This blog is written as a task assigned by the head of the Department of English (MKBU), Prof. and Dr. Dilip Barad Sir. Here is the link to the professor's research article for background reading: Click Here
Here is short video which contains details of my Blog:
"Absalom and Achitophel Summary & Analysis | Dryden’s Political Allegory
Here is Mind Map of My detailed Blog:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SqdMQBfc2k3pDoFPaUQRd3OyQUnUboul/view?usp=drive_link
Opening Context:
Here is a youtube video for the basic introducion of Absalom and Achitophel:
Introducing John Dryden's Absalom and Achitophel by Dr. Oindrila Ghosh
John Dryden (1631–1700), the first official Poet Laureate of England, stands as the most prominent literary voice of the Restoration age, known equally for his critical insight, poetic craft, and ability to use literature as a medium of political persuasion. His celebrated political satire "Absalom and Achitophel" (1681) was written at the height of the Exclusion Crisis, when the Whig faction, led by the Earl of Shaftesbury, attempted to exclude the Catholic James, Duke of York, from succeeding his brother Charles II, and instead sought to promote Charles’s illegitimate but Protestant son, James Scott, Duke of Monmouth. Dryden, a loyal supporter of monarchy and hereditary succession, employed the biblical story of King David and his rebellious son Absalom as a powerful allegory for the political turmoil of his time. In this allegory, Charles II is represented as King David, patient, forgiving, and rightful sovereign; Monmouth as Absalom, the beloved but illegitimate son, admired for his beauty and popularity but tragically misled; and Shaftesbury as Achitophel, a cunning, ambitious schemer who corrupts the prince and incites rebellion. Through this framework, Dryden not only defends the divine right of kings but also condemns political opportunism and factionalism.
The poem opens with a tone of indulgence, describing David’s fatherly affection and the charm of Absalom “A man so various, that he seemed to be / Not one, but all mankind’s epitome” but quickly shifts to expose the poisonous counsel of Achitophel “Of these the false Achitophel was first: / A name to all succeeding ages curst.” By interweaving scriptural narrative with contemporary politics, Dryden transforms a succession dispute into a universal moral lesson about loyalty, rebellion, and divine order. His point of view is unmistakably royalist: he warns against the dangers of undermining lawful succession, portrays Shaftesbury as the embodiment of treachery, and presents Monmouth’s ambitions as misguided rather than malicious. Thus, "Absalom and Achitophel" emerges not only as a brilliant work of literature but also as a carefully crafted defense of monarchy, demonstrating Dryden’s genius in blending art with the urgent politics of his age.
Contextual Foundations of Dryden’s Satire
1. The Restoration Era and Charles II’s Reign
After the collapse of Oliver Cromwell’s Puritan Commonwealth, the monarchy was restored in 1660 under Charles II. This period, known as the Restoration Age, was marked by both political instability and cultural flourishing. Charles II was a tolerant and pleasure-loving king, famous for his court’s extravagance and numerous mistresses. His reign, however, faced constant tension because he had no legitimate heir. Instead, he fathered many illegitimate children, the most prominent being James Scott, Duke of Monmouth. This personal circumstance of the king an aging monarch with no lawful son and a Catholic brother (James, Duke of York) as heir created the succession problem that gave rise to the political controversies addressed in Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel.
2. The Popish Plot of 1678
The Popish Plot, a fabricated conspiracy invented by Titus Oates in 1678, shook the nation with widespread fear of Catholic treachery. Oates falsely claimed that Catholics planned to assassinate Charles II to place his Catholic brother James on the throne. Although the plot was later exposed as a hoax, it inflamed anti-Catholic hysteria throughout England. Innocent Catholics were executed, and suspicion of the Duke of York deepened. This atmosphere of paranoia strengthened the Whig faction, who began campaigning to exclude James from succession. Dryden’s poem reflects this climate of fear and suspicion, but he satirizes the Whigs for exploiting it. By presenting Achitophel (Shaftesbury) as the deceitful schemer, Dryden allegorically connects the exaggerated fears of Catholic conspiracy with the manipulations of ambitious politicians.
3.The Exclusion Crisis (1679–1681)
The Exclusion Crisis was the central political event that directly inspired Absalom and Achitophel. Between 1679 and 1681, Parliament debated several “Exclusion Bills” aimed at preventing James, Duke of York, from inheriting the throne. The Whigs, led by the Earl of Shaftesbury, supported the bills, arguing that a Catholic king would endanger England’s Protestant religion and liberty. The Tories, loyal to hereditary succession, defended James’s right. To strengthen their cause, the Whigs promoted Monmouth as a Protestant alternative to James. In Dryden’s allegory, this is mirrored in Absalom’s (Monmouth’s) misguided rebellion, spurred by the cunning persuasion of Achitophel (Shaftesbury). Dryden’s purpose was to undermine the Whigs’ argument by showing that tampering with hereditary succession leads to instability and rebellion, just as Absalom’s defiance of David brought ruin.
4. The Role of Shaftesbury (Achitophel)
Anthony Ashley Cooper, the Earl of Shaftesbury, played a leading role in the Exclusion Crisis, making him the natural target of Dryden’s satire. Shaftesbury was known for his political cunning and opportunism, and in the poem he is personified as “Achitophel,” the biblical counselor who corrupted Absalom against David. Dryden portrays him as malicious, ambitious, and dangerous: “Of these the false Achitophel was first: / A name to all succeeding ages curst.” This venomous description shows Dryden’s royalist perspective, where Shaftesbury becomes not just a political opponent, but a traitor to divine and natural order. By vilifying Shaftesbury, Dryden shifts the blame for political unrest away from Monmouth (Absalom) and squarely onto the manipulator who fueled rebellion.
5. The Monmouth Rebellion (1685) as a Foreshadowing
Although Absalom and Achitophel was written in 1681, its prophetic vision came true in 1685. After Charles II’s death, James II succeeded peacefully, but Monmouth, encouraged by past Whig support, launched the Monmouth Rebellion, claiming he was the rightful Protestant king. The rebellion failed, and Monmouth was executed. Dryden’s poem, written earlier, already depicted Monmouth as Absalom beloved, handsome, and popular, but tragically misled into rebellion by deceitful advisors. The rebellion’s failure confirmed Dryden’s message: that defying hereditary succession leads only to destruction. In this way, the historical aftermath validated Dryden’s royalist vision, making the poem not only propaganda but also a work of almost prophetic moral commentary.
6. Dryden’s Political Purpose and Point of View
Dryden’s central motivation in writing Absalom and Achitophel was to defend the principle of divine right and hereditary monarchy. As Poet Laureate, his role was to support the Crown, but as a poet, he elevated political defense into art. His point of view is clearly royalist: he presents Charles II (David) as a wise and merciful father, James (Duke of York) as the rightful heir, and Shaftesbury (Achitophel) as the embodiment of treachery. Monmouth (Absalom) is treated more sympathetically, as a figure of tragic weakness rather than villainy, showing Dryden’s political skill he warns the prince without vilifying him. Thus, the poem serves both as political propaganda and a moral allegory, reinforcing the dangers of faction and the sanctity of lawful succession.
In deep conclusion:
The historical context of "Absalom and Achitophel" lies in the turbulence of late 17th-century England shaped by the "Popish Plot ", the "Exclusion Crisis", and the looming succession question. By recasting these political struggles into a biblical allegory, Dryden gave his royalist argument timeless force. The poem is not only a product of its immediate history but also a reflection on the universal dangers of ambition, rebellion, and political manipulation.
Second Part of Absalom and Achitophel (1682):
Background
-
The first part (1681), written entirely by John Dryden, was a brilliant political satire using the biblical story of Absalom’s rebellion against King David to represent the Exclusion Crisis in England (when attempts were made to exclude the Catholic Duke of York, James, from succession).
-
Because of its popularity, a second part was brought out in 1682, but this time it was largely written by Nahum Tate, a younger poet (later Poet Laureate).
Dryden’s Role in Part II
-
Although Tate wrote most of the poem, Dryden contributed about 200 lines.
-
His main contribution was satirical portraits of his literary and political enemies, particularly:
-
Elkanah Settle → represented as “Doeg” (a spiteful, envious poet, incompetent and noisy).
-
Thomas Shadwell → represented as “Og” (foolish, dull, and bloated with vanity).
-
These passages are regarded as the best parts of Part II, full of Dryden’s sharp wit, biting satire, and mastery of characterization.
Content of Part II
-
Tate carried forward the political allegory, extending the story to more recent events like the Tory victory in the London sheriff elections of 1682.
-
Characters continued to be represented through biblical figures:
-
Corah = Shaftesbury (leader of the Exclusion movement).
-
Zimri = Buckingham.
-
New sketches included various Whigs and dissenters, shown as corrupt, treacherous, or foolish.
-
Importance
-
While Tate’s verses were considered weak, Dryden’s 200 lines lifted the work and are still studied today.
-
Dryden uses this opportunity not only for political satire but also for personal literary revenge, continuing the quarrels he had already developed in works like Mac Flecknoe.
-
The character sketches of Og (Shadwell) and Doeg (Settle) are now famous as examples of Restoration satiric art.
In short: The Second Part of Absalom and Achitophel (1682) was mainly Tate’s continuation of the political allegory, but Dryden’s 200-line contribution satirizing Shadwell and Settle remains its most powerful and enduring element.
Dryden’s Political Motivation
Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel was written at a time when England was gripped by an intense anti-Catholic sentiment. The Popish Plot (1678), a fabricated conspiracy claiming that Catholics planned to assassinate King Charles II, had created fear and suspicion throughout the kingdom. This was followed by the Exclusion Crisis (1679–1681), in which the Whig party sought to prevent the Catholic James, Duke of York, from inheriting the throne.
Dryden, as Poet Laureate and a supporter of the Stuart monarchy, saw the Whigs’ attempt as a direct threat to the principle of hereditary succession and to the stability of England itself. His poem was therefore motivated by the urgent need to preserve the Duke of York’s position against the rising tide of anti-Catholic hostility. By casting Charles II as David, the rightful king, and James Scott, Duke of Monmouth, as Absalom, the ambitious but illegitimate son, Dryden presented a powerful allegory: any rebellion against divine order and legitimate monarchy would end in disaster.
Thus, the poem serves not merely as satire but as political propaganda, defending monarchy against Whig radicalism. It reminds its audience that personal prejudice especially religious bias should not overturn the sacred laws of succession.
Central strands or Themes:
1. Politics, Allegory, and Satire
Dryden’s poem is first and foremost a political allegory written in response to the Exclusion Crisis (1679–1681). The Whigs, led by Shaftesbury, attempted to exclude James, Duke of York, from the throne because of his Catholic faith, and instead promote the Protestant Duke of Monmouth, Charles II’s illegitimate son. Dryden uses the biblical narrative of Absalom’s rebellion against King David (from 2 Samuel 13–19) as the framework to comment on these events. By disguising his contemporaries as biblical characters, Dryden could simultaneously defend Charles II and attack his political enemies. This allegorical framework allowed him to elevate current politics into the realm of sacred history, giving the monarchy divine justification.
At the same time, the poem is filled with satire. Shaftesbury, for example, is portrayed as Achitophel, “a bold, bad man,” whose persuasive speech stirs up rebellion not for justice but for ambition. Dryden ridicules his cunning, presenting him as clever but morally bankrupt. Monmouth (Absalom), on the other hand, is depicted as handsome and beloved, but weak-willed and easily manipulated by flattery. Through sharp wit and satire, Dryden exposes the dangers of factionalism and undermines the credibility of the opposition.
Example: Dryden’s line, “A daring pilot in extremity; / Pleased with the danger when the waves went high,” satirizes Shaftesbury as someone who thrives in chaos, manipulating political storms for his own gain.
2. God, Religion, and the Divine Right of Kings
Another key concern of the poem is religion and monarchy’s divine authority. Dryden strongly defends the divine right of kings, the belief that monarchs are chosen by God and therefore cannot be lawfully resisted. By presenting Charles II as King David—an Old Testament figure directly appointed by God—Dryden elevates his kingship to a sacred institution. Any attempt to dethrone or bypass the legitimate heir (the Duke of York) thus becomes not only political rebellion but also religious sacrilege.
This theme is especially important given the anti-Catholic hysteria caused by the Popish Plot (1678), which made many fear Catholic succession. Dryden counters this by reminding readers that monarchy is not subject to human opinion, Parliament’s will, or public fear it rests on divine ordination. By merging politics and religion, Dryden builds an argument that supporting Charles II and his lawful heir is not just loyal but pious.
Example: David (Charles II) is portrayed as merciful, patient, and Godlike in his restraint. Unlike the ambitious rebels, he does not act rashly or cruelly. This makes him appear as God’s chosen representative, reinforcing the sanctity of monarchy.
3. Power and Ambition
Dryden also explores the corrupting force of ambition. Absalom (Monmouth) represents the tragic danger of yielding to ambition despite illegitimacy and uncertainty about succession. Though admired by the people, Absalom is misguided by vanity and the whispers of Achitophel. This mirrors Monmouth’s historical popularity and his eventual overreaching ambition in the Monmouth Rebellion (1685), which ended in his execution.
Achitophel (Shaftesbury) embodies ambition at its most destructive. He is not motivated by justice or loyalty but by personal gain, exploiting Absalom’s vanity for his own political ends. Dryden warns that such ambition destabilizes kingdoms, undermines divine order, and leads inevitably to ruin. The poem reflects a timeless truth about politics: that ambition unchecked by morality or loyalty can corrupt even the most admired figures and bring disaster upon nations.
Example: The biblical parallel of Absalom’s rebellion ends with Absalom’s death, foreshadowing Monmouth’s downfall. By using this allegory, Dryden warns his readers that ambition, no matter how appealing at first, leads only to destruction when it defies lawful authority.
Summary of Expanded Themes:
-
Politics, Allegory, Satire → Dryden disguises current events in biblical narrative, ridiculing rebels.
-
God, Religion, Divine Right → The monarchy is sacred and ordained; rebellion is sacrilege.
-
Power and Ambition → Desire for power corrupts and leads to downfall (as seen in Monmouth’s tragic fate).
Why it is verse satire?
1. Written in Verse (Heroic Couplets)
Dryden chose rhymed iambic pentameter couplets (heroic couplets), the most polished poetic form of his age.
The verse form makes the poem sound grand and serious, but Dryden uses it to discuss political quarrels that’s where satire comes in.
Example:
“Great wits are sure to madness near allied,
And thin partitions do their bounds divide.”
Here, he mocks Shaftesbury (Achitophel), suggesting that his “wit” borders on madness. The polished verse makes the insult sharp and memorable.
2. Allegory as Satire
The whole poem is a biblical allegory:
David = Charles II
Absalom = Duke of Monmouth
Achitophel = Shaftesbury
This allows Dryden to criticize living political figures indirectly but effectively.
Example: He portrays Shaftesbury as a cunning manipulator:
“Achitophel, grown old in politics,
Versed in the arts of flattering and of tricks.”
Instead of naming Shaftesbury directly, he disguises him, but the satire is clear.
3. Irony and Ridicule
Satire thrives on irony saying one thing but meaning another.
Dryden uses irony to expose hypocrisy:
“Of all diseases, faction is the worst,
Of all men’s passions, jealousy the first.”
He pretends to diagnose England like a doctor, but really ridicules the “disease” of political rebellion.
4. Caricature & Exaggeration
Dryden exaggerates traits to ridicule his targets.
Absalom (Monmouth) is flattered for his looks but shown as vain and weak-willed:
“A man so various, that he seemed to be
Not one, but all mankind’s epitome.”
On the surface, this looks like praise, but it is sarcastic Monmouth is “so various” because he is inconsistent, a man without true character.
5. Mock-Heroic Style
Dryden uses elevated, biblical style to describe petty political scheming.
This contrast makes the rebels look foolish.
Example: Shaftesbury (Achitophel) is described with the gravity of a prophet, but in truth he is a selfish schemer. The lofty tone makes his real ambitions seem small and ridiculous.
6. Moral Satire
Beyond ridicule, Dryden’s satire has a moral purpose: to defend the rightful king and expose the dangers of ambition and rebellion.
Example:
“Plots, true or false, are necessary things,
To raise up commonwealths, and ruin kings.”
Here Dryden shows how false plots are used to destabilize monarchy. He criticizes both the moral corruption of rebels and the gullibility of the public.
In summary:
Absalom and Achitophel is a verse satire because Dryden uses poetry (heroic couplets) not just to narrate, but to ridicule, expose, and moralize about political figures. His weapons are allegory, irony, exaggeration, mock-heroic style, and wit.
The allegorical framework in Absalom and Achitophel :
What is Biblical Allegory?
A biblical allegory is a literary technique in which a writer uses stories, characters, or events from the Bible as symbols to represent real people, political situations, or moral lessons.
-
Allegory itself means a “story within a story” – one level is literal, the other is symbolic.
-
When writers use biblical figures or narratives to comment on their own times, it becomes a biblical allegory.
1. Biblical Foundation (2 Samuel 13–19)
Dryden’s poem is built on a biblical story from the Old Testament. In 2 Samuel, Absalom was the handsome and beloved son of King David. However, after a series of family tragedies—including his sister Tamar being wronged by Amnon, another son of David Absalom’s anger and ambition grew. He allowed himself to be persuaded by Achitophel, one of David’s trusted counsellors, to rebel against his own father.
-
Absalom gained popular support because of his beauty, charm, and charisma.
-
Achitophel, however, was the true manipulator, exploiting Absalom’s ambition for his own political ends.
-
The rebellion eventually failed: Absalom was killed in battle, and David, although victorious, grieved deeply for his lost son.
Dryden chose this story because it was morally charged (filial rebellion, betrayal, ambition) and carried a ready-made allegory for England’s political turmoil.
2. Contemporary Equivalents (Political Allegory)
Dryden uses the biblical story to mirror the Exclusion Crisis (1679–1681) in England. He gives biblical “masks” to real political figures:
-
Absalom = James Scott, Duke of Monmouth
-
Charles II’s illegitimate but Protestant son.
-
Like the biblical Absalom, he was handsome, popular, and charismatic, winning the hearts of the people.
-
He was persuaded to challenge his father’s authority by those who wanted to exclude the Catholic Duke of York (James, Charles’s brother) from succession.
-
-
Achitophel = Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury
-
A brilliant politician, but here presented as a dangerous schemer.
-
He pushed Monmouth forward as an alternative to James, playing the role of Achitophel who sows rebellion.
-
-
David = King Charles II
-
The reigning monarch, like the biblical David, is portrayed as a fatherly, forgiving, but politically challenged king.
-
Dryden depicts him as patient, merciful, and aware of the dangers posed by rebellion, yet still indulgent towards his beloved son Monmouth.
-
In this way, Dryden made political satire safer and sharper: by casting the story in biblical terms, he could openly attack Shaftesbury and warn against Monmouth without naming them directly.
3. Monmouth’s Legitimacy Question
One of the most crucial issues of the Exclusion Crisis was whether Monmouth could be seen as legitimate:
-
Monmouth’s mother was Lucy Walter (1630–1658), Charles II’s mistress during his exile.
-
Rumours spread that Charles had secretly married Lucy Walter, which would make Monmouth legitimate and therefore eligible for the throne.
-
Supporters of Monmouth clung to this rumour, but Charles firmly denied it. He repeatedly declared that he had never married Lucy, and thus Monmouth was illegitimate.
Why this is important:
-
Charles’s marriage to Catherine of Braganza, the Portuguese queen, produced no children.
-
With no direct heir, the succession question became urgent. If Monmouth were legitimate, he could claim the throne instead of James, Duke of York (a Catholic, and therefore unpopular with many Protestants).
-
This uncertainty gave Shaftesbury and other Whigs political ground to promote Monmouth as the Protestant alternative.
Dryden exploits this situation in the poem: Monmouth/Absalom is tempted by ambition and others’ persuasion to reach for a crown that was not rightfully his. The satire lies in showing Monmouth as misguided and Shaftesbury as treacherous.
Point summary:
Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel is not just satire but a layered allegory:
-
The biblical foundation gives it authority and seriousness.
-
The political mapping makes it relevant to the Exclusion Crisis.
-
The legitimacy debate around Monmouth mirrors the moral and dynastic instability of Absalom’s rebellion.
Character Studies in Absalom and Achitophel
1. Absalom (James Scott, Duke of Monmouth)
Dryden’s portrayal of Absalom (Monmouth) is sympathetic but flawed. He is not an outright villain, but a tragic, misguided figure.
Key Traits:
-
Handsome and Charismatic: Like the biblical Absalom, Monmouth is praised for his looks and charm. Dryden says:
“A man so various, that he seemed to be / Not one, but all mankind’s epitome.”
- He had qualities that attracted wide admiration. -
Popular with the People: His Protestant faith and his image as a “man of the people” made him widely loved. Dryden captures his magnetic appeal, especially among those opposed to Catholic succession.
-
Weakness of Ambition: Though personally loved by his father (Charles II), he allows himself to be persuaded by Achitophel. His fatal flaw is ambition mixed with vanity.
-
Tragic Parallel: Like the biblical Absalom, Monmouth’s attempt to rebel against his father is doomed. Dryden portrays him as misled rather than evil, which adds to his tragic dimension.
Overall: Absalom is an attractive but weak prince he symbolizes misguided ambition, manipulated by cunning advisers.
2. Achitophel (Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury)
Achitophel is the true villain of the poem. Dryden paints him as a dangerous political schemer whose ambition and cunning threaten the stability of the kingdom.
Key Traits:
-
Master Manipulator: Achitophel is crafty, able to flatter and persuade Absalom to rebel.
“Of these the false Achitophel was first; / A name to all succeeding ages curst.”
- His reputation is blackened from the start. -
Ambitious and Self-Serving: He does not care about Monmouth’s welfare or the kingdom’s peace; he only wants to secure his own power.
-
Skilled in Deception: Dryden emphasizes his talent in using “flattery and tricks” to bend others to his will.
-
Anti-Catholic Zeal: Historically, Shaftesbury was a strong anti-Catholic leader. In the poem, Achitophel embodies factionalism and rebellion, poisoning the public with fear of Catholic rule.Overall: Achitophel is a ruthless political opportunist. In Dryden’s satire, he represents the real danger: selfish politicians who exploit popular passions for personal gain.
3. David (King Charles II)
Dryden portrays David (Charles II) in a largely positive, fatherly, and wise manner, since Dryden was writing to support the king.
Key Traits:
-
Loving Father: Charles, like David, truly loves his son Monmouth. He is indulgent and forgiving, but also firm when necessary. This makes him both a tender father and a cautious ruler.
-
Merciful and Patient: Dryden praises David for his ability to forgive, even when betrayed. This contrasts with the harshness of Achitophel.
-
Legitimate Authority: David is the rightful king, chosen by God, and thus rebellion against him is both a political crime and a moral sin.
-
Wise but Troubled: Like the biblical David, Charles II faces problems in succession. His lack of a legitimate heir complicates the political future, but Dryden shows him as steady and wise, in contrast to Monmouth’s instability and Shaftesbury’s scheming.
Overall: David symbolizes the ideal of monarchy merciful, divinely sanctioned, and protective of his people, even in times of rebellion.
Here is Sir's detailed study of Characters:
.png)
Conclusion:
John Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel is more than a political pamphlet in verse; it is a masterwork of literary satire, allegory, and moral commentary. By fusing a biblical story with the contemporary politics of the Exclusion Crisis, Dryden transformed temporary disputes into a timeless reflection on ambition, loyalty, and the dangers of factionalism.
Its lasting impact lies in three areas:
-
As a verse satire, it set the standard for political poetry in English literature, blending wit with moral seriousness.
-
As a biblical allegory, it elevated a political quarrel into a universal lesson on human weakness, bad counsel, and the sanctity of lawful authority.
-
As a study of power, it reminds readers that rebellion driven by ambition and manipulation always ends in tragedy.
The poem remains relevant today because the issues it addresses political rivalry, misuse of religion, ambition for power, and corrupt leadership are not confined to the seventeenth century. Dryden shows how personal desires and political intrigues can endanger national stability, a lesson that continues to echo in modern politics.
Thus, Absalom and Achitophel survives not only as a document of its age, but as a timeless warning against the destructive power of ambition and faction, securing its place as one of the greatest works of English verse satire.
References:
1.Barad, Dilip. "Absalom and Achitophel: Worksheet." Dilip Barad
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394929948_Worksheet_on_Absalom_and_Achitophel_by_Dryden
2.Barad, Dilip. "Absalom and Achitophel: Worksheet." Dilip Barad | Teacher Blog,4 January 2021.
https://blog.dilipbarad.com/2021/01/absalom-and-achitophel-worksheet.html
3.Dryden, John. Absalom and Achitophel First published 1681
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Absalom-and-Achitophel
4. Encyclopaedia Britannica Editors.: Information regarding Absalom and Achitophel, specifically concerning its second part largely composed by Nahum Tate.
5.The Holy Bible. 2 Samuel chapters https://bible.usccb.org/bible/2samuel/13
THANK YOU!!!!!
.jpeg)
.jpg)
.png)
