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

206 not a sudden growth, but had a long development in concepts of ‘‘conscience.’’ Rachel Weil looks at some of the ways in which gender figured in political and social theory, showing how family became a real issue for Whigs, rather than just a Tory metaphor. Tim Harris is concerned to deny theimportanceofnewspapersand coffeehouses in the creation of ‘‘popular politics,’’ warning us not to forget gossip and taverns, but he fails to distinguish the modern concept of ‘‘public opinion’’ from earlier prejudice and rumor. The several articles coming from literary studies do not stir into the mix very smoothly. Nicholas von Maltzahn offers a theoretically sophisticated account of how the Miltonicsublimewasmisusedby the poets of England’s Augustan imperial successes. Joshua Scodel thinks Pindaric odes such as Cowley’s did something to sublimate the religious and political passionsof theday. And PaulinaKewestakes up the issue of how playwrights established their property in their works. Finally, Barbara Shapiro reviews the century’s scientific activity to see whether it suggested a revolutionary situation, or was related to changes in the political, religious, or philosophical areas. She concludes that at least it was not out of step with issues in church or state, so that its smooth course was to be expected. C. John Sommerville University of Florida ROBIN NICHOLSON. Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Making of a Myth: A Study in Portraiture, 1720–1892. Cranbury, New Jersey: Bucknell, 2002. Pp. 156. $59.50. Readers of The Scriblerian who hope to find in Mr. Nicholson’s Bonnie Prince Charlie references to Jane Barker or to the recent discussions of the alleged Jacobitism of Pope or Johnson will be disappointed . But those who come to the book seeking a wider and deeper visual context for literary treatments of Jacobitism will be well rewarded. Not intended to be another biography of Prince Charles Edward Stuart (1720–1788), Mr. Nicholson’s book successfully seeks to examine how the visual image of this exiled prince was created, an image that would survive long after the dissipation and death of its subject. More precisely, it intends to demonstrate how two images werecreated:thecourtimage,drawingon the established traditions of European portraiture, and the more enduring popular image, self-projected, sustained, copied, manipulated, mythologised, and constantly subject to revision and revival. The two images are interlinked, but gradually the latter has subsumed the former, clouding our vision of the past and lending the subject, in the popular imagination at least, an unreal, even mythical, status. Mr. Nicholson’s fruitfully eclectic methodology enables him to deal insightfully with both ‘‘high’’and ‘‘low’’art. He takes full advantage of his position as curator of the Drambuie Liqueur Company (Edinburgh) collection of Scottish and Jacobite art. Studies of regal selffashioning , such as those by Roy Strong and Graham Parry, John Brewer’s idea of the commercialization of personality and culture, the notions of Jacobite culture found in works by Paul Monod and Murray Pittock, and the recent reconception of ‘‘material culture’’ all inform Bonnie Prince Charlie. This study ranges from court portraits to the covers of shortbread tins. Mr. Nicholson makes a convincing argument that Charles II and James IImaintained an interest in the ‘‘machinery of cultural and artistic self-promotion’’ es- 207 tablished by Elizabeth I and continued by James I and Charles I. The exiled James II took with him traditional beliefs in the divine right of rule, absolute monarchy, loyalty, the mythical quality of history, and the didactic and inspirational nature of regal portraiture. Consequently, Mr. Nicholson argues, ‘‘[h]is establishment of an alternative court in France can be seen not as a shadowy pastiche of royal authority, but as a wholly positive and determined reassertion of the regal presence , in line with the established precepts of the Tudor and Stuart courts.’’ An argument of iconography between the rival courts of William of Orange and the exiled James began almost immediately, though James and his heirs in Paris and Rome maintained the initiative well into the eighteenth century, with William and his successorsin Englandlargelyreacting to Stuart initiatives. Rather than dismissing copies, painted or engraved, of commissioned paintings, or medals and drinking glasses as merely derivative and ‘‘low’’ art, Mr. Nicholson regards them...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 206-207
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.