JCHN DRE’DEN'S CGNfie‘ERSQON
TO CAWQLECISM

Thesis far H19 Degree of M. A.
MICHZGAN STATE COLLEGE

Heavier Man’s Brow

1949

”an n! .‘h—u: m:—.— .‘w.

WIIIIIHIIHHIIIUIHHUllllllllllllllilllllllliIlllilHllHl

3 1293 018413

JOHN DRYDZN'S CONVERSION TO CATHOLICISM

by

Eleanor Earle Brow

A THESIS
Submitted to the Graduate School of Michigan State
College of Agriculture and.Applied Science in
partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MAS“ER OF ARTS

Department or Englidb

1949

Part

II

III

VI

Content

Introduction
1. Biographical Sketch
2. Criticism

Political and Philosophical Thought

Historical Background
1. Status of Nonconformiete

2. Restoration
3. James II

'Religio Leici"

”The Kind and the Panther"

10 First Part
2. Second Part
3. Third Part

Dryden'e Character and the Conclusion

1. Dryden'e Character
2. Conclusion

31
563

54

66
74
'77

Preface

The purpose of this dissertation is to examine the circumstances
under which Dryden's conversion was made, in order to come to acme def-
inite conclusion as to the motives which prompted him, and the sincerity
of the experience which prompted his conversion to the Catholic Church.
This will involve a study of Dryden'e politico-religious poems, "Re-
ligio Laici.” and "The Hind and the Panther.” For an interpretation of
these two crieisl poems is an essential part of any attempt to discover
the nature and value of Dryden'e religious thought.

The subject of Dryden's religious sincerity has been studied by

many writers and scholars to date, and this paper undertakes, as a ne-
cessary preliminary. a detailed outline of their*vorks. .Among the early
critics I have referred to Johnson, Scott, Hecaulay, Christie, Saintsbury
and Verrel: and among the later critics to hark‘van Devon and L.I. Bred-
vold. I am particularly indebted to L.I. Bredvold's Intellectual Milieu
of John Dgzden for information concerning Dryden's political.and philosoph-
ical thought.

From the Restoration forward, Dryden moved steadily in one direction.
and that was towards authoritarianism in politics and religion. There—
fore, this study of his conversion is concerned with.those political and
philosophical ideas which led him to seek an infallible church.

I wish to make grateful acknowledgment to the graduate faculty of the
English Deparmment, and in particular to Dr. Anders Orbeck and Dr. A.J.M.

Smith. for their kind assistance in the preparation and final presenta-

tion of this thesis.
E. M. B.

kest Lansing, Michigan
April 30, 1949

I
Introduction

1.

John Dryden became Catholic in 1686. He was severely criticised by
his contemporaries, and since that time he has had many critics who have
accused him of insincerity. His religious ideas are important in con-
sidering his poetry; for the value of a poem like "The Hind and the Pan-
ther" is lessened if the author was writing without sincere conviction.
In tracing the poet's ideas which led to his conversion, it is probably
best to begin with his childhood and Puritan surroundings.

Dryden was born in 1631 at Aldwinkle in Northamptonshire. His mo-
ther's family, the Pickerings, had been staunch Puritans from the time of
James I, as were his father's family. We have no information concerning
Dryden'e childhood, either from himself or others. I

The first records of his education are as a King‘s scholar at west-
minster under Richard Busby. Although Busby was a Royslist, he was re—
tained as headmaster of Westminster during the Commonwealth because of his
excellent qualities as a teacher.1 Dryden received his foundation in the
classics from Busby, and he always wrote of this teacher with kindly re-
spect.2

In 1650 Dryden entered Cambridge where he remained until 1657. Here
he continued his study of the classics, particularly the Roman classics,

which he had begun at Westminster. We have little information regarding his

 

1. George Saintsbury, Dryden (London, l930), pp. 1-5.

2. Scott—Seintsbury. The Works of John Dryden (Edinburgh, 1882), Vol. XVIII.
pp. 99.102. ‘

university life, but Churton Collins had this to say of Dryden's academ-

ie life:
Like Milton before, and like Gray, Wordsworth, and Coleridge

after him, he appears to have had no respect for his teachers,

and to have taken his education into his own hands.1

In 1657 Dryden went to London where he was in the service of his coup
sin, Sir Gilbert Pickering. Sir Gilbert Pickering (1613-1668) had been in
the Short Parliament of 1640, and throughout the Long Parliament he repre-
sented the county of Berthampton. It was said that he was a zealous Pur—
itan having been a Presbyterian, an Independent, e Brownist and finally an
Anabaptist. [Apparently Pickering was enthusiastic in his service to the
Commonwealth. He eat as one of the Judges in the trial of Charles I, but
he did not sign the death warrant. He was a member of five councils of
state and of an army council, besides being a member of three Commonwealth
Parliaments. In 1655 he was appointed to a committee for the advancement
of trade, and in 1657 he was made lord chamberlein to Cromwell. It was
when he received the office of lord chamberlein that John Dryden probably
served as his secretary.8 Thus Shsdwell in ”The Medal of John Bayes"

taunted Dryden because of his Puritan connections:

The next step of advancement you began, was being clerk toI
Noll's lord ohamberlain, e sequestrator and committee man,

Sir Gilbert was not in a position to do much for his relative even if
he had wished to, for Cromwell died in 1658, and the Commonwealth had not

long to live. Dryden commemorated Cromwell's death by writing the "Stanzas

 

l. Churton Collins, The Satiras of Dryden 1L0ndon, 1956), p. xi.
2. Leslie Stephan, Dictionary of National Biography, V01. XIV, p. 242.

30 SOOtt'lsaintabury. I. P. 34. 220 Cite

on the Death of Cmellfl’ This was his first important work as a poet.
Shortly afterwards he wrote "Astraea Rodin" to celebrate Charles' restor-
etion.

After 1661 Dryden did hack work for herringmsn, the bookseller.
Then he aquired the patronage of Sir Robert Howard whose sister he mar-
ried in 1663. He was elected to the Royal society in 1662, and wrote
his ”Epistle to Dr. Walter Charleton' for the occasion:1

However, after 1661, Dryden's main source of income was the theatre.
He and Sir Robert Howard collaborated in several plays, one of the best
being The Indian Queen presented in 1664. The Ind ian Queen was followed
by The Indian Emporer which was one of Dryden's first plays to attain
popular approval. The theatres were closed during the year of 1666 as
London suffered the great fire and England was engaged in a war with Hol-
land. Dryden ccmnemorated the events of that year with the poem 'Annus
kirebilie.'2

In 1668 Dryden wrote his ”Essay of Dramatic Poesy" which did much to
raise his reputation as a writer. About this same time Dryden formed an
agreement with the King's Theatre in {which he agreed to write three plays
a year. This contract kept him applied to writing plays until 1682.3

In 1670 Dryden received the post of Poet Laureate. He was now a

part of the count circle, having for his friends such nobles as Dorset,

 

1. Saintsbury, Drzden, cit., p. 28.
2. Ibid., pp. ze-cs.

3. Ibid., pp. 38-67.

Etherage, Kulgrave and incheater.1
The political excitement stirred up by the Papist Blot occured in

1678. In the tour following years Shaftesbury had incited the Exclusion
measume. Dryden turned from drama to begin writing his important satires.
In November of 1681 fiAbaalnm and thitOphel' anpeared championing the
ning'a cause against the Exclusionists. After Shartesbury's aquittal
Dryden continued the attack with "The medal.“ Then in 1682 the second
part of "Absalom and.Aah1tophel"appoared, and several weeks later, "Re-
ligio Laioi.' From "Religio.baici' it is a short step to "The Hind and
the Panther." These last three poems have a combined political-religious

importanfie in Dryden’s thought.2

 

1. Ibid., p. as.

2. Ibid.. pp. 73-93.

 

III | III .‘I I. all" II ‘I III II ‘hl.’

2.

Before tracing the development of Dryden's thought in relation to
his conversion, it is necessary to review the early and modern criticism
of his conversion. This subject, Dryden's conversion, has been treated
by writers with viewpoints ranging from harsh reproach to sympathetic
apology. The early criticisms based upon political prejudices were of-
ten inclined to degrade the writer. Kodern scholarship with the aid of
hindsight does Dryden more Justice.

Dr. Johnson's ”Life of Dryden," was written in 1779. In it John-
son made allowance for the poet's religious sincerity, but he passed
over the apostacy as not having too much importance. Johnson sew noth-
ing discrediteble in Dryden'e apparent political changes. us noted that
if Dryden changed his political beliefs, he changed with the nation.1

Johnson, for whom Catholicism had no attraction, seems to have felt
that Dryden was a target for ambitious priests. Not having any definite
religious convictions, and being constantly applied in more worldly pur-
suits, the post was ill equipped to contend with the skillful Jesuits.2
Undoubtedly Catholic prOpagsnda was well organised and wide—spread at
the accession of James II. Yet Johnson recognised that any convension
at that advantageous time was subject to questioning, but a man's sincere
ity was not necessarily to be cppugned for that reason. besides, Johnson
was not inclined to pass Judgement on this point:

I am willing to believe that Dryden, having employed his
his mind, active as it was, upon different studies, and

 

1. A. nines, JohnsonLSeleot Works (Oxford, 1885). pp. 2-5.

2. Ibid., pp. 36-37.

filled it, cepecious as it was, with other*materisls,

came unprovided to the controversy, and wanted rather

skill to discover the right than virtue to maintain it.

But enquiries into the heart are not for man; we must

now leave him to his Judge.1

Johnson disregarded the concomitant hardships of Dryden's faith af-
ter the deposition of James II as proof of the poet's sincerity. Inured
to a precarious financial status himself, Johnson felt that Dryden was
too fond of causelsse complaints. After all, at the loss of the laureate,
Dryden was supposed to have received a compensation ofiirloo a year fran
Lord Dorset. He should have been grateful for that, for while playing
the sycophsnt to James, he received only a miserly compensation.2

Scott's life of Dryden was published in 1808. Scott was a literary
man and a Tory, and because of this Macaulay, later, accused Scott of
being biased in favor of Dryden.3 In regard to Dryden's political align-
ments, Scott felt that Dryden might have been influenced by literary am-
bitions. hith the restoration he had an spportunity to use his poetical
talents in a way which would have been impossible while under the patron-
age of his Puritan relatives and the Commonwealth. In order to gain pro-
minence any writer had to be among the courtly circle, so Dryden found it
prepitious to become a mentor of that group.4

Although Drydon’s activity and temperament were not compatible with

religious speculation, Scott felt that disappointment and age may have,

 

1. Ibid., p. 57.
2. 11110... p. 42.

3. Macaulay, History of England (London, 1946), Vol. I, p. 658.

4. Scott-Saintsbury, I, pp. 42-48.

however, prompted such thoughts; for 'Religio Leisi," as he says, ”evin-
can that, previous to composing that poem, the author had bestowed seri-
ous consideration upon the important subjects of which it treats."1
Scott also saw the political tendency of the poem which was evident in
the defence of the state church against the anarchy of the sectsries.2
Scott summed up his defense of Dryden's conversion in this why:
Dryden did not, therefore, except in outward profession,
abandon the church of England for that of Rome, but was con-
verted to the Catholic faith from a state of infidelity, or
rather of Pyrrhonism ... Dryden'e sincere squiescence in the
abstrusc points of Christianity did not long precede his a-
daption of Roman faith.
Bredvold has pointed out that Scott in speaking of ryrrhonism or philoso-
phicel skepticism, failed to distinguish it from religious skepticism or
freethinking. Dryden's skepticism led him to seek authority in religion,
and therefore was anti-rstionalistic, but not freethinking.4
Finally Scott believed that Dryden could have reguined his post as
Laureate under Uilliem if he had been willing to recent. Later Christie
Opposed this view, but Scott pointed out that many Tory nobles end Lord
Dorset among the hhigs, were friends of Dryden, showing that his religion
had not ostracized him. Furthermore, it must be remembered that religi~
ous apostecy in Dryden's circle wee commonplace, and probably in most

cases it was regarded as expedient.5

1. 1939... P. 257.

2. gig... pp. 257-258.

3. 359... p. 263.

4. L.I. Brsdvold, Intellectual milieu of John Dryden (Ann Arbor, 1954), p. 121.

5. Scott-Saintsbury, I, p. 263.

Lord Eacauley, writing in 1848, had nothing good to say of Dryden's
character and conversion.1 But macsuley's views of Dryden, end on Dry-
den's age, are always reflected upon a thiggish glass, consequently the

appearance of many seventeenth century theological and political ideas
are unattractive. Dryden'e literary servility, a regrettable condition
of that period, influenced the poet's political and theological decisions.
Reseuley, believing that all men are formed by their age, considered Dry-
den as a most notorious and completed product of the seventeenth century:
Amidst the crowd of authors. who, during the earlier

years of Charles the Second, counted notoriety by every

species of absurdity and effectntion, he speedily become

conspicuous ... on no men did the age exercise so much

influence.2
From masculey's Viewpoint, Dryden appears to have been a helpless victim
in the maéistram or seventeenth century Toryism and literary patronage.
tmceuley stated bluntly that Dryden wee wholly unprepared to dispute on
political and theological questions, thereby removing any responsible
value to his decisions on these subjects! According to Enceulay, then,
Dryden’s conversion was prompted only because of an added pension of 100
a year from James.

"Finding that, if he continued to cell himself a Protestant, his ser-
vices would be overlooked, he declared himself a lepist."3

Th1! is the frankest, boldest and most berefsced statement impugn-
ing Dryden's good faith that any historian or critic hes dared to make.

Later authorities proved that Dryden never received an emolument upon

his conversion, but that this was merely a renewal of his former pension

 

l. Hecauley, History of England, Vol 1.02: cit., p. 658.

 

2. Lady Trevolyen, miscellaneous horks of Lord Msceulay, Vol. I,(Kew York,
1880), p. 132.

3. Macaulay, op. cit., p. 658.

 

II!I!J1IIIIII|IIIIIIIIII‘IIIIIUII"!‘
illlll

and a payment of pensions in arrear. Indeed the work of modern critics
and historians has been concerned with absolving Dryden of this charge.
After macaulay's criticism of Dryden came W.D. Christie's edition
of the poems. This was introduced by a memoir, and was published in
1870. Christie, like haceulay, was a Whig and biased in his interpreta-
tion or Dryden's political views: he could see no consistency in Dry-
den's political alignments. He was also partial in his praise of Shaftes-
bury; and his sympathies were with.Shsftesbury at the outset, rather than
with Dryden. Christie‘s attack on Dryden's character was Victorian in
the worst sense of that word. The imputed wickedness of the poet, based
upon such flimsy evidence as Drydenfis having tee with.a certain actress,
caused Christie to remark that "Dryden was a libertine,"1 These attacks
on Drydenfis character were Justly rebuffed by professor Seintsbury, and
are entirely irrelevant in deducing the poet's religious sincerity.2
Christie, to acme extent, did recognize the unity of political and
theological ideas, admitting that it was not unusual for the author of
fiAbsalom and Achitophel' to later'writc 'Religio Lsici.‘3 Yet while so-
cepting Dryden's independent spirit, he felt that Dryden.wrote "Absalom
and Achitophel'I in order to recompense for his anti-papist play, The Spen-
ish Friar, and to procure further aid from the hing, thus enabling him

to devote time to an epic poem.4 In the latter attempt, if such it was,

 

1. Ibid., p. xxiv.
2. Saintsbury, szden, op. cit., pp. 178-181.
3. Christie. 02: Cit.. p. L11.

4. Ibido. PP. Hill-n17.

10

he never succeeded.

Christie readily conceded that Dryden would never have changed his
religion for a mere pension ofafileO a year from James II, but he adds,
"Dryden's life was a perpetual struggle for income; and his character
and career do not Oppose the notion which the time of his conversion sug-
gests, that his becoming a Roman Catholic was in a great measure a move-

ment of calculated expediency."1

He explained Drydenfls later constancy
by denying e possibility of recantation, saying that if Dryden had re-
nounced his faith he could never have recovered the Lsureeteship, as he
would have been totally dishonored.2

Saintsbury, who published his life of Dryden in 1900, was, unlike
Christie, a Tory. Therefore his politica1.notions were not so foreign
to a sympathetic study of Drydenfs political ideas, and his discussion
of the conversion is much more impartial.

He recognised the philosoyhical skepticism and the desire for the
stability of an infallible church in 'Religio Luci."3 however, Saints-
bury failed to see the impossibility of separating religious and politi-
cal motives. If he had, he would not have said this concerning "Religio
Laici":

The poem therefore, as it seems to me, must be regarded
as a genuine production, expressing the author's first

thoughts on e subject which had Just presented itself to
him as interesting and important.‘

 

1. Ibid., p. Lwiii.
2. Ibid., p. xxiv.

3. Saintsbury, Men, op. cit., p. 101.
4. Ibid.. Pp. 92-93.

11

Saintsbury regarded Dryden, first and last as a man of letters, and
as such it was only to be expected that he remained loyal to a court
which promised patronage. With Macaulay, Saintsbury saw Dryden strong-
ly influenced by his age, and subject to public taste; but those were un-
conscious factors and no points for stricture.1 As it was obvious by
Saintsbury'e time that Dryden had never made any substantial financial
gains by his conversion, this motive could be discarded.2

To Saintsbury, the political.views of ”Absalom and Achitophsl" and

the religious insecurity of ”Religio Laici,‘ lead up to, and prepared the
mind for "The Kind and the Panther." Dryden's subsequent firm adherence
to the Catholic faith in face of hardships was good proof of his religious
sincerity.3

h.w. Verrall delivered his Cambridge lectures on Dryden in 1911. as
was distinguished as a student of the classics, his preference beinngrcek
drama. he had also served as critic and contributor to'The Classical BE?
1133; and other scholarly journals. Verrall was an eager student of the
classical period in English literature, and Dryden as a translator of Vir-
gil interested him.

Verrsll was a pioneer in the close analysis of the text as prelimin-
ary to any critical conclusion, and that detailed study of the texts of
Dryden's poems led him, in the first place, to take a more favorable view

of Dryden's political and religious ideas. Verrall refuted Eacaulay's

 

10 Ibide. PP. 102'"le
2. Ride. p. 1040

3. Ibid., p. 106.

12

charge that Dryden was a literary slave to the court. However, Verrall
insisted that Dryden held no definite principles in regard to religion,
politics or even criticism.1 Verrell was dissatisfied with the super-
ficial and biased attack of Macaulay. It was not that he was convinced

of Dryden's sincerity, or even of his deep interest in religious matters,
but he believed that Dryden's clear, logical and practical mind which con—
cerned itself with politics and the theory of authority in the state was
consistent, end if it changed it showed a logical and orderly development.
Thus Verrall did not concern himself much with Dryden's sincerity, but be
regarded all his work as essentially occesional.

"But Dryden, we must not forget, is always apt to Speak for the oc-
casion, and his sentiments however strongly expressed often represent but
a momentsry feeling?2

In spite of the above statement, Verrull felt that from 1680 on, Dry-
den moved steadily towards Catholicism, and that even though he knew lit-
tle about religion, he considered it important after the political events
of 1680.3 Even in ”Absalom and Achit0ph61* Verrell believed that Dryden
showed himself as a half-hearted Anglican for in that poem. he evinced his
distrust of reason and his entirely political approach to the religious
problem.4

This attitude of Verrall's points the may to the attitude of modern
l.{A.W. Verrell, Lectures on Dryden (Cambridge, 1914). Pp. 17-18.

2. $9.53.." PP. 27-28.
3. w” p. 22.

4. Ibid., p. 151.

13

critics such as Ven Doren end bredvold. However this new attitude towards
Dryden is not confined to one or more isolated, if brilliant scholars and
critics. It is the reflection of a revolution in taste.

In the thirty years that have passed since the work of the lest cri-
tic we have reviewed, a change has come over the critical temper of the age,
and modern criticism, both in its general attitude and its scholarly equip-
ment,hes been prepared to take a more sympethetic and more scholarly view
of Dryden’s career.

The Romantic and Victorian critics, on the whole, discredited the
eighteenth century, and particularly Dryden, refusing to acknowledge his
work as true poetry. Naturally this type of criticism lowered sporecie-
tion of Dryden, and not until recent times has his value been rediscovered.
Indeed, the form, regularity and clarity of the correct neo-clsssicists has
at last found appreciation in the twentieth century. The admirers of Dry-
den and rote no longer feel alienated from sound taste as they did when
the Romantics end Victorians dominated poetic criticism. n.s. Crete has
said that the cluseicists are no longer on the defensive:

It is not they but the surviving disciples of hordsworth

and Matthew Arnold who are out of harmony with the movement of

modern criticism and taste.1

One of the foreiost advocates in Dryden's cause has been T.S. Eliot.
He explained Dryden's neglect us a result of nineteenth century criticism
which thought of poetry es en illusive eonethil; coming under nrnold's def-
inition of "conceived and composed in the soul." Those who held this limi-

ted conception of poetry regarded Dryden es prosaic.2

 

l. R.S. Crone, A Collection of English Poems, 1660-1800 (New‘York, 1952),
Introduction, pp. V6VI. F‘—

2. T.S. Eliot, homage to John Dryden (London, 1997), pp. 13-23.

16

Hazlitt, whom Eliot reproved for his rush Judgement of Dryden, had
criticised Dryden with the romantic idea of a poet in mind:

The poet of nature is one who, from the elements of beauty

of power, and of passion in his own: bre:_.st, sy‘1prithizes with

whatever is beautiful, and grand, and impassioned in nature,

in its sinrle majesty, in its inmsdinte (pgeal to the Smnuei,

to the thoughts and hearts of ell men; so that the poet of na-

ture, by the truth, and depth, and hermOty of his mind, may be

said to hold communion with the very soul of nature.

however a poet to Dryden was one

who to his natural endowments, of a large invention, a ripe

judgenent, and a strong memory, has joined the knowledge of

the liberal arts and sciences, and particularly moral philos-

Ophy, the mathematics, geography, and history, and with all

these qualifications, is a born poet; knows and can practise

the variet' of numbers, and is master of the lungunge in which

he writes.

The difference in standards is obvious, and anyone sttanpting to
judge Dryden by Hsglittfls criteria will fail to appreciate hin. Dryb
den was not only a master of satire and heroic couplet, but he made the

English language useful and clear. Dryden's writing covered a wide range,
drama, satire, essay, and translation. is Mark Van Doren has pointed out,

poets ranging from nests and Byron down to Edgar Allen Poe have expressed
their indebtedness to Dryden.3
Besides this difference in literary criticism in the nineteenth cen-
tury, another drawback to understanding Dryden had been an ignorance of
his age, or his "climate of opinion." modern scholarship has advanced in

this field, and through careful research has given us the historical, po-

litical and philOSOphical background of the eighteenth century. L.I. Bred-

 

1. William Healitt, Lectures on the English.roets (Oxford, 1930), p. 106.
2. W.P. Ker, Essays, Vol. 11 (Oxford, 1900), p. 56.

3. Mark Van boron, John Dryden (New York, 1946), pp. 233-266.

17

vold's study of Dryden is an excellent example of this scientific scholars
ship, and will be reviewed later.

Kirk Von Doren's study of Dryden is illustrative of the new liter-
ary criticism, which based unon broader levels, seeks to bring Dryden to
a full appreciation in the twentieth century.

Hark Ven.Doron's study of Dryden's convernion is concerned with the
mind and learning of the poet. VhizDoren believes that Dryden nus mell-
reud in various fields, 2nd that although he res not a thorcnrh scholar,
he possessed on intellectual curiosity which was never inective.

But pleasure for hin mennt the satisfying of intellectual curi-

osity as well as it meant diversion; from the beginning, there

can be no doubt, he was pleased to Iond widely end are avid of

information.

After leaving hestminster School where he received a decent founda-
tion in the classics, Dryden Intered Cambridge, then under Commonwealth

guidance, It was there, says Van Doren, that he furthered his argumen-
tation, and began to read Descartes and Hobbes.2

Dryden was devoted to the Latin classics - Virgil, Lucretius, Ovid,
Juvensl and Persius were his companions in "male virtue." His writing:and
thought were "tempered" say Van Doren, "with a rare Augustan awe," there-
fore, ”Declsrations of Indulgence and Test Acts were intrusive trifles, and
the necessity of choosing between a James and a i'illiam but a dwarfish di-
lemma."

Dryden practised scholastic discourse; he possessed a mind that was

attracted to ratioetnation as is evinced in his many plays and satires. It

 

P

. Ibid., p. 4.

I‘D

. Ibid

5.1b1do, DD. 10-11.

, p. 8.

18

use the form that he perfected not the content. Dryden become familiar
with the new science and philosophy; but as Van Doren points out he had
1

little competence in critiCnl evaluation of ideas. The influence of
Hobbes wzs widespread, especially after the Restoration. Dryden knew
Hobbes' mechanism and the dogmatic materialism of Lucretius; and Van Do-
ren thinks that he was attracted to them by disposition rather than.by
doctrine. he sums it up thus:

do woe by disoosition rsther than by doctrine a skeptic ...

he never altogether cepitulsted to any system of politics or

morals or aesthetics. so was born and died with an Glynnion

indifference to principles. thnobbee and Lucretius both

made powerful, permanent impressions upon his imeninetion.

It was Hobbes who inspired his deep distrust of human beings

in the nose and his lifelong intolerance of movements that

threstened to disturb the peace.“
Dryden was consistent in his fesr of democracy or any kind of innovation,
despising any individual, priest or politician, who made such endeavors}5

no for the controversial poems, Van Doren thinks that they were oc-
casional, but not trumped up for the moment. The pressing political and
theological problems of the day were a normal stimulus to a men who was
so much a pert of histime.4 Van Doren sees him as a party writer aligned
to the court, but lacking any hard convictions on either church or smote.
he frequently emphasizes Dryden's leek of conviction end fear of distur-
hence:

Such principles as he did possess were not so much principles

as nrejudices, ell of which csn be summedrup by saying that he
hated and feared disturbance of any kind.0

 

1. Ibido. DU. 11'12.
8. Ride. PP. 11‘12.

s. gpid., p. 16.

4. Ibid.. p. 141.
5. Ibid., p. 143.

19
he came it must he admitted st once, without conspicuous
principles of his own conserning church or stete.‘

Nor is it to be believed that he ever possessed a set of
nicely distinguished, carefully nondercd noliticnl liens.

2

In answering changes brought sizinet Dryden's religious anosteny
and tollticxl meanflcrings, vnn Doren conclnflee thnt there is little
need for iiscouposure so Dryion never hold any orinciples thvt he would

have died for, and he nGVer mode a pretense of so-doing.

The better View seems latterly to be thct there is little rea-

son to be sorrowful over the behavior of a canny man of let-

ers who never at any tine proton-24 to he ecuipned with prin-
ciples worth dying or becoming a pauper i‘or.3

8L1. Bredvold'e Intellectual Milieu of John DIY¢§§,WHS published in
1934, end is probably the most thorough work of its kind on Dryden, re-
lating the poet's thought to his age. He studies the poet's thought from
the standpoint of phiIOSOphical skepticism and political conservatism in
the seventeenth century.

The philosophical skepticism so prevalent in the seventeenth century
was founded upon the philosophy of the ancient Greek, iyrrho, who had
reached this period through the writings of sextus Empiricus. This phil-
osophy, especially as used by Dryden, was essentially anti-rationalistic.
It did not entail religious unbelief, but on the contrary, since it abol-
ished faith in msnfls reason it led to a reliance upon religious authority

and conformity to national law.4

 

1. r0 id. ’ p. 142.
2. Ibid. . pp. 142-143.
3. Ibid. . P. 255.

4. Bredvold, Intellectual Kiliue of John‘Dryden,.22. cit., pp. 16-46.

20

Montaigne was one of the most important sixteenth century exponents
of this fideism or philosOphicsl skepticism. Apparently Dryden was well
read in sonteigne; he referred to him several times in terms such as the
"honest sontsigne.'1 Montaingo’sukpology for Raymond sebondflenjoyed a
widespread popularity in England and France. The result of this essay
was to destroy faith in men's intellect snd reason, and to base religious
certainty solely upon faith and revelation. Montaigne's utter deprecia-
tion of reason led him to a state of doubt:

Appearances are everywhere equalzlt is equally possible to take
either side; mething seems true that may not seem untrue.2

However this state of doubt led Hontligne to a strong religious belief.
nis explanation of ryrrhoniom is also an expression of his religious

faith:

It presents man noted and empty confessing his natural week-
ness and ready to receive from on high some power not his own
... suporessing his own Judgement to leave more room for faith;
neither disbelieving nor setting up any teaching contrary to
the common Observances; humble, obedient, docile, zealous, a
sworn enemy to heresy and consequently free from the vain and
irreligioue beliefs introduced by the false sects. he is a
blank tablet prepared to take from the fi er of God such forms
as he shall be pleased to engrave upon it.

This was the argument used by seventeenth century Jesuits in counteracting
Protestantism. Dryden used this argument against the Delete in 'Religio
Lsici,“ thus aligning himself with the Roman Catholic apologists. The
Roman church never sanctioned anti-rationalism, yet nevertheless, as Bre-
vold noted, it use the Catholics more than any other group who made use of

fidGiSflo4

 

1. Works, V, Preface to All for Love, p. 555,Scott~Saintsbury,
2. J.H. Robertson, Essays of Montaigne (London, 1927), vol. I, p. bOl.
3. Ibid... p. 502.

4. BrOdVOId. 9E. Cit.. p. 75.

According to Bredvold, Dryden was not an original thinker, but he
studied the idees of his age, and gradually developed consistent politi-
cal and religious stands. His conversion to Catholicism was a natural
outgrowth of fideism and Toryism. Bredvold considered that Dryden reach-
ed the culmination of his thought in 1682 with "Absalom and.Achitophel'

and "Religio Lsici.'

”Religio Lsici' and "The Kind and the Panther" are so closely

allied in their philosOphy that the earlier poem might be re.

garded as a sort of prelude or introduction to the later; both

are basically skeptical and fideistic.1

After examining all the critics, early and modern ones turn with re-
newed interest end even.with a sense of relief to the writings of Dryden
himself. A fresh look at Dryden's own writing will throw light on the pro-
blem, and reveal the consistency of his thought, showing how his natural
skepticism.end political conservatism were prerequisites to his acceptance
of Catholicism.

Political thought in Dryden and in the men of his age could not be
separated from religious thought. Even Dryden's earliest, and apparently

purely political poems are based upon assumptions of a religious sort and

make allusions to theological and religious concepts.

 

1. Ibido. Po 1210

22

II

Dryden'e Political and Philosophical Thought

If Dryden'e eerly poems are based upon religious assumpt ions, in
s study of hie thought it is fitting to begin with “Sterner-13 on Cram-111."
and ”Astreee Redux.‘ “The first was written for the leader of the Common-
wealth, the second for the restored king, yet they are really not incon-
eistent. Both poems praise one thing: A strong leader, an authority that
can maintain peace. Cromwell was praised as a strong leader. but hie po-
litical doctrines are never mentioned. As Scott has said, Dryden treated
Cromwell with.e "einguler and happy delicacy.”1 Dryden did not touch up-
on the civil war or any of the methods by which Cromwell had attained his
power, but he did compliment the effects of that power. In this early po-
em Dryden expressed the desirability of public peace above all other good.
He repeated this idea frequently in hie later works.

Peace was the Prize of all his T011 and Care,

Whichuwer had benieh'd and did now restore:

(Stanzee on Cromwell, 11. 61-62)
Nb civil Broile have since his Death arose,
But Feetione now, by Rab it. does obey;
(Stangse on Cromwell, 11. 141-142)

Sir Walter Raleigh has said that "Dryden believed in authority in religion,
and monarchy in the State, even when the monarch'e name was Cromwell.*2

Dryden with the nation rejoiced at Charlee' metomtion. He undoubt-
edly had reasons other than politice1.for Joining the Roysliet ranks. Dry-

den was above all things e men of letters, and as Charles II end his court

 

1e Scott-Seintsbury, I. p. 60

2. 1Welter Raleigh, Some Authors (Oxford, 1923), p. 166.

23

offered opportunities for literary pursuits which the Commonwealth had
denied, this was an added reason for writing EAstraee Redun"1

Dryden probably never sympathised with.the Puritan belief in which
he was reared._ Even in 'Astreea Reduxfl Dryden associated Puritan.dissent
and political unrest.

For his long absence Church and State did groan;

madness the Pulpit. Testion seiz’d the Throne:

. (semen Radar. 11. 21-22)
It is more likely that Dryden experienced a strong reaction against his
Puritan background. Sir Walter Raleigh has suggested that this was the
case, as s study of the history of Puritan dissension in the seventeenth
century was 'enough.to make an anarchist sick of freedom."2 It may have
been this early reaction against Puritsnism which started Dryden in the g1-
recticn towards conservatism and authority.

The ideas behind the political poems give evidence or a skeptical
point of view, part of which was rooted in Drydenfis personality and exper-
ience, and which'wae nourished by his reading and conversational familiar-
ity with.the works of Hobbes.3

The critic will find Hobbes'I philosophy of great importance in treet-
ing Dryden'e skepticism. Hobbee' skeptical and sephisticeted defence of
euthority sss'well-efiited to the eclectic aristocrats of Charles Il'e court,

and Dryden became familiar with it early in his career, for it was congenial

 

l. Scott-Seintebury, p. 42.
2. Walter 38131811. 22s Cite. Do 165.

3. Besides evidence in Dryden‘e plays of Hobbee' philosophy. his mention of
Hobbes in essays, shows that he had read Hebbes. See his 'Preface to the
Fables" in W.P3 Ker’e Essays, V01. II. p. 252. However this essay was
‘sritten in 1700, and we have no earlier evidence of Drydenfie attitude to-
wards HObe‘e

24

to his own tanperament as well as to that of the age. Although Hobbes.
philosophy destroyed rationalism and often led to free-thinking, Hobbes.
himself, swmitted to the state church. He. like Hontaigne, sought sanc-
tbn in conforming to traditional law and religious authority. To Hobbes,
religion was essentially an instrument. subservient to government.1 Dry-
d‘en’e treatment of the church in 'Religic Laiei' was in agreement with
the ideas of Hobbes.

Courthope has pointed out that Dryden was concerned with the polio
tical consequences of religion; and fr<xm this couplet in 'Religio Laici‘
one can see that the purpose or end of church and state was to preserve
peece.2

For points obscure are of smell use to learn.

But common quiet is mankind's concern.

(Religic Lsici. 11. 449-450.)
This “cannon quiet“ or peace, was what Hobbes considered the min objec-
tive of government. 'i'hus Gom’thope made this comment upon the preceeding
couplets “Thus bebes' conclusion is reached iron different premises."3

Hobbes regarded men as creatures guided only by their passions and
en overwhelming desire for power. Government was necessary, then, as e
means of self-protection and peace.‘. lien by cannon'consent made a coven-
ent in which they relinquished certain rights for their own benefit. This

government, in order to preserve peace, needed to be absolute, for Hobbes

 

1. LG. Pogson finith, Hobbes'g Leviathan (Oxford. 1929), Introduction, pp.
viidmi.

2. VJ. Oourthcpe. A Histoy 0; English Poetry (London, 1903), Vol. III. p.
514.

s. neg... p. 516.

4. William Melesworth, Hobbes’ harks (London. 1861), Vol. III. p. 155.

25

said, ”Covenants, without the sword, are but words, and of no strength

to secure a man at all."1 After the covenant was once made, the subjects
were bound to obedience, for obedience to an absolute power was the only
way to obtain freedom from insecurity and war. These views, Hohhot sum-
led up in his definition of s Commonwealth which was I'one person, of whose
sets, a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made
thanselves every one the authors, to the end he may use the strength am
means of than all, as he shall think expedient, for their peace and can-
mon defense."2

It is obvious, then, that Dryden with his bent towards skepticim
and authoritarianism, found Hobbes' philosophy agreeable in many ways.

Perhaps the most frequently quoted evidence of Hobbes' influence
on Dryden, is Dryden's distrust of mankind en masse. In his very first
poems Dryden revealed his dislike for the mob and democracy. However it
must be ranembered that democracy in the seventeenth century had much the
same stigma attached to it that communism has today. Duocrscy in the se-
venteenth century was associated with the lower classes and mligious dis-
session}

Dryden never disliked men individmlly, but collectively he saw them
as a threat to peaceful living which was his main concern. In his old age
Dryden expressed his ideal of a peaceful life in an epistle to his kinsman,
'John Driden.

How Blessed is He, who leads a Country Life,

Unvex'd with amious' canes, and void of Strife!

Who studying Peace, and shunning Civil Rage,

Enjoy'd his Youth, and non enjoys his Age.

(To By Honour'd Kinsman, John Driden,
11. 1—4)

 

Is Ms. De 154s
2. “£0' Fe 158.

5. New flint-sh Dictionag (Oxford, 189?), Vol. III, p. 185, "1664. H. Here,
Myst. Iniq. 514. 'Presbytery verges nearer toward Populacy or Democracy.‘

26

Dryden praised Orcmsell as a peace—maker and he hailed Charles II
as a restorer of order. In welcoming Charles, Dryden described a rather
terrible political situation which.had developed under'mOb rule.

The rabble now such freedom did enjoy,

he Winds at See, that use it to destroy:

Blind as the CycIOps, and as wild as he,

They own'd a lawless savage Libertie,

Like that our painted Ancestors so pris'd

Ere Empires‘Arts their Breasts had Civiliz'd.

(Astreea Redux, 11. 44-49)

Yet many of the phrases Dryden used to describe the mob such as
'the many headed beast,’ the “rabble' and “drawn to the drags of a demon”
cracy,* were cemmonplaces of an aristocratic court. In political.poems
such as fiAbsalam and AchitOphel,' Dryden changes these commonplaces of
courtly speech into something larger and more meaningful. The common
man was not of the “rabble” because of his lowly station, but because he
was a threat to the king, law, and peace of the country. When Dryden, he
EAbsslom and Achitcphel,‘ called the English "headstrong, moody, munm'ring
race," he referred to the factions who took advantage of the Pepish Plot
to exclude the rightful hair from the throne. he also referred to the
many other instances in their past history at which times they had called
public turmoil. no expressed his contempt of them when.he said that he
would mention only the nobility or prominent persons who had shared in the
scheme to exclude James from the throne.

Nor shall the rascal rabble here have place,

When kings no title gave, and cod no grace.

(Absalom and.Achitophel, 11. 579-580)

As these poems reveal certain inclinations towards hobbies one can
find further and earlier evidence in the plays which served in a way, as
Dryden‘s poetical apprenticeship.

“\ Many traces of tiobbes' philosophy may be found in Dryden'e plays.

27

two points of which are particularly important: monarchial absolutism
and necessitarianisn. The presence of Hobbesian ideas in the plays which
were mostly written in the 1670's, shows that Dryden was alert to contem-
porary thought, and that he gave preference to skeptical thought. As Dry-
den wrote his plays under the patronage of the courtly circle, it probably
was only natural that he included Hobbesian material as Hobbes was popular
with the court. Bredvold remarked that monarchial absolutisn eras a neces-
sary part of heroic drama.and therefore, could not be taken as inconclusive
evidence of Dryden'e belief.
A narrow political outlook was almost inevitable in her-

oie drama and is cannon enough in the plays of Orrery, for

instance, who has hardly, been suspected of an admiration

for Hobbes.

It is also true that in drama, certain statements may be the expres-

sion or delineation of a character. For instance, Dryden in his preface

to Etrennic Logs, defended himself against the charge of irreligion by ex-

 

plaining that Maximin, the hero, was merely speaking in the character of s
heathen prince when he defied the Gods of Rome.2 The appearance of certain
ideas in his plays, therefore, does not mean that Dryden accepted then.
The Conquest of Granada was written in 1669. In this play the hero,
Almsgn‘, frequently gives expression to Hobbasian absolutast principles.
In the first act Almsucor says:

My laws are made but only for my sake;
No king against himself a law can make.

 

i. Bredvold, 93. up” p.’ as.
2. SOOtt-fiaifltflbury, II. p. 3770

3. Ibide. N. AGE I. We 1. pe 4‘3.

28

To Bobbes any division of power in the Cormonwealth was fatal. The king
being absolute was not subject to the Laws of the State:

For to be subject to laws. is to be subject to the Com-
:s'o moweelth, that is to the sovereign representative, that is

to himself: which is not subjection, but freedom from the

laws.1

In the second part of this play the king gives expression to what
have been referred to earlier as the comonp'leces of aristocratic speech.
These lines are also typical of the Hobbesisn distrust of the people.

Boeb. ”See what the many-headed beast demnds-

Cursed is that king, whose mum's-in their hands.

In sonata. either they too slowly grant,

0r seucily refuse to aid my want;

And, when their thrift has mined as in war,

They call their insolenoe my want or care.

These sentiments were probably very clear to s court suffering from the in-
trigues of e Parliament that tried to control the king by limiting his
grants.

There are some passages in ghe Conquest of Granada which reveal Dry-
den's distrust of reason or his conception of e limited reason. This is
further evidence of his interest in skepticism.

Abdel. -- Ah, why did heaven leave man so weak defence,

To trust frail reason with the rule or meet

'Tis overpoised and kicked up in the air.

While sense weighs down the scale, and keeps it there;

O'er. like e captive. 'Tis borne away,
And forced to count finance its own rebels‘ swans

Alma” makes another statement in regard to reesm that was later

used by Dryden in his argumentative pecans.

 

l. Molesworth, on. cit., p. 3123.
2. bids. IV. Part II, 53“: I. Bee 11. P. L30.

3. Ibid., mm 1. Act III. 8°. 1' p. 61.

29

By reason, man s godhead may disem.
But has he would be worshipped cannot learn.)-

In In. @nisb Friar (1681) Dryden made use of Hobbes' theory of
necessity. Hobbes' theory denied free-will as he considered men as the
victim of his passions, and guided solely by his desire for power. These
same appetites were the only criteria or good and evil. “for these words
of good, and evil, and contemptible, are even used with relation to the
person that useth than: there being nothing simply and absolutely so nor
any cannon rule of good and evil. to be taken from the nature of the objects
themselveeflz These ideas are recognised in these lines from The gang
Friar:

Lee. 0 that it were! I would not do this crime.

And yet. like heaven, permit it to be done.

The priesthood grossly cheat us with tree-will:

Our actions then are neither good nor ill,

Since from external causes they proceed;

Our passions, .. tear and anger, love and hate, ~—

Mere senseless engines that are moved by fate.

Like ships on stormy seas, without a guide

Tossed by the winds, and driven by the tide.3

The Swish {ring is also or interest as e satire upon the Catholic
priesthood. This play appeared soon after the Pepish Plot when anti-Cath-
olic feeling was high. The play use dedicated to a Protestant, Lord Bough-
tsn. Christie felt that Dryden may have written this play out of resent-
ment to the court which had failed to pay his pension regularly; but Scott
believed that he merely chose a pepular subject which had eppml to his au-

ddence.‘ This was the only play prohibited by James 11 after he came to

 

1. £216.. Pa“ 11. Mt IV. .0. 111. P. 190.
8. “0108101141. g. 01 . v01. V. De ‘1.
s. Scott-Saintsbury, VI, Act 111. so. 111. p. 467.

‘9 Ibst. PPe 397.398.

30

the throne, for it was a strong satire on the Catholic priesthood, Dry-
den distrusted all priests as he regarded than as trouble makers and a
threat to peace. Lord Macaulay has said that, "if any sentiment was deep-
ly fixed in him, that sentiment was an aversion to priests of all persua-
sions, Invites, Augurs. Buttes, Roman Catholic divines, Presbyterian di-
vines, dbvmes of the Church of England."1 However. Dryden's Friar Domihis
is made to appear as s witty and entertaining rascal who evokes laughter re-
ther than hatred. All the satire is levelled at the friar's rather dis-
solute character. rather than at religious doctrine. This is a typical ex-
ample of Dryden's treatment of the Friar:

Ped. I met a reverend, rat, old gauty trier. -

With s pauneh swoln so high, his double chin

Eight rest upon it: a true son of the church;

Freshocoloured, and well thriven on his trade. «2

Drydens plays. “which were his early work. prepared him for his later
poetical achievements. Hark Van Doren said that it was while writing his
plays that Dryden “became fully aware or the energy which is latent in the
heroic couplst."3 It is true that he perfected his metrical and augmen-
tative techiniquss while writing drama, but he also worked with all the im-
portant philosophical, political and religious ideas of his time. Din-mg
this playright apprenticeship. than. he prepared the ground for the think-

ing which he was to turn to in his nature religious poetry.

 

1. “malay I. 22. 0115,. Do 55?.
2s Scott-Saintsbury. '1. PP. ‘17'418e

3. Van mm. 2.20 01%,. P. 85.

31

III
1

Historical Background

In the seventeenth century a man of letters like Dryden could not
possibly separate his literary output, his plays, hirpoeas, and his cri-
tical essays, from the political and religious situation. Both their un-
derlying philosophy and the practical purpose for which they were written
were intimately connected with politics. In order, therefore, to under-
stand Dryden's work as a man of letters as well asto know the truth about
his religious and political convictions, it is necessary to have some know-
ledge of the political history of the period. It is also necessary to un-
derstand the posit ion of English Catmlics during the reigns of Charles II
and James II. than Dryden became Catholic he attached himself to a group
that had been persecuted in the past, and that had only a doubtful future
to look forward to. This historical summary is a bacmround and prepara-
tion for 'Religio laioi' and “The Hind and the Panther.“

The proportion of Catholics to the population of England at this time
is difficult to determine. However there are no definite figures on the

number of nonconfornists during the seventeenth century but it appears that
there number was significant. 0.1.. Turner in his Original Records of Earl:
Eonconfomitz made this estimate based on an early report of Bishop Sheldon:
”There final result is to give the proportion of conformists to protes-
tant nonconformists as about twenty-two to one. and papists as about 178 to
one. They are, however. very incomplete and they were put together in the

different dioceses in various quite different ways. Worse still it was known

that Sheldon's purpose was to prepare for new repression by proving how few

32

were the dissenters?1 Because of the harsh penal laws the number of Cath-
olic priests was also difficult to estimate. The Catholic Record Society

Miscellangg, vii (1911) estimates the number of priests at about one hun-

 

dred. Of course there were English Catholic religious establishments on
the continent which were a potential Catholic power? Trevelyan stated that
the Whigs emggereted the number of Catholics and that fear of their up.
rising was ridiculous.3 These Catholics were exclusively members of the
aristocracy and strong royalists. In 1642 they had been among the fore-
most to shed their blood for Charles I.‘

Hilaire Belloc considered that even though the number of Catholics
recorded was incorrect and mll, Catholicism was an important force in
this period. Peml laws made the practice of the religion impossible ex-
cept for a very few aristocrats who could afford to risk it in secret. Yet
there was a large group that could be termed “Catholic minded.“ This group
attended the Established Church, yet they would have practiced their orig-
inal faith it the luv had permitted them to.5 It was not unusual that this
group was large as up until 1615 England had been Catholic in thought. The
Mglish refonnation was primarily political in that the king became titular
head of the state church rather than the pope. It was not doctrinal differ-
ences that had caused this break, but nations 118-. mm on in the reigns
of James I and Charles I Ca hanistic thought crept in an! caused a doctrinal

division. But this division had not occured long ago, and during the reign

 

1. Clark, 93. 23;, P. 25.

2. 3.1;... p. 26.

3. Trevelyan, _O_p_. 33.3.. p. 389.
4. Feiling. 9.2. 333.. p. 44.

5. Hileire Belles, Cromwell (Inndon. 1934.), p. 85.

53

of Charles II there were many who secretly held to the remnants of Catho-
lic thought.1 Trevelyan had this to essay about the ”Catholic-minded" gnouPi
The 'Church papists,' as those were called who con-

sented to attend the national worship, could not legally

be distinguished from the Protestants, andwere therefore

a wholly incalculable force.2

Penal laws against Catholics during the reign of Charles II were gen-
orally extensions of laws established during the reign of Elizabeth. The
most important Elizabethan penal law was the Act of Uniformity which fined
everyone a shilling who failed to attend the state church.3 Then in 1585
all priests were outlawed, and anyone protecting them was liable to death.4

These laws, however, were never very stringently enforced. n: the
time of James I, in the agricultural districts of Trent and Avon there were
entire villages protected by Catholic aristocrats. Poor Catholics who could
not afford to pay the uniformity fine sought protection under Catholic land-
lords.5 These landlords, however, were excluded from an office in local or
national government. They were also forbidden to travel five miles from
their estates without a magistrate's permission.6 It should be recalled that
although any priest in England along with his tarborer was legally smject to
death, Jews I never approved of the few hangings that did occur]

In dealing with the mglish Catholics of this period it is necessary

to make a distinction between the Jesuits and the secular elem. From the

 

1. Mn pp. 82-90.
2. Trevolyan, _o_p_. £i_t_., p. 87.
3. Stephan. 9.2. 33.3.. p. 483.
4. .I§__b_1_c_l_.. p. 485.
5. Trevelyan. 92. £23.." p. 83.
s. 2933,. p. 85.
1. 3333,” p. 86.

54

time of Elizabeth the secular Catholics were always moderate and willing

to submit to the law for the sake of peace and their existing freedom. The
Jesuits, on the other hand, were actively intent upon converting England.
After the reformation, a Catholic reaction had set in Europe, and the Je-
suits were occupied with making new converts. James I by making peace with
Spain renewed the hepes of the Jesuits for a Catholic England. Hewever this
era of good feeling was spent after a group of fanatical Catholics were dis-
covered in an attempt to blow up Parliament. This plot was in accord with
the Jesuit teaching that even thetoverthrowing of government was commendable
if it served as a means of conversion.1 After this Gunpowder Plot, the pe-
nal laws were Itigorously enforced. An oath of supremacy’was enacted which
was to distinguish between seculars and the Jesuits. This oath demanded the
renouncing of the supremacy of thepope, and his right to depose kings. The
Jesuits refused to take this oath, but the seculars led by the priest, Black-
well, submitted to it.2 This distinction between the moderate and Jesuit re-
mained through the reign of James II.

The Jesuits from.1660 to 1688 continued their proselytizing activities.
However, after the Restoration, Catholicism, and particularly Jesuit Cath-
olicism, was always associated with the absolute monarchy of Louis XIV of
France. Charles, as it will be explained later, attempted to mitigate the
penal laws against Catholics, and although he failed in his attempts, the pe-
nal laws except for thd'few years after the Pepish Plot, were never strictly
enforced. Regardless, the most important point to make concerning the status
of Catholics, even in the reign of James II, was that they lived under a con-
tinual insecurity, fearing a possible reaction against their group. This fear

was real, and based upon many unfortunate experiences in their past history, the

 

1. Ibid., p. 88-89.
20 $2359}. De 890

latest being, of course, the Commonwealth peroccutions. Catholics, then,
along; with Royaliszta welcomed the restoration of Chrrloc.

Charles was motored to his throne in 1560. The new king was
hailed with a display of floss-era, flags and fo‘ attains of wine. This pop-
ular enthusiasm was more than any of his successors had known.1

Tia-hen 01153193 880911de to the throne, tho l’orlivment was predomin-
antly Presbyterian, and while the: army rem mod, it ms Lionck rstn'rr than
Charles who hold smzy. One of the kings first note was to prorooo an in-
dulgence moosuro. lorlinzzont led by tho Lotitud lmminn, Baxter, downed
the measure. l—orliesmmt was dissolved and elections hold in 16:51. The
new House: were composed of mmbers who were cow-.Iicr adherents of the Church
of England. Under the chancellor, (llnroncion. they proceeded to pass a mm-
bar of law alien to tolemtion; law onlculstod to empress the nonconform-
iota.2

'I‘wo lawn of the Clarendon Coda, tho .t-ict oi‘ Unifomity and the Corpor-
ation fact, exclufled the Frosbyterisino from a legal position as part of the
Established Church. and mode thou: dissenters. ’iheoo Acts denuded that all
who winked to be members oi“ a municipal body should renomce the Covormnt
and conform to the inglican liturgy and Book 01" Comm I’rnyor, all of which

a conscientous Presbyterie—an could not do. The Book of Common myor had been

 

recently revised, and in its new form it contained material objectionable to
the Low Church party. Episcoml ordination, as opposed to Presbyterian clam-
.aicnl ordination, became noceasary for the securing; of any office in the Church

.~. 0 I
of ingland.“ Those who bod been discontoro or those who were made dissenters

 

w —v

1. Etacauley, figtomojgginfilendj 21. cit., p. 156.
2. Demand Airy. Charles II (Iondon, 1904). pp. 165-176.

3. J.F. Stephan, History of the Criminal Lrw of Hnglrnd (London 1883), p. 481.

 

by the uniformity and Corporation Acts, were confined further by the Con-
venticlo dot. This act, a renewel of an earlier act, has reinforced in

l
1670 with the pretext of putting down a Quaker disturbance.

 

1; Ibid-a p0 210

36s

2
itegerdless or whether Charles approved of these acts or not, he
was continually under such pressure that time and again he was forced to
submit to Parliament. The 1660 fax-liensnt fixed a hereditary revenue for
Charles from too sources, the Customs and Excise. This revenue, though se-
cure for the lifetime of Charles, was never sufficient to meet his expendio
tures, or to pay off the pro-restoration debts} At first the revenue sup-
plied Charles with between $600,000 enda€700,000 yearly, and even under Den-
by's surveillance in 1674 and 1675 it did not exceedafil,400,000.'z Parlia-
ment hold the purse-strings and sought to keep Charles under control by 11111--
iting his grants. It was probably for this reason that Charles turned to
other sources for money. His entire foreign policy was guided by the de-
sire to gain freedom from parliamentary restrictions.3
Early in his reign Charles had tried to get aid from hollend through
a trade alliance in return for which he would have received two million pounds.
But Parliament renewed the Navigation not of 1651, preventing the alliance.
Charlee’ relations with France began with his marriage to the intent: Cathco
erine oi‘ i’ortu@1. Louis XIV favored rortugel in her fight for independence
from Spa in, but the treaty of the ryreneee prevented him from directly doing
so. When Charles married ustherine, England promised ems and ships to Por-
15ml, and Louis gave Charles £80,000 to meet this promise. Charles also sold

Dunkirk to the French, at this time, tarateoo,ooo.‘

 

1. David Ogg, England in the Reign of Charles lIgloxford, 19341. p. 153.
2. Keith Felling, 'A History of the Tory PartyL1640~1714 (Word, 1924), p. 156.
3. Airy, 93. cit., p. 185.

4. Rise. pp. 185187.

5?

at the time of Charles' restoration France under Louis XIV was the
dominant power in Europe. The absolutism of Catholic government could be
seen in Italy,.Austria and opain, but the all-over influence of France was
greatest. This French.influsnce was especially strong in England where the
court of Charles II reflected trench tests in drama, poetry and manners.1
Charles himself had a French Catholic mother, and during his exile he was
in close contact with the French. He, no doubt, envied the militarygmowees
and stability of Iouis' government. He saw that the Catholic religion was
more condusive to a scheme of absolute monarchy than the Protestant which
was always splitting into recalcitrant republican factions. his own fa-
ther;met his death at the hands of such dissenters, and Charles would have
subdued them if it had been possible for him to do so.2

Therefore, early in his reign, Charles negotiated with rcpe Innocent
concerning a plan whereby the Church of England might enter the Catholic
Communion, yet maintain its nationa1.authority. The Pope was not anxious
to make such an agreement as he saw the insUbordination of the Callicon
Church in France. Louis in and his Jesuits chase their own bishops and
made their religion serve state ends.3

Then in January of 1669 Charles met with James and three ministers,
Cliffcrd, firundel and Arlington, to initiate his Grand Design which was
brought forth in the Treaty of Dover. Henrietta, Charles' sister, who was
married to the brother of Louis XIV, encouraged Charles to negotiate with
Louis, By the terms of the secret treaty of gover, England and France were

to divide Holland; and Louis was to provide money and arms to Charles when

 

l. Courthope,‘gp. cit., pp. 452.455.
2. F.C. Turner, James II (New York, 1948), pp. 371-572.
5. G.M. Trevslyan, England under the Stuarts (New Ybrk, 1924), p. 565.

he should announce his conversion to Catholicism with the intention of mak-
ing it the state religion.l Charles' cavalier I-‘nrlisnent had passed the
Clsréndon Code against his wishes, and had linited his grunts, so he was in
need of Louis’ subsidies. Two members of the Sahel, shaftesbury and Bucking-
ham, were kept ignorant of the secret treaty. A public treaty was signed in
1671 in which the tense of the conversion were omitted.2 Thus Charles‘ re-
liance upon French subsidies was begun. Charles may have been honest in his
religious convictions at this time, but he was far too intelligent to risk

a declaration of conversion which would certainly have been fetal; he reel-

5 Even English Cath-

ized fully the impossibility of making England Catholic.
01109 as a whole would not have favored this design as they had already suf-
fered enough during the last revolution, and they were not willing to throw
away their last possessions on an impossible schism.4 Besides, Louis XIV
was forwarding his own plans for domination by this alliance. For, by bind.-
ing England to aid in crushing the Dutch, he would reduce the power of Spain ,
his powerful enemy.5 I
From the time of the Treaty of Dover, the English nation was united in
the fear of Catholicism, France“, and absolute monomhy. Parliament acted up-
on this rear, and the English people were stirred up by anyone or anything
that held connection with these three factors.6 It is also significant that

from the time of the Treaty of Dover down to 1678, Charles received regular

 

1. Ibid., p. 565.

2. _I_bi_d_.. p. 372.

15. Turner, 22. £13.. p. 99.

4. ‘l‘revelyen, 32. £13.. pp. 368-369.

5. cm. Clerk, The Later Stuarts; 1660-1714 (Oxford, 1934). p. 72.

6. Ibidi. p. 76.

39

grants from Louis, for which he was forced to make large concessions.1

Because of these concessions to France, among other thing. 3, Charles'
character has been severely criticised. Lord Macaulay censured the charac-
ter of Charles, not only denouncing him as a libertine, but asserting that
be Wes not cepeb e of assuming state duties.

He was utterly without ambition. He detested business,

and would sooner have abdicated his crown than have uno

dergone the trouble of really directing the administration.2
Burnot was somewhat more lenient in his description of Charles. Burnet ec-
knowledged Chrrlee' capability in state affairs and his wide learning, but
he also felt thft the king's preoccupation with uneanctioned pleasures con-
tributed to the failure of his reign.3 0f the modern historians, Arthur
Bryant disagrees with the former interpretations. Bryant presents Charles
as an sssiduous worker v:ho was wholly capable of dealing with state affairs,
particulsry because of his keen insight into men and politics. According to
Bryant, unless Charles was present at committee meetings nothing was accom-
plished. He was also tireless in his attention to interviews. when Lau-
derdnle was having difficulties in Scotland in 1663, the king. himself, read
all the numerous dispatches in that regard.‘ Osmund Airy, another modern
biographer, has this to say of Charles' character: ”His guide was not duty;
it was ease, and amusement, and lust. The cup of pleasure was filled deep
for him, end he grasped it with both hence.'5 Because of his insight into
human nature, Charles use willing to make concessions which the stubborn James
considered a weakness, but which was probably the only ennui to be taken if

he was to retain his throne and preserve a semblance of order in those chaotic

 

1. Ibid., pp. 72.73.
2. Hsceulsy, on. cit., p. 159.

and.
5. Thomas Steakhouse, in Abridgement of Biehop_Burnet's Histo;g_of His Own
Times (London, 1922). PD. 32-33.

4. Arthur Bryant, King Charles II (New York, 1931). pp. 162-164.
5. Airy, op. cit., p. 416.

40

times.1
At the beginning of the Third Dutch war in 1672, Charles had declared
an Act of Indulgence while parliament was not conveyned. This Act was de-
clared illegal when Berliement reconveyned in 1673. Toleretion instead of
furthering the war effort. endangered it. The French alliance was suspect,
and all England feared the Catholic menace. This Indulgence Act allowed
Protestant Biseentere freedom of public worship, and Catholics freedom to
worship in their homes} Lord liaceulay believed that the controversy over
the Indulgence Act involved the question of the King'e right to the suspend-
ing power which wee to decide whether England wee to go in the direction of
a limited monarchy or e despotism. The mJority Opinion in the House of
Commons was that the king's suspending power could be applied only to ecc-
ulsr affairs: but as the king was also head of the state chruch this wee not
e valid object ion. Charles was within his rights in using the suspending
power, as other kings had done so before him; but L'Iecauley said, "all Eng~
liehmen who valued liberty and law, eaw with uneasiness the a” inroed which
the prerogative had made into the province of the Legislaturefiz Turner felt
that the Cetholicity of James, who was heir to the throne, was one of the fore--
meet causes for the failure of the Indulgence Act.3 Parliament had voted e
grant for the Dutch war, but refused to deliver it until the Indulgence Act
was withdrawn. Counseled by Louie and Arlington, Charles withdrew the act in
favor of the war.‘
Raving done away with the Indulgence Act, garliement under the guidance

of Smfteebury proceeded to pass the Test not which provided that every person

 

l. Turner, 93. cit., p. ”~94.

2. Turner. 92. cit., p. 224.
3. Macaulay, 33. cit., pp. 206-207.
4. Turner, 92. cit., p. ‘31.

41

holding a civil or military office should receive communion in the Church
of England and take the oaths of supremacy and allegiance. No Roman.Cath-
olic could take this oath. Therefore the Duke of York was forced to resign
his position as Lord High Admiral of the English fleet.1

The first attempt to exclude James from the throne were made at this
time. Buckingham and Arlington regarded James as their personal enemy and
feared revenge at his accession to the throne. They encouraged Charles to.
divorce his childless queen, and to marry again so that he might provide an
heir to the throne.2 James was forced to admit his faith by refusing to
take the Test Act. Even the Anglicans were disturbed by James' defiant at-
titude.3

All authorities seem to agree that the Duke of York was above all
thing obstinate and unrelenting in his actions, particularly in his insis-
tence upon the absolutism of monarchy. It was for this reason, said Burnet,
that he held eecuréiy to the Catholic faith; he saw it as the best insur-
ance against rebellious subjects. James, through his stubborness and lack
of insight, failed to see the impossibility of establishing Catholicism in
England.4 Sir James Eackdntosh felt that James' political ambition and his
religious convictions were so combined that it would have been difficult to
determine which motivated his actions.5 Lord hacaulay who decried Charles'
lack of industriousness, had this to say of James: “though a libertine,
James was diligent, methodical, and fond of authority and business. His un-

derstanding was singularly slow and narrow, and his temper obstinate, harsh

 

l. Eacaulay,‘gp, cit., p. 208.
2. Turner, 93. cit., p. 90.

3. Macaulay, 93. cit., p. 186.

‘. Burnet. 220 Cite. De 2.
5. J. Mackintosh, history of the Revolution in England in 1688 (Phil.,1835),p.197.

42

and unforgiving"1

James appears, from the Restoration forward, to have been unpopular
in England. His personality coupled to his religion probably accounts for
his unpopulerity.2 Even before his conversion he was under suspicion for
his religious‘beliefs. Early in 1659, rather Talbot and other Jesuits felt
that James would be more suitable for their purposes than cherles.3 James
did not share Charlss' diffidencs to the Grand Design. He accepted it as
his life’s work; and it use his stubborn adherence to this design that fin-
ally caused his downfall.4 Therefore those characteristics which distin-
guished James as Duke of York were hardened and completely narrowed when he
ascended the throne as James II. It‘would probably not be asserting too
much if one~was to say that it was solely James'_stubborn, fanatical polo
icy that brought about the revolution in 1688. Returning to James as Duke
of Ybrk, it is significant to notice the part he played in the Popish Plot,
and the effect it had upon him.

Anti-Catholic feeling culminated in the ropish riot of September, 1678.
Titus Gates was the prOphet who exposed this Jesuit connivance. Oates, the
son of en Anabaptist minister, had spent some time in the continent in the
service of the Jesuits; at the time of the plot he was Chaplain to the Duke of
Norfolk. Oates said that while in Europe he aided the Jesuits in their plans
to convert England. .A great meeting of Jesuits was said to have been held
in London, at which time plans were made to kill Charles and to give the

throne to James. Burnet stated that all the evidence was rather on the wild

 

1. Macaulay, 93. cit., p. 160.
2. Turner,'gp, cit., p. 97.
3. Ibide. Do 96.

4. Ibid., p. 98.

45

and unsubstantial side. but the public. so enraged at Pepery, was anxious
to believe the most lurid testimonies that supported their hate.1 The day
before Oates presented his testimony to the council he presented it to Sir
Edmondbury Godfrey, Justice of Peace. Some days later Godfrey was found
murdered. Oates brought forthuwitnesses who sccusmul the Jesuits of the
‘murder. Chief Justice Scruggs moved by public zeal prosecuted the accused;
but it was significant that all of them went to the scaffold protesting
their'innocence.2 .
[At the time of this plot James was more unpopular than ever. He had
not attended the Established Chruch for two years, remaining as firm as ever
in his Catholic convictions. Ostes' friend KirXely warned the king of a
plot against his life. Charles merely told Denby to investigate, and then
went to Windsor with James. During James’ absence, his confessor, Father
Bedingfield received some forged letters which were intended to incriminate
the priest. Bedingfield took the letters to James who may have spoken to
Charles on the subject." At any rate James was aware of the plot, and he
earned his wife's former secretary, Coleman, to destroy his correspondence
with.French Jesuits. Coleman was an ambitious Catholic who had kept in close
contact with the French delegates who paid him.to report the proceedings in
Commons and to apply bribes. He was fully devoted to the task of converting
England through French Shannels. Coleman unwisely refused to burn all his
correspondence and it was discovered, bringing him to the sentineld. There
was nothing in then that intimated a plen.to kill the king, they contained
statements involving James and verifying a scheme for the introduction of

Catholicism in England. According to Turner, James' actions since the

1. Burnet. 92. Cit... pp. 152-155.
2. Ibid., pp. 150-160. r

44

Restoration were primarily responsible for the Popish Plot and the subse-
quent Exclusion Bills.1 Lord masculay dtfirmed this hatred of Catholicism
which James symbolized. "But neither national pride nor'anxioty for pub~
lie liberty had so great an influence on the popular mind as hatred of the
Roman Catholic religion.'2 .

When the Plot had reached the point that the Queen was accused of
planning to poison the King, Charles dissolved garliament. Shortiy before
Parliament was dissolved. it suspended James from the bill preventing Cath-
olics from.eitting in parliament by only two votes.5 Burnct's statement
that "Parliament was totally persuaded of the thing,‘ seemed true.‘ The
next garliament was elected in 1679, the elections going against Charles
and James. Charles sent James to Brussels as e precautionary measure, as-
suring him that he would uphold him es his rightful successor.5

This new garliament introduced the first Exclusion Bill. Shaftesbury
took advantage of popular sentiment and pushed on the Exclusion measures.
Shaftesbury’s party, Trevelyan said. “was a combination of part of the ar~
istocracy with the middle class to wrest political power from the Crown.and
to force the squirearehy and the bishops to grant toleration to dissent.
To obtain these ends the hhigs played upon the pepular fear of Catholicism
which they themselves shared."5

Shaftesbury, the leading figure in the Exclusion party} was described
thus by Burnett "s man of popular eloquence, who could mix the facetious
and the furious way of ensuing very agreeably, and who had got the art of

governing parties, and making himself.the head of them, Just as he pleased ...

 

1. Turner, 239 Sites pp! 144-1450 4. mrnet, 22. 0113.. p. 152.
2. MEIOBUIEY. 2E. 9.1-2... P0 180. 5. Ibide. Fe 1.62.
3. Polling. 32. 0115.. p. 175. 6. Trevelvan. 22o 22.2" P- 589°

45

After all, his chief strength lay in knowing mankind, their understandings
and tempers, and in applying himself to them so dexterously that though,
by his changing sides so often, it was visible he was not to be depended
upon."1 Shaftesbury argued that exclusion was admissable through precedence,
and that it was particularly admissable in the present case because Imles'
Cetholicism.sas a danger to the common good. Government, he believed, was
designed for the benefit of the subjects rather than for'that of the ruler.2

Those who opposed Shaftesbury felt that exclusion Was unlawful re-
gardless of precedent. If Janee‘ religion was dangerous, rarliament could
limit his powers respectively. The proposed limitations would prevent James
from using his prerogative of veto, from making appointments to offices, and
from raising any military forces without the permission of .l-‘arlia'r:umt.:5 The
Tories also felt that an attempt at exclusion could lead to civil disorder,
as James' followers and the Scotch royaliste might come to his aid.4

The first Exclusion Bill was introduced in November, 1679. Only three
members of Commons Opposed it, but the Lords downed it by thirty-three votes.5

It was in 1681 that Shaftesbury and Buckingham took the Duke of Hon-
mouth under their care and appointed him the successor to Charles. monmouth,
the illegitinate son of Charles, was a favorite of his father, and popular
with his countrymen." Shaftcsbury's party compaigned with vigor, and honnouth
toured England in the cause. About this time a Presbyterian plot to assesa
einate Charles was discovered. This plot served to weaken the Whig position

along with other factors: Shaftesbury had threatened Ormonde, Charles' faith-

1. Burnet, 92. 233.. DP. 34-35.
2.‘gp;g,. pp. 164-165.

3. Failing. 22. gig," p. 185.

4. Burnet, pp. 3.1;... pp. 165-166..
5. Felling. 21. 333. p. 183.

46

ful director in Ireland, and Lord Russell hed intimated that would be bet-
ter 1! James were to suffer death than that the country should suffer from
his accession. All this made for a Tory reaction; even moderate :hige were
driven to the Tory party.1 Charles had reached the limit of his leniency.
Sheftesbury was saved from being arraigned for treason by the London Whigs;
but the reection against his party was so strong that he fled to Holland
where he died. Monmouth.wee forgiven, but he was soon at his former ec-

2 James who had

tivitiee again. after which he went into voluntary exile.
been sent to Scotland during the Exclusion uproar, returned to V gland.

Charles, made bolder by the Tory reaction. reinstated James in his council.5

 

1. Ibid., pp. 176-180.

2. Macaulay,‘22, cit., pp. 209-210.

(13.

Q P3169. p1“. 211-212.

47

Charles died in 1685 while the nation still felt the Tory reaction;
therefore James' accession was rather well received in spite of his unpop-
ularity. The first problem that confronted James was the matter of revenue.
Parliament had settled the customs revenue upon Charles only for his life-
time. James needed money and. Parliament was not in session: merchants com-
plained that their goods remained in storehousee because the taxes were not
collected. James, advised by Jeffry; used his prerogative by declaring that
he would continue to collect the customs as Charles had done. Along with
this declaration he found it necessary to announce the forthcoming elections
for Parliament.1

Not only did James regret having to call Parliament because of the re-
strictions it would place upon him. but he also feared to displaces Louis XIV.
James. like Charles , found it necessary to appeal to French aid. Louie socn
came forward with money, for he was accustomed to the parsimonious English
Parliaments. Part or the French money was to be used to bribe members or the
Commons.2 Lord Macaulay avowed that James made himself s slave to Dance. but
if so he was a reluctant slave. James believed in the prerogative and in the I
absolute monarchy, yet Parliament made its function that of restricting his
power by refusing grants. Thus James was forced to seek foreign aid. Louis
was anxious to keep the English king in this precarious position as it pre-
vented England from becoming a threatening power to France.3

The elections for the new Parliament were extremely favorable to the

 

1 macaulay, 22. cit., pp. 349-350.
2. Ibid., pp. 350-555.

3. RED. Pp. 356‘357.

48

court. The customs revenue was settled upon James with little discussion.
However the kings plane to abolish the Test Act and the Rhone Corpus Act
were quite impossible for the Houses were Tory with.e definite attachment

to the Established Church. Some of these Tories tried to pass a measure
calling for strict execution of the penal laws against all Nanconformists.
James expressed his extreme displeasure with the measure. Parliament e-

greed to forget it when James promised to protect the rights of the state
church. James through the use of his suspending power was able to relieve
members of hds faith from the persecution of the penal laws, but he was nev-
er satisfied with anything less than complete toleration for his faith.1

This was his fatal mistake, for all the prominent Catholic families would
have been satisfied‘with e gradual mitigation of penal laws in.e manner which
would have insured public calm.2 James had good intentions, according to
Bredvold. for he did not want to force Catholicism on his subjects, but he
wanted toleration for Catholics in preparation for the day when.the Pretee-
tant, Prince of Orange, would succeed to the‘throne.3

In March of 1685 James prerogued his Parliament as a means of thwarting

the anti-toleration movement.that had been gaining force. The Houses were
firmly set against the repeal of the Test Act and panel laws. In the follow»
ing April James declared an Indulgence.Act which suspended the Test and penal
laws for all NOnconformists, Catholic and Protestant alike. All were allowed
freedom of public worship. Even though.toleration should have been a blessing
to Ronconformists. it was overshadowed by the fear of absolutism in an illegal

declaration. This Indulgence Act was a source of great alarm to the Church of

 

1. Ibid.. pp. 396-397.
2. Felling, 93. cit., pp. 212-215.
3. BredVOId, OE. Cite, p. 166.

49

England. The Church suspected that the king was attempting an alliance
‘Iith the Protestant Nonconformiste in opposition to them. .At this point,
Lstitudinarian members of the Church of England made appeals to the Dissen-
ters in the hope that they could prevent this alliance.1

Only a minority of the nonconformists came to the court's side. The
far greater number of Presbyteriane. Independents and Baptists remained cold
to toleration. It may also be noted that William of Orange, the king's eon-
in-lew, whO'was growing in importance as a possible successor to the throne,
disapproved of the Indulgence Act. William now tried to align.the opponents
of the Act under his leadershipoz

hany'prominent Englishmen and Scotsman who had been Exclusioniste fled
to the continent upon the accession of James. Here they united under Mon,
mouth and Argyle in 1685 to invade England. At this Particudar time James
was on friendly terms with William, there being some talk or an English el-
liance with Holland and Austria against France. William.made an attempt to
prevent the emberkation or the English forces, but was unsuccessful. However,
Monmouthfle invasion plane proved to be unsuccessful in the end. The king‘s
forces defeated the rebels, and Monmouth and Argyle were hanged. James' re—
genge even extended to the peasants in.Honmouth'e ranks, three hundred of
whom were sentenced to hanging by Jeffries.a

monmouth'e rebellion added to the fears of the Catholics, for it was
obvious that there was s large group of Englishmen who were antagonistic towards
the government, and who would take arms against it if success was reasonably to

be hoped for. Trevelyan remarked that the only reason that honmouth'e men held

 

1. Macaulay, 22o cite. PP. 667.672.
2. Ibid., p. 690.

3. Ibid., pp. 411.439.

50

the field as long as they did was because of the half-hearted attitude of
Jimes' troops. They hated Catholics almost more than they did the rebels.1
And, of course, James' thorough revenge upon the rebels did nothing to heighten
his pOpulsrity with the peeple.

After the rebellion James saw that Parliament was not going to pass his
first Indulgence Act, he dissolved it. Government officials were sent out to
question candidates for office in order to find out the sympathies of a new
Parliament. The results of the study were so discouraging that a new elec-
tion was not held. The Church of England held this as another grievance so
gainet the Crown, and James was disappointed again in his plans for union with
the Church."3

James hoped fron the beginning that he could reconcile the Church of
England to the Roman Church. In 1685 e papal nuncio was received at court and
plans made for a possible union of the two churches. In 1686 an Ecclesiasti-
cal Court was established. composed of three bishops, three officers of state
and a chief Justice. This court was the king‘s instrument for controlling the
Church of Enrdand clergy and their universities. The court had power to ex-
communicate members of the clergy, and it also used its power to remove anti-
court individuals from university offices."5 James turned out the Fellows of
two Oxford Colleges to convert the:colleges into semnaries. Then he told
the Church of England clergy to cease ell controversialist activities. Dish-
op Compton of London refused to suspend one of his clergymen for this offence,
and the Court thereupon relieved him of his function.‘ These actions natur-

ally incensed the Church of England, causing a definite break between James

1. Trevelyan, 22. 233.. pp. 451433.
2. Clark, 92. 3%.. PP. 119-120.

3. gig" PP. 118-119.

4. 'I’revelyan, 33. 333." pp. 454-448.

51

and the state church. By 1687 James had lost all hopes for a reconcilia-
tion.1
He continued to antagonize the Established Church, and by 1686 he
had succeeded in filling most governmental and military offices with Cath-
olics. Lord Sunderland who became a Catholic, took the office of the Coun-
cil‘e president from the Anglican "Trimmer.” Halifax.2 Ormonde who had
served faithfully for many years as commanding chief of the military fbrces
in Ireland, was replaced by the Catholic.RidundTalbot, Earl of Tyrconnel.
Tynnnnel purged the army of Protestants: Lieutenant Congreve. the father of
the playwright, was one of those who lost his commission.:5 Bredvold has poin~
ted out that James intended to have these appoinnente aparoved by Parliament
upon the repeal of the Test Act. which. of course, never happened.4 us also
stated that tyrconnel was sent to Ireland to prepare that country as a pos-
sible refuge for Catholics when and if a Protestant should take the throne.
Moderate Catholics were frightened by the king's rash actions, as they feared
another period of revenge and persecution with a frotestant succession. which
seemed inevitable as James had no heir. By therend of 1685 some of these
Catholics were making phase to flee to the continent for safety.5
The second Indulgence Act was announced in any of 1688. It allowed en-
tire freedom of public worship and removed the Test from all NOnconfonmists.
This Declaration was to be read publically by all bishops and by the clergy
in their dioceses for*two successive Sundays. Out of the hundred or more per-

ish churches in London there were only four in which the Declaration was read.6

 

1. Failing. 9'2. Citg. pp. 212-213.
2. Failing. 32. cit., p. 212.

3. J.C. Hedges, hilliam Congreve the hen (New York, 1941), p. 29.
4-. Bredvold, £2. _C_i_t_.. Appendix D. p. 1'71.

5. lélgp. p. 176.

6o “Fowler. 2' 33f." pp. 771-774.

The six bishops who had previously petitioned the king, explaining that
they were bound by conscience not to read the Declaration. because of its
illegal nature, more sent to the tower. rublic indignation was high. James
could have placated the pepulace by pardoning the bmhops, but he was de-
tenined to prosecute than fully. 0n the following Sunday a further at-
tempt was made to have the Declaration read, but it was also unsuccessful.
The few clergyman who dared to read it had their congregations walk out on
them. The bishoPs were sent up to trial and as the proceedings took place
it became clear that the central issue me whether or not the king's prero-
gative was legal. hut in spite of the court's attempts to pack the Jury,
the biships were acquitted}

The public rejoiced at the acquittal of the bishops, showing clearly
where their sympathies lay. Yet the average Englishman was willing to put
up with James as long as he had no hair, and the Protestant, fiilliaxn of 01‘-
ange, was next in line. However in 1687 Queen Mary gave birth to a son. Pop-
ular Opinion conceded the child to be a Jesuit trick to retain a Catholic

succession. The Dutch ambassador wrote to William that not one Englishman

in ten believed the child to be the Queen's? These were dark days for the
Catholics. and James was on his way out.

This, then, was the state of affairs when Dryden became Catholic. As
a men who was close to the court and conscious of public affairs, he must have
been fully aware of his situation: his political and religious satires show
that he use. This historical background has been a preparation for those mac-
ture poems which contain evidence of his conservative and authoritarian thought.

In 1681 Dryden had written ”Absalom and schitOphel," an excellent sa-

tire upon Shafteebury and the Exclusianiste. In this poem Dryden defended the

 

1. Ibid., pp. 775-797.
2. Ibigo. pp. 781.783.

53

lawful, hereditary succession age ins-t the claims of monmouth. fie upheld
the authority or the state church and the monarchy against the Dissenters.
A second pert to 'Ibsalom and Achitophel‘ was published in I‘lovembcr of 1682

and several weeks later 'Religio Leici" appeared.

55

lawful, hereditary succession eggs inst the claims of monmouth. tie upheld
the authority of the state church and the monarchy against the Dissenters.
A second part to Fibsalom and Achitophsl' was published in Nevember of 1682

and several weeks later "Religio Leici' appeared.

IV

Beligio Isici

"Religio Laici' coming, as it did, so shortly after inbsalom and
Achitophel" appears to be an abrupt transition from political to religious
thought, but as we have mentioned before, political and religious thought

were closely united in the seventeenth century.

Some Critics, among them, Escaulay and van.Doren.have claimed that
Dryden was entirely wanting in.adherence to principles of any kind.1 If
this was the case, he must have written solely for the occasion. 'Relig~
io Leici," of course, owed its being to a definite set of circumstances.

It was the sensation in religious and philosoPhical circles occasioned by
the publication of Henry Dickinson'e English translation of Richard Simon's
Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament, that turned Drydenfle attention to this
subject. In the preface to the poem he had this to say about Father SimOnQe
book:
It remains that I acquaint the reader, that the verses

were written for an ingenious young gentleman, my friend,

upon his translation of,'The Critical History of the Old

Testament,' composed by the learned Father Simon:2 The

verses therefore are addressed to the translator of that

work, and the style of them is, what it ought to be, epis-
'tiCflflI'Ye‘5

 

1a. Macaulay, Miscellaneous fiorke, 71,.22. cit., pp. 108.1573 Van Doren, Iohn.D£:-
deg,‘22, cit., pp. 141-145.

2. Father'Richerd Simon (1688-1712) was the forerunner of modern biblical critien
elem. Through use of interval evidence, Father Simon came to the conclusion
that the mosaic books were written by several inspired annaliste. His views
were not accepted during his lifetime, but his method of scholarship has gain-
ed appreciation in.modern time. Catholic Encyclopediaj Iv, Neu'York, Robert
Appleton Co. . 1908. *

3. Scott-Saintsbury, 9p. 919.. vol. I. PP. 31-32.

55

Thus Father Simon's book was an immediate cause of "Religio Laidi,‘ but
that Dryden came to this subject without previous religious reading or
thought is very unlikely.

Scott believed that Dryden'e religious feeling was an underlying
motive for the poems, and that added to this motive use a political de-
sire to defend the Church of England against the recalcitrant sectarian.
Scott thought that disappointment and age may have induced religious spec-
ulation in an otherwise secularnind.1 Verrellegreed with Scott on this
point. Verell also made the interesting supposition that, to Dryden,
Dickinson'e translation was an opportune pretext for engaging in the re-
ligious controversy. Dryden felt that his groundwork in theology was in-
secure so he covered it by means of a complement to a friend's book. How-

ever, in spite of his lack of theological training, he was urged on by the

preplexity of certain religious problems; and this Verrallsaid, use his rea-

2
son for writing 'Religio Lsici.‘
Saintsbury also was convinced statue religious sincerity of the poem.

Dryden considered the church as an integral part of the'Tory system so if

he argued for the Tory party, he would naturally have upheld the Established

Church too.3 The continuity of the political and religious issues made it.

easy for Dryden to move quickly from a political satire to a religious poem.

These two issues had resolved out of the Popish Plot: politically there was

the struggle for and against the Exclusion Bill; and religiously there was

 

Sam-“shut-

lScott‘ Works, 92. cit., vol. I, pp, 257-258.
2. vemn 22. Cite. pp. 151-155.

3. Samtflbury. 22o Cite. PP. 92‘930

56

the struggle between the State Church and the Nonconformists. Dryden
dealt with the first issue in fiAbsolam and Achitophel' and with the se-
cond issue in 'Religio Laici."1

Brsdvold believed that Dryden did not collect any new ideas for the
express purpose of writing 'Religio Laici." Father Simon's book awakened
him to a more complete realization of those ideas which he already held,
but nevertheless, he was following a consistent train of thought.2

Reviewing the poem from the standpoint of religion and politics may
demonstrate the author's motives and sincerity.

The introductory lines, which bonomy‘Dobrée has described as "mag-
nificent,'3 are an earnest expression of the individual and universal de-
sire of’man to reach a divine, guiding principal. Dryden is saying that
t the dim light of reason may put us on the right path, but it is only the
light of revelation that can bring conviction. Reason is limited, there-
fore God has provided man with the unfailing light of revelation.4

So pale grows reason at religion's sight,

So dies, and so dissolves in supernatural light.

(11. 10-11)
The argument of the poem as it develOps from this magnificent beginning is
clear and consistent.

The poet gives an exposition on the attempts of ancient philosOphers
to reach truth through reason. These exceptional men by exercising a sus-
perior reason perceived s first principle, but they could go no farther.

Epicures, Lucretius, even.Aristotle, was unable to determine the nature of

this first principle, and least of all to find the means by which I: “all

 

1. Ibid., p. 92.

2. Bredvold, 213.. cit., p. 107.

3. Bgngm *Pobres, Poona of Dryden (London, 1934), p. xiii.
N- 5,! < 0*
cfhWorks, 03; cit., X, 'Religio Laici,u 11, 1-11, Scott-Saintsbury.

 

57

l

achieve true happiness. This is a skeptical exposition similar to that
found in henteigne's essays on the three schools of classical philosophy.2
Dryden may have relished Hontaigne's retort: "Now trust to your Philoso-
phy; boast that you.bsve found the been in the ceke, after hearing this
racket from so»many philosophical brainsl's

Dryden sums up this skeptical paragraph with these clear lines:

Thus, anxious thoughts in endless circles roll,

Without a centre where to fix the soul.

In this wild maze their vein endeavours end:-

How can the less the greater comprehend?

0r finite Reason reach infinity?

For what ceu'd Fathom God were more then He.

(11. 36-41)

The argumentative section begins with an attack against Deists who
presumed to find the principles of God and His laws by reason alone. De-
nying revelation, the Deist considered himself capable of gaining salvation

; simply by repentance and obeying the laws of neture.‘

Here Dryden uses s
skillful argument against the Deist. He claims that what the Deists st-
tribute to reason is actually the unconscious memory of what had once been
revelation.5 In the preface to "Religio Lsi¢i.' Dryden preposes that the
revelation announced to Noah end his generation was gradually diminished and
corrupted with the passing of time; thus *Deism, or the principles of’natur-

el worship, are only the fsint remnants, or dying flames, of revealed reli-

gion. in the posterity of Mesh ... So that we have not lifted up ourselves

 

1. $219,. 11. 12-41.

2. Lu. Robertson. Essays of Montaigne. 91. 513.. Pp. 495-515.
3..3§;g,. p. 514.

4. 'Religio Lsici," 22. £31,... 11. 42-60.

5. Ibid., 11. 64-77.

58

to God, by the week pinions of our reason, but He has been pleased to
desend to us; end what Socrates said of Him, whet Plato writ end the rest
of the heathen philosophers of several nations, is all no more ttsn the
twilight of revelation, after the sun of it wes set in the race of No-
eh.”1 Furthermore the pagan religions attempted to expiste sin by sacri-
ficiel offerings, but the bloody offerings were an abomination from s peo—
ple who had not the purity of contrition. The Deists ere essuming that
they, more men, should make the terms of their salvation. This indepen-
dent attitude could have upsetting political consequences. Dryden compares
God to a week king who must submit to the vagaries of his willful subjects.
Dryden alleys insisted on the necessity of authority.

Then thou art Justice in the last appesl,

Thy easy God instructs thee to rebel;

And, like a king remote and week, must take

what satisfsction thou art pleased to make.

Dryden was Scholastic in his conception of men as a limited. finite
being who was marked by original sin.3

Unrest thou, poor worm. offend Infinity?

And must the terms of peace be given by thee?

(11. 95-94)

Pope in his “Essay on Men" reflected the szme attitude.

All this dread order break for whom? for hes?

Vile worm! -- oh madness! Pride! Impietyi

Both posts were declaiming the sin of pride; the sin which men in-
curred by venturing on forbidden places. It is en ides probably familiar

to most religious; but it was especially a pert of the medieval scheme of

 

10 Ibide. 1].. 64’77.
2. Ibid.,

 

3. Carl Becker, The Heavenly City_ofm§ightcenth Century PhilosOphers (new
Haven, 19:32), p. 7.

4. Elwrin end CourthOpe, Works of Alexander Pepe, Vol. II (London, 1871-89)

59

things.1 Here was the most dreaded of all sine, because by it man sep-
srsted himself in all respects from the Lternsl Love.he thereby relegee
ted to himselfgnixuinite creature, those qualities which Cod alone pos-
sessed. ty severing himself from God, men makes himself a god in his
own right, end as such he commits the most detestable of sins. Conse-
quently to the medieval mind, any presumptuous inquiry into the nature
of God or his Universe wee assuming a part for which he had no sanction.
The Promethean fire was not meant for men. God hsd given men both intel-
ligence and reason, and they were good elthough limited. Therefore the
function of intelligence was "to demonstrate the truth of revealed know-
ledge, to reconcile diverse and pragmatic experience with the rational
pattern of the world as given in faith.”2

Pepe said that men should limit himself to the study of mankind,
and not venture to forbidden heights through a false faith in his facul-
ties. Reason to Pope seems to have been a discerning Judgement or a con-
trolling element,rether then any active intellectual process.3

Two principles in human nature reign;

Self-love, to urge, and Reason, to restrain...

(II, 11. 54-55)

To Dryden, reason may have had more significance than it had for
Pepe, but regardless, he eligned himself with the Roman Catholic contro-
versiclists of his time by decrying reason.4 This is the very basis of

his discourse against the hoists.

To return to Dryden's ettnck on the hoists; whet was his answer to

 

l. J.H. Randell, The hakingior the Kodern Kind, (New'York, 1940), pp. 53-54.

2. Becker, 220 Cite. p. 70
5. Elewin end Courthops, 22, cit., epistle II 11. 1-2.
4. Bredvold,,gp. cit., Chap. IV,

60

the problem of men's indebtedness to God? It lends directly to the re-
velation of a miraculous Incarnation, Christ being both man and God was
able to satisfy the infinite justice of His Father. Men by uniting him-
self to the manhood of Christ thereby offers an infinite end sufficient
reparation to God. This was the efficient method by which Dryden'becked
the Deist against the well. Dryden, was not, as Scott has said, "scep-
tical concerning revealed religion,"1 for his whole argument against the
Deists is a traditionally Christian argument besed upon revelation. bred-
vold assumed th? Ccott failed to distinguish between religious skepticism
or ”free~thinking" and philosophical skepticism or iyronnism the letter
of which most frequently led to firm conservetism.2

Dryden now turns to the discussion of the nible es a written record
of Revelation. The Deists raised 2 significant objection against the au-
thority of the Bible: of what velue was s revelation that resched only a
limited group of mankind? nere all men from the beginning of time, who
had no access to Revelstion,to be condemned?3 To Dryden, this was a ser-
ious objection, and his only answer was his faith in God's mercy.

But boundless wisdom, boundless mercy, may

Find even for those bewildered souls e Wny.

(11. 188-189)

Dryden always hoped for e means of salvation that was universal in scope.
For this reason he disliked the creed of it. fithenssius which sppsrently
limited salvstion to a select group. however this was a misunderstanding
of the Athenesien creed end the teaching of the Roman Church which never de-
nied 8 universal salvation. indeed this same feet implies, nevertheless, that

1. Works, 22, cit., I pp. 257-258, Scott-Saintsbury.

2-. Bredv01d. 22. Cite. p. 121.
s. "Religio Lnici". 22. cit., 11. 168-182..

61

Dryden.wss looking for a universal church, a Catholic authority.1

Dryden then makes a digression to Henry Dickinson, the translator
of Esther Simon's scriptural treetise. Esther Simon's scholarly criti-
cism proved the unreliability of the Bible as a sole meens of revelation.2
The Catholics, therefore, asserted that as the Scriptures were erroneous
it was necessary to rely upon the authority of the church tradition for
guidance. Dryden questions this tenet:

If written words from time are not secured,

now can we think have oral sounds endured?

(11. 270-271).

He boldly goes on to another objection ngsinst the Roman Church: Why is
this church not also infallible in separating the true from the false el-
ements in the scriptures? However, these arguments ageinst the ‘atholic
Church do not have the assured strength of those eneinst the Deists.3

After these arguments, he makes a forth-right ststement of his so-
lution to the problem; end this is the essential ides of the poem:

here safe, and much more modest 'tis, to say

God would notlhsve mankind without a way:

And that the scriptures, though not everywhere

Free from corruption, or entire, or clear,

Are uncorrupt, sufficient, clear, entire,

In all things which our needful feith require.

(11. 295¥300)

This is strictly a compromise in favor of the state church, although in
reaching it he denies the besic element of rationalism so importsnt to the

Church of England tenets. From this point to the end of the poem he defends

the Church of England against the Cstholics and the Protestant sectaries. By

 

l. "Religio Lsici',‘2£, cit., 11. 818-224.
2. Ibid., 11. 225-275. -

3. Dido. 11. 284-294.

62

honping over the hedge of reason, he landed on the compromise end mrde
the best of it.

Tradition does have some value, hetnsists, but only in so much as
it can be interpreted by those men of learning whose talent fits them
to instruct. But as always, the bible is "plain and clear? in all things
necessary to salvation, end as such it belongs to all men regardless of
their intellectual ability.1 These opinions are in accord with Broad
Church tefching es can be demonstrated by observing the sermons of John
Tillotson, one of its eminent divines.2 Tillatson possessed en evangel-
icel spirit, and e.belier in a universal religion.3 It must be remembered
however, thet Tilloteon besed his conclusions regarding the clarity of the

4 This is his

Scriptures on his firm belief in the national powers of men.
explanation of the clarity of the Bible: ”80 when we any that the Scrip-
tures are plain in all things necessary to faith and a good life, we do

not mean that every men at first hearing or reeding of these things in

it shall perfectly understand them; but by diligent reading end consider-
ation if he be of good apprehension and capacity, he may come to e suffic-
ient knowledge of them, end if he be of meener capacity, and be willing to
lesrn, he may, by the help of a teacher, he brought to understnnd them with-
out any greet peine.“5

Dryden then defends this proposition, that the Bible is "a common

lsrgess to mankind,“ egsinst the Catholics who held that their infsllible

 

1. graph. 11. 318-355.

2. Moffet, J., The Golden Book of Tillotson (London, 1926),
3. gpggh. p. 69,151.

4. 231.. p. 100,224,226

5. Ibid., p. 68.

63

Church alone bed the right to interpret scripture. The most that he does
is to lash priestcraft which he detested in any form, Catholic or Erotes-
tent.1 His treatment is comparatively light and satirical in relation to
the poem es a whole.2 The main objection to the church is thrt she denied
the leity access to the Bible.

God's word they had not, but the priests they had.
(15 385)

With the reformation the Bible‘wee handed to the lsity, end the con-
sequencesxwere equally disconcerting. One feels that, tolDryden, the con-
sequences of this procedure were more disastrous than if the laity hsd re-
mained ignornnt. His criticism of the sectariee is much more serious than
that levelled at the Catholics.3 fibre his fear of mob rule, and his polit-
ical conservstism ere obvious:

The book thus put in every vulgar hand,

Which each presumed he best could understand,

The ccmmon rule was made the common prey

And at the mercy of the rabble lay.

(11. 400-403)

Both the Catholics and the Sectnries were politically disruptive forces:
witness the Popish Plot and the Exclusion Bill. Therefore Dryden accepted the
compromise, that is, he accepted the Church of England as the best means to
preserve "common quiet.” In accepting this compromise he had to hop some
more hedges, as his entire argument against the Deists was fought by denounc-

ing reason. Yet in his conclusion he accepted a faith which definitely unease.

.tinnniistic. He even advances one of their rationalistic tenets when he says,

 

l. Estred of priestcreft has never been absent from Catholic Literature, for
exemple, Chaucer and Dante. While Dryden disliked priests, he disliked the
Puritan preachers and divinee much more than the Catholics. It is signifi-

cent else that he even lashed Bishop Burnet who see of the Church of England.

2. "Religio Leici,” 92, cit., 11. 371-394.
3. Ibid., 11. 599-420.

Nor can we be deceived, unless we see

The scripture and the fathers disagree.

If, after all, they stand suspected still,

(For no men's faith depends upon his will)-—

(11. 459-442)
These lines assert the necessity of reason, particularly the last line
which states that no men can will to believe something which his reason
does not consent to. Tilletson said it this say: ”But a man cannot be-
lieve what he will: the nature of a human understanding is such that it
cannot assent without evidence nor believe anything to be true unless it
see reason to do so, anymore than if a men can see a thing without light.”1

Dryden then turns shout-recs end denies his realty to reason by saying
that those religious points which cause doubts ere superfluous anyhow, and
msy be disregurded. Thus it appears that Dryden did notadhere to the re-
tionelism of the Church of England, but his political conservatism led him
to submit to the Church. The conclusion of the poem which announces a wil-
lingness to leeve interpretation of disputed points in theology to special-
ists in theology and non of authority is sharply at verisnce with Protestant
individualism end indicates e frame of mind leaning towards Catholic author-
itnrienism.

Dryden became Catholic in the early part of 1686. Saintsbury has noted
thst Evelyn's diary for January 19, 1686, stated that Dryden end his wife
were known to attend mass.3 There is no information regwrding the details
of his conversion. ibuever'we know that the Catholic, Duke of York, ascended

to the throne in February of 1685, end it was soon afterwards that Dryden be-

csne Catholic. The entry in Evelyn's diery is the closest dste we have for

 

1. Tillotson, op, cit., p. 99.
2. "Religio 1.8101.” 0 e Cite. 11. 443-350.
3.8cott-Lieintsbury, I, 9.2. cit., ft. 1). 270.

‘65

determining the exact date of his conversion.

fifter assuming the throne in 1685, James made plans to c00percte
with the Established Church. He procluined an Indulgence Act in the
arme year which, however, not with disapprovxl from both the Church of
England and the Protestant Dicsenters. He continued his efforts to court
the hot blishcd Church. and it was not until 1687 when he proclaimed his
second Indulgence Act, that he had ceased his efforts and turned to the

Dissenters.

66

V’
Hind and the Penther

1

”The Hind end the Panther” appeared e fortnight after James had pro-
claimed his 168? Indulgence Act. Dryden states in the preface to the po-
em that it was intended to entirize only those members of the Church of.‘
England and of the dissenting sects who had remained hostile to the In-
dulgence Act.1

In the preface which was written after the Decleretion, Dryden de-
fended the king’s action. In this act James promised to defend the Church
of England; to suspend all panel laws against Noneonformiets; to allow free-
dom of public worship to all anconformiets. Catholics and Protestant; to
abolish the oethe of supremacy. allegiance and the tests; to pardon the for—
mer offences against thupenal lawn; and to assure the possession of abbey
and church lands to their present owners.2 Dryden praised Jones for his
tolerance, contrasting Jemee’ Indulgence Act to the revocation of the Edict
of Nantes by Louis XIV. Dryden always believed in the freedom of the india
viduel conscience, Each men, he seid,'ie absolute in his own breast, and
eccounteble to no earthly power for thet which passes only betwixt God and
him. Those who are driven into the fold ere, generally speaking, rather
mede hypocrites then converts."3

Lord Macaulay, believing that Dryden became Catholic in order to re-

ceive prererment from James, felt thet "The Hind and the Panther" was written

 

1. Scott-Seintebury, I, 22, cit., pp. 109-110.
a. Ibido. p. 275. n.

:5. Ibid., p. 112.

67

to support the king's current policies. Eacaulay noted that in the first
part of the poem the Church of Englsnd was referred to with kindness as

at this tine James was still hoping to bring it to his side. But by the
time Dryden reached the end of the poem and the preface, he had given up
his plans for the beteblished Church and had turned to the Protestant Dis-
eenters for*friendship. This change of policy was reflected in Dryden's
poem, and Macaulsy's observations were correct. however, this does not
destroy Dryden's sincere motives, for es a Catholic, loyelly serving e
Catholic king, he still nourished the hope, in the first yeers of James'
reign, that order and stability might be achieved by appealing to the roy-
elist sentiments of the Church of England.

In spite of nncsulsy's caustic criticism of Drydcn's character, and
his politice1.snd religious ideas, he considered "The Hind and the Pen-
thcr' as Dryden'e best work:

In none of Dryden'e works can‘bs found passages more pathe-

tic and magnificent, greater ductility and energy of language,

or a more pleasing and various music.

Scott sew Dryden'e purpose as a more limited one, and indeed a very
praissworthy one, which was simply to secure under a catholic king the priv-
eleges for Catholic Englishmen which were accorded to other citizens. he
said,

’The Hind and renther' was written within view to obviate

the Objections of the English clergy and people to the power

of dispensing with the test laws, usurped by James 11.

James in the Indulgence Act of 1687 sought to give Catholics equsl priv-

eleges with the Church of England, but because of the antipathy of the

 

l. Macaulay,IEistory of England, I, op, cit., pp. 660-663.

2. Scott-Saintebury, I, op: cit., p. 273.

68

Church of England, he was forced to grant the same priveleges to the
Protestant Dissenters whom he intended to use to fill up the middle-

elass gap in his administration.1

Dryden, therefore, in "The Hind and
the kanther" followed the policy of James by advocating Catholic equal-
ity with the Church of England.

Christie considered the poem to be, primarily Dryden's defense of
his own conversion. The main issue or the pose was the defense of the
Catholic Church against the Church of England; Christie also regards this
poem as Dryden's best:

Power of ergmnent and beauty of language and verse are
equally conspicuous in this fascinating posing

To Bredvold “The Hind and the Panther" was an argument against res
tionslism in religion. Thismethod of Catholic apologetics. Dryden had
adapted for ”Religio Leici,u and Bredvold says. ”but in 'The hind and the
Panther' the polemic is Roms Catholic and directed against the rational-
istic principle inherent in Protestantismd's

The "Hind and the Panther“ beginswith brief descriptions or the Cath-
olic Church and the various Protestant sects. The discourse is begun by
a criticism of the Socinion or nationalistic heresy.

.False Reynard fed on consecrated spoil;

The graceless beset by Athenssius first

Was chased from Nice, then by Socinus nursed;

His impious race their blasphemy renewed.

And nature's king through nature 's_ pptics viewed.

(11. 53-57)
”False Reynard“ was the Unitarian group which had its foundation in the

Arlen heresy that denied the coexistence of the Son with God. The heresy,

 

l. Trevelysn, op: cit., DP. 435-436.
2. Christie, 02. Cite. Po LX.

5. BredVOld. OEe Cite. p. 124.

69

though condemned at the Counsel of Nice, was taken up by socinnsa who
taught belief in one God, denying the trinity and thendivinity of Christ.1
Dryden begins his former arguments against reliance upon individual rea-
son. The Protestant sects through constant division were slowly elimin-
ating even the most cherished doctrines of Christianity. At this point
Dryden repeats an argument used in "Roligio Laici":

What weight of ancient witness can prevail,

If private reason hold the public scale?

(11. 68-65)

One might note here that the argument against the Socinians,2 who
were extreme rationalists, was aimed at certain of the Church of England
divines, the party known as Low Church, some of whom were accused of Soc-
inianism. Tilleteon nhom~we have mentioned in regard to "Religio Laici'
was one of these divines. In his sermons, Tillstson frequently had to de-
fend himself against the charge of Socianianism. He stated his position in
this way:

But if this be Socinianism, for'a man to inquire into

the grounds and reasons of Christian religion and to endea-

vour to give a satisfactory account why he believes it, I

know no way but that all considerate, inquisitive men, that

are above fancy and enthusiasm, must be either Socinians or

atheists.
Dryden rejected this faith in reason and sought to substitute an infallible
authority in its place. In ”Religio Leici" he had said:

Such an omniscient church we wish indeed:

'Twere worth both Testaments, and cast in the creed.
(11. 282-283)

 

1. Scott-baintsbury, I; op, cit., p. 128.

2. Socinianism.was originated by Faustus socinus, an Italian theologian
(1539-1604). Socinus denied the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and
believed that salvation was to be achieved by the imitation of Christ's
virtue. He also taught that the Bible was to be interpreted by, and as
being in accord with, human reason.

3. Tillatson' OE: Cit., p. 100‘

70

Now in "The Hind and the Panther” he has found the infallible guide:

But, gracious God, how well dost thou provide

For erring Judgements an unerring guide!

(11. 64-65)

One might contrast the Opening lines of this poem to those in "Re-
ligio Laici” which were also an attack upon reason. Although the sub-
stance of the passages are not different, the spiritiis, for "Religio
Laici" cold, philosophic and reasonable, but "The Hind and the Panther"
strikes a new note of intensity and sincerity of feiling that can only
be accounted for by sons geniune religious experience which had inter-
vened. Then Dryden proceeds to explain his own conversion in these fa-
miliar lives which have had several interpretations:

I? thoughtless youth was winged with vain desires:

My manhood, long misled by wandering fires,

Followed false lights and, when their glimpse was gone,

My pride struck out new sparkles of her own.

(11. 72-75)
Scott interpreted the "vein desires” of Dryden's youth to be merely the
indifference of a young man to spiritual things; the "false lights" of
his manhood were the Puritan.beliefs which.he held during the Commonwealth;
and the "new sparkles"were Deistical ideas which he held from the lee-
toration to his conversion in 1886.1 Eredvold has shown that it was doubt-
ful that Dryden edherred to Deism during 1660-1686. 'Religio Leici,“ so
bove ell, gives clear evidence that Dryden rejected the rationalism neces-
sary to Deism; and furthermore the first part of the poem is a criticism of
Deism.2 In 'The Hand and the Panther" Dryden not only rejects reason, but
he, like hobbes, even questions the sense faculties in his discussion of

1. Scott-Seintsbury, I, op, cit., pp. 256-262.

2. Bredvold, Op, cit., p. 109.

71

trensubstnntihtion.
And after that brunt my inperfect sense,

Which.calls in question his omnipotence?

Can I my reason to my faith compel,

and shell my eight, and touch, and tests rebel?

Another significant distinction between "The Hind and the Panther"
and an earlier poem "Absalom and schitophel” is Dryden's treatment of
the Catholic doctrine of transubstantistion. "Absalom and Achitophel"
was a completely secular end political poem written in anger and in a
time of excitement, end in it Dryden did not see enything incongruous
in making a number of blesphemoue remarks on the religious practices of
his enemies, and indeed of the Catholics. He associated the doctrine
of trnnsubetentietion with the Jesuits end the Pepish Plot. Hie treat-
ment of the doctrine, then, is completely politicsl.end serves as satire
seeinst e clergy who disturbed public peace.

The Egyptian Rites the Jebusitee embrac'd,

Where Gods were recommended by their taste.

Such eev'ry Deities must needs be good,

he eerv'd at once for worship and for Food.

(11. 118-121)
However, ”Absalom end AchitOphel” marks a middle stage in the consistent
development between the completely secular political satires and "The
Hind end the ranther' which.hee, unlike the other Poems, passages of gen-
uine religious feeling. In this posh he presents the Catholic arguments
for trensubstentietion.

After defending this doctrine, he repeats this thought from "Religio
Inici':

how can the less the Greater comprehend?

Or finite Reason reech Infinity.

(Religio Leici, 11. 39-40)

In "The hind end the Panther,” he says:

Let reason then at her own quarry fly,
But how can finite grasp infinity?
‘11. 104-105)
The answer to all the questions of faith, reason and sense Dryden sums
up in two couplets.
God thus assented, men is to believe
Beyond what sense and reason csn conceive,
And, for'mysterious things of faith, rely
0n the proponent, heaven's authority.
~ (11. 118.131)
He has no longer to fear because of human frailty for uod through Revel-
ation and his infallible Church has provided men with en unfailing guide.
Dryden next gives s history of the Presbyterian wolf when he traces
back to hicliff and the Lollende. here he suggests the political conse-
quences of secterienism. Dryden considered the Lollexdc to be dangerous

to the crown.

Because of flicliffa'a brood no mark he brings,
But his innate antipathy to kings.

(11. 176-177)
But Dryden felt that a policy of toleration truerds Dissenters was the
divine method rather then cruel persecution; and he states again his be-
lief in intellectual freedom.
Of all the tyrenniee on humankind,
The worst is that which persecutee the mind.
(11. 239—240)

In this first pert of "The Hind and the Panther," Dryden makes the
Church of England the ally of James II and his faith. James was working
to combine the Church of England and the Catholics in en.ellience against
the Dissentere for'whom he had little love. The Panther, on the Church of

England is next in purity to the hind. Dryden gives e history of the Esteb-

lishod Church, beginning with the .amism of Henry VIII. .After this hietony

75

Dryden praised the church for her support of the crown, and assured her
that James would protect her rights. The main weakness of the Church of
England was her lack of authority. Since the Panther rebelled against
the true faith, her members have an equal right to separate from her.
Thus is the Panther'neither loved nor feared,

A mere meek queen of a divided herd;

Whom soon by lawful power she might control,

Herself a part submitted to the whole.

(11. 497~500)

Thus if the Church of England were to submit to the Catholic Church, she
would enjoy absolute authority and rescue herself from the dangers of dis-
sent and rebellion.

At the moment the first part of this poem was published the country
was little inclined to arguments such as these, and if Dryden, as his
Whig critics have maintained, were seeking to feather his nest, this was
certainly not the way to do it. James, through his obstinate insistence
to carry through a plan for Catholic emancipation, was gradually alienating
both the Dissenters and the Established Chruch. Hewever, the complete break

had not yet come when Dryden was writing the second part of the poem.

74

2

The second part of ”The Hind and the Panther" was as Dryden said,
mainly a dispute concerning Chruch authority.1 He reviews the Popish
Plot, keeping in mind the fact that the Church of England as a confederb
ate of the court, suffered with the Catholics. The Puritan Dissenters
even accused the Established Church of harboring Catholic doctrines be-
cause of her adherence to certain rituals.2 Hewever, the Church of Eng-
land proved that it held no Catholic sympathies by passing the Test Act
of 1678 which required that all persons holding public office renounce

belief in transubstantiation which was a basic Catholic doctrine. Dry-
den, again, reveals the weakness in doctrinary instability, and the ten-
dency towards change.

There changed your faith, and what may change may fall.

Who can believe what varies everyday

Nor ever was. nor will be at a stay?3

01.356?)

Dryden proceeds to defend the infallibility of the Catholic Church
against the Panther who asks for proof of that infallibility. Dryden
gives the Gallican Councils who guided by I'God's unfailing grace" could
not err in matters of faith or morale.

This need for authority is basic in all Dryden’s thought. In his
argument against the Protestant groups who allowed individual interpre-

tation of the Bible was that it resulted in religious anarchy and polit-

ical disturbances.

 

1. Scott-Saintsbury, X. 02: Cite. P. 117.
2. Ibid.. 11. 1-28.

3. The source of these ideas is to be found in Lucretius and in the an-
cient concept or the permanence of the elements.

75

No matter what dissension leaders make,

where every private man may save a stake;

Ruled by the scripture and hisown advice,

Each has a blind by-path to Paradise.

Previously in ”Religio Laici," Dryden had affirmed with Tillotson and
Stillingflset that the scriptures were plain and clear in all things no-
cessary to salvation. This was the Anglican "via media," and he rejects
it in "The Hind and the Panther,” for this was a canpromise‘vhich also
lacked an absolute authority for interpretation.
The sacred books, you say, are full and plain,
And every needful point of truth contain,
All who can.read interpreters may be.q
(ll. 108-110)
The political and religious motives are intertwined, and Dryden always
wanted authority in government for the same reason that he later wanted
religious authority, and that was his desire for ”common sudst.”

It was intimated by hacaulay and Christie that Dryden did not foresee
the coming revolution, and that if he had, he would never have changed his
faith. There are evidences in ”The Hind and the Panther“ that Dryden did
foresee the revolution, but his can personal conviction and his religious
experiences led him to disregard the consequences it might have for him.
One of the first instances of Dryden's recognition of a possible disaster
in the future comes after his discussion of tradition and the scriptures
when the Panther makes this threatening statement:

...... since lucre was your trade,

Succeeding times such dreadful gaps have made,

'Ties dangerous climbing: To your sons and you

I leave the ladder, and its omen too.

(11. 224-226)
Dryden was aware of a possible overthrow of the government and the revenge

consequent with the accession of a Protestant king. He revealss this fact

again in the third part of the poem when he claims that the hind has no fear

76

of the Panther because of the Indulgence Act which.forced the Panther
to remain peaceful in order to retain the king's protection. But he also,
adds that the Church of England was waiting to avenge herself when Parlia-
ment. which had been prorogued since 1685, should meet age in.

The wary savage would not give offense,

To forfeit the protection of her prince;

But watched the time her vengeance to complete,

when all her furry sons in frequent senate met;
(11. 22-25)

77

In the third part of the poem, which was written later with the pre-
face, Dryden defends himself against the change thnt he became Catholic
for the express purpose of receiving preferment from James. The Panther
has Just accused Jsmes of buying his converts, end the Hind makes this an-
swer:

New for my converts. who, you.ssy, unfed,

Have followed me for.mirecles of breed.

Judge not by hearsay, but observe at least,

If since their change their loaves have been increased.

The Lion buys no converts; if he did.

Besst would be sold as fast as he could bid.

(11. 221-226)
He goes on to any that converts to Catholicism have nothing but fear and
insecurity before then. The Church of England being stronger, alnsys
threatened with her penal laws, and even though James suspended these laws,
they could be inforced again in the future. Dryden again proves that he
had no illusions about his security as a Catholic.

my proselytes are struck with awful dread,

YOur bloody comet-laws hang blazing o'er their head;

The respite they enjoy‘but only lent,

The best they have to hope, protracted punishment.

(11. 380-383)

The third part of "The Hind and the Panther" was written.sfter James
had entirely given up hepes for an alliance with the Church of England. He
found it necessary to turn to the Eissenters for'support against the State
Church, and so he passed the Indulgence Act in 168?. Dryden's attitude
changed with Jane's policy. The Hind reminds the Panther of their mutual
sufferings in the pest, and regrets that they should pert now. The Panther
replies that her charity had reached its limits and that she had been friend-

ly merely out of deference to the crown.

78

If to the lawful heir she had been true,
she paid but Caesar what was Caeshr's due.
(11. 59-60)

The Hind retortse that the ranther had reached the parting of the way
because she had allowed Presbyterian doctrine to influence her; and be-
cause she had a stronger backing than the Hind she was asserting her
force.1 The Hind remindsa the Panther of her'doctrine of non-resistance.
In 1688 the University of Oxford had passed a decree which strongly de-
nounced any resistance to the crown as heretical. This decreed demanded
strict obedience to a lawful king, even if he were a tyrant.2 The Hind
tells the Panther that although she may support the Oxford decree. there
are certain members of her church whodo not follow this teaching: they
are the Latitudinarians who had absorbed Presbyterian teaching. The La-
titudinarian or Brood Church group was led by Tillstson. Stillingfleet,

and Burnet.. These men were willing to abolish bishdprics for the Pros.
byterian form of church government, and they alscuput less emphasis on
liturgy and the sacraments. Burnet became influential in guiding the plans
for the accession of William.of Orange.

Perhaps the most conclusive evidence that Dryden was aware of the

precarious position of Catholics when he entered the Chruch is the fable

of the swallows and the martins in the third part of ”The Hind and the Pan-
ther”. In this fable the swallows represented the English Catholics who
were preparing to migrate before the approaching winter. But the martini
or Father Petres, the leader of the radical and Jesuit Catholics, urged the
swallows to remain. They were assured by the false promises of a miraculous

spring. Unfortunately they remained and the swallows or moderates died of

 

l. Scott-Saintsbury, X. 02, cit., "Hind and the Panther," 11. 99-122.
2. Ride. 11. 135-143.

79

winter cold and the fibrtins'were all killed by the town mob. Scott be-
lieved that Dryden was referring to a meeting of Catholics st Savoy in
the fall of 1686. Bredvold found that Scott based his interpretation
upon Ralph's history which had as its source e psmnhet entitled, A Full
and Imperial Account or all the Secret Consultslphegotietions1_§tretegend
end Intrigpes of the Romish Party in Ireland, From 1660LLto this Fresent

Year 1689, London, 1690.1

The information in the pamphlet was hearsay.
and Bredvold points out that as the envoy Consultation wee never mentioned
in other places such as the reports of ambassadors, it must have been a
minor sffisr. Therefore Bredvold believed thst the fable of the mrrtins
and swallows referred to every consultation of the Ge holics from the sc-
cession of James. In this fhble Dryden shows that he revered the moderate
Catholic party rather than Father Petres end the extremists who pushed
James to dangerous lengths.2 Bredvold substantiates his claim by refer-
ring to Dryden's letter to Ethersge of February 16, 1687, in which Dryden
regrets James’ policy of filling army posts with Catholics.3 This is Bred-
vold's interpretation of the fable:

In its light we may safely regard the fable of the swel-

lows es the discreet expression of catholic disapproval

of James and his policies, and the tragic end of the

swallows es symbolizing what the Catholic were expecting

with deep apprehension.‘
As it is known that Dryden gained nothing financially by his conversion,
and thet he was fully aware of his doubtful.future, it would seem that he

received the Catholic faith with sincere conviction.

 

l. Bredvold, op: cit., p. 181.
2. Ibid., p. 182.
3. Ibid., p. 183.

4'. Ibid., p. 182.

80

We have noted how Dryden's poem followed the policies of James, how
the first two sections of the poem were devoted to a friendly attitude
towards the church of England and the third part and the preface in fev-
or of the Dissenters. This last attitude wss characterized in the tale
of the doves end pigeons in the third port of the poem. The doves were
the Church of hnglsnd clergy, and Dryden's treatment of them is much harsh—
er then that given them in the first pert of the poem. here he presented
a flattering character sketch of James, "a plain good men" whose generos-
ity led him to forgive the injustice done him by the church of Lnglsnd and
the Dissenters. Yet there was an ominous foreboding in the person of Bur-
net who was a prominent dove.

nor can th' usurper long abstain from Food,

Already he has tested rigeon's Blood;

nnd maybe tempted to his former fare,

then this Indulgent Lord shall late to heav'n repair.

(11. 1279-1282)
Dryden did change his interests with.Jemes, but the most important fact to
keep in mind is thst he never changed his ferVant partisanship in favor of

Catholicism. ”The Hind and the Panther" is a Catholic poom.snd the culmin-

ation of Dryden's political and religious thought.

81

VI
Dryden's character and the Conclusion

1

Perhaps the last objections to the sincerity of Dryden's conversion
are those changes brought a gainst his character. These are of little vel-
ue in Judging his sincerity. Dryden's character, on the whole, seems to
have been above serious reproach. Indeed he possessed some admirable quel-
ities for the age in which he lived. he was remarkably tolerant of the in-
tellectual beliefs of others. An example of this has been already cited
in the preface to ”The Hind end the Panther," where he disapproved of the
use of force to inculcate religion, because it was contrary to his concep-
tion of the rights of men. There is another fine expression.of this tol-
cranes in a letter written to the poet. Dennis, in 1693.

For my principles of Religion, I will not Justifie them to

you. I know yours are far different. For the same Reason

I shall say nothing of’my.Principles of State. I'believe

you in yours follow the Distatss of your.Reeson as I in

;fimine do those of my conscience. If I thought myself in an

Error. I would retract it; I am sure that I suffer for them;

and hilton.mskes even the Devil say, that no Creature is in

1070 With Pa in. l .

Along with this tolerance, Dryden possessed a quick wit and an order-
ly mind which was well-suited to entire. .His skeptical outlook tempered
by his generous and tolerant nsturo.led him to en slevntinu conception of
the art of satire. His strong sense of order, he quick rational mind, and
the wonderful technical device which he hsd perfected in the heroic coup~
let made him the most powerful setirist of his time. It is his use or this

powerful instrument of entire'which.revenls as much as anything else his

 

1. Charles E. Ward, The Letters of John Dryden.(Durhnm. N.C., 1942). p. 73.

82

strength of character. Saintsbury has said, "There never perhaps was a
satirist who less abused his power for personal ends.“l Among our modern
critics Van Doren had this to say of Dryden's satire:

He bitterly hated few persons, perhaps none, but he was cap-

able of a sublime contempt, and it was contempt that he knew

perfectly how to put into meter.2
And finally Bredvold has paid him this tribute:

He had too much dignity to'be egotistically voluble, but

he often spoke incidentally about his work and himself with

admirable candor, without either false modesty or false pride.
Dryden clarified his position in ”The Original and Progress of Satire.'
In thds essay‘written in 1693, he stated those principles wrdchnforbid
him the abuse of satire. He revealed his generous, upright nature when
he said, "We have no moral right on the reputation of other men."4 He
rarely defended himself on returned the abuse that was sent his way. The
only time that he ever went to any great lengths to answer an attack was
in his satire on Shadwell and Settle. These writers had attacked him vio-
lently in "The Medal of John Beyes' which appeared after Drydenfls "The
Hedal.“ Seintsbury has said that this work of Shsdwell and Settle was
Wperhaps the most scurrilous piece of ribaldry which has ever got itself
quoted in English literature."5 Dryden answered with "mac Flecknoe' in Co-
tober of 1682 and later in the same year with the satire of Doeg and 03 in
the second part of "Absalom and Achitophel.“

Dryden used satire as a political weapon and he used it skillfully.

Yet, as Seintsbury has said, he treated the objects of his satire with e

 

1. Saintsbury, op, cit., p. so.
2. Van Dwen. OE. cit., p. 145.

s. Bredvold, 02, cit., p. 6.
4. W.P. Ker, Essays of John Dryden, Vol. II, (Oxford, 1900), p. 79.

5. Saintsbury, 02. Cite. P. 85.

83

"good-humoured scorn" rather than with a vicious cruelty.1 Dryden.mede
this statement of his method of character satire:

How easy is it to cell rcgue and villein.and that wittily:

But how hard to make a man appear a fool, e blackhead, or

knave, without using any of those opprobrious terms: To

spare the grossness of the names, and to do the thing yet

more severely, is to draw a full face, and to make the nose

and cheeks stand out, and yet not to employ any depth of

shadowing ... Yet there is still a vast difference betwixt

the slovenly butchering of a men, and the fineness of a

stroke that separates he head from the body, and leaves it
standing in its place.

Dryden was never a "slovenly butcher,” and perhaps the best illustra-
tion of this fact is his "Zimri” in thealom and Achitophel.' He, himself,
stated that he thought this character to be worth the whole poem.3 as did
not deviate from the true character of Buckingham, but presented those sides
of his character that were, in a way, trivial and ridiculous. It was this
quality in Dryden's satire that made Dr. Johnson spy, I'hits complaints are
for the greater part general: he seldom pollutes his page with an adverse
name.'4 Those attributes of Buckinghsm's character described by Dryden ere
generalities that apply to men in any age. This universal Quality of his
satire made it rise above that of his contemporaries, and hes.msde it appre-
ciated in the twentieth century. Sir Halter Raleigh in his essay on Dryden
has observed this admirable quality of the poet's satire:

One of the great fescinstions of Drydenfis satire is its
perfect ease of application to our own time. The divisions
of opinion, the foibles, and the characters that he describes

are alive among us to-day. Onl the power and the will to ss-
tirize them.heve grown feebler.

 

1. 92.200 p. '76.

2. her, on, cit., pp. 92-93.

3. my, 1:. 94.

4. Hilnes, op. cit., p. 53.

5. heleifih, 02. cit., pp. 167-168.

84

Thus we have touched briefly upon the merits of Dryden's satire
which was written.during his most active years and represents his mature
work. his period of political satire ended with the deposition of James

in 1688.

85

After the Revolution of 1688, Dryden was deprived of his Laureate-
ship and forced to turn to writing again as his means of livelihood. LB
devoted himself mainly to the translation of the classics. In 1693 he
published his translation of Persius and Juvenal with some Ovid and Ho-
mer. Later he translated Virgil, Theocritue, Lucretius, horace, and Chen—
eer's Fables.1

Evidence from his letters shows that he was frequently under finan-
cial strain. Apparently his publisher Jacob Tonson made things somewhat
difficult for him. In a letter of October 29, 1695, Dryden demanded his
thirty shillings for each book of Virgil, and complained of his publish-
erzs parsimony.2 In spite of this trouble with Tonson, Dryden obstin-
ately refused to dedicate his Virgil to.hing william. Saintsbury felt
that this was strong proof that Dryden meant to stand by his principles.5

1 It seems that the final and best evidence that Dryden was sincere
in his religious faith is the fact that he never wavered in his faith
when he lost his Laureateship and suffered the hardships which being a
Catholic demanded. he had found what he considered to be the true faith;
he had accepted it intellectually and for that reason he refused to relin-
quish it. In his intellectual acceptance there were two factors upon which
we can base his sincerity: religion and politics.

The fact that religion and politics were closely connected must never

be forgotten in.desling with Dryden's conversion. Therefore as an ardent

 

l. Seintsbury, op, cit., pp. 154-172.

2 Efiifird. 02. 641-2.. Pp. 77'78.

3. Saintsbury, op. cit., p. 123.

86

Royslist he wanted order, peace and low firmly established in the state.

He had made clear in "Absalom and AchitOphel” and "The medal" that an un-
broken trsdition of succession was the most effective way of securing order
and stability.

Evidence seams to show that the accession of James, the Catholic Duke
of'York, was the event which‘brought about Dryden's final decision. flew-
over, the evidence does not show at all that it was sordid motives or prsca
tical financial considerations which prompted Dryden's conversion. All his
intellectual and personal motives were prepared to accept Catholicism, but
it was the accession of e lawful king who was Catholic, that induced him to
take the final stép. Questions of personal advantage, no doubt, helped to
influence him, but it was the coalescing of Drydcn's political and relig-
ious convictions in support of a Catholic ruler who was to bring unity to
the church and state, thct brought about his conversion.1

While the king was ostensibly a Protestant and head of the Established
Church, all the political arguments acted as a break upon Dryden's Catholic
tendencies and kept him a loyal member of the Church of England, a position
he had defended in 'Religio Leici.' But the moment the traditioncl and law-
fully established king use a Catholic, the political attitudes and arguments
which held Dryden fast to the Church of England began to work in favor of a
Catholic conversion. This is what happened when the catholic Duke of York
became king in 1685.

The final result of this study of Drydenfis thought must be to vindi-
cate his intellectual honesty and to see him in a light tnot is as favor-

eble as that in which any man of letters in the seventeenth century surrounded

 

1. Such impeccably devout figures as Donne and Herbert were not above con-
sidering the advantage of personal advancement in planning their careers.

87

hi.eelf with. His consistency is no less certain. though it has been
meligned than is thrt of hilton, while his charncter is certainly more
ettrrctive than thrt of the heron end crabbed Puritan genius.

To the liberal mind of the twentieth century, it is true, Dryden
may seem reectionery and undemocratic. It may also be urged thnt he was
a spokesmen for e political group that hindered the normal progress and
freedom of English Parliamentnrinn government. But such peonle fail to
place themselves in the seventeenth century atmosphere, and are Judging
Dryden by standards that would have been meaningless even to his opponents.
If he feared innovetion and loved peace, he arrive& at those ideas through
actual experience and hard historical fact. Ihe truth of the matter seems
to be thxt Bryden‘s conversion was sincere, that it was persistent even
when it meint herdship and penury, and thnt it we the logical if not in-
evitable outcome of his love of order and his desire for the unity or'ohurch

and state under the constitutional king.

88
VII
Bibliography

Books

Airy, Osmnnd, C rles II, Longmhns, Green, and 00., 1904.

Becker, Corl L., Heavenly City of Eighteenth Century Philosophers, New
Haven,'Yele University Press, 1902.

Beljeme, Alexandre, Le Public et les Hommes de Lettres on Angleterrc eu
~Dix-Huitiune Siecle. 1660-1744, Paris, Libraire Hachetts at 010., 1881.

861100, Hilaire, Cromwell, London, Lippincott 00., 1934.

Bredvold, L.I., The Intellectual Milieu of John Dryden. Ann.Arbor,‘Uni-
versity of Michigan Press, 1934.

Bryant, Arthur, KinggCherles ii, Longmens, Green and 60., 1931.

Burnet, Richard, An Abridgement of BishéprBurnet's History of His Own
Tires, edited by Rev. Thomas Steakhouse, London, J.H. Dent, 1922.

Catholic Encyclopedia. edited by.A. Pace and others, Sew Y0rk,.Appleton
00., 1908.

Chark, George N., The Later Stuarts; 1660-1714. Oxford, Clorendon Press,
1934.

C0urth0pe, W.J., éwhistory_pf English Poetry, Vols. III, IV, London, mac-
millen and 00., 1924.

Dictionary of Nhtionel Biographz, Hew‘York, edited by Leslie Stephen, New
York, hocmillan end 00., 1888.

Dryden, John, The Poetical Works of John Drzden, edited by W.D. Christie,
New'York, Macmillan 00., 1886.

..... The Setires of Drzdenx Absalom and Achitorhel, The Medal, Mac Fleck-
' nos, edited by Churton J. Collins, London, hecmillen and 00., 1936.

..... Poems of J0hn.2rzden, II v01s., edited by Bonemy Dobree, London, J.M.
Dent and Sons, 1934.

..... Easels of John grzdcn, edited by W.P. Der, Oxford, Clarendon Press,
1900. -

..... The Poetical Works of John Dryden, edited by G.R. Noyes, New York,
' Bhughton hifflin.00., 1909.

...... The Works of John Baden, edited by Seott-Saintebury, III vols” Ed-
inburg, T. A. Constnb c, 1882.

89
..... The Letters of John Dryden, edited by Charles E. herd, Durham,
N.C., Duke University Press, 1942.

Eliot, T.S., Homage to John Dryden. London, Hogarth Press, 1927.

Felling, Keith, A History 01‘ the Tory Party, 1640-1714, Oxford, Claren-
don Press, 1924.

Firth, Charles, Oliver Cromwell. New'York, G. Putnam's Sons, 1924.

..... Stuart Tracts.‘1603-1693, Westminster,.Archibeld Constable and C0.,
‘ 1903s

Garnett, R., The Age of Dryden, London, George Bell and Sons, 1895.

Gilbert, Allen, Mbchievelli; The Prince and Other works, Chicago, Peck-
erd end 00., .

George, E.A., Seventeenth Century hen of Letrtude, New York, Charles Scrib-
ner's Sons, 1908.

Grierson, H.J.C., Cross Currents in English.Litereture or the XVII Century,
London, Ghetto end Windus, 1929.

flbzlitt, hillism,‘£§9tures on the English Posts, Oxford, University Press,
1983. . ’

Hobbes, Thomas, The English.Works of Thomas bebes,111 vols., edited by
.. Sir William Molesworth, London, J. Bohn, 1859-1845.

..... Hobbes's leviathan, edited by 9.0. POgson Smith, Oxford, Clarendon
Press, 1909.

Hodges, J.C., William Congreve the has, New York, hodern Language Associa-
tion 01‘ America, 1941. '

Hooker, Richard, Hooker: rggws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edited by R.W.
Church, Oxfordfllsrendon Press. 1888.

Johnson, Ehmuel, Johnson. Select sorks. edited by A. Hilnes, Oxford, Clara
endon Press. 1&85.

Lovejoy, A.O., The Greet Chain of Being,_h Study_0f the History of en Idea,
Cambridge, HerVard University Press, 1936.

' macsulsy, T.B., History of England, III vols., J.h. Dent and sons, 1946.

..... Miscellaneous Works. edited by Lady Trevelyen, New York, Harper and
Brothers, 1880.

Ehckintosh, J., History of the Revolution in England in 1688, Philadelphia,
Carey Lee and Blanchard, 1835.

montsigne, michel, Essays of Montaigne. edited by J.M. Robertson, London,
Oxford university Press, 1927.

90

..... Essays of Montaigne, II v01s., edited by R.A. Weller, J.M. Dent
and Sons, 1938.

Ogg, David, England in the Reign of Charles II, Oxford, Clarendon Press,
1954.

..... Europe in the Seventeenth Century, London, Adam end Charles Black,
1943.

Raleigh, halter, Some.nuthors. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1923.

Randell, J.H.. The askingppf the Modern hind, New York, Houghton sifflin
00., 1940.

Seintsbury, 6., John Dryden, New York, C. Scribner's Sons, 1904.
..... The Lives of Isaak salton. London, Humphrey Milford, 1987.

Senteyens, 0., Three Philosophical Poets. Csmbridge, Harvard University
Press, 1910.

Tillotson, Richard, The Golden Book of Tillotson, edited by J. hoffet,
London, hodden and Stoughton, 1926.

stephen, J.E., History of the Criminal Law of England, III vols.. London,
Idflcmillfin 8nd 000. 1883.

Stone, There 6.. Englend Under the Restoration (1660-1688). London, Long-
mens, Green end 00., 1923.

Trevelyen, George mecsulay, England Uhder the Stuarts, VI vols., New Yerk,
_G.P. Putnsmfs Sons, 1924. '

Tullock, J., Rational Theology in England in the XVII Centrrz, II vols.,
Edinburgh, uilliem.Bleckwood and bone, 1876.

Turner, F.C., James II, hew‘York, hecmillen 00.. 1948.
Van Doren, mrrk, John Dryderb New York Henry Helt, 1946.
Verrell, A.W., Lectures on Dryden. Cambridge, University Press, 1914.

*0, Alexander, Works of Alexander Pope. Vol. II. Inndon )Joh‘n
NV)- r33 ’ ‘31 |

91
Periodical articles
Bredvold, L.I., ”Dryden end the university of Oxford," modern Language

Notes, XLVI, 1931, pp. 218-224.

Elder, Lucius 31., ”The Pride of the Yahoo,“ modern [signage Notes, 1000?,
1920. PP. 206-211.

Lovejoy, A.O., "Pride in Eighteenth-Century Thought," Eodern.L£nfuegg
Notes, XXXVI, 1921, pp. 31-57.

Nicoleon, Marjorie H., 'hilton and hobbes," Studies in Philology, XXIII.
1926, pp. 405-435.

Turnell, G.K.. “Dryden end the Religious Elements in the Classical Tradi-
tion," Englische Studien, LXX, 1935/36. PP. 244-261.

"13111111171@lilllilllr