Cultural Projections of Royal Authority in England and Scotland, between the 1580s and the 1640s

我的论文将文化与思想史结合起来，为学术和公共历史提供重要的贡献，创新地结合了对空间、地点和变化的关注。它将首次对1580年代至1640年代英格兰和苏格兰王室权威的文化投射进行比较分析；也就是说，从詹姆斯六世的个人统治和盖伊所说的伊丽莎白一世的“第二次统治”开始，到内战和弑君。关于王室权威的不同、有时甚至是相互冲突的观念是如何在表演中被投射和表达出来的，这些表演包括王室的进步、参赛和游行、选美、假面表演、戏剧、比赛和国王的成人仪式，这是一个很少（如果有的话）得到持续比较分析的主题。我的论文将研究三个关键问题。首先，帝国主义和日益专制主义的倾向是如何表达和挑战的，共存的理论是如何表达和提倡的，皇室的行为和表演地点是如何影响思想投射的？其次，这种表述的目的是什么？它们是宣传、忠告、请愿还是怀旧，如果与既定的正统观念不同，它们是抵抗的形式吗？第三，这些预测在王朝联盟的背景下是如何起作用的？只有比较研究才能告诉我们，一个不断变化的意识形态气候、现存或不存在的君主制、国家或地方传统以及一个统治者的相对意义。这样的研究对历史研究至关重要。16世纪和17世纪的英格兰和苏格兰见证了王权理论的转变。亨利改革后，英国统治者主张世俗和精神至上，但这种统治权的确切性质存在争议。在苏格兰，一种明显的斯图亚特式的统治权概念开始开花结果，它起源于15世纪，并在16世纪30年代和詹姆斯六世的个人统治期间形成了决定性的时刻。在这两个国家，这一时期也见证了对绝对王权和神权君主制的日益突出的捍卫，以及亚里士多德混合政体模式的继续存在，在这种模式中，君主、委员会和议会的权力是平等的。迄今为止，对这些思想的分析主要集中在文本政治理论、这些思想的起源，以及（对英格兰来说）统治权理论中固有的紧张，这种紧张源于亨利对其精确定义的模糊（对英格兰来说：盖伊、罗素和罗斯；对苏格兰来说：梅森和克拉姆西）。尽管文化转向和学术认识到政治思想的这种发展反映在政治文化中（Anglo, Yates, Strong， Smuts和Sharpe），随着现代早期都铎和斯图亚特君主逐渐将自己塑造成文艺复兴时期的统治者，宫廷文化和公共仪式呈指数级增长，王权关键思想的文化预测大多被忽视，除了1530年代的苏格兰(Thomas, Meikle，哈里卡（Harikae），以及在我任职前几年对皇权的审查（苏格兰：梅森；英格兰：霍克）。考虑到这一时期文化与政治之间的内在联系，研究表演中不同王权观念的文化投射对于充分理解这些观念，以及确定谁是这些观念的先驱和目的至关重要。这对于理解英格兰和苏格兰思想之间的联系以及（可能的）共同的“英国”君主制的建立至关重要。这样的研究有可能进入更广泛的分析领域，包括盎格鲁-苏格兰关系、王权、宪法和议会历史，以及文化政治。

My thesis will combine cultural with intellectual history to offer a significant contribution to both academic and public history that innovatively incorporates attention to space, place, and change over time. It will provide the first comparative analysis of cultural projections of royal authority in England and Scotland, between the 1580s and the 1640s; i.e. from James VI's personal rule and the onset of what Guy terms Elizabeth I's 'second reign' to the Civil Wars and regicide. How differing, and at times, conflicting ideas of royal authority were projected and articulated in performance, encompassing royal progresses, entries and processions, pageants, masques, plays, tournaments and kingly rites of passage is a subject that has received little, if any, sustained comparative analysis. My thesis will investigate three key questions. Firstly, how were imperial and increasingly absolutist tendencies expressed and challenged, co-existing theories articulated and advocated, and how did royal behaviour and performance location affect ideas projected? Secondly, what was the purpose of such articulations? Were they acts of propaganda, counsel, petition, or nostalgia, and, if divergent from established orthodoxy, forms of resistance? Thirdly, how did such projections work in the context of dynastic Union? Only a comparative study can tell us the relative significance of a changing ideological climate, present or absentee monarchy, national or local traditions, and an individual ruler.Such a study is vital to historical research. England and Scotland in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries witnessed transformations in theories of kingship. After the Henrican Reformation, English rulers asserted secular and spiritual supremacy, but the exact nature of this imperium was debated. In Scotland, a distinctly Stuart notion of imperium came into fruition, with roots in the 1400s, and defining moments during the 1530s and James VI's personal rule. In both countries, the period also saw increasingly prominent defences of absolute royal sovereignty and divine right monarchy, and the continued existence of the Aristotelian mixed polity model, in which authority resided in equal measure in monarch, council and parliament. Analysis of such ideas to date focuses predominantly on textual political theory, the origins of these ideas, and (for England) the innate tension in the theory of imperium resulting from original Henrican ambiguity over its precise definition (for England: Guy, Russell, and Rose; for Scotland: Mason and Cramsie). Despite the cultural turn and scholarly recognition that such developments in political thought were mirrored in political culture (Anglo, Yates, Strong, Smuts and Sharpe), with early modern Tudor and Stuart monarchs increasingly fashioning themselves as Renaissance rulers and court culture and public ceremonial expanding exponentially, cultural projections of key ideas of royal authority have mostly been ignored, save for Scotland in the 1530s (Thomas, Meikle, Harikae) and the examination of the imperial crown in the years preceding my period (Scotland: Mason; England: Hoak). Given the intrinsic connection between culture and politics in this period, examining cultural projections of differing ideas of royal authority in performance is crucial to fully understanding these ideas, as well as determining who pioneered them and to what end. It is vital for comprehending connections between English and Scottish ideas and the (possible) creation of a shared 'British' monarchy. Such a study has the potential to feed into wider areas of analysis, including Anglo-Scottish relations, kingship, constitutional and parliamentary history, as well as cultural politics.