| The 1630s: Interdisciplinary Essays on Culture and Politics in the Caroline Era Ian Atherton and Julie Sanders, eds. (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2006) 256 pages Reviewed by: Jennifer Bullard Ripley, University of Texas at Austin The narrow focus of this collection of essays grew out of a conference held at Keele University in May 2002, ‘The 1630s: Interdisciplinary Approaches’. The essays attempt to explore areas of interest during the 1630s that do not focus on the centre, Charles I, but instead on other perspectives that shed light onto the culture and thought of the decade. Such a goal does not suggest that the focus of the essays will steer away from courtly characters, many of the essays engage the stories of the court including those of Henrietta Maria and the recipients of Charles I’s personal correspondence. The ultimate aim of the contributors lies in their endeavor to approach the period using interdisciplinary methods to explore what Atherton and Sanders call “fields on inquiry” created by limiting the time period to a decade and moving away from what they believe to be a teleological discussion of precursors to civil war. All seek to shift the focus of the 1630s away from the typical labels of the “Personal Rule” or the “King’s Peace” and instead explore issues typically unrelated to the eleven-year absence of Parliament and the civil war. The effort of this group of mostly literary scholars to develop their theses within historical context makes the collection worth reading. The most significant result of the interdisciplinary approach is the focus on nominally literary and artistic sources such as masques, dramas, and paintings to speak to historical issues. While the need to link these sources to historical reality leaves the reader wanting more, the merit lies in the effort. A few of the essays represent the integration of the disciplines of historical and literary studies resulting in work that proves relevant for both genres. Karen Britland’s description of Thomas May's Antigone takes into account the political motives and historical courtly tastes strengthening its relevance to historical scholarship. Her essay represents the ideal interdisciplinary approach at which the collection aimed. Malcolm Smuts provides another exemplary model in his essay linking The Six Books of Politics by Justus Lipsius to the political thought and action in Charles’ court. Andrew McRae supplies yet another commendable example of the interdisciplinary goal attempted in the collection. His work examines the satire contained in the writings of Bastwick, Burton, and Prynne that, coupled with efforts to stigmatize the men, created opposition. Similarly, Matthew Steegle reassesses the political significance of Caroline drama. He argues that drama in the 1630s can address issues of high politics without centering on Charles I or Henrietta Maria, and his work also aligns literary and historical interests and methodology. The collection succeeds in its endeavor to open up new fields of inquiry, which may prove of interest to historians of the 1630s. John Peacock explores the portrayal of Charles I as a Roman emperor in both portrait and drama while Sarah Poynting examines the correspondence of the King during the personal rule. Both of these essays provide a foundation on which historians can improve by further relating their findings to the historical importance of the image and correspondence of Charles I. Caroline Hibbard reassesses the power of women, focusing on Henrietta Maria’s court and their role as manipulators of courtly power. James Knowles’ essay on Davenant’s Temple of Love discusses the presence of Platonian thought as well as notions of the Orient reflected in courtly masques, yet he fails to relate the existence of these notions in reference to contemporary events that influenced such notions. Jerome de Groot links the poetics of Catholic and legal coteries to female agency. His work reveals broad and well-developed research in both historical and literary sources and creates opportunity for more work in this area. Some of these authors have fallen into the trap of historical irrelevancy because they attempted to avoid discussing the most crucial conflicts of the period. Instead of relating their research to the larger importance of the 1630s, they simply describe their analysis. Those who acknowledged the issues of the 1630s produced significantly better work. The collection as a whole did not quite make the entire leap into the realm of interdisciplinary historical and literary scholarly studies, but it constitutes a step in the right direction. |
| © Copyright 2007-08 British Scholar. All rights reserved. |
