Peter Gaunt’s contribution to the British Library’s Historic
Lives series appears, at first glance, as a prime example of accessible
scholarship: concise, well-illustrated, and written with a smooth fluency that
suits general readers. However, accessibility does not equate to neutrality,
and ease of reading does not imply clarity. Gaunt’s biography is influenced by
a tradition that views Cromwell not as a complex historical figure, but as a
national hero—an icon to be admired, whose contradictions are downplayed, whose
violence is explained away, and whose political actions are presented in a
morally acceptable light.
A partisan historian in respectable guise
Gaunt’s enduring connection with the Cromwell Association
reflects more than coincidence. It embodies an institutional perspective that
views Cromwell as a largely virtuous figure, someone whose genuine religious
faith and personal integrity offset the more severe parts of his history. This
isn’t purely analysis; it leans toward commemorative sentiment. While the
language might be scholarly, the core motivation is akin to hagiography.
The old Whig historians were at least honest. Macaulay saw
Cromwell’s army as a symbol of a new social era, embodying the disciplined and
ideological spirit of the rising bourgeoisie’s historical purpose. Gaunt’s
portrayal of Cromwell is more cautious and guarded, yet it shares the same
underlying sympathy. He depicts Cromwell as a man ahead of his time—more
restrained than driven by circumstances, and more decent than ruthless. The
political significance of the English Revolution is reduced to a narrative
focused on personal character.
Ireland: the unresolved centre of the book
Gaunt’s evasions are most evident in Ireland. By portraying
Cromwell’s campaign as typical of actions by a “figure of the rising bourgeois
class” under pressure, he ostensibly appeals to a structural explanation.
However, this framing effectively normalizes what was actually a campaign of
colonial terror and economic dispossession.
Drogheda and Wexford were not isolated incidents; they were the violent catalysts for a substantial redistribution of land, wealth, and political influence. Cromwell was not just the leader managing this process—he also directly benefited financially from the resulting settlement. Ignoring this financial motivation as a mere side note rather than recognizing it as essential to understanding his actions overlooks a crucial point: Ireland was not simply a tragic chapter in Cromwell’s life but a fundamental manifestation of the economic principles driving the English Revolution. Gaunt’s biography does not confront this. It cannot confront it without abandoning its sympathetic frame.
History without theory
The lack of a theoretical framework is deliberate,
reflecting a political stance rather than a stylistic one. Gaunt’s narrative
avoids engaging with key analytical questions that would clarify the revolution
as a conflict among social forces. Scottish Presbyterianism is only briefly
addressed. The dissolution of the Rump Parliament is depicted as a simple
political maneuver, ignoring the influence of radical factions within the army.
The Levellers are mentioned only in passing, serving as mere background. The
detailed class dynamics—such as economic motivations, ideological conflicts,
and social tensions—are largely missing. This discussion highlights that
Gaunt’s limitation is part of a wider pattern in modern history writing. There
is a trend away from social explanations, a focus on biography over analysis,
and a hesitation to place individuals within class struggles. Consequently,
Cromwell is often depicted as a solitary moral figure—flawed yet admirable and
ultimately decent—rather than as a political leader representing a rising
bourgeoisie whose victory depended on dismantling the feudal system and
violently reshaping property relations.
An accessible introduction, not a guide to understanding
Gaunt’s book possesses notable strengths. It is clearly
written, visually appealing, and careful in its treatment of mythologized
material. For those awaiting John Morrill’s upcoming editions of Cromwell’s
writings, it provides a handy introduction. However, an intro that portrays
Cromwell as a sympathetic, depoliticized figure responsible for significant
colonial violence does not prepare readers to fully understand Cromwell or the
revolution he spearheaded. It’s best viewed as a starting point—one that should
be complemented by exploring the social, economic, and ideological histories
that Gaunt’s restrained volume largely omits.
