The Literature of Monarchy from William III to George I

Contrary to the general scholarly perception, the Revolution of 1688-89 and consequent changes to the institution of monarchy informed a large body of political literature. Poets and dramatists between 1689 and 1720 engaged deeply with the unsettled questions about the person and institution of monarchy and defended or critiqued specific historical events such as the Revolution or the Act of Settlement. In this dissertation, I argue that this post-revolutionary literature of monarchy is characterized by two conflicting discourses. One is the traditional discourse of monarchy in which the king is glorious, heroic, and sacred. He possesses the crown through hereditary right, and his rule is understood in providential and patriarchal terms. In its most conservative form, which was increasingly uncommon after 1688, traditional discourse includes the theory of divine right. The other discourse, which I call constitutional, reflects the principles that triumphed in the years following the Revolution. Constitutional discourse celebrates choice and merit and rejects absolute monarchy, divine right, and the sacredness of monarchs. The king is limited, and the people, through Parliament, are ultimately sovereign. Although broadly speaking traditional discourse corresponds to the beliefs of the Tories and constitutional discourse to those of the Whigs, these equally common languages are employed by writers from across the political spectrum and frequently appear together in one text. For the literary historian, these languages are best understood not as cohesive political theories but as reservoirs of ideas, metaphors, and images from which writers drew selectively to suit their individual beliefs and purposes. The resulting literature is ambiguous, at times even contradictory. The post-revolutionary monarchy is very often supported or glorified using the language of the old political order, while some committed opponents of the Revolution embrace elements of the new political order. By analyzing this fascinating mixture of traditional and constitutional discourse, I recover the complex political meaning of an obscure body of literature from a relatively overlooked period in literary history.