The opening lines of Absalom and Achitophel have long been considered an apologia pro regis libidine. Here is a sophisticated exchange between men of the world, one of whom happened to be the divinely appointed gentleman king whose actions were applauded by the poet, his well-connected readers, and God. Attacks on Charles' private life, the argument runs, were both irrelevant and a stalking horse for attacks on his kingship. During the last several years, however, a few students of the poem have objected to this interpretation. In criticism as in politics vocal minorities may be heard without being listened to. In 1971 A.E. Dyson and Julian Lovelock expressed surprise that “some critics have sought to excuse the censure of the King” either as a rhetorical device “or even worse, as a celebration of the King's humanity.” Nonetheless, in 1976 K.E. Robinson rightly complained of the continuing “critical orthodoxy” that absolved Charles of responsibility for his sexual actions. As recently as 1981 Jerome Donnelly lamented that “The most widely accepted readings of Absalom and Achitophel” view Dryden's attitude towards Charles “as one of almost unreserved admiration.” Each of the two latter revisionists also shares a corollary of his skepticism – King Charles as King David must evolve into a better person if he is to become the better monarch capable of speaking lines God sanctions.

These studies have been strengthened by another salutary trend, one perhaps related to the new interest in family history during the Restoration and the eighteenth century.