Stephen Brogan. The Royal Touch in Early Modern England: Politics, Medicine, and Sin. (Royal Historical Society Studies in History.) xi + 265 pp., illus., figs., tables, bibl., index. Woodbridge, Suffolk/Rochester, N.Y.: Boydell Press, 2015. £50 (cloth).

Abstract

Previous articleNext article FreeStephen Brogan. The Royal Touch in Early Modern England: Politics, Medicine, and Sin. (Royal Historical Society Studies in History.) xi + 265 pp., illus., figs., tables, bibl., index. Woodbridge, Suffolk/Rochester, N.Y.: Boydell Press, 2015. £50 (cloth).Peter ElmerPeter Elmer Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreA modern study of the place of the royal touch in medieval and early modern English society is long overdue. Since the pioneering works of Raymond Crawfurd (1911) and Marc Bloch (1924), historians have largely neglected the subject, with one or two notable exceptions. In more recent times, Keith Thomas has hinted at the potential richness of the subject, and in my own work on the Irish “stroker” Valentine Greatrakes I have spoken briefly about Charles II’s role as a sacral and charismatic healer of scrofula, or the king’s evil. The subject, however, is generally overlooked or relegated to a footnote. Stephen Brogan’s book, then, is a welcome contribution, providing the reader with an accessible and fresh treatment of the subject based on a wide range of primary source material.At the heart of the book lies a renewed emphasis on understanding the royal touch as representing a crucial interface between medicine, politics, and religion in medieval and early modern England. Brogan provides a valuable discussion of the origins of the phenomenon in early medieval England and France, charting the growth in its popularity through the Middle Ages and culminating in the period of its apogee after 1603. Not surprisingly, the bulk of the book focuses on the seventeenth century, reflecting both the real surge in the tendency among those suffering from the king’s evil to resort to the monarch for help and the much greater survival of documentation for the practice. The seventeenth century also witnessed one or two notable publications on the subject, which provide illuminating insights into social and medical aspects pertaining to the royal touch.There are some interesting new insights. In particular, Brogan unearths important evidence that helps to provide an answer as to why James I changed his mind about touching after his accession to the throne, as well as firm evidence to suggest the extent of Charles I’s participation in the ritual. There is also much new material that casts light on the interplay between the medical and political imperatives behind the royal touch in the years following the collapse of royal authority in 1640. The overwhelming impression here is of a medical intervention on the part of the Crown that was constantly undergoing change and evolution—in part reflecting the concerns of individual monarchs, but also in recognition of the broader religious and political context in which English rulers practiced kingship in the seventeenth century.The Royal Touch in Early Modern England is not, however, without its problems. Relevant source material is thin on the ground, and that which does survive is often difficult to interpret. Much of what was written about the royal touch was clearly, as Brogan admits, propagandistic in aim. I am skeptical, for example, of the value that can be placed on the evidence of men like the surgeon John Browne, who asserts, without any corroborating evidence, examples of nonconformists submitting successfully to cure at the hands of the king. Browne was writing at a critical moment in the conflict between the Crown and its opponents. His work cannot, therefore, be seen as an entirely objective assessment of the merits and popularity of the practice. Hearsay evidence also permeates much of the book, where many of those who comment on the royal touch do so from a vantage point often far removed from the events they describe. There is no doubt that this complicates our historical understanding of the subject matter. It is to Brogan’s credit, however, that he is both aware of these limitations and that he largely succeeds here in overcoming them, producing an engaging, critical, and readable assessment of the place of the royal touch in premodern England. Notes Peter Elmer is Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Medical History at Exeter University, where he is working on a Wellcome Trust–funded project to create an electronic database of medical practitioners in early modern England, Wales, and Ireland. Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Isis Volume 108, Number 1March 2017 Publication of the History of Science Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/690805 © 2017 by The History of Science Society. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.