Abstract
This dissertation focuses on the development of political culture in the early Restoration. I examine authors from across the religious and political spectrum who voiced their support for, criticisms of, doubts about, and rejections of the reestablishment of the monarchy and the Church of England. Using a wide range of sources, including verse, sermons, almanacs, and political tracts, I argue that the commentary was far more rich and varied than previous scholars have suggested. While giving adequate attention to the major radical tracts of the period 1660 to 1663, this study also illuminates the previously largely ignored voices who supported the Restoration but did not agree with how officials were trying to shape England.
Arranged thematically, the four chapters address different aspects of the Restoration. Chapter One examines the attempts to define Charles II’s return. Chapter Two discusses the government’s efforts to replace national memory of the recent past with myth and the spectrum of authors who disagreed with this approach, instead using the past three decades as fruitful material for their publications and means of expressing critical or dissenting opinions. Chapter Three examines the expectations Charles II and England had for the Restoration and the monarch’s partial success in fulfilling these expectations. Chapter Four investigates Restoration ideas of obedience to the government and the Church of England.
In the Conclusions I argue that the Restoration was significant because contemporaries thought that it was. This dissertation has demonstrated the deep involvement of the press in spreading materials that discussed the important issues of the day and the wide range of opinions available to the English people. This period of civil discourse was necessary for the beginning of an opposition that did not want the downfall of the government or a radical change in the Church of England. I believe this method provides a new approach for interpreting the Restoration.
|
