Our first person, Charles II, succeeded his father “by the inherent birthright and lawful and undoubted succession.” However, because of the fall of the British monarchy he didn’t rule until May of 1660. Most of his pre-reign life was spent out of England and in religious messes. Some of the places he spent time in where France, Brussels and Scotland. The religious messes he found himself in dealt with the Scottish. In order to gain their support, he had to accept their religion, Presbyterianism. By 1660, he was the king and he was not a fan of committees or councils. He eventually would form a committee that he promised he would listen to their suggestions. In my mind, Charles II could be compared to Satan. Satan, like Charles II, tried to find a way back to the throne in Heaven, or for Charles II the throne in London. As mentioned, Charles II did not go out of his way to form committees or seek other opinions from people. Satan is a similar person, as he does not approve of committees or seek much help. In the end, they both find one committee or council that they could trust. How much of this comparison Milton noticed, or if he even intended for Charles II to be like Satan, we may never know, but I do see a connection between the two.
General Monck is thought to be solely responsible for the return of Charles II. Through his plan to create a new and free parliament he won the affection of the city of London and was proclaimed commander-in-chief and General-at-Sea. His plan was to “re-establish a stable government” (Ashley 192), and he succeeded. There had been much upheaval between parliament and the Londoners. The people of the city did not want certain members of parliament ruling over them and did not support the preceding oath upon entering office. The resolution was a crafty Monck who pretended to be a supportive member of Parliament until he sprung his plan on them and revolted against Parliament. This lead to a national settlement where eventually through much debated a free parliament was created. This then lead to the return of Charles II who stated that his goal was have free/general pardon, liberty to general consciences, and that parliament would decide land sales (Ashley 207). I believe that General Monck is similar to The Son in John Milton’s Paradise Lost. Both have been sent down to correct the sins/troubles of others. Monck and The Son both prevailed in the end. This shows that Milton was supportive of General Monck because he modeled his character after him.
Andrew Marvell was a poet and politician, making a name for himself at about the same time as John Milton. The two first came together when Marvell asked Milton to recommend him for a position with a Mr. John Bradshaw, and Milton obliged. At that point Milton was involved with the Interregnum and very highly regarded within the government. As John McWilliams writes in his critical essay on the relationship between Milton and Marvell, at that point the latter was still “dependent on the generosity of such men as Milton, Bradshaw, Oliver Cromwell, and Sir Thomas Fairfax for his living,” (McWilliams 159). However, Marvell slowly began to make his way through the rank and file of government; by the time of the Restoration he was not so high as to be prosecuted by the monarchy, but was able to place himself in the new Parliament without altogether renouncing his views and loyalties. When Milton was brought under charges of being complicit in the revolutionary ousting of Charles I, it was through Marvell speaking out in Parliament that Milton found leniency and extortionate fines which had been levied on him were dropped. As McWilliams writes, “In this period, then, and for the rest of Milton’s life, Marvell, as a member of Parliament, was the man with a certain amount of power and influence and Milton was not only relatively powerless but also was somewhat in Marvell’s debt for his personal liberty and safety,” (McWilliams, 160). Meanwhile, Milton continued writing against the tyrannous monarchy; many at the time believed “Paradise Lost” to be one such piece, for which Marvell was forced to defend him once again. But though this may have made theirs “a relationship that was variously fraught with envy, embarrassment, and the severest political pressure,” the last record we have regarding this relationship is a poetic homage to “Paradise Lost” written by Marvell. In the end, John Milton remains the better known figure, but that is thanks in large part to the determined efforts of Andrew Marvell to assist and protect his friend who advanced their mutually cherished ideas, just in a very different manner.
The parties involved in the fall of Parliament were the Whigs and Tories opposing the loyalists and the crown. There was a lot of confusion and chaos during this period from 1681-1682. Whigs and Tories contested their tactics and strategies in courts while loyalists and the crown vowed to change public opinion in their favor. Loyalists favored the crown and king and influenced urban and country reading “to encourage loyal address of thanks to the king for the Oxford dissolution and for his Declaration” (223). Milton incorporated some of the ideas from this fiasco into Paradise Lost. The fallen angels and Satan versus the good angels and God can be compared to the loyalists and crown opposing the Whigs and Tories. Either side could stand for the fallen ones or the good angels, however, Satan is often seen as a king himself and the language in the play depicts him as king-like. Because of all the chaos going on between Heaven and Hell, Milton uses this to stand for the connection to the political upheaval of different parties when Parliament fell during the Restoration.
In conclusion, we found that these four important people/groups not only had a strong impact on the Restoration time period, but also influenced Paradise Lost and its author.
Works Cited:
Ashley, Maurice. “15 The Restoration of Charles II.” General Monck.
London: Jonathan Cape, 1977. 192-210.
Davies, Godfrey. Essays on the Later Stuarts. San Marino, California: The Huntington Library, 1958.
De Krey, Gary S. “The contest for the city, 1681-1682: Introduction: The City without Parliament, 1681-1682.” London and the Restoration, 1659-1683. (2005): 221-225.
“Marvell and Milton's literary friendship reconsidered", John McWilliams,
No comments:
Post a Comment