Civil War and Restoration Literature
One exam down! Two more to go! This morning I had Civil War and Restoration Literature, my English module for last semester. I actually stayed up until 2am last night cramming, which is quite late for me. I never generally make a big fuss about revision, because I figure you either know it or you don’t (and I usually don’t, hence bad grades), but this time I knew I had to compete with proper English students. Being joint honours means I’ve done all of two English modules in my three years here, while single honours have done at least six, so they’re far, far ahead of me on practical exam skills. (Joint honours really is half a degree. Let this be a warning to you.)
So I sort of picked up that what proper students do is study a few topics in depth and then apply that knowledge to the exam. A cursory glance at past papers revealed that a) sex and b) authority were likely to come up, and I find those two subjects far more interesting than ‘time’ or ‘pastoral’ or ‘nature’ and the other themes on the course. So I flicked through a few books and made notes and went into the exam really having no idea what I was going to do.
Always three hours seems like an impossibly long time, and the blank white pages stretch on forever, and you have no idea how to answer any of the questions. But the time and pressure and stress sort of squeeze something out of your brain and you start writing and before you know it, time’s up and you’ve done a half-decent job.
My first question was:
9. Be judge yourself, I’ll bring it to the test:
Which is the basest creature, man or beast?
Birds feed on birds, beasts on each other prey
But savage man alone does man betray. (Rochester)Does the literature of the period make us feel uncomfortable about being human?
To which I was like, you know Paradise Lost is all “humans are beautiful things but then it all went a bit wrong, look at the poor wretched things.” Then I threw Pepys in there, perhaps a bit too vigorously (it’s all too obvious that I just crammed Pepys because it’s full of extraneous detail about him, like his gallstones and what he does in church). Pepys is a fascinating character: a kind of lecherous prude, a man enamoured by the pleasures of the flesh but deeply ashamed by them; a man genuinely upset when his wife catches him fondling the maid but then who does it again the next day; a man who reads filthy French books and is all like “this is a disgusting book, but a learned man must remind himself of the sin of the world so I’ll take it don’t tell my wife yes a brown paper bag please”. He’s attracted to sex like a moth towards a flame, but when he gets there he burns up in shame. Finally I threw in Rochester to make the same point – humans are disgusting and we feel uncomfortable reading about it, but at the same time there’s a certain joie de vie, a kind of we’re-damned-anyway-so-let’s-party. And then something from Locke, which unfortunately I could barely remember.
Then I twiddled my thumbs for a bit before embarking on my second question:
‘There were kings long before there were any laws. For a long time the word of a king was the only law’ (Sir Robert Filmer)
Write an essay on the relationship between law and Royal authority in the literature of this period.
Jackpot! Except I screwed it up by confusing Waller’s “St. James’s Park” and Denham’s “Cooper’s Hill”, but they are practically the same poem (except Denham can write poetry and Waller can’t). Still, I think I got across nicely that Charles is a king ruled only by himself and his own whims, with God his only authority,who allows himself to be fettered by law only for the good of all concerned. His temper is barely restrained, and if the commoners tried to restrain him further he would burst like an angry river and flood the country with destruction, as Denham put it. I could – should – have been harsher and pointed out that Charles II barely gave a damn about anything beyond where his next mistress was coming from, but I’m not sure where that would have fit into the essay.
So then I was went on to Dryden’s “Absalom and Achitophel” and explained how Dryden, rather sneakily, turns Charles’s promiscuity into a virtue, making out that having ten children by five different women is the sign of a powerful and deeply masculine man – ahahaha check out his tights there – and therefore how he don’t need no ‘law’ to have authority, but Dryden backtracks and adds ‘but he is also lawful because if not he could be a tyrant and Charles could never be a tyrant, except for that time his goons hunted down a guy who said something bad about him and cut off his nose, and all those times he pardoned his buddies for murder and rape.
And then some more John Locke, and the exam was done. That’s that for another year!
All monarchs I hate, and the thrones they sit on,
From the hector of France to the cully of Britain.
(Rochester, “A Satyr on Charles II”)




Recent Comments