The Power of Gifts

The title of Felicity Heal’s impressive new book recalls Ilana Krausman Ben-Amos’ The Culture of Giving (Cambridge, 2008), which might suggest considerable overlap. There is, in fact, almost none. Ben-Amos was exploring cultures of informal gifting and support, among families, neighbours and local communities. Heal focuses, by contrast, on more formal gifting and gift-exchange among the elites, especially between monarchs, courtiers and magnates. There is limited chronological overlap too; Heal’s ‘early modern’ covers essentially the Tudors and early Stuarts; that of Ben-Amos begins and ends later. Heal’s book is ‘principally about gifts and politics’ (p. 28). The Crown ‘used its gifts as a means of expressing authority, securing loyalty, and displaying majesty’ (p. 216). Its leading subjects used their own gifts to express loyalty, deference and affection, to display their affluence, generosity and taste, and as discreet reminders of services and merits which they hoped would be suitably rewarded. Heal opens with a survey of early modern and recent thinking on gifts. Contemporary values were influenced by classical, humanist and biblical texts, and reflected in plays, poems and proverbial lore. Modern theorists, notably Marcel Mauss, have emphasised the triple elements of giving, receiving and repaying, and Heal explores in depth all three strands. The reciprocal dimension of gifting was prominent in the minds of early modern donors and recipients alike, and it was accepted that gifts created legitimate expectations of return. An unwanted gift imposed an unwelcome burden. The first half of the book explores objects and occasions. Gifts of food (especially venison) and drink were highly valued in the Henrician period; plate and jewellery took precedence under Elizabeth and James, and fine art became a prized gift under Charles I. The object itself could carry layers of meaning beyond its monetary value. A clock donated by Bishop Sandys to William Cecil in 1564 had initially been given by Edward VI to his tutor, Sir John Cheke, and then passed on to the bishop. Such a ‘biography’ increased its value as a gift. Gifts were expected at christenings and weddings, on royal progresses and royal entries into major towns, and, most of all, at New Year. New Year gifts to and by successive monarchs, carefully recorded, provide Heal with an invaluable source, which she dissects with insight and skill. There were clear protocols on their appropriate value, and it was understood that the monarch would offer a gift in return. The most favoured gifts were set out on display at court, and Lord Burghley advised that best of all was a gift that would remain visible. That helps explain the jewels showered on Elizabeth; each time she wore one she reminded the world of the donor’s generosity and her own gracious acceptance. But Elizabeth was prepared to refuse gifts she considered inappropriate, for example those offered by the wife and friends of the disgraced earl of Essex in 1599 and 1600. Acceptance would have created expectations of a return (in this case a royal pardon) that she was not prepared to grant. Gifts did not always need to have any monetary value; a book dedication might be acceptable, and a very gracious, public acceptance by the queen might be considered a valuable return in itself. New Year gifts were by no means confined to the elite world of the court, as Heal notes. Indeed (in an example not cited here), even the Digger Gerrard Winstanley offered A New-year’s Gift for the Parliament and Army in 1650, in the hope rather than expectation of a return, while the lawyer-diplomat Bulstrode Whitelocke was pleased to receive Latin verses from two of his young children on New Year’s Day in 1662

Aesthetics · Affection · Art · Generosity · Literature · Loyalty · Majesty · Poetry · Political science · Politics · Power (physics · Sociology · Taste · Theology · Historical Economic and Social Studies · History · Law · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology