No description available.

Anthony van Dyck's contemporary vision of sovereignty and knighthood made him the principal image-maker in England during the 1630s. His portraits of Charles I exemplified the Arcadian realm and philosophies held at court, as well as complying with the artistic and historical traditions of English painting. As a celebration of Monarchy by Divine Right, Van Dyck's portrayals of the Sovereign summarize the philosophical concepts of knighthood expressed in the Platonic Love theory and the Order of the Garter. Charles I was Defensor Fides, Pater Patriae, the suitor to his lady, and the courtly gentleman--all roles of the knight. Beyond his stylistic influence, Van Dyck's foremost contribution was the endowment of maiestas to the royal image, followed by divine apotheosis for posterity. A better understanding of Van Dyck's Charles as the Garter Sovereign leads us to modify our perception of the artist, since he became the painter of contemporary British history.

No description available.

The 1632 appointment of Van Dyck as Court Painter by King Charles I changed the course of art in England. But in spite of its importance, the dynamics and mechanics of this event remain imperfectly understood. This paper suggests that one determining factor was the influence of George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham. An early admirer of Van Dyck, Buckingham in turn incarnated the young artist's own aspirations to aristocratic status. For Charles, the Duke was a personal partner and aesthetic alter-ego whose presence in the King's psyche remained strong long after Buckingham's assassination in 1628. The examination of certain of Van Dyck's paintings of the 1620's shows how the interlocking agendas and affinities of the three men combined to affect the evolution of English art.

No description available.

This thesis seeks to place drama of the Caroline commercial theatre in its contemporary political and legal context; particularly, it addresses the ways in which the struggle for supremacy between the royal prerogative, common law and local custom is constructed and negotiated in plays of the period. It argues that as the reign of Charles I progresses, the divine right and absolute power of the monarchy on stage begins to lose its authority, as playwrights, particularly Massinger and Brome, present a decline from divinity into the presentation of an arbitrary man who seeks to impose and increase his authority by enforcing obedience to selfish and wilful actions and demands. This decline from divinity, I argue, allows for the rise of a competing legitimate legal authority in the form of common law. Engaging with the contemporary discourse of custom, reason and law which pervades legal tracts of the period such as Coke’s Institutes and Reports and Davies’ ‘Preface Dedicatory’ to Le Primer Report des Cases & Matters en Ley resolues & adiudges en les Courts del Roy en Ireland, drama by Brome, Jonson, Massinger and Shirley presents arbitrary absolutism as madness, and adherence to customary common law as reason which restores order. In this climate, the drama suggests, royal manipulation of the law for personal ends, of which Charles I was often accused, destabilises law and legal authority. This destabilisation of legal authority is examined in a broader context in plays set in areas outwith London, geographically distant from central authority. The thesis places these plays in the context of Charles I’s attempts to centralise local law enforcement through such publications as the Book of Orders. When maintaining order in the provinces came into conflict with central legislation, the local officials exercised what Keith Wrightson describes as ‘two concepts of order’, turning a blind eye to certain activities when strict enforcement of law would create rather than dissolve local tensions. In both attempting to insist on unity between the centre and the provinces through tighter control of local officials, and dividing the centre from the provinces in the dissolution of Parliament, Charles’s government was, the plays suggest, in danger not only of destabilising and decentralising legal authority but of fragmenting it. This thesis argues that drama provides a medium whereby the politico-legal debates of the period may be presented to, and debated by, a wider audience than the more technical contemporary legal arguments, and, during Charles I’s personal rule, the theatre became a public forum for debate when Parliament was unavailable.

This thesis is an examination of Charles I of England’s projection of kingship through Sir Anthony van Dyck portraits during his personal rule. These portraits provide important insight into Charles’ vision of kingship because they were commissioned by the king and displayed at court, revealing that his kingship rested on complementary ideals of traditional kingship in addition to divine right. In this thesis, Charles’ van Dyck portraits are studied in the context of seventeenth-century ideals of paterfamilias, knight, and gentleman. These ideals provide important cultural narratives which were seen to be reflective of legitimacy, power, and masculinity, which in turn gave legitimacy to Charles’ kingship. The system of values and ideals represented in Charles’ portraits reveal that his vision of kingship was complex and nuanced, demonstrating that divine right was just one aspect of many, upon which his kingship was premised. / viii, 164 leaves : [18] leaves of color plates ; 29 cm