Thursday, 27 October 2011

Further comment on Does the Work of British Historian John Adamson” Break New Ground

I am grateful for this comment although, alas, I do not think it is right. After his discussion of the dissolution of the Short Parliament, John Adamson did not proceed directly to a discussion of the Petition of the 12 peers but analysed the attitudes of the 2nd Earl of Warwick and his allies towards the Caroline regime in the 1630s and the evidence for collusion in the summer of 1640 between the members of the aristocratic Junto and the Scottish Covenanters.

He identified Maurice Thompson, John Venn and Richard Shute (Noble revolt, page 79) as the bearers of the petition from London supporting the peers' petition: Thompson and Venn had had links with Warwick through their interests in colonization since the late-1620s and in the 1630s, so his point is valid.

There is, in fact, a mass of material in The Noble Revolt on the importance of popular pressures on the proceedings of the two Houses in 1640-1642: if you do not believe me, please read Pages 285-288 on the end of Strafford's life or Pages 468-477 on tumults in the capital. He was and is interested in the impact of demonstrations and the threat of violence in London in this and succeeding periods.

Fortunately, a lot is known about how these demonstrations, etc., were organised from the works of Valerie Pearl, Robert Ashton, Keith Lindley and others. (See Clarendon Ms.20, fol.129 for Venn's role in coordinating such demonstrations.)It is, in any event, for John Adamson to develop his arguments as he wishes rather than meeting old-fashioned Marxist prescriptions.
(This post was forwarded to me by Chris Thompson. It was left anonymously on his blog. I am publishing because while not agreeing with every point it does have something to add to the debate. Chris Thompson’s remarks are also included)

Anonymous

It seems to me that most of the valid intellectual work Adamson's narrative accomplishes was better done by your own work on the "middle group. “Then there are the problems. The valid nugget in Livesey's discontent, I think, is that Adamson has little patience for or interest in what might be called popular mobilization, even though this was what gave aristocratic politics its bite. And his treatment of the events of 1640--the only moment concerning which I have sufficient expertise to comment--is riddled with significant omissions and errors (example omission: he skips directly from the dissolution of the Short Parliament to the Lords' Petition, without offering to explain the summer's agitation; example error: he claims the London Petition was carried by clients of Warwick). While errors are an unavoidable part of the scholarly process, these seem more like errors of opportunity to me, opportunities to affirm the centrality of the figures in his study to the politics of that year.

For me, the main value of Adamson's work is to reopen the problem of the politics of the early 1640s. Which is a legitimate accomplishment. But I understand Livesey's uneasiness.

CT Reply




Wednesday, 26 October 2011

Christopher Thompson commented Does the Work of British Historian John Adamson” Break New Ground

I am afraid, Keith, that this is not a convincing argument. It is factually incorrect to claim that all historiography before the 1970s offered some kind of explanation founded on a relationship between the 'base' of English society and its 'superstructure' as a reading of Hume, Mackintosh, Hallam, Macaulay and Trevelyan will show.

It is a matter of debate when the heyday of British capitalism occurred but no one has yet shown how this shaped Whig historiography or made it more convincing. In any case, the origins of 'revisionism' lie not in the 1970s, whether early or late, but in the late-1960s when it was increasingly obvious that the kind of deterministic explanations offered by Tawney, Hill, Stone and others were unsustainable because they were at variance with the surviving evidence.

By 1973, the work of 'revision' as Ted Rabb would describe it and the reaction against the kind of history being written by Stone and Hill wa s well under way. This was long before Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher reached the front rank of politics on either side of the Atlantic and long before John Adamson began his work on the 1640s.

 No so -called revisionist poured scorn on Marxist theory nor has Adamson downplayed the role of Oliver Cromwell. You should read the latter's essay on 'Oliver Cromwell and the Long Parliament' in John Morrill, ed., Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution (Longman. 1990) as penance. However one defines the political preferences of those you regard as 'revisionists', they were not predominantly or even obliquely right-wing.

Tristram Hunt and Simon Schama are, moreover, hardly specialists in seventeenth-century English history. I ought to add that Kishlansky's attacks on Adamson in and after 1990 had a great deal more to do with academic politics than your account allows. 

There was no requirement on Adamson to preface his study of the political role of the peerage in the 1640s with an analysis of the class composition of the gentry or of its relationship with the Stuart Crown: that would have meant giving up his priorities in research and writing to address a long obsolete Marxist agenda. It was for him to write as he chose and to investigate the issues he wanted to examine. That is the right and duty of every historian. But do not suppose that he is or has been unaware of the connections between the members of the Junto in 1640-1642 and of the grandees later in the decade with the worlds of London mercantile and artisan politics.

The novelty of his work lies in the revelations he has already made about such links and that he will make in subsequent publications. He has reshaped the historiography of the period already and will continue to do so because his work rests on secure evidential foundations, not on a political approach to the past.      




Does the Work of British Historian John Adamson” Break New Ground”

The purpose of this article is to answer Nick Poyntz assertion that despite significant attacks in the past from historians such as Mark Kishlansky he believes that Adamson’s work does “break new ground”. To recap John Adamson’s main argument in his previous essays and in his massive book the Noble Revolt is that a small group or in his words a Junto made up of nobles led a revolt which caused the overthrow of Charles 1st. Having finally read the book I find it difficult to agree with Nick’s point. The book is well written and incredibly well researched. While I agree with Nick that Adamson has uncovered new material and sources I do not believe that he has developed it into a new historiography and therefore break new ground.

A new historiography would in my estimation have to at least take on previous board historiography and would have to be a synthesis of the most important parts of both Whig and Marxist historiography to develop a new and improved historiography. Without this Nick’s claim becomes devoid of substance.

Furthermore, I am a firm believer that most previous historiography (indeed 20th century) had some kind of material base or at least paid lip service to the relationship between base and superstructure. In other words the previous historiography whether it was Whig, Marxist or  Post-Modernist were in some form refractions of what was taking place in society either politically or economically. For example, the rise of the revisionists in the early 1970s coincided with a right wing political movement spearheaded by Thatcher and Reagan. This movement gained ground with the final collapse of the USSR which led to numerous theories that the fall of Communism meant that the socialist project had failed. The most pessimistic expression of these principles came with the End of History by Francis Fukuyama. The English Civil War was not the only subject that had a noticeable revisionist trend during this time. From the 1970s Studies into the Russian Revolution provoked a similar revisionist backlash.

A point of clarification I am not in favour of a crude economic determinism. One of the primary attacks on Marxism is that it argues that ideology is just a cover for real economic motivations of social actors. It is said that Marxism does not account for the individual actions of people based on political motives. I do not deny that people can be motivated by ideological reasons, and I do not claim some kind of umbilical between the two, but I believe that there is a connection which is dialectical in nature between political and economic actions. Adamson while correctly portrays his figures were motivated by ideological concerns he fails to uncover the social interests that were served by those ideologies.

It is true that historians and their historiography do go out of fashion but historiographies that were fashionable two hundred years ago still can contribute to our understanding of the war. Despite Christopher Thompson’s protestation Whig and Marxist historians while thin on the ground still exist today. Tristram Hunt and Simon Sharma are for all intense and purposes Whig historians. In fact, large swaths of television historians offer a positive Whig outlook. In fact, the BBC is full of them.

To answer another point from Chris Thompson historians such as Christopher Hill when developing his historiography did not reject the work of Whig historians entirely. He took the attitude that they had something to contribute to an understanding of the compound nature of the English Civil War.

Hill did not just offer a critique of Whig history he understood that their historiography belonged to time in English history that coincided with the heydey of British capitalism. Whig history reflected the position of a significant section of the English bourgeoisie. He also recognised that Whig history had some similarities with Marxist history.

In my opinion for a piece of work to break new ground has to be more than a well-reasoned argument or a rather large amount of text or have high colour pictures, Adamson refers to the English Gentry but does not actually go into any extensive detail as to the class composition of the gentry. What was its economic position towards the king? Adamson maybe a skilled historian but a more detailed description of the class struggle involving his Cabal would have made the book far more precise and concrete.

Adamson’s books on the English Civil war are part of what has become the ‘post-revisionist ‘school of history writing. The main characteristic of this school of thought is a rejection of both the Marxist and Whig views English Civil War historiography. From the beginning of his career, Adamson sought to distance himself from any form of socio-economic explanations which have largely been championed by ‘Marxist’ historians such as Christopher Hill and Brian Manning.

Before the Post-Revisionist era there consisted a group of historians who were for want of a better term simply “revisionists.” From the late seventies onwards a group of mainly but not all right wing historians sought to pour scorn on Marxist theory based largely on a socio-economic explanation of historical events. The result of this has been a chaotic mix of differing methods with Adamson’s being one of them. Adamson elaborated his thesis.

Adamson’s work has previously come under ferocious attack from the historian Mark Kishlansky. Kishlansky’s first essay Saye What which challenged Adamson’s theory extends to nothing more than a catalogue of Adamson’s errors. Some of his criticisms I agree with. I am not sure Adamson’s cabal of politicians was that influential and I do not agree with his downplaying of Cromwell’s role. Also in some respects does seem to turn events upside down, but having said that I think Kishlansky’s critique of Adamson does border on academic bullying.

Take for instance this quote from Conrad Russell “What makes a historian master of his craft is the discipline of checking findings, to see whether he has said more than his source warrants. A historian with a turn of phrase, when released from this discipline, risks acquiring a dangerously Icarian freedom to make statements which are unscholarly because unverifiable”.

Kishlansky accuses Adamson of “tendentious interpretation”. Well, you could blame every single historian that has written on the English Civil War of this. Historians have the right to interpret the facts or sources the way they feel fit without fear of some form of academic bullying.

Adamson’s new work seems to have taken too much notice of Kishlansky’s remarks. It does contain a lot of footnotes, in fact, it is slightly an overkill to publish so many and one reason that has been suggested is that it was a defensive reaction to Kishlansky’s critique. Kishlansky alleged that Adamson was “deliberately abusing and misreading sources”.

What began as a disagreement between two historians soon became a significant historical debate. Both sides of the debate took their gripes to the pages of academic journals. Big named historians such as Conrad Russell, Lawrence Stone and Hugh Trevor-Roper took one hand or the other without actually resolving the issue.

Outside of the academic community, these debates which occur frequently might seem like storms in teacups but in reality particularly when concerning the discussion over the civil war, they are expressions of very deep-seated divisions over cause and effect. As Lawrence Stone described the history of the 17th century as 'a battleground which has been heavily fought over...beset with mines, booby-traps and ambushes manned by ferocious scholars prepared to fight every inch of the way.”

You are correct when you stipulate that Adamson concentrates more on superstructure than on base. Having said this, I do not believe Adamson’s version to base his analysis of the Junto on economic motives does not constitute a new historiography. You also point out that if Adamson had carried out “a sustained analysis of the vertical links between politicians and "people" would be a very different work of history”. In this matter you are correct he chooses to concentrate on this class of people because in a distorted way it reflects his politics. In my experience, very few historians have been able to abstract themselves away from their political slant. Whether this is a right or bad thing is still open to debate.