Maike Drost, Poetry and the politics of memory during the English Restoration (1660-1685) by Jonge Historici

Introduction

1. Dissenters and Civil Wars: England during the seventeenth century

2. Beyond oblivion: dealing with a violent past

3. The power of the written word

4. Abraham Cowley - Ode upon the blessed Restoration

5. John Milton - Paradise Lost

6. Andrew Marvell - The Last Instruction to a Painter

7. John Dryden - Absalom and Achitophel

Conclusion

Bibliography

Social scientists and historians have undertaken many studies in order to understand the experience and memory of violence in early modern and modern history, as memories of violent pasts were often altered and redirected, or strategically ignored by a state’s new regime. Marta Minow, Erna Paris, Paulina Kewes, Matthew Neufeld and Judith Pollmann are just a few among many researchers who have studied this phenomenon.1 According to Judith Pollmann, most studies regarding this phenomenon focussed on the period after 1800, since they combined memory politics with the rise of nationalism. This was the time of huge historical paintings, museums, national days of commemoration and state-sponsored historical writings.2 Yet nationalism is not integral to memory politics. Historian David Cressy demonstrated the use of memory politics in late Tudor and early Stuart England in his book Bonfires and Bells. He explained how authorities used the incorporation of new commemorative events, like Accession Day, into the calendar in order to develop a strong memory culture around the blessings of Protestant rule.3 Kevin Sharpe, a historian specialized in early modern history, believes that representation and memory politics were of great importance in early modern times. A government or monarch could evoke memory in the form of images, rituals and words, to communicate a desired image to the general public. This image was then used to manifest the government’s authority.4 The manner in which people communicated changed greatly in the early modern period. From the renaissance onwards, the power of the written word acquired greater importance.5 Ever since the invention of the printing press, published texts could be distributed much cheaper and faster than before. This gave texts a much broader range of reception, which made these publications a convenient tool for governments that desired to 1 Martha Minow, Between Vengeance and Forgiveness. Facing history after genocide and mass violence. (Boston, 1998). Erna Paris, Long Shadows: Truth, lies and history. (Toronto, 2000). Paulina Kewes, ‘Acts of Remembrance, Acts of Oblivion. Rhetoric, Law and National Memory in Early Restoration England.’ in: Lorna Clymer ed. Ritual, Routine and Regime: Institutions of Repetition in Euro-American cultures. (Toronto, 2006) 109-128. Matthew Neufeld, The Civil Wars after 1660. Public remembering in Late Stuart England. (Woodbridge, 2013). Judith Pollmann ed., Memory before modernity. Practices of memory in Early Modern Europe. (Leiden, 2013). 2 Judith Pollmann and Erika Kuijpers, ‘Introduction’ in: Judith Pollmann, Memory before modernity. Practices of memory in Early Modern Europe. (Leiden, 2013) 5. 3 David Cressy, Bonfires and Bells. (Cambridge, 2004). 4 Kevin Sharpe, Selling the Tudor Monarchy: authority and image in sixteenth-century England. (New Haven, 2009) 5. 5 Kevin Sharpe, ‘Sacralization and Demystification. The publication of Monarchy in Early Modern England’, in: Jeroen Deploige and Gita Deneckere ed. Mystifying the Monarch: studies on Discourse, Power and History. (Amsterdam, 2007) 99.

ground their authority in popular politics. Historians have turned increasingly to a wide range of media when studying this period. Poems, pamphlets and sermons contributed in numerous ways to public life. Historians George Southcombe and Grant Tapsell even argue that the physical form and visual style of printed works helped shape the structure and course of political debates.6 Through printed text, historians can examine the attempts of society to overcome memories of civil wars and religious crisis. In his book The Civil Wars after 1660. Public remembering in Late Stuart England historian Matthew Neufeld studies the way public remembering of the Interregnum was shaped in Late Stuart England during the period known as the Restoration. Neufeld centers his study around the publications of historical narratives. These narratives share only selected pieces of information about the Interregnum with the readers. Mostly, they recall commemorative events such as particular crimes that the governing authorities of that time committed, like the regicide of Charles I, and military and naval triumphs, such as the British victory during the first Anglo-Dutch war.7 Neufeld argues that the Restoration regime laid blame on a religious minority, which they named the Puritans, and uses various laws of remembering or forgetting and censorship to support this view.8 The Act of Free and General

Pardon, Indemnity and Oblivion (1660) required people not to publicly remember the Civil Wars and Interregnum period, while the Legalization Act (1662) enabled the prepublication censorship of any book dealing with the past. 9 Although the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion was not repealed until 1948, the Restoration regime quickly replaced it with a form of general public remembering that provided historical justification for the proscription of the ‘Puritan’ impulse from an exclusively Anglican policy.10 The Legalization Act ensured that history was remembered in such a way that it laid the burden of war-guilt on the religious minority known as the Puritans. Neufeld’s analysis is limited to historical narratives. To contribute to his conclusions, I will research the way in which the English Restoration regime attempted to influence representations of the ideological diversity that remained after the Civil Wars and Interregnum period and the manner in which this is reflected in poetry published between

6 George Southcombe and Grant Tapsell, Restoration Politics, Religion and Culture. Britain and Ireland, 1660-1714. (Basingstoke, 2010) 4-5. 7 Matthew Neufeld, The Civil Wars after 1660. Public remembering in Late Stuart England. (Woodbridge, 2013) 34. 8 Ibidem, x. 9 Ibidem, 17, 21. 10 Ibidem, 2.

1660-1685. In this study, four poems will be analyzed in order to research the strategies authors used to convey their messages, which may or may not have been conform to the regime’s ideology. In his book, Matthew Neufeld states that the public memory of England’s conflicted past after 1660 was the outcome of political processes designed to secure a particular future. Public remembrance resulted from decisions made by legislators and officials who believed they were necessary to provide foundations for future peace and order.11 Historical narratives therefore emphasized the lawful foundation of the Elizabethan English church and the monarchy. Any changes that were made to these constitutions during the Civil Wars and Interregnum period, were declared illegal. The historical narratives analyzed by Neufeld mostly demonstrate a strong support for these constitutions, as the Licensing Act prevented people from legally publishing nonconformist opinions until its temporary lapse in 1679. 12 In his conclusion, Neufeld further states that the Restoration itself was a form of revolution and that the Interregnum period was used to establish a new form of government. In order to do this, the regime laid the blame of the Civil Wars and Interregnum period on a religious minority, the Puritans. My hypothesis reasons that the Restoration period saw a restriction of intellectual freedom, as nonconformist opinions were suppressed out of a fear for political unrest. The terms ‘Puritan’ and ‘Restoration’ were coined by the Restoration regime in an attempt to legitimize their manner of government. The divergent ideologies concerning rightful government, the strategies authors employ to voice them despite restrictions and the concept of blaming a (minority) group for unfortunate past events will be researched as recurrent motives used by a regime to enforce a collective recollection of a country’s history. As poetry, contrary to historical narratives, often employs metaphorical and symbolical devices, poets might be allowed to express and publish their (nonconformist) opinion more freely as censors could miss the subjacent meaning of the poem. One might therefore expect poetry to give a better representation of the ideological divisions within the English society. Poetry can involve any subject matter, but will always involve a double pattern. It employs devices and effects that hinder and complicate the transfer of the writer’s statement towards his readers.13 Like all published literature during the early modern period, poetry was an affair of the state and as such subjected to censorship. However, contrary to 11 Ibidem, 243. 12 Matthew Neufeld, The Civil Wars after 1660., 87. 13 Richard Bradford, Poetry. The ultimate guide. (London, 2010) 3.

historians, poets made strong use of metaphor and symbolism. Their communication with the reader was often equivocal. For censors, this meant that poetry was harder to examine and censor than historical narratives and could therefore be problematic to the regime’s memory politics.14 Four poems will be studied in the course of this thesis: Abraham Cowley’s Ode: upon

the blessed Restoration and returne of his sacred majestie Charls the Second (1660), Andrew Marvell’s Last instructions to a Painter (1667), John Milton’s Paradise Lost (1674) and John Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel (1681-1682). Cowley was a known royalist, Dryden held the position of Poet Laureate at the court of king Charles II, Marvel once wrote an ode for Oliver Cromwell, the Lord Protector of the English Commonwealth and Milton had been a defender of the regicide of king Charles I.15 These four men all wrote poems that would be much discussed by both contemporary and future writers and held symbolic references to the Interregnum and the Restoration regime. The study of poetry with a critical, historical approach is a well established field of study. The linguistic and cultural turns of the second half of the twentieth century have put emphasis on history’s relation to other disciplines of the humanities, such as literature and critical theory.16 One of the earliest views, according to historian Dominick LaCapra, centers around the problematic relationship between history and literature. Literature should always be seen as an event in history, a mirror image of some socio-historical or trans-historical process or structure. A text is a document of its time and can communicate experiences of this time to the reader, even if the reader lives hundreds of years later.17 In order to understand these communications, the reader must have some knowledge of the historical background. Without that, the extent to which the poem can be enjoyed is limited.18 The use of historical knowledge in reading poetry also has its disadvantages. The historical canon is prone to impose labels, especially regarding literature. John Lennard, a professor of English and American literature, explains that the historical canon of poems teaches the perfection of Shakespeare and the difficulty of T.S. Elliot. Readers fail to see through this stigma and, consequently, do not study the poems properly.19 Lennard also

14 15 16 17 18 19

Ibidem, 6. Marshall Grossman, The seventeenth-century literature handbook. (Oxford, 2011) 264, 278, 325, 339. Dominic LaCapra, History, literature, critical theory. (London, 2013) 12. Ibidem, 29. John Lennard, The Poetry Handbook. (Oxford, 2005) 292. Ibidem, 291.

mentions the inadequacy in the patchwork of labels for periods in English literature. Some are regal (Elizabethan, 1558-1603), some are hybrid (Jacobean, 1558-1625 or Restoration, 1660-1700) while others are dynastic (Stuart 1603-1714) or grouping literary styles (Metaphysical 1518-1650). These classifications can be confusing as they leave gaps between them and sometimes overlap.20 This does not, however, diminish the necessity to read a text with a sense of context. The study of historical context in literature has for the past three decades been dominated by two theoretical schools: New Historicism and Cultural Materialism.21 These theories share much common ground, although they have a few notable differences. New Historicism is derived from Historicism. Historicism strives to understand poems in context with other poems by building a historical framework for them. Poems are the actors, history is the background story that provides context.22 Stephen Greenblatt, an American literary critic who is regarded as one of the founders of New Historicism, proposes that a researcher should not try to relate literature and history in such a manner. History does not provide context for literature, it is a co-text.23 When researchers attempt to reconstruct history, they use texts, either to get their information or to communicate their information to others.24 As text is never objective, human understanding of history will never be objective either. If we see history as a subjective body of text, than we can see literature as an inseparable part of history. The two interact; history has formed the conditions for a text, while text has shaped our understanding of history.25 Using this principle, New Historicists focus on the power relations that are present in texts. They try to demonstrate the ideological and political interests that operate through literary texts.26 Cultural Materialism also centers on textual analysis, historical relations and theoretical method. However, Cultural Materialists will study a text within the present political situation, while New Historicists will place a text in its own political situation. The political circumstances of the Restoration period are quite unlike the ones we have now. Therefore, this study will use a New Historicists method for analysis. As

20 Ibidem, 293-294. 21 Richard Bradford, Poetry, 23. 22 Stephen Matterson and Darryl Jones, Studying Poetry. (Oxford, 2000) 127. 23 Claire Colbrook, New literary histories. New historicism and contemporary criticism. (New York, 1997) 2 and Stephen Greenblatt and Catherine Gallagher, Practicing New Historicism. (London, 2000). 24 Richard Bradford, Poetry, 151. 25 Claire Colbrook, New literary histories, 26. 26 John Brannigan, New historicism and Cultural materialism. (London, 1998) 6, 11.

mentioned before, poems have a double pattern. This double pattern has three distinct elements. Firstly, there is the realm of writing, perception and reason that the poem shares with the world beyond. These show the relation between the poem and history. The second element of poetry is the material of language, the sound rhythm and shapes of the poem. Thirdly, language has the capacity to create a mental image. By using symbols and metaphors, the writer attempts to convey a certain message to the reader.27 This double pattern can be evaluated in three steps. The first step is to discover procedures and to identify and recognize the double pattern. This can be done by analyzing the theme and subthemes. The title can give insight into the theme, or be deliberately misleading, but is always of importance. Syntax and rhyme, or style in general, communicate the poetâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ideas through the use of language.28 The second step concerns the reading analysis. In order to make sense of a poem, one has to understand what it tries to communicate, what the message is.29 The third and final step is to look at the balance between subject and style. Both elements have to work in order for the message to be passed on the intended way. All four poems will be analyzed in accordance with this method to ensure an answer to the research question of this dissertation. The first chapter will provide a historical background, while chapters two and three respectively provide context concerning literature and printing and the strategies concerning the use and suppression of ideological dissent. The next four chapters will each have a poetic analysis for a subject, while the ensuing conclusion will answer this dissertationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s research question.

27 Richard Bradford, Poetry, 45. 28 Barry Spurr, Studying Poetry. (London, 1997) 13, 22. 29 Richard Bradford, Poetry, 242.

The Restoration is a term used within English history to define the period between 1660 and 1689. The Restoration followed directly upon the English Civil Wars and the Interregnum, the period in which England was without an official monarch. In 1660 part of the English army staged a coup, after which the exiled Charles II, son of the executed Charles I, was invited back to England. By insistence of Charles II and his royalist supporters, their new revolution was called the Restoration. The use of this term underlined the royalist claim that the ascension of Charles to the throne brought closure to past unrest, breaking the cycle of revolutions and securing public order and peace.30 To the English, an event like the Restoration had not occurred in recent history. There were no precedents by which to understand and interpret what had occurred. In order to achieve peace, the members of Parliament deemed almost everything that had happened after the fall of Charles I’s rule unlawful and void. In the aspects of law, it was as if the Civil Wars and Interregnum had never happened.31 However, while 1660 saw the restoration of the king, the ideological unrest that had enticed the Civil Wars was not laid to rest. 32 Because of the continuity between the Civil Wars and the Restoration, the latter period only makes sense within the context of the seventeeth century as a whole. Before diving into seventeenth century England, it is of importance to clarify some of the terminology that will be applied. Religious dissent played a large part in the unrest found during, before and after the Civil Wars. The different parties involved were quick to call each other by many different, often derogatory names. These many names often make it difficult to discern all the different players in the seventeenth century conflicts. One of the names that stuck throughout the centuries within historical narratives, was ‘Puritan’. Protestants who sought further reform to the English church were called Puritans. They were rumored to perceive all congregations as defiled and deemed themselves more pure than others. As such, ‘Puritan’ was a term of abuse, a Protestant strayed out of his wits.33 There

30 31 32 33

Neil H. Keeble, The Restoration: England in the 1660’s. (Oxford, 2002) 52. Soutcombe and Tapsell, Restoration politics, 9. Neil Keeble, The Restoration, 3. Peter Herman, A short history of Early Modern England. (Oxford, 2011) 121.

was never a religious group that defined itself as ‘Puritan’. Therefore, the term will be used only in its own historical context; as a derogatory name for dissenting Protestants and not to denote a religious group. The Presbyterians were a religious group sometimes referred to as ‘Puritan’. They were Protestants that were named for their preference for the Presbyterian church structures.34 Presbyterians demanded that the hierarchical structure exemplified by bishops, the episcopacy, be replaced by a Presbyterian structure in which a presbyter leads the congregation. The Presbyter would be a church elder, an officer to teach. Unlike the bishops, he would not claim to be a mediator between God and mankind. The implications of this system were that each congregation would be able to make up its own mind about religion, which would threaten the secular authority of the power of the monarch as head of the church.35 The Presbyterian beliefs played a significant part in the Civil Wars. However, not all people who did not follow the English church were Presbyterians. In this thesis, whenever a subject is broached that concerns all those who did not follow the English church, they will be called nonconformist. All the Englishmen that did follow the English church will be termed conformists as they acted conform to the English government policies at that time. Charles I ascended to the throne in 1625, shortly after his father’s death.36 Public opinion was jubilant at the succession, as they claimed that they did not have to mourn the death of king James. After all, he had left behind an heir so like himself.37 Unfortunately, the reign of Charles would not be as smooth as was expected. Shortly after the death of his father, Charles married the sister of the French king, the Catholic princess Henrietta Maria. Protestant members of Parliament were against the marriage, fearing it would prompt Charles to pass acts of toleration towards the English Catholic minority.38 In a speech, Charles promised the members of Parliament that his marriage would not change his position towards Catholicism.39 In 1626, Charles forced an unauthorized tax upon the wealthiest members of British society, masking it as a loan.40 The Forced Loan’s unpopularity prevented Charles from 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Steven Ellis, The making of the British Isles. The state of Britain and Ireland 1450-1660. (London, 2007) 351. Peter Herman, Early Modern England, 121. Steven Ellis, The making of the British Isles, 305. Pauline Gregg, King Charles I. (London, 1981) 112. Peter Herman, A short history of Early Modern England, 183. Steven Ellis, The making of the British Isles, 307. Steven Ellis, The making of the British Isles. 313.

levying it a second time. When the treasury was depleted once more, he had to call for Parliament. They decided to grant Charles some funds, but only if he signed a document that forbade taxation without parliamentary consent. When Charles refused, the Houses offered him the Petition of Right, in which Charles would acknowledge that he should not ask for taxes without permission of Parliament. Charles signed the document, but before it was printed he added a couple of words, stating that as a monarch, he could do what he wanted.

Charles called for Parliament once more in 1628, but absolved it when no

agreement about finances could be reached. He ruled from 1629 until 1640 without calling for Parliament. Charles instated ‘ship money’ as a means to receive funds. This taxation had to be paid by the sea and port districts and hypothetically, the money was meant for the protection of these towns. When Charles tried to extend the taxation inlands, most districts refused to pay. Charles won the court session concerning this argument at the cost of popular favor.42 The fear of popish influence was ingrained deeply into the English consciousness, causing most members of the Anglican church to view reform skeptically. During the years in which Charles reigned without a parliament, he was supported by archbishop William Laud. Together, they applied changes to the church practices. William Laud supported Arminianism, a view of salvation that was different from Calvinist predetermination, which the English church generally supported.43 Archbishop Laud and king Charles’s support for Arminianism caused tension with members of the church. Most protestants, like the Presbyterians, supported Calvin’s theology, which up until then had been the status quo for the Anglican church and as such, English faith.44 Laud believed uniformity to be of utmost importance to the church. Therefore, he and Charles revise the Star Chamber Decree, which stated that no man should print or publish any form of written matter unless it had been licensed for printing.45 In 1637, by the order of Charles and Laud, narratives containing religious ideas and opinions could no longer be printed. This, among other reasons, caused the Presbyterians to believe that Charles and

41 Peter Herman, Early Modern England. 193. 42 Peter Herman, Early Modern England. 197. 43Calvinism: John Calvin believed everything was predetermined. From the birth of a child, its road to heaven or hell was set in stone. Arminius disagreed; he believed that one’s actions while living secured people a spot in heaven or hell. 44 Reid Barbour, Literature and religious culture in seventeenth-century England. (Cambridge, 2002) 7. 45Suellen Towers, Control of religious printing in Early Stuart England (Woodbridge, 2003) 10.

Laud attempted to convert the church back to Catholicism, as they banned books discrediting the Catholic faith as well as those praising it.46 In 1640 Charles was forced to summon a Parliament that could grant him funds for his upcoming war with the Scots. This Parliament would sit for eight years and only be officially dissolved in 1660. The Long Parliament desired monarchical change in return for money, which Charles had no choice but to grant. He also signed a bill that forbade him to dissolve parliament without the consent of both Houses. Charlesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s conflict with Parliament escalated when his attempt to arrest some of its members was waylaid by Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s common council. By autumn 1642 those who supported Charles, the Royalists, and those who favored Parliaments side, the Parliamentarians, were at war with each other. The Royalists sought to uphold episcopacy and believed the Parliamentarians to be religious fanatics and radicals who engaged in a conspiracy from within to overturn the existing social order and the rule of law. The Parliamentarians, many of them also Presbyterians, desired reforms in the church and constitution of England, as they were convinced that both would be subverted back to Catholicism with the assistance of a popish conspiracy.47 To fight the king, the Parliamentarians raised one army under a single, unified command, the New Model Army. This army would not be commanded by lords and members of parliament but by officers that had exhibited military skill. An exception to this rule was Oliver Cromwell, who had demonstrated outstanding military abilities. The New Model Army proved efficient as the first Civil War ended with the defeat of the Royalist forces in Oxford in 1646.48 In May of the same year, Charles surrendered to the Presbyterian Scottish army. When he proved unwilling to change the Episcopal structure of the church, the Scots turned him over to the Parliamentarians. The second Civil War started in 1647 as a series of Royalists uprisings. The Parliamentarians had tried to restore stability by introducing new taxes and laws, which caused widespread resentment towards their politics.49 When they tried to disband the New Model Army in 1648, the army under command of Thomas Pride purged the House of Commons from all members that were unwilling to put Charles I to trial. After Prideâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Purge, a little over 150 members remained from the original 471, forming the rump of the Long

46 47 48 49

Peter Herman, Early Modern England, 201. Steven Ellis, The making of the British Isles, 346. Peter Herman, Early Modern England, 223. Steven Ellis, The making of the British Isles, 354.

Parliament. 50 Charles I was put to trial and he did not enter a plea as he refused to recognize the authority of the court.51 He was sentenced to death and beheaded on the 30th of January, 1649. After the death of Charles, the Rump Parliament abolished monarchy and established England as a Commonwealth and Free State. Tensions between England and Scotland rose after the Scottish declared Charles II as their king. When the commander of the New Model Army, Thomas Fairfax, refused to attack the Scottish on account of their Presbyterian religion and the fact that they had not attacked the English first, he was replaced by Oliver Cromwell.52 Cromwell defeated the Scottish army and went back to England. By this time, the army felt that the Rump Parliament fell short of expectations, failing to produce a godly Commonwealth. When the Rump Parliament arranged new elections, without putting limitations or supervision on these elections, the army intervened. Fearing a return of royalist Parliamentarians, Cromwell dissolved the Rump Parliament. A new government instrument was installed. It consisted of an appointed Lord Protector, in the form of Oliver Cromwell, a council of state, a Parliament and a standing army of 30.000 members.53 The new Protectorate was not very popular. As long as Cromwell lived, it proved efficient, but after his death in 1658, the Protectorate collapsed. His son, Richard Cromwell, wasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t able to get the members of Parliament to acknowledge him. In May 1659, he resigned. The Long Parliament was recalled. They established a Presbyterian national church and set elections for May 1660, before dissolving themselves. The elections produced the Convention Parliament, called such as there was no legal authority to summon it. 54 On the first day of May 1660 the Convention Parliament issued a vote stating that, according to fundamental laws, the government of England was by King, Lords and Commons. They restored the monarchy and the Episcopal church. Charles II was proclaimed king of England by a procession of soldiers, heralds, trumpeters and speakers for both Houses of Parliament seven days later. Excessive displays of ceremony that day and later, when Charles arrived in London, were meant to demonstrate the splendor of this new era.55

50 51 52 53 54 55

Ibidem, 358. Peter Herman, Early Modern England, 228. Ibidem, 232. Steven Ellis, The making of the British Isles, 363. Steven Ellis, The making of the British Isles, 370. Neil Keeble, The Restoration, 40-43.

The emphasis was upon the magnificence and luxurious opulence, all in order to reflect the innate glory of monarchy. After the return of the king, Parliament returned the constitution of England to what it had been in 1641. The Act of Free and General Pardon, Indemnity and Oblivion was issued, declaring any labels left over from the Civil War an anathema and pardoning all war criminals except those that had participated in the regicide of Charles I. The act attempted to force the nation to participate in an act of collective amnesia.56 Other acts issued included the Corporation Act (1661), which renounced the Presbyterian covenant and the Licensing

Act (1662), which enabled prepublication censorship and forbade the publishing of anything contrary to the doctrine or discipline of the church of England. 57 In 1662, the Act of

Uniformity was established. This act ended all hope the Presbyterians had harbored for toleration or incorporation into the English church. The Act of Uniformity emphasized the legitimacy of the Episcopal church, stating that all practicing ministers required Episcopal ordination, and distinguished only two categories of religious practice, conformist and nonconformist. 58 This act put the Presbyterians in the same category as Catholics and other religious minorities. All in all, these acts together restored everything to the situation of 1640. The Restoration might even have succeeded too well, for it restored not only the structures of early Stuart England, but subsequently its fears, divisions and crisis.

56 Soutcombe and Tapsell, Restoration politics, 10. 57 Peter Herman, Early Modern England, 243. 58 Neil Keeble, The Restoration, 38.

Violence is traditionally described as an act of physical harm, or behavior intended to hurt, damage or kill something or someone.59 When studying violence in historical context, approaching it as an act of physical harm would give a one-sided view of the concept. Violence should be understood as a process, an event and an act. It served as an easily accessible and economical means to transform the structure of society. Furthermore, it was an excellent communicative method with which symbolical statements could be made.60 As such, violence could pose a problem for ruling governments. Violence must be understood as the structured enactment of the beliefs and cultural assumptions of violent actors. Historical violence should therefore be approached through the study of the beliefs and cultural assumptions that fuelled it.61 However, before one can approach violence in such a manner, one must first understand that violence has many different forms. Professor of Early Modern History Ethan Shagan states that a history of violence might not be as simple as one might think. There are various paths that a historian can take while studying the concept. First, historians might choose to study violence through the intellectual and cultural systems that authorized and shaped it, with the goal of understanding its causes. This particular method treats violence as a destructive power and render historical violence distant. Using a second method, historians might choose to study violence as a space of socio-cultural interaction, with the goal of understanding its consequences. This method leaves historical violence immanent and treats it as something far more complex than a simple instance of recollection. This method also concedes that violence can be a constructive power as well as a destructive one. The first framework treats violence as fundamentally unnatural. It’s a disjunction from the ordinary proceedings of life and as such requires an explanation. The second framework treats violence as fundamentally normal, a mode of interpersonal contact and communication like other social processes.

59 The Oxford Dictionary for English, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/violence, advised on 18-042014 60 John Walter, ‘Performative violence and the politics of violence in the 1641 depositions.’ In: Mecheá Ó Síochrú and Jane Ohlmeyer ed. Ireland 1641. Contexts and reactions. (New York, 2013) 136. 61 Ethan H. Shagan, ‘Early modern violence from memory to history: a historiographical essay.’ In: Mecheá Ó Síochrú and Jane Ohlmeyer ed. Ireland 1641. Contexts and reactions. (New York, 2013) 23.

Using this method, violence can be seen as an explanation, not merely as a problem.62 These two methods are not incompatible. Historians can and, according to Shagan, should sometimes embrace both. When studying violence with a possible religious background, it can be prudent to use the second method, as it accepts violence as a rational occurrence. Through this method, violence can be approached as a productive space of socio-cultural interaction, which can be used to research how social context gave violence meaning. 63 To do this, historians must not frame early modern violence in the visceral and emotional terms of memory, as the issues at stake are too alien to modern sensibilities to render them useful. Instead, the connection to the past must be changed to critical contextualization, shifting the focus from memory to history.64 The downside of using this method is an apparent indifference to human suffering, as violence is presumed to be a productive sphere of human interactions.65 Shagan believes that historians should study how violence served to express and regulate social relations, gender identities and the distribution of power instead of measuring the amount of violence. Researching violence as a singular concept would hinder that. For effective historical research, violence should be subcategorized.66 Economic violence, ideological violence, symbolic violence for example, are not traditional ‘physical’ forms of violence. Yet each of these forms could have impact on the structures of society. Even if it should not always be so, violence is conventionally associated with physical harm. Physical harm is not the focus of this study, so in order to prevent confusion, the phrase ideological dissent will be used. In order to understand the lasting effect of ideological dissent and the manner in which its history can be influenced, a historian should understand that history is formed by the memory of those who lived through certain events and remembered them. According to anthropologist James Fentress and historian Chris Wickham, remembering is an experience, an activity performed by the mind. Much of what humans remember is not preserved through images or texts, but through emotions, fantasies and sensory images. These are all things we may remember without ‘knowing’ their context objectively.67 It follows that

62 63 64 65 66 67

Ibidem, 18. Ethan H. Shagan, ‘Early modern violence from memory to history: a historiographical essay.’ 25. Ibidem, 22. Ibidem, 31. Ibidem, 30. James Fentress and Chris Wickham, Social Memory. (Oxford, 1992) 4.

memory is a subjective and individual experience. Memory can also be a collective experience. People share memories they believe to be relevant or important with others, in the context of a social groups. This may be a lasting group like a family or village, or a temporary group, such as a group of friends at a coffeehouse. These social groups construct their own image of the world by establishing an agreed version of the past. To emphasize this, these versions are established by communication, not by private remembrance. Memory is structured by language, by teaching and observing, by collectively held ideas and by experience shared by other, making collective memory social as well. 68 A country or otherwise large group of people, does not remember any more spontaneously and collectively than small groups though. Communication and commemoration establish a consensus on past events, making the memory of them essentially subjective.69 External constraints, imposed by the government of society itself, can successively alter memory. The process usually lasts generations, until people are not aware of any former versions of the pasts. This does not mean that governments did not try to alter or shape history immediately. After or during occurrences of violence or dissent in any form, authorities often tried to shape the past in a favorable manner. Historian John Walter even states that in the past, authority was often the first historian of popular violence.70 A shared interest between authority and the victims of crowd actions in denying the legitimacy of popular protest saw that the standard sources in Early Modern England, for example, often represent crowds in terms of a ‘many-headed-monster’, given to irrational violence. Crowds were often rendered silent by the unequal access to the historical record or had their actions evidenced by the richer and more influential members of society whose testimony reveals more about their own perceptions than the reality of the crowd actions. 71 Historians Erika Kuijpers and Judith Pollmann propose that not only members of the social elite were involved in the formation of memories. The printing press and coffee houses gave rise to public discussions. Many non-state actors employed tactics to strengthen identities and to demand a place for memories of particular groups or events in the public domain and to

68 69 70 71

Ibidem, 7. James Fentress and Chris Wickham, Social Memory. 127. John Walter, ‘Performative violence and the politics of violence in the 1641 depositions.’ 135. Ibidem, 135-136.

right past wrongs. These actors made use of the new and wider reach of the media. 72 Governments could also use other means to employ memory for political purposes. Commemoration is one of the ways in which a certain memory could be promoted.73 This was not always effective. Kuijpers states that it is not self-evident for collective memory practices to develop after episodes of dissent. Political regimes, communities and individuals often consciously try to conceal or eradicate the past. Memories of humiliation and pain could possibly hamper the reconstruction of communities and the recovery of both social relations and personal identities. An important condition for collective commemoration of violence is a community of solidarity. When a country is in a situation of continuous war or the threat of further political or social dissent, this solidarity is absent and collective commemoration is often not effective. Civil wars also tended to make collective commemoration ineffective, as they have often been associated with issues of political blame within one’s own community. In a civil war, disaster might have been prevented had individuals or groups acted differently, yet one cannot put too much blame on the other party, as peace, stability and solidarity is required to stabilize society.74 Historian Kevin Cramer explains that national narratives are conventionally understood as stories of triumph. The stories focused on the pride of a state that overcame destruction, that arose from an elemental struggle to preserve the existence of community. Especially religious wars were seen as wars of existence, which was not illogical, as most European conflict up until the late seventeeth century were centered around religious debates instead of dynasty and nation.75 The past is managed to suit the needs of the present. This management is done by authorities who can choose one of the numerous ways to shape history. Firstly, it is possibly to outright lie about the past, if this past is undesirable. Lies and inventions about history are, however, inevitably exposed because authorities often fail to understand that ‘ordinary’ people will remember, even when they are ordered not to. A second method, denial, often fails for exactly the same reason. Mythmaking is another method in which a regime selects parts of the past to commemorate, while neglecting other less desirable parts. A fourth

72 Judith Pollmann and Erika Kuijpers, ‘Introduction. On the Early Modernity of modern memory.’ in: Judith Pollmann ed., Memory before modernity. Practices of memory in Early Modern Europe. (Leiden, 2013) 5-6. 73 Ibidem, 6. 74 Erika Kuijpers and Judith Pollmann, ‘Why remember terror? Memories of violence in the Dutch revolt.’ In: Mecheá Ó Síochrú and Jane Ohlmeyer ed. Ireland 1641. Contexts and reactions. (New York, 2013) 177-178. 75 Kevin Cramer, The Thirty Years’ War and German memory in the nineteenth century. (Lincoln, 2007) 2, 218.

method is the attempt to confront and possibly right the past. This method is mostly used in modern times by countries found globally guilty of war crimes, such as Germany after World War II.76 The second method, denial, requires amnesty and is often used in the wake of a civil war with no clear victor. An Act of Oblivion would then be implemented by the authorities. Commonly, the government would proclaim a general pardon, saving all but a precious few from accounting for any war crimes. This act would be described as an act of generosity on part of the victors, as this looks like the political expression of Christian forgiveness.77 The Act of Oblivion that was implemented by the British government after the Civil Wars had a similar content. Ross Poole explains in his article ‘Enacting Oblivion’ that it is precisely because memory was politically important and possibly problematic that many pre-modern societies also experimented with acts of oblivion. Formal agreements to forget the past were a frequently used political instrument until well into the nineteenth century, especially after Civil Wars.78 These acts were paradoxical. To judge whether something can or cannot fall within the meaning of the act, a legal system has to have knowledge of the events that it is supposed to forget. The point is less to prevent people from knowing about the past than to demand that they do not act upon that knowledge. As Poole sees it, memory is knowledge with implications for the present that offers an agenda to act. Acts of oblivion deny past events as legitimate reasons for action in the present and isolate them as being of the past.79 While this might have worked on paper, historian Jonathan Scott emphasizes that it was in vain for the English government to wish for oblivion. The historical reality shows that the Restoration was a unique period, that stood in the shadow of its ideologically divided past.80 The Restoration regime failed in its attempt to erase memories and put a halt to the fears that gripped society. According to Charles Carlton, most Englishmen had never desired war. The Restoration was welcomed by many because of the hope that it would bring peace and stability back to everyday public life. The fear of seeing their world turned upside down once more was what gripped most people during the early Restoration.81 It was up to the English authorities to both settle these fears 76 Erna Paris, Long Shadows: Truth, lies and history. (Toronto, 2000) 153, 451, 454. 77 Ibidem, 457. 78 Ross Poole, ‘Enacting oblivion.’ In: International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society 22 (2009) 149. 79 Ibidem, 149-157. 80 Jonathan Scott, England’s troubles. Seventeenth-century English political instability in European context. (Cambridge, 2000) 26. 81 Charles Carlton, Going to the wars. The experience of the British Civil Wars, 1638-1651. (London, 1992) 348.

and make use of them. The fear of another war could be moderately preserved to make people unwilling to start civilian unrest. In the seventeenth century political debate had a fundamentally religious nature, as differentiation between the secular and religious social spheres had yet to be established.82 It is because of this that England, which was predominantly Protestant, often experienced conflict that originated in real or imagined threats of popery.83 It was commonly believed that God’s hand could be seen among violent acts; the winning party supposedly had His favor. Reformation England’s religious populace consisted, aside from Catholics, of a multitude of Protestant factions. In order to establish both the dominance of the Anglican, conformist, church and the Restoration regime, different types of events were organized.84 Processions, holiday celebrations, and funerals, represented an image of both future and past that was meant to be beneficial for church and state. In his book Bonfires and Bells, David Cressy states that rifts between conformists and nonconformists have without a doubt been exaggerated, but there were plentiful opportunities for old and new wounds to fester. 85 It was therefore all the more important that England should have certain unifying symbols in common. The restored Protestant monarchy used special anniversaries to provide a potential framework for reconciliation. There were three special days which commemorated the sufferings and successes of the Stuart dynasty and the church of England. The 30th of January was the anniversary of the death of king Charles I the Martyr, which was to be observed with solemn fasts and sermons. These sermons often reminded the public of the peace that came with the Restoration regime and praised the rule of Charles II, while warning the public of the danger of dissent. The second day was the 29 th of May, which combined the old feast of Royal Oak day, the birthday of Charles II and his restoration. Charles and the members of parliament deliberately delayed his arrival in London for two days in order for his restoration and thirtieth birthday to coincide. The day was celebrated with bonfires, bells and feasts. The third day was the 5th of November, the old anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot, which was a conspiracy dating to 1605, in which some Catholic men unsuccessfully tried to blow up Parliament. This day was once again celebrated with

82 Judith Pollmann and Andrew Spicer, ‘Introduction.’ In: Judith Pollmann and Andrew Spicer ed. Public opinion and changing identities in the early modern Netherlands. (Boston, 2009) 2. 83 John Walter, ‘Performative violence and the politics of violence in the 1641 depositions.’ 137. 84 Ethan H. Shagan, ‘Early modern violence from memory to history: a historiographical essay.’ 27. 85 David Cressy, Bonfires and Bells. (Cambridge, 2004) 171.

enthusiasm. The day was intended to unite both critics and supporters of the Stuart monarchy against a common enemy, the Pope and papists.86 Beside commemoration dates, the Restoration regime also used political press to shape the memory of the past. Historical narratives showed the king in a favorable light, and contemporaries often revisited the ideological origins of the Civil Wars in search for explanations that could guide them away from similar problems. Literature about popish conspiracies such as the Gunpowder Plot forced the public to decide to what or whom they owed loyalty and allegiance.87 The fear of a new war made people eager to find a threat further from home. The Restoration regime seemingly succeeded in bringing peace and prosperity to England. At least, that is what the commemorations, sermons and publications claimed. However, the Reformation also resurrected many old uncertainties. The fear of physical violence made critics of the regime turn to a seemingly less dangerous form of dissent, those of the ideological and intellectual kind. The English Restoration was very much an intellectual process. It entailed a process of grieving and a struggle between forgetting and memory. The Restoration was an aspiration, quickly inaugurated but tardily achieved. The things to which it directed itself included not only institutional reconstruction but also the re-containment within those institutions of the ideas and fears by which they had previously been destroyed.88 This gave rise to a platform of political debate. Members of the elite were divided in their ideas and support, a division that would lead to the formation of Britain’s first two major political parties, the Whigs and the Tories. According to Tim Harris, the divisions within the elite led its members to seek support among their social inferiors. Parties used a variety of media to woo popular opinion. The experiences of the 1640s and 1650s had led to a more politically self-conscious society and one of the biggest legacies of the Civil Wars and Interregnum was a widespread ideological division within this society.89 The Restoration regime could not ignore the out-of-doors opinion. To them, there appeared to be new social forces that posed a formidable threat to their security and those in power realized they had to engage in a war for public opinion.90 In acts of intellectual violence, the regime laid down 86 David Cressy, Bonfires and Bells. 171-172. 87 Mark Knights, Representation and misrepresentation in later Stuart Britain: Partisanship and Political Culture (Oxford, 2005) 20. 88 Jonathan Scott, England’s troubles. 6. 89 Tim Harris, ‘Understanding popular politics in Restoration Britain.’ In: Alan Houston and Steve Pincus ed. A nation transformed. England after the restoration. (Cambridge, 2001) 126-127. 90 Ibidem, 147.

censorships and treason laws, which were never wholly effective. Another common technique was to accuse your enemy of popery, as the pope was England’s common enemy and the term itself was so vague it could be used in almost any context. Derogatory naming was another act of intellectual violence. The early-modern use of the term ‘Puritan’ serves as an example of this.91 The Restoration regime tried to control the representations of recent British history. By naming their regime the ‘Restoration’, they underlined the supposed difference between their authority and that which ruled during a time of unrest. By restoring the institutions to their pre-war state, the ideological dissent that had a hand in the start of the Civil Wars was also reinstated. A fear of physical violence kept the critics of the Restoration regime from starting a new civil war. Instead, they turned to ideological warfare. Different laws were passed that were meant to censor any unwanted ideologies. However, with the use of metaphorical phrasing, illegal presses, overseas publishing or manuscripts, these could be circumvented. The regime itself used commemoration dates, sermons and prints to present their ideological views in an attempt to subvert the dissenters publications and ideology. Festive dates such as the 5th of November where meant to remind the English populace of their common enemy, the papists. Nevertheless, the ideological division was never successfully mended, which would eventually result in other political crises that eventually accumulated in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which deposed Catholic king James II and established his Protestant daughter Mary and her husband William to the throne.

91 John Walter, ‘Performative violence and the politics of violence in the 1641 depositions.’ 137-138.

The political dynamics during the reign of king Charles II have, for some time, been regarded as less interesting than other political events of early modern times. The period was upstaged by the revolutions it followed and preceded. Recently, the Restoration had become the object of wider, interdisciplinary studies. Professor of literary theory Richard Bradford, for example, studied how poetry became a medium for public debate in this period while historians George Southcombe and Grant Tapsell used literary works and prints to explain restoration politics, religion and culture.92 The increased interest in the history of communication has widened the scope of historical research concerning politics. Politics were understood as reaching deep into society, economy and culture and thereby became implicated in production, reproduction, exploitation, oppression and resistance. According to Andy Wood, the Restoration period was a prime example of this, as advanced political behavior, emerges whenever there are groups in opposition.93 The Civil Wars had divided the English people ideologically to an unprecedented extent and had greatly heightened popular awareness of political events. The ideological division remained during the reign of Charles II, as did the Englishmanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s newfound appreciation of news.94 Historians George Southcombe and Grant Tapsell argue that the ideological diversity was not the sole factor in this increasing thirst for news. Education and social mobility were factors as important as religion, around which this diversity often centered. The seventeenth century saw an increasing emphasis on the value of educational achievements. Members of the elite believed that noble blood ought to be supplemented with knowledge and educational skills. Economic changes such as urbanization, new manufacturing techniques and the general increase of the national economy had commenced a growth of the middle class. The widespread diffusion of intellectual aspirations and religious pretentions both fuelled and fed off the increased social mobility.

In their study on Restoration England, Tapsell and

Southcombe emphasize that information became a key commodity in an environment

92 Richard Bradford, Poetry. The ultimate guide. (London, 2010). George Southcombe and Grant Tapsell, Restoration Politics, Religion and Culture. Britain and Ireland, 1660-1714. (Basingstoke, 2010). 93 Andy Wood, Riot, rebellion and popular politics in early modern England. (New York, 2002) 10. 94 John Miller, After the Civil Wars. English politics and government in the reign of Charles II. (London, 2000) 53. 95 Southcombe and Tapsell, Restoration Politics, Religion and Culture. 133.

requiring a wider range of social capital than before. It was expected of educated men to know the latest news and to be able to discuss it. For those seeking social prestige, knowing the latest news and being well-informed was vital as a means of gaining government employment, wealth and status.96 Generally, news was gathered by word of mouth in London, the center of news. From there on it was transmitted through handwritten letters or in print into the provinces, were it became the object of conversations.97 Newsletters kept the English populace informed on all matters, including political problems and tensions. Historians such as Southcombe and Tapsell state that the physical form and visual style of printed works helped to shape the structure and course of political debates during the Restoration. Print became the medium of public expression, allowing writers to exhibit a variation of political and religious views.98 These printed texts did not always convey arguments conform to the government policies and could be used to depict veiled and open criticism. The popular metaphor for printed texts in this period – paper bullets – is therefore not wholly unfounded. 99

The wide reach of newsletters and other texts caused concern with the government.

According to historian Tim Harris, printed materials, especially shorter pamphlets, enjoyed a wide circulation as they were often deposited in coffee houses and other public places. Writers and publishers arranged this so that the texts could be read by people that could not afford their own copy.100 Coffee houses were a great success. The greater area of London alone counted over 2000 of them by the end of the seventeenth century.

101

According to

historian John Miller, coffee houses were an example of the political concern that engrossed all social classes. The houses were centers of political gossip, which caused the government to attempt to suppress them in 1675.102 In that year the English government took steps that tightened their relationship with France, Europe’s leading catholic power of that time. Most of the extra-parliamentary criticism on this decision was voiced in coffee houses and similar surroundings. The ‘proclamation for the suppression of coffee houses’ was rescinded the same year it was issued, as a result of protests against the proclamation. Instead, an attempt was made to regulate the political culture of coffee houses by requiring the owners to 96 Southcombe and Tapsell, Restoration Politics, Religion and Culture. 134. 97 Miller, After the Civil Wars. 55. 98 Southcombe and Tapsell, Restoration Politics. 5, 11. 99 Ibidem, 13. 100 Tim Harris, Restoration. Charles Ii and his kingdoms. (London, 2005) 16. 101 Ibidem, 17. 102 Miller, After the Civil Wars. 64, 72.

promise to prevent books that concerned the government in a negative way from being brought into or read within the coffee house. This development did not quell the growing political climate in public surroundings such as coffee houses.103 The growth in extra-parliamentary political debate demonstrates the necessity for central political actors to engage in a dialogue with those outside of the court and Parliament.104 Print became the arena of competing ideologies and political differences. 105 Print culture slowly replaced manuscripts. Thomas Corns explains that manuscripts were very easily pirated, printed as texts with no official writer. By sending a text to a printer, authors ensured themselves of payment for their work and a legal agreement concerning the rights could be drawn up.106 The practices of manuscript transmission and collection continued among the upper classes, but in the Restoration resulted in an increased publication of printed texts.107 Tim Harris states that the dramatic expansion of the output of the printing press in the seventeenth century starts with the breakdown of censorship on the eve of the Civil War. In an attempt to limit the political power of the presses, restrictions were re-imposed during the protectorate of Oliver Cromwell in the 1650 and once more at the start of the Restoration. However, Harris argues that the restrictions were never fully effective and broke down again with the temporary lapse of the Licensing Act in 1679.108 According to John Miller, the first collapse of censorship almost forty years before, in 1640, had led to an explosion of news in print as publishers exploited public curiosity about the dramatic events that were unfolding and both sides in the civil war appealed for support. 109 By the time an effective censorship was reestablished, the English citizens were used to a regular diet of news. Public disapproval made it difficult to make an effective system of censorship.110 The Houses of Parliament approved of a new law on May 19th, 1662. This act was called: ‘An act for preventing the frequent abuses in printing seditious treasonable and unlicensed Books and Pamphlets and for regulating of Printing and Printing presses’ or, the

103 Wood, Riot, rebellion and popular politics. 179. 104 Southcombe and Tapsell, Restoration Politics. 127. 105 Clare McManus, ‘What ish my Nation? The cultures of the seventeenth-century British Isles.’ In: Jenny Wormald ed. The seventeenth century. (Oxford, 2008) 207. 106 Thomas N. Corns, A history of seventeenth-century English literature. (Oxford, 2007) 361. 107 Arthur F. Marotti, ‘Manuscript, print and the social history of the lyric.’ In: Thomas N. Corns ed. The Cambridge companion to English poetry. Donne to Marvell. (Cambridge, 1993) 74. 108 Harris, Restoration. 16. 109 Miller, After the Civil Wars. 54. 110 Ibidem, 55.

Licensing Act.111 This act enabled prepublication censorship, limited the number of printing presses and the number of printers. Any text wanting to be printed had to be approved by a censor. Sir Roger L’Estrange was made the Surveyor of the Press in 1663 and was in charge of the prepublication censorship. The Licensing Act worked only on paper. In reality, many continued to circumvent the act and L’Estrange. A network that supported clandestine printing activities was quickly established.112 In general, L’Estrange met with little support and witnesses of clandestine printers were hard to find. The Stationers Company, charged with the monitoring of printing presses, was more concerned with infringements to their monopoly on certain lucrative works than with the supervision of the publishing of works that might be unacceptable to the government.113 Furthermore, seditious printed material often found its way to England from across the Channel and there were numerous secret presses operating in London.114 Even the works that were submitted to censors were not always censored for their content. With the growth in printed materials, it was simply impossible for the limited number of censors to read all the material thoroughly. Andy Wood argues that the focus of the censors was not primarily on printed materials, but on manuscript works. Manuscripts were deemed more dangerous because of their limited circulation and the fact that these texts did not have to be censored. They could, however, be banned if a censor would read the text and deem it treacherous.115 Arthur Marotti states that manuscript culture preserved texts that would have been too dangerous to be disseminated by print, as manuscripts did not require a license and as such, were more difficult to censor. 116 However, manuscript transmission was costly and an author risked piracy. Although ideological minorities still preferred manuscripts to prints, manuscripts culture in general was slowly disappearing.117 The Licensing Act was reinforced in 1665 and would be in effect until the end of the next Parliament. In 1679, a new Parliament was elected. However, this Parliament forgot to reestablish the Act.118 Another law, the law of seditious libel was still in effect, allowing the

111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118

Southcombe and Tapsell, Restoration Politics. 12. Ibidem, 131. Miller, After the Civil Wars. 55. Wood, Riot, rebellion and popular politics. 175. Ibidem, 175. Marotti, ‘Manuscript, print and the social history of the lyric.’ 57. Ibidem, 64. Miller, After the Civil Wars. 55.

censors to carry on their work. The Licensing Act would be reestablished after the death of Charles II in 1685.119 According to Thomas Corns, poetry, on the whole, received a lighter scrutiny from censors than most prose genres and particularly journalism.120 This belies some aspects of the status of poetry in Restoration England. Poetic texts have always been related to their social context, both in their original conditions of productions and in the subsequent historical reception through the media of print and manuscript. During the seventeenth century, poetry developed from productions transmitted through manuscript within restricted social and cultural environments to durable artifacts that were widely distributed through the medium of print.121 The wider distribution of print poetry did not necessarily reach a wider audience. Unprinted manuscripts could still reach a wide audience by being read aloud.122 Some forms of poetry, for instance Bardic poetry, was intended for public declamation. These poetic forms suffered from the introduction of vernacular publication, but were still present in Restoration England until their decline in 1680s.123 The declamation of written texts was fairly popular, as it gave the illiterate a way of gaining information and could bend public opinion. Charles II encouraged the clergy to propagate views favorable to monarchy, as sermons were heard by most of the populace and as such a powerful tool of communication.124 Poetry was among the forms of literature that found itself often read aloud. However, like songs, prints and playing cards, poetry was meant for those on the margins of literacy. 125 It had a reputation as ‘half literature’. Poets themselves were often members of the social elite. The cost of paper and blank books make it unlikely for the practices of manuscript transmission and collection of verse to be extended very far below the ranks of the gentry.126 The printing presses made transmission of poetry cheaper, but most poets still belonged to the social elite, as they had the time to spend on endeavors such as writing. During the Civil Wars poetry began to form a counterpart to the literary essay. The status of poetry and the poet rose. Poetry established itself as a medium for public debate. Among poets the trend

119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126

Wood, Riot, rebellion and popular politics. 181. Corns, A history of seventeenth-century English literature. 396. Marotti, ‘Manuscript, print and the social history of the lyric.’ 57. Southcombe and Tapsell, Restoration Politics. 143. McManus, ‘The cultures of the seventeenth-century British Isles.’ 206. Harris, Restoration. 19. Ibidem, 216. Marotti, ‘Manuscript, print and the social history of the lyric.’ 63.

appeared of using poetry as an instrument or reflecting and influencing public opinions and political debates.127 As the status ascribed to poets developed, so did their number. The Restorationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regime was greeted with a blizzard of poetic complement. Coronation odes and panegyrics for Charles II by far outnumbered those for James I and Charles I. These poems show a great uniformity of theme and ideology.128 Mostly, they celebrated the power of the Restoration regime in different manners, either praising or blaming it.129 The status of poetry had grown during the Interregnum, which made it a fuller form of literature than it had been before. The lingering sentiments describing poetry as halfliterature made it only more accessible for the general public to read, ensuring a broad audience for poets, broader than that of literary essays. Increasing literacy rates accompanied by the practice of reading poetry aloud and the change in poetic status conferred a greater importance to poets.130 Poetry could help shape public and political debate. As poems were still deemed as lesser literature by many censors, they were not as thoroughly scrutinized as other literary genres. This allowed writers to express their opinion more freely in poetry than in essays.

127 128 129 130

Richard Bradford, Poetry. The ultimate guide. (London, 2010) 67-68. Corns, A history of seventeenth-century English literature. 361. Eric Rothstein, Restoration and Eighteenth-century Poetry, 1660-1780. (Boston, 1981) 2. Harris, Restoration. 17-18.

Abraham Cowley was born in London in 1618 as the posthumous son of stationer Thomas Cowley and his wife Thomasine. Cowley was admitted to the Westminster School based on his good academic performances and continued his education at Trinity College in Cambridge. It was here that Cowley, at age fifteen, published his first volume of poems, named Poetical Blossoms. The volume was met with critical acclaim.131 A bright early career followed in which Cowley continued to write verse, which was often fiercely loyalist in spirit. He also wrote a play, The Guardian, which was staged by Trinity College as an entertainment for Charles II, Prince of Wales, early in 1642.132 Cowley had become a minor fellow of Trinity College in 1640 but was ejected alongside all other royalists at the end of 1642.133 He entered the service of Henry Jermyn, the Baron of St. Edmundsbury, who was the secretary and aide to queen Henrietta-Maria. When the queen left England, Jermyn and Cowley followed her to France. Cowley continued to serve as a royalist there, with his main job being the enciphering and deciphering of clandestine correspondence.134 In 1652 the House of Commons, at that time the only House of Parliament in existence, passed an Act of Oblivion. All men who were formerly royalist were pardoned, their past loyalties forgotten. This bill allowed Cowley to come back home to England.135 Cowley left for England in 1654, possibly to act as a Royalist agent while pretending compliance with the Protectorate regime. A year later, the Yorkshire uprising took place. This term is used to denote a small and ineffective rebellion of royalists against the Protectorate. The rebellion was suppressed with relative ease but did result in an increase in security measures and some arrests. On April 12th 1655, Cowley was arrested in relation to the uprising, only to be released on a £1000,- bond.136 It is from this point onwards that Cowley’s biography becomes unclear. Outside of the £1000,- bail, the other terms of his release remained obscure and have been the subject of much speculation in his own time and later. Some

131 132 133 134 135 136

Marshall Grossman, The seventeenth century literature handbook. (Oxford, 2011) 263. Thomas N. Corns, A history of seventeenth-century English literature. (Oxford, 2007) 260. Marshall Grossman, The seventeenth century. 263. Thomas N. Corns, Uncloistered virtue. English political literature. (Oxford, 1992) 251. Ibidem, 253. Marshall Grossman, The seventeenth century. 263.

suspected that he had entered into the service of the new establishment, essentially acting as a double agent. A frequently cited contemporary anecdote reports that, after the Restoration, Cowley sought preferment in recompense for his sufferings for the royalist cause.137 Charles II’s advisor and Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Clarendon, apparently dismissed Cowley with “Mr. Cowley, your pardon is your reward.”138 This rumor sparked contemporary belief that Cowley had been a spy. However, there is no hard evidence that this meeting occurred or that Cowley was a double agent for Cromwell’s regime. It has been suggested by literature scholars such as Thomas Corns, that Clarendon’s comment might have denoted Cowley’s attitude in his Poems of 1656. The subject matter of these poems imply that Cowley believed the royalist cause to be lost and that the resistance should abandon its hope. However, nothing in the volume suggests a conscious wish from Cowley to effect his rehabilitation through praise of Cromwell.139 What is certain is that, after his release from prison, Cowley returned to Oxford to study medicine and botany. He became a Doctor of Physics in 1657 and would write mostly scientific texts during the next three years.140 When news of Charles II’s ascension to the throne became known, Charles wrote a poem to greet this new period in history. He named it Ode: upon the blessed Restoration and return of his sacred majestie Charls the Second.141 The poem was written and published in 1660, and as such did not have to be processed by censors before publication as the Licensing Act would not be implemented until 1662. Cowley died in 1667, only seven years after the Restoration. In life, he never gained the royal recognition he had sought after Clarendon turned him down. However, after his death he received a lavish funeral at royal expense and was buried in Westminster Abbey, which was a great honor. His poems were licensed and reprinted posthumously without problem, as Cowley’s reputation as a royalist had been reinstated after his death.142 Cowley’s Ode is presently the most distinguished of his poetic dedications to Charles and consists of five movements. Each of these movements is developed in a couple of stanzas, a grouped set of lines within the poem. Each stanza is intertwined with imagery

137 138 139 140 141 142

Thomas N. Corns, A history. 261. Thomas N. Corns, Uncloistered virtue. 254. Ibidem, 254. Marshall Grossman, The seventeenth century. 264. Eric Rothstein, Restoration and Eighteenth-century Poetry, 1660-1780. (Boston, 1981) 4. Marshall Grossman, The seventeenth century. 264.

and a constant pressure of divine reference.143 In total, the poem consists out of nineteen stanzas that form 440 lines of poetry.144 In the first seven stanza’s, Cowley juxtaposes the images of Charles and Cromwell. Peaceful and auspicious stars denote Charles, while Cromwell is described as a comet; flashy, but only magnificent for a short time. He also associates Cromwell with disease and venom, things that could poison England and all her inhabitants. These two motifs lead to a third movement about Charles as a divine martyr’s son in the stanzas eight to eleven. The fourth movement, stanzas twelve to fourteen, focuses on the glorious future that lies ahead and implies that the readers may now forget their own contaminated past. The coda, or concluding movement, describes the magnificence of the king and his mother and siblings, the rejoicing populace and praises individuals and authorities that helped achieve the Restoration. Cowley’s Ode has two remarkable themes, martyrdom and destiny, and uses noteworthy terminology beside that. Cowley named his poem: Ode: upon the blessed

Restoration and return of his sacred majestie Charls the Second. There are two terms capitalized here. First and logically is the name of the king, who is deemed sacred by Cowley. Less logical is the capitalization of the term ‘Restoration’. The term was first used in the Declaration of Breda in 1660. Charles II used that Declaration to denounce any blame for the Civil Wars and Interregnum from the general populace of England and to announce the restoration of the king and all his people to their fundamental rights. 145 Perhaps it was to signal a break in the cycle of revolution and war that the word ‘Restoration’ would be so much insisted upon. Though ‘revolution’ was occasionally used to denote the event of 1660, for the king’s supporter ‘Restoration’ instantly became the usual term to signify what had occurred. Cowley was one of the first poets to use the term and, in doing so, publically allied himself once more with the royalists.146 Cowley, like many other authors would do before and after him, evoked the image of Charles I in his poem. Charles I had been executed and had become a martyr to many. The opening line of the ninth stanza describe the martyrdom of Charles I and its consequences.

143 144 145 146

Eric Rothstein, Restoration 4. Abraham Cowley, Ode: upon the blessed restoration and return of his sacred majestie Charls the Second (1660). Declaration of Breda, can be found on: http://www.constitution.org/eng/conpur105.htm Neil Keeble, The Restoration: England in the 1660’s. (Oxford, 2002) 52.

The Martyr’s blood was said of old to be The seed from whence the Church did grow. The Royal Blood which dying Charles did sow, Becomes no less the seed of Royalty. ‘T was in dishonor sown, We find it now in glory grown, The grave could but the dross of it devour; ‘T was sown in weakness, and ‘tis rais’d in power.147 This paragraph calls forth the notion that Charles I was restored in the figure of his son. This led to the representation of Charles II in similar terms as his father. He too became a man tested by trial, even a martyr, of exemplary patience and of a refined religious sensibility, precious in the sight of God.148 Cowley already played this motif in the first stanza’s. He launched his poem with the description of a star that appeared at noon on the day of Charles’ birth in 1630, precisely thirty years before his arrival in London for his restoration to the throne. The connotations of the star are peace, light and divine annunciation, but also rebirth. After twenty years of unrest, Cowley described the steady guidance of this star, which denotes the rebirth of Charles and of England both.149 Through these analogies, Charles II gains the extraordinary power that translates him from man or even hero to the role of healing king, reborn to his realm by God’s justice.150 Cowley applies biblical analogies to his Ode to convey both Charles II’s martyrdom and his predestined path. In the first four stanza’s, when Cowley puts the figures of Cromwell and Charles against one other, he tries to illustrate their respective destinies. To Cowley, it is clear that neither man chooses his path. They are what they are and through their acceptance of self earn the right to be properly illustrated within creative works such as poetry. This means that Charles II was always the healing king, the martyr and savior of the English people, while Cromwell’s role was always that of a deceiver, an unlawful ruler. 151 In the eight stanza of his poem, Cowley wonders how those who had seen Charles II could 147 148 149 150 151

Ode upon the blessed Restoration l. 174-181, stanza 9. Neil Keeble, The Restoration. 38. Ode upon the blessed Restoration l. 1-35, stanzas 1-2. Eric Rothstein, Restoration 5. Ibidem, 6.

ever doubt his right to the throne.152 In the next stanza, he continues on to state that England would always belong to Charles II. That was, after all, the country’s destiny. But as ‘tis prov’d by Heaven at length, The King and Truth have greatest strength, When they their sacred force unite, And twine into one Right, No frantic Commonwealths or Tyrannies, No Cheats, and Perjuries, and Lies, No Nets of humane Policies; No stores of Arms or Gold (though you could join Those of Peru to the great London Mine) No Towns, no Fleets by Sea, or Troops by Land, Or any small resistance bring Against the naked Truth, and the unarmed King.153 The poem’s meaning is quite straightforward. It was the destiny of Charles II, as his father reborn, to lead his country into a peaceful era. To accomplish this message, it continuously praises Charles, his family and all those who effected the Restoration. The style of the poem fits this message. Cowley used a version of the Greek celebration ode that demanded the speakers fervor to bubble up through the irregular meter of the poem, using jumps of thought, exclamations and the profusion of imagery to give expression to the utmost joy.154 This style of ode is called Pindaric, after the Greek poet Pindar. However, Pindar’s own poems are very rigid, so Cowley only used his basic principles. He added lyric freedom to the form to create his own, original compositions.155 Like most of Cowley’s poetry, the Ode was well received. While Cowley is a lesser known poet nowadays, his poetry was considered an example of high literary culture in the seventeenth century. John Milton, a fellow poet, even went as far as to call Cowley one of the greatest poets of his time.156 152 153 154 155 156

Ode upon the blessed Restoration. l. 145, 151-154. stanza 8. Ibidem, l. 191-202. Eric Rothstein, Restoration 6. Thomas N. Corns, A history. 262. Ibidem, 229.

Cowley’s poem was one of the many odes that addressed Charles II’s return to England. He wrote it to show his dedication to the regime and possibly because he desired recompense for his years as a loyal royalist. By using the term ‘Restoration’, Cowley announced publicly that he believed a new time had come. Cowley also used biblical analogies to demonstrate the favor God felt for Charles II and that his rule had always been his destiny. As destiny, or predestination, had been a major issue in early years of the Civil Wars, Cowley took a risk by voicing his belief. While Charles II had returned the church to the state it had been in during the late sixteenth century (and made predestination the guiding line for Anglican church), not everyone believed conform to this version of Protestantism. By using it as one of the major motifs in his poem, Cowley made his stance and loyalty to the government crystal clear.

John Milton was born on the 7th of December, 1608, in London. As the son of a prosperous scrivener, he enjoyed education at Cambridge and travelled the European continent, where he spent most of his time in Italy. Milton had intended to tour Greece as well, but his visitation of Europe was cut short when the civil war broke out in England. After his return, he wrote several pamphlets against episcopacy and, later, for the republican government. In doing so, he implicitly defended the regicide of king Charles I by supporting the parliament that had executed him. From 1649 onwards, Milton served the new regime as Secretary for Foreign Tongues. He handled all foreign correspondence written in Latin, while also writing pamphlets defending the new regime. After the death of Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell, Milton wrote a pamphlet; The Readie and Esie Way to establish a Free Commonwealth; and

the Excellence therof Compar’d with the inconveniencies and dangers of readmitting Kingship in this Nation. This pamphlet was published in 1660, mere days before Charles II’s return to England.157 After Charles’s ascension to the throne, pamphlets and books written by Milton were publicly burned for their treasonous content. Milton himself went into hiding. Although he had been a defender of the regicide of Charles I Milton was, like all but a few men, pardoned by the Act of Oblivion. According to Thomas Corns and Gordon Campbell, this was most likely for three reasons. First and foremost, Milton was quite insignificant on political ground, but he enjoyed popularity in Europe. His influence was insufficient to have him executed, but he could be potentially useful from an international perspective. Secondly, Milton came from a devout Royalist family, which made it easier to overlook his wrongdoings. Furthermore, he was not the only writer to have written antimonarchy publications. As such, he was simply not important nor influential enough to be an exception to the Act of Oblivion.158 However, he was briefly imprisoned before some of his friends pleaded his case to ensure his release. After the Restoration, Milton’s reputation was in sheds and his life changed. He had slowly gone blind, his name was reviled as that of a regicide supporter and monarchy had been reinstated. Milton retired to the countryside, where he lived his years in voluntary

157 Annabel Patterson, ‘Biography’, in: Stephen B. Dobranskie ed. Milton in Context. (Cambridge, 2010) 12. 158 Gordon Campbell and Thomas N. Corns, John Milton. Life, work and thought. (Oxford, 2008) 309-311.

seclusion.159 Paradise Lost, which would be printed in 1667 and 1674, was his first publication since 1660.160 Letters from family members and friends suggest that the poem was composed earlier, between 1658 and 1663, but that Milton delayed its publication until the political climate had regained some resemblance of calm.161 Paradise Lost is a theological epic, dealing with the Fall of mankind. After a revision in 1674, the poem was structured into twelve books. In the first two books, the devils awaken in hell after their fall from Heaven and regroup. They build Pandaemonium and debate their next course of action. After meeting his offspring Sin and Death, Satan escapes hell and lands on the sun, where he converses with the angel Uriel. In the third book, the Son volunteers to redeem man from death after the Father has foreseen the Fall. Satan enters the garden of Eden in book four. He decides to cause the fall of Adam and Eve, but is caught and expelled from the garden. In book five, God send the angel Raphael to warn Adam and Eve and provide them with the necessary knowledge to resist temptation. Throughout books five to eight, Raphael tells Adam of the war in heaven, that started with the declaration of the Son as the Messiah. Satan opposed the Son and seduces a host of angels into rebellion, after which a war breaks out. The Messiah defeats the rebels and casts them into hell, after which God creates the world. In book nine, Satan re-enters the garden and Eve eats the apple, after which Adam chooses to fall with her. As punishment, Sin and Death are released onto earth in book ten. In the following book, God sends the angel Michael to Adam and Eve and shows them a vision of the world up to the Second Coming of the Messiah. Finally, Adam and Eve are expelled from the garden in book twelve.162

Paradise Lost is a biblical epic, but also a poem. According to historian Christopher Hill, this means that the surface meaning is not necessarily to be taken at its face value, as though it were a series of statements in prose (nor should prose statements be taken at face value without thorough examination).163 According to the first sentences of the poem, Milton’s goal is to justify the ways of God to men, but he might have had more intentions than only this professed aim.164 In order for people to read his message and fulfill his intentions, Milton had to make sure the poem was licensed so it could be published. 165 159 160 161 162 163 164 165

Joad Raymond, ‘The Restoration’, in: Stephen B. Dobranskie ed. Milton in Context. (Cambridge, 2010) 461. Ibidem, 466. David Loewenstein, ‘Paradise Lost’ in: Thomas N. Corns ed. The Milton Encyclopedia (London, 2012) 269. Noam Reisner, John Milton’s Paradise Lost. A reading guide. (Edinburgh, 2011) 26-28. Christopher Hill, Milton and the English Revolution. (London, 1977) 354. John Milton, Paradise Lost (New York, 1991) I: 26. Christopher Hill, Milton, 355.

Censor and licenser Thomas Tomkins read Paradise Lost and had some objections. According to him, some lines in the poem criticized the political and devotional arrangements of the Restoration. Especially lines 594-599 from book one were deemed inappropriate.166 As when the Sun new-ris’n Looks through the Horizontal misty Air Shorn of his Beams, or from behind the Moon In dim Eclipse disastrous twilight sheds On half the Nations, and with fear of change Perplexes Monarchs.167 Even though Tomkins noted that ‘fear of change perplexes Monarchs’ could be seen as a commentary on king Charles II and the monarchical system in general, he still allowed the paragraph to remain in the poem. While this was not the only paragraph with a dubious meaning in the poem, it was the only one Tomkins commented on. Tomkins’s seemingly gave Milton’s manuscript a light-touch scrutiny. It has been suggested that this was a logical consequence of the scale of his task. Tomkins and the other censors had many manuscripts that needed to be approved, too much for them to read every single one thoroughly. Yet Tomkins was scrupulous enough with other manuscripts. According to Thomas Corns and Gordon Campbell, there are two principal factors that allowed Paradise Lost to be licensed despite its dubious content. Firstly, seditious writing was a serious crime, but there were no gulags for creative writers and poetry of the nonsatirical kind was treated gently, even when the authors were known non-conformists. Creative writing held low priority for a government much more concerned with managing news and suppressing open sedition, as it was usually only read within the elite. The works of a man like Milton, who had a horrendous reputation, would not be taken all too seriously. Secondly, Thomas Tomkins’s family had moved in the same circles as Milton. While Tomkins probably disapproved of Milton’s political views, he may have known and even liked him as a person.168 166 Joad Raymond, ‘The Restoration’ 467. 167 Paradise Lost, I: 594-599, 168 Gordon Campbell and Thomas N. Corns, John Milton. 336-337.

Milton knew that, if he wanted the poem to be published, he could not write anything too seditious. As such, he quite subtly infused double messages into the poem. The title of the poem itself, Paradise Lost, could be seen as dubious. Most likely, it refers to the garden of Eden, which was lost to mankind after the fall of Adam and Eve. However, to republican Milton, the Restoration made his ideal government seem to be a paradise forever lost. The poem itself has multiple themes and subthemes. In this analysis the focus will lie on two religious themes, namely choice and the position of the clergy, and on monarchy, as these best illustrate the double pattern present in the poem. It is important to note that all the excerpts discussed below have potential double meanings. If these paragraphs were read by (or read aloud to) the general populace, chances are that some would not have noticed the dubious meanings hidden in the text. The paragraphs can be simply understood as part of a biblical narrative, as it takes considerable knowledge of the political and religious conventions in England to understand all the nuances. In book twelve, the archangel Michael states the following to Adam: Then shall they seek to avail themselves of names, Places and titles, and with these to join Secular power, though feigning still to act By spiritual, to themselves appropriating The spirit of God, promis’d alike and giv’n To all Believers; and from that pretense, Spiritual Laws by carnal power shall force On every conscience.169 Michael suggest here that those who join the clergy might desire only to empower or enrich themselves and those who command secular power might force others to obey spiritual laws they do not support. By doing so, they prevent people from believing in God as they wish. Milton believes all Protestants should be able to practice their religion as they see fit. He does not support freedom of religion for all, but is resistant against the idea that Protestants who do not conform to the English Anglican church are called heretics170. Milton disliked

169 Paradise Lost, XII: 515-522. 170Joan S. Bennett, ‘Catholicism’, in: Stephen B. Dobranskie ed. Milton in Context. (Cambridge, 2010) 248.

Catholicism and as such the Anglican church and clergy which, according to him, leaned towards popery.171 Michael’s description of the continuing decline of faith as the primitive religion of the apostolic ages gives way to the ministry of professional clergy, forms not the only religious theme in the poem. Milton also voices his disagreement with heresy in the Augustinian sense of theological doctrine, which defines it as forbidden and something to be expunged from believers, prosecuting them if need be. Instead, Milton describes heresy as a choice, as choosing good from evil make a person experience a trial of virtue in active life, opposed to experiencing a withdrawn, contemplative life. In some of his earlier works, like Areopagitica, which was banned and burned in 1660, Milton made a plea for the return to the original meaning of the word ‘heresy’. The term originated from the Greek ‘proairesis’, which was the term Greek philosophers used to denote ‘choice’. 172 In book twelve of Paradise Lost, Michael states the following to Adam; Their own Faith not another’s: for on Earth Who against Faith and Conscience can be heard Infallible? Yet many will presume: Whence heavy persecution shall arise On all who in the worship preserve Of Spirit and Truth: the rest, far greater part, Will deem in outward Rites and specious forms Religion satisfi’d.173 Michael tells Adam that people need not conform to one religious form to please God. In the face of prosecution, some will preserve in their worship of spirit and truth, which is enough to satisfy their religion.174 Punishing non-conformists for holding onto their version of religion, is wrong as ‘God made thee perfect, not immutable’.175

171 Karen L. Edwards, ‘The ‘world’ of Paradise Lost’ in: Nicholas McDowell and Nigel Smith ed. The Oxford Handbook of Milton. (Oxford, 2009) 507. 172 Nigel Smith, ‘Paradise Lost and Heresy’, in: Stephen B. Dobranskie ed. Milton in Context. (Cambridge, 2010) 510. 173 Paradise Lost, XII: 528-535. 174 William Walker, ‘Paradise Lost’ and Republican Tradition from Aristotle to Machiavelli (Turnhout, 2009), 235. 175 Paradise Lost, V: 524.

The importance and relevance of free choice can be found in book five. When Satan rouses the angels to rebel against God and the Son, there is one angel who disagrees. Abdiel dissents when the new doctrine of rebellion and independence is proclaimed.176 Among the faithless, faithful only hee; Among innumerable false, unmov’d, Unshak’n, unseduc’d, unterrifi’d His Loyalty he kept, his Love, his Zeal; Nor number, nor example with him wrought To swerve from truth, or change his constant mind.177 Abdiel stays loyal to himself and his convictions and will not change his constant mind, even when the opportunity to do otherwise is presented. Choice again becomes an important subject matter when Eve tells Adam about her sin. While Eve ate the apple ignorant of the consequences, Adam knew that, to eat the apple, was to accept Death into the world. Knowing this, he still chooses to fall and die with Eve.178 Milton’s focus on choice in this poem goes against England’s Anglican church, which follows the Calvinist doctrine on Protestant religion. Calvinists believe that a reader’s ability to interiorize the bible’s one true spiritual sense was a revelatory function of superimposed grace, which could illuminate the passive reader. Milton, on the other hand, always championed active and educated reading. He believed that reason was a divine gift, not to be squandered and denied. The free exercise of reason, and subsequently choice, in spiritual matters ennobled and lifted the fallen man from his sinful imperfections.179 Man could choose his path in life, a choice that determined his place after death. As a follower of this belief, of Arminianism, Milton opposed the Calvinistic ideas of predestination that were conform to the Anglican church. Ever since Charles I tried to implement Arminianism into the Anglican church, which became one of the causes of the Civil Wars, Arminianism was generally frowned upon by those who were loyal to the Anglican church. After the Restoration, Charles II retuned the church to its original state, the way it had been under

176 177 178 179

Stanley Fish, Versions of Antihumanism. Milton and others. (Cambridge, 2012) 41. Paradise Lost, V: 897-902. Paradise Lost, IX: 904-910. Noam Reisner, John Milton’s Paradise Lost. 7.

queen Elizabeth. This caused much religious-political tensions within the houses of parliament, as not everyone’s religious experience was conform to this version of the Anglican church. Milton’s defense of Arminianism in Paradise Lost was, as such, a politically sensitive subject. Although Thomas Tomkins took offence to a sentence about monarchs, Milton did not employ Paradise Lost to discount the institution of monarchy on principle. However, several passages do show that Milton thought that it is not fitting nor worthy for a man to be king unless he far excels all others. A king should have wisdom and courage, more than those he ruled.180 As such, God is shown to be the rightful monarch of heaven in the first book of the poem.181 He is the rightful ruler. When the Son is appointed the heir to God, Satan convinces his rebels that the Son is equal with them and therefore not fit to rule. Abdiel tells Satan that the Son is superior to the other angels, before leaving the rebellious company. God says the following to his Son in book six; In thee such Virtue and Grace Immense I have transfus’d, that all may know In Heav’n and Hell thy Power above compare, And this perverse Commotion govern’d thus, To manifest thee worthiest to be Heir Of all things, to be Heir and to be King By Sacred Union, thy deserved right.182 Being a monarch is more than being simply appointed one. Without natural superiority, the rule of an assumed monarch is no more than tyranny. The archangels Raphael and Michael both tell Adam about the problems of such rulers. Raphael states the following: His godlike Guest, walks forth, without more train Accompani’d than with his own complete Perfections, in himself was all his state, More solemn than the tedious pomp that waits 180 William Walker, ‘Paradise Lost’ and Republican Tradition 167. 181 Paradise Lost, I: 40-44. 182 Paradise Lost, VI: 703-709.

On Princes, when their rich Retínue long Of Horses led, and Grooms besmear’d with Gold Dazzles the crowd, and sets them all agape.183 Raphael explains that the conduit of good kings is not, for most part, marked by state rituals and festivities. Michael later tells Adam of the angel Nimrod, who thought to rule without natural superiority. Adam answers; Above his Brethern, to himself assuming Authority usurps, from God not giv’n: He gave us only over Beast, Fish, Fowl Domination absolute; that right we hold By his donation; but Man over men He made not Lord; such title to himself Reserving, human left from human free.184 The parallels drawn here are remarkable. Raphael states that a naturally superior king would not need state rituals, while Michael and Adam come to the conclusion that a ruler with no such superiority can only be a tyrant. The minds of contemporary, and later, readers of

Paradise Lost, do not have to wander far to recollect the sumptuous pre-coronation entry and procession of Charles II. If this application of bonfires and bells is used by those who lack superiority, then Charles apparently needed these rituals to justify his claims to the throne, something no natural monarch would have to do.185 Religion and government are both elements that constitute to the meaning of

Paradise Lost. The poem is both a biblical epic and a theodicy. As the former, it integrates elements of biblical narrative while as the later, it ostensibly attempts to demonstrate that the evil in the world does not logically preclude belief in the existence of an all-powerful and good God. God and his son are the natural rulers of heaven and the Fall of man does not make them wrong, evil or without knowledge. God gave Adam and Eve a frame of reference, knowledge in the form of Raphael’s story about the war in heaven. God does not 183 Paradise Lost, V: 351-357. 184 Paradise Lost, XII: 65-71. 185 Gordon Campbell and Thomas N. Corns, John Milton. 341.

stop Adam and Eve from Falling, but gives them the knowledge to reasonably make the choice for themselves. They choose to Fall, and even after this God does not give up on mankind, but promises them his Son, the messiah, to make amends. As such, Milton puts human’s ability to choose at the center of him poem. Choice and reason are gifts from God, ones that should be utilized.186 Milton used a poem to convey this message, but made the remarkable stylistic choice to abandon the popular model of rhyme. Instead, he opted for blank verse, which is poetry structured in metrical, but unrhymed, lines. Although the poem sold thousands of copies even before Milton’s death in 1688, there was a consistent flow of criticism on his abandonment of rhyme as much as there was a critical response to his subject (especially on the presence of Arminianism).187 One of Milton’s friends, Andrew Marvell, even commented on the lack of rhyme in a poem named On Mr. Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’. His poem, which praises the poet’s writing considerably, ended with the sentences: Their fancies like our bushy points appear, The poets tag them; we for fashion wear. I too transported by the mode offend, And while I mean to praise thee, must commend. Thy verse created like thy theme sublime, In number, weight, and measure, needs not rhyme.188 While Marvell believed that, while he himself must hold on to the fashion of rhyme, Milton’s poem exceeds beyond that, not all critics shared his view. The focus on style sometimes subtracted attention from the subject theme, while others went to read the poem out of curiosity for the use of blank verse.189 While Paradise Lost was successfully licensed, and as such legally printed, its reception shows that it was not universally accepted. After 1660 the widespread belief that Milton had libeled the dead king inspired lasting, visceral indignation. Royalist writers generally agreed that Milton was a rhetorically gifted but vicious hireling whose literary 186 Stanley Fish, Versions of Antihumanism. 29. 187 John Rumrich, ‘Critical Responses, early’, in: Stephen B. Dobranskie ed. Milton in Context. (Cambridge, 2010) 126. 188 Andrew Marvell, ‘On Mr. Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’’ in: Robert Wilcher ed. Andrew Marvell. Selected Poetry and Prose. (London, 1986) 93. 189 John Rumrich, ‘Critical Responses, early’, 126.

achievements had been rendered inconsequential by his villainy.190 Milton’s political reputation brought his poetry into disgrace. After the publication of Paradise Lost, it received little to no attention in the government-controlled newspapers. Thomas Yalden, a preacher and lecturer in moral philosophy, wrote the following lines on Milton’s poem after his works were scheduled for a reprinting in 1706: We own the poet worthy of rehearse Heaven’s lasting triumphs in immortal verse. But when thy impious, mercenary pen Insults the best of princes, best of men, Our admiration turns to just disdain, And we revoke the fond applause again.191 Such commentaries colored the appreciation of Milton’s poem, as well as his other works. This focus on the supposed shortcomings of Paradise Lost revealed an undercurrent of opposition that came along with the widespread admiration of Milton’s work. The two best examples of this opposition are the early and persistent response to his abandonment of rhyme, and to the theological implications of the epic, especially the Arminianism of the narrative.192 John Dryden, the Poet Laureate at Charles II court, publicly announced that

Paradise Lost might have been successful, had Milton not deemed it necessary to style Satan as a hero.193 As shown above, John Milton’s biblical epic holds a double pattern. His focus on the theme of ‘choice’ is striking, considering the writer’s past. He emphasizes that ‘different’ does not have to be wrong, that humans were given reason with a purpose. Milton made his own choices during the Civil Wars and Interregnum period, choices for which the political spheres of the Restoration condemned him. By reading the poem, readers could conclude that Milton still deemed his choices rightful. Milton even illustrates the acts of an unnatural king with Charles’s spectacular coronation and uses of state ritual. However, the

190 John Rumrich, ‘Critical Responses, early’, 124. 191 Thomas Yalden, On the reprinting of Milton’s Prose Works with his Poems. Written in his Paradise Lost. (1706) Lines 13-18. 192 John Rumrich, ‘Critical Responses, early’, 126 193 J. Martin Evans, ‘Critical Responses, recent’, in: Stephen B. Dobranskie ed. Milton in Context. (Cambridge, 2010) 145.

double meaning is so subtly done that, while it ensured the poem’s publication, many readers might not have noticed the dubious meanings at all. The use of style deflects somewhat from the content of the poem, as it gave critics something to focus on other than the subject matter, which was, by its use of Arminianism alone, an example of ideological dissent. Milton’s reputation as a regicide apologist, cemented by Royalist critics, defined reception of the poem. Although it sold well, it was not publicly accepted to announce one’s admiration of the poem. The newspapers, which were controlled by the government, ignored Milton and most of his works, going so far as ignoring his death in 1674 completely. By ignoring Milton and discrediting his person, Royalist members of the Restoration regime thus ensured that Milton’s poem would hold a bad reputation until the nineteenth century, when literary scholars would look at the poem once more.194

194 P.J. Klemp, ‘Critical Responses, 1825-1970’, in: Stephen B. Dobranskie ed. Milton in Context. (Cambridge, 2010) 130.

Andrew Marvell was born on the 31st of March in 1621 near Kingston upon Hull, a town in Yorkshire were his father worked as a preacher and priest for the Anglican church. 195 After finishing college, Marvell traveled Europe for most of the duration of the Civil Wars. He returned to England in 1647, where he then wrote a couple of poems in favor of imprisoned king Charles I. It was only after the king’s execution that Marvell became sympathetic towards the new parliamentarian government.196 Marvell was against clerical domination and believed that Protestantism had to be protected. After Oliver Cromwell defeated the Catholics in Ireland, Marvell became convinced that Cromwell had preserved the English faith.197 He wrote An Horatian Ode upon Cromwell’s Return from Ireland in 1650, which celebrated Cromwell’s victory while at the same time lamenting the regicide of Charles I. 198 It has been suggested by Nigel Smith, professor of English and co-director of the Center for the Study of Books and Media at Princeton, that Marvell might have written for Cromwell in a desire for employment. By writing the right sort of poems for England’s new rulers, he might have had hope to find favor with them.199 If this was indeed his intention, he succeeded. He became the tutor for Mary Fairfax, the daughter of Cromwell’s former military commander Thomas Fairfax, that same year. In 1653 he became a Latin secretary for Cromwell’s parliament and the tutor of Cromwell’s ward William Dutton.200 After the death of Cromwell in 1658, Marvell was elected Member of Parliament for Hull in 1659. He was re-elected to sit in the House of Commons after the Restoration in 1660 and served until his death in 1678. Unlike John Milton, Andrew Marvell’s transition from republicanism to respectability at the Restoration went smoothly.201 He had written royalist poems before the death of Charles and had numerous royalist friends.202 Also, the poems that were written in favor of Cromwell, like the Horatian Ode, saw manuscript circulations only and as such 195 196 4. 197 198 199 200 201 202

Nigel Smith, Andrew Marvell. The Chameleon. (London, 2010) 14. Nicholas McDowell, Poetry and Allegiance in the English Civil Wars. Marvell and the cause of wit. (Oxford, 2008) Ibidem, 250. Nigel Smith ed., The Poems of Andrew Marvell (Edinburgh, 2003) xxiv. Nigel Smith, Andrew Marvell. 8. Nigel Smith ed., The Poems, xxiv. Thomas N. Corns, English literature. 370. Nicholas McDowell, Poetry and Allegiance, 4.

were read only by a small group of people.203 Some poets who had moved in Marvell’s circles mocked the text early in the Restoration (John Dryden, for example, satirized the poems in his To my Lord Chancellor in 1662) but Marvell’s former transgressions were mostly forgotten.204 In 1665 Edmund Waller celebrated the English naval victory over the Dutch at Lowestoft in a poem named; Instructions to a Painter. Waller used his poem to celebrate the war, its motives and the conduct of the fleet’s general James, Duke of York, who was brother and heir to king Charles II.205 However, Waller had celebrated too soon. Shortly after the poems publication, the English started losing the war. It was during this period that the

Second Advice to a Painter and the Third Advice to a Painter were written by Marvell. The poems were part of a series of verse satires on the Second Anglo-Dutch War.206 To a majority of the Commons, the war seemed like an excuse to extract an enormous large war chest from them, most of which would vanish with little to show for.207 Of the two poems, the

Second Advice spoke of a concern with naval maladministration and court corruption, while the Third Advice was an attack on the bishops of the Anglican church. Together the poems constituted a mean by which discontentment with the Earl of Clarendon’s and Charles II’s government was registered. The poems circulated in manuscript before being anonymously printed in 1667 with the clear intention of embarrassing the war administration, as the prints were posted to Members of Parliament.208 Most likely, Marvell and his printer used the poems as such in an attempt to influence the debates in Parliament. Because the poems were printed without license or registration, the publishers were prosecuted. Elizabeth Calvert was fined 20 marks for publishing a seditious book while a bookseller named Thomas Palmer was fined 40 marks and pilloried from dispensing libels.209 On the 12th of June, 1667, Dutch admiral Michiel de Ruyter broke the chain across an English river, the Medway. He sailed up the river and, near Chatham, burned three of the biggest ships and captured the Royal Charles, the pride of the royal navy. Having broken the English naval power, the Dutch retreated to the mouth of the Thames, where they set

203 204 205 206 207 208 209

Thomas N. Corns, English literature. 370. Nicholas McDowell, Poetry and Allegiance, 254. Annabel Patterson, Marvell. The writer in public life. (Edinburg, 2000) 76. Nigel Smith ed., The Poems, 321. Annabel Patterson, Marvell. 74. Nigel Smith ed., The Poems, 322. Ibidem, 323.

up a blockade that was only removed after peace treaties were signed.210 The raid was especially humiliating to Lord Clarendon, who was already besieged with accusations of bad government. On 30th of August 1667 Clarendon resigned the seals of office and somewhere between the 31st of August and the 28th of November that same year, Andrew Marvell wrote

The Last Instructions to a Painter. The date is an approximate one, based on the content of the poem. The poem mentions Clarendon resignation in August, but not his flight to France on the 29th of November. Several manuscripts carry the date September 4 th, 1667, which was the day a good friend of Marvell, Lord Buckingham, was granted a long interview with the king. This interview signaled the start of Buckingham’s brief period as chief advisor to the king and it has been suggested that the poem was specifically written for Buckingham and likeminded Members of Parliament at what was to be the start of a new era of uncorrupted and efficient government.211 However, as not all poems carry a date, it is possible that the dates were either added later or simply meant to denote the correlation between the poem and that date. As such, the precise date of the poem’s completion remains uncertain. The poem’s circulation was limited to manuscript and was, when taking into account its dissentious content, most likely only read by a few friends of Marvell or likeminded individuals. Even so, the poem was distributed anonymously, as the writer would have been surely prosecuted. It was only after Marvell’s death and the fall of pre-publication censorship that the poem was published and printed in 1689.212

The Last Instructions to a Painter consists of six different sections. The first hundred lines are used to illustrate the debauchery and corruption at Charles II’s court. Lines 105396 then describe a sitting of Parliament in 1666, comparing this Parliament to the one that could rule in Hell.213 The attempt of the court to secure pieces is satirically depicted in lines 397-522 and is followed by a description of the Dutch invasion of the Thames and Medway that lasts until line 884. From line 885 onwards, Marvell turn his attention to Charles II. He depicts Charles II as wandering through his home, meeting the spirits of his ancestors and a naked maiden, upon whom he attempts to force his desires. Finally, the poems ends with 41 lines that are addressed to the king in which Marvell makes suggestions for an improved government.

210 211 212 213

Ibidem, 361. Nigel Smith ed., The Poems, 360. Nigel Smith, Andrew Marvell. 1. Andrew Marvell, Last Instructions to a Painter (1667) l: 149-150.

Marvell’s poem is a satire. He uses thinly veiled symbolism and clear parodies to expose the wrongdoings of current government. The Last Instructions to a Painter has four major themes; pictorialism, desire and misgovernment, the politics of blame and England as a ‘state’. ‘Pictorialism’ was a mode of representation in which poetry and painting were deemed sister arts that competed for social status.214 Some poets and painters believed in ‘ut pictura poesis’, a Latin sentence meaning ‘poetry is like painting’. Originally, the sentence meant that poetry warrants the same careful interpretation as a painting. However, in the seventeenth century some poets and painters believed that poems and paintings should imitate each other’s methods and techniques. As such, poets who used pictorialism in their verses tried to create an image in their poems.215 This picture was deemed to be a reflection of true excellence. Edmund Waller was one of these poets. In his Instructions to a Painter, Waller deployed the conventions of pictorialism to celebrate the war, its motives and the conduct of the navy’s general James, Duke of York, brother and heir of king Charles II. 216 Marvell parodied Waller’s use of pictorialism in his Instructions. In the introducing sentences, the poem uses a series of images of the court: Or hast thou marked how antique masters limn The alley-roof with snuff of candle dim, Sketching in shady smoke prodigious tools? ‘Twill serve this race of drunkards, pimps and fools. But if to match our crimes thy skill presumes, As th’ Indians, draw our luxury in plumes.217 Marvell describes lower forms of painting here. For example, although India was known for its luxury goods, the country itself was associated with primitive manners. By relying upon decorum in this piece, Marvell states that the mode of representation should fit the moral state of the subject. Of course, a race of drunkards, pimps and fools would then deserve no more or less than primitive and shady drawings. Even more important than this, is the implication that all earlier poems and paintings that praised the current government tell lies,

214 215 216 217

Annabel Patterson, Marvell. 73. Ibidem, 79. Annabel Patterson, Marvell, 76.

The Last Instructions to a Painter l: 9-14.

as they do not reflect the regime’s true state of being.218 To Marvell, Clarendon’s government was a deprived one. In The Last Instructions, he uses bodily desire (whoring) as a symbol for bad government. The association between whoring and misgovernment was a common perception in anti-court satires. However, Nigel Smith point out that Marvell’s poem took the mode to new extremes of pointed refinement, exploiting the symbolic association of distended courtly bodies with a deformed body politics.219 Marvell surrounds Charles II and the Duke of York, his brother, with figures of depravity, such as Anne Hyde, the Duchess of York. The Duchess was surrounded by scandalous whisper, as she had given birth to her first child a mere two month after her wedding and was alleged to have murdered one of the Duke’s mistresses.220 How after childbirth to renew a maid, And found how royal heirs might be matured In fewer months than mothers once endured. 221 Marvell contrasts the scandalous behavior of figures such as Anne with Archibald Douglas. Archibald Douglas was a Scottish soldier who served on the Royal Oak, which was one of the ships that lay docked at Chatham during the Dutch raid of the Medway. When admiral de Ruyter set fire to the Royal Oak, all English soldiers fled. Only Douglas, a Scotsman and Catholic, remained on board.222 Marvell paints Douglas’s death in valiant colors: Like a glad lover, the fierce flames he meets, And tries his first embrace in their sheets. His shape exact, which the bright flames enfold, Like the sun’s statue stands of burnished gold. Round the transparent fire about him glows, As the clear amber on the bee does close; Abs, as on angels’ heads their glories shine, His burning lock adorn his face divine.223 218 219 220 221 222 223

Nigel Smith, Andrew Marvell. 203. Nigel Smith ed., The Poems, 361. Thomas N. Corns, English literature. 372. The Last Instructions to a Painter l: 54-56.. Thomas N. Corns, English literature. 372. The Last Instructions to a Painter l: 677-684.

Despite Douglas’s nationality and religious convictions, Marvell depicts him as the antithesis of the regime’s corruption. Douglas is virginal against the court’s depravity, brave and loyal while Englishmen were self-centered and self-righteous. Marvell makes Douglas into a true portrait, one that is neither sham nor flattery, only the concordance of exterior appearance with interior reality.224 By using a catholic Scott for this exercise, Marvell is adding insult to injury. Marvell also makes a very pointed statement concerning England’s government and the politics of blame. He demonstrates how the Restoration regime desires only to protect itself and has a tendency to blame others for its failures. More specifically, the government made a habit of blaming nonconformists for their own mistakes. In his poem, Marvell dedicates a large section to Peter Pett. Pett was the superintendent at the Chatham dockyard. On the 19th of June, 1667, he was brought before the Privy Council to answer charges of neglect.225 This was a curious accusation as Pett, a mere superintendent, could not have prevented the raid of the Medway or changed its outcome. During his trail, Marvell spoke for Pett in the House of Commons. Marvell felt that, as Pett was a non-conformist, the blame for the Chatham disaster fell on him too easily.226 In lines 767 to 784 Marvell demonstrates Pett’s insignificance to the political structure by making the preposterous proposition that Pett alone held responsibility for the entire war. For example: All our miscarriages on Pett must fall: His name alone seems fit to answer all. Whose counsel first did this mad war beget? Who all commands sold through the navy? Pett.227 Marvell concluded this paragraph with the sentence; Who should it be but the Phanatic Pett.228

224 225 226 227 228

Annabel Patterson, Marvell. 103. Ibidem, 97.

The Last Instructions to a Painter l: 767-768 and 784. The Last Instructions to a Painter l: 767-770. Ibidem, l. 784.

‘Phanatic’ was, during the Restoration, a term often used to denounce a nonconformist. Marvell suggests in this sentence that blaming a nonconformist like Pett was the logical course of action for the Restoration regime. He himself disagreed. Marvell believed that Clarendon’s regime should take the fall, not some smalltime military personal who just happened to follow a different religious path than the Anglican church. Marvell felt that England was ruled by self-serving men, which meant that the state’s future was in a dire situation. According to Marvell, the term ‘country’ no longer denoted a rural and provincial alternative to a town.229 Instead, the country was all of the state, it denoted the interest of the nation, rather than simply those of the crown. While Marvell did not believe monarchy to be a condemnable system of governance, he was of the opinion that members of the government should have the interest of the state at heart. King Charles II, did not conform to Marvell’s opinion. In the last sixty lines of The Last Instructions, Marvell described how Charles II comes upon a frightened maiden, bound and gagged, whose ‘silent tears her secret anguish speak’. 230 When he attempts to force himself upon her, he suddenly realizes that the woman he attempts to violate is ‘England or the Peace’.231 Unlike John Milton, Marvell never desired to change English verse or become a famous poet. Marvell considered the identity of the poet and his responsibilities to public and private realms. He put the power of poetry against that of great, ruling, men. As such, Marvell’s verse reflects deeply upon the relation between test and context, as his words arrange and rearrange historical events and persons.232 The intention of The Last Instructions

to a Painter, as well as its predecessors, was to exhibit the wrongdoings of Lord Clarendon and his administration. The first two poems were send to Members of Parliament in an attempt to influence the discussions in the Houses of Parliament. The Last Instructions, which was both more satirical and critical, was probably only limitedly circulated in manuscript because of its seditious content. All three Painter poems depict a critical stance opposite to the heroic narrative used by Waller in his original poem, which was also used by other apologists for the government.233 As the content was more important to Marvell than any aesthetical innovations, the style of the poem was kept simple and understandable. Because of this, most attention would go towards the message of the poem. 229 230 231 232 233

Neil Keeble, The Restoration: England in the 1660’s. (Oxford, 2002) 89. The Last Instructions to a Painter l: 897.. Ibidem, l: 906. Nigel Smith ed., The Poems, xvii. Nigel Smith ed., The Poems, 326.

Marvell made critical comments in his poem, mostly regarding misgovernment in some form. Important to note is that Marvell made a large statement against the easy blaming of nonconformists for all disasters and crisis that befell the English state. Because of his critical outlook, The Last Instructions to a Painter could not be licensed for printing. As such, the poem is an example of both the success and the failure of the governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s attempt to regulate the representation of ideological diversity. On one hand, the poem was written and did circulate in manuscript without Marvell ever being detected or punished for writing seditious material. On the other hand, the poemâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s circulation was quite limited and it was distributed anonymously, mostly out of fear for repercussions. Charles IIâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regime did not desire such critical and seditious material to be widely available. The fact that it was not, and only would be after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, means that the attempt to suppress any dissentious material was at least partly successful.

John Dryden was born on the 19th of August, 1631, in Northhamptonshire. He was the firstborn child of a distinguished family of landed gentry and received education first at St. Westminster School and later at Trinity College in Cambridge. Dryden moved to London after his graduation in 1654, where he worked in a minor capacity for the Protectorate government of Oliver Cromwell.234 Together with Andrew Marvell and John Milton, Dryden walked in Cromwell’s funeral possession. Although Dryden would start his career as a writer by defining himself as a supporter of Cromwell in an Horatian Ode to the late Lord Protector, he changed his allegiances with the restoration of Charles II. He reappeared on the literary scene as a celebrant of the Restoration.235 He was not the only poet to do so. By writing appraisals for the Stuart Restoration, Dryden entered a field of play in which his verse had to jostle for recognition with a large amount of other texts. Dryden managed to distinguish himself of the crowd through a combination of luck and personal connections.236 He joined the Royal Society of London, an academy of sciences founded by king Charles II in November 1660, and became a playwright while simultaneously acting as a poet and critic.237 Dryden enjoyed such success that he became Poet Laureate in 1668. A Poet Laureate was a poet specially appointed by the government. As such, Dryden was expected to compose poetry for special occasions and events. According to Thomas Corns, Dryden took his responsibilities as a Poet Laureate to heart. More so than writing simple celebration odes, Dryden believed it was his job to publicly celebrate and defend both the King and James, Duke of York, who was the heir apparent and a significant patron of Dryden.238 That the Poet Laureate had patrons, was quite logical. The book trade alone could not support authors, so they often dedicated their work for extra profit. Dryden earned enough money as a playwright to support himself and his family sufficiently. Any profits

234 Steven N. Zwicker, ‘Composing a literary life: introduction.’ In: Steven N. Zwicker, The Cambridge Companion to John Dryden. (Cambridge, 2004) 5. 235 Annabel Patterson, ‘Dryden and Political Allegiance.’ In: Steven N. Zwicker, The Cambridge Companion to John Dryden. (Cambridge, 2004) 221. 236 Steven N. Zwicker, ‘Introduction.’ 5. 237 Ibidem, 6. 238 Thomas N. Corns, A history of seventeenth-century English literature. (Oxford, 2007) 361.

from his poetic works, however, he gained from either his laureateship or from patronage. 239 In 1681, Dryden wrote a satire named Absalom and Achitophel: a Poem. Absalom and

Achitophel was a political satire that responded to the ongoing Exclusion Crisis. The Exclusion Crisis is the name given to the anxiety about Charles II’s successor. Charles II had no children with his wife and therefore lacked a legitimate heir. His brother, James, Duke of York, was therefore heir to the throne. Unfortunately, James was a devout Catholic and the prospect of Catholic king made many Englishmen fear for their political and religious liberties. When accusations of a Popish Plot to assassinate the king in order to ascertain a Catholic rule was made public, a proposal arose in the Houses of Parliament to exclude James from the throne. The Exclusion Bill was discussed until Charles dissolved Parliament in 1681 before the Bill could pass. The discussion tore the members of Parliament into two political opposites. Those who supported James’s right to the throne and Charles II’s rule became known as the Tories. The Whigs were formed of those who opposed the court.240 The situation escalated when one of Charles’s bastard sons made a claim for the throne. One of the Whig’s core members, the Earl of Shaftesbury, assisted James Scott, Duke of Monmouth, in his rebellion against his father. It is on this incident that Dryden based his Absalom and Achitophel. Dryden started to work on the poem after Charles dissolved Parliament in the spring of 1681.241 He spend the whole summer on his explicitly political poem and had it licensed and published in November of the same year.242 The poem was advertised in The Loyal

Protestant, a Tory newspaper which celebrated works that supported the government. 243 Remarkably, Absalom and Achitophel was published anonymously. This was not because Dryden had a desire to remain unknown. Letters and inscriptions from that period show that Dryden’s identity was no secret.244 The Poet Laureate even accepted payment for the poem; a hundred pound sterling, which would nowadays convert to about £8.300,-.245 The anonymity was probably employed because it was deemed fitting for the dramatic

239 John Barnard, ‘Dryden and Patronage.’ In: Steven N. Zwicker, The Cambridge Companion to John Dryden. (Cambridge, 2004) 119. 240 Paul Hammond ed. The Poems of John Dryden. Volume one 1649-1681. (New York, 1995) 445. 241 Ibidem, 444. 242 Thomas N. Corns, A history. 364. 243 Paul Hammond ed. The Poems of John Dryden. 445. 244 John Mullan, ‘Dryden’s anonymity.’ In: Steven N. Zwicker, The Cambridge Companion to John Dryden. (Cambridge, 2004) 158. 245 John Barnard, ‘Dryden and Patronage.’ 207, 213.

monologues in the poem and it also kept up a show of mystery and reticence. 246 Dryden would not formally acknowledge his authorship until 1693, when he wrote A discourse

concerning Satire.247 The story of Absalom originated from the biblical book Samuel, chapters thirteen to eighteen.248 It tells the tale of Absalom, the third born son of king David. Absalom was the most beautiful and charming of David’s sons and held much of his father’s love. However, he was also full of pride. When one of his father’s former advisors, Achitophel, counseled him into a fierce desire to hold the throne, Absalom rebelled. David, filled with love and grief, stopped the rebellion but could not bring it upon himself to kill his son. Nevertheless, he could not prevent the death of his son. Dryden was not the only person to apply this biblical narrative to the Exclusion Crisis. Several political pamphlets printed during the late 1670s and the early 1680s had used the same story. Some pamphlets even went so far as to warn Monmouth against bad council, lest he follow in Absalom’s footsteps.249 The interpretation of Charles as king David was authorized by the government and as biblical analogies were quite the fashion in the seventeenth century, the comparison became popular.250 Dryden’s version, however, was the most elaborate, detailed and complex one to appear in print.251 The story uses three easily recognizable themes and subjects. As the title Absalom and Achitophel suggests, the poem uses biblical motifs and comparisons to convey it’s message. The poem raises questions about lawful government and popular politics and makes the reader wonder about the consequences of dissent. As an important component of his poem, Dryden evokes images of the Civil War to make his readers ponder their future actions. Because the comparison between the biblical story and the political status quo had been made before, the different personages within the poem would have been fairly easy to recognize. Absalom is the Duke of Monmouth, who is seduced into rebellion by Achitophel (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who is aided by Zimri (the second Duke of Buckingham). Together, they rise against the rule of David (Charles II). The minor characters of the poem are not so easily identified. Among contemporaries, finding the key to all identities was by no mean 246 John Mullan, ‘Dryden’s anonymity.’ 164, 166. 247 Paul Hammond ed. The Poems of John Dryden. 446. 248 George Southcombe and Grant Tapsell, Restoration Politics, Religion and Culture. Britain and Ireland, 1660-1714. (Basingstoke, 2010) 145. 249 Paul Hammond ed. The Poems of John Dryden. 447. 250 Paul Hammond, John Dryden. A Literary Life. (London, 1991) 97. 251 Thomas N. Corns, A history. 364.

universally straightforward and no doubt proved easier for insiders than for those further removed from court and her conflicts. This may explain why many copies of the early editions of Absalom and Achitophel were annotated by their readers with identifications of the characters and brief comments.252 Dryden selected specific parts of the biblical analogue of Absalom to rework into his poem. He demonstrates, for example, the initial reluctance of Absalom at hearing Achitophel’s words. Half loath, and half consenting to the ill (For loyal blood within him struggled still), He thus replied: ‘And what pretence have I To take up arms for public liberty? My father governs with unquestioned right, The faith’s defender, and mankind’s delight: Good, gracious, just, observant of the laws, And heaven by wonders has espoused his cause.253 Absalom goes on to remind Achitophel of David’s mercy and asks if he did not pardon millions of his foes in good mercy. Dryden cleverly negotiates the representation of Monmouth in this passage. The poem was written when Monmouth still had a chance at complete (political) rehabilitation. As such, Dryden ends his story before Absalom’s execution, opting instead for an open ending in which Absalom might live. In the end, Monmouth was executed, but Dryden could not have predicted this.254 Dryden uses Absalom to voice a reminder to the English populace.255 Charles II used the Act of Oblivion to pardon all but a few Englishmen of their Civil War and Interregnum behavior. As such, they should be grateful of the mercy shown by their king, not challenge him and perhaps rid him of his only heir. Dryden judged James, Duke of York, to be the rightful heir to the throne. To convey this belief, he used his poem to attack the Whig convictions of lawful government. He knew

252 253 254 255

Ibidem, 365. John Dryden, Absalom and Achitophel. A Poem. (1681) l. 313-320. Thomas N. Corns, A history. 365. Absalom and Achitophel. l. 323.

that, as a result, his poem would not be received well by his Whig contemporaries. Dryden states the following in his introduction to the poem: ‘Tis not my intention to make an apology for my poem: some will think it needs no excuse, and others will receive none. The design, I am sure, is honest, but he who draws his pen for one party must expect to make enemies of the other: for wit and fool are consequences of Whig and Tory, and every man is a knave or an ass to the contrary side.’256 Dryden uses two ways to denounce those who opposed James as heir apparent. On one hand, Dryden evokes images of the Civil War to illustrate the peacefulness of Charles II’s rule. On the other, he uses arguments to oppose the Whig ideology. In the first 150 lines of his poem, Dryden discusses the current state of Israel. He recalls the days were the Jews recalled the banished David from exile to crown him and places this in stark contrast with the current political unrest. However, Dryden emphasizes that: The sober part of Israel, free from stain, Well knew the value of a peaceful reign, And looking backward with a wise affright Saw seams of wounds dishonest to the sight; In contemplation of whose ugly scars They cursed the memory of civil wars.257 The sober part of England should curse all dissentious thoughts and ideologies, as these had let to a civil war before. A peaceful reign, even one that was not fully conform to their own ideas of state, should have been preferable above another war. In this paragraph and the sentences that follow, Dryden offers his readers two alternative prospects for England’s future.258 The country can be a place of inclusion and stability under a generous, forgiving and divinely ordained monarch or a chaotic realm subjected to disorder and the inversion of 256 Ibidem, Introduction l. 1-6. 257 Absalom and Achitophel. l. 69-74. 258 Thomas N. Corns, A history. 366.

social hierarchy. Dryden attempts to convince his readers that Charles II offers stability and defense of order and property, which in turn implies the retention of due order in the matter of succession.259 In a clever political ploy, Dryden finds a way to encompass James into the biblical narrative as Absalom vocalizes why his claim to his father’s crown would be unlawful. His lawful issue shall the throne ascend, Or the collateral line where that shall end. His brother, though oppressed with vulgar spite, Yet dauntless and secure of native right, Of every royal virtue stands possessed, Still dear to all the bravest, and the best. His courage foes, his friends his truth proclaim, His loyalty the King, the world his fame. His mercy ev’n th’ offering crowd will find, For sure he comes of a forgiving kind. Why should I then repine at heaven’s decree, Which gives me no pretence to royalty.260 James is cunningly unnamed in this poem, as David did not have a brother that could by right claim the throne. Yet the argument of James as a representation of continuity and stability, which form the antithesis of war, is clearly made. Despite the fact that Absalom and Achitophel is without a doubt a ‘Tory’ poem, Dryden approaches the political differences with subtitles throughout most of his narrative. This made it seems like Dryden professed nothing but disinterest towards the different political perspectives.261 However, in the last quarter of the poem, Dryden shifts focus. Lines 759 to 810 depict four different arguments used by rebels to justify their disloyalty to king David. These are arguments that the Whigs used to have James excluded from inheriting the throne. In the first five lines of this section, the argument is made that, by fundamental right, the people need to be safeguarded against the threat of arbitrary power. The catholic 259 Absalom and Achitophel. l. 69-84. 260 Ibidem, l. 351-362. 261 John Mullan, ‘Dryden’s anonymity.’ 170.

James represented such a treat. Dryden counters and state that the law is the law. If kings destroy those to alter their heir, that is arbitrary government.262 Dryden counters the argument that power should lay with the people by claiming that God created monarchy as an institute after the fall, when he realized men could not rule themselves righteously.263 The Whig view that no man would be secure and free in a system where sovereign power is the birthright of one man is turned on its head by Dryden. He states that, if even a king can be deprived of his rights, then no man can be secure.264 Finally, Dryden uses the last fifteen sentences to appeal for peace. While minor reforms may be permissible, changing a settled government would mean running the risk of destroying it: To change foundations, cast the frame anew, Is work for rebels who base ends pursue, At once divine and human laws control, And mend the parts by ruin of the whole.265 Again, Dryden uses the prospect of war to install fear onto his readers by asking them if they want to chance pure ruin with their rebellion. Forty years ago, most of the Parliamentarians only sought change. These changes seemed relatively minor, but ended up ruining the foundations of the English state so bad that the Restoration regime had no choice but to revert the country to its original, pre-1640s condition. Dryden uses several passages to remind his readers of the consequences of popular political and protesting crowds. After Dryden finishes his description of Achitophelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s arguments for rebellion, he has Achitophel acknowledge that his arguments were weak. Weak arguments! Which yet he knew full well Were strong with people easy to rebel: For, governed by the moon, the giddy Jews Tread the same track when she the prime renews; And once in twenty years, their scribes record,

262 263 264 265

Absalom and Achitophel. l. 759-764. Ibidem, l. 765-776. Ibidem, l. 777-794. Ibidem, l. 805-808.

By natural instinct, they change their lord.266 The Exclusion Crisis took place twenty years after the Restoration. The Restoration, in turn, took place around twenty years after the start of the Civil Wars. Dryden questions whether, if turbulent crowds and shouted opinions caused multiple government changes and wars in the past forty years, protesting crowds were really one’s best advisor. After all: Far more numerous is the herd of such Who think too little, and who talk too much.267 The meaning of Absalom and Achitophel can be sooner found in the messages and arguments given by the characters than within the storyline. Dryden attempts to demonstrate the stability that Charles II offers by shifting the basis of the crisis away from religion to matters of personality and the central principle of divinely ordained monarchical government.268 By doing so, he suggests that the Whig campaign was a rebellion against the king, rather than a crusade to preserve English liberties from a potentially predatory James.269 Several pointed arguments remind the reader of the last time people thought a rebellion and change of government was a wise decision. The Civil Wars that followed should still be fresh in the mind of the English populace and enforce a desire for peace. Dryden conveys this meaning by combining biblical parody with contemporary history, juxtaposing different characters and voices. At first glance the poem seems satiric. However, it’s former is closer to that of a court masque, where the ending shows a king reasserting order over a world threatened by chaos.270 The poetry itself is easily read. Dryden privileged style, wit and order above linguistic innovation, which made the poem easy to comprehend.

Absalom and Achitophel was well received. It received a second edition within a month, and reprinted trice in the following year.271 Correspondence illustrates a wide interest in the poem. Many readers annotated their copies with names and motives of characters, 266 267 268 269 270

Absalom and Achitophel, l. 214-219.

Ibidem, l. 533-534. Thomas N. Corns, A history. 360. Paul Hammond, John Dryden. A Literary Life. 96. Ronald Paulson, ‘Dryden and the energies of Satire.’ In: Steven N. Zwicker, The Cambridge Companion to John Dryden. (Cambridge, 2004) 49. 271 Paul Hammond ed. The Poems of John Dryden. 442.

going so far as discussing the poems characters and implications in their letters. Whig contemporaries of Dryden were against the poem. After it was published, they even tried to discredit Dryden’s name by reminding everyone of his past as a poet who wrote an Ode for Oliver Cromwell. Some went as far as calling him a ‘prostitute for hire’.272 As could be seen from the poem’s introduction, which was quoted earlier, Dryden had expected something like that to happen. Dryden used a familiar biblical narrative to depict a current political situation and the implications he believed this situation carried. By doing so, he tried to influence this situation in favor of the current government’s side. As the poem supported the current government, it encountered no hurdle on its road to the printing press. It was even promoted in a newspaper and Dryden received a reward for his authorship. Instead of focusing on the religious dissent that sparked the Exclusion Crisis, Dryden conveys the message that Charles II’s reign and that of his subsequent heirs denote peace. By evoking images of the Civil Wars, Dryden attempts to use Absalom and Achitophel to demonstrate that the desire for peace should still be strong enough to overpower any ideological differences.

272 George Southcombe and Grant Tapsell, Restoration Politics. 147.

After Charles II ascended to the English throne in 1660, the tensions that had sparked the Civil Wars still simmered beneath the surface of society. It was up to Charles’s government to ensure that dissenters were not given a chance to start a new civil war. To do so, they had to make sure England was once again seen as a whole and united nation. This dissertation researched the manner in which the English Restoration regime attempted to influence representations of the ideological diversity that was a remnant of the Civil Wars and Interregnum period and the way this is reflected in poetry published between 1660 and 1685. My hypothesis stated that the Restoration period saw a restriction of intellectual freedom, as nonconformist opinions were suppressed out of a fear of political unrest. During the course of this dissertation, the divergent ideologies concerning rightful government, the strategies authors employ to voice them despite restrictions and the concept of blaming a (minority) group for unfortunate events were researched as recurrent motives used by a regime to enforce a collective recollection of past events. Matthew Neufeld researched these restrictions in historical narratives that recounted the Civil Wars, Interregnum and start of the Restoration. He found that these narratives emphasized the lawful foundation of the Anglican church and the Stuart monarchy and represented an unified England build on these two pillars.273 The restrictions seemed to have been very effective in these narratives, as they delivered a very one-dimensional and unified image of society. The four poems that have been researched for this dissertation, show that poetry may present us with a more nuanced picture of the English society. In one attempt of the government to cultivate a sense of unity, a number of different terms were coined. One of these, ‘Puritan’, was a term frequently found in the narratives researched by Neufeld, all in negative context. Neufeld concluded that the Puritans as a group were blamed for all past violence. The Puritans were not, however, a religious group. It was a term used by government officials to denote anyone they deemed ‘radical’ or different in their beliefs. All people whose religious beliefs were not conform to the Anglican church could be called such. By blaming the Puritans, essentially all nonconformists were 273 Matthew Neufeld, The Civil Wars after 1660. Public remembering in Late Stuart England. (Woodbridge, 2013) 243.

connected to war and unrest. This was in sharp contrast to conformists, who were all deemed to be active supporters of the peace. Another term used by the royalist regime was ‘Restoration’. It was used to denote a new era, a new beginning. The restoration of the Stuart monarchy and consequently, of the peace. Abraham Cowley was one of the first poets to make use of the term. In his Ode:

upon the blessed Restoration and return of his sacred majestie Charls the Second from 1660, Cowley made the Restoration a predestined and divine occurrence. According to his poem, all of England was jubilant when their beloved and holy king returned from his exile. Only a few foolish and evil men believed differently. This poem perfectly announced the coming of a new era. After his death, Cowley was rewarded for his royalists sentiments with a lavish funeral at Westminster Abbey. A new time was announced and this meant that England’s violent past had to be given a place in history. Charles’s government choose to publicly denounce all that had occurred between 1640 and 1660 and issued an Act of Oblivion.274 In accordance with this act, no men would be judged for his actions of the last twenty years and the Civil Wars and Interregnum period became a forbidden topic of communication. The point was not to prevent people from knowing about the past, it was to demand that they not act upon that knowledge. Upon the Restoration, everything had been returned to the state of 1640. This worked reasonably well, but it also restored all unrest and diversity that had led to the Civil Wars in the first place. In his poem Paradise Lost (1667), John Milton demonstrates that these old problems were not forgotten. Arminianism, a nonconformist version of Protestantism, figures prominently in Milton’s biblical narrative. Or at least, as prominently as it could. Milton’s poem was officially licensed and published, which means it had to be approved by a censor. This was in accordance to the Licensing Act that had been approved by the Houses of Parliament in 1662.275 Milton’s poem was printed despite it dissentious content, most likely because he made excessive use of double patterns, symbolisms and analogies. While this ensured the poem’s publication, many readers might not have noticed the dubious and dissentious meanings at all. Despite this, Milton’s poem was never publicly praised in newspapers or other public media and assessing Milton’s poem was akin to

274 Ross Poole, ‘Enacting oblivion.’ In: International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society 22 (2009) 149. 275 George Southcombe and Grant Tapsell, Restoration Politics, Religion and Culture. Britain and Ireland, 1660-1714. (Basingstoke, 2010). 12.

political suicide. Paradise Lost might have been published, but it was at the outer limits of what the government allowed to reach the printing press. The focus of censors was not pointed at printed materials primarily, but on manuscript works as well. Manuscripts were deemed more dangerous, in spite of their limited circulation, because these texts were never reviewed by censors. As they were not published, this was no requirement. Manuscript texts could be banned if a censor would read the text and deem it treacherous, but that means it had to be discovered first.276 Andrew Marvell wrote his Last Instructions to a Painter (1667) as a manuscript text and never had it published in his lifetime. This was probably a wise decision, as it contained a large amount of criticism of the regime and the illegal printing of likewise poems had led to hefty punishment for the printers and salesmen. Marvell himself has never been fined or arrested, as he distributed all his poems anonymously. The Last Instructions portrayed the failures of the English king, its government and its ministers during the second Anglo-Dutch war. In his poem, Marvell makes multiple comments on the scandalous behavior of the court and he lashes out at the ministers for their habit of laying blame on dissenters for all the wrong in the realm. In a very satirical passage, Marvell illustrates how the government wanted to blame a single nonconformist man for the shameful raid of the Dutch fleet on the Medway. The poem is a nice example of the effectiveness of the laws on seditious literature. On one hand, the poem was written and did circulate in manuscript without Marvell ever being detected or punished for writing dissentious material. On the other hand, the poem’s circulation was quite limited and it was distributed anonymously, mostly out of fear for repercussions. As stated before, the government used the Act of Oblivion to erase the Civil Wars and Interregnum from public memory. However, the government did allow evocations of the Civil Wars for its own purposes. John Dryden, Poet Laureate for Charles II’s court, used this in his poem Absalom and Achitophel (1681). Dryden wrote this poem in reaction to the first major crisis of the Restoration, when a large number of parliamentarians desired a change in the royal succession to excluded the Catholic James, the king’s brother. Instead of focusing on the religious dissent that sparked the Exclusion Crisis, Dryden conveys the message that Charles II’s reign and that of his subsequent heirs denote peace. By evoking images of the Civil Wars, Dryden attempts to use Absalom and Achitophel to demonstrate 276 Andy Wood, Riot, rebellion and popular politics in early modern England. (New York, 2002) 175.

that the desire for peace should still be strong enough to overpower any ideological differences. Together, these four poems demonstrate that the government forbade recollection of the Civil War out of fear of dissenters, but also evoked it to ensure the English populace’s continuous desire for peace. Various new term were used to form a conformist representation of the past while different laws were meant to ensure the publication of conformist opinions only. In this manner, the government tried to influence the representation of the English past and show a united and peaceful England under one king, Charles II. By using poetic devices such as symbolism, double patterns and analogies, slight dissentious material could still qualify for licensing and publication. This is contrary to Matthew Neufeld’s historical narratives, where most researched narratives contained highly conformist opinions only. An important reason for this is the reputation of poetry as entertainment for the less sophisticated, contrary to the more elitist reputation of historical narratives. Historical narratives were also used to propagate a certain representation of the past. Poetry had no such reputation regarding the formation and representation of collective memories of violent pasts. There are, however, many forms of violence and written ideological dissent can, in the end, have a similar impact on the peace as physical violence and disturbances. Poems were a medium used to voice these dissentious opinions, albeit carefully. Even in poetry, truly dissentious material could not be published in England. However, it could be written and distributed in manuscript form as long as the writer and readers were careful. This severely limited the reach of such material, as it could hardly be read aloud to others or discussed widely by its readers. Although a wider study, encompassing more than a mere four poems, should be organized to draw firmer conclusions, it seems that poetic material gives a more nuanced picture of the English society and all its different opinions, which confirms this dissertation’s hypothesis. The Restoration ended officially in 1688, when James II was deposed in favor of his Protestant daughter and son-in-law, Mary and William. After their death, Mary’s sister Anne inherited the throne, but neither of them bore children that outlived them. After Anne’s death, the Stuart reign came to an end. The English crown was offered to house Hanover and the problematic politics and representations of the monarchy would befall them for the next 200 years. 65

Primary sources: Cowley, Abraham, Ode: upon the blessed restoration and return of his sacred majestie Charls the Second (1660). 277 Dryden, John, Absalom and Achitophel (1681).278 Marvell, Andrew, Last instructions to a Painter (1667).279 Milton, John, Paradise Lost (1667, 1674).280

Secondary sources: Barbour, Reid, Literature and religious culture in seventeenth-century England. (Cambridge, 2002). Barnard, John, ‘Dryden and Patronage.’ In: Steven N. Zwicker, The Cambridge Companion to John Dryden. (Cambridge, 2004) 119-220. Braddick, Michael, God’s fury, England’s fire: a new history of the English civil wars (Basingstoke, 2009). Bradford, Richard, Poetry. The ultimate guide. (London, 2010). Brannigan, John, New Historicism and Cultural Materialism. (London, 1998). Bennett, Joan S., ‘Catholicism’, in: Stephen B. Dobranskie ed. Milton in Context. (Cambridge, 2010) 248-257. Bennett, Martyn, The Civil Wars experienced. Britain and Ireland, 1638-1661. (London, 2000).

277 Can be found on: University of Virginia, http://cowley.lib.virginia.edu/works/Restoration.htm 278 Can be found in: Robert Demarie Jr. en Ducan Wu ed. Poetry from 1660 to 1780. Civil War, Restoration, Revolution. (Oxford, 2002) 47-67. 279 Robert Wilcher ed., Andrew Marvell. Selected Poetry and Prose. (London, 1986) 114-140. 280 John Milton, Paradise Lost (New York, 1991).

Campbell, Gordon and Thomas N. Corns, John Milton. Life, work and thought. (Oxford, 2008). Carlton, Charles, Going to the wars. The experience of the British Civil Wars, 1638-1651. (London, 1992). Cramer, Kevin, The Thirty Years’ War and German memory in the nineteenth century. (Lincoln, 2007). Confino, Alon, ‘History and Memory’ in: Daniel Woolf ed. The Oxford history of historical writing: historical writing since 1945. (Oxford, 2005) 36-51. Colbrook, Claire, New literary histories. New historicism and contemporary criticism. (New York, 1997). Corns, Thomas N., A history of seventeenth-century English literature. (Oxford, 2007). Corns, Thomas N., Uncloistered virtue. English political literature. (Oxford, 1992). Covington, Sarah, Wounds, flesh and metaphor in Seventeenth-century England. (New York, 2009). Cressy, David, Bonfires and Bells. (Cambridge, 2004). Demarie Jr., Robert en Ducan Wu ed. Poetry from 1660 to 1780. Civil War, Restoration, Revolution. (Oxford, 2002). Dunthorne, Hugh, ‘Dramatizing the Dutch revolt. Romantic history and it’s sixteenth-century antecedents ’ In: Judith Pollmann and Andrew Spicer ed. Public opinion and changing identities in the early modern Netherlands. (Boston, 2009) 11-32. Edwards, Karen L., ‘The ‘world’ of Paradise Lost’ in: Nicholas McDowell and Nigel Smith ed. The Oxford Handbook of Milton. (Oxford, 2009) 496-509. Ellis, Steven, The making of the British Isles. The state of Britain and Ireland 1450-1660. (London, 2007). Evans, J. Martin, ‘Critical Responses, recent’, in: Stephen B. Dobranskie ed. Milton in Context. (Cambridge, 2010) 143-154. Fentress, James and Chris Wickham, Social Memory. (Oxford, 1992). 67

Fish, Stanley, Versions of Antihumanism. Milton and others. (Cambridge, 2012). Forsyth, Neil, ‘The English Church’, in: Stephen B. Dobranskie ed. Milton in Context. (Cambridge, 2010) 292-304. Gentles, Ian, The English revolution and the war of the three kingdoms, 1638-1652. (Harlow, 2007). Glickman, Gabriel, ‘Political conflict and the memory of the revolution in England c. 1689 - c. 1750’ in: Tim Harris en Stephen Taylor ed. The final crisis of the Stuart monarchy. (Woodbridge, 2013) 243-272. Greenblatt, Stephen and Catherine Gallagher, Practicing New Historicism. (London, 2000). Greengrass, Mark, ‘Language and conflict in the French wars of religion.’ In: Mecheá Ó Síochrú and Jane Ohlmeyer ed. Ireland 1641. Contexts and reactions. (New York, 2013) 197-218. Gregg, Pauline, King Charles I (London, 1981). Grossman, Marshall, The seventeenth century literature handbook. (Oxford, 2011). Hammond, Paul, John Dryden. A Literary Life. (London, 1991). Hammond, Paul ed. The Poems of John Dryden. Volume one 1649-1681. (New York, 1995). Harris, Tim, Restoration: Charles II and his kingdoms 1660-1685. (London, 2005). Harris, Tim, ‘Understanding popular politics in Restoration Britain.’ In: Alan Houston and Steve Pincus ed. A nation transformed. England after the restoration. (Cambridge, 2001) 125-153. Herman, Peter, A short history of Early Modern England. (Oxford, 2011). Houston, Alan and Steve Pincus, ‘Introduction. Modernity and later-seventeenth-century England.’ In: Alan Houston and Steve Pincus ed. A nation transformed. England after the restoration. (Cambridge, 2001) 1-19. Hutton, Ronald, The Restoration: a political and religious history of England and Wales, 1658-1667. (Oxford, 1985). Keeble, Neil, The Restoration: England in the 1660’s. (Oxford, 2002). 68

Kewes, Paulina, ‘Acts of Remembrance, Acts of Oblivion. Rhetoric, Law and National Memory in Early Restoration England.’ in: Lorna Clymer ed. Ritual, Routine and Regime: Institutions of Repetition in Euro-American cultures. (Toronto, 2006) 109-128. Klemp, P.J., ‘Critical Responses, 1825-1970’, in: Stephen B. Dobranskie ed. Milton in Context. (Cambridge, 2010) 130-142. Knights, Mark, Representation and misrepresentation in later Stuart Britain: Partisanship and Political Culture (Oxford, 2005). Kuijpers, Erika and Judith Pollmann, ‘Why remember terror? Memories of violence in the Dutch revolt.’ In: Mecheá Ó Síochrú and Jane Ohlmeyer ed. Ireland 1641. Contexts and reactions. (New York, 2013) 176-196. LaCapra, Dominic, History, literature, critical theory. (London, 2013). Lennard, John, The poetry handbook. (Oxford, 2005). Loewenstein, David, ‘Paradise Lost’ in: Thomas N. Corns ed. The Milton Encyclopedia (London, 2012) 269-274. Matterson, Stephen and Darryl Jones, Studying Poetry. (Oxford, 2000). Marotti, Arthur F., ‘Manuscript, print and the social history of the lyric.’ In: Thomas N. Corns ed. The Cambridge companion to English poetry. Donne to Marvell. (Cambridge, 1993) 52-79. McDowell, Nicholas, Poetry and Allegiance in the English Civil Wars. Marvell and the cause of wit. (Oxford, 2008) 4. McElligot, Jason, Royalism, print and censorship in revolutionary England (Woodbridge, 2007). McManus, Clare, ‘What ish my Nation? The cultures of the seventeenth-century British Isles.’ In: Jenny Wormald ed. The seventeenth century. (Oxford, 2008) 183-222. Medick, Hans, ‘The Thirty Years’ War as experience and memory: contemporary perceptions of macro-historical attempt.’ in: Lynne Tatlock ed. Enduring loss in early modern Germany (Leiden, 2010) 25-49. Miller, John, After the Civil Wars. English politics and government in the reign of Charles II. (London, 2000). 69

Minow, Martha, Between Vengeance and Forgiveness. Facing history after genocide and mass violence. (Boston, 1998). Mullan, John, ‘Dryden’s anonymity.’ In: Steven N. Zwicker, The Cambridge Companion to John Dryden. (Cambridge, 2004) 156-180. Neufeld, Matthew, The Civil Wars after 1660. Public remembering in Late Stuart England. (Woodbridge, 2013). Ocker, Christopher, ‘Between the old faith and the new: spiritual los in Reformation Germany.’ In: Lynne Tatlock ed. Enduring loss in Early Modern Germany. Cross disciplinary perspectives. (Boston, 2010) 231-258. Paris, Erna, Long Shadows: Truth, lies and history. (Toronto, 2000). Patterson, Annabel, ‘Biography’, in: Stephen B. Dobranskie ed. Milton in Context. (Cambridge, 2010) 3-14. Patterson, Annabel, ‘Dryden and Political Allegiance.’ In: Steven N. Zwicker, The Cambridge Companion to John Dryden. (Cambridge, 2004) 221-236. Patterson, Annabel, Marvell. The writer in public life. (Edinburg, 2000). Paulson, Ronald, ‘Dryden and the energies of Satire.’ In: Steven N. Zwicker, The Cambridge Companion to John Dryden. (Cambridge, 2004) 37-58. Pollmann, Judith and Andrew Spicer, ‘Introduction.’ In: Judith Pollmann and Andrew Spicer ed. Public opinion and changing identities in the early modern Netherlands. (Boston, 2009) 1-10. Pollmann, Judith and Erika Kuijpers, ‘Introduction. On the Early Modernity of modern memory.’ in: Judith Pollmann ed., Memory before modernity. Practices of memory in Early Modern Europe. (Leiden, 2013) 1-26. Poole, Ross, ‘Enacting oblivion.’ In: International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society 22 (2009) 149-157. Raymond, Joad, ‘The Restoration’, in: Stephen B. Dobranskie ed. Milton in Context. (Cambridge, 2010) 460-474. Reisner, Noam, John Milton’s Paradise Lost. A reading guide. (Edinburgh, 2011).

Rothstein, Eric, Restoration and Eighteenth-century Poetry, 1660-1780. (Boston, 1981). Rumrich, John, ‘Critical Responses, early’, in: Stephen B. Dobranskie ed. Milton in Context. (Cambridge, 2010) 119-129. Sawday, Jonathan, ‘Re-writing a Revolution: History, Symbol and Text in the Restoration’, in: Seventeenth Century vol. 7.2 (2007) 171-199. Sawyer, Andrew. ‘Medium and message. Political prints in the Dutch Republic, 1568-1632.’ In: Judith Pollmann and Andrew Spicer ed. Public opinion and changing identities in the early modern Netherlands. (Boston, 2009) 163-188. Scott, Jonathan, England’s troubles. Seventeenth-century English political instability in European context. (Cambridge, 2000). Shagan, Ethan H., ‘Early modern violence from memory to history: a historiographical essay.’ In: Mecheá Ó Síochrú and Jane Ohlmeyer ed. Ireland 1641. Contexts and reactions. (New York, 2013) 17-36. Sharpe, Kevin, ‘Sacralization and Demystification. The publication of Monarchy in Early Modern England’, in: Jeroen Deploige and Gita Deneckere ed. Mystifying the Monarch: studies on Discourse, Power and History. (Amsterdam, 2007) 99-116. Sharpe, Kevin, Selling the Tudor Monarchy: authority and image in sixteenth-century England. (New Haven, 2009). Smith, Nigel, Andrew Marvell. The Chameleon. (London, 2010). Smith, Nigel, ‘Paradise Lost and Heresy’, in: Stephen B. Dobranskie ed. Milton in Context. (Cambridge, 2010) 510-524. Smith Nigel ed., The Poems of Andrew Marvell (Edinburgh, 2003). Stein, Robert and Judith Pollmann eds., Networks, regions and nations: shaping identities in the Low Countries, 1300-1650. (Leiden, 2010). Southcombe, George and Grant Tapsell, Restoration Politics, Religion and Culture. Britain and Ireland, 1660-1714. (Basingstoke, 2010). Tatlock, Lynne, ‘Introduction.’ In: Lynne Tatlock ed. Enduring loss in Early Modern Germany. Cross disciplinary perspectives. (Boston, 2010) 1-24.

Towers Suellen, Control of religious printing in Early Stuart England (Woodbridge, 2003). Walker, William, ‘Paradise Lost’ and Republican Tradition from Aristotle to Machiavelli (Turnhout, 2009). Walter, John, ‘Performative violence and the politics of violence in the 1641 depositions.’ In: Mecheá Ó Síochrú and Jane Ohlmeyer ed. Ireland 1641. Contexts and reactions. (New York, 2013) 134-152. Robert Wilcher ed. Andrew Marvell. Selected Poetry and Prose. (London, 1986). Woltjer, Juliaan, ‘Public opinion and the persecution of heretics in the Netherlands 155059.’ In: Judith Pollmann and Andrew Spicer ed. Public opinion and changing identities in the early modern Netherlands. (Boston, 2009) 87-106. Wood, Andy, Riot, rebellion and popular politics in early modern England. (New York, 2002). Zwicker, Steven N., ‘Composing a literary life: introduction.’ In: Steven N. Zwicker, The Cambridge Companion to John Dryden. (Cambridge, 2004) 3-14.

AUTEURSRECHT