Literature as Propaganda: Royal Influence and Social Control
Literature as Propaganda
The aim of this essay is to analyze the role of literature as a disseminator of information and publicity. Authors used literature as propaganda through strategies such as inserting opinions or extolling certain figures, such as the monarchy, in their works. Therefore, by disseminating these ideas they could influence and emphasize certain attitudes and behaviors. However, this process of influence was gradual, as it was necessary for the message to be ingrained in the receiver through a process. Thus, over the years and through the ages, powerful people and authors used strategies and their influence to achieve this goal.
Early 17th Century Theatre and Censorship
Firstly, at the beginning of the 17th century, acting companies were prominent, as commercial theatre was a more promising outlet for writers. Moreover, the theatre companies, and not the playwrights, were the owners of the texts they performed. Thus, literary production and plays were geared towards performance rather than publication. However, there was not complete freedom of creation, since theatre companies, like printers, were obliged to submit plays to censorship before their public presentation.
Royal Patronage and Influence
In this regard, the Stuart court showed more interest in promoting theatrical productions, as James I placed the main theatre companies under his protection. Thus, Shakespeare’s company became the King’s Men. In addition, the importance of royal patronage is worth noting. This exchange of interests between authors and monarchs made the companies pay more attention to courtly tastes. On the other hand, the monarchs benefited from this rapprochement, as these commercial theatres attracted the animosity of the king’s opponents in the 1640s.
The Caroline Era and Royal Propaganda
On the other hand, after the Caroline Era (1625-1640), the revolutionary years began in 1640 and in 1649 Charles I was executed. During the Restoration, French influence was very strong because Charles II was in exile in France due to his family ties there. In artistic terms, both Charles I and Henrietta wanted to become patrons of the arts and wanted to have art inside the palaces.
Therefore, the masques, costly entertainments of the Stuart court, which included dances, songs, speeches and elaborate stage effects, in which the courtiers themselves took part, were prominent in this respect. Thus, they tried to promote a set of epic values that revolved around the idea of chivalry, platonic love, service to the queen and the king. In this way, royal propaganda was carried out. However, the masques were also beneficial because this time was a period of political and religious conflict and therefore needed this propaganda. Moreover, there were publications, such as The Book of Sports, which were about festivities and celebrations and how to proceed in those times. Thus, the masques were for the nobility, while The Book of Sports told the common people how to behave at national festivities. Some authors denounced this fact, such as William Prynne, who wrote a book attacking theatre and celebrations, called Histriomastix, and Charles II executed him.
Notable Authors and Their Propagandistic Works
On the other hand, the propagandistic work of some prolific authors, such as John Dryden, Margaret Cavendish and Daniel Defoe, is worth mentioning. In the first place, John Dryden’s literary output was linked to Charles II, as he was appointed Poet Laureate. This appointment came two years before the publication of Annus Mirabilis (1668), a propagandistic poem interpreted as a celebration especially of Londoners’ survival of the Great Fire of 1666. In this work, Dryden again gilded the royal image and reinforced the concept of a loyal and united nation under the best of kings.
Related to Dryden, Margaret Cavendish’s The Blazing World was published in a very significant year (1666) and the title is very appropriate for a royalist, a supporter of King Stuart, like Dryden in some ways. Despite the disasters of the year of its publication, the title speaks of a ‘wonderful place’. Cavendish thus joins the voices that support the king and want no change, i.e. political conservatism. In this way, Cavendish protected his own class privilege, as he was Charles II’s spy; at the same time Charles II secured positive propaganda. On the other hand, Daniel Defoe was also a political writer, and produced political pamphlets and poems. In 1701 he wrote True-Born Englishman, a defense of William III. Later he wrote a pamphlet which caused him problems because it was an attack on the divine right of kings, that is, an attack that kings should hold that office because they had been given that gift by God.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is a fact that literature has historically contributed to the transmission and dissemination of ideas. However, monarchs or people in power have used this strategy to instill similar social thinking in the population. Thus, they could guarantee fewer revolts and fewer questions from society. For this reason, many authors such as those mentioned above sided with the monarchy, as it suited them economically and therefore ideologically. Historically, this propagandistic process has been carried out practically from the beginning of the creation and dissemination of literary works. Moreover, this was especially important since at many times literature was the main source of reception of information and culture by society.