical Problem: Moving Beyond the Donnee
Part II: Dryden’s Radical Conceptual Reordering
  • 2.1 The Structural Anchor: The Centrality of Paternity
    • Kingship as Paternity and Divine Right
    • The Moral Map of Sons and Loyalty
  • 2.2 The Theological Struggle: The Dominion of Grace vs. the Demand for Law
    • David’s Rule Under Grace
    • Achitophel and the Tyranny of Law
Part III: The Enduring Narrative and Psychological Invention
  • 3.1 The Psychological Depth of Achitophel
  • 3.2 Securing Autonomy and Truth
  • 3.3 The Vindication of the Poet
  • Conclusion
  • References

Academic Details:

  • Name: Mulrajsinh S. Gohil
  • Roll No: 23
  • Enrollment No.: 5108250016
  • Sem: 1
  • Batch: 2025-27
  • E-mail: mulrajsinhgohil100@gmail.com

Assignment Details:

  • Paper Name: Literature of the Elizabethan and Restoration Periods 
  • Paper No.: 101
  • Paper Code: 22392
  • Unit: 2 - John Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel 
  • Topic: The Invention of the Fable: How Dryden Transformed a Commonplace Biblical Analogy into an Original Conceptual Fiction
  • Submitted To: Smt. Sujata Binoy Gardi, Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University
  • Submitted Date: 6th November 2025

The following information—numbers are counted using QuillBot:

  • Images: 2
  • Words: 2984
  • Characters: 19528
  • Characters without spaces: 16623
  • Paragraphs: 81
  • Sentences: 158
  • Reading time:  11m 56s

Abstract:

  • This essay investigates the paradox of originality in John Dryden’s political satire, Absalom and Achitophel (1681). While historical analysis shows the poem's core analogy (Charles II as David, Monmouth as Absalom, Shaftesbury as Achitophel) was a widely recognized "commonplace" (Jones) of the era, the essay argues that Dryden’s genius lies not in finding the parallel, but in a radical "imaginative reordering of history" (Maresca). He converted the conventional source material, a mere journalistic reference or "donnee," into an original, profound insight, or "aperçu" (Maresca), by imposing a complex, unified theological and moral structure. This transformation is anchored by two critical themes: the elevation of the King's rule to Patriarchal Paternity, making rebellion a violation of the natural and divine order; and the profound dialectic between the King's patient rule under Divine Grace and the rebels' destructive demand for rigid human Law (Maresca). This conceptual architecture secured the poem's exceptional "narrative integrity" (Maresca), allowing it to transcend its immediate political context and establish itself as an autonomous, timeless work of art.

Keywords:

  • Political Satire, Imaginative Reordering, Paternity, Grace and Law, Narrative Integrity.

Research Question

  • How did John Dryden transform the widely acknowledged "commonplace" political allegory of the Absalom and David story into an original, self-validating conceptual fiction with "unparalleled narrative integrity" in Absalom and Achitophel?

Hypothesis

  • This essay hypothesizes that Dryden achieved originality not through the selection of the analogy (which was a "commonplace" or "donnee" of the era), but through a radical "imaginative reordering" that imposed a complex theological and moral structure—specifically the themes of Patriarchal Paternity and the dialectic between Divine Grace and Human Law—thereby converting the conventional parallel into a profound original insight, or "aperçu" (Maresca).

Introduction: The Paradox of Originality

John Dryden
image source: nationalgalleries

absalom and achitophel
Absalom and Achitophel by John Dryden
image source: Wikipedia

John Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel, published in 1681, is widely considered one of the greatest political satires in the English language. It tackles the Exclusion Crisis, a dangerous political fight where groups attempted to prevent the Catholic James, Duke of York, from succeeding his brother, the Protestant King Charles II. Dryden framed this struggle using the biblical story of King David, his rebellious son Absalom, and his treacherous counselor Achitophel.

The poem’s brilliance is undeniable, but the source of its originality has long been debated. Early critics, as noted in scholarly work, tended to minimize Dryden’s achievement by arguing that the core idea was simply borrowed (Jones). After all, the comparison of the monarch to David and the use of the Absalom story to discuss rebellion were already "commonplace" in the seventeenth century (Jones).

The central paradox we must address, then, is this: How could a poem built from such conventional materials achieve such "unparalleled narrative integrity" (Maresca)?

This essay argues that Dryden’s genius lay not in finding the parallel, but in a radical "imaginative reordering of history" (Maresca). He did not simply repeat an allegory; he changed its foundational meaning by weaving in profound and complex theological ideas about Law, Grace, and Paternity. By doing this, Dryden converted a mere journalistic reference, what scholars call a donnee (a piece of given information) into an original, enduring aperçu (a brilliant insight or new fiction) (Maresca). To explore this process, we will first establish the conventional nature of Dryden’s raw material, and then analyze the conceptual structures he introduced that define the poem’s true and lasting originality.

Part I: The Commonplace Background of Dryden’s Fable

To fully appreciate the extent of Dryden’s transformation, we must first understand just how conventional the basic components of the Absalom fable were in his time. The information gathered by Jones proves that the parallel was a well-used political tool, which makes Dryden’s final poetic achievement all the more remarkable.

1.1 The Widespread Use of the David-Charles II Analogy

The comparison of King Charles II to the Biblical King David was neither new nor subtle during the Restoration era. Following the turmoil of the English Civil War and the execution of his father, Charles II's return to the throne in 1660 was presented by Royalists as a near-miraculous, God-ordained event.

The life of David provided a perfect, ready-made script for the Stuarts. David's experience of being an anointed king who suffered exile, was pursued by enemies, and eventually returned to reclaim his throne mirrored Charles II’s own time in exile and his triumphant restoration (Jones). Royalist preachers used this parallel constantly in sermons, and poets celebrated the monarchy using these Davidic themes (Jones).

This usage was not subtle or poetic; it was powerful, public propaganda designed to cement the "divine legitimacy and sacred status of the restored Stuart regime" (Jones). By framing Charles as David, political disputes were instantly elevated to a sacred struggle between righteousness and wickedness. As a result, when Dryden opened his poem and referred to David, his audience immediately grasped that he was speaking of Charles II (Jones). The parallel was a "robust piece of royalist iconography" that Dryden inherited, making its selection a tactical, rather than inventive, choice.

1.2 The Pre-Determined Rebels: Absalom and Achitophel

The names Dryden chose for his antagonists Absalom for Charles’s illegitimate son, the Duke of Monmouth, and Achitophel for the Earl of Shaftesbury, the leader of the Exclusionist movement were also largely predetermined by the political environment (Jones).

The story of Absalom, a charismatic, beloved son who rebels against his own father had already been "employed in 1680 to represent Monmouth’s revolt against Charles" (Jones). Monmouth, who was incredibly popular and ambitious, fitted the tragic role of Absalom perfectly. For royalist writers attacking him, the Absalom figure was an "almost inevitable choice" (Jones).

Furthermore, the character of Achitophel was not invented by Dryden to refer specifically to Shaftesbury. The name had already become a "conventional term for disloyal politicians" (Jones). This was due in large part to works like Nathanael Carpenter’s Achitophel, or the Picture of a Wicked Politician, which popularized the name as an archetype for cunning, destructive political schemers (Jones).

Because the key figures and the central analogy were already part of the public lexicon, early critics like Scott were right to conclude that the poem lacked originality in its selection of material (Jones). This recognition forces us to search elsewhere for Dryden’s true genius. If the poem had rested solely on these choices, it would have been a powerful, but temporary, piece of political commentary that would have faded when the crisis ended. The fact that the poem is still studied today proves that the real originality must be found in the "imaginative reordering that gave the parallel new, profound meaning" (Maresca).

1.3 The Critical Problem: Moving Beyond the Donnee

The fact that the fable's vehicle, the Biblical story itself, was so conventional led many to treat the poem as a "donnee," or a piece of given information, rather than an "aperçu," an original insight or new fictional creation (Maresca). The argument was that the poem’s brilliance was in the witty characterizations and the excellent use of the heroic couplet, but not in the story itself.

Maresca strongly challenges this view, arguing that the poem's greatness is hidden by the very "inevitability" of the story (Maresca). He states that the poem’s powerful qualities "hide the real achievement" (Maresca). The real achievement, Maresca asserts, is the radical transformation of the narrative's "temporal and conceptual contexts" (Maresca). Dryden’s innovation was to take the familiar political coin and embed it within a deep philosophical and theological structure, giving it a "narrative integrity that few political allegories ever reach" (Maresca). This conceptual depth is the origin of the poem’s lasting power.

Part II: Dryden’s Radical Conceptual Reordering

Dryden's genius lay in how he structured the moral and political universe of the poem. He didn't just tell the story of a rebellion; he told the story of a rebellion that violated the two fundamental pillars of his world view: the principle of Paternity and the struggle between Grace and Law (Maresca). This conceptual architecture is what transforms the conventional material into an enduring work of art.

2.1 The Structural Anchor: The Centrality of Paternity

The second source emphasizes that the themes of paternity and sonship are the "key to the totality of the poem" (Maresca). Dryden makes the political conflict inseparable from the most basic, natural, and moral relationship: that between a father and his child.

Kingship as Paternity and Divine Right

Dryden elevates King David beyond a mere ruler by defining his kingship through his role as a father, calling him the patriarch (Maresca). By doing so, David is not just a political leader; he is a "Godhead's Image" on earth, meaning his authority is biological, theological, and therefore "irrevocable" (Maresca).

This framing is a brilliant defense of the divine right of kings. If the King is the political father of the nation, then a rebellion against him is not merely a political crime; it is a profound violation of the "most fundamental relationship in the natural world" (Maresca) , the bond between a father and his son. The Exclusionists’ argument for an elective or limited monarchy is recast as an attack on the natural order itself, making the political struggle intensely personal and moral for the reader.

The Moral Map of Sons and Loyalty

The focus on paternity allows Dryden to create a complex moral map of loyalty that goes beyond mere titles. We see three key types of sons:

  1. Absalom’s Betrayal: Absalom is the "natural son" who carries the physical image of his father ("Godlike David’s youth") (Maresca). However, he tragically betrays the moral and political inheritance. He rejects the steady security of his father’s love and authority for the empty promises of ambition (Maresca). His failure demonstrates that the "natural bond of blood is not enough to guarantee political fidelity." His story is a tragedy rooted in filial impiety.

  2. Barzillai’s Loyalty: Dryden contrasts Absalom’s tragedy with the tribute to Barzillai, one of David’s loyal followers. Crucially, the section emphasizes the loyalty and stability of Barzillai's sons (Maresca). Their devotion highlights the depth of Absalom’s moral failing and proves that loyalty is a conscious, virtuous choice rooted in duty, not just a matter of birth (Maresca).

  3. The Divine Sonship: In the final act, this theme of paternity is restored to honor through the concept of the "divine paternity and the divine sonship" that will flow from David’s line (Maresca). This subtle reference to the birth of Christ ensures that the entire narrative is framed within a cosmic, eternal structure of fatherly authority.

By making the political upheaval hinge on the violation of the father-son bond, Dryden gave the abstract issues of succession and governance a deep ethical and emotional resonance that enhanced the poem's "narrative integrity" (Maresca).

2.2 The Theological Struggle: The Dominion of Grace vs. the Demand for Law

The most significant conceptual shift Dryden made was establishing David’s authority within a framework dominated by Grace rather than Law (Maresca). This idea was the cornerstone of the Royalist defense of absolute monarchy.

David’s Rule Under Grace

Dryden immediately establishes David’s reign as operating under a special dispensation:

"In pious times, ere Priest-craft did begin, / Before Polygamy was made a sin."

This opening frames David’s era as one operating under a divine, grace-based dominion (Maresca). David is not defined by rigid legal rules; his authority is seen as coming directly from God’s Grace, making him a perfect image of divine patience and authority on earth.

This concept of Grace explains David’s primary flaw, which is his slowness to act against the rebels. His reluctance to use force and his tendency to grant clemency are not presented as political weaknesses; they are framed as evidence of his divine, "grace-based dominion" (Maresca). Like a merciful God, he extends patience and waits for the rebels to repent, ruling above the temporary constraints of human statute (Maresca).

Achitophel and the Tyranny of Law

In direct opposition to David’s rule of Grace, Achitophel and the rebellious faction push for a system based solely on human Law. They criticize David for his leniency and for his failure to use the full legal force to secure the throne.

For Dryden, this is far more than a simple political debate; it is a profound philosophical conflict. The rebels are seeking to replace a stable, spiritual order (Grace) with a system driven by fear and legalistic tyranny (Maresca). Their arguments for constitutional change and legal certainty are, in Dryden’s view, disguised attempts to "replace the dominion of grace with a political system driven by fear" and political self-interest (Maresca).

The rebels' demand for Law is, therefore, a theological mistake. In demanding only Law, they ignore the King’s Grace, which would forgive them, and instead invoke a divine Law of retribution that will ultimately result in their own destruction. This layering transforms the political conflict into a dramatic, universal struggle between God's patience and humanity's violent, self-serving demand for immediate, self-serving justice (Maresca).

Part III: The Enduring Narrative and Psychological Invention

The two conceptual transformations Paternity and Grace vs. Law resulted in a poem with profound "autonomy" (Maresca). The story Dryden created is "complete and satisfying in itself and perfectly transparent as a metaphor for other things" (Maresca). This quality allows the poem to transcend the specific events of 1681 and speak to timeless issues of power and human nature. This achievement is the final measure of Dryden’s originality.

3.1 The Psychological Depth of Achitophel

One of the most praised and arguably most original elements of the poem is Dryden's psychological portrait of Achitophel (Shaftesbury). While "Achitophel" was a "conventional term for a wicked politician" (Jones), Dryden turned the archetype into a restless, complex figure driven by intellectual pride and a destructive need for change. His characterization goes far beyond simple political caricature.

Dryden presents Achitophel as a towering, yet flawed, intellect:

"Great wits are sure to madness near ally’d; / And thin partitions do their bounds divide."

Dryden doesn’t just politically condemn the man; he offers a brilliant psychological study of his motivation. Achitophel is not driven merely by greed or simple ambition; he is driven by a profound "intellectual vanity" that cannot tolerate the quiet, stable order of the existing government (Maresca). He is the "eternal mover," a brilliant spirit who must create chaos to feel necessary (Maresca).

This level of psychological dissection where the satire is based on a fundamental flaw of character and intellect, rather than just a list of political mistakes is what allows the narrative to achieve its autonomy (Maresca). Achitophel becomes more than just the Earl of Shaftesbury; he becomes a "timeless study of intellectual ambition corrupted by malice" (Maresca), making the political conflict immediately recognizable as a clash of personalities and ideologies that occurs in all eras.

3.2 Securing Autonomy and Truth

The "imaginative reordering" that Dryden achieved ensured that his poem was not judged on the conventionality of its source material, but on the profound truth it conveyed (Maresca). Dryden structured the poem so that the fictional narrative itself becomes self-validating.

The ultimate conclusion of the poem, David’s final speech, is the moment where the Law finally takes precedence over Grace. This is not simply a political move; it is an act of restoration that confirms the entire moral universe Dryden has built. When the King resolves to act with Law (punishment), the consequence is immediate and divinely sanctioned: "Th'Almighty, nodding, gave Consent" (Maresca).

This divine endorsement does several things at once:

  • It confirms that the King's decision to act is just, not tyrannical.

  • It validates the poem’s entire framework, confirming that the fictional universe Dryden created where the King is a mirror of God’s rule—is an accurate "true image of reality" (Maresca).

  • It secures the "narrative integrity" of the poem, making the conclusion feel inevitable and satisfying (Maresca).

3.3 The Vindication of the Poet

Dryden’s final act of originality is the subtle way he links the integrity of his poetry to the restored divine order (Maresca). The King's final, short statement, "He said," is mirrored by the poet’s own authority to create and conclude this fiction (Maresca). In essence, by creating a coherent, theologically grounded fable, Dryden asserts that his work itself is aligned with the ultimate truth of the creation (Maresca).

The poem converts the commonplace parallel (Jones) into an enduring myth by fusing it with eternal truths of governance, morality, and divine will (Maresca). This fusion is the definition of Dryden’s originality.

Conclusion

The critical debate over the originality of Absalom and Achitophel is resolved not by denying the conventionality of its source material, but by recognizing the profound literary transformation Dryden performed. Jones rightly highlights that the David/Monmouth parallel and the "Achitophel" archetype were "commonplace" political tools of the era, leading to the view that the fable was a mere "donnee" (Jones; Maresca).

However, the analysis of Maresca proves that Dryden's true brilliance lay in his "imaginative reordering of history" and his construction of a complex conceptual structure. By anchoring the narrative to the themes of Patriarchal Paternity and the struggle between Divine Grace and Human Law (Maresca), Dryden ensured that Absalom’s revolt was understood not merely as a political failure, but as a deep moral and theological catastrophe.

This comprehensive layering of meaning is what converted a simple political reference into a complex, self-sufficient, and powerful satire (Maresca). Dryden’s final originality is the enduring "narrative integrity" (Maresca) that allows the poem to transcend the specific events of the Exclusion Crisis and speak to universal, timeless truths about the nature of power, ambition, and order. His work remains a testament to the power of a great poet to forge something entirely new from materials already known.

References:

Dryden, John. Absalom and Achitophel. Edited by W. D. Christie and C. H. Firth, Fifth, Oxford, 1911, dn790002.ca.archive.org/0/items/absalomachitophe00dryduoft/absalomachitophe00dryduoft.pdf.

Jones, Richard F. “The Originality of Absalom and Achitophel.” Modern Language Notes, vol. 46, no. 4, 1931, pp. 211–18. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2913388. Accessed 3 Nov. 2025.

Maresca, Thomas E. “The Context of Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel.” ELH, vol. 41, no. 3, 1974, pp. 340–58. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2872590. Accessed 3 Nov. 2025.