Symbol: Golden calf as symbol of misplaced veneration
In the biblical book of Exodus, the Israelites waited for Moses, their leader, who had gone in search of enlightenment on Mount Sinai. During this time, without effective religious leadership, they made a golden idol in the shape of a calf and began to worship it. The golden calf was not an appropriate subject for the Israelites to worship. Dryden likens the English people's veneration of an institution of government—a State that could be readily controlled by the people it governs—to the worship of the golden calf, thereby indicating that such feelings of veneration were bad and inappropriate. The ideological notion that kings ought to be constrained or limited by government is represented as misguided.
Symbol: Crown as symbol of ruler, government, and divinely appointed authority
The text uses the word "crown" (as well as "diadem"), a decorative ornament associated with kings and rulers, to represent the King, the government, and the legitimate authority as appointed by God. The use of the same word to represent all these concepts ties them together and conflates them, inviting the reader to assign to a government and to a human being the same authority they associate with their deity.
Symbol: Flock of sheep as symbol for the people
The use of "sheep" to represent a community of people, with the leader as a wise shepherd, is generally associated with Jesus leading his flock. It is used ironically here to tell an Old Testament story that is intended as an allegory for political events occurring in England. The sheep represent the common English people. It suggests that the people are easily swayed and led because they do not really think for themselves.
Allegory: Rape as allegory for rebellion
This allegory has several layers (none of which ought to be construed as condoning actual rape).
Dryden sets forth a premise: sometimes people cannot admit to wanting something; rather, they prefer to be forced into it. Therefore, by forcing such an individual into a situation he or she secretly desires, the person doing the forcing is actually doing the "victim" a necessary and pleasing favor. Acting as a satirist, Dryden exaggerates the argument into something so shocking that it ends up actually supporting the opposite conclusion.
Dryden begins by observing that some women are, by nature, lascivious and desirous of sex, but they cannot admit to it because of contemporary social standards. This is true: in Dryden's era, "good" women were not supposed to admit to enjoying or wanting sex.
Next, Dryden suggests that, since the hypothetical woman in question really wants sex, forcing her into it provides her with the experience she wants without compromising her image. This notion was just as ridiculous in Dryden's era as it is now: nobody really likes or wants to be raped and it's an unpleasant experience with lasting bad consequences.
Drawing from the first two ideas, Dryden links the image of the woman with the King, suggesting that since the King may wish to be overthrown, rebelling against him would "commit a pleasing rape upon the Crown". The conclusion is shocking, disgusting, and a little bit heretical. It also associates rebellion with an inherently immoral and low act, arguing through satire that rape and rebellion are both objectively bad.
Allegory: Bible story as allegory for the Exclusion Crisis
The entire poem, which tells the story of Absalom and Achitophel's rebellion against King David of Israel, is an allegory of the events that occurred in England in the late 17th century. Dryden uses biblical characters and events to comment upon the Exclusion Crisis and its major players, ultimately supporting King Charles II in his right to the throne.
