caught up in the growing divide between ‘amateur’ and ‘professional’ historians. Despite their often pioneering archival work (including in previously inaccessible French archives), the Stricklands’ affective approach to queens’ lives and ‘gothic sensibilities’ (p. 128) came in for growing derision as the years wore on, whereas Green’s development of calendaring and her editorial work situated her more firmly in the emergent professional camp. In the case of the Stricklands, Spongberg argues, their Jacobite sympathies led them to challenge the Whig narrative by recuperating ‘queen consorts who were vilified in the seventeenth century’ (p. 125). Their pioneering life of Mary Beatrice of Modena (written by Agnes) celebrated her ‘saintliness’ (p. 132) in exile and, more significantly, downgraded the Glorious Revolution to a mere ‘family squabble between the Stuarts’ (p. 133). Similarly, Green’s ground-breaking edition of Henrietta Maria’s letters (following on Strickland’s own revisionist narrative) challenged the received, harshly negative scholarship on the queen’s life and reminded readers of ‘the difficulties facing a heavily pregnant queen who had been charged with treason’ (p. 153). This study successfully repositions late eighteenth and nineteenth-century women historians in our understanding of historiography, emphasising how their interest in gender (as mediated through the queens’ lives) was part and parcel of a substantial engagement with the Whig narrative that dominated much contemporary history. It thus establishes these women as politically savvy and engaged, even when their work appears distant from immediate political concerns. This reader would have liked to hear about the medievalist, antiquarian and occasional short-story writer Hannah Lawrance, author of Historical Memoirs of the Queens of England (1838–40), who made intriguing use of material culture in her work. A bit more reception history would have consolidated the significance of the book’s claims. Overall, however, this is an important contribution to our understanding of nineteenth-century historiography, especially its fraught and gendered debates about the role of emotion in reconstructing the past.

中文翻译：

---

Peter John Brownlee，视觉的商业：美国战前的视觉文化和感知

陷入了“业余”和“专业”历史学家之间日益扩大的鸿沟。尽管他们经常开创性的档案工作（包括在以前无法访问的法国档案中），但随着岁月的流逝，斯特里克兰兹对皇后生活的情感态度和“哥特式情感”（第 128 页）越来越受到嘲笑，而格林的日历发展她的编辑工作使她更加坚定地站在新兴专业阵营中。Spongberg 认为，在 Stricklands 的情况下，他们对雅各布派的同情使他们通过恢复“在 17 世纪受到诽谤的王后”（第 125 页）来挑战辉格党的叙述。他们的摩德纳的玛丽·比阿特丽斯（由艾格尼丝撰写）的开创性生活庆祝了她在流亡中的“圣洁”（第 132 页），更重要的是，将光荣革命降级为仅仅是“斯图亚特家族之间的家庭争吵”（第 133 页）。同样，格林对亨丽埃塔·玛丽亚的信件的开创性版本（遵循斯特里克兰自己的修正主义叙述）挑战了公认的对女王生活的严厉否定的学术研究，并提醒读者“怀孕的女王面临着被控叛国罪的困难”（第 153 页）。这项研究成功地将 18 世纪末和 19 世纪女性历史学家重新定位在我们对史学的理解中，强调她们对性别的兴趣（通过女王的生活进行中介）是与主导当代历史的辉格党叙事实质性接触的重要组成部分. 因此，它确立了这些女性在政治上的精明和参与，即使他们的工作似乎与当前的政治问题相去甚远。这位读者很想听听中世纪主义者、古董作家和偶尔的短篇小说作家汉娜·劳伦斯（Hannah Lawrance）的故事，她是《英格兰皇后的历史回忆录》（1838-40 年）的作者，她在作品中有趣地运用了物质文化。多一点接收历史会巩固这本书的主张的重要性。然而，总的来说，这是对我们理解 19 世纪史学的重要贡献，尤其是其关于情感在重建过去中的作用的令人担忧的性别辩论。谁在她的作品中有趣地利用了物质文化。多一点接收历史会巩固这本书的主张的重要性。然而，总的来说，这是对我们理解 19 世纪史学的重要贡献，尤其是其关于情感在重建过去中的作用的令人担忧的性别辩论。她在她的作品中巧妙地运用了物质文化。多一点接收历史会巩固这本书的主张的重要性。然而，总的来说，这是对我们理解 19 世纪史学的重要贡献，尤其是其关于情感在重建过去中的作用的令人担忧的性别辩论。