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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment