Peter Gaunt’s biography of Oliver Cromwell is a well
written, handsomely illustrated and the product of substantial research. The
book was well received by the general reader though academic reviews were few
and far between. Despite this fact, one writer said, “this book is as
disciplined, vivid and vigorous as the man it celebrates”.
The book has only a hundred pages of text, with the rest
of it taken up by illustrations. Gaunts uses several portraits of Cromwell and others
well. The book also contains reproductions of letters and other documents. It
is clear that Gaunt has used his access to the British Library well.
Guant is extremely careful in his use of Cromwell’s
letters mindful that Cromwell’s early life is a minefield of historical inaccuracy.
It is therefore hoped that John Morrill’s new editions of Cromwell’s writings
and speeches will clear a lot up of the myths and inaccuracies surrounding Cromwell.
Gaunt like Barry Coward is a partisan historian when it
comes to Cromwell. Also like Coward, he was also a former chairman of The
Cromwell Association. As Stephen Roberts states “His Cromwell Association
credentials are a useful clue as to his approach. He is sympathetic to his
subject, seeing the lord general and the lord protector as one who achieved
much of value and who "always retained a radical edge and never became a
self-satisfied, conservative figure" (p. 9). Always inclined to give
Cromwell the benefit of the doubt--his defence of Cromwell in Ireland in 1649
is the benchmark of Gaunt's liberalism as it is in similar vindications by
liberals before him--Gaunt concludes by emphasising the "inherent decency
of the man and his regime “[1].
Guant’s book acknowledges that Cromwell was a leading
figure of the revolution but was not its main theoretician. Cromwell is
correctly portrayed by Gaunt as a deeply religious man. In the main Cromwell’s
courageous and farsighted political action was guided by those beliefs.
As poet Andrew Marvell famously wrote “If
these the Times, then this must be the Man. Moreover, well he therefore does,
and well has guest, Who in his Age always has forward prest: And knowing not
where Heavens choice may light,Girds yet his Sword, and ready stands to fight”.
The great Whig historian Thomas Babington Macaulay added
that Cromwell was “A force thus composed might, without injury to its
efficiency, be indulged in some liberties which, if allowed to any other
troops, would have proved subversive of all discipline. In general, soldiers who
should form themselves into political clubs, elect delegates, and pass
resolutions on high questions of state would soon break loose from all
control would cease to create an army, and would become the worst and most
dangerous of mobs. Nor would it be safe, in our time, to tolerate in any
regiment religious meetings at which a corporal versed in Scripture should lead
the devotions of his less gifted colonel, and admonish a back-sliding major. However,
such was the intelligence, the gravity, and the self-Command of the warriors
whom Cromwell had trained that in their camp a political organisation and a
religious organisation could exist without destroying a military organisation.
The same men who, off duty, were noted as demagogues and field preachers, were
distinguished by steadiness, by the spirit of order, and by prompt”.
One of the more controversial parts of the book is
Guant’s attitude towards the events in Ireland. Gaunt believes that Cromwell
was acting as any leading member of the new rising bourgeoisie would act.
Cromwell being deeply religious, responded to the persecution of Protestants in
Ireland with his form of justice against the Irish ruling elite and sections of
the population. He was reported to call them "Barbarous and bloodthirsty.”
Perhaps most importantly significant economic gains were made in the plunder of
Ireland by the English bourgeoisie. Cromwell himself invested heavily in the
colonisation of Ireland.
It is perhaps that given the short nature of this book
that Gaunt cannot cover every part of Cromwell’s life and the stuff he does
write about must have only a preliminary nature about it.
According to Roberts “Cromwell's attitude to the Scots is
skated over somewhat; they took the stage in the narrative only in 1644. The Presbyterianism
of the Scots is mentioned but not convincingly described, and the appearance of
the "so-called Presbyterians" (p. 59) of the House of Lords and the
House of Commons will doubtless convey something meaningful to those conversant
with the main themes of the period. However, with no exploration of why
"so-called," or of how they relate to the other lot of Presbyterians
north of the border, much may well remain perplexing to the readers to whom
this book is addressed. The statement that Cromwell was "tolerant of
Protestant beliefs" but "hated Roman Catholicism" obscures as
much as it reveals. In Gaunt's account, it was Cromwell and the army who dismissed
the conservative MPs of the Rump at the time of the dissolution of that
parliament in 1653, but no mention is made of the pressure Cromwell was under
from the millenarians led by Thomas Harrison and the threat these radicals
represented to Oliver's position.
Conclusion
This book is much a political history of the English
Civil War as a political biography. Disappointingly there one page of further
reading, It therefore clear that the book is aimed at the general reader rather
than a guide for students. This may have limited the sales of the book but is
not necessarily a bad thing. I will recommend the book as it is a good
introduction to the complex world of Oliver Cromwell
[1] Peter Gaunt. Oliver
Cromwell. New York: New York University Press, 2004. 144 pp. $22.00 (cloth),
ISBN 978-0-8147-3164-2. Reviewed by Stephen Roberts (History of Parliament
Trust, London)Published on H-Albion (November, 2006)
