This thesis examines the complex relationship between drama and royalist politics during the English Restoration, and how power is translated through language and space. I focus primarily on Dryden and Davenant's adaptation of Shakespeare's Tempest, re-titled The Enchanted Island (1667), but also draw connections to Thomas Shadwell's operatic version of 1674 and Thomas Duffet's Mock Tempest of 1675. I argue that the new adaptations reinforced the superiority of a monarchical rule over an English commonwealth and republic and subverted radical political movements that had arisen during the English Civil War. I do so by applying Guy Debord’s theory of spectacle to the Restoration stage. He defines spectacle is a "diplomatic representation of hierarchic society to itself, where all other forms of expression are banned" (Debord 23). Ultimately, conservative powers co-opted and appropriated subversive ideas and used the stage as direct access to public discourse. By separately examining the low and high plot I will show how spectacle functions through language and images and works to reinforce Prospero as the ultimate vision of a 'father-king'. By drawing from Debord, I will attempt to draw connections between modern day power structures, such as mass-media, and the Restoration stage. I argue that the means by which power is translated through mass media is analogous to how playwrights of the Restoration captured the attention of their audiences. / Thesis / Master of English

Thesis (doctoral)--Kgl. Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, 1906. / Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. [5]).

Thesis (M.A. in English)--Washington State University, May 2009. / Title from PDF title page (viewed on May 21, 2009). "Department of English." Includes bibliographical references (p. 60-62).

Book Summary Provides a comprehensive overview of all aspects of the poetry, drama, fiction, and literary and cultural criticism produced from the Restoration of the English monarchy to the onset of the French Revolution Comprises over 340 entries arranged in A-Z format across three fully indexed and cross-referenced volumes Written by an international team of leading and emerging scholars Features an impressive scope and range of subjects: from courtship and circulating libraries, to the works of Samuel Johnson and Sarah Scott Includes coverage of both canonical and lesser-known authors, as well as entries addressing gender, sexuality, and other topics that have previously been underrepresented in traditional scholarship Represents the most comprehensive resource available on this period, and an indispensable guide to the rich diversity of British writing that ushered in the modern literary era

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of North Texas, May, 2008. / Title from title page display. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Honors)--College of William and Mary, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 60-63). Also available via the World Wide Web.

Thesis (M.A.)--Georgia State University, 2006. / Title from title screen. Malinda Snow, committee chair; Tanya Caldwell, Paul Schmidt, committee members. Electronic text (81 p.) : digital, PDF file. Description based on contents viewed May 8, 2007. Includes bibliographical references (p. 79-81).

Libertines Real and Fictional in Rochester, Shadwell, Wycherley, and Boswell examines the Restoration and eighteenth-century libertine figure as it appears in John Wilmot, Second Earl of Rochester's Satyr against Mankind, "The Maim'd Debauchee," and "Upon His Drinking a Bowl," Thomas Shadwell's The Libertine, William Wycherley's The Country Wife, and James Boswell's London Journal, 1762-1763. I argue that the limitations and self-contradictions of standard definitions of libertinism and the ways in which libertine protagonists and libertinism in general function as critiques of libertinism. Moreover, libertine protagonists and poetic personae reinterpret libertinism to accommodate their personal agendas and in doing so, satirize the idea of libertinism itself and identify the problematization of "libertinism" as a category of gender and social identity. That is, these libertines misinterpret-often deliberately-Hobbes to justify their opposition and refusal to obey social institutions-e.g., eventually marrying and engaging in a monogamous relationship with one's wife-as well as their endorsement of obedience to nature or sense, which can include embracing a libertine lifestyle in which one engages in sexual encounters with multiple partners, refuses marriage, and questions the existence of God or at least distrusts any sort of organized religion. Since any attempts to define the word "libertinism"-or at least any attempts to provide a standard definition of the word-are tenuous at best, it is equally tenuous to suggest that any libertines conform to conventional or standard libertinism. In fact, the literary and "real life" libertines in this study not only fail to conform to such definitions of libertinism, but also reinterpret libertinism. While all these libertines do possess similar characteristics-namely affluence, insatiable sexual appetites, and a rebellion against institutional authorities (the Church, reason, government, family, and marriage)-they often misinterpret libertinism, reason, and Hobbesian philosophy. Furthermore, they all choose different, unique ways to oppose patriarchal, social authorities. These aberrant ways of rebelling against social institutions and their redefinitions of libertinism, I argue, make them self-satirists and self-conscious critics of libertinism as a concept.

This study examines ways in which supporters of William III and his opponents used literature to buttress their respective views of government in the wake of the Glorious Revolution. Understanding the polemical character of this art provides more insight both into the literature of the 1690s and into the modes of political debate in the period. As the English people moved from a primarily hereditary view of monarchy at the beginning of the seventeenth century to a more elective view of government in the eighteenth century, the Glorious Revolution proved to be a watershed event. Those favoring James II relied on patriarchal ideas to characterize the new regime as illegitimate, and supporters of the coregent asserted the priority of English and Biblical law to assert that the former king forfeited his right to rule. Chapter one examines three thinkers – Robert Filmer, John Milton, and John Locke – whose thought provides a context for opinions expressed in the years surrounding William of Orange’s ascension to the English throne. In chapter two, John Dryden’s response to James II’s abdication is explored. As the deposed Poet Laureate and a prominent voice supporting of the Stuart line, Dryden sheds light on ways in which Jacobites resisted the authority of the new regime through his response to the Glorious Revolution. Chapter three addresses the work of Thomas Shadwell, who succeeded Dryden as Laureate, and Matthew Prior, whose poetry Frances Mayhew Rippy characterizes as “unofficial laureate verse.” These poets rely on ideas similar to those expressed by Milton and Locke as they seek to validate the events of 1688-1689. The final chapter explores the appropriation of varied conceptions of government in pamphlets and manuscripts written in favor of James II and William III. Focusing on the polemical character of these works from the late 1680s and the 1690s enhances our understanding of the period’s literature and the prominent interaction of politics and writing.

The comedies of John Dryden, Thomas Shadwell, and Aphra Behn were equally well-received by Restoration audiences, yet each dramatist professes divergent dramatic theories and poetic goals. In prefatory material to their plays, Shadwell insists a dramatist’s duty is to depict virtue rewarded and vice punished, Behn rejects the idea that comic drama might influence morals or manners, and Dryden maintains that his only goal is to please the audience, despite his dull conversation and lack of wit. A comparison between the playwrights’ dramatic theory and their most popular comedies of the 1668-77 decade indicates that none of them represent with any accuracy their own (or others’) work. Shadwell abandons his didactic goals in pursuit of approbation and income, while Behn unswervingly attacks social issues prevalent in a patriarchal society. Dryden’s comedies—witty and fast-paced despite his protestations—also address weaknesses in the patriarchal system and condemn the commodification of marriage.