{"id":{"repo_id":"cambridge","oai_identifier":"oai:www.repository.cam.ac.uk:1810/298916"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/cambridge/oai:www.repository.cam.ac.uk:1810/298916","repository":{"repo_id":"cambridge","name":"Cambridge University","base_url":"https://api.repository.cam.ac.uk/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"The Concept of 'Liveliness' in English Visual Culture, c.1560-c.1630","abstract":"In contrast to the richly visual literature of late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century England, the period’s visual art is usually seen as impoverished. Historians have emphasised the views of Protestant divines, for whom images were ‘dead and dumb’, and have focused on the limitations placed on images’ abilities to communicate. Yet period texts show that many people saw images as highly vivid, or in their words ‘lively’. The fact that, in our own time, viewers have been so quick to dismiss English visual art as dull and limited shows that our framework for interpreting these artworks is anachronistic, informed more by our own surroundings than by the period’s interests. My research re-enlivens these once ‘lively’ objects by seeking out the qualities which made them ‘lively’ at the time. Perhaps the biggest challenge facing art historians of this period is the lack of period sources discussing art in England; unlike contemporaries in Italy, the English rarely recorded their thoughts about images in any detail. My research turns to rhetorical theory as a period-appropriate theory of communication, enabling me to explore how these objects communicated effectively, and vividly, to their audiences. Rhetoric, the art of persuasion, formed the basis for grammar school and university education, and writers on rhetoric frequently draw parallels between literature and visual art. I focus particularly on strategies used to create the effect of 'enargeia' or vividness in writing, and compare them with the strategies used by artists and patrons in visual and material culture. Examining a broad range of objects including portraits, domestic decoration, household items, and book illustration, this thesis makes a new case for Tudor and Jacobean confidence in the effectiveness of visual objects.","abstract_html":"In contrast to the richly visual literature of late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century England, the period’s visual art is usually seen as impoverished. Historians have emphasised the views of Protestant divines, for whom images were ‘dead and dumb’, and have focused on the limitations placed on images’ abilities to communicate. Yet period texts show that many people saw images as highly vivid, or in their words ‘lively’. The fact that, in our own time, viewers have been so quick to dismiss English visual art as dull and limited shows that our framework for interpreting these artworks is anachronistic, informed more by our own surroundings than by the period’s interests. My research re-enlivens these once ‘lively’ objects by seeking out the qualities which made them ‘lively’ at the time. Perhaps the biggest challenge facing art historians of this period is the lack of period sources discussing art in England; unlike contemporaries in Italy, the English rarely recorded their thoughts about images in any detail. My research turns to rhetorical theory as a period-appropriate theory of communication, enabling me to explore how these objects communicated effectively, and vividly, to their audiences. Rhetoric, the art of persuasion, formed the basis for grammar school and university education, and writers on rhetoric frequently draw parallels between literature and visual art. I focus particularly on strategies used to create the effect of 'enargeia' or vividness in writing, and compare them with the strategies used by artists and patrons in visual and material culture. Examining a broad range of objects including portraits, domestic decoration, household items, and book illustration, this thesis makes a new case for Tudor and Jacobean confidence in the effectiveness of visual objects.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Faraday, Christina Juliet"],"institution":"University of Cambridge","degree_name":"Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)","degree_level":"Doctoral","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Marr, Alexander"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2019,"date_issued":"2019-09-20","date_published":"2019-09-20","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:13Z","subjects":["Tudor","art history","elizabethan","vividness","enargeia","liveliness","lively","vivid","portrait","portraits","epistemic images","epistemic image","prints","print culture","book illustration","domestic imagery","face jugs","bellarmine","embroidery","tapestry","wall paintings","rhetoric","art of rhetoric","eloquence","idolatry","agency","automata","crucifixes","iconophobia","iconoclasm","reformation"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["Almost all the images in this thesis are copyrighted by third parties."],"rights_urls":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/45363160-87d7-490d-b96f-39006f0d4175/download","https://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved/"],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:creator.authoridentifier","label":"Author Identifier","values":["0000000248035734"],"render_values":[{"text":"0000-0002-4803-5734","href":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4803-5734","code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.45973","outbound_label":"DOI","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.doi"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Marr, Alexander"]},{"key":"dc:contributor.sponsor","label":"Sponsor","values":["Arts and Humanities Research Council Doctoral Training Partnership Studentship AHRC Student Development Fund to cover a 2-year part-time Curatorial Internship at the National Portrait Gallery (completed alongside the PhD) St John's College, Cambridge, Learning and Research Fund"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Faraday, Christina Juliet"]},{"key":"dc:creator.authoridentifier","label":"Author Identifier","values":["0000000248035734"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2019-09-20"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.institution","label":"Dc Publisher Institution","values":["University of Cambridge"]},{"key":"dc:relation.isreferencedby.uri","label":"Dc Relation Isreferencedby URI","values":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/298916"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationlevel","label":"Dc Type Qualificationlevel","values":["Doctoral"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationname","label":"Dc Type Qualificationname","values":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Tudor","art history","elizabethan","vividness","enargeia","liveliness","lively","vivid","portrait","portraits","epistemic images","epistemic image","prints","print culture","book illustration","domestic imagery","face jugs","bellarmine","embroidery","tapestry","wall paintings","rhetoric","art of rhetoric","eloquence","idolatry","agency","automata","crucifixes","iconophobia","iconoclasm","reformation"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/45363160-87d7-490d-b96f-39006f0d4175/download","https://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved/","Almost all the images in this thesis are copyrighted by third parties."]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.doi","label":"DOI","values":["10.17863/CAM.45973"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/0e9c1334-c37b-4b28-b964-aeec773900b0/download"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["In contrast to the richly visual literature of late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century England, the period’s visual art is usually seen as impoverished. Historians have emphasised the views of Protestant divines, for whom images were ‘dead and dumb’, and have focused on the limitations placed on images’ abilities to communicate. Yet period texts show that many people saw images as highly vivid, or in their words ‘lively’. The fact that, in our own time, viewers have been so quick to dismiss English visual art as dull and limited shows that our framework for interpreting these artworks is anachronistic, informed more by our own surroundings than by the period’s interests. My research re-enlivens these once ‘lively’ objects by seeking out the qualities which made them ‘lively’ at the time. Perhaps the biggest challenge facing art historians of this period is the lack of period sources discussing art in England; unlike contemporaries in Italy, the English rarely recorded their thoughts about images in any detail. My research turns to rhetorical theory as a period-appropriate theory of communication, enabling me to explore how these objects communicated effectively, and vividly, to their audiences. Rhetoric, the art of persuasion, formed the basis for grammar school and university education, and writers on rhetoric frequently draw parallels between literature and visual art. I focus particularly on strategies used to create the effect of 'enargeia' or vividness in writing, and compare them with the strategies used by artists and patrons in visual and material culture. Examining a broad range of objects including portraits, domestic decoration, household items, and book illustration, this thesis makes a new case for Tudor and Jacobean confidence in the effectiveness of visual objects."]},{"key":"dc:format.checksum.md5","label":"Dc Format Checksum Md5","values":["a9b4bcacb3332747f6b75f6a27ca4db4","87eda9de84448d1f82354d60eee3eb5f"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["The Concept of 'Liveliness' in English Visual Culture, c.1560-c.1630"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Marr, Alexander"],"dc:contributor.sponsor":["Arts and Humanities Research Council Doctoral Training Partnership Studentship AHRC Student Development Fund to cover a 2-year part-time Curatorial Internship at the National Portrait Gallery (completed alongside the PhD) St John's College, Cambridge, Learning and Research Fund"],"dc:creator":["Faraday, Christina Juliet"],"dc:creator.authoridentifier":["0000000248035734"],"dc:date.issued":["2019-09-20"],"dc:description.abstract":["In contrast to the richly visual literature of late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century England, the period’s visual art is usually seen as impoverished. Historians have emphasised the views of Protestant divines, for whom images were ‘dead and dumb’, and have focused on the limitations placed on images’ abilities to communicate. Yet period texts show that many people saw images as highly vivid, or in their words ‘lively’. The fact that, in our own time, viewers have been so quick to dismiss English visual art as dull and limited shows that our framework for interpreting these artworks is anachronistic, informed more by our own surroundings than by the period’s interests. My research re-enlivens these once ‘lively’ objects by seeking out the qualities which made them ‘lively’ at the time. Perhaps the biggest challenge facing art historians of this period is the lack of period sources discussing art in England; unlike contemporaries in Italy, the English rarely recorded their thoughts about images in any detail. My research turns to rhetorical theory as a period-appropriate theory of communication, enabling me to explore how these objects communicated effectively, and vividly, to their audiences. Rhetoric, the art of persuasion, formed the basis for grammar school and university education, and writers on rhetoric frequently draw parallels between literature and visual art. I focus particularly on strategies used to create the effect of 'enargeia' or vividness in writing, and compare them with the strategies used by artists and patrons in visual and material culture. Examining a broad range of objects including portraits, domestic decoration, household items, and book illustration, this thesis makes a new case for Tudor and Jacobean confidence in the effectiveness of visual objects."],"dc:format.checksum.md5":["a9b4bcacb3332747f6b75f6a27ca4db4","87eda9de84448d1f82354d60eee3eb5f"],"dc:identifier.doi":["10.17863/CAM.45973"],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/0e9c1334-c37b-4b28-b964-aeec773900b0/download"],"dc:language":["en"],"dc:publisher.institution":["University of Cambridge"],"dc:relation.isreferencedby.uri":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/298916"],"dc:rights":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/45363160-87d7-490d-b96f-39006f0d4175/download","https://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved/","Almost all the images in this thesis are copyrighted by third parties."],"dc:subject":["Tudor","art history","elizabethan","vividness","enargeia","liveliness","lively","vivid","portrait","portraits","epistemic images","epistemic image","prints","print culture","book illustration","domestic imagery","face jugs","bellarmine","embroidery","tapestry","wall paintings","rhetoric","art of rhetoric","eloquence","idolatry","agency","automata","crucifixes","iconophobia","iconoclasm","reformation"],"dc:title":["The Concept of 'Liveliness' in English Visual Culture, c.1560-c.1630"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"dc:type.qualificationlevel":["Doctoral"],"dc:type.qualificationname":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:13Z"}