The Bawdy Politic in Stuart England, 1660-1714: Political Pornography and Prostitution (review)
to make trouble for England (with which, of course, he was at war during most of this time) but quick to abandon them as soon as he wanted peace. Gregg’s theme is summed up in a Jacobite complaint, made in 1714, that concludes the essay: “The French King only minded our King . . . in so far as his own Interest led him, and made use of him as a Tool to promote and to be subservient to his own private Designs” (75). In Corp’s account, on the other hand, the personal relationship between Louis and his cousins was close, and Louis was sincerely committed to their restoration. (Corp, moreover, is at pains to deny that the court at Saint-Germain “could not keep its own secrets” [130].) Full agreement is not to be expected between any two scholars, but in a volume like this, the absence even of any acknowledgment of these differences is disconcerting. Notwithstanding these points, A Court in Exile is an important contribution both to a well-established scholarly field, Jacobitism, and a relatively new one, court studies, and will long serve as a required text for scholars working in those fields, as well as in others. With the publication of this book, the exiled Stuart court of 1689–1718 is — ironically, given its relative marginality — the most fully described of all the Stuart courts. ERIC N. LINDQUIST University of Maryland