The decade of the 1990s witnessed the publishing of large
numbers of books that sought to overturn previous Whig and Marxist
historiography. The revisionist historians who carried out this revolt 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, you had John Morrill's Revolt in
the Provinces: The English People and the Tragedies of War, 1634-1648 by 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 just a few.
It is not possible in this short article to examine the
reasons for the rise of such disparate historiography suffice to say it was
hostile to any Whig or Marxist historiography which sought to explain the war
from the standpoint of it being a bourgeois revolution and not just a civil
war.
In this well-written book, Bennett favoured another type of
historiography that was prevalent at the time called the Wars of the Three
Kingdoms. The term was not a new one. It dates back to 1662 when James Heath's
book A Brief Chronicle of all the Chief Actions so fatally Falling out in the Three
Kingdoms, was first published.
Bennett explains his reasoning behind his choice of
historiography, "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. Yet
all four nations were involved in the rebellions, wars and revolutions that
made up the period" [1].
Bennett's book starts with examining the war from the
standpoint of Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales in the first three chapters.
As one 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. One such 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 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.[2]
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".[3]
Martyn Bennett book is precise in the type of terminology
used, as Bennett argued, the type of terminology used says a lot about how the
historian "reflects and reinforces the interpretations we make". This
approach is commendable. As Edward Hallett Carr once wrote:
"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.”[4]
The date spread used in this book 1637-1653 is not one I
have come across. The 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" [5].
Bennett uses the term revolution in 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 to 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 interesting 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. He mentions only one other historian, but this is compensated
by the excellent notes at the back of the book.
To conclude It is a short book of 114 pages, it should not
be seen as an in-depth or analytical study of the revolution. At best, it
should be seen as an excellent introduction to the conflict. It would have a
been a better book if Bennett had given more of his take on the revolution.
[1] What's in a Name? the
Death of the English Civil War:M
Bennett-https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-98171389/what-s-in-a-name-the-death-of-the-english-civil-war
[2] https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Three_Kingdoms
[3] https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-98171389/what-s-in-a-name-the-death-of-the-english-civil-war
[4] What Is History
[5] https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-98171389/what-s-in-a-name-the-death-of-the-english-civil-war
