Despite being such a major historical figure, the
collected writings and speeches of Oliver Cromwell are far from accurate, and
some contain outright falsifications. John Morrill and his team of historians
and researchers have been given a Leverhulme Trust-funded research grant of
£204,337 to present new collected work.
On the surface, this may seem a significant amount of
money, but given the fact that Leverhulme also gave a quarter of a million
pounds grant to study homing pigeons tends to put Morrill's award in some sort
of perspective.
Morrill will have a team of eight editors chosen by
Oxford University Press to assemble a five-volume edition of Oliver Cromwell's
collected writings and speeches. This version will give us a more concrete and
precise appreciation of Oliver Cromwell. It remains to be seen if this is a
fundamental reappraisal of "Our Chief of Men".It is clear that this
is a long-overdue project.
Among the scholars working alongside Morrill is Tim
Wales who will be a Senior Research Associate. He will assist John Morrill and
Andrew Barclay with volume 1 (1599-1649). Elaine Murphy will be a Research
Associate. She will work with Micheál Ó Siochrú and Jason Peacey with volume 2
(1649-1653). Finally, Joel Halcomb, another Research Associate will be
assisting David Smith, and Patrick Little with volume 3 (1654-1658) All three
will be assisting with the oversight of volumes 4 and 5, co-edited by John
Morrill, Peter Gaunt, and Laura Lunger Knoppers.
It is clear that the team assembled is of a high
academic calibre. Eight editors have been appointed and have signed contracts
with OUP: Andrew Barclay, Peter Gaunt, Laura Knoppers, Patrick Little, John
Morrill, Micheál Ó Siochrú, Jason Peacey, and Davis Smith. According to the
University of Cambridge, "all of them have worked in Cromwell's life or
thought, and all have a detailed understanding of the sources for the project.
An advisory board of further specialists in Cromwell and the editing of early
modern texts have been created, including Martyn Bennett, Jan Broadway, Ann
Hughes, Pádraig Lenihan, and Blair Worden".
The University of Cambridge website explains
"The mission statement of the Editorial Board has been to record all
surviving evidence of 'Cromwell's voice'. This means including all the speeches
in Stainer's edition; all the letters in Abbott's edition for which there is
any evidence of Cromwell's authorial hand and many discovered since 1948; and
contextualised editions of William Clarke's contemporary notes of Cromwell's
contributions to the Army Debates of 1647 (their provenance recently
re-examined), and (after much discussion and experimentation) versions of
Cromwell's contributions to parliamentary debates in the diaries of the early
1640s (often in very different summary form). With respect to most post-1643
letters and speeches which survive not as originals but in multiple early
copies, using recent advances in book and print culture history, it is often
possible to establish which of several printers of a letter was being used by
Parliament or Protectorate to publish. This, as well as internal evidence,
normally allows the 'best' text to be established). We have conducted trials to
establish the feasibility of tracking down 'lost' documents. Where there are
major discrepancies between versions and no way of seeing which is the more 'reliable',
we have permission from OUP to publish both (e.g. the speech to the Nominated
Assembly on 4 July 1653). Otherwise, we will establish the best text using advanced
source criticism, and will note significant alternatives in footnotes".
Having spent a not-insignificant amount of time
studying Oliver Cromwell and more importantly, his role in the English
Revolution, I do not believe it is necessary to justify the amount of attention
given over to him. He is certainly " is one of the most studied of
Englishmen ". If Morrill's project increases interest in Cromwell more the
better, but the project has a deeper and more important role to play.
Even a rudimentary look at previous collected works
of Cromwell would tell the reader something was awry. The more you read the
clearer it becomes that every single collection of his speeches and writings
were defective or worse still wholly inaccurate.
What are the problems with the older editions of
Cromwell's words? It will be an enormous task to find out. How best
to"represent Cromwell's voice" is a big responsibility. Another
problem is how to deal with several copies of the same Cromwell speech or what
do when earlier editors sneakily and irresponsibly corrected Cromwell's words.
The biggest problem is that recent and past historians
have relied on these editions and have most of the time uncritically quoted
them without questioning the accuracy of Cromwell's words or deeds. One such
example of this is the biography of Oliver Cromwell by Graham Goodlad. This
book which seems primarily aimed at students again quotes Cromwell without any
warning off to the accuracy of the quote. Over the last 25 years, Cromwell's
name has been seen in more than one hundred titles in the British History
Online Database. All of these titles have relied on out of date and inaccurate
editions.
Let us take the most well-known and probably the most
valuable collection of Cromwell's speeches and writings done by Thomas Carlyle's
in 1845. Carlyle's was certainly a major accomplishment and remained in print
for over a hundred years. But as John Morrill recently said at the Barry Coward
Memorial Lecture even a writer of Carlyle's calibre spent next to no time in
editing the speeches or writings. But perhaps the greatest mistake was that he
never compared different versions of the same letter or statement. He never inquired
as to whether the recording of the speech or writing was the best. He took the
easiest way out and just "tidied up the spelling and punctuation and
printed it".
At the start of the 20th century, the noted scholar
Mrs S.C.Lomas decided to tidy up Carlyle's edition. According to Morrill, this improved the
quality of the text Carlyle had chosen, "but a comparison of variant texts
was a low priority, and the use of source criticism to determine 'best'
readings was, to put it politely, rudimentary".
It would be fair to assume that Morrill understands
that his research does not take place in either a historical or political
vacuum. Cromwell was and still is a controversial figure. Every century historians
have interpreted a Cromwell that fits in with the politics of their age. Morrill
dew attention to one such historian in the 20th century, Wilbur Cortez Abbott,
a Harvard historian who spent most of his career compiling and editing a
collection of Cromwell's letters and speeches.
These volumes were published between 1937 and 1947.
According to Morrill Cromwell was described by Abbott as "a proto-fascist".
Suffice to say Morrill had no time for his extreme right-wing political
assessment or Abbott's editorial approach. In a recent lecture, he described
Abbott's defects. It is clear that Abbott spent considerable time researching
his prey. In 1929 he published a 'Bibliography of Oliver Cromwell' Between
period 1937 and 1947 he published an edition of Cromwell's written words in
four large volumes. But as Morrill says "it is almost impossible to use
this version because there is neither a list of contents nor running heads to
guide the reader to what s/he wants; its running commentary is distorted by
Abbott's increasing obsession to show that Cromwell prefigured the great
dictators of the 1940s."
Each task facing the historians working on each
volume will be very different. John Morrill and Andrew Barclay, who is working
on the period up to 1649 face mainly two major problems. According to Cambridge
University "Many of Cromwell's early letters often only exist in later
copies and their transmission histories are, where known, sometimes not
encouraging. We have to try to find the originals of documents whose existence
is attested down to the 19th or 20th century and then lost. And we have the
problem of what to do with the summaries of Cromwell's speeches which he
delivered as a back-bencher to the Long Parliament, especially in the years
1640-1642, and what to do about the better-recorded Army Debates of 1647
(including the Putney Debates) without reproducing the whole of the Debates.
For the period 1649-1653, the biggest problem is the non-survival of Cromwell's
official campaign letters from Ireland and Scotland except in multiple printed
form with often as many as seven or eight versions appearing in a series of
pamphlets and newspapers. From the moment Cromwell became Lord Protector in
December 1653, a new problem arises: what to do about letters that he signed
but did not write – the hundreds of letters which do not speak in his 'voice'.
Abbott, in his edition, tried to be comprehensive but then, suddenly, in 1657,
just stopped. Registers of letters which Abbott had slavishly copied out up to
a specified date are then abandoned. We intend to make more informed and
defensible decisions about the limits of what to include".
As Morrill has already said one of the major
criticism of Carlyle is that his method of correcting text turned out in some
cases to rewrite what Cromwell had actual written or said. Also, Lomas and
Abbott, both fixed text and therefore changed some things out of recognition
and in extreme cases, affected the meaning of a passage. This meant instead of
an accurate depiction of what Cromwell said we get a bastardised version which
becomes unusable.
Perhaps the most famous saying of Cromwell is open to
two wildly different interpretations. Written by the county committee of
Suffolk in September 1643 demanding that "they abandon their
preconceptions of what type of person is needed for the New Model Army".
In other words, their deeds mattered more than their social standing: 'I had
rather a plain russet-coated Captain that knows what he fights for and loves
what he knows than that which you call a Gentleman and is nothing else. I
honour a Gentleman who is so indeed'.
Deeds first, social standing afterwards. But if you
take another version of Cromwell's letter at face value then a much more
original Cromwell appears if what Cromwell did, in fact, write: "I honour
a Gentleman who is so in deed' In this quote, Cromwell is only after Gentlemen
that can not only talk the talk but walk the walk. According to Nick Poyntz,
"all existing versions print the first of these versions. But there is
another version where 'in deed' are two words, not one".
Perhaps the most challenging work of the team will
probably be in regards to Cromwell's action in Ireland. Certainly the most
controversial part of Cromwell's life. Not so much what he wrote or said but
what he did and did not do.
Morrill explained that even today, Cromwell's
involvement and the extent of civilian casualties is still open to debate.
This, of course, is like all of Cromwell's actions open to different
interpretations again depending on your political and to some extent,
historical persuasion. The sack of Drogheda in September 1649 by political
forces is one such action.
In his article on Cromwell Nick Poyntz makes the
point that this oft-quoted phrase justified his actions: "I am persuaded
that this is a righteous judgement of God upon these barbarous wretches, who
have imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood; and that it will tend to
prevent the effusion of blood for the future, which are the satisfactory
grounds to such actions, which otherwise cannot but work remorse and regret".
He questions whether these are Cromwell's words as no original letter survives.
He also makes the point as does Morrill that parliament had a habit of tidying
up speeches and letters of Cromwell. Again to what extent his words are
accurate is one of the tasks of the project. It must be said that this is not
an envious one.
Morrill recently made the distinction between
civilians killed in the heat of battle as opposed to in cold blood.29 September
1649 two letters from Cromwell sack of Drogheda were read in the Parliament. "Our
men getting up to them, were ordered by me to put them all to the Sword; and
indeed being in the heat of action, I forbade them to spare any that were in
Arms in the Town, and I think that night they put to the sword about two
thousand men, divers of the Officers and Soldiers being fled over the Bridge
into the other part of the Town, where about One hundred of them possessed St.
Peters Church Steeple, some the West Gate, and others, a round strong Tower
next the Gate, called St. Sundays: These being summoned to yield to mercy,
refused; whereupon I ordered the Steeple of St. Peters Church to be fired,
where one of them was heard to say in the midst of the flames, God damn me, God
confound me, I burn, I burn; the next day the other two Towers were summoned,
in one of which was about six or seven score, but they refused to yield
themselves; and we knowing that hunger must compel them, set onely good Guards
to secure them from running away, until their stomacks were come down: from one
of the said Towers, notwithstanding their condition, they killed and wounded
some of our men; when they submitted, their Officers were knockt on the head,
and every tenth man of the Soldiers killed, and the rest Shipped for the
Barbadoes; the Soldiers in the other Town were all spared, as to their lives
onely, and Shipped likewise for the Barbadoes. I am persuaded that this is a
righteous Judgement of God upon these Barbarous wretches, who have imbrued
their hands in so much innocent blood, and that it will tend to preventthe
effusion of blood for the future".As Morrill pointed out Cromwell made a
list officers and soldiers killed "Two thousand Five hundred-Foot
Soldiers, besides Staff-Officers, Chyrurgeons, and many Inhabitants". So it is clear
that inhabitants were killed.
The team will have to negotiate what is both a
political and the historical minefield of differing opinions on Cromwell's
campaign in Ireland. One example being Philip Mckeiver in his book A New
History of Oliver Cromwell's Irish Campaign is an aggressive defence of
Cromwell's actions at one point, denying any massacres happened at Drogheda or
Wexford. Having said that his book is worth reading as it does expose some
myths and outright lies as regards Cromwell's actions. Peter Reese in his book
the Life of General George Monck: For King and Cromwell tend to go well
overboard when he describes the Irish rebels fighting Cromwell as
"terrorists".
On the other side of the debate is Micheál Ó Siochrú
whose book I must admit have not read yet but the title Gods Executioner tends
to give you a bit of a flavour as to his historical persuasion. Let us hope his
work on the new editions shows a little more objectivity and follows the advice
of the historian Edward Hallett Carr who argued that it was very dangerous to
judge people at different times according to the moral values of his or her
time. Carr also warned that historians "should not act as judges".
Perhaps his most valuable advice was that you should
"Study the historian before you begin to consider the facts. This is,
after all, not very abstruse. It is what is already done by the brilliant
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 facts are really not at all like fish on
the fishmonger's slab. They are like fish swimming about in a vast and
sometimes inaccessible ocean, and what the historian catches will depend partly
on chance, but mainly on what part of the ocean he chooses to fish in and what
tackle he chooses to use – these two factors being, of course, determined by
the kind of fish he wants to catch. By and large, the historian will get the
kind of facts he wants. History means interpretation. Indeed, if, standing Sir
George Clark on his head, I were to call history "a hard core of interpretation
surrounded by a pulp of disputable facts", my statement would, no doubt,
be one-sided and misleading, but no more so, I venture to think, than the
original dictum".
What other problems as regards Ireland will the team
face. One is finding different Versions of the Same Speech. In Many previous
versions of Cromwell's speeches, the historian or writer have failed to inform
his readership why they chose to publish version they did. Another cardinal sin
was to produce "hybrid versions" which historians have found entirely
useless for historical research.
Cambridge University website gives us one example of
this " on 4 December the Irish Catholic Bishops and other leading clergy
met at one of Ireland's holiest sites, the ruined abbey at Clonmacnoise, on a hillside
overlooking the Shannon, and they called for a levee en masse of the Catholic
people of Ireland to drive out the invader who had come to 'extirpate' the
Irish people and the Catholic religion. Cromwell published a scornful and
haughty rejection of their claims. It was released in Cork and then in Dublin,
his words in those Irish printings of the pamphlet following the words of the
Irish clergy. 'Yours', he told them, 'is a covenant with death and hell'. A
version of this pamphlet, detached from the clerical decrees, was then
published in London under the title A declaration of the Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland for the undeceiving of deluded and seduced people. Only one copy of the Irish edition is known to have survived, the Cork printing in a private
library in Ireland and the Dublin printing in the Beinecke Library at Yale
University. Neither Irish publication appears in Early English Books Online,
and they appear in the Short-Title Catalogue wrongly ascribed to Henry Ireton
and with a very different title. No current edition of Cromwell's writings and
speeches has noted the existence of these Irish versions, and each of them
reproduces the London edition, blissfully unaware of the very significant
changes that that London edition introduces, which begin on the title page
itself. The title of the Irish printings lacks the hauteur of the London title
page".
Hopefully, the editorial team will not only correct
previous editions but should elaborate more on the mistakes of past historians.
My other wish is that the publications should be made available to the widest
audience possible and not be priced out of the range of ordinary people or that
they are not just done for an academic audience.
One hopes the team remain objective and that the new
editions of Cromwell's writing do not exhibit any of the moral judgements and
extreme political bias held by some historians who have written books on the
Lord Protector. Let us hope Professor Morrill and his team does succeed in
their endeavours, and we get a much truer picture of Oliver Cromwell "Warts
and All". As Morrill said, "Cromwell will come alive in much the same
way as a Great Master painting takes on a new and different life when it is
cleaned and restored".
Notes
1 More information about the project can be found
through this link
http://www.hist.cam.ac.uk/research/research-projects/early-modern/new-edition-of-Cromwell
2 A New History of Cromwell's Irish Campaign
[Illustrated Philip Graham McKeiver
3 God's Executioner: Oliver Cromwell and the Conquest
of Ireland Dr Micheál Ó Siochrú
4 Oliver Cromwell (History Insights) [Kindle
Edition]Graham Goodlad
5 Nick Poyntz blog can be found here
http://mercuriuspoliticus.wordpress.com/
6 A bloody Irish almanack, or, Rebellious and bloody
Ireland ... London, 1646; Hib.7.646.1
7 A bloudy fight at Dublin ... London, 1649.
Hib.7.649.57 London, 1650. Hib.7.650.8
8 E H Carr What Is History
