Of Love and War : The Political Voice in the Early Plays of Aphra Behn [1 ed.] 9789042031739, 9789042031722

Citation preview

Of Love and War The Political Voice in the Early Plays of Aphra Behn

COSTERUS NEW SERIES 185 Series Editors: C.C. Barfoot, Theo D’haen and Erik Kooper

Of Love and War The Political Voice in the Early Plays of Aphra Behn

Judy A. Hayden

Amsterdam-New York, NY 2010

Cover Image: Detail of “Veronese, Paolo (1528-1588). Mars and Venus United by Love.” Oil on canvas, 81 x 63 3/8 in. (205.7 x 161 cm). John Stewart Kennedy Fund, 1910 (10.189). Image copyright © The Metropolitan Museum of Art / Art Resource, NY, USA Cover design: Aart Jan Bergshoeff The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of “ISO 9706:1994, Information and documentation - Paper for documents - Requirements for permanence”. ISBN: 978-90-420-3172-2 E-Book ISBN: 978-90-420-3173-9 © Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam - New York, NY 2010 Printed in the Netherlands

For G.W.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This book began as my doctoral thesis and was made possible by an award from the Overseas Research Award Scheme. I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals for this award. I would also like to thank the University of East Anglia for the Graduate Research Studentship, which contributed immensely to my ability to complete this project. The Institute of Historical Research of the University of London also contributed financial support and research opportunities for which I am grateful. I would like to express my appreciation to the William Andrews Clark Memorial Library for a grant which allowed me to revise this thesis. The staff at Cambridge University Library, especially the Rare Books Room, deserve a special commendation for their assistance, patience, knowledge and professionalism. I would also like to thank the staff at the British Library, the National Archives, the University of London Senate House, the Wellcome Library, the Huntington Library, and the library of the University of East Anglia. I would particularly like to thank Maximillian E. Novak and Robert D. Hume for having read and critiqued various portions of this thesis; to my doctoral mentors, Heinz-Joachim Müllenbrock and Janet Todd, a heartfelt thank you, and also to Victor Sage, who offered support and guidance. Emma L. E. Rees patiently read and re-read my manuscript, offering continued encouragement, and I would like to extend to her my deepest appreciation. To my editor at Rodopi, Cedric C. Barfoot, my sincere gratitude for his tireless effort in helping me put this book in its final shape. Finally, and yet mostly, I would like to acknowledge the many sacrifices, both large and small, made by Tamara, Brittney, Alexander, Ethel, and Sebastian and to thank them for their unconditional support throughout the research, writing and revision of this project.

PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED Some of the discussion on Behn’s The Young King in Chapter One of this study in regard to the Polish influence has been previously published in “Times of Trouble: Aphra Behn’s The Young King and Calderón’s La vida es sueño”, in Alterity and Ambiguity: Aphra Behn (1640-1689), eds. Mary Anne O’Donnell and Bernard Dhuicq. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2000. 49-58. My development of the format for restoration-type plays, which I use in Chapters One and Two in this study, began as a journal article, which was published as “From Caroline Tears to Carolean Laughter: Re-Historicizing the Restoration of Charles II”, in English, XCIX /194 (Summer 2000): 109-26. Some of my early research on Behn’s The Forc’d Marriage or The Jealous Bridegroom” began as a journal essay, “The Subject in the House: Aphra Behn’s The Forc’d Marriage, or the Jealous Bridegroom”, which was published in Restoration and EighteenthCentury Theatre Research, XIV/1 (1999): 43-60.

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I II III IV V

1

Romance, Restoration, and Exclusion in The Young King: or, The Mistake

17

High, Bold Rebells and Phantastick Courtiers in The Forc’d Marriage, or The Jealous Bridegroom

55

Sexual Deviance and Universal Order in The Amorous Prince, or, The Curious Husband

89

The Rake, the Whore, and the Third Dutch War in The Dutch Lover

123

Bleeding Hearts and Killing Darts in Abdelazer, or The Moor’s Revenge

159

CONCLUSION

191

APPENDICES Appendix A: Declaration of Breda and Letter

203

Appendix B: Proclamations for Suppression Whereas by an Order . . . A Proclamation to Restrain the Spreading of False News A Proclamation to Restrain the Spreading of False News A Proclamation for the Suppression of Riots A Proclamation for the Suppression of Coffee-Houses A Proclamation Concerning Coffee-Houses A Proclamation for the better Discovery of Seditious Libellers

208 210 212 214 215 217 220

Appendix C: Declaration of Indulgence Appendix D: Proclamations against Popery A Proclamation Commanding All Jesuites and Popish Priests to Depart this Kingdom A Proclamation for Banishing all Popish Priests and Jesuites At the Court at Whitehal A Proclamation for Inforcing the Laws against Conventicles A Proclamation against Numerous Conventicles A Proclamation A Proclamation A Proclamation for the Suppression of Popery A Proclamation for Preventing the Fears and Dangers A Proclamation for the Discovery and Apprehension of Jesuites

A Proclamation At the Court at Whitehall

222

225 228 231 232 234 235 238 241 243 245 247 249

BIBLIOGRAPHY

253

INDEX

273

INTRODUCTION Good, Sweet, Honey, Sugar-candied READER (Which I think is more than any one has call’d you yet.) I must have a word or two with you before you do advance into the Treatise – 1

The Restoration theatre was as political as the politics of the court of Charles II were theatrical. Restoration drama “was essentially political drama, drawing on the circumstances and attitudes that had led to the theatre’s reopening for its peculiar matter and flavour .... its distinctive affiliation was with contemporary panegyric, political pamphleteering and propagandist display”.2 Aphra Behn affirms the political nature of contemporary drama in her dedication to Laurence Hyde, Earl of Rochester, in The Luckey Chance (1686): [Plays] are secret Instructions to the People, in things that ’tis impossible to insinuate into them any other Way …. Plays have been ever held most important to the very Political Part of Government.3

The Restoration was one of the most particularized political periods in British literature, and this is especially evident in drama: “The plays of the Restoration decade had distinctive political voices, however limited, and this quality was developed by writers over the next century who were excited and engaged by the theatre’s scope as a political arena.”4 Although the ultimate contextual discourse of this 1

Aphra Behn, The Dutch Lover: A Comedy, Acted at the Dukes Theatre (1673), in The Works of Aphra Behn, ed. Janet Todd, London: Pickering and Chatto, 1996, V, 160, in the prefatory note to the reader. All references to The Works of Aphra Behn are to this edition unless otherwise stated. 2 Nicholas Jose, Ideas of the Restoration in English Literature 1660-1671, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UP, 1984, 120. 3 Aphra Behn, The Luckey Chance, or An Alderman’s Bargain: A Comedy. As it is Acted by Their Majesty’s Servants (1687), in Works, VII, 213. 4 Jose, Ideas of the Restoration, 141.

2

Of Love and War

study will be historical and political, I acknowledge that a multiplicity of cultural discourses resonates within the texts – and thus a number of theoretical applications are possible, which suggests that playwrights were influenced by a plurality of contexts. Politics and early Carolean plays Through a detailed enquiry of the early plays of Aphra Behn in the context of her male colleagues, this study seeks to shed new light on the nature of the political discourse of drama prior to the Popish Plot and the subsequent Exclusion Crisis. Unfortunately, modern scholarship too frequently acknowledges these two political crises as the impetus behind the political comment in Behn’s dramatic works,5 while wholly failing to notice the politicality of her early plays. Yet, given the mercurial nature of historical events of the first decade of the Restoration, it seems illogical to begin a pursuit of the political nearly twenty years after one of the most political of all events of the Restoration – the return of the Stuart monarchy. Political material for dramatic representation was certainly available long before the Popish Plot and the Exclusion Crisis. The fundamental change in the direction of the state, the subsequent disruption surrounding the demise of the Interregnum, and the reestablishment of the Stuart monarchy gave rise to radical extremes of behaviour and opinion, both socially and politically. Public clamour for the punishment of the regicides, the contest initiated by the old cavaliers to reclaim sequestered property, the debates on religious issues, and particularly on religious toleration (including Charles II’s attempts to institute religious indulgence), and the Dutch Wars, bespeak a state enmeshed in both internal and external political turmoil.

5

Susan J. Owen, “‘Suspect my loyalty when I lose my virtue’: Sexual Politics and Party Politics in Aphra Behn’s Plays of the Exclusion Crisis, 1678-83”, Restoration: Studies in English Literary Culture, XVIII/1 (Spring 1994), 37; see also Jane Spencer, “‘Deceit, Dissembling, all that’s Woman’: Comic Plot and Female Action in The Feigned Courtesans”, in Rereading Aphra Behn: History, Theory, and Criticism, ed. Heidi Hutner, Charlottesville, Va: UP of Virginia, 1993, 92, in which Spencer claims Behn “entered the political arena” during this period.

Introduction

3

In spite of the Licensing Act of 1662, public political expression was never entirely suppressed. The Licensing Act covered only printed materials; manuscripts and unlicensed publications circulated freely, facilitated by the growth and popularity of the coffee houses.6 Political activity, then, had been only partially kept in check by the Licensing Act, which censored books and restricted publication; by the Clarendon Code, which sought to suppress the seeds of rebellion and to enforce compliance with the Church of England; and by Parliament’s refusal to allow relief to Nonconformists, as well as its efforts to prevent the King’s attempts to grant religious toleration through indulgence.7 While these acts may represent a concerted effort to conform the population into one homogeneous mass, there remained a strong undercurrent of opposition. In fact, John Miller notes that until 1667, and to some extent even later, there were frequent reports of plots, conspiracies, and religious disaffection.8 Miller further documents that it was not from 1678, but rather from 1673 that “fear of ‘popery and arbitrary government’ was to be the dominant theme of English politics”.9 Clearly, the Popish Plot and the Exclusion Crisis did not suddenly manifest a radical and intense anti-Catholic hysteria where no such discontent had previously existed.10 The Popish Plot and the Exclusion Crisis may indeed have brought anti-Catholic sentiment to near madness by the end of the 1670s, but anxiety and fear of 6 See Harold Weber, Paper Bullets: Print and Kingship Under Charles II, Lexington, Ky: U of Kentucky P, 1996, 157-61. See also John Miller, Charles II, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1991, 221; and Ronald Hutton, Charles the Second King of England, Scotland, and Ireland, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1989, 167, as well as Hutton’s The Restoration: A Political and Religious History of England and Wales 1658-1667, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1985, 156-57. 7 The first Declaration of Indulgence of the Restoration, issued in 1662, was a request to the Cavalier Parliament to grant him dispensing power for relieving Catholics from the harsher aspects of the Act of Uniformity; his second Declaration of Indulgence was issued in 1672, and lasted only for about one year (Hutton, Charles the Second, 194-95, 284-85, and 296-98). 8 Miller, Charles II, 70-71. 9 John Miller, James II: A Study in Kingship (1978), London: Methuen, 1989, 66. Miller also points out that the fear of popery intensified during the years the Cabal was in power, from 1667 to 1673 (55). 10 I have included in Appendix D of this volume a number of Charles II’s proclamations issued to suppress “popery” and/or to expel Jesuit priests.

4

Of Love and War

Catholicism had existed throughout Charles II’s reign, as well as through that of his father, Charles I, and his grandfather, James VI and I, epitomized at least as early as the Gunpowder Plot (1605). It must be understood that this undercurrent of discontent, while frequently stemming from religious issues, also had a firm foundation in the King’s erratic foreign and domestic policies, which anticipated much tension, jealousy, and faction, as did the nature of succession itself. Political cabals and vicious rivalries further fractured Charles II’s reign. Even more destabilizing was that members of various factions shifted loyalties, as the government moved from one political crisis to the next; hence, jealousies perpetually erupted within court and Parliament. Charles was a chameleon to his advisors, often changing opinions to suit those of whoever was advising him at any given moment. Hutton suggests that Charles II’s “classic way of ruling, especially in foreign affairs, was to have different lines of policy running at once, conceived with different groups of advisers and often mutually contradictory”.11 The polemics generated by a given contemporary political event and the King’s reaction, or perhaps his political inaction, found their way into contemporary literature and resonated as well in a perpetual discourse between the playwright and the polity: “Literary skirmishes and fire fights, and indeed major battles, were conducted not only by those who determined the course of literary culture, but also, and as savagely, by those who determined the course of the state.”12 The suggestion that political comment in the plays of Aphra Behn essentially begins with the Exclusion Crisis demonstrates a misreading of the political rhetoric in her early texts. Such a notion wholly underestimates the extent of public dissatisfaction in political affairs, the growing disenchantment with Charles in the early period of the Restoration, and the playwrights’ attempts to reflect and interpret the polemics of their contemporary social and literary culture. The political voice in dramatic texts is not absent in the first decade of the Restoration; it is simply more focused after 1678. It is louder and certainly more extreme – but it is not new. Behn does not 11

Hutton, Charles the Second, 454. Steven N. Zwicker, Lines of Authority: Politics and English Literary Culture, 16491689, Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1993, 14.

12

Introduction

5

abruptly board the political bandwagon during the Popish Plot and the Exclusion Crisis; rather, the subtle political undertone of her earlier plays is overpowered by the pronounced politicality that resulted from the anti-Catholic frenzy of the Popish Plot. Although her plays may have become more vocal and certainly more outwardly royalist after the Exclusion Crisis, they consistently express political content, often hidden within dramatic devices such as tropes, satire, and sexual politics. In this study, then, my interest lies manifestly in the identification of political discourse between Carolean texts and their contemporary contexts. One of these most political of discourses is certainly found within the sexual politics of the stage. Cross-dressing, for example, is but one aspect of this sexual/political discourse, and Behn, like her male colleagues, employs cross-dressing in many of her plays, such as The Amorous Prince (1671), The Dutch Lover (1673), The TownFopp: or Sir Timothy Tawdrey (1677), and The Rover: Or, The Banish’t Cavaliers (1677). With the employment of actresses on the stage, cross-dressing engaged with and explored a new venue of erotic implication. Lowenthal views clothing as a visible sign, an “external marker” which assigned to women “a certain place in the social order”.13 Female transgression, such as cross-dressing, “allows playwrights to articulate political or social agendas”.14 If we investigate the political implications of the cross-dressed female, we will see how crossdressing may well suggest the usurpation of masculine authority and/or the insubordination of class, both of which disrupt the social order. The masculine-attired female appears recurrently in Restoration drama as the site of resistance and rebellion. Reclaiming female identity is usually accomplished in conjunction with obtaining the desired marriage partner; appropriately coupled, the female subject returns to her submissive, subordinate role and acknowledges masculine authority. The natural social and gender order of the patriarchal hierarchy is re-established and the threat of rebellion 13

Cynthia Lowenthal, Performing Identities on the Restoration Stage, Carbondale, Ill: Southern Illinois UP, 2003, 23. 14 Jean I. Marsden, Fatal Desire: Women, Sexuality, and the English Stage 16601720, Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 2006, 65.

6

Of Love and War

diminished. The Restoration audience was keenly aware of the implications of social disorder, since rebellion in the lower social orders was manifestly a factor in the Civil Wars. The maintenance of a stable social structure required the recognition of “self” and “other” in a schema that would both encompass and discriminate between gender “otherness” and class difference. Female playwrights “In an era when women’s writing and women’s public voices were frequently discredited, the production of play texts and their performances on the public stage was nothing less than scandalous.”15 As a number of scholars have demonstrated, the woman who wrote professionally threatened the male hierarchy; she transgressed gender boundaries, and by defying established social convention, she ran the risk of losing her reputation.16 John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, certainly voices contemporary attitudes about women writers when Artemisa, “a Lady in the Towne”, warns Chloe, “a Lady in the Country”, about the dangers of poetry. If men, who the speaker refers to as “stoutest ships”, are tossed harshly by the critics and hardly survive, what chance would women have, given that they are but “tottering barks”.17 Artemisa cautions Chloe against becoming an “arrant woman” like she herself has become, observing, “That whore is scarce a more reproachful name / Than poetess” (ll. 26-27). The “public” woman, whether a poet, playwright, or actress, “was sexually

15

“Plays”, in Reading Early Modern Women: An Anthology of Texts in Manuscript and Print, 1550-1700, eds Helen Ostovich and Elizabeth Sauer, New York: Routledge, 2004, 414. 16 Ros Ballaster, “Seizing the Means of Seduction: Fiction and Feminine Identity in Aphra Behn and Delarivier Manley”, in Women, Writing, History 1640-1740, eds Isobel Grundy and Susan Wiseman, London: Batsford, 1992, 94-95. Jacqueline Pearson offers an extended discussion on women’s writing and reputation in The Prostituted Muse: Images of Women and Women Dramatists 1642-1737, New York and London: Harvester, 1988, 6-14. 17 John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, “Artemisa to Chloe: A Letter from a Lady in the Town to a Lady in the Country concerning the Loves of the Town”, in John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, The Complete Works, ed. Frank H. Ellis, New York: Penguin, 1994, 49.

Introduction

7

suspect, as available for hire as any prostitute because she was not the exclusive private property of a man”.18 Yet a few women were clearly willing to risk the scandal, while some, such as “Ariadne”, attempted to avoid infamy by using a pseudonym. We can only conjecture how many of those anonymous Restoration plays were penned by a woman. While Aphra Behn was not the first female playwright to have a play produced on the patent stage, few women did until the end of the seventeenth century, when women such as Mary Pix, Mary Manley, Catherine Trotter, and Susanna Centlivre entered the fray. Even so, women’s public writing was yet a novelty, and those who engaged in this masculine preserve were reckoned indecent. In fact, Susanna Centlivre’s first plays were produced anonymously. Of the early women writers of Behn’s era, Katherine Philips’ Pompey, a translation of Corneille’s own La Mort de Pompée, was produced in Dublin in 1663; Frances Boothby’s Marcelia, or The Treacherous Friend was produced by the King’s Company in 1669; and Elizabeth Polwhele’s The Faithful Virgins was produced by the Duke’s Company in 1670. What was it that opened the door for women to produce their plays on the English stage, a stage that had never welcomed the female pen? The answer certainly requires a study in depth, more than is possible here; yet perhaps a starting point might be the employment of actresses on the stage, a phenomenon which came about with the restoration of Charles II.19 Howe proposes that the acceptance of women on the stage was owing to “a new model of sexual relations … in which the woman as well as the man was entitled to full and adequate individuality”, where, women were thought of as the opposite rather than the inferior sex, as argued in the earlier Jacobean period.20 Howe also points out that female acting on the court stage 18 Laurie Finke, “Aphra Behn and the Ideological Construction of Restoration Literary Theory”, in Rereading Aphra Behn: History, Theory, and Criticism, ed. Heidi Hutner, Charlottesville, Va: U of Virginia P, 1993, 25. 19 For a study of the employment of actresses on the English Stage, see Elizabeth Howe, The First English Actresses: Women and Drama 1660-1700, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992, and Sandra Richards, The Rise of the English Actress, New York: St Martin’s Press, 1993. As Howe observes while women may well have performed in fifteenth-century mystery plays, the employment of actresses on the patent stage did not occur until 1660. 20 Howe, First English Actresses, 21.

8

Of Love and War

had “gained considerable currency” in the early Stuart period under Queens Anne and Henrietta Maria. Although this may be true of females acting in court masques, for example, the arrival of the actresses on the Restoration patent stage raised an unforeseen and problematic clamour. While the acting companies fought illegal competition externally, chaotic faction and jealousy internally also hindered their development, as some of the experienced actors neither readily nor willingly accepted their female counterparts, the actresses, which they felt had been simply foisted upon them.21 Sorelius notes that the male players of Mohun’s group felt forced to “oblige” themselves to act with women. A petition from Michael Mohun to the King, dated 13 October, 1660 begins: “Since Mr. Killegrew haueing yor. Maties. former Grante supprest vs vntill wee had by covenant obleiged our selues to Act with Woemen a new Theatre and Habitts according to our Sceanes.”22 Further evidence of the reluctance of the older Caroline actors to work with actresses is demonstrated in the prologue to Shadwell’s operatic version of Dryden and Davenant’s The Tempest, or The Enchanted Island (1674) in which the Duke’s Company responds to a verbal assault on their theatre by the envious King’s Company: To splendid things they [The King’s Company] follow in, but late: They ne’re invent, but they can imitate: Had we not for yr. pleasure found new wayes You still had rusty Arras had, & thredbare playes; Nor scenes nor Woomen, had they had their will, But some with grizl’d Beards had acted Woomen still.23

21

Gunnar Sorelius, The Giant Race Before the Flood: Pre-Restoration Drama on the Stage and in the Criticism of the Restoration, Uppsala: Almquist and Wiksells, 1966, 16. 22 Henry Herbert, The Control and Censorship of Caroline Drama: The Records of Sir Henry Herbert, Master of the Revels 1623-73, ed. N.W. Bawcutt, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1996, 235, Document R17. 23 Thomas Shadwell, “Second Prologue”, in The Tempest, or The Enchanted Island: A Comedy. As it is now Acted at His Highness the Duke of York’s Theatre (1674), in The Complete Works of Thomas Shadwell, ed. Montague Summers, 5 vols, London: Fortune Press, 1927, II, 196. This reference I owe to Sorelius, The Giant Race Before the Flood, 62.

Introduction

9

Derek Hughes suggests another method by which women playwrights may have been ushered into the theatre, pointing out that Mary Davenant, William Davenant’s widow, ran the Duke’s Company from 1668-1673 until her son was old enough to take over.24 As a good businesswoman, Mary Davenant would have recognized a potentially successful dramatic text and, as a woman herself, may have felt less concern about the gender of the playwright. Owing to her difficult experience during her espionage mission abroad, Behn’s connections with Killigrew may well have paved the way – at least for her first play. In 1666, Behn was sent to Antwerp where she was to contact William Scot, with whom she had had an acquaintance in Surinam.25 Behn’s objective was to gain Scot’s confidence and to tender money and a pardon from the King in order to learn what information about the Dutch Scot could provide. During the course of her task in Antwerp, Henry Bennet, Lord Arlington, failed to send her adequate supplies of money, and her financial situation became increasingly desperate. When she finally received the order to return to England, it came without the necessary travel funds, and hence she was forced to borrow money for her passage home, a desperate act that was to have severe ramifications on her immediate future. Document Ninety in the Calendar of State Papers-Domestic for 1668 is a petition from A. Behn, asking for an order to either Chiffinch or May for money due to Mr. Butler, from whom she had evidently borrowed funds and who had been threatening her with an execution for debt.26 A second petition, Document Ninety-one, from 24

Derek Hughes, The Theatre of Aphra Behn, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001, 5. Mary Davenant directed the Duke’s Company after her husband’s death in 1668 until their son Charles reached majority in 1673. Nevertheless, given that she was a good businesswoman, it is doubtful that she no longer had any influence in the company. In 1672, she started a new Nursery for young actors in the Barbican. See A Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Musicians, Dancers, Managers and Other Stage Personnel in London 1660-1800, eds Philip Highfill et al., Carbondale, Ill: Southern Illinois UP, 1975, IV. 25 Janet Todd, The Secret Life of Aphra Behn, London: Andre Deutsch, 1996, 80-115; Angeline Goreau, Reconstructing Aphra: A Social Biography of Aphra Behn, Oxford: Oxford UP, 1980, 89-113; Maureen Duffy, The Passionate Shepherdess: Aphra Behn 1660-1689, London: Cape 1977, 65-87; Frederick Link, Aphra Behn, New York: Twayne, 1968, 20-21. 26 Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1668-1669, 127. Chiffinch is William Chiffinch,

10

Of Love and War

an Aphara or Fyhare Behn petitions the King, asking for £150 to be paid to Edward Butler. Attached to this petition is a personal letter addressed to Thomas Killigrew in which Behn, claiming to be sick and weak, makes the following plea: I will send my mother to the King with a petition, and not perish in a prison, whence he [Butler] swears I shall not stir till I have paid the uttermost farthing. If I have not the money tonight you must send me something to keep me in prison, for I will not starve.

A further document, Ninety-two, notes that upon Lord Arlington’s claiming that he had “neither money nor orders about it [Behn’s petition]”, Edward Butler had her imprisoned.27 Behn could not have been pleased with Arlington’s lack of response to her needs while abroad nor with his failure to respond to her plea for assistance after she returned to England. Her criticism of Arlington may well be in her character Falatius, the “phantastick courtier” in her first-produced play, The Forc’d Marriage. Falatius wears a black patch on his face to cover a pretended wound in order to attract women. He has been suggested as a “personation” of William Davenant, who, like Lord Arlington, wore a black patch over his nose. However, given Arlington’s unpopularity and Behn’s numerous references in her Prologue to spying, for which Arlington as Secretary of State was responsible, Falatius is more likely a veiled reference to Arlington. Davenant’s black patch covered that part of his nose he lost to the ravages of syphilis.28 Falatius is weak and cowardly. Davenant reportedly served honourably in the Civil Wars, and no contemporary references suggest his lack of a military constitution. Mary Edmond observes that if Davenant had had a weak martial constitution, his critics would certainly have noted it, since they were quick to seize on his shortcomings.29 Furthermore, the point of personation was to

________________________ Closet-keeper to Charles II, and May is Baptist May, Keeper of the Privy Purse. 27 Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1668-1669, 127. 28 Mary Edmond, Rare Sir William Davenant: Poet Laureate, Playwright, Civil War General, Restoration Theatre Manager, Manchester: Manchester UP, 1987, 44-49. 29 See Edmond’s chapter on Davenant’s activities in the Civil Wars in Rare Sir William Davenant, especially pages 91-102. Edmond notes that Davenant served for some time as

Introduction

11

embarrass the victim through ridicule, and Davenant had died in 1668, two years before the production of The Forc’d Marriage. Additionally, to personate one of the only two theatre managers at the commencement of one’s playwriting career would have been extremely unwise. That Aphra Behn chose to personate the Secretary of State was perhaps imprudent on her part; yet the personation suggests that she was not only interested in but also keenly aware of the political intrigues at court. Her personation of Arlington may help to explain why her first play was produced by the Duke’s Company and not by Killigrew at the King’s Company. Her relationship with Killigrew appears to have been a congenial one, and some scholars have even suggested that Killigrew paid Behn’s debt to secure her release from prison.30 While this may be so, Behn perhaps felt inclined to take The Forc’d Marriage to the Duke’s Company owing to its apparent attack on Arlington. Killigrew was married to Arlington’s widowed aunt, and, prior to the Interregnum, Arlington had written prologues for at least two plays for Killigrew.31 In fulfilling his post as Secretary of State, Arlington was responsible for the supervision and licensing of printing and publishing. Therefore, it may well have been owing to a conflict of both a personal and political nature that Behn’s first play was produced by the Duke’s Company. Just as important a consideration, however, is the fact that the Duke’s Company was more receptive to new playwrights. The King’s Company had obtained the rights to the majority of the old plays and were successfully re-staging the popular Jacobean and Caroline plays by Jonson and Beaumont and Fletcher; Davenant received few of these proven successes for the repertoire of the Duke’s Company. Although staging new plays always involved financial risks, Davenant appears to have been intrigued by innovation, and this is well demonstrated by his enterprising and foresighted management style

________________________ Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance under William Cavendish, Earl of Newcastle, who was Lord General of the King’s forces in the North. 30 Link, Aphra Behn, 21 and Duffy, Passionate Shepherdess, 92. In The Secret Life of Aphra Behn, Todd, speculates that Behn may have escaped debtor’s prison in exchange for a further espionage mission, 119-20. 31 Violet Barbour claims that Arlington wrote “a prefatory eulogy of two dramas” for Killigrew. See her Henry Bennet, Earl of Arlington, Secretary of State to Charles II, London: Milford, 1914, 7.

12

Of Love and War

and by his development and employment of elaborate scenes and machines. Thus, his interest in new playwrights may have owed as much to his own inventiveness as to the failure of the Duke’s Company to obtain performance rights to the old plays. In short, the desire for innovation on the part of the Duke’s Company, coupled with the fact that Mary Davenant was the interim manager, may have helped Behn get her first play on the boards.32 The question of gender While Behn’s professional playwriting career was highly unusual and certainly daring, the context of sexual politics in this study is not one which centres solely on the gender of the playwright – rather it undertakes a close exploration of the gendered nature of the action within the dramatic text itself. Elizabeth Schafer argues that: “When Behn is sold today as a proto-feminist … [it] carries with it all the dangers of over-simplification and even reductionism.”33 In other words, Behn should be studied in the context of her male colleagues of whom she considered herself very much a part. For example, in her dedication to Nell Gwynn of The Feign’d Curtizans, or A Nights Intrigue (1679), she refers to the former actress as having “all the Charms and attractions and powers of your sex” (emphasis mine); while this may well represent a mindful recognition of Gwynn’s elevated status as the King’s mistress, at the same time it indicates Behn’s attempt to distance herself, as poet and playwright, from her female gender.34 Later in this same dedication, she observes that excessive praise “ought to make your Sex vain enough to despise the malicious world that will allow a woman no wit” (again emphasis mine), once more a form of distancing, yet also Behn’s reflection of her own difficulty as a female writer in a masculine sphere. Her poem 32 While Boothby’s first play was staged by the King’s Company, one might argue that the acceptance of Behn’s play at the Duke’s was a further matter of one theatre following another’s latest innovation. On the other hand, Polwhele’s first play was also produced at the Duke’s, which may further point to Mary Davenant’s willingness to produce a woman’s play. 33 Elizabeth Schafer, “Appropriating Aphra”, Australasian Drama Studies, XIX (October 1991), 47. 34 Aphra Behn, The Feign’d Curtizans, or A Nights Intrigue: A comedy. As it is Acted at the Dukes Theatre (1679), in Works, VI, 83-159.

Introduction

13

to a “friend” undergoing treatment for venereal disease is entitled, “A Letter to a Brother of the Pen in Tribulation”.35 In the dedication of her novella Oroonoko, or the Royal Slave (1688), she includes herself among the poets as “we” when she writes that “[a] Poet is a Painter in his way; he draws to the Life, but in another kind, we draw to the Nobler part, the Soul and Mind” (54).36 Although Behn repeatedly constructs herself as one in a group of her male colleagues, in her translation of Book Six of Cowley’s Latin Plantarum, she also identifies with the female poets Sappho and Orinda, and asks not to be distained when the “priz’d wreaths” are distributed: “Let me with Sappho and Orinda be / Oh ever sacred Nymph, adorn’d by thee; / And give my Verses Immortality” (ll. 59294).37 If we view her plays solely as feminist, we marginalize her and therefore risk inevitable misreadings.38 Through the course of her playwriting career, Behn came to realize the dangers of emphasizing her female identity. In her early plays, she openly proclaims her professional status and her equality with male playwrights. In her Preface to The Dutch Lover, she contends that, “except our most unimitable Laureat, I dare to say I know of none [male poets] that write at such a formidable rate, but that a woman may well hope to reach their greatest hights”.39 In her Epilogue to Sir Patient Fancy (1678) she writes: What has poor Woman done that she must be Debar’d from Sense and sacred Poetrie? Why in this Age has Heaven allow’d you more, And Women less of Wit than heretofore? We once were fam’d in Story, and could write Equall to men; cou’d Govern, nay cou’d Fight. We still have passive Valour, and can show Wou’d Custom give us leave the Active too, ... 35

Aphra Behn, “A Letter to a Brother of the Pen in Tribulation”, in Works, I, 72. This last reference I credit to Debra Uman, “Aphra Behn, Dedication, Oroonoko: Or, The Royal Slave (1688)”, in Reading Early Modern Women, 311. 37 Aphra Behn, “Of Plants. Book VI”, in Works, I, 325. 38 Susan J. Owen, “Sexual Politics and Party Politics in Behn’s Drama, 1678-83”, in Aphra Behn Studies, ed. Janet Todd, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996, 15-16. 39 Aphra Behn, The Dutch Lover, V, 162. 36

14

Of Love and War /…pray tell me then Why Women should not write as well as Men.40

By the time Behn wrote her Preface to The Luckey Chance, however, her tone had noticeably changed. She no longer aggressively challenges her male colleagues with claims of equality; rather, she attempts to identify with them by suggesting that she, too, has “masculine parts”: All I ask, is the Priviledge for my Masculine Part the Poet in me, (if any such you will allow me) to tread in those successful Paths my Predecessors have so long thriv’d in …. If I must not, because of my Sex, have this Freedom, but that you will usurp all to your selves; I lay down my Quill …. for I am not content to write for a Third day only. I value Fame as much as if I had been born a Hero.41

While her “masculine part” may be her poetic voice, she acknowledges her “female part” as subject and clearly recognizes the contemporary gender hierarchy. By asserting an androgynous nature, she simultaneously subverts social convention. She concludes her Preface by referring to herself not as a “heroine”, but rather as a “hero”, thus re-emphasizing the superiority of her male over her female qualities. “Fame” in regard to a woman’s reputation meant “infamy”, while “fame” for a man connoted honour and achievement. While she values the honour and achievement which writing can generate, she also esteems the honour of her reputation. It is inaccurate then to over-emphasize Behn’s concern either with the female plight or her own femaleness, since in the context of writing publicly, she insisted on her male qualities. By seventeenthcentury social standards, a woman’s thoughts, which included her writing, were a strictly private matter. As in the case of Katherine Philips, “as long as a woman remained a graceful literary amateur, she was tolerated, often praised, sometimes even idolized”.42 However, 40

Aphra Behn, Epilogue to Sir Patient Fancy: A Comedy. As it is Acted at the Duke’s Theatre (1678), ll.5-44, in Works, VI, 79-80. 41 Aphra Behn, Preface to The Luckey Chance, ll. 119-28, in Works, VII, 217. 42 Jean Elisabeth Gagen, The New Woman: Her Emergence in English Drama 16001730, New York: Twayne, 1954, 67.

Introduction

15

the woman who wrote professionally threatened the male hierarchy; she transgressed gender boundaries, and by defying established social convention, she ran the risk of losing her reputation. By writing for money, Behn prostituted herself, and her public behaviour was judged analogous to her moral values. Consequently, in her Preface to The Luckey Chance, she found it necessary to defend her honour and to assert that she is indeed modest. The private self, the playwright claims, is different from the public author of her plays:43 ... and those [judges] I hope will be so kind to me, knowing my Conversation not at all addicted to the Indecencys alledged, that I would much less practice it in a Play, that must stand the Test of the censuring World. And I must want common Sense, and all the degrees of good Manners, renouncing my Fame, all Modesty and Interest for a silly Sawcy fruitless Jest, to make Fools laugh, and Women blush, and wise Men asham’d …. Is this likely, is this reasonable to be believ’d by any body, but the wilfully blind? (ll. 110-19)

Even so, in spite of her claims of innocence, her plays were frequently as immodest as those by the male playwrights; that they were written by a female, however, offered an added dimension to their shock value. It seems unfortunate, then, given Behn’s own realization of the dangers of pressing the issue of her gender, that scholarship on her plays frequently insist upon examining them through the gender of the playwright.44 Behn’s public career as a professional writer, her early voyage to Surinam, and her employment in espionage for Charles II were certainly unconventional for a seventeenth-century woman. However, while these unconventional aspects of her life no doubt influenced her work, they have to be reconciled with the manner in 43

Aphra Behn, Preface to The Luckey Chance, in Works, VII, 215-17. See, for example, her biographers: Link, Aphra Behn, 29-33; Goreau, Reconstructing Aphra, 123-30; and Duffy, Passionate Shepherdess, 102-103. Janet Todd, on the other hand, notes the “political messages” in both The Forc’d Marriage and The Amorous Prince (see Todd, Secret Life, 150). In his survey of English drama, Derek Hughes notes the conflict these early plays demonstrate between social structure and personal desire in a culture dominated by masculine values (Derek Hughes, English Drama 1600-1700, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1996, 160-66 and 176-77). 44

16

Of Love and War

which her plays needed to remain conventional in order to be produced on the patent stage. Throughout her plays, Behn consistently offers ardent political opinion in much the same manner as her male colleagues, and, as I shall demonstrate, this politicality begins with her first play. It is tempting to view the themes of her plays in the light of social problems and/or feminist issues for these are of tremendous importance in the seventeenth century, as can be seen by the number of pamphlets arguing for female privileges, such as a masculine education. Yet when her plays are read in juxtaposition to historical events, as well as in the context of plays by her male colleagues, it becomes evident that what appear to be feminist issues are often a covert construct for Stuart political ideology. These same constructs were practiced as well, as I shall demonstrate, by her contemporary male playwrights to articulate their own observations and opinions on contemporary political affairs.

CHAPTER ONE ROMANCE, RESTORATION, AND EXCLUSION IN THE YOUNG KING: OR, THE MISTAKE And what offense hast thou received from a Prince, who gave thee his heart at that time when thou didst assault his life with so much inhumanity?1

In the dedication to The Young King: or, The Mistake, Behn refers to her play as the “youthful sally of my Pen, this first Essay of my Infant-Poetry”.2 Her dedication is problematic and has caused a great deal of confusion and speculation in attempting to date the composition of this play.3 Some of Behn’s biographers believe she wrote the play in Surinam or at least sketched the outline there. However, as Link notes, there is nothing in the dedication to support this claim, and I think Link is probably correct.4 The play is marked by a stagecraft superior to that of her first two produced plays, yet there is little reason to doubt her statement, particularly given the sub-genre in which she constructs her secondary plot, which has distinct similarities to a restoration-type play. Given that the majority of these plays were produced between 1664 and 1670, it seems likely that she wrote her play after her return to England from Surinam in 1664 and before 1670, when The Forc’d Marriage was produced. That she was able to revive this play in 1679 owes much to the similarity of the political issues of Restoration and Exclusion: hereditary succession and the nature and source of royal power. 1

Signeur de Gautier de Costes La Calprenède, Cléopâtre, Paris, 1646-1657, translated as Hymen’s Praeludia, or, Love’s Master-piece by R. Lovelace, John Coles, James Webb and John Davies, London, 1652-1663, IV.viii, 191. 2 Aphra Behn, The Young King: or, The Mistake (1671), in Works, VII, 79-151. 3 See Todd, Secret Life, 40; Link, Aphra Behn, 58-60; Goreau, Reconstructing Aphra, 316, n.4; Duffy, The Passionate Shepherdess, 223, and Montague Summers, The Works of Aphra Behn, 6 vols (1915), London: Phaeton, 1967, II, 103-104. 4 See Link’s discussion on The Young King in Aphra Behn, 58-60.

18

Of Love and War

Restoration-type plots largely re-historicize the return of the Stuart monarchy, and they accomplish this through the presentation of a plot that runs parallel to the Civil Wars, Interregnum, and Restoration in some respects only, allowing the audience to compare and contrast the stage representation with historical events.5 This type of play includes a specific cast of characters: an usurper, a legitimate heir, a restoring general and a female “subject”. Each of these characters performs a certain pattern of actions, all of which converge to accomplish a common end – the restoration of the legitimate heir. The tyrannical usurper usually claims the throne as a result of a civil conflict in which the reigning King is killed. The legitimate heir is assisted in deposing the usurper and regaining possession of his throne by a “restoring general”, who typically has served under the usurper, but has transferred his allegiance to the legitimate King. Once he is rightfully restored, the soldiers also shift their allegiance to the new King, who magnanimously offers a pardon to all those who served under the usurper. The female subject is frequently the love interest of both factions in the conflict, where the war is played out as a contest of desire and possession. Given the relationship between King and subject as a contemporary analogy for that between husband and wife, sexual consummation becomes a trope for political allegiance and, hence, the validation of legitimate rule. Since restoration-type plays are typically allusions to historical events, the plots often contain multifarious sub-plot activities as well as a certain number of historically unidentifiable characters, all of whom serve to contribute to the playwrights’ own interpretation of historical and political actions. Nevertheless, the main thread of this sub-genre presents an analogy, or perhaps quasi-analogy, to historical events, and this thread can be traced in manifold serious plots in the first decade of the Restoration. In the secondary plot of The Young King, Behn constructs a restoration-type configuration, although there are a few differences from the typical format. For instance, the legitimate King of Dacia has been killed as a result of a foreign conflict rather than a civil one. The usurper in The Young King is not the head of the opposition, as usually occurs in such plays; that role belongs to the Queen of Dacia, mother of the legitimate heir, Prince Orsames. The Queen, who has 5

Jose, Ideas of the Restoration, 126.

Romance, Restoration and Exclusion

19

imprisoned her son since his birth, has diverted the succession to her warrior daughter, Princess Cleomena. Through the heroic action of the restoring General, Colonel Vallentio, the Prince is restored to the throne and marries the virtuous, obedient subject, Olympia. The restoration-type play occupied the stage in the 1660s for the most part. By the early 1670s, this type of play, with a few exceptions, was no longer staged. Performed in 1670, Behn’s first produced play, The Forc’d Marriage, is one of these late exceptions. A single-plotted serious play and the subject of the following chapter, The Forc’d Marriage patterns the restoration-type format closely, and therefore provides an opportunity for a more elaborate discussion of this type of sub-genre of the serious play. Behn’s contemporary society likened the tumult of the Civil Wars to a world turned upside-down. The emotional and psychological upheaval of the Exclusion Crisis nearly twenty years later reproduced these same fears and anxieties. Although The Young King may have been written in the early 1660s to re-historicize the return of the Stuart monarchy, it serves as well to address the Exclusion Crisis of the late 1670s and early 1680s, particularly since one of the main issues in both crises was indefeasible hereditary succession. By drawing on the pastoral romance, a mode readily associated with the Caroline court, and by employing themes of war and usurpation, Behn constructs an obvious parallel to the Caroline and Interregnum eras. In her depiction of an exiled Prince, who eventually obtains his right to succeed, she conspicuously reconstructs events surrounding the Restoration and reveals overtly her royalist concurrence with hereditary succession. She accomplishes the synthesis of the divergent story lines through the restoration of the legitimate King as well as through the marriage of the two plots. Within its pastoral setting, The Young King largely consists of two substantial plots. The main heroic romance plot, which treats old Cavalier style notions of love and honour, is adapted from La Calprenède’s Cléopâtre (1646-1657). The secondary plot, which reflects the early Carolean restoration-type plays, is largely taken from Calderón’s La vida es sueño (1636).6 The humour in this play comes 6

The story on which Behn based her main plot, “The History of Alcamenes and Menalippa”, is found in part eight of Hymen’s Praeludia and was translated by James Webb. Somewhat problematic in this volume are the occasional misnumbered pages. I

20

Of Love and War

from its comical interludes, provided both by the fop-courtier, Pimante, and by a “Rabble of the Mobile”. Produced at the height of her playwriting career, the general design of the play is rather unsophisticated and straightforward for such an experienced playwright; at the same time, some aspects of its construction demonstrate a polished effort uncommon for a first dramatic text. Although the general design of The Young King is relatively simple with two main plots and few auxiliary plot actions, the playwright demonstrates a stagecraft technically superior to what would be anticipated for a first play. Through the action of her characters, Behn interweaves the two plots in The Young King more effectively than in her second produced play, The Amorous Prince, also a double-plotted play; her dialogue and auctorial control suggest the practised hand of an experienced playwright. Clearly The Young King benefited from the long delay between its creation, probably in the 1660s, and its production in 1679. In providing a parallel with the chaos of the Civil Wars, as well as in depicting the social and political disruption of succession diverted, The Young King reflects the crisis in the state in 1679 brought about by the contentious politics of Exclusion. That Behn returned to this play more than a decade after it was written demonstrates an acute political awareness. The manner in which she draws attention to the nation’s recent tumultuous and bloody past, while ominously positing a potential return to former civil upheaval, demonstrates a shrewd political acumen for woman of this period while revealing as well her own fears of “’41 again”. The Cavalier romance plot The romance plot of The Young King must be considered essentially an adaptation of La Calprenède’s Alcamenes/Menalippa story since it follows the French text so closely. La Calprenède’s warrior Princess, Menalippa, becomes Behn’s Cleomena, while the heroic Alcamenes have used Webb’s 1663 translation of La Calprenède’s text, to which I shall hereafter refer as “La Calprenède, Cleopatra” – the manner of reference modern scholars have adopted. For references, I will give part, book, and page number. Don Pedro Calderón de la Barca’s La vida es sueño, translated as Life’s a Dream by Kathleen Raine and R.M. Nadal, London: Hamish, 1968, a translation of La vida es sueño. Calderón wrote two versions of this play, an early version in 1629 and a later one published in 1636. The play was first performed at the court theatre in Madrid in 1635. There are no line numbers in this text and, therefore, references are to act, scene and page number.

Romance, Restoration and Exclusion

21

/Alcimedon becomes Behn’s Thersander/Clemanthis. She deletes a number of the prose romance characters, but adds two sub-plot characters: the courtier-fop, Pimante, and the submissive Scythian woman, Urania. Behn makes extensive use of La Calprenède’s text. One brief example here may be found in the description of Menalippa’s character. La Calprenède’s text reads, “if she were not entirely an Amazon, at least she was capable of those Martial Women practices” (VIII.ii.139). Behn’s Pimante describes Cleomena in similar terms, claiming that “though she be no natural Amazon, she’s capable of all their Martial Fopperies” (I.i.74-75). Similar textual parallels may be found throughout Behn’s play. Dramatic convention necessarily forces her to condense the French source and, thus, she deletes some of the heroics, while retaining much of the plot line. One of the more remarkable changes Behn makes to the romance plot, certainly one that furthers Caroline associations, is the inclusion of a Druid, who replaces the hermit of La Calprenède’s text. The hermit in Cléopâtre divines the Prince’s fate through casting his horoscope. An incident occurred in 1667 which may have encouraged Behn to revise that particular scene in the plot. On 25 February 1667, a warrant was issued to John Barcroft, Sergeant-at-Arms, to arrest the Duke of Buckingham for treason in “compassing or imagining the King’s death”.7 If Behn’s play was initially written between 1664 and 1670, as I believe it was, this particular incident would have been too fresh to use in her play and certainly, then, a dangerous plot device.8 By substituting a Druid, she distances herself from such an incident while also drawing on earlier Protestant and Stuart iconography to celebrate the King’s role as head of the Church of England. Significantly, she locates the Druid in this play in the main or romance plot where the Druid becomes a further component in the Caroline construction of this story line. Her use of the Druid may assist in the dating of the initial composition of The Young King since two other plays using Druids were published in 1664 – Robert Stapylton’s The Stepmother, performed in late 1663, and Thomas 7

Miller, Charles II, 128. For more information on the horoscope incident, see Calendar of State Papers Domestic, 1666-1667. See also The Diary of Samuel Pepys, eds Robert Latham and William Matthews, 11 vols, London: Bell, 1970-1983, VIII, 93-94, dated 3 March 1667.

8

22

Of Love and War

Killigrew’s Cicilia and Clorinda, Parts I and II.9 While a number of spirits, ghosts, magicians, and other forms of supernatural characters might be found in Restoration drama, Druids in dramatic texts are relatively hard to find again until the turn of the eighteenth century. The Druid, however, is a frequent feature of Caroline court masques and pastorals, where he functions as a correlation between what Leah Marcus terms “British Ur-Christianity”, presided over by the Druid priest, and the Anglican Church, presided over by the monarch.10 Charles I performed in Thomas Carew’s masque, Coelum Britannicum (1634), in the role of a Druid Magus. Urania describes the Druid in The Young King as one, “who in’s youth / Had liv’d in Courts, but now retir’d to Shades, / And is a little Monarch o’er his Flocks” (II.ii.41-44). In 1640, the Royalist James Howell published the first part of his Dodona’s Grove, or, the Vocall Forrest, which is set in “Druina” and protected by Neptune, “who with a flying gard of brave winged Coursers doth engarrison her so strongly, that, lying safe in his bosom, she may be said to be Media insuperabilis Unda”.11 In the Prologue, Howell points to the metaphorical relationship between men and trees, subsequently noting that Druina is protected by the “royall Oke in chiefe” (5-6). The muses in Druina have two “dainty Groves of Laurels” that “perpetually produce hopefull young cions, which germinat with all kind of knowledge . . . whereby she [Druina] is

alwaies furnished with nurseries of scientificall graffes, which she disperseth up and downe to unfold the sacred Oracles, for which she is now as renowned, as sometimes she was for her Druyds” (40). The symbolic significance of the Druid for Charles I, whose sacred power as the Druid priest revitalizes Ancient Britain, carried over to the reign of Charles II, who was similarly celebrated as a Druid priest by Restoration poets:12

9

Thomas Killigrew’s Cicilia and Clorinda Parts I and II, London, 1664, were first performed in 1649-50. 10 Leah S. Marcus, The Politics of Mirth: Jonson, Herrick, Milton, Marvell, and the Defense of Old Holiday Pastimes, Chicago and London: U of Chicago P, 1986, 223. 11 James Howell, Dodona’s Grove or, The Vocall Forrest, London, 1640, 6. 12 Marcus, Politics of Mirth, 222-28.

Romance, Restoration and Exclusion

23

Near this Muse, what most delights her, sees A living gallery of aged trees; Bold sons of earth, that thrust their arms so high, As if once more they would invade the sky. In such green palaces the first Kings reigned, Slept in their shades, and angels entertained; … Here Charles contrives the ordering of his states, Here he resolves his neighbouring Princes’ fates; What nation shall have peace, where war be made, Determined is in this oraculous shade.13

The oak, sacred to the Druids, was also associated with Zeus and Jupiter (Jove).14 Classical, Celtic, and English monarchical symbolism are woven together in Stuart panegyrics, as may be witnessed in John Dryden’s verse, “To His Sacred Maiesty, A Panegyrick on His Coronation”: Thus from your Royal Oke, like Jove’s of old, Are answers sought, and destinies fore-told: Propitious Oracles are beg’d with vows, And Crowns that grow upon the sacred boughs.15

Druid symbolism had an explicit corollary with Charles II through the May celebrations, a festival which probably stemmed from Beltaine, one of the four main Celtic feast days.16 Given the proclamation of Charles II as King on 8 May, his arrival in England on 26 May, and 13

Edmund Waller, “On St James’s Park, as Lately Improved by His Majesty”, ll. 67-80, in The Poems of Edmund Waller, ed. G. Thorn Drury, London: Lawrence & Bullen; New York: C. Scribner’s sons, 1893, 168-73. 14 James MacKillop, Dictionary of Celtic Mythology, Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998, 309. 15 John Dryden, “To His Sacred Maiesty, a Panegyrick on His Coronation”, ll. 129-32, in Poems: 1649-1680, eds Edward Niles Hooker et al., in The Works of John Dryden, gen. eds Edward Niles Hooker and Hugh Thomas Swedenberg, Jr. et al., Berkeley: U of California P, 1970-, I, 33-36. An editorial note to this poem suggests that these lines allude as well to the oak in which Charles hid during the battle of Worcester. The oak with crowns on its boughs is a descriptive reference to one of the triumphal arches through which Charles II would have passed on his way to the coronation ceremony (“Notes” I, 241). Leah Marcus claims the oak had been associated with the Stuarts long before the oak at Worcester (See Marcus, Politics of Mirth, 220). 16 MacKillop, Dictionary of Celtic Mythology, 35.

24

Of Love and War

his birthday on 29 May, the significance of May celebrations adopted a new importance, and the King himself became known as the “May Prince”. Since the maypole was traditionally a symbol of royalism, it was prohibited under the Interregnum government, but after the Restoration, May celebrations in many communities were either transferred to or re-celebrated on 29 May.17 The poets addressed their panegyrics on the return of Charles II using May imagery. For example, Dryden in Astræa Redux writes: How shall I speak of that triumphant Day When you renew’d the expiring Pomp of May! (A Month that owns an Intrest in your Name: You and the Flow’rs are its peculiar Claim.)18

The Druid in Behn’s play is but one of a variety of means she employs to draw tacit parallels to the Caroline court. That she chose a pastoral romance as her source, and particularly a French one which treats a warrior woman, is perhaps central to the political intent of this play, since Henrietta Maria adopted the pastoral romance as her own personal genre. Queen Amalthea in the French romance is described as taking command of her army in the following manner: This Numerous Army composed of more than Eight and twenty thousand Horse, and Sixty-five thousand Foot, and commanded by many valiant Kings and Princes ... wanted a General in Chief, whom all the rest ought to obey; for this great Body must have a Head to actuate its members …. the Queen ended the controversie, by demanding it for her self; reasoning, that having armed them all in hers, and the Princess Menalippa’s quarrel, it was just that Menalippa and herself should take the journey in person, and march to a Conquest wherein Menalippa was particularly ingaged, since the gods promised it to her only. (8.3.162)

Many in Behn’s audience would have been aware that Henrietta Maria actively participated in the Civil Wars, where at Newark she personally took command of some of the royalist forces. Having 17

Marcus, Politics of Mirth, 263-63. John Dryden, Astræa Redux: A Poem on the Restoration of Charles II (1660), ll. 28487, in Works, I, 21-31. 18

Romance, Restoration and Exclusion

25

sailed to Holland to pawn her jewels to raise money for the royal cause, she returned to England with military supplies. During her intrepid march to Newark, she penned the following letter to her husband, detailing her progress: I carry with me 3000. Foote, 30. Companyes of Horse and Dragoons, 6. peeces of Cannon, and 2. Mortars. Harry Germyn commands the forces which goe with mee as Colonell of my Guarde, and Sir Alexander Lesley the foote under him, [Sir John] Gerard the Horse, and Robin Legg[e] the Artillery, and her shee Majestie, Generalissima, and extremely diligent with a 150 wagans of Baggage to governe, in case of Battle.19

Neither through her Queen nor the warrior Princess, Cleomena, is Behn attempting a personation of Henrietta Maria, “her she Majestie Generalissima”. Rather, what I am suggesting here is that her choice of this text probably had much to do with its application to the Caroline court. In La Calprenède’s story, the Dacian army was “composed of more than Eight and twenty thousand Horse, and Sixty five thousand Foot ... and the Queen Amalthea could not see her self at the Head of Such an Army without giving absolute credit to the Oracles which promised the Crown of Scythia to Menalippa” (8.3.161). Owing to the immense popularity of La Calprenède’s text, Behn’s audience would surely have been familiar with this story line. Thus, she encodes her text by using an enormously popular source (which coincidentally happens to include strikingly similar incidents to her own recent historical past) in order to make implicit references to the trauma and upheaval of the Civil Wars. Behn condenses the story somewhat, not only by sending her warrior Princess, Cleomena, into battle, but also by making her from the inception of the play the general of the army, as she eventually does become in the French romance:

19 The King’s Cabinet Opened, or Certain Packets of Secret Letters and Papers written withe the King’s own Hand and taken in His Cabinet at Naseby Field June 14, 1645, London: R. Bostock, 1645; Leigh-on-Sea: Partizan Press, 1983, 33. See also Agnes Strickland, Lives of the Queens of England, from the Norman Conquest; with Anecdotes of their Courts, 8 vols, London: Henry Colburn, 1851, V, 302.

26

Of Love and War Queen: I’m glad to see ye all in readiness; To morrow I intend to be i’th’ Camp, – And Cleomena is your General. Since ’tis her Cause we fight, it is but just She share the danger of it with the glory. (II.iii.175-79)

William Davenant’s The Siege of Rhodes, produced in 1656 at Rutland House and performed frequently during the 1660-61 theatre season, also includes a scene which may refer to Henrietta Maria’s war effort. Early in his play the heroine, Ianthe, enters the stage with her women, bearing two caskets of jewels that she intends to sell to assist her husband, the Sicilian Duke Alphonso, in the war effort: Ianthe: If by their sale my lord may be redeem’d, Why should they more than trifles be Esteem’d, Vainly secur’d with iron bars and locks? They are the spawn of shells, and warts or rocks.20

After the Restoration, Davenant produced the second part to The Siege of Rhodes and the two parts appear in several aspects to be a reconstruction of the Civil Wars and an oblique representation of Charles I and Henrietta Maria. Lois Potter notes that literary “encoding”, a means by which writers could express covertly political opinion and commentary, was widely practised during the Civil Wars and Interregnum, where literary devices and even genres functioned as codes.21 Since early 20

William Davenant, The Siege of Rhodes [Two Parts] (1656), in The Dramatic Works of Sir William Davenant, 5 vols, Edinburgh: William Paterson; London: H. Sotheran, 1873, III, 231-365. The Siege of Rhodes Part One in this edition is not divided into acts and scenes. The speech by Ianthe is on page 263. Dale Randall claims that Ianthe “appears on the ramparts of Rhodes clad as a soldier”. However, in none of the versions of Davenant’s opera that I have consulted did I find stage instructions relating to the ramparts or Ianthe’s attire. See Dale Randall, Winter Fruit: English Drama 1642-1660, Lexington: U of Kentucky P, 1995, 173. Randall appears to have taken this information from Ann-Mari Hedbäck’s 1973 edition of Davenant’s Siege of Rhodes. I do not know the source of her claim. 21 Lois Potter, Secret Rites and Secret Writing: Royalist Literature, 1641-1660, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989, 38. Potter notes various ways in which encoding could be accomplished through language by using cipher, iconography (picture as word), anagram, and chronogram as well as through literary devices such as metaphors, allegories, fables, parables, and oracles.

Romance, Restoration and Exclusion

27

Carolean literature appears to employ, and even to depend on, Caroline literary forms, devices, and contexts, there is little reason to suspect that such encoding ended with the Restoration of Charles II, and, in fact, the romance plot in The Young King allows Behn to participate in this encoding process. Annabel Patterson observes that works such as Madeleine de Scudéry’s Artamène, ou le Grand Cyrus (1649-53) and Clélie (165460) and La Calprenède’s Cassandra (1642-45) intertwine French and English History.22 When Artarmène appeared in translation in 1653, Patterson notes, the author, F. G., observed that “Romances … touch upon the greatest Affairs of our Times: for, Designs of War and Peace are better hinted and cut open by a Romance, than by downright Histories … which are often too modest and sparing”.23 Romances, as Patterson claims, offer an account of the Civil Wars and the aftermath, as do many of the serious dramatic texts in the early decade of the Restoration. While historization might be accomplished through the roman à clef or through reading “our Times” into the text – and such historical roman were particularly popular – so, too, might this be accomplished through the spectacle and drama of performance. Given the interest on the continent in the English Civil Wars, it is not implausible that the “History of Menalippa and Alcamenes” may be the historization of recent events leading up to and including the Civil Wars. Patterson suggests that Charles Cotterell’s intention in translating La Calprenède’s Cassandre (1652) was “to consolidate sympathy for the ‘English Royal Family in exile,’ and to reproach those who had taken the Engagement for their ‘easie compliance ... with the prevailing party’”.24 Class, gender, rebellion In the process of establishing the historical temporality of her romance plot, Behn indicates through characteristic tropes of gender and class subversion notions of rebellion and the resulting tumultuous political disorder and social chaos of civil war, notions that many in her audience would have been all too painfully aware. Although Behn 22

Annabel Patterson, Censorship and Interpretation: The Conditions of Writing and Reading in Early Modern England, Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1984, 187-90. 23 Ibid., 189. 24 Ibid., 189-90.

28

Of Love and War

follows her French source quite closely, she diverges from the romance in several specific scenes. Freed of the romance narrative, these differences provide an intersection between text and Behn’s contemporary context, offering the reader an opportunity to discover the poet’s own voice. The affirmation of a stable social hierarchy is of significant concern in The Young King. Lawrence Stone observes that “the natural result of a long period of social mobility, followed by a civil war and violent political and social upheaval, was a determination in the minds of all classes to put a damper on change, and to reassert traditional control by traditional authorities”.25 That concerns with social class and gender roles were of manifest significance in the Restoration owes more than a little to the desire to order and contain society in ways that had been virtually erased during the Interregnum. In both the French romance and Behn’s play, for example, the love affair between the two young royals, Thersander and Cleomena, encompasses class difference. While in both of the French and the English texts reference is clearly made to the barriers of class in a royal marriage, in Behn’s play, class constraints and social mobility are significantly more defined. When in the French text the lower class Alcamenes/Alcimedon professes love for Menalippa, she “blushed, and became much disordered, and keeping her eyes fixt on the ground, as unable to lift them to Alcimedon’s eyes, remained silent”. After some hesitation Menalippa eventually acknowledges Alcimedon’s transgression of social convention. “Stranger, said she, if I behold thy boldness with rigour, I should judge it worthy of punishment” (VIII.ii.149). Instead, however, she chooses to follow her inclinations, which are to return his affection. In contrast, Behn’s Cleomena takes umbrage when the lower class Clemanthis becomes too familiar. She rises in heated resentment from her place on a grassy bank: Thers: Ah! Madam, if I too presumptuous grow, From your Commands, and all your bounties to me, 25

Lawrence Stone, “Social Mobility in England 1500-1700”, in Seventeenth-Century England: Society in an Age of Revolution, ed. Paul S. Seaver, New York: New Viewpoints, 1976, 55. Jose also observes Restoration society’s “atmosphere of heightened consciousness of political and social differences”, in Ideas of the Restoration, 18-19.

Romance, Restoration and Exclusion

29

You should forgive the pride you do create, And all its strange effects: Which if I have mistaken, let me die. … Cleom: Stranger – before I punish thy presumption, Inform me who it is that has offended: Who giving me no other knowledge of him, Than what his Sword has done – dares raise his eyes to me? (II.iii.113-25)

If class is rigorously acknowledged in Behn’s play, so, too, is gender confronted in an especially significant manner. In scene ii of Act I, a scene which does not occur in La Calprenède’s text, Cleomena and her servant, Semiris, wander in the woods, where Cleomena praises “the works of Nature” and wonders “How many Tales the Ecchoes of these Woods / Cou’d tell of Lovers if they wou’d betray, / That steal delightful hours beneath their Shades!” (I.ii.18-20). In response, Semiris claims sardonically that the only echoes the Princess wishes to hear are “Of Horns and Dogs, or the fierce noise of War” (I.ii.22). Cleomena’s retort is of particular interest: Cleom: You charge me with the faults of Education, That couzening form that veils the face of Nature, But does not see what’s hid within, Semiris: I have an Heart all soft as thine, all woman, Apt to melt down at every tender object: – Oh Semiris! there’s a strange change within me. (I.ii.23-28)

Cleomena has received a masculine upbringing, which includes hunting and fighting, and which, as Semiris observes, has repressed her feminine attributes. Cleomena’s rearing is untypical, and such gender role subversion is symbolic of “the lower orders being out of hand”.26 Female education undermines the established order and predicates rebellion. Gender role subversion provides one of the most fundamental and effective vehicles to convey the concept of rebellion

26

Susan Owen, Restoration Theatre and Crisis, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1996, 75.

30

Of Love and War

– the revolt against a masculine-imposed imperative and, accordingly, the patriarchal authority. While Cleomena’s upbringing has been an unnatural masculine one, her assurances that her heart is a woman’s emphasize her own recognition that she has usurped a gender-role privilege not typically enjoyed by a woman. Her first experience with love awakens in her the discovery of her female nature. While love may stimulate a new awareness of her biological female self, this “other” remains in conflict with the masculine self that the implacable Queen has nurtured and encouraged. In times of war or moved to violence by jealousy or revenge, Cleomena consistently reverts to her masculine nature, which invariably subdues her feminine one. The internal conflict that repeatedly arises within her she attributes to the effects of her masculine education, “that couzening form that veils the face of Nature” (I.ii.24). Education is a gender-determined, culturally imposed privilege and as such it inherently reflects – or, in this case misrepresents – the true gender of the receiver. Education serves a clandestine function by reconstructing gender, and in doing so, turning Dacia upside-down. The Queen has trained Cleomena as a warrior in order that she may slay the King of Scythia and avenge her father’s death. Revenge is typically a masculine occupation, and, hence, it should be a duty undertaken by her brother, Orsames, the heir to the throne. Orsames, however, has been exiled and imprisoned. The fop, Pimante, claims that his education is left to “an old fusty Philosopher”, who teaches the Prince “a deal of Awe and Reverence to the Gods; and tells him that his natu[r]al Reason’s sin” (I.i.55-58). Denied a masculine education and, therefore, authority, Orsames has been rendered effeminate. The masculine Cleomena and the effeminate Orsames particularlize the theatricality – and politicality – of gender subversion. I shall return to this concept in more detail and from another perspective in my later discussion of Behn’s restoration-type plot. In the political framework of The Young King, Behn develops her argument by juxtaposing the tractable Urania, who represents female obedience, with the warrior woman, Cleomena, who represents rebellion and, thus, social and political upheaval. For example, when Urania parts with her lover, Amintas, who leaves for the war, she bemoans her fate:

Romance, Restoration and Exclusion

31

Urania: Why was I made a Woman? or being so, Why had I not a Masculine courage given me? That side by side I might have shar’d thy glory, Or have expir’d together. (III.iii.5-8)

The Scythian Urania may desire an alternate, masculine role, such as that enjoyed by the Dacian Cleomena, but she clearly recognizes and accepts her femininity, and hence her passive, subordinate role. She introduces herself earlier in the play as “a Maid” (I.i.127-28), who sighs for Amintas, a prisoner of war. Taken captive by Vallentio, Urania is gallantly escorted to Cleomena, where she tells the Princess: Urania: – But ’tis not as an Enemy I come, ’Tis rather, Madam, to receive my doom; Nor am I by the chance of War betray’d, But ’tis a willing Captive I am made: … Since yet you may be pleas’d to give me leave To die with him with whom I must not live. (I.ii.228-39)

Urania’s supplication to live in captivity and to die beside the man she loves stands in stark contrast to Cleomena’s aggressive, warrior behaviour. Although Urania, like Cleomena, had earlier taken to the battlefield, she joined the campaign not as a warrior woman, but rather as Amintas’ page, an unassuming and unpretentious role: Urania: Drest like a Youth I hasted from the Court, And being well mounted, soon o’ertook the Army, When all unknown, I got so neer your person, That in the fight I had the glory twice To serve you, when your Horses being kill’d I still presented you with fresh, whose Riders Thy Valour had dismounted. (II.ii.18-24)

Urania claims to have achieved glory not through her own heroic deeds, but mirrored through those of her lover, Amintas, a claim which epitomizes the passive, self-effacing female subject. After her

32

Of Love and War

marriage to Amintas in Act V, he suggests that while a truce prevails they should retreat to the Scythian camp: Urania: There are no Women in the Camp, my Lord. Amintas: No matter, thou canst not hate a Souldier, Since I am one: and you must be obedient, And learn to bear my Bow and Arrows now. It is the duty of a Scythians Wife. Urania: She that can claim Amintas by such ties, May find a safety whereso’er she flies. (V.ii.48-54)

Urania’s female persona consistently finds expression as a measure of Amintas’ masculine warrior identity. The Urania/Amintas subplot is significant in that it offers enlightening opposition to the Cleomena/Thersander main plot, with Urania as the royalist paradigm of the obedient subject and Cleomena as the dangerous rebel. Many of the scenes in which Urania’s submissiveness is demonstrated are paired with a scene in which Cleomena engages in aggressive masculine behaviour. For example, in Act I, scene ii, the Princess, dressed in Amazon attire, has just met the noble Clemanthis, who is in fact, Thersander, the son of the Scythian King. “Rise noble Youth — / Cou’dst thou salute me Mistress of the world, / Or bring me news of conquest over Scythia, / It wou’d not reach so kindly to my Soul” (I.ii.160-63). In the same scene, however, Urania, a captive of the soldiers, defines herself as a maid and wishes nothing more but to give herself freely to Amintas and die with him in captivity. The marriage of Amintas and Urania is juxtaposed to a scene in which Cleomena is brought before the Scythian King, having attempted the murder of his son, Thersander/Clemanthis: Cleom: Thy silence seems to license me to speak, And tell thee King that now our faults are equal; My Father thou hast kill’d, and I thy Son; This will suffice to tell thee who I am: – Now take my Life since I have taken his, And thou shalt see I neither will implore Thy needless Clemency by word or sign: (V.i.4-8)

Romance, Restoration and Exclusion

33

In contrast to Cleomena’s speech, Urania informs the Druid who has married her to Amintas: Urania: – Father – to you I owe Amintas liberty; To you his Life: and now for all my joys, Which if my future service can repay, Command with freedom her you have preserv’d. (V.ii.9-12)

Through Cleomena’s abrasive defiance, which is diametrically opposed to the submissive, subordinate Urania, Behn effectively contrasts the martial Dacians, whose country is undermined by civil unrest and a futile destructive war, with the peaceful Scythians, whose patriarchal society and passive subjects are the epitome of order and prosperity. In La Calprenède’s story, the Scythian King, Orontes, offers peace to the beleaguered Queen Amalthea immediately after Menalippa fatally wounds his son, Alcamenes, during the second Dacian challenge. The Queen, in spite of her daughter’s sudden disappearance, accepts the extended olive branch. Peace is not contingent upon the marriage of the two young royals. However, in Behn’s The Young King, Cleomena and Thersander unfold their various misunderstandings and eventually agree to marriage, which brings about a resolution to the conflict between the two nations. While foreign peace may be accomplished through marriage, domestic peace within Dacia can only be realized after Cleomena has relinquished her claim to the throne and the young King, Orsames, is restored. The Carolean restoration plot While the revenge of the Dacian Queen against the Scythian King may have been the catalyst to the action in the romance plot, usurpation of the Dacian throne is the subject of concern in the restoration plot. The plots are not only connected through the actions of the Queen, but also through those of the Princess Cleomena. Like her mother, Cleomena seeks revenge for the death of her father, yet, unlike her mother, she acknowledges that her claim to the throne is illegitimate. Consequently, she eventually empowers her brother,

34

Of Love and War

Orsames, in the restoration plot to claim his right and hence reestablishes the true order of succession. The main story line of the restoration plot, a Prince imprisoned from infancy after an oracle decrees he would become a tyrant should he succeed to the throne, is similar to Calderón’s plot in Life Is a Dream. Behn overtly indicates her source in Act V, as Orsames is about to be rescued from his imprisonment and restored: Orsames: Oh how I am transported with the Joy! But Geron, art thou sure we do not dream? Geron: Then Life it self’s a Dream— (V.iii.20-22)

Both Calderón’s and Behn’s plots involve an exiled or imprisoned Prince who is given a trial and made King for a day, both Kings behave tyrannically, both are encouraged to believe their experience was a dream, and, finally, both rebel and claim the throne. As Montague Summers and later Janet Todd point out, however, there are numerous literary texts which include many of the features in these plays, such as the notion of the “King for a day” and the lustful male who has never seen a female. This latter theme, for example, was elaborated on in the Restoration adaptations of Shakespeare’s The Tempest by both Dryden and Shadwell.27 There is no usurper per se in Calderón’s play and no horoscope in Behn’s The Young King. Although Behn does copy closely La Calprenède’s romance-style plot, she diverges widely from Calderón’s restoration-type one. While at the end of Calderón’s Life Is a Dream Segismundo rises against his father, the King de jure, to depose him, Orsames in Behn’s The Young King participates in a revolt against his mother, the female monarch de facto, to claim rightfully the throne. Sigismundo’s uprising was owing to the fact that his well-meaning father intended to divert the succession in order to avoid the portent discovered when he cast Sigismundo’s horoscope. The subjects in Calderón’s play were intentionally deceived as to the existence of a legitimate – and Polish – successor. When Segismundo appears to be 27

See John Dryden and William Davenant’s The Tempest; or The Enchanted Island (1667), produced in 1670, in Works, X, ed. Maximillian E. Novak, 1-103, and Thomas Shadwell’s operatic version, The Tempest, or The Enchanted Island (1674), in Works, II, 183-269.

Romance, Restoration and Exclusion

35

the tyrant as prophesied, King Basilio appoints a foreigner, a Muscovite, as his successor; the army rebels and civil war ensues. However, in Behn’s play the subjects are wholly aware of Orsames, but their fear of the oracle maintains their allegiance to the usurping Queen. Ultimately, the subjects become exhausted by the continuous war with Scythia and revolt, placing Orsames, the King de jure, on the throne. Given the wide difference in the manner in which Behn uses Calderón’s text, the question arises as to whether she had the text in hand or whether she constructed her plot from an alternative or secondary source. Montague Summers’ claim that “Behn had a good knowledge of Spanish is certain” is rather doubtful. His further claim that “she has copied with the closest fidelity minute but telling details of her original” is, in fact, in error.28 That neither Langbaine nor Genest notes Calderón’s text as a source for Behn’s play suggests that Life Is a Dream was not widely available in England. But this does not mean that Behn was necessarily without access to the play. In 1647, Schouwenberg translated La vida es sueno into Flemish and produced the play in Brussels in that same year.29 A version of the play was acted in Amsterdam in 1654 as De groote Sigismundus and again in 1658 to an enthusiastic audience, and the box office receipts for the 1658 performance “were enormous for the time”.30 The play was printed in Amsterdam in 1654 and again in 1662 under the title Sigismundus, Prince van Polen of ’t Leven is een droom.31 It seems quite possible, then, that given the immense popularity of the play, Behn could have obtained access to it during the period she functioned as a spy for the King in the Low Countries. Again, this suggests that The Young King was probably conceived, if not written, prior to The Forc’d Marriage, which is often considered her first play. While both Princes, Segismundo and Orsames, have been imprisoned to prevent their succession and tyrannical rule, there are marked differences in their behaviour, differences that reflect unmistakable political implications. When, for example, in Life Is a 28

Summers, “Source”, in Works of Aphra Behn, II, 102-103. Henry W. Sullivan, Calderon in the German Lands and the Low Countries: His Reception and Influence, 1654-1980, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983, 38. 30 Ibid., 8. 31 Ibid., 48. 29

36

Of Love and War

Dream Segismundo’s behaviour as King is tested, he threatens sexual violence to dishonour Rosaura. An important distinction needs to be made here; Segismundo is not driven to this extreme by sexual desire, but rather by his immense hubris. His sexual aggression is purely tyrannical in that he desires to punish Rosaura simply to exercise his newly acquired authority. He demands psychological rather than sexual gratification in seeking retribution for having been disobliged: Rosaura: I ask leave, your Highness! Segis.: To leave me so abruptly Is not to ask leave, but to take it! Rosaura: I must take it, if you will not give it. Segis.: Then you will force me from courtesy to roughness; … I have thrown a man out of the window today already For saying it could not be done! And so, it would seem If only to prove that I can, I must throw your honour Out of the window! (II.viii.52-53)

Unlike Behn’s Orsames plot, this is the only scene in Life Is a Dream where Segismundo demonstrates such intense sexual aggression, and its sole purpose is punitive. Behn’s Urania, like Rosaura in Life Is a Dream, takes the wrong path and discovers she has inadvertently entered a prison. Like Segismundo, Orsames is moved by the beauty and the voice of this stranger. Orsames’ latent sexual desire is abruptly awakened and overpowers his reason. While Segismundo intended to use his awakened sexual desire to punish, Orsames is simply driven by unbridled desire: “I am all on fire, / Impatient of delay … / Undress, and let me lead thee to my Bed” (II.i.140-43). In his essay on another staunch female royalist of the period, Katherine Philips, James Loxley proposes that royalist polemic posits an “insistent emphasis on the identity of royalist action and corporeal, substantive maleness”.32 While “maleness” is an important key to understanding Orsames’ sexual aggression here, maleness also ties together a number of

32

James Loxley, “Unfettered Organs: The Polemical Voices of Katherine Philips”, in ‘This Double Voice’: Gendered Writing in Early Modern England, eds Danielle Clarke and Elizabeth Clarke, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000, 241.

Romance, Restoration and Exclusion

37

arguments and issues posited by scholars in their discussions of political discourse in the Restoration. The intensity of Orsames’ sexual desire, as he takes Urania in his arms to carry her off to a bed made of “gawdy Flowers”, reflects what Zwicker argues is Dryden’s polemic in Absalom and Achitophel, which relates Charles II’s well-known libertinism with the state of nature and hence “with abundance and fertility”. Zwicker notes that the association of “political radicalism with sexual libertinism had been standard in the civil war years”.33 Rochester and Marvell frequently correlate sexual indulgence with social and political tumult and even political ruin.34 Dacia was certainly suffering the upheaval of war and therefore political tumult, but this does not account satisfactorily for Orsames’ violence and his attempted rape of Urania. Susan Owen argues that the manner in which the playwrights employed the metaphor of rape during the Exclusion Crisis reflected their political ideology. She ascribes to rape in Tory writing suggestions of republicanism and rebellion, and, like Susan Staves, attributes rape in Whig discourse to apprehensions of arbitrary power and tyranny.35 But again, is Behn, the staunch royalist, referring to her Prince as tyrannical, as executing arbitrary power over the subject Urania? Maximillian Novak notes the similar sexual fervour and irascible behaviour of Hippolito in Dryden’s The Tempest and ascribes this to the playwright’s attempt to depict natural man juxtaposed poetically to civilized man.36 In drama in the early modern period, and particularly in Shakespeare, “the virtue of royal children is given; it controls their behaviour, and cannot be mistaken; they have it by nature”, and even if they are unaware of their royal birth, “they cannot suppress their better natures”.37 Such is not the case with Orsames, although, according to Urania, “He looks above the common rate of men” 33

Zwicker, Lines of Authority, 142. See Zwicker’s discussion on this (ibid., 90 ff). 35 Owen, Restoration Theatre and Crisis, 4 and 174-76. See also Susan Staves, Players’ Sceptres: Fictions of Authority in the Restoration, Lincoln, Neb: U of Nebraska P, 1979, 59. 36 Novak, Commentary to John Dryden’s The Tempest; or The Enchanted Island, in Works, X, 332-33. 37 Frank Kermode, Introduction to William Shakespeare’s The Tempest, Arden Shakespeare Series, Walton-on-Thames, Surrey: Thomas Nelson, 1998, lvi. 34

38

Of Love and War

(II.i.97). While he is of royal birth, although unaware of this, and physically exhibits noble qualities, his better nature is hardly at play here as he attempts to drag Urania off to a rape. But Frank Kermode suggests another issue that may relate more directly to Orsames – one that Behn herself addresses in the course of her play. A good ruler is one who “tries to make his people good by his own efforts; that he might do so, it was considered necessary for him to acquire learning” to which Orsames has not been privileged.38 What Orsames has been taught largely is fear of the gods and what philosophy his tutor, Geron, has allowed him. Ironically, for the security of his nation, Orsames has also been trained to believe that it is sinful to exercise his masculine reason. Orsames, then, is a strange blend of Caliban-like natural behaviour and Prospero’s exiled Princely nobility. While Shakespeare’s The Tempest may reflect on the “new world”, The Young King offers a look at a new order, or perhaps a renewed order, after the tempest of the Civil Wars. In both plays, however, sexuality is a major facet of the discourse, and this should come as no surprise since in dramatic texts the sexual is also the political. James Grantham Turner claims that the purpose of “the Restoration culture of priapism … was to legitimize the new regime by contrast with the repressive Cromwellian period”.39 Orsames in the Carolean plot suffers from the repressive female regime, just as the “good old cause” was often conceived of as female; and in the Restoration plot, he is ultimately concerned – even to excess – with desire. Desire, as Adam is taught in Milton’s Paradise Lost, is that which makes man subject.40 Woman may be fair; she may be worth cherishing and honouring, Raphael argues, but she is hardly a worthy cause for Adam’s subjection, particularly if this subjection is brought about by carnal pleasure. True love is found in reason, which is also the seat of man (VIII, 588-94). “Take heed”, Raphael warns as he departs Eden, “lest passion sway / Thy judgment to do aught” (VIII, 635-36).

38

Ibid., xlix. James Grantham Turner, Libertines and Radicals in Early Modern London: Sexuality, Politics, and Literary Culture, 1630-1685, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002, 171. 40 John Milton, Paradise Lost, ed. Scott Elledge, 2nd edn, New York: Norton, 1993. See Raphael’s discourse here on love in VIII, 561-94. 39

Romance, Restoration and Exclusion

39

Behn’s contemporary audience associated uncontrolled sexual desire with effeminacy, an issue to which Behn returns in her play The Amorous Prince. The effeminate male is one whose reason is controlled by unruly, female passions. Man is the monarch of reason and self-control, qualities peculiar to masculinity. Milton’s rhetoric on passion and reason in Paradise Lost is one which the seventeenthcentury audience would have understood, and it is, therefore, unsurprising that this concept serves as the basis on which Behn draws the figure of her sexually aggressive Prince. For the background of such a character, we might turn to the discourse of events that form the fundamental historical basis of this play – the Civil Wars and Interregnum. While all of the scholars so far cited posit valid arguments that lend themselves to a deeper understanding of the construction of Behn’s Orsames, it is to Milton and Charles I that we might turn for the context of The Young King. It is certainly reasonable in many respects to view Orsames as a “natural man”, yet it is quite probable here that Behn picks up an argument posited by Milton, that the government of an “effeminate and Uxorious Magistrate”, who is “govern’d and overswaid at home under a Feminine usurpation, cannot but be farr short of spirit and autority without dores, to govern a whole nation”.41 While Milton was referring to Henrietta Maria, who he claims in this tract ruled Charles I, Behn subverts this concept so that the “Feminine usurpation” distinguishes Parliament. Orsames’ inability to lead, she suggests, is what happens when the “Law of England is … but the reason of Parlament”.42 The Queen in The Young King has no name. She is simply called “Queen”, and the lack of a specific identity facilities the audience perceiving her in terms of a trope. When given a trial as King, Orsames further indicates his effeminacy and his lack of knowledge when he makes sexual overtures to the Queen, who protests, reminding him that she is his mother –“No matter: thou’rt a woman, art thou not?” (III.i.39). His teacher, Geron, attempts to prevent the Prince from taking this

41

John Milton, Eikonoklastes in Answer to a Book Intitl’d Eikon Basilika (1649), in The Works of John Milton, gen. ed. Frank Allen Patterson, 18 vols, New York: Columbia UP, 1932, V, 139-40. 42 Ibid., 168.

40

Of Love and War

tyrannic and self-destructive path, exclaiming, “Sir, ’tis the person gave you life and being” (III.i.41). In Book Eleven of Eikonoklastes, Milton claims that Parliament is female, “and without his [the King’s] procreative reason, the laws they can produce are but wind-eggs”.43 More importantly, however, Milton argues that if it was “Parlament that first created Kings,” then the King “ought then to have so thought of a Parlament … as of his Mother”. Orsames, upon learning that the Queen is his mother, cries, “I love thee for’t! / Come – and I’le pay thee back such kind returns” (III.i.42-43). But, Milton claims, “To dream of copulation with his Mother, what can it be less then actual Tyranny to affirme waking, that the Parlament, which is his Mother, can neither conceive or bring forth any authoritative Act without his Masculine coition”.44 However, as “Charles I” observes in his Eikon Basiliké, “no man seeks to limit and confine his King in reason, who hath not a secret aim to share with him, or usurp upon him in power and domination”.45 If a King commits an error, it would be tyranny of him not to allow “the mist of his error and passion [be] dispelled”; however, this is the sort of tyranny that happens when a King “has no power left him to use his own reason”.46 Milton argues throughout Eikonoklastes that Parliament is superior to the King. Behn demonstrates through female usurpation in her play, that if “the King is under Law, and inferiour to his Court of Parlament”, as Milton claims, then that King indeed is weak and the nation one which cannot but dissolve into chaos. Clearly Behn holds little regard for Milton’s argument in Eikonoklastes that: Laws are in the hands of Parlament to change or abrogate, as they shall see best for the Common-wealth; eev’n to the taKing away of King-ship it self, when it grows to Maisterfull and Burd’nsome. For every Common-wealth is in general defin’d, a societie sufficient unto it self, in all things conducible to well being and commodious life.47

43

Ibid., 185. Ibid., 186. 45 Charles I, Eikon Basiliké: The Pourtraiture of His Sacred Majestie in His Solitudes and Sufferings (1648/9) London, 1876, 64. Modern Scholars believe this text was written by John Gauden, although perhaps based on Royal papers. 46 Ibid., 30. 47 Milton, Eikonoklastes, 175. 44

Romance, Restoration and Exclusion

41

The characterization in The Young King of the generalissima warrior Princess and the exiled, effeminate Prince contribute manifestly to a metaphorical representation of a government in chaos, which is what many in Behn’s audience had already experienced: a world turned up-side down. Orsames is re-imprisoned after his brief trial as King and the matriarchal political hierarchy, which the heroic colonel Vallentio derides, continues: Vallentio: I abhor the feeble Reign of Women; It foretels the downfal of the noblest Trade – War: Give me a man to lead me on to Dangers, Such as Clemanthis is, or as Orsames might have been. (I.i.37-40)

Eventually, however, Orsames becomes suspicious of his dream experience as King for a day. He begins to question Geron’s philosophy and to initiate a trust in his own masculine reason. Demanding the truth, he tells Geron, “I will no longer be impos’d upon, / But follow all the Dictates of my Reason” (IV.iii.70-71). Orsames’ comment here has much in common with the argument in Eikon Basiliké: [Parliament] would have me ... abandon my own discretion ... so that I am fitter to be their pupil than their Prince .... Yet I am not so diffident of myself as brutishly to submit to any men’s dictates, and at once betray the sovereignty of reason in my soul and the majesty of my own crown to any of my subjects.48

The sword which Vallentio presents Orsames is recognition of the power of the militia, the King’s power over the law, and, finally, justice herself. In possession of the sword, the young King insists upon exercising his reason and his sexual aggression ceases abruptly. He enters the Scythian camp and boldly demands the release of his sister. When she is brought forward, Orsames cries, “It is a Woman too! another Woman! / I wou’d embrace thee, if I durst approach thee” (V.iv.185-86). Now that he is able to exercise his reason, now that he has taken command of law and justice, Orsames not only 48

Charles I, Eikon Basiliké, 6.

42

Of Love and War

deliberates whether it is acceptable to embrace his sister, but his newfound self-assurance gives way to a gentler voice. “I am a King, and do adore thee too, / And thou shalt rule a World with me, my fair (V.iv.201-02), he tells the virtuous Olympia—the subject, whom he requests courteously shortly thereafter for his bride. While Segismundo in Life Is a Dream magnanimously forgives his keeper, Clotaldo, for having kept him in ignorance, Orsames is somewhat less benevolent to Geron, which perhaps demonstrates Orsames’ command of his newly discovered masculine authority: “Hadst thou not been the first had told me this ... / Not all the obligations of my Youth / Should have preserv’d thee” (V.iii.3-6). Perhaps Behn suggests here that Charles II should follow his father’s advice: “Never repose so much upon any man’s single counsel, fidelity, and discretion in managing affairs of the first magnitude (that is, matters of religion and justice) as to create in yourself or others a diffidence of your own judgment.”49 Geron defends his concealment of Orsames’ royal birth, claiming that timing was of essence in the events leading up to his restoration. In command of the army now, a masculine venue, Orsames’ manhood might be improved.50 The Vallentio character of Behn’s The Young King has no close corollary in Calderón’s Life Is a Dream. While Vallentio faithfully serves his general, Cleomena, and the usurping Queen, he privately expresses his desire to return to a patriarchy: “… a King, a King again! oh for a mutinous Rabble that would break the Prison-walls and set Orsames free, both from his Fetters and his Ignorance” (I.i.6163). Eventually, Vallentio is empowered to restore the young King and in doing so, he leads the rabble in a bloodless coup: “No killing to day, my Fellow-souldiers, if you can help it; we will not stain our Tryumphs in bloud” (V.iii.27-28). His words echo those of Charles II in his Declaration of Breda, who declared that he would like to be restored to his right “with as little blood and damage to our people as is possible”.51

49

Ibid., 198. See Frederick’s comment in Behn’s The Amorous Prince: “It serves my future Manhood to improve, / Which shall be sacrific’d to War and Love” (V.iii.373-74). 51 Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, Begun in the Year 1641, ed. W. Dunn Macray, 6 vols, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1969, VI, 206. 50

Romance, Restoration and Exclusion

43

Vallentio offers Orsames the crown and arms him with a sword rather than a sceptre. While the sword, which Orsames observes “dares the Sun for brightness”, is symbolic of masculine authority, law, and justice, as noted above, it also reinforces the notion of the hierarchy turned right side-up. The sun is traditionally a symbol of the majesty of kingship, a notion that figured significantly in the panegyrics celebrating the return of the monarchy: But your full majesty at once breaks forth In the meridian of your reign. Your worth, Your youth, and all the splendour of your state, (Wrapped up, till now, in clouds of adverse fate!) With such a flood of light invade our eyes, And our spread hearts with so great joy surprise.52

The sword provides power over Orsames’ enemies, yet it also affirms the power of the King’s prerogative. “You need not teach me how I am to use it”, Orsames informs Vallentio, “That I will leave for those that dare offend me” (V.iii.65-66). Vallentio is the Monck-like figure of restoration-type plays. Much of early Restoration verse idealizes Monck, and he figures predominantly in the panegyrics celebrating the return of Charles II. As the providential hero of the Restoration, the playwrights’ treatment of their restoring generals had to reflect the expectations of their audience.53 Vallentio seeks empowerment for the restoration through an appeal to the Queen’s designated successor, Cleomena, who responds, “I’ll have this Nation happy in a Prince” (IV.v.84). The Diana-like warrior woman Cleomene, Orsames’ sister, may well serve another function. In his Mysteria Relevata (1674), John Collins refers to “the good old cause” as the “Diana” of the Interregnum: “those that were for – their Diana – the good old cause, had a design to meet early at the beginning of the Parliament and to settle such a Committee for the Elections as should reject those 52 Edmund Waller, “To the King, upon His Majesty’s Happy Return”, ll.5-10, in The Poems of Edmund Waller, 163-67. See also Dryden, Astræa Redux, in Works, I, 22-31; and Abraham Cowley, “Ode Upon His Majesty’s Restoration and Return”, in Poems of Abraham Cowley, ed. A.R. Waller, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1905, 420-32. 53 Jose, Ideas of the Restoration, 12-14.

44

Of Love and War

Royalists” from sitting in the House.54 Although Collins was attempting to justify his own role in bringing Charles Stuart to the throne, he nevertheless offers a picture of the Commonwealth at the moment of commencement of the Restoration. Just as Interregnum chaos summarily bows to the re-establishment of the monarchy, so Cleomena herself must give way to the rightful and legitimate sovereign. The rabble in The Young King is no longer willing to wait for the general to decide what to do. They claim that if Vallentio is not with them, they will take action themselves to restore Orsames, “for, Colonel, we love Civil Wars, Colonel, Civil Wars” (IV.v.153-54).55 James Loxley observes that “royalist polemic overlaid its resort to voice with another discourse of the body, the rhetoric of action and idleness”.56 When Pimante informs Vallentio that Princess Cleomena has disappeared, the general realizes it is time to free Orsames and rushes to perform his duty to the rightful King. While in Calderón’s play, the army leads the rebellion and deposes the King, in Behn’s text, the subjects, noted as the “citizens”, are largely made responsible: 1 Citizen: Is that the King, Neighbour, in such mean Clothes? 2 Citizen: Yes, goodman Fool, why should the Colonel kneel else? 3 Citizen: Oh pray Neighbour let me see a little, I never saw a King all [the] days of my life – Lord, Lord! is that he the Colonel kneels to? (V.iii.31-34)

These are a generation of citizens who have not seen a King during their lifetime, which ostensibly reflects the eighteen years of the Civil Wars and Interregnum. Yet, the “mean clothes” Orsames wears and the fact that he looks like a man, “just such another body as one of us” (V.iii.37-38) points to the forthrightness and honour of this particular Prince, in opposition to Milton’s suggestion that “Princes of all other men, have not more change of Rayment in their Wardrobes, then

54

John Collins, Mysteria Relevata, in Historical Manuscripts Commission 51, F.W. Leyborn-Popham, Norwich, 1899, 229. 55 Although the republicans accused Charles I of making war upon the people, Behn implicates the rabble, who, she suggests, are typically hungry for war. 56 Loxley, “Unfettered Organs”, 238.

Romance, Restoration and Exclusion

45

variety of Shifts and palliations in thir solemn actings and pretences to the People”.57 After his restoration, Orsames replies, “I am content that thou should’st give me Laws” (V.iv.259). To whom he speaks is unclear. Yet his audience is of manifest importance given the nature of the crisis of the monarchy in the debates over Exclusion. Is Behn referring to the law of succession, the immutable laws of God, Nature and Nations?58 In his Declaration of Breda, Charles II observes that his right as King is due to God and nature: … as We can never give over the hope in good time to obtain the possession of that Right which God and Nature hath made Our Due; So We doe make it Our daily Suit to the Divine Providence, That He will in compassion to Us and Our Subjects, after so long Misery and Sufferings, remit, and put Us into a quiet and peaceable possession of that Our Right ….59

Orsames appears to be speaking to the Scythian King, who announces that the two countries will be united by souls as well as swords, through the marriage of Cleomena and Thersander. The fundamental position of the anti-Exclusionists, that Parliament could not alter the succession and that Kings receive their thrones from God, is supported here as Orsames ostensibly receives laws from another King, God’s representative on earth, rather than from his subjects. Although Milton argues that the power of “Kings and Magistrates is nothing else, but what is only derivative, transferr’d and committed to them in trust from the People”,60 Charles I observes that he is subject only to God whose dictates alone are above him.61 That Orsames is recognized as King the moment the subjects offer him the crown and prior to his coronation is also in keeping with royalist notions of indefeasible hereditary succession, under which there is no break in the succession, for the King never dies. Parliament on 8 May 1660 declared that Charles II had become King immediately upon the 57

Milton, Eikonoklastes, 285. Howard Nenner, The Right to Be King: The Succession to the Crown of England, 1603-1714, London: Macmillan, 1995, 112. 59 See His Majesty’s Declaration [of Breda] in Appendix A. 60 John Milton, The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, in Works, V, 10. 61 Charles I, Eikon Basiliké, 29. 58

46

Of Love and War

death of his father in 1649 and was in actuality in the twelfth year of his reign. The coronation of the King merely acknowledged his right rather than making him King.62 In keeping with restoration-type plays, Orsames displays his magnanimous nature, particularly to Vallentio, who effected the restoration: Orsames: Come, my Vallentio, it shall ne’er be said I recompenc’d thy services With any thing less grateful than a Woman: – Here, I will chuse for thee – And when I know what ’tis I more can do, If there be aught beyond this gift, ’tis thine. (V.iv.260-265)

This generosity evokes the advice noted in “To the Prince” in the Eikon Basiliké: “with an equal eye and impartial hand distribute favours and reward to all men as you find them for their real goodness, both in abilities and fidelity, worth and capable of them. This will be sure to gain you the hearts of the best, and the most too.”63 Restoration and exclusion The Young King works as well in historicizing the return of the Stuart monarchy in 1660 as it does in historicizing the crisis following the Popish Plot in 1678. Hereditary succession was a factious and contentious issue both at the Restoration and during the Exclusion Crisis, as was the question of religion. In his Declaration of Breda, Charles II attempted to address religious concerns, by granting liberty to “tender consciences”: “We do declare a Liberty to tender Consciences; and that no man shall be disquieted or call’d in question for differences of opinion in matter of Religion, which doe not disturbe the Peace of the Kingdom ….”64 During the Popish Plot and the Exclusion Crisis religious issues rose to such a heated pitch that many felt the country would soon become embroiled in another civil war. Religion, conjoined with elective Kingship, was an issue with the Exclusionists, many of whom 62

Nenner, Right to Be King, 111. Charles I, Eikon Basiliké, 199. 64 Charles II, His Majesty’s Declaration [of Breda]. See Appendix A. 63

Romance, Restoration and Exclusion

47

felt that Parliament had the right to alter the succession to exclude the Catholic James, Duke of York, from the throne. Anti-Exclusionists saw these endeavours by their opponents as the first attempts to make the crown “become elective, and disposable at the ... will of the people”.65 The King, too, viewed Exclusion not as a religious issue, but rather as a direct attack on monarchy itself. That he was concerned about rebellion and “’41 again” is obvious in his tightening of security at court, in his veto of the bill to call out the militia, and in his immediate disbandment of the army as the soldiers returned home from the continent.66 In The Young King, Behn also suggests that the fundamental issue of the Exclusion Crisis is the monarchy itself, and she demonstrates this by subordinating religion to hereditary succession. G.A. Davies suggests that Clotaldo, Sigismundo’s tutor in Calderón’s play, offers his pupil a religious education.67 Behn, too, implies that Orsames’ education has been a religious one; his tutor, Geron, “teaches him a deal of Awe and Reverence to the Gods” (I.i.56-57). Orsames complains about the pejorative effect of his religious instruction, his fear of future punishments, and the “little gods” who exercise their arts on him (IV.iii.4-12). The change in the succession in The Young King is entirely owing to the fear of an oracle. Perhaps Behn attempts to draw a parallel to the contemporary current of religious contest and political faction that surrounded the debate about a Catholic heir on the English throne. By drawing on republican issues of the Civil Wars through Milton’s texts and juxtaposing those with royalist polemic, particularly that purportedly by Charles I, she accomplishes a synthesis of past and present, effectively arguing the dangers of “’41 again”. She also suggests that the “mask of religion on the face of rebellion … will not long serve to hide some men’s deformities”.68

65

E.F., Letter from a Gentleman of Quality in the Country, to his Friend, upon his being chosen Member to serve in the Approaching Parliament … to Bar the next Heir in the Right Line from the Succession (1679), as quoted in Nenner, Right to Be King, 129. 66 Miller, Charles II, 289-91. 67 G.A. Davies, “Poland, Politics, and La vida es sueño”, Bulletin of Hispanic Studies, LXX/1 (January 1993), 152-53. 68 Charles I, Eikon Basiliké, 206.

48

Of Love and War

In spite of the oracle which declares that Orsames’ reign would be marked by the bloodshed of civil strife, the Queen’s brother, Honorius, insists that Kingship is designated by divine decree: “… if the Gods be just, / He must be King, too, though his Reign be short: / You cannot alter those Decrees of Heaven” (II.iv.27-29). The Queen invokes religion as her authority for having diverted the succession: “You know ’twas not the Tyrant in my nature / That from his infancie has kept him ignorant / Of what he was – but the Decrees of Heaven” (II.iv.24-26). The Queen’s defence is surely meant to reflect the recent past by which Behn and her audience, as “subjects (by their miseries) will have learned, That religion to their God, and loyalty to their King, cannot be parted, without both their sin and their infelicity”.69 Although the Queen has designated her daughter, Cleomena, as heir, Cleomena is aware of the injustice of her claim. She empowers her colonel, Vallentio, to restore her brother to the throne. When Vallentio reminds the Princess of the oracle, which had decreed bloodshed and civil strife, she replies: Cleomena: I will expound that Oracle Which Priests unridling make more intricate: They said that he should reign, and so he did, Which lasted not above a pair of hours; But I my self will be his Oracle now, And speak his kinder fate, And I will have no other Priest but thee, Who shall unfold the mystery in plain terms. (IV.v.95-102)

Cleomena’s indomitable royal will abrogates that of the priests’ and dictates the events to come, effectively rendering religion subordinate to the royal prerogative. Once the restoration of her son has been effected, the Queen asks Orsames for forgiveness and “repents her superstitious errour” (V.iv.224). “Superstition” was a term used to refer to Roman Catholics. It was religion, the Queen claims, which clouded her sense of duty and caused her to exclude Orsames from the throne. Kneeling before her son, she refers to herself as “thy worst of Enemies, / One that has long depriv’d thee of a Crown, / Through what she thought was her duty to the Gods” (V.iv.221-23). 69

Ibid., 207.

Romance, Restoration and Exclusion

49

During the Popish Plot and Exclusion Crisis, Behn avidly promoted hereditary succession, while satirizing, if not disparaging, the public’s emphasis on religious issues: Not one amongst ye all I’le undertake, Ere thought that we should suffer for Religions sake: Who wou’d have thought that wou’d have been th’ occasion, Of any contest in our hopefull Nation? For my own principles, faith, let me tell ye I’me still of the Religion of my Cully.70

Kishlansky argues that while the sentiment for Exclusion remained strong, people were far more frightened of another civil war than they were of popery. Therefore, he argues, “politics increasingly polarized around two choices: loyalty or rebellion”.71 Behn draws on the similarities in the political events of the Restoration and the Exclusion Crisis and Orsames’ restoration. The nature of how Charles II was restored bore important implications in the heated political debates of the Exclusion Crisis, for one of the questions at issue was the source from which the King derived his powers: The uncertainty about precisely which forces had brought back the King was reflected in the key constitutional question of the period .… If the whole population had voluntarily surrendered power to him ... then his power must be absolute. But if the ancient constitution had been preserved and if Charles had been invited back by parliament, then it was arguable that the King’s power should be limited.72

When Vallentio is empowered to effect Orsames’ restoration, Orsames is impatient to begin, but the wise Geron cautions him to await his subjects: Geron: … should your deliverance Be wrought by any other means than theirs, 70

Aphra Behn, Prologue to The Feign’d Curtizans, ll. 18-23, in Works, VI, 89. Mark Kishlansky, A Monarchy Transformed: Britain 1603-1714, London: Allen Lane/Penguin, 1996, 259. 72 Jose, Ideas of the Restoration, 27-28. 71

50

Of Love and War It were to snatch a glory from their hands Which they design their onely recompence. (V.iii.16-19)

Vallentio arrives at the prison, “followed by a Rabble of Citizens and Officers”. In her restoration scene, Behn appears to attempt a parallel to the historical events leading up to the return of Charles II. Vallentio kneels before Orsames, referring to the King as his “Deity”. “Great Sir”, he announces, “we come to offer you a Crown, / That long has waited for this great support” (V.iii.40-41). If Orsames is God’s agent on earth, which Behn conspicuously argues through Vallentio’s speech, “his power must be large and his prerogative absolute”.73 The Young King ardently supports indefeasible hereditary succession and an unlimited royal prerogative, while subordinating issues of religion to those of succession. It also reflects the following entreaty from Eikon Basiliké: “I pray God lay not their sin to their charge, who think to satisfy all obligations to duty by their corban of religion, and can less endure to see, than to sin against, their benefactors as well as their sovereigns.”74 Man does not have the right to alter arbitrarily hereditary succession and attempts to do so can only lead to chaos and rebellion. While this contest between the Dacians and the Scythians effectively suggests the chaos of the Interregnum juxtaposed with the peace and hope offered by the Restoration, it just as forcefully represents the war between the Exclusionists and the Anti-Exclusionists. In so doing, it invites the audience to reflect on a recent, traumatic period of their history to which the country seemed to be precipitously returning. The context of history The parallel in Polish/Swedish historical events during the reign of Sigismund III with those in mid-seventeenth-century England is remarkable. Behn was surely aware of this conspicuous similarity, particularly since the English public closely followed political events on the continent. Numerous pamphlets published from the pre-Civil Wars years through the Interregnum demonstrate a public awareness of political and religious issues in Poland.75 73

Ibid., 28. Charles I, Eikon Basiliké, 36. 75 See, for example, Eleazar Gilbert, News from Poland ... under the Goverment of the 74

Romance, Restoration and Exclusion

51

The diplomatic relations between Poland and England during the Civil Wars and Interregnum may well have had some influence in Behn’s use of Calderón’s play as her source. Since the reign of Elizabeth I, Poland-Lithuania had provided the refuge for a number of the English nobility, who had become exiles abroad.76 Prior to Charles II’s invasion attempt to reclaim the throne, he sent William Crofts as ambassador to the King of Poland, John Casimir, to obtain funds. Crofts returned with ten thousand pounds for the King’s cause.77 So successful was Crofts that when Charles was planning a second invasion in 1656, he sent John Middleton as ambassador to Poland to secure both arms and financial support from the Polish King for the “freeing of our good subjects from their tyranny”.78 The elected nature of the Polish monarchy had made it “the legitimate ambition of many adventurers in Western Europe”.79 The serious political concerns and debates of the Civil Wars and Interregnum pamphlets gave way to satire during the Exclusion Crisis as writers drew on Poland as a parallel for contemporary events. Behn and her contemporaries made effective use of the availability of the Polish crown to satirize the Whigs, and particularly Shaftesbury. The numerous attacks against Shaftesbury claim that he had intimated his own interest in becoming Poland’s monarch.80 The Tory Wilding in Most Illustrious Prince, Duke Radziwell, London, 1641; also (published anonymously), The Promotion of the Protestant Cause in Poland: by the Ármes of His Majesty the King of Sweden, London, 1642; and Jesuit Plots and Counsels … to Bring Poland into Slavery, London, 1642; and J. Fowler, The History of the Troubles of Suethland and Poland, which occasioned the Expulsion of Sigismundus the Third, King of those Kingdomes ... for the Treaty Above Mentioned, London, 1656. 76 Norman Davies, God’s Playground: A History of Poland in Two Volumes (1981), Oxford: Clarendon P, 1986, I, 189. 77 Clarendon, History, V, 233. 78 HMC, Laing, I, 301-304. 79 Ervin C. Brody, “Poland in Calderón’s Life Is a Dream: Poetic Allusion or Historical Reality”, Polish Review XIV/2 (Spring 1969), 43. See also Henryk Ziomek, “Historical Implications and Dramatic Influences in Calderón’s Life Is a Dream”, Polish Review XX/1 (Winter 1975), 111-28. 80 See, for example, “The Whigs’ Lamentation for the Death of Their Dear Brother College, The Protestant Joiner” (1681), in Poems on Affairs of State, Augustan Satirical Verse 1660-1714, ed. Elias F. Mengel, Jr. (gen. ed. George DeForest Lord), New Haven: Yale UP, 1965, II, 448-52; Thomas Otway, Prologue to Venice Preserv’d, or, A Plot Discovered (1682), in The Works of Thomas Otway, ed. Montague Summers, 3 vols, London: Nonesuch, 1926, III, 1-83; John Dryden’s “The Medal” (1682), in Works, I, 37-

52

Of Love and War

Behn’s The City Heiress, for example, measures the Whig Sir Timothy Treat-all’s head for the Polish crown: “I’ve brought you, Sir, the measure of the Crown: Hah, it fits you to a hair. You were by Heaven and Nature fram’d that Monarch” (III.i.290-92).81 The Young King was not a success on stage, which may well have been owing to Behn’s treatment of religion. In her dramatic texts, she frequently denigrates the public’s intense concern with religious issues, which she clearly believed was a pretext for a hidden agenda, one whose focus was the monarchy. In dedicating a later play, The Second Part of the Rover (1681) to James, Duke of York, Behn again makes correlations between contemporary events and those which occurred during the Civil Wars. She remarks in the Prologue that the Exclusion Crisis is merely “an occasion to Play the old Game o’re again” as she decries the religious fanaticism of her audience while supporting the interests of her monarch: The Rabble ’tis we Court, those powerful things, Whose voices can impose even Laws on Kings. A Pox of Sense and Reason, or dull Rules, Give us an Audience that declares for fools; Our Play will then stand fair, we’ve Monsters too, Which far exceed your City Pope for show.82 (ll. 20-25)

No doubt there were many in her audience who neither shared her opinion on religion nor her support for the Duke of York. During this period of dissension and hysteria, the poor reception of The Young King may have been owing to the audience’s uncomfortable reflection in the mirror the playwright held up to them. The country had arrived headlong at a crossroads, a convergence of past and present, which The Young King clearly depicts. That many of the same sentiments which abounded during the Civil Wars proliferated as well during the Exclusion Crisis allows The Young King to function as an effective reminder of an earlier, chaotic era, 52; “The Last Will and Testament of Anthony, King of Poland” (1683?) and “Supplement to the Last Will and Testament of Anthony, Earl of Shaftesbury” (1683), in Poems on Affairs of State, ed. Howard H. Schless, New Haven: Yale UP, III, 396-441. 81 Aphra Behn, The City-Heiress, or, Sir Timothy Treat-all (1682), in Works, VII, 1-77. 82 Aphra Behn, The Second Part of the Rover (1681), in Works, VI, 223-98.

Romance, Restoration and Exclusion

53

and hence to serve as a warning. Embellished with implicit suggestions of the Caroline court and of Charles I, it offers overt references to exile and to the chaos of rebellion and civil war. Yet the play ends with the promise of a Golden Age of peace and prosperity under a monarchy that enjoys uncontested, indefeasible hereditary succession. In her first play to be produced, The Forc’d Marriage, the subject of the following chapter, Behn again employs the restoration-type subgenre to re-historicize the return of the Stuart monarchy. Concern about and support for indefeasible hereditary succession is a subject to which Behn frequently turns. Although some scholars have suggested that The Forc’d Marriage is a play about James, Duke of York, I will demonstrate that, like The Young King, it is an ardently royalist play through which Behn expresses her passionate support for Charles II.

CHAPTER TWO HIGH, BOLD REBELLS AND PHANTASTICK COURTIERS IN THE FORC’D MARRIAGE, OR THE JEALOUS BRIDEGROOM God gives not Kings the stile of Gods in vaine, For on his Throne his Scepter doe they swey: And as their subiects ought them to obey, So Kings should feare and serue their God againe –1

Many of the early restoration-type plays are given a pastoral setting which serves to reflect public sentiment that the restoration of the Stuart monarchy ushered in a new Golden Age.2 In serious drama, the court and the pastoral settings are often depicted in antithesis. In the venal court setting, conflict, corruption, and tyranny are played out against the innocence, virtue, and peace of the pastoral. Behn’s firstproduced play, The Forc’d Marriage, is set in France, where the action proceeds at court.3 While her characters, named Galatea, Alcander, Aminta, Erminia, Phillander and so forth, may serve to mirror the pastoral, the rivalry of Prince Phillander and the newly appointed general, Alcippus, underscores the rebellion and crisis within the court. In the private sphere of human relationships, The Forc’d Marriage is about unrequited love, masculine honour, patriarchal authority and, of course, forced marriage. In the public political sphere of the Restoration stage, this is a play about the Civil Wars, the Interregnum, and the return of Charles II. It is a play about Stuart kingship and the magnanimity of a King who rules by divinely ordained, indefeasible, hereditary succession. That The Forc’d Marriage functions within both the private and the public spheres is exemplified in the Prologue by the humorous, 1

James VI and I, “Sonnet”, in Instrvctions to His Dearest Sonne, Henry the Prince, in The Political Works of James I, ed. and introduction by Charles Howard McIlwain, New York: Russell and Russell, 1965, 3. 2 Jose, Ideas of the Restoration, 143-46. 3 Aphra Behn, The Forc’d Marriage, or The Jealous Bridegroom. A Tragi-comedy. As it is Acted at His Highnesse The Duke of York’s Theatre (1671), in Works, V, 1-81.

56

Of Love and War

equivocal discourse between the male and female speakers. The Prologue offers a glimpse of the poetess herself as she exploits aspects of her public, political past to pose a dramatic argument about gender and privilege. The first speaker is male, whose language anticipates a gender war in which the theatre becomes the battlefield and the upper Box, Pit, and Galleries are the disputed territories where the poetess has planted spies. After accusing women of using stratagems, the male Prologue is interrupted by a female speaker, who appears to represent the playwright herself. She engages enthusiastically in the gender war banter, assuring the audience that by virtue of their beauty alone, women will always be the victors. While the banter is comical and good humoured, both speakers covertly address contemporary opposing views of women’s role in the patriarchal hegemony of the theatre. Yet, while the argument overtly concerns female incursion in the public sphere of writing, the language both speakers employ is largely a militant one that incorporates terms such as foe, artilleries, stratagems, conquer, scout, spy, centinels [sic], enemy, captives, glory and war, all of which allude to the public sphere of political conflict, including both domestic and/or foreign war. Even the mode of apparel of the private sphere becomes in this Prologue a trope for the spies and cabals of the public sphere as the male speaker complains that the poetess has placed spies, disguis’d in black velvet cases, among the audience. The female Prologue playfully denies his accusations: There’s not a Vizard in our whole Cabal: Those are but Pickeroons that scour for prey, And catch up all they meet with in their way; Who can no Captives take, for all they do, Is pillage ye, then gladly let you go; (Prologue ll.50-54)

The multivalence behind the allusion to the vizarded Pickeroons scattered among the audience is worth some exploration. They are, of course, the prostitutes who openly plied their trade in the theatre and scoured the audience for customers. But the prostitutes were not the only women in the theatre who wore vizards. The Pickeroons, then, are also the genteel ladies, who frequently wore them to conceal their

High, Bold Rebells

57

identity. The ambiguity of class, and particularly the question of virtue, occasioned by the wearing of vizards is recorded by Pepys. At a performance of The Maid’s Tragedy, he observed two ladies conversing with Sir Charles Sedley during the entire performance: “one of the ladies would, and did, sit with her mask on all the play; and being exceeding witty as ever I heard woman, did talk most pleasantly with him; but was, I believe a virtuous woman of quality.”4 By associating both prostitutes and genteel ladies with the abovenoted Pickeroons, Behn effaces the distinction between virtue and social rank and, hence, between lady and prostitute. Overtly, the term “cabal” noted here in the rejoinder voiced by the female Prologue is the female sex, whom the male Prologue designates as the “vain sex”, and who, he claims, intend to “… keep as well as gain the victory” (l.14). Cabal, however, also had a public political meaning in that they were Charles II’s main advisors from 1667 to about 1673.5 Behn draws a subtle parallel to those courtiers engaged in political skirmishes at court, who prostituted themselves to win preferment for lucrative offices, and the vizarded ladies in the theatre audience. She returns to this theme in her next play, The Amorous Prince, where the discourse turns on the notion that the favoured currency of exchange at court is a sexual one. There is another layer to the vizarded Pickaroons that Behn references here. The Prologue also offers a glimpse of the poetess herself in that the ubiquitous vizards operate covertly as indicators of the public sphere, where spying references the public persona of the playwright in her recent espionage activity for Charles II. By alluding to her own experience as a spy and to her contemporary society’s equation of public woman and prostitute, Behn’s vizards expose the ambiguous nature of such terms as prostitute, lady, courtier, and female playwright. Catherine Gallagher claims the vizard in this Prologue is both physical and metaphorical and represents the author4

Pepys, Diary, VIII, 71. The entry is dated 18 February 1667. “Cabal” is an acronym constructed from the following men’s names who were the advisors of Charles II at the time The Forc’d Marriage was produced: Thomas Clifford, Arlington (Henry Bennet, Lord Arlington), Buckingham (George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham), Anthony Ashley-Cooper (first Earl of Shaftesbury), and Lauderdale (John Maitland, the Duke of Lauderdale).

5

58

Of Love and War

whore persona of the female writer.6 But while the vizard may well cast doubt on the virtue of the playwright, it also signifies hypocrisy, as it does in multifarious forms of literary discourse in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Not only does the vizard denote the arbitrariness of social class, but more pointedly, it asks the audience to question the distinctions in the virtue of courtesans, genteel ladies, government ministers, and spies. Behind the mask, the social code that delineates each is indistinct. Any one of these terms may just as readily define the others. Both the government minister and the playwright are, in one sense or another, courtesans. Throughout her dramatic work, Behn repeatedly criticizes hypocrisy while vigorously defending constancy in love. However, as I shall demonstrate in this chapter, love in Behn’s dramatic texts frequently functions as a metaphor for political fidelity. To begin her argument and to suggest the political nature of the play to follow, Behn conflates the heated contention in the Prologue and Epilogue through the presentation of male and female discourse on beauty and wit. The male Prologue argues: Not being contented with the wounds they made, Would by new Strategems our Light invade. Beauty alone goes now at too cheap rates, And therefore they like Wise and Politick states, Court a new power that may the old supply, ... Discourage but this first attempt, and then, They’le hardly dare to sally out again. (Prologue ll.9-26)

He does not deny that women have wit and, hence, the ability to write, a concept the playwright argues repeatedly throughout her 6

See Gallagher’s essay, “Who Was that Masked Woman? The Prostitute and the Playwright in the Comedies of Aphra Behn”, Women’s Studies, XV/1-3 (1988), 24. See Pearson, Prostituted Muse, 6-14. For discussions on women’s writing conflated with prostitution, see Jean Gagen’s, The New Woman; Jane Spencer, The Rise of the Woman Novelist: From Aphra Behn to Jane Austen (1986), Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989; and Janet Todd, The Sign of Angellica, London: Virago, 1989, 33-34.

High, Bold Rebells

59

work. Rather, he expresses fear about women’s incursion in the field, which clearly threatens a well-established privilege enjoyed by the male hegemony: “If the vain Sex this priviledge should boast ... / we’re lost” (ll.17-18). The female Prologue counters with, “Who is’t that to their Beauty wou’d submit, / And yet refuse the Fetters of their Wit” (ll.45-46). Beauty need not abrogate intelligence, nor is wit gender specific. Besides, she argues, drawing on and mocking the Platonic, and hence typically masculine, concept of the gaze: Can they need Art that have such pow’rful eyes? (l.48). In her Epilogue, Behn continues the argument of the vizard she initiated in the Prologue, patronizing the men, while covertly claiming the victory for the women: Alas, we could not vanquish with a show Much more than that goes to the conquering you. ... But yet as tributary King we own, It is by you that we possess that Throne, Where had we Victors been, w[e]’ad reign’d alone. (ll.5-12)

The smile beneath the mask is perceptible as the female speaker identifies herself with Joan of Orleance and acknowledges that, “The trial though, will recompence the pain, / It having wisely taught us how to reign” (ll.7-8). For now at least, women must rely on beauty to achieve their goal, rather than challenge overtly the masculine hegemony: “You, to our Beauty, bow; We, to your Wit” (l.18). By associating herself with the prostitute in the Prologue and with Joan of Arc in the Epilogue, Behn draws on a contemporary reference in which women writers were depicted as “the Amazon, the whore or the witch”.7 Joan of Arc, who directed the disadvantaged French army against the much superior English forces, was captured and burned by the English as a witch, having refused to recant her religious views. Her gender contributed largely to her death, serving as it did both to threaten and to humiliate the English male officers as she led her army

7

Todd, Sign of Angellica, 33.

60

Of Love and War

to several critical victories.8 With this play, Behn announces that she, too, sallies out against the men, knowing well that in this first public production of her work, she may also be burned – metaphorically – at the stake. Usurpation and restoration The Forc’d Marriage is a restoration-type play that re-historicizes the events surrounding the collapse of the Interregnum government and the return of the Stuart monarchy. In the first decade of the Restoration, a number of comedies were staged, such as John Tatham’s The Rump, or The Mirror of the Late Times (1660), Abraham Cowley’s The Cutter of Coleman Street (1663), an adaptation of his earlier play The Guardian (1642), and Robert Howard’s The Committee (1665), all of which depicted in some way the final hours of the crumbling Interregnum government and triumphal return of Charles II. Comedies such as these, barbed and lively as they are, gave the playwrights an opportunity to revel in their caricatures of various Puritan personalities and public figures of the Civil Wars and Interregnum. With the serious plays, however, the tragedies and tragicomedies, playwrights re-historicized the Restoration, reconstructing the return of the monarchy within serious plots about kingship, usurpers, and the restoration of the rightful heir. Nancy Klein Maguire claims tragicomedy effectively duplicates the polarity of emotions brought about by the tragic execution of Charles I and the joy of the restoration of Charles II.9 The restoration-type subgenre Behn employs here is much in keeping with plays written by her male colleagues, such as Edward Howard’s The Usurper (1668), produced in 1664, Roger Boyle, Earl of Orrery’s The Generall (1937), produced 8

Ingvold Raknem, Joan of Arc in History, Legend and Literature, Oslo: Universitatesforlaget, 1971. Raknem claims Joan had “a paralyzing effect on the English soldiers” (15). See also, Marina Warner, Joan of Arc: The Image of Female Heroism (1981), New York: Vintage, 1982, and Frances Gies, Joan of Arc: The Legend and the Reality, New York: Harper and Row, 1981. 9 Nancy Klein Maguire, Regicide and Restoration: English Tragicomedy 1660-1671, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992, 13-16. Maguire claims that the purpose of the tragicomedy is to undo the tragedy of the execution of Charles I.

High, Bold Rebells

61

in 1664, and John Caryll’s The English Princess; or, The Death of Richard III, produced and published in1667. In Boyle’s The Generall, the usurper attempts to marry the subject, Altemera, against her will.10 The setting is Sicily, the country is in the tumult of a civil war, and the legitimate King, Evander, has been killed. Clorimum, the banished royalist general, who is an obvious allusion to General Monck, is coerced by his love for Altemera to fight for the usurping faction, only to change sides once again to help restore the true heir and King, Melizer. Magnanimous in his forgiveness, Melizer tells Memnor, Altemera’s brother, who has come to pledge the fidelity of some of the King’s subjects: Melizer: Rise, Memnor, Rise, you that such news have brought Deserve a pardon sure for any fault. My mercies still shall be to those more great, Which to it trust, and for it doe not treat. Past faults I’le never to Remembrance bring, For which the word I give you of your king.

(V.i.407-12) Melizer eventually kills the usurper, is restored to the throne, and rewards both Clorimum and Memnor for their support. Edward Howard’s The Usurper is also set in Sicily and is blatant in its anti-Puritan rhetoric.11 In a close parallel to Cromwell, the usurping President Damocles wants a crown, and he arranges to obtain one by surreptitiously purging the army of the untrustworthy soldiers and the senate of opposition.12 He furthers the tyranny by usurping the property of the senators he has murdered and 10

Orrery, Roger Boyle, Earl of, The Generall in The Dramatic Works of Roger Boyle, ed. William Smith Clark, 2 vols, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UP, 1937, I, 101-64. Hughes notes that Boyle’s play was first produced in Dublin in 1662 under the title Altemera. See English Drama, 32, n.8. 11 Edward Howard, The Usurper, a tragedy. As it was acted at the Theatre Royal by His Majesties servants, London, 1668. All references are to act and page number only. 12 Harold Love, “State Affairs on the Restoration Stage”, in Restoration and Eighteenth Century Theatre Research, XIV/1 (1975), 1-9. Love has little hesitation in assigning parallels to the characters in this play. He claims that Damocles is Cromwell, Hugo is Cromwell’s aid, Hugh Peters, Cleomenes is General Monck and Cleander, who disguises himself as a Moor, is Charles II, whose nickname was “the Black Boy”. See Love, 3.

62

Of Love and War

commanding the remaining wealthy inhabitants be arrested and their property sequestered. Cleomenes, the faithful noble lord and restoring general, captures the usurper, Damocles, and in a parallel to the reconvening of the Long Parliament, a free senate is proclaimed, bon fires are lighted, the secluded members of the senate are invited to return, and the senate is renamed “our great Counsel”.13 The true heir, Cleander, is restored to the throne and announces magnanimously, “There shall be an Indemnity for those / Whose frailty, and not malice, made ’em Act / Under the Tyrant” (V.70). John Caryll’s The English Princess, or The Death of Richard III works much the same way, with an usurping King, Richard III; a restoring general, Lord Stanley; and the true heir, Elizabeth, who proffers the crown to the hero, the Earl of Richmond.14 Lord Stanley, like many of the restoring generals, changes sides. While he appears at first a loyal servant to Richard, he offers his full support to Richmond. The subjects, embodied as Princess Elizabeth, represent the power to bestow legitimacy to rule. He who wins Elizabeth in love and marriage, also wins the crown. Richmond kills Richard III in battle and claims Elizabeth, who not only agrees to marriage but insists that Richmond wear the crown as the legitimate sovereign: Rich: Since Madam I must yield to wear the Crown, By this Submission I your Title owne. I wear it, as a public Mark to shew My Power to these, my Fealty to you. (V.x.64)

Richmond’s protestations of not wanting the crown are clearly Caryll’s attempt to romanticize the benevolence and virtue of a true monarch. Ambition is the trait of a tyrant. Nevertheless, Richmond 13

James I refers to Parliament as the King’s council: “It is nothing else but the Kings great Councell, which the King doeth assemble.” See “A Speach in the Parliament House” (1605), in Political Works, 287. 14 John Caryll, The English Princess, or, The Death of Richard the III. A Tragedy. Written in the Year 1666, and Acted at his Highness the Duke of York’s Theatre, London, 1667. Given that there are no line numbers in this play, all references are to act, scene, and page number.

High, Bold Rebells

63

does appropriate the title from Elizabeth – albeit through marriage, effecting a conquest of some nature and thus restructuring the gender hierarchy to reflect the natural patriarchal order. A number of restoration-type plays had been staged by the time The Forc’d Marriage was produced, so that the subgenre had lost much of its appeal. Although Behn’s play was produced when the popularity of this subgenre is on the wane, at least two other such plays were produced in 1670, John Dryden’s The Conquest of Granada and William Joyner’s The Roman Empress. Even so, there are specific distinctions between Behn’s play and those by her male colleagues. For example, most of the restoration-type plays are written from the perspective of the King and/or the restoring general, and the action begins with the usurper already in power. Only with the constant encouragement and steadfast assistance of the restoring general does the legitimate ruler defeat the usurper and reclaim the throne. Events usually unfold from the position of the monarch and/or the usurper and the perspective is typically male. The female subject is merely the object rather than the subject of the action. Her role is not only a limited one, but her demeanour is deferentially passive and submissive. As the prize in the male contest for power, she remains largely incapable of directly affecting the outcome of the action. In Behn’s play, however, the perspective is from that of the subject.15 Since the plot unfolds through the movement of the subject, it is largely a feminized point of view. The uniqueness here of the prominent female role tends to encourage scholars to explore this play as a social commentary on gender and masculine authority. The political ramifications of gendering her play from the female perspective are of paramount importance in restoration-type drama, for the upshot of empowering the subject rather than the restoring general or the legitimate ruler to effect the restoration is the emphasis the playwright places on “our” innocence and “their” guilt.16 15 I deal with restoration-type plays in more depth in “From Caroline Tears to Carolean Laughter: Re-historicizing the Restoration of Charles II”, English, XLIX/194 (Summer 2000), 109-26 and “The Subject in the House: Aphra Behn’s The Forc’d Marriage or The Jealous Bridegroom”, Restoration and Eighteenth-Century Theatre Research, XIV/1 (Summer 1999), 43-60. 16 See Maguire on guilt and regicide, Regicide and Restoration, 149-50.

64

Of Love and War

In The Forc’d Marriage, Alcippus returns from the wars a hero, and his King desires to reward him for his service. As the King struggles to find an appropriate prize, Alcippus disingenuously suggests that his duty to the King is perhaps sufficient recompense – yet his refusal is clearly ambiguous. The Prince, Phillander, breaks the negotiation by removing the general’s staff from the King’s longstanding servant, Orgulius, and placing it in the hand of Alcippus, designating him the new commander of the army. Such a prize, however, is not what Alcippus has in mind. He informs the King that he desires Erminia, daughter of Orgulius. Phillander and Erminia, however, have secretly pledged themselves in marriage, a private understanding of which Alcippus had previously been made aware. His request for Erminia is a personal attack on and a flagrant display of ingratitude towards his Prince. Once the King gives Phillander’s betrothed to another man, the Prince realizes his inability to prevent the wedding that soon takes place. Yet Erminia, who still loves her Prince, refuses to consummate her marriage to Alcippus. Phillander, agonizing over his loss, arranges an opportunity to speak with Erminia to profess his love. When Alcippus finds Phillander in conversation with his wife in their bedchamber, he assumes that she has been unfaithful, and as soon as the Prince leaves, he strangles her – or at least he believes that she is dead. But Erminia is only rendered unconscious by her husband’s violence. She quickly returns to the action, and the rest of the play is devoted to her attempt to right the situation and obtain justice for the Prince and herself. In a brief subplot, Alcander, friend to Prince Phillander, is in love with Aminta, a maid of honour to the Princess Galatea, who returns his love, but makes pretences at preferring her independence. She wants a man, she claims, who will: “… kneel, and swear, and cry, and look submiss[ive]” (II.ii.42). Other threads in the play include the Princess Galatea, who is in love with Alcippus, and the cowardly fop Falatius, who makes futile attempts in his courtship of Aminta, having already rejected Erminia’s woman, Isillia. In the private sphere of Behn’s play, Erminia is a commoner, the daughter of Orgulius, who is secretly betrothed to Prince Phillander.

High, Bold Rebells

65

In the public sphere though, Erminia is the subject and, hence, the political body where Phillander is the patriarchal head of the body politic. This configuration reflects Stuart political ideology that had been constructed by the Stuart patriarch, James VI and I. Through the analogy of the family and the state, James claims that the King’s relationship to his people is not only one of paterfamilias, but also of one of husband to wife: “What God hath conioyned then, let no man separate. I am the Husband, and all the whole Isle is my lawfull Wife.”17 Viewed in this manner, The Forc’d Marriage becomes an ardently royalist play that re-enacts the events surrounding the return of the monarchy, while poignantly reinforcing Stuart political ideology. If Phillander is a dramatic representation of Charles II, then there are two Kings in this play, both Phillander and his father. For Behn’s contemporary audience, however, this would not have been problematic. In the first decade of Charles II’s rule, playwrights attempted to show the seamlessness of the Stuart monarchy and to invalidate psychologically the break in the monarchy brought about by the Civil Wars and the Interregnum.18 The Interregnum government had abolished kingship, declaring it “unnecessary, burthensome, and dangerous to the liberty, safety and public interest of the people of this nation”.19 The proclamation of 8 May 1660, not only declared Charles Stuart King, but also that his reign had effectively begun on 30 January 1649, the date of the execution of his father. Hence, this proclamation defeated the contested notion of kingship of the Interregnum and both acknowledged and confirmed indefeasible hereditary succession.20 The early Restoration audience was preoccupied with continuing the myth of the martyrdom of Charles I and the joy of the restoration of the Stuart monarchy through the return of the martyr’s son, Charles 17

James VI and I, “A Speach as it was Delivered in the Upper House of the Parliament” (1603/4), in Political Works, 272. 18 Maguire, Regicide and Restoration, 139-45. See also Maguire’s essay, “The ‘Whole Truth’ of Renaissance Tragicomedy”, in Renaissance Tragicomedy: Explorations in Genre and Politics, ed. Nancy Klein Maguire, New York: AMS, 1987, 218-39. 19 William Cobbett, Cobbett’s Parliamentary History of England from the Earliest Period to the Year 1803, London, 1808, III, 1285. 20 Nenner, Right to Be King, 95.

66

Of Love and War

II. The task of the playwright was to deal with both Kings simultaneously and, hence, “to pull regicide and restoration together, to synthesize the dual experiences of kingship”.21 In such cases the King must not die, and Behn’s King survives throughout the play. In The Forc’d Marriage, the King and Phillander effect this synthesis. Staves notes that Tory ideology in this period stressed de jure kingship, under which the “identity of the sovereign [is] determined by indefeasible hereditary right”.22 By showing that hereditary succession can indeed be broken, “de facto kingship ... threatened the mystique of divine right”.23 Behn’s play demonstrates an unbroken hereditary succession in that the usurper Alcippus never takes the throne per se, but rather usurps the subject, wrenching her from the Prince to whom she has secretly pledged herself in marriage. Behn depicts the Civil Wars through a contest of desire and possession, where Alcippus and Orgulius function as usurper and restoring general respectively. Orgulius, a rather transparent representation of Monck, first forces his daughter, Erminia, to marry the usurper, Alcippus, and then, with the assent of the King, restores her in Act V to the rightful heir, Phillander. That this Monck-like character is figured here as the father of the subject may reflect the image given him by Charles II, who, when he landed at Dover, referred to him as “father”.24 Orgulius has earlier rebelled against his King and his ultimate return to royal service, much like General Monck, is remarked upon in several scenes in the play. Orgulius himself, for example, comments on his having been raised to general by the King, who magnanimously forgave his previous errors: Orgulius: Sir, was it fit I should refuse your Grace? That was your act of mercy: and I took it 21

Maguire, “Whole Truth”, 227. Maguire notes that this occurred in the tragicomedies of the earlier years of the 1660’s. Behn’s attempt to depict both Kings in The Forc’d Marriage further suggests that the framework of this play was probably written much earlier than the period in which it was produced. 22 Staves, Players’ Scepters, 44. Staves uses the term “Tory” here, where I would be more inclined to use “royalist”. Tory lends itself to an ideology associated with the political hostilities of the Popish Plot of 1678. 23 Maguire, Regicide and Restoration, 216. 24 Miller, Charles II, 30.

High, Bold Rebells

67

To clear my innocency, and reform the errors Which those receiv’d who did believe me guilty, Or that my Crimes were greater than that mercy; (I.i.74-78)

Princess Galatea, in conversation with Erminia, furthers the analogy between Monck and Orgulius by reciting her father’s past misdeeds: Galatea: Your father was our General ’tis true, That Title justly to his sword was due: ... Had he been satisfi’d with noble spoils; But with that single Honour not content, He needs must undermine the Government; And ‘cause h’ad gain’d the Army to his side, Beleev’d his Treason must be justifi’d. (III.iii.5-12)

That the Orgulius character does not correspond in detail to General Monck is wholly in keeping with the style of these restoration-type plays, as well as with dramatic convention itself. Even during the pre-Civil Wars conflict, dramatists did not reflect their political concerns “through direct statement or allegory, but through analogy and oblique reflection – mirrors for magistrates, in fact”.25 To allegorize character and action in plays that are intended to re-historicize political events would make the playwright appear ridiculous, as Edward Howard discovered in the reception of The Usurper. Howard’s unfortunate attempt at historicity merged quickly into pathetic histrionics as Pepys observes, for when he saw the play on 2 January 1664, he described it as a poor play. When he saw it again on 2 December 1668, however, he wrote, “a pretty good play in all but what is designed to resemble Cromwell and Hugh Peters, which is mighty silly”.26 The playwrights attempted historical parallels through the unfolding of the action and by utilizing characters whose roles are only sufficiently familiar to elicit their recognition by the audience. 25 26

Martin Butler, Theatre and Crisis 1632-1642, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984, 6. Pepys, Diary, V, 3 and IX, 81.

68

Of Love and War

While many of these restoration-type plays may offer a mirror to the audience that they might reflect on contemporary historical and/or political events, none of them are meant to function as direct allegory. One of the most profound differences between The Forc’d Marriage and restoration-type plays by Behn’s male colleagues is that here the usurper seeks the subject rather than the throne, but then, a King can “be no King if he want people and Subiects”.27 By emphasizing usurpation of the subject, rather than the throne, Behn demonstrates the innocence of Erminia in the private sphere and allows the audience (as subjects in the public sphere) to idealize their own innocence. Restoration society felt a need to purge itself of any guilt for wrongdoing, and playwrights expressed this need by emphasizing that it was “they” and not “we” who executed the King and usurped the throne.28 That Alcippus receives the staff from the Prince and subsequently employs it to seek the subjects from the King indicates that the subjects themselves were not responsible for the rebellion. “Shall I stand tamely by, and he receive / That Heaven of Bliss” Phillander asks, as Alcippus exits with his bride (II.i.9-10). Usually the marriage scene occurs at the end of a play, where it marks the final resolution of the internal conflict, the restoration of the legitimate King. Its celebration at the beginning of the play signals the subversion of a typical dramatic device and is the catalyst to the conflict that Phillander describes in terms of a rape, a battle in which the subject, Erminia, is overpowered and forced to submit to the usurper: “And must she now be ravish’t from my Arms; / Will you Erminia suffer such a rape [?]” (I.iv.9). Arms here has a double meaning. In the public sphere they are his armed forces and therefore he alludes to war, while in the private sphere, they are the arms with which he embraces Erminia, offering her both protection and love. After the wedding ceremony, Erminia refuses to consummate her marriage with Alcippus. Consummation would not only mean the surrender of her innocence, but it would also acknowledge him as husband in the private sphere and head of the body politic in the public one. Sexual consummation emphatically implicates the subject 27 James I, “A Speach, as it was Delivered in the Vpper Hovse of the Parliament . . . there assembled” (1603), in Political Works, 278. 28 Maguire, “Whole Truth”, 220-21.

High, Bold Rebells

69

in the usurpation as well as validates illegitimate rule. That consummation should occur by a rape, however, demonstrates the innocence of the subject. Rape in the Restoration was largely a property crime against the husband, both a confiscation of his property as well as trespass.29 As a trope, rape represents absolutist tyranny and arbitrary power, which, according to Behn, the Interregnum government imposed on the people. Although Alcippus commands Erminia to recognize his authority, she distances herself from the love he demands, maintaining her innocence by safeguarding her virtue: Alcippus: Regard me well, Erminia, what am I? Erminia: One Sir, with whom I am bound to live and die, And one to whom by rigorous command, I gave (without my heart) my unwilling hand. (II.iii.50-53)

Meanwhile, in her carefully constructed private discourse with Phillander, who steals into the quarters of the couple, Erminia assures her Prince of her political loyalty through her vow of sexual fidelity: “(For I have kept my word, and lay not with him [Alcippus])” (II.vii.43). Suffering from tremendous emotional discord (both violent love and jealous rage) as he reflects ruefully on his unhappy marriage, Alcippus delivers a soliloquy figured in terms of a conflict between a monarchy and a commonwealth: Alcippus: Ah that I could remain in this same state And be contented with this Monarchy; I would, if my wild multitude of passions 29

See Staves, Players’ Scepters, 59. See also Aschsah Guibbory, “Sexual Politics/Political Sex: Seventeenth-Century Love Poetry”, in Renaissance Discourses of Desire, eds Claude J. Summers and Ted L. Pebworth, Columbia: U of Missouri P, 1993, 211. Guibbory notes that “the king is the owner of the realm (understood as both the land and the subjects) and has full rights to it”. It is not difficult to extrapolate that analogy to husband and wife, where the wife is her husband’s “property” and, like his land, he alone has full rights to her.

Of Love and War

70

Could be appeas’d with it, but they’re for liberty, And nothing but a common-wealth within Will satisfie their appetites of freedom. – Pride, Honour, Glory, and Ambition strive How to expell this Tyrant from my soul, But all too weak though reason should assist them. (IV.v.9-17)

The discourse between the private and the public spheres resonates with inflated heroic action and romance. Erminia’s fear of retribution manifests itself in her frequent dissemblance, while Alcippus’ jealousy displays itself in violent fits of rage. In one such moment of fury, Alcippus resolves the problem of social disorder and his inability to trust Erminia by murdering her – or so he believes. Although Alcippus expresses remorse, he also justifies his desperate act: “Now I shall read no terror in her eyes, / And what is better yet, shall ne’re be jealous” (IV.vi.104-105). The murder of Erminia is but one of the many thrilling variations on this type of play, although not the first. Altimast in Boyle’s The Generall, for example, intends to steal away with Altemera and poison her as part of his plan. But his scheme goes awry, and Altemera awakens from her death to the amazement of those around her. Since the female subjects in restoration-type plays are often the object of violent male aggression, these scenes may well suggest an attempt to silence political opposition. Like Altemera, Erminia, too, returns to life, having been rendered only unconscious, and her first act is to seek the protection of her Prince. At this particular point in the action, Behn’s play diverges from the typical restoration-type play, for in this play the subject, rather than the legitimate ruler or the restoring general, initiates the action that leads to the restoration. Thus, Behn’s depiction of the events through her subject-centred action offers an historical reflection of the progress of the negotiations in restoring the Stuart monarchy since the King returned to power not solely through the military force of General Monck, but by invitation of the Commons.30

30

Miller, Charles II, 28-29.

High, Bold Rebells

71

The task remaining at this point in the play is to convince the usurper that in taking possession of Erminia, he has violated his obligation of duty to his Prince and that he should restore her to the legitimate heir. It is Erminia, rather than the Prince, who accomplishes this task. In a change of roles, she becomes the “high, bold Rebel” (V.ii.67) of the court masque. Masque and mirror Behn’s masque in this play is unlike those in her later plays, such as the courtesan scene in The Amorous Prince or the marriage festivities in The Dutch Lover. The masque in The Forc’d Marriage demonstrates a strong likeness to Caroline court masques, which are “celebrations of political order and of the qualities of mind and temperament associated with the maintenance of this order – valour, love of justice and magnanimity”.31 Behn’s masque reflects directly on events within the play, but also serves as political commentary on contemporary historical events. Song and dance were staples of Carolean comedy, and while many Restoration plays include music, singing, and dancing, and while “fancy staging and scenery are an important part of the heroic play”, these elements should not be confused with the tradition of the court masque itself.32 The elements of the masque incorporated an introductory song and dialogue, the entry of the masquers, the masque dances, the revels, and the final song and dialogue recalling the masquers to the 31 Eugene Waith, “Spectacles of State”, Studies in English Literature, XIII/2 (Spring 1973), 326. See also Jennifer Chibnall, “‘To that secure fix’d state’: The function of the Caroline Masque Form”, in The Court Masque, ed. David Lindley, Manchester: Manchester UP, 1984, 78-93. Graham Parry claims that the Caroline masques tended to “address themselves discreetly to current political issues”, in The Golden Age Restor’d: The Culture of the Stuart Court 1603-1642, Manchester: Manchester UP, 1981, 185. 32 See Robert Hume, The Development of English Drama in the Late Seventeenth Century, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1976, 205-206. Although the majority of the “masques” in Restoration plays are in actuality musical interludes or entertainments to increase the box-office appeal of a play, a few of these new plays, such as Robert Howard’s The Surprisal (1665), performed in 1662, Robert Staplyton’s The Step-mother (1664), performed in 1663, Edward Howard’s The Women’s Conquest (1671), performed 1670, and Elkanah Settle’s Empress of Morocco (1673) do include an abbreviated form of the earlier Caroline court-type masque.

72

Of Love and War

scene to conclude the performance.33 The dance usually included taking out members of the audience to join the actors in the revels. The plot, often thinly constructed, was typically filled with allegorical and/or mythological elements. More importantly, the roles of the characters in the masques were regularly performed by members of the court, and in the Caroline court, both Charles I and Henrietta Maria actively participated. The essential concern of the Caroline masque was the praise of the monarch, and this was often accomplished through themes of Platonic or idealized love. The masque sequence in The Forc’d Marriage begins with Alcippus dolefully examining his reflection in a mirror. Common in the Renaissance was the notion of the play as a mirror for human conduct. In this respect, the masque often functioned as an “instrument of reflection and perspective”.34 In the Prologue to his court masque, Love’s Triumph through Callipolis (performed 1631), Ben Jonson writes: “Whereas all representations, especially those of this nature in court, public spectacles, either have been or ought to be mirrors of a man’s life, whose ends ... ought always to carry a mixture of profit with them no less than delight.”35 Through her juxtaposition of mirror and masque Behn suggests her audience view this scene as a reflection of events both within and without the play. Alcippus offers a prelude to the introductory dialogue, opening the scene with a self-analysis that sets the tone for the masque to follow. While there is no introductory song, there is introductory music, and this begins as Erminia enters the scene and orders Alcippus to “Sit down and hear me” (V.v.64). She delivers her dialogue in a ghostly 33

Enid Welsford, The Court Masque (1927), New York: Russell, 1962, 163-64. Maria Cornelia, The Function of the Masque in Jacobean Tragedy and Tragicomedy, Jacobean Drama Studies 77, ed. James Hogg, Salzburg Studies in English Literature, Salzburg: Institut für Englische Sprache und Literatur, Universität Salzburg, 1978, 101. Behn’s use of the mirror in this way is not original. Several other Restoration plays include characters who hold up a mirror while another character approaches from behind to see either his or her own reflection or that of the person holding the mirror. See for example, John Wilson’s The Cheats (1663), and William Cavendish’s, The Humorous Lovers (1667). 35 Ben Jonson, Love’s Triumph Through Callipolis, in Ben Jonson: The Complete Masques, series editor, Stephen Orgel, New Haven: Yale UP, 1969. See also Cornelia, Function of the Masque, 25. 34

High, Bold Rebells

73

tone, creating a dream-like spirit world in which the dead Erminia is resurrected. Through her spectre-like narration she instructs Alcippus in the error of his continued claim to her and strives to convince him that both the gods and his Prince are merciful and offer rewards for his repentance. Alcippus should direct his love to the Princess Galatea since she herself belongs to the gods. In keeping with the Caroline tradition, the members of the court present the masque. The use of the court as actors was an attempt to breach the barriers between the idealized world of the masque and the real world of the Caroline court.36 That both god and goddess of war, Mars and Pallas, participate in Behn’s masque reinforces the theme of the gender wars initiated in the Prologue, but her choice is even more significant because it carries political implications that reach beyond gender. Pallas represents not only war, but also the just side of war, while Mars represents the aggressive warrior faction and war for itself. The selection of mythological figures for inclusion in a masque anticipates the particular, political message the playwright intends to present. Mars, who fathered a daughter named Alcippe, was heroic in warfare. Honoured and revered by soldiers, he was also often irrational, racing to battle with neither the wisdom of Pallas nor for the just causes that Pallas supported. Thus, Behn draws a parallel between Mars, the fierce but irrational warrior, and Alcippus, the warrior general of the usurping faction. Pallas, on the other hand, supports war for just causes and is sometimes represented as the protector or guardian of Kings and heroes. In the masque, Erminia argues that, owing to the inherent magnanimity of a loving and merciful Prince, a royal pardon awaits the usurping faction. Idealized love is a central issue in the masque. That Love is the presiding deity recalls the opening of Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura, in which the poet acknowledges and calls upon the power of Venus, who

36

Cornelia, Function of the Masque, 44-45. Mythological, divine figures are a traditional element of the masque, and here in Behn’s masque, Cupid, Mars, and Pallas Athena appear. Cornelia observes that the fusion in the masque of the earthly with the divine helps to demonstrate the co-equality of heavenly gods and earthly Kings and thus to confirm the divine nature of Kings and Princes (36-39).

74

Of Love and War

“alone can delight mortals with quiet peace”.37 Reminding the goddess of the country’s troubles, Lucretius calls upon her to bend around Mars, who rules “the savage works of war” (I, 32-33) and “pour from your lips sweet coaxings ... for your Romans, illustrious one, crave quiet peace” (I, 38-40),38 an image that reflects the commencement of the masque. Erminia, standing behind Alicppus, appears in the mirror and orders him to sit down, threatening him with “endless torments” if he does not obey. To Alcippus, she may be a “high, bold Rebel” (V.ii.67), but she is rebelling against the usurper – not her Prince: “In vain you rave, in vain you weep / for what the Gods must forever keep” (V.ii.79-80). Erminia reminds Alcippus that “[Phillander] has mercy, can redeem, / Those ills which thou hast done to him” (V.ii.116-17). Behn’s emphasis here appears to be on love, which may suggest the playwright’s interest in physical love and/or desire. However, that Love personified plays a pivotal role in this masque is a reflection of Caroline court masques, such as Ben Jonson’s Love’s Triumph through Callipolis (1631) and Chloridia (1631), Aurelian Townshend’s Albion’s Triumph (1632), and Thomas Carew’s Coelum Brittanicum (1634).39 The masques of the 1630s assert “the political order culminating in the crown. In the realm of the masque, love is the force which binds monarch and subject, just as it does king and

37

Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, trans. William Henry Denham Rouse, intro. Martin Ferguson Smith, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UP, 1975, I, 29-32. See also Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, trans. Ronald Edward Latham, intro. John Godwin, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1994, I, 29-30. 38 Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura was popular in the Restoration, referred to by a number of writers in a variety of genres, including for example John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, Thomas Shadwell, John Dennis, and John Dryden to name but a few. De Rerum Natura was translated in part or in full by a number of writers in the seventeenth century, including Lucy Hutchinson, John Evelyn, John Dryden, and Thomas Creech. In her poem “To Mr. Creech, (under the Name of Daphnis) on his Excellent Translation of Lucretius”, Behn praises Creech for his translation, while simultaneously suggesting that were women not barred from a classical education, they could read Lucretius for themselves. See Behn, Works, I, 25-29. 39 Parry, Golden Age Restor’d, 218. Parry notes that the King used the masques in an attempt to distract attention “from the political aspects of his kingship, offering instead a vision of a beneficent love at the heart of the happy nation” (187-89).

High, Bold Rebells

75

queen”.40 Like the Caroline court masques written to cast Charles I as “the lover of his people”, so Phillander here is represented as lover of his subject(s).41 The masque figures return for the concluding dance, encircling Love and offering gifts, which he refuses. In the context of Platonic love, the gods themselves – not man – confer and direct love. Lynch observes that, “the lover’s passion is heaven-ordained and heavendirected. For the lover to set his own will against divine arguments is futile if not impious”.42 Such is the notion that Erminia expresses: Erminia: For if Erminia still were here Still subject to the toyles of life, She never could have been thy wife. Who by the laws of men and Heaven Was to anothers bosom given ... For which the Gods have will’d and said. Thou has no power to evade What they decree, none can withstand, You must obey what they command. (V.ii.109-34)

Decreed by the gods, love cannot be obtained by man alone. Alcippus has violated the rules of Platonic love as well as his obligation to his Prince, whose divine nature Alcippus must obey. Reconciliation among the various sets of lovers is eventually brought about in the final scene as Alcippus duly recognizes Phillander’s prior claim, and admits to Erminia, “Madam, you were wife unto my Prince, / And that was all my sin” (V.v.182-83). Phillander returns Erminia to her father, Orgulius, who subsequently restores her to her Prince. Marriage functions in The Forc’d Marriage as a restoration in many regards: of the right pair of lovers, of the re-establishment of the 40

Richard Braverman, Plots and Counterplots: Sexual Politics and the Body Politic in English Literature, 1660-1730, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993, 18-19. 41 Parry, Golden Age Restor’d, 200 and 218. 42 Kathleen Lynch, The Social Mode of Restoration Comedy (1926), New York: Biblo and Tannen, 1965, 60.

76

Of Love and War

natural patriarchal order, and most importantly, the restoration of the subject to her rightful Prince. While marriage resolves the sexual conflict in the private sphere, it provides in the public sphere the resolution of the political conflict.43 Since the marriage between Alcippus and Erminia has not been consummated, the virtuous subject/bride is bestowed upon the right king/bridegroom, so that “innocence is restored to the state”.44 The end of the play is rather clumsily contrived, though it serves nevertheless to evince conspicuously Behn’s royalist sentiments. Her closing scenes suggest that the peace and prosperity of the Golden Age has arrived as the Prince is reunited with the subjects. With the state no longer torn between loyalties, the men will enjoy the pursuit of pleasure. Although the glory of battle remains the focus of masculine honour, the King instructs the young men to “number out your happy years: / Till love and glory no more proofs can give / Of what they can bestow, or you receive” (V.v.261-63). Historical parallels Obviously, the royalists during the Interregnum did not behave as the royalists depicted in these early plays.45 The Civil Wars and the Interregnum were periods in which the heroic ideal was impossible. While the audience may have admired the royalist characters in the play, they also would have been amused by their unrealistic behaviour. Behn was not simply writing an allegory, but rather she was heroizing – if not fantasizing – political events in such a manner that her audience could idealize and recognize its own recent historical past.46 That Erminia is restored to Phillander after her marriage to the usurper, a marriage which appears to have been dissolved simply by the King’s prerogative, should certainly have raised eyebrows. Janet 43

Braverman, Plots and Counterplots, 36. Jose, Ideas of the Restoration, 131. 45 Staves, Players’ Scepters, 52-53. 46 Ibid., 51-52 and 72. See also Jose, Ideas of the Restoration, 126 and 131. Maguire demonstrates how the theatre world paralleled the political and claims the restoration-type tragicomedies functioned as psychotherapy, giving the audience “a way to talk about the past and to relive it from a relatively safe vantage point”, in “Whole Truth”, 223-26. 44

High, Bold Rebells

77

Todd and Maureen Duffy have observed that the relationship between Phillander and Erminia bears some historical parallel to that of James, Duke of York and Anne Hyde.47 There is indeed some suggestion of a parallel. When Erminia, a commoner, tells her father that she has secretly pledged herself to Prince Phillander, Orgulius becomes angry and claims she has shown “wondrous daring” (I.iii.40). He insists she preserve his credit and her own honour by breaking her vow. When Edward Hyde, later Lord Clarendon, learned that his daughter had secretly married James, Duke of York, he, too, became furious. Charles II had Clarendon created a baron in an attempt to resolve the vast disparity in social class between the Duke and his bride. In spite of this similarity, however, it seems more likely, given contemporary circumstances, that the marriage Behn had in mind was that of Charles II. By the time The Forc’d Marriage was produced, James and Anne had been married ten years, and Anne had already produced numerous children, although only two, Mary and Anne, survived. That he had married a commoner was no longer the contentious issue it had been in 1660. Although in 1670, the date in which this play was produced, there was rising opposition to James succeeding to the throne, this was owing less to the social status of his wife than to a general suspicion and fear that he had converted to Catholicism. Coincident to this play, however, was an event which elicited much speculation and interest. On 5 March 1670, a bill was entered in the House of Lords by John Manners, Lord Roos, seeking a divorce from his wife and the right to remarry while she was alive.48 On 21 March 1670, as the Roos bill was about to be debated, the King came “unexpectedly into the House” and announced that he “[he] is come to renew a Custom of His Predecessors, long discontinued, to be present at Debates, but not to interrupt the Freedom thereof; and therefore 47

Duffy, Passionate Shepherdess, 103; Todd, Secret Life, 140-41. Journals of the House of Lords, London, 1834, XII, 300b. The bill, 22 Car. II, read on Saturday, 5 March 1669/70, is entitled: An Act for John Manners, called Lord Roos, to Marry again, living his Wife from whom he is divorced. See also Frank Reginald Harris, The Life of Edward Montagu, K. G., First Earl of Sandwich (1625-1672), 2 vols, London: J. Murray, 1912. See Appendices H and I, in II, 318-33; and Anchitell Grey, Debates of the House of Commons, From the Year 1667 to the Year 1694, 10 vols, London, 1763, I, 251-63. 48

78

Of Love and War

desired the Lords to sit down, and put on their Hats, and proceed in their Business”.49 John Evelyn writes that “such an occasion & sight had not ben seene in England since Hen:8th”.50 The presence of the King in the debate over the right of Lord Roos to remarry gave rise to much speculation as to the intention of the King. As firmly as Charles supported the passage of the bill, James vehemently opposed it, which only increased speculation. In spite of protests from bishops and from the Duke of York, Lord Roos was eventually granted his divorce. The courtiers applauded the ruling on the Roos case and viewed it as precedent for the King. The bill raised new hopes for many who were concerned about the number of miscarriages Catherine of Braganza had suffered and had begun to doubt, like Charles himself, that the Queen had ever been pregnant. It had been argued in the Roos debate that divorce should be granted not only for adultery, but also for “immundicity of the womb”.51 A royal divorce would put aside the barren Catholic Catherine and allow the King to choose a fruitful Protestant bride. As unprecedented as the idea of a divorce for the King may have seemed in 1670, many at court had already chosen a new bride for him as early as 1663, a commoner named Frances Theresa Stuart. Frances came to court in 1662 as a maid to Catherine of Braganza. By the fall of 1663, the King was clearly infatuated by her. Edward Montagu told Pepys that he, Arlington, and the Duke of Buckingham were on a committee “for the getting of Mrs. Stuart for the King”, but, Pepys continues, Frances was a “cunning slut” who refused to be procured.52 The King was so enamoured that, “he gets her into corners and will be with her half and hour together, kissing her to the observation of all the world …. it is verily thought, that if the Queen had died, he would have married her”.53 On the Peace of Breda medal, 49

Journals of the House of Lords, 22 Car. II, 12, 318. John Evelyn, The Diary of John Evelyn, ed. E.S. de Beer, 6 vols, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1955, III, 546. See also Andrew Marvell, The Poems and Letters of Andrew Marvell, ed. Herschel Maurice Margoliouth, 2 vols, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1927, II, 302-303. 51 Edmund Ludlowe, The Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow, Lieutenant-General of the Horse in the Army of the Commonwealth of England 1625-1672, ed. C.H. Firth, 2 vols, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1894, II, 502-504. 52 Pepys, Diary, IV, 366. 53 Ibid., IV, 371. 50

High, Bold Rebells

79

which the King had struck in 1667, Frances’ image was used for Britannia. In the same year, her image as Britannia was again struck on medals, including one which celebrated a naval victory and one which was simply imprinted in her honour. That Charles II seriously contemplated divorce is perhaps difficult to prove. We do know, however, that he was devastated when Frances eloped with the Duke of Richmond because he wrote to his sister, Madame: I do assure you I am very much troubled that I cannot in everything give you that satisfaction I would wish, especially in this business of the Duchess of Richmond .... But if you consider how hard a thing ’tis to swallow an injury done by a person I had so much tenderness for, you will in some degree excuse the resentment I use towards her.54

In the following January, the King again writes to Madame about Frances, claiming that if Madame were “as well acquainted with a little fantastical gentleman called Cupid” as he, she would understand his continued suffering.55 Nevertheless, there were many in 1670 who firmly believed that the King had intended to divorce the Queen, and if he could have accomplished this, he would have married Frances. That she was a commoner could have been easily overlooked.56 Burnet claims the King had a bill prepared and a day had been assigned to bring the bill for his divorce into the Lords, but three days prior to the introduction of the bill, the King called Bab May aside and told him “it [the bill] would not do”.57 Divorce, an issue in several plays contemporary to Behn’s The Forc’d Marriage, had acquired a new significance in the Restoration. One popular view supported the notion that marriage was a contract 54

Charles II, Letter to Madame dated Whitehall, 26 August 1667, in The Letters, Speeches and Declarations of King Charles II, ed. Arthur Bryant, London: Cassell, 1935, 203. Charles II’s sister, Henriette, was known as Madame after her marriage to Philippe, Duc d’Orléans. See Miller, Charles II, 115. 55 Ibid., 211-12. 56 Miller, Charles II, 123. 57 Gilbert Burnet, Bishop Burnet’s History of His Own Time . . . to Which Are Added Other Annotations, 6 vols, 2nd edn, Oxford, 1833, I, 482.

80

Of Love and War

by which the husband vowed to protect and provide, while the wife produced heirs. When Catherine of Braganza failed to uphold her end of the contract and provide heirs, a number of courtiers and playwrights suggested that the contract was therefore invalidated.58 For example, two of Shadwell’s plays in this period, The Sullen Lovers (1668) and The Humorists (1671) treat divorce. In The Sullen Lovers, Shadwell suggests “the protestant desire to recognize marriage as a civil contract rather than a sacramental union”.59 When Emilia argues against marriage, Stanford counters with the suggestion that the two of them enter into a private contract which supersedes the public conditions governing marriage: “Whatsoever the Public Conditions are, our private ones shall be, if either grows a Fopp, the other shall have liberty to part” (V.83).60 As a civil contract, the marriage could be dissolved. In The Humorists, Shadwell presents a critique of the injustice of contemporary divorce laws.61 Sir Richard Loveyouth can only separate from his inconstant wife, but he cannot remarry during her lifetime. Only Parliament could grant a divorce which would allow remarriage, and such incidents were rare. Thus, Sir Richard must accept an ecclesiastical divorce – in effect, little more than a legal separation. Unable to remarry, Sir Richard will have no legal heirs and, therefore, he bestows his estate on his niece, Theodosia. In Tyrannick Love, or The Royal Martyr, produced in June 1669, John Dryden offers an opposing argument.62 The plot line of Dryden’s play, written to honour Catherine of Braganza, incorporates the martyrdom of St Catherine.63 Dryden approaches marriage from a staunch church point of view: marriage is a contract, dissolved only 58

See Staves, Players’ Sceptres, 156-60. Ibid., 116. 60 Thomas Shadwell, The Sullen Lovers: or The Impertinents. A comedy Acted by his Highness the Duke of Yorkes Servants (1668), in Works, I, 1-92. Since there are no line numbers in this play, references are to act and page number. 61 Thomas Shadwell, The Humorists, a Comedy Acted By his Royal Highnesses Servants (1671), in Works, I, 181-255. Since there are no line numbers in this play, references are to act and page number. 62 John Dryden, Tyrannick Love; or, The Royal Martyr, A Tragedy. As it is Acted by his Majesties Servants, at the Theatre Royal (1670), in Works, X, 106-93. 63 Ibid., 382. 59

High, Bold Rebells

81

by the death of one of the parties. When the Emperor Maximin demands either divorce or death from the Empress Berenice, she chooses death because she is unwilling to revoke her marriage vow: Berenice: I hate this Tyrant, and his bed I loath; But, once submitting, I am ty’d to both: Ty’d to that Honour, which all Women owe, Though not their Husbands person, yet their vow. Something so sacred in that bond there is, That none should think there could be ought amiss: And if there be, we should in silence hide Those faults, which blame our choice when they are spy’d. (III.i.294-301)

Behn appears to have her own ideas about marriage. Given the consideration that Erminia had been betrothed to the Prince before she was given to Alcippus, that the marriage was never consummated, and that Alcippus agreed to return her, the King’s prerogative is sufficient to set the affair right. Behn also states her opinion that the social rank of the King’s consort is not necessarily of significance, as the King in The Forc’d Marriage observes – worth and beauty are sufficient to give a woman the title of “Queen” (IV.vii.80-84). If Behn was part of the faction that sympathized with and supported the King’s affection for Frances, who had eloped in 1667 to avoid becoming another of his mistresses, then Alcander’s advice to his Prince is noteworthy, “Do that which may preserve you; / Do that which every man in love would do, / Make it your business to possess the object” (II.iv.42-44). By the end of this scene, Phillander, like Charles II himself, has decided against Alcander’s counsel and has commanded the affair be mentioned no more: “Name it no more, and I’le forgive it thee” (II.iv.97). Fops and phantastick courtiers Personal satire was a device that allowed the playwright to direct political commentary at specific individuals. Montague Summers claims that it was common to introduce contemporary figures on the stage who were “so little disguised that the very camouflage was a

82

Of Love and War

sign manual”.64 Indeed, Summers observes, the actors took care to dress and act in the same manner as the figures they intended to satirize. To entertain the King, the court wits personated government ministers. John Miller claims that the King not only liked to watch the wits mock his courtiers, but that on occasion he even joined the wits in their jests.65 Personation at the English court was much discussed abroad, as a letter Sir William Temple wrote from Brussels to Lord Lisle suggests: I agree very much with your Lordship, in being little satisfied by the Wits Excuse, of employing none upon Relations as they do in France .... Whilst making some of the Company laugh and other ridiculous, is the Game in Vogue ... [I] am sorry our Courtiers should content themselves with such Victories as those.66

Mimicry was a contemporary form of court entertainment, and shortly after Arlington had fallen out of favour, one of the jests the King enjoyed most was for a courtier to put a black patch on his nose and thrust about with a white staff.67 In an essay on Lord Arlington, John Sheffield, Lord Mulgrave, writes that Buckingham was Arlington’s strongest rival in court, and that he employed his extraordinary talent for ridicule against Arlington to such an extent, that the Secretary was eventually “left out of his master’s business”.68 Falatius in The Forc’d Marriage is most likely Behn’s personation of Arlington, as I noted in the introduction to this study. The name Falatius alludes to deceit. He is described in the dramatis personae as 64

Montague Summers, The Restoration Theatre, New York: Humanities P, 1964, 288. Miller, Charles II, 108. 66 William Temple, The Works of Sir William Temple, ed. Jonathan Swift, 2 vols, London, 1740, II, 40. The letter is dated August 1667. 67 Laurence Echard, The History of England: From the First Entrance of Julius Caesar and the Romans, to the End of the Reign of King James I (London, 1707) as quoted in Biographia Britannica: or, the Lives of the Most Eminent Persons Who Have Flourished in Great Britain and Ireland, ed. Andrew Kippis, 2nd edn, 5 vols, London, 1780, II, 187. Arlington was reportedly injured in the Civil Wars and covered the wound on his nose with a black patch. 68 John Sheffield, “A Character of the Earl of Arlington”, in The Works of John Sheffield, Earl of Mulgrave, Marquis of Normandy, and Duke of Buckingham, 3rd edn, 2 vols, London, 1740, II, 86. 65

High, Bold Rebells

83

a Phantastick Courtier, and he displays many of the character faults for which Arlington earned an unpleasant reputation, such as distrust of those he employed, cowardice, and greed. Behn’s jest is hardly the first, for personation of Arlington is documented in several contemporary sources. Gramont also records that Arlington was the “chief among those whom the Duke of Buckingham used to mimic”.69 In October 1669, Ralph Montagu, Ambassador to France, wrote to Arlington from Paris, informing him that: … they know here already, and seem much to rejoice at ... your disgrace, and the discountenance that you are fallen into with the King your master .… it is a custom in England that when the King is angry with anybody, that he makes them be acted, and that my Lord Buckingham and Bab May had acted you to the King, and endeavoured to turn you en ridicule.70

In The Forc’d Marriage, Falatius desires Aminta, a beautiful ladyin-waiting to the Princess Galatea. He appeals to her by feigning to have received wounds from his heroic endeavours in the recent war. Once he has decided upon the course of his pursuit, he and his servant, La Bree, discuss where on his body these alleged wounds have been inflicted. La Bree comically suggests the posterior because the ladies would not look there, while Falatius insists the novelty would encourage them all the more. Falatius resolves to have them prominently displayed on his face. If Falatius is, in fact, a character of Arlington, then Behn suggests that in his court career as well as in his military endeavours, his pretentiousness and the fallacy of the black patch is well known. Only Arlington – or here Falatius – is deceived. Falatius lacks a martial constitution, which La Bree delights in reminding him. For example, when Falatius learns that Alcander is his rival for the hand of Aminta and that he may be forced to fight for her, he takes heart for “he [Alcander] knows I am a Coward what ever face I set upon it” (II.ii.116-17). Face, clearly a double entendre here, points out on the one hand Falatius’ countenance. Regardless of his 69

Anthony Hamilton, Memoirs of the Comte de Gramont, trans. Horace Walpole, ed. David Hughes, London: Folio Society, 1965, 105. 70 Historical Manuscripts Commission Buccleuch and Queensbury, 1, 442.

84

Of Love and War

bellicose posturing, he may rest assured that Alcander, fully aware of his cowardice, will not challenge him to a duel. On the other hand, face also suggests his physical face on which he wears black patches, applied to counterfeit a heroic heart, which he inherently lacks. While Falatius genuinely believes the false wounds and the black patches he wears herald his valour, they paradoxically symbolize his cowardice. Hence, Behn covertly suggests that the wound on Arlington’s nose had nothing to do with valour and is in fact a reflection of his lack of a martial constitution. When Alcippus in a jealous rage believes he has murdered Erminia, she returns ghostlike to the court. Falatius, who had discovered Erminia’s body only moments before, is terrified to see her floating spectre-like before him. As Ermina slips quickly to safety, Falatius and La Bree fall trembling to the ground: Falatius: Look up, La Bree, if thou hast any of that Courage thou speakest of but now: La Bree: I dare not, Sir, experience yours I pray. Falatius: Alass, alass, I fear we are both rank Cowards. (IV.viii.19-22)

If Arlington’s reputation was one that showed a certain lack of military prowess, it pointed even more blatantly to avarice. His desire for wealth was public knowledge, and he appears to have improved his financial situation through marriage to Isabella van Beverweert, the daughter of the wealthy Louis of Nassau, Lord of Beverweert, a natural son to Prince Maurice of the House of Orange.71 Isillia in The Forc’d Marriage will become, like Isabella, a pawn in an economic transaction which furthers a material increase in her husband’s 71 Jean Jules Jusserand, A French Ambassador at the Court of Charles the Second: Le Comte de Cominges from his Unpublished Correspondence, London: Unwin, 1892, 87. Cominges notes that Arlington made an attachment to Madame Scrope, First Lady of the Bedchamber to the Queen, but Madame Scrope was not the type of woman who would be content with “a mere secretary”. Pepys, however, claims Arlington “looked after” (had eyes for) a rich widow, Lady Gould, who married someone else. See Pepys, Diary, V, 184. Barbour claims Lady Arlington’s portion was one hundred thousand guilders. See Barbour, Arlington, 98-100.

High, Bold Rebells

85

potential, if not actual, wealth. Through the marriage contract, Isabella brought Arlington a substantial sum, while Isillia represents a realizable great fortune to Falatius through her beauty. Falatius had abandoned his pursuit of Isillia owing to her lack of a portion. When the King encourages Falatius to take her as his bride and insists that her beauty can supply her want of money, Falatius immediately resolves to marry her. “By Jove, Sir”, Falatius exclaims, “I’le agree to any thing; for I beleeve a handsom young wife at Court may bring a man a Greater Fortune than he can in conscience desire” (V.v.230-33). Falatius interprets the King’s speech as support for, if not encouragement of, his own materialism and greed rather than a discourse on love. The female rake Throughout The Forc’d Marriage, Behn offers distinct parallels to court politics and the historical context surrounding the restoration of the monarchy. In doing so, gender functions as a trope through which her political comment finds expression. While much of what I have offered as argument on The Forc’d Marriage deals largely with domestic politics, that is, the Civil Wars, kingship, obedience, etc., and while I have argued that playwrights employed gender issues as tropes for political commentary, this does not mean that gender issues are of little concern to Behn. While public politics is played out in the serious plot, gender issues, such as equality in courtship and marriage, find expression in the comic interruptions provided by Alcander and Aminta. Through Aminta, Behn draws attention to the freethinking, independent female by contrasting her to the submissive subject, Erminia. The charming, flirtatious, and decidedly rebellious Aminta is undoubtedly a rakish character, an early version of what Hume defines as the “polite rake”, a character of breeding who may well flout the rules, but is also accepted within society’s better social classes.72 Nevertheless, she breaks all the rules of courtship, first by refusing to be submissive, then by refusing the man her brother desires she marry, and finally by 72 Robert Hume, “The Myth of the Rake in ‘Restoration’ Comedy”, Studies in the Literary Imagination, X/1 (Spring 1977), 33-38.

86

Of Love and War

taunting, if not humiliating, Alcander, in spite of his visible suffering, as he attempts to win her affections. Aminta’s conflict with Alcander reflects the gender battle Behn establishes in the Prologue and the resolution she wittily posits in the Epilogue. Her song in Act II scene ii demonstrates Aminta’s decided rebellion against the submissive role that the restored social order seems to demand. Her refusal to concede willingly to the old patriarchal hierarchy reflects perhaps the resentment such women experienced who had become public during the Civil Wars: Aminta: Hang love, for I will never pine, For any Man alive; Nor shall this jolly heart of mine, The thoughts of it receive; I will not purchase slavery At such a dangerous rate. But glory at my liberty, And laugh at love and fate. (II.ii.23-30)

Behn clearly questions the re-entrenchment of the old patriarchal order and derides the state of marriage in which women lose both their identity and their freedom by subordinating themselves to men. While Erminia obediently acquiesces to her father, her husband, and her King, Aminta questions the gender hierarchy to the last act, concluding in Act V scene v, that in her partnership with Alcander, she should domineer: Aminta: I should dominier. Alcander: I then should make love elsewhere. Aminta: Well, I find we shall not agree then. (V.v.236-38)

Tragicomedy allows the playwright to demonstrate two opposing view-points,73 and Behn exploits her argument by juxtaposing the 73

Maguire, Regicide and Restoration, 38.

High, Bold Rebells

87

passive Erminia in the serious plot with the rebellious Aminta in the comic subplot.74 Erminia expresses joy at the restoration of her Prince and her subordinate role as lover and subject. Aminta rejects such subordination and only resigns herself to Alcander when her brother Pisaro assures her that if she subdues her haughtiness and her rebellious nature, she will “make the greater slave of him” (V.v.243246). That the rebellious subject body will find contentment through submissive love to the patriarchal head is often suggested in early Carolean plays and serves as a metaphor for political fidelity: “Rebellion is a monster would devour / The Kingly dignity, and sovereign power (I.145).”75 A similar sentiment is expressed by the women in Edward Howard’s The Six Days Adventure, or The New Utopia, who resign from rule, marry their lovers, and end their female republic by declaring a male monarch.76 Earlier in the play, Polidore set the tone of the events to follow, pronouncing, “Nature has made for men her Salique-Law / Given Women to continue men, not govern” (V.84). Aminta’s express desire to take the upper hand in courtship and to domineer over Alcander cannot endure under the pressure of social and political demands. Although she finally agrees to take Alcander and to bid adieu to inconstancy (rebellion), her sudden turnabout seems to stem from coercion rather than choice:

74

The Forc’d Marriage is largely a single plot play with comical interludes rather than a play with two developed plots. Even so, Behn clearly makes use of the dual nature of tragicomedy in this play to forward her political ideas about Stuart kingship, juxtaposed with notions about women’s equality in love and marriage. 75 John Crowne, The History of Charles VIII of France: or, The Invasion of Naples by the French, as it is acted at His Highnesses the Duke of York’s Theater (1672), in The Dramatic Works of John Crown, eds James Maidment and William Hugh Logan, 4 vols, 1874; New York: B. Blom, 1967, I, 117-218. Since there are no line numbers in this play, references are to act and page numbers. 76 Edward Howard, The Six Days’ Adventure, or The new Utopia. A comedy, as it is acted at his Royal Highness the Duke of York’s theatre, London, 1671. All references are to act and page numbers.

88

Of Love and War Aminta: This change of Humour I’me content to prove, – Here, Take me, Alcander, Whilst to Inconstancy I bid adieu, I find variety enough in you. (V.v.248-51)

Politically, the last of the rebellious subjects has been subdued and harmony and stability in the patriarchal order is restored. Still, after five acts of asserting her independence, Aminta’s sudden change of heart remains unconvincing. In her next play, The Amorous Prince, Behn allots the court fop greater stage time and introduces a comical country bumpkin, thus incorporating more humour in her play. Although the theme of the play is still serious, the tone is much lighter and her characters more witty than in this play. The Amorous Prince depicts several strongwilled women, who are as witty and as rebellious as Aminta, but who are also coerced eventually into submission. Not all the female characters in her next play are “high, bold Rebels”. Two clever female characters in The Amorous Prince, Ismena and her servant Isabella, are anxious to shed their independence, and, unlike Aminta, they set out to catch a husband. After experimenting with attempts to re-historicize the Civil Wars, the Interregnum, and the Restoration in her first two plays, Behn moves toward more contemporary issues in The Amorous Prince, where she focuses on the mystique of the monarchy and suggests that the licentious behaviour of a Prince may well undermine one of the most important aspects of the sovereign.

CHAPTER THREE SEXUAL DEVIANCE AND UNIVERSAL ORDER IN THE AMOROUS PRINCE, OR, THE CURIOUS HUSBAND For thou has lost thy princely privilege With vile participation. Not an eye But is a-wary of thy common sight ….1

In her double-plotted play, The Amorous Prince, or, The Curious Husband (1671),2 Behn again employs elevated notions of virtue and honour within an obvious romance context, similar to that within The Young King and The Forc’d Marriage; however, here these notions are expressed without the précieux-style language previously employed by Cleomena and Thersander or Erminia and Phillander. For the political framework of her argument, Behn returns to the pastoral where she employs hyperbole to emphasize the inherent innocence, if not the naïveté of rural life, as demonstrated by both the heroine, Cloris, and the country fop, Guilliam; this, she juxtaposes to the prurience of the court, demonstrated by the louche court fop, Lorenzo, but particularly through her amorous Prince, Frederick. In serious dramatic plots contemporary with The Amorous Prince that employ a court setting and pastoral characters, the shepherds and shepherdesses are frequently brought to court, where the action of the play largely occurs. This is the case, for example, in Shadwell’s The Royal Shepherdess (1669), Dryden’s Tyrannick Love, or The Royal Martyr (1670), and his Marriage A-la-Mode (1673). In contrast to these plays, however, the court in The Amorous Prince makes the foray into the pastoral realm where the ultimate purpose of the incursion is wholly dishonourable. Robert Staplyton (1605?-1669) had earlier used this same 1 William Shakespeare, Henry IV Part One, III.ii.86-88, ed. David Scott Kastan, Arden Shakespeare, London: Thomson, 2002. 2 Aphra Behn, The Amorous Prince, or, the Curious Husband. A Comedy, As it is Acted at his Royal Highness, the Duke of York’s Theatre, in Works, V, 83-155.

90

Of Love and War

idea of court incursion into the pastoral in The Step-Mother (1664).3 In Staplyton’s play, Sylvanus, the Prince of Verulam, attempts to escape the wrath of his tyrannical wife, Pontia, who contrives to murder her husband so that she may add the kingdom of Verulam to her own realm of Malden over which she shall rule. Behn’s Prince Frederick has not been provoked by tyranny to seek sanctuary, as is the case with Sylvanus in The Step-Mother, nor is he simply seeking the peace and tranquillity of the countryside. Rather, Frederick invades the pastoral realm to indulge his sexual desire by preying on the country innocents. As a result, the Prince transforms the pastoral idyll into a sexual battlefield where his conquests are hardly those of a courageous warrior. A further striking note in Behn’s plot is the reversal of the direction of movement in the second half of the play: the court experiences a counter-invasion by the pastoral as the country maid Cloris and country bumpkin, Guilliam invade the court. The incursion itself, as well as the fact that these two characters exchange sexual identities, is but a further indication of a universal order turned upside down. Yet it is this inverse direction of the pastoral characters that functions as the catalyst in reestablishing harmonies and hierarchies. The Amorous Prince has two distinct plots. The primary plot, that of Prince Frederick and Cloris, appears to be original. Briefly, Curtius is Cloris’ brother and the Prince’s companion and confidante. Curtius has had Cloris raised in seclusion in the country, away from the louche court. Nevertheless, Frederick has discovered this country maid, although he does not know she is Curtius’ sister and, using the promise of marriage, has seduced her. Frederick expresses no remorse for ruining Cloris’ honour, nor does he demonstrate any intention of following through with the promised marriage. The seduced Cloris, distracted that the Prince no longer visits her, travels to the court – against her brother’s strict injunction to remain in 3

Robert Stapylton, The Step-mother, a tragic-comedy; acted with great applause at the theatre in Little Lincolns-Inne-Field, by His Highness the Duke of York’s servants, London, 1664. Nathaniel Lee takes up this change in direction as well in his play, The Tragedy of Nero (1675), produced in 1674. Lee’s Nero travels to the country in order to seduce Poppea, the too-willing wife of Otho. See The Tragedy of Nero, Emperour of Rome: As it is acted at the Theatre-Royal, by His Majesties Servants in The Works of Nathaniel Lee, eds Thomas B. Stroup and Arthur L. Cooke, 2 vols, New Brunswick: Scarecrow Press, 1954, II, 19-71.

Sexual Deviance and Universal Order

91

the country – to find her Prince. For the dangerous journey, she dons breeches, calls herself “Phillibert”, and bids her servant, the country fop Guilliam, to accompany her. The primary plot thickens rapidly when Frederick, after his success with Cloris, attempts to rape Curtius’ betrothed, Laura. Curtius plans to entrap the Prince with an offer of “untried beauties”, young ladies who are “curious Pieces, [that] were never blown upon, / Have never been in Courts, nor hardly Cities” (IV.ii.86-87). During the Prince’s inspection of the “wares”, Curtius means to murder him. Behn’s secondary plot, the Antonio/Alberto plot, is not original, although she does make some intriguing changes. Antonio wants to test his wife Clarina’s fidelity. To do so, he enlists his trusted friend Antonio to attempt her seduction. This plot no doubt comes from “The Novel of the Impertinent Curiosity” in Volume I of Cervantes’ The Adventures of Don Quixote de la Mancha (1605) and the anonymous The Second Maiden’s Tragedy produced in 1611.4 The story lines of these two texts are so remarkably similar, that it appears the playwright of The Second Maiden’s Tragedy may have used the Cervantes plot as well. Although Montague Summers proposes that Beaumont and Fletcher’s The Coxcomb (1647) may also have been a source for The Amorous Prince, given the vast difference in the story lines, it is highly doubtful Behn used this text for her plot.5 In the Beaumont and Fletcher comedy, The Coxcomb, Antonio, does not conspire with his friend, Mercury, to

4 Miguel de Cervantes, “The Novel of the Impertinent Curiosity”, in The Adventures of Don Quixote de la Mancha, trans. Tobias Smollett, London: Andre Deutsch, 1986, 257-94. The first volume of Cervantes’ text was first published in 1605; an English translation was published as early as 1612. There were numerous publications prior to 1671 when Behn’s play was produced. Her close adaptation of Cervantes’ story demonstrates that she clearly had access to his text. The second of these two possible sources, The Second Maiden’s Tragedy (1824), ed. W. Carew Hazlitt, 4th edn, A Select Collection of Old English Plays, New York: Benjamin Blom, 1964, X, 385-468, bears some similarity to Cervantes’ text, as noted above. There are no line numbers in Hazlitt’s text; therefore, references will be to act, scene and page number. Scholars have attributed this play to a diverse number of playwrights, including George Chapman and Thomas Middleton, although a definitive playwright has yet to be determined. 5 Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher, The Coxcomb, ed. Irby B. Cauthen, Jr., in The Dramatic Works in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon, gen. ed. Fredson Bowers, 10 vols, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1966, I, 261-366. See also Summers, “Source”, in Works of Aphra Behn, IV, 119.

92

Of Love and War

test the fidelity of his wife, Maria; rather, when Mercury admits that he finds Maria attractive, Antonio decides to share her: Antonio: I am resolv’d, go thy wayes, a wife shall never part us, I Have consider’d and I finde her nothing to such a friend as thou art; I’le speake a bold word, take your time and woe her, you have overcome me cleerley, and do what’s fitting with her, youconceive mee, I am glad at hart you love her. (II.i.129-33)

By the end of the play Antonio is made a cuckold, and he joyfully bids his wife and friend love each other. Antonio’s only complaint is that his wife is too obstinate for him to share her with his other friends. In the Cervantes story, the wealthy Florentine, Anselmo, marries the beautiful Camilla, and then engages his unwilling friend, Lothario, to attempt to seduce her as a test. While making his advances to Camilla, Lothario does in fact fall in love with her. Like the Cervantes plot, the husband, Antonio, in Behn’s The Amorous Prince insists that his friend, Alberto, test the fidelity of his wife, Clarina. Behn, however, refines Cervantes’ story by having Clarina substitute her unmarried sister-inlaw, Ismena, in the love chase, thus minimizing the impropriety of the plot while maximizing the humour and the confusion that follow. In both plots, the affair must eventually come to light. In the Cervantes story, Anselmo realizes too late his foolishness and dies of grief, while Lothario joins the wars and is killed in battle. Camilla escapes to a convent and takes vows just before she, too, dies of grief – not for her husband, we are told, but for her lover. In Behn’s plot, Alberto confesses to Antonio his love for Clarina and decides to depart the court and dedicate himself to military pursuits, where he will make war his mistress. “Perhaps [war will be] more kind than she has been to me; / Where though I cannot conquer, ’twil allow / That I may dye; that’s more than this will do”(V.ii.56-58).Eventually, of course, the misunderstanding comes to light, and Antonio realizes that Clarina has tricked him to teach him a lesson. Alberto’s courtship has all along been to the virtuous maid Ismena. In Cervantes’ story, Anselmo encourages Lothario to invent a lover in the city and to write her poems. Through subterfuge Lothario informs Camilla that these poems are actually for her, and so with complete impunity, he openly acknowledges his love. The woman Lothario invents as his lover is named Chloris; while Behn does not utilize this plot

Sexual Deviance and Universal Order

93

feature from Cervantes’ story, she does use the name Cloris for the lovelorn country maid in her main plot. .

Princes, pimps and preferment In the same year that Behn’s The Amorous Prince was produced, Edward Howard’s The Six Days Adventure, or the New Utopia was also staged. In this play, Howard claims that personation reigns unbridled on the stage. His character Franckman suggests the disturbing proliferation of personal satire as well as the pervasiveness of its reach: Franck: … the age has been so ransack’d for humour, That men are in some fear to converse freely, lest they be Heard again in the next new Play. (III.34)

Having been characterized himself a few years earlier in Shadwell’s The Sullen Lovers: or, The Impertinents (1668), Howard acknowledges the inherent dangers of being a public individual.6 Although Behn had employed personal satire in her previous play and although personation was undoubtedly enjoying a wildly popular moment on the patent stage, she takes a different tactic with The Amorous Prince, employing her play to hold a mirror up to the court. The Amorous Prince adumbrates the dangerous political ramifications of the uncontrolled, ubiquitous sexual advances of a much too amorous Prince. The metaphor of the King as actor on stage had endured a long and notable history. James VI and I, in the third book of his Basilikon Doron (1598), had written: “a King is as one set on stage, whose smallest actions and gestures all the people gazingly doe behold.” King James, acutely aware of the theatricality of politics – especially court politics, counselled his son that “people, who seeth but the outward part, will euer judge of the substance, by the circumstances”.7 Like Shakespeare’s Henry IV, who warns Prince Hal of the dangers of becoming “commonhackneyed in the eyes of men” instead of a comet, seldom seen and always wondered at, Behn suggests here the importance of the royal 6

Shadwell personates Edward Howard in this play as the poet, Ninny, and Edward’s brother, Sir Robert Howard, as Sir Positive At-all. See Hume, Development of English Drama, 259. 7 James VI and I, Basilikon Doron, in Political Works of James I, 43.

94

Of Love and War

mystique to the polity as well as to the security of the throne.8 That Behn and her colleagues hold a mirror up to contemporary court behaviour seems entirely likely given the popularity and frequency of this theme. Pepys, for example, records that Thomas Killigrew publicly informed the King of the disastrous state of domestic affairs and the King’s personal responsibility for it: There is a good honest able man that I could name, that if your Majesty would imploy and command to see all things well executed, all things would soon be mended; and this is one Charles Stuart – who now spends his time in imploying his lips and his prick about the Court, and hath no other imployment. But if you would give him this imployment, he were the fittest man in the world to perform it.9

The King “did not mind being told his faults in private, provided this was done in a witty or gentlemanly manner”.10 If Behn’s Prince Frederick is indeed a reflection of Charles II, then, like her colleagues, she blames his illicit sexual exploits on temptations provided him by his licentious courtiers. Behn achieves her ends through a playful satire on both courtiers and ministers. Frederick’s dissolute courtier, Lorenzo, pimps for the Prince, while the naive and vulgar country bumpkin, Guilliam, gains a service at court. The courtier as pimp is the subject of criticism in much of the satire in the Restoration, and Behn uses this notion well in The Amorous Prince. Lorenzo emphasizes procuring when he explains to Guilliam, who seeks employment at court, that one of the qualities he needs to be useful is “Conduct and secresie in Love Affairs” (III.iii.235).11 In the literature of 8

See Henry’s speech in Shakespeare, Henry IV Part One: III.ii.21-91. Pepys, Diary, VII, 400. 10 Miller, Charles II, 31. See also George Savile, Marquis of Halifax, The Works of George Savile, Marquis of Halifax, ed. Mark N. Brown, 3 vols, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1989, II, 49495; Antonia Fraser, King Charles II, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1979, 279 and 466; see also Thomas Bruce, Earl of Ailesbury and Elgin, Memoirs of Thomas, Earl of Ailesbury, Written by Himself, ed. W.E. Buckley, 2 vols, London, 1890, I, 7-8 and 93. 11 William Chiffinch, Keeper of the Privy Closet, is known to have sneaked women up the back stairs for the King (Fraser, Charles II, 285). Roger North records that Chiffinch’s lodgings were “where the king spoke with particular persons about intrigues of all kinds”, and that Chiffinch “was the confidant of Charles, not only in his amours but also in his political intrigues”. See Roger North, The Lives of the Right Hon. Francis North, Baron Guildford; The Hon. Sir Dudley North; and the Hon. and Rev. Dr. John North, ed. Augustus Jessop, 3 vols, London: George Bell and Sons, 1890, I, 273-74, and n.1. Ogg claims 9

Sexual Deviance and Universal Order

95

this period, the procurement of women for the King is frequently represented as the most efficacious method of preferment. Jacques de Caillieres observed that one of the ways for a courtier to win the favour of his Prince, although a “very slippery” one, was to concern himself with his master’s amours.12 In the anonymous verse satire, “A Lampoon”, the author writes: ’Tis well for the Babbs, That the pimpes, and the Drabs Are Now in a high way of promotion, Else Villiers, and May Had beene out of play: But poore Denham went off with a potion.13

The author of the anonymous “The King’s Vows” accuses Charles II’s minister, Lord Arlington, of pimping: “Of my pimp I shall make my minister premier”.14 Arlington, however, was not the only minister or courtier accused of procuring. Gilbert Burnet records that “Berkeley had the managing of the King’s amours”, while both “Bennet and Berkeley had the management of the mistresses”.15 Behn’s Lorenzo is just such a courtier, so when Curtius hopes to trap Frederick with an offer of beautiful courtesans, he turns to Lorenzo, who, he observes, will “proclaim my business / Better than a Picture or a Trumpet” (IV.ii.36-37). Lorenzo tells the disguised Curtius “I have the Princes ear, Sir—” and promises to take Frederick, the “best Chapman in all Florence” (IV.ii.78), to the appointed site (IV.ii.93).16 While the Chiffinch performed a “great and honourable service” to the Stuarts in not writing his memoirs (Ogg, England in the Reign of Charles II, 2 vols, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1956, I, 331). 12 See Caillieres’ The Courtier’s Calling: Shewing the Ways of Making a Fortune … According to the Maxims of Policy and Morality, London, 1675, 31. 13 “A Lampoon”, in The Penguin Book of Restoration Verse, ed. Harold Love, 1968, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1997, 79-80. 14 “The King’s Vows”, l.44, in Poems on Affairs of State, Augustan Satirical Verse 16601714, Vol I: 1660-1678, ed. George DeForest Lord, New Haven: Yale UP, 1963, 159-62. See also, Marvell’s “Second Advice to a Painter”, l. 334, in the same volume, 36-53. 15 Pepys, Diary, IV, 366; Burnet, History, I, 182-83. Berkeley here is Sir Charles Berkeley, First Earl of Falmouth and First Viscount Fitzharding, a noted favourite of Charles II. 16 While the commonly understood meaning for “chapman” is pedlar or trader, the OED lists an earlier meaning, now obsolete, of “purchaser or customer”. Both meanings would have been in use at the time, and Behn here seems to play on both ideas.

96

Of Love and War

Prince is certainly a customer for the beauties, he is also a trader in the market economy of the court, where the recognized currency is sexual favours. Lorenzo vows success with the Merchant of Love, not only for the Prince, but for himself as well since he plans to arrive at the appointed assignation before Frederick in order to sample the merchandise: “… I’le provide for Frederick; / For ’tis but just, although he be my Master, / That I in these Ragousts should be his taster” (IV.iv.97-99). While Lorenzo may be a pimp for the Prince, he is also a vehicle for further satire on courtiers and ministers. For example, when the rustic Guilliam informs Lorenzo that he has come to court “to get a service”, Lorenzo details the requirements that he must fulfil in order to obtain such a preferment at court:17 Lorenzo: Why what canst thou do? canst thou dress well? – Set a Perruke to advantage, ty a Crevatt, And Cuffs, put on a Belt with dexterity, hah? These be the parts that must recommend you. (III.iii.187-90)

Guilliam admits he does not understand these duties, but he is confident that he can learn. Confidence, Lorenzo remarks, is “a great step to preferment” (III.iii.194). Although Lorenzo is impressed with Guilliam’s dancing ability, he observes that the shepherd lacks “wit, / Valour, Bon Meen, good garb, a perruke, / … and half / A dozen more good qualities” to make him fit for the court (III.iii.233-36). But Guilliam learns swiftly to affect the hypocritical qualities of the superficial court culture – so well that he passes Lorenzo at court without taking notice of his patron. Behn no doubt lampoons contemporary court manners where it was not uncommon for a protegé to surpass his patron in the King’s favour, and subsequently to fail to honour his mentor. Stars rose and fell quickly at court, and the competition for preferment was severe. Arlington, for example, was a protegé and friend of George Digby, the Second Earl of Bristol; yet, during the political wranglings 17

Lorenzo’s comment is similar to one made by Pimante in Behn’s The Young King, who tells Colonel Vallentio that the young King, Orsames, cannot possibly come to the throne, because he has not been schooled in the proper behaviour at court; “he knows nothing of a world, cannot dress himself, not sing, nor dance, or plays on any Musick …” (I.i.52-53).

Sexual Deviance and Universal Order

97

that accompanied the First Declaration of Indulgence (1662), Arlington turned against his patron. Support for the Indulgence would have raised Arlington in the King’s esteem, while Bristol, after an unsuccessful attempt to impeach Clarendon, fled the court and was thereafter banished.18 In turn, Thomas Clifford was the protegé of Arlington. When the position Lord High Treasurer became vacant in 1672, a position Arlington coveted, the King appointed Clifford rather than Arlington, who did not conceal his disappointment, and the friendship between the two men cooled radically.19 Shadwell offers a similar comment in The Miser, when the gamester Rant remarks, “Marriage alters some men, and makes them forget their friends, as much as Preferment does” (V.i.92).20 Perhaps the apex of Behn’s satire on the court is intimated in the most dreaded and inconceivable of events for Lorenzo – the reformation of the Prince. Lorenzo has remained the favourite of the Prince by supplying him with women and revelling in debauchery. When Frederick renounces his former licentious ways and recognizes Cloris as his wife, Lorenzo complains: Lorenzo: Here’s fine doings; what am I like to come to if he Turn honest now? this is the worst piece of inconstancy He ever was guilty of; to change ones humour, or so, Sometimes is nothing; but to change nature, To turn good on a sudden, and never give a man Civil warning, is a defeat not to be endur’d; (V.iii.208-13)

When Frederick insists Lorenzo marry Isabella, Lorenzo claims his 18

Barbour, Arlington, 62-69; Ogg, England in the Reign of Charles II, I, 205-206; Miller, Charles II, 69-70; and Hutton, Charles the Second, 202-204. 19 Miller, Charles II, 147 and 199; Barbour, Arlington, 78 and 203-205; Hutton, Charles the Second, 454-55. Pepys also records the faction and the undermining in the struggle for power at court: “Here I am told how things go at court; that the young men get uppermost, and the old serious lords are out of favour” (Pepys, Diary, III, 227). See also, for example, Pepys, Diary, II, 142; IV, 137; VII, 166; VIII, 342. Pepys notes not only the competition for the King’s favour, but also the King’s own vacillation which exacerbated the faction: “the King adheres to no man, but this day delivers himself up to this and the next to that …” (ibid., VIII, 356). 20 Shadwell, The Miser: A Comedy acted By His Majesties Servants, at the Theatre Royal (1672), in Works, II, 7-93.

98

Of Love and War

Prince is tyrannical: “Will you compel me to’t against my will? / Oh tyranny, consider I am a man of quality and fortune” (V.iii.347-48). Behn offers an ironic twist to the end of her play. Should the King reform, she comically suggests, he would commit the ultimate tyranny by compelling the courtiers to secure another form of currency upon which to build their futures and their fortunes. For Lorenzo, the ultimate in tyranny is forced marriage and hence an acquiescence to the heterosexual, patriarchal order. But he also recognizes that with Isabella as his partner, their marital state will clearly not be a patriarchy. Microcosm, macrocosm and universal order Thomas Browne wrote, “there is in this Universe a Stair, or manifest Scale of creatures, rising not disorderly, or in confusion, but with a comely method and proportion”.21 While widespread belief in the concept of the Great Chain of Being may have faded with the Renaissance, its construction nevertheless particularized an ordered universe in which one could visualize his or her place within a divinely ordained hierarchical order. Conceptually, the Great Chain both rationalized and reinforced social class hierarchies; it cogently provided the logic for remaining within one’s designated class; and its construction inherently suggested the disastrous repercussions of rebellion since a rupture at any point within the Chain signalled a potential collapse of the social and/or political order. Although a firm belief in the Chain as an actuality may have lost its popularity, the notions of hierarchy and order as circumscribed by the Chain were realized as implicitly fundamental. Many firmly believed that the Civil Wars had been brought about in part by the failure of the lower orders to recognize their allotted place in the social hierarchy; thus, it was they who turned the Caroline world “upside down”. Literary representations of a hierarchically ordered universe, presided over by the primum mobile (a prime or first mover), who maintained the spheres in an ordered motion at the top of the Chain, found support in royalist 21

Browne, Religio Medici, in The Works of Thomas Browne, ed. Geoffrey Keynes, 4 vols, London, Faber, 1964, I, 43. Of particular help in exploring the concept of universal order are Arthur O. Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UP, 1961; James Daly, “Cosmic Harmony and Political Thinking in Early Stuart England”, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, LXIX/7 (October 1979), 1-41; and Edward R. Harrison, Cosmology: The Science of the Universe, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1981.

Sexual Deviance and Universal Order

99

political literature: So in the kingdom’s general conventions, By Confluence of all States doth appear, Who nurseth Peace, who multiplies contentions What to the people, what to great men dear, Whereby soveraignity still keeps above And from her center makes these circles move.22

The monarch in power is the primum mobile, the puissant driving force of the realm, “and all other authorities [are] the inferior orbs, whose cycles and epicycles [are] activated by the first mover”.23 In a letter to Sir Thomas Edmondes, George Calvert refers to James I as: … the primum mobile of our court, by whose motion all other spheres must move, or else stand still: bright sun of our firmament, at whose splendour or glooming all our marigolds of the court open or shut. In his conjunction all the other stars are prosperous, and in his opposition malominous.24

In his poem “To the King”, Edmund Waller refers to the King in a similar manner: Small were the worth of valour and of force, If your high wisdom governed not their course; You as the soul, as the first mover you, Vigour and life on every part bestow.25 22

Fulke Greville’s “A Treatise of Monarchy”, in The Works and Prose Complete of the Right Honourable Fulke Greville, Lord Brooke, ed. Alexander B. Grosart, 4 vols, NP, printed for private circulation, 1870, I, 108. 23 Daly, “Cosmic Harmony”, 11-12. 24 The Court and Times of James the First, ed. Thomas Birch, 2 vols, New York: AMS, 1973, I, 191. The letter is dated 1 August 1612. 25 Waller, “To the King”, which concludes his “Instructions to a Painter”, in Poems, 176188, ll. 323-26. See also Book Three of John Dryden’s Tales from Chaucer, “Palamon and Arcite: or, The Knight’s Tale” and the lines, “The Chain still holds; for though the Forms decay, / Eternal Matter never wears away; / The same First Mover certain Bounds has plac’d, / How long those perishable Forms shall last” (ll. 1030-33), in Works, ed. Vinton A. Dearing, VII, 55-195. See also Dryden’s opera The State of Innocence, and Fall of Man (1677), in Works, XII, ed. Vinton A. Dearing, where Raphael informs Adam, “So Orbs, from the first mover, motion take; / Yet each their proper revolutions make” (IV.i.39-40).

100

Of Love and War

Even in the late eighteenth century royalists argued that the weight of a monarchy helped to maintain the universal order, as Edmund Burke argued, by preventing “the separate parts from warping, and starting from their allotted places”.26 In Night Thoughts, Edward Young writes of complicated man, the “Distinguish’d link in being’s endless chain! Midway from nothing to the Deity”.27 In The Amorous Prince, Behn constructs the basis of her play comprehensively around the principles of universal order. Of specific importance in this play is harmony and order as guided and reflected by the King, the primum mobile. By the time The Amorous Prince was produced, several outspoken critics had already begun to voice their concern that the King’s licentious behaviour would bring unprecedented and adverse repercussions upon the kingdom. Ubiquitous examples abound of Charles II’s unlicensed sexual behaviour inextricably linked with concerns about masculinity and monarchical authority. For example, in Rochester’s much-quoted satire, “On King Charles”, the King’s phallus and the sceptre are metaphorically one: “His sceptre and his prick are of a length / And she that plays with one may sway the other ….”28 In the “Fourth Advice to a Painter”, the poet expresses unconstrained anxiety about the King’s profound failure to recognize social and sexual limits. By drawing historical parallels – Charles and England as Nero and Rome – the poet implies the resulting disorder to the body politic: As Nero once, with harp in hand, survey’d His flaming Rome and, as that burn’d, he play’d, So our great Prince, when the Dutch fleet arriv’d, Saw his ships burn’d and, as they burn’d, he swiv’d (ll. 129-32).29

For Marvell, the King’s attention to sexual affairs translates as 26

See Edmund Burke, “Reflections on the Revolution in France”, in The French Revolution 1790-1794, ed. Leslie George Mitchell, in The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke, gen. ed. Paul Langford, 9 vols, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1989, VIII, 86. 27 Edward Young, Night Thoughts or the Complaint and the Consolation, Night First, ll. 74-75, illustrated by William Blake, eds Robert Essick and Jenijoy La Belle, New York: Dover, 1976, 3. 28 John Wilmot, “On King Charles”, ll. 11-12, in Complete Works, 30. 29 “The Fourth Advice to a Painter” (1667), in Poems on Affairs of State, I, 140-46. Although this poem has often been attributed to Marvell, Annabel Patterson questions this attribution. See “Lady State’s First Two Sittings: Marvell’s Satiric Canon”, Studies in English Literature 1500-1900, XL/3 (Summer 2000), 395-411.

Sexual Deviance and Universal Order

101

inattention to political ones, and hence the impending destruction of England, configured here as Rome. In the anonymous, “A Ballad called the Haymarket Hectors” (1671), the King consults his “cazzo” (penis), and before he ultimately resigns his political authority to Nell Gwynn.30 Once the primum mobile abandons its defining and determining orbit, the ordered movement of the planets dissolves in chaos and the hierarchically-ordered stairs of the Chain consequently collapse in confusion and disorder. The political similitude of this is that if the King is not in harmony with the moral laws of his social community, if he steps beyond those limits sanctioned by a rational order, he generates chaos within the political and social systems he directs. A willing recognition of and a patent obedience to a society’s moral laws is the perfection of manhood and therefore a construct of both masculinity and honour. Hence, cosmic thought manifestly acknowledges the necessity of boundaries and these boundaries inherently imply moral limits to which the monarch, too, is irrevocably subject.31 Majesty and demi-god The manifold satire on the King’s vigorous sexual appetite illustrates strikingly the extent to which Restoration society unequivocally experienced anxiety about the potentially dangerous repercussions on the body politic: “Sexual identity was inextricably related to political power.”32 The theatricality of the King’s impolitic, public behaviour readily adapts to the public forum of the stage. Behn demonstrates in The Amorous Prince the confusion the body politic experiences when the Prince abandons his directing orbit and fails to maintain the civilized boundaries of honour and decorum established by his contemporary society. Frederick’s servant, Galliard, sent by the Prince to deliver a letter to the seduced Cloris, questions the divine nature of the Prince, and his 30

“A Ballad Called the Haymarket Hectors” (1671), ibid., I, 169-71. Daly, “Cosmic Harmony”, 23-27. Daly claims that the “normal moralities” applied even to the King, although it was acknowledged that a King may have greater temptations than the common man. The notion of limits and boundaries was essential to cosmic thought, and, as noted earlier in this chapter, the realization that the universe may actually be limitless was one of the five key issues that eventually brought about the demise of cosmology. 32 Harold Weber, “Charles II, George Pines and Mr. Dorimont: The Politics of Sexual Power in Restoration England”, Criticism, XXXII/2 (Spring 1990), 217. 31

102

Of Love and War

comments convey a disquieting republicanism: Galliard: So, poor Lass, ’tis a hundred to one if she be not Lay’d by now, and Laura must succeed her: Well, even Frederick, I see, is but a man. (II.i.78-80)

The monarchical mystique is clearly threatened by the Prince’s immoral behaviour; deprived of his mystique, Frederick has little that seems divine about him, so that he appears common. In Shakespeare’s discussion of kingship in Henry IV Part One, the King draws attention to the fate of Richard II, the “skipping King … [who] ambled up and down / With shallow jesters and rash bavin wits, / [and] Soon kindled and soon burnt” (III.ii.60-62) and so brought about his own destruction. That Princes are divine and thus analogous to God is the sine qua non of Stuart political ideology. This is not to suggest that within Behn’s contemporary society there was ubiquitous acceptance of the divine nature of kingship, a nature that fundamentally empowered and confirmed the indefeasible right of Stuart hereditary succession. While the concept of a universal order may have been understood, there were certainly factions whose sentiments caused them to reject the rubric of the divine nature of the monarchy. And certainly that irreducible divine status of Kings had been formally challenged by the republican scepticism of the Interregnum.33 Nevertheless, at the Restoration, Charles II made a conscious attempt to reinforce the mystique of a divinely ordained monarchy.34 Not only were cultural festivals encouraged, such as the May celebrations, but so, too, did he revive the ceremony of touching for the “King’s Evil”.35 The inherently divine nature of the King allowed him to effect “miracles”: 33 Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century England (1971), London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1997, 139-40, 197-98 and 243-44. 34 David Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England 1603-1660, Oxford: Oxford UP, 1985, 283. 35 Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, 192-94. See also Hutton, Charles II, 134. Charles is known to have touched over ninety-thousand people during his reign. John Evelyn records on 6 July 1660, “His Majestie began first to Touch for the Evil according to costome”, and he offers a lengthy description of the ceremony (Evelyn, Diary, III, 250-51). Pepys also records the King’s touching ceremonies (Pepys, Diary, I, 182; II, 74, and VIII, 161).

Sexual Deviance and Universal Order

103

therefore, touching for scrofula reinforced the manifest relation of God and King, while serving as well as a “reminder that royalty owed its titles to more than parliamentary declarations”.36 In spite of such ceremonies, the notion that the King was divine and appointed by God as lieutenant on Earth was visibly crumbling, and the unprecedented, libidinous behaviour of the “merry monarch” did nothing to restore an idea that for many was becoming post-haste an anachronism. The common mien of Behn’s Prince, exemplified by his effeminate behaviour, induces Curtius to express scepticism about the divine nature of Princes. While Curtius functions in this play as a loyal subject, he is also the voice of Behn’s contemporary society. When he questions the notion of the fundamentally divine nature of Princes, he reveals dangerous cracks in the political construct, fissures that give rise to republican sentiments. When Frederick seduces Cloris, Curtius cries, “Oh that it were permitted me to kill this Prince, / This false perfidious Prince” (I.ii.12122). Curtius’ comment is significantly similar to that which the usurper, Alcippus, in The Forc’d Marriage speaks to his Prince, Phillander: “You merit death for this base injury. / But you’re my Prince, and that I own you so, / Is all remains in me of sence or justice” (IV.vi.48-50). When Frederick threatens to rape Laura, to whom Curtius is betrothed, Curtius not only refers to Frederick as a “villain” and a “ravisher”, but draws his sword against his Prince as well (III.i.75-79). His scepticism gains ground as the Prince’s dishonourable behaviour progressively impinges on his divine mystique: “Is it the Majesty, that Holy something, / That guards the person of this Demi-god?” (IV.ii.155-56). Frederick himself draws the association between divinity and kingship in the opening of the play. Having seduced Cloris, he prevaricates about the marriage itself, instructing her instead simply to, “Prepare thy self against a Wedding day, / When thou shalt be a little Deity on Earth” (I.i.28-9). This concept is repeated in the same scene when Cloris confides to her maid, Lucia, that she need not fear her loss of virtue nor doubt Frederick because Princes are distinctively unlike 36 Hutton, Charles the Second, 134. See also James I, “A Speach to the Lords and Commons of the Parliament at White-Hall” in which he writes that “Kings are iustly called Gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of Diuine power vpon earth: For if you will consider the Attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a King. God hath power to create, or destroy, make, or vnmake at his pleasure …. And the like power haue Kings” (Political Works of James I, 307-308).

104

Of Love and War

common men (I.i.97-98). A political system, Edmund Burke argued, “is placed in a just correspondence and symmetry with the order of the world”.37 But the world of this amorous Prince is not well ordered. As the patriarchal head of the political body, Frederick “had to supply that rational element of control … for keeping the proper balance in the body politic”.38 Yet Frederick is so irrational here that he challenges Curtius to a duel. As the loyal subject, Curtius returns the challenge with an ardently royalist response: “God forbid that I should raise my Arm against my Prince” (III.iii.109), a refusal that echoes fundamentally the words of the King in The Forc’d Marriage, when Alcippus challenges the Prince, “Behold him well, Alcippus, ’tis your Prince. / – Who dares gaze on him with irreverend eye?” (V.v.84-85). But order and harmony have broken down; hence, Curtius, in his disguise as the love merchant, prepares to kill the Prince for having “murdered” his sister and “infected” his family with bad blood. Although he is troubled by irresolution, he compares the hope of the dukedom in their heir in equal measure with his hope of Laura and his sister Cloris – eventually rationalizing “would not Heaven and Earth forgive it too?” (V.iii.153). The resolution of the chaos in this play is only brought about when Frederick wholly repents and reassumes his position as primum mobile, thereby restoring order and harmony. The inherently tenuous nature of the microcosm, then, informs the basic framework of this play. Frederick’s transgression of the socially imposed limits of sexual desire manifests itself throughout the social hierarchy in a domino effect of sexual deviance and disharmony. In the Frederick/Curtius plot, the inconstant Prince seduces the country maid Cloris by disingenuously promising marriage: “… that’s your only bait”, Frederick explains to Curtius, “And though they cannot hope we will perform it, / Yet it secures their Honour and my Pleasure” (I.ii.39-41). The Prince refuses to accept that he is to blame for any moral transgression and claims that his divine nature excuses his deceit. Frederick, who is unaware that Cloris is Curtius’ sister, demonstrates no remorse for his injury to the young maid, nor does he heed Curtius’ wise, albeit pained, counsel. Constancy in vows is only an issue “[w]ere I a man, as thou art of thy self”, Frederick tells Curtius (I.ii.69), scoffing at his friend’s discourse on virtue, which he suggests, is hypocrisy since 37 38

Burke, “Reflections on the Revolution”, VIII, 84. Daly, “Cosmic Harmony”, 21.

105

Sexual Deviance and Universal Order Curtius intends the same sexual design on his beloved Laura:

Curtius: Yes, Sir, when justify’d by Laws Divine. Freder.: Divine, a pleasant warrant for your sin, Which being not made, we ne’re had guilty been; (I.ii.89-91)

Frederick exhibits a further moral degeneration when he attempts the seduction of Laura, who is also sister to the court pimp, Lorenzo. When Lorenzo realizes that the Prince has developed an amorous interest in his sister, he volunteers to assist Frederick in circumventing the strict confinement in which his father maintains her, so that the Prince may seduce her: “I shall hope to render my self more acceptable / To you by that Franchise” (II.i.73-74). Unlike Curtius, Lorenzo has little concept of personal or family honour and hopes to rise to further preferment by exchanging his sister’s virtue for advancement at court. Laura, however, adamantly refuses Frederick’s sexual demands and reminds her Prince of his obligation to Curtius: “How can you injure thus the Man you Love?” (III.i.25). Frederick mocks Platonic love, as he calls attention to its emphasis on the female gaze: Frederick: Oh Madam ask your Eyes, Those powerful Attracts, And do not call their Forces so in question, As to believe they kindle feeble fires; Such as a Friendship can surmount. No Laura, They’ve done far greater miracles. (III.i.26-31)

Frederick only sees in Laura’s eyes fires of unrestrained physical desire, a reflection of his own abandon, rather than the passionate but chaste love she share with Curtius. When Frederick offers to return her to Curtius if she can suggest a suitable alternative, Laura volunteers “a 1000. prayers and tears” and cries, “Oh where is all your Honour, and your Virtue?” (III.i.59-63). But prayers and tears are insufficient payment, and Frederick threatens rape, claiming there’s no such thing as honour and virtue, only “danger in my Love, and your delay, / And you are most secure whilst you obey” (III.i.67-68). Rape functions here as a

106

Of Love and War

political trope for arbitrary power.39 Monarchs ruled by passion rather than reason are easily led to abuse their power and to tyrannize over their subjects. A good Prince, as Frederick eventually proves to be, will recognize his error and repent. When Frederick aggressively takes hold of her, she draws a dagger in defence, “Then this shall be my safety, hold off, / Or I’l forget you are my Prince” (III.i.69-70). Frederick easily overpowers her and draws his own dagger, flagrantly disregarding both the obligations commonly associated with his princely station and Laura’s refusal of his amorous attentions. Rather than moving the Prince to compassion, her pitiable threats, which Frederick refers to as her masculine spirit, only serve to heighten his desire: “Pretty Virago, how you raise my Love? / – I have a Dagger too; What will you do?” (III.i.71-72). Curtius arrives opportunely, observes the Prince armed against Laura, and draws his sword, accusing Frederick of becoming, “a Ravisher …. / A foul misguided Villain. / One that scarce merits the brave name of Man” (III.i.75-77). The Prince has disavowed honour, traduced friendship, and has proceeded unreservedly from royal seducer to armed rapist. As the directing force, the Prince’s behaviour provokes further disorder in the social and political system he no longer holds in balance. As Lorenzo’s own courtship of Clarina fails to unfold successfully, his dishonourable behaviour begins to mirror that of the Prince. Lorenzo has engaged Isabella, Clarina’s servant, to assist him in his amorous endeavours; Isabella, however, wants Lorenzo for herself, and takes economic advantage of him by charging exorbitant fees for furthering his interests with her mistress. When after the advance of a significant sum he still has not won the interests of Clarina, Lorenzo decides to rape Isabella instead, so that he too may boast of a conquest. Unaddressed, the chaos continues to erupt along the Chain, manifesting itself in numerous actions of the characters, lending itself not only to sexual disorder but to gender confusion as well. The seduced maid, Cloris, assumes a masculine persona, crossdressing as a country lad for her journey to court, where she hopes to obtain service as a page and place herself near her beloved Prince. Her servant, Guilliam, disguised as a clown for their journey, not only suggests that his own gender is indefinite, but he expresses uncertainty as well about Cloris’ sexual identity: 39

Staves, Players’ Scepters, 58-60.

Sexual Deviance and Universal Order

107

Guilliam: Why forsooth, what do you intend to pass for, A Maid or a Boy? Cloris: Why, what I seem to be, will it not do? Guilliam: Yes, yes, it may do, but I know not what; I wo’d Love would Transmogriphy me to a Maid now, – We should be the prettiest couple …. (III.iii.18-23)

Although Cloris’ gender change is merely one of disguise, Guilliam wants literally to be “transmogriphied” as the “other”. His wish demonstrates his awareness of social expectations regarding heterosexual relationships; his appeal to be literally the female other challenges that expectation and evokes suggestions of transvestism and homosexuality. Guilliam reminds Cloris of a previous summer when, dressed as a woman, he wooed the shepherd, Claud: “… was not I the woundiest handsom lass / A body could see in a Summers day?” (III.iii.25-26). His speech connotes pleasure in his gender transgression, and his rhetoric resounds with the homoerotic pleasure he experienced in sexually taunting the shepherd, Claud: “There was Claud the Shepherd as fre[a]kish after me / I’le warrant you, and simper’d and tript it like anything” (III.iii.27-28). When Guilliam expresses his desire to dress as a woman for their journey, Cloris reminds him that it is dangerous to be a woman at court. His response is equivocal: “Nay, then I should be loth to give temptation” (III.iii.31). Before the two set out, Cloris receives a letter from Curtius, who tells her to beware of men, even the Prince, who cannot be “credited in an affair of Love” (III.iii.5-6), but Cloris believes her brother’s warning is simply “Some Plot of thine to try my constancy” (III.iii.13). This is, of course, the theme of the Antonio/Alberto secondary plot. The Cloris/Guilliam thread here, like the Antonio/Alberto plot, functions as a reflection upon, and therefore a residual effect of, the increasing disorder within the hierarchy that heightens the tension of the various plots and subplots. Country fops and court fools Lorenzo and Guilliam function as social and political dichotomies; they are the comic butts, but they are also extreme caricatures of two separate spheres: the court and the country. Lorenzo is an exaggerated depiction of the morally degenerate courtier, the comical but overstated personification of a serious problem – vice at court. He pimps for the

108

Of Love and War

King, he willingly offers his sister’s virtue in exchange for preferment, he employs a servant to assist in his attempt to seduce another man’s wife, and when that fails, he resolves to obtain satisfaction by raping the servant. Lorenzo has a reputation for engaging in sexual liaisons of a varied nature, and this gives rise to biting criticism from Alberto. “’Tis a vile shame that such as he should live, / Who have the form and sense of man about them, / And in their action Beast, / And that he thrives by too”(I.iii.121-24) 40 Lorenzo discloses his bisexuality when he first observes Cloris, who is disguised as the page Phillibert: Lorenzo: – Hah, I vow to gad a lovely youth; But what makes he here with Frederick? This stripling may chance to mar my market of women now – ’Tis a fine lad, how plump and white he is; Would I could meet him some where i’th dark, I’de have a fling at him, and try whether I Were right Florentine. (IV.iii.82-88)

Lorenzo’s expressed concern – that Frederick’s inclination toward Phillibert may diminish the market in which he trades – is clearly punctuated by his own sexual interest in the young page.41 Homosexual relations in the seventeenth century were often between adult males and boys since “boys were considered interchangeable with women because of the still-‘feminine’ physical characteristics of beardless, high-voiced, smooth-skinned adolescents”.42 40

“Beast” is another term for a sodomite. See Paul Hammond, “Titus Oates and ‘Sodomy’”, in Culture and Society in Britain 1660-1800, ed. Jeremy Black, Manchester: Manchester UP, 1997, 89. 41 Although I use the term “homosexual” in this discussion, I recognize that this term was not employed to refer to adult male/male sexual activity until about the 1890s. See Alan Bray, Homosexuality in Renaissance England, London: Gay Men’s Press, 1982,13. For a discussion of various forms of sexuality in the seventeenth century, see James M. Saslow, “Homosexuality in the Renaissance: Behaviour, Identity, and Artistic Expression”, in Hidden from History: Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past, eds Martin Bauml Duberman and Martha Vicinus et al., Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1989, 99; Gert Hekma, “Sodomites, Platonic Lovers, Contrary Lovers: The Backgrounds of the Modern Homosexual”, Journal of Homosexuality, XVI/1 and 2 (September 1988), 434; and Cameron McFarlane, The Sodomite in Fiction and Satire 1660-1750, New York: Columbia UP, 1997, 2-3. 42 Saslow, “Homosexuality in the Renaissance”, 92. Saslow notes that many noblemen had

Sexual Deviance and Universal Order

109

While “Florentine” here in Lorenzo’s speech may suggest Cervantes’ character Anselmo, a Florentine gentleman, references to Italy had come to signify sexual deviance. The anonymous author of The Character of Italy notes of Rome: “Here Simony and Sodomy, like two impudent Sisters, brazen it in publick; and no one controules them.”43 Edward Chamberlayne observes that “the Sin of Buggery [was] brought to England by the Lombards”.44 Behn uses Lorenzo’s homo-eroticism to emphasize the parallel between Italy and sodomy and to satirize the Catholic church. The connection between Italy, Catholicism and sexual profligacy, including sodomy, had become a common one by the Restoration. For example, when Curtius suggests that he will take his “beauties” to Rome, Lorenzo accuses him of attempting to “make a better Market among’st the Cardinals” (IV.ii.98). When Lorenzo is later caught in the trap Isabella has set for him and Antonio discovers the two alone in her room, Lorenzo is forced to claim that they have married. Having made the claim, Lorenzo murmurs disagreeably to himself: Lorenzo: This is whoring now: may I turn Franciscan, If I could not find in my heart to do penance In Camphire Posset, this month for this. (IV.iv.89-91)45

Lorenzo only extracts himself from his perilous situation by privately and, like Frederick, disingenuously agreeing to marry Isabella, a moral sexual relations with their pages. See also Bray, Homosexuality, 49. Pepys records in 1663 “that buggery is now almost grown as common among our gallants as in Italy, and that the very pages of the town begin to complain of their masters for it” (Pepys, Diary, IV, 210). 43 The Character of Italy: or, the Italian anantomiz’d by an English Chyrurgion, London, 1660, 8. Homosexuality was also connected with Papists (Bray, Homosexuality, 19-21 and 75). The practice of sodomy, early literature claims, originated in Italy. Behn frequently suggests this connection, not only in her plays, but also in her prose; for example, in her “Memoirs of the Court of the King of Bantam”, Valentine is so “be-bussed” by Mr. Wouldbe King, that he “fear’d he was faln into the hands of an Italian” (Behn, Works, III, 287). 44 Edward Chamberlayne, Anglia Notitia; or, The Present State of England: Together with Divers Reflections upon the Antient State thereof, 3rd edn, printed by T.N. for John Martyn, London, 1669, 66. 45 The Franciscans are predominantly associated with the Counter-Reformation through their order of Capuchins, whose mission it was to preach personal reformation. “Camphire” is an obsolete term for camphor, a substance known in the sixteenth century as an anaphrodisiac intended to counteract venereal disease.

110

Of Love and War

reformation according to society; but Lorenzo is living in the inverse world of a morally corrupt court, and for him marriage is, paradoxically, whoring. When Lorenzo discovers Phillibert/Cloris hiding in his sister Laura’s closet, he exclaims over Phillibert’s apparent bisexuality: “Why how now youngster, I see you intend / To thrive by your many trades” (V.i.97-98). Lorenzo accuses Phillibert of entering the sexual market, one in which his own trade with the Prince is already thriving, but the uninformed and inexperienced Phillibert does not understand his meaning: “A smooth fac’d Boy, and ask such a question,” Lorenzo counters: “Fie, fie, this ignorance was ill counterfeited / To me that understand the world” (V.i.124-26). When Lorenzo offers Phillibert/Cloris money she desperately needs to support herself at court, she agrees to serve him and deliver a message. Lorenzo concludes that he was correct in his assumptions about his/her sexual orientation – the task was merely to construct the right medium of exchange in order to conclude the bargain. Thus, he offers the following market advice: Lorenzo: Phillibert, I advise you to have a care of Wenching: ’twill spoil a good face, And mar your better market of the two. (V.i.152-54)

In the market microcosm of court, where courtiers are chapmen, the medium of exchange is manifestly a sexual one. Guilliam may well be the vulgar country boor come to court, but it is this rustic nature itself on which Behn capitalizes. Her country bumpkin provides a naïve albeit ingenuous view of the licentious court. As Guillilam’s own behaviour degenerates, he demonstrates the infectious nature of the profligacy at court, declaring “there is nothing but foutering / I’th this Town” and prior to taking “a Niperkin of Wine”, he belts out a wanton song: In a Cottage by the Mountain, Lives a very prety Maid, Who lay sleeping by a Fountain, Underneath a Mirtle shade; Her Petticoat of wanton Sarcenet, The Amorous wind about did move, And quite unveil’d, And quite unveil’d the Throne of Love,

Sexual Deviance and Universal Order And quite unveil’d the Throne of Love.

111 (IV.iv.43-51)46

If the wind at court is wanton, the rustic Guilliam appears to have caught its breeze, for he has clearly become debauched, his drinking and wenching corresponding to the disorder at court. The chaos initiated in Act I by the sexual deviance of the primum mobile transcends the various ranks of the social order and manifests itself in multifarious forms of sexual deviance throughout the play, ultimately culminating in homosexual desire. In the seventeenth century, homosexual desire was viewed as “an anarchy that threatened to engulf the established order, even the very stars in their courses”.47 Heterosexual relations and homosocial friendship While the main or upper plot of The Amorous Prince demonstrates the resulting disruption and chaos in the social hierarchy caused by Frederick’s abandonment of his determining role, the secondary plot follows a similar format. The Antonio/Alberto story line parallels the Frederick plot in illustrating the distress and disorder that ensues when effeminacy provokes the patriarchal head of the private sphere to abandon his place as prime mover. In this lower plot, however, the effeminacy is not caused by the patriarch’s failure to exercise sexual restraint, as in Frederick’s case; rather, it is a manifestation of his inordinate jealousy, “an unapprehensive madness, / A non-sence that does still abandon reason” (II.iv.21-22). Antonio’s unrestrained jealousy is an effeminate passion, much like Frederick’s unlimited sexual desire, which left unchecked will usurp masculine reason. Behn employs a number of dramatic devices and effects to facilitate the parallel between the main plot and the lower plot, the most obvious of which are seduction and the use of jewels to further the illicit intrigue. For example, Frederick presents jewels to Cloris to promote his sexual success; and Antonio gives Alberto jewels with which to ply his wife, 46

Goreau notes that “foutering” means fornication (see Goreau, Reconstructing Aphra, 166). Bray, Homosexuality, 62. For a discussion of stage representation of homosexuality, see Laurence Senelick, “Mollies or Men of Mode? Sodomy and the Eighteenth-Century London Stage”, Journal of the History of Sexuality, I/1 (July 1990), 33-67; McFarlane, Sodomite in Fiction, 14-18 and passim; and Randolph Trumbach, “Sodomitical Assaults, Gender Role, and Sexual Development in Eighteenth-Century London”, Journal of Homosexuality, XVI/12 (September 1988), 407-29. 47

112

Of Love and War

Clarina. Behn also interweaves her plots through the actions of Lorenzo, the licentious, foppish courtier, who employs the gentle waiting woman, Isabella, to further his courtship of Clarina, Isabella’s mistress. As noted earlier, Lorenzo functions in the Frederick/Cloris plot through his procuring practices for the Prince and as Laura’s brother; Lorenzo connects the minor comical thread to the main plot by becoming the country swain’s patron. While Frederick in the main plot feigns love to Cloris to further the seduction, so Alberto dishonestly professes love to Clarina, the woman he believes is Antonio’s wife, but who is in fact Antonio’s sister, Ismena. Alberto, however, soon comes to realize that his love for Clarina/Ismena is genuine. Unlike Cervantes’ Camilla in “The Novel of the Impertinent Curiosity” and the anonymous wife in The Second Maiden’s Tragedy, Behn’s Clarina is aware of the test her husband has devised. As noted earlier, Ismena is Behn’s innovation, for such a character does not appear in either of the sources the playwright appears to have used. Ismena supplements the comic action by intentionally thwarting the absurd test contrived by the men. Owing to Ismena, the virtuous wife is never tested; rather through comic misidentification, the unmarried sister tests the man she loves and simultaneously arouses his desire by demonstrations of her virtue. When Alberto undertakes the task designed by Antonio and first beholds Ismena, whom he believes is Antonio’s wife Clarina, he is moved immediately by her beauty. Confused by the conflict between love and friendship, in much the same manner as Curtius experiences inner turmoil by the conflict between his family’s honour and his love for his Prince, Alberto attempts to withdraw from his obligation. He contrives to deceive Antonio, assuring his friend that not only has he performed the test, but that Clarina is grown tired of his verbal assaults: Alberto: Oh! hadst thou seen her pretty blushing scorn Which she would fain have hid, Thou wouldst have pitied what I made her suffer. (I.iv.190-92)

Antonio, however, is undeceived, having placed himself strategically to overhear the simulated courtship, so that Alberto is forced to confess and pressed to pursue the task in earnest: “My Soul’s in torment, till I am confirm’d / Of my Clarina’s Vertue” (I.iv.218-19). Ismena (as Clarina) humorously deflates Alberto’s next amorous

Sexual Deviance and Universal Order

113

assault by divulging brusquely her knowledge of the test of fidelity: “The Plots betray’d, and can no further go; / The Strategem’s discover’d to the Foe” (II.ii.65-66). Alberto admits immediately and unabashedly that he has fallen in love with her and undaunted counters her genteel banter, disavowing any further contrivance or strategem. Even though she is wife to his devoted friend Antonio, her eyes have kindled the flame of passion in his breast, much like Laura’s eyes have done to Frederick; and, like Laura, Ismena questions Alberto’s understanding of the obligations of friendship: Ismena: … have you consider’d The fatal consequences which attend The breach of Vows and Friendship[?] (II.ii.111-13)

Ismena initiates the process of bringing order to the chaos by suggesting that Alberto should abandon his amorous assault on her and love her “sister” instead. Alberto eventually confides to Antonio that his jealousy is a poison that has wholly undone his quiet and has brought him to the state of “a wild distracted Lover” (V.ii.9). He pledges, therefore, to abandon the court and make war his only mistress; Antonio agrees to join him for a year in penance – unless Alberto will consider a proposal – that Alberto will marry Ismena. Both men, however, are still under the veil of confusion since neither is aware of the ruse the witty women have constructed to catch them. Whatever the game, the proposal must temporarily be deferred, for although they agree that they have both been foolish, a more pressing task has arisen. They join with Curtius, the ladies, and the majority of the subordinate cast in a masquerade that will eventually draw their Prince to repentance and thus propel the primum mobile back to his weighted and directing orbit. Penance and the Prince Cloris may well be the seduced country maid, yet it is her demonstration of fidelity and virtue that initially causes the Prince to reflect upon his immoral conduct. As the page, Phillibert, Cloris discusses her recent disappointment in love and professes, in spite of her pain, to remain constant to her lover. The firm resolve Phillibert/Cloris demonstrates causes Frederick some momentary discomfort, forcing him to reflect privately on his true feelings and his recent treatment of the country

114

Of Love and War

maid. When Lorenzo arrives to inform Frederick that a new arrival of Grecian beauties awaits him, he can only respond, “I am not in a very good condition / To make visits of that kind” (IV.iii.97-98). Frederick’s eventual visit to the Grecian beauties commences with a masquerade, after which Curtius has designed to slay his Prince. The song in the brief masquerade paints an ironic picture for this unrestrained Prince: What is the recompense of War, But soft as wanton Peace? What the best Balsom to our scars? But that which Venus gave to Mars, When he was circled in a kind embrace. Behold a Prince who never yet, Was vanquisht in the Field; A while his Glories must forget, And lay his Laurels at the feet Of some fair Femal power, to whom he’le yield. (V.iii.55-64)

Having yielded wholly to effeminate passion, Frederick’ invincibility – having never been “vanquisht” in the field – applies not to military battles, but to sexual conquests. Wearing vizards, the mock courtesans enter and perform a short dance. Clarina, Ismena, and Laura are presented to Frederick from whom he chooses Laura. The masquerade ends and the dancers exit to allow the disguised Curtius and Frederick to strike a bargain for the courtesan of his choice. The bargain, however, proves extremely dangerous for Frederick, for as soon as the two are alone, Curtius reveals his true identity and lists angrily the offences Frederick has committed against his honour: the Prince has debauched his sister, cast him from the bosom of his friendship, and ravished from him his beloved Laura. Frederick does indeed inwardly suffer for his debauch of Cloris and when he learns that Cloris is dead, Frederick is genuinely remorseful: “Is Cloris dead? oh how I was to blame!” (V.iii.159). Having realized his culpability for Cloris’ death, Frederick begins his Princely reformation. He submits himself willingly to Curtius: “– Here, thou may’st finish now the life thou threatn’st” (V.iii.160). Curtius, in turn, forgives the Prince since Frederick demonstrates both remorse and a desire to reform; instead, he offers himself as sacrifice, that Frederick might reunite him in

Sexual Deviance and Universal Order

115

death with his sister. But Cloris is very much alive; dressed in female attire as one of the women in the masquerade, she is quickly recognized by Frederick, who offers, “… thus low I beg thy pardon, / For all the fears that I have made thee suffer” (V.iii.186-87). Frederick, who has just forgiven Curtius and acknowledged Cloris as his wife, rejoices at the prospect of marrying her without delay. The union of the public King with his subject is accomplished through the marriage of the private heterosexual couple, since marriage was viewed as the “bulwark against sexual debauchery”. 48 With his marriage to Cloris, the Prince reassumes his appropriate role as primum mobile and commences to realign the hierarchy, re-establishing order and harmony to the realm. As proof of his consummate reformation, Frederick decrees that the “sallies of my flattering youth, / Shall be no more remembr’d but as past” (V.iii.369-70). His youthful exploits can be forgiven because his manhood will be appropriately dedicated to the more honourable pursuits of war. As a part of the return of his realm to order and harmony, he arranges multiple marriages. After obtaining permission from his father to marry Cloris, Frederick proceeds to pair the remaining single men, each with his desired bride. Although Lorenzo vows to his Prince, “You may command me any thing but Marrying” (V.iii.318), Isabella, who has taken over the disguise as Phillibert, forces the issue by threatening to reveal Lorenzo’s homosexual desire: Isabella: What think you then of a smooth-fac’d Boy? Lorenzo: A Pox on him, sure he will not tell now, will he? Isabella: My Lord, I beg your leave to challenge Lorenzo. Frederick: What to a Duel Phillibert? Lorenzo: Phillibert Phillibert hold, do not ruine the reputation Of a man that has aquir’d fame amongst the Female Sex; I protest I did but jest. Isabella: But, Sir, I’me in earnest with you. (V.iii.319-26)

Isabella reveals her true identity, and Lorenzo, despite his objection, is commanded to make her his wife; his moral reformation is made explicit in the heterosexual coupling commanded by the Prince. Guilliam’s position in the heterosexual, patriarchal hierarchy is also re-established 48

Bray, Homosexuality, 26.

116

Of Love and War

as he is promised marriage to Cloris’ maid, Lucia. Court reform is accomplished in this play through a synthesis of the pastoral and court modes, acknowledged irrevocably by the marriage of Frederick and Cloris. Frederick’s inherent masculine nature ultimately triumphs as he re-asserts sovereign control over his unruly effeminate passions: “… ’tis a race that must by Man be run” (V.iii.371), and not by effeminate Princes. Frederick’s argument that manhood is achieved through the pursuits of love and war echoes the Arcadian sentiments in the closing speech of the King in The Forc’d Marriage as order and virtue return to the court.49 The ramblings of his youth are his past; these have served “his future Manhood to improve”, that now, as suggested within the masque, “shall be sacrific’d to War and Love” (V.iii.373-74). The synthesis Behn achieves at the end of the play involves a metamorphosis of the court: both a dignified Prince and a reformed court arise from the ashes of the prior venal one. Through her integration of the pastoral and court modes, she declares that the licentiousness of royal and noble youth may well be forgiven, if, as in this case, it serves to improve manhood. Frederick assumes the regal dignity of a Prince, and his final projection is one of royal fidelity and duty, both to his consort and to his subjects. Amorous princes and wise counsel Aphra Behn was but one of many playwrights who employed the political milieu of the theatre to demonstrate public anxiety about the King’s lack of sexual restraint. Early in the Restoration, a virtual spate of new plays with lustful rulers, both de facto and de jure, began their run on the stage: Roger Boyle’s The Black Prince (1669), and Tryphon (1669); Robert Howard’s The Great Favourite, or The Duke of Lerma (1668); Thomas Shadwell’s The Royal Shepherdesse (1669); and Frances Boothby’s Marcelia, or The Treacherous Friend (1670) to name but a few. 49

The King in The Forc’d Marriage observes to his men: When you remember even in heat of Battel, That after all your victories and spoil, You’ll meet calm peace at home in soft Embraces, Thus you may number out your happy years: Till love and glory no more proofs can give Of what they can bestow, or you receive. (V.v.258-63)

Sexual Deviance and Universal Order

117

Boyle’s Tryphon, like The Black Prince, has somewhat more in common with Behn’s The Amorous Prince in that the rulers have difficulty deciding which woman they desire most.50 Boyle’s usurper King Tryphon initially desires to make Cleopatra his Queen – until he discovers her sister, Stratonice, a much prettier woman. King Edward in The Black Prince also finds himself in love with two women – first with Alizia, whom he has jilted for Plantaginet, only to jilt Plantaginet and return to Alizia. The main difference between Boyle’s two plays and Behn’s The Amorous Prince is that in Behn’s play Frederick’s promise of marriage is merely a foil to further the seduction. For some of these playwrights, the King’s abandon was the product of the intrigues of his evil counsellors rather than an inherent moral disorder in the nature of the King himself. Lerma in Robert Howard’s The Duke of Lerma, for example, becomes advisor to Philip, the young King of Spain.51 Lerma forces his daughter, Maria, to entice Philip to fall in love with her. Unlike her father, Maria is virtuous and cautions the King against trusting indiscriminately his advisors, for this is one of the “dangers / Princes expose themselves, and Crownes / By too much trust, and kindness” (III.ii.33). She further insists that Philip should be “every bodies King” and therefore “lend equal Eares / To what all say” (III.ii.34). Howard’s play was an overt, vicious attack on Edward Hyde, the Earl of Clarendon, who had suffered a major political defeat and fled to France. What attracted Pepys’ attention most in the play was not the criticism of Clarendon, but rather the playwright’s treatment of the King: The play [was] designed to reproach our King with his mistress; that I was troubled for it, and expected it should be interrupted; but it ended all well, that salved all. The play a well-writ and good play; only, its design I did not like, of reproaching the King – but altogether, a very good and most serious play.52

50

Roger Boyle, The Black Prince, I, 305-72. See also Boyle’s Tryphon. A Tragedy, in Works, I, 373-436. 51 Robert Howard, The Great Favourite, or The Duke of Lerma. As it was acted at the Theatre-Royal. By His Majesties servants, London, 1668. References are to act, scene whenever noted, and page number. 52 Pepys, Diary, IX, 81.

118

Of Love and War

Shadwell’s The Royal Shepherdesse (1669) is an adaptation of John Fountain’s The Rewards of Virtue (1661).53 Shadwell cut a number of excessive lines of speech from Fountain’s play and restructured the text for the stage, leaving most of the characters and incidents intact. The one change he did make, however, is noteworthy. In Fountain’s play, the King demands Pyrrhus procure Urania for him: King: I am resolv’d to trie Whether Urania will Love, or die. I’ll in, and faithful Pyrrhus streight shall prove My fate. Lords must be Pimps, when Kings do love. (I.5) In Shadwell’s adaptation, these lines which had been attributed to the King are now given to the King’s favourite, Pyrrhus: King: But stay! when this poor Maid Shall call on Vertue … Shall I (whom Men call sacred and divine, … / dare with ruder force, To drive poor Vertue from her Cleanest Temple? And use that power, the Gods have given me O’re others, but to offend them how I please; By Heav’n I will not. – But I die – O I am Mortal – Pyrrhus: Sir, you’r a King; But Love’s a Deity Must be obey’d by all. Resolve to try Whethre Urania will Love or Die? (I.i.107)

Shadwell conspicuously places the initial responsibility for the King’s inappropriate aspirations on his advisor, Pyrrhus, rather than on the King himself. Boothby’s King Sigimund in Marcelia; or, the Treacherous Friend is encouraged by his favourite, Melynet, to jilt his mistress Calinda in favour of Marcelia (Melynet’s cousin).54 When the plan goes awry and 53

Shadwell, The Royal Shepherdesse. A Tragi-comedy, Acted By his Highness the Duke of York’s Servants, in Works of Thomas Shadwell, I, 93-172 (all references are to act, scene and page numbers). John Fountain, The Rewards of Virtue: A Comedy, London, 1661. References are to act and page numbers. 54 Frances Boothby, Marcelia: or the Treacherous Friend. A tragicomedy. As it is acted at

Sexual Deviance and Universal Order

119

Melynet is proved an evil counsellor, having promoted his cousin wholly for his own interests. Sigimund repents, observing, “Oh! how seriously ought Princes first to weigh the lives and souls of men, before they draw them to their bosoms! For Favorites that are vitious, are the Cankers of King’s Courts, and eat in their Sovereigns bosoms”(V.8). Robert Stapylton’s Orosis in The Tragedie of Hero and Leander (1669) is chided by his older brother, Leander, a Prince of the House of Troy, for chasing women: “Thou court’st all Women” (I.4).55 Although Orosis claims his womanizing is simply a manifestation of his desire to select the best, Leander remains unconvinced and insists that Orosis conduct himself like the Prince he is, seeking glory instead of shame. Like Behn’s reformed Prince Frederick, Orosis promises reform, acknowledging that: “… in great souldiers hearts, Mistresses have / The second Place” (I.4). The sexual effeminacy expressed by these Kings and Princes is much like that of Behn’s Prince Frederick. John Reresby records in his memoirs that Charles II had demonstrated a libidinous nature early in his reign. In an entry for 1660, Reresby writes: … and the King, as he was of an age and vigour for it, followed his pleasures. And if amongst thos love prevailed with him more then others, he was thus farr excuseable, besides that his complexion led to it, the woemen seemed to be the aggressours, and I have since heard the King say did sometimes offer themselves to his imbraces.56

Pepys records a conversation with John Evelyn in which Evelyn complains that Lady Byron, who died in 1664, had been the King’s seventeenth mistress.57 Although there is no proof that the information the theatre-royal, by His Majesties servants, London, 1670. All references are to act and scene number. Some of the scenes in this play are mis-numbered. 55 Robert Stapylton, The Tragedie of Hero and Leander, London, 1669. All references to act and page number. 56 John Reresby, The Memoirs of Sir John Reresby, ed. Andrew Browning, Glasgow: Jackson, 1936, 33-34. Browning notes that Reresby’s diary is “a collection of reminiscences, gathered together toward the end of that author’s life” (xvii). Although Reresby records this comment under 1660, the date may not be accurate. Nevertheless, that Charles, according to Pepys, paid off his seventeenth mistress in 1667, demonstrates that the King continued to enjoy numerous casual liaisons while also engaging in long-term affairs with various mistresses. 57 Pepys, Diary, VIII, 182 and n.1. Carteret complains to Pepys that the King “is at the command of women like a slave” (VIII, 356).

120

Of Love and War

Pepys provides is anything but a rumour, he did take a certain keen interest in the King’s sexual affairs. Nancy Klein Maguire suggests that Charles II “turned polygamous” in 1669 when he took both Nell Gwynn and Moll Davis as mistresses,58 yet Maguire and Antonia Fraser present evidence to claim that the King in general preferred “settled relationships”.59 While the King may well have indulged a specific mistresses in a long-term relationship, this did not preclude him from also engaging in surreptitious sexual liaisons with young ladies introduced up the backstairs by Thomas or William Chiffinch. To the general public, the King could not have appeared settled sexually, particularly given the ubiquitous contemporary comment on the subject. Lois Potter contends that one of the concepts of tragicomedy in this period is that it “exploits the tension between comedy and tragedy, which is also the tension between the world of the play and the world outside the play”.60 For Behn, as for her contemporary playwrights, that tension concerned authority. The main concern of Pepys and his contemporaries was the viciousness and the luxury into which the King and court had fallen. In his diary, Pepys complains, for example, of the “aemulacion, poverty and the vices of swearing, drinking, and whoreing” at court, vices that could subsequently bring upon them the “ruin of the whole Kingdom”.61 As early as April, 1662, John Evelyn recorded his own concern, observing that “God’s hand [is] against this ungratefull viscious Nation, & Court.”62 After the King’s death, Evelyn wrote: “[a]n excellent prince doubtlesse had he ben lesse addicted to Women, which made him uneasy & always in Want to supply their unmeasurable profusion.”63 The King’s effeminacy, which indicated a lack of authority, alarmed the polity, who viewed their monarch’s uncontrolled sexual desire as a threat to the political and social orders, and strained society’s confidence in their primum mobile. The Amorous Prince shows a marked improvement over The Forc’d Marriage. With an effectively divided plot structure, unlike the less 58

Maguire, Regicide and Restoration, 151. Fraser, Charles II, 285. 60 Lois Potter, “True Tragicomedies of the Civil War and Commonwealth”, in Renaissance Tragicomedy, 199. 61 Pepys, Diary, VII, 325. 62 Evelyn, Diary, III, 13. 63 Ibid., IV, 410. 59

Sexual Deviance and Universal Order

121

sophisticated plotting of her first-produced play, The Amorous Prince demonstrates a significant improvement in her dramatic technique. That the comic characters interact well within the various plot threads also demonstrates that her craftsmanship has progressed considerably. In her following play, The Dutch Lover, she adopts the Spanish intrigue mode for which she has earned much-deserved praise. Although The Dutch Lover has been little studied, it is with this play that Behn reaches her stride as a shrewd and competitive playwright.

CHAPTER FOUR THE RAKE, THE WHORE, AND THE THIRD DUTCH WAR IN THE DUTCH LOVER O you are a flattering thing, I durst ha’ sworn you could no more ha’ been without me, than a Barbers Shop without a Fiddle, so I did.1

At the end of February 1670, Charles II had reached an amiable compromise with Parliament and so caused his wine cellars to be opened, inviting the members of Parliament to drink his health: “The evening was celebrated with bonfires, and all other expression of public joy for the union.”2 Less than two years later, the King was again at odds with Parliament as the country reeled in a period of extreme anti-Catholic hysteria, brought about by the King’s second Declaration of Indulgence and the suspicion that James, Duke of York, may have converted to Catholicism. Furthermore, war with the Dutch had progressed from a strong probability to an inevitability. March 1672 proved monumental for the King: on the twelfth, Robert Holmes attacked the Dutch Smyrna fleet, hoping to capture the rich merchant vessels, whose value was estimated at more than a million pounds;3 on the fifteen, the King issued his Declaration of Indulgence; and on the seventeenth, he declared war on the Dutch. The Third Dutch War had a significant difference from the Second, a difference of importance to Behn and to her fellow playwrights. The Second Dutch War had been waged at the solicitation of Parliament on behalf of the mercantile interests, but the Third Dutch War was little more than a gamble, with Catholicism as one of the stakes.4 Geoffrey Holmes observes that the Cabal 1

Haunce in Aphra Behn, The Dutch Lover, V.ii.108-10, in Works, V, 157-238. Calendar of State Papers Domestic, 26 February 1670. 3 Evelyn, Diary, III, 606, n.1. 4 Ogg, England in the Reign of Charles II, I, 355. 2

124

Of Love and War

supported the war, believing it to be in the interests of trade, although “most of the merchants who had been so enthusiastic about the Second Dutch War in 1665 were far cooler about the Third in 1672”.5 The real enemy, Holmes argues, was the French with whom the King was closely allied. In the Calendar of State Papers Domestic a brief note is recorded, probably in the hand of Joseph Williamson, dated 11 November, 1671: We go into a Dutch war now with more disadvantage than the last. Quare? Now it is taken we go in for the sake of France &c … the merchants do not allow they are aggrieved by the Dutch, but think it a French trick. Even the Cavrs. [?Cavaliers] dread a war and ominate ill.6

The English merchants, who did not feel particularly distressed by Dutch competition, had little sympathy for the war. The King, however, had furtively joined forces with Louis XIV in the Secret Treaty of Dover, by which he had committed himself to a Dutch war. By this treaty, signed in May 1670, Charles II would, among other issues, declare his adherence to the Roman Catholic faith for which the French King would give him two million livres tournois. Furthermore, the two Kings would jointly declare war on the Dutch, “to humble their pride and to destroy the power of a people which has not only shown ingratitude to those who have helped it to create its republic, but has had the insolence to set itself up as a sovereign arbiter among other states”.7 While Louis XIV may have had reasons to be embittered toward the Dutch, Charles II did not. Of the brewing conflict with the Dutch and the attack by Holmes on the Dutch Smyrna fleet, John Evelyn writes: “Surely this was a quarel slenderly grounded, & not becoming Christian neighbours, & of a Religion: and we are like to thrive accordingly.”8

5 Geoffrey Holmes, The Making of a Great Power: Late Stuart and Early Georgian Britain, 1660-1722, London: Longman, 1993, 100. 6 Calendar of State Papers Domestic, 11 November 1671. 7 From the Secret Treaty of Dover, as quoted by Ogg, England in the Reign of Charles II, I, 344-45. 8 Evelyn, Diary, III, 606, dated 12 March 1672.

The Rake, the Whore, the Third Dutch War

125

Even so, the general public initially greeted the Third Dutch War with unrestrained enthusiasm, demonstrated by the numbers of men racing to volunteer for the fleet.9 This virtual fanaticism displayed itself in numerous ballads and songs that resonated with excessive pride and defiant nationalism, as in “Defiance to the Dutch”: Rob’d of our Rights? and by such Water rats? We’l doff their Heads, if they won’t doff their Hats; Affront too Hogen-Mogen to Endure! ’Tis time to box these Butter-Boxes sure. If they the Flags undoubted Right deny us? Who wo’nt strike to us, must be stricken by us.10

In a similar vein, the staunch royalist, John Ogilby, wrote the following lines, that Neptune relates to the Hogen Mogen Frogs: But a new Sun that riseth in the West; His Flames beware; His kindled Vengeance shall, Unless you straight submit, consume you all; Whose Predecessors rais’d you to this height, From Him, ungrateful Toads! expect your Fate: His Royal Brother Leads, upon the Main, A hundred floating Cities in a Train, With Fire and forty thousand Hectors big … Stoop, or be ruin’d, to the British Flag.11 9

Steven C.A. Pincus, “Republicanism, Absolutism and Universal Monarchy: English Popular Sentiment During the Third Dutch War”, in Culture and Society in the Stuart Restoration: Literature, Drama, History, ed. Gerald MacLean, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995, 251-52. 10 Norfolk Drollery, or A Compleat Collection of the Newest Songs, Jovial Poems and Catches, etc., printed for R. Reynolds and John Lutton, London, 1673. The poem’s comments about the doffing of the hat and recognition of the English flag stem from an incident surrounding the King’s own orders. In attempting to provoke the Dutch to war, Charles II ordered George Downing to sail to The Hague to collect Lady Temple. He was to demand the Dutch salute the King’s flag, which by the Treaty of Breda, July 1667, the Dutch had agreed to do in the English Channel. The Dutch captain’s failure to offer the appropriate salute became one of the King’s grievances for the war. See Miller, Charles II, 181-82; Ogg, England in the Reign of Charles II, I, 313-14. 11 John Ogilby, The Holland Nightengale, or the Sweet Singers of Amsterdam: Being a Paraphrase upon the Fable of the Frogs fearing that the Sun would Marry, for Robert

126

Of Love and War

While the pamphleteers paraded their patriotism before the public and poets satirized the greedy and drunken “butter boxes”, as the Dutch were often called in pamphlet satire, plans were quietly afoot at court to introduce a far more threatening enemy to the people. In Williamson’s notes of 11 November 1671, referred to earlier, he observes that care should be taken to prevent the Dutch from landing in England, for once upon the home shores, the Nonconformists would no doubt act as facilitators in a full Dutch incursion. Would it not be better, he asks, if the King content the Nonconformists to some extent now before these fanatics become too inflamed to see reason?12 This was, of course, a calculated reference to the King’s intention to issue the Second Declaration of Indulgence. While Williamson may have been aware of the King’s desire to issue the Indulgence, he was probably unaware that it was part of the Secret Treaty of Dover. Five months later, the Declaration of Indulgence was issued and war was declared on the Dutch.13 In his diary, John Evelyn complains that after the Declaration of Indulgence, “Papists & Swarmes of sectaries now boldly shewing themselves in their publique meetings”.14 He also records the freedoms in which Catholics were briefly allowed to indulge: I went to see the fopperies of the Papists at Somerset house, & Yorkhouse, where now the French Ambassador had caused to be represented our B:Saviour, at the Pascal Supper, with his Disciples, in figures & puppets made as big as the life, of wax work, curiously clad, & sitting round a large table, the roome nobly hung, & shining with innumerable Lamps & Candles, this exposed, to the whole world, all the Citty came to see; such liberty had the Roman Catholicks at this time obtained.15

The furore over the Declaration of Indulgence culminated on 7 March

Clavell, London, 1672. 12 Calendar of State Papers Domestic, 11 November 1671. 13 His Majesties Declaration to All his Loving Subjects (1671/72). See Appendix C of this volume. 14 Evelyn, Diary, III, 607-608, dated 12 March 1672. 15 Ibid., 612, dated 4 April 1672.

The Rake, the Whore, the Third Dutch War

127

1673, when the King rendered the Declaration void by breaking its seal.16 In order to obtain funds from Parliament to proceed with the war against the Dutch, the King gave his royal assent to the Test Act on 29 March 1673. Stringently enforced, the Test Act caused severe repercussions within the government, as various ministers and military officers were obliged to reveal their Catholicism and, thus, to resign their posts. Even the heir to the throne, James, Duke of York, was forced to affirm publicly his conversion to Catholicism and, hence, to surrender his post as Lord High Admiral. This act also signalled the demise of the King’s hated and frequently maligned and satirized Cabal. Thomas Clifford, as a Roman Catholic, was forced to resign his offices, while Shaftesbury opened wide the already contentious faction within the Cabal.17 At the point that the crisis over toleration was beginning to rise toward its ultimately unbearable pitch, Behn’s play, The Dutch Lover was produced. In spite of the clamorous and disordered political and social upheaval caused by the King’s attempt to institute religious freedom, regardless of his motive, religious issues are not Behn’s main interest in The Dutch Lover. Her concern is to provide propaganda for the war, although she also touches upon servants, secrecy, and the succession. Strikingly, however, she also makes an overt and unabashed argument for gender equality in sexual affairs, an argument that probably contributed to the failure of this play, as I shall discuss later in this chapter. The text she used as a source for her play was Quintana’s The History of Don Fenise.18 Quintana’s romance is largely a collection of first-person narratives in which the events intersect at diverse points throughout the novel as the characters cross paths between their various heroic adventures. That Behn uses the same character names in her play and events as those in the prose romance, although much 16

Calendar of State Papers Domestic, 7 March 1663. Maurice Lee, Jr., The Cabal, Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1965, 221. 18 The History of Don Fenise, A New Romance Written in Spanish by Francisco De las Coveras, and now Englished by a Person of Honour, printed for Humphrey Moseley, London, 1651. Francisco de las Coveras was a pseudonym sometimes employed by Francisco de Quintana, and thus the romance is probably his. Behn apparently reserved her comment on both religious issues and Moors for her next play, Abdelazar (1677), in which Catholicism and Islam are employed in the development of a plot which hinges on tyranny and the succession. 17

128

Of Love and War

switched about, suggests that she intended to particularize her source rather than to conceal it. Although The History of Don Fenise is set in Spain, a decidedly Catholic country, and includes Moorish characters and comments on Islam, Behn strategically avoids overt observations on religion in this play. Instead, she directs attention to the war and lampoons the Dutch through the foppish Haunce van Ezel. Langbaine had little difficulty in locating Behn’s source, identifying the stories of Eufemie, Theodore, Don Jame, and Frederick from which Behn narrowly works.19 She replaces Quintana’s repugnant, beastly kinsman with an equally repugnant Dutch merchant. Her extensive use of a Spanish text, which she employs to mock the Dutch, reflects the manifest political motive behind the construction of the play, particularly given the then current Spanish-Dutch alliance.20 In her Alonzo/Euphemia/Haunce plot, the patriarchs (one Dutch, the other Spanish) attempt to unite the families, which may serve to reflect this alliance. The public stage ostensibly becomes the field on which international affairs are played out through the concord and discord of fast-paced and multi-plotted events. While there are numerous plot threads in this play, there are three rather well defined main plots. The first is the forced marriage plot involving Alonzo, Euphemia, and Haunce van Ezel, in which Euphemia’s father has contracted her in marriage to the Dutch fop, Haunce. In the time her father has allotted her to consider the marriage, Euphemia sets out to find her own husband and soon lights upon the Flander’s colonel, Alonzo, who, unfortunately, is already contracted to Hippolyta. The second plot, deftly interwoven with the first, includes Hippolyta, Antonio, and Marcel. On the battlefield, Marcel had pledged his sister Hippolyta to his friend Alonzo, but before Alonzo can arrive in Madrid to claim his prize, she is seduced by her lover, Antonio, who secrets her away. To save the family honour, Marcel sets out to find and then murder her, all the while striving to keep Alonzo at bay so he need not admit him to the family’s embarrassing secret. The third plot sizzles with desire between Silvio and Cleonte, a flame fanned by Cleonte’s waiting 19

Gerard Langbaine, Account of the English Dramatick Poets ... English Tongue (1691), ed. Arthur Freeman, Garland Reprint, New York: Garland, 1973, 19. 20 Hutton, Charles the Second, 305-306.

The Rake, the Whore, the Third Dutch War

129

woman, Francesca. The problem arises in that the two lovers are brother and sister, at least as far as they are both aware. They are also brother and sister to the hotheaded Marcel, who disparages Silvio at every opportunity and who eventually attempts to kill him for his unclean thoughts. In a well-developed sub-plot, Behn weaves throughout the play an attempted seduction plot which includes Marcel, Clarinda, and her servant, Dormida. The Dutch Lover works well as propaganda, as Behn hyperbolically denigrates the Dutch throughout her play, particularly through her bridegroom fop. To start with, Haunce might be translated as John or the more informal Jack, while Ezel is Dutch for ass. Her audience could not have missed the intended sobriquet, although given Haunce’s fantastic behaviour, the name was hardly needed. In spite of the illustrious reputation of the Dutch as mariners, Haunce becomes violently seasick on his voyage to Madrid. So ill is he by the journey’s end that he insists Gload mention nothing about the sea, as his servant walks him around a grove for a much-needed airing: Gload: … you smell a little of the vessel, a certain sour remains of a storm about you. Haunce: Ah, ah, do not name a storm to me, unless thou wilt have the effects on’t in thy face. (III.ii.9-12)

Even after Haunce has long had time to recover, he complains that his stomach “wambles” at the mere mention of a sea voyage (IV.i.11724). Not only does Behn depict her Dutchman as incompetent at seafaring, but using Haunce’s attire she demonstrates that the Dutch are uncivilized clods. Although Haunce has dressed for courtship, Gload reminds his master how he typically dresses at home: Gload: Do you remember, Sir, how you were wont to go at home? When instead of a Periwig, you wore a slink, greasie hair of your own …. a Dublet with small Skirts hookt to a pair of wide-kneed Briches, which dangled half way over a leg, all to be dash’d and durty’d as high as the gartering. (III.ii.48-56)

130

Of Love and War

The high-spirited Gload does not stop with his master’s clothing, but expands the picture by drawing on another English stereotype of the Dutch: “Your hands defil’d with counting of damn’d durty money, never made other use of gloves …” (III.ii.58-59). He mocks his master’s parsimony by noting that whenever Haunce’s purse is not concerned, he drinks gluttonously. When forced to pay the bill, however, “[Y]our two stivers Club is the highest you dare go …” (III.ii.70-71). As a topical piece of pro-war political propaganda, The Dutch Lover is much in keeping with other dramatic texts in this period. John Dryden’s Amboyna, or The Cruelties of the Dutch to the English Merchants (1673) reminded audiences of the unprecedented massacre in February 1623 of English merchants and settlers.21 Satirical comments and pejorative representations of the Dutch abound in the plays of this period, such as William Wycherley’s The Gentleman Dancing-Master (1673), John Dryden’s The Assignation, or Love in a Nunnery (1673), Henry Neville Payne’s The Morning Ramble, or The Town Humours (1673), Edward Ravenscroft’s The Careless Lovers (1673), and Thomas Shadwell’s Epsom Wells (1673). In Wycherley’s Gentleman Dancing Master, the absurd, foppish Mr Paris, an Englishman turned French, who calls himself Monsieur de Paris, has just returned from the continent.22 While there, he also: … made the tourè of Holland, but it was èn postè, derè was no staying for me, testè non – for de Gentleman can no more live derè den de Toad in Ir’land, ma foy; for I did not see on’ Chevalier in de whole Cuntreè .… I did visit you must know one of de Principal of de Stat 21

Anthony Devoto or Antonio di Voto, a puppet master, had a booth at Charing Cross, and offered in 1672 a representation of the “Dutch cruelties at Amboyna, with the humours of the Valiant Welshman”. See Calendar of State Papers Domestic, 11 November 1672. In this season Devoto received permission to perform drolls, farces and comical entertainments, performed by men and women, provided he did not employ actors or actresses of either the King’s or the Duke’s Company, nor produce any of their plays. See Herbert, Control and Censorship, 291; and also The London Stage 16601800, ed. William Van Lennep, Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois P, 1960-68, I, 197 and 201. 22 William Wycherley, The Gentleman Dancing-Master. A Comedy, Acted at the Duke’s Theater, in The Plays of William Wycherley, ed. Arthur Friedman, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1970, 121-235.

The Rake, the Whore, the Third Dutch War

131

General, to whom I had recommendation from England, and did find his Excellence weighing Sope, Jarniè – ha, ha, ha (I.ii.86-94).

Monsieur de Paris complains about the way the English attack the French, who have come to oblige them, when they should, in fact, “abuse the Duch ... les grossè Villaines, Pandars, Insolents” (I.ii.86-94 and 63-70). In Dryden’s The Assignation, the Duke of Mantoua desires to know the identity of the masked Lucretia.23 She toys with him, suggesting she might be a number of other ladies. When she suggests that she might be Eugenia Beata, whom the Duke in fact believes her to be, she assures him that he is mistaken since “there’s some small difference in our wit: for she has indeed the Ayre and Beauty of a Roman Lady, but all the dulness of a Dutch-woman” (III.ii.98-100). Merry in Henry Neville Payne’s The Morning Ramble purportedly refers in the following song to the damage the Dutch have caused to England’s mercantile trade: Come then, ’tis time to scowr alongst the Coast; To re-take good Fellows, who else may be lost: ’Tis Lawful those Foes to invade, Who rob us of Honour, and hinder our Trade; And a damn’d Zealous Constable ’midst of his Watch-men Does Trading more harm, then a Squadron of Dutch-men (2.26).24

But the trading here in Payne’s play is hardly honourable, since Merry’s instructions to the constable are to keep his mind to his own affairs, which does not include imprisoning those who are “industriously improving the two great works of Whoring and Drinking” (II.26). In his comedy The Careless Lovers, Ravenscroft, like Dryden, accuses the Dutch of cruelty, albeit humorously. Mrs Clappam claims that once her husband, the conceited Lord De Boastado, found she was with child, he pretended to carry her to England by ship, but 23

John Dryden, The Assignation, or Love in a Nunnery. As it is acted at the TheatreRoyal, in Works, eds John Loftis and David Stuart Rodes, XI, 317-405. 24 Henry Neville Payne, The Morning Ramble, or The Town-Humours: A comedy. Acted at the Duke’s Theatre, London, 1673. All references are to act and page number.

132

Of Love and War

instead had her taken to Japan where she was sold into slavery and bondage to the ship’s master, a Dutchman (IV.i.201-207).25 On the other side of the issues, howver, the Whig Shadwell laments England’s much too comfortable relationship with the French and promotes the Dutch cause. In Epsom Wells, the (ostensibly) former libertine Justice Clodpate hates lust and folly; nevertheless, Shadwell presents Clodpate, in spite of his various weaknesses, as harmless and likeable. The country justice rails about the manner in which the “honest Dutch” are treated, but hates “French Fricasies and Ragousts, and French Dances too”, and when the ale is passed, he observes, “Gud’sooks, here’s your true English Ale and your true English Hearts” (IV.i.151).26 While war with the Dutch was greeted by the general public with great enthusiasm in 1672, opinion turned against the conflict before the end of the year. Public support for the Dutch and violent opposition to the French arose in part owing to Catholicism, but particularly owing to what appeared to be Louis XIV’s drive toward a universal monarchy.27 It was in this climate that Peter du Moulin’s Amsterdam pamphlet, Englands Appeal, from the Private Caballe at White Hall to the Great Council of the Nation, the Lords and Commons in Parliament Assembled (1673), was circulated in England. The pamphlet, probably sponsored by William of Orange, addressed French intentions and Protestant issues, questioning why men with Protestant leanings had been dismissed from the King’s counsels.28 The relatively sudden and resolutely adamant reversal of public opinion on the Third Dutch War was essentially opposition to the English alliance with the French. Royalist playwrights responded to this opposition by promoting anti-Dutch sentiment and largely by avoiding the religious issue, as Behn does here. 25

Edward Ravenscroft, The Careless Lovers: A Comedy Acted at the Duke’s Theatre (1673), in Edward Ravenscroft’s The Careless Lovers and The Canterbury Guests: A Critical Old-Spelling Edition, ed. Edmund S. Henry, New York: Garland, 1987, 1177. 26 Thomas Shadwell, Epsom Wells: A Comedy, Acted at the Duke’s Theatre (1673), in Works, II, 95-182. Reference is by act, scene and page number. 27 Pincus, “Republicanism, Absolutism and Universal Monarchy”, 251-53. 28 Ogg, England in the Reign of Charles II, I, 366-67; Maurice Ashley, Charles II: The Man and the Statesman, London: History Book Club, 1972, 186-87.

The Rake, the Whore, the Third Dutch War

133

Rakehells and rival lovers The dramatic rake, according to Robert Hume, is a development of the Carolean period and no doubt a reflection on the court wits, such as Buckingham, Rochester, and Sedley, who in the 1660s and 1670s dominated the court of Charles II.29 Although the dramatization of the rake continued to flourish after 1680, the court wits themselves were no longer the flagrantly profligate phenomenon they had been in the earlier decades of the Restoration.30 The rake in Restoration drama is perhaps too often discussed as a specific – and peculiarly singular – type of character. The notion of the rake as a singular figure is not only inaccurate, but it leads to some confusion and misidentification of rakes, rivals, and villains. A rake (short for rakehell) is a roué, a licentious or dissolute man, who probably suggested to the theatre audience the court wits, men they no doubt found both glamorous and shocking.31 In his invaluable study of the Restoration rake, Hume has identified variant forms of this literary character, including the extravagant rake, the typical form found in early Restoration comedy and that which Behn depicts in The Dutch Lover. The extravagant rake is characterized by frantic intensity, promiscuity, crazy impulsiveness, cheekiness, reckless frivolity, breezy vanity, and devastating self-assurance. While he may run recklessly through the plot, flagrantly disregarding the respectable rules of his social class, the extravagant rake is far from holding society in contempt. Alonzo is just such a profligate, reckless, and cheeky rake, yet the degree to which he is able to control his sexual appetite, his ability to retain his genteel reputation in refined society, and his economic circumstances identify him as a rake rather than a debauchee. Alonzo is perhaps the playwright’s first attempt to construct a dramatic rake. Although he is neither like Willmore in The Rover 29

Hume, “Myth of the Rake”, 33. One of the period’s major rakes, Rochester, had died repentant in 1680. However, the court wits lost their influence largely with the death of Charles II. When James II assumed the throne “the days had passed when wit was a way of preferment, and the Court circle had disintegrated”. See John Harold Wilson, The Court Wits of the Restoration: An Introduction, London: Frank Cass, 1967, 199. 31 Hume, “Myth of the Rake”, 33. The polite rake, Hume argues, “flouts society’s rules, but he is accepted as a member of the best society”, while the debauchee is contemptible. The distinction between the two extremes largely regards social class and style (38). 30

134

Of Love and War

(1676) nor like Careless, the reformed rake in The Debauchee: or, The Credulous Cuckold (1677), he is undoubtedly a rake. Even though his air is that of a gallant, his nature inclines conspicuously to libertinism. Nevertheless, as a genteel man, Alonzo regards his honour and his reputation as being of the utmost of importance. When the play opens, Alonzo has just arrived in Madrid and has yet to re-establish his acquaintance with his fellow soldier, Marcel, to whose sister, Hippolyta, he is contracted in marriage. In fact, Alonzo, who has just encountered and renewed his friendship with Lovis, hardly has time to warm the stage with his appearance when he is approached by the servant of a beautiful woman who claims her lady desires his assistance. The beautiful Euphemia, desperate to circumvent the forced marriage her father has arranged with the Dutch fop, Haunce van Ezel, has taken the reckless, although self-determined, measure of finding a husband suitable to her own tastes. In typical libertine style, Alonzo does not wait to hear Euphemia’s reason for having sent to him; rather, he simply assumes her purpose is a sexual one: “… you saw your man and lik’d him” (I.iii.17). Euphemia is hardly a courtesan and strives to maintain the decorum of a lady, which irritates Alonzo, who counters her resistance with “come, come do not loose [sic] my little new-gotten good opinion of thee, by being coy and peevish” (I.iii.22-23). In a final, desperate attempt to allure the gallant, Euphemia feigns a swoon, during which Olinda removes her mistress’ veil, affording Alonzo a brief opportunity to see her face. Astounded by her beauty, Alonzo immediately forgets his marriage contract to Hippolyta and agrees to rescue Euphemia from her Dutch lover by marrying her himself. Euphemia, however, is not the only lovely woman who summons Alonzo. Before the day is over he is also misidentified as Marcel and instructed to come into a house where a fair creature has been long awaiting him. Clarinda’s maid, Dormida, has promoted an affair between her fifteen-year old charge and Don Marcel. The two women have arranged under cover of darkness to sneak Marcel into Clarinda’s bed. Alonzo, mistaken for the would-be lover, is chastised roundly by Dormida, “oh you are a fine spark, are you not, to make a fair creature wait so long for you?” (II.iii.50-51). She tosses down the

The Rake, the Whore, the Third Dutch War

135

house key wrapped in a handkerchief, at which Alonzo pauses but momentarily to question his good fortune: Alonzo: … Should Euphemia know this, she would call it levity and inconstance; but I plead necessity …. For certain this lady, who e’re she be, designs me a more speedy favour than I can hope from Euphemia, and on easier terms too. (II.iii.54-58)

Marcel arrives to find the door to Clarinda’s house unlocked and discovers a stranger groping in the dark house. While the two men engage briefly in swordplay, Clarinda and her maid, Dormida, flee, frightened that her mother has discovered their unchaste design.32 The quarrel over, Alonzo’s libertine nature emerges as he clearly hopes to profit, having “frighted [the birds] from their nest” (II.v.4-5). He carries the ladies to a nobleman’s house, unaware that it is also the home of Marcel, where he meets Marcel’s sister, Cleonte, who also has “Troops of beauties ... sufficient to take whole Cities in” (II.vi.113-14). When Cleonte assures him that if he belongs to Clarinda, he is welcome in the house, he impulsively claims to be her brother. Later, trapped by his own story, he is unable to kiss the fair Clarinda’s hand. Although Alonzo has come to Madrid to marry Hippolyta, he has agreed to marry Euphemia, and he has fallen in love with a further two beautiful women – and his first day in the city is not yet over! Alonzo’s concern for the moment, however, is not his contract with Hippolyta, whom he has yet to meet, but, rather, how to balance the scale between beauty and accessibility: Alonzo: … they are very fair; but what’s that to me, Euphemia surpasses both: but a pox of her terms of marriage, I’l set that to her beauty, and then these get the day, as far as natural necessity goes: but I’l home and sleep upon’t, and yield to what’s most powerful in the morning. 32

In Quintana’s version of this plot line, found in “The History of Don Antonio”, the young maid herself, Charitie, arranges a clandestine elopement with Don Antonio and throws down the house key wrapped in a handkerchief. When Don Antonio and her love Don Ferdinand fight, Charitie flees to the other side of Madrid out of fear that her mother has discovered her infamy.

136

Of Love and War To night these strangers do my heart possess, But which the greatest share, I cannot guess: My fate in love resembles that in war, When the rich spoil falls to the common share. (II.vi.156-64)

When Lovis discovers that Alonzo’s latest marriage agreement is to his own sister, Euphemia, he volunteers to further the affair if Alonzo’s intentions are honourable and if he will indeed marry her. While Alonzo clearly manifests a keen sexual appetite and while he readily admits his inherent libertine nature, he nevertheless remains faithful to Euphemia, although this may be owing as much to lack of opportunity as to honour. Alonzo’s libertine recklessness and his genteel honour frequently collide, and the situation often becomes problematic. For example, he must both delicately and honourably resolve the matter of the two marriages to which, in his rakish impulsiveness, he has committed himself. The cold and discourteous treatment he has met from Ambrosio, Hippolyta’s father, and Marcel, her brother – neither of whom has civilly received him nor introduced him to his bride – is insufficient cause to annul the marriage agreement. Although Lovis suggests the contract is simply void, Alonzo replies, “That will not satisfie my honour …” (II.vii.46). While honour may have been the foundation of the first marriage contract (that which he transacted through a gentleman’s agreement with Marcel), desire was unquestionably the basis of the second (that which he effectively contracted with Euphemia herself). Alonzo’s choice between honour and desire may well suggest the political and sexual climate of the Carolean court, where the polite and discreet old cavalier has been superseded, not simply by the new honnête homme, frank and direct as he may be, but rather by the extravagant libertine. Alonzo will indeed marry one of these young women, Euphemia or Hippolyta, if he can extricate himself honourably from one of the contracts: “The polite rake knows that the probable alternative to marriage is grotesque – a world of surly old bachelors or, as Wycherley has it in The Country Wife, of ‘old boys ... who like superannuated Stallions are suffer’d to run, feed, and whinny with the

The Rake, the Whore, the Third Dutch War

137

Mares as long as they live, though they can do nothing else’.”33 His reckless nature is wholly complemented by the airy hope that a sudden insight or an outside force will miraculously materialize and resolve his unwonted dilemma: “… I’l home and sleep upon’t, and yield to what’s most powerful in the morning” (II.vi.158-59). Alonzo is neither a profligate nor a wasteful rogue, but it is questionable how long the orthodox conventions of the polite society will endure his unorthodox libertine notions, particularly since on occasion, he comes near the limits of the predictable wild oat-sowing of a young gentleman. As Alonzo moves both between and within the three main plots, he eventually reaches a compromise between the rakish libertine and the honnête homme. Competitors in love, combatants in war The construction of Alonzo’s rakish character is manifestly important to the design of Behn’s Alonzo/Euphemia/Haunce plot. In a lighthearted contest of courage, wit, and love, she pits Alonzo, the sharp and comical Flanders colonel, who has much in common with the dashing young libertines of Charles II’s court,34 against the foppish heavy-drinking Dutch Haunce for the hand of the beautiful Euphemia. Through the rivalry of the two lovers, Behn shrewdly constructs a playful – and certainly propagandist – representation of the war between the English and the Dutch. Alonzo himself observes, “My fate in love resembles that in war, / When the rich spoil falls to the common share” (II.vi.162-63). This concept was not new, however. In his Annus Mirabilis: The Year of Wonders, 1666. An Historical Poem (1667), written during the Second Dutch War, John Dryden figures the war in terms of a lover’s conquest. Steven Zwicker has explored the manner in which sexual and military potency interweave in this poem, suggesting that war transmutes sexual appetite into honour and that “for the king, sexual potency is translated into military authority and paternal solicitude”.35

33

C.D. Cecil, “Libertine and Précieux Elements in Restoration Comedy”, Essays in Criticism, IX/3 (July 1959), 242. 34 Hume, Rakish Stage, 145. 35 See Zwicker’s exploration of Dryden’s imagery in Lines of Authority, 103; and 98-107 for a discussion of this poem and sexual/military potency.

138

Of Love and War

Although Carlo, Euphemia’s father, has arranged a marriage between his daughter and the son of a Dutch merchant, Euphemia refuses to sacrifice herself to the Dutch lover, claiming, “I had rather dye than marry him” (I.iii.59).36 Having selected a handsome gallant of her own choosing, she instructs Alonzo to put himself a ridiculous equipage and present himself as the bridegroom. As an introduction, she gives him letters addressed to her father sent from Flanders that she has intercepted. Dressed as the Dutch fop, Alonzo arrives to claim his bride and offers Carlo the purloined correspondence: Carlo: Sir, I find by these your Father’s letters, you are not yet arriv’d. Alonzo: I know that, Sir, but I was told I should express my love in my haste; therefore outsailing the Pacquet, I was the welcome messenger my self. (III.i.38-41)

The pursuit of love in The Dutch Lover serves well as propaganda for the Third Dutch War, as Behn pits the courtship styles of the two lovers against one another. Through his bombastic conversation with Gload, Haunce demonstrates the vulgar incivility of Dutch courtship – and, hence, Dutch ineptitude in battle: Haunce: … I hate the sober Spanish way of making love, that’s unattended with Wine and Musick, give me a wench that will out-drink the Dutch, out-dance the French, and out – out – kiss the English. Gload: Sir, that’s not the fashion in Spain. Haunce: Hang the fashion; I’l manage her that must be my wife as I please, or I’l beat her into fashion. (III.ii.88-94) 36

Behn took the main story line of her Alonzo/Euphemia/Haunce plot from Quintana’s “The History of Eufemie and Teodore” and “The History of Don Antonio”, where Teodore’s father is forcing her to marry a kinsman, Don Martin, a beast in human form. Teodore forwards letters she has intercepted from Don Martin’s family and instructs Leonard to impersonate Don Martin in order that they may marry. When Leonard arrives, dressed as Don Martin, and gives Teodore’s father the letters, he remarks, “I am astonished ... that my cosen your father sends me word, that Don Martin should begin his journey within a short time, and nevertheless you are already arrived” (75).

The Rake, the Whore, the Third Dutch War

139

That the servant Gload proves more genteel than his master is evidence of a society turned upside down. Still, neither Gload nor his master proves capable of relating to women in any terms other than mercantile ones. Although Haunce eventually agrees to force Alonzo to consign Euphemia to him, he questions Lovis as to why he should hazard the task himself: Haunce: … why should I run my self into premunire when I need not; your Father is bound by agreement to mine, to deliver me the wares (that is his Daughter) safe and sound; and I have no more to do, but to protest against him in case of non-performance. ’Twill be a dear commodity to me at this rate. (IV.ii.53-57)

Gload’s own advances to Olinda are couched in similar mercantile terms: “… I am Book-keeper and Casheer to my Master, and my love will turn to account, I’l warrant you” (IV.i.163-64). When Olinda demonstrates a cool lack of interest, Gload remarks, “Since you’r so proud and so fickle, you shall stand hereafter as a Cipher with me” (V.ii.65-66), little more than a zero in his account book. He then turns his attention to the younger maid, Dorice, observing, “I’l begin upon a new account with this pretty Maid” (V.ii.66). In the contest of courtship, Haunce proves a dismal contender. When Gload accosts the maid, Olinda, Haunce complains that his servant has the better bargain since Euphemia looks much too civil. He protests against the dull gravity of Spanish courtship, choosing to court Euphemia in the Dutch manner – with raucous fiddle music and dancing, which he concludes by singing the latest ballad. To assist his courtship, Haunce has brought with him States-fellows, who, Euphemia observes, “look like you had ransack’d a Hoy for them” (IV.i.180-81). Appalled by her Dutch lover, Euphemia refers to him as a fop, which Haunce refutes, noting, “I am counted as pretty a Merchant as any walks the change; can write a very plain hand, and cast account as well as – My man Gload – can’t I, sirrah?” (IV.i.19193). Euphemia has little say in the matter, according to Haunce, for whether she cares for him or not, he will have her. If Haunce is ineffectual in courtship, he proves just as incompetent in combat. In a grove, Haunce and Gload come upon Hippolyta,

140

Of Love and War

whom Antonio is about to ravish. The cowardly Haunce is manifestly disinclined to assist her and even mocks her pleas for help: Hippol.: Sir, you mistake me; this is a ravisher – Haunce: A ravisher! ha, ha, ha, dost like him the worse for that? no, no, I beg your pardon, Madam. Hippol.: Have you no manhood, Sir? (III.iii.150-53)

But, then, Carlos has chosen a Dutchman for his daughter because he does not want a man who is valiant, “a dangerous quality ... in Spain” (III.i.63-64). Like the term “courage”, the word “valiant” also has sexual connotations, particularly suggesting sexual potency. What little courage Haunce does manage to summon, Gload must goad him into demonstrating: Gload: Lady, I am your champion, who dares ravish you or me either? Antonio: Rascal unhand her. Haunce: How, how Gload ingag’d! I scorn to be out done by my man. Sirrah, march off with the baggage, whilst I secure the enemy. (III.iii.156-59)

Armed only with a small dagger, Antonio challenges Haunce, who responds by unsheathing a “barbaric” Dutch knife. Appalled and insulted by the vulgar gesture, Antonio cries, “Thou base unmanner’d fool; how darst thou offer at a Gentleman, with so despis’d a thing as that?” (III.iii.172-73). The gallantry Haunce demonstrates in the skirmish, he has learned from reading French heroic romances, particularly La Calprenède’s Pharamond:37 Haunce: Beg for your life; for I scorn to stain my victory in blood – that I learnt out of Pharamond …. And now like a

37

Signeur de Gaultier de Coste La Calprenède, Faramond; ou L’Histoire de France, 12 vols, Paris, 1661-1670. La Calprenède died before he could finish the romance, which was then completed by Pierre d’Ortigue de Vaumorière. The first volume of the romance was translated into English as Pharamond, or the History of France in 1662.

The Rake, the Whore, the Third Dutch War

141

generous enemy, I will conduct thee to my Tent, and have thy wounds drest – That too I had out of Pharmond.38 (III.iii.178-87)

Haunce’s inept impersonation of the heroic Pharamond, whose spirit, “had been accustomed to overcome with sweetness the fiercest mindes”,39 adds to the ludicrousness of the Dutch fop’s character. As the contest over Euphemia galvanizes, the two competitors are drawn together in confrontation, like the English and the Dutch. While Alonzo declares with true valour, “I tell you, I will not be beaten” (IV.ii.65), Haunce cowers for protection behind Lovis: “And wilt thou not do so much as to beat him for me a little?” (IV.ii.80). Alonzo has little difficulty in outwitting Haunce for his bride. Attired as the Dutch fop, he arrives before the appointed hour of the wedding and marries Euphemia himself. If the contest of love is a metaphor for the contest of war – with Euphemia the prize – then the English will certainly prove the victors. Political power and sexual potency, Behn demonstrates, are intrinsically linked. The Dutch lover is easily overpowered and outwitted by the delightful honnéte homme. Alonzo obtains the spoils of victory, the beautiful and wealthy Euphemia, while the defeated Dutchmen, Haunce and Gload, are left to marry the unpropertied servants. Female honour and masculine privilege Honour is of prime concern in The Dutch Lover where each of the numerous plot threads turns on this fundamental issue. If honour is of manifest importance to Alonzo, so it is as well to Hippolyta, whose honour has been ravished by Antonio. In the course of a feud with Marcel, Antonio has not only seduced Hippolyta, but he has also set her up as a courtesan. Marcel’s family honour is compromised, since his sister, whom he has contracted in marriage to Alonzo, is no longer chaste. While only Hippolyta’s death can redeem the family honour, Hippolyta desires the opportunity to redeem her personal honour and sends a challenge to Antonio, usurping both masculine privilege and

38

In Part One, Book One of Pharamond, the hero wounds Constance in battle and has him brought to his tent, where his wounds are dressed and dinner is brought him. 39 La Calprenède, Pharamond, 8.

142

Of Love and War

authority.40 Her challenge to Antonio and their subsequent duel conceivably demonstrate the playwright’s complaint that woman should be made guardian of her own honour and be allowed an equal right of redress. In both Behn’s and Quintana’s plot lines, the brother enthusiastically accepts the role of avenging the family honour through the murder of his sister. However, while Quintana does not specifically emphasize the brother’s own sexual desire, Behn does, clearly underscoring the social inequality of gender and desire and demonstrating the hypocrisy behind masculine privilege. In few other scenes in The Dutch Lover is Behn’s complaint more unabashedly apparent than in Marcel’s monologue which opens the first scene of Act II. Marcel must choose whether to spend the evening hours with Clarinda or in the pursuit of his sister, “sacrificing that false womans heart / that has undone its fame” (II.i.10-11). Yet, even Marcel realizes the hypocrisy in the killing of his sister when he himself hopes to seduce Clarinda and rob her of that same honour: “… when I look within, / And lay my anger by, I find that sin / Which I would punish in Antonio’s soul, / Lye nourish’d up in mine without controul (II.i.13-15). Nevertheless, he proceeds undeterred in his seduction of the fifteen-year-old maid, aware that he has the advantage since “Hippolyta a brother has, / Clarinda none to punish her disgrace” (II.i.18-19). A woman’s value was dependent upon such typical factors as her beauty and the size of her dowry, but most particularly upon her sexual status – her virginity. While Clarinda may be without masculine authority to contain and restrain her sexual desire, she is also without a “brother ... to punish her disgrace”. The imprudent fifteen-year-old finds herself alone and helpless on the Madrid streets 40 Behn’s Antonio/Hippolyta plot has its source in several of the stories in The History of Don Fenise, particularly in Leonard’s “History of Eufemie and Teodore” and the “History of Don Charles and Violante”. The Hippolyta/Antonio plot line in Behn’s play is an amalgamation of both the Eufemie and Violante histories. In “The History of Eufemie and Theodore”, Eufemie’s brother Leonard quarrels with a fellow gambler and slays him in a duel. The brother of the deceased, Don Pedro, takes up the feud, and when Leonard is called away to court, seduces Eufemie, whom Leonard had betrothed to his friend Don Alonzo. Don Pedro escapes with her to Madrid, where he establishes her as a courtesan. Behn’s brothel scene (II.ii) is from this story and follows the plot closely.

The Rake, the Whore, the Third Dutch War

143

and seeks the assistance of a gallant – paradoxically, the very gallant who was about to seduce her. While Clarinda’s female desire leads her headlong toward sexual fulfilment, in a patriarchal society that values virginity as a commodity for exchange, that same desire will also effect her ruin, as it has for Hippolyta. Both of these women are caught up in a patriarchal system of honour in which female desire represents a threat to the male hegemony. Female desire is dangerous; it undermines the patriarchal structure where virginity is a commodity that can be bartered for the honour and advantage of the family. Marcel has determined Hippolyta’s value, and she has been exchanged in a bond of agreement between two families. She is the seal on a pact of homosocial friendship. By engaging in unlicensed sexual activity, Hippolyta has negotiated her own transaction and thus usurped masculine authority. Seduced, Hippolyta’s value is greatly reduced and, hence, she materially dishonours the gentlemen’s agreement. Her murder would effectively annul the contract and in this manner preserve the family honour. The gender transgression of Behn’s virago, whose behaviour in the second half of the play is much in keeping with that of her classical namesake, has much in common with Eufemie from Quintana’s plot.41 In rather striking displays of feminist sympathy, Quintana’s female characters often demonstrate a self-reliance that frequently borders on masculine aggression. The monstrous behaviour of these female characters is rarely motivated by inherent female evil, but rather by the men who wrong them. Many of his women adopt a manifestly masculine role in either protecting or avenging their honour. Marcel is eventually accosted by Alonzo and is forced to confront his loss of honour. He must determine how to negotiate between the value his society places on the homo-social bond, which he has affronted by his treatment of Alonzo, and his family honour, which has been discredited by Hippolyta. Thus, Marcel observes, “By this he should not know my sisters shame. / Oh, Sir, you must not have Hippolyta” (IV.iii.229-30). Alonzo’s demand that he be given the opportunity to seek justice exhibits the same hypocrisy – and 41

See Quintana’s “History of Rufine and Don Jovan” and the subsequent “Continuation of the History of Eufemie”. In this story the heroine, Eufemie, undertakes her own defence by enlisting the help of a stranger.

144

Of Love and War

absurdity – as Marcel’s desire to kill either or both of the lovers, Antonio and Hippolyta. Both Alonzo and Marcel are themselves intent upon seducing naïve young women, while insisting they will marry whatever honourable woman each has in hand at the end of the day. Furthermore, Alonzo manifestly compromises both his right to justice and his genteel honour in having contracted himself simultaneously to two women. As events unfold, Hippolyta, who is only too painfully aware of her betrayal, opens the third scene of Act III with a song, lamenting both her female credulity and her loss of innocence: Ah false Amyntas, can that hour So soon forgotten be, When first I yielded up my power To be betray’d by thee? God knows with how much innocence I did my heart resign, Unto thy faithless eloquence, And gave thee what was mine. (III.iii.1-8)

Dagger in hand, she debates the advantage of murdering Antonio while he is asleep and unarmed. In the end, however, she decides that the deed is too desperate for a female hand and, hence, that she must love on instead. Hippolyta’s female determination fails to afford her the strength to effect her revenge: “’tis an act too horrid for a woman” (III.iii.29). Instead, she awakens her captor that he may prevent her impassioned and rash inclination. Antonio refers patronizingly to the dagger as “that little mark of anger” and observes how it “mis-becomes thy hand” (III.iii.56-57). For Hippolyta, however, the dagger, a typical female weapon in tragedy, functions as a parallel to her honour, of which little remains. “Do not ravish this, too” (III.iii.59), she begs, but Antonio repeats his earlier crime, and seducing her with kindness, steals the dagger from her hand before humiliating and threatening her with his victory. Avenging one’s honour is a masculine privilege. Dressed in male attire, Hippolyta seeks recompense, claiming that even her female soul has been usurped by revenge: “My soul too is all man: / Where dwells no tenderness, no womanish passions” (IV.ii.3-4). Disguised

The Rake, the Whore, the Third Dutch War

145

as a gentleman, she sends a challenge to her lover, unaware that the messenger she has conscripted is her betrothed, Alonzo. When Alonzo hears Hippolyta usurp his name during her duel with Antonio, he leaps forward and separates the two: Alonzo: Hold! hold! fair thief that robb’st me of my name, And wouldst my honour too. If thou hast wrong’d the fair Hippolyta, No man but I has right to do her justice. Or you are both my Rivals – tell me which, Which of you is it I must kill – or both? I am Alonzo, who dares love Hippolyta? (IV.iii.177-84)

This development of Behn’s Antonio/Hippolyta plot in Act IV is largely from Quintana’s “History of Don Charles and Violante”, in which Violante assumes the identity of Don Charles, in order to challenge and fight with her seducer, Don Baltazar. Unlike Quintana’s version of events, however, Behn’s lover, Antonio, is full of repentance for his seduction and betrayal of Hippolyta. When at the end of the sword play Hippolyta reveals her identity, her brother Marcel, who has come to the wood to meet Silvio, suddenly reveals his presence and attempts to stab her. Antonio prevents the vicious act, claiming, “Hold, Sir, and touch her not without my leave, / She is my wife; by sacred vows my wife” (IV.iii.250-51). Typically, the strong-willed female characters in romances prove incapable of achieving their own defence and must be rescued by heroes, such as Quintana’s Eufemie, who is rescued by Mahomet. Alternatively, they are shown the error of their ways, frequently through humiliation or a defeat of some nature, such as that experienced by Menalippa in La Calprenède’s Cleopatra. In some cases, however, their defeat must come by death, such as Clorinda in Tasso’s Jerusalem Delivered, slain accidentally by her lover, Tancred. This is often the case for those untraditional and determined women who are unwilling to yield to the male hegemony. Viragos cannot be permitted to retain the victory, for to do so would be to violate the patriarchally-ordained social order and thus the gender hierarchy that manifestly must be maintained. Hippolyta, too, must be subdued and forced to return to her inferior female status. That she suffers her

146

Of Love and War

defeat in a duel, not by her lover and seducer, Antonio, but rather by her own brother, Marcel, who claims to be the avenger of the family honour, is significant. This juxtaposition of brother and sister in a masculine contest over family honour demonstrates the inequitable distribution of sexual practice. It represents rebellious female sexuality restrained, re-appropriated, and re-contained within the male hegemony. In a final gathering of the plot threads, Hippolyta finds herself in a masculine contest of honour with her betrothed, whom she has never met; with her brother, who does not recognize her in masculine disguise; and, finally, with Antonio, who has dishonoured her. Although for a brief moment Hippolyta does indeed obtain justice in that she gains the opportunity to fight Antonio, she is pitted ultimately against her brother, Marcel. Ironically, although Marcel’s sole aim has been the exercise of his masculine authority to avenge the honour of their family, he fights dishonourably with a woman, albeit one disguised as a pretty youth. To further the irony, Marcel wounds and then rescues the very woman he has spent a great deal effort in attempting to slay. Since masculine privilege must necessarily triumph over female honour, Hippolyta’s defeat is inevitable. She must surrender her illegitimate gain, her masculine self, and re-appropriate her subordinate female status – or die, but then, The Dutch Lover is a tragicomedy, not a tragedy. Repentance alone is insufficient for Hippolyta to reintegrate with the patriarchal society. She is only readmitted through her marriage to Antonio and, thus, through her acquiescence to the traditional female paradigm. Even so, while contemporary social and/or dramatic conventions may indeed have determined Hippolyta’s eventual fate, Behn evidences neither a retraction nor an apology for her outspoken, if not somewhat scandalous, demand for gender equality. Hippolyta does not apologize for her usurpation of male privilege. She may indeed be willing to return to a subordinate role as wife to Antonio, the man she loves, but her request for pardon from Marcel is clearly keyed to her sexual transgression, not her usurpation of masculine privilege in defending her honour and therefore not for her radical transgression of gender conventions. Hippolyta, the “wretched wicked woman” as

The Rake, the Whore, the Third Dutch War

147

Marcel refers to her, asks her brother “could you have mercy too, to pardon me – you might redeem my soul” (IV.iii.261-62). Rape, incest, and corrupt servants Behn’s The Dutch Lover treats incest, here brother and sister incest, in her Silvio/Cleonte plot, a story line which probably has its source in Quintana’s story, “The Historie of Don Jame”. One of the main differences between Quintana’s plot and Behn’s is the role of the servant. Where Quintana’s servant reveals the vicious plan and saves her lady’s honour, the notorious Francisca in Behn’s tragic plot deceives Silvio and assists in the intrigue for the seduction of his sister.42 The corrupt servant theme proves an issue of immense topical significance in this second decade of the Carolean period. While corrupt servants and/or evil counsellors are frequently key characters in the drama of the later 1660s, in the 1670s corrupt servants ultimately become entrenched as a significant feature of numerous plots. Such figures abound in tragedy and tragicomedy, such as Robert Howard’s The Duke of Lerma, as we noted earlier, but also in plays such as Henry Neville Payne’s The Fatal Jealousie (1673) and his Siege of Constantinople (1675), and Thomas Otway’s Don Carlos, Prince of Spain (1676). In The Fatal Jealousie (1673), the servant Jasper believes his master Antonio has robbed his family of their land and wealth, and he sets out for revenge. Through a series of carefully constructed plots, Jasper leads Antonio to believe that his young wife Caelia is unfaithful, so that Antonio will murder her. Caelia is victimized by her corrupt nurse as well, who colludes with Jasper for her mistress’s downfall.

42

This twist in Behn’s plot probably has its roots in a somewhat similar incident that occurs in Quintana’s “The Continuation of the History of Laure”, where the servant, Amarante, deceives Don Felix as to her mistress’s affections in order to have the enjoyment of him herself. Her bed-trick plans go awry, however, and the master of the house, Don Juan, slays both Felix and Amarante, believing the couple to be his unchaste sister and her lover. Of this tragic event, Don Louis observes that great families can be brought down by deceitful servants who “are capable to corrupt the daughters or mothers whom they serve, and bring them to tragique ends with the losse of their honour and generall infamy of their family” (41-42).

148

Of Love and War

In the Siege of Constantinople, the machinations of the Lord Chancellor, who views himself as a manager, disaffect the Emperor from his senate: “…’tis in hands, that mannage ’em like me, / Not in an Emperors, whose honest soul / Sees not the inside of his own affairs” (I.7).43 The Emperor’s brother, Thomazo, counsels against a war that the Lord Chancellor has encouraged to promote his own ambition. To counter this, the Chancellor sews seeds of distrust between the Emperor and his brother, observing that “he [Thomazo] would put you on ungrateful things, / Whilst he pursues the popular himself” (I.21). The honourable Marquis of Posa in Thomas Otway’s Don Carlos, Prince of Spain (1676), remarks of Rui-Gomez, the King’s closest, and certainly self-serving, advisor: Posa: I wish there were no publick enemies. No lurking Serpents poyson to dispence, Nor Wolves to prey on noble Innocence. No flatterers that with Royal goodness sport, Those stinking weeds that over-run a Court. 44 (III.i.97)

The proliferation of this dramatic theme reflects the public’s persistent discontent with the King’s advisors, whether the Cabal, or Danby, although public opinion was frequently stimulated and influenced by the jealous factions within the court itself. Behn’s concern with corrupt servants in The Dutch Lover addresses the manner in which they further their own interests to the detriment and dishonour of the family they serve. In her Silvio/Cleonte plot, Francisca’s attempt to fulfil her sexual desire nearly destroys the honour of her master’s family. She persistently seeks to inflame Silvio’s incestuous desire for his sister, Cleonte: “Do not Francisca – do not blow my flame, / The cure thou bringst is much the greater Hell” (V.i.236-37). Through a bed-trick, Francisca intends to 43

Henry Neville Payne, The Fatal Jealousie; A Tragedy: Acted at the Duke’s Theatre, London, 1673; The Siege of Constantinople: A Tragedy acted at the Duke’s Theatre, London, 1675. References are to act and page number. 44 Thomas Otway, Don Carlos, Prince of Spain. A Tragedy Acted at the Duke’s Theatre, in Works, I, 67-139. All references are to act, scene, and page number.

The Rake, the Whore, the Third Dutch War

149

sleep with Silvio herself, after which she believes he will hate Cleonte and turn his amorous attentions to her: “Oh … when he possess the fair Cleonte, he for ever ruines his intrest in her heart, and must find nothing but her mortal hate and scorn” (III.iv.11-13). Only when her deceitful plan flounders disastrously and her own life is endangered does Francisca reveal the truth, begging for pardon and admitting that the chaste Cleonte knows nothing of the incestuous plot she had attempted to engineer: “… / How very wicked I have been. / Cleonte, Sir, is chaste as Angels are” (V.i.328-29). Incest in Jacobean and Caroline drama represented a decline of general discipline, and hence it served as a reference to the King’s inattention to state affairs, as it does here. As Lois Bueler observes, “the essence of fictional incest is the matter of whose fiction it is, and why”.45 In fictional incest, that which is suggested or threatened but which does not actually occur, identity – or perhaps mis-identity – is often the cause. The fiction in The Dutch Lover has been constructed by Ambrosio through his vow of friendship to the Conte De Olivares. Silvio’s needless sexual anxiety about his illicit passions for the woman he believes is his sister has been fostered owing to the secrecy of the patriarchs’ compact. Ambrosio’s withholding of Silvio’s true identity has had detrimental effects on the family, first by breeding jealous rivalry between the brothers, Silvio and Marcel, and then by allowing Cleonte’s servant to compound the hostility and the faction to achieve her own ends, which could not have occurred had the truth been revealed. Behn appears to allude in her incest plot to the necessity of the maintaining attention to state affairs, the pejorative nature of secrecy, and the chaos which ensues when the King surrounds himself with corrupt and covetous servants. The Dutch Lover is unusual in that the play demonstrates a concern with maternity as much as paternity. Maternity becomes the basis for the suspicious cloud that hangs over Silvio’s identity. Marcel: Thy Mother was some base notorious strumpet, And by her witch-craft, reduc’d my Fathers soul,

45 Lois Bueler, “The Structural Uses of Incest in English Renaissance Drama”, Renaissance Drama, XV (1984), 141.

150

Of Love and War And in return she pay’d him with a bastard, Which was thou. (I.ii.163-66)

Marcel’s frequent defamation of Silvio’s mother reflects on the same issue of gender equality that Hippolyta was forced to confront. While Silvio’s mother may well serve as a demonstration of the dangerous potential of unlicensed female sexuality, this danger only occurs because the masculine hierarchy has appropriated and constrained it, placing a value on it as a commodity for exchange. Silvio is not, in fact, Cleonte’s brother and to have slain her would not have been the redemption of the family honour, but rather the violent and shocking act of murder. Ambrosio holds the key to the secret, and, thus, to prevent a duel between his two sons and in order both to further and to condone Silvio’s love for Cleonte, he is forced to enlighten Silvio of his noble patrimony. He is the natural son of the Conte de Olivaris, who, being banished the court, left the boy with Ambrosio (V.i.356-64). Silvio, who has “made as great an interest at Court as any man so young ever did” (V.ii.366-67), is restored to his patrimony, and the de Olivaris name will be reinstated to its former glory through the son. Behn’s choice for Silvio’s father, the Count-Duke Olivares, may have direct bearing on historical events at the time this play was written.46 Her use of Olivares in The Dutch Lover is perhaps a comment on the crisis of the King’s Second Declaration of Indulgence, the growing certainty of the Catholicism of James, Duke of York, and the question of succession. Olivares was much concerned about direct succession to the duchy of San Lucar.47 His only legitimate heir, a daughter, died while giving birth to her first child. When it appeared certain that he would have no further children by his wife, Olivares suddenly acknowledged and declared as his heir 46

In his character Clotaldo, Calderón, too, may have been referring to this Spanish minister in his own play, La vida es sueño, the source of Behn’s Orsames plot in The Young King. For more detail on Behn’s references to Olivares, see my article, “Times of Trouble: Aphra Behn’s The Young King and Calderón’s La vida es sueño”, in Alterity and Ambiguity: Aphra Behn (1640-1689), eds Mary Anne O’Donnell and Bernard Dhuicq, Paris: L’Harmattan, 2000, 49-58. 47 John Huxtable Elliott, The Count-Duke of Olivares: The Statesman in an Age of Decline, New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1986, 618-22.

The Rake, the Whore, the Third Dutch War

151

an illegitimate son, Don Julian de Guzman, the child of a liaison with a lady at court. That the bastard child in this play is revealed to be of noble lineage may well be the expression of hope or desire in regard to the succession. Charles II had no legitimate heir since Catherine of Braganza proved incapable of producing children. By 1673, however, the King had produced at least twelve illegitimate children, the first of whom, James, Duke of Monmouth, many in the realm wanted the King to legitimize and designate his successor.48 The Silvio plot may suggest a reference to contemporary attempts to have James, Duke of Monmouth legitimized and declared heir to the throne, thus bypassing the Catholic James, Duke of York. What is striking about the Silvio plot in The Dutch Lover is that it certainly appears at first to be a radical turn from her argument in The Young King. Does Behn potentially shift her political allegiance from James, Duke of Monmouth, in The Dutch Lover, which was produced in 1673, to James, Duke of York, in The Young King, which was produced in 1679? As I noted previously, Behn probably wrote The Young King in the early to mid-1660s at a time when the restorationtype play was a popular form, and she no doubt revised the play later for production after the Popish Plot. Thus, her Prince, Orsames, was initially constructed as a reflection on Charles II rather than James, Duke of York, and the Queen’s usurpation of Orsames’ throne serves as a parallel to the Interregnum government. Owing to the fact that The Young King addresses succession, it fits well the contentious political concerns of the Exclusion Crisis and offers Behn an opportunity to provide loyal service to the legitimate heir, James, Duke of York. While in 1673 Behn may have favoured the King’s legitimizing the Duke of Monmouth and declaring him successor, by the Popish Plot and Exclusion Crisis, Monmouth’s engagement with the Whigs, and particularly his alliance with Shaftesbury, cost him much support from royalists, including Behn. That the King himself expressed disappointment in Monmouth’s alliance with Shaftesbury and attempted to lure him away from the Whig contingent probably advanced support for the Duke of York,49 and this may have 48 49

Ashley, Charles II, 346. Ibid., 381-403.

152

Of Love and War

encouraged Behn’s shift of camps during England’s “Times of Trouble”. At least by the time she wrote The Second Part of The Rover (1681), Behn appears to have decided for the King’s brother since she dedicated the play to the Duke of York, “the Royal Son of a Glorious Father”.50 Her dissatisfaction with Monmouth appears to have nearly led to her arrest. In the Epilogue she wrote for Romulus and Hersilia: or The Sabine War (1683), produced in 1682, she makes a direct criticism of Monmouth for his rebellion against his father.51 Prior to the Popish Plot, however, the Duke of Monmouth, had acquired a great deal of political support and popularity, especially after the public became certain of the Duke of York’s conversion to Catholicism. In 1671, Monmouth was summoned to the Lords as “our natural and illegitimate son”.52 Several playwrights had dedicated plays to the Duke and/or Duchess of Monmouth, including John Dryden in The Indian Emperour (1667) and in his Tyrannick Love (1670); Settle dedicated Cambyses, King of Persia (1671) to the couple, while Robert Stapyleton dedicated his The Slighted Maid (1663) to the Duke and Hero and Leander (1669) to the Duchess. Monmouth was distinguishing himself in battle at the time this play was produced and was viewed by a number in the polity as the heroic warrior – the mien of the celebrated heir in serious dramatic texts. Silvio is not the only character in this play to experience a sudden elevation in rank, for so too does Alonzo. Again, owing to a lack of knowledge, Alonzo nearly seduces his sister, Clarinda. The combination of incest and confusion of identity in The Dutch Lover reflects “a deep insecurity in upper-class families … about genetic origin and lineage”.53 The prolific engendering of illegitimate children by courtiers and ministers (as well as those engendered by the royal brothers) had to have given rise to serious concerns since patrimony, 50

Behn, Second Part of the Rover, 228. Van Lennep, London Stage, I, 311; Summers, Works of Aphra Behn, I, xliii-xliv; Link, Aphra Behn, 27; Duffy, Passionate Shepherdess, 216-17; Goreau, Reconstructing Aphra, 251. 52 Hutton, Charles the Second, 280-81. Hutton also notes the pressure to have Monmouth legitimized during the Roos divorce debate in 1670. 53 Charles R. Forker, “‘A Little More Than Kin and Less than Kind’: Incest, Intimacy, Narcissism, and Identity in Elizabethan and Stuart Drama”, Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England, IV (1989), 19. 51

The Rake, the Whore, the Third Dutch War

153

class and order were of paramount interest in Restoration society. The development of incest in serious plots of the 1670s, then, is perhaps representative of a growing concern, both private and public, about order, lineage and succession. Suggestions of incest are only thinly disguised in numerous dramatic texts of this period. Dryden’s Marriage A-la-Mode (1673) and his Aureng-Zebe (1676). Henry Neville Payne’s brutal tragedy, The Fatal Jealousie (1673), Nathaniel Lee’s The Tragedy of Nero (1675), Thomas Shadwell’s The Libertine (1676), and Thomas Otway’s Don Carlos, Prince of Spain (1676) are but a few of the plays in this period which treat incest in their plots. Incest proves titillating subject matter. The sense of its forbidden nature holds fascinating appeal. Given the nature of the private as a trope for the public, incest provides an able vehicle with which to advance political commentary. The dramatic depiction of the destruction of one’s social reputation through sexual transgression serves well as a metaphor for the ruin of the public servant’s reputation through political misconduct. Lack of knowledge and secrecy, then, contribute to faction and jealousy and facilitate the ruin of family honour. The secrecy in this plot, which brings about the near incest, demonstrates how concealment can breed discontent and provide fertile soil in which corrupt servants may germinate their ills and reap the rewards of self-interest.54 Appropriating the sword Forced marriage, seduction, rape and incest are unquestionably acts that articulate repression rather than passion. In a society where virginity has an economic value and is used as currency in homosocial negotiations, such repression is easily facilitated. What makes an exploration of sexuality in The Dutch Lover problematic is that much of the aggression is furthered by another female. The servants Dormida and Francisca, for example, nearly bring their charges to ruin, owing to their ignorance or to their self-interest. Still, Behn’s plot constructions and arguments prove insightful in the context of the body politic. The patriarchal head of the body is not 54

Dormida, like Francisca, had tried to ruin the honour of her naive mistress; however Dormida’s corruption largely stems from her ignorance and desire for power which she does not have the intelligence to wield. Her obnoxious take charge attitude nearly leads to the ruin of her mistress, Clarinda.

154

Of Love and War

the immediate threat to the subject in this play; rather, ignorant or covetous servants in positions of power present immense potential danger. The commodity in which the servants trade in the private sphere of this play is the sexual worth of their mistresses. If sexual power in the private sphere is political power in the public one, the servants clearly possess the ability to effect chaos in state affairs, empowered by the unwariness of those whom they serve. While both Cleonte and Clarinda are innocent victims of their corrupt servants, Euphemia and Hippolyta, demonstrate an unusual (and refreshing) strength and independence. Through the assistance of her faithful servant, Olinda, the bold Euphemia frees herself from her father’s tyranny, i.e., the forced marriage to the Dutch fop. Hippolyta, also strong and independent, sets about the task of righting an injustice. The actress in breeches playing Hippolyta’s role may have been titillating for the audience, but Behn is clearly reaching for something more thought-provoking than conspicuous titillation. While Hippolyta may have been seduced by the man she loves, she certainly demonstrates her virago nature as she demands the right to defend her own honour. Hippolyta’s appropriation of the sword may be viewed as the physical appropriation of the phallus, yes, but the sword also represents, of course, the appropriation of male privilege and masculine authority. If we consider the early modern arguments of both Stubbes and Prynne, who claimed that apparel was Godordained and hence neither gender should wear the other’s clothing, then certainly clothing and all its accoutrements represent culturallyimposed signs of gender.55 Cross-dressing not only effaces gender boundaries, but it also questions the basis upon which these signs are imposed, and significantly, then, it challenges the patriarchal hegemony.

55

In Histriomastix, for example, Prynne writes: “The apparell of the man shall not be put upon the woman, neither shall a man be arrayed in a womans garment; because everyone who shall doe these things, is an abomination to the Lord thy God.” Such cross-dressing, Prynn insists, has “beene ever odious” (199). William Prynn, Histriomastix: The Players Scourge or Actors Tragedie, Divided into Parts (1633), Garland Reprint, Preface by Arthur Freeman, New York: Garland, 1974; see also Philip Stubbes, Anatomie of Abuses (1583), New Shakespeare Society Publications, Vaduz: Krauz Reprints, 1965, passim.

The Rake, the Whore, the Third Dutch War

155

Behn’s complaint that her play was “hugely injur’d in the Acting” may well have been owing to the implicit threat in its content.56 In manifold plays in Restoration drama women don breeches and adopt a masculine disguise; however, these women are often in search of or testing a wayward lover, fulfilling an assignation, or are intent upon entrapping a husband. Although their disguise may occasionally cause them to draw their swords, they offer feeble attempts at self-defence and usually cry out for assistance. The problem in Behn’s play was not simply that Hippolyta donned breeches, but rather that she and Euphemia wittily undermined brother and father (respectively) and succeeded in achieving their own desires. While early Carolean dramatic texts may depict warrior women, Amazons, and/or viragos, plays in which a female character appropriates the sword to defend her honour are difficult to find. Hippolyta’s questioning of gender privilege must have been both intimidating and shocking to the male hierarchy. That the actors intentionally sabotaged the play, then, is perhaps not surprising, and, under the circumstances, the lack of approval from her audience is unfortunate, but understandable. The playwright and her craft Much of the plodding Caroline nature of her earlier dramatic texts is conspicuously absent in The Dutch Lover. This is a multifaceted play with three main plots, numerous sub-plots, and a large cast of characters. So deftly does she interweave her plots that neither her characters nor her tragic and comic modes appear unrelated, as do Dryden’s two plots in Marriage A-la-Mode (1671).57 Marriage A-laMode employs two very distinct plots, the unity of which is a muchdebated question.58 Both Langbaine and Genest pointed out the 56

Behn claims that not only did her Dutch Lover intentionally mis-speak his lines, but he wore the wrong clothing and behaved not at all according to his part. See her introduction to the printed play, particularly lines 142-57. 57 John Dryden, Marriage A-la-Mode, in Works, XI, 219-316. 58 See Braverman, Plots and Counterplots, 97-99, Bruce King, Dryden’s Major Plays, London: Oliver and Boyd, 1966, 91-93, Judith Kalitzki, “Versions of Truth: Marriage Ala-Mode”, Restoration, IV/2 (Fall 1980), 65-70, and Michael McKeon, “Marxist Criticism and Marriage A-la-Mode”, Eighteenth Century: Theory and Interpretation, XXIV/2 (Spring 1983), 141-62. These critics argue that Dryden achieves unity through such tools as language, theme and images as well as the symmetry of his plots. Laura Brown argues that the disjunction in Dryden’s two plots is the “primary end” of

156

Of Love and War

awkward, disunited structure of Dryden’s two plots.59 Colley Cibber found the two plots so disjointed that he combined the comic plot of Marriage A-la-Mode with that of Dryden’s Secret Love and called the result The Comical Lovers.60 Although Dryden argues for the tragicomic form, claiming that comedy refreshes the tragic plot, which “keeps the spirit too much bent” and has the same effect that “musick has betwixt the Acts”, the interruption of his serious plot by the comic one leads to the appearance that two separate plays are competing for the same stage.61 Behn, however, exercises more control over her characters, guiding the movement within scenes as she shifts between serious and comic modes. She accomplishes the plot unity that Dryden fails by allowing the characters of one mode effectively to participate in the action of the other. For example, in the sixth scene of Act II the heroine of the serious plot, Cleonte, remains on stage to encounter the rakish hero of the comic plot, Alonzo. Similarly, in Act III scene four the fop of the comic plot, Haunce van Ezel, interacts with the main characters from another serious plot, Hippolyta and Antonio. Language, too, helps Behn to achieve plot unity and an overall structural balance. While Dryden arouses passions and sympathies for his serious characters, their lofty speech-patterns and pastoral imagery, which often border on the abstract, stand in grating dissonance to the vulgar sexual innuendoes of the comic lovers. This creates a wide chasm between the two plots: “If we are in a troubled Elysium with Leonidas and Palmyra, we are in an earthy Cloud

tragicomedy, the end being a formal collision. See her essay, “The Divided Plot: Tragicomic Form in the Restoration”, English Literary History, XLVII/1 (Spring 1980), 67-79. 59 Langbaine, An Account of the English Dramatick Poets, 166, and John Genest, Some Account of the English Stage from the Restoration in 1660 to 1830, 10 vols, Bath, 1832 and New York: Burt Franklin, 1972, I, 134. 60 See “Commentary” to Dryden’s Marriage A-la-Mode, in Works, XI, 466. Robert Hume, Development of English Drama, also notes the two disjunction between the two plots (212), while Ned Bliss Allen, The Source of Dryden’s Comedies, Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1935, 74, and Mark S. Auburn, John Dryden: Marriage à la Mode, Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1981, xix-xxvi, agree that Dryden’s two plots are awkward and that he in fact fails to achieve unity. 61 Dryden, “An Essay of Dramatick Poesie”, in Works, ed. Samuel Holt Monk, XVII, 46.

The Rake, the Whore, the Third Dutch War

157

Cuckooland with Rhodophil, Palamede, Doralice, and Melantha.”62 The innocence, devotion, and undying love of Leonidas and Palmyra, expressed in exalted pastoral imagery, jangles with the low sexual metaphors employed by the characters in the comic plot. Behn avoids the elevated Elysian quality in the tone of her serious characters, and while her comic characters, like those in Dryden’s play, also exchange witty banter, their conversation is devoid of the phallic analogy and low sexual garden imagery on which Dryden’s comic characters frequently embark. Consequently, the gap between Behn’s high and low plots is narrowed, which facilitates a smooth transition as her characters move from comic to serious modes. Behn demonstrates in The Dutch Lover unusual technical control. She is clearly developing her stagecraft as well as her own unique style. Her command of the manifold plots in the play and the actions of her characters, as well as her use of the stage, is by this point superior to that of many of her male colleagues. While she experiments to some degree with the various modes, her treatment of topical issues is clearly more refined than that in her earlier plays. The rather pedestrian story lines and the quasi-didacticism of The Amorous Prince, and particularly of The Forc’d Marriage, are replaced by dashing lovers and beautiful, daring maidens. Her fastpaced plots resonate with dramatic tension. Her humorous buffoons lend comical appeal while simultaneously offering topical comment. The Dutch Lover inaugurates Behn’s experimentation with the Restoration rake figure and clearly marks her progress from Caroline to Carolean playwright. With the theatrical failure of The Dutch Lover, Behn appears to have retired briefly from the stage, and there are no extant records to indicate what transpired in the nearly four years which followed. However, the pressing question is, since she made her living by writing plays, why did she suddenly abandon the theatre? Was it simply the failure of a play, or did she suffer unwonted pressure from her audience or her colleagues? How Behn survived economically and whether she even remained in London during her hiatus is unclear. When she did return to the stage in 1676, she returned with a 62

Auburn, John Dryden, xxiv.

158

Of Love and War

prodigious burst of creativity and a well-honed dramatic style. Her first play after her return was her only tragedy, Abdelazer, or The Moor’s Revenge, which she followed with London sex comedies much in keeping with the convention set by her male colleagues, a mode in which Behn actively participates.

CHAPTER FIVE BLEEDING HEARTS AND KILLING DARTS IN ABDELAZER, OR THE MOOR’S REVENGE Rather, how hast thou yeelded to transgress That strict forbiddance, how to violate The sacred Fruit forbidd’n! som cursed fraud Of Enemie hath beguil’d thee, yet unknown ....1

In his History of England, Laurence Echard claims that Charles II’s reign from 1674 onward was mostly taken up by internal disputes and various domestic disturbances.2 As noted in the previous chapter, the King’s Declaration of Indulgence (1672) and Parliament’s Test Act (1673) had contributed in no way toward the stabilization of the government. The marriage of James, Duke of York, to the Roman Catholic Mary of Modena in 1673 simply added fuel to an already raging fire. Parliament, unhappy about James’ choice – for surely there was a Protestant bride to be found – wanted to discuss the matter prior to the new duchess’s arrival and the consummation of the marriage. By 1674, the King was forced to issue a proclamation To Restrain the Spreading of False News, and Licentious Talking of Matter of State and Government, which “showed clearly the King’s fears of upheaval”.3 The situation was so clamorous that Richard Legh wrote to his brother Thomas at Lyme, observing, “God deliver us from the fate of 1641. These days look too like them.”4 As if the current fracas both over and within the government was insufficient, in August 1

Milton, Paradise Lost, IX, 902-905, ed. Elledge, 221. Laurence Echard, The History of England: From the First Entrance of Julius Caesar King William and Queen Mary, 3 vols, London, 1707-1718, III, 356. 3 Miller, Charles II, 235. See A Proclamation: To Restrain the Spreading of False News, and Licentious Talking of Matters of State and Government, 2 May 1674, included here in Appendix B. 4 Lady Newton, Lyme Letters 1660-1760, London: Heinemann, 1925, 55. 2

160

Of Love and War

1675, the weavers rioted in London for several days. The King had reason to be alarmed, for as Sarotti notes: “Many of the citizens here, remembering the beginning and the manner of the late revolution, are apprehensive that more of the populace, stirred up by evil men, may also raise other kinds of pretensions or demands under colour of the public good … .”5 In October 1675, Ralph Josselin records in his diary the country’s fears of “the poor rising up and down our country, especially those that belong to the wool trade”.6 Certainly to the observer, the 1670s must have seemed rife with sedition and the seeds – and fears – of rebellion, as this decade raced toward the Popish Plot and the Exclusion Crisis. Already fomenting, however, before Titus Oates spins his wild story, are deep concerns about religion and the succession, issues Behn attempts to treat in Abdelazer, or The Moor’s Revenge.7 The choice of this play, given the political acuity Behn has demonstrated to date, is one that could hardly have been accidental. The play is revision of Lust’s Dominion; or The Lascivious Queen (1657), at one time ascribed to Marlowe, but more recently to Day, Haughton, and/or Dekker.8 Charles Cathcart argues that Lust’s Dominion was published in 1657 for political reasons and suggests that the Moor in this play, Eleazar, might be viewed as Oliver Cromwell. Cathcart bases his claim on one surviving copy of the play that suggests through its commendatory versus that the current regime has an “inverted sense

5

A rather lengthy discussion of the incident may be found in Calendar of State Papers Venetian 1673-1675, in Paolo Sarotti’s letters to the Doge and Senate, 23 August 1675, 446-51. See also Correspondence of the Family of Hatton, being Chiefly Letters Addressed to Christopher, First Viscount Hatton, A.D. 1601-1704, ed. Edward Maunde Thompson, Camden Society n.s. 22-23, New York: Johnson Reprint, 1965, I, 120. In January 1676, there were further problems with the weavers and in March, they met several times to determine what could be done “to encourage the English weavers and put down the French”. In the end, the mercers were invited to “wait upon the King ... with patterns of stuffs and silks, when he will make his choice, and he and all the Court will constantly wear these to the exclusion of all other” (HMC Le Fleming, 124-25). 6 Ralph Josselin, Diary of Ralph Josselin 1616-1683, ed. Alan MacFarlane, Records of Social and Economic History, New Series, London: Oxford UP, 1976, 587. 7 Aphra Behn, Abdelazer, or the Moor’s Revenge, in Works, V, 139-315. 8 Lust’s Dominion; or, The Lascivious Queen, in Materials for the Study of English Drama, ed. J. Le Gay Brereton, Louvain: Uystpruyst, 1931, V, 1-146.

Bleeding Hearts and Killing Darts

161

of right and wrong”.9 Dale Randall posits that the meaning of some plays published before 1641 might have offered audiences a decidedly different meaning than when they were republished in the 1650s. For example, the political events of the 1650s had changed drastically from 1636, when William Strode’s The Floating Island was performed, so that the 1655 published version contained the following disclaimer: “Before you read so farre as the Prologue, be pleased to consider this Tragi-comedy was both written and presented above eighteen years since; and if now it seem (in Language or Plot) to fit these times, it must be by Prophesie, the Author himselfe having been long dead.”10 Given that Strode’s play involved the usurpation of an island King, one might question whether the publication in 1655 had no ulterior motive. Whether Behn was asked to revise Lust’s Dominion by Mary Davenant or her son, Charles, or whether she discovered it herself among the manuscripts in the Duke’s Company holdings and chose to revise it, she certainly recognized, as did the publisher of Strode’s play, the seemingly ageless applicability of religion and succession issues in seventeenth-century culture.11 Abdelazer is essentially a single-plot play set in Spain just before the expulsion of the Moors in 1609-1610. The action hinges on the desire of the antagonist, the Moor Abdelazer, to usurp the throne and thus to avenge his father’s death, the great Abdela, whom the elder King Philip killed in the late wars. His accomplice in this design is the lustful Queen Isabella, who has helped Abdelazer engineer her husband’s death. The Queen is so engrossed by her inordinate passion that she fails to realize how thin Abdelazer’s pretences of love have become. Having compromised her honour, he merely patronizes her as long as necessary to achieve his ends. The play opens with a song that begins, “Love in Phantastique Triumph sat”, a song Behn later entitled “Song. Love Arm’d” and 9

Charles Cathcart, “‘You Will Crown Him King that Slew Your King’: Lust’s Dominion and Oliver Cromwell”, Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England, XI (1999), 266. 10 Randall, Winter Fruit, 231. 11 As noted earlier, Mary Davenant directed the Duke’s Company after her husband’s death in 1668, until their son Charles reached majority in 1673. Although her son would have been manager by the time Behn ostensibly wrote this play, it is doubtful, given Mary Davenant’s interest in the theatre, that she would no longer take an active interest in productions.

162

Of Love and War

included in a collection, Poems upon Several Occasions, published in 1684.12 Judith Kegan Gardiner has observed that the first stanza of this song constructs an emblem of personified love on a chariot “as in a classical victory pageant or a Renaissance masque”.13 Such imagery may be found, for example, in Spenser’s “Masque of Cupid” in The Faerie Queene as Cupid enters “riding on a Lion ravenous”: 14 His blindfold eyes he bad a while unbind, That his proud spoyle of that same dolorous Fair Dame he might behold in perfect kind; Which seene, he much rejoycéd in his cruell mind. (III.xii.22)

Behn’s masque-like opening is designed to presage the tragic events soon to follow. Love can sit in triumph because it is not Love, but rather Lust. That Love has stolen fire from the bright eyes of the lover and hurls it violently, as if in sport, connotes a Cupid devoid of his blindfold, and, hence, love in its cruel state – neither innocent nor pure, but love in all its painful aspects. Spenser offers devastating depictions of love in the The Faerie Queene, demonstrating that cruel love does not negotiate between, but rather tyrannizes over, lovers, allotting to each a fate often as unforgiving as death. The stolen fire in the first stanza of Behn’s song, “From thy bright Eyes he [Love] took his fires, / Which round about in sport he hurl’d”, suggests Hesiod’s Promethean figure, freed from the rocks by Heracles.15 Hesiod and his brother, Perses, engaged in a quarrel over inheritance, and Perses, through lies and bribery, attempted to obtain his brother’s portion.16 That the opening song in this play suggests this classical story of rivalry over hereditary issues might well have been 12

Aphra Behn, “Song. Love Arm’d”, in Works, I, 53. Judith Kegan Gardiner, “Liberty, Quality, Fraternity: Utopian Longings in Behn’s Lyric Poetry”, in Rereading Aphra Behn. History, Theory, and Criticism, ed. Heidi Hutner, Charlottesville: UP of Virginia, 1993, 274-75. 14 Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene, in Edmond Spenser’s Poetry, Norton Critical Edition, New York: Norton, 1993, 1-499. The reference here is to book, canto, and stanza. 15 Hesiod, Theogony, in The Homeric Hymns and Homerica, trans. Hugh G. EvelynWhite, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UP, 1959, 117-23. 16 Apostolos N. Athanassakis, Introduction, in Hesiod, Theogony, Works and Days, Shield, 2nd edn (1983), Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2004, xi. 13

Bleeding Hearts and Killing Darts

163

intended to direct the attention of the audience to one of the main themes in this play – succession. Prometheus had cunning arts and more than once tried to trick Zeus, eventually stealing “the far-seen gleam of unwearying fire in a hollow fennel stalk”.17 Zeus gets even by punishing mortal men, creating the bright-eyed Pandora, the beautiful evil over whom “wonder took hold of the deathless gods and mortal men when they saw that which was sheer guile, not to be withstood by men”.18 The song points out Abdelazer’s cunning and trickery over his King – his god on earth. Love has set himself up as the deity and armed the two lovers against each other, where Abdelazer (who sends killing darts) is the victor, and the Queen is posited as the victim of the affair. The song carefully configures events in the play and asks the audience to consider on a number of levels just how fatal might be Abdelazer’s killing darts.19 In the first act and scene of the play, the Queen, “Who ’as laid aside the bus’ness of her State, / To wanton in the kinder joys of Love” (I.i.25-26), is rejected by Abdelazer, who refuses her company, claiming that he is dull. While the root cause of the malady may be different, Abdelazer responds to the too amorous Queen in a manner similar to Leontes in A Winter’s Tale, who attacks his wife, Hermione, as wanton and licentious, driven by unacceptable, overt female desire. While the tragedy of suspected lust in Shakespeare’s play ends in the joy of comedy with the recognition and reward of long-suffering and virtuous love, the death of Mamillius remains as a constant reminder of the tragic consequences of jealousy and suspicion.20 17

Hesiod, Theogony, 121. Ibid., 123. 19 Janet Todd writes that the Queen ordered this music played to Abdelazer, but neither the stage directions nor the dramatic speeches make note of that. In fact, the song has already been sung before the Queen makes her entrance. The Queen simply instructs the musicians, who are already on stage and who have already sung “Love in Phantastique Triumph Sat” to “Play all your sweetest Notes, such as inspire / The active Soul with new and soft desire”, that is, play rather than play again the music (I.i.27-28). See Todd, Secret Life, 184. It would be even more ironic, however, if the Queen had indeed ordered that particular song since it presents an omen which reveals her impending death. 20 Lust’s Dominion contains numerous allusions to Shakespeare’s plays as well as other early modern dramatic and literary texts, and many of these Behn has retained 18

164

Of Love and War

Abdelazer has no reason to suspect the Queen of infidelity (although he does doubt his wife, Florella), yet he accuses her of allconsuming lust, the consequences of which in the horror play must necessarily be tragic. Death, the great leveller, is invited in, bringing many of the characters in the play, including the dissolute Queen and her ambitious and treacherous lover, to their just ends, as the song at the opening of the play suggests is the consequence of such unguarded and unbridled passion. The citizens of Spain, Abdelazer points out, are well aware of the favour this lustful Queen bestows on him, and because of this, they throw him killing looks. The Queen’s lust has armed “the many-headed-beast” (I.i.68), a term Shakespeare refers to in Coriolanus (II.iii.18), and one that was commonly employed in early modern literary discourse for the inconstant rabble.21 Abdelazer; or, The Moor’s Revenge opens with old King Philip’s death and the immediate coronation of the eldest son and heir, Ferdinand. Cardinal Mendozo, also of royal blood, is named regent and so completes the ruling body. The younger Prince, Philip, returns from the wars to find his father dead and his mother enmeshed in sexual and political intrigues with the Moor. The Cardinal and Prince Philip unite to destroy Abdelazer, but are foiled by Ferdinand, who loves Abdelazer’s wife, Florella. Hence, when the Prince and the Cardinal flee to the camp to begin a war against Abdelazer, Ferdinand sends the Moor after them, employing Abdelazer’s absence to seduce Florella. The Queen, who perceives Florella as the bar between Abdelazer and herself, calls the court’s long-standing servant, Alonzo, to witness his sister’s treason, certain that he will save his family’s honour by killing the young woman. When the Queen and Alonzo enter Abdelazer’s apartments, however, she discovers Florella armed with the dagger and threatening Ferdinand. Purportedly to save her son, the Queen rushes forward and stabs Florella herself. When Abdelazer returns from the camp, he kills Ferdinand in revenge. To prevent Philip claiming the throne, the Queen declares him a bastard, and

________________________ in Abdelazer; see The Winter’s Tale in The Norton Shakespeare, ed. Stephen Greenblatt, 2nd edn, New York: W.W. Norton, 2008, 2873-2954. 21 William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Coriolanus, in The Norton Shakespeare, 2785-2872.

Bleeding Hearts and Killing Darts

165

Abdelazer designates himself Protector of the Crown of Spain, allegedly until a successor can be named. The Cardinal, already tender toward the Queen, is easily convinced by the hope of marriage to form an alliance with Abdelazer against Philip, who is defeated and captured. In a meeting with the Grandees of Spain after Philip’s arrest, the Cardinal expects permission for his marriage to the Queen and his subsequent coronation – only to hear the Queen charge that he is Philip’s father, having seduced her by a bed-trick during one of her husband’s long absences in the old wars. The Cardinal is immediately arrested for treason and imprisoned with the young Philip. Abdelazer, who now has little use for the Queen, has her murdered and prepares to marry the virtuous Princess Leonora, the only remaining legitimate member of the royal family. Yet the ambitious usurper has not anticipated the frustration of Osmin, his main henchman. Aggravated by Abdelazer’s harsh usage and encouraged by Leonora’s kindness, Osmin frees Philip, who then confronts and kills Abdelazer. Restored to the throne, the Prince forgives the Cardinal and betroths his sister, Leonora, to the faithful Alonzo. There are some subtle and important differences between Behn’s play and the earlier Lust’s Dominion. She combines some characters and renames others, for example, so that Eleazar in Lust’s Dominion becomes her Abdelazer, and Maria in the earlier play becomes her Florella. The playwright also changes some of the relationships of the characters. Alonzo is Florella’s brother in Abdelazer, but in Lust’s Dominion, this character is Alvero, Maria’s father. Behn cut from the play the comic friars, who detracted rather than added to the plot, and combined some of the characters to reduce the cast. She shortens many of the longer speeches as well, but these are changes one would expect in such a revision, and in so doing, she certainly helped to tighten the scenes. One of the most significant differences, though, is the treatment of the Queen. In Lust’s Dominion, the Queen survives the final conflict, spending her final days in solitude, seeking contrition for her wrongdoing. In Abdelazer, the Moor simply sends one of his henchmen to murder her. Moors and the English stage Several scholars have recently argued that Lust’s Dominion is based on an urplay, one initially produced in the late 1590s and revised

166

Of Love and War

again around 1600.22 A 1600 revision may well have been owing to the arrival at the court of Elizabeth I of an embassy of “sixteen noble Moors” from Morocco.23 P.J. Ayres argues that references in Lust’s Dominion demonstrate that the play was probably revised after the Gunpowder Plot in 1605.24 Charles Cathcart suggests that the play may have been composed in two stages,25 and received perhaps a further revision, most likely between 1606 and 1608, since John Mason’s The Turk appears to have borrowed much from the plot of Lust’s Dominion.26 The edition of the play published in 1657 was the version Behn probably discovered that led to her own development of Abdelazer. The 1657 text had itself most likely been a revision of a version constructed post-1610, after the historic expulsion of the Moors. The 1610 edition was probably revised near the end of the Interregnum to reflect contemporary discussion about kingship, a timely debate.27 In his consideration of Behn’s Abdelazer, Langbaine claims the play was “a Tragedy written above Forty years ago, tho’ printed in octavo, Lond. 1641”.28 To date, I have not found a 1641 edition, but such would lend support to Cathcart’s argument. On the early modern stage, the Moor became a popular figure, perhaps stimulated by the arrival of Moors in England. Although Vitkus notes that a Moroccan embassy arrived in the English court in 1600, Nabil Matar claims that there had been Moors on the streets of London as early as 1589, as well as visits by Moors in 1595, and again 22

See for example, P.J. Ayres, “The Revision of Lust’s Dominion”, Notes and Queries, XVII/6 (June 1970), 212-13; Charles Cathcart, “Lust’s Dominion; or, The Lascivious Queen: Authorship, Date, and Revision”, The Review of English Studies, LII/207 (August 2001), 360-75; Claire Jowitt, “Political Allegory in Late Elizabethan and Early Jacobean ‘Turk’ Plays: Lust’s Dominion and The Turk”, Comparative Drama, XXXVI/3-4 (Fall 2002/Winter 2003), 411-43. 23 Daniel Vitkus, “Turning Turk in Othello: The Conversion and Damnation of the Moor”, Shakespeare Quarterly, XLVIII/2 (Summer 1997), 150. 24 Cathcart notes that the pre-existence of the play would allow its readmission into the theatre after the Gunpowder Plot without re-approval by the Master of the Revels (see Cathcart, “Lust’s Dominion”, 372, and P.J. Ayres, “The Revision of Lust’s Dominion”, 212-13. 25 Cathcart, “Lust’s Dominion”, 367. 26 Ibid., 373. 27 Ibid., 374. 28 Langbaine, English Dramatick Poets, 18.

Bleeding Hearts and Killing Darts

167

in 1600.29 Owing to the continued presence of the Moors, Matar adds, Queen Elizabeth felt forced to issue edicts in 1596 and 1601 to expel them from her dominions. By the Restoration, Moors in London had become less notable, less unusual, and this might be demonstrated by their appearance in comedy, whether as farcical, clowning figures, such as the blackamoor boy cross-dressed as a woman, who becomes the supposed wife of Sir Grave Solymour in Edward Howard’s Six Days Adventure (1671) or in minor roles, such as the servant of Don Diego in Wycherley’s The Gentleman Dancing-Master (1672). That Moors were becoming household figures might be evidenced in comments by diarists such as Samuel Pepys, who records that he employed a Moorish servant he borrowed from William Batelier.30 Reresby also records having “a fine black [although from Barbados] of about sixteen years of age” given him as a present.31 Similarly, a number of women were painted during the 1670s and early 1680s with Moorish figures as a part of the setting, alluding to their own relationship with the exotic. The Duchess of Mazarin, Hortense Mancini, for example, was painted in 1684 by Gennari and depicted as Diana surrounded by dogs and black boy slaves, perhaps an illusion to her black servant, Mustapha.32 Earlier, however, Lady Charlotte Fitzroy, illegitimate daughter of Charles II and Lady Castlemaine, was painted by Lely in 1672, seated in a garden while being served grapes by an Indian boy, and Louise de Kéroualle, Duchess of Portsmouth, was painted by Mignard in 1682, in a pose in which a young black servant offers her a shell filled with pearls.33 Pearls were much associated with Cleopatra and were “symbolic of the subordination of a passive man by a seductive and assertive woman”.34 Hortense Mancini can be found in a similar a pose, painted in 1670 by Voet, as was the notorious Lady Elizabeth Felton (née Howard), painted by Gennari (1679-80). 29

Nabil Matar, Britain and Barbary 1589-1689, Gainesville: UP of Florida, 2005, 13. Pepys, Diary, IX, 150, dated 5 April 1669. 31 Reresby, Memoirs, 184. 32 See Catherine MacLeod and Julia Marciari Alexander, Painted Ladies: Women at the Court of Charles II, London: National Portrait Gallery, 2001, 176-77. 33 Ibid., 162 and 148. 34 Ibid., 176-79. 30

168

Of Love and War

Topical interest in Moors and Turks on the Restoration stage was in some respects owing to England’s relations with the countries in and around North Africa. For example, in May 1671, the British fleet attacked Algiers with great success, burning ships and killing a number of Moors.35 In the same year, the Moors repeatedly attacked the English in an attempt to delay the construction of the Mole.36 In March 1675, England declared war on Tripoli, and John Narbrough celebrated his victory in July of that year, later followed by his narrative of the event, A Particular Narrative of the Burning in the Port of Tripoli … Farther Action on that Coast (London, 1676). A number of publications contemporary with Behn’s Abdelazer offer various perspectives of the Moor.37 Religious tracts, too, often included discourse about the Moor or Turk. Michael Neill points out the “notorious indeterminacy of the term Moor” in early modern English discourse and notes that the terms “Moor” and “Turk” were used interchangeably, particularly in travel

35

See A True and Perfect Relation of the Happy Successe and Victory Obtained against the Turks of Argiers at Bugia, London, 1671 (Matar, Britain and Barbary, 126-27). 36 Ibid., 145. 37 Some of these texts were new editions of travel narratives, such as Rycaut’s fourth edition of The History of the Present State of the Ottoman Empire, London, 1675; Sandys Travels, Containing an History of the Original and Present State of the Turkish Empire … and Other Places of Note, 7th edn, London, 1673; and the eighth edition of Blount’s Voyage into the Levant, London, 1671. Captive narratives related daring escapes, such as William Okeley’s Eben-ezer, or, A Small Monument of Great Mercy ... Escape in a Boat of Canvas, London, 1675, and the anonymous The Adventures of (Mr. T. S.) an English Merchant Taken Prisoner by the Turks of Argiers ... Wind being Westerly, London, 1670; while battle narratives offered exciting narratives of struggle and victory, such as John Narbrough’s A Particular Narrative of the Burning in the Port of Tripoli ... Farther Action on that Coast, London, 1676, and Edward Spragge’s A True and Perfect Relation of the Happy Successe and Victory Obtained Against the Turks of Argiers … Memorable Action, London, 1671. Other texts include letters, descriptions, or “histories”, such as A Letter from a Gentleman of the Lord Ambassador Howard’s Retinue to his Friend in London … Dated at Fez, November 1, 1669, London, 1670; John Ogilby, Africa: Being an Accurate Description of the Regions of Aegypt, Barbara, Lybia … and Serpents, London, 1670; G[eorge] P[hillips], The Present State of Tangier … in Algiers, London, 1676, and Lancelot Addison’s West Barbary, or A Short Narrative of the Revolutions of the Kingdoms of Fez and Morocco, Oxford, 1671.

Bleeding Hearts and Killing Darts

169

literature,38 largely because the majority of the English population had little knowledge of the ethnic intricacies of the Ottoman Empire. Vitkus suggests that the term was employed to refer to a “generalized Islamic Other” rather than a specific geographical location.39 By the Restoration, however, merchants, soldiers, and sailors had encountered sufficient numbers of Moors from Barbary and other areas to have a much better understanding of distinct, regional identities.40 Even so, playwrights still did not figure Moors as “a people within a specific geography, polity and culture but as exotic and completely unreal figures to be invented, manipulated, imagined, and dramatized”.41 Although the exotic and the spectacular were certainly draws for audiences, plays specifically about Moors and/or Turks did not appear on the patent stage in significant numbers, as they had on the early modern one, until the decade that began with Dryden’s Conquest of Granada (1670),42 a trend perhaps initiated by Orrery with his Mustapha (1668). At this point, the Moor became a significant trope to address kingship, heredity, and succession, undoubtedly the most critical, contentious, and divisive issues in the decade of the 1670s. In her seminal study on Aphra Behn, Janet Todd argues that Abdelazer “does not investigate the possible questions of usurpation, right to rule, political morality and law”. Todd observes that while Behn’s fellow playwrights, such as Dryden, Lee, Ravenscroft, and Otway, were “interrogating state and church” in their works in this period, Behn was not.43 However, as my study demonstrates, this is just not true. Behn’s interest was always the political – and especially the politics of the Stuart court, and there is little reason to believe that 38

Michael Neill, “‘Mulattos’, ‘Blacks’, and ‘Indian Moors’: Othello and Early Modern Construction of Human Difference”, Shakespeare Quarterly, XLIX/4 (Winter 1998), 364-65. 39 Vitkus, “Turning Turk”, 161. 40 Matar, Britain and Barbary, 3. Matar notes that English writers used the term “Barbary” to refer to those Ottoman regencies of Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and the kingdom of Morocco. 41 Ibid., 148. 42 Matar claims that after the British destroyed the city of Tangier and the Mole and gave it back to the Moors, the Moors were no longer “enigmatic, dominant or interesting” (ibid., 170-71). The last major play about Moors in the seventeenth century was John Dryden’s Don Sebastian (1690). 43 Todd, Secret Life, 187-88.

170

Of Love and War

she would set aside such interests at this historical juncture, particularly given the current political climate. On the contrary, Abdelazer is very much a play that addresses state and court issues. Islam and Catholicism Although early explorers, such as Hakluyt, described the Moors as ranging from white to tawny to black, Elizabethan playwrights ignored this difference and constructed their Moors as black, thereby encouraging their audiences to see the Moor as dangerous and evil. Elizabethan playwrights were interested in race, and by depicting the Moors as black, they demonized them to reflect, if not to exacerbate, public fear.44 Race was important as a means to contextualize evil and, hence, to put forward political issues too sensitive to address directly. The term “Moor” “could mean Muslim, Native American, Indian, white North African, or Jew”.45 Elliot Tokson points to the playwright’s confusion of racial identities between the Moor and the Indian in Lust’s Dominion. In this play, Mendoza threatens to ban Eleazer “to beg with the Indian slaves” (I.iii.527) and in another scene, Eleazer swears by “all our Indian Gods” (IV.iii.2316).46 But Restoration playwrights were more interested in the religion of the Moor rather than race and thus to “alterize them into dangerous Others”.47 Behn has removed the earlier confusion about race, so that in this same scene Cardinal Mendozo simply warns Abdelazer that should he disobey the ban, “Worse mischief shall ensue” (I.ii.150). Her emphasis on Abdelazer’s religion has a further – and significant – purpose: Alonzo: What reason for it? let his Faith be try’d. Mendozo: It needs no tryal, the proofs are evident, And his Religion was his veil for Treason. Alonzo: Why should you question his Religion, Sir. He does profess Christianity. Mendozo: Yes, witness his habit, which he still retains 44

Matar, Britain and Barbary, 32-33. See also Jowitt, “Political Allegory”, 411-43. Kim Hall, Things of Darkness: Economies of Race and Gender in Early Modern England, Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1995, 7. 46 Elliot H. Tokson, The Popular Image of the Black Man in English Drama, 15501688, Boston: G.K. Hall, 1982, 40. 47 Matar, Britain and Barbary, 169. 45

Bleeding Hearts and Killing Darts

171

In scorn to ours. – His Principles too are as unalterable. (I.ii.135-42)

Abdelazer objects to Mendozo’s accusation, claiming the Cardinal’s holy gown does not cover a “soul more sanctified / Than this Moorish Robe” (I.ii.145-46). Religion then becomes the basis for transgression and banishment, and this will culminate in the struggle for the Spanish throne. John Webster (1610-1682) emphasized the connection between Islam and Catholicism, noting that if a man were to believe “Pontifical Writers”, especially those who have recorded stories of superstition and witchcraft, “a man might as reasonably believe the forged and lying miracles of Mahomet, as those monkish tales”.48 Furthermore, Webster claims, if God can send good angels, he can also send evil spirits “to deceive and seduce the wicked, as in the case of the lying spirit in the mouth of Ahabs Prophets”.49 Consequently, Abdelazer is less a play about a disgruntled Moor seeking revenge against the King of Spain than it is a play about the dreaded papists and Jesuits over whom Parliament was caught up in heated uproar. James’ marriage to the Catholic Mary of Modena probably did little to allay the nation’s fears. John Reresby records: “This nation was much troubled by the match, she being a strict papist, and the match carried on by the interest of the French King.”50 Alberti writes to the Doge and the Senate that the “Upper House also had a design upon the Papists, discussing the legality of the queen’s employment of English priests”.51 The first stanza of a ballad circulated in 1674 and entitled “The Catholick Ballad: or, An Invitation to Popery, upon considerable Grounds and Reasons”, suggests the heated debates and the plethora of texts the religion issue inspired: Since Popery of Late is so much in debate, 48

John Webster, The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft wherein is Affirmed that there are many Souls of Deceiver … with other Obstruse Matters, London, 1677, 291. 49 Ibid., 289. 50 Reresby, Memoirs, 93. 51 Calendar of State Papers Venetian, 1673-1675. Alberti’s note was dated 23 February 1674.

172

Of Love and War And great strivings have been to restore it, I cannot forbear openly to declare That the Ballad-makers are for it.52

The King, constrained by his need for a grant of funds from Parliament, was forced on 10 June 1674, to issue a proclamation to appease the situation, A Proclamation: For the Discovery and Apprehension of Jesuites, Seminary Priests, and others that have taken Orders from the Church and See of Rome.53 In January 1675, as the situation grew even more heated, the King informed his council that he “designed to give all the satisfaction that could be desired of his firmenesse to the Church of England and zeale agt the Papists, and to that end will put out a Proclamation”.54 A proclamation followed, issued on 5 February, Commanding all Priests and Jesuits who are the King’s subjects … to depart the Kingdom before 25 March and not to return again. The King addressed Parliament again in April, reassuring them that there was nothing wanting on his part to demonstrate his zeal in the maintenance of the Church of England.55 Even so, Parliament was clearly divided between those who were for no toleration (led by Danby) and those who were for toleration, but only for Dissenters (led by Shaftesbury). Danby introduced the Test Act, which passed the Lords, but met with hostile resistance in the House.56 Shaftesbury claimed that the Test Act was designed “to declare us first into another government, more Absolute, and Arbitrary, than the Oath of Allegiance, or old Law knew, and then 52

Walter Pope, The Catholic Ballad, or, An Invitation to Popery Upon Considerable Grounds and Reasons, London, 1674. 53 This and a number of other such pamphlets may be found at the end of this volume in Appendix D. 54 Essex Papers 1672-1679, ed. Osmund Airy, Camden Society n.s. 47, 1890, New York: Johnson, reprinted 1965, 293. 55 Ibid., 317. 56 The Test Act read: J.A.B. do declare that it is not Lawful upon any pretense whatsoever, to take up Armes against the King, and that I do abhorr that Traiterous position of taking Armes by His Authority, against His Person, or against those that are commission’d by Him in pursuance of such Commission; And I do swear that I will not at any time endeavour the Alteration of the Government, either in Church or State, so help me God. See Cooper, Anthony Ashley Shaftesbury, First Earl of, A Letter from a Person of Quality to His Friend in the Country, London, 1675, 9.

Bleeding Hearts and Killing Darts

173

make us swear unto it, as it is so established”.57 Reresby records that in the House of Commons, the court party was pressing to obtain funds for the King, while the others were for giving no funds without securing the Protestant religion (April 1675).58 The vitriolic rhetoric over the religion question, then, is surely one reason for the production of a number of plays about the Moor, plays that allow for the expression of opinion and debate over Catholicism. Given the King’s condemnation of and proclamations against public discussion of matters of state government, dramatic configurations of the Moor and Islam as a corollary through which contemporary political issues might be debated would certainly prove the safer option. Furthermore, given similar corollaries in contemporary nondramatic literary discourse, the audience would already have an understanding of this construction. Terms such as “evil”, “blackness”, “hell”, and “lust” were characteristically associated with sin and damnation and closely linked with Islam and Catholicism in the minds of English Protestants: “According to Protestant ideology, the Devil, Pope, and the Turk all desired to ‘convert’ good Protestant souls to a state of damnation.”59 Thus, Satan becomes the Sultan in Paradise Lost, as the fallen hoard, vanquished and prostrate on the fiery Gulfe, rise, Hovering on wing under the cope of hell ’Twixt upper, nether, and surrounding fires; Till, as a signal giv’n, th’ uplifted spear Of their great Sultan waving to direct Their course, in even balance down they light On the firm brimstone, and fill all the plain: (I, 345-50)

Throughout Behn’s play, the Moor is also linked with the devil or associated with darkness. Philip, for example, frequently refers to Abdelazer as a “Hell-begotten Fiend” (I.ii.93) and a “Devil” (I.ii.98), while Abdelazer makes recurrent references to darkness and/or

57

Ibid., 34. Reresby, Memoirs, 96. 59 Vitkus, “Turning Turk”, 145. 58

174

Of Love and War

blackness, as in his invocation to “Darkness and Horrour” and “dread Night” to cloak his evil plot against Philip (II.i.298-99). Daniel Vitkus observes that conversion to either Islam or Catholicism was typically viewed as “a kind of sexual transgression or spiritual whoredom”.60 Behn’s Queen identifies herself on several occasions with Abdelazer through references to blackness and darkness, hinting not at conversion, but at her sexual alliance with the Moor, further exemplifying Protestant notions of whoredom as suggested by Vitkus. While the Moor’s skin is black, alluding to his consort with the devil, the Queen, too, is evil, having committed her own “black offence” (I.i.103). Behn offers a direct allusion to spiritual whoredom and hell when, in Act I, scene i, the palace is in an uproar over the King’s death and the Queen cannot be found. She is in Abdelazer’s apartment and only avoids discovery by escaping through a trap door that leads down a dark passage way to her own rooms. Abdelazer tells her, “You know there is a Vault deep under ground, / Into the which the busie Sun ne’re entred, / But all is dark, as are the shades of Hell” (I.i.133-35). Behn makes Abdelazer’s conversion to Catholicism questionable by lending references to contemporary English understanding of Ottoman practices that he who inherits the throne must first murder his rivals, a concept Boyle depicted in the first decade of the Restoration, through his play, The Tragedy of Mustapha, the Son of Solyman the Magnificent (1668). The pledge Abdelazer seethes in hateful revenge over the three male heirs to the Spanish crown (Ferdinand, Philip, and the Cardinal) sounds convincingly like that of the Turk inheriting the throne of the Ottoman Empire: “Like Eastern Monarchs I’le adorn thy Fate, / And to the shades thou shalt descend in state” (I.ii.272-73). Although Abdelazer has purportedly converted to Christianity, Prince Philip tosses aside the mere context of religion, crying “Damn his Religion, – he has a thousand crimes / That will yet better justifie your sentence” (I.ii.147-48). Although religion is an issue in this play, as it was at this historical moment in England, through the discourse of the rightful heir, Behn argues that religion is merely a blind for the real issue. The playwright also makes a significant revision in one of 60

Ibid., 146.

Bleeding Hearts and Killing Darts

175

the speeches of her Cardinal, who, when Ferdinand repeals Abdelazer’s banishment, retorts simply that he will appeal to Rome (II.i.44). In the earlier Lust’s Dominion, this same speech by the Cardinal is more threatening as he claims that the King shall be King no more, the Pope shall send bulls throughout the realm, causing disobedience in his subjects, and curses will light upon them – not to mention the “bell, book and candle, holy water, and praiers” which will “conjure down that fiend; / That damned Moor” (II.i.731-44). All of this is absent in Behn’s Abdelazer, for her point is that contemporary contention about Catholicism is merely a means to distract and to divide the polity over the chief issue at stake – the succession. A king and his brother The first English play to include Moorish figures was George Peele’s The Battle of Alcazar, produced in 1585,61 a play about succession, religion, and politics. Claire Jowitt argues that Lust’s Dominion was revised as early as 1600 to enter into the succession debate as Elizabeth had failed to name a successor. Given Elizabeth’s official ban on comment regarding the succession, this play would have served well as a platform for the playwright’s opinion. Jowitt assigns contemporary political figures to the various characters: the Cardinal is the powerful Robert Cecil, whose influence over Elizabeth had much in common with that of Mendoza over King Philip in the play, and the Moor as the stranger or outsider is James VI of Scotland, who, being a Scot, some alleged would debar him from inheriting the English throne.62 Jowitt finds in the elder King Philip’s “supine and helpless body ... an allegory of the aging queen [Elizabeth], who, in the last years, was increasingly isolated from her nobility”.63 Jowitt’s argument is intriguing, particularly in the light of a recent study by Ros Ballaster, who points out the political rhetoric behind scandal narratives concerning Charles II’s reign. Citing Hattige: or the Amours of the King of Tamaran, A Novel (1680), and The Amours of the Sultana of Barbary. A Novel (1689), Ballaster observes that the analogy of the court with the Ottoman Empire could be used to 61

Matar, Britain and Barbary, 15. Jowitt, “Political Allegory”, 424. 63 Ibid., 419. 62

176

Of Love and War

portray the sexual and political weakness of Charles II and his “vulnerability to the influence of women”.64 Hattige is largely a satire of the Duchess of Cleveland. The Sultana of Barbary offers a less bawdy treatment of government affairs, where the Sultana, Indamora, is Louise de Kéroualle, Duchess of Portsmouth, Charles II is Acmat, and James, Duke of York, is Mustapha.65 In the Sultana of Barbary, Indamora poisons the King, bringing his less than apt brother to the throne, owing largely to the tolerant Acmat’s failure “to believe in the fanaticism of others”.66 I hesitate to view Behn’s Abdelazer in light of the personal references Jowitt uses to elucidate Lust’s Dominions or in view of the roman á clef Ballaster has so well expounded upon, largely owing to the danger of such references at the particular time this play was produced. Nevertheless, while we should not explore Restoration plays as allegories perhaps, they do shed light on and draw attention to contemporary affairs, whether these are political, social, religious, foreign, or domestic. It is certainly true that Behn and her colleagues used the relationship between the royal court of the Ottomans and that of the Stuarts in their plays, as might be demonstrated by Settle’s Empress of Morocco (1673) and his Ibrahim (1677), and Dryden’s Aureng-Zebe (1676), for example. In Settle’s Empress of Morocco, a play with numerous plot similarities to Behn’s Abdelazer, Queen Luala schemes to make her lover, Crimalhaz, Emperor and herself his Queen.67 After the lovers have successfully conspired to murder her family, Crimalhaz imprisons the lustful Luala and plans to make Princess Miriamne his Queen. The heroic general, Muly Hamet, however, returns at the critical moment to rescue the country and his beloved Princess, whom Crimalhaz holds hostage. Holding his sword to Miriamne’s breast, Crimalhaz demands Muly Hamet recognize his right to the throne before he releases the Princess. Settle’s Princess Miriamne offers a 64 Ros Ballaster, Fabulous Orients: Fictions of the East in England 1662-1785, Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005, 171. 65 Ibid., 172. 66 Ibid., 174. 67 Helpful to a study of this play is the critical commentary by Anne T. Doyle, Elkanah Settle’s The Empress of Morocco and the Controversy Surrounding It: A Critical Edition, in the Satire and Sense Series, ed. Stephen Orgel, New York: Garland, 1987.

Bleeding Hearts and Killing Darts

177

staunch royalist view on hereditary succession, begging Muly Hamet not to save her, for this would alter the succession, and “a worse stain ’twill be / To have my Crown resign’d, than my Blood spilt” (V.ii.8990). In Settle’s Ibrahim, Solyman adopts the captive royal Princess Isabella, a Christian who is loved by his Vizier Bassa Ibrahim, with the intention that after the marriage Ibrahim will be his son and heir.68 Once Solyman first sees Isabella, however, he has Ibrahim arrested, intending to keep Isabella for himself. Ibrahim upbraids him, insisting that as a sovereign he should “More worthy and more Kingly Thoughts persue” (IV.i.47). Solyman, who had earlier given Ibrahim his pledge that he would not execute him, rejoices when he finds a loophole in the law, which would allow him to put the Vizier to death, observing “Then dear Religion, thou’rt a Lovers Friend” (IV.i.51). But Solyman has not counted on the influence of his wife, Roxolana, who consistently comes to the aid of the lovers. Unable endure Solyman’s lust for Isabella, she commits suicide, an act that forces the Emperor to recognize his error and to free Ibrahim and Isabella, who depart his kingdom, preferring a Christian crown.69 In Dryden’s Aureng-Zebe, the sons of the old Emperor believe their father is dead, and so the four prepare for war since the eldest, or in this case the victor, must kill the other brothers to retain the throne.70 Out of sexual rivalry with his son over the love for Indamora, the captive Queen of Cassimere, the Emperor has his most worthy son, Aureng-Zebe, imprisoned and proclaims the less honourable Morat heir. Indamora observes of the Emperor that “The best of Kings by Women is misled, / Charm’d by the Witchcraft of a second Bed” (I.i.350-51). Abdelazer, too, pointedly argues succession issues. Throughout her play Behn demonstrates that it is the public’s irrational fear of the danger of Catholicism that constitutes the true threat to the state. A 68

Elkanah Settle, Ibrahim the Illustrious Bassa. A tragedy. Acted at the Duke’s Theatre, London, 1677. References are to act, scene and page number. 69 For more on Ibrahim, see my article “The Tragedy of Roxolana in the Court of Charles II”, in Roxolana in European Literature, History and Culture, ed. Galina Yermolenko, forthcoming from Ashgate. 70 John Dryden, Aureng-Zebe: A Tragedy. Acted at the Royal Theatre (1676), in Works, XII, 148-250.

178

Of Love and War

contributing factor to the public’s fear was the Duchess of Portsmouth, the Catholic mistress the public believed had been presented to Charles II by Louis XIV. Although Cathcart draws a direct corollary between Eleazar in Lust’s Dominion and Oliver Cromwell, I believe Behn’s Moor, Abdelazer, has no corollary to a specific person. Rather, Abdelazer personifies French interests. And although as I noted earlier, I hesitate to draw such specific corollaries, Behn’s lustful Queen could not suggest Catherine of Braganza, but, perhaps more likely Charles II’s other “wife”, the Duchess of Portsmouth, from the mock marriage arranged by Arlington. Perhaps she is the Pandora of the Promethean implications in Behn’s opening song in this play. In April 1675, Edward, Viscount Conway, informed the Earl of Essex that the Duchess of Portsmouth “is very great and hath given out words as if she were marryed and doth not think unlawfull for a King to have as many wives as he please”.71 Colbert de Croissy had complained as early as 1671, that Portsmouth, instead of taking advantage of her fortune, had “got it into her head that she could become Queen of England, and taking every opportunity of discussing the Queen’s indispositions as if they were fatal”.72 Although Portsmouth was typically not viewed as sexually insatiable as her predecessor, the Duchess of Cleveland, she was, however, well known for her insatiable greed, a term interchangeable with lust, and her interest in English politics – particularly the affairs of court. It was no secret that Louis XIV used Portsmouth as a channel of influence on Charles II, and this was why the French King was so alarmed late in 1675, when Hortense Mancini, Duchess of Mazarin, appeared at the English court. Although Mazarin’s brief affair with the English King did indeed cause the French some pause, she proved not to be the distraction that the French had feared – and the English had hoped since they disliked Portsmouth so intensely. Many believed as John Reresby did, that Portsmouth had been sent over by Louis XIV “on purpas to ensnare the King, who was easily taken with that 71 Arthur Capel, Earl of Essex, Selections from the Correspondence of Arthur Capel, Earl of Essex, ed. Clement Edwards Pike, Camden Society, Third Series, London: Royal Historical Society, 1913, XXIV, 3. 72 De Croissy as quoted in Jeanine Delpech, The Life and Times of the Duchess of Portsmouth, London: Elek, 1953, 70.

Bleeding Hearts and Killing Darts

179

sort of trap”.73 Others suggested that “Madam Carwell”, as the English referred to her, was left behind by the King’s sister, Henriette, during her visit in 1670. While the enamouring and intriguing French mistress may well have been acknowledged as an object of the King’s affection, she was just as often hailed as the object of “the Nation’s Hatred”.74 During the summer of 1675, bawdy lampoons about her were sold in the coffee houses.75 She was French, she was Catholic, she was very expensive, and she meddled in political affairs, issues a number of satires duly noted: Then Carwell, that infestious punk, Made our most sacred gracious drunk, And drunk she let him give that busse Which all the kingdoms bound to curse, And so, red-hot with wine and whore, He turned the Parliament out of door.76

The Queen in Abdelazer, too, is so hated that her elder son Ferdinand refers to her as a devil and the “vilest of thy Sex” (III.iii.137), while her younger son Philip calls her “the worst of women” (IV.i.62). Behn suggests French interests, facilitated largely through the machinations of Portsmouth, like the Queen in Abdelazer, were sufficient to potentially change the course of the succession. That the Queen in Abdelazer agreed to proclaim Prince Philip a bastard, who was in fact her legitimate son and heir to the throne, may have been intended to draw attention to the fact that Portsmouth’s son 73 Reresby, Memoirs, 93. Reresby, of course, acknowledges the concern of the polity, that the weak point in the government was the King’s effeminacy, a point the French king knew only too well how to exploit. 74 White Kennett, A Complete History of England: With the Lives of all the Kings and Queens thereof; from the Earliest Account of Time, to the Death of His Late Majesty King William III … and the Effigies of the Kings and Queens, 3 vols, London, 1706, III, 278. See also Thomas Bruce, Earl of Ailesbury’s Memoirs in which he also notes the nation’s animosity toward Portsmouth as well as the French ambassador, Monsieur Barillon (103). 75 Bryan Bevan, Charles the Second’s French Mistress: A Biography of Louise de Keroualle, Duchess of Portsmouth, 1649-1734, London: Robert Hale, 1972, 74. 76 Calendar of State Papers – Domestic, 3 May 1676. The lines are from a libel entitled The Busse or the Royal Kiss or Prorogation, 22 November 1675.

180

Of Love and War

in August 1675 had been made Duke of Richmond and Lenox. In the race for titles between the two mistresses, Portsmouth succeeded in obtaining for her son preference in order over Cleveland’s son, who was made Duke of Grafton.77 Many believed Portsmouth aspired to having her son made heir, either through his being legitimized or through her marriage to Charles II.78 This, of course, was not to happen. The Duke of York assiduously tried to win the confidence of the Presbyterians, while the court diligently assured them that the King’s brother “is not only the legitimate heir but practically the only one, the nearest, the best”.79 To tamper with the succession, the court insisted, was to risk civil war and the weakening of the state. Parliament, however, was concerned that the court was heading towards government on the French model, and in this, Portsmouth was certainly no asset to the King. Alberti believed that Parliament intended to resume talks about the King’s divorce and noted that Catherine of Braganza, aware of the impending discussion, “was seized with such paroxysms that for one whole night the confessor never left her”.80 By April, the Queen was “already disposed to receive with indifference the announcement of her separation from the King and to retreat to Portugal”.81 The Queen in Abdelazer is insatiable, true, but this functions as a trope for greed. Zwicker has observed that since corrupt politics and sexual profligacy are one and the same, we might view profligacy as appetite and, hence, consumption as greed.82 Abdelazer berates the Queen for the image she has given him in public, for when he rides through the streets, the public cries: Abdel: There goes the Minion of the Spanish Queen, Who, on the lazie pleasures of his Love, Spends the Revenues of the King of Spain. (I.i.65-67) 77 Calendar of State Papers Domestic, 10 August 1675. See also Jeanine Delpech, Duchess of Portsmouth, 85. 78 Fraser, King Charles II, 311. 79 Calendar of State Papers Venetian, 1673-75, Alberti to the Dodge and Senate, dated November 1674. 80 Ibid., 8 March 1675. 81 Ibid., 19 April 1675. 82 Zwicker, Lines of Authority, 107.

Bleeding Hearts and Killing Darts

181

While the Queen rifles the treasury for her lover in this play, the expensive Duchess of Portsmouth spent money in lavish receptions and refurbished on numerous occasions her sumptuous apartments.83 The estimate is that with her pensions and her presents, she cost the country nearly £40,000 annually.84 While the lustful Queen in Abdelazer might well suggest parallels to the Duchess of Portsmouth, similar parallels for Abdelazer are more difficult. It is tempting to find in Abdelazer analogies to the equally difficult and disliked Ashley Anthony Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury, but given that he found the Duchess of Portsmouth “one of the most undesirable of the ‘chargeable ladies about the Court’”,85 and that he despised Catholics, such could not well be the case, although Behn does indeed satirize him as Sir Timothy Treat-All in The City Heiress, as I have previously noted. A number of plays offered characters whom Montague Summers claimed were Shaftesbury, including the Chancellor in Henry Neville Payne’s The Siege of Constantinople (1675); Marius Senior in Otway’s The History and Fall of Caius Marius (1680) and as Antonio in his Venice Preserved (1682); as Ismael in Southerne’s The Loyal Brother (1682); as Wolsey in John Banks’ Virtue Betrayed, or, Anna Bullen (1682); as Podesta in Crowne’s City Politics (1683); as Arius in Lee’s Constantine the Great (1684); and finally as Benducar in Dryden’s Don Sebastian (1690).86 Contemporary playwrights had much to say about statesmen, such as Shaftesbury, who, through ambition, greed and ill advice, could easily invoke chaos and confusion. In Henry Neville Payne’s The Siege of Constantinople (1675), the Chancellor divides the Emperor from his “parliament”, infusing the Senate with “jealousies and fears / Of Laws subverting, and religious change, / That they no aid shall to the Emperor give” (I.9). By sewing seeds of discontent, this

83

Fraser, King Charles II, 313. Hutton, Charles II, 336. Bryan Bevan notes that documents in the British Museum show, for example, that between March 1676 and March 1679, Portsmouth was given £55,198.07.11. See Charles the Second’s French Mistress, 80. 85 Hester Chapman, Four Fine Gentlemen, Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1977, 70. 86 Quoted in K.D.H. Haley, The First Earl of Shaftesbury, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1968, 212. 84

182

Of Love and War

“manager” planned to gain and maintain the power; without aid, the Emperor would be left to the mercy of the Turks. In Dryden’s Aureng-Zebe, Solyman, a lord of the court, complains of the tense situation in Agra: Soly: The Ministers of State, who gave us Law, In corners, with selected Friends, withdraw: There, in deaf murmurs, solemnly are wise; Whisp’ring, like Winds, ere Hurricanes arise. The most corrupt are most obsequious grown, And those they scorn’d, officiously they own. (I.i.54-59)

Similarly, Hannibal in Nathaniel Lee’s Sophonisba (1676), which is dedicated to the Duchess of Portsmouth, remarks, “Great Statesmen Kings shou’d watch while they employ / Least what they build, those underhand destroy” (I.i.37-38);87 and Muly Hamet in Settle’s Empress of Morocco complains that monarchs need to watch in whose hand they give power, for “When Favours they too gen’rously afford, / And in a Treacherous Hand misplace their Sword, / Their Bounties in their Ruine are employ’d” (III.i.307-309). Behn’s Abdelazer, made a general by both the old King Philip and his heir Ferdinand, is as untrustworthy and dishonourable as the ministers and generals in the above-noted plays, and although Behn makes his character reprehensible – as no doubt she found Shaftesbury – Abdelazer is not the punctiliously grating Earl, whose intense dislike of the Duchess of Portsmouth would not have allowed for a compromise between the two. The only ministers who seemed to get along with her well were Joseph Williamson and Robert Spencer, Second Earl of Sunderlund, as well as Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby, whose attention to the Duchess was largely to facilitate his own political interests with the King. Nor did Portsmouth find amenable relations with Arlington, who had provided the occasion for the celebration of the mock wedding night between Louise and the King. Arlington was probably part of the faction that colluded in

87

Nathaniel Lee, Sophonisba, or Hannibal’s Overthrow. A Tragedy, Acted at the Theatre-Royall (1676), in Works, I, 73-144.

Bleeding Hearts and Killing Darts

183

inducing the Duchess of Mazarin to come to England in an attempt to weaken French power over the King.88 What we do not see in Abdelazer are any overt personal machinations of the Cardinal, the Queen’s advisor, for the throne. Instead, he is coerced by the Queen to think of himself as the sovereign, and he agrees only when he believes there are no other legitimate male heirs. When Behn adapts the Cardinal for her play, he is no longer the same figure of greed and dishonour as the Cardinal who appears in Lust’s Dominion. As a Catholic and a member of the royal family, the Cardinal in Abdelazer may well have seemed too close a parallel to James, Duke of York, whom Behn staunchly supported at this time, later dedicating to him The Second Part of The Rover (1681). Given the fury against the Duke of York owing to his Catholicism, Behn has modified her Cardinal’s character, who aside for his misplaced love for the Queen and his excessive desire to protect the state, is largely an honourable character, and who, at the end of the play, Philip readily forgives. Monstrous, murdering queens Although the Queen is implicated in the murder of her husband, the elder King Philip, two things must be recognized here. First, Abdelazer admits to the crime and second, the Queen is motivated by her lust for Abdelazer rather than for power. In the dénouement of the action, as Abdelazer taunts Prince Philip with his success in destroying the royal family, he gleefully admits to the murder of the former King, Prince Philip’s father: “My next advance, was poisoning of thy Father” (V.i.754). This is an admission that is not in the earlier play, Lust’s Dominion. Though the Queen was certainly culpable to some extent, it was Abdelazer himself, who readily, and even joyfully, admits to the murder. How much more shocking and devasting for Philip it would have been had Abdelazer claimed that he tricked the Queen his mother into the murder of the King, but this is not the case. Abdelazer takes full responsibility here – and with contemptuous pleasure – if not delight! When Abdelazer rejects her in the opening scene of the play, the Queen does suggest some complicity in the King’s death: “… Urg’d 88

Barbour, Arlington, 233.

184

Of Love and War

by thy witchcraft I his life betray’d” (I.i.98).89 And it is also true that she indicates her active participation in some manner when Abdelazer criticizes her for hesitating to comply with the murder of the new King, Ferdinand, her eldest son: Abdel: Those scruples did not in your bosom dwell, When you a King, did in a Husband kill.” Queen: How Sir! dare you upbraid me with that sin, To which your Perjuries first drew me in? (II.i.185-88)

Her claim here that Abdelazer deceived her may be somewhat disingenuous, but she does imply quite clearly that whatever role she played in the King’s death she may not have complied with had she not been seduced by the Moor. We must remember, too, that it is Abdelazer always who accuses her of the murder, and at no time in this play is he the paragon of honour. His goal is to keep the Queen compliant with his own aims, and if he cannot achieve this by fulfilling her sexual desire, then he will do so by browbeating her and/or appealing to whatever guilt or shame she may harbour. So dependent does the Queen become on her lover that she fails to recognize how much Abdelazer manipulates her into helping him achieve his objectives. At various points in the play, the Queen’s passion rises to such a height that she seems helpless to refuse her lover anything, even though his demands bring upon her the widespread hatred of the public, the reproach of her family, and, ultimately, dishonour and death. For example, when Abdelazer vents his anger about Philip, her younger son, the Queen demonstrates the intensity of her own hatred for the young man who has publicly disparaged her honour: “Philip! instruct me how t’ undoe that Boy I hate; / The public Infamy I have receiv’d, / I will Revenge, with nothing less than death” (II.i.214-16). While on the one hand Abdelazer insists that she leave that job to him, he nevertheless places 89 If the Queen is a corollary to Portsmouth, Behn could not have made her responsible for the King’s death. Rather, the veil Abdelazer throws over his malevolent machinations and the Queen’s unbridled passion and desire to serve him leads to the destruction of the monarchy.

Bleeding Hearts and Killing Darts

185

the responsibility for the murder squarely on the Queen, suggesting that he would be simply carrying out her orders: “You, like the Gods! need only but command, / And I will execute your sacred will. – / That done, there’s none dare whisper what we do” (II.i.227-29). The Queen’s interest in Abdelazer’s plot to usurp the throne is not a desire for power since she is, after all, Queen. Her understanding is that with the various impediments out of the way, she will be free to “wanton in the kinder joys of Love” (I.i.26). Conversely, Abdelazer intends the methodical removal of the entire royal line; the Queen’s cloying passion, her “Insatiate flame” (I.i.198), offers him a pathway by which he might achieve his aim more quickly and more effectively. Her misjudgement of Abdelazer comes early in the play after the King’s death, when Abdelazer suggests that since their love is now more free, she should make it more just. For the Queen, a more just relationship means marriage, and so she asks, “Thou meanst, and marry thee” (II.i.136): Abdel: No, by the Gods! – Not marry me, unless I were a King. Queen: What signifies the Name, to him that Rules one? (II.i.137-39)

Suffering from delusion about Abdelazer’s motives, she fails to realize that his design is ruled by ambition rather than love: Queen: We need no Crowns; Love best contented is In shadie Groves, and humble Cottages, Where when ’t wou’d sport, it safely may Retreat, Free from the noise, and danger of the Great. (II.i.173-176)

While the Queen offers here a pastoral vision of a love retired to shady groves, throughout most of the play she is hardly the modest and gentle shepherdess. Her unbridled sexual desire is unnatural, as might be demonstrated in her speech to Nature: “Nature be gone, I chase thee from my soul” (II.ii.230). Blinded by lust, she revels in her luxurious appetite – “Pleasures were made by the Gods! And meant for us, / And not t’enjoy ’em, were ridiculous” (II.ii.236-37) – while her lover revels in evil, thanking Nature for designing him a villain, that his dagger may “undoe a Kingdom at one blow” (II.ii.303).

186

Of Love and War

In spite of the strength of her passion, the Queen is unquestionably weak and clearly lacks the faculty to reason. Her sexual desire has made her monstrous in the eyes of her sons and, if Abdelazer is to be believed, in the eyes of her subjects as well. The besotted Queen is tragically misguided and horrified by Abdelazer’s desire to murder the young King, Ferdinand, and in no way does she to concede, pointing instead to Florella, Abdelazer’s wife, whom she perceives as the roadblock to their amours. The Queen is a part of a pathetic love triangle, and she is determined to win. That she would declare her legitimate son, Prince Philip, a bastard to exclude him from the succession (and dishonour and implicate herself in treason at the same time) demonstrates the extremity of her passion for Abdelazer, who knows too well her weaknesses and is able to use them to his advantage. Thus, when Philip humiliates her publicly, she easily concedes that his destruction is necessary. Nevertheless, however outrageously her obsession for the Moor may move her to rant about her sons’ deaths, she does not murder them. As I have argued earlier in this study on Behn’s plays, sexual fidelity connotes political loyalty. The Queen represents what for Behn, a number of her contemporary playwrights and many in the polity is a key issue – that subjects owe fidelity to their King and to the lawful succession. Derek Hughes argues that in both plays, Abdelazer and the earlier Lust’s Dominion, “the young king’s desire for Abdelazer/Eleazar’s wife is the weakness that permits the Moor to divide and nearly destroy the kingdom”.90 While Ferdinand’s desire for Florella certainly brought about his tragic and untimely death, his was not the weakness that brought the kingdom to its knees. This is brought about by the Queen herself, whose insatiable sexual desire – or greed – and lack of fidelity make her the vulnerable point at the Spanish court that Abdelazer can exploit. The implacable Moor finds in her the vehicle to avenge his father’s death, to destroy the royal family, and to usurp the throne of Spain. These fractious, contentious times Behn’s play reflects a concern over the turbulent times the country seemed to be entering. The public’s blame for the tumult largely fell 90

Hughes, Theatre of Aphra Behn, 57.

Bleeding Hearts and Killing Darts

187

on the French and their unwelcome influence in the court. Many believed the hated French influence came largely through Duchess of Portsmouth. In his memoirs, Thomas Bruce, Earl of Ailesbury, observes that the King’s “French lady and her creature, the French ambassador, Monsieur Barillon, were looked on very coldly”.91 On 14 November 1674, William Habord writes to the Earl of Essex, noting that the Duchess of Portsmouth is “the Divell of a woman”.92 White Kennett refers to Portsmouth as “an Object of the king’s affection and the Nation’s Hatred, the enamouring and intriguing Dutchess of Portsmouth”.93 During the prorogation, several libellous papers had been placed on the King’s statue at Charing Cross, one of which read: The King, win, and whores, Have turned parliament out of doors, A commonwealth, a commonwealth, cries the nation For the gods are ashamed of the King’s restoration.94

In April 1675, a libel counterfeiting a royal speech was circulated, declaring that the King had informed Parliament that his moneys for the summer guard “must be applied to next year’s cradleing and swaddling clouts”.95 Charles II attempted to stem the tide by issuing proclamations against libel and suppressing coffee houses, the hotbeds of libel and slander:96 “A Coffee-House is a Lay-Conventicle … where every little Fellow in a Chamalet-Cloak takes upon him to transpose Affairs in both Church and State.”97 Yet there were also those who believed that 91

Bruce, Memoirs of Thomas, Early of Ailesbury, II, 103. Essex Papers, 269 93 Kennett, A Complete History of England, III, 278. 94 HMC Hastings, II, 169. 95 Calendar of State Papers Domestic, April 1675, 64. See also Lady Newton’s The House of Lyme, from Its Foundation to the End of the Eighteenth Century, London: Heinemann, 1917, 272-75. 96 See for example A Proclamation for the Better Discovery of Seditious Libellers; A Proclamation for the Suppression of Riots; A Proclamation for the Suppression of Coffee House, and so forth. I have included a transcription of a number of these documents in Appendix B. 97 The Character of a Coffee-House, with the Symptoms of a Town-Wit. With Allowance, April 11, 1673, London, 1673. 92

188

Of Love and War

coffee houses served a reputable purpose, particularly given coffee’s supposed medicinal qualities. These defenders of the coffee house claimed that what happened in such houses was simply “innocent extravagancies” that were merely diverting.98 This was not the judgment of the King, however, whose opinion was that coffee houses were “the great resort of Idle and disaffected persons”, who have produced “evil and dangerous effects” to the state.99 John Fell, agreed, as he noted in a sermon to the King: “The Coffee-house Rebell is more mischievous, then he that takes the field; and a Prince is sooner murder’d with a libel, then a sword.”100 In spite of the proclamation against seditious libel, the broadsheets, ballads, and rumours continued. In his correspondence to the Doge and Senate, Alberti notes the discontent in contemporary discourse about the King and the court: “Although the king and duke are accustomed to hear their subjects talk in a turbulent fashion yet they deeply resent being satirized openly and that the populace should take such a liberty with impunity, to the reproach of the government and at the risk of its safety.”101 Janet Todd has argued that Aphra Behn “tended to share the nation’s distaste for this French agent [Louise de Kéroualle, Duchess of Portsmouth].”102 The Queen, then, may well be a reference to Portsmouth, but if so, this would be a bold and risky move on Behn’s part, having only returned to the theatre after a long hiatus and needing to support herself with her writing. Duffy believes that Portsmouth was Behn’s target in her Prologue to The Young King, although it seems much too dangerous to “slash in passing” the King’s favourite mistress.103 Still, this would certainly demonstrate, as Todd

98

Coffee-houses Vindicated in Answer to the Late Published Character of a CoffeeHouse … Resort and Ingenious Conversations, London, 1673. 99 Licensed coffee houses received a reprieve owing to the economic hardships of the merchants and traders in coffee. See Appendix B. 100 John Fell, D.D., The Character of the Last Daies: A Sermon Preached Before the King, Oxford, 1675, 21-22. 101 Calendar of State Papers Venetian 1673-1675, 366. Alberti to the Doge and Senate, 1 March 1675. 102 Todd, Secret Life, 247. See also Duffy, Passionate Shepherdess, 183. 103 Your dull Forefathers first did conquer France / Whilst they have sent us in revenge for these / Their Women, Wine, Religion, and Disease (lines 22-24). Duffy

Bleeding Hearts and Killing Darts

189

has pointed out, Behn’s dislike of Portsmouth. While this playwright dedicated her work to at least two of the King’s mistresses, including Nell Gwynn and Hortense Mancini, I can find no dedication to Louise Kéroualle, Duchess of Portsmouth. Abdelazer is Behn’s only known tragedy. That she did not write another may well be owing to the realization that by 1676, the reign of the horror play was all but over.104 Furthermore, the lively and witty sex comedies had become popular by 1675, and these no doubt attracted Behn more than the dark and brooding tragedies produced in the later 1670s and early 1680s. As her city comedies demonstrate, she had become adept at her craft, and at this juncture in her playwriting career, her interest clearly turned toward comedy as a means to represent her political ideals.

________________________ claims that simply to mention a Frenchwoman was enough to send everyone’s thoughts to Portsmouth (see Passionate Shepherdess, 183). 104 Jean I. Marsden, “Tragedy and Varieties of Serious Drama”, in A Companion to Restoration Drama, ed. Susan J. Owen, Oxford: Blackwell, 2001, 233.

CONCLUSION Now, Reader, I have eas’d my mind of all I had to say, and so sans farther complyment, Adieu.1

Political discourse finds an effective and implicit mode of expression in Restoration literary culture through the parallel between the public and private spheres. Jürgen Habermas claims that in the sixteenth century, private meant simply “not holding public office or official position”.2 By the seventeenth century, however, the private and the public spheres of society, although still somewhat amorphous in their development, were, nevertheless, recognizable as two discrete spheres. The private sphere of social and sexual relations can be distinguished from the public sphere of state politics and its current of overt and covert machinations.3 Restoration playwrights employed the dichotomy of these two spheres to voice political opinion, using the private sphere as a trope for the public one. Playwrights appeared to take a particular interest in what we have come to understand as patriarchal political theory, in which the private family may be employed to draw a political analogy with public body politic. This analogy was understood by the public, from the aristocrat to the peasant, for it was an ideology expressed not only in literature but also by “the most reliable of all sources, the Church”.4 Gordon 1

Aphra Behn, “To the Reader”, in The Dutch Lover, in Works, V, 163. Jürgen Habermas, Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchung zu einer Kategorie der bürgerliche Gesellschaft (1962), Darmstadt: Hermann Luchterhand, 1969, 21. 3 See Passions of the Renaissance, ed. Roger Chartier, trans. Arthur Goldhammer, Cambridge, Mass and London: Harvard UP, 1989, Vol. III of A History of Private Life, gen. eds Philippe Ariès and George Duby. Dena Goodman attempts a synthesis of the approaches and theories of these two texts in “Public Sphere and Private Life: Toward a Synthesis of Current Historiographical Approaches to the Old Regime”, History and Theory, XXXI/1 (February 1992), 1-20. Much of the scholarship on the public and the private spheres, such as that by Habermas, Roger Chartier, and Philip Airès, for example, who examine the development of public and private spaces in order to explore the rise of public opinion, and/or the economics of commercialization and consumerism. 4 Gordon J. Schochet, “Patriarchalism, Politics and Mass Attitudes in Stuart England”, 2

192

Of Love and War

Schochet argues that a familial tradition existed in pre-modern political thought and that the concept of the family had been used in political philosophy before the Stuart period, suggesting there “was an implicit failure to distinguish between the political and social realms of human experience”.5 With the succession of the Stuarts, Schochet maintains, seventeenth-century society experienced a sudden growth of patriarchal political theories. The catalyst for the growth and development of patriarchalism may well have been the gender of the new monarch, James VI and I, who trenchantly re-affirmed patriarchal order in his representations of the body politic: “Kings are [also] compared to Fathers of families: for a King is trewly Parens patriae, the politique father of his people …. [He is] the head of this microcosme of the body of man.”6 So, too, argued Francis Bacon, who wrote that one of the first patterns of a monarchy is “that of a father, or chief of a family; who governing over his wife by prerogative of sex, over his children by prerogative of age, and because he is author unto them of being, and over his servants by prerogative of virtue and providence … is the very model of a king”.7 While the King is both the husband and the head of the body politic, and thus the masculine authority, Parliament is both the wife and body of the body politic and is represented deferentially as feminine. Jonathan Sawday has observed that one of the images in the literary celebrations of Charles II’s return was that of an elaborate marriage ceremony, where England was represented as the bride and the King as the bridegroom.8 Richard Braverman notes that, “Dynastic

________________________ Historical Journal, XII/3 (1969), 424. Schochet further argues that this “patriarchal explanation of political obligation” was incorporated as well in the literature of all Protestant sects, particularly through the Commandments (428-30). 5 Gordon J. Schochet, Patriarchalism in Political Thought: The Authoritarian Family and Political Speculation and Attitudes especially in Seventeenth-Century England, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975, 54-55. 6 James I, “A Speach to the Lords and Commons of the Parliament at White-Hall (1609)”, in Political Works, 307. 7 Francis Bacon, “The Argument of Sir Francis Bacon, Knight, His Majesty’s SolicitorGeneral, in the Case of the Post-Nati of Scotland”, in The Works of Francis Bacon, ed. James Spedding, 14 vols, London, 1861-1889, VII, 644. Bacon’s argument was presented in 1608 in the Exchequer Chamber, but not printed until 1641. 8 Jonathan Sawday, “Re-Writing a Revolution: History, Symbol and Text in the Restoration”, The Seventeenth Century, VII/2 (October 1992), 181.

Conclusion

193

politics are manifest as sexual politics because a quest for a settlement was played out in terms that refigured the body politic as a feminized body”.9 Gender order within the private family played an important role in the analogy with the public body politic: men were superior to women, husbands governed the home and family, the household was the basis of order, and the wife remained submissive to male authority.10 Since order within the state, just like order within the family, depended upon submission, the resulting hierarchy – public and private – is always gender-inflected. In Restoration drama, private family issues, such as tyrannical fathers who force their daughters to marry, often function then within the context of an alternate meaning, especially a public political one, such as tyranny of public authority. As Behn’s plays demonstrate, masculine female and effeminate male characters, forced marriage, seduction, rape, and incest work well as tropes that allow playwrights to express underlying political themes, such as the disruption of the social order, rebellion, corruption, and tyranny. Hence, “Political and literary discourse share common ground by virtue of an analogy that cuts across both to give human form to abstract relationships”, in particular, the idea of the polity as the family.11 The common understanding of the analogy between the duty and obedience one owes to the patriarchal head of the family on the one hand, and to the King on the other, allowed this trope to be used effectively in a variety of literary genres, as well as in sermons and political debates.12 Through the recognition of tropes, many in Behn’s audience would have come to realize just how her plays addressed contemporary politics. But gender is also an issue regarding the playwright herself in manifold aspects, but particularly as a public (and politically-minded) female writer. During the Civil Wars and Interregnum women participated openly in public politics, petitioning Parliament and 9

See Braverman’s Plots and Counterplots, xii. Braverman’s study works with sexual difference as a trope for political difference. 10 Susan Dwyer Amussen, An Ordered Society: Gender and Class in Early Modern England, Oxford: Blackwell, 1988, 132-33. 11 Braverman, Plots and Counterplots, 11, and 18-19. 12 See Michael McKeon, “Historicizing Patriarchy: The Emergence of Gender Difference in England, 1660-1760”, Eighteenth-Century Studies, XXVIII/3 (Spring 1995) 295-322; Amussen, An Ordered Society, 55-56, and also 63-64.

194

Of Love and War

publishing their views. Patricia Crawford asserts that, “the Civil Wars and Interregnum were the high points of women’s publication”.13 In her essay, “Women’s Published Writings 1600-1700”, Crawford demonstrates that while women published approximately seven texts each decade between 1600 and 1640, in the decade that followed, they published a hundred and twelve texts. Gerald MacLean notes that the Interregnum provided a cultural climate that allowed for, if not encouraged or demanded, women to speak out: “These decades of public irreverence toward traditional political and religious authority also involved widespread questioning of established gender codes.”14 Women were considered responsible agents and therefore were required to testify before committees; they petitioned Parliament over such issues as personal grievances, property settlements, and social ills; they demanded the right to speak on public matters, and they began to publish their political views. Such public women, however, were frequently satirized and disparaging comments about them recorded in manifold newsbooks: The Parliament have this week been much troubled with Women; as first this new Prophetesse, secondly by the women Petitioners; thirdly by Col Poyers Wife, fourthly my Lady Temply, Nay, and with some Children too, viz. the murder’d Kings Children for means for their livelyhoods; and I would all the oppressed men, Women and Children in England and Ireland were about their ears, for that would make a quick dispatch of them.15

Women’s public speech usurped masculine authority, in effect feminizing the masculine head of the family, and because of this, these women were often depicted in literary discourse as sexually 13 Patricia Crawford, “Women’s Published Writings 1600-1700”, in Women in English Society 1500-1800, ed. Mary Prior, London and New York: Methuen, 1985, 211-82. 14 MacLean, "Literature, Culture, and Society” 12-13. See also N.H. Keeble, “Obedient Subjects? The Loyal Self in Some Later Seventeenth-Century Royalist Women’s Memoirs”, in Culture and Society in the Stuart Restoration, 201-18. 15 Ann Hughes, “Gender and Politics in Leveller Literature”, in Political Culture and Cultural Politics in Early Modern England. Essays Presented to David Underdown, eds Susan D. Amussen and Mark A. Kishlansky, Manchester and New York: Manchester UP, 1995, 175, quoted from The Man in the Moone Discovering a World of Knavery under the Sunne, 23-30 April, E522/8.

Conclusion

195

rapacious.16 Since female militancy endangered the patriarchal order, they were represented in “derisive stereotypes – denunciations of Billingsgate fishwives and muscular Amazons, indignant reminders that women’s proper work was ‘to spin or knit and not to meddle with state affairs’ …”.17 Purkiss has demonstrated that public female activity, such as writing and petitioning, is theatrical and easily staged as the disorderly female – the Amazon and fishwife Underdown describes.18 The husbands of these masculine or public women were viewed as complicit and/or weak, and they too were frequently satirized, typically as hen-pecked or as cuckolds.19 Patriarchal resentment and open hostility toward women in positions of power and authority did not abate with the Restoration of Charles II. While the Restoration marked the return of legitimate male authority in the public sphere of politics,20 in the private sphere of social and family hierarchies, it served to inflame the gender war since women who had found their voices in the 1640s and 1650s would certainly have been unwilling to resign them. The stereotypes already noted – of Amazons and fishwives – were literally staged as dangerous, demanding, deceitful, unruly, unfaithful and/or emasculating women in such diverse plays as Robert Stapylton’s The Step-Mother (1664), John Dryden and Robert Howard’s The Indian Queen (1665), George Etherege’s She Would if She Could (1671), Edward Howard’s, The Six Day’s Adventure, or The New Utopia (1671), and William Wycherley’s The Country Wife (1675), to name but a few. Complaints against public women and effeminate men, like the sexual satire about the King, circulated in verse and broadsheets. One broadsheet entitled A List of the Parliament of Women attacks the apparent lack of leadership in the state, complaining that since the 16 Diane Purkiss, “Material Girls: The Seventeenth-Century Woman Debate”, in Women, Texts and Histories 1575-1760, eds Clare Brant and Diane Purkiss, London and New York: Routledge 1992, 69-101; and Susan Wiseman, “‘Adam, the Father of all Flesh’, Porno-political Rhetoric and Political Theory in and After the English Civil War”, Prose Studies, XIV/3 (December 1991), 134-57. It should be noted that men whose wives expressed themselves publicly, and particularly those whose wives engaged in political debate, often also became victims of social and sexual satire. 17 Underdown, Revel, Riot, and Rebellion, 211. 18 Purkiss, “Material Girls”, 80-83. 19 Underdown, Revel, Riot, and Rebellion, 38-39; and Purkiss, “Material Girls”, 81-83. 20 MacLean, “Literature, Culture, and Society”, 18.

196

Of Love and War

men have proven so ineffectual at government, the women have now “resolved to … meddle with the Affairs of the Common wealth, and to place themselves at the Helm of Government”.21 This female Parliament, the author observes, presided over by Lady All-tongue, consists of members like Mrs Tittle-tattle, Mrs Scoldwell and Mrs Unmannerly, who shall meet on London Bridge. In spite of such spirited broadsides, many women did not, in fact, return silently to their spinning and knitting.22 That Aphra Behn, who had grown up during these war years, would have insisted on her right to exert a public and political voice is reflected in her own unique career as a professional writer and, consequently, a public woman. While she may have been one of the most productive of the seventeenth-century female playwrights, as I noted earlier, she was neither the first woman to write a play,23 nor was she the first female playwright to have a play produced on the patent stage: “The precedent for women writing for the public stage had already been set” before Behn’s first play by women such as Katherine Philips, Frances Boothby, and Elizabeth Polwhele,24 who had plays produced before Behn’s The Forc’d Marriage in September of 1670.25 21 A List of the Parliament of Women, London, 1679. “Parliament of Women” pamphlets were frequently published during the Civil Wars and Interregnum and were a harsh – albeit satirical – attack on women who attempted to voice their public, political opinions. While overtly these political women represent rebellion, covertly they demonstrate masculine fear and anxiety of a breakdown in the patriarchal political hierarchy. It is not surprising then that such pamphlets were published again during the Popish Plot and Exclusion Crisis. 22 Crawford, “Women’s Published Writings”, 265. 23 In 1363, the abbess of Barking, Katherine of Sutton, rewrote the Easter liturgical dramas. Mary Sidney Herbert, sister of Sir Philip Sidney, wrote a short pastoral, Thenot and Piers in Praise of Astrea, in honour of Queen Elizabeth. Elizabeth Cary, Viscountess of Falkland, wrote Mariam, the Fair Queen of Jewry, an original Senecan tragedy. Jane and Elizabeth Cavendish, daughters of William Cavendish, Duke of Newcastle – as well as their stepmother, Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle – also wrote plays. On early women playwrights, see Constance Clark, Three Augustan Women Playwrights, New York: Peter Lang, 1986, 13-15. 24 Stephanie Hodgson-Wright, “Undress, Cross-dress, Redress: Aphra Behn and the Manipulation of Genre”, in Women and Dramatic Production 1550-1700, eds Alison Findlay and Stephanie Hodgson-Wright with Gweno Williams, Harlow, Essex: Longman, 2000, 151. 25 Although there is no performance information on Polwhele’s unpublished play, The Faithful Virgins, which was licensed in 1663, it would be unusual for theatre managers to

Conclusion

197

Owing to the nature of drama as public performance, presenting a text for production on the patent stage was bound to appear a bold act for a woman, and, in this respect, it seems plausible that the introduction of actresses on the Restoration stage probably encouraged these early female playwrights. Since offering a play for public production presented uncalculated risks and potential jeopardy to a woman’s reputation, it is not surprising that few Restoration plays are designated as written by a woman, while a further number, printed and/or produced, are listed as anonymous. Whether any of these might be attributed to a female playwright is impossible to determine, although this would surely prove a fruitful area for further study. That Aphra Behn continued to write for the public stage in spite of criticism, as well as to publish poetry, fiction, and translations, demonstrates her willingness (or perhaps her necessity) to defy convention since she was “forced to write for Bread and not ashamed to owne it”.26 And while Julie Nash is certainly correct to note that in her dramatic texts “Behn introduces women who resist the passive realm to which they would seem to be destined”, we need to be careful about labelling Behn a feminist.27 The risk-taking in which Behn willingly engaged makes her an exciting subject to study, but we need to think carefully before presenting her as a feminist. For example, Behn fails to mention that in the very sphere in which she earned her bread – the theatre – the actresses were paid much less than their male counterparts.28 Nor does she argue, as Margaret Cavendish had before her, that women might participate in government: True it is, our Sex make great complaints, that men from their first Creation usurped a Supremacy to themselves, although we were made equal by Nature: Which Tyrannical Government they have kept ever since; so that we could never come to be free, but rather more and

________________________ pay the expensive licensing fee and not produce the play. See Robert D. Hume and Judith Milhous, Introduction, to Elizabeth Polwhele’s, The Frolicks, or The Lawyer Cheated, Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1977, 40-41. Francis Boothby’s Marcelia; or, the Treacherous Friend may have been produced in the summer of 1669, since it was licensed for publication in October of that year. See London Stage, I, 163. 26 Aphra Behn, “To the Reader”, in Sir Patient Fancy, in Works, VI, 5. 27 Julie Nash, “‘The sight on’t would beget a warm desire’”, Restoration: Studies in English Literature Culture 1660-1700, XVIII/2 (Fall 1994), 84. 28 Howe, The First English Actresses, 26-30.

198

Of Love and War more enslaved; using us either like Children, Fools, or Subjects, in flattering or threatening us, in alluring or forcing us to obey, and will not let us divide the World equally with them; that is to Govern and Command, to direct and Dispose as they do.29

Although Cavendish seemingly proceeds to explain away woman’s equality in her ability to govern and command, we must read her words more vigilantly, noting, for example, her many steps sideways, such as this: “And though it seem to be natural, that generally all Women are weaker than Men, both in Body and Understanding, and that the wisest Woman is not so wise as the wisest Man, wherefore not so fit to Rule; yet some are far wiser than some men.”30 More than eighty years after Cavendish wrote the words above, “Sophia” asks the same question about women and political governance: As nature seems to have design’d the Men for our drudges, I cou’d easily forgive them the usurpation by which they first took the trouble of public employments off our hands, if their injustice were content with stopping there. But as one abyss calls to another, and vices seldom go single, they are not satisfied with engrossing all authority into their own hands, but are confident enough to assert that they possess it by right, because we were form’d by nature to be under perpetual subjection to them, for want of Abilities to share with them in government and public offices.31

Such feminist issues were apparently not on Behn’s agenda, nor did she always celebrate conspicuously her gender. Rather, as I have previously noted, in prologues and epilogues and in prefaces and poetry she frequently identified with her male colleagues. For her consistent desire to be counted as one amongst the male poets, she was rewarded with infamy in a number satires, from the more benign, such as “Poetess Aphra, though she’s damn’d today, / Tomorrow will 29

Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle, “The Preface to the Reader”, from The Worlds Olio. Written by the Thrice Noble, Illustrious, and most Excellent Princess. The Duchess of Newcastle, 2nd edn, London, 1671, [ii]. 30 Ibid, [ix]. 31 Sophia, Woman Not Inferior to Man: or, A Short and Modest Vindication of the Natural Right of the Fair-Sex to perfect Equality of Power, Dignity, and Esteem, with the Men. By Sophia, a Person of Quality, London, 1739, 15.

Conclusion

199

put up another play”,32 to the more brutal, such as the popular Apollo poems of the period in which poets compete for the approval of Apollo, who awards the bays: The Poetesse Afra, next shew’d her sweet face And swore by her poetry and her black ace The laurel, by a double right was her owne, For the plays she had writ and the Conquests she’d won. Apollo acknowledg’d, ’twas hard to deny her, But to deal frankly, and Ingeniously by her, He told her, were conquests and charms her pretence, She ought to have pleaded a dozen years since.33

More vicious, however, was the unpublished anonymous prose version: The next that appear’d was amorous Afra, the Sappho of the Age, who came hither as fine as Pouder, Patches & Spanish wooll could make her. Apollo seeing a body of a more than female size wrapt up in Hoods & Petticoats, & doubting that some of the waggish Witts were going to put a trick upon him by way of Masquerade, was about to appoint a Committee of Muses to examine her Sex: but being assured by severall Members there present that to their certain knowledge she was a Woman, & fearing lest by the Privilege of her Sex she should wast an Hour’s time in setting forth her Parts, he thought it best to prevent her by telling her that his distrust of her Womanhood proceeded not only from the unweildiness [sic] of her Person, but from the immodesty of her Writings, which he thought, not so much for their Witt as for their Lewdness, no Woman could have been Author of ….34

A considerable number of the attacks against Behn were directed toward her virtue and her gender. Gilbert Burnet, for example, wrote the following to Anne Wharton:

32

Thomas Shadwell, “The Tory Poets”, in Works, V, 278-87. The anonymous “Session of the Poets”, in Lord, Poems on State Affairs, as quoted in Duffy, Passionate Shepherdess, 155. 34 A Journal from Parnassus. Now Printed from a Manuscript circa 1688, Introduction, Hugh MacDonald, London: Dobell, 1937, 25-26. 33

200

Of Love and War Some of Mrs. Behn’s songs are very tender; but she is so abominably vile a woman, and rallies not only all Religion, but all vertue in so odious and obscene a manner, that I am as heartily sorry she has write any thing in your commendation, as I am glad, (I had almost said proud) that you have honoured me as you have done. The praises of such as she is are as great reproaches, as yours are blessings. 35

That Behn claimed a space within the masculine domain of public writing was highly irregular and certainly made her a target for satire. Aside from her demand that women be allowed to write publicly and publish equally with men, she championed another important cause – education for women, and by this she meant a masculine education. She joined a number of women, such as Bathsua Makin and Mary Astell, who also argued for women’s education. In her tract, An Essay to Revive the Antient Education of Gentlewomen (1673), Makin notes that such an education for women would be advantageous to the nation by making them wiser and more virtuous.36 In her text, A Serious Proposal to the Ladies, Mary Astell explains that “Wisdom is thought as better recommendation than wit … [and] Books are now become the finest Ornaments of your Closets and Contemplation the most agreeable”.37 Over a century after Behn’s death, women were still pointing out the need for an education, as did, for example, Mary Robinson, who noted that Sir Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England, educated his three daughters in order that their chastity might be more secure: “Read this, ye English fathers and husbands, and retract your erroneous opinions, respecting female education.”38 But even more to the point, Robinson recognizes that women such as “Mrs. Catherine [sic] Philips, Mrs. Cenliver [sic], Mrs. Behn, and Mrs. Elizabeth Singer, (afterwards Mrs. Rowe) are in no degree according to their 35

John Peter Bernard, Thomas Birch, and John Lockman et al., A General Dictionary, Historical and Critical, 10 vols, London, 1734-41, X, 126-27. The letter is dated 19 December 1682. 36 Bathsua Makin, An Essay to Revive the Antient Education of Gentlewomen (1673), introduction by Paula Barbour, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library Publication No. 202, Los Angeles, California: U of California P, 1980, 3-5. 37 Mary Astell, A Serious Proposal to the Ladies, Parts I and II, ed. Patricia Springborg, Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview, 2002, 123. 38 Anne Frances Randall [Mary Robinson], A Letter to the Women of England on the Injustice of Mental Subordination. With Anecdotes, London, 1799, 41.

Conclusion

201

several walks of literature, inferior to any that have been mentioned”.39 We cannot dismiss Behn’s struggle against a social order that was determined to relegate women to the private sphere, largely silent and unseen, nor can we overlook her indomitable strength of will as she sought to stand her ground as a professional writer. But much can be gained by exploring her work in the context of her male colleagues rather than limiting our study to her feminist voice. As Derek Hughes has noted, Behn was “only the third professional dramatist of either sex to emerge since 1660”.40 If then we must label her, let it be as a playwright or poet, as a fiction writer or translator, since, after all, she frequently included herself as one of the brothers of the pen.

39

Ibid., 43. Robinson claims here to be quoting from another author, but she fails to mention who. 40 Hughes, Theatre of Aphra Behn, 6.

Appendix A

203

HIS MAJESTIES Gracious Letter AND DECLARATION, Sent to the House of PEERS, by Sir John Greenvill, Knight. From BREDA: And read in the House the first of May, 1660. Die Martis, 1o Maii, 1660 Ordered by the Lords in Parliament Assembled, That His Majesties Gracious Letter and Declaration be forthwith Printed and Published, for the Service of the House and Satisfaction of the Kingdom: And that no Person do presume to Re-Print either of them. Jo. Browne, Cleric. Parliamentorum London, Printed by John Macock, and Francis Tyton, Printers to the House of Lords, 1660.

204

Of Love and War TO THE

SPEAKER OF THE

House of Peers, And to the

LORDS There Assembled. Charles R. Right Trusty and Right Well-beloved Cosins, and Right Trusty and Well-beloved Cosins, and Trusty and Right Well-Beloved, We Greet you Well: We cannot have a better reason to promise Our Self an end of Our Common Sufferings and Calamities, and that Our Own Just Power and Authority will with Gods Blessing be Restored to Us, then that We hear You are again acknowledged to have that Authority and Jurisdiction, which hath alwaies belonged to You, by Your Birth, and the Fundamental Laws of the Land: And We have thought it very fit and safe for Us, to call to you for your help in the composing the confounding Distempers and Distractions of the Kingdom in which your Sufferings are next to those We have undergone Our Self; And therefore you cannot but be the most proper Counsellors for removing those Mischiefs, and for preventing the like for the future: How great a Trust We repose in you for the Procuring and Establishing a Blessed Peace and Security for the Kingdome, will appear to You by Our Enclosed Declaration; which Trust, We are most confident You will discharge with what Justice and Wisdome, that becomes You, and must alwayes be expected from You; and that upon your Experience, how one Violation Succeeds another, when the known Relations, and Rules of Justice, are once transgressed, you will be as jealous for the Rights of the Crown, and for the Honour of your King, as for your Selves: And then you cannot but discharge your Trust with good Success, and provide for, and Establish the Peace, Happiness, and Honour of King, Lords, and Commons, upon that Foundation which can only support it, and We shall be all happy in each other: And as the whole Kingdome will bless God for you all, so We shall hold Our Self obliged in an especial manner to thank you in particular,

Appendix A

205

according to the Affection you shall express towards Us: We need the less enlarge to you upon this Subject, because We have likewise writ to the House of Commons, which We suppose they will Communicate to you: And We pray God to bless your joynt Endeavours for the good of Us all, and so We bid you very heartily farewel. Given at our Court at Breda, this [left blank] Day of April, 1660. In the Twelfth Year of our Reign. CHARLES

206

Of Love and War

CHARLES R. CHARLES By the Grace of God King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. To all Our Loving Subjects of what degree or quality soever, Greeting. If the generall Distraction and Confusion which is spread over the whole Kingdome, doth not awaken all men to a desire and longing, that those wounds which have so many yeers [sic] together been kept bleeding, may be bound up, all We can say will be to no purpose. However after this long silence, We have thought it Our duty to Declare, How much We desire to Contribute thereunto; and that as We can never give over the hope in good time to obtain the possession of that Right which God and Nature hath made Our Due; So We doe make it Our daily Suit to the Divine Providence, That He will in compassion to Us and Our Subjects, after so long Misery and Sufferings, remit, and put Us into a quiet and peaceable possession of that Our Right, with as little blood and dammage to Our people as is possible. Nor doe We desire more to enjoy what is Ours, then that all Our Subjects may enjoy what by Law is theirs, by a full and entire Administration of Justice throughout the Land, and by extending Our Mercy where it is wanted and deserved. And to the End that the feare of Punishment may not engage any conscious to themselves of what is passed, to a perseverance in guilt for the future, by opposing the Quiet and Happinesse of their Country in the Restoration both of King, Peers and people to their just, ancient, and Fundamentall Rights, We doe by these presents Declare, That We doe grant a Free and General Pardon, which We are ready upon demand to passe under Our Great Seal of England, to all Our Subjects of what degree or quality soever, who within forty dayes after the publishing hereof shall lay hold upon this Our Grace and Favour; and shall by any publick Act declare their doing so, and that they return to the Loyalty and obedience of good Subjects: Excepting only such persons as shall hereafter be excepted by Parliament: Those onely excepted, let all Our Subjects how faulty soever relie upon the Word of a King, solemnly given by this present Declaration, That no crime whatsoever committed against Us, or Our Royall Father before the publication of this, shall ever rise in judgement, or be brought in question against any of them, to the least endammagement of them, either in their Lives, Liberties or Estates, or (as far forth as lyes in Our

Appendix A

207

power) so much as to the prejudice of their Reputations, by any Reproach or term of distinction from the rest of Our best Subjects. We desiring and Ordaining that hence forward all Notes of discord, separation and difference of parties be utterly abolished among all Our Subjects, whom We invite and conjure to a perfect Union among themselves, under Our Protection, for the Re-settlement of Our just Rights and theirs in a Free Parliament, by which upon the Word of a King, We will be advised. And because the Passion and uncharitableness of the times have produced severall Opinions in Religion, by which men are engaged in parties and animosities against each other, which when they shall hereafter unite in a freedom of conversation will be composed, or better understood: We do declare a Liberty to tender Consciences; and that no man shall be disquieted or call’d in question for differences of opinion in matter of Religion, which doe not disturbe the Peace of the Kingdom; And that We shall be ready to Consent to such an Act of Parliament, as upon mature deliberation shall be offered to Us for the full granting that Indulgence. And because in the continued distractions of so many yeares, and so many and great Revolutions, many Grants and Purchases of Estates have been made to, and by, many Officers, Souldiers, and others, who are now possessed of the same, and who may be lyable to Actions at Law upon severall Titles, We are likewise willing, That all such Differences, and all things relating to such Grants, Seals, and Purchases shall be determined in Parliament, which can best provide for the just satisfaction of all men who are concerned. And We doe further declare, That We will be ready to consent to any Act or Acts of Parliament to the purposes aforesaid, and for the full satisfaction of all Arreares due to the Officers and Souldiers of the Army under the Command of Generall Monck: And that they shall be received into Our Service upon as good pay and Conditions as they now enjoy. Given under Our Signe Manuall and Privy Signet at Our Court at Breda this 4/14 day of April 1660. in the twelfth year of Our Raign.

L O N D O N, Printed by John Macock and Francis Tyton, Printers tothe House of LORDS. 1660.

208

Of Love and War

Peake [Arms] Mayor. Martis primo die Septembris 1668. Annóque Regni Regis CAROLI Secundi, Dei Gratia, Angliæ, &c. XXo. Whereas by an Order of his Majesty in Council, made the 22. of July last, intimating that divers Scandalous and Seditious Pamphlets, tending very much to the Disturbance of the Peace and Quiet of this Kingdom, are daily sold and dispersed about the Cities of London and Westminster and Parts adjacent by a sort of Loose and Idle people called Hawkers, under pretence of carrying about and vending Newsbooks and Gazetts, It is required and commanded, for preventing the great Mischiefs and Inconveniences that may ensue by permitting the same, that the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen of London, and the Justices of the Peace within the Liberties of Westminster and Middlesex, shall not permit or suffer any of those people called Hawkers, whether Men or Women, to carry about, cry, sell or disperse any Gazetts, News-books, Libells, or other Pamphlets whatsoever, within their respective Liberties or Judisdictions; but that they cause all such to be forthwith apprehended and sent to the House of Correction, to be there kept at hard Labour: This Court therefore, for the more effectual Execution of his Majesty’s said Pleasure and Command, and in Addition to what hath been already done by the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor in obedience thereunto, doth think fit and Order, That the Provost-Marshalls and all Constables and other Officers whom it may concern, in their severall Precincts and elsewhere (as they shall have opportunity) within this City and Liberties, shall diligently apply themselves to discover the said Hawkers, Sellers or Dispersers of Gazetts, News-books, Libells, or other Pamphlets, and then to apprehend, and bring before his Lordship, or some other of his Majestie’s Justices of the Peace, to be sent and set to Labour at Bridewell, or (as the Case may require) to be otherwise disposed and prosecuted to more condign Punishment ordained by Law. And if any the said Marshalls, Constables or others, shall be found remiss or negligent of their Duties herein, such Offender, upon notice or information thereof, shall be strictly

Appendix B

209

proceeded against, and receive the most severe Penalties of the Law for his Offence. Avery.

___________________________________________________ Printed by James Flesher, Printer to the Honourable City of LONDON

210

Of Love and War By the King.

A PROCLAMATION To Restrain the Spreading of False News, and Licentious Talking OF

Matters of State and Government Charles R. Whereas by the antient Laws and Statutes of this Realm, great and heavy Penalties are Inflicted upon all such as shall be found to be spreaders of false News, or promoters of any Malicious Slanders and Calumnies in their ordinary and common Discourses, and by a late Statute made in the Thirteenth year of His Majesties Reign, Whosoever shall Utter or Publish any words or things to Incite and Stir up the People to hatred or dislike of the Person of His Majesty, or the Establisht Government, is thereby made uncapable of holding any Office or Imployment whatsoever, either in Church or State. Notwithstanding all which Laws and Statutes, there have been of late more bold and Licentious Discourses then formerly; and men have assumed to themselves a liberty, not onely in Coffee-houses, but in other Places and Meetings, both public and private, to censure and defame the Proceedings of State, by speaking evil of things they understand not, and endeavouring to create and nourish an universal Jealousie and Dissatisfaction in the minds of all His Majesties good Subjects: His Majesty considering therefore that Offences of this nature, cannot proceed from want or ignorance of Laws to Restrain and Punish them, but must of necessity proceed from the restless Malice of some, whose Seditious ends and aims are already too well known, or from the careless demeanour of others, who presume too much upon His Majesties accustomed Clemency and Goodness, Hath thought fit by Advice of His Council, to Publish this His Royal Proclamation; And doth hereby forewarn, and straightly Command all His Loving Subjects, of what state or condition soever they be, from the highest to the lowest, That they presume not henceforth by Writing or Speaking, to Utter or Publish any False News or Reports, or to intermeddle with the Affairs of State and Government, or with the persons of any His Majesties Counsellours or Ministers, in their common and ordinary Discourses, as they will answer the contrary at

Appendix B

211

their utmost perils. And because all bold and irreverent Speeches touching matters of this high nature are punishable, not onely in the Speakers, but in the Hearers also, unless they do speedily reveal the same unto some of His Majesties Privy Council, or some other His Majesties Judges or Justices of the Peace within the space of Four and twenty hours next after such words spoken. Therefore that all men may be left without excuse, who shall not hereafter contain themselves within that modest and dutiful Regard which becomes them, His Majesty doth further Declare, That he will proceed with all Severity, against all manner of persons who shall use any bold or unlawful Speeches of this nature, or be present at any Coffee-house, or other publick or private Meeting where such Speeches are used, without Revealing the same in due time, His Majesty being resolved to Suppress this unlawful and undutiful kind of Discourse, by a most Strict and Exemplary Punishment of all such Offenders as shall be hereafter discovered. Given at our Court at Whitehall, the 12th day of June, in the 24th year of Our Reign. 1672.

God Save the King _______________________________________________________ In the SAVOY, Printed by the Assigns of John Bill and Christopher Barker, Printers to the Kings most Excellent Majesty. 1672.

212

Of Love and War By the King. A PROCLAMATION

To Restrain the Spreading of False News, and Licentious Talking of Matters OF

State and Government.

CHARLES R. Whereas of late many persons ill affected to the Government have assumed to themselves a Liberty in their ordinary Discourses to censure and defame the Proceedings of State, whereby they endeavour to create and nourish in the minds of His Majesties good Subjects an evil opinion of things they understand not; And further to promote their Seditious ends, they do daily invent false News, and spread the same abroad amongst the People, to the great scandal of His Majesties Government: Whereof His Majesty taking notice, and in particular of that very false Report of an intention to dissolve this present Parliament, which hath not been under deliberation, His Majesty seeing no cause to change His resolutions taken touching their meeting: His Majesty therefore looks upon the Spreaders of that Report as persons Seditiously inclined and ill affected to His Service; And considering that by the Laws of this Realm great and heavy penalties are to be inflicted upon all such as shall be found to be Spreaders of false News, or promoters of any Malicious Calumnies against the State by their ordinary and common Discourses, to stir up dislike in the People of His Majesties Person and the established Government, whereof His Majesty is sensible the persons offending are not ignorant. Nevertheless, that all men may be left without excuse who shall not hereafter contain themselves within that modest and dutiful regard which they ought, His Majesty hath thought fit, by the advice of His Council, to publish this His Royal Proclamation, And doth hereby forewarn and straightly Command all His Loving Subjects of what state or condition soever they be, from the Highest to the Lowest, that they presume not henceforth by any Writing or Speaking to utter or publish any false News or Reports, or to

Appendix B

213

intermeddle with the Affairs of State and Government, or with the persons of any of His Majesties Counsellors or Ministers, in their common and ordinary Discourses, as they will answer the contrary at their utmost perils. And whereas all bold and irreverent speeches touching matters of this high nature are punishable not onely in the Speakers but the Hearers also, unless they do speedily Reveal the same unto some of His Majesties Privy Council, or some other His Majesties Judges or Justices of the Peace; His Majesty doth hereby further Declare, that he will proceed with all severity not onely against such persons as shall use any bold and unlawful speeches of this nature, but also against those persons who shall be present where such speeches are used, without Revealing the same in due time, His Majesty being resolved to Suppress this Unlawfull and Undutifull kind of Discourse, by a most strict and exemplary Punishment of all such Offenders as shall hereafter be Discovered. Given at Our Court at Whitehall, the Second day of May, 1674. in the Six and twentieth year of Our Reign.

God save the King ________________________________________________________ London, Printed by the Assigns of John Bill, and Christopher Barker, Printers to the Kings most Excellent Majesty. 1674.

214

Of Love and War By the King.

A PROCLAMATION FOR THE

Suppression of Riots. CHARLES R. His Majesty taking notice of many Riotous and unlawful Assemblies of Weavers and others, in or near the Cities of London and Westminster, and the Borough of Southwark, doth hereby straitly Charge and Command all and every the persons so assembled, forthwith upon notice of this His Royal Proclamation, to depart to their own Houses, and to forbear any further assembling, upon pain of being proceeded against as Traitors and Enemies to His Majesty, His Crown and Dignity. And His Majesty doth further Command all Officers Civil and Military, and all other His loving Subjects, that they be aiding and assisting to Apprehend all such persons as shall presume so to assemble or continue together contrary to this His Royal Proclamation, and in Disturbance of the Peace, as they will answer the contrary at their utmost Peril. Dated at the Council-Chamber in Whitehall, the 11th day of August, in the 27th year of His Majesties Reign, 1675.

God save the King ________________________________________________________ London Printed by the Assigns of John Bill and Christopher Barker, Printers to the Kings most Excellent Majesty.

Appendix B

215

[ARMS] By the King.

A PROCLAMATION FOR THE

Suppression of Coffee-Houses. CHARLES R. Whereas it is most apparent, that the Multitude of Coffee=houses of late years set up and kept within this Kingdom, the Dominion of Wales, and the Town of Berwick upon Tweed, and the great resort of Idle and disaffected persons to them, have produced very evil and dangerous Effects; as Well for that many Tradesmen and others, do therein mis-spend much of their time, which might and probably would otherwise be imployed in and about their Lawful Callings and Affairs; but also, for that in such houses, and by occasion of the meetings of such persons therein, diverse False, Malitious and Scandalous Reports are devised and spread abroad, to the Defamation of His Majesties Government, and to the Disturbance of the Peace and Quiet of the Realm; His Majesty hath thought it fit and necessary, That the said Coffee=houses be (for the future) Put down and Suppressed, and doth (with the Advice of His Privy Council) by this His Royal Proclamation, Strictly Charge and Command all manner of persons, That they or any of them do not presume from and after the Tenth day of January next ensuing, to keep any Publick Coffee=house, or to Utter or sell by retail, in his, her or their house or houses (to be spent or consumed within the same) any Coffee, Chocolet, Sherbett or Tea, as they will answer the contrary at their utmost perils. And for the better accomplishment of this his Majesties Royal Pleasure, His Majesty doth hereby will and require the Justices of the Peace within their several Counties, and the Chief Magistrates in all Cities and Towns Corporate, that they do at their next respective General Sessions of the peace (to be holden within their several and respective Counties, Divisions and Precincts) recall and make void all Licenses at any time heretofore Granted, for the selling or Retailing of any Coffee, Chocolet, Sherbett, or Tea. And that they or any of them

216

Of Love and War

do not (for the future) make or grant any such License or Licenses, to any person or persons whatsoever. And his Majesty doth further hereby declare, that if any person or persons shall take upon them, him or her, after his, her or their License or Licenses recalled, or otherwise without License, to sell by retail (as aforesaid) any of the Liquors aforesaid, that then the person or persons so Offending, shall not only be proceeded against, upon the Statute made in the Fifteenth year of His Majesties Reign (which gives the forfeiture of five pounds for every moneth wherein he, she or they shall offend therein) but shall (in case they persevere to Offend) receive the severest punishments that may by Law be inflicted. Given at Our Court at Whitehall, this Nine and twentieth day of December 1675. in the Seven and twentieth year of Our Reign.

God Save the King. ___________________________________________________ London Printed by the Assigns of John Bill, and Christopher Barker, Printers to the Kings most Excellent Majesty, 1675.

Appendix B

217

By the King. An Additional

PROCLAMATION Concerning COFFEE-HOUSES. CHARLES R. Whereas his Majesty by his Royal Proclamation bearing date the 29th day of December last, upon the Reasons therein contained, did Command and Require all manner of persons, from and after the Tenth day of this instant January, to forbear to Sell or Utter by Retail (to be spent within their respective Houses) any Coffee, Chocolate, Tea or Sherbett, and did give Directions to his Justices of the Peace, and the Chief Magistrates (within their respective Counties, Cities and Towns Corporate) not to grant any new Licenses to that purpose, and to revoke Licenses formerly granted. And whereas since the issuing forth of the said Proclamation, several Retailers of the said Liquors, by their humble Petition on the behalf of themselves and other Retaylers, did humbly Represent to His Majesty, That there are great quantities of Coffee and Tea at present in their hands, for which the Duties are already paid; besides what are already Shipped in parts beyond the Seas for England, and cannot be Remanded without great loss to the Owners thereof. And further, thereby, (confessing the former Miscarriages and Abuses committed in such Coffee=Houses, and expressing their true Sorrow for the same, and promising their utmost Care and Endeavour to prevent the like, for such time as they shall be permitted to Retail the said Liquors in their respective Houses) did humbly Beseech His Majesty, That He would be Graciously pleased to give them some further time for the Vending of the said Commodities, which would otherwise lie upon their hands. And did further Offer, That if they might be permitted to continue to Retail the said Liquors (within their respective Houses) they would not only take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, but also enter into Recognizances to His Majesty respectively, at the Sessions of the Peace to be holden in the respective Counties, Cities and Liberties where their Houses are to be; Conditioned in the Form Hereunder expressed: His Majesty taking the Premises into His Princely Consideration, out of His Royal Compassion, and to prevent the Loss

218

Of Love and War

and Prejudice which might accrue to the said Retailers, so far forth as may consist with the Peace and Security of the Government, Doth by this His Royal Proclamation (with the Advice of His Privy Council) Declare His Royal Pleasure to be, That all and every the Retailers of the Liquors aforesaid, which at the time of the Date of his said former Proclamation, did Sell by Retail the Liquors aforesaid, or any of them, shall have Permission to Utter and Sell by Retail the said respective Liquors, in their respective Houses, until the Four and twentieth day of June next; They and every of them respectively entering into a Recognizance of the Penalty of Five hundred pounds to His Majesty, before the Justices of the Peace, or Chief Magistrates, at their respective Sessions of the Peace, Conditioned in the Form hereunder written, and then and there taking the said Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy. And His Majesty doth hereby Order and Declare, That His respective Justices of the Peace, and others having Authority by the Statute in that behalf, to grant Licenses, do not (upon the account onely of the said former Proclamation) before that time, Recall the Licenses formerly Granted: And where any Licenses now are, or before that time shall be expired, they do according to the Rules mentioned in the said Act of Parliament; and upon performance of what is hereby Required, Grant Licenses to the said respective Retailers, which may continue in Force until the said Twenty fourth of June next, and no longer. Given at Our Court at Whitehall the Eighth day of January, in the Seven and Twentieth year of Our Reign, 1675/6.

God Save the King ________________________________________________________ The Form of the CONDITION The Condition of this Recognizance is such, That if the above-bound A.B. shall at all times hereafter, so long as he shall be Permitted or Licensed to Sell and Retail Coffee, Chocolate and Tea, use his utmost endeavour to prevent and hinder all Scandalous Papers, Books or Libels concerning the Government, or the Publick Ministers thereof, from being brought into his House, or to be there Read, Perus’d or Divulg’d; And to prevent and hinder all and every person and persons

Appendix B

219

from declaring, uttering and divulging in his said House, all manner of False and Scandalous Reports of the Government, or any the Ministers thereof: And in case of any such Papers, Books, or Libels, shall be brought into his said House, and there openly Read, Perus’d or divulg’d, or in case any such False or Scandalous Reports shall be there openly declared, utter’d or divulg’d, if the said A.B. shall within Two days respectively next ensuing, give Information thereof to one of His Majesties Principal Secretaries of State, or to some one of His Majesties Justices of the Peace, then this Recognizance to be void, &c. ________________________________________________________ London, Printed by the Assigns of John Bill, and Christopher Barker, Printers to the Kings most Excellent Majesty, 1675/6.

Of Love and War

220

By the King.

A PROCLAMATION For the better Discovery of Seditious

Libellers.

CHARLES R. Whereas divers malicious and disaffected persons do daily devise and publish, as well by Writing, as Printing, sundry false, infamous, and scandalous Libells, endeavouring thereby, not only to traduce and reproach the Ecclesiastical and Temporal Government of this Kingdom, and the publick Ministers of the same, but also to stir up and dispose the minds of His Majesties Subjects to Sedition and Rebellion; For the Discovery of such wicked Offenders, and to the intent that they may receive the severest Punishments which by the Laws of this Kingdom may be inflicted upon them, His Majesty (with the advice of His Privy Council) doth by this His Royal Proclamation Publish and Declare, That if any person or persons shall discover and make known to either of His Majesties Principal Secretaries of State, or to any Justice of the Peace, the person or persons to whom any such Libell, at any time since the last Act of General Pardon, hath been, or shall hereafter be brought, and by him or them received, in order to Print or transcribe the same; Or the place where such Libell shall be printing or transcribing, whereby the same shall happen to be seized; Or the person or persons by whom any such Libell at any time since the said Act hath been, or shall hereafter be printed or transcribed; Or shall discover and make known to either of the said Principal Secretaries, or to any Justice of Peace, any private Printing=Press kept and used for imprinting unlicensed Pamphlets or Books by any person or persons whatsoever; He or they making every such discovery, shall have and receive, as a reward from His Majesty, the sum of Twenty pounds. And His Majesty doth further hereby Publish and Declare, That if any person or persons shall discover and make known to either of the said Principal Secretaries, or to a Justice of the Peace, the Author of any such Libell, which at any time since the said Act of General Pardon hath been, or shall hereafter be devised and made; Or the persons or person who at any time since the said Act have, or hath handed or brought, or shall hereafter hand or bring any such Libell to the Press, or to any person or persons in order to print the same, He or

Appendix B

221

they making such discovery, shall receive and have from His Majesty, the sum of Fifty pounds: And to the end that the person or persons making such discovery, may without any charge or attendance, immediately after the same made, receive the respective rewards hereby proposed, His Majesty doth by this His Royal Proclamation require the Lord High Treasurer of England, or the Commissioners of the Treasury for the time being, that he or they do satisfy and pay the said respective sums to the person or persons making such discovery, without any delay or abatement whatsoever. And His Majesty doth hereby strictly charge and command all and every His Justices of the Peace, to whom such discovery shall be made, that he or they with all possible speed do give notice thereof to His Majesty, or to one of His said Principal Secretaries, to the end that the said Libells may be suppressed, and the parties offending may be effectually prosecuted. Given at our Court in Whitehall this Seventh day of January, 1675. In the Seven and twentieth year of Our Reign.

God Save the King ___________________________________________________ London Printed by the Assigns of John Bill, and Christopher Barker, Printers to the Kings most Excellent Majesty, 1675.

222

Of Love and War His Majesties

DECLARATION TO ALL HIS Loving Subjects. Our Care and Endeavors for the Preservation of the Rights and Interests of the Church, have been sufficiently manifested to the World, by the whole course of Our Government, since Our happy Restauration, and by the many and frequent ways of Coercion that We have used for reducing all Erring or Dissenting persons, and for composing the unhappy Differences in matters of Religion, which We found among Our Subjects upon Our Return: But it being evident by the sad Experience of Twelve Yeares, that there is very little fruit of all those forceable Courses, We think Our Self obliged to make use of that Supream Power in Ecclesiastical Matters, which is not onely Inherent in us, but hath been Declared and Recognized to be so by several Statutes and Acts of Parliament; And therefore We do now accordingly issue this Our Declaration, As well for the Quieting the Minds of Our good Subjects in these Points, for Inviting Strangers in this Conjuncture, to come and Live under Us, and for the better Encouragement of all to a Chearful following of their Trade and Callings, from whence We hope by the Blessing of God, to have many good and happy Advantages to Our Government; As also for preventing for the future, the danger that might otherwise arise from Private Meetings, and Seditious Conventicles. And in the First place, We Declare Our express Resolution, Meaning, and Intention to be, That the Church of England be Preserved, and remain Entire in its Doctrine, Discipline, and Government, as now it stands Established by Law; And that This be taken to be, as it is, the Basis, Rule, and Standard of the General and Publick Worship of God, and that the Orthodox Conformable Clergy do receive and enjoy the Revenues belonging thereunto; And that no person, though of a different Opinion and Perswasion, shall be exempt from paying his Tythes, or other Dues whatsoever. And further We Declare, That no person shall be capable of holding any Benefice, Living, or Ecclesiastical Dignity or Preferment of any kind in this Our Kingdom of England, who is not exactly Conformable.

Appendix C

223

We do in the next place Declare Our Will and Pleasure to be, That the Execution of all and all manner of Penal Laws in matters Ecclesiastical, against whatsoever sort of Nonconformists or Recusants, be immediately Suspended, and they are hereby Suspended. And all Judges, Judges of Assise and Gaol-delivery, Sheriffs, Justices of the Peace, Mayors, Bayliffs, and other Officers whatsoever, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil, are to take notice of it, and pay due Obedience thereunto. And that there may be no pretence for any of Our Subjects to continue their illegal Meetings and Conventicles, We do Declare, That We shall from time to time allow a sufficient number of Places, as they shall be desired, in all parts of this Our Kingdom, for the use of such as do not Conform to the Church of England, to meet and assemble in, in order to their Publick Worship and Devotion; which Places shall be open and free to all persons. But to prevent such disorders and inconveniences as may happen by this Our Indulgence, if not duely regulated, and that they may be the better protected by the Civil Magistrate, Our express Will and Pleasure is, That none of our Subjects do presume to meet in any Place, until such Place be allowed, and the Teacher of that Congregation be approved by us. And lest any should apprehend, that this restriction should make Our said Allowance and Approbation difficult to be obtained, We do further Declare, That this Our Indulgence, as to the Allowance of the Publick Places of Worship, and Approbation of the Teachers, shall extend to all sorts of Nonconformists and Recusants, except the Recusants of the Roman Catholick Religion, to whom We shall in no wise allow Publick Places of Worship, but onely Indulge them their share in the common Exemption from the execution of the Penal Laws, and the Exercise of their Worship in their private Houses onely. And if after this Our Clemency and Indulgence, any of Our Subjects shall presume to Abuse this Liberty, and shall Preach Seditiously, or to the Derogation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Government of the Established Church, or shall meet in Places not Allowed by Us, We do hereby give them warning, and Declare, we will proceed against them with all imaginable Severity: And we will let them see we can be as Severe to Punish such Offenders, when so justly Provoked, as we are Indulgent to truly Tender Consciences.

224

Of Love and War

Given at Our Court at Whitehall this fifteenth day of March, in the Four and twentieth year of Our Reign. _____________________________________________________ In the S A V O Y, Printed by the Assigns of John Bill and Christopher Barker, Printers to the Kings most Excellent Majesty, 1671/2.

Appendix D

225

By the King.

A PROCLAMATION COMMANDING All Jesuites and Popish Priests To depart this KINGDOM CHARLES R. Whereas Our Loyal Subjects the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, by their humble Petition have represented to Us, That not withstanding Our unquestionable Affection and Zeal to the true Protestant Religion, manifested in Our constant Profession and Practice, against all Temptations whatsoever; Yet by the great resort of Jesuites and Romish Priests into this Kingdom, Our good Subjects generally were much affected with Jealousie and Apprehension, that the Popish Religion might much increase in this Kingdom (which We have most piously desired may be prevented) and so the Peace both in Church and State may be insensibly disturbed, to the great danger of both. The two Houses of Parliament were therefore humble Suitors to Us to issue out Our Proclamation to command all Jesuites, and all English, Irish, and Scotish [sic] Priests, and all such other Priests as have taken Orders from the See of Rome, or by Authority thereof (except such foreign Jesuites or Priests as by Contract of Marriage are to attend the Persons of either of the Queens, or by the Laws of Nations to attend foreign Ambassadors) to depart this Kingdom by a day, under pain of having the penalties of the Laws inflicted upon them. And We having seriously considered and weighed the said humble Representation and Petition of Our said Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, and the great Affection and Duty with which the same was presented unto Us, and accepting with much contentment their great care for the preservation of the true Religion established in this Kingdom; Have therefore resolved to publish this Our Admonition and Commandment, and do hereby require, charge, and command all Jesuites, and all English, Irish, and Scotish [sic] Priests, and all such other Priests as have taken Orders from the See of Rome, or by Authority or pretended Authority thereof, who are not under any restraint by Imprisonment, That they do before the fourteenth day of May next depart out of this Our Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales, upon pain of having the Penalties of

226

Of Love and War

Our said Laws inflicted upon them. And for their better means to depart accordingly, We do hereby Declare and Publish Our further Pleasure, That if at any time before the said fourteenth day of May next, they or any of them shall resort to any Port-Town of Our said Kingdom of England or Dominion of Wales, and there declare himself to the Magistrate of the Town, or other Officers of any Port that he is a Priest, and that he is there to take Shipping for his passage, they shall suffer him or them quietly to depart, and shall see them shipt and sent away for foreign Parts, and give them their furtherance for their departure. And to the end this Our Proclamation may be the better observed and obeyed, We do hereby strictly charge and command all Our Lieutenants, Deputy=Lieutenants, Commissioners, Justices of the Peace, Mayors, Sheriffs, Bayliffs, and all other Our Officers whatsoever, that they be circumspect and vigilant each of them in their several charges from and after the said fourteenth day of May, in searching for, and discovering all such Jesuites and Priests as aforesaid, as shall presume to remain in this Our Realm of England or Dominion of Wales, contrary to Our Laws, and our Royal Pleasure and Command herein declared. Provided always, and our intention is (which We do hereby declare) That this Our Proclamation do not extend to Priests that do or shall from time to time attend upon the Persons of Our Dearest Consort the Queen, or of the Queen Our Dear Mother, according to the Treaties of their several Marriages, the names of which Priests shall be set down and signified by them under their Great Seals respectively, and such signification inrolled [sic] in Our Court of Kings=Bench. And because there may be some Priests imprisoned within this Our Realm yet unknown to Us, We do will and command all Sheriffs, Bayliffs, and Keepers of Prisons, within twenty days after the publication of this Our Proclamation, to advertise Our Privy Council, or some of them, of the names of all such Priests that are in their Custody, and by whom, and for what cause they were committed, to the end that thereupon We may give order for their Transportation, as the Case shall require. Given at Our Court at White-Hall, the Ninth day of April, in the year of our Lord 1663. And of Our Reign the Fifteenth.

Appendix D

227

God Save The King. _________________________________________________ LONDON, Printed by John Bill and Christopher Barker, Printers to the Kings most Excellent MAJESTY, 1663.

228

Of Love and War By the King.

A PROCLAMATION For Banishing all Popish Priests and Jesuites, and putting the Laws in speedy and due Execution against

POPISH RECUSANTS CHARLES R. Whereas Our Loyal Subjects the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament Assembled, in order to the Suppressing the Insolencies of the Papists, have humbly desired Us forthwith to Issue out Our Royal Proclamation for the Banishment of all Priests and Jesuites out of this Kingdom within Thirty days, to be therein limited, other then such (not being Our natural born Subjects) who are obliged to attend upon Our Royal Consort the Queen, or the Queen Our Dear Mother. And that if any Priest or Jesuite shall happen to be taken in England after the said days, That the Laws be put in due execution against them; And have further humbly desired Us, That in the said Proclamation, strict Order be given to the Judges, and Barons of the Exchequer, and to all Our Justices of Peace, and to all other Ministers of Justice, for the putting the Laws in due execution against all Popish Recusants, and such as are suspected so to be, in order to their speedy Conviction; and that the said Judges, Barons and Justices, be required at their respective Assizes, and Quarter=Sessions, to give the Laws in Charge against Popish Recusants. And we having seriously considered thereof, and accepting with much contentment the great care of Our said Loyal Subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in Parliament Assembled, for the Preservation of the true Religion Established in this Kingdom; Do therefore by this Our Proclamation Require, Charge and Command all Jesuites, and also all Priests who have taken Orders from the Sea [sic] of Rome, or by the Authority, or pretended Authority thereof, and are not since, and so continue, reconciled to the Church of England; That they and every of them do before the Tenth day of December next ensuing, Depart out of this Our Kingdom of England, and Dominion of Wales, upon pain of having he Penalties of the Laws and Statutes of this Our Realm inflicted upon them. And so for their better means to depart accordingly, We do hereby Declare and Publish Our further Pleasure, That if at any time before the said

Appendix D

229

Tenth Tenth [sic] day of December next, they or any of them, shall resort to an Port=Town of Our said Kingdom of England, or Dominion of Wales, and there declare him or themselves to the Magistrate of the Town, or other Officers of any Port, to be Priests or Jesuites, and that he or they are there to take Shipping for his or their passage, such Magistrate and Officers shall suffer him or them quietly to depart, and shall see them Shipped and sent away for Foreign parts, and give them their furtherance for their departure. And to the end that this Our Proclamation may be the better observed and obeyed, We do hereby strictly Charge and Command all Our Lieutenants, Deputy=Lieutenants, Commissioners, Justices of the Peace, Mayors, Sheriffs, Bayliffs, and all other Our Officers whatsoever, That they be circumspect and vigilant, each of them in their several Charges, from and after the said Tenth day of December, in Searching for, Discovering, and Apprehending all such Jesuites and Priests (as aforesaid) as shall presume to remain within this Our Realm of England, or Dominion of Wales, contrary to Our Laws, and Our Royal Pleasure and Command herein Declared, to the end that the Laws may be put in due execution against them. Provided always, and Our intention is (which We do hereby Declare) That this Our Proclamation shall not extend to Priests (not being Our natural born Subjects) that do or shall from time to time attend upon the persons of Our dearest Consort the Queen, or of the Queen Our dear Mother, according to the Treaties of their several Marriages, (the names of which Priests shall be set down and signified by them under their Great Seals respectively, and such Signification Enrolled in Our Court of Kings Bench.) And We do also further Require, Charge and Command, That all Our Judges, Barons of our Exchequer, Justices of Peace, and Ministers of Justice in their several places, do not onely observe Our Will and Pleasure herein before expressed, in all and every the Premises; but also do forthwith put all other Our Laws in due execution against all Popish Recusants, and such as are suspected so to be, in order to their speedy Conviction. And We do further Will and Command, That all Our said Judges, Barons of Our Exchequer, Justices of the Peace, and Ministers of Justice to whom the same shall appertain, at and in their respective Courts, Assizes, Goal=Deliveries, and Quarter=Sessions, do publickly give the Laws in Charge against Popish Recusants, and take order that they are speedily Presented,

230

Of Love and War

Indicted, and Convicted according to Law. And that all Our Judges of Assize, at their returns out of their respective Circuits, do from time to time hereafter, give a true and strict account of their proceedings therein, unto Our Chancellour for the time being: And that he do present the same to Us. Given at the Court at Whitehall the Tenth day of November, in the Eighteenth year of Our Reign, 1666.

God Save the King.

__________________________________________ In the SAVOY, Printed by the Assigns of John Bill and Christopher Barker, His Majesties Printers, 1666.

Appendix D

231

[ARMS] At the Court at Whitehal, September the 11th 1667.

By His Majesty and the Lords of His Majesties Most Honorable Privy Council. His Majesty having taken notice, and been informed of the daily Concourse of very many Persons of the Romish Religion, unto the Chappel of Her Majesty the Queen at St. Jamese’s [sic], as likewise unto the Chappel of the Queen=Mother at Somerset House; and also unto the Houses of several Foreign Ambassadors, contrary to the Law; It was thereupon Ordered by His Majesty in Council, That if any Persons whatsoever being His Majesties Subjects, except the Family of Her Majesty the Queen, and the Families of the Queen Mother, and of Foreign Ambassadors, and the Children of the respective Officers in their said Majesties Families, shall from henceforth repair unto the said Chappels or Ambassadors Houses to hear Masse, or perform any other exercises of the Romish Religion, that then such Prosecutions shall be made, and such Penalties and Punishments Inflicted upon them and every of them, as are by Law provided in such Cases. Hereof all Persons concerned are to take Notice, and Conform thereunto accordingly at their utmost peril.

_________________________________________________ In the Savoy, Printed by the Assigns of John Bill and Christopher Barker, Printers to the King’s most Excellent Majesty. 1667.

232

Of Love and War By the King.

A PROCLAMATION For Inforcing the Laws against Conventicles, and for Preservation of the Publick Peace, against Unlawful Assemblies of Papists and NonConformists. CHARLES R. Whereas Our Loyal Subjects the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, have lately been humble Petitioners to Us to issue forth Our Proclamation for Inforcing the Laws against Conventicles, and that Care might be taken for preservation of the Peace of the Kingdom against unlawful Assemblies of Papists and Non-conformists; having seriously considered and weighed the said humble Suit of Our said Commons, and upon Information that divers persons in several parts of this Realm, abusing the clemency which hath been used towards persons not Conforming to the Worship and Government Established in the Church of England (even whilst it was under Consideration, to find out a way for the better Union of Our Protestant Subjects) have of late frequently and openly, in great numbers, and to the great disturbance of Our Peace, held unlawful Assemblies and Conventicles; We have thought good to Declare, That We will by no means permit such notorious Contempts of Us and Our Laws, to go unpunished. And therefore We do by this Our Royal Proclamation (with the Advice of Our Privy Council) Require, Charge and Command all Lords Lieutenants, Deputy=Lieutenants, Justices of Oyer & Terminer, Justices of Assize and Goal-delivery, Justices of Peace, Majors, Bayliffs, and all other Our Officers whatsoever, That they be circumspect and vigilant, each of them in their several Charges and Jurisdictions, to Inforce, and put in Execution, all the Laws now in Force against unlawful Conventicles. And further, Our Will and Pleasure is, And We do hereby strictly Charge and Command Our said Magistrates and Officers, That they and every of them in their several places, do take care for the preservation of the Peace of this Kingdom, against unlawful Assemblies of Papists and Non=conformists. Given at Our Court at Whitehall the Tenth day of March, In the Twentieth year of Our Reign. 1667/8.

Appendix D

233

God Save The King. ______________________________________________ In the SAVOY, Printed by the Assigns of John Bill and Christopher Barker, Printers to the Kings most Excellent Majesty. 1667/8.

234

Of Love and War

[ARMS] By the King.

A PROCLAMATION Against Numerous CONVENTICLES. CHARLES R. Forasmuch as Information hath been given to Us from several parts of the Kingdom, That those who separate themselves from the established Worship, do meet in greater numbers then formerly, to such a degree as may endanger the publick Peace; with which We cannot but take notice also, how far Our known and still avowed easiness to indulge tender Consciences, is abused thereby: Wherefore by the advice of Our Privy Council, We have thought fit to issue this Our Proclamation, straitly Charging and Commanding all Our Justices of the Peace within the limits of their several Jurisdictions, where they shall find any such Meetings to be held, That they put the Laws in execution for Suppression thereof, and particularly proceed against the Preachers, according to the Statute made in the Seventeenth year of Our Reign, Entituled, An Act for Restraining Non-Conformists from inhabiting in Corporations. Given at Our Court at Whitehall this 16th day of July, in the One and twentieth year of Our Reign. 1669.

God Save the King _________________________________________________ In the SAVOY, Printed by the Assigns of John Bill and Christopher Barker, Printers to the Kings most Excellent Majesty. 1669.

Appendix D

235

By the King

A PROCLAMATION CHARLES R. Whereas Our Loyal Subjects the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, Have by their humble Petition represented to Us their Fears and Apprehensions of the Growth and Increase of the Popish Religion in these Our Dominions, together with the Causes thereof, and also such Remedies as they conceive may be proper to prevent such Growing Mischiefs. Which Petition of theirs We have Seriously Considered, and do with much Contentment and Satisfaction, Accept and Approve the great Care of Our Said Loyal Subjects the Lord Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in Parliament assembled, for the Preservation of the True Religion Established in this Kingdom; To which, as We have always Adhered against all Temptations whatsoever, so We shall still employ Our utmost Care and Zeal in the Maintenance and Defence of it. And We do therefore by this Our Royal Proclamation streightly Charge and Command all Jesuits, and all English, Irish, and Scottish Priests, and all others who have taken Orders from the See of Rome, or by the Authority or pretended Authority thereof, who are not under any Restraint by Imprisonment, other then such as by Contract of Marriage are to Attend the Person of Our Dearest Consort the Queen, or by the Laws of Nations are to Attend Foreign Ambassadors; That they do before the First day of May next, Depart out of this Our Kingdom of England, and Dominion of Wales, upon pain of having the Penalties of the Laws and Statutes of this Our Realm Inflicted upon them: And for their better means to Depart accordingly, We do hereby Declare and Publish Our further Will and Pleasure, that if at any time before the said First day of May, they or any of them shall Resort to any Port=Town of Our said Kingdom of England or Dominion of Wales, and there Declare himself to the Magistrate of the Town, or other Officers of any Port, that he is a Priest, and that he is there to take Shipping for his Passage, they shall suffer him or them quietly to Depart, and shall see them Shipt and sent away for Foreign Parts, and give them their Furtherance for their Departure. And to the end this Our Proclamation may be better Observed and Obeyed, We

236

Of Love and War

do hereby strictly Charge and Command all Our Lieutenants, Deputy=Lieutenants, Commissioners, Justices of the Peace, Mayors, Sheriffs, Bayliffs, and all other Our Officers and Ministers whatsoever, That they be Circumspect and Vigilant each of them in their several Charges, from and after the said first day of May next, in searching for and discovering all such Jesuits and Priests as foresaid, as shall presume to remain in this Our Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales, contrary to Our Laws, and Our Royal Pleasure and Command herein Declared, that so the Laws may be put in due Execution against them. And for the better Discovery of all others who are Popish Recusants, or justly suspected to be so, We do also further Require, Charge, and Command, That all Our Judges, Barons of Our Exchequer, Justices of the Peace, and Ministers of Justice in their several places, do not onely Observe Our Will and Pleasure herein before expressed in all and every of the Premisses; But also forthwith put all other Our Laws in due Execution against all Popish Recusants, and such as are suspected to be so, in order to their speedy Conviction, and cause the said Laws to be publickly given in Charge at all and every their Assises, Gaol=deliveries, and Quarter=sessions respectively, and then and there take order that such Popish Recusants, or persons suspected to be so, may be speedily Presented, Indicted, and Convicted according to Law, and that due Process of Law may fro time to time be Issued out upon such Convictions. And We do hereby Declare, That the Names of such Priests who do Attend the Person of Our Dearest Consort the Queen, shall be set down under Her Great Seal, and such Signification enrolled in the Court of Kings-Bench: And because there my be some Priests Imprisoned in this Our Realm, yet unknown to Us, We do Will and Command all Sheriffs, Bayliffs, and Keepers of Prisons, within Twenty days after publication of this Our Proclamation, to Advertise Our Privy=council, or some of them, of the Names of all such Priests that are in their Custody, and by whom, and for what Cause they were Committed, to the end that thereupon We may give Order for their Transportation, as the Case shall require. Given at Our Court at Whitehall, the Three and twentieth day of March, 1670/1. In the Three and twentieth Year of Our Reign.

Appendix D

237

God Save The King. _________________________________________________ In the SAVOYE: Printed by the Assigns of Jo: Bill, and Chris. Barker, Printers to the Kings most Excellent Majesty, 1670/1.

238

Of Love and War By the King.

A PROCLAMATION CHARLES R. Whereas Our Loyal Subjects the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, have by their humble Petition represented to Us their Fears and Apprehensions of the Growth and Increase of the Popish Religion in these Our Dominions, together with the Causes thereof, and also such Remedies as they conceive may be proper to prevent such Growing Mischiefs. Which Petition of theirs We have seriously Considered, and do with much Contentment and Satisfaction, Accept and Approve the great Care of Our said Loyal Subjects the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in Parliament assembled, for the Preservation of the True Religion Established in this Kingdom; To which, as We have always Adhered against all Temptations whatsoever, so We shall still employ Our utmost Care and Zeal in the Maintenance and Defence of it. And we do therefore by this Our Royal Proclamation streightly Charge and Command all Jesuits, and all English, Irish, and Scottish Priests, and all others who have taken Orders from the See of Rome, or by the Authority, or pretended Authority thereof, who are not under Restraint by Imprisonment, other then such as not being our Natural=born Subjects, are obliged to attend the Person of Our Dearest Consort the Queen, and other then such not being Our Natural=born Subjects, as by the Laws of Nations are to attend Foreign Ambassadors; That they do before the Thirteenth of April next, being Thirty days after the Date of this Our Proclamation, Depart out of this Our Kingdom of England, and Dominion of Wales, upon pain of having the Penalties of the Laws and Statutes of this Our Realm Inflicted upon them: And for their better means to Depart accordingly, We do hereby Declare and Publish Our further Will and Pleasure, That if at any time before the end of the said Thirty Days, they or any of them shall Resort to any Port=Town of Our said Kingdom of England, or Dominion of Wales, and there Declare himself to the Magistrate of the Town, or other Officers of any Port, that he is a Priest, and that he is there to take Shipping for his Passage, they shall suffer him or them quietly to Depart, and shall see them

Appendix D

239

Shipt and sent away for Foreign Parts, and give them their Furtherance for their Departure. And to the end this Our Proclamation may be the better Observed and Obeyed, We do hereby strictly Charge and Command all Our Lieutenants, Deputy=Lieutenants, Commissioners, Justices of Peace, Mayors, Sheriffs, Bayliffs, and all other Our Officers and Ministers whatsoever, That they be Circumspect and Vigilant, each of them in their several Charges, from and after the said Thirteenth Day of April next, in Searching for, and Discovering all such Jesuits and Priests as aforesaid, as shall presume to Remain in this Our Kingdom of England, and Dominion of Wales, contrary to Our Laws, and Our Royal Pleasure and Command herein Declared; That so the Laws may be put in due Execution against them. And for the better discovery of all others who are Popish Recusants, or justly suspected to be so, We do also further require, charge and command; That all our Judges, Barons of our Exchequer, Justices of Peace, and Ministers of Justice in their several places, do not onely observe Our will and pleasure herein before expressed, in all and every of the Premises, But also forthwith put all other Our Laws in due Execution against all Popish Recusants, and such as are suspected to be so, in order to their speedy Conviction, and cause the said Laws to be publicly given in Charge at all and every their Assises, Goal=deliveries and Quarter=sessions respectively, and then and there take Order that such Popish Recusants, or persons suspected to be so, may be speedily Presented, Indicted, and Convicted according to Law, and that due Process of Law may from time to time be issued out upon such Convictions. And because there may be some Priests Imprisoned in this our Realm, yet unknown to us; We do Will and Command all Sheriffs, Bayliffs, and Keepers of Prisons, within Twenty days after Publication of this our Proclamation, to Advertise our Privy Council, or some of them, of the Names of all such Priests that are in their Custody, and by whom and for what cause they were Committed, to the end that thereupon We may give order for their Transportation as the Case shall require. Given at our Court at Whitehall, the Thirteenth day of March, in the Five and twentieth year of Our Reign.

240

Of Love and War

God Save the King. _____________________________________________________ L O N D O N, Printed by the Assigns of John Bill and Christopher Barker, Printers to the Kings most Excellent Majesty. 1672/3.

Appendix D

241

By the King.

A PROCLAMATION For the Suppression of Popery CHARLES R. Whereas in pursusance of Our Gracious Assurances to both Houses of Parliament at the late Prorogation, to let all Our Subjects see that no care can be greater then Our own, in the effectual Suppressing of Popery, We were pleased the Fourteenth of this instant November, in Council, to Direct and Command the Lord Steward and Lord Chamberlain of Our Household to hinder all Papists and Popish Recusants, or reputed Papists and Popish Recusants from having access to Our Presence, or to Our Palace, or the place where Our Court shall be, from and after the Eighteenth day of this instant November, and did then likewise Command the Judges of Our Courts at Westminster, to consider of the most effectual means of putting the Laws in Execution for preventing the Growth of Popery, and speedily to Report the same to Us: Now for the more effectual Suppression of Popery in all parts of Our Kingdom, and Preservation of the true Religion Established, We do hereby Declare and Publish Our further Will and Pleasure, and also strictly Charge and Command all the Judges of Our Courts at Westminster, Justices of the Peace, Mayors, Sheriffs, Bayliffs, and other Our Officers and Ministers of Justice whatsoever, That they do forthwith take effectual care for the Prosecution of all Papists and Popish Recusants, according to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm; And for that purpose, That they give the said Laws in Charge at their respective Assizes, Gaol=deliveries and Quarter=Sessions, and then and there take order that such Papists and Popish Recusants, or persons suspected to be so, may be speedily Presented, Indicted and Convicted according to Law, and that due Process be from time to time issued thereupon. Given at our Court at Whitehall the Twentieth day of November 1673. In the Twenty fifth year of Our Reign.

242

Of Love and War

God Save the King _____________________________________________________ L O N D O N, Printed by the Assigns of John Bill and Christopher Barker, Printers to the Kings most Excellent Majesty. 1673.

Appendix D

243

[ARMS] By the King.

A PROCLAMATION For Preventing the Fears and Dangers that may arise from the Concourse Of Papists, or Reputed Papists, in or near the Cities of London or Westminster, during this present Sitting of PARLIAMENT.

CHARLES R. Whereas Our most Dutiful and Loyal Subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in this present Parliament Assembled, have besought Us, That We would be Graciously pleased to Issue out Our Royal Proclamation, Thereby Requiring all Papists, or reputed Papists, who now are or remain within Five Miles of Our Cities of London and Westminster, or Our Burrough of Southwark, not being housholders, nor Attending any Peer of this Realm as a Menial Servant, to repair to their respective Dwellings, or to depart Ten Miles from the Cities and Burrough aforesaid, and not to return during this Session of Parliament. Provided, That it may be permitted for any Papist, or reputed Papist, to return unto the Cities or Burrough aforesaid, who shall first obtain a License therefore under the hands of any Six of the Lords of Our Privy Council; And that We would be pleased to give Order to the Quarter Sessions, That they give in unto Us an Account of what Housholders now are within the Cities or Burrough aforesaid, and Five Miles thereof, who are of that Profession; And that the Quarter Sessions do Adjourn themselves from time to time for that purpose. Which Address of theirs We have seriously Considered, and do with much Contentment and Satisfaction Accept; And as We have always manifested Our Zeal for the Preservation of the True Religion Established in this Kingdom, and to hinder the Growth and Encrease of the Popish Religion, so We are now ready upon this Occasion to prevent all Fears and Dangers that may arise by the Concourse of Persons of that Profession, in or near Our Cities of London or Westminster. We therefore, by this Our Royal Proclamation, do straightly Command and Require all Papists, and reputed Papists, who now are, or remain within Five Miles of Our Cities of London and Westminster, or Burrough of Southwark, not being housholders, nor

244

Of Love and War

attending any Peer of this Realm, as a Menial Servant, That they do before, or upon Monday next at the farthest, being the Nineteenth of this instant January, repair to their respective Dwellings, or depart Ten Miles from the Cities and Burrough aforesaid: And, That they, nor any of them do presume to return during the Sitting of Parliament, as they will answer the contrary at their Perils. Provided always, That this Our Proclamation shall not extend to Prohibit any Papist, or reputed Papist, from returning unto the Cities or Burrough aforesaid, who shall first obtain License therefore under the Hands of any Six of the Lords of Our Privy Council. And We do hereby further Charge and Command Our Justices of the Peace, of and for Our Cities of London and Westminster, and for Our several Counties of Middlesex, Surrey, Kent and Essex, That at their next Quarter Sessions to be holden for the said respective Cities and Counties, They make diligent Enquiry within their Respective Jurisdictions, and give in unto Us an Account of what householders now are within the Cities or Burrough aforesaid, or within Five Miles thereof, who are of that Profession; And that they do cause the said Quarter Sessions to be Adjourned from time to time for that purpose, as occasion shall require. Given at our Court at Whitehall the Fourteenth day of January, in the Five and twentieth year of Our Reign, 1673/4.

God Save the King. _____________________________________________________ L O N D O N, Printed by the Assigns of John Bill and Christopher Barker, Printers to the Kings most Excellent Majesty. 1673/4.

Appendix D

245

By the King.

A PROCLAMATION For the Discovery and Apprehension of Jesuites, Seminary Priests, and others that have taken Orders from the Church and See of Rome. CHARLES R. His Majesty having been informed, That notwithstanding His former Orders and Proclamations Requiring Jesuites, Seminary Priests, and others that have taken Orders from the Church and See of Rome, and have not since been reconciled to the Church of England, to depart the Kingdom: Yet nevertheless such Priests and Jesuites continue and harbour themselves in the City of London, and Suburbs thereof, and likewise in other parts of this Kingdom, to the manifest Contempt of His Majesties Royal Authority, and the Laws and Religion Established; And notwithstanding His Majesties Commands to have the Laws against them given in Charge in all Counties, yet none have of late been Apprehended or Discovered. His Majesty thereupon, of His Pious Care for the Preservation of the Protestant Religion, and for the prevention of the endeavours of such Priests and Jesuites who Seduce His good Subjects from the same, hath resolved, That so many of the said Priests as can be found, shall be speedily sent away and Transported into the parts beyond the Seas; And to that end both (with the Advice of His Privy Council) by this His Royal Proclamation Require, and strictly Charge and Command the Justices of the Peace of the several Counties and Cities of this Kingdom of England, Dominion of Wales, and Town of Berwick upon Tweed, at the next Quarter, or other General Sessions to be held for the said Counties and Cities respectively, That they and every of them, and also all and every other person and persons whatsoever, do use their utmost endeavour to Discover and Apprehend such person or persons as they or any of them shall either know, or be credibly informed is, or are Priests or Jesuites, or have taken Orders from the Church or See of Rome as aforesaid, and that they cause them, and every of them, to be brought before the Lords of His Majesties Privy Council, or one of His Principal Secretaries of State, who are to Commit them into safe Custody, in order to their Transportation. And that such Discoveries

246

Of Love and War

may be the better encouraged, and more effectually pursued, His Majesty hath given Order to the Lord High Treasurer of England, to cause speedy Payment to be made unto every person who shall make Discovery of any Priest or Jesuite, of the sum of Five pounds for every Priest or Jesuite so discovered, who shall be thereupon Apprehended and brought to the Lords of His Majesties Privy Council, or one of His Principal Secretaries of State; And moreover, the Charges of sending them up, shall be, and are hereby Directed and Appointed to be born and paid by the respective Sheriffs of the Counties through which they are to pass, who shall have the same allowed unto them upon Passing their Accounts in the Exchequer. Given at our Palace of Hampton Court, the Tenth day of June 1674. in the Six and twentieth year of Our Reign.

God Save the King. _____________________________________________________ L O N D O N, Printed by the Assigns of John Bill and Christopher Barker, Printers to the Kings most Excellent Majesty. 1674.

Appendix D

247

By the King.

A P R O C L A M A T I O N. CHARLES R. Whereas We have fully resolved to use Our utmost Endeavours for the Preservation of the True Religion Established in this Kingdom, to which We have always adhered against all Temptations whatsoever; And in order to this great end, have thought fit to Command all Popish Priests and Jesuites, being our Natural born Subjects, to depart out of, and not to return or come into this Our Kingdom, under such Penalties, and in such manner as is hereby after expressed; We do therefore by this Our Royal Proclamation, strictly Charge and Command all Jesuites and Priests whatsoever, being Our Natural born Subjects, who have taken Orders from the See of Rome, or by the Authority, or pretended Authority thereof, and not being under restraint by Imprisonment, (except Dr. John Huddleston, who did eminently Serve Us in Our Escape from Worcester) That they do before the Twenty fifth day of March next ensuing, depart out of this Our Kingdom of England, Dominion of Wales, and Town of Berwick upon Tweed; and that they or any of them, or any other such Priests or Jesuites, do not after the said Twenty fifth day of March, presume to come or return into Our said Kingdom of England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of Berwick, upon pain of having the Penalties of the Laws and Statutes of this Our Realm inflicted upon them: And for their better means to depart accordingly, We do hereby Declare and Publish Our further Will and Pleasure, That if any time before the said Twenty fifth Day of March, they or any of them shall resort to the Town or Port of Berwick, or to any Port=Town of Our said Kingdom of England, or Dominion of Wales, and there declare himself to the Magistrate of the Town, or the Officers of any Port, that he is a Priest, and that he is there to take Shipping for his passage, they shall suffer him or them quietly to depart, and shall see them Shipt and sent away for Foreign Ports, and give them their furtherance for their departure. And to the end this Our Proclamation may be the better observed and obeyed, We do hereby strictly Charge and Command all our Lieutenants, Deputy=Lieutenants, Commissioners, and Justices of the Peace, Mayors, Sheriffs, Bayliffs, and all other Our Officers and

248

Of Love and War

Ministers whatsoever, That they be circumspect and vigilant each of them in their several Charges, from and after the said Twenty fifth day of March next, in searching for, and discovering all such Jesuites and Priests as aforesaid, as shall presume to remain or come into Our said Kingdom of England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of Berwick, contrary to Our Royal Pleasure and Command herein declared, that so the Laws may be put in due Execution against them. Given at Our Court at Whitehall, the Fifth day of February, 1674/5. in the Seven and twentieth year of Our Reign.

God Save The King. ____________________________________________________ L O N D O N, Printed by the Assigns of John Bill and Christopher Barker, Printers to the Kings most Excellent Majesty. 1674/5.

Appendix D

249

At the Court at WHITEHALL February the Third, 1674/5 Present The Kings most Excellent Majesty His Highness Prince Rupert Lord Keeper Lord Treasurer Lord Privy Seal Duke of Monmouth Duke of Lauderdale

Lord Great Chamberlain Earl of Peterborough Earl of Sunderlund Earl of St. Alban Earl of Bathe Earl of Craven

Marquis of Worcester

Earl of Carbery

Marquis of Dorchester Earl of Ogle Earl of Ossory

Viscount Fauconberg Lord Maynard Lord Newport

Lord Berkeley Mr Vice-Chamberlain Mr Secretary Coventry Mr Secretary Williamson Mr Montagu Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr Chancellor of the Dutchy Master of the Ordnance Mr Speaker

_____________________________________________________ His Majesty was this day pleased in Council to Command, That the Following Orders and Resolutions should be forthwith Printed and made Publick. His Majesty was pleased this day in Council to Declare, That he found it necessary that the Laws which were made for the Safety and Preservation both of Church and State, should be put into Execution with more care and diligence then of late they have been; and that having long since commanded His Judges to do their Duty herein, He had also lately advis’d with several of His Bishops, and upon due Consideration of the whole matter, had Resolved, and doth therefore Order, I. That the Convictions of Popish Recusants be encouraged, quickned, and made effectual; and to this end His Majesties Attorney General is required forthwith to inform himself what Convictions are already certified into the Exchequer, and to cause speedy Process to issue upon them. And it is further Ordered, That Letters be forthwith sent from this Boord directed to the Justices of Peace within the several Counties, Cities and Places of this Realm, thereby requiring them with all speed to certifie into the Exchequer such Convictions as are perfected, and to certifie His Majesties Attorney General what Convictions of Popish Recusants are preparing, and what hinders the

250

Of Love and War

compleating of them, and whether any Persons of Quality who are suspected to be Popish Recusants have been omitted to be Presented, and what Obstructions they find therein; And His Majesty Declares, that upon due information thereof, care shall be taken that they may be speedily removed. II. And His Majesty doth Declare His further Pleasure, and doth strictly Charge and Command, That no Person or Persons, of what Quality or Condition soever he be, do presume to say Mass in any part of this Kingdom, the Chappels of the Queens Majesty, and the Chappels of Foreign Ministers only excepted; And to prevent all extraordinary Resort to those Chappels, it is further Ordered and Declared, That if any person or persons shall presume to repair to those Chappels, not being a Menial Servant of Her Majesty, or of such Foreign Ministers, and shall there willingly hear Mass, every such Offender shall suffer the forfeiture of One hundred Marks, and One Years Imprisonment, as by Law is provided. And for the better discovery of such Offenders, His Majesties Third part of the said Penalty shall be also given to the Informer, for his further Reward and Encouragement. And moreover, all Officers are required to apprehend such Offenders, and to cause them to be examined and proceeded with according to Law. And all Mayors, Justices of the Peace, and other Officers and Ministers to whom it shall or may appertain, are also Ordered and Required to cause diligent Search and Enquiry to be made into all other Places, where they shall hear or suspect that Mass is privately celebrated, to the end that the Offenders may be brought to Condigne punishment. III. And His Majesty doth Command and forewarn all Persons born within any of his Majesties Dominions, who have taken Orders by any authority derived from the Church or See of Rome, and are now remaining in any part of this Kingdom, and out of Prison (except Mr John Huddleston, who was eminently serviceable to His Majesty in His Escape from Worcester) that they depart the Realm before the Five and twentieth day of March next ensuing, and that they presume not to return again, nor any other such Priests to come over after that day; His Majesty declaring, that He will cause the utmost penalties of the Law to be inflicted upon the Contemners of this His Command; and Mr. Attorney General is required to prepare a Proclamation accordingly. And His Majesty doth also Command all such Priests, who have taken such Orders, and do pretend a priviledge to attend

Appendix D

251

upon the Queens Majesty, or upon Foreign Ministers, to depart this Kingdom likewise by the time before appointed, and to leave the Court within Fourteen days after Notice of this Order, whereof publication shall be forthwith made, by causing the same to be affixed upon the Court Gates, and in such other Places as shall be thought convenient. IV. And His Majesty doth further forewarn, and Command all His Subjects, that they presume not to send any person or persons to be Educated in any Popish Colledges or Seminaries beyond the Seas; And if any Notice or Information can be given of any that have been already sent, and are there still remaining, His Majesty Declares, that he will give Order for a Privy Seal to be directed unto them, and thereby command them to return home with all speed, as they will answer the contrary at their peril. And if the Parents or Guardians of such person so Educated abroad be living and within His Majeties Dominions, His Majesty will also Command such Parents or Guardians to send for their Children or Pupils home, and cause them to return, upon peril of suffering the utmost Penalties of the Law in that case provided. V. And if any of His Majesties natural born Subjects, being Papist, or reputed Papist, shall presume to come into His Majesties Palace at Whitehall, or St. James’s, or into any other place where His Majesties Court shall be, contrary to His Majesties late Prohibition; His Majesty Declares, that he will punish that contempt with Exemplary Severity, according to the quality of the Offender; who if he be a Peer of the Realm, shall be sent to the Tower, if under that Quality, to some other Prison. VI. And His Majesty doth further Order and Appoint, that effectual care be taken for the Suppression of Conventicles; And whereas divers pretend Licences from His Majesty, and would support themselves by that pretence, His Majesty Declares, that all His Licences were long since Recalled, and that no Conventicle hath any authority, allowance, or encouragement from His Majesty. ROBERT SOUTHWELL _____________________________________________________ L O N D O N, Printed by the Assigns of John Bill and Christopher Barker, Printers to the Kings most Excellent Majesty. 1674/5.

BIBLIOGRAPHY PRIMARY TEXTS (publishers’ names omitted for books before 1850) Astell, Mary, A Serious Proposal to the Ladies, Parts I and II, ed. Patricia Springborg, Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 2002. Bacon, Francis, The Works of Francis Bacon, ed. James Spedding, 14 vols, London: Longman, 1861-79, Vol. VII. Beaumont, Francis and John Fletcher, The Dramatic Works in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon, gen. ed. Fredson Bowers, 10 vols, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1966-1996. Behn, Aphra, The Works of Aphra Behn, ed. Janet Todd, 7 vols, London: Pickering and Chatto, 1992-96. ―, The Works of Aphra Behn, ed. Montague Summers, 6 vols, 1915, New York: Phaeton, 1967. Biographia Britannica: or, the Lives of the Most Eminent Persons Who Have Flourished in Great Britain and Ireland, ed. Andrew Kippis, 2nd edn, 5 vols, London, 1778-93, Vol. II. Boothby, Frances, Marcelia: or The Treacherous Friend. A tragicomedy. As it is acted at the Theatre-Royal, by His Majesties servants. Written by Mrs. F. Boothby. Licenc’d, October 9, London, 1670. Boyle, Roger, Earl of Orrery, The Works of Roger Boyle, ed. William Smith Clark, 2 vols, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UP, 1937. Browne, Thomas, The Works of Sir Thomas Browne, ed. Geoffrey Keynes, 4 vols, London: Faber, 1964, Vol. I. Bruce, Thomas, Earl of Ailesbury and Elgin, Memoirs of Thomas, Earl of Ailesbury, Written by Himself, ed. William Edward Buckley, 2 vols, London: Roxburghe Club, 1890. Burke, Edmund, Reflections on the Revolution in France, in The French Revolution 1790-1794, ed. Leslie George Mitchell, Vol VIII of The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke, gen. ed. Paul Langford, 9 vols, Oxford, Clarendon P, 1981-2000.

254

Of Love and War

Burnet, Gilbert, Bishop Burnet’s History of His Own Time … To Which Are Added Other Annotations, 2nd edn, 6 vols, Oxford, 1833, Vol. I. ―, A Supplement to Burnet’s History of My Own Time … and His Private Meditations Hitherto Unpublished, ed. Helen Charlotte Foxcroft. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1902. Caillieres, Jacques de, The Courtier’s Calling: Shewing the Ways of Making a Fortune, and … the Maxims of Policy and Morality, London, 1675. Calderón, Don Pedro, de la Barca, Life Is a Dream, trans. Kathleen Raine and Rafael Martínez Nadal, London: Hamish Hamilton, 1968, trans. of La vida es sueño, Madrid, 1636. Calendar of State Papers Domestic. Calendar of State Papers Venetian. Calprenède, Gautier de Costes, Sieur de La, Hymen’s Praeludia, or, Love’s Master-piece, trans. Robert Loveday, John Coles, James Webb and John Davies, London, 1652-63, trans. of Cleòpâtre, Paris, 1646-1657. ―, Faramond; ou L’Histoire de France, 12 vols, Paris, 1661-1670. Capel, Arthur, Earl of Essex, Essex Papers 1672-1679, ed. Osmund Airy, Camden Society n.s. 47, 1890, New York: Johnson, reprinted 1965. ―, Selections from the Correspondence of Arthur Capel, Earl of Essex, 1675-1677, ed. Clement Edwards Pike, Camden Society, Third Series, Vol. XXIV, London: Royal Historical Society, 1913. Carew, Thomas, Coelium Britannicum (1634), in The Poems of Thomas Carew with His Masque “Coelum Britannicum”, ed. Rhodes Dunlap, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1949. Caryll, John, The English Princess, or The Death of Richard III, London, 1667. Cavendish, Margaret, Marchioness of Newcastle, “The Preface to the Reader”, in The Worlds Olio, London, 1655. Cavendish, William, Duke of Newcastle, The Humorous Lovers, London, 1667. Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de, The Adventures of Don Quixote de la Mancha, trans. Tobias Smollet (1755), London: Andre Deutsch, 1986.

Bibliography

255

Chamberlayne, Edward, Anglia Notitia; or, The Present State of England: Together with Divers Reflections upon the Antient State thereof, 3rd edn, London, 1669. The Character of a Coffee-House, with the Symptoms of a Town-Wit, With Allowance, April 11, 1673, London, 1673. The Character of Italy: or, the Italian anatomiz’d by an English Chyrurgion, London, 1660. Charles I, Eikon Basiliké: The Pourtraicture of His Sacred Majestie in His Solitudes and Suffering (1648/9), London: Stewart, 1876. Charles II, The Letters, Speeches and Declarations of King Charles II, ed. Arthur Bryant, London: Cassell, 1935. Cobbett, William, Cobbett’s Parliamentary History of England from the Earliest Period to the Year 1803, 36 vols, London, 1806-1820, Vol. III. Coffee-houses Vindicated in Answer to the Late Published Character of a Coffee-House … Resort and Ingenious Conversations, London, 1673. Collins, John, Mysteria Relevata, HMC 51, F.W. Leyborne-Popham, Norwich: Printed for the H.M. Stationary Office by the “Norfolk Chronicle” Company, 1899. Cooper, Anthony Ashley, First Earl of Shaftesbury, A Letter from a Person of Quality to His Friend in the Country, London, 1675. Correspondence of the Family of Hatton, being Chiefly Letters Addressed to Christopher, First Viscount Hatton, A.D. 1601-1704, ed. Edward Maunde Thompson, Camden Society n.s. 22-23, New York: Johnson Reprint, 1965. The Court and Times of James the First … Transcribed from the Originals in the British Museum, State Paper Office, and Private Collections, ed. Thomas Birch, London: H. Colburn, 1849, reprinted New York: AMS 1973. Cowley, Abraham, Poems of Abraham Cowley, ed. A.R. Waller, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1905. ―, Essays, Plays, and Sundry Verses of Abraham Cowley, ed. A.R. Waller, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1906. Crowne, John, The Dramatic Works of John Crowne, eds James Maidment and William Hugh Logan, 4 vols, 1874, New York: B. Blom, 1967.

256

Of Love and War

Davenant, William, Dramatic Works of Sir William Davenant, eds James Maidment and William Hugh Logan, 5 vols, Edinburgh: William Paterson, London: H. Sotheran, 1872-74. “Defiance to the Dutch”, in Norfolk Drollery, or A Compleat Collection of the Newest Songs, Jovial Poems and Catches, etc., London, 1673, 63-65. Dryden, John, The Works of John Dryden, gen. eds Edward Niles Hooker and Hugh Thomas Swedenberg, Jr, et al., 20 vols, Berkeley: U of California P, 1970 –. Echard, Laurence, The History of England: From the First Entrance of Julius Caesar … King William and Queen Mary, 3 vols, London, 1707-1718, Vol. III. Evelyn, John, The Diary of John Evelyn, ed. Esmond Samuel de Beer, 6 vols, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1955, Vol. III. Fell, John, D.D., The Character of the Last Daies, A Sermon Preached Before the King, Oxford, 1675. Fountain, John, The Rewards of Virtue: A Comedy, London 1661. A General Dictionary, Historical and Critical, eds Pierre Bayle, John Peter Bernard, Thomas Birch, et al., 10 vols, London, 1734-1741. Genest, John, Some Account of the English Stage from the Restoration in 1660 to 1830, 10 vols, Bath, 1832, reprinted New York: Burt Franklin, 1972, Vol. I. Greville, Fulke, Lord Brooke, The Works in Verse and Prose Complete of the Right Honourable Fulke Greville, Lord Brooke, ed. Alexander B. Grosart, 4 vols, Blackburn: Printed for Private Circulation [by C. Tiplady and Son] 1870, Vol. I. Grey, Anchitell, Debates of the House of Commons, From the Year 1667 to the Year 1694 … and Decyphered Coleman’s Letters for the Use of the House, 10 vols, London, 1763, Vol. I. Hamilton, Anthony, Memoirs of the Comte de Gramont, trans. Horace Walpole, ed. David Hughes, London: Folio Society, 1965. Herbert, Henry, The Control and Censorship of Caroline Drama: The Records of Sir Henry Herbert, Master of the Revels 1623-73, ed. N.W. Bawcutt, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1996. Hesiod, Theogony, The Homeric Hymns and Homerica, trans. Hugh G. Evelyn-White, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1959.

Bibliography ―,

257

Theogony, Works and Days, Shield, ed. Apostolos N. Athanassakis (2nd edn, 1983), Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 2004. Historical Manuscripts Commission Reports. Howard, Edward, The Six Days Adventure, or The New Utopia. A comedy, as it is acted at his Royal Highness the Duke of York’s theatre, London, 1671. ―, The Usurper, a tragedy. As it was acted at the Theatre Royal by his Majesties servants, London, 1668. ―, The Womens Conquest; a tragi-comedy. As it was acted by His Highness the Duke of York’s servants, London, 1671. Howard, Robert, The Committee (1665), Bell’s British Theatre, Vol. XX, London, 1797. ―, The Great Favourite, or, The Duke of Lerma. As it was acted at the Theatre-Royal by His Majesties Servants, London, 1668. —, The Surprisal. In Five new plays, viz. The Surprisal, Committee, comedies. And The Indian-queen, Vestal-virgin, Duke of Lerma, tragedies. As they were acted by His Majesty’s Servants at the Theatre-Royal, London, 1692. Howell, James, Dodona’s Grove or, The Vocall Forrest, London, 1640. Hyde, Edward, Earl of Clarendon, History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, Begun in the Year 1641, ed. W. Dunn Macray, 6 vols (1888), Oxford: Clarendon P, 1969, Vol. VI. James VI and I, The Political Works of James I (1616), Introduction Charles Howard McIlwain (1918), New York: Russell and Russell, 1965. Jonson, Ben, Love’s Triumph through Callipolis, in Ben Jonson: The Complete Masques, ed. Stephen Orgel, New Haven: Yale UP, 1969. Josselin, Ralph, The Diary of Ralph Josselin 1616-1683, ed. Alan Macfarlane, London: Oxford, 1976. A Journal from Parnassus. Now Printed from a Manuscript circa 1688, Introduction Hugh MacDonald, London: Dobell, 1937. Journals of the House of Commons. Journals of the House of Lords. Jusserand, Jean Jules, A French Ambassador at the Court of Charles the Second: Le Comte de Cominges from his Unpublished Correspondence, London: Unwin, 1982.

258

Of Love and War

Kennett, White, A Complete History of England: With the Lives of all the Kings and Queens thereof; from the Earliest Account of Time, to the Death of His Late Majesty King William III … and the Effigies of the Kings and Queens, 3 vols, London, 1706, Vol. III. The King’s Cabinet Open’d or, Certain Packets of Secret Letters and Papers Written withe the King’s Own Hand and Taken in His Cabinet at Nasby Field, June 14, 1645 (London, 1645), Facsimile Reprint, ed. Barry Denton, Leigh-on-Sea: Partizan Press, 1983. Langbaine, Gerard, An Account of the English Dramatick Poets … English Tongue (1691), New York: Garland, 1973. ―, The Lives and Characters of the English Dramatick Poets … said Plays (1712), New York: Garland, 1973. Lee, Nathaniel, The Works of Nathaniel Lee, eds Thomas B. Stroup and Arthur L. Cooke, 2 vols, New Brunswick, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1954. A List of the Parliament of Women, London, 1679. Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, trans. Ronald Edward Latham, Introduction John Godwin, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1994. ―, De Rerum Natura, trans. William Henry Denham Rouse, Introduction Martin Ferguson Smith, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UP, 1975. Ludlow, Edmund, The Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow, LieutenantGeneral of the Horse in the Army of the Commonwealth of England 1625-1672, ed. Charles Harding Firth, 2 vols, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1894, Vol. II. Lust’s Dominion; or, The Lascivious Queen, in Materials for the Study of English Drama, ed. J. Le Gay Brereton, Louvain: Uystpruyst, 1931, V, 1-146. Lyme Letters 1660-1760, ed. Lady Newton, London: Heinemann, 1925. Makin, Bathsua, An Essay to Revive the Antient Education of Women (1673), Introduction Paula Barbour, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library Publication No. 202, Los Angeles: U of California P, 1980. Marvell, Andrew, The Poems and Letters, ed. Herschel Maurice Margoliouth, 2 vols, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1927.

Bibliography

259

Milton, John, Paradise Lost, ed. Scott Elledge (2nd edn, 1975), New York: Norton, 1993. ―, The Works of John Milton, gen. ed. Frank Allen Patterson, New York: Columbia UP, 1932. Newton, Lady, The House of Lyme: From Its Foundation to the End of the Eighteenth Century, London: Heinemann, 1917. Norfolk Drollery, or A Compleat Collection of the Newest Songs, Jovial Poems and Catches, etc., London, 1673. North, Roger, The Lives of the Right Hon. Francis North, Baron Guildford; the Right Hon. Sir Dudley North; and the Hon. and Rev. Dr. John North: Together with the Autobiography of the Author, ed. Augustus Jessop, 3 vols, London: G. Bell and Sons, 1890. Ogilby, John, The Holland Nightingale, or The Sweet Singers of Amsterdam: Being a Paraphrase Upon the Fable of the Frogs Fearing that the Sun Would Marry, London, 1672. ―, Africa: Being an Accurate Description of the Regions of Aegypt, Barbara, Lybia … and Serpents, London, 1670. Otway, Thomas, The Complete Works of Thomas Otway, ed. Montague Summers, 3 vols, London: Nonesuch Press, 1926. Payne, Henry Neville, The Fatal Jealousie. A Tragedy. Acted at the Duke’s Theatre (London, 1673), Introduction Willard Thorpe, Augustan Society Reprints, No. 16, New York: Kraus Reprint, 1967. ―, The Morning Ramble, or, The Town-humours: A comedy. Acted at the Duke’s Theatre, London, 1673. ―, The Siege of Constantinople; a tragedy acted at the Duke’s Theatre, London, 1675. Penguin Book of Restoration Verse, ed. Harold Love, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1997. Pepys, Samuel, The Diary of Samuel Pepys, eds Robert Latham and William Matthews, 11 vols, London: Bell, 1970-1983. Poems on Affairs of State. Augustan Satirical Verse 1660-1714, gen. ed. George DeForest Lord, 7 vols, New Haven: Yale UP, 1963-75. Polwhele, Elizabeth, The Frolicks, or, The Lawyer Cheated (1671), eds Judith Milhous and Robert D. Hume, London and Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1977.

260

Of Love and War

Pope, Walter, The Catholic Ballad, or, An Invitation to Popery Upon Considerable Grounds and Reasons, London, 1674. Prynn, William, Histriomastix: The Players Scourge or Actors Tragedie, Divided into Parts (1633), Garland Series, The English Stage: Attack and Defense 1577-1730. Preface Arthur Freeman, New York: Garland, 1974. Quintana, Francisco de, The History of Don Fenise, A New Romance Written in Spanish by Francisco De las Coveras, and now Englished by a Person of Honour, London, 1651. Randall, Anne Frances [Mary Robinson], A Letter to the Women of England on the Injustice of Mental Subordination, with Anecdotes, London, 1799. Ravenscroft, Edward, The Careless Lovers: A Comedy Acted at the Duke’s Theatre. Edward Ravenscroft’s The Careless Lovers and The Canterbury Guests. A Critical Old-Spelling Edition, ed. Edmund S. Henry, New York: Garland, 1987, 1-177. Reresby, John, The Memoirs of Sir John Reresby, ed. Andrew Browning, Glasgow: Jackson, 1936. Savile, George, Marquis of Halifax, The Works of George Savile, Marquis of Halifax, ed. Mark N. Brown, 3 vols, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1989, Vol. II. The Second Maiden’s Tragedy, in A Select Collection of Old English Plays, ed. Robert Dodsley (1744), rev. W. Carew Hazlitt, 4th edn, New York: Benjamin Blom, 1964, X, 381-468. Settle, Elkanah, Cambyses King of Persia: a tragedy. Acted by His Highness the Duke of York’s servants, London, 1671. ―, The Empress of Morocco. A tragedy. With sculptures. As it is acted at the Duke’s Theatre, London, 1673. ―, Elkanah Settle’s The Empress of Morocco and the Controversy Surrounding it. A Critical Edition, ed. Anne T. Doyle, Satire and Sense Series, ed. Stephen Orgel, New York: Garland, 1987. ―, Ibrahim the Illustrious Bassa. A tragedy. Acted at the Duke’s Theatre, London, 1677. Shadwell, Thomas, The Complete Works of Thomas Shadwell, ed. Montague Summers, 5 vols, London: Fortune, 1927. Shakespeare, William, Henry IV Part I, London: Arden, 2002. ―, The Norton Shakespeare, ed. Stephen Greenblatt, 2nd edn, New York: W.W. Norton, 2008.

Bibliography

261

Sheffield, John, Duke of Buckingham, The Works of John Sheffield, Earl of Mulgrave, Marquis of Normanby, and Duke of Buckingham, 3rd edn, 2 vols, London, 1740. “Sophia”, Woman Not Inferior to Man: or, A Short and Modest Vindication of the Natural Right of the Fair-Sex to perfect Equality of Power, Dignity, and Esteem, with the Men, By Sophia, a Person of Quality, London, 1739. Spenser, Edmund, The Faerie Queene, in Edmond Spenser’s Poetry, Norton Critical Edition, New York: Norton, 1993, 1-499. Stapylton, Robert, The Slighted Maid, a comedy, acted with great applause at the theatre in Little Lincolns-Inn-Fields, by His Highness the Duke of York’s Servants, London, 1673. ―, The Step-mother, a tragi-comedy, acted with great applause at the theatre in Little Lincolns-Inne-Field, by His Highness the Duke of York’s Servants, London, 1664. ―, The Tragedie of Hero and Leander, London, 1669. Stubbes, Philip, Anatomie of Abuses (1583), New Shakespeare Society Publications, Vaduz: Krauz Reprints, 1965. Tatham, John, The Rump: or The Mirrour of the Late Times, London, 1660. Temple, William, The Works of Sir William Temple … to Which is Prefixed, the Life and Character of Sir William Temple, Written by a Particular Friend, 2 vols, London, 1740. Waller, Edmund, The Poems of Edmund Waller, ed. G. Thorn Drury, London: Lawrence & Bullen; New York: Scribners, 1893. Webster, John, The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft wherein is Affirmed that there are many Souls of Deceiver … with other Obstruse Matters, London, 1677. Wilmot, John, John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester: The Complete Works, ed. Frank H. Ellis, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1994. Wilson, John, The Dramatic Works of John Wilson, eds James Maidmont and William Hugh Logan, Edinburgh: William Paterson, London: H. Sotheran, 1874. Wycherley, William, The Plays of William Wycherley, ed. Arthur Friedman, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1979. Young, Edward, Night Thoughts or the Complaint and the Consolation (1797), Illustrated by William Blake, eds Robert Essick and Jenijoy La Belle, New York: Dover, 1976.

262

Of Love and War

SECONDARY TEXTS Allen, Ned Bliss, The Source of Dryden’s Comedies, Ann Arbor, Michigan: U of Michigan P, 1935. Amussen, Susan Dwyer, An Ordered Society: Gender and Class in Early Modern England, Oxford: Blackwell, 1988. ―, and Mark Kishlansky, eds., Popular Culture and Cultural Politics in Early Modern England. Essays Presented to David Underdown, Manchester: Manchester UP, 1995. Ashley, Maurice, Charles II: The Man and the Statesman, London: History Book Club, 1972. Athanassakis, Apostolos N., Introduction to Hesiod, Theogony, Works and Days, Shield (2nd edn, 1983), Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 2004. Auburn, Mark S., John Dryden: Marriage a la Mode, Lincoln, Neb.: U of Nebraska P, 1981. Ayres, P.J., “The Revision of Lust’s Dominion”, Notes and Queries, XVII/6 (June 1970), 212-13. Ballaster, Ros, “Seizing the Means of Seduction: Fiction and Feminine Identity in Aphra Behn and Delarivier Manley”, in Women, Writing, History 1640-1740, eds Isobel Grundy and Susan Wiseman, London: Batsford, 1992, 93-108. ―, Fabulous Orients: Fictions of the East in England 1662-1785, Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005. Barbour, Violet, Henry Bennet, Earl of Arlington, Secretary of State to Charles II, London: Milford, 1914. Bevan, Bryan, Charles the Second’s French Mistress: A Biography of Louise de Keroualle, Duchess of Portsmouth, 1649-1734, London: Robert Hale, 1972. Braverman, Richard, Plots and Counterplots: Sexual Politics and the Body Politic in English Literature, 1660-1730, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993. Bray, Alan, Homosexuality in Renaissance England, London: Gay Men’s Press, 1982. Brody, Ervin C., “Poland in Calderón’s Life Is a Dream: Poetic Allusion or Historical Reality”, Polish Review, XIV/2 (Spring 1969), 21-62.

Bibliography

263

Brown, Laura, “The Divided Plot: Tragicomic Form in the Restoration”, English Literary History, XLVII/1 (Spring 1980), 6779. Bueler, Lois E., “The Structural Uses of Incest in English Renaissance Drama”, Renaissance Drama, XV (1984), 115-45. Butler, Martin, Theatre and Crisis 1632-1642, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984. Cathcart, Charles, “Lust’s Dominion; or, The Lascivious Queen: Authorship, Date, and Revision”, The Review of English Studies, LII/207 (August 2001), 360-75. ―, “‘You will Crown him King that Slew your King’: Lust’s Dominion and Oliver Cromwell”, Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England, XI (1999), 264-74. Cecil, C.D., “Libertine and Précieux Elements in Restoration Comedy”, Essays in Criticism, IX/3 (July 1959), 239-53. Chapman, Hester, Four Fine Gentlemen, Lincoln, Neb.: U of Nebraska P, 1977. Chartier, Roger, ed., Passions of the Renaissance, trans. Arthur Goldhammer, Vol. III of A History of Private Life, gen. eds Philippe Airès and George Duby, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UP, 1989. Chibnall, Jennifer, “‘To that secure fix’d state’: The Function of the Caroline Masque Form”, in The Court Masque, ed. David Lindley, Manchester: Manchester UP, 1984, 78-93. Clark, Constance, Three Augustan Women Playwrights, New York: Peter Lang, 1986. Cornelia, Maria, The Function of the Masque in Jacobean Tragedy and Tragicomedy, No. 77, Jacobean Drama Studies, Series ed. James Hogg, Salzburg Studies in English Literature, Salzburg: Institut für Englische Sprache und Literatur, Universität Salzburg, 1978. Crawford, Patricia, “Women’s Published Writings 1600- 1700”, in Women in English Society 1500-1800, ed. Mary Prior, London and New York: Methuen, 1985, 211-82. Daly, James, “Cosmic Harmony and Political Thinking in Early Stuart England”, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, LXIX/7 (October 1979), 1-41.

264

Of Love and War

Davies, G.A., “Poland, Politics and La vida es Sueño”, Bulletin of Hispanic Studies, LXX/1 (January 1993), 147-63. Davies, Norman, God’s Playground: A History of Poland in Two Volumes, 1981, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1986. Delpech, Jeanine, The Life and Times of the Duchess of Portsmouth, London: Elek, 1953. Duffy, Maureen, The Passionate Shepherdess: Aphra Behn 16601689, London: Cape, 1977. Edmond, Mary, Rare Sir William Davenant: Poet Laureate, Playwright, Civil War General, Restoration Theatre Manager, Manchester: Manchester UP, 1987. Elliott, John Huxtable, The Count-Duke of Olivares: The Statesman in an Age of Decline, New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1986. Fink, Laurie, “Aphra Behn and the Ideological Construction of Restoration Literary Theory”, in Rereading Aphra Behn: History, Theory, and Criticism, ed. Heidi Hutner, 17-43. Forker, Charles R., “‘A Little more than Kin, and Less Than Kind’: Incest, Intimacy, Narcissim, and Identity in Elizabethan and Stuart Drama”, Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England, IV (1989), 13-51. Fraser, Antonia, King Charles II, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1979. Gagen, Jean Elisabeth, The New Woman: Her Emergence in English Drama 1600-1730, New York: Twayne, 1954. Gallagher, Catherine, “Who Was that Masked Woman? The Prostitute and the Playwright in the Comedies of Aphra Behn”, Women’s Studies, XV/1-3 (1988), 23-42. Gardiner, Judith Kegan, “Liberty, Quality, Fraternity: Utopian Longings in Behn’s Lyric Poetry”, in Rereading Aphra Behn: History, Theory, and Criticism, ed. Heidi Hutner, 273-300. Gies, Frances, Joan of Arc: The Legend and the Reality, New York: Harper and Row, 1981. Goodman, Dena, “Public Sphere and Private Life: Toward a Synthesis of Current Historiographical Approaches to the Old Regime”, History and Theory, XXXI/1 (February 1992), 1-20. Goreau, Angeline, Reconstructing Aphra: A Social Biography of Aphra Behn, Oxford: Oxford UP, 1980.

Bibliography

265

Guibbory, Aschsah, “Sexual Politics/Political Sex. SeventeenthCentury Love Poetry”, in Renaissance Discourses of Desire, eds Claude J. Summers and Ted L. Pebworth, Columbia, Missouri: U of Missouri P, 1993, 206-22. Habermas, Jürgen, Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchung zu einer Kategorie der bürgerliche Gesellschaft, 1962, Darmstaqdt: Hermann Luchterhand, 1969. Haley, K.D.H., The First Earl of Shaftesbury, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1968. Hall, Kim, Things of Darkness: Economies of Race and Gender in Early Modern England, Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1995. Hammond, Paul, “Titus Oates and ‘Sodomy’, in Culture and Society in Britain 1660-1800, ed. Jeremy Black, Manchester: Manchester UP, 1997, 85-101. Harbage, Alfred, Annals of English Drama 975-1700 (1st and 2nd rev. edns, S. Schoenbaum, 3rd rev. edn, Sylvia Stoler Wagonheim), London: Routledge, 1989. Harris, Frank Reginald, The Life of Edward Montagu, K.G., First Earl of Sandwich (1625-1672), 2 vols, London: John Murray, 1912. Harrison, Edward R., Cosmology: The Science of the Universe, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1981. Hayden, Judy A., “From Caroline Tears to Carolean Laughter: Rehistoricizing the Restoration of Charles II”, English, XLIX (Summer 2000), 109-26. ― , “The Subject in the House: Aphra Behn’s The Forc’d Marriage, or the Jealous Bridegroom”, Restoration and Eighteenth-Century Theatre Research, XIV/1 (Summer 1999), 43-60. ―, “Times of Trouble: Aphra Behn’s The Young King and Calderón’s La vida es sueño”, in Alterity and Ambiguity: Aphra Behn (16401689), eds Mary Anne O’Donnell and Bernard Dhuicq, Paris: L’Harmattan, 2000, 49-58. ― , “The Tragedy of Roxolana in the Court of Charles II”, in Roxolana in European Literature, History and Culture, ed. Galina Yermolenko, forthcoming from Ashgate. Hekma, Gert, “Sodomites, Platonic Lovers, Contrary Lovers: The Backgrounds of the Modern Homosexual”, Journal of Homosexuality, XVI/1 and 2 (September 1988), 433-55.

266

Of Love and War

Highfill, Philip H. et al., ed., A Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Actresses, Musicians, Dancers, Managers and Other Stage Personnel in London 1660-1800, 16 vols, Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois UP, 1973. Hodgson-Wright, Stephanie, “Undress, Cross-dress, Redress: Aphra Behn and the Manipulation of Genre”, in Women and Dramatic Production 1550-1700, eds Alison Findlay and Stephanie Hodgson-Wright with Gweno Williams, Harlow, Essex: Longman, 2000, 151-76. Holmes, Geoffrey, The Making of a Great Power: Late Stuart and Early Georgian Britain 1660-1722, London: Longman, 1993. Howe, Elizabeth, The First English Actresses: Women and Drama 1660-1700, 1992, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994. Hughes, Ann, “Gender and Politics in Leveller Literature”, in Political Culture and Cultural Politics in Early Modern England: Essays Presented to David Underdown, eds Susan D. Amussen and Mark A. Kishlansky, Manchester and New York: Manchester UP, 1995, 162-88. Hughes, Derek, English Drama 1660-1700, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1996. ―, The Theatre of Aphra Behn, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave, 2001. Hume, Robert D., The Rakish Stage: Studies in English Drama, 16601800, Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1983. ―, The Development of English Drama in the Late Seventeenth Century, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1976. ―, “The Myth of the Rake in ‘Restoration’ Comedy”, Studies in the Literary Imagination, X/1 (Spring 1977), 25-55. ―, and Judith Milhous, Introduction to Elizabeth Polwhele, The Frolicks, or The Lawyer Cheated, Ithaca: Cornell, 1977, 40-41. Hutner, Heidi, ed., Rereading Aphra Behn: History, Theory, and Criticism, Charlottesville, Va: UP of Virginia, 1993. Hutton, Ronald, Charles the Second King of England, Scotland and Ireland, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1989. ―, The Restoration: A Political and Religious History of England and Wales 1658-1667, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1985. Jose, Nicholas, Ideas of the Restoration in English Literature 16601671, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UP, 1984.

Bibliography

267

Jowitt, Claire, “Political Allegory in Late Elizabethan and Early Jacobean “Turk” Plays: Lust’s Dominion and The Turk”, Comparative Drama, XXXVI/3-4 (Fall 2002/Winter 2003), 41143. Kalitzki, Judith, “Versions of Truth: Marriage A-la-Mode”, Restoration: Studies in English Literature Culture 1660-1700, IV/2 (Fall 1980), 65-70. Keeble, N.H., “Obedient Subjects? The Loyal Self in Some Later Seventeenth-Century Royalist Women's Memoirs”, in Culture and Society in the Stuart Restoration: Literature, Drama, History, ed. Gerald MacLean, 201-18. Kermode, Frank, Introduction to William Shakespeare’s The Tempest, Arden Shakespeare, Walton-on-Thames, Surrey: Thomas Nelson, 1998, xi-xciii. King, Bruce, Dryden’s Major Plays, London: Oliver and Boyd, 1966. Kishlansky, Mark, A Monarchy Transformed: Britain from 16031714, London: Allen Lane/Penguin, 1996. ―, and Susan Dwyer Amussen, eds., Popular Culture and Cultural Politics in Early Modern England. Essays Presented to David Underdown, Manchester: Manchester UP, 1995. Lee, Maurice, Jr., The Cabal, Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1965. Link, Frederick, Aphra Behn, New York: Twayne, 1968. The London Stage 1660-1800 (5 parts in 11 vols), ed. William Van Lennep, Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois P, 1960-68, 16001700, introduction Emmet L. Avery and Arthur Scouten, 1965. Love, Harold, “State Affairs on the Restoration Stage”, Restoration and Eighteenth-Century Theatre Research, XIV/1 (1975), 1-9. Lovejoy, Arthur O., The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea (1936), Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UP, 1961. Lowenthal, Cynthia, Performing Identities on the Restoration Stage, Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois UP, 2003. Loxley, James, “Unfettered Organs: The Polemical Voices of Katherine Philips”, in ‘This Double Voice’: Gendered Writing in Early Modern England, eds Danielle Clarke and Elizabeth Clarke, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000, 230-48. Lynch, Kathleen, The Social Mode of Restoration Comedy (1926), New York: Biblo and Tannen, 1965.

268

Of Love and War

McFarlane, Cameron, The Sodomite in Fiction and Satire 1660-1750, New York: Columbia UP, 1997. McKeon, Michael, “Historicizing Patriarchy: The Emergence of Gender Difference in England, 1660-1760”, Eighteenth-Century Studies, XXVIII/3 (Spring 1995), 295-322. ―, “Marxist Criticism and Marriage A-la-Mode”, Eighteenth Century, XXIV/2 (Spring 1983), 141-62. MacKillop, James, Dictionary of Celtic Mythology, Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998. MacLean, Gerald, “Literature, Culture, and Society in Restoration England”, in Culture and Society in the Stuart Restoration: Literature, Drama, History, ed. Gerald MacLean, 3-27. ―, ed., Culture and Society in the Stuart Restoration: Literature, Drama, History, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. MacLeod, Catherine and Julia Marciari Alexander, Painted Ladies: Women at the Court of Charles II, London: National Portrait Gallery, 2001. Maguire, Nancy Klein, “The ‘Whole Truth’ of Renaissance Tragicomedy”, in Renaissance Tragicomedy: Explorations in Genre and Politics, ed. Nancy Klein Maguire, 218-39. ―, Regicide and Restoration: English Tragicomedy 1660-1671, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992. ―, ed., Renaissance Tragicomedy: Explorations in Genre and Politics, New York: AMS, 1987. Marcus, Leah S., The Politics of Mirth: Jonson, Herrick, Milton, Marvell, and the Defense of Old Holiday Pastimes, Chicago and London: U of Chicago P, 1986. Marsden, Jean I., “Tragedy and Varieties of Serious Drama”, in A Companion to Restoration Drama, ed. Susan J. Owen, Oxford: Blackwell, 2001, 228-42. ―, Fatal Desire: Women, Sexuality, and the English Stage, 16601720, Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2006. Matar, Nabil, Britain and Barbary 1589-1689, Gainesville: UP of Florida, 2005. Miller, John, Charles II, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1991. ―, James II: A Study in Kingship (1978, rev. edn, 1989), London: Methuen, 1991.

Bibliography

269

Nash, Julie, “‘The sight on’t would beget a warm desire’”, Restoration: Studies in English Literature Culture 1660-1700, XVIII/2 (Fall 1994), 77-87. Neill, Michael, “‘Mulattos,’ ‘Blacks,’ and ‘Indian Moors’: Othello and Early Modern Construction of Human Difference”, Shakespeare Quarterly, XLIX/4 (Winter 1998), 361-74. Nenner, Howard, The Right to Be King: The Succession to the Crown of England 1603-1714, London: Macmillan, 1995. O’Donnell, Mary Anne and Bernard Dhuicq, eds, Alterity and Ambiguity: Aphra Behn (1640-1689), Paris: L’Harmattan, 2000. Ogg, David, England in the Reign of Charles II (2nd edn, 2 vols, 1934), Oxford: Clarendon P, 1956. Ostvich, Helen and Elizabeth Sauer, “Plays”, in Reading Early Modern Women: An Anthology of Texts in Manuscript and Print, 1550-1700, New York: Routledge, 2004, 413-19. Owen, Susan J., Restoration Theatre and Crisis, Oxford: Clarendon P, 1996. ―, ed., A Companion to Restoration Drama, Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. ―, “Interpreting the Politics of Restoration Drama”, Seventeenth Century, VIII/1 (Spring 1993), 67-97. ―, “Sexual Politics and Party Politics in Behn’s Drama, 1678-83”, in Aphra Behn Studies, ed. Janet Todd, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. 15-29. ―, “‘Suspect my loyalty when I lose my virtue’: Sexual Politics and Party Politics in Aphra Behn’s Plays of the Exclusion Crisis, 16781683”, Restoration: Studies in English Literature Culture 16601700, XVIII/1 (Spring 1994), 34-47. Parry, Graham, The Golden Age Restor’d: The Culture of the Stuart Court 1603-42, Manchester: Manchester UP, 1981. Patterson, Annabel, Censorship and Interpretation: The Conditions of Writing and Reading in Early Modern England, Madison, Wisc.: U of Wisconsin P, 1984. ―, “Lady State’s First Two Sittings: Marvell’s Satiric Canon,” Studies in English Literature 1500-1900, XL/3 (Summer 2000), 395-411.

270

Of Love and War

Pearson, Jacqueline, The Prostituted Muse: Images of Women and Women Dramatists 1642-1737, New York and London: Harvester, 1988. Pincus, Steven C.A., “Republicanism, Absolutism and Universal Monarchy: English Popular Sentiment During the Third Dutch War”, in Culture and Society in the Stuart Restoration: Literature, Drama, History, ed. Gerald MacLean, 241-66. Potter, Lois, “‘True Tragicomedies’ of the Civil War and Commonwealth”, in Renaissance Tragicomedy: Explorations in Genre and Politics, ed. Nancy Klein Maguire, 196-217. ―, Secret Rites and Secret Writing: Royalist Literature 1641-1660, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989. Purkiss, Diane, “Material Girls: The Seventeenth-Century Woman Debate”, in Women, Texts and Histories 1575-1760, eds Clare Brant and Diane Purkiss, London: Routledge, 1992, 69-101. Raknem, Ingvold, Joan of Arc in History, Legend and Literature, Oslo: Universitatesforlaget, 1971. Randall, Dale B.J., Winter Fruit: English Drama 1642-1660, Lexington: U of Kentucky P, 1995. Richards, Sandra, The Rise of the English Actress, New York: St Martin’s Press, 1993. Saslow, James M., “Homosexuality in the Renaissance: Behaviour, Identity, and Artistic Expression”, in Hidden from History: Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past, eds Martin Bauml Duberman and Martha Vicinus et al., Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1989, 90-105. Sawday, Jonathan, “Re-writing a Revolution: History, Symbol and Text in the Restoration”, Seventeenth Century, VII/2 (October 1992), 171-99. Schafer, Elizabeth, “Appropriating Aphra”, Australasian Drama Studies, XIX (October 1991), 39-49. Schochet, Gordon J., “Patriarchalism, Politics and Mass Attitudes in Stuart England”, Historical Journal, XII/3 (1969), 413-41. ―, Patriarchalism in Political Thought: The Authoritarian Family and Political Speculation and Attitudes, Especially in SeventeenthCentury England, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975.

Bibliography

271

Senelick, Laurence, “Mollies or Men of Mode? Sodomy and the Eighteenth-Century London Stage”, Journal of the History of Sexuality, I/1 (July 1990), 33-67. Sorelius, Gunnar, The Giant Race Before the Flood: Pre-Restoration Drama On the Stage and in the Criticism of the Restoration, Uppsala: Almquist and Wiksells, 1966. Spencer, Jane, “‘Deceit, Dissembling, all that’s Woman’: Comic Plot and Female Action in The Feigned Courtesans”, in Rereading Aphra Behn: History, Theory, and Criticism, ed. Heidi Hutner, 86-101. ―, The Rise of the Woman Novelist: From Aphra Behn to Jane Austen (1986), Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989. Staves, Susan, Players’ Scepters: Fictions of Authority in the Restoration, Lincoln, Neb.: U of Nebraska P, 1979. Stone, Lawrence, “Social Mobility in England 1500-1700”, in Seventeenth-Century England: Society in an Age of Revolution, ed. Paul S. Seaver, New York: New Viewpoints, 1976, 25-70. Strickland, Agnes, Lives of the Queens of England, from the Norman Conquest: with Anecdotes of their Courts, 8 vols, London: Henry Colburn, 1851-52. Sullivan, Henry W., Calderon in the German Lands and the Low Countries: His Reception and Influence, 1654-1980, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983. Summers, Montague, The Restoration Theatre (1934), New York: Humanities P, 1964. Thomas, Keith, Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century England (1971), London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1997. Todd, Janet, The Secret Life of Aphra Behn, London: Andre Deutsch, 1996. ―, The Sign of Angellica: Women, Writing and Fiction 1660-1800, London: Virago, 1989. ―, ed., Aphra Behn Studies, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. Tokson, Elliot H., The Popular Image of the Black Man in English Drama, 1550-1688, Boston: G.K. Hall, 1982. Trumbach, Randolph, “Sodomitical Assaults, Gender Role, and Sexual Development in Eighteenth-Century London”, Journal of Homosexuality, XVI/1 and 2 (September 1988), 407-29.

272

Of Love and War

Turner, James Grantham, Libertines and Radicals in Early Modern London: Sexuality, Politics, and Literary Culture, 1630-1685, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. Uman, Debra, “Aphra Behn, Dedication to Oroonoko: or, the Royal Slave”, in Reading Early Modern Women: An Anthology of Texts in Manuscript and Print, 1550-1700, eds Helen Ostvich and Elizabeth Sauer, New York: Routledge, 2004, 44-45. Underdown, David, Revel, Riot, and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England 1603-1660, Oxford and New York: Oxford UP, 1985. Vitkus, Daniel, “Turning Turk in Othello: The Conversion and Damnation of the Moor”, Shakespeare Quarterly, XLVIII/2 (Summer 1997), 145-76. Waith, Eugene, “Spectacles of State”, Studies in English Literature, III/2 (Spring 1973), 317-30. Warner, Marina, Joan of Arc: The Image of Female Heroism (1981), New York: Vintage, 1982. Weber, Harold, “Charles II, George Pines and Mr. Dorimont: The Politics of Sexual Power in Restoration England”, Criticism, XXXII/2 (Spring 1990), 193-219. ―, Paper Bullets: Print and Kingship under Charles II, Lexington: UP of Kentucky, 1996. Welsford, Enid, The Court Masque: A Study in the Relation Between Poetry and the Revels (1927), New York: Russell, 1962. Wilson, John Harold, The Court Wits of the Restoration: An Introduction, London: Frank Cass, 1967. Wiseman, Susan, “‘Adam, the father of all Flesh’, Porno-Political Rhetoric and Political Theory in and After the English Civil War”, Prose Studies, XIV/3 (December 1991), 134-57. Ziomek, Henryk, “Historic Implications and Dramatic Influences in Calderón’s Life Is a Dream”, Polish Review, XX/1 (Winter 1975), 111-28. Zwicker, Steven N., Lines of Authority: Politics and English Literary Culture 1649-1689, Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1993.

INDEX

Act of Uniformity, 3 acting companies, formation of, 7-9, 11-12 actors/players, 7-8, 81, 152; for entertainments, 128; king as, 92; in masques, 71-72; sabotaged Behn’s play, 153-54 Addison, Lancelot, West Barbary, 166 actresses, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 152, 195; for entertainments, 128 Adventures of (Mr. T. S.), an English Merchant, 166 advisors, 4, 116, 181; the Cabal, 120-21, 125, 146; as evil counsellors, 116-118, 145; public discontent with, 146 Agra, 180 Airès, Philippe, and George Duby, eds, History of Private Life, 189 Airy, Osmund, ed., Essex Papers, 170 Alberti, Girolamo, 169, 178, 186 Algeria, 167; Algiers, 166 allegory, 26-27; drama as, 66, 67, 173, 174; and history 75 Allen, Ned Bliss, The Source

of Dryden’s Comedies, 154 amazon(s), 21, 32, 58, 153, 193 ambition, 69, 183; for Polish crown, 51; and statesmen, 146, 179; and tyrants, 61 The Amours of the Sultan of Barbary, 173-74 Amsterdam, 35, 124, 130 Amussen, Susan Dwyer, An Ordered Society, 188, 191; ed. (with Mark Kishlansky), Political Culture, 192 androgyny, 14 Anne of Denmark, Queen Consort of James I, 7-8 Anne, Princess and daughter of James, Duke of York, 76 Antwerp, 9 Ariadne, 7 Arlington, Earl of, see Bennet, Henry Ashley, Maurice, Charles II, 130, 149 Astell, Mary, A Serious Proposal to the Ladies, 198 Athanassakis, Apostolos N., ed., Hesiod, Theogony, 160 Auburn, Mark S., John Dryden: Marriage à la Mode, 154, 155 authority, 28; and effeminacy,

274

Of Love and War

100, 119; masculine/ patriarchal, 5, 29-30, 36, 42, 54, 62, 68, 99, 139-40, 141, 144, 152, 190, 192, 193, 196; military, 135; monarchical, 48, 99, 100, 119, 190, 191; political, 9899, 192; public, 191; religious, 48, 192; and tyranny, 48, 191; and women in, 192, 193, 196 Ayres, P.J., “Revision of Lust’s Dominion”, 164 Bacon, Francis, Works, 192 “Ballad Called the Haymarket Hectors”, 101 Ballaster, Ros, Fabulous Orients, 175-76; “Seizing the Means of Seduction”, 6 Banks, John, Virtue Betrayed, or Ana Bullen, 181 Barbados, 167 Barbary, 168, 169, 175, 176 Barbican, 9 Barbour, Violet, Henry Bennet, Earl of Arlington, 11, 84, 97, 183 Barcroft, John, 21 Barillon, d’Amoncourt, Marquis de Branges, and Louise de Kéroualle, 179, 187 Barking, Abbess of, see Sutton, Katherine of Batelier, William, 167 Bawcutt, N.W., ed., Control and Censorship of Caroline Drama, 8

Beaumont, Francis, 11; The Coxcomb, 91-92 (with John Fletcher) bed-trick, 147, 148-49, 165 Behn, Aphra, 1, 2, 5, 7, 17, 195-96; and Arlington, 911, 82-85; craftsmanship of, 20, 109, 111, 116, 12021, 155-57; and espionage, 9-11,15, 35, 56, 57; as female writer, 7, 11, 12-15, 16, 57-60; and feminism, 67, 12-15, 85-88, 191-201; imprisonment, 9-11, 152; and infamy, 196, 197, 198200; uses personation, 1011, 81-85, 95; petitions Charles II, 9-10; and royalism, 5, 19, 37, 45, 47, 53, 65, 76, 104, 132, 151; Works: Abdelazer, 127, 158, 159-89; Amorous Prince, 5, 15, 20, 39, 42, 57, 71, 88, 89-121, 157; City Heiress, 52, 181; The Debauchee, 131; The Dutch Lover, 1, 5, 13, 71, 121, 123-58, 191; Feign’d Curtizans, 2, 12, 49; Forc’d Marriage, 10, 11, 15, 17, 19, 35, 53, 55-88, 89, 103, 104, 116, 120, 157, 196; Luckey Chance, 1, 14, 15; Of Plants. Book VI, 13; Oroonoko, 13; Poems upon Several Occasions, 162; Romulus and Hersilia, “Epilogue” to, 152; The Rover, 5, 133-

Index 34; Second Part of the Rover, 52, 152, 183; Sir Patient Fancy, 13, 14, 197; The Town Fopp, 5; The Young King, 17-53, 89, 96, 150, 151, 188; “Letter to a Brother of the Pen in Tribulation”, 12-13; “Memoirs of the King of Bantam”, 109; “Song. Love Arm’d”, 161-62; “To Mr. Creech (under the Name of Daphnis) on His Excellent Translation of Lucretius”, 74 Beltaine, 23 Bennet, Henry, Lord Arlington, 9, 10, 11; and the Cabal, 57; and Civil Wars, 82; and court jealousy, 82, 96, 97; in disfavour, 82, 83; and espionage, 9-10; and licensing plays, 11; and Hortense Mancini, 182-83; and Louise de Kéroualle, 178, 182-83; marriage of, 84-85; and patches, 10, 82, 84; personated, 10-11, 8283; and procuring, 78, 95; preferment, 94-95, 96-97; and reputation, 83-84, 85 Berkeley, Charles, 95 Bernard, John Peter, ed., General Dictionary Historical and Critical, 200 Bevan, Bryan, Charles the Second’s French Mistress,

275 179, 181 Beverweert, Isabella van, 84 Birch, Thomas, ed., The Court and Times of James I, 99; ed., General Dictionary, Historical and Critical, 200 bisexuality, 106, 108 Black, Jeremy, ed., Culture and Society in Britain 1660-1800, 108 Blount, Henry, A Voyage into the Levant, 168 Boothby, Frances, 196; Marcelia, 7, 12, 116-17, 118-19, 197 Boyle, Roger, Earl of Orrery, The Black Prince, 116, 117; The Generall, 60, 61, 70; Mustapha, 169, 174; Tryphon, 116, 117 Braverman, Richard, Plots and Counterplots, 75, 76, 155, 192-93 Bray, Alan, Homosexuality in Renaissance England, 108, 109, 111, 115 Breda, Treaty of, 125 Bristol, Earl of, see Digby, George Brody, Ervin C., “Poland in Calderon’s Life Is a Dream”, 51 Brown, Laura, “The Divided Plot”, 155-56 Brown, Mark N., ed., Works of George Savile, Marquis of Halifax, 94 Browne, Thomas, Religio

276

Of Love and War

Medici, 98 Browning, Andrew, ed., Memoirs of Sir John Reresby, 119 Bruce, Thomas, Earl of Ailesbury and Elgin, Memoirs, 94, 179, 187 Brussels, 35, 82 Bryant, Arthur, ed., Letters, Speeches and Declarations of King Charles II, 79 Buckingham, Duke of, see Villiers, George Buckley, William Edward, ed., Memoirs of Thomas, Earl of Ailesbury, 94 Bueler, Lois, “The Structural Uses of Incest”, 149 Burke, Edmund, Reflections on the Revolution in France, 100, 104 Burnet, Gilbert, 199-200; History of His Own Time, 79, 95 “The Busse or the Royal Kiss or Prorogation”, 179 Butler, Edward, 9, 10 Butler, Martin, Theatre and Crisis 1632-1642, 67 Cabal, 3, 56, 57, 123, 127, 148; demise of, 127; discontent with, 148; satire on, 57-58, 127; and Third Dutch War, 123-24 Caillieres, Jacques de, The Courtier’s Calling, 95 Calderón de la Barca, Pedro, Life Is a Dream, 18, 19, 32-

33, 34, 35, 40, 41, 43, 46, 49, 50, 147 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 9, 10, 21, 123, 124, 126, 127, 130, 179, 180, 187; Venetian, 160, 171, 172, 180, 188 Calvert, George, 99 Capel, Arthur, First Earl of Essex, Correspondence of, 187; and Louise de Kéroualle, 178, 187; Capuchins, 109 Carew, Thomas, Coellum Britannicum, 22, 74 Cary, Elizabeth, Viscountess of Falkland, Mariam, The Fair Queen of Jewry, 196 Caryll, John, The English Princess, 61, 62-63 Casimir, John, King of Poland, 51 Castlemaine, Lady, see Villiers, Barbara Cathcart, Charles, “Lust’s Dominion”, 166, 166, 178; “You Will Crown him King”, 160-61 Catherine of Braganza, 178; barrenness of, 78, 151; and divorce, 78-80, 180; literary corollary, 80-81 Catholic(s), 3, 5, 126, 128, 171; “Catholick Ballad”, 171-72; Charles II as, 124; and first Declaration of Indulgence, 3, 97; and second Declaration of Indulgence, 3, 124, 126-27,

Index 150, 159; and exclusion, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 160; and Islam, 127, 170-71, 173, 174; James, Duke of York, as, 47, 52, 77, 123, 127, 150, 151, 152, 171, 183; and the royal mistresses, 178, 179; and Test Act, 127, 159, 172 Catholicism, 3, 5, 171, 175, 177; anti-Catholicism, 3-4, 5, 124; as evil, 173; and Islam, 127, 170-71, 173, 174; and the Secret Treaty of Dover, 124; sexual profligacy, 109; as sexual transgression, 174; and succession,47, 48, 50, 52, 77, 160, 161, 175; and superstition, 48; and Third Dutch War, 123-24, 132 Cauthen, Jr., Irby B., ed., Dramatic Works in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon, I, 91 Cavalier(s), 19, 20, 136; and Dutch Wars, 124; notion of love and honour, 19, 20, 136; Parliament, 3; and sequestered property, 2 Cavendish, Elizabeth, 196 Cavendish, Jane, 196 Cavendish, Margaret, Duchess of Newcastle, 196; The World’s Olio, 197-98 Cavendish, William, Duke of Newcastle, and Civil Wars, 11, 196; Work: The Humorous Lovers, 72

277 Cecil, C.D., “Libertine and Précieux Elements in Restoration Comedy”, 137 Cecil, Robert, 175 Centlivre, Susanna, 7, 200 Cervantes, Miguel de, The Adventures of Don Quixote de la Mancha, 91, 92-93, 109, 112, Chamberlayne, Edward, Anglia Notitia, 109 Chapman, George, 91 Chapman, Hester, Four Fine Gentlemen, 181 Character of a Coffee-House, 187-88 The Character of Italy, 109 Charing Cross, 130, 187 Charles I, 39, 44, 46; and Catholicism 3-4; and Civil Wars, 26, 44, 47; as Druid, 22-23; Eikon Basiliké, 40, 41, 45, 46, 47, 50; execution of, 45-46, 60; martyrdom, 65; and masques, 22, 72, 75; representation of, 26, 53, 73; ruled by his wife, 39; subject only to God, 45 Charles II, 3, 7, 27, 42, 53, 65, 151, 159, 167, 187; advisors of, 4, 57, 95, 97, 117, 127, 132, 148, 182; and Arlington, 57, 78, 82, 83, 95, 97, 178, 182-83; and Behn, 9-10, 15, 53, 57; as “Black Boy,” 61; and Catholicism, 3-4, 123, 124, 126-27, 150, 152, 171-72,

278

Of Love and War

173; children of, 151, 152, 167, 179-80; and Clarendon, 77, 97; and coffee houses, 179, 187-88; coronation of, 23-24, 4546; and court wits, 82, 133, 137; death of, 133; and Declaration of Breda, 42, 45, 46; and divorce, 77-79, 80-81, 180; as Druid, 21, 22-23; and the Dutch, 9, 100, 123-24, 125, 126, 127, 132; and effeminacy, 103, 119, 120, 179, 195; fear of upheaval, 19, 46-47, 15960; and exclusion, 45, 4647, 49; and the French, 124, 126, 132, 171, 178, 179, 180, 182-83, 186-87, 188; and Frances Stuart, 78-79, 81; horoscope of, 21; and inattention to state affairs, 100-101, 149; King’s Evil, touching, 102103; Letters, Speeches and Declarations, 79; and libertinism, 37, 103, 119, 137; love of personal satire, 82, 83; and Madame, 79, 179; and month of May, 23, 24; mistresses, 12, 95, 117, 119, 120, 167, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 184, 187, 188, 189; and Monck, 43, 61, 66, 67, 70; and Monmouth, 151, 152; panegyrics on, 23, 24, 43; and Parliament, 3, 4, 45, 47, 49, 103, 123, 127, 159,

172, 179, 180, 192; portrayed, 60, 61, 62, 65-66, 94, 175-76; as primum mobile, 98, 99, 100, 120; procuring for, 78, 94, 95, 178, 182-83, 151; promiscuity of, 37, 81, 94, 95, 98, 99, 100, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 151; return of, 7, 18, 19, 24, 27, 43, 46, 50, 53, 55, 60, 65-66, 70, 85, 192, 195; satire of, 94, 95, 100, 101, 175-76, 179, 188, 195; and Secret Treaty of Dover, 124, 126; statue of, 187; and the theatre, 7, 8, 116; and toleration, 2, 3, 127, 150, 159, 172-73; and weaver riots, 159-60 Chartier, Roger, ed., Passions of the Renaissance, 191 Chibnall, Jennifer, “‘To that secure fix’d state’”, 71 Chiffinch, Thomas, 120 Chiffinch, William, 9-10, 9495, 120 Church of England, 3, 21, 22, 80, 169, 187, 191; and Caroline Court, 22; and Charles II, 3, 21, 172 Cibber, Colley, The Comical Lovers, 156 civil war, 18, 19, 27, 28, 44, 47, 51, 53; and change, 28; as desire and possession, 18, 66; fear of, 47, 49, 15961, 180; libertinism, 37; and succession, 50, 180; tropes of, 27

Index Civil Wars, 10, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 38, 39, 44, 51, 52, 50, 55, 57, 60, 65, 76, 85, 88; in drama, 18, 26, 60-67, 76, 88, 160-61; encoding during, 26-27; and Exclusion Crisis, 19, 20, 50, 51, 52; and Parliament of Women pamphlets, 195- 96; and Poland, 50, 51; and republicanism, 47; and romances, 27; and social order, 6, 19, 28, 38, 98, 193; and women, 86, 193-94 Clarendon, Earl of, see Hyde, Edward Clarendon Code, 3 Clark, Constance, Three Augustan Women Playwrights, 196 Clark, William Smith, ed., Dramatic Works of Roger Boyle, 61 Clarke, Danielle and Elizabeth, eds, This Double Voice, 36 Clifford, Thomas, and court jealousy, 97; and the Cabal, 57, 127; and Test Act, 127 Cobbett, William, Cobbett’s Parliamentary History of England, 65 coffee houses, 3, 179, 187, 188 Coffee-houses Vindicated, 188 Collins, John, Mysteria Relevata, 43-44 comedy, 60, 163, 189; Carolean, 71; Moors in,

279 167; rake in, 133, 136-37; refreshes tragic plot, 156; sex, 189; tension with tragedy, 120 Commons, House of, 173; and the Restoration, 49, 70 commonwealth, 40, 42, 69-70, 187; and the Restoration, 44 constancy, 97, 104, 107; in love, 58, 87-88, 104; in marriage, 64, 69, 104, 11213, 134-35, 163, 164 Conway, Edward, Viscount, and Louise de Kéroualle, 178 Cooke, Arthur L., and Thomas Stroup, eds, Works of Nathaniel Lee, 90 Cooper, Anthony Ashley, First Earl of Shaftesbury, 181; and the Cabal, 57, 127; dislike of Catholics, 181; and Louise de Kéroualle, 181, 182; and Duke of Monmouth, 151-52; satirized, 51-52; and Test Act, 127, 172-73; and toleration, 172 Cornelia, Maria, The Function of the Masque in Jacobean Tragedy and Tragicomedy, 72, 73 Corneille, Pierre, La Mort de Pompée, 7 corruption, 55, 147, 148, 154, 193; and the court, 55, 110, 148, 149, 182; and desire, 148, 153; as sexual prof-

280

Of Love and War

ligacy, 180 Cotterell, Charles, 26 counsel, 42, 132; evil, 117-19, 147-48; wise, 104, 116, 147, 182 Counter-Reformation, 109 courage, 84; in battle, 90; contest of, 137; masculine, 31; as sexual potency, 140 court, 40, 47, 55, 57, 78, 82, 89, 90, 94, 120, 126, 160, 170, 173, 180, 188; Carolean, 1, 133, 136, 137, 169; Caroline court, 19, 22, 24, 25, 53, 72, 73, 74, 75; corrupt and/ or louche, 55, 94, 95, 96, 120; Elizabeth I, 166, 167; French influence in, 124, 132, 171, 178, 179, 183, 186-87, 188; intrigues and skirmishes in, 4, 11, 57, 82, 96-97; jealousies, 4, 82, 96-97, 148, 179-80; masques, 7, 8, 22, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75; mirror of, 7174, 93, 94; Moors in, 16667; and Ottoman Empire, 175-76; politics, 1, 85, 9697, 169-70, 174; preferment, 96-97; satire on, 93, 97, 187, 188; wits, 82, 133 courtesan, 58, 71, 95, 114, 134, 141, 142 (also see prostitute) courtiers, 57, 95, 110; and Charles II’s divorce, 78-80; and illegitimate children, 152-53; licentious, 94, 95, 107, 110;

and personal satire, 81-82, 83; and political jealousies, 96-97; as pimp, 78, 95, 110, 178; satire on, 81-82, 83, 94, 95, 96, 97 courtship, contest of, 137, 139; Dutch, 138, 139; gender equality in, 85-86, 87; Spanish, 138, 139 Cowley, Abraham, The Cutter of Coleman Street, 60; The Guardian, 60; Plantarum, 13; “Ode upon His Majesty’s Restoration and Return”, 43 Crawford, Patricia, “Women’s Published Writings 16001700”, 194, 196 Creech, Thomas, 74 Crofts, William, 51 Croissy, Colbert de, and Louise de Kéroualle, 178 Cromwell, Oliver, and dramatic parallel to, 61-62, 67, 160-61; literary corollary, 160, 178; and repression, 38 cross-dressing, 91, 106, 144, 154, 155; an abomination, 154; eroticism of, 5, 107, 154; and gender boundaries, 5, 106-107, 144, 154, 155; and Moors, 167; and political discourse, 5, 154 Crowne, John, City Politics, 181; History of Charles VIII of France, 87 Daly, James, “Cosmic

Index Harmony and Political Thinking in Early Stuart England”, 98, 99, 101, 104 Danby, First Earl of, see Osborne, Thomas Davenant, Charles, 9, 161 Davenant, Mary, 9, 12, 161 Davenant, William, 8, 9, 1011, 161; and Civil Wars, 10; and the theatre, 11-12; Works: Siege of Rhodes, 26; The Tempest, 8, 34, 37 Davies, G.A., “Poland, Politics and La vida es Sueño”, 47 Davies, Norman, God’s Playground: A History of Poland, 51 Davis, Moll, 120 Dearing, Vinton A., ed., Works of John Dryden, VII and XII, 99 de Beer, Esmond Samuel, ed., Diary of John Evelyn, 78 Declaration of Indulgence, First (1662), 3, 97; Second (1672), 3, 123, 126, 150, 159 “Defiance to the Dutch”, 125 De groote Sigismundus, 35 Delpech, Jeanine, Life and Times of the Duchess of Portsmouth, 178, 180 Dennis, John, 74 desire, 38, 74, 84; and abundance, 37; and Civil Wars, 66; female, 142, 143, 163; gender and, 127, 142, 143; homosexual, 108, 111;

281 and hubris, 36; incestuous, 149; and reason, 30, 39, 40, 106, 111; sexual, 36, 37, 39, 89-121 passim, 133, 159-89 passim; as war, 18, 137 devil, 73, 174, 179 (also see Satan) Devoto, Anthony, 130 Dhuicq, Bernard and Mary Anne O’Donnell, eds, Alterity and Ambiguity, 150 Digby, George, Second Earl of Bristol, 96-97 Dissenters, 172 divorce/dissolution, in drama, 79-81; and Charles II, 7778, 79, 180; Lord Roos’, 77-78, 152 Dover, Charles II’s landing at, 66; Secret Treaty of, 124, 126 Downing, George, 125 Doyle, Anne T., ed., Settle’s Empress of Morocco, 177 Druid(s), 21, 22, 23, 24, 33 Druina, 22 Drury, G. Thorn, ed., Poems of Edmund Waller, 23 Dryden, John, 13, 74, 131, 169; Works: Absalom and Achitophel, 37; Amboyna, 130; Annus Mirabilis, 137; The Assignation, 130, 131; Astrea Redux, 24, 43; Aureng Zebe, 153, 176, 177, 182; The Conquest of Granada, 63, 169; Don Sebastian, 169, 181; An

282

Of Love and War

Essay of Dramatick Poesie, 156; The Indian Emperor 152; Indian Queen (with Robert Howard), 195; Marriage A-la-Mode, 89, 153, 155-57; Secret Love, 156; The State of Innocence and the Fall of Man, 99; Tales from Chaucer, 99; The Tempest, 8, 34, 37; Tyrannick Love, 80-81, 89, 152; “The Medal”, 51-52; “To His Sacred Majesty”, 23 Duby, George, 191 Duffy, Maureen, The Passionate Shepherdess, 9, 11, 15, 17, 77, 152, 188, 199 Duke’s Company, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 130, 161 Dutch, 129, 132, 137, 141; and Amboyna, 130; courtship, 137, 138, 139; and cruelty, 130, 131; and English merchants, 124, 131; espionage against, 9; fleet, 100, 123, 124; greed of, 126; ingratitude of, 124; invasion by, 126; manner of fighting, 138, 140-41; merchants, 124, 128, 12930, 138, 139; satirized, 123-58 passim Dutch Wars, 2; Second Dutch War, 9, 124, 137; Third Dutch War, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 132, 138 Echard, Laurence, History of

England, 82, 159 Edmond, Mary, Rare Sir William Davenant, 10 Edmondes, Thomas, 99 education, 29, 30, 47, 74; masculine, 16, 29, 30; women’s desire for, 16, 29, 74, 200 effeminacy, 38, 39, 101, 112, 117, 188; and authority, 118, 190; and desire, 37, 38; and disorder, 109; and education, 29; government, 38; and masculine nature, 114; and reason, 37 Elizabeth I, 51, 166, 167; and Moors, 166, 170; and succession, 175 Elledge, Scott, ed., John Milton, Paradise Lost, 37 Elliott, John Huxtable, The Count-Duke of Olivares, 147 Ellis, Frank H., ed., Works of John Wilmot, 6 Essex Papers, 172, 187 Essick, Robert and Jenijoy La Belle, eds, Night Thoughts, 100 Etherege, George, She Would If She Could, 195 Evelyn, John, 74, 120; Diary, 78, 103, 120, 123, 124 evil, 160, 163, 170; and Catholicism, 173; coffee houses as, 188; counsellors, 117-19, 147; female, 143, 174; and Islam, 173; Moor as, 170

Index espionage, 9, 10, 11, 15, 35, 56; and the vizard, 56, 57 Exclusion Crisis, 2, 3, 4, 5, 17-51 passim, 151, 160; and anti-Catholic sentiment, 3, 46-47; and Civil Wars, 19, 20, 46, 49, 52, 196; and Parliament, 45; and rape, 37; satire during, 51-52; and succession, 17, 45, 46-47, 49, 151 exile, 19, 27, 30, 34, 38, 41, 51, 53 Falkland, Viscountess of, see Cary, Elizabeth Fell, John, Character of the Last Days, 188 fidelity, 85, 111; and political loyalty, 41, 45, 56, 59, 67, 85, 182; princely, 114; test of, 89-90, 110-11 Fink, Laurie, “Aphra Behn and the Ideological Construction of Restoration Literary Theory”, 6-7 Firth, Charles Harding, ed., Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow, 78 Fitzroy, Charlotte, Lady, 167 Fitzroy, Henry, First Duke of Grafton, 180 Flanders, 137, 138 Fletcher, John, 11; Work: The Coxcomb (with Francis Beaumont), 91-92 Florence, 95, 108-109 fop, 5, 30, 80, 126; courtier as, 17-53 passim, 89-121

283 passim; country, 89-121 passim; cowardly, 55-88 passim; Dutch, 128-41 passim, 154, 156 Forker, Charles R., “A Little more than Kin”, 152 Fountain, John, The Rewards of Virtue, 118 “Fourth Advice to a Painter”, 100 Fowler, J., The History of the Troubles of Suethland and Poland, 51 France/French, 27, 35, 117, 130; and Charles II, 124, 126, 132, 171, 178, 179, 180, 182-83, 186-87, 188; court wits, 82, 83; and Dutch, 124, 126, 130-31, 132, 138; interests, 171, 178, 179; and Hortense Mancini, 178, 182-83; and Joan of Arc, 59-60; and Louise de Kéroualle, 17879, 186-87, 188; and Mary of Modena, 171; model of government, 132, 180; romances, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27-28, 140-41; weavers, 159-60; and William of Orange, 132 Franciscans, 109 Fraser, Antonia, King Charles II, 94, 120, 180, 181 Friedman, Arthur, ed., Plays of William Wycherley, 130 friendship, 97, 106, 113, 114, 134, 149; homo-social, 111, 114, 143, 153; love

284

Of Love and War

and, 105, 112, 113 Gagen, Jean, The New Woman, 14, 58 Gallagher, Catherine, “Who Was that Masked Woman”, 57-58

Gardiner, Judith Kegan, “Liberty, Quality, Fraternity”, 162 Gauden, John, 40 Gennari, Benedetto, 167 gender, 6, 9, 12, 15, 27, 29, 56, 63, 85, 106, 107, 154, 192, 193, 198; boundaries, 6, 14, 154; codes and conventions, 146, 194; and education, 16, 29, 30, 74, 200; and equality, 85, 86, 127, 142, 146, 150; hierarchy, 14, 63, 86, 145, 193; and privilege, 15, 30, 56, 155; subversion, 27, 29, 30; transgression, 30-31, 14147 passim, 154; war, 50-60, 73, 86, 195; and wit, 59; and writing, 6-7, 12-16, 5560, 193, 200-201 Genest, John, 35; Some Account of the English Stage, 155-57 Gies, Frances, Joan of Arc, 5960 Gilbert, Eleazar, News from Poland, 50-51 Golden Age, 53, 55, 76 “good old cause”, 38, 43 Goodman, Dena, “Public Sphere and Private Life”,

191 Goreau, Angeline, Reconstructing Aphra, 9, 15, 17, 111, 152 Grafton, First Duke of, see Fitzroy, Henry Gramont, Philibert, Comte de, 83 Great Chain of Being, 98-100, 101, 106 greed/avarice, 83, 178, 183; and the Dutch, 126, 130; as lust/sexual desire, 178, 180, 186; and statesmen, 83, 84, 85, 181 Greville, Fulke, Lord Brooke, “A Treatise of Monarchy”, 99 Grey, Anchitell, Debates of the House of Commons, 75 Grosart, Alexander, B., ed. Works of Thomas Browne, 99 Guibbory, Aschah, “Sexual Politics/Political Sex”, 69 Gunpowder Plot, 4, 166 Guzman, Don Julian de, 15051 Gwynn, Nell, 12, 101, 120 dedication to, 12, 189 Habermas, Jürgen, Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit, 191 Habord, William, 187 The Hague, 125 Hakluyt, Richard, 170 Halifax, Marquis of, see Savile, George

Index Haley, K.D., First Earl of Shaftesbury, 181 Hall, Kim, Things of Darkness, 170 Hamilton, Anthony, ed., Memoirs of the Comte de Gramont, 83 Hammond, Paul, “Titus Oates and ‘Sodomy’”, 108 harmony, 88, 101; and order, 88, 100, 104, 115 Harris, Frank Reginald, Life of Edward Montagu, K.G., First Earl of Sandwich, 77 Harrison, Edward R., Cosmology, 98 Hattige, or the Amours of the King of Tamaran (1680), 175-76 Hayden, Judy A., “From Caroline Tears to Carolean Laughter”, 63; “The Subject in the House”, 63; “Times of Trouble”, 150; “The Tragedy of Roxolana in the Court of Charles II”, 177 Hazlitt, W. Carew, ed., Old English Plays, 91 Hedbäck, Ann-Mari, 26 hegemony, male/patriarchal, 56, 59, 143, 145, 146, 154 heir, 30, 47, 48, 80, 104, 150, 152-53, 164, 174, 177, 182, 183; of Charles II, 47, 52, 79-80, 179-80; James, Duke of York as, 46-47, 52, 127, 151-52, 179-80; Monmouth as, 151-52;

285 legitimate, 18, 30, 60, 61, 62, 66, 71, 174, 179, 183 Hekma, Gert, “Sodomites, Plantonic Lovers, Contrary Lovers”, 109 Henrietta Maria, Queen, 8, 25, 39; and Civil Wars, 24-25; and female usurpation, 39; and masques, 72; and pastoral romance, 24; representation of, 25, 26 Henriette, Duchess of Orléans, and Charles II, 79; brings Louise de Kéroualle to England, 179 Henry, Edmund S., ed., Edward Ravenscroft’s Careless Lovers, 131-32 Herbert, Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke, 196 Herbert, Henry, Control and Censorship of Caroline Drama, 8, 130 Hesiod, Theogony, 162, 163 hierarchy, 43, 98, 107, 115, 193; gender, 6, 14, 15, 29, 30, 63, 86, 145, 150, 155; male/patriarchal, 5, 6, 15, 115-16, 150, 155; and order, 98, 101, 115; political, 41, 43, 86, 196; social, 28, 29, 43, 98, 104, 111 Highfill, Philip, ed., Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Musicians, Dancers, Managers and Other Stage Personnel in London 16601800, 9

286

Of Love and War

HMC Hastings, 187 HMC Laing, 51 HMC Le Fleming, 160 HMC Leyborn-Popham, 44 Hodgson-Wright, Stephanie, “Undress, Cross-dress, Redress”, 196 Holland, 130; Henrietta Maria in, 25, 26 Holmes, Geoffrey, The Making of a Great Power, 124 Holmes, Robert, 123, 124 homoeroticism, 107, 109 honnête homme, 136, 137, 141 honour, 36, 38, 64, 67, 70, 73, 77, 79, 80, 90, 96, 131, 136, 177, 182, 183, 184, 186; boundaries of, 101; cavalier notions of, 19; and desire, 136, 137, 143; English, 131; fame as 14, 15; family, 105, 112, 128, 141, 142, 143, 146, 148, 150, 153, 164; female, 14, 36, 77, 81, 90, 104, 141, 142, 144, 146, 147, 154, 155, 161, 184, 186; masculine, 56, 76, 101, 134, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146; princely, 44, 101, 103, 105, 106, 114; and war, 115, 137 Hooker, Edward Niles, ed., Works of John Dryden, I, 23 horror play, 164, 189 Howard, Edward, 93; The Six Days’ Adventure, 87, 93, 167, 195; The Usurper,

60, 61-62, 67; The Women’s Conquest, 71 Howard, Elizabeth, Lady Felton, 167 Howard, Robert, 93; The Committee, 60; Duke of Lerma, 116, 117, 147; Indian Queen (with John Dryden), 195; The Surprisal, 71 Howe, Elizabeth, The First English Actresses, 7, 197 Howell, James, Dodona’s Grove, 22 Hughes, Ann, “Gender and Politics in Leveller Literature”, 194 Hughes, David, ed., Memoirs of the Comte de Gramont, 83 Hughes, Derek, The Theatre of Aphra Behn, 9, 186, 201; English Drama, 15, 61 Hume, Robert, Development of English Drama, 71, 93, 156; Rakish Stage, 137; “Myth of the Rake”, 85, 133; ed. (with Judith Milhous), Elizabeth Polwhele, The Frolicks, 197 Hutchinson, Lucy, 74 Hutton, Ronald, Charles the Second, 3, 4, 97, 102, 103, 128, 152, 181; The Restoration, 3 Hyde, Anne, Duchess of York, 77 Hyde, Edward, Earl of

Index Clarendon, 77, 117; impeachment of, 97, 117; Work: History of the Rebellion, 42, 51 Hyde, Laurence, Earl of Rochester, 1 iconography, 26, Protestant, 21; Stuart, 21-24 identity, 39, 57, 66, 86, 149; confusion, 149, 152; and disguise, 57, 114, 115, 131, 145; gender, 10, 13, 32, 36; and incest, 149, 152; sexual, 101, 106 incest, 39, 147, 149, 150, 152; brother/sister, 128-29, 14749; fictional, 149; and lineage, 152-53; mother/ son, 39-40; and political commentary, 39-40, 149, 153, 193; and repression, 153; and secrecy, 147-53 passim; and tyranny, 38-39 Indian, 167, 169, 170 Interregnum, 2, 11, 18, 19, 28, 39, 43-44, 51, 55, 60; and absolutism, 69; chaos of, 44, 50; demise of, 2, 60; encoding during, 26-27; and kingship, 65; and May celebrations, 24; Parliament of Women pamphlets during, 196; and Poland, 50, 51; republican scepticcism, 102; Restoration plays on, 17-53 passim, 159-89 passim; royalists during, 43-44, 76; women

287 petitioning during, 193-95 Islam/Islamic, 128, 169, 174; and Catholicism, 127, 170, 171, 174; conversion to, 171, 174; as dramatic trope, 173; and evil, 171, Italy, 109 James VI and I; and Catholicism, 4; and patriarchalism, 65, 192; Political Works, 55, 62, 65, 68, 93, 103, 192; as primum mobile, 99, 103; and succession, 175 James, Duke of York, later James II, 52, 53, 183; and Catholicism, 47, 77, 123, 127, 150, 151, 183; dedication to, 52, 152, 183; and Charles II’s divorce, 77-78; and exclusion, 47, 52, 151; marriage to Anne Hyde, 77; marriage to Mary of Modena, 159, 171; and Presbyterians, 180; satire on, 175-76, 188; succession of, 133, 150, 151, 180 Japan, 132 jealousy, 29, 67, 149, 159; as madness, 109; as poison, 111; and secrecy, 148-49 Jesuit(s), 3, 51, 171, 172 Jesuit Plots and Counsels, 51 Jew, 170 Joan of Arc (Orleans), 59-60 Jonson, Ben, 11; Chloridia, 74; Love’s Triumph through Callipolis, 72, 74

288

Of Love and War

Jose, Nicholas, Ideas of the Restoration in English Literature, 1660-1671, 1, 2, 18, 28, 43, 49, 55, 76 Josselin, Ralph, Diary, 160 A Journal from Parnassus, 199 Journals of the House of Lords, 77, 78 Jowitt, Claire, “Political Allegory”, 166, 170, 175, 176 Joyner, William, The Roman Empress, 63 Jusserand, J.J., ed., A French Ambassador at the Court of Charles II, 84 Kalitzki, Judith, “Versions of Truth”, 156 Keeble, N.H., “Obedient Subjects?”, 195 Kennett, White, Complete History of England, 179, 187 Kermode, Frank, 37, 38 Kéroualle, Louise de, Duchess of Portsmouth, 189; and Arlington, 178, 182-83; Catholicism of, 178, 179, 181; and Barillon, 187; and Conway, 178; cost of, 181; and de Croissy, 178; and Danby, 182; as a devil, 187; and Duchess of Orléans, 179; as French agent, 188; and French interests, 178-79, 186-87; general dislike of,

179, 187; greed of, 178, 181; lampooned, 179; literary corollary of, 175-76, 178, 181, 184; mock wedding of, 178, 182; portrait of, 167; and Shaftesbury, 181, 182; and Sunderland, 182; and titles, 179-80; and Joseph Williamson, 182 Keynes, Geoffrey, ed., Works of Thomas Browne, 98 Killigrew, Thomas, 94; and actresses, 8; and Behn, 9, 10, 11; and King’s Company, 8, 10, 11; Work: Cicilia and Clorinda, 21-22 King, Bruce, Dryden’s Major Plays, 155 King’s Cabinet Opened, 25 King’s Company, 7, 12, 130; and actresses, 8; and old plays, 11 King’s Evil, 102-103 “The King’s Vows”, 95 kingship, 60, 66, 85, 102, 166; and the body politic, 65, 68-69, 100, 101, 104, 15354, 191-92, 193; divine nature of, 48, 102, 103; elective, 46; de facto, 66; and the Interregnum, 65; Moor as trope for, 166, 169; symbols of, 22, 23, 43; Stuart, 55, 65, 87, 19192 Kippis, Andrew, ed., Biographia Britannica, 82 Kishlansky, Mark, A Mon-

Index archy Transformed, 49; ed. (with Susan Dwyer Amussen), Political Culture, 194 La Belle, Jenijoy and Robert Essick, eds, Night Thoughts, 100 La Calprenède, Gaultier de Coste, seigneur de, Cassandra, 27; Cleopatre, 17, 19, 20-21, 25, 27, 29, 33, 34, 145; Pharamond, 140, 141 “A Lampoon”, 95 Langbaine, Gerard, 35, Account of the English Dramatick Poets, 128, 155-56, 166 Last Will and Testament of Anthony, King of Poland, 52 Lauderdale, Duke of, see Maitland, John Lee, Maurice, The Cabal, 127 Lee, Nathaniel, 169; Constantine the Great, 181; Sophonisba, 182; The Tragedy of Nero, 90, 153 Legh, Richard, 159-60 Lely, Peter, 167 Lennep,William Van, ed., The London Stage, 130, 152 Lennox, Charles, First Duke of Richmond and Lennox, 179-80 Letter from a Gentleman of the Lord Ambassador Howard’s Retinue, 168

289 libertine/libertinism, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137; and Charles II, 37 103, 119, 137; and the rake, 134, 136, 137 Libya, 165 Licensing Act of 1662, 2, 3 Lindley, David, ed., Court Masque, 69 Link, Frederick, Aphra Behn, 9, 11, 15, 16, 148 A List of the Parliament of Women, 190-91 Lockman, John, ed., General Dictionary Historical and Critical, 194-95 Loftis, John, ed., Works of John Dryden, XI, 87 Logan, William Hugh and James Maidment, eds, Dramatic Works of John Crowne, 85; Dramatic Works of William Davenant, 25 London, 157, 158, 196; and Moors, 166-67; weavers riot in, 159-60 Lord, George DeForest, ed., Poems on State Affairs, 51, 95, 199 Lords, House of, 77, 79; King attends, 77-78; Roos bill in, 77-78; summon Monmouth, 152; and Test Act, 172 Louis XIV, and Charles II, 124, 178, 179, 182-83; and the Dutch, 124; Louise de Kéroualle, 178-79; and

290

Of Love and War

Mary of Modena, 171; Secret Treaty of Dover, 124; and universal monarchy, 132, 180 Louis of Nassau, Lord of Beverweert, 84 love, 30, 38, 40, 74-75, 85, 94, 110-111; Cavalier notions of, 19; constancy in, 58, 87-88, 92, 104, 113; cruel, 162-63; as deity, 73-74, 118, 163; disingenuous, 89121 passim, 159-189 passim; as lust, 116-20 passim, 159-89 passim; female equality in, 85-88, 146, 153-55; and friendship, 91-92, 105, 112; merchant of, 96, 104; Platonic/idealized, 72, 73, 75; as political fidelity, 58, 61, 69, 87, 186; and war, 18, 62-63, 73-74, 76, 92, 116, 123-58 passim Love, Harold, “State Affairs on the Restoration Stage”, 61; ed., Penguin Book of Restoration Verse, 95 Lovejoy, Arthur O., The Great Chain of Being, 98 Low Countries, 35 Lowenthal, Cynthia, Performing Identities on the Restoration Stage, 5 Loxley, James, “Unfettered Organs”, 36, 44 Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, 73-74 Ludlowe, Edmund, Memoirs,

78 lust, 34, 132, 162, 163; and Charles II, 117-120; and damnation, 173; as greed, 178, 181, 183; lustful rulers, 34, 116-19, 159-89 passim Lust’s Dominion, or The Lascivious Queen, 160, 161, 163, 165, 166, 170, 175, 176, 178, 183, 186 Lynch, Kathleen, The Social Mode of Restoration Comedy, 75 McFarlane, Cameron, The Sodomite in Fiction and Satire 1660-1750, 108, 111 McKeon, Michael, “Historicizing Patriarhy”, 193; Marxist Criticism and Marriage A-la-Mode”, 155 MacKillop, James, Dictionary of Celtic Mythology, 23 MacLean, Gerald, “Literature Culture, and Society”, 194, 195; ed., Culture and Society in the Stuart Restoration, 125 MacLeod, Catherine, Painted Ladies, 167 Macray, W. Dunned, ed., History of the Rebellion, 42 Madame, see Henriette, Duchess of Orléans Madrid, 20, 128, 129, 143, 135, 142 Maguire, Nancy Klein, Regicide and Restoration,

Index 60, 63, 65, 66, 86, 120; “The ‘Whole Truth’ of Renaissance Tragicomedy”, 65, 66, 68, 76 Maidment, James and William Hugh Logan, eds, Dramatic Works of John Crowne, 87; eds, Dramatic Works of William Davenant, 26 The Maids Tragedy, 57 Maitland, John, Duke of Lauderdale, 57 Makin, Bathsua, An Essay to Revive the Antient Education of Gentlewomen, 200 Mancini, Hortense, Duchess of Mazarin, 178; and Arlington, 182-83; Behn’s dedication to, 189; French fear over, 178; portraits of, 167 Manley, Mary Delarivier, 6, 7 Manners, John, Lord Roos, 77, 78, 152 Marcus, Leah, Politics of Mirth, 22, 23, 24 Margoliouth, Herschel Maurice, ed., Poems and Letters of Andrew Marvell, 78 marriage, 19, 32-33, 115, 116, 146; as civil contract, 7980; consummation of, 68-69, 76, 81, 159; contract, 79-80, 85, 128, 134, 135, 136, 141, 143, 144; dissolution of, 75-76, 77-81; and equality 85, 87;

291 forced, 55-58 passim, 98, 123-58 passim; and identity, 5, 86; as preferment, 97; promise of, 89-121 passim; of rake, 133-58 passim; as Reformation, 109-110, 115, 116; as restoration, 18, 19, 68, 75-76, 192-93; and restoration-type plays, 18, 60-63; royal, 28, 76-79, 159, 171-72, 180; as sacramental union, 80, 81; secret, 64, 66, 77; as whoring, 109-110 Marsden, Jean I., Fatal Desire, 5; “Tragedy and Varieties of Serious Drama”, 189 Marvell, Andrew, 37; Works: Poems and Letters, 78; “Fourth Advice to a Painter”, 100-101; “Second Advice to a Painter”, 95 Mary, Princess and daughter of James, Duke of York, 77 Mason, John, The Turk, 166 masque, 162, Caroline Court, 8, 22, 71-72, 73, 74; in The Forc’d Marriage, 71, 7275, 116; Renaissance, 162 masquerade, 113-15 Master of the Revels, 162 Matar, Nabil, Britain and Barbary, 162-63, 164, 165, 166, 171 Maurice, Prince of House of Orange, 82 May, Baptist, 9; and personation, 81; and procurement, 77; satire on, 93

292

Of Love and War

Mazarin, Duchess of, see Mancini, Hortense merchant/mercantile, Dutch, 123, 124, 128, 129-30, 138, 139; and Dutch Wars, 123158, passim; English, 124, 130, 169, 188 medals, 79 Mengel, Elias F., ed., Poems on Affairs of State, 51 Middleton, John, 51 Middleton, Thomas, 91 Mignard, Pierre, 167 Milhous, Judith, and Robert Hume, eds, The Frolicks, 196-97 Miller, John, Charles II, 3, 21, 47, 66, 70, 79, 82, 94, 97, 125, 159; James II, 3 Milton, John, 47; Works: Eikonoklastes, 39, 40, 44-45; Paradise Lost, 38, 39, 159, 173; Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, 45 ministers, and Catholicism, 127; corrupt, 117-19, 147, 181-82; and illegitimate children, 152; personated, 82, 83; and procuring, 78, 94-95; satire on, 94, 96 mirror, 52, 72, 74; of the court, 93, 94; as dramatic convention, 52, 72; in Forc’d Marriage, 55-88 passim; and historical events, 72; of human conduct, 72, 94 Mitchell, Leslie George, ed., Edmund Burke, VIII, 100 Modena, Mary of, Consort to

James II, 159, 171 Mohun, Michael, 8 Mole, 168, 169 monarchy, 43, 44, 47, 51, 60, 65, 69, 85, 88, 100, 102, 184, 192; divine nature of, 45, 48, 55, 66, 73, 75, 101, 102, 103, 118; elective, 4647; Stuart monarchy, 2, 18, 19, 46, 53, 55, 60, 65, 70; universal, 132, 180 Monck, George, Duke of Albemarle, 43, 61, 66, 67, 70 Monk, Samuel Holt, ed., Works of John Dryden, XVII, 156 Monmouth, Duchess of, see Scott, Anne Monmouth, Duke of, see Scott, James Montagu, Edward, Earl of Sandwich, 75, 76 Montagu, Ralph, 81 Moor(s), 127, 128, 159-189 passim; arrive in England, 166, 167; as Charles II, 61; consort with Satan, 173, 174; Cromwell as, 160, 178; as evil, 170, 173, 176; and Elizabeth I, 166, 167; expulsion of, 161, 166, 167; in paintings, 167; as stage figure, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 173, 175; and succession, 169, 175, 176 More, Thomas, and education, 200 Morocco, 166, 169

Index Moulin, Peter du, England’s Appeal, 132 Muslim, 170 mystery plays, 7 mystique, royal, 66, 88, 93-94, 102, 103 Narbrough, John, A Particular Narrative, 168 Nash, Julie, “‘The sight on it would beget a warm desire’”, 197 Neill, Michael, “‘Mulattos’, ‘Blacks’, and ‘Indian Moors’”, 168-69 Nenner, Howard, The Right to Be King, 45, 46, 47, 65 Newton, Evelyn Caroline Legh, Lady Newton, The House of Lyme, 187; Lyme Letters, 159 Newark, 24-25 Nonconformists, 3, 126 Norfolk Drollery, 125 North, Roger, ed., Lives, 94 North Africa, 168, 170 Novak, Maximillian, ed., Works of John Dryden, X, 34, 37 Nursery, 9 Oates, Titus, 160 obedience, 85, 101, 193; female, 30, 86, 193-94 O’Donnell, Mary Anne and Bernard Dhuicq, eds, Alterity and Ambiguity, 150 Ogg, David, England in the Reign of Charles II, 94-95,

293 97, 123, 124, 125, 132 Ogilby, John, Africa, 168; The Holland Nightengale, 125 Okeley, William, Eben-ezer, 168 Olivares, Count-Duke, see Pimental, Gaspar order, gender, 5, 193; and harmony, 100, 104, 115; hierarchical, 98, 101; patriarchal, 63, 75-76, 86, 88, 98, 192, 195; political, 71, 74, 98; social, 5, 6, 29, 38, 86, 98, 111, 120, 145, 152-53, 193, 201; universal, 89-121 passim Orinda, see Philips, Katherine Osborne, Thomas, Earl of Danby, Marquess of Carmarthen, and Duke of Leeds, 148; and Louise de Kéroualle, 182; and toleration, 172 Ostovich, Helen, ed., Reading Early Modern Women, 6 Ottoman Empire, 169, 174; and the Stuarts, 175-76 Otway, Thomas, 169; Don Carlos, Prince of Spain, 147, 148, 153; History and Fall of Caius Marius, 181; Venice Preserved, 51, 181 Owen, Susan J., Restoration Theatre and Crisis, 29, 37; “Sexual Politics and Party Politics in Behn’s Drama”, 13; “Suspect my Loyalty When I lose my Virtue”, 2; ed., Companion to Restora-

294

Of Love and War

tion Drama, 189 Palmer, Barbara, Duchess of Cleveland, see Villiers, Barbara papists, 126, 171, 172; fear of, 3, 49, 171; and homosexuality, 109 Paris, 83, 130, 131 Parliament, 3, 4, 43, 132, 179, 181, 187; and Charles I, 40, 41, 45; and Charles II, 4546, 49, 70, 123, 173; and divorce, 77-78, 79, 80, 180; and Dutch Wars, 123, 127; as female, 39, 40, 192; and James I, 62; and James II, 123, 159; Long, 62; and monarchy, 43-44, 103; and religion, 159, 171, 172, 173, 180; of Women pamphlets, 195-96; women petitioning, 193-94 Parry, Graham, The Golden Age Restor’d, 71, 74, 75 passion, 40, 75, 149, 153, 156, 164; effeminate, 111, 114, 116; female, 39, 144, 161, 184, 185, 186; and reason, 38, 39, 106 pastoral (s), 19, 55, 89, 90, 156, 157, 185, 196; court, 22; mode, 116; romance, 19, 24 patriarchalism, 191-92 patrimony, 150, 152 patriotism, 126 Patterson, Annabel, “Lady State’s First Two Sittings”,

100; Censorship and Interpretation, 27 Patterson, Frank Allen, gen. ed., Works of John Milton, 39 Payne, Henry Neville, The Fatal Jealousie, 147, 153; The Morning Ramble, 130, 131; Siege of Constantinople, 147, 148, 181 Pearson, Jacqueline, The Prostituted Muse, 6, 58 Peele, George, The Battle of Alcazar, 175 Pembroke, Countess of, see Herbert, Mary Sidney Pepys, Samuel, Diary, 21, 57, 67, 78, 84, 94, 95, 97, 102, 109, 117, 119, 120 Perses, 162 personation, 10, 11, 25, 81, 82-83, 93, 141 Peters, Hugh, 61, 67 Philippe, Duc d’Orleans, 79 Philips, Katherine (Orinda), 14, 36, 196, 200; Pompey, 7 Phillips, George, The Present State of Tangier, 168 Pike, Clement Edwards, ed., Capel Correspondence, 178 Pimentel, Gaspar de Guzmán y, Count of Olivares and Duke of Sanlúcar, 149, 150-51 Pincus, Steven, “Republicanism, Absolutism and Uniersal Monarchy”, 125, 132

Index Pix, Mary, 7 poison, 70, 148, 176, 183; jealousy as, 113 Poland, 34, 50, 51, 52 politics, 3, 20, 49, 85, 169, 175, 178, 191, 193, 195; corrupt, 180; court, 1, 85, 93, 178; domestic, 2, 3, 85; public, 85, 193, 195; sexual, 5, 12, 180, 192-93; theatricality of, 1, 5, 1719, 93 Polwhele, Elizabeth, 7, 12, 196; Works: Faithful Virgins, 7, 196; The Frolicks, 197 Pope, the Catholic, 173, 175 Pope, Walter, “Catholic Ballad”, 168 popery, 3, 171-72; fear of, 3, 49 Popish Plot, 2, 3, 5, 46, 49, 66, 151, 152, 160, 196 Portugal, 180 Potter, Lois, Secret Rites and Secret Writing, 26; “True Tragicomedies of the Civil War and Commonwealth”, 120 power, 3, 40, 41, 43, 49, 58, 62, 63, 73, 75, 97, 114, 144, 182, 183; arbitrary, 37, 69, 106; desire for, 153, 185; political, 101, 141, 154; royal, 17, 41, 43, 45, 49, 50, 87, 99, 103, 106, 118; sacred, 22; servants and, 154, 181-82; of subjects, 49, 52, 62, 87,

295 124; women in, 17-53 passim, 159-89 passim, 195 preferment, 57, 93, 95, 96, 97, 105, 108, 133 prerogative, royal, 43, 48, 50, 76, 81, 192 primum mobile, 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 111, 113, 115, 120 privilege, 30, 38, 90; female, 16, 199; gender, 30, 56, 155; masculine, 59, 141, 142, 144, 146, 154 procuring/pimping, and courtiers, 78, 94, 95, 96, 105, 107-108, 118 Promotion of the Protestant Cause in Poland, 51 propaganda, Dutch war, 12358 passim prostitute, 7, 15, 56, 57, 59 (also see courtesan) Protestant/ism, 132, 173, 174, 192; bride for Charles II, 78; bride for James, Duke of York, 160; and Dutch War, 129; iconography, 21; and Islam, 173; and marriage, 80; religious conversion, 173 Prynne, William, Histriomastix, 154 public/private spheres, 14, 15, 55, 56, 64, 65, 68, 70, 76, 111, 154, 156, 191-201 passim Puritan(s), caricatures of, 6063; rhetoric against, 61 Purkiss, Diane, “Material

296

Of Love and War

Girls”, 195; and Clare Brant, eds, Women, Texts and Histories, 195 Quintana, Francisco de, The History of Don Fenise, 127, 128, 135, 138, 142, 143, 145, 147 rabble, 20, 42, 44, 50, 52, 164 race, 116; and Elizabethan playwrights, 170; and Restoration playwrights, 170 rake, 83, 123-58 passim; female, 85-88 Raknem, Ingvold, Joan of Arc in History, 60 Randall, Anne Frances, see Robinson, Mary Randall, Dale, Winter Fruit, 26, 161 rape/ravish, 37, 38, 68, 91, 103, 105, 106, 114, 140, 141, 144, 147, 193; as arbitrary power, 69, 105106; and political ideology, 37; as property crime, 69; as rebellion, 37, 193, as repression, 153; as tyranny, 37, 69, 105-106, 193; usurpation as, 68, 69 Ravenscroft, Edward, 169; The Careless Lovers, 130, 13132 reason, 41, 52, 126; and jealousy, 111; and kingship, 40, 41; and love, 38; masculine, 38, 39, 41, 111;

natural, 30; and Parliament, 39, 41; and passion, 39, 106, 126, 186; procreative, 40; and sexual desire, 36, 41; and tyranny, 70, 106 rebellion, 3, 30, 32, 34, 35, 44, 49, 55, 66, 68, 74, 88, 98, 160; and civil wars, 6, 47, 49, 53, 86, 160; and coffee houses, 187-88; and crossdressing, 5-6; and female education, 29; and fidelity, 87; and gender, 27, 29-30, 85-88, 146; inconstancy as, 87; love and, 74, 87; and Monmouth, 152; and political women, 86, 19596; and rape, 37, 193; and religion, 47, 49; and social class, 6, 27, 30, 98; and succession, 50, 49 regicide(s), 21, 60, 63, 65, 66 religion, 42, 47, 48, 50, 52, 128, 170, 171, 173, 174, 177, 200; and authority, 48; and Third Dutch War, 124; and exclusion, 46-47, 49, 50; and succession, 47, 50, 161, 174, 175; (also see Catholic and Catholicism, and Protestant/ism) republican/republicanism, 37, 44, 47, 101-102, 103 Reresby, John, Memoirs, 119, 167, 171, 173, 178-79 Restoration, 1, 2, 3, 4, 19, 46, 50, 60, 65, 69, 88, 94, 109, 167, 169, 174, 192; of

Index Charles II, 2, 7, 19, 22-23, 24, 27, 43, 44, 53, 55, 6566, 101, 102, 187, 195; drama/theatre, 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 18-19, 22, 26, 27, 34, 43, 55, 60, 65-66, 68, 71, 72, 76, 79-80, 101, 116, 133, 155, 168, 170, 174, 176, 192, 193, 197; encoding of, 26-7; Lucretius, popularity in, 74; and May celebrations, 23, 24, 102; poets and panegyrics, 22-23, 43; priapism, 38; rake, 85-88 passim, 133-37, 157; similarities with exclusion, 17, 46, 49; and social order, 6, 18, 152-53; society, 4, 68 restoration-type plays, 53, 55, 76; Forc’d Marriage as, 55-88 passim; format of, 17-19, 60-63, 67-68, 70, 75-76; and the Golden Age, 53, 55, 76; Young King as, 17, 20, 33-50 passim revenge, 30, 33, 144, 147, 159-89 passim Richards, Sandra, The Rise of the English Actress, 7 Richmond, First Duke of, see Lennox, Charles Robinson, Mary, A Letter to the Women of England, 200 Rochester, Earl of, see Wilmot, John Rodes, David Stuart, ed., Works of John Dryden, XI, 131

297 roman à clef, 27, 175-76 romance, 33, 89, 127; pastoral, 19, 24-33 passim; strongwilled women in, 145-46; Young King as, 19, 20-33, 34 Rome, 100, 101, 109, 175 Roos, Lord, see Manners, John Rowe, Elizabeth, see Singer, Elizabeth royal, 28, 32, 40, 66, 73, 78, 106, 116, 127, 148, 164, 176, 177, 187; birth, 37, 38, 42, 152; family/line, 27, 37, 125, 165, 183, 185, 186; forces/cause, 24, 25; oak, 22, 23, power/will, 17, 48; prerogative, 48, 50 royalism/royalist(s), 22, 32, 36, 37, 45, 61, 65, 66, 100, 104, 125; and Behn, 5, 19, 53, 76; and Interregnum, 43-44, 76; and May celebrations, 23-24; and Duke of Monmouth, 151-52; and Katherine Philips, 36; polemic, 22-23, 36, 44, 47, 98-99, 100, 126; Rycaut, Paul, History of the Present State of the Ottoman Empire, 168 Sandwich, Earl of, see Montagu, Edward Sandys, George, Sandys Travels, 168 Sappho, 12, 199 Sarotti, Paolo, 160 Saslow, James M.,

298

Of Love and War

“Homosexuality in the Renaissance”, 108, 109 Satan, 173 (also see devil) satire, of courtiers and ministers, 81-82, 83, 94, 95, 96, 97; of Behn, 19899, 200; of the Dutch, 123-58 passim; of the King, 100, 101, 175-76, 195; of the mistresses, 176, 179; personal, 81, 93; and politics, 5, 81 Sauer, Elizabeth, ed., Reading Early Modern Women, 6 Savile, George, Marquis of Halifax, 94 Sawday, Jonathan, “ReWriting a Revolution”, 192 Schafer, Elizabeth, “Appropriating Aphra”, 12 Schless, Howard H., ed., Poems on Affairs of State, 52 Schochet, Gordon J., Patriarchalism in Political Thought, 192; “Patriarchalism, Politics and Mass Attitudes in Stuart England”, 191-92 Schouwenberg, 35 Scot, William, 9 Scott, Anne, Duchess of Monmouth and Buccleuch, 152 Scott (or Crofts), James, Duke of Monmouth and Buccleuch, 151; heroic in battle, 152; his rebellion

against Charles II, 151, 152; and Shaftesbury 151; and succession, 151; summoned by Lords, 152; and the Whigs, 151 Scudéry, Madeleine de, Artamène, ou le Grand Cyrus, 27; Clélie, 27; Seaver, Paul S., ed., Sevententh-Century England, 28 The Second Maiden’s Tragedy, 91, 112 secrecy, 127; and corrupt servants, 149, 153; leads to jealousy, 149, 153; in love, 94-95; and sexual anxiety, 149 secret(s), 40, 64, 66, 77, 128, 150; plays as secret instructions, 1; Treaty of Dover, 124, 126 Sedley, Charles, 57, 133 seduction, 91, 105, 111, 112, 117, 129, 142, 145, 147, 153, 193 Senelick, Laurence, “Mollies or Men of Mode?”, 111 servants, 127, 141, 153, 192; corrupt, 47, 148, 149, 153, 154, 181-82 “Session of the Poets”, 193-94 Settle, Elkanah, Cambyses, King of Persia, 152; Empress of Morocco, 71, 176-77, 182; Ibrahim, 177 Shadwell, Thomas, 74; Works: Epson Wells, 130, 132; The Humorists, 80;

Index The Libertine, 153; The Miser, 97; The Royal Shepherdess, 90, 116, 118; The Sullen Lovers, 80, 93; The Tempest, 8, 34; “The Tory Poets”, 199 Shaftesbury, Earl of, see Cooper, Anthony Ashley Shakespeare, William, 37; Works: Coriolanus, 164; Henry IV Part One, 89, 9394, 102; The Tempest, 34, 37, 38; A Winter’s Tale, 163 Sheffield, John, Lord Mulgrave, Works of, 82 Sicily, 61 Sidney, Philip, 196 Sigismund III, 50, 51 Sigismundus, Prince van Polen of ’t Leven is een droom, 35 Singer, Elizabeth (Rowe), 200 social, 2, 4, 5, 15, 16, 28, 63, 87, 100, 101, 107, 153, 176, 191, 192, 194; class, 28, 57, 58, 77, 81, 85, 98, 133; code/convention, 6, 14, 15, 28, 58, 100, 146; disorder/upheaval, 6, 20, 27, 28, 30, 37, 70, 127; hierarchy, 28,98, 104, 111, 195; inequality of gender, 142; limits, 100, 101, 104, 137; mobility, 28; order, 5, 6, 86, 98, 111, 120, 145, 193, 201; system(s), 101, 106 sodomy, 109

299 “Sophia”, Woman Not Inferior to the Man, 198 Sorelius, Gunnar, The Giant Race before the Flood, 8 Southerne, Thomas, Loyal Brother, 181 Spain/Spanish, 117, 128, 147, 148, 150, 153, 161, 164, 165, 171, 174, 180, 186, 199; courage, 140; courtship, 138, 139; and Dutch alliance, 128 Spencer, Jane, Rise of the Woman Novelist, 58; “Deceit, Dissembling, all that’s Woman”, 2 Spencer, Robert, Second Earl of Sunderland, and Louise de Kéroualle, 182 Spenser, Edmund, The Fairie Queene, 162 Spragge, Edward, A True and Perfect Relation, 168 Stapylton, Robert, The Slighted Maid, 152; The Step-mother, 21, 71, 89-90, 195; The Tragedy of Hero and Leander, 119, 152 Staves, Susan, Players’ Sceptres, 37, 66, 69, 76, 80, 106 Stone, Lawrence, “Social Mobility in England”, 28 Strickland, Agnes, Lives of the Queens of England, 25 Strode, William, The Floating Island, 161 Stroup, Thomas and Arthur L. Cooke, eds, Works of

300

Of Love and War

Nathaniel Lee, 90 Stuart, Charles, Duke of Richmond and Lennox, 79 Stuart, Frances Theresa, 7879, 81 Stubbes, Philip, Anatomie of Abuses, 154 succession, 4, 35, 45, 127, 153, 163, 175, 186, 192; and de facto kingship, 66; diverted, 19. 20, 34, 46-47, 48, 50, 179, 179-80, 186; of Elizabeth I, 175; and exclusion, 18, 19, 45, 49, 151; and incest, 153; indefeasible hereditary, 19, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 53, 55, 65, 66, 102, 176-77; and James, Duke of York, 4647, 150, 152, 176, 180; and Monmouth, 151,152; and Moors, 127, 159-89 passim; and Parliament, 4647, 180; and religion, 47, 48, 49, 50, 127, 150, 160, 161, 175, 177-78 Sullivan, Henry, “Calderon in the German Lands and the Low Countries”, 35 Summers, Montague, 34, 181; The Restoration Theatre, 81-81; ed., Works of Aphra Behn, 17, 35, 91, 152; ed., Works of Thomas Otway, 51; ed., Works of Thomas Shadwell, 8, 34 Sunderlund, Second Earl of, see Spencer, Robert superstition, 48, 171

Supplement to the Last Will and Testament of Anthony, Earl of Shaftesbury, 52 Surinam, 9, 15, 17 Sutton, Katherine of, Abbess of Barking, 196 Sweden, 50, 51 Swift, Jonathan, ed., Works of William Temple, 82 Tangier, 168, 169 Tasso, Torquato, Jerusalem Delivered, 145 Tatham, John, The Rump, 60 Temple, Dorothy Osborne, Lady, 125 Temple, William, Works of, 82 Test Act (1673), 127, 159, 172-73 Thomas, Keith, Religion and the Decline of Magic, 102 Thompson, Edward Maunde, ed., Correspondence of the Family of Hatton, 160 Todd, Janet, 34, 169, 188-89; Secret Life of Aphra Behn, 9, 11, 15, 17, 76-77, 163, 169, 188; Sign of Angelica, 58, 59; ed., Aphra Behn Studies, 13; ed., Works of Aphra Behn, 1 Tokson, Elliot, Popular Image of the Black Man, 171 toleration, religious, 2, 3, 127, 172 Tory, 51-52; ideology, 66; writing, 37 Townshend, Aurelian, Albion’s Triumph, 74

Index tragedy, 60, 120, 144, 146, 147, 158, 163, 166, 189; corrupt servants in, 147; female weapons in, 144 tragicomedy, 6, 66, 76, 86-87, 146, 161; concepts of, 120; corrupt servants in, 147-48; and opposing views, 6, 66, 86-87; primary end of, 15556; and regicide and restoration, 60, 63, 65, 66; tension with comedy, 120 transgression, gender, 5, 107, 143, 146; moral, 104; and religion, 171, 174; sexual, 104, 146, 153, 174; of social convention, 28 Treaty of Breda, 125 Tripoli, 168 Trotter, Catherine, 7 True and Perfect Relation of the Happy Successe, 168 Trumbach, Randolph, “Sodomitical Assaults”, 111 Tunisia, 169 Turk(s), 168, 182; and Charles II, 175-76; in travel literature, 168-69; in Restoration drama, 169; Ottoman succession, 174 Turner, James Grantham, Libertines and Radicals in Early Modern London, 38 tyranny, 18, 34, 35, 51, 55, 90, 98, 106, 127, 193, 197; of fathers, 154, 193; forced marriage as, 98, 154; incest as, 39-40; Interregnum as, 18-19, 51, 61; of public

301 authority, 193; rape as, 37, 69; and republican discourse, 40 tyrant, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 62, 70, 81, 97-98, 106; and ambition, 62-63; female, 48, 90; and public authority, 193; usurper as, 18 Uman, Debra, “Aphra Behn, Dedication, Oroonoko, or, The Royal Slave”, 13 Underdown, David, Revel, Riot and Rebellion, 102, 194, 195 universal monarchy, 132 usurpation, 19, 33, 60, 62, 169, 197, 198; female, 35, 39, 40, 42, 144; of gender roles, 30, 194; and the Interregnum, 19, 39, 40, 61, 68, 151, 161; of male authority/privilege, 5, 14142, 143, 146, 194; public guilt, 68; in restorationtype plays, 19, 68-69; of subjects, 68 usurper, 18, 34, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67, 68, 71, 74, 76, 103, 117, 165 valour, 13, 31, 71, 84, 96, 99, 141 venereal disease, 13, 109 vice, 107, 120, 198 Villiers, Barbara, Duchess of Cleveland, portrait of, 167; satire on, 175-76; sexually insatiable, 178; and titles,

302

Of Love and War

179-80 Villiers, George, Second Duke of Buckingham, and the Cabal, 57; and court rivalry, 82; and court wits, 83, 133; procurer, 78, 95; treason of, 21 virago(es), 106, 143, 145, 154, 155 virginity, 142; as a commodity for exchange, 143, 153 vizards, 56, 57, 58, 59, 114 Vitkus, Daniel, 166; “Turning Turk in Othello”, 166, 169, 173, 174 Voet, Jacob Ferdinand, 167 Waith, Eugene, “Spectacles of State”, 71 Waller, A.R., ed., Poems of Abraham Cowley, 43 Waller, Edmund, “On St James Park”, 23; “To the King, upon His Majesty’s Happy Return”, 43; “To the King”, 99 Warner, Marina, Joan of Arc, 60 warrior women, 17-53 passim, 155 weavers, 159-60 Weber, Harold, “Charles II, George Pines and Mr. Dorimont”, 101; Paper Bullets, 3 Webster, John, Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft, 171 Welsford, Enid, The Court Masque, 72

Wharton, Anne, 199-200 Whig(s), 37, 51, 52, 132, 151 Whigs Lamentation for the Death of Their Dear Brother College, 51 whore(s), 120, 123-58 passim; female author as, 6, 57-58, 59; King’s mistresses as, 179, 187; and religious conversion, 174 (see courtesan and prostitute) William of Orange, 132 Williamson, Joseph, 124, 126; and Louise de Kéroualle, 182 Wilmot, John, Earl of Rochester, 37, 74, 133; Works: “Artemisa to Chloe”, 6; “On King Charles”, 100 Wilson, John, The Cheats, 77 Wilson, John Harold, Court Wits of the Restoration, 133 Wiseman, Susan, ed., Women, Writing, History, 6; “Adam, the Father of all Flesh”, 195 witch/witchcraft, 149, 171, 177, 184; and women writing, 59 women, 41, 56, 59, 81, 88, 94, 95, 97, 108, 145, 155, 198; and authority, 5, 63, 193, 195, 198; and beauty, 56, 58, 59; and desire, 143, 150, 163; and education, 16, 29, 74, 200; and equality in love, 85, 87; as fish-

Index wives, 195; and honour, 81, 141-47, 153-55; and identity, 5, 13, 86; and marriage, 81, 86, 87; masculine, 14, 17-53 passim, 143, 193, 195; petitioning, 193-94; public, 6, 86, 194, 195-96; and public speaking, 6, 193-96; reputation, 6-7, 14, 197, 198-200; and social order, 5, 6, 86, 145, 201; and the stage/ theatre, 6-8, 9, 15, 56, 59, 130, 195, 196, 197; unruly, 39, 195; warrior, 17-53 passim, 14147, 153-55, 195; and wit, 13, 57, 58, 59, 199, 200;

303 writing, 6, 7, 12, 13-14, 56, 57-58, 59, 193, 196, 197, 200-201 (also see gender) Wycherley, William, The Country Wife, 136, 195; The Gentleman DancingMaster, 130-31, 167 Young, Edward, Night Thoughts, 100 Ziomek, Henryk, “Historical Implications and Dramatic Influences in Calderón’s Life Is a Dream”, 51 Zwicker, Steven N., Lines of Authority, 4, 37, 137, 180