A historian recently wrote "over the last generation
historians have moved away from the image of a distinctively English (and
Welsh) civil war, of a limited, civilised and dignified conflict between
factions of the cultured elite, and of a contest in which the common people
appear if at all as a mindless, deferential, anonymous mass. Instead,
historians have recently stressed the British-wide nature of the wars of the
mid-seventeenth century, have portrayed those wars as brutal, bloody and
all-pervasive, and have explored far more fully and sympathetically the role,
allegiance, outlook and involvement of the non-elite.
Although he was reviewing another Martyn Bennett's Books
much the same could be said about his book The Civil Wars 1637-1653. Bennett's
book appeared in the same decade that produced a veritable cottage industry of
books that sought to overturn previous Whig and Marxist historiography. Revisionist
historians like Bennett were clear on what they were against a little less
clear on what they wanted to replace the previous historiography with.
Alongside Bennett's book, was John Morrill's Revolt in the
Provinces: The English People and the Tragedies of War, 1634-1648. Mark Stoyle.
Loyalty and Locality: Popular Allegiance in Devon during the English Civil
War, The English Civil War and Revolution: Keith Lindley, The English
Wars and Republic, 1637-1660 to name but a few.
The majority of the new historiography produced in the 90s was
predominantly hostile to both Whig or Marxist historiography. Martyn Bennett's
book is in that context.
One by-product of the rejection of both whig and Marxists
historiography was the development of the theory "the Wars of the Three
Kingdoms". While the popularity f the theory grew in the 90s it was, in
fact, an ancient explanation for the English revolution it dates back to 1662
in James Heath's book A Brief Chronicle of all the Chief Actions so fatally
Falling out in the Three Kingdoms, first published in 1662.
Bennett explains his reasoning behind his choice of
historiography, saying "The enduring symbol of the crisis which gripped
the British Isles during the middle of the seventeenth century is the name
given to it, The English Civil War'. This symbol is itself problematic and can
even act as a barrier to a clear understanding of what happened in that
turbulent century. It may be argued that calling the conflict the English Civil
War limits the scope of our perceptions. By labelling it an English event, we
can marginalise Scotland and Ireland and perhaps even ignore Wales altogether. However,
all four nations were involved in the rebellions, wars and revolutions that
made up the period
".
Bennett's book starts with examining the War from the standpoint
of Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales in the first three chapters. As a writer
put this historiography was "a trend by modern historians aiming to take a
unified overview rather than treating some of the conflicts as mere background
to the English Civil War. Some, such as Carlton and Gaunt, have labelled them
the British Civil Wars."
This type of explanation for the revolution was popular with
historians based outside England. The Northern Irish historian Jane Ohlmeyer
argued "Proponents of the New British Histories agree that British history
should not be enriched English history which focuses on Whitehall and uses
events in Ireland and Scotland to explain developments in England. Yet the
traditional terms used to describe the conflict which engulfed Britain and
Ireland during the 1640s, which include 'Puritan Revolution', 'English
Revolution', and more recently 'British Civil War(s)', tend to perpetuate this
anglocentrism. None of these reflects the fact that the conflict originated in
Scotland and Ireland and throughout the 1640s embraced all of the Stuart
kingdoms; or that, in addition to the War enjoying a pan-British and Irish
dimension, each of the Stuart states experienced its own domestic civil wars.
The phrase 'Wars of the Three Kingdoms' acknowledges the centrality of the
various civil wars fought within the Stuart kingdoms as well as the
interactions between them.
Bennett while supporting the "wars of three kingdoms"
historiography does explain its limitations warning "against thinking that
this current interpretation of the War is the last word, historical fashions
come and go. It may be as well to paraphrase Mark Twain: reports of the death
of the English Civil War may yet be greatly exaggerated".
Bennett attaches great importance to the use of terminology
in explaining the English revolution because it says a lot about how the
historian "reflects and reinforces the interpretations we make".
This approach is commendable. As Edward Hallett Carr said
"if, as Collingwood says, the historian must re-enact in thought what has
gone on in the mind of his dramatis personae, so the reader in his turn must
re-enact what goes on in the mind of the historian. Study the historian before
you begin to study the facts. This is, after all, not very abstruse. It is what
is already done by the intelligent undergraduate who, when recommended to read
a work by that great scholar Jones of St. Jude's, goes round to a friend at St.
Jude's to ask what sort of chap Jones is, and what bees he has in his bonnet.
When you read a work of history, always listen out for the buzzing. If you can
detect none, either you are tone deaf or your historian is a dull dog".
The date spread used in this book 1637-1653 is not one I
have come across. This throwing around of dates seems to have been popular in
the 1990s. Bennett explains his reasoning "Imposing the dates 1642-1651 on
the civil wars renders them relatively meaningless outside the bounds of England
and Wales: calling them the 'English' Civil War is similarly problematic. The
term English Civil War became common during the last century, adding to the
range of titles available - from the contentious 'English Revolution' to the
'Great Rebellion' and the 'Great Civil War'. Yet such a title does obscure the
involvement of the other nations as effectively in the book market as it does
in popular entertainment
".
Bennett uses the term revolution a couple of times in the
book but does not believe this was a bourgeois revolution. The book does not
provide any insight into the socio-economic problems that gave rise to the
conflict. Bennett, to his credit, does believe that the War was a product of
long term political changes at the base and superstructure of English society.
The book gives a good explanation of what took place during
the War. Chapters 1-6 deal primarily with this and can be seen as a good
introduction. Perhaps the most exciting and informative chapters are 7-8.
Chapter 7 called Revolution in England and Wales gives an essential insight
into the growing divergence of views within parliament and the growing threat
posed by the Levellers. Chapter 8 gives a presentable account of the views and
actions of the Levellers.
The book is quite striking in its minimal use of
historiography. I think he mentions only one other historian, but this is
compensated by the excellent notes at the back of the book.
To conclude is a short book Bennett of 114 pages, it should
not be seen as an in-depth or analytical study of the revolution. At best, it is
an excellent introduction to the conflict. It would have a been a better book
if Bennett had given more of his understanding of the revolution.
