In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviews 263 Parergon 20.1 (2003) been generally regarded as unexceptional, argued by historians such as Patrick Collinson in The Elizabethan Puritan Movement in 1967 (p. 375), well before any feminist challenges. Ancestors is elegantly written, as would be expected from a Harvard professor, and nicely printed. Its intended audience appears to be the educated intelligent general –American? – reader rather than teachers and undergraduates interested in the early modern period. There are no new agendas for historians of ‘the family’here, only another discussion of what many would argue is the blind alley of trying to decide whether families were loving in the past. There are better historical questions we could concern ourselves with. How did families differ at different stages of the individual’s life and at different social levels? How did women’s experiences of families differ from those of men? How can we counter the bias of socially specific sources such as first-person accounts, in order to understand the childhood of the poor? The histories of families in early modern times are far more complex than Ozment’s celebratory present-focused argument suggests. Patricia Crawford History The University of Western Australia Richardson, Glenn, Renaissance Monarchy: The Reigns of Henry VIII, Francis I and Charles V (Reconstructions in Early Modern History), London, Edward Arnold, 2002; paper; pp. x, 246; RRP US$21.95; ISBN 0340731435. Historians have a dangerous tendency to reify their own mental images of past times even though contemporaries might have difficulty in recognising the artefact so created. Dr Richardson has employed a phrase that has flickered in and out of the borders of reification. While formally rejecting the idea that these three rulers, all of whom claimed imperial rather than mere princely status, differed in any substantial way from their predecessors, he asserts that it is not merely a term of convenience but appropriate because of the times in which they lived, an idea that he does not develop further. They are, of course, the three monarchs who have most attracted widespread historical attention but he offers no reason for selecting them for particular attention. Richardson in this volume is neither concerned with analysis nor with demonstrating why in this reconstruction he chooses one explanation rather than 264 Reviews Parergon 20.1 (2003) another, except in the one case of the fall of Anne Boleyn where he specifically asserts his preference for the Ives/Starkey viewpoint over that of Retha Warnicke. A brief introduction makes reference to anonymous intensive studies that have modified the ‘orthodox’ interpretations of the mid-twentieth century but the implication that a new and correct synthesis has now been created is not defended. The student is simply offered a brief synthesis of those subjects that Richardson finds most relevant to the lives and behaviour of Francis I, Henry VIII, and Charles (V of the name in the Holy Roman empire and I in his Spanish kingdoms). This new, early twenty-first-century, orthodoxy is described without much comment. As a result, the book tends to resemble a series of linked encyclopaedia entries providing a short introduction to individual topics but not an articulated argument. It will be useful for those who want, for example, an introduction to the names of the main families involved in the government of the different countries, or the outline of the social hierarchy, but not to those who would like a clear picture of the comparative resources and independence of those families in the different areas. As a result, teachers seeking to stimulate their students’ ability critically to read, analyse and challenge a particular viewpoint or explanation will not be able to use this volume to provide one side of the argument since it uses the voice of authority not the voice of persuasion. Although it may be a useful compendium from which a student could start, there is no guide to the topics omitted (the role of the queen, strikes me, for example) or assertions that others may find dubious. The selected further reading provided is largely monolingual, suggesting that the perceived audience is English speaking. Richardson does not justify his concentration on these three monarchs whom he rightly terms important, but who...

pdf

Share