Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The ’popish midwife’ : printed representations of Elizabeth Cellier and midwifery practice in late seventeeth… Evenden, Kirstin Jane 1992

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1992_fall_evenden_kirsten_jane.pdf [ 2.37MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0086513.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0086513-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0086513-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0086513-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0086513-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0086513-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0086513-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0086513-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0086513.ris

Full Text

THE ‘POPISH MIDWIFE’:PRINTED REPRESENTATIONS OF ELIZABETH CELLIER ANDMIDWIFERY PRACTICE IN LATE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ENGLANDByKirstin Jane EvendenCertificat en FLS, Universit Laval, 1987B.A., Universit Laval, 1989A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSDEPARTMENT OF FINE ARTSART HISTORYWe accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardI-,THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIASEPTEMBER 1992Kirstin Jane Evenden, 1992In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the. head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.Department of Fine Arts/ Art. HistoryThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaOct. 13th, 1992Date_________________________________DE-6 (2/88.)ABS TRACTThis thesis investigates the role of print culturein the re-definition of English midwifery practice duringthe seventeenth century. The printed representations,both visual and textual, of the Catholic midwifeElizabeth Cellier in The Popish Damnable Plot (BM 1088,1680), The Solemn Mock Procession (BM 1085, 1680), andThe Happy Instruments of England’s Preservation (BM 1114,1681) will serve as a basis for my analysis.As part of a larger body of Whig imagery produced inLondon during the Exclusion Crisis of 1679—81, Cellier’srepresentation consistently referred to her alleged rolein a ‘popish plot’ perpetrated by Catholics to kill KingCharles II. In defining Cellier as part of a treasonousthreat to the nation, this representation not onlytargeted her supposed involvement in criminal activities,but also focussed on her midwifery as being an integralaspect of her criminality.Licensed by the Church of England since 1534,midwifery practice was exclusively the province of women.Cellier’s representation as a ‘criminal midwife’ occurredat a time when the traditional societal role andorganization of midwifery were being questioned.Increasingly, midwives during this period were criticizedboth by nonconformist groups critical of the Anglicanrituals of birth, and by medical practitioners interestedin controlling the supervision of childbirth.My aim in this thesis, then, is to explore howCellier’s representation, while purporting to report acrime quite separate from her profession, would in factserve to represent midwifery as a potentially criminaland dangerous practice. In Chapter One, I will examineboth the political motivations behind her representation,and the conditions in London for the production anddistribution of this type of printed imagery. ChapterTwo will deal with how the genres representing Cellierwere used to construct her as a ‘popish’ threat toEnglish national unity, while addressing nonconformistaudiences over the issue of exclusion. Finally, inChapter Three I will analyze how this criminalizedrepresentation of Cellier as ‘popish’ involved andcoincided with both nonconformist critiques of Anglicanbirthing rituals and attempts in medical discourse totransform previous childbirth practices into a writtenform of ‘professional’ medical knowledge. The overallaim is to show how Cellier’s representation was part ofthe process whereby traditional midwifery practice inEngland was re-defined, a process which ultimatelyresulted in the marginalization of women from midwiferypractice.IvTABLE OF CONTENTSPAGEABSTRACT iiTABLE OF CONTENTS ivLIST OF FIGURES vACKNOWLEDGEMENTS viINTRODUCTION 1CHAPTER ONEPRINTING, POLITICS AND THE ‘POPISH MIDWIFE’:THE CONTEXT OF REPRESENTATION 10CHAPTER TWOCONSTRUCTING CELLIER AS ‘POPISH’:THE PROCESS OF REPRESENTATION 31CHAPTER THREE“AND SO DID SHE SUITABLY MIDWIFE [THE PLOT] INTOTHE WORLD”: ‘POPISH MIDWIFERY’ AS A CRITIQUE OFTHE PRACTICE 61FIGURES 95BIBLIOGRAPHY 103CO-J(ii0)••••••0W—-3-3P’M-3rtflH--tF---3L1P)O1MLt5MOPJH-H-Od5OPH-OCDH-OCDCDCDCD15ct(DOMMCDH-bCDCDH-CDIopictçtCDCI)MP)p)CDOIICDctCD1tJOH-7H-QrtCDCDH-cI1H-cn)-I1H-M’do—(H-(flOeMD’OC’)HOctyooo05H•JCD3MiCDHH-CDD’H<dz3-C)P’QQMP)(DO(DC1’-F-CDt’J”’ZIOH-OHCDPCDHctk<MctHCDrtF-F—MCOMCJ)HhhOHCDOHl1H-H-‘CsP)rt3CsctOHL-ct3CD-H-CI)H0)-bH-CDCD(D-JO‘t-5CDctDjOCDO—JD)H—WcOfrt)Co1’I(DOFlQCOMctctD’W—.ctCoLiC)H-HH-CDOCDMH---O-Cl)ML-IlF—-ti’sCJSCoCDOO‘OC!)OH-H-OMH-H-H-ct-<Ci(OH-hP)frhP)-.J(D1)rt0)F-bHlctP)NMdCflH-edIH-t3H1JH—JO(!)I—H-QCDP’OMOrtMctHcDrtf—Cl)LiHP-0ictoOL’i(OObrtOt-hCoOçvflCDcxJCDI—aHrt-CDP)QDrtCDCD0H“C)MOCDCOCD‘z3H-•IIct1tICDC5IL1CDHMI-t0CDrtO•H••P)(I)(I)COOI-J(O•HH-b’F-•b’HMCD•cc•H--0•.QCoCDC)M(!)CDctMO•MOrtM•4i•Q1(noH-•QCDH-C2-<H-00H-Oct•Qi-IO.0)0•CDCDCO•CDP’O—OCDOct(np)•p)H•‘H•-0HLi•-Mk)H-JQ---.•Q—..0H-H-•-s0•0Hft0C!)dOCOL-1•1P)••Q•H-•H“0HIH-O•H-O••H•CD-b.C1•LxiH-•MCD•FlH(i)P)•MH”COOCD(OCDL•CDQ.C/)•H-•CDHH-•001rtrt•CD0•OCD••-<•P)-‘0•.•çt•asQ-•ct••CD•••H(fl••H•çt•••CD•••H-H•H•.•.•CO0•ctcy-•C”,•.•••C)•HCO•CO•••CD•CDC)•CD•••••—•ci——•—H C)CDI,)0CDCO001LxiACKNOWLEDGEMENT SI would like to thank my thesis advisor, Dr. RoseMarie San Juan, and my second reader Dr. Maureen Ryan,for their guidance and assistance during the preparationof this thesis. In addition, I would like to thank myfriend John for his on-going support. Lastly, I wouldlike to thank my parents, my sister Maya, and my brotherMatthew, for their encouragement and understanding.ViP)I-COC/)I(DP)CDHO1Oçt(H‘1pJftH(Dø‘dH-(DH-(DCD-hc2bc)H‘<H-CD(D1H(nOrtIl(DP-H-H-OP)P’)OP)F—SP)Hb1H-CH-(Dt50jrtHCDLi‘tIOH-1:io(Dct(DCtH‘.QOOH-H-flHH-iOO0H-p)%HP)P)CHHCDci’-rt‘<-H-CrtCDOHO3HHjOP)13’CDci<coP)Ci)’..QCD1ilCDQpcto0IIH)CDCD0t’0‘..OHP)EYCDMoH-rto—M)‘QWOHH-MOH‘øO(D(P)HCDHc(ppCDrtO113OH-H-CDHct<(I)H-CDCDIIG)OQ,HH1<OM,OCDP)CDctctCD‘<013’3’o•ctOCD0 H 0H C,) CD2INTRODUCTIONThe Popish Priests serve their Laity, so do ourPhysitians serve the commonality of this Nation;namely Hide al from them they can, for they know...that should the vulgar but be a little acquaintedwith their Mysteries al their jugling and knaverywould be seen.——Nicholas Culpeper, A Directory for Midwives(1660)Thus Nicholas Culpeper, a Puritan apothecaryinterested in promoting his skills as a new ‘man-midwife’ in London, criticized his professional‘betters’, the physicians, by comparing them to ‘popishpriests’, the Anglican clergy. Culpeper’s midwiferymanual was one of many new medical texts on midwiferyproduced during the seventeenth century which was partof a movement to re-define the midwifery profession.For seventeenth century readers, this criticism ofdoctors as ‘popish’ within the context of a midwiferytext may have been easily understood. However, severalquestions pose themselves to twentieth century readersunfamiliar with such seventeenth century terminology.Particularly, what could the term ‘popish’ havesignified for readers that it was used to denounce thetraditional medical practice represented by physicians?And what did the tacit statement that the ‘vulgar’--in3this case midwives—-were ignorant have to do with thisnotion of ‘popish’ medical practice?Culpeper’s criticism brings to light the issue Iwill examine in this thesis: namely, the re-definitionof traditional midwifery practice into medical termsthrough its popular representation as ‘popish’ inprinted imagery.It is well—established in social and medicalhistories on English midwifery that during theseventeenth century the profession underwent profoundchanges which still affect the way childbirth in Englandis defined, regulated and supervised today.’ What israrely considered in such histories, however, is theprocess whereby such changes to midwifery wouldsuccessfully question and transform previous assumptionsabout the profession.2Printed popular representations of midwives andmidwifery of the period provide evidence that thisFor an account of how such historical changes still affect contemporary Englishbirthing practices see Caroline Flint, “On the brink: midwifery in Britain,” TheMidwife Challenge, ed. Sheila Kitzinger (London: Pandora, 1988) 22—39.2 Two such works are Irving S. Cutter and Henry R. Viets, A Short History ofMidwifery (Philadelphia and London: W.B. Saunders, 1964) and Audrey Eccies,Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Tudor and Stuart England (London: Croom Helm, 1982).While Irving and Cutter examine the ‘rise’ of the medical profession, Ecclesdiscusses the effects of such changes on women midwives and the medical practicegenerally.It should be noted that two recent studies have attempted to investigate thisprocess of re—definition of midwifery. Elizabeth Harvey, in “Matrix as Metaphor:Midwifery and the Conception of Voice”, in her soon to be published VentriloquizedVoices: Feminist Theory and English Renaissance Texts (London: Routledge, 1992)140—285, examines how metaphorical references to childbirth and midwifery in EnglishRenaissance poetry were linked to the creation of a new medical discourse onchildbirth, and the re-definition of the practice. L.J. Jordanova, in “Gender,Generation and Science: William Hunter’s Obstetrical Atlas,” William Hunter and theeighteenth century Medical World, ed. W.F. Bynum and Roy Porter (Cambridge, NewYork: CUP, 1985) 385—412, analyzes the anatomical illustrations of a man—midwife’satlas with a view to establishing how the institutionalization and distribution ofsuch imagery contributed to changes in the societal perception of childbirth.4transformation of midwifery practice was by no means astraightforward, linear ‘development’ of scientificprogress—-a point often argued in medical histories.3Instead, political broadsides and pamphlets, as well asmidwifery manuals and medical illustrations, wereimportant sites through which new kinds of knowledgeabout midwifery sought legitimacy in an attempt todiscount older assumptions of childbirth.4Three prints representing the alleged criminalElizabeth Cellier as the ‘Popish Midwife’--The PopishDamnable Plot, 1680 (Figs. 1 and 2), The Solemn MockProcession..., 1680 (Fig. 3), and The Happy Instrumentsof England’s Preservation, 1680 (Fig. 5)--will serve asa focus for this investigation, for they provide aparticularly good example of how popular representationfunctioned to question previous societal perceptions ofmidwifery and birthing practices.5 Theserepresentations reveal that the societal anxietiesaround the transformation of midwifery practice createdCutter and Viets in A Short History, are quick to assume that the changes tomidwifery were caused by the ignorance of midwives and by scientific ‘advancement’in the field. However, we know that during the seventeenth century, the very periodwhen men were entering the birth chamber for the first time, the bills of mortalitydocument that death at childbirth had actually risen. See Elizabeth Cellier(written Celleor), To Dr. --- An Answer to his Queries, concerning the Colledg ofMidwives (London, January, 1688) 6.A large number of medical manuals of the period still exist; see for example,Nicholas Culpeper, The Directory for Midwives (London, 1660); Sir Theodore Mayerne,Dr. Chamberlain, Mr. Nicholas Culpeper, etc., The Compleat midwife’s practiceenlarged (London, 1698); The English midwife enlarged (London, 1682).5 Elizabeth Cellier was not the only midwife to be stereotyped as a criminal in thepress during this period. See the representation of an anonymous ‘popish midwife’in a set of playing cards representing the Revolution of 1688 and attributed toFrancis Barlow reproduced in David Kunzle, History of the Comic Strip (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1973), Fig. 5—20. Kunzle suggests that thisanonymous woman may be Mary Aubrey who also figures in a print reproduced byFuchs—Kind, Weiberherrschaft II, Fig. 630, 42.5much tension between different perceptions of knowledgeabout childbirth.Elizabeth Cellier’s representation as ‘popishmidwife’-—while part of a particular political newsproduction aimed at London nonconformist audiencesduring the early 1680s—-appeared at a time whentraditional midwifery practice was being called intoquestion by both nonconformist groups and medicalpractitioners. Licensed by the Church of England since1534, traditional midwifery practice until theseventeenth century had exclusively been the province ofwomen. Midwives’ duties had included emergency baptismof the mother or child if they died during birth, aswell as supervision of the Anglican ritual of‘churching’ or purification of the new mother. Inaddition to such rituals of birth, midwives wereresponsible for the determination of (il)legitimacy,abortion and fertility, which, under midwives’jurisdiction, were thus subject to control by theChurch. Increasingly, however, nonconformists woulddenounce the Anglican rituals of birth and the midwiveswho practiced them. Nonconformists were opposed to thislicensed midwifery and the rituals it promoted (whichthey condemned as ‘popish’), for it was a means through6which the Anglican Church attempted to exert itsauthority over matters of private morality.6In addition to the nonconformist critique oflicensed midwifery, the English medical community ofphysicians, surgeons and apothecaries during theseventeenth century would also begin to criticize theability of midwives to supervise the birthing process;these criticisms would increasingly threaten traditionalmidwifery practice.7 This intervention in childbirthwas linked to professional competition amongst thevarious medical practitioners themselves. Surgeons andapothecaries began to challenge the authority of thephysicians, who had held sway at the top of the medicalprofession’s internal hierarchy since the medievalperiod. Physicians, who dealt with the more theoreticalaspects of medicine, had held the authority to dictatethe mandates of the more practical professions ofsurgeons and apothecaries. One way in which surgeonsand apothecaries attempted to define their ownprofessions as different from, yet equal to that ofphysicians, was to claim they had a more valid,‘scientific’ knowledge of birth. Physicians, whoassisted at births only if the mother or newborn weredying, had previously held little authority over the6 Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (London: Peregrine Books, 1978)172.Ornella Moscucci, The Science of Woman: Gynaecology and Gender in England, 1800—1929 (Cambridge: CUP, 1990) 6.7birthing process itself, and therefore could not easilycontrol the movements of surgeons and apothecaries, who,like Nicholas Culpeper, the London apothecary, began topractice as so—called ‘men-midwives’.8As a result of this medical intervention in thebirthing process, not only would the religious aspectsof birth be radically re-evaluated, but the requirementsand qualifications for the practice of women midwiveswould also change. While previously women had undergonean apprenticeship under other senior midwives, and hadacquired their knowledge of the practice on an oralbasis, medical practitioners would increasingly insiston the qualification of women for the profession throughthe reading of medical texts and anatomy.9 As onedoctor stated in a midwifery manual of 1698, it was hispurpose to:correct the frequent mistakes of most midwives, whoresting too boldly upon the common way ofdelivering women, neglect all the wholesome andprofitable rules of the art. .which concern theanatomical parts of the body.’°Although not directly related to the specificnonconformist critique of the religious functions ofmidwifery, such practitioners would attempt to definemidwifery in medical terms, and by such definition deny8 Irvine Loudon, Medical Care and the General Practitioner, 1750—1850 (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1986) 24.For an account of this process of professionalization of midwifery see JeanDonnison, Midwives and Medical Men (New York: Schocken Books, 1977).10 The Complete Midwife’s Practice Enlarged (London, 1698) A3.8the ritualistic——or ‘popish’-—aspects of midwifery.While the impetus for changes to the religious functionof midwifery had its origin in a nonconformist critiqueof the Anglican Church, the formation of a new strictlymedical discourse on midwifery was part of a processwhereby the different medical professions asserted theirauthority over the birthing process. Both critiques ofmidwifery manifested themselves in a condemnation ofmidwifery as a ‘superstitious’ and outmoded (ignorant)practice. The ritualism of traditional midwifery wasdetested not only by dissenting groups, but ran counterto the scientism of new developments in medicaldiscourse.My aim in this thesis, then, is to analyze how, ata time when older notions of midwifery were beingrepudiated by both nonconformist groups and medicalpractitioners, Cellier’s representation was part of thislarger process of transformation of the practice. Ishall argue that the printed images of Cellier, whilepurporting to report a crime quite separate from herprofession, would in fact to serve to representmidwifery as a potentially criminal and dangerouspractice.I will investigate in Chapter One both thepolitical motivations behind Cellier’s representation,and the conditions in London for the production anddistribution of this type of printed imagery. In9Chapter Two I will discuss how the genres representingCellier constructed her as a ‘popish’ threat to Englishnational unity while addressing nonconformist audiencesover the particular political issue of exclusion of theDuke of York from succession to the throne in 1680. Iwill then analyze in Chapter Three how this criminalizedrepresentation of Cellier as ‘popish’ involved andcoincided with both nonconformist critiques of Anglicanbirthing rituals and attempts in medical discourse totransform previous childbirth practices into a writtenform of ‘professional’ medical knowledge. This analysiswill establish how Cellier’s representation was part ofthe process whereby traditional midwifery practice inEngland was re-defined, a process which eventuallyresulted in the marginalization of women from midwiferypractice.10CHAPTER ONEPRINTING, POLITICS, AND THE ‘POPISH MIDWIFE’:THE CONTEXT OF REPRESENTATIONDuring the years 1680—1682, a number of prints,broadsides and pamphlets were produced in London whichclaimed that Elizabeth Cellier, a well—known localCatholic midwife, was involved in a failed plot to killKing Charles 11.1 The standard press account of thisevent stated that Cellier, while providing relief toconvicts in Newgate prison, met Thomas Dangerfield, who,upon his release from prison, had requested that shestore some documents in her Meal Tub until he came totrial. Through an anonymous tip, however, one SirWilliam Wailer is reputed to have searched Cellier’s MealTub to discover that what Dangerfieid had claimed werehis trial papers were in fact documents, allegedlyproduced by Catholic plotters, which falsely accusedlocal Whigs of a conspiracy to kill the king.2 Cellier,who contested this account of what came to be called the‘Meal Tub Plot’, was arrested in June of 1680 for herA large number of pamphlets documenting Cellier’s alleged crimes still exist. See,for example: The New popish sham—plot discovered, or, The cursed contrivance of theEarl of Danby, Mris. Celier... (London: Printed for T. Davies, 1682); The Newgatesalutation, or, A dialogue between Sir. W.W. and Mrs. Cellier (London: Printed forthe use of the students in Whittingto&s Colledge, 1681?); The midwife unmask’d, or,The popish design of Mrs. Celliers meal—tub plainly made known... (London: Printedfor T. Davies, 1680).2 Fora rendition of this standard press account see The Triall.of Elizabeth Cellier,at the Kings Bench Barr, on Friday June the 11th, 1680 (London: Printed for RandalTaylor, 1680)11supposed criminal role in the event. She was acquitted,however, then re-arrested for libel in September 1680,found guilty, and convicted when she attempted to publishher side of the Meal Tub Plot story in a pamphletentitled Malice Undefeated. . . . Of course, such pressreports of the time cannot be relied upon as accuraterepresentations of ‘historical fact’. There is noevidence--outside of the press documentation--thatCellier ever met with Dangerfield; nor is there anythingto suggest that Cellier was ever involved in a conspiracyto kill the King.4The subsequent representation of Cellier’s allegedcrimes in the London press after her conviction, however,would invariably focus on the Meal Tub Plot. Thisrepresentation of Cellier was part of a larger output ofCountry Party street literature produced during theExclusion Crisis of 1679—81. The Country Party (or WhigParty, as it came to be called), having the support ofmany London nonconformists and Broad Church advocates,had held a majority of the local London government seatssince the Act of Indulgence in 1672, which had grantedElizabeth Cellier, Malice Undefeated: Or a Brief Relation of the Accusation andDeliverance of Elizabeth Cellier (London: Printed for Elizabeth Cellier, 1680)Many historical accounts of The Meal Tub Plot assume that Cellier was responsiblefor the plot. See, for example, John Kenyon, The Popish Plot (London: Heinemann,1972) 190, and Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (London: PeregrineBooks, 1978) 371. In “Cellier, Elizabeth,” The Dictionary of National Biography,1937—38 ed, however, it was claimed that the plot had been the creation ofDangerfield, who alleged he had been employed to concoct the ‘sham plot’.12dissenters the right to participate in political life.5The Exclusion Crisis came to a head when supporters ofthe Country Party attempted to pass a bill in the Houseof Commons which would have excluded the Catholic Duke ofYork, (in the absence of a legitimate Protestant heir toKing Charles II), from succession to the throne. It wasgenerally feared by nonconformists that the Duke (if evercrowned) would introduce a more authoritarian form ofgovernment similar to that of France, which was known tobe intolerant of Protestant minorities. This assumption,that Catholicism led to the instatement of absolutemonarchy, was common in England at this time. In thewords of Sir Henry Capel:From popery came the notion of a standing army andarbitrary power. . .Formerly the crown of Spain, andnow France, supports this root of popery amongstus; but lay popery flat, and there’s an end ofarbitrary government and power. It is a merechimera, or notion, without popery.6The exclusion of the Duke of York, a converted Catholicknown for his indifference towards dissenters, then, wasdeemed necessary by Whig politicians whose main concernwas to maintain a nonconformist London government.As a result of fear of the political consequences ofa Catholic monarch, much of the Whig nonconformist streetThe term nonconformists generally refers to those various dissenting Protestantgroups outside of the established Church of England. Presbyterians, Baptists andeven Quakers actively supported and belonged to the Whig Party. N.H. Keeble, TheLiterary Culture of Nonconformity in Late Seventeenth Century England (Leicester:Leicester UP, 1987) 60.6 Quoted in Kenyon, 2.Ii-o—Hc-I--iiH-ciLIIC)C)P3itP3H)‘z3Hbci-CDHIoL’(DIH-I.Uorriu,CD30lHCDH0HCD1CDIIciiH-::y:D:HctoZrI-IEID-ci-H-HC)cii0II3ciC)ciL(DIH-(DWS0IIIfrhIDH-ciH<ci)H-H-ci-Q.iQCD0HCDWI-Il(DCl)<CDP3CDCDH-H-H-‘QitciciCl)•tScil-top,“0Hc-I-toticHc00ciH-CD3•HCDi-f)H)ciH-ciC)I-IJCDCDP3c-tnI-I-I-I-IciciCDciititCDCDP30CDci-F-’-ciI-00WIDI10—(D-tci•H-)P3H-•ci-H-‘ti0ci(lI-II-<ciP3it00ci-H)CD00I-jl-to0P)0H-HP333P3Ci0CDCici-H)0CDP3CD‘—‘CDci-HCDCDi0II-IH0-ICD0I-I(1piQF—ctj--c-rtooH-bH-itP3‘-<IjaH)p3fl(DH,H..0-<00CD0H-CDci-’ci‘<CDCDC)‘s00rt,--3H)XCDCDCDciCDC)Hci-ciP3I-ditP3CDCDCDCDH)ciciHHP3cfCDci-CDCDHCD0ciH-l-CDHC1t0(DH,J0“toZ’H)0P3P33it-CD-CDC)ciCDCDCDP3c1rtrtp’0D-ID0CDC)ci-3Cl)CDQci)bitHciC)C)P3IDrI-0c-I-0-itciC)0F-’-P3H-I-tiH-CDbbciitHP30-ci-p3iQcn000HciI-Ici-CDiQP3CDCDCDtiH-ci-CDCDci-CD0O<ID0C)H-P3H-H-HP33HC)C)30C)cici‘10itoCI-CtrttotoCDci0C)0I-<itH-P3P3itHCD3ciH0<totoHi.QP3P3ciI-bci-ciH-C)CDNHUtI—jt(DrfQH-IlHC)H3ciHciCDCDIIC)cici)Q‘dCDH-0P0IDtoH-ci-ci-C)0CDC)CDCDH-CDciciC)I-bCD0CDciciP3itP3‘sH)ciP3CDtoc-r-H-IliciciP3CD3030CDCDH-P3CDbci-‘IDIl0”<—CDH-toci-H-C)‘ZIH-H)itH-0H)ciHci-CD‘-<ciHh0I-IDH,NitciciCDH-)C)H-‘SHc-I-H,--ID00n3CDCDH-CDCDQP3ci-H3Ici-P3CDCDIiI-IC-IH,CDH-C)CDciCDbH-C)H-itC)P3H-ti’to•tLIPiciP3CDCDci-ci0H)HCDCD0H-Y’P3ci-C)H)-‘°-ci3P30ciCD0CD30itH-0ciCD-t-DOH-(DID_!1N--tociH-it‘t3ciitC)ciP3H00ci-I--UQ(DI-t3ciP3CDciCD•P3CDit‘QH-0ci-H-to 1-‘IDflI-ci0CDit0ODH‘ti0C)CDC)I—’H-0rI-arI-i”--CDI-bitI-dH-ciHHCDCD•H-:3CDci0IDCDCDCD00CDCDCi-<p33I—’b’C)P3cici1-°CDCDciI-d3H-CDitCDI—’CDCDP3C)to(DH-I-II-’IDi-’oo,CDCDciI-tiitCDHP3CDciHXC)HC)HH-toIDI--cD’itH-0H003H)CDCD0P3CDtICI—’ZH(DIDw0itP3H)ciitCD‘ZIciH-P3P3CDI-’-c-I-iltoç):3i-<ci33ciitP30CDCDQci3CDP30OItic-t0-CDciCDit<HCDci-ci-H-1toIl-tic-I-toH-coCDCDP3ciH-CDHH-P3CDP3H0‘QtoII-I0I-’-oHIDtoP3ciH-0ci-ciitCl)ciCD0I3ci0IID0)0P3itH3P33-CDI-’-CiHiC)F-’I-°-Cl)IH-‘-<H•‘P3I-C5H-0P30CDciiit:3HH100(IIH,iOtotop3ciitHit00HH-itit0‘-QCI-(Dlt3H100to-itciH-CDCDH---IH-H-CDC)0CDH-H-CDP303H-0ci-H)ciP3ciCDHici-CDCDp3CDF-’0I—’Ifri,HIH-H-F-’CDci-‘3H-CDci0)totoC)itI-ICDP3P3itC)IP3:iciCici-0HF-’-CDCl)CD14texts through references to her livelihood, nor that hervisual image would be referred to in descriptive texts asthat representing the ‘popish midwife’. What thisconventional form of popular representation provided,then, was an established means through which Cellier’smidwifery profession became associated with her allegedcriminality. I therefore intend to analyze how thisassociation of Cellier’s ‘popish’ crimes with hermidwifery practice was constructed. My analysis of thepopular representation of Cellier in The Popish DamnablePlot (Figs. 1 and 2), The Solemn Mock Procession... (Fig.3), and The Happy Instruments... (Fig. 5) will establishhow the different religious, political and medicaldiscourses on popery and midwifery came together in theimage of the ‘popish midwife’ to depict midwifery as acriminal practice and thus operate as an implicit attackon the profession of midwifery itself.The Popish Damnable Plot, (Fig. 1) is a largebroadside engraving (13 1/4 x 19 in), the upper portionof which is composed of twelve numbered images;originally a text appeared directly below the image (Fig.2) .0 This engraving claimed to document particularcrimes committed by Catholics against various officials10 BM 1088, December 20, 1680. M.D. George, Catalogue of Prints and Drawings in theBritish Museum, Political and Personal Satires (London: Chiswick Press, 1870) 641;David Kunzle, in his The Early Comic Strip (Berkeley: University of California Press,1973) states that the top portion of the print is now located at the British Museumand the lower at the British Museum Library, Luttrell Collection, iii, 142 (press—mark: C 20f).15of the local London government. Cellier’s participationin the Meal Tub Plot is depicted in the sequence ofimages numbered V-VIII. Similar in format but larger isThe Solemn Mock Procession... (19—20 in), a broadsidecontaining an image in the upper portion of the printwith a commentary below (Fig. 3) This broadsiderepresents a particular event in London, the pope—burningprocession of November 17th, 1680. Cellier isrepresented on the first pageant float of the parade.These processions were put on by local Whig andnonconformist elites in an attempt to rally support forexclusion.’2 The Happy Instruments..., is a smallerprint (10 1/2 x 13 7/8 in), composed largely of an imagewith a small explanatory text at the bottom of the pagereminiscent of the broadside format (Fig. Theengraving is a fabricated and mocking representation of a‘popish plot’ to reinstate Catholicism in England.Cellier is shown in the lower left of the image as anaccomplice, both to the plot and the pope’s attempts torecover England from Protestantism.In my analysis I will discuss how these images usedparticular contemporary conventions of visual politicalBM 1085, November, 1680. George, Political and Personal Satires 632.12 Peter Burke, ‘Topular Culture in seventeenth century London,” Popular Culture inseventeenth century England ad. Barry Reay (London: St. Martin’s Press, 1985) 31—58.13 BM 1114, George, Personal and Political Satires 682.-I-.CDCDOC)’o.g.F-I--IOt-1,G)OctrOCD-000W0(D0.00CD0•0 CD00I—CDCD()OEOP’—‘I:’jzO_0P’O•CDCl00Coa’—<CD0H000.W0WH0 0W0fl.00P’CD.000—F0C—C-’-ICDC-’WW-’-WcCDCDWF-CtCl0CDC-’-CDlIME1—’’--’l—’CDCD‘OWO(lC)E’•CDtoP’IIWPIC-’0CDF-I-’Ol-1(DWlJCD0.CP’CD ‘—‘.0II,ClCDCD00rr0-Ctfl00D)0H1CtCDC—’CD0.—3—‘0prI-’-CDCD0CD00’(0C)HCtp1(00lIMOCl0-H-(CCrtCDHD<0OWCDC-IC000E‘DI00’—’‘DI—‘I-lCDHopI-0CuEt-rH•(000(00II CDW-’CD‘(1-00‘I—30-CD‘—‘I--’.0CD011000Ctl-ICCDI-’-OOCDZOO‘0‘0CDCD0CI-0- CDCDH-IIctH-‘COP-)SH-H)COMH-COC)CtC)CO0CD(DCD‘-CIH-0CDCDI-I0I-pCP3‘-CI‘-CICD0‘-CI0ci‘-CICDCD<‘-<H-H-ct‘,QHIII-CtCtCDH-CDIICOCDCOctP3H-CDCDCDi-’iP3<‘-CDCs)CtH-H-‘-<H--COCOH-0CDII•H-CDC)COH-CtC)C)-CD0CDCDCOHP3CD-H)CDP3H-P3H)P30H-COH)H-CDHN<HCt<Ctrt-——P3CtH-P3CDCti-cCDCDH-s-QP3Cl)CDCD‘<CD3I—’0coCDCDØCtP3Cl)ciciCl)-‘cictCl-’CliQCl)C3•.ctf—-’pictjCli(l)(DH-i-cCDCliciP3ct(1)jC)l-HQCDH-ciIICDCDCDH-H-IICt‘CICtJ0P3DCOCOCDCtH-‘-CI0CDHH-CDCOH-DCOC)CD‘CIHCtcici0COCDH)Cl)CDI-p3CDctJ0I-CD‘-<ciCtH-HCDH-ctC)CO‘-CIP3P3H)<C)‘-CIH-IICD<H-Ct0CDCDCD0Ct‘-CIciti0CDH-P3<‘-<Cs)H-CtCtcicihiI-’CDQH)CtH)I-ICDH-H-CDCl’H‘-<P3C)P3P3H-ctiØLiH-iC)C)Ct‘-<Hhi0I-ICtCDCOC)P30ciP3P30CD0CD-<ty’CD‘1p.-‘sCtP3‘-PHHCtHciH-P3‘-<p..CDCDCliP30H-HHHCtHCDCtHtY’hi0.-C)H-CICOCDH‘-CI‘-<H-CDI-IH-Ct‘-i-‘-P‘.0CtCOCD‘-<P3hiCDH-CDCtCDiciCDCDCDCthiC)ciCtII-.COp3I-hP3C)H-Ct‘-IH)CDH-CliCtH-CD‘-jCO‘.Q0CtIJ0<01CO0CDCDP3ciP3Cl)hiCOCDciH-hi‘-CICD$2H)‘-CI—.C)tYCO0CO—P3H-‘.COP30hiCOH)CtHH)0hihiciP3H-CtC)hiCDCDP3H-H-i—iDH)CD‘CIP30COp..CDCOCDC)0C)P3P3CDH-‘CIP3‘-CICOI-’H)H-CDCDHCDCOCtS—CO‘-CIC)I-ihiIIhiciNH$2”‘iCO‘-0hiCD(I)Ct0C)‘-CIC)H-CDH-0H-H-CttYCtCDCDC)COH-H)0P3P3CD<Ct‘.0—ciCOCt0CDC)CDHhi‘.COCDI-IH-COp3‘-CICtCDCtCD‘.0ciCs)CtH-H-‘-CICt•CDCD•CtHHiCDiCtHCOCtC)‘-CIP3CO0C)C)CDCt‘-<H-CDP3H-H-H-P3P3‘-CIP3Cl)CDHCOCtP3iiH-Ct$2hi0C)CthiCDH-hiCtCO0H-‘.0P3iCtIIp..p..P3CDH-CtCD0P3—Cl)HhiH-Cl)CtCt(Iit30P3-iH-C)CDC)H-P3CtH-‘.0CDC)CDCtCtP3COH)U)P3hip3COCD03H-0COP3HH-CDCtH-Cl)H-H)—HH)hiCtP3tQ.P3CI$2P3‘.0p..0COi-CDCtH-CtH-I—cCtciI—’P3CDIIH-F-’çtCti—cCt-Ct01H-CDCDHDCD<CDCD‘-CIH-CDp35CtI-ICD•H-0COCO•‘<COH-H-hiCD‘-CIHCOCtH)COhiH-01H-COI-ICDCOCDP3$2CDCO-I-.CD I1CD$2CD1 CDCD’l- CD‘lCD(OX,-•(1C-t.(OOl)itI1liz(OctC-Cr,‘lIDzpCD 1•(DOCOCDoZ C)01H I-’ CD CO (C 0 Cr, CD z cCitH-C)C)r)p,<t;iii-JH(PI-DF-’-00CiH-H-CiCD‘tSiiCDitHH0(t)p.CD‘(30H-IiHp.IiCoH-HH-H-CDI-I‘(3CD0itH-CiitHitit(J1<CDH-CDH-it3p.CT)C)bp’-CiH-H)iiC)NitP-C,)(0CoCl)Ci‘1IiCDH-CDtiCiCD,CDCDCiCD0H-C)0IiCDIIC)CDp.CD(Dcop.r1p.iitiC)CoCiCT)H-CDICC)CDCDCDCDittiH-CD‘<itCDIiL.QCo-itNii-‘30<CDp.&•CDQoC)C’)-C/)H-C)CC)H0H-0I-HCC)CDyCoCDHit0(3’HiCDII(C)Hti•p.pct(CiCDH-0CiCDCl)CiH-itQ‘<F-’-iHQi-1-(C)f—’(C)H-0(C)Hi0iCs)Cs)0Ct)0itC)‘<<(C)H-h(3H-H)p.Co0H-Cl)-.(C)J’0,.Q1—o1(CDp.i-tp.CoH-CDitCDH-I—h0CDC’)CD0CDF-’(DC)H-H-III-p.CDit‘(3itHiND<CDit(Dit‘.QCDH-CDCoQit•coCDCDH-‘(30‘3W0Qp.itCDIi0itIiCoCDit-t--•CD(C’itp.(C-’13CDCDH-,hJHH-CDtY’CDO0(P(C).H-iH-H-0Cl)HH-CDSp.LiCD(0(Pt—’.I-p.frH)H)p.CDH-,oypitNCoDsHp.CDCDH)H-:ooCoCo0C)CDH-CoH-CDH-<C)‘(3IiCD‘(3H-ICDit.HiHI--sp.Qbj-,j‘)3CflH-0Ii‘<1tQCiIiHH-I-Ci03CDH-itO1I-1C)CD5CD-.CDCoC)H-I-’itQHC)CD(CCo(CCDC)HiO(P(PQCocotiH-,H-‘(3I--’-p.HitoittiCoCiCDCDCDit0itCDCD(3)IIt3’0CoCOO<citiIICDH-,H-,(I)Cs)it(C)‘(CiCl)(ClF-’-CDCDC)‘(5(i)(J)(/7it‘-P0it‘C)CoCs)p.H-CoH)C)Hi’13CT)Ci(C)C)CDitii(C)CiCDCD(CItCl)H-C)CDD’itI-1000Co(C)Cs)it(C)i‘CD(3’Cl)C)IiCs)CDH-OCi,)H-IiCDCo‘TIH‘(3(Cp.CH-tiOCDHp.(C)0CDH-IIH-0(C)(CH-ii-Co(C)(DtiitCo.13’tIC)C,)I-CCD(I)Cs)H-p.(31Cl)H-H-CDO.•ti0Co0(CCl)‘CD—‘QitCop.H-CIH-.itCDCi0C)‘<CDCs)it•(C)H-.3H-itCD(CitH)CDHi0itHiCDC)CDCOctCDLij’(Dp.Ci‘itD’00NCl)CDIitH-O1p(PçliH-CDitC)‘(3it(C)H-CDH-,1itHI‘HH-itCD’ittiI-CD’C)HCD<0H0‘.QY’CtIC)H-•CoCDit0H-CDLQCl(C)Cs)I-H-(C)Cl)I—’CDH-tiCDC)It.•H-CoitH-frCl)itCD‘-PCDCD‘iCDitCDJ’.p.0CDit•p.C)HiiP0CT)(CI-CD(P13CDIiCs)H-CDH)CiI—h‘13C)Cl)IIiCoCDitCDit(C-’HiCDC)F-’CDH-Ii‘‘-<(CitCD‘(CCOH-o‘C)COH-p.itI-IitI-’‘TICT)1:1tiCD‘(3CD‘<CoCDOit0(C-’i(C.’H-CD‘QI-ICoC)0CDNIiCDCoito(C,C<liHF-’-itp.p.itCDiH-CD(C)‘TIitCDit•CiiCoC)0it0(C-’CDCDCDIiC)H)CoCoCoHPJCDO(CitCi‘QF-’-CoCDp.CD0ititCDF-’-HCD‘TIa-itCOittitiHCD0Cop.cot—CDt-’Co03Ii‘CD(C,IiCDH-’itI-’-p.11itH-(C)itCDH-IlCOCo‘it(Citit0H-itI0CoF-’-(3’CD‘-H)(C’ii-(PP.’OftH)H-(3’p.CDCDit‘.QCoitCoH‘-PCDCi 1 H‘-P it H- Cl) ‘ci CD II H 0 p. (3’Il 0 (C) p. Cl) H- p. CD C,) (Ci p. Co H ‘-P I-’ CD Co Iz’ CD CD itI-’—118image is located below the title and above thedescription or ‘explanation’, which dictates to theviewer the intended meaning of the print. I shallconsider how this format of representation operated notonly to depict Cellier as a ‘popish’ criminal andmidwife, but how these conventions were used to bringtogether these two aspects of her public image as a tacitcriticism of the midwifery practice she represented.In order to understand how these representationscould have been interpreted by London viewers, I willfirst establish the precise context in which they wereproduced. The two questions I will ask in this firstchapter are: Firstly, what were the politicalmotivations behind the prolonged representation ofCellier as a ‘criminal’ midwife? And secondly, what werethe conditions in London during this period for theproduction and distribution of printed political imagery,such as that representing Cellier? A detailed analysisof the images themselves will follow in the next twochapters.The Restoration of the English monarchy in 1662included the re-instatement of the Licensing Act, andwith it the imposition of a rigorous censorship onEnglish printing. This Act stated that all presspublications were to be licensed by either the Secretaryof State, the Archbishop of Cantebury, the Bishop of19London, or the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford or Cambridge.’7Thus it was that the London Gazette, which represented agenerally pro-royalist and pro-Church of England point ofview, was the only licensed newspaper in London duringthe 1660s and 1670s. Consequently, political informationwhich questioned the authority of both the AnglicanChurch and government could only be printed in non-licensed texts (the publication of which was sporadic),or circulated in hand—written newsletters ormanuscripts.18 However, in 1679, when Charles IIprorogued parliament because of its insistence on anumber of occasions to re—introduce the Exclusion Bill,this restrictive Licensing Act was temporarily lifted.The King dissolved Parliament at the very moment when theLicensing Act was due for renewal by the House ofCommons, and thus Parliament could not renew the Actuntil 1681.As a result, the lifting of censorship coincidedwith the highly emotive and complex political situationbrought about by the Exclusion Crisis. By 1679,nonconformists and Whigs in London had grown increasinglyuneasy over the issue of exclusion because of the gradualincrease of Anglican Court party members in the London17 Christopher Hill, The Century of Revolution, 1603—1714 (New York: W.W. Norton andCompany, 1980) 21318 Harris, 100.20city government in the late 1670s. Many of thoseaffiliated with the Court Party supported the Duke ofYork as legitimate heir to the throne, and their presencein local government was seen as an attempt to retrievelocal control from dissenters. Nonconformist fears werenot restricted to the Anglican Court Party. Charles II’sdissolution of Parliament had been supported not only byCourt Party supporters, but by members of the HighChurch. The issue of exclusion for nonconformists,therefore, had both a religious and political focus. AsGary De Krey has stated, exclusion was consideredessential for nonconformist local government “because itwould preserve intact the civil supremacy over thechurch.. . The popery of the anglican prelacy. . .had to beguarded against as much as that of Rome”.3-9With the lifting of censorship, these conflictscould suddenly be articulated in the London press. Manyof the local London printers during this period werenonconformists, and those who favoured Exclusion tookfull advantage of the relative freedom of the press(unlike their Court Party adversaries who printedrelatively little) in order to disseminate theirpolitical opinions to larger audiences.2° GenerallyGary S. De Krey, “London Radicals and Revolutionary Politics,” The Politics ofReligion in Restoration England, eds. Tim Harris, Paul Seaward and Mark Goldie(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990) 89.20 Harris, 97.21speaking, Whig street printing documented two relatedevents during this period. The first was the politicalproblem of Exclusion and the second was the ‘popish plot’of 1679 and subsequent plots of 1680.The first so-called ‘popish plot’ to occur duringthe Exclusion Crisis was in 1678, when Titus Oates, anadventurer who had converted from Catholicism toAnglicanism, confessed to Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey, a WhigJustice of the Peace in London, that he knew of a ‘popishplot’ to kill the King and take over England. Godfreywas found brutally murdered several days after thisconfession, and newspapers claimed that his timely deathwas part of the plot as had been recounted by Oates (foran example of this event’s representation in the presssee The Murder of Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey, Fig. 6). Thisevent fuelled local anxieties about exclusion and forseveral months panic is said to have raged in London.2’Producers of nonconformist street literature couldexploit fears of the ‘popish plot’ and the Meal Tub Plotin an attempt to convince audiences of the need toexclude a Roman Catholic from the throne. Certainly,this would explain why Cellier was continually referred21 Families living in London armed themselves, while two thousand men of the trainedbands patrolled the city every night. Particular streets in the city were roped offin order to control the movement of people while daggers bearing Godfrey’s name weresold and carried by those worried of attacks by ‘papists’. Fear of the Catholicattack was also felt at the governmental level: Before Parliament was dissolved in1679, it passed a law banning Catholics from sitting in either House. See JohnMiller, Popery and Politics in England 1660—1688 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1973)161.—‘1C)H)P3I-C)0L’IIIC)H)b‘—3J”H-ftftt-H-d03CD0H))(DCD0(DCoJ0Zft(Dft0HII‘QHftHH-H-<(D0-0oo-H-HCoH-CDII,.QC)‘i3HH-13’CoCDC)HIH-CDftCl)Cl’CD(1)1<H-‘QC)Cl)‘.QI-P3CDIi••C)LQH0ct0I-(0I-ICDHCoH-H1C)COH:3P3H-H-H-H)HCD13Q1313’(OHHI-I13’0H-l0P3H.Qp3ft0CoH-CO‘<13P)ClCDCOH-13C)H)CDHCDH13fl-13çtC)ftP3H-‘<P3tCDCOCOCOH-H-I-1<ClP3ft,-c,0H-t0p)CDClftCO13I-ft0CO13LIP3<H‘-HClC)‘-dCDIIL.QClClC013C)H-CDHC)ft13C)H-IH-CD1CD(0CD—H-ftH-H13P3H-‘<ft.Qft03C)C)<Cl)P3C)3’ftC0’<Cl)Ii3CDHC)13HCD133ocH-H-C!)C)13H-rtL1H-0-ft13ClCDftP30CDp3H0CDftCo(0ftH-‘t30130CoClCD13‘<131313H-Co013CD1CDCDH-13‘13HCDH0ct•13COC).NCD0H)0ClC)C)QHHC)ftH-ctCo‘<ct13’P3H-,HftCD‘•tTCDH-ftP313CO13•H-H-fth-3Hi-bCoCQCo0H-H13CD13CD•I-IftCC)P3H-13C)oo,,P3ftP313NCDClII•13H-(00CD13lCDi_i-0HftCD’13Clftft‘-d13IICDftH)13ftP3Cl‘-13’ClOH-P3-—CD13CDHHC)ICDH’Clp3H-0COHCDft1313ftJCDClCDCD0H-Ic)HH-13C)ftC)0I:’13iC)H-0H-ClftCO‘-dH)CD0frd13-HC)013P3p3ft‘Tip3CDft”0‘TICC)13COHCoIH-CO10 lCDP3HHCDftCD0H-13’13H-•ftCD0CDC)CDICo13CObCO13CoHCOH(DCI)•CO13ftClCOCDCl)-113P3Cl13CDP3CO0ftH-H-13’(TICD13CDHHCOI.13H-C)13CDHP3fttIH-‘—0I-I13HCDI.HiCl‘TIP3Cl13H-13H-P3H<1.‘H)ftP3H-ftH-‘I.0-ftC)ftC)13OJCDC)0CDIiP3CDC)I’TiH)ftCotJ’H-H-CoP3ClftHHClH13‘TI‘-C)ftHHP3IHft0CDCDHCDCOHftH-ftH-CDHft0H-CiNIc13I’P30P3P3H13CoCo513CO0H-HftP3CD0ftCDIrtHIICo0COHCDftCD13H-C)P3H-13CDCoH13I icClH)‘<13H13ftt3’H-13HH-HftH-ftCOftP3Cl130CDHftCDCiCoP3H-13H-Co0P3‘<H)CDP3H-CDH-CDftftCDH13H-HY’‘-C)ftC)H)-0N1<13ft13133Cli—ftHL-1CoCD0CDfti-ftH)CDH-Co0CD3HftClClP3CO<HCDft13.P3CiCDCl‘-C)CiCOCotY’ftCDCDH13HCoCDP3IP3HCDCo‘Cl0ft‘-3H0Co0ftHH)CDH-CDCDCDClNHHt5P313lCDCD1313H-Ci”13CoH)Co03CDP3‘-<ft‘Ti‘Tilt’13CDP3HCOHCoCDCDCDClftp313C)“CCD13CDP3ClftOCiC)0‘TI013C)ClP3HCoP3Ci13HC)‘TiH-ftCDftftH-H13H-0Co<CDHC)C)(D’-<PJ‘TI13H-HftH-0‘-C)‘TICD13C)ClCDH-CD13ftCDP3Ci0ft13P3H130•0CD13CoCoHICC!CDftftOCOCoCDHp313ft13•Co113HCD1313CC!CD131’-3HP3ft13F’.)H-C)ft0-‘)30H-Ift13Cl0•Clft113’CO‘TICDCOCD3t\)30P3H•HH-lCD0Ci•13’Hh130ftH)H-•‘<0H)ftH‘<H)H-IIC)CDH-Cl)0<0H-CoHCDH)H)CD13CoHH013IHt\)23according to J.R. Jones, “was to be found in everysection and class of English society”) was fuelled in thepress by the continual reference to alleged horrors of‘Bloody’ Mary’s reign, the Armada of 1588, and theGunpowder plot of 1605.23 This ‘history’ could be usedto demonstrate that the threat of Catholicism, and thereligious and political tyranny that it had come torepresent was a foreign menace, whose success withinEngland could be facilitated only by local Englishsympathizers to the Catholic cause. Indeed, it islargely because of the perception that ‘popery’ was anextreme local danger, that fear of ‘popish’ crimesagainst the nation could be exploited in the accusationof a particular person or group for religious orpolitical sedition.24Probably the largest institution to face suchaccusations during the reign of Charles II was the Churchof England. Increasingly during this period, dissenterscriticized the Church of England in anti-Catholic terms.This was not because Anglicanism was necessarily a threatto the whole nation (although nonconformist rhetoriccharacterized it as such); rather Anglicanism was thought23 J.R. Jones, Revolution of 1688, (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1972) 75.24 During the Civil War, the anti—Catholic tradition had been taken up by Puritanswho attacked the Church of England as ‘popish for its pseudo—Catholic emphasis onreligious ritual. While Anglicans, because of the threat to institutional religiousstability that dissent represented, had also returned the insult, condemning Puritansas ‘popish’.24to be a more specific threat to the political life (inLondon especially) and religious freedom of Englishdissenters. As Tim Harris states, “Nonconformistcriticisms of the Church of England were thus typicallyexpressed in the rhetoric of anti-Catholicism. . .Anglicanceremonies. . .could be condemned with the cry of ‘nopopery’”.25 Indeed, while the Exclusion Crisis had firstarisen from fears of a Catholic monarch, anxiety over‘popish’ tyranny was exploited by Whig nonconformistelites (politicians and printers) in order to criticizethe institution of the Church of England at home.In other words, the Whig rhetoric about the ‘popishplots’ in the London press during the Exclusion campaign,while overtly anti-Catholic, also contained an implicitcriticism of the local political activities of the Churchof England. Furthermore, as Harris states: “a clearbias towards a nonconformist audience can be found inWhig propaganda” which was used to criticize the Anglicanestablishment.26 Thus the construction of Cellier in thenonconformist press may have been an effective form ofcritique of the established church. Midwives licensed bythe Church of England played an important role inecclesiastical and civil courts as witnesses inillegitimacy cases, and because of this could be25 Harris, 73.26 Harris, 97.N) CD C) CD II CD CD CD CD CD C) CD rf H) Cl 0 0 CD 0C —C N) c.J3C)-p,it‘d-ititoCDP’CDIICD0citCDJ1CDH-0‘QI-IH-HdIi0COH-HCDC)H-H-0HLQC))C))rtH-H-C))::3iQCOH-C)itF-H-H‘<-C)tYCDC1CoC)itH-itCD0OHitH-C)H-IlCD0•(-tit)—‘itH-C)C)0HCOII-5II•CD00IlHCDCOH-C))C))CiH-H-CD0•HOIlCDtictCiiit0•<J’d’-QCDH-,QCOit<COCl)IIHHH-CiD-ç)octoNWCiCl)COCDbCO00iF-H-CDrtCD0dCOCD•it0.ijitctitQCOC10.CDit00NCD0CiP)0.iP)H)C)CDC))[-bC)—CiC))IlitOHH-0.COCOHiC))HC)hj‘zjHIlHCDH-itIICDitIIiCiH-H-0COj(DPC)CO<C))03H-‘<COCD0HIIIILQiC5CH-Ct)itIICDH-CO00CD•CD(D0CDP)L0CD<COitQ,0•P)itit‘ditCDCDIl0.CDH-CD‘IHitCOOH-CD0C)C))H)C))COCDCD•IlJitCDCDH)CDC)itCO0£‘JCD3t5HP)‘dCDII0.CDiCDCDCDCOHi•—]QCOitCD<C))-CDCDIlitIlC)CitHit0.CDititCDCD‘tjDCDCOCDCDitH-it0COC))C))COC))OHH-C)CDititC))COCOit1JHH-itCOC))COCiOCDCOitCDH-C)H-CO‘-<CDCDb‘-<CiaCDCD0.IlHiC)JCD0itIIOMH-C))H-0-III0CDCOOC))0.COCOCObiiICDCDHiII0CDQ)CDOCOH-COCi0COHH-CDctCDO.tSCOCOCDC)itCO‘tiCDitCDpCOCDIlM•itCOJ0CDH-COC))CDHiCO•CDCDCDCDit0CObH-it‘CICOJrtY<C)CDCDCOFC5HiHHHOMCDH-CDCDH-itIIH-0CDH-iQH-0C)CnCDCOctitCOClHCO‘tiH-COititctP)Q.H-COC))C))CDH-itHJC)ctH-t-3CDbC))itH-iIIitI-’0‘QCDJCDCDHHH-H-HIjH-itClCDH-CDitClC))QH-COH-CO0CDCD<0ClC)Cl)COC))IItY’CDI-’CDCDM•.‘rjCDit-C)C)DH-H-CDCDCOIl‘<C))IlH-oC)IIF-.CD’dt)0H-H-‘tiCiCiitCiCO‘-H1<P)CD<Hiit‘tiIICOIICD0itctC)IlC))C))itC))C))H-JCDC)IICiCDit‘tjiCDHH-H-COCDOH-COCDIIitII‘Z5it‘QIN0H-ititH-H-H-itH-0ICDC))HiCOO‘-IiI00HHiitClCOI-IC))Ci0itHiCD‘QitHH-IlCDititCDCDit0HCO$2‘-3COCO0CDCDCDCDCOC)QC))FCDCDHi0CDH<CDlHCDitC)H-FlitCDCDCDH-II00<HiCDH-CD I-i.C)itH•H-Ci<C)FlCDC))C)itIxJ 00CDI-C)COCO0CDCDCiC)NIIH-0C))C)CDCiHHit COCOHH-C)H-itCDCClII-iCDCiititH-‘1CCDCDCHiHitit•itCO0•CDCD•C)•II00C)CDi-‘t3HiCDCiIxjII0<1IIH-CDIICDC)LQCOII•CDH COCD01ititCOCO—p-itC)CDH-iiC)0CDitCDCOC)DHCOIIIIH0H-CDH-HiitC))CDC))H-itFlCOC)CDF-’-H-COH-COt\) 0126Statements such as this attested to the importance ofinexpensive and widely distributed street literature forthe Whig cause. Indeed one Court Party writer isreported to have complained of the effect of excessiveWhig literature on the people of London: “‘Tis the Pressthat had made ‘urn Mad...Polemical political images were not produced on aregular basis at this time, and occurred--it has beenargued by M.D. George-—largely as a result of “civilstrife, war, or near rebellion.”29 Certainly, thepresence of various different kinds of imagery during theyears of the exclusion and ‘popish plots’, then, wouldhave signalled the fact that London was in a state ofunusual political crisis. Broadsides, single sheetprints, and playing cards--all of which were modes usedto represent Cellier——were some of the most frequentlyprinted forms of imagery for political purposes duringthis period.3028 Sir Roger L’Estrange Observator in Question and Anwser 1, 1680.29 George, English Political Caricature, 17.30 In addition to various kinds of political imagery, a large number of texts wereproduced in the format of news sheet weeklies such as the Domestick Intelligence, asingle news sheet printed by the dissenter Benjamin Harris which documented news of“both City and Country” from a staunchly Whig point of view. Pamphlets were alsoprinted and could be anywhere from two to fifty pages in length. The pamphlet formatwas usually used to discuss a particular issue, personality, or event in more depththan the news sheet format allowed. Such pamphlets had a wide readership, for notonly were they inexpensive printed political information (indeed, they were some ofthe cheapest goods for sale at London markets), but locals spoke of how pamphletswere read and passed through so many hands that they would begin to disintegrate.rrw()IIH-dCl)‘QHI(Tiit)Ci)IIpi‘tJH-C)I-IU)CDI-iF-CD‘0CDt-U)Cl)0Cl)H-I-I0Cl)IF-Cl)<1Ci‘z3H-‘z5CDMlH‘tiCl)H-p)‘Z5IC1itCDrhoCD(DCDHI-ICT)tTP30CT)I-CDti<IIlH-h10-rhHClP3CDIICDCDCDIH-bH’P,hD(DCl)I—I0U)itH-1Cl)C)tiU)H-H-IU)H-Cl)W10iCDU)-U)tH-itCDH-CDiP3H-CD(1)0•III-iIII0iP3CDi.QitP3Ci0iU)U)i(1)iI.0CDititi.Q0H-HP3Ml0ititI.Hi—.oH-CD0CDMl0Cl)HC)(I)C)0)itH-I.(j)prh(DCi)‘1II0c).P3F-tctitHi•—a0Cl)flCD00hOCDCD-CiCDCDU)CD‘-<()0HC3’-hP3hditCiH-CDClP3CDClzQC)H-CDC)0Cl)CDU)IIiH-ctCl,C)rtCD-CDitI-0‘tIH-HCD0itMlC)CDCl)oz_i—oHU)H-Cl)ClitH--C)0HH-0C)I—’CDII0-P3HCD‘t5CoC)‘-<•CD3Cl)CDii0H0hoC)-oI-CDU)H-•0IIH-it0iHU)CDitI-IH-H-CDidP3CDCDCDU)CDi0[‘-.)0U)CD0CDI-Cl‘-ColDF—i-bIiU)CDbP3iQMH-CD0Ci011I—’P3U)CDH-W-CDQC)HCl)II0MlitCDClP)H-H-•hiHI0H-C)CD‘—aP3‘-Q•P3—IIU)ClCiH-CDH-0itP3idit•I--CDiditU)‘.QCDCDCl)CoCDitIidMlU)IIIiCDH-•P3bP3CDCDCDU)CDH-CDit-HQCD0•<0CDHIiQCD0ho -oC)H-P3-1<U)Cl)U)H-bCDitMlMlC)hiP3CDH-H-it‘‘i00it—.0)I-SOCoH0CDP3Ci0LQU)Cl)itCDH-Zi0itH-U)CDiti•itI-itCOHitlCDhHCiCDCDCDD’IIU)P3U)P3MH-CDP3ClCD<CDit<C)iiCD•it•H-CD-•00-oEM)jHCDFC)U)‘tjblQCl)itCDU)itCDU)Cl)P3IH-MP3H0C)CD‘o U0CDMC)U)H-0CiH‘CDCDU)CDMlCDClCD-C)bP3(ClU)H-U)CDCDor-sHU)0 sCl)CDCl)H-H-MHHCD0Ml5U)CDCDbH0CDitU)CiitHCD0itCiIIP3H-0‘ZIiCl)IIH--J0-oCDH-U)C)P3‘tj1<‘rjP30HMlH-it0CDHithi0H-III-CD0bU)C)P3H-LQP3ClP3IIibP3CDClHIIitciititi.QitClU)°I—’P3itU)H-H-)H-U)‘-<P3H-WU)itit-0 0CDU)Cl0CDiti0H--CDit0H-JCDCDCDP3CD0H-it‘t3—C)ClCD<C)0 0-CDU)ititU)U)ititC)IICDCD0ICDC)CDitH-10JC)H-P3Ml0ClIc00Cl)hb-MlCD o-00lI<10H00(ClIhbC)MlCi0HMlitU)H-L.QP3iIIIIMlII0IF-0HH‘C5U)C)CDCDdHIIHU)Cl)0CDCoU)bClH-H-CiC0-CD0itCDH-‘<Cl)Cl)itIi-IDit0U)C)HU)H-0ititIDitI.itCDCl)IiiCsCDU)CiMlH-CD01(1)I.0Cl)Iz lCDCDU)0II-CDI•MlitCl)Ci“CDiiCD“ICl)H11dP3Cl)CD0itCDU)H-it‘-<CDIHU)0Cl)11h0-0CDit•.QIcCiU)it0•P3litC)CD0--itU)CDII28communicated orally.33 One satirical pamphletdocumenting Cellier included a short ballad. Suchpolitical ballads representing a Whig perspective (ofwhich many were produced during this period) were newsongs sung to established local melodies, either byprofessional ballad singers in the streets or by those“hired to ball in coffee houses”.34 Many Londonershowever were literate, and for them, immediate access todescriptive texts in political imagery was possible. Ithas been estimated that in late seventeenth centuryLondon 76% of shopkeepers and craftsmen could sign theirnames (given that most learned to read before they couldwrite, the percentage of those capable of reading wasprobably even higher), while women’s literacy isestimated to have risen from 10% in mid century to 48% atthe end.35The fact that the images representing Cellier weremore expensive to produce than pamphlets (because of thehigh cost of engraving) did not mean that they were seenby only those who could afford them. Because of thevariety of methods used to circulate political imageryand texts during this period, the potential existed forseveral different kinds of audiences to view political33 Harris, 102.Harris, 100.Burke, 49.29imagery. Coffee houses were a continual source ofpolitical news.36 One contemporary complained in 1681that “we have the Coffee-House Tables continually spreadwith the noisome Excrements of diseased and laxativeScribblers”.37 Political prints similar to thoserepresenting Cellier also circulated in coffee houses andwere posted on coffee house walls where more than oneperson could view them at a time. It was also a customthat proprietors of coffee houses kept packs of playingcards illustrated with images of various ‘popish plots’for their clients’ use in games and gambling. And, forthose who did not attend coffee houses, broadsides weresold in marketplaces and bookshops, as well as posted onthe outside of buildings, thrown into coaches of passersby, or, if the political message was important, simplygiven away.But once Londoners came across the prints ofCellier, how would such works have been viewed? Althoughit is near impossible to assess individual responses tosuch prints, it is nonetheless certain that the politicalcontext and distribution of the prints documentingCellier would have informed the meanings of such imagesas derived by their London viewers. In other words, themanner in which “interpretive communities” responded to36 Harris, 98.Preface to Protestant Loyalty, quoted in Harris, 98.30the representation of Cellier as ‘popish midwife’ and theWhig political message it contained would partly dependon the local political context I have outlined above.38With this context in mind, it is necessary to analyzehow, to paraphrase Chartier, the Cellier images and theprinted works by which they were conveyed organized aprescribed reading about both the issue of ‘popery’ andthat of midwifery.39 How did the format and formalcharacteristics of each image of Cellier attempt toaddress their different viewing audiences and impose aparticular reading on those viewers? Further to this,what function did such images serve in the formulation ofcontemporary opinions about midwifery? I will addressthese questions through a close analysis of the images inthe following two chapters.Chartier, 157—8.Chartier, 157—8.31CHAPTER TWO:CONSTRUCTING ELIZABETH CELLIER AS ‘POPISH’:THE PROCESS OF REPRESENTATIONIn order to assess how the visual representation ofElizabeth Cellier operated to represent midwifery as acriminal practice, I will analyze in this chapter howCellier was defined as a ‘popish’ threat to England.In The Popish...Plot (Figs. 1 and 2), The SolemnMock Procession... (Fig. 3), and The Happy Instruments...(Fig. 5), Cellier’s representation was part of a complexcriticism of the Anglican Church and its political elite,which used the rhetoric of anti-Catholicism (and thenational danger it represented) in order to rallynonconformist Whig support for the Exclusion Bills. Inthis larger critique, Cellier would be associated on theone hand with treasonous acts allegedly committed byCatholics against the state, while on the other depictedas a criminal capable of acting on behalf of the AnglicanChurch elite in the destruction of the Whig opposition.In my analysis of the three prints, I shall explorethe ways in which Cellier’s representation as ‘popish’seemed to deem her (and the midwifery practice sherepresented) as part of a system of Anglican religiousauthority which presented a danger to the very survival32To do this, it will first be necessary to establish howthe Cellier prints belonged to a tradition of printedpolitical imagery of ‘popish plots’. This tradition ofrepresentation would have provided London viewers with a‘previous knowledge’ of the issue of ‘popery’ and itsrepresentation in the press; thus informing viewers’perceptions of both Cellier’s alleged crimes and hermidwifery practice.In addition to this tradition of ‘popish plot’imagery, the Cellier prints were also of a particulargenre of political print. For the purposes of myanalysis, I shall consider as belonging to this genrethose pro-exciusionist prints of 1679-81, whichrepresented various ‘popish plots’ from a Whig point ofview, in the form of inexpensive broadsides and singlesheet prints. My basic conception of this genre works onthe premise that seventeenth century English viewerswould have perceived such representations of ‘popery’very differently than we do today. For, in the words ofMichael Baxandall, such viewers would have been“equipped.. . with different visual experience and skilland different conceptual structures.” The second partof my analysis, then, will assess how this genre (boththe subject matter and forms of these prints) created aMichael Baxandall, Patterns of Intention: On the Historical Explanation ofPictures (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1986) 106.33viewing context in which it became possible to perceiveCellier and the midwifery she represented as a perfidiouselement in, and potential threat to the social fabric ofthe English nation.Thirdly, I will analyze how Cellier’s ‘popish’representation was part of a larger nonconformistcritique of the Anglican Church which used theconventions outlined above to address Whig andnonconformist audiences, not only over the issue ofExclusion, but also in relation to the Anglican Church’s(and midwifery’s) involvement in matters of social andpolitical control. This analysis will demonstrate howthe construction of Cellier as ‘popish’ was politicallyand religiously motivated and will serve as a basis formy discussion in Chapter Three of how these printsfunctioned to criticize midwifery and construct consensusabout its definition among their seventeenth centuryviewers.Since the sixteenth century in England, popularstreet imagery in the form of single sheet prints andbroadsides had been one of the main public forums whichrepresented political events in terms relating to thedanger of ‘popery’.2 Indeed, according to M.D. George:2 In addition to political prints, information about ‘popish plots’ during thisperiod could also be acquired through Christian and astrological almanacs (which manyhouseholds owned), playing cards, and emblem books. We know, for example, that theMeal Tub Plot was discussed in an almanac by John Gadbury in 1685. See Bernard Capp,Astrology and the Popular Press: English Almanacs 1500—1800 (London: Faber andFaber, 1979) 93—94. For the representation of ‘popish plots’ in emblem books, seeM.D. George, English Political Caricature to 1792: A Study of Opinion and Propaganda(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959) 52.34“in the public mind recent history was largely asuccession of plots” which had, at politicallycontentious moments during the early modern period,received much attention in the London popular press.3Generally speaking, this tradition represented‘popery’ as a shocking and serious threat to national andsocietal unity. Such accusations of ‘popery’ had oftenbeen used for the purposes of discrediting political andreligious enemies in times of crisis. A particularlystriking example of this is found in The KingdomesMonster Uncloaked from Heaven (Fig. 7), a Civil War printwhich represented--in the shape of a monster--aconstellation of Roman Catholics (‘papist conspirators’)and Cavaliers (‘malignant plotters’). Through thecombination of both image and text this ‘monster’--ametaphorical construction depicting the dangers ofCatholicism--is shown poised to destroy not only theChurch and Parliament, but also the City of London andthe entire Kingdom.Previous representations of ‘popery’ such as thisattest to the fact that by the 1670s London viewers wouldhave been familiar with a general form of anti-Catholicvisual rhetoric which combined text and images in aAccording to George, English fears of the re—instatement of Catholicism in Englandhad been expressed in single sheet prints depicting the Spanish Armada of 1588, thealleged Gunpowder Plot of 1605, and the massacres of the so—called Catholic ‘BloodyMary’s’ reign. This phenomenon would continue until the early nineteenth century.See George, 16.35manner which was often metaphorical. This rhetoricdepicted ‘popery’ firstly as an abstract threat to theChurch and state, and secondly as a more localized threatto the safety of individuals. The Kingdomes Monster...(Fig. 7), which uses the construction of ‘popery’ as ameans to criticize Anglican Cavaliers from a Puritanicalpoint of view, also revealá that the nonconformistcharacterization of the Church of England as ‘popish’ wasnot a new phenomenon in 1680. In fact, according toRobin Clifton, seventeenth century English Protestants“were educated from birth to make certain assumptionsabout the nature of the Catholic religion and. . . it waswithin the framework of these beliefs that accusations of[Anglican] popish responsibility for the war were heardand believed.”4The characterizations of the established church as‘popish’ in exclusionist prints, then, would have beenparticularly relevant to those Puritan viewers who hadlived through the Civil War. In fact, many of the Whigsinvolved in campaigning for exclusion, whom ChristopherHill has called ‘the old Presbyterian interest’, camefrom Puritan families who had been politically activeduring Interregnum.5 Within the context of the ExclusionRobin Clifton, “Fear of Popery,’ The Origins of the Civil War, ed. Conrad Russell(London: Macmillan Press, 1973) 145.Christopher Hill, The Century of Revolution, 1603-1714 (New York: W.W. Norton andCo., 1980) 199.36Crisis, the representation of ‘popery’ was therefore apowerful and well-established means by which to addressnonconformist audiences both over the issue of theCatholic Duke’s exclusion and with regard to the Churchof England.The Cellier prints, as part of this tradition of‘popish plot’ imagery would represent ‘popery’ as both anational and individual threat. In addition, however,they also shared a number of characteristics common tothe genre of the exclusionist print: Firstly, theyrepresented many similar ‘popish’ crimes and figures informs which would have signalled their Whig message ofexclusion to nonconformist audiences; secondly, and aswill be elaborated upon at a later point, they wereprinted by publishers known for their Whig andnonconformist leanings.6 These characteristics provideda familiar framework through which their Whig andnonconformist audiences could perceive Cellier andmidwifery as ‘popish’ and criminal.The subjects repeatedly represented in these printswere the London Fire of 1666, (a fire which haddevastated much of the city), the murder of the WhigJustice Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey in 1678, the pope anddevil, and various English plotters (such as Cellier) .6 See page 50 below.George, 52.C)<IIP3ftP3H-CDçtp3ft‘-QdIICDH-[ctIioHCD0H-CDHP3Cl)iC)HiH-CDC)0C)C)0HIICl)ftp3CDCDP3H)II‘<—ft0H)ftH-hI-cihQ0CD3iH-I-’C)ft<CDH-rtjQQftLH-H-ctHCDH-0CDCD0CDftp3iH)DiCD-0.CD1H-oMCDP3HiCDWHCD‘1CDp3XCD0IIHC)<9)‘tICDHHCD0CDciiHftCDftC)H-HH-H-CDJit1<P30ciHIIC)2C)P3C)P3CDCD‘CDH‘dCDCDP3CD933ftH)oH-‘z5H)H-HP3‘tiH-iftCDII0HhH-CDH)H-ftP300CDftIIHciCD0<ftC)H-CDP3CDCD—0HftCDHCDH-CDCDftft>‘CD0H--H itCDP3CDCDb0CDCDHP3CDHftCDt.Q-HiciftC)[10ftCDcici::y’ctHP3ftftH)P3cto•HIIcCDp3it‘<H‘-aCDsCD:3 CDYH-C)CDP3I-HftCDCD:3CDcioCDp3HCDHH-CDC)CDP3HCDHftH)ciP3ftCD;‘sft<CDH-‘t30-0H-I-ICDC) P3ftCD0HlxiH)CDC)CDH-xiCDci‘•dCDHCD0H-5ZjLoH-HHCDH-CDH)C)-H-Cl)oC)CDciC)P3::3HIIitCDQH-H-930ftCDHCDCl)0P30P3CDH)HCDF-IH-CDif)CD<H<s:ih3CDCDCD05HIiCDlftF-’ftciitCDp3CD9-)CD93 C)C)CDititC)CDII00-‘CDII0C)IIftCDH-ciCDft‘tiCDitiQIIIIciIiCDftP3CDe‘.<0ftCD0 H‘dC/)CDftH-0P3MCDft HciciH)C)HII0P3939)I-I0H11ftC)ftHhHHiCD93CD0P3‘tiIIH-I-LIIIICDCD-ftIICDftDCDH-‘<CD‘t3H-0ftH-IIH)9)P3C)ft9)H-ftH-CDF-’0ftciCDciCDHCDciH-<‘ti-H-CDci0H-ciHHiH)9)093H-HftCDC)-.9)93ftP3HC)1:1’CD‘<CDCD CD CDF-COCO .Cnt°ihiCo c-rflWCoCo -- 0(0-to HCoN (Dc-hIi::0ND’(DZ“‘0 CoCotCo)-O(DflctH-(0(0(0c-c-nCoN 0--0‘0oFcDD)C,) hi xCo0Dh)-0’ H- Co I-, 0 ‘0 Co 0 Co c-h Co I-’ c-flCoftCD‘tiP3ciCDCDP3CDH-CDCDftIiciI-19)ft-IIb‘tiCDCDH00HI0ci‘t5H-H)‘tiftIICl)H-P3CDDP3CDH-CDCDCDCDHciCDciC)-H93QftC)P30H)9)CD0II0ftciftciftiiH-IIII-CD0C)ci93CD3,C)C)13P3•ft09)C)I-0CDI-IHHH-cQh‘<ciHF-aCDNCDC)CDCDH-‘QCDH-J‘t30-HCDH-0H0•93H-P3QciCDH-HMP3CDftCD-HQP3CD<HCDCDC)‘-<CDCDC)H-II-CDIICDH-ftH-ftCDCD0H-Cl)<CDH-,.QftCDciCDHci93H-HCDbftCDHCDC)9)ci0H-0CDCDH)CDciCD0ftIIP3CDCDCD0CDftC)II0ftP3ftiftCD0CDCDftCD‘-<MCDci0C)CDftMCD0CDciH 0 I-I ft P3 Ii ft H ft CD CD CD CD CD ft 9) ft H 0 0 H) CD ci C) CD CD ft CD 9) CD ft CD(A)-J38contextualized, the result of which was the definition ofmidwifery as a ‘popish’ practice.The London fire of 1666, understood to have beencaused by Catholics, was represented in ThePopish.. .Plot (Fig. 1) . The fire’s representation in thepress was not new; indeed it had been discussed in aseries of anti-Catholic ‘Fire Libels’ since 1667. Atfirst these circulated secretly, and then appeared inenlarged versions after news of a ‘popish plot’ hadspread and censorship had been lifted in 1679. Theselibels blamed the London fire on Roman Catholics,claiming that it was the Duke of York who had plottedwith Jesuit monks to bring destruction to London.-°Functioning as an example of ‘popish’ criminality (and asa reason for exclusion), the representation of the firein the Cellier prints served to address not only thosewho had survived the fire, but also those who shared theview that the London fire had been part of a largerCatholic conspiracy.In The Popish...Plot (Fig. 1), the fire isrepresented as the first image in an overall narrative of‘popish’ crimes. The representation of the fire isdescribed in the caption that accompanied the print:George, 51.10 This perception that Catholics were responsible for the fire was widespread; eventhe House of Commons believed it to have been started by papists. N.H. Keeble, TheLiterary Culture of Nonconformity in Later Seventeenth—Century England (Leicester:Leicester UP, 1987) 60.39The First describes the Burning of LONDON, whichhath been proved undeniably by Dr. Oates. . .to becontrived and carried on by the Papists. A blessedReligion, that must be introduced by the ruin of somany thousand families!It is clear that this caption is designed to dictate tothe reader that the representation of the fire is notonly an image of a past event, but, more importantly, astatement representative of the potential ‘devastation’which could be brought on by the Catholic religion.Informed viewers of ‘popish plot’ prints during theExclusion Crisis would therefore have been aware of thefire’s status as the so—called beginning of recent‘popish plot’ history. In The Popish...Plot (Fig. 1),the images of Cellier, positioned in the middle row(following the well—known image of fire in the first row)constructed her not only as part of a broader context ofCatholic crimes, but also imbued her alleged crime andher status as a midwife with some of the danger felt bythose Londoners who had experienced the fire.The London fire is also alluded to in The SolemnMock Procession... (Fig. 3), originally sold as programmefor and promotion of the Whig pope-burning procession ofNovember, 1680. November 17th, the anniversary of QueenElizabeth I’s accession, had long been regarded as a timeof Protestant celebration. During the Exclusion Crisisit became a focal point for the pope-burning processionsin 1678, 1680, and 1681, each of which was designed to40create popular sentiment for the Duke of York’sexclusion. The processions and subsequent pope-burningswere considered a symbolic act of retaliation to thealleged burning of London by Catholics.” These parades(of which nine occurred in 1680 alone) took place atnight and circulated through many of London’snonconformist neighbourhoods in front of audiences of upto 10 000, and ended with the burning of effigies of thepope and other Catholic figures (such as Cellier) in ahuge bonfire.’2 Such a dramatic scene would not havefailed to conjure up strong anti—Catholic sentiment.The circulation of procession prints such as TheSolemn Mock Procession... in market stalls, book shopsand coffee houses would therefore serve as a reminder,not only of the event, but also of what it representedfor many Protestant Londoners: the symbolic destructionof those Catholics who had (as it was commonly thought)burned London to the ground just fourteen years earlier.The text introducing this engraving refers to the Fire of1666 as one of the reasons why the procession took place:You must first know the occasion of this MockProcession to have been, that the Pope, Fryars, andtheir Abettors here in England, contrived theLamentable Burning of London; some ProtestantGentlemen, partly in a thankful Commemoration oftheir Deliverance, and partly to raise a justPeter Burke, “Popular Culture in seventeenth century London,” Popular Culture inseventeenth century England, ed. Barry Reay (London: St. Martin’s Press, 1985) 31.12 Tim Harris, London Crowds in the Reign of Charles II: Propaganda and Politicsfrom the Restoration to the Exclusion Crisis (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1987) 121.41Abhorrency of such Popish practices, do now bringthese Incendiaries in Effigie to the Fire they havebetter deserved.Whig organizers of the procession therefore exploited thenotion (which by this time had become a well-known myth)that the fire had been started by Catholics so as tosecure the support of locals in their attempt to pass theExclusion Bills. In doing so, they depicted the fire asone event in a larger conspiracy of so—called ‘popish’crimes for which associated criminals like Cellier weredeemed automatically guilty. The representation ofCellier within such a context deemed her as dangerous tothe well-being of Londoners as the fire itself.The murder of Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey was one of themost frequently represented events with which Cellierwould be associated in exciusionist prints. After hismurder in 1678, which had sparked local anxieties about aso-called ‘popish plot’, many prints were produced whichadvocated that Godfrey had been murdered by Catholics(see, for example, The Murder of Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey,Fig. 6). In The Popish. . .Plot (Fig. 1), Godfrey isdepicted being murdered in image number ‘II’. Thedescription below claims a pro-Catholic motivation behindGodfrey’s murder: “to deter all other Magistrates fromintermedling with any Affairs relating to the Plot”. Thecombination of text and image here functions as an ironicforewarning to all Protestants, that the ongoing ‘popishCDH-ftdC)ftH-—0QbCoH-‘tiCDUI-ICoIICDCo2iII00CD0III-ICDHftCDFlCDCoH-00H-0$1HHI00C)C)FC3II0Di<1CoCoCDCOfth.QftHiCDHC)ft()ftHI-Fl:ifttYH-CDCl)CDD•CDFlCODiCDCDCCDCDCDHftFlFl•DlC)0dDiCOCD0DiHCDCoCoCl)CoCot-CDH-Di0CDi-LQFlHiI-1Cnft<iHCoftI-’-CoCDCobdLJDlH-CD—P.)-CDCD‘tiH-DiH-00COoHCoFlH-DiCoC)•CO$2II0CoDiftHi-CDCDCDCDHCDHftQc-f--.Di0$2COHCOHiCO$2C)0C)•CO$2ftC)HCDftc-f-H-F-fCDH-CD•COctH-DiHCDDi0i‘d“<CDiH-DiC)H-f-ICO•H-CDD0:5$2i-ctftctft-f-ICD$2Cl)COftCDCO$2COCOCDDii‘<ooCOCDDi$2ftCDH-—0FlH-ft0$2H-0‘dCODlCO$2Fl0“IDiHi0ft“CDHDiCo‘ZIC)HDiftCDHDiCDCDH-HHi0CoH-‘.QH-CD0‘<0CODi‘<COFl•iCo0FlDiFl°ftC)DlCDH-COctH-0CoH-C)•00$2ii0CDCDDiH-I-bftFl$2CD$20CDDiCDH-‘.CDDlDiQH-ii-(iCDHiFlH-$2LiCoftDiCo‘-Q‘t5C)i••CD$2<FlCDHiSCoftDiCDHDiDiFl<1-CDC-iCDH-CD0I-QC)CoCO00DiJ$2CD$2‘<HiC)CDHC)‘<Di0ftCDC)‘dC)‘1CDCo$2CD-CD<H-CDftC)FlftHiCoI-I0Di0Di5H-CDCDCo0Co‘CoCo--Fl0-DiCD0I-I-ftH-CDiH-iFlftftCoCDftCDFd$2ftftCDft$2CDH-DftftHiDiCDFlHiH-$2iQtjftH-CD.ft0COHiDiDiCD•Fl00CD0iDi-IDiCDFlHHiftH-i“<CDHiH-lFlCD00CDt.Qft0ftpiFlC)$2‘.<$2CD‘ftCoCD-ft0DlC.C)F-hH-JH-CDC)H-Flftft-DiH-‘dCoHiF-H-DiFlCoCDDiH-HiCo0Co0COft0CDiCO‘tJCDCoLQDiftft•H-0HftCDCoftftDi‘<$2C/CoftCoiH°ftCD00CDc‘t3ftH-H-CD0pi$2H-Co$2C)Cl)IIHCDC)0$2H-HCDDiftftDiHiDiCl)H-$20P1ftCDCoH-CDHiDi‘<CoFlCDP.’FlHCo(1)ft‘ddH-C)0Co•CD•CDCoCDH-FlFl‘dCD0DiCoC)ftiFl$2CDCoftCD‘<C)ftH-<0CoDlCDCDHH-DlHCoH-II-CD0$20$2H-Fl$2H-$2H$2H-CoFlftH-ftHCHiiFl0DiCoftCDCD0Hi$2Flt-$ftH-DiC)I-ICDiCDftDiDiCoCDCDH-CO$2CDH-FlCDCoH0t3H‘JCoH-CoHftCD<ft0iH-‘<ft‘-<CD00FlCOCoiHI-II-IFl-$2ft-DiHiHi$2ftH-$2•ii$DJ.QftCDftDi0000•DlC)‘<CT)00DiFlftCD0‘iCDHiCDftftH-CDFlCDCT)$2Fl$2DHi0CDC)$1-HiftHiDift0H-H-CoDlCo0FlICoftbCoFlHiCoJFlCDCDC)•DDi‘-<Co0ft0H-‘<CD•CDftftFl0Hi•IIDi43Lord Chief Justice Scroggs, (the Whig Justice whopresided at Cellier’s trial) Catholics had:indeed, ways of conversion.. .by enlightening ourunderstandings by a faggot, and by the powerful andirresistible arguments of a dagger; but there aresuch wicked solecisms in their religion that theyseem to have left them neither natural sense nornatural consience, by their cruelty, who make theProtestants’ blood as wine, and the priests thirstafter it.1-4The Protestant fear of a Catholic massacre, then, wasexploited in order to convince viewers of the necessityfor exclusionist policies. In the lower portion of theprint this myth is reiterated in the representation. Onecardinal is depicted whispering to another, with thecaption indicating the dialogue as concerning thedestruction of England “. . .by a general massacre”. Theimage in conjunction with the text would have thusconfirmed for viewers an already established notion thatCatholics were dangerous to one’s own personal safety.In order to further convince viewers that the above‘popish’ crimes had been committed by Catholics, TheSolemn Mock Procession... (Fig. 3) and The HappyInstruments (Fig. 5) represented the pope with a devilwhispering in his ear. Such a representation of the popeand devil together was a well—known Reformation image,which for many Protestants symbolized the anti-Christ.’514 Lord Chief Justice Scroggs quoted in Kenyon, 4.15 George, 5.COI-H-(DQF:3IIH-CDHiCOH-CDCDi it P3 itCDHI-0P3 Cl)0 MiP3C-) CDCDH<I- H-HiCDP3I-C) H-H-H H ititP3 itCDoCi)I-CDHi5oiiIIHitit:-Cl)CD oCidHCIcLCs)P3 CDH C) H it CD it CD p-s CO 0 0 Cl) H 0 it p3 CD (I) H CD I-. CD p-s H ‘—3 CDP3tYLIIH-Pj0C)itC)p3coctitii0C)CDP3ii‘-0J00H‘<JCDIHiP3C)itH-‘1P3CDCD‘z3$1CDCOHCDII‘-0CiH-3H‘QCl)P3CDC)ct‘(5CDdCoCDIIctC)CDCO0LQCD‘tb‘(5I-HHiHs.C)p3CDP3CDCDP3d00<P3Cl)p3o0H-CDititCoHICOctIIHMCOP3I-h-‘(5itHcC)tY3.‘(5CoCDitD’CDit0‘1<H-CDitCDCi<3HH-IIP30H-Cs)C)P3hCl)HfCOIIb0Cl)H-C)‘<NH-ititP3H3CDCl)CD-3H-Ci•0CDCD30CD<itH-HifrCOCl)P3•P3HLii0Ci0IIit1CDH-C)0CDCOp3itMi•H3HiCs)H-COCOClCOH-h(5H-CDitP3•Cs)QiCD0‘(5QCOC)CD0‘(5ClCDit‘(5HCDitH-—itP3P3H-•CDit3HCOitH•H-H-IIP3•0HCDIICoClH•0HitYCD0itCOCDCDCOCOitC)P3it•it0Ciit‘-3Hit0itH-CiCOP3H•itIII‘(5itP3‘-3H-C)COCD‘-<it-CDH-‘CIH-CD‘1CDIiC)CiCOitCD-f-H-2jIiHCDCD‘-C)CDCDHCDP33jCDH-CO0CDC)‘CILiiP3lCDHIIH-P3MP3C)C)itit‘CSCDP3MP3I-3I-IICD‘-C)II•0IIit0II‘(50itCD‘.QCOP3CD‘(3•CDMClitCiCD‘(3‘(5C)itDCl)H-03P3Ii00H‘(3C)1CDH-‘<P3H-0CDH-‘CIitClCDCiP3H—HitCOCOit0H3Cs)0HiH-‘<CO‘—HCDH-H-H-•H-HI33H-it‘(5P3itCD—CO3H-C)0Cl)Cl30C)CDH-MHi0H-HH-IICOH0ClCOCDP3it3H-HitCOC)IIP3itH-HiC)IICOP3IICD‘<CDCDhC)P3P30-0H-H-itCDCDitP3itI-IitH‘(3CiHCiitCs)HHMHiSC)CDH-0HIIC)0COCDC)H-0CDCDCDCDCDCOH-CDitCD0C)CDCiCoIIit0P3t-CoCDCO03P3itH-3HiI-COM-P3itIICDitCOH-tY’P3CDHCDCD<CDCDHCiitCO‘(30CD3CDitCDClp3HIHCOIIit•H-LIIHit-itCs)C)iiHHHH-03HiCDCD•l-3H-CDCD0itH-it-ICO0ClP3‘-C)0Cs)P3HitCl)0‘-3itIC)H3HiCl)H-CDCDCi3iiP33’C)..HI‘-<H-H-•H-itCOCOClH-CI.’H-0CDC).’CDCDCDICs)C)H‘CICDt-itCDCDCO‘CSCDHHiH-H-J.’3.’0CDI-CiP3‘CI‘-P3CDCD‘-C)CoC)IICD3‘CIH-‘—3HClCDCDH‘-C)II•‘CIC)P30‘CI-it‘C)0CDCi)0‘(5P33‘CIHCDHH-IH-itCDit’dCDH-itHitP3UiCD0HCDC)H-II‘CICD•H-H-Cl.CDH-HIIitHLiiH-CDCDitp.cnC)‘.QitCDCi-HitH-CD0itHIICs)0itCD‘CIt.C)P3CDCDC)l-CiCl)H-C)HCDClitO‘CIIIIIHCOiC)CDCDCDClit30CDCOCOH-H-‘CI0IIH-H-CO0itCiCDH-3itClCDP33H-H3’Ci)Cl)I0P.’CDI45attempts to re-establish Catholicism in England. Becauseit was argued that Catholicism could only be reinstatedin England through the agency of local sympathizers,Cellier’s characterization as facilitator would havedeemed her extremely dangerous to English society.’6Indeed in the words of one Whig Member of Parliament inan address to the (mostly Anglican) House of Lords, onlywhen such English Catholics were completely removed fromEngland would it be safe from the treasonous threat theyrepresented:You have not yet made any steps towards the safetyof the kingdom. It is not removing popish lords outof the House (that will do it), nor banishingpriests and Jesuits, nor removing the Duke from theKing; but it must be removing papists from thenation. As long as such a body of men are here youmust never expect that the Pope, with hiscongregation de propaganda fide, will let you be atrest. Till you do that, you do nothing; when thatis done you need not trouble yourself with thesuccession. 17Typical of other exciusionist prints and in keepingwith much seventeenth century political imagery, thewell-known events in the Cellier works were depictedthrough a detailed combination of verse, text andimagery. Such a form of representation was a usefulmeans by which to depict events and individuals in a waythat could be metaphorical and often intentionallycryptic. For example, in The Solemn Mock Procession...16 Kenyon, 92.17 Quoted in Kenyon, 92.0 CD 0 I-1 CD CDd3H-C)H-P3P3CO0C)‘dC)H-IIrtCOCOP3CoII—COP3C)iIii0ditP3H)‘-00ctCDCiCiF-CiCDCDhjCOI-Iit1H-:‘-UctitH-‘U3dCiC)‘t3itC)IIH)H0itH-C)CDCDH-H-itCOCiCOCl)MCOC)‘t33CDCDt.QC)H-H)H-P3itI-DH-HH-CiCDCD00‘IIH-C)0H-3p3CDMCiH-CDCOP3t5CO‘-CICOIICiP3CiD.p3‘-CIII.C)itCD‘tICDI-COçt‘.QitMCT)itHCiHit1CDP33’H-H-M00H-CD3CD1CDP3P)COCl)H-Cl)H3P3CO0CDIIit<0CDCO.IIHIIi.QCOrtl))H-‘d<Coct•H-U)H-P3H-0H)HIICDitQ•itIICD0itI-0C)Cl)0Cl)C)H)C)H-P3CD1H-CD0I-tyCit-C)H‘CI0CDitCDl)3CDL.JCDCiCDIHCOP3CO1H-IitDiCD‘CIH-Cl)CDitII3P30C)0CDC)CDC)COIIH)I-IC)CDCiI-CCi00CO‘tICD0COCDP3itCD-H-ititCDCl)H-CDCOI-CH)‘-tI0CD-‘CH)‘-<itP3CoitL‘<hCiHP3H)COCDC)3I-C3’CDCiCiH-CDP31‘<itMI-CititCiCOP3itCDCD0itCD‘-QI-CCl)H-‘CIHH-0itCDCOCDP3‘CICDitC)‘CIHitHCDitP3I-C0‘CI03it‘-CI3CD$2IIH-bCDP3CDCOH)$2CD$2H-CDI-$5H-0it00CDC)‘<$2itII0Cl)Ci$2P3H-P3CDCOCO0I-CJHC)COitCl)I-CI-C‘CICDI-CCiCDI-$COp33ititH-JCD$2P3H-CDCiH-3it$2CDP3itCDH-C)iCH-CiCD3I-CH-‘CIitH-t5itiHCDCs)3COH-0$2HC)itCDJC)HCD‘QitI-$itI-CH)CDCl)H-P3P3CD0CDH-H-$2C)0COitP3-H-CDCiC)Hiti0COCs)C)itP3•itCC)-N0C)P3H-0H-iQH)P3CDitCDIITCDH-CiP3‘-CIC)H)C)P30I-hHCOiI-$t3H-H-H-CDCO0LQH0HCDP3H-QitCDCD0itCl)C)Cs)CD3H•‘-CICiitCOH-$2I-<itC)3CiCDp3H-ft‘P3C)CiCDCDCOCl)300H-P3‘.QCD$2COI-C0CD‘CIit0C)I-hI-C‘-IIH-CDH-COH)II03HI-$0MI-CCDCiH-P3CO0“<00itCD3H-P3CIC)H-IIIIH-sQCO-HH-itct‘C)C)$2CDMCD‘-CIH-CDC)‘-CICiH-I-C•P3itP33H-P3CDitH-itP30•0I-CP3CD$2I-CCi‘-CICD3Ci3-HJ‘<I-$20HCDitCiitCO0I-C•P3CDit•I-hH-COXCiMCDP3H-0CD33C)‘-CIp.it0H-HitCDP3IIH-I-’C30I-CH-CDP3I-CC)P3H-bP3CO3‘-<3H-H)COitI-C‘--aC)C)DiH-HH$2C)‘<C)H-t)CDCl)1DCDCDCO‘CIHCDP3COCiitI-C3P3.QC)CDH0CDHHH-P3COCDCDHCD0it00HCiHHH-COHHitititL.Q$2P30I-CitH-I-Cp3CDftCOCDH-H-H-CDCDH-I-hP3itCDCDC)C)CDH-COCDCDCDP3$2H-$2CO0COCOC)I-$I-$P3‘-Q$2P333CDCDCDiitP3-COLQiQ-NP3H)C)it3P3P3COH-CD0CDC)30tY’000$2IIi-CCOI-CitNHitI-CCDCiP3CDit“<H-itP3CiC)HP3C)P3P3CDCl)H-P3$2COitit‘QH-‘-CIH-COCiCDCDCOH0itCOI-C$2CDCOCDCOIIC)Cl)CDC/)C)bC)CD‘dCDCOLICl)C)Co‘-Q0‘dC)LICDH-00<0LIF-’-CDCDP-H-CDCi0IIpjLIt.QpHH-tCIH-C).Qd<ititCoH-Ct1<LI0SCDCl)<C)it‘H3LICDH•LIHCl)5tCDCDP)dSitH-JLI)itCiP-CD30HCDH-CDH-CDLIH-Co0HHIICD0Cl)Cl)COHCDitHp33CoIIC)CDHDCDCiF-’-H-HCDCDH-II0CI)JCl)P1‘1P130CDitCl)XC)CD1))CDN0CDCDC)P1H-HH-HitQ00itLICoLICDCD3Qit-it0coCDH-H-0C)H-Cl)Cl)Q.LIH-P1çtP1‘t5CD0DiC)C)3C)0<0HCDCl)itrtDC)0F-IC)CDCil.Q)H-3Di•it0H-it‘dC)0çtpiHH-CD•totoH-Cl)0C)Cl)H-HitCl)1Cl)0I-HH-<3CC)Cl)CiDDi0P1H-PiDiCD0F3p)LrJH50H-30Cl)CD<itHCD0C)IIpi•LIC)JiDiHCDCDH-H-CD0itM-H-CDIIititLI•CoitCD0LIHC)LIHCi0C)CDCoCDH-LI•CoititDiCDDiitCDLIctC)CDp.1piLI0DiitCDCoD’H-pCi3LILIt<LILIH-HitCl)H-0iHCiitH3H-0CDCoit0CoCDH-CoHit00LICoHH-0CDH0Ci5CDH-HCD<DiSitH-CD3CDitDiitH-0I-’0DitCl)H-Cl)CDCD50H-LICDLILI•CDDi30Cl)CDCD0Cl)LICiCl)0S•LICoI—hditH-DlLIrtCl)0Co-C)bj•HitCDCDit-CDDiH-dCDCDH-it-d0H-00<LIit0H-‘dLIH-CoLIQito5iQH-H.—.DiitCl)•it0CoitH-DiH-•1H-itH-Co•3itdDiCDH-0DiH-Cl)CDCl)LICDH-Di0it0CDClY’LICl)CoHH-3QH--.0(1)‘-<Cl)LICoLICDDiCD—Co••itF-hCoDLICDH-1Cot5LIClH-CD•.Q‘tiH-LI-CDC)t30•Cl)H-HH-(-i.)•H-0CDitCDHCDCDDiDiJCDCDCl)C)0CO‘tC)CoCi‘-<C)CD0ClLIHit3CDititLIH-0HHHCDitLILILIDiCl00DiH-H-C)HCiDi0çlitCDCDH-CDt5H-CDDlH3LISDi0H-Cl)LIitH-0-DiCoSH‘QitC)‘-QCDCDirtH-CD0itC)CDCDCDCD.QH-CDC)‘—aCiCDCl)CoCoH-0-Di‘S033Cl)itCl)C)ClH-CiCiH-•CDit0‘t3iit<‘-dCDitH-H,itCl)CoCl)0LILIDlF-’-DlH-CDClH-‘-<0CDit0itCDitCD-I—hH-CiHCl)LI‘-QCDH-Cl)H-,ClitH-LI0Cl0dClH‘-aCDC)itit•H-F-h350IC)itCl)it5H-LICDH0itDiCDCDHDiDlH-I0LH-CDCD‘t5C)I-’CDCD‘-I—hCiit5CDCl)0Cl)LICiLIHCDCD‘t30it‘tiit5HCoH-HCD0itLILICiCiDiCDH-CD‘zIFtPiDiDiPiLIitC)0LISLIitDiLIoH-CoLQitLI3CDit-CDCDI0CD1DitH-ititH-LISCDHClC)HHCiCDH-CoH-Ci35DiP.’•C)‘-<0H)CDHHLIC)LIit00Cl)H-ClCiitLQCDCoCDCitLICoCD0H0DiCoH0CDH-5LIH-,DiitCoCl0NCoDiLIClCDCDCD—348in fact created for the purposes of representing ‘popish’plots and was increasingly used by Whigs during theExclusion Crisis; (see also the print The Murder of SirEdmund Bury Godfrey, Fig. 6) 19 By only glancing at thestructure of such prints, then, contemporary viewerswould have known that this image was a Whiggishrepresentation of ‘popery’. In order to construct aconvincing argument for exclusion, the alleged ‘popish’crimes had to appear linked, as if parts of an overallCatholic scheme to take England. This narrativestructure was therefore a useful form through which torepresent unrelated events (such as the London fire andCellier’s crimes) as if they were causallyinterdependent. Thus the very structure of the imageitself helped to construct Cellier’s ‘popish’ persona,establishing her place in the purported Whig history ofsuch plots.The Solemn Mock Procession. . . (Fig. 3) was anotherprint whose form would have expressed to viewers itsWhiggish political mandate. The structure of The SolemnMock Procession... was similar to other Whiggishprocession prints as it represented the procession inthree separate rows in the upper portion of the image19 We know that as early as 1627, this format was being used to represent ‘popish’plots in Popish Plots and Treasons, from the beginning of the Reign of QueenElizabeth (BM 13). This print depicted among other events, the reign of theProtestant Queen Elizabeth, the Spanish Armada, and the Gunpowder P1st. See George,16.49with a descriptive text below.20 Similar to ThePopish.. .Plot1 this form created a structure in whichdifferent ‘popish’ crimes and figures could berepresented together in one cohesive, chronological‘history’. However, it’s form was also reminiscent ofprevious official procession prints depicting the annualLord Mayor’s parade.2 Indeed, according to Peter Burke,these pope-burning pageants and their representation inprint were “a kind of inverse Lord Mayor’s Show, designedto criticise rather than to justify the authorities.”22By mimicking this previously ‘official’ form ofrepresentation, the Whigs could therefore bring authorityto their political and religious claims concerningexclusion and the established church.In comparison, the format of The HappyInstruments... (Fig. 5) was not so overtly Whiggish asthe other two prints. It was produced in April of 1681,at a time when not only belief in the ‘popish’ and MealTub Plots was on the wane amongst the general public, buta well-known Whig engraver, Stephen College, had recentlybeen found guilty and executed for libel in an Anglican20 The producers of this particular procession print made the claim (at the bottom ofthe engraving) : “There will be no other true Representation of this Procession butthis”. This comment reveals that there was likely some commercial competition in theselling of these prints. At least two other procession prints from 1680 still exist.See BM 1072 and BM 1074 in M.D. George, Catalogue of Prints and Drawings in theBritish Museum, Political and Personal Satires (London: Chiswick Press, 1870)21 For examples of representations of the Lord Mayor’s procession, and a historicaldiscussion of the parade see David M. Bergeron, “The Lord Mayor’s Shows,” EnglishCivic Pageantry (London: Edward Arnold, 1971) 123—217.22 Burke, 31.50Church clamp down on censorship.23 Shortly after thiscoup, the King, with the help of the Anglican gentry,took control of the London corporation from localWhigs.24 Partly because of the recent execution ofCollege and partly because of this political situation,this image was intentionally cryptic in its criticism ofthe established church. The whole engraving, whichcontained only metaphorical references to Catholicism,could nonetheless be interpreted as either a directcriticism of the Catholic Church, or as a parody of theinstitutional hierarchies that the Anglican Churchrepresented for nonconformists.Another characteristic of these exciusionist printswhich would have further established their Whig messagewas the fact that they were printed by Whig supporters.•This was because during this period a printer’s name onbroadsides and single sheet prints was an importantindication to viewers of the political opinion theyrepresented.25 For example, The Popish. . .Plot wasproduced by an established Whig printer, Richard Baldwin,whose name appears on the bottom right of the broadside(see: Fig. 2) . Baldwin’s advertisements for political23 Stephen College had been accused of libel by an Oxford University Doctor ofDivinity (and friend to bishops) . This high profile trial was considered a politicalturning point for Whigs, who shortly after began to lose much of their popularsupport. See James Sutherland, The Restoration Newspaper and its Development(Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1986) 112.24 Hill, 199.25 Sutherland, 13, 19.51pamphlets and broadsides appeared frequently in Londonnewspapers during the 1680s26, and his name on thisbroadside would have informed viewers that this was aWhiggish representation of the ‘popish plots’.One of the printers of The Solemn MockProcession..., Nathaniel Ponder, (whose names is in thebottom right of the engraving, see: Fig. 3) also hadnonconformist connections. Ponder, the son of anonconformist mercer, specialized in publishingnonconformist writings and literature.27 To dissenters,his reputation as a nonconformist printer would have beenwell—known, thus signalling to viewers that the politicalopinions this print advocated were of an anti—Catholicand anti-Anglican nature. Before actually reading theseprints, then, viewers could have understood (only byknowing the printer’s name) that they represented at onceboth an argument for the Duke’s exclusion and a criticismof the established church.Thus far I have outlined how the Cellier prints wereof a particular genre of exclusionist representationwhich functioned to address nonconformist and Whigaudiences. I will now analyze how these genres containedan implicit critique of the established church and how26 Baldwin, Richard,” Dictionary of the Printers and Booksellers who were at work inEngland, Scotland and Ireland, 1557—1775, 1977 ed.27“Ponder, Nathaniel,” Dictionary. Ponder would have been well known tononconformist audiences and readers of Puritanical literature as he was the originalprinter of John Bunyans Pilgrim’s Progress, a work so well—received that he producedthree editions in 1678 alone.52this functioned to construct Cellier as part of theAnglican interest so feared by nonconformists. Perceivedin this way, Cellier would be characterized as a dangernot just to Protestants, but specifically to localnonconformist government control.The association of Cellier with the Anglican elitewas not arbitrary, precisely because of Cellier’s statusas a midwife. Midwives, licensed directly by the Churchof England, could serve the interests of the establishedchurch by maintaining control over such social issues asillegitimacy and abortion, while playing an importantpolitical role (as legally recognized witnesses to suchcrimes) in both ecclesiastical and civil courts. It wasthis authority of the established church over privatesecular matters of which nonconformists were so critical.Generally speaking, the nonconformist challenge tothe authority of the Church of England in these printstook the form of either a direct association between theAnglican and the Catholic Churches, or the AnglicanChurch was represented in metaphorical terms reminiscentof the Catholic Church. This first form ofrepresentation is evident in The Popish.. . Plot (Fig. 1)in image ‘IX’. Here, three criminals are representedattempting to murder the Whig Justice Arnold. Followingthis, the explanation informs us, a small image depictsthese same criminals destroying their ‘Treasonable53Papers’ after attempting the murder; while the next image(number ‘XI’) represents one of these men delivering newsto the pope of their attempt. Unlike other images inthis print, these pictures are not accompanied by aspecific textual description. In fact, the descriptionof image number ‘X’ does not even refer to the man in theimage: an Anglican parson who is supervising the conductof these criminals. Thus the representation of thisAnglican parson is somewhat ambiguous. The image isfollowed by one of the pope who is also representedadvising these same criminals. The juxtaposition ofthese images creates a reference to the similarity of theauthority (and tyranny) of the Anglican and CatholicChurches. As a result, both of these institutions areaccused, through this representation, of working to thesame ends--the destruction of the Whigs (represented byJustice Arnold), and by extension, the well-being ofnonconformists.This notion that there is little difference betweenthe actions of those of the Anglican and CatholicChurches (that both are indeed ‘popish’) is alsoestablished in The Solemn Mock Procession... (Fig. 3)In this image, although many of the figures are obviouslyCatholic (such as the monks), not all of the churchfigures are representatives of the Catholic Church. Forexample, the bishops in the middle row wear vestmentsPiH-2MH-ftp-b0bMP)CDt5Cl)CD0033<0‘3H-CDCDHH-ftCD‘tictHJCDi3CDHHiCtCDH,-C)MH-C)ftCDCtC)3ft0CD0‘—0IICD0ft0H-COD0J0:ii0CD-W’-3IIH-H-CDIIF-H-3ftfriftCD3CDCDdCoft-‘-CDCDOCDH-C)bCDH-DC)H)H-0HiHCDCDLQ.0o-HiCDftH-ftH-CD0Ct1‘ti0Hi)ftH-H0b-<ft‘-<CDI-IH-H-HCUH-CUC)0$2CD Ci)frICDPJftLQCDC)C)CDIICDftCD$2CDII0J$2C)C)CDH-3NHH-$2CDft33UMCD<1CDct0HHCs)HC)H-CDft0i-iCDftCC)CDCDCD3H-CDft0CDHC)ftHHCDHcu$2’-<II)‘H-:3ftftHi$2UH-Hi0CDCDC)HICDCDH-H-CD<CDC)CDH0CUCDNP3frjoH-HLiLQHC)CDH-ftftH-H0CoftHZctPiCDi3H‘tH-H-‘tiCDJ0‘-QCUCoCUCDHftftCUH-CUC)CDCDCUCDCDESCDH-ftft$2UH-CUftH-CDftHC)QP3$2II•H-HCDES0C30MESH-pJCDESCUftC)H-N)ctH0ctCDP3CDES—CDCDESP3H-0ct3’ES$2CX)I-IftHH)00ftftCDC1MESHiCDP3CD‘-<ESC)H-H-OIC)ftH-ftHCUCU-.C)IICO00CDHMH-C)CDES’CDftftC)CuiH-ftH-UH-ESCD0CDESES’0HES’ES’ES’CUftESftESHCDftftCUCDI-’ H-)P3C)HCD0CDCDftES’D’C)C)CDES’ES’H-CDP3ftH-C)HiftCDp30Hi00C)ftCDftCDE”t3CDESCDCDESC)CDHftHp3CD‘tii—’P3-0oOCDCDH-ftH•CDES’HH-CDp3$2Ht-lCDH-I—’tiftHC)0‘<p3HNCDCDP3‘s’CDI—’CDC)03’ESb0QES••CDCDftH•CDHiH’CDI-ICD0CDCDCDESCUCDCD$2‘-aC)N)ciHiESp3CDftb’HiHCDES’HiES’coCDH-ftft0‘H-CD1<0CuiCDP3HftCDI-’CDHCDH-0I-IH-CDft0—ftb’ESESft000HHIftES‘-ftCDH-$2$2CDCDP3Hi0H-CDH-‘‘-Q0CD‘ftES0HCDClCDP3ftHiESES’C)HES’CDCD‘t50tQ0ftHdCDftLi0P30P3CDHftH0ESHiH-<H-ESHI—’H$2HCD0H---CDftCDHCDftH0CDCUC)CD0C)CDHCDHH-H-I-’HiD’QH-QbC)CUYp3HiP3p3C)C)P3H-CDCDCDCDHHHCDESCD 1HH-H3ES’ESL-Q‘tCDCDESF-’0P3ftCDft13H$2H0HESftP3ftES’b’CD0P3-0CDCD‘tI$2ClESH-CDI-’I-•ftHiHCDESESCDP3H•HCDCDH-CDCDCDCtCDHP3CDF-’H-b’Dftft-10P3H013HESP3H-C)H0w o13’CD0ESP3ftH-H-ClC)P30‘tIoftCDCDF-’ClF-’ftP3P3ES’P3HCUCDH-H-13’ft0CDESCl0ftCDH-CDHCDESp3H-0ESP3HCDHp3‘<C)ESftftCDHCl-J 0)HCDP3CDHCDCDF-’ClCDCD01CDCD‘IS55Many viewers would have been familiar with this referenceto calendars because of the insistence of the AnglicanChurch during this period to print specific churchholidays and saints’ birthdays in red letters in agrariancalendars. For nonconformists, this represented theunwanted expansion of the Churches temporal authority.Calendars were in common usage and such a reference wouldhave been understood by nonconformists as representativeof the Churches attempts to control the daily secularaffairs of all Protestants.3° In addition, the term‘second birth’ in this verse referred to the more radicalnonconformist critique of the necessity of holy baptism.Indeed many dissenters rejected the notion that one hadto be ‘born again’; and Anabaptists believed baptismshould only be performed on those who had chosen, at anadult age, to commit one’s life to one’s faith.3’ Suchreferences would have had an impact on dissentingcommunities wary that the rituals of the establishedchurch were representative of its asserted authority overall English subjects.Following the floats representing the Anglicanestablishment is an image of the pope, enthroned andsurrounded by more bishops. After the previous satiricalverse on the bishops’ float, the image of the king30 Thomas, 738—9.31 Thomas, 197.56attempting to kiss the pope’s toe (and subsequently beingstepped on) would not only have called into question thenature of the Church of England’s temporal authority overEnglish society, but also deemed the participation of theChurch in political affairs inappropriate. This imagecould thus be interpreted as an allegoricalrepresentation of the power of the Church of England (andin particular the Anglican gentry) over the monarchregarding exclusion.32 This premise originated from theProtestant notion that the church’s role was (in thewords of Luther) one of ‘caretaker of the souls’, and notone of a powerful institution that ‘interfered’ in localpolitics. Such a message would have been especiallysignificant in London during the Exclusion Crisis, whenthe largely nonconformist London Corporation fearedattempts by the Anglican elite to win back their localpolitical authority.A similar although less overt criticism of theestablished Anglican Church is also found in The HappyInstruments... (Fig. 5). This image is constructed in ahierarchical fashion, mocking the baroque visual languageused in imagery of the Catholic Church during thisperiod. The Whig ‘heroes’ of the plot are represented inthe glory usually used to depict heaven. The CatholicChurch as anti-Christ is represented by the pope and32 George, 5.1-CiH0C)iC)0ditJCD-‘tj-Ct5itI-H,lP)IICDH0iCDHM0CDdCD)UJH3CDH-CD0iHH-CDi1H-H--‘ICOII0CD‘CLCCDitLQpitHC)Cl)0H-CDit‘1HHCoCDitI-ICDH-itH-0)C)i0COCOCDH-tiHCODiiiCDL.QCOiCO0COClH-DiDiCOC)CD0itCOt-H‘t3COH-‘ZICDDiCOHDiCDit-H-C)H0DiDi1DçtDiDiH0H-C)0H-H-IIH‘<H-CDH-HitH-HCOitDiitHICODiC)CO-I-bIIiDiCOCl)0H-COI—b00-HH-H-•iH-H-COitC)COitctiCOClitCDCO0C)H-0C)DiitiiH--,it3DiCDtiCoCD•<itC)Di)H0IIDiCODiDiI-bHC)H-COH-C)COitHjitCDDiCDClbYDiCOCDIICO0it-CO0tiHHtiHI3H-CDIC)H-i•CDJ0CDdCO‘z5dIICDitC)it0-CDH-CDt-cIiH-II‘-<CD0CDitH-itH‘t30i‘dHH-H-DiI-CODl‘C3COCl‘-aH-C)ititHHtiCOtiClitClIItiD<COCDbCD0H-H-COH-H-COitCDCDitCl0CDitCDiCOiH-I-CDCl)H-CDCObCDDlH-DiCl<COti00ClCDtiClCODiDlb‘<C)ClH-0‘<Hct‘-aCDDi-itCl‘-<C)it0DiCl<itI-—.C)C)C)itCOCOctC)DiHCDCDititH-HCD0‘-<Dl0CDCDitDiitCOClIIDi•H-H-H,itH-itClI-bIIHitDiCOitCDCDCOit0Cl0C—i-H-H0H-Dit3DiCO0itDiitDlCDCDitDiH-Hit•HCDdCO‘.QI-bClC)JCDH-COClH-CDH-0CD•H-CDCDH-CDctCDCOI-C)CDCDC)CDCO‘CI•C)C)‘-<CDCOH-iqDiCOHCI)CD‘tIDlCDC)H-C)<•C)H-0Cl)II0DiCDLQ-NHitHICOH-CDittiCD0COHH-NH-Cl)d0CDIIitHH-H-Di00HHitC)CODiH-CD0YH-CDH-IIC-QH-iitClF-’-HCDDlDiC)itCYC)-CDitC)C)CDCDitCODitS‘C5CDtiHDiLQCDtiCODiDlI-IH0H-HitititCDH-it•CO0DiitNitH-HHCOHJDiiC)I-H-COI-Iititit0H-iH-CD‘-<CDDlCDCl)CDCDCO0COH-CDt0ctCDLiCDitII0Di0CDH-,Di0COI-itClitCODiH-$2HHDliti‘Zj—‘.pCOitCDCOHC)COHCD‘QH0•it‘iH-F-’•C)0C)HCDCDit‘<I-CDCDHDiClCO0H-Di•CO0CDCl-CDCOHCDH-•CD‘-<CD‘U0‘—3H-DiititH-HCOit‘—3H-•itClIIICOCOCltI—b0C)H-C)H-C)Iit0HCDC)itLti<H-DlI”-)CDF-’-‘itiCDDiiiititit$2H-CODi‘Q00H-CDCO‘Q—H-•IitiCOH-CD0itit0bCDDiC)CDCl)CDtiCDitititClCDHH-C)it•ititb‘100CODiCOitCDDlititDiHDiCDH-CDU-iCl0itCDitHH-itDiCDH-0COit3itt-$C)itHCDH-COCD‘<01COCO-—158Cellier was of a larger group aiming to destroyShaftesbury. As unofficial leader of the Whig Party,Shaftesbury’s religious and political opponents wouldgenerally have been Court Party Anglicans, who continuedto stop the passage of the Exclusion Bill in the House ofLords. Although Cellier herself was a practicingCatholic, her representation, given this politicalcontext, nonetheless affiliated her with the Anglicanthreat to nonconformity.Further to this, if one is to read the description‘popish adversaries’ as referring to Shaftesbury’spolitical enemies, Cellier in fact could be interpretedas a facilitator for the Anglican destruction ofShaftesbury, (he was in fact defeated by the Anglicanelite when the Exclusion Bill was thrown out in 1681) . Asa Catholic criminal who had acted on behalf of theAnglican interest, this representation of Cellier couldthus function to unite Whiggish Broad Church andnonconformist audiences over the issue of exclusion.The image of Cellier was also used to blurdistinctions between the institutional threats ofCatholicism and Anglicanism in The Solemn MockProcession... (Fig. 3) . In this print, Cellier isrepresented on a pageant float with Anglican parsons (in‘piebald’ --two coloured--habits, representing their ‘twofaced’ characters) who follow the Cavalier press censor,59Roger L’Estrange, depicted here as a fiddler. This imageassociated Cellier’s Catholic criminal status with theCourt Party views of L’Estrange and the alleged sympathyof Anglicans towards Catholics. The placement of thisfloat in the front of the procession is also important• for it implied that the actions of Cellier (and theseother ‘popish’ figures) would lead to subsequent crimesor treacheries. After this representation of Cellier,the recent political conflicts between the Country andCourt Parties are referred to in the representation of aman, his face painted black, shown riding an assbackwards. This was an old tradition of public ridiculewhich would have been known to local audiences of thisimage and the original procession.34 This satiricalimage is introduced by the title: “an Abhorrer ofParliament and Petitions”. Such a statement associatedthis figure with the Court and high Anglican factions,who occupied the House of Lords and who had not supportedthe Exclusion Bill. Cellier’s image, placed as anintroduction to this notion of Anglican rejection of Whigpetitions to parliament again constructed a link betweenher actions (here shown taking the plot papers out of herMeal Tub) with the political views of the Anglican CourtParty.Burke, Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe (London: Temple Smith, 1978) 188.60As the foregoing has indicated, the genres of printrepresenting Cellier constructed her as a ‘popish’ threatfor the purposes of addressing nonconformist and Whiggishviewers. This construction of Cellier’s public imageused established visual conventions for the purposes ofportraying her as a treasonous, ‘popish’ Catholic, whiledeeming her part of a system of Anglican religiousauthority of which nonconformists were not only critical,but fearful. Such a representation, within the contextof the Exclusion Crisis, would condemn Cellier as apolitical and religious danger to the very survival ofthe local nonconformist majority in the LondonCorporation.61CHAPTER THREE:“AND SO DID SHE SUITABLY MIDWIFE [THE PLOT] INTO THEWORLD”: ‘POPISH MIDWIFERY’ AS A CRITIQUE OF THE PRZ.CTICEIn Chapter Two, I demonstrated how Cellier’scriminal persona was represented as ‘popish’ in a mannerwhich, through the use of anti-Catholic rhetoric,addressed Whig and nonconformists audiences. In additionto this characterization, however, Cellier’s publiccriminal image was also constructed through frequentreferences to her profession——midwifery. Theconstruction of Cellier as a ‘popish midwife’ in theseprints would claim that midwifery was a criminalpractice. For although Cellier’s representationostensibly related to her alleged role in the Meal TubPlot, it was Cellier’s position as a midwife that becamethe ultimate target of her representation in the popularpress. It is therefore the aim of this chapter toanalyze how, within the context of these pro-exclusioncritiques of the established church, the visualrepresentation of Cellier as criminal midwife wouldcorrespondingly function to criticize the midwiferyprofession itself. To do this I shall demonstrate howthe printed images of Cellier served to associate herstatus as a midwife with her alleged ‘popish’ andcriminal actions.62There are two parallel issues which will beaddressed in this analysis: Firstly, I will analyze howthis attack on midwifery in these exciusionist prints waspart of the larger nonconformist critique of the AnglicanChurch’s involvement in secular affairs (local politics,for example) --an area over which licensed midwives(through the ecclesiastical and civil courts) would havehad a religion-backed authority. The second issue is howthis specific political and religious representation ofCellier as ‘popish midwife’ coincided with a new medicaldiscourse on midwifery--one which questioned the olderforms of midwifery practiöe.While these two types of discourse--thepolitical/religious on the one hand and the medical onthe other-- functioned in different ways, they all servedto change societal perceptions concerning childbirth.Representations of Cellier as ‘popish midwife’ couldoperate as an important means through which suchperceptions could be questioned. For, although theseengravings constructed their political message in anattempt to convince nonconformists of the need forexclusion, they would nonetheless have been visible tomany different London viewers through such venues coffeehouses and bookshops. Unlike medical texts on birth orreligious texts concerning the authority of the church,many of which were designed to address educated elites,63the prints representing Cellier were accessible to avariety of different social groups. In the words of onecontemporary, the availability of these kinds of popularprints was such that they “swarmed in ev’ry Street, andmarched from Friend to Friend”.1 These engravings, then,could make claims about midwifery for their viewers in away that erudite texts could not. With their familiarcombination of both image and text, these representationsof Cellier as midwife “were more imperative than [just]writing, [for] they imposed meaning at one stroke,without analyzing or diluting it”2 I shall argue that itwas the popular representation of Cellier whichsuccessfully comprised both kinds of criticism ofmidwifery--the political/religious and the medical--atonce, thus operating as a public condemnation oftraditional midwifery.How could representations of Cellier as a ‘criminal’have functioned as a critique of traditional midwiferypractice? It has already been stated in Chapter Two thatCellier’s representation was part of a traditional formof ‘popish plot’ imagery which depicted events in orderto make exemplary statements about some ‘truth’. Inaccordance with this form of representation Cellier wasQuoted in Tim Harris, London Crowds in the Reign of Charles II: Propaganda andPolitics from the Restoration to the Exclusion Crisis (Cambridge: Cambridge UP,1987) 98.2 Roland Barthes, Mythologies, 3rd ed. (London: Paladin, 1973) 110.64depicted in these prints in metaphorical terms whichacted as ‘double’ referents, combining the two featuresof Cellier’s persona-—her popish criminality and hermidwifery profession. The characterization of a personthrough references to their profession was a conventionalmeans of depictingwell-known individuals in the pressduring this period.3 Such representations, whileobviously critical of the actions of a given historicalpersona, could also operate to raise a framework ofissues regarding the societal ‘validity’ of thatpersona’s profession, or of the involvement of thatindividual (and his or her profession) in the politicalevents of the period.A particularly good example of the process wherebysuch references functioned in the identification of aparticular personality is found in the representation ofRoger L’Estrange in The Solemn Mock Procession... (seedetail, Fig. 4). L’Estrange is represented on the samepageant float as Cellier. L’Estrange had been a staunchAnglican and Cavalier supporter during the Civil War.After the Restoration, he was appointed by the king tothe position of ‘Surveyor of the Imprimerie’ and licenserof the press.4 In this capacity, L’Estrange controlled3 M.D. George, English Political Caricature to 1792: A Study of Opinion andPropaganda (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959) 12.For a discussion of L’Estranges activities as press censor, see James Sutherland,The Restoration Newspaper and its Development (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1986) 1—2.65much of the government censorship over the Englishpopular press. Because of this, L’Estrange was capablenot only of controlling the flow of news informationregarding the local politics of London’s (largelynonconformist) city council, but he could also, as a keysupporter of the Court Party, maintain an Anglicanauthority over political matters. During the ExclusionCrisis, L’Estrange was one of the few pro-Anglicanjournalists of the period who spoke out against Whigclaims regarding exclusion.5 Nonconformist printers weretherefore critical of his powerful role which allowed himto promote his rigidly pro-Anglican and Royalist viewsand he became a well-known (and disliked) figure in theWhig press, often represented in a derisive and mockingmanner.In order to be recognizable to viewers as theofficial press censor and Anglican Court Partyjournalist, L’Estrange was usually represented with the‘tools of his trade’. In The Solemn Mock Procession...(detail, Fig. 4), for example, he is represented with apen, ink and papers under his girdle (this fact is alsoreiterated in the description of the pageant float so asto inform viewers of his identity). L’Estrange was alsoknown at this time for his talents as an accomplishedSutherland, 2.0C)5P)P)-I-P)HtYIIft0I1tCDC)‘1CDC)‘t3CDCD0JHH-CD0IiiCD3H--IiiCDHQI—’-ftft5IIhHC0Cl)HCDIcCDH-CDCDiiIcHH5p3H-H-CDCDC)H-Cl)ID1JH-H-IC)CDC)ctCDIC)P3CDH-H-CDd0ftIICDftct0QftIa)•.ct1(1)CDC)C)CDHICDCl)H-L-Cor5H-H-CD3CDt3iiIcoHH-P3CD0CDH-33CDC)-CO00lCDft5p,H-o:3P3MCOC)0P3L’l3IH-J3HCD3IH-ClP3Cl)H-CDP3H-CDMHCD1I-ICOIcCD:3H-C)‘1‘QIciHC)CDC)3-0CD—ftH-CDI‘<C)ftICD1H0ClP3HCD-SP3P.)I•Cl3H-C)I•CD<1P3HCDH-CDP3P3•ii3CDCD00Hp.)I.11HftSCD05-CDCDct:3CDc•Cl)-hP3CDC)hH-H-H-H-Ift.QC.)CDCD-C)C)CO-H0CoCDP3HHP3ctCDCDCD—CDdH•II0ftCDP3HH-HHCOCDp3CD-30CDH-H-i03H-C)CDCDCDC)COCD0ftH0dCoIIP30H-I-H-C)H)II0C)P.)IIIIMCDH-HIftftftII-COcCDCDC)MH-C)CtCDH-CDH-0•Cl)ftCDI-H-H-CD<ctft33H-CD0I‘dL-’t.QI-‘1<0C)3ctH-H-0H-H-C)CDft3‘t33-H-).‘tP3CDftH-30C)ClHH-t30dI-LiH-5P5CD3HCDCDC)H3H-H-C)HC)CD00ftCDCl)•‘Ti3CD:3Cl—P3H-H-NC)ftH-H)II‘<ctHlC).HftCDCDC)P3PSPSC)ftICDCDH-l03CDft0CDIPS‘<‘-3P5HH-CDH-CD0CDCDI0ftCDH-II33’-CDP3ftMftI-H)ft0ftIIt5H)ClftCOCl)PSi.QH-H-HM•CDPSC)H-0CDCDCDHH)CDCDMCOCDMCDC)0H)H-ICDH-CD‘TiP3IIIICD‘Ti0‘CI3ftH-H-ft5CDPSICDIF-3C)H)0ftCD0IIM0CDH)ftftp3i-t)P3p3lPSI3H)H0[-H)CD0.QCl0<0CDHCDftHftlCDPSCDCDP3CDiiJCltIP3I—hCl)CDCDH-IH-C)-CDHCDH-P35:i—.003III-CDIIH-II‘TiCDHftP3IiH-H)ftftH-tYftH-‘0CDH-0H-CDft0ftCD0J3H0‘TiCDC)11—’•ft‘CI0‘.QP3COHftCDI-CDH-H-0P3P3‘CDP.)5H-H-3CDftCD‘<0CDH-IICDI’-3L-Cl)CDHICDPSC)CDClH-H-CDICD‘TiCD31iH-H--0CDH-H-ftI-h‘tilCDClHII50III03N-ftC)CDftCDJP30I-IIPSH)CD‘CICDItftCDDCDH-<II5IH-IC,)ft<CD‘CI10ftP30‘1H-0CDCDCD‘Ti‘TiSIcoHft:3iiIC)CDH-ftI-05H)H00P3HCDftIHp3H-HCDI3çH-HH-,CI<C)‘.QCD-lCD-H)51<CDH-CDC)IIICDIICD015Clft0CDCD3PSCD0IIH-p.)H)J1p3I-5CDiCP3‘.QHHH)ftSftH-I3C)H-0ft‘TiHH0CDH-ftCDIC)CDCDftC)P.)I-ftH-H-CDC)CDloCD-ftCDC)CDCDPSIC)-‘TiH-H-CD0p3H-HHftCDH:30CDII0•H-0P33H-P33C)H-‘<ftftCDP3CD00CD‘<:3ClClH)H)67How midwifery constituted a major element ofCellier’s ‘popish’ criminality is most evident in TheSolemn Mock Procession... (Fig. 3) . Cellier is shown inthis print bending over her Meal Tub, extracting the plotpapers from inside (see detail, Fig. 4). In the actualprocession represented by this image, the person playingCellier’s character would have performed the act oftaking the papers from the Meal Tub during the wholeparade, reinforcing continually her treasonous behaviourfor the crowds. In the print, the satirical verse belowher float refers to Cellier’s movements: “Whilst midwifeore ye Meal Tub shows her art”, implying that Cellier isnot only facilitating the creation of the plot, but thatsuch actions are similar to those of a midwife assistingwith childbirth. That Cellier ‘midwifed’ the birth ofthe plot is established by the presence of the open MealTub which here fulfills a ‘birthing’ function reminiscentof a woman’s womb.This birth metaphor, given the changes occurringwithin midwifery practice and to childbirth itself, wasby no means an arbitrary reference. As Elizabeth Harveystates in her discussion of the metaphorical referencesto childbirth and midwifery in Renaissance poetry of theperiod, the use of the birth “metaphor signals thebeginnings of a cultural change, both in the managementof childbirth itself and in the epistemological and68medical discourses surrounding the understanding ofgestation and birth.”6 Within the context of changingperceptions about midwifery and birth, this image ofCellier and her Meal Tub represented an association ofcriminality directly with traditional midwifery. Asfacilitator of the birth of the plot, Cellier’s criminalidentity and midwife status were inseparable.The idea that Cellier ‘midwifed’ the birth of theplot is also evident in the other two prints. ThePopish...Plot print (Fig. 1), for example, representsCellier in the process of being apprehended by SirWilliam Wailer (on her left), who has found her pullingplot papers from her Meal Tub in an attempt to burn them.The idea that Cellier’s criminal actions are related tothe Meal Tub is also referred to in The HappyInstruments... (Fig. 5), where Cellier is representedholding papers, the function of which is designated bythe commentary: “To turn the plot against thePresbyterians”. These papers were those claimed to havebeen found in the Meal Tub by Wailer, thus here Cellier’sactions are again associated with the Meal Tub. In theseimages, Cellier’s relationship with the Meal Tub is oneof facilitator; she is aware of the secrets held withinthe Meal Tub, and assists in attempting to bring them6 Elizabeth D. Harvey, in her soon to be published Ventriloguized Voices: FeministTheory and English Renaissance Texts (London: Routledge, 1992) 149.69either to fruition (as she is represented in The HappyInstruments..., Fig. 5) or to destruction (so they remainsecret) in the Popish. . .Plot print (Fig. 1) . Thisfacilitating role is similar to the role that a midwifewould play during birth. In fact, in a print publishedin 1681, Cellier is depicted actually assisting the birthof the pope from the Meal Tub while the devil overseesthe proceedings.7 These metaphorical representationsinferred, then, that like midwives who assist womenduring birth, Cellier was helping to bring forth the‘birth’ of the Meal Tub Plot. Cellier’s criminality aswell aá her midwifery were therefore represented in thethree prints through a series of associations with theMeal Tub.This representation of midwifery was by necessitycomplex: Cellier could not have been depicted at workassisting in actual childbirth in the popular press,because of the societal taboos surrounding the publicrepresentation of birth and the naked human body duringthis period. The representation of the human body forother than religious purposes was considered immoral atthis time.8 Until the end of the seventeenth century,MM 1071, 1680, George, Catalogue of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum,Political and Personal Satires (London: Chiswick Press, 1870)8 The representation of the human body in the popular press was governed by decorumduring this period (as it is in contemporary newspapers today) . For an account ofsuch conventions during the Civil War period, see Tamsyn Williams, “‘MagneticFigures’: Polemical Prints of the English Revolution,” Renaissance Bodies: TheHuman Figure in English Culture, 1540—1660, ed. Lucy Gent, and Nigel Llewellyn(London: Reaktion Books, 1990) 86—110.70the process of childbirth itself was thought of as aprivate affair which took place in the presence of onlythe midwife and the new mother’s ‘gossips’.9 Men rarelywitnessed birth--apparently for reasons of propriety--andas a result the knowledge surrounding the process ofchildbirth was primarily shared among women. Indeed, ina midwifery manual of 1635, Childbirth or the happydeliveries of women, the translator stated that he“doubted this matter [birth] could be expressed in suchmodest terms as are fit for the virginitie of pen andpaper, and the white sheets of.. .Child-bed”.Nevertheless, he promised his audience that he wouldendeavour to “be as private and retired in expressing alpassages in this kind as possible as he could”.’° Giventhe fact that representations of birth were stillconsidered ‘improper’, the representation of Cellier as amidwife at work would have had to have been indirect.The question remains, then: could it have beenpossible for contemporary viewers to perceive themetaphorical significance of Cellier with her Meal Tub?‘Gossips’ were women friends or relatives of the labouring woman who assisted withpreparations for the birth. The term was derived from the original ‘god-siblings’which referred to their function of witnessing the birth and subsequent baptism. Itis interesting that by the seventeenth century (the same period when midwiferypractice was being re—defined) the term had also come to describe a woman’s circle offemale friends. The meaning of the term therefore changed when their role was nolonger necessary, and came to be seen as intrusive. See Adrian Wilson, “Participantor Patient? Seventeenth Century Childbirth from the Mother’s Point of View,”Patients and Practitioners: Lay Perceptions of Medicine in Pre—Industrial Society,ed. Roy Porter (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985) 134.10 English translation of the original French text, Jaques Guillemeau, Childbirth orthe happy deliveries of women, (London, 1635) quoted in Audrey Eccles, Obstetrics andGynaecology in Tudor and Stuart England (London: Croom Helm, 1982) 381.71The representation of Cellier and the Meal Tub in TheSolemn Mock Procession... (detail, Fig. 4) made themetaphorical allusion that the Meal Tub wasrepresentative of a woman’s womb and the plot papers of anewborn. While such an analogy may seem far fetched totwentieth century viewers, this reference wouldnonetheless have been fathomable to seventeenth centuryaudiences. Popular perception of childbirth, not onlyamong the general public but also among the learnedmedical elite, recalled the Aristotelian notion thatwomen’s biological role in the reproduction of childrenwas passive.’1 The woman’s womb received the active seedof the man which then grew into a child. In this sense,women were not thought to biologically contribute to theformation of children, but instead were considered‘vessels’ for reproduction. The idea of woman as ‘vessel’was represented in midwifery manuals of the day. In TheExpert Midwife of 1637 (Fig. 8), the womb was depicted asa round form with an opening at the top.’2 Neither wassuch representation of the womb uncommon during thisperiod; and given this perception of the womb, themetaphorical link of the Meal Tub as ‘birthing’ vesselwas therefore possible to make.Maryanne Cline Horowitz, “Aristotle and Woman,” Journal of the History of Biology9.2 (1976): 183—213.12 Jakob Rueff, The Expert Midwife (London, 1637).72Of course, it cannot be assumed that all viewers,nonconformist or otherwise, would have seen the Meal Tubas directly referential of a woman’s womb. Rather, theimage of the Meal Tub functioned as a visual reminder ofCellier’s identity as a midwife, which furtherrepresented her ability to facilitate the birth of adangerous plot. The Meal Tub could therefore create aconceptual link between the practice of midwifery and thenational threat of ‘popery’ for its audience; andsubsequently became invested with the meaning thatCellier had ‘midwifed’ the birth of the Meal Tub Plotinto existence. As a representation, the Meal Tubtherefore functioned to link the dangerous threat of‘popery’ (represented by the plot papers) with theactions of an allegedly criminal midwife (represented byCellier). This association, then, would have argued atonce that her ‘popishness’--her link with the threat ofAnglicanism--provided the motive for her crimes, whileher status as a midwife provided the means to bring tobirth the ‘popish plot’.The notion that Cellier’s status as midwife was themeans behind her ‘popish’ criminality was furtherreinforced in Whig satirical pamphlets which claimed todocument her crimes. Such inexpensive politicalpamphlets were widely read and circulated during thisperiod, and were used to inform readers of a particular73political issue or criminal, in a format designed formore in—depth discussion than regular news sheetsallowed. This satirical textual representation ofCellier would have been familiar to informed viewersduring the Exclusion Crisis. The Tryal of ElizabethCellier... (1680) was one such satirical text describingCellier’s second trial (in which she was found guilty forlibel); it described how local booksellers had purchasedcopies of her ‘libelous’ pamphlets:so did she very suitably midwife it [her pamphlet]into the world with cheats and lies, sending forseveral booksellers to buy the worshipful copy andto everyone of them protesting on the faith of aCatholick woman, and the honour of her calling, thathe had the maidenhead on it and was the first manshe ever offered it to.’3Such satire produced a dual basis for Cellier’scriminality, asserting that her midwife status, combinedwith her Catholic religion, was the reason why shecommitted treasonous actions. Maddam Celliers Answer tothe Popes Letter (1680) was another satirical pamphlet,this time printed in the form of a (false) letter fromCellier addressed to the pope. In this pamphlet,Cellier’s actions are described in terms referring tochildbirth. Says Cellier’s persona: “what birth I havelaboured with, of which if they helped to deliver me, itwould be meritorious (to every one)”.’4 This satire13 The Tryal of Elizabeth Cellier, the Popish Midwife... (London: Printed by A.Godbid for L.C., 1680) 1—2.14 Maddam Celliers Answer to the Popes Letter (London, 1680) 2.IF-‘.QC)C)C)-II01YC)HiQCP3P3H-100C)oO0çCDH-CDHip3:it3iP3HHiH<Cl)II0H0dftH-IICl)ftCDP3CDftftHHt3IIC)C)•CO‘-3H-CoftHII0P3CDH-H-H-CDCDCDH-ftHU)P3wi-H-I-hCDCOCOHCDH-(33ftP3CDQft‘rjCDCDH-H-iCl)I-ICDHP30HP3iC)CDHoCD..p33H-Hftfti-3ft0C)CDP3‘d‘Q3COftP3CDftCD-H-CDZH-CDHIiJP3C)HftCiii00H-CDCOP3II‘tiN10CO<‘<H-CD0H-ftC)0IlCOft0P3P3COCDCOH-QftP3ft0H-CD-H-‘zIftftCDft0HiCDIIftP3•0H-H-H-0ftt5ftftH-v(DN CDIIHP3CDP3ftCO0CDP300CDH-ftCDC)P3CDIlCDiIIHiII0IICDI-CD.-dP30-P3HCDHH0ftCOHCDIl0P3Hi‘sCD0P3LJ0P3COHiDCDH0ftCDCDC)P3CDCO‘tiCOHH1HCl)HHDCDCD1H-‘Qp3H-ftIiIICOH-H-IIftHiCDCDCF— -CD0CDH12H-H1WNI-hCDIIIIIlC)ft3I-jCDCDP3ICDP3ft0HiCD0OZCDft‘<H0‘-3H-COCDH-HiIiftt-lCDLiCDHP)0P3H-‘<HiCDp3P3CDCDIi‘t5CDJP3rD0Cl)bCDHp3iiCOH-IiftCDHH-CO‘zJH-D.IiftHftftCOCD0I-h000HCDftH-ftC)‘<‘—3H-P3H-P3HiC)ftHiCDLiiiCCDftP3H0ftCDftCoIiHC)C)CD•CDCDIiP3ft1Y‘-<IiP3CD12CDftCO-CO1ftftCDH-0COCoftCOH-HP3ftCD‘tiCD—,-ftP3iXCDLiP3H-CDtTHiHftft0H-Ii0H-ftCDH-ftCDCDCDCDiP3Li3CDCDH-H,.P3COft1CoH-ftCDP3LiP3C)COHCDIiftH-LiCDC)P3P3ftIiftH-H-P3HH0Li0ftCDCDLiP3P3ftC)•C)C)Hiftb-<C)HCDI-QCOH-HHH-C)p3•C)P3IiCDHFCDCD-çCD‘t5ftp3HCD1H-00•CDF-’H--0CDii:1HI-IftH-‘-<iH-I-ISHH-P3ft0CDCDftH-CDCDCOP3HIiH-H-H-Hi°isiHiCOftCOCDHi‘tI0ftCOH-CDiC)0C-IC.)-QI-ICDCOftCD12CDH-IiHiCDC)CD‘-CsP3IiCDP3iftCD•LiftHiCD120LiLiH0C)LiHH-ftP3CDp3‘-<CDCOC)CD-Li0ft02P3bP3IiCDCDIiHP3CDCOCO12C)ftH-C)H-P3‘-3ftC)H-CiiP3CDCD0CDCO0H-H-HftftC)CDftCoLiIi$2Hi0H-H-P3CDCDP30p3H-0ftLiftC)HiCDCDft0‘.ftt3ftftP3H0LiP30ft(00H-CO‘-<CDH-LiH-P3COH-CDftI-h0IiCOCOftCDP30HftHiH-CDC)JCD00COC)HCOHiH-ftCD0CODCDCDLi0<Hi0Hi$iCDftP3C)P3LiCOCDLi‘-CICD-CDHiCDH-ft0LiH-HLiH-HCDftP5ftCOH-00HiP3CD0‘-CIH01—- -Hp3HiCD$2ft0C)p3CD0P3ftLi$2H-COPSHi‘-QCDJ0ftCDCDftCDLiCD0Li75also condemned the practice as criminal, thus functioningas a critique of the profession.’7We might ask ourselves: how was this conceptualrelationship between ‘popery’ and midwifery possible? Inorder to answer this question, we can return to the ideathat Cellier’s representation as ‘popish midwife’ waspart of a larger critique of the Anglican Church; andthus that her representation as a midwife would havefurther established her connection with the hierarchy ofthat institution. Licensed by the Anglican Church duringthis period, midwifery was perceived as an institutionalmechanism whereby the Church maintained a certain amountof social control. As such, midwives were perceived bydissenting Protestant factions as part of a system KeithThomas has described in the following terms:the Church’s tentacles stretched out through theecclesiastical courts, [and] exercised a widejurisdiction over marriage and divorce, defamation,the probate of wills nd every conceivable aspectof private morality.’°Indeed, Cellier--as demonstrated in Chapter Two--wasoften represented as playing an important role in affairsof the Anglican Church or Court Party elite. In ThePopish.. .Plot (Fig. 1, image ‘VI’) for example, she isshown attempting to kill the parliamentary oppositionleader, the Earl of Shaftesbury. The representation of17 Harvey, 149.18 Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (London: Peregrine Books, 1978)181.76Cellier ‘interfering’ in the local political affairs ofthe Whigs is also evident in the next picture of thisengraving (image ‘VII), where Cellier is caught attemptingto burn the Meal Tub Plot papers. The ‘explanation’ ofthis image is specific in its description of these papers(supposedly written by Catholics): they are details of a‘sham’ plot by Whigs to kill the king. Those accused ofparticipating in this Whig conspiracy are some of themost important Whiggish politicians of the day: the Dukeof Monmouth (the illegitimate Protestant son of CharlesIl--whom many Whigs regarded as the one suitablesuccessor to the throne), the Earl of Shaftesbury, andother local Whig politicians (see Fig. 2) . As one who isrepresented destroying Whig attempts of exclusion,Cellier is depicted interfering in the public affairs ofthe Whig politicians. That Cellier was considered acriminal who meddled in local politics is likewise madeevident in the satirical text The Tryal of ElizabethCellier (1680), in which Cellier was described as one who“talked abundantly, more like a Midwife than such aPolitician and Stateswoman as she would be accounted”.This representation of Cellier as a midwife whointerfered (dangerously) in the public issues of theExclusion Crisis did more than just condemn Cellier’sactions; rather, it questioned the previously assumedauthority of midwives under the Anglican licensing system77over issues concerning the well-being of localcommunities. Such previous authority throughthe licensing system had respectability andreliability as its ideals. . .Bastardy and infanticidewere the concern of thecivil authorities as well asthe ecclesiastical ones, so the midwife’srespectability was of considerable importance to awell-organized parish. The restoration of moraldiscipline after 1660 was prImarily the concern ofthe Church of England through the system ofconsistory courts and the machinery of licensing andvisitation. 19Given that the Church promoted and regulatedparticular codes of moral behaviour in English society,the representation of Cellier as a midwife who acted onthe behalf of the Anglican elite would have confirmednonconformist fears of the institutional threat thatlicensed midwifery posed for those outside of theestablished church. Indeed the title for ThePopish.. .Plot (describing the plot as being “against ourreligion and liberties”) reiterates the notion that theAnglican Church (and midwifery) posed an institutionalthreat to nonconformist groups which was not onlyreligious, but was also one that threatened the wellbeing of individual lives.This kind of representation of the institutionalthreat of licensed midwifery to dissenters is alsorepresented in The Happy Instruments... (Fig. 5). Inthis image, Cellier is represented as a facilitator and19 David Harley, lgnorant Midwives——A Persistent Stereotype,” Society for the SocialHistory of Medicine Bulletin 28 (1981) 7.78local plotter of Catholicism’s alleged plans to retakeEngland. If this print were read as a critical andmetaphorical reference to the hierarchical authority ofthe Anglican Church (see: Chapter Two), Cellier (as onewho “turned the plot against the Presbyterians”) was thusdepicted as part of a hierarchical institution whichthreatened the ability of nonconformists to participatein public life.The other local English facilitator to the plotshown in this image is Sir George Wakeman, the royalphysician to the Queen Catherine Braganza (Charles II’sPortuguese Queen, a practicing Catholic). Here Wakemanholds a paper which reads: “A Bill for 15000 pounds toPoyson the King”. This image of Wakeman referred to acontroversy represented in the press during the period ofthe ‘popish plots’. Wakeman had been accused ofattempting to plot with the Queen to poison the King inorder to re-instate Catholicism in England. As Wakemansupported the Court Party point of view, he came undersuspicion in the Whig press for such plotting.20That Wakeman was accused of using his position as royalphysician to knowingly administer poisons to the king,would have reflected a general societal suspicion thatphysicians were costly theoreticians of medicine, whosealmost ‘secret knowledge’ on the subject (much of their20 John Kenyon, The Popish Plot (London: Heinemann, 1972) 52.79work was conducted in Latin and as such could be readonly by the educated elites) offered little in the way ofreal practical medical advice or assistance.2’ The factthat Wakeman was so readily accused of high treasonattests to a deeply felt mistrust of the traditionalprofession of ‘physic’ which-—in the words of NicholasCulpeper the London apothecary and man-midwife--consistedof “jugling and knavery”22. Cellier’s representationalongside that of Wakeman, the untrustworthy physician tothe Catholic Queen, would clearly have associatedmidwifery further with the ‘jugling and knavery’ of thetraditional profession of ‘physic’.Further to this, the representation of midwiferywith the authority of the Church and the hierarchical andelite profession of ‘physic’ within this imagerepresented midwifery practice as part of a hierarchicaland outmoded social system, which relied on the ‘juglingand. knavery’ of physicians and the Anglican Churchbishops for the maintenance of social control.But if Cellier’s representation as a midwife wouldhave signalled for nonconformists the unwanted authorityof the Church over secular matters, what was at stake inthe nonconformist critique of midwifery?21 Irvine Loudon, Medical Care and the General Practitioner, 1750—1850 (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1986) 19—20.22 See Culpepers full quote and my discussion on pages 2—3 above.80Nonconformists had long questioned the imposedauthority of the Church over a variety of domestic andprivate matters through licensed midwifery.23 ThisChurch licensing system required that midwives be membersof the Anglican Church and have the testimonials of acombination of clergymen, patients and medicalpractitioners. The Church, in fact, hardly seems to havebeen interested in the ‘medical’ capabilities of midwivesas such, and midwives usually underwent an informalapprenticeship under the supervision of another licensedmidwife. Instead, the Church required that midwives havesome form of instruction in baptism, usually taught bythe local clergyman. The role of midwives included:ensuring baptism according to Anglican rites should themother or child die during childbirth; the supervision ofthe Anglican churching ritual; and the ‘laying out’ ofthe dead in the required Anglican fashion.24 Theimportance of the midwife’s function is emphasized by onerecent historian: “This very varied activity could notbut give the midwife an important social role. Shebrought to birth and nursed a number of the inhabitants;she also attended to the laying out of the dead”, and assuch, as Gelis continues, “the midwife held both ends of23 The English theologian Richard Hooker in his Of the lawes of ecclesiasticalpolitie (a defense, printed in 1593—97, of the reformed Church of England againstPuritan attacks) wrote extensively on the necessity of lay baptism, especially bywomen. See Richard Hooker, Of the lawes of ecclesiastical politie, ed. GeorgesEdelen (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard UP, 1977)24 For a description of the various roles taken on by midwives, see Harley, 6—9.81the thread of life”.25 Midwives therefore had a Church-backed authority on a number of matters which could touchthe lives of many within a given community. In addition,midwives also played an important role in civil andecclesiastical courts as witnesses in illegitimacy cases.There are two reasons for this: Firstly, civilauthorities needed to know who was to pay for the child’swelfare; and secondly ecclesiastical authorities wereinterested in ensuring that the father of an illegitimatechild do penance.26 The midwife’s ability to assess andestablish things such as legitimacy and virginity, werethus important elements of the Church’s practice ofsocial control through the ecclesiastical courts.The nonconformist critique of the Church’smaintenance of social control through such devices aslicensed midwifery is probably most explicit in TheSolemn Mock Procession... (Fig. 3) . Here Cellier is notonly represented committing a crime in terms related tomidwifery practice, but her image is associated withother (critical) representations of the Church’sauthority. As already demonstrated in Chapter Two, TheSolemn Mock Procession... was a complex critique of theChurch’s authority over secular matters. The fifthpageant, for example, represented bishops who are25 Jacques Gelis, The History of Childbirth, trans. Rosemary Morris (Oxford: PolityPress, 1991) 110.26 Harley, 8.82described in the satirical text below, saying: “Andkings shall dread owr Thunder and lie still”. This imagecould be interpreted as a criticism of the Anglicanelites and their interference in local politics. Thefollowing pageant also criticized the authority of theAnglican Church with regard to baptism (referred to inthe text as ‘second birth’) . This reference to baptism,as a general nonconformist critique of the ritual, alsooperated indirectly to question what had previously beenconsidered an important part of the midwife’s religiousfunction at birth (to perform emergency rites ofbaptism). Within the context of this engraving,midwifery was thus represented as part of a system ofreligious authority, deemed by nonconformists asunnecessary and ‘superstitious’. This criticism ofmidwifery in the Cellier prints thus coincided with andwas representative of a larger process wherebynonconformists questioned the necessity for licensedmidwifery.When it came to criticizing the authority of theChurch’s hold on midwifery, the nonconformist critique ofthe established church manifested itself in a criticismof the various religious roles and actions of midwivesthemselves. The institutional rituals of churching andlay baptism in which midwives participated, for example,were considered ‘popish’ by dissenters for they were83remindful of the rituals of the medieval CatholicChurch.27 In the ritual of churching a midwife escortedthe new mother (dressed in a white veil), to church,where the minister blessed her and welcomed her back intothe holy community by reciting a particular psalm, (mostoften Psalm 121) •28 Many nonconformists viewed this as“one of the most obnoxious Popish survivals of theAnglican Church”.29 It was even claimed that it“breedeth and nourisheth many superstitious opinions inthe simple people’s hearts; as that the woman which hathborn a child is unclean and unholy”.3° The ‘popish’rituals of the Anglican Church were therefore denigratedby dissenters who deemed such rituals a part of popular‘superstition’. The use of birth girdles, for example,(which imitated the Virgin Mary who was believed to haveworn a birth girdle during the birth of Christ), as wellas the chanting of charms and prayers which--according toThomas——were “all common features of the countrymidwife’s repertoire”, were rejected by nonconformistProtestant groups.31 As late as the early eighteenth27 Thomas, 42.28 Many Puritans believed Psalm 121 (which would have been recited by the ministerduring the churching ceremony) encouraged superstitious’ beliefs. In the words ofone contemporary: the ordinary women are hardly brought to look upon churchingotherwise than as a charm to prevent witchcraft, and think that grass will hardlyever grow where they tread before they are churched.” G.L. Kittredge, Witchcraft inOld and New England (New York: 1929, reprint 1956) quoted in Thomas, 43.29 Thomas, 42.30 j Canne, A Necessitie of Separation (1634) quoted in Thomas, 65.31 Thomas, 222.84century, one nonconformist writer warned that midwivesand new mothers were not to use: “any Girdels, Purses,Mesures of our Lady, or such other Superstitious Things,to be occupied about the Woman while she laboureth, tomake her beleve to have the better Spede by it”.32 Thesevarious rituals were--in the minds of those who objectedto them--the responsibility of midwives, and thenonconformist challenge to such rituals led to thecondemnation of the midwives who practised them.Given the critical stance of many dissenting groupstowards the religious functions of midwifery, Cellier’srepresentation in a larger nonconformist critique of theAnglican Church worked to associate not only her ‘popish’criminality with her midwifery profession, but such arepresentation also questioned the professionallegitimacy and necessity of that practice. On the onehand, Cellier’s status as a midwife in this specificcritique of the Anglican political elite objected to thefact that midwifery had become part of the secularauthority of the Church—-a mechanism of social controlthat nonconformists wanted to eliminate from the premiseof that institution. At the same time, however, herrepresentation as a ‘popish midwife’, because of herassociation (for example, The Solemn Mock Procession...,32 Burnet in Thomas Forbes, The Midwife and the Witch (New Haven, London: Yale UP,1966) 125.85Fig. 3) with the rituals and authority of the AnglicanChurch, also condemned the religious function of thepractice itself. The representation of Cellier as‘popish midwife’ linked the threat of ‘popery’ with theinstitutional authority of midwifery over secularaffairs. The coupling of the term ‘popish’ with theprofession of midwifery, then, was not only a critique ofthe authority of the established church over temporalmatters through the licensing of midwifery, but such arepresentation of midwifery as ‘popish’ also questionedthe necessity of midwives per Se, dismissing them fortheir ‘superstitious’ religious functions.This criticism of traditional midwifery practice asone which encouraged ‘superstition’ was also used bymedical practitioners interested in promoting their‘scientific’ ability to supervise childbirth. Theprevious practices of midwives came to represent the‘ignorance’—-so it was argued--of the women thatperformed them. In the words of one doctor, in amidwifery manual of 1698, it was his intention to:correct the frequent mistake of most midwives, whoresting too boldly upon the common way of deliveringwomen, neglect all the wholesome and profitablerules of the art.. which concern the anatomicalparts of the body.3Increasingly, this kind of attitude became characteristicof how the medical profession perceived midwives. SuchThe Complete Midwifes Practice Enlarged (London, 1698) A3.86midwifery manuals would define midwifery as a medicalpractice, the knowledge of which, these manuals argued,was to be obtained through reading and the analysis ofanatomy. In these manuals, women were consideredignorant, not because they did not know how to assist indeliveries, but because they lacked the kind of knowledgethese manuals (and their doctor authors) promoted--ie. aknowledge based on reading which was combined with thevisual analysis of anatomical illustrations. Thus, inthe words of Ann Dally:The power of the doctors as experts was not thepower to heal or to demonstrate their knowledge: itwas the power to give the appearance of knowing,therefore to judge. The doctors gained in staturenot because of what they could do but because theycould name, describe and explain.34Medical knowledge, therefore, became linked to sight,literacy, and intellectual cognition.35 What the formatof these anatomical images did not represent was theolder form of midwifery knowledge which had previouslybeen learned orally between women midwives on anapprenticeship basis. The fact that Cellier wascondemned as a ‘popish midwife’ through herrepresentation would have reinforced (because the term‘popish’ could be used to denigrate ritualistic practicesDr. Ann Dally, Women Under the Knife, A History of Surgery (London: HutchinsonRadius, 1991) 67.L.J. Jordanova, ‘Gender, Generation and Science: William Hunter’s ObstetricalAtlas,’ William Hunter and the Eighteenth Century Medical World, ed. W.F. Bynum andRoy Porter (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985) 401.o’ 0 0 z N) C)C)ClitCOU)P3itP3():3IitU)I--C0CSisiCp35COHiIIH-CDCDCIISiCD1HCC)MitClCDC)P351C)H)‘ti‘CiH-HP3JClP3itC))1H-C)CDIICDH-IIH-P31HJCDitH-CDitCDiiCDtQCDCDP3C)HIICDHCDClH-HiCDCOH-COCOCOCD•COiiCOP3HH-CDI-I<C)H-iC)CDCDC)itCDHC)CDHCCO‘-<P3C)itCDI-IP3P30H-ICCDCDC)CO‘-5H-H-•itHH-,itit-HiU)H-‘-<0CDCl‘1CDH-HP3H-CDSitCCDClH-CDIICDCDP3H-ititCCltC)CDctCOCDtYP3<COitiH-I-IJyy’IIitCDHCDCltCCD1P3CD‘<P3P3P3CClClCtClCDCDCDiHCDC-sCO-5CDHitit1‘H-CDHiCDP3H-CD51H51H-51‘<itUiCDCDLQC)C)QH-C03H-CD‘•CDH-CDP3itH-CO‘tJC)itH-SiC)itCOClCDC)CD‘-QH-HCCDC0HP3HH-CDCDCOCD‘t5H-‘tIP3H-CDSiti‘tSCp3ClCDCDC)JSiititCOP3CDCOCOitCDitp3‘tICu‘-<CDInCDC)P3IIIIH-COH-itCOitCOClCDCDCDI)‘-<ClH-C0‘ClH-CDH-H-H-1-5H-itP3P3itCDCP3510C)C)itititH(I)-‘1HiCOCOClP3P3H-P3H-CitClCDP3H-CDHititCOUHCDC)H-,itClC)itP3I-5HCD•<‘<C)H-CSiCDp3CDCDCOi(‘2CDCOitSiCDitH-itHP3ClH-itC)Cl)CDC)H-ClCOHitCOCH-5p3CDClCDC)itCOCDH-I-5CDH-ittYCOCDCDH’‘t3H-Clp3I-’-SiCi)C)CDP3CDCDCDCDHiP3H‘tiCP3COMP31-5CCDCDP3HC)II-5CDP3ititCOIIit‘QQi1<HiHP3C)CD‘tiCOH-CD‘iCCDCO‘HC)•itSiCOP3itHitCDCCOCDCHiCl-itP3H’CDCl)Si‘t3itHCC)C)COH‘LISiC)ClP3I—’51it‘iit1-5p3CDit‘t)H-CDCOCDititCitCDCDitCOitH-11ClH-P3C)CDH-HC)H-itCOJ‘tiH-CDLQI-SCDit1-5CHCCCitH-‘t3COCDCCDitCDH-t)’1-5H-HiCDH-1-hH-H-COP3CDCOP3ClH-CD51LQ‘<1-5CitIIHiIICD51H-COI—SCDC)it0‘t3COP.)itiCCDH-CDI51H-COit-‘ititH’H-01-5‘CCOLICOCDCOitC)Cl)LICl)‘I—’P3C)i-sbCDitCOSiF5H-CH-p3i-CD<C)H-CDitP3C-III—5CSiitH--5CDP3LIC•bJH’C)L1P3i1-5H-CDi-siCDSiCiCDLI‘dCDC)P3COCCCOP3C)CDb’CO11COitc5itClP3‘0itH’CDI-Sit-Q<-CDSiCD0H-C)<lH-COH-COitC)H-SiLI1-5itCO<COCi)itID’JHitit‘QCDJ’0H-‘H-CH-ICDI-’H-P3‘CDb’IICDLIP3C)CCt)itCDCD00CDIIClH-CCOP3CD‘-<ClCDClP3IICDCOH’CO<LILICOCOCl)COP3CDCOLI CD- COH-Si CD I--SCDCOCDit51H-itCH-HiC SiI--SCOCD-ClitSiJC)CDP3 it H-CDCCl H- C) P3 H P3CDII—H-CD itF-3 ‘itCDP3 itC H-H-CO51•H-•CD COH C itco—.1iwjPsC)I-Id0‘tIH-‘t3-ctPSF-ftP503D0H-ftI-1DCD‘tICDH-3it0I—HiP3CD0ft(D0‘1C)CD100-LiHCOI-liH-C)HiCDCO0H-çtCDCDIoCotSCDHCDH-CDCOft‘tICDIIH-CoC)p,0ItirtICDCDQ11H-CoCDC)H-CDP5CDCoCOII0C)H-2FC5CDCDCDdH-CDH-t-1C)<COCoH-3<HC)0H-P5IDCDCoQII3OtS’Z5COCD’<CDCDCoH-itP3CDP5iC)CoCDCD‘<CDftH-C)itCDfrCoCDH-0CD31CoI-C)LQitCoCoQCDPiCDH-P3C)1COCDftCDH-0HP3it0H-CD0ftCOt3C)H-C)H-CoIP3CDIICDCoC)I-I0HiC)fti-3tCD<H-3C)5H-ICD<CoftP3CD01QH-H-J0ftCDCoiQ50H-3H-HCoCoH-H0P3P3CDP3.r)CoHsictCtC)C)‘<<H3H-ft‘t3ctCo.YCoH-CDP3it‘<CD30P3CDHCoIICoDCD•CD13CDP3Co00H-,HtIIP10ftH<ftft1,.Q<HiQC)•H-ttfrCoP3C)IIP5itHiH-<00P3H-0F-’-CDCoftit0P3CDIIHCDCDCDftP30C)P33iiQ.:iP3jCDCDP31Li-CoCDCoH-C)’tI00H-Qft‘z3HCDCDCoP3H-CDCoH,QIIft3P3‘dPSH-0HftCoHP3H-DctP3ftCoftIIH-HCoPS-1P3P3DCDP3P3HOP3H-ftH-3’C)CDCDitHC)‘-<CoHftitCD0Pft0itFCDftC)P3CDCDCD0Co-H-CDHiH-‘-<C•CDCDCDH-P3H-CoPSClHiHC)IIit0CoC)H-CoClC)M0Cl1Co0CoP5ftCoCD3H-CD0Co—JClCDP3CDH-IIH-H)CoCDCo00Co3‘-QCDI-P3P3H•CDP55‘C5b’P3C)Co•fttYMH-H-Coft0.Coh-QI-CDft0H-C)CDOCt0HH-P3‘-<iQ<H0CDF-.P3P3ft3<ftCDIIP3C)<CDP3‘-<H-L.Q00C)HCDC)JCo-ftftPsCD‘tI0HCDftH)H)C)H-ftftII0CDCoH-H3l‘<ft•IIftH-CoCoCDHiH)C)-0CD0‘<CoH-Ob’CDHH-HH-C)‘-<P3PSCo0‘tiCoCDMOP3CDftPSftCDMCoitiHPSIIC)H-P3Co3ftH-CoC)CDiXH-3I-•P’0P5C)3CoCoCDC)HCD3CD1Qft0 p.H-H)C)H-ClCDP3C1ft‘<IIH-0‘-QCDCDHitftPSCoF-’P3<0CoCDCD03HH0tElIjH-H-3P5H-ClP3ftCDCDHiH-C)MCo‘<CD3CD‘tiftCDC)CDCo‘tiCoP3CoftP)C)0ftCoCoC)P30ClCD00ftctCDMP3H-t.QCDPsitCoP3I-0H-’IIitCD00Co‘t3P33HPS3P3ftftC)CDClI—I‘tIH-i03H-CDCoClCD:3CoCo00H-P3ftLi-CDCDHP3CoftCoNCDClCD‘H-C)P3H-CoQft0•CDftP5C)P3‘tiCDQC)CoP3CDftCD$1J‘t$P3HdbCtCD‘P5ftM0H-OCDCDC)bP50CoftCDl-ftH•H-iC)Ct.—..HH-P5I-IP3CDftftCD1<ftHiftDCD‘-QCoftlii3CoC)‘<Co0-0CDCoCo0JH-ClP30CDClH-ftl-H-I-I‘iftP3•CD<CDCDHiC)siC)tYCtCoCD0C)‘<H-CoCDCDPsiiH-H-CD0- CDHift3’tY’CO-D.iiH-ftP3Cl0CDH-H-3H-IICDCitftCD‘QCoClCDCoCoaD89One of the areas in which this rivalry expresseditself, and where both surgeons and apothecaries assertedtheir medical authority, was the supervision ofchildbirth. Supervision of childbirth was still aprivate contract between practitioner and patient, and--if one attended the births of the wealthy--it could alsobe quite lucrative. For apothecaries and surgeons eagerto enter general practice, attending a successful birthwas also a method by which one could become the regulardoctor of a particular family. Birth was therefore oneway in which one could promote one’s skills as a familypractitioner.38 At first, the idea of having a ‘manmidwife’--as they were called--became fashionable amongstthe wealthy.39 Because most ‘men-midwives’ were usuallysurgeons or apothecaries, physicians soon felt, however,that men-midwives posed a potential threat to their ownpractices and clientele. But the claims to medicalknowledge of these various practitioners by no means leddirectly to new ‘scientific’ developments in thepractice. As Audrey Eccles points out with regard to themidwifery books produced by medical practitioners duringthis period:Especially on the subjects of conception, sexuality,pregnancy and menstruation. . . it is often impossibleJean Donnison, Midwives and Medical Men: A History of Inter—ProfessionalRivalries and Women’s Rights (New York: Schocken Books, 1977) 37.Adrian Wilson, “William Hunter and the Varieties of Man—Midwifery,” ed. Bynum andPorter, 342.90to tell whether a scientific ‘fact’ has passed intocommon knowledge and become a generally receivedopinion, or an existing popular belief or practicehas been rationalised and auhenticated by giving ita ‘scientific’ explanation.4Indeed, from a twentieth century point of view, neitherthe oral knowledge of midwives, nor the written knowledgeof medical practitioners seems to have been particularly‘better’ than the other. Rather the one form ofknowledge (based on the study of anatomy and texts) wouldtransform and eventually replace the other. Suchattempts by men practitioners to take over thesupervision of childbirth from their women midwifecounterparts did not go unnoticed by the midwivesthemselves. Indeed in 1688, Cellier herself wrote, in anopen letter to an anonymous doctor:I hope, Doctor... [you] will deter. . . from pretendingto teach us Midwifery, especially such as confessthey have never delivered Women in their Lives, andbeing asked What they would do in such a Case? replythey have not yet studied it, but will when occasionserves; This is something to the purpose I mustconfess, Doctor: But I doubt it will not satisfythe Women of this Age, who are so sensible andimpatient of their Pain, that few of them will beprevailed with to bear it, in Complement to thernDoctor, while he fetches his Book, studies the Case,and teaches the Midwife to perform her work, whichshe hopes may be done before he comes.4’This process of re—education of women midwives would havegrave repercussions for the older practice, for not onlywould midwifery qualifications change, but the assumed40 Modes, 33.41 Elizabeth Cellier (written Celleor), To Dr.———An Answer to His Queries, concerningthe Colledg for Midwives (London, 1688) 6—7.91primary care givers of childbirth would no longernecessarily be women. The transformation of midwiferyknowledge would eventually result in the marginalizationof women from the practice. In a recent historical studyon the role of women in midwifery, Harley points outthat:The numbers of. . .women. . . involved in midwiferyappears to decline sharply during the eighteenthcentury and the rise of the men-midwives’ practiceamongst the middle classes may well have beenreinforced by new attitudes towars the activitiessuitable for middle class women.4As I have attempted to demonstrate, the seventeenthcentury term ‘popish’ used by Nicholas Culpeper (in hisDirectory for Midwives, 166O) to describe thetraditional practice of midwives was a very specific yetcomplex criticism of what traditional midwifery practicehad come to represent in the eyes of both nonconformistgroups and the medical elite. Cellier’s representationas ‘popish midwife’ demonstrated the dangers of a‘midwifery’ licensed by the Anglican Church, while itsimultaneously served to associate her criminality withthe ‘popish’ ignorance of the previous midwiferypractice. Cellier’s representation as ‘popish midwife’,constructed through a complex series of associations, wastherefore one part of an ongoing process whereby42 Harley, 9.See page 2, above.92midwifery was redefined during the seventeenth century.This process would involve the re-evaluation of previoussocietal perceptions of childbirth and the assumed roleof midwives themselves. This criticism of the olderpractice would manifest itself through a variety ofdiscourses--political, religious and medical--and wasthus not merely the result of ‘scientific development’ inmedicine as has been previously claimed in medicalhistories.44 Indeed, Cellier’s representation attests tothe complex and contradictory nature of the processwhereby such changes to previous perceptions ofchildbirth and its supervision took place.The representation of Cellier then, althoughprimarily political and religious in motivation, wouldalso have served to criticize traditional midwifery.Within the nonconformist critique of the Anglicanestablishment, the criticism of Cellier as ‘popish’functioned to question the hierarchical authority of theChurch over secular matters. Midwives, who hadpreviously been “deemed competent, and even urged to befamiliar with the rituals” of the Anglican Church, nowstood “at the borderline between different groups whocontended for the salvation of the patient: the clergySee, for example, Irving S. Cutter and Henry R. Viets, A Short History ofMidwifery (Philadelphia and London: W.B. Saunders, 1964).93and the lay surgeons”.45 As the preceding analysis hasshown, Cellier represented a kind of midwifery which hadbeen part of an earlier religion-based authority that“had laid its emphasis upon the regular performance ofritual duties”. After the Reformation, however, it wasassumed, as Thomas concludes, “that... [such] . . .popularignorance was merely a hangover from Popery”.46Cellier’s association with other ‘popish’ crimes,conveyed in the three prints discussed in this thesis,deemed Cellier (and the kind of midwifery sherepresented) as dangerous and untrustworthy. Hercriminal actions, associated with the metaphor of theMeal Tub as womb-like vessel deemed midwifery not onlypart of an outmoded hierarchy of the Anglican Church, butalso a profession which promoted ‘superstitious’practices. This so—called superstition or ignorance ofwomen midwives would also be used by medicalpractitioners interested in promoting their own, more‘scientific’ skills in the supervision of childbirth.Cellier’s representation, which would have been mostvisible in and around the city of London (the place wherethe medical professions were most numerous and powerful)could be interpreted on several different levels,depending on the manner in which viewers perceived themRenate Blumenfeld—Kosinski, Not of Woman Born: Representations of Caesarian Birthin Medieval and Renaissance Culture (Ithaca, London: Cornell UP, 1990) 27.46 Thomas, 196.94according to their professional backgrounds, as well astheir religious and political beliefs. Regardless of thedifferent political, religious and professional critiquesthat Cellier’s image contained, however, one thingremained constant: her popular representation was partof a general critique of midwifery practice at this time.Moreover, perhaps the most potent form of condemnation ofmidwifery during this period was the inference thatmidwifery in its traditional form was ‘popish’. Such aterm encapsulated not only the nonconformist religious(and political) critique of midwifery, but also theprofessional condemnation of midwifery as a practice thatpromoted superstition and ignorance.aq CD 0 0 Ii, CD 0 rt 0 CD 0 I— a, GD cD CD 0 H rt H’ 0 H, CD0 CD CD ci, H’ CD-CD H H’ rt ci, C GD GDljeep1anatton.0oxceediisgreat istheDeteflatoonthitEnglilh.menbeertotheusheard.ofTyrannyandruatcbltfsSwperJlitionofPopery,thattheyhaveeverfrucetheRefinmation,butw,,reefpecsaflyfinestheDifcoveryoftheLoreDamnableandHellilhPopilhPlotageinjitheirReligionandLiberties,laidh.ld.fallOpportunitiestoexprtfstheirieoJl’Abhorrenceofit.A’n.nyetherways,thisofexpojingtheirHelliShContrivancesbyPiLturewastiotthou&’rshetm.JlcsnteniptibleThePL.PTEh4thTwelveDIVISIONS.I.TheFirftdefcribesthe8urningofLONDON,whichh.thlacenprovedundeniablybyDr.Oaees,Mr.ledke,andotbers,tobecontrivedandcarriedonbythePaytfis.AbleJdReligion,Sloe!muf?beintrtductdhytheRuineofftmanytbosofa,,dFamilies!ItutDevajiarionalonewouldnotContent,WithoutStood:Foc,inthenextplace,II.Wed:ftribsTheAlanneroftheirmertheringSirFJraecndbeory(odfrey,whotoobDr.Oatesul)epofitionsofekePlotwhichWaSnomorethaneeeryGentlemanintheCommillionof thePeacewasboundtodoyetforthisnece(TàrydilchargeofhisDuty,theConfpiratorswereCoenraged,thattheyrcfoivedtocuthimof;thei-athcr.asmayreafonablybefuppofed,todeterallotherMagifiratesfromintermtd.lingwithanyAffairsrelatingtotcePlot.ThePetfonsaäuallypee-CentatghitMurtherwere,GPaI4andKelly, twoPrifts,Green,Bury,andMill, whowerefiriceexecutedfor it.ThewholedifcovercdbyMr.Miles Prasonce,whowastohaveaaedinit.Ill.WecometodfcribeTheGeneralDays.fHuralhiotionappointedbyHisMajefticsProclamations,ontherhirteenghofNovem.her,I67g. andontheEleventhofApril,1679.tOimploretheMerciesofAlmightyGod, inrheProteaionofHisMajeftiesSacrcdPerioii;andthatliewouldinfatuiteanddefeat theCounlsofthePapifis,ourEnemies.-W.Thenextthinginordero(l’lmewasfibFxecut,mooffvverdofek.?l.ttar,,viz.Calsman,Ireloi,d,Grove,Pk!r,Whieeb,-eid,Marcow,,Fenwictt,Gavon, Turner,iadL.m.igb.ro., &c.V.Wecomenowtothe ShasiMot,.Theirnextgreat Defignwastotakeof oneofourgreeI*bqik..theRightHooourableAnthonyEarl.fShaftobwy.InthisFdhDivifionwegiveyouthemannerofMr.Daagefield’sconlingtoattempthimand,VI.IntheSixth,TheMannerofMrs.Collier’i(oneof thePope’sAmatons) goingtodothatGreatWorkherflf, (Mr.Dongeefleldhavingfail’dintheAttempt) andof herturningdownStairs.Althoughfrequemlyattempted,yesitbathp.k#dGod1stkert,(for thegoodofthuNatibyhiscrw.outProvidencetoptofrrvoibislIonoitraloleIn-Jon;anditiithePrayerssf41goodProesfiants,flat‘itoyneverfallintothehandsofhitPuptjlsAdverfarie:,whttidorMerciesareCruelty.VII.ToIhewthePapiltswouldleavenoSconeunturn’dtoblowoffthisl-Ielli(hPlot,theirnextStratagemwassoforgeaPlotuponthePresbyterians,byNamebutinTruthtomvolvethemoltzealous andattireProteltantNobility,Gestry,&c.throughouttheNation:whichbeingfortifiedwithboldPcrjurics,andleciousPretences,mightgainCredit;andtherebytheybeingdeltroy’dasaSacrificetoJuftice,it mightfeemprobable,theLi)?TearsPlotwas.aelythurmaliciousContrivanceagain)?theCot b.licks,whowouldthenappeartheKing’sbeltScibjofts.TheA4de1ofthisdejinedPlotagainflthePresbyterianswasfoundivSir WiiliamWalTer,mtheHoufeofMrsCellier,hdinaME4L-TVS,inaPaper Rook,,tiedwithRed Ribbon.,:ItpurportedtobeonelyRemarl,orCirnf HediofThingsandPrfonstobecharged;as,amonguthereft,lherewerenamed,theLordsHallifax,Shaftsbury,Radnor,EfThx,Whatton,theDuiofBuckinghanc,andothers,tobeofCounfelinibispretendedCon (piracy;thtDukeofMon.mouthGeneral;theLordGrey,L.r4Gerard,andbitSon,andSIrThomasArmftrong,Lieiotew.,cdieneralsinthisReboliousfr.ny;SirWilliamWaller,andmbors,MajorGenerals; ColonelManfel,guareer.onojier.General.RythiswholeC.rnrrcmoctitmoftevidentlyappears,thattheiramwastoruins41that weretrutProtejlanot,orbone)? AffereersofcbsLibertie,andPropsrof theSo4j17:firindeedthereCannotbtif..Jgnrdal’evesoorthree,noalltheirions forgedLG,thatcanwit!,mlColour ofRcafon,orufualaccopeaoi.nofibeWord,itriledPresbyterians.VIII.Nextwecomet. defcrlbethemannerof Mrs.Cellwrs fitting,,StateonthePillory,nearthe.4pdeintheSso-an4withher famousWoodenShield,todefendherfromtheFuryofthePeople.Sloe wan’,nofljsoftlyfomentedtoibistgcs.,anionsPnesj7sst)erminablolyingPamyblet,eroeiiuled, MaliceDefeated:AEo.lr,Jloifedwit4ftswayLies,andnotoriousEqmvscmi.nsandwithJos,m,hMalice.oadEnvytoallProtejiantsingeneral,thattheisk!wasneverpblirkjyfold.IX.Wedeicribethe mannerof.Afasdsing7uj1iee.ornolA, byThreenotoriousRufflani;ofwhom, viz.Guts,bashbeenJinceToyW,midfoundGuilty, andartarhnglydefervedlyptmsjbedfris.X.Wenextdelribefibmarmorof eherteariogtheirTreafonabitPapers,for fearof aDifcoveey.XI.Inthenextplace,wedelrihetheirliolyFathersrsceivagC’mf.rtab!eLettersfroruEngLmnd,(withTcari ofJoy)ofthelikelySuc.ccfsoftheirPlot.XII.Laftly,WedefribeTb,mann,oftheExecutionofWilliaVofc.uneStafford,enTowtrbull,whowasimpeachedbytheHoufcofCommonsinió;S,of High-Treafon,inConfpiringtheDeathoftheKing;andwasaccordinglybrought toTryalbeforetheHoijeofLords, inParliament,onTusfdayehe laftdayofNovember,andbythemfoundGui’ey,andfentencedtoDeath,onTsoefeiayfollowing,viz.,theSeventhofDecember,168o.andaccordinglyexecutedonTowerhilttheof December.I\) CD 0 I-i CD 0 rtCD I-i CD I-J.0 ‘-I C 1.1.0CC” OnrtC CD’.I.-,Cm 0 I-iI-.,LONDON,Printedf,rRichardflaldwininBalI.Court,neartheBjackbullinthtOld£iiley.MDCLXàX’.CDCDCID 0‘°HI-i0 0:1 tJ, 0 C, 0 C, CD Cl) 0, 0 0 0 l—°__TicRX‘PLA2cAT‘0°‘C:°vPlot.otrionnioboibflumobstout1,,oucolionofthisMothPo000ffl-FinflPugtoor.OnrhoforomoAAnglooftoisonesnUck,muftooonoooooHoliolinnsKoIr.undosnolnood,,nnpiolnn/srcrliowoou/shooo/sw?rhoIl/sold,irisholiitloftriptioo,Afooti1oo&to-IIliolI-opFdloApiygunF/sillor!)Oh/sPopcrondos!GIIdryNil/stlstooJluouoowhfruulcluo/ssomoor.hI/1/soosibbitsohdlhppobrli/shPplhk!/soofl5000g001Inuroiooi/.oo/s’o(tintPoniolloroGooolnmro,pooo’.dfoui-To13onohokiodorytrofloodlotusP000nllonosinIdol-Crown,ooducoinronroProws/sIsoforolist far,onhodiliib,oo/stothor/shotLcd’SlottipIkfFC0,soonIlDlnoondqnodppbldHboTheonhoonAfiohofpooloiitl°cosihouliholdohoCog/snrouhoogBhiLkfr_Zt•unOilo0LIIIAhhorroooyoffoulsPoplArpoohh:coo.dowithlotFomtoohsToil,noditoblockØoolIfolHoc,sopro’AooInin.Anuooooo’/s/slil,o4nn7su/s,w1hiorisc/islocco/sioritsloEfigiotorhofistohsyfrooiog004$/sonar ofpnoioiooso,od!°onli0000oosAfrorlionFoohsht4n.CrroooIOcooO0,wpu.otilpooolilt/sotNor,,oslvl’oiooz&oopolioiscooownorLiooi.h’ooooodsloEooluhuooiro/sqo4Ibidld/shICi.nSfCoholinwohsksHoooolrroofiJIfhlDlfOilJ0filOIIhOlrjCopmost,nfrIIshollgot1IoIlneRigor&ohr-flfyiIu1’IIr°cs:r’yosJ0osootTkltFodooodopJiE..4U)un/sthenounSoon/sfkissotooll,ottomostotofpicooullpsodSoon/sPop.Hoot orehornfourGreyFoynro,lomoFnsooifioohitPopooorissrlbooioglitfoilsonoofrhoirqoijisioioar/son/supIra.tto/s,-Ha/slim/sdII001u.k/shodnliorAfliploolidoohocMno/smooooolooCOduory1551dgdSjoosiyhyrloio.oullhopproftO’uCooPO0Lyooon/sloocooC,to‘oPolioioo.oliaoflrdor.•,WoodIIifOs.°oWooololoi.°doodofuwoiby/sgs;lloi0rriorslotoftunoo.ofloo,oo,thisl°tyiflsCoool-Thin/sPop.Tl050000i000srloS000/sotP/s000o000ol000blocloFry-‘rho,rhonholots-ooipfwocooolnog,oodoooooono/soIbytitAn/so5looo.ohooroooho4oo/si4dIuy,OwfliI100ooOuftsoo’Oooooot0’ooI’Il’sI/ssonoolstooofG’os’gi’oToo/s,oiolsoooonroodowolloooioooooo.ciFOoo/so,oisodTooohoo.Noioooooorho500oiso,Whi/suio,, sodsol-Boo5t.pi5uooo/sto,w/sFioiIInLoo/soodi005ouoonoftqo.4tr-/s1-.no’oolsonotIi41-iiso,ilsPod.rtoooofoooJoloirs,0fooohoodoronott,rkoltWorld,onolotmnonohoosiy°doilsSroflo0000,olinoirliOiolrusonio,isoo1oroflAsoookoocjloouk,,Oooiootbsluoq,ISP1gbyIRoil1COOlfllHooolpOioflsoi/sy4000000tOp/sinsslitionlibootooffoyolohorbyold‘InTo,I.modIfp/sbofflornFoooootyu,uorwon-hoclsyFowjlulllooc1g°15I111IPIIhohI0kolOgt°:‘°.°tr[,llooniosoo,fooilbll°ronO0OIOOPfI,ct0L,_,0t0f0VtSIIll\blfllIdIhIrolol‘°y04cnfor/s‘Iwn44,nw,ojns0&r.ddoltCfLIlullIIbh/sO’losdsdJbpyOyf/srnlyCIlosbIrItiuAlitiI-oi,sooisiáoig.ut/sitohosloitfuonuol,tlupoig,So.nohsosfofoh.oo,Ioior Pop,,&fo/swu‘sosPoo’ojoo 00000oho’—ohoPooot3unolkoliu/soo,ood .0f.000ehoroujtofooooP/siriocoon/sH’‘uoio/sor”offis.Co/slit.3.AOtt/sbody,ocyotboooiogSiry4/iOPu.DoloodtooPoyiOoRiAorso,nod000snohhihnyn,OlinhloCosnliosiogooooiroobrlsouosrorontoInlosoolIsprholihofiooiooLa/son,b°riooo/sforAfuohuoholPoor/so,,nooksSmoochsoontIml’i’S/so.goodj,0Suit‘h/snutIlIsutIp,on/stooofloishIs,-loooo000lIor,hooolocolitynotholoof/singtoohio PoyofooinhoPtInyhoookio/shoolinolin dry, nodohrToioylo,logssoooulloooibloslSoooko/s(oriooiPciu/suo-IVolhjoo,00olinSoarisChoqft&,H’locoojolithholsiiouyio[lulihook,shutrIse0000000hoboonf,o/scantor)dooi000.o.dowofsooh7oGoodoiomoor.ho.sorrooiolr.Ionsoiiloodoooooftomshdlioiorodboppol;nodSoosoolhr,ocohoPout/sonioZoo,’CI)/s(Soonf1/1/1/siAhoG5chOwftourhoro1n°’o/so1oDofIso:goon,odibtobiLoquuoho/sSofooosrr)r.PjIcoafPy°ogoIiooioiisIonsHitir.-ohan00rhopuiootd-Cltth000foonho/solo, toIlooO,,withLootoil.bofoooor/sbib/so/stIngy,)bhlypoooodnoosoolohloiiirs/sn,whooonriooiilyof thomoutsotyorfiolsoJVsI/s.fisofoCsobulioot,nit.IsoPolisfisCluogyofPoi0000dCosoooufoofs.Afoot Ohiol’osoooooorronuoOIli’oooof its000010030/s,ftopoyooyoct/sllodoA’IoJ,PnsoJOooR/sfgoos,itndbw./s,otto,uhroongsogisooCulltoliorotog‘tiniouholei’?r’opoo,/siftoibcniocofPodono, on/sfoyiog,Sonhint,ooooyhoso4-dPfTooh?msrpsOaoo,bortpossco/sVoho.Anon,•°1’—TssnbI’bo0000100rnl5tInroOiyo,o14pflw-cu/sodp0500fpomo,&rroywn&bh400i500/sLittfiltO#fr41i01..,‘otlAoobonobio,—-ProciVVPK&4k2rllsSaitfljtthJthiviwkthrLAtt1i.-’&e—err-498Fig. 4 The Solemn Mock Procession..., detail representingElizabeth Cellier and Roger L’Estrange.Ui0 0 I-.II II H rt r.i CDH CD ci) H CD C,, 0 9 I-’ ci C,) CD C’) CD ci) rt H 0100iIClK.i‘LlFig. 6 The Murder of Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey (London, 1678), broadside,British Museum, 1064.101Fig. 7 The Kingdomes Monster Uncloaked from Heaven (London,1643), print, British Museum, 375.‘-I. CoOrtQ0(D-HCflH H(Dr1i (DOrt0H-0Ow00())‘H0’rt I-J.76Thpct’MidIJe.Lib.3,Imallvcincs,andlikcvvifc bythe Navcll,hejimàvcdwithc&t:fdrceandvidlcnccintJrvvomb:lochathcbrcakcthafundcrthcLga.Hcbrcakcthnicncsorosndcrsçbcfmali:Yciacswiththccoatsorcaulc,ii ‘hichhwrapped&infold.cd,IIay, zhcsc.dine v’jchthcoth1twocoatsorwrap.pcs,offtheb)bccnfpckcnbcfqre;anddorhprcparc....:.ikiloofehimrelfccothcbirch, .afterthemanerofthis figure.wiutBythis declaration‘°andotbrwtrcnwhih:arcprcfc41rcg.nnraicJ laboringvvornenmyn,2teandob.ktvethctrueand.proper paincs,pàflionsandthichindcrcoc-o.tIcrthhg, buthc. ‘olencaBEdftrugglings:ofth1nfascbcingCamoperfcion,vvichwbicL:’isdrivcn,tcd,*-ndrollcdandChap.1.TheexpertMidrifc._______andctiiThcr,and(trivchdowneardtothelowerparts,thachemighthavepafTage tocomeforthintOthelight.Forthemembranesotcaulesbeingbroken byhisflrivirig&violence,andtheMatrixbeingdilclolcdandopcncd,thchumoursdoebegintoflowabroad,fromwhichtheInfantbeingfreedanddeliveredbyandbyfecleththeaire,andthroughdelircofthislifeirollcdcowardstheour-paf1gcoftheMatrixtisheadturnedtowardsthe mouthanden.Anrur11bgtli.tranccoftheMacrixAndthisisrhcfornicandmannerofalegitimateandmofi naturallbirth,iffiLtthheadprocccdcforth,thebandsftrctcLieddownewardsbythefides,andlaiduponhehips,asthc_prcfcntFigureadjoyneddoth(hewandcx-prcfTc.Butthcbirchislaidtobeunna—-turali,ifanyofthcfcconditionsandpropertieS..;flu!1•.-I C00IWWWP3P3IHCDP3UiIiIii‘1t-P3rj.P3HCoO[1--CDCDCDIIOH00IiL1iLF—0Q.‘iJCDP3Ii-ç-•I-h-h’--p)HUiOF-hCl)CDtJiCDCDH1k)H-0OH-cl)P3(i)OH-‘-oCDCDOH-CDbCDHOCD’Q’IH-dCD(A)<C1)HHHMCDCDP)F1i(1)‘ZItICJ)H1CDP3MHIH-’c1-HP3(4)ctH-LQ0P3HCOP3OCtCDH-(Dt’J000Qi—icn0-(I)P)P)(DHiCD(fl(OIHH-OCDII1P30CDOMH-CD•P)1•MCOCO(D•.HHCDHH-‘<HJ•OP3i—cnp.pi01MH.:.H-P30•P3<OH--F—H0•P3I..o.-ft(OLQH-P30P)CD—JF-CCOHIH-flCO‘<OP)H-CDQI-<H3H1MP)H-CDP3rtct(J1LIItJ:CDctP)•P3P3‘0•oM0OcIOHCD•crH-13F—•0tiH-Cl)HL’ICD-..JP3.XctCO(D0(1)c0ct•ti0M00ct(DH0)Hi—IH-IctCDMCI)cdCDH-:.H:tYCD-ocictHMMtHM)UiHCOHCO’‘<CH<010CoOCOIiCDHP3P3H(Oct•P3dct01H-iQOH0OHH-H”<—JIMMP3CDH-P3-J(JcCDH,oLxI00ooctCoH-(TIMIIMH1CDP3ct0ICDH-H-‘.DP3CD‘.<C)•‘<0CDL-’ICDrtctHHM0CDH-ctoMCDLIIH•0•0P300MH-CD0—JCDrt-•.H-•Hct01LIII1HiP3ctMCOOMLQ—JH-0‘<rtciL-’P3MQ(JP3CDctF—(DCDçi.H-H-(yiP)0WP3CDM0O(DH(DiiP3ct—(O.0rtCI)CD.ctiOMHLII<0CoP3<H‘<MrtP)1Z‘<0CI)P3P)HCl)0‘<•CDMM..3F-hO•çtQtJ(I)Oct-ClctCDP3H-Z‘<‘-iiI-F,H0’<F-’CDOH-OP300MUJDMMH-P3H-MHCDH00I-H-P3ct‘iF-CDH-F-0)—J’s0H-ctCOCDH-‘-aP30i-(J)0Fl—JH)),0LIICo0’•.CDCoUloCoCortctciH-H-P3H-ciO—JoIIiCDCoL’H-H,P3CDCDc-t-(D<‘z3•00CDOMI-ICDciOCDP3bisiIF-aci:DHCDCtci•t’ICDC(tO0HOHHLi•tiCDi3O0‘oCflH-•P3COP)CDcti0Cl’Co•OH-CDCO<rJctMFlCD(tH-P3MCI)OHM<ctP3P3O0(OCDCD.••.P3H-CD-a.11ctCD0:0MCD•.FlP3CD•rtiXbIHCDictCOCCIcyp)CD•QCDO0CDH-Ui(I)2(l)OciMLii0FlctctoHHCDCDF-hP30MH-i01(1)‘<H-ciICDctP3.OMCDOCD••Hp)rt•.0CD’<HCOFl0ctCDCD<OP3‘tiM-..—JOCDH-ftHP3—JH-CDCDctiCP3MLIIOP3rtHHI-(I)CDoiMM-o-‘itP3Cl)•M-CO’<I-P3P3Cl)H••O••‘<ciCDH-ci(1)C)C)‘-3C)C)C)IIC)C)IC)C)iJHHHIIIJICDC)P3ctHCDH-P3P3IIP3P3IHCDttH-I-I•IIM•HHCDCDCDC)ctI-c-I-HH-H-.OMF-30‘tlC)OC)’2-3C)P3H-CDtI-H-HOH-’c5CDl1H-P3CiO—10H-P3CDCDfrCflOOH-t5FloCDoFdCD<-con••‘iCl)H-P3CDCfl]c2.I-IHCD’0P)CO’WI-I—3CD‘tjF-iH(OH-COOP)P3<•ctCDb-cz—G)cD:zSP)H-I1•CD(OHCDHHCDCOC)OOIiJH-OCOH-H-CDL’I•I-iZc-I-0HH-H-QIIfrc1-H-CDH-P)O<hHCDLXI1<‘<CDH-H-CDt)H(O(O(OL’F—•<CJ)1FtOHC1S•.ctCDCDH-Q.F—-C)HP)CD•(Octp)H-’<Ct.H-O)ctN•HP3OH-.ctQi(DCD(DCOCOO•OP3N0H--1.ctS00‘<H-hI•.M0-ic-I-CD‘ti)I—]cøCl)H110)•1Z’H-P3P)LXIhICD••hI’<IiPtYCD•P3•P3F-]‘CIHH-H-‘tIeH-.H-P3CDH-ctCDCDCOH-LXIC)c-I-PhIG)<.OctP)-hOCoft.•H-,$1:OH-CDCDCD•CCDc-I-HP3C)HctCD•CD•XI•Ci)Q)zjCi)COhICDH-ctCDP3O•CDHCD-CDctLxJCoC)CD(0<rI-H-HLXIOçltictOCDCOC)P3L-’OcHH0C0H-P.‘<OctCDCDCD—..OMcthICDH-0CtIQH-,H1HCD’<d‘tiS2’<H-rI-NHO‘<2‘tiC1)I-HP)OH-..H-hIti‘<HH-hIhIO•<COP)‘-ohIHhI•P)P31<C-iCDH-H‘zjhIp3P3H-,OCDbCXP3CDHCDP3COc-I-0tiCD01-hhICD—.J’tJHCDCoLIMOic-I-ctp3H-0fttiHCOHc-I-•CDMftP)CO-].1-f,HP3MCDH-C)P3<ftH-xJOo’CIH-01•H-C).$2MH-1-hH-P30I0H-00siC5c5I-ctP3P3H-P3(l)H-NOP)MOp)CDhICDCOCDOH-‘<ic-I-Hf-ctjIiP)CD‘<5C)P3Cl)ctCI)hI•ItiH-WLQoCoOCD’t3Lx)‘OCDhIc-I$2CoLXICD’<c-I-‘tiH’CIMH-hf,CD•co•hIC)CDOhICDH‘-<1-f,.H•H-hIa’P)H-OMa‘<CDftH-,H-HMHH-,0HH5CD4Ms••.CD$2CDc5CD0hIOIIP3•‘.QCI)cD50L11iCDL-’CnLXIHH-O1-f,0ii(0.DCDP3H-Hp]‘<J.C)HCXihI$2-3H-’HfthIP3CDP3CDH-•Q—Z0(1)H-CDCDOH‘<CDH-CDHNCD•P3$2OCDHLXIc-I--<‘ti’P3çt‘HWHc-I-ct0•WoP3CD•.hI0H-YP3HIIH-$20hIcOCOCDCDLCDG)CDCDCDCI-CD’-]0CDc-I-OMH-C.ifthI0COO•CDCDCDhIrtH-0CDL-H-ft•Co‘-CIQ.CO(l)iOC)P3HCo0••‘-QP3Cd••MCDC)C)c-I-OtiHWH-•H-H-IIH-hI1’(iOh1••P3HOHI-I$2HHaMcyCDOH.ct0CJ)•0ø-QcttYP-$2CXHHCDIH(/20t-p3cooCD1IODCD1-IC)C)H$21ooP31-I000ftMcøHhIP3c-I-hI•H-c-I-‘QIH-ciOP3•CDP)H-00CDhI$2$2HH-0OH(OHCDO01-IMCD0P300HCtP30•CD.HTIjCDH-iI‘)H$2‘hICDHCl)I-I-‘cX2P3(l)0•OhHC,).1rJIICiCiCiCiCiI00-txIH-IIC)0cø0P.’P.’ILiCDCOIIC)—JbHHC)Cl)‘-QCD•H(I)H-HP.’CDc-I-HCDH-•0CD-C1)(iMCI)IX)’1CiCDP)F-<IOCO-.J-ftftjICiZF-lCl)O-iLiCOICl)’F-H-I-JJF—0Iip.’OLOIM,ri-O1—iIoIH-H-’(DONCDH’IocDftiH•1ICDctCD-kQty’I’rti-hICi‘lCDctCD‘lCOHH--IC/)H-IHCI)(D0CkQIlOctP1H-0ICDCDP3(i)-IoiciCDIP1ftCDH-I-<M‘lCDCOCOP)P)lCD.CD‘.QS1QII-iJlo-00(1)ICDIH-H)Q0IC-41Ci)‘<ftI’lIii(t’lCDH-P)H-•.IH-XIH-CDCDI1ftIHCD’l‘lCD•.Ci)H’l1H-I’<00)0)IC!)CO(DP)Lii—SCD•‘lIi’lCD‘SIlP)H-<P)•(T)•“ftCl)IH-H-ftF-if-aHft0p3H-H-’<••0iCDP1ctI00C/)CDi-<•IO’lCD0biH-iMC)QCD..CDOMHP.’‘-<IIOIQNI-tlH-1-ICI)I(D0CDHH-c)LCD<H”HIH-<iI3p)IoHLXJ0CJ)COp.’P1H-H0COctCDIHOOHMIP1b—JCD’.Qp3C)(OC)•.tl[-bCDH-H-0DI.‘-QHCD0tSICDi(n’.Q<HH-H-‘s’P.P)CD0.0<ftH•-CCDCD0.HCDIL.OftO).OO’3OOQ.‘CDOCDCDIICOLi••.ICDz•:H-iiHCDCDCDb‘tJtS•CDt-Cl)CDH-t’•l)b’•G)CD‘S’P)H-HCDH--••COP)CD<H-0H3F-‘<—JItiCDH<H’lC)HH-ftCDJCD0.HP)O0•I-H-WI-P.iCDCr.’CDOftH-‘l1OCYI-LiP)HCDH-,C)C)P1—iFICl)ftCD1]5‘<Mp.’ii(OH-0bODi•i0-‘lCDC)HbJH-C)p)H-COI.QHiQ.CDHi-<ftH-[-hCl)NJCDC)bIC1’l00G<0<p)H-3C)HftCD0H-0ft(DCD•0.‘<‘lF—J(Jift000•0P)CD0.s-ftCDC)I-1H-HftII‘-<II•C)H-.CDcH-EH:CHQ.(1’C)1<QP.’F-<HQ.•I—’CDCD0Cl)CO’lftLi‘tlWP)ftH-ft•“1-hI1IcTP)0LQ‘tiZL.QCDH-XH-P)O1H-oft‘l).oftL-1‘ZICDC)’lHH-(D<(DCDI-h’ltYIQOCOCD‘lftCDGO0P3PJH-0C)CDHHICDOHCI)Q.H-b1---0OCDIt(Oft•IICDC3‘.OP)Q.H-‘.OIHDH-C)CDH-C5iCO0P)CD(OYQ.ibftH-HH--iI—.ip.’C)IIC)iIS(DftLHiCDH-0H-H-IIH-Cs)C)—.iILi-.3P1IP.’C)H0H-0H-ftC)P1<H-uC)biP)H-3—IH-•Q.F—C/)ft.H-H,P)HHDF—H••CD0.’.QD0H‘O•.IHIObiH-s.Q1CDItI•CDH-cDH-O‘lLQ(DO-a)Q.IOHH’l0H-H-••‘lftocft‘l(OCD(‘JOIHH-OCDH-s.0(0CDc-CDH-0CD‘tJH-H-IICO’lIIc-iIocoC)CD(OH(I)COOZC)•YC)IIftftCDH-0—ikCD••PlC)HP.’-CI)i-bCDLi.•ftH-P.’<LCs)ftH-H-,P.’—JIH-ftiH-H0p-’-00)ftCDlICOH-H-Cl)I-(OH-C1)Hft00ft‘dCDCs)0.colC)O0‘..QO’l(f)s.OH-Hi-<7S-3CDH-‘lQ.P.’H-ftCi)(j1I3I-oa’lP.sCoCDOCl)’lCDC)CDOCOHH-C!).ICD(OHo0Hft—3IIP)P1P1(OCDOftH-H-d’lC)•0.oLi•COPIIi5.QCOLPICDCDIIHCI)0s.QF-’P1DftL’OF-1<P1IICDIIftOftH—IHCDftp)ftCi)I-$D.CD.H-0CDCD—ICD-OPI0•HftH-,C)0.(nIC)C)II00oH-((1P3IDiP)IIIIIICDCDoHESIIIIIMCDDiII0HHIIHCDHi•‘1H-CDCDH-CDESHi‘-QCl)I-]S-I--OP)JMxi’-3’<WdLx1JCocn’<‘tJst5p.‘tbLWCDJC1o—JQ)ciulOESHCDPMMCDctMCDHESM’dtiH-:OM0pisiI-JH-OOCDP)H((100S2CDCDESP)C2t(DH-ESCl)LXlESHp.0DiESrtOLxlOH-HCnF—d-H-MeCnpictP3ESQctHctCDDiCDH-•H-pictESHMH‘sLQCl)PiH-OCDDiCflH-ctHIM(1)H-HOCDOH-.Q(flct(I)CD’-<H-H-CI)%(1)QH-O’1Ci)ES<0H-MOESCnCIPftOH-$2N(DOCDH-SD.ESctH-Co$2CDESC1)H-Ct••ES•MCDDi.20••OESP3piP)HESDiHOESCD’-<$2F—D)C/)H-’<—OH-‘-<COESCD’i$2ctCDESbHcoESctDi-opipio$2CD•ES1CDH-P)ODDiLbICD0DOCDESCiO1ESHESC)C)X‘-3CDCESCDctESM-.JC)0••CX)CDjDi.‘-o$2OCl)DCOP)oESML’lESH$2•MDit5H•.ES‘TI•HH-CDrtt-CD0.H-H-OH-‘ESH-ES$2HCD0dH-CDDiCOPMESM<ESOESLQcCD(10CD:ESHaMct<ESH-CD(OWCDESCD‘H.C’CDP)H-IctCfli—IW-H-OH-H-Q.H-0OP)‘-aMLxlctH-•ctESD)C5H-OL1CD(OCD‘doCD0‘.Q•ESMDiC0ESCDCOO$2.00ESOESMCD••PiP)Li‘SCHESCDH-LQCl)MHMH-OiQH•HOCDCl)$2ctHctES-CDP)XH-OESCDMH.CDDiCDiHOct0‘<DiC1)CDCnESctpOctOctDiCDJ—I’.QESO0MH-OOCDCDESMOCDctH-MP)H-$2‘<ES‘-<ESPi$2PJOctCDrtHiHiMOESO$2DiOESMOOCl)t’.)Ct••$20DiMOH-(OH-O’-<çtfrhESP)ESDiH-ESCOCX)HiCDH-H-•H-ctOCOOdM$2ESH-H0MH-O‘dP)CD0OESP)M$20CDOMI—IH$2ctCOOL’iOH-HiES-.----MH-MESCI)DibCDHH-••HiES’-<HO1-aOCOQESF—$2MH$2ESCDDiOctCDCDHH-•.HCDWi11OCtcDctH-CO0‘<siMMDict(•)ES0H-Q’XPibESH-HH-CDESODESH-<CDCHiHiMH-—JESCO‘TIESHiESIctMCDONDiCD•.CDHCD<CDESESOCDES$2OH-LxiOHCOt5CDCDESctCDMr-I-H-t-MHL.Q.DiHHES•H-aDi‘TI$2$2ESM•.Cf)D)(OH-<H-$2ctID‘TiESH-PCDCOOMC.’-3•OCDCD01H-ESCDct•.OL.iHCD$2cttjH•<HiDibCD<‘-3DlH-01ctLQMCDC’M‘<HP)0‘T•HOESc3iH-‘-<COMH•“-)C0C1MESHMctlH-ctH-OCDbCDESID)ftH-D)‘-3--.1OMCtp.OCDY.COCOOXM(OcoHOESctQIESPMES•MctCoCDES•CDH-ctO•CDHiCD‘<‘-<CDN(J1aPiCD•rI-H-COMCDCo00QOHiM•.(J1HHH-Cl)00bOOP••MH‘PMH-Cl)OLi‘Ti0H).ESCOESESPiO—L1QH-CDP)0(OH-DiESMHI:COLQ-a0••HESESP-’•0“ctrI-CuHLQCDWP)XD’(iiPJCI)MESDicopirtESES’IH-CH-DiOr-I-H-H(OHM—JctpESCoMESçlCD0ESOMMCDHiH-COO(Dcl)CoLXIH-H-‘DES0QHCJ1DOCO0biCoH---’‘-<ES0(1)0ESct•ESMES‘-.0(i)EScY-•ES<•ESH-Di<CDctMESQsi‘.QCDQCD••ESCooCDct(O0ESHH-Op.H(Or-SOWMH-H-HiMOHiH-ESES’<H-•ICOLCl)HCl)HDiCDLQCOCD‘<DiCI-H-rI-H—.lrtH-HrI-ES..•0ESHHi‘<CDESc’ 0scic_io)H-CDCD000Iii00C)itCDI-IIHi-I0CDNNbCDitH0oHH-0HP)P)COCDiLiF—CDI-LCDQP)HS-5f-L1W(‘s)CH-‘1MO3PJ1‘‘CDP)’P)•H-OOCl)MCDtJ‘DitH-0Cl)HOitctiQtJ—J.QCD-JH-ct11HH-CdCD<OQ<tYOCiC.AjNM•i-IHOWCDCJ1ML’JC.10CDb•HP)1O1•COOHI-IN•M<iiCDP•HP)O•0(DM•MctH-’00CDCOHH-•HPCOPP)HMLQCD<IICl)H-bYP)•CD’MPiXMø0H-COQH(OH-P)C!)itCI).1’<CDL•.CDH)ItH-Cl)‘<HiHP)C1CD•(DCD•itCDHH-C)CDOCDIIOP)CDCHCO•CD11<CDCiCDC-ip)I-’F-a‘OOCo01<•HH-CDH-Ci•C)iCDHH)P)iQH-0‘.0HCClL.Q00CD•0H-CD•aPJctCDP)itMCDP.•C)OC)it<IC))CDIH-cxr’CDH-CDH-itCDCi‘-JCDCDCDMf-0(0•<ICDL<IC1CDMØCD1CDHOCDPiCDIlt::tjOQ.inciC3itCDCDH-CDCD-CDH<ICDctCDC)COQ.F-iH-H-Cx)H-•.00MitctHOMCi•.-ctHH-CDoitcoii•bCOCDCoOctCDH-HT’MCDH-H-ctHitP)1<.Cl)1<H-H-MH-’<Y’OCDClt3OCiHCDCDI—(O1<CDHCDClinctflp)itbMp-OctCDCIctCDCDo1<CDM1<0COH-H-HH-1<P)—3(l)O•ti•C)MitH-H)OCDit<ICoCOO••H-C)CnH-‘1IIHP-CDCD<ICD‘tiitMCDQCDifOIH1<CDIi’MCOP)CDctHMCiOMitititCDlIP)13CDHHCDCDCO131113’0CDMCiCDCDCiM13(o13-OdoMitO(nP)if)WQ(CDH-it(O1<F—’(OMMH-CDH-C)H)COCiitlt)I“IIH-•if)itCO•1<C)11itCDHH-PiH-11C)H-b013itO‘P)P)1<c)F—itP)•(IinHMH)D.iD13P1<0H-1311HitJ—1øCD(s)1<F—13H-ct‘øHcyCOMH)HCDHC)CDH-CDt’)CD11).00—CDitcØHOH-CD0‘OHOP)C1P’OI-1•(OH-OC/)Hit—flQ()13’•H-H-H013OP)0ODH-it13CDH-H-13H)H-p)QOH•CDC)CDC)P)C)$1—J13H)(J’b’OH(013H-t(0133lQCDC)cl)0•1•MP)P)P)(OH-13‘<itQitCD1<CDC)p)itP13H-HC013COp0P-CoCD13HMH•.0l•LJO(DI-’MPiH-co1313itH-H-H‘13H•13H)H-’<MCD•P.CDP)CDCDP)HbCDCDC)COCDOCl)0H).H-13L\)11M0.13H-O0i11C)..oH011013itit1<IICD013If—H-C)F—lP)P)CDIIO.•—0HC-i13CDH-CDH)‘C1H-CD•it13H13••P)C)CDdH-Ui•13COOHCD.H1313H-C)H-CDcoP)‘ZIP)MOP)CDCDitlIINJHOP)•-h13P)ML’J—313H(OHIICDS•H-CDC)0o.CDH-P)MH-F<L1P)..P)IICDI-j’Zj‘<itMH013•.it0113MH13H••CDO“H-CDCD313‘<IM•0H-CDCDitH-(OHC)(01<1313)Cn’<H-CO(OHCl)C00H-••CiCO1313Hit1331300)OH-H-••it13itC)H-jCD130CD••00ICl)IICl)13U)COC))XiI—‘—31-3000‘tJ0H-CD0itCDCD(00CDCDCOHCDP.)H)it0H52‘-3P-CDCDH)CD52CDp.)M‘-<COLcJML(Thf—2.i-1P)CJH-CDP)blCDP)CDL0(D00OM‘tJOH-I-F-H-OCDH000CDMbP)ti0MI00P)0P)’MCDQo’P.)1<P’rtctCD<0’d520H-H-HzCoO0pH‘sCD2CO-(PU)WCOIlH-OMP.’52itt5t5b-’CiEsHH-QH•CDH52Oct‘-<MH-QCOP.IIHCOitOMOIlMOctH-I-t,•H•itH-0EsM7Ot50-,C5H-M(DP)MCDEsH-’dH-OH-(DCDCDHH-Octd••SiP)MMObHP)COCDHct(0••<H-52M52Es5211H-itH)1dEsC1flitCDEs•OiL-1HMCDHH.0)P)COIQEs‘.Q•-SiCDH(D•(PP.’itEs•.it.‘.øCDcp.’P)CDP.IP)EsEsCDCDCDH,C0Es110LXII-EsiH-MP.).O0Ob0EsMEsOH‘tJOH•.0-EsH(1)ctCD00<it‘-lEsOHH)52COH-(PSi11(0(0CHMP)Cl)CDH-.CI•(l)SiEsEsH-’-3EsI-P)•CDCDHitH-EsEsP)0(0(0IINMCD•it•Es0EsCD—.3.HI-P.)EsOP)H-.O’ZI‘-3P)’sP.’H-F-’HO0Es(DC)b’MHEs•H-itctH<P)CD•H-EsbEsH-0(PH)‘C5LxiC)0(0(.3,0:(DH-CDICDM152CD(D’-QP)’--352H,OLXI•L10.01MO52ct’bM’--3tY<(Jct—.CoitH-EsLQiOHidEs—J•EsEs’Hi)Es’MP)Ci(D01bJ0b’CDCDCDb’(P•0ICDt-H)CDOH-CDH-P.)<bCMC)OEsMCD0P)MHCDHMH-0itit52EsH-MI00H-lH-EsOSiMit(PH-H—JCDOL-’OMLXI‘-<Cl)LQ52CD’ditHCDP)51(0F-EsitP)COL-H—.3it011P)520CD(OH0CoH(0Es.QCO‘-.ØH-P)COOCOOH-O1P)H-Es‘-MH-‘-H-‘tJP)’-01H-(PitCoEsEsEsC0H-I-<EsCD•itO52•HCOMCDd1OH-EsitC)H-•.OcOH-5252OO51MEsO0CDEsEsHF-EsCDCDHitM.OCDMSi0EsCJOO(00H-H-cYHCDM‘-DEs’P.’‘<‘tiSiEsH-s’bEsitHOM-,52P)H)<COCD<itcoI<Fd•—1(0flitIIHitHi•.H•.Es‘QM’-<H-<CD-(PH-C)00•CoP)H-H-H-itCDH-CD-iS’HP)H-CM0MO•0••C)OEsEsSiO•0)—100’I-’CDP)CDHH)(00)P)H-‘t3Hi•CDL5’EsitMHLiSEs’‘tJ’ZIH-I-liCoOCOEsQ,‘.0H-51(0CD00MitCDiCDMO(DEsH).C-b”‘.DitH:CDEs’-MHH-1J0C5LMMHFt551it...J5j1<C)O‘<Es(051H-51CDCDSiH-H-0itO)EsH-•LXICD0•‘s’çl••OEsHEsOitCOEsCDMP.)LXIEsCDEsCDCD(0L’JitEs’52‘XIH-CDEs’Qb’EsMEs00)CD51P)(iitCD0MEs51HdCDM•CD’.QH-it0O0d1P)MMEs’COEsP)P)MitH-i--s(OF-’Es’.QitI—’EsH)‘ti’dHCDCD”EsitI-hf-’-EsH-(oEs’(np.’•CDP.)CD‘<..05151EsCD•CD0-•MMM0HHCDM-itCDP.’51•O•CDHp.)H00H-H-CDEs00H•F-hEs‘.OP)CD-3H(-EsØH)U)MCDSib’cOHSi0)H-COEsMEs’52—3MP)CD0(0C/)HMM—.JDL0C)0ci-52H-CDCD•P.’H0H-H-COH-(A)0L-M0Es•••0EsH’ZjitOitP)MCDCD51.C)00)EsH-52(DEsHEs•M52LQIEs•52itH-0H-MP.)51•CDH0MCl)00)013’Es.“0EsCDCDp.)CD•CD51••EsCOH•M•0)•.CoI IH-H-HIHHHHCDCl)HH0H-H-CD‘-3tiOt5W-’-3Op.ai-oi-iO(DH-:P)CDP)CDOiD’HOc5H1<li11ctOO(DCl)siaD)p1ctctH-tYH-H-rt’‘ç<ç.hc’.flCH(DH-HliO(DQ-Cl)ctli-hHH-H-lili‘QCD-P)P)Ci)p10•<CDH-ciict’-<H-CD(1)liH)liP)iQCDCO)-P)Li1HciCDH:‘<CDQçtU)ciH-CD’—3LIIQCD••.H-P).DLQ<HHCflHcDP)h1HF-1c5P)CDHH-H-.x.HNQOci:QClCDHI—lQp1liPctc-t.•CDt3H-HH-(DCDliH-P):H-:::t5CDQ.HliYIP)M’1ø’H-CD-çt‘-3Cl)CtliHOrtctIQCD0JCDOH-CLH-rtH-HCDH-P)ctC-CDl-••P)H-C)HHOLC(DOH-Cl)C)Hc1ctH,H-C)HCl)COCDci(DCl)H-Ii5•L-1LiCDliOItH-HC)•1ctctOOp1HctctN)i’t5O’dHP1CDLQH-H-HP)CDiiHCD‘tlH-(l)ctHOOHI‘<0CDtyL2IctP)lict(DH-iH)IiliciCD<H(fl30HCD.iJF-OCi0)H-.lip)H••CDliF-3’:H-‘oHliCurtciIicOCJI1<LQ01Qp1H-00XctH-.—CD-CDCD010L’OP)•‘-‘lH•H-p1ctrtHCD(D••CDo’tiiH-CD’<JH-ctCl)OlliL-ui.rtCDCtCDCDL-iP)-tJCDCD0Cl)H1liOliH-••HP)Ii‘-Cl)W(Dt’3•CD-CtCDCo(DliO••Cl)$D.H’-<0cøliD)•)CJ)4sy00c3L1IH)I00P)dICDcicxDciH-HLIICDdHOHliCOk)01QXi’tiOC/)•.O1C)HoQCl)HliP•ctH-CDCDCD•H-H-Hp1ctH-C)P)OIOCDIIIOrtCDIWH-(.a)ciCDOtlCDHOC)ciC°XC)‘<Cl)OctP)YciP)•ctH)CDcH-H0IO‘dOCDctC)(DH)CD0H<iH-•l)’CI—3l-H-ct0••liHHctCDH-CDCDLIIi—1H-ii•ciCt•Cl)

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0086513/manifest

Comment

Related Items