Thesis (M.Arch.A.S.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Architecture, 1978. / MICROFICHE COPY AVAILABLE IN ARCHIVES AND ROTCH. / Includes bibliographical references. / by Ralph Munroe Lebens. / M.Arch.A.S.

Seigneur Dildoe, as this dissertation will contend, was a fixture in Restoration literature and culture (1660-1700). But what was his provenance, by what means did he travel, and why did he come? This dissertation provides a literary history of the fascinating and highly irreverent dildo satire tradition, tracing the dildo satire’s long and winding progress from antiquity to Restoration England, where the tradition reached its early modern zenith. Adding breadth, context, and texture to existing treatments of the trope’s political and sexual potency, this dissertation investigates the dildo satire’s roots in both Greek comedy (Aristophanes, Herodas) and Latin invective (Martial, Juvenal), its influential association in early modern Italy with Catholicism and monastic life (Aretino), and its introduction in early modern England (Nashe), where it cropped up in the works of a surprising number of literary giants (Shakespeare, Jonson, Donne, Marvell). In Restoration England, we find in the satiric dildos of Butler, Rochester, and the contextually rich “Seigneur Dildoe” articulations of a dildo gone viral: the mock-heroic Seigneur deployed as a politically central motif symptomatic of its society’s acute patriarchal fissures. Throughout I argue that the dildo satire’s longevity is due not to a uniformity of purpose or signification (misogynist, anti-Catholic, emasculating, or otherwise), but to its innate versatility and ambiguity as a fugitive sexual and political figure. I also argue that what does in fact unite the satiric dildo’s variety of contingent ends, against what has been assumed in the scholarship, is its status as a markedly anti-Phallic figure. / Graduate / 2018-01-09 / 0401 / 0733 / missmenno.sf@gmail.com

After a two-decade hiatus, the English church courts were revived by an act of Parliament on 27 July 1661, to resume their traditional task of correcting spiritual and moral misdemeanours. Soon thereafter, parishioners across England's dioceses once more faced admonition, fines, excommunication, and even imprisonment if they failed to conform to the laws of the restored Church of England. Whether they were successful or not in maintaining orthodoxy has been the principal question guiding historians interested in these tribunals, and most have concluded that, at least compared to their antebellum predecessors, the restored church courts constituted little more than a paper tiger, whose censures did little to halt the spread of dissent, partial conformity and immoral behaviour. This thesis will, in part, question such conclusions. Its main purpose, however, is to make a methodological intervention in the study of ecclesiastical court records. Rejecting Geoffrey Elton's assertion that these records represent 'the most strikingly repulsive relics of the past', it argues that a closer, more creative study of the bureaucratic processes maintaining the church courts can considerably enhance not only our understanding of these rather enigmatic tribunals but also of the individuals and communities who interacted with them. Studying those in charge of the courts, the first half of this thesis will explore the considerable friction between the Church's ministry and the salaried bureaucrats and lawyers permanently staffing the courts. This, it argues, has important ramifications for our understanding of early modern office-holding, but it also sheds new light on the theological disposition of the Restoration Church. Using the same sources, coupled with substantial consultation of contemporary polemic, letters and diaries, the fourth and fifth chapters will argue that the sanctions of the restored church courts were often far from the 'empty threat' historians have tended to assume. Excommunication in particular could be profoundly distressing even for such radical dissenters as the Quakers, and this should cause us to reconsider how individuals and communities from various hues of the denominational spectrum related to the established Church.

<p>  </p> <p>This dissertation is the first comprehensive biography and study of Richard Allestree. Allestree was a soldier, spy, professor, theologian, a survivor of the plague (1665) and Great Fire (1666) of London, and supposed author of the best-selling Protestant classic, <em>The Whole Duty of Man </em>(1658). Throughout his life, Allestree attempted to protect those institutions through his voice, vocation, and violence. His work contributes to our understanding of the dilemmas faced by the late seventeenth-century clergy, caught between the secular rationalism of the Enlightenment and the wild enthusiasm of Protestant dissenting groups. Using his positions of power and influence, he sought to make Christianity accessible to “the meanest of reader,” moving away from perceptions of a rigid faith and seeking to make Christianity a vibrant, active belief in the lives of everyday people. This work presents a finalized canon of the works of Richard Allestree using new tools in digital humanities. Implementing statistical analysis from data gathered from his personal library at Christ Church, Oxford, clerical records, and marginalia, this dissertation settles the three hundred- and sixty-five-year dilemma of Allestree’s uncertain authorship.</p>

This thesis examines the life and works of the English Calvinist clergyman Daniel Featley (1582-1645) through the lens of various printed and manuscript sources, especially his manuscript notebooks in Oxford. It links his story and thought to the broader themes of early Stuart religious, political, and intellectual history. Chapter one analyses the first thirty- five years of Featley’s life, exploring how many of the features that underpin the major themes of Featley’s career—and which reemerged throughout his life—were formed and nurtured during Featley’s early years in Oxford, Paris, and Cornwall. There he emerges as an ambitious young divine in pursuit of preferment; a shrewd minister, who attempted to position himself within the ecclesiastical spectrum; and a budding polemicist, whose polemical exchanges were motivated by a pastoral desire to protect the English Church. Chapter two examines Featley’s role as an ecclesiastical licenser and chaplain to Archbishop George Abbot in the 1610s and 1620s. It offers a reinterpretation of the view that Featley was a benign censor, explores how pastoral sensitivities influenced his censorship, and analyses the parallels between Featley’s licensing and his broader ecclesiastical aims. Moreover, by exploring how our historiographical understandings of licensing and censorship have been clouded by Featley’s attempts to conceal that an increasingly influential anti- Calvinist movement was seizing control of the licensing system and marginalizing Calvinist licensers in the 1620s, this chapter (along with chapter 7) addresses the broader methodological issues of how to weigh and evaluate various vantage points. Chapters three and four analyse the publications resulting from Featley’s debates with prominent Catholic and anti-Calvinist leaders. These chapters examine Featley’s use of patristic tradition in these disputes, the pastoral motivations that underpinned his polemical exchanges, and how Featley strategically issued these polemical publications to counter Catholicism and anti-Calvinism and to promulgate his own alternative version of orthodoxy at several crucial political moments during the 1620s and 1630s. Chapter five focuses on how, in the 1620s and 1630s, the themes of prayer and preaching in his devotional work, Ancilla Pietatis, and collection of seventy sermons, Clavis Mystica, were complementary rather than contradictory. It also builds on several of the major themes of the thesis by examining how pastoral and polemical motivations were at the heart of these works, how Featley continued to be an active opponent—rather than a passive bystander and victim—of Laudianism, and how he positioned himself politically to avoid being reprimanded by an increasingly hostile Laudian regime. Chapter six explores the theme of ‘moderation’ in the events of the 1640s surrounding Featley’s participation at the Westminster Assembly and his debates with separatists. It focuses on how Featley’s pursuit of the middle way was both: a self-protective ‘chameleon- like’ survival instinct—a rudder he used to navigate his way through the shifting political and ecclesiastical terrain of this period—and the very means by which he moderated and manipulated two polarized groups (decidedly convictional Parliamentarians and royalists) in order to reoccupy the middle ground, even while it was eroding away. Finally, chapter seven examines Featley’s ‘afterlife’ by analysing the reception of Featley through the lens of his post-1660 biographers and how these authors, particularly Featley’s nephew, John Featley, depicted him retrospectively in their biographical accounts in the service of their own post-restoration agendas. By analysing how Featley’s own ‘chameleon-like’ tendencies contributed to his later biographers’ distorted perception of him, this final chapter returns to the major methodological issues this thesis seeks to address. In short, by exploring the various roles he played in the early Stuart English Church and seeking to build on and contribute to recent historiographical research, this study sheds light on the links between a minister’s pastoral sensitivities and polemical engagements, and how ministers pursued preferment and ecclesiastically positioned themselves, their opponents, and their biographical subjects through print.