T. R. Langley. Image Government: Monarchical Metamorphosis in English Literature and Art, 1649-1702.

(Medieval and Renaissance Literary Studies.) Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 2001. 256 pp. illus, bibl. index. $60. ISBN: 0-8207-0326-5.

A reader might interpret the title of this monograph by T.R. Langley, Lecturer in English at University College London, in several ways. It might mean that, during the period 1649 to 1702, the image of monarchy was governed through literature and art to produce a metamorphosis of government. Or it might mean that government is an image about which literature and art reveal a monarchical metamorphosis. In fact, the author seems to argue that the work of one poet and the murals painted by one artist demonstrate that the metamorphosis in monarchical government from divine right to constitutional reflects a contemporaneous metamorphosis from analogical to self-consciously analogical modes of thinking about governance.

Langley organizes his book into twenty-five chapters which "catches a drift, rather than enforces a thesis." Inspired by a 1953 article arguing that eighteenth century literature was (self) consciously analogical, the intention seems to be to locate the alleged transition from analogical thinking in the second half of the seventeenth century. The historical context for the period the book covers is alluded to through brief references to contemporary writers such as Waller, the Bishop of Carlisle, and Pope. The author states that his analysis will "begin with the Protectorate poetry of Edmund Waller and ends with the investigation of the purport of Verrio's ... programme for the decoration of the King's Staircase at Hampton Court" (10).

The publisher's dust jacket claims that "The book explores aspects of sovereignty and the underlying principles of political cohesion for the benefit of students and scholars of later seventeenth century literature, history and art." Without basic knowledge of the history of the period, it would be difficult to understand why this analysis is based on this specific time period or how to interpret its exploration of either sovereignty or political cohesion. The use of the words "image government" is obscure until the very end of the book.

The author ranges over (and back and forth chronologically) many contemporary authors, citing passages without consistent reference to either source or context. While this approach may communicate his ideas clearly to literary scholars, those from other disciplines may find it confusing. For example, the author begins his book with a quotation from a 1649 sermon preached before the exiled Prince Charles (II) which inspired the poet Edmund Waller to write his royalist Panegyrike in 1659. However, as there is no introduction to Waller, his work, or a comparison to other contemporary authors, the choice of him as a resource for this analysis seems unclear. Art, in the form of Verrio's murals, is not employed as a source material until chapter 18. The reader will eventually discover that there is a connection between the 1649 sermon text briefly discussed in the prologue and the publicly placed staircase murals by Verrio in 1699 for William III, but only after careful reading of endnotes. The author does not identify that the source for his title "image government" is a 1656 tract by a Fifth Monarchist until the last chapter, using it to explain how visual and literary rhetoric could disguise the constitutional governance of William III as traditionally monarchical.

Langley's analysis is provocative, but it is impaired for the average reader by a lack of historical or literary context for sources and by the poor quality of the publication. The text is arranged on the page as if the computer went haywire, and it was printed without proofreading. As a result, it is often difficult for the reader to distinguish between the author's text and quotations. The six illustrations are fuzzy photocopies from another secondary source, without numbers to correspond to the text or provenance. Why has the author limited himself to literature and murals when so many other sources might be drawn upon to support his thesis? Who actually saw the murals? What about evidence from artifacts, portraits, architecture, or landscape design to support his thesis? The initial assumption that this work might illuminate an understanding of monarchy under the later Stuarts remains elusive at the conclusion.

REBECCA S. MORE

Brown University