On Dryden's :Astraea Redux"

As scholars and historians claim, John Dryden wrote Astraea Redux as a literary praise for the newly restored monarchy in England— a tribute to the return of King Charles II. However, the poem does not hold to an absolute, optimist portrayal of the Restoration. John Dryden undoubtedly joined other dissenters into siding with the restored monarchy (unlike Milton and others), but this motive was purely strategic, and not idealistic. Although the king made Dryden the first British Laureate as a reward for his poem, the king (and other critics) did not fully understand the thorough tone in Dryden’s work; it was satirical. The poem—or in this case, satire— was not satirical in a sense of being anti-monarchial, but satirical in the sense of a worldly view of things. In other words, the poem’s satiric nature bases off of Dryden’s skepticism; Dryden’s skeptical point of view stems from his knowledge and experience of the calamitous events in England, which occurred during the final years of the Commonwealth. The poem thus summarizes what had happened in the past, and Dryden concludes unimpressively with the Restoration. While six-pages do not suffice for a thorough and detailed justification of this thesis, the best provided generalization shall be presented instead.  

 

            The focal point in this poem derives from its conflict: a land without a king, but with governmental and religious turmoil. The opening lines serve as an important introduction, not only to the awry times in England, but also a loss of faith in fellow man. This loss of faith Dryden exemplifies from “a sullen interval of war:/ Thus when black clouds draw down the labouring skies,/ Ere yet abroad the winged thunder flies,/ An horrid stillness first invades the ear,/ And in that silence we the tempest fear” (Lines 4-8). Dryden explains the underlying apprehension of another civil war, in that it would not only continue the current problems in England between the Rump Parliament and those against it, but also a worsening of climate in the country in so far as the people of England were struggling whilst the country weakened. These events inquire after the death of Oliver Cromwell, where his son, Richard, attempted to secure the order his father built. Richard Cromwell, unlike his father, had “no support in the army,” thus his only attempt to maintain stability was to ally himself with Republican delegates in Parliament; by doing so, Richard could press Parliamentary influence in re-organizing the army, thereby replacing it under “civilian control,” ergo, under the control of the Lord Protector (Sommerville, “The End of the Protectorate”). This motive was futile as it was disastrous.

            By retaliation, General Charles Fleetwood led the army into mutiny for reasons of payment and for the reform of a Republican government, and consequentially, Richard and his supporters erupted into government turmoil (Sommerville, “The End of the Protectorate”). Alas, these are the tumultuous times which Dryden infers in his poem. All the meanwhile during this turmoil, the Spanish and the French have managed to make peace between each other, described by Dryden as a “miracle” (15). In addition to France and Spain making peace, so has Sweden settled with a time of peace, this being upon the death of King Charles X of Sweden (9). King Charles X, like Charles I of England, also believed in the Divine Right of Kings, and further, he also had difficulties with the government/nobility when it came to money (History Learning Site). Unlike the English, Charles X was successful in dealing with the nobility; Charles did not have to go to war against the people to make sure he won negotiations, nor was his death due to beheading (History Learning Site). Even after Charles X’s natural death, the Swedes continued to preserve their peace. The English, on the other hand, had executed their king for the preservation of Parliament, and they continued to strive over the well-being of their nation. This irony relates to Dryden’s skepticism over the English Civil War, and later the current state of turmoil England came under. Based on the inability of the English to rule fairly with a 

monarchy, or to rule peacefully with a Republic-based government, Dryden displays his disappointment in the English nation.  

            From the poem: “Church and State did groan;/Madness the pulpit, faction seized the throne” (21-22), during which the Commonwealth  was of factions between Puritan rebels and those in the government trying to maintain stability. While Dryden mentions the incompetence of Parliament, he does not mention the results of Oliver Cromwell’s ruling. What Cromwell gave England was a litany of progressive reforms— bloody or not— in which he kept England under order. For example, Cromwell suppressed Irish insurgency and Scottish insurgency in the British Isles. During his war against Scotland, the goal of the Scots was to restore the monarchy, having “proclaimed his [Charles I] son Charles, King of England as well as of Scotland” (Sommerville, “Commonwealth”). Cromwell defeated the Scots, which in this case, why would Dryden not mention Scotland’s defeat by Cromwell as part of his opening lamentation? This will be explained shortly. Back to Cromwell, the Lord Protector also had reformative accomplishments which strengthened England. For example, Cromwell brought the English Navy to supremacy after defeating the Dutch in 1654; he “established a system of Triers and Ejectors to approve Church ministers,” making Cromwell the latest codifier of English law and government law since Edward I; he reorganized English provinces into districts and he even taxed Royalists up to 10%, a policy called “Decimation” (Sommerville, “Commonwealth”). Of all his accomplishments, Cromwell mainly settled matters between Puritans and Parliamentarians (Sommerville, “Commonwealth”). In spite of these fruitful accomplishments, Dryden does not mention this part of English history. There are only two reasons why he did not do this: (a) he meant to omit any fact which would undermine the gravity of his lament, or (b) he was skeptical indeed about the ineffectiveness of the monarchy and Parliament, but not of Cromwell’s effective ruling, in addition to the fact that any mentioning of Cromwell far from Dryden’s skepticism might draw the poem in the newly restored king’s disfavor of the poem. After all, Dryden worked for John Thurloe, Cromwell’s Secretary of State (Poets), and he only reformed for sake of his social standing, as well as his skepticism warranted enough of his patience with the conflict between Puritans and Parliamentarians, especially now that Oliver Cromwell was no longer in power. Meanwhile famed poet John Milton resigned, later to be “arrested as a defender of the Commonwealth, fined, and soon released” (Poets); Dryden reacted how a poet would: with wit and sarcasm. This concludes the opening of the poem.

           

                From this point on, it would be obvious to expect Dryden’s view on Charles II as anything but a studious, disciplined and virtuous ruler-in-exile. None of these are the case, as it turned out to be. Even the historical allusions Dryden provides are not, in fact, references used for the purpose of glorification. First, to briefly discuss Charles himself: in exile, while he mourned for the loss of his father and place in government, he was not far from seeking out pleasures of life, from women to drinking, along with his cousin, Prince Rupert (Scott, 57). This truthful characterization of Charles in exile contradicts any false, praiseworthy descriptions of the king, by Dryden, such as “his virtue were with laurels drest” (58) and “resolved and skilful” (66), among other descriptions. Charles would not argue this conceit of praise because of vanity, et al. Dryden, being in a seat of government as associate to the Secretary of State, would have known better of what Charles was rumored to be, based on common pessimism over any young monarch. Hence, allusions to any great historical figure would imply an empty and farfetched notion of commendation, perceived by any notable mind and intellectual in the nation, particularly Dryden’s peers. In other words, Charles might have believed and cherished this empty, satiric ballad for his own vanity (like Nero misunderstanding Petronius parodies in Quo Vadis). While Charles cherished what ridiculed him (unbeknownst to Charles), others in government and with education, who knew better than to acknowledge praise, would have pondered the very dissonance that Dryden was saying something else.

            Here, the allusions are addressed. Of all the figures of history, Dryden chose Galba: the general who deposed Nero and later deposed by his former supporter. The analogy was to say Charles did not seek revenge and an attempt to depose his father’s deposer, yet this was not true. Recalling Cromwell’s war with the Scots, for whom they fought to restore the throne for Charles: the Scots lost, and young Charles had to at one time hide in a tree (Sommerville, “The End of the Protectorate”). What Dryden was referring was another factor in the world he was most skeptical about in England: rulers and governments constantly fighting each for the goal of deposition and control, which was the very common during the Roman Empire. When Nero committed suicide, Galba’s ascension as emperor began the Year of Four Emperors, where generals Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and finally Vespasian, took turns killing and replacing each other as emperor within a year, leaving Vespasian as the unopposed emperor. Dryden compares this to the English Civil War and the turmoil after Cromwell, stating that Charles in exile would be nothing different.      

             

          The second allusion entails Charles’ “famous grandsire” (98), indeed referring to Charles’ relative King Henry IV of France. However, this was another empty praise, for Henry IV was originally Henry Navarre, a Huguenot noble who, during a bloody tripartite civil war in France, married the Catholic sister of the current king of France, Henry III. Henry excused himself from his French Puritan beliefs by famously saying, “Paris is worth a mass” (Weber). To recall Charles’ relation to Henry IV first shows a lineage of profligate kings who betrayed their original beliefs for political gains, as was the anti-monarchial sentiment by Parliament against the first four Stuart kings, who favored Catholicism over Protestantism. To quote “famous grandsire,” Dryden means this sarcastically, for the only reason Henry came out of exile was because he went along with Catholicism; Dryden’s point that Charles would return as a king swayed by the any compromise of loyal standings in order to benefit his gain. This was the skeptical overview in regards to Charles, himself. Dryden further pointed out King David, of all kings, because of his scandal with Bathsheba; reference to philandering and lack of virtue, as if it were another reason why the king was in exile.      

          

             Dryden’s use of allusions and comparisons to historical figures overall conclude in the poorest choice of examples. At the end of the poem, upon Charles’ return, Dryden wrote: “By fate reserved for great Augustus' throne!/ When the joint growth of arms and arts foreshow/The world a monarch, and that monarch you” (321-323). Dryden does not mean Charles II as the Augustus who brought about the Roman Golden Age, but the young man of noble birth who knew the right politicians and the right generals (Marcus Antonius, and later Marcus Agrippa, for instance) who brought down an unstable Republic, and he managed to rise in power mainly because of his family ties in nobility, as well as the instability of this government which occurred after a civil war between those corrupt in the nobility (Gnaeus Pompey and the Optimates) and those who called for reform in the Republic (Julius Caesar and the Populists). Caesar won the civil war, though in the process Pompey lost his head during the war. As a brilliant military leader and political reformer, Caesar came to power. After Caesar’s murder, the Republic returned to a new civil war, only for a young leader—the son of a killed ruler— to rise and take up government control after the generals did the work for him. Needless to say, Pompey and the Optimates were similar to that of the Royalists in the civil war, and Caesar to Cromwell (save the assassination). Augustus, as Dryden compares to Charles II, did not do much in the final years of the Republic, but to influence and make the right alliances. Augustus (or, previously, Octavius) rose to power as an emperor, solely because of certain powerful figures in the government (whom he befriended and influenced) were on his side.

           

           The poem ends with Charles II stated as a monarch, but nothing about any future prospects he will bring forth—his position in power remains a mystery to Dryden and others as young Augustus in power was to those Republicans. Dryden (a skeptic) did not go forth to indicate any hopeful actions Charles II might do as king, only to mutter in his conclusion: “So, once again, we have a monarch. We will see how he does.” In conclusion of this generalization over John Dryden’s poem, Astraea Redux, the poet does not glorify the restoration of the monarchy; he expresses skepticism over the entire matter, using wrongful allusions and satiric criticism over the English government, Charles II included.   

                                                            Works Cited

History Learning Site. “Charles X.” February, 2012.             

    <http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/charles_x.htm>. Online.

Poets.org. “Astraea Redux.” February, 2012. < http://www.poets.org/index.php>. Online.            

            “John Dryden.” February, 2012. < http://www.poets.org/index.php>. Online.

            “John Milton.” “John Dryden.” February, 2012. < http://www.poets.org/index.php>.         Online.

Scott, Eva. The King In Exile: The Wanderings of Charles II from June, 1646 to July, 1654.                                      New York: E.P. Dutton, 1905. Online.

Sommerville, J. P. “Commonwealth and Protectorate: 1649-1658.” Wisc.edu. February, 2012.      < http://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/361/361-29.htm>. Online. 

            “The End of the Protectorate and the Restoration.” Wisc.edu. February, 2012.                   < http://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/361/361-29.htm>. Online.    

Weber, Bernerd C. Gregory David de Rocher. “Personal and Political Aspects in the         Correspondence of Henry IV.”  Bama.ua.edu. February, 2012.   <www.bama.ua.edu/~gderoche/henriiv/intro.htm> Online.

A Formal Robinson

In 1719, The Life and Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, written by Daniel Defoe, was published. It stood as a tale of survival, deriving the 1600’s British style of living into a primitive version, thus proving otherwise as the key to life. The English planter lives through a shipwreck in the Caribbean, only to find him alone on an island, full of cannibals and the forces of nature as life-threatening impediments. However, the novel resists the European political beliefs in the 17^th century, in which during that time- as always was in the precedent and successive years- was of international rivalry in the great continent. It is an allegory through formalism.

At the time in the novel, the Thirty Years War (Holy Roman Empire and other Catholic nations versus Protestant nations) had ended ten years ago, meanwhile the French, under the rule of Louis XIV, fought against the Dutch, and allied with the British- whom were under an era of dictatorship (the Commonwealth ruled by Oliver Cromwell) - they fought against the Spaniards. The rivalries between Spain, England and France (as usual for over the previous 300 years), had citizens of those three nations turn a blind eye upon the fact that utopia would be stored within peace and alliance within by the accordance of the three powerful nations. Such rivalry spread even towards the nations’ colonies in North America, where the Spanish and the English were, in fact, quite near as by location. Not to mention that slavery was still intact within the minds of intelligent human beings as an acceptable way of life, for both Spanish and English. Four important key words architect the bridge for formalism and the allegory: brothers, Spaniards, English and Dunkirk. The text says the following: “I had two elder brothers, one which was Lieutenant Colonel to an English Regiment…and was killed at the Battle near Dunkirk against the Spaniards.” The English, with the French, fought against the Spanish at Dunkirk, at which the two allies won.

In Defoe’s famous novel, an Englishman was trapped alone, on a remote, Caribbean island, with almost nothing to start a living. He must start over, like any man would, to make a living as a civilized man, with very little tools from his civilized nation (that fact that such tools were extant goes to proof that survival an any world is depended on civilization, although civilization can be destructive when it comes to war). After settling on the island and close to make an average living, he finds out that cannibals have came to the island with a meal to prepare: a black prisoner. He; however, escapes them and is protected by Crusoe, who makes him Christian and teaches him English. He names him Friday. When the cannibals return, there were new prisoners among them, one of them to be Spanish. Crusoe and Friday attack the cannibals with their guns and free the prisoners.

Here’s the allegory, an Englishman and an African save a Spaniard from death by the natives upon an undiscovered land, most certain to be colonized by either of the two. The English and the Spanish both practiced slavery using the natives from Africa at the time. The English and the Spanish have always been at each other’s throats since the 16^th century. Yet in this novel, all three are united as one in a fight for their lives within colonization territory (A MAJOR ISSUE BETWEEN BOTH NATION’S RIVALRY) against the natives, both whom they depict as savages- in fact, the author of this novel chose to depict these natives as savages for the sake of reason in his allegory. The brothers are the English and the Spaniards, and Dunkirk stands as the consequence of such nations do not act as thus. Like Cane and Abel, both brothers would in a fatal ending, with one dead and the other guilty for the cause. It makes sense if an allusion like that was involved, for during the time of Crusoe, Oliver Cromwell, a Puritan dictator, transformed England into a theocratic totalitarian society, where as religion was, unfortunately for the brilliance of the human mind, a number one priority to all citizens.

Regardless of historical relations, economical rivalry, cultural/ethnic differences and political hardships, both nations must set those aside during a primitive lifetime (in Defoe’s case, primitive could be the result in war or the beginning of time; in other word’s a better start) and bond together as friends and allies, for nothing is more powerful than such a bond of alliance. Thus, a utopia envisioned by a writer who sets an allegorical example within one (utopia means ‘nowhere’ in Latin. The island is remote, thus being nowhere in map sites. A perfect world of peace and commerce only reached in the absence of political and economic differences, as well as in friendship by unity. Only brothers by Christian faith behave so, and being the case of two strong Christian nations (mind you, reader, Daniel Defoe was Christian, not I, who is trying to analyze an allegory from a deceased man’s Christian work), that kind of friendship should have no trouble whatsoever in being formed. Sadly, this is fiction.

The Structure of a Romantic Byron

So we'll go no more a-roving
So late into the night,
Though the heart be still as loving,
And the moon be still as bright.
For the sword outwears its sheath,
And the soul wears out the breast,
And the heart must pause to breathe,
And Love itself have rest.
Though the night was made for loving,
And the day returns too soon,
Yet we'll go no more a-roving
By the light of the moon.

Lord Byron was one of the most popular poets involved in the Romantic era. He young, famed poet who later died an early death in attempt to help the Greeks fight for their independence against the Greeks. Often he is related to the character Heathcliffe from Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights, as an exile and a dark hero. If any would imagine the late poet to be so, this very poem of his can might as well also describe him as the legendary Don Juan.
Yes, the three-stanza poem does appear so to be a love poem, but focusing on the given-up attempt of a gentleman- in this case, Lord Byron- to court a lady. He hides the fact that he’s given up on swaying the lady he lusts for into his bedchamber by writing a romantic, love poem, in which he says that they will no longer be in love and show affection. One word in each line is actually coded with Byron’s true motive, and is camouflaged within the other words.
To put it in other words, say a man hangs out with a woman, and the two somehow are in romance. He tells her that he loves her and to have her know it so. Yet the man’s real intention is nothing more than a natural (and religiously unnatural) penetration into her. She finally breaks up with him because of normal reasons, and so he writes her a poem paraphrase as “Alright…so that means we won’t be romantically together in love. I must consent because I love you and love you was all I ever did. I enjoyed your presence with me, from walking together to hanging out in the movies. But since we’re broken up, there won’t be anymore of that. Just so you know, I was with you out of love.” That was the cover-up translation, where as the real translation goes as following, “Alright, if you want to leave me, fine. I just wanted to flower you as soon as possible. You’re cute, you’re attractive, you’re everything; whenever I hanged out with you, all I thought of was seducing you. But now since your gone, it is impossible for me to do so anymore.”
With the upcoming selected words and evidence to prove that Byron meant such a confession, this poem was nothing more than the truth covered by romantic poetry and wording. If a man back then had been as brutally as honest a that, society would never have approve of Byron…and yet, like Heathcliffe he was avoided by society- unlike Heathcliffe, Byron is also human, thus merciful and not vengeful…and like Don Juan, his only interest was sleeping with women- unlike Byron, his obsession brought him to his own demise when he raped a girl, where he later ended up in Hell.

Our Mind's Frontier

"No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists. You cannot value him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead. I mean this as a principle of aesthetic, not merely historical, criticism. The necessity that he shall conform, that he shall cohere, is not one-sided; what happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art which preceded it. The existing monuments form an ideal order among themselves, which is modified by the introduction of the new (the really new) work of art among them. The existing order is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations, proportions, values of each work of art toward the whole are readjust; and this is conformity between the old and the new. Whoever has approved this idea of order, of the form of European, of English literature will not find it preposterous that the past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past. And the poet who is aware of this will be aware of great difficulties and responsibilities."- T.S. Eliot

Based upon this paragraph, an intellectual who knows their works of art and literature can agree with the passage. If not, a strong defense is in order. The old works and styles of art and literature exist for their modification, hence the birth of new styles for literature and art. Let us focus on art, for instance, in the field of architecture: the Romanesque styles of churches were later modified artistically and architecturally into Gothic. Now in paint-wise, Minoan frescoes were modified into Greek frescoes which then the Romans modified the Greek style into the Roman style. After the fall of the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church (founded and influenced by the Roman culture) modified those Roman-styled paintings (the Byzantine Empire also modified Roman frescoes into their own style) into vast generations of styles of paintings, from illuminated manuscripts to Renaissance art, beginning with the help of masters from that era, such as Giotto and Masaccio. Renaissance art slowly evolved from over five hundred years into different, new styles like Rococo, Realism, Impressionism, Expressionism, Pop Art and finally to the latest modification of art- the art done in our time.
However, a counter example lies in art against the words of the author who wrote the passage. This happens to be Renaissance sculpture, having to have matched the style of Greco-Roman sculpture. Therefore, they were not modified, but rather revived, hence the meaning of the word Renaissance being “rebirth”. Rebirth indeed it was.
In literature, modification occurs as if it were evolution; as civilization advanced, styles modified. Literature transformed into different styles, from epic poems during Greco-Roman to Medieval to Renaissance when it changed to plainly-written stories (such as Geoffrey Chaucer) and onwards to Colonial literature (like Benjamin Franklin’s autobiography), Revolutionary literature, Romantic (Lord Byron or Edgar Allan Poe), Victorian (the acclaimed works of Charles Dickens, like Oliver Twist and Great Expectations), Modernism (Ernest Hemingway, Henry Miller, F. Scott Fitzgerald, James Joyce, etc.) and Post-Modernism, which continues on as of now. In literature, there are the schools of critical thoughts. This list encompasses most of the modern forms:
Deconstruction: Analysis in which the textual meaning is found by difference: a closer look at the literary work, with a message hidden inside.
Formalism: Diction-based literary analysis, thus focusing on certain words within the work. Gender Studies: Literary analysis based on the role of gender within the literary work.
Historicism: Relation and connection of literary works to historical occurrences or figures. A reliance on historical precedents in the practice of art, architecture, music, etc.
Marxism: Literary analysis of comparison between the selected work and Marxist principles.
Psychoanalysis: Psychoanalytical approach of interpreting a literary work, based loosely on the works of Freud and Jung.
Racial Studies: Literary analysis based on the role of race in the written work.
Reader’s Response: A self interpretational analysis of a literary work.
Structuralism: Text-based literary analysis, focusing only on the syntax of the written work.
These schools of thoughts can be applied to any one of these styles of literature, as long as they’re well-analyzed and supported through the text. Styles in literature are nothing more than reports of how life was during the times from when the work was written; when times change, so does literature; literature modifies itself automatically, just like art, as daily reports on lifestyles in the past. The following essays are examples to help you understand and know the use of analytical school of critical thought, as well as thematic analysis.