'So long as I am a patient sufferer': Passive obedience, partisan literature, and drama in later Stuart England

This dissertation examines how political writers, dramatists, and printers used a variety of media to explore the theological doctrine of passive obedience as a performative mode of opposition in the Restoration and eighteenth century. Defining rebellion against the monarch as sin, the doctrine of passive obedience derived from readings of Romans 13 where the apostle Paul commanded, "the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." Passive obedience received critical attention when J.C.D. Clark challenged "Whig" interpretations of the rise of secularism by citing continuing references to the doctrine after the Revolution of 1688/89 as evidence that the early modern confessional state extended into the eighteenth century. My study, however, reveals that passive obedience led to the development of a counterpublic whose use of Anglican religious doctrine for political opposition requires re-examining church-state relations in the period. Through the media of pamphlets, pulpit, and the theater, passive obedience transcended its origins as a rationale for producing quiet submission, as defenders of the doctrine worked to publicize the decision to suffer privately, drawing attention to the conflict between obedience to God and allegiance to the emerging liberal-democratic state. Consisting of recognizable as well as more obscure figures, the doctrine's supporters include the literary writers John Dryden, Roger L'Estrange, and Delarivier Manley; trade publishers and "hack writers" in the field of commercial literature; and Anglican clergy who rallied around the cry of "Church in Danger!" during the reign of Queen Anne. While scholars have previously viewed a writer's commitment to passive obedience as leading to an alienated, elite identity resigned from public life, the mediation of passive obedience resulted in what today looks like "civil disobedience" and brings to light a significant cultural debate concerning the value of performativity. If opposing writers such as Daniel Defoe caricatured passive obedience as fraudulently theatrical, the Anglican and Tory figures on which I focus embraced performance as a mode of engagement that benefited from, and proved useful for criticizing, the political changes of the post-Revolutionary period.