Skip to content

Response to Review no. 978

I am happy to respond to Joseph Monteyne’s review of Printed Images in Early Modern Britain: Essays in Interpretation, which comprises a gratifyingly appreciative account of the book as a whole and of its component parts. He gives an excellent sense both of the book’s structure and rationale, and of the content of each of the essays which it comprises, highlighting some of the more significant conclusions reached by the different authors in the course of their contributions.

His overall verdict that the book should help to rescue the study of printed images from the neglect that they have suffered in the past is welcome. In this respect, the book builds on the achievement, among others, of Monteyne himself in The Printed Image In Early Modern London: Urban Space, Visual Representation and Social Exchange (1), a further example of the role of Ashgate in publishing innovative research in this field.

Virtually the only reservation that Monteyne expresses about Printed Images in Early Modern Britain concerns the terminology deployed by David Alexander in his essay on portrait prints, and this perhaps illustrates the need, not only for further study in this area, but for the development of a syntax which does justice to the different types of printed images that coexisted at the time and mutually influenced one another. Yet this simply underlines the message of the book itself about how much there is still to do in this crucial and challenging field. 

Notes

  1. Joseph Monteyne, The Printed Image In Early Modern London: Urban Space, Visual Representation and Social Exchange (London, 2007).Back to (1)