It is an open fact that little of Cromwell's early life is
known about and hardly anything is down on paper. Cromwell's political activity
spans the years 1629 to 1658, From 1629-1644 historical material is very
scarce, which is why Stainer begins his collected works in the year 1644,
Stainer correctly warns his readers it must be said "of
how much must be missing", Despite the knowledge that Cromwell did take
part in constitutional debates that preceded the outbreak of the Civil War next
to nothing survives. Given this problem, Stainer felt it was legitimate to add
what he calls " substance " to a large number of speeches.
Which
means to fill in the blanks of Cromwell's life with the words of other people. I
think this approach is wrong and that the words of others should be at the back
of a book with an explanation as to who said them and how accurate they are.
Stainer justified adding them because in his words they
"give greater continuity to the book, they enable us to form a more a general estimate of Cromwell's speech-making, and to realise the poverty of our
historical records".
Whether we have the actual texts of these so-called speeches
is the task of the new collection of historians working with John Morrill.
After all, a collection of speeches should be an accurate historical account
and not just a literary exercise.
Take for instance Stainer's use of Bulstrode Whitlockes
writings The Lord General's discourse with Lord Whitelocke, urging him to
accept the Swedish Embassy, Sept. 13, 1653.
Whitdocke. I was to attend your Excellency but missed of
you.
Cromwell. I knew not of it ; you are always welcome to me. I
hope you have considered the proposal I made to you, and are willing to serve
the Commonwealth.
Whitlocke. I have fully considered it ; and with humble
thanks acknowledge the honour intended me, and am most willing to serve your
Excellency and the Commonwealth; but in this particular, I humbly beg your
excuse. I have endeavoured to satisfy my judgement and my nearest relations,
but can do neither,nor gain a consent; and I should be very unworthy and
ungrateful to go against it.
It would appear that this conversation was recorded by
Whitlocke. Stainer should have taken more care in using this record. Whitlocke
was not just some "actual" figure but was very close politically to Cromwell.
Stainer should have warned his audience as to the reliability of such a
subjective piece of writing.
Other than the above-mentioned criticism Strainer's
collected speeches seems to have held a relatively disciplined and principled
editorial approach to the text of Cromwell's speeches and writings. He has only
altered the text when no proper sense can possibly be made, or "where the
sentences are so confused as to make restoration impossible".
The punctuation is mostly Stainer's. I am unaware if Stainer
had help on this volume perhaps Professor Morrill's team will tell us. Stainer
has corrected the grammar but not being an expert on 17th Century someone with
a knowledge of it will need to comment on Stainer's accuracy.
One major problem confronting the OUP [Oxford University
Press] Team and John Morrill, in particular, is how they approach the Putney
Debates. Stainer whom it would seem had substantial access to the Clarke Papers
only choose to publish only a small part of the debates and therefore managed
to reduce the dramatic scenes at Putney and Saffron Walden to little more than
a Cromwell led debating society.
My feelings as regards the OUP¨will be that the most
important elements of the Putney debates must be produced in full regardless of
whether Cromwell was speaking or not. After all the debates at Putney involved
the question of profound importance not only to people of the 17th Century but
resonate even today. Discussions over private property, social inequality and
the right to democracy are still contemporary issues.
Morrill's OUP team will have to to make crucial decisions on
whether the texts used in previous editions of collected works are accurate and
were they written at the time or much afterwards?
Stainer explains the problem
he had and no doubt the Oxford team will have the same problems "it is
quite astonishing to find so much diversity when one of the texts appears to be
fairly complete and grammatical. The 'only explanation that can be suggested
is, that these versions were not taken down at the time of the speech, but are
founded on original reports sufficiently difficult to decipher to permit of
such variations". Morrill has already warned that while they aim to
achieve the highest academic standard in their work grey areas as regards the veracity
of certain of Cromwell's speech will always exist.
Stainer makes the point on Cromwell' speech on May 6, 1647.'
he says that this is "beyond doubt, translation, the true origin of which
is now lost to us ; consequently we have no means of judging whether the
translation is accurate or the text complete. We can only form the same opinion
of Speeches 4-8, for the Worcester College MS. N. 12 (formerly MS. Ixvii), from
which they are copied, is carefully written, and is in fact a collection, very
similar to Clarke MS. 41, from which Speech 3 is taken. Frequent ' blanks ' in
the sentences, and in some cases on whole pages, show that the translator's
task was no easy one, and yet it is important to observe that the result is a
text very similar to that in several of our other MSSAyscough, 6125, 'blanks
for 2 lynes,' means that the writer was unable to translate the original before
him. That he did copy is evident, as the MS. is a collection, though at present
we have no other authority for the full text of this speech".
Stainer also asks whether we can prove that these speeches
were initially taken in shorthand or not. Given the fact that well over 100
years have passed since Stainer made his collected speeches we can safely say
that the Oxford team has a far better knowledge of not only type of shorthand
used but our understanding of the type of printers used at the time will significantly
increase our understanding and accuracy of these speeches.
Stainer encountered other problems which were of a more
general character.It is no doubt that the Oxford team will have to tidy up
numerous speeches of Cromwell. Stainer believes that the significant repetition
of sentences throughout these speeches seems "to show that a system of
relays of writers may have been resorted to".
What should be taken into
consideration was that Cromwell was not a slow speaker and spoke for long
periods so it should be borne in mind that this gives his recorders ample time
for inaccurate shorthand. Also due to the length of some speeches if these were
written down sometime after the speech then the possibilities for inaccuracies
and outright distortions are extremely possible.
Stainer believes that "some such system may have been
used whereby writers picked each other up by agreement. The task of assembling
the ' notes ' would then be comparatively easy if everything went well ; but it
must be noted that if the writers were not in full agreement or got confused,
the task of assembling their notes would be a very difficult one". If the
second writer began before his time long sentences would overlap, and if these
were slightly different both might be introduced into the text. If he did not
begin in time, sentences would be lost; and in addition, the
repetition-sentence being absent, it would become easy to displace whole
paragraphs. Much would then depend on memory, and further delay would be caused
by the necessity of translating the notes, if taken in shorthand, and writing
out a correct version. As to the shorthand system employed, it may have been
either Mr. Shelton's or Mr. Biche's ; both are good, though somewhat clumsy,
and both require extreme accuracy. Finally, we must not forget the possibility
that the rooms in which his Highness spoke were inconveniently crowded, and
very hot, so that it was not altogether easy to write.Thus in Speech 17 p. 87)
we read: 'and therefore seeing you sit here somewhat uneasy by reason of the
scantiness of the room and the heat of the weather, I shall contract myself
with respect to that;' and again in Speech 34 (p. 211), Cromwell refers to the
audience ' as certainly not being able long to bear that condition and heat
that you are in.' While in the case of some speeches it would seem as though no
arrangements at all had been made to report his Highness, and that the versions
are made up from hearsay".
One strange characteristic of Stainer was to refer Cromwell
as his "Highness". I am not sure whether he is sarcastic or that he
believed that Cromwell was all but king in the name seems out of place in a
scholarly edition.
Stainer is probably correct when he says "on the whole,
the general conclusion must be that the original reports of these speeches are
missing, that many circumstances doubtless conspired to make them difficult to
decipher, and that there is no very great reason to suppose that our
translations or copies of them are necessarily accurate".
Hopefully, the OUP team can develop Stainer's work and take it to a much higher level and do justice to Cromwell.
Hopefully, the OUP team can develop Stainer's work and take it to a much higher level and do justice to Cromwell.
Notes
1 The download version of The Collected Works of Oliver
Cromwell ed C L Stainer is that it is covered in grammatical errors and
therefore the reader would be better off with a hardback book version.
2 C L Stainer used the transcripts of Clarke Paper
especially on Putney Debates
3 From Wikipedia Memorials of the English affairs from the
beginning of the reign of Charles I …, published 1682 and reprinted. According
to the author of Whitelocke's biography in the Encyclopedia Britannica,
Eleventh Edition "[it is] a work which has obtained greater authority than
it deserves, being largely a compilation from various sources, composed after
the events and abounding in errors".
No comments:
Post a Comment