Professor John Morrill’s inaugural Barry Coward Memorial Lecture, delivered under the auspices of the Birkbeck Early Modern Society, was by any measure an impressive scholarly performance. Morrill is one of the most accomplished historians of the English Revolution working today, and his five‑volume edition of Cromwell’s writings — supported by a substantial Leverhulme grant — will now become the definitive textual resource for future scholarship. His tribute to Barry Coward was warm, sincere, and entirely fitting.
But Morrill’s lecture, and the monumental editorial project,
also expose the deeper limits of contemporary Cromwell studies. It reveals a
historiographical method that is technically rigorous yet politically anaemic;
a scholarship capable of restoring Cromwell’s words with unprecedented
precision while leaving the social and class content of the English Revolution
fundamentally untouched.
From a Marxist perspective, Morrill’s method exemplifies the
wider trend in bourgeois historiography: focusing on textual precision and
individual agency, which masks the revolutionary forces of the 1640s and the
social classes that shaped Cromwell. This essay presents a summary of Morrill’s
lecture alongside a Marxist critique of its underlying historiographical
approach.
Morrill’s Project: Restoring Cromwell’s Voice
Morrill has produced a much-needed scholarly project: a
detailed, critically edited collection of Cromwell’s speeches and writings.
Current editions—Carlyle’s romanticised 1845 compilation and Lomas’s 1904
revision—are full of errors, missing details, and editorial changes. Morrill’s
team of eight editors produced the most accurate text yet by examining all
manuscripts and printed editions, aiming to eliminate two centuries of
inaccuracies.
The example he offered — two versions of Cromwell’s speech
opening the Barebones Parliament highlights the issue. A 1654 version refers to
“the day of the power of Christ,”. In contrast, a later edition softens this to
“a day of the power of Christ,” subtly transforming Cromwell from an
apocalyptic prophet to a devout statesman. Morrill contended that these
modifications add up to a significantly changed perception of Cromwell. The
project is undoubtedly valuable, as it aims to provide scholars with the most
precise texts of Cromwell ever compiled. However, ensuring textual accuracy
does not necessarily mean that the historical understanding will be equally
precise.
The Fetish of Accuracy: A Technical Solution to a
Political Problem
Morrill’s lecture consistently focused on the importance of
“accuracy.” He pointed out Carlyle's carelessness, Lomas's slight improvement,
and Abbott's strong ideological stance. Morrill’s edition aims to address these
issues. However, this focus on textual precision reveals a broader
methodological belief: that understanding Cromwell depends on finding his
“true” words. This approach reflects scholarly obsession — the idea that the
authentic sentence will reveal the genuine Cromwell.
A Marxist perspective emphasises the importance of class
struggle in understanding Cromwell’s words. Whether he referred to “the day of
the power of Christ” or “a day” is less important than analysing the social
forces behind his speech. The key questions are: what social interests
motivated Cromwell’s language, and how did it serve revolutionary goals?
Morrill’s method falls short because it views Cromwell’s speeches as isolated
entities, ignoring their role as ideological expressions shaped by class interests.
Cromwell as a Figure Re‑Made to Suit Ruling‑Class Needs
Morrill recognised that each
century has its own version of Cromwell—whether Carlyle’s Victorian hero,
Abbott’s proto-fascist leader, or the moderate constitutional figure of the
mid-century—each reflecting the ideological needs of its time. However, Morrill
did not explore the deeper implication: Cromwell’s image is not merely
misinterpreted but is intentionally constructed as a political tool. Bourgeois
historiography repeatedly reimagines Cromwell to reinforce the ideological
foundations of the modern British state. From a Marxist perspective, Cromwell
cannot be viewed as a timeless “great man.” Instead, he must be seen as the
political representative of an emerging bourgeois class whose interests called
for the dismantling of feudal absolutism, the creation of a national market,
the consolidation of capitalist property, and the suppression of plebeian
democratic movements. This is the version of Cromwell that bourgeois
historiography refuses to acknowledge—and thus remains invisible.
Against Revisionism: The
Bourgeois Evasion of the English Revolution
For over forty years,
"revisionist” Civil War scholarship has held sway in the British academic
world. It claims to be objective, fact-based, and opposed to Whig history.
However, it is actually the most politically cautious interpretation ever used
to analyse the English Revolution. Its main accomplishment has been to
undermine the idea of revolution itself—instead portraying a major historical
turning point as merely a collection of local conflicts, religious feelings,
and personal miscommunications.
Revisionism’s approach is
straightforward: break down, remove politics, and dissolve distinctions. While
earlier thinkers viewed history as a revolutionary clash between social orders,
revisionists see only “multiple kingdoms,” “local contexts,” and "parish
politics." Where Marxists highlight the rise of the bourgeoisie and the
fall of feudal absolutism, revisionists claim class is “anachronistic,”
“over-systematised,” or simply “not evident in the sources.” Similarly,
movements like the Levellers and Diggers, originally seen as democratic and
proto-communist, are reinterpreted by revisionists as “pressure groups,”
“agitators,” or “political minorities.”
The outcome is a
historiography where events lack intentional causes, especially social ones.
The English Revolution appears as a chain of accidents. Cromwell is seen as a
man responding to crises. The New Model Army is viewed as a disciplinary issue.
Ireland is considered a tragic misunderstanding. Radicalism is dismissed as
mere noise. This is not genuine scholarship; it is ideological suppression.
Revisionism appeared in the
late 20th century, coinciding with the British academy's move away from social
history, class analysis, and materialist views. It presents a reassuring story:
the Civil War was not a revolution but just a “war of three kingdoms.” Its
participants are seen not as representatives of social forces, but as
individuals driven by religious differences. Its conclusion is not the end of
feudalism but just a constitutional adjustment. Essentially, revisionism
rejects the revolution to dismiss its repercussions.
It cannot acknowledge that the
English Revolution was a bourgeois revolution. It cannot acknowledge that
Cromwell was the political instrument of a rising class. It cannot acknowledge
that plebeian movements represented the unfulfilled democratic content of the
struggle. It cannot acknowledge that revolutionary violence was structurally
necessary.
Instead, it presents a
Cromwell who is psychologically nuanced but socially insubstantial, a
Parliament that is complex in structure yet devoid of class distinctions, and a
revolution that paradoxically isn't truly a revolution. This is why revisionism
has become so appealing to the modern academy: it sanitises history. It strips
away the explosive elements of the 1640s—the overthrow of monarchy, the mobilisation
of people with low incomes, the rise of democratic calls, and the development
of capitalist social relations—and substitutes a politically neutral mosaic of
“contexts." A Marxist critique pierces through this illusion. The English
Revolution was not a mistake, nor a local crisis, nor a religious conflict. It
was the first major bourgeois revolution, and its contradictions—its
radicalism, violence, and repression of democratic forces—mirror the
conflicting interests of the class driving it. Revisionism fails to recognise
this because it cannot accept it. Its goal isn't to explain the revolution but
to diminish its significance.
Ireland and the Politics of Sanitisation
The most insightful part of Morrill’s lecture focused on
Ireland. He highlighted uncertainties in casualty numbers, questioned the
reliability of Cromwell’s letters, and noted Parliament’s tendency to
"tidy up” his words. He carefully differentiated between civilians killed
in combat and those killed after surrender. While this stance of meticulous
neutrality seems objective, it serves a political purpose by diverting
attention from the underlying reality: the Irish campaign was an element of the
brutal consolidation of a new bourgeois state.
The Drogheda massacre—regardless of how its details are
reconstructed—was not merely a tragic mistake. It was a calculated act of
terror executed by a revolutionary force whose triumph depended on dismantling
the ancient Irish order. Morrill’s approach, by emphasising textual
uncertainty, downplays the revolutionary violence central to the English
bourgeois revolution.
Morrill’s approach exemplifies
the broader shift towards revisionism in Civil War historiography. This
perspective critiques the traditional Whig narrative of constitutional
progress, replacing it with an equally ideological focus on local grievances,
religious sensitivities, and individual agency. It breaks down the revolution
into a series of contingencies, interprets class struggle through cultural
anthropology, and views Cromwell as a psychologically intricate individual
managing crises. Instead of seeing the revolution as driven by material forces,
it portrays it as a patchwork of personal decisions. Conversely, a Marxist
perspective argues that Cromwell was not merely contingent but a necessary
outcome—shaped structurally by the decline of feudalism and the rise of the
bourgeoisie.
The Erasure of Radical Movements
A key aspect of Morrill’s historiography is how it downplays
radical movements. Levellers, Diggers, and Army agitators—the democratic and
proto-communist groups of the 1640s—are only seen as “pressures” on Cromwell,
not as independent class movements driven by their own historical logic.
Cromwell’s suppression of these groups is viewed as political prudence, not as
a reflection of his role in defending property and supporting the “gentlemen
Independents." This approach is not objective scholarship; it reduces
plebeian politics to mere background noise, ideologically diminishing their
significance.
The Cleaned Portrait Without the Canvas
Morrill concluded his lecture with a metaphor: Cromwell is
like a Great Master painting that takes on a new life when cleaned and
restored. The metaphor is insightful—Morrill restores the portrait but leaves
the canvas untouched. The Cromwell he depicts is precise in text but stripped
of political context, portraying him as a man of conscience rather than a
revolutionary. A Marxist perspective argues that Cromwell’s significance lies
not in his personality but in his role as the military and political representative
of a rising bourgeoisie, both triggering and holding back revolution. Morrill’s
approach cannot uncover this deeper, class-based understanding of Cromwell
because it doesn't address the class dynamics of the English Revolution.
Morrill’s edition will be
invaluable, providing the most precise collection of Cromwell texts to date.
However, it won’t answer the fundamental question Morrill asked: What do we
truly know about Oliver Cromwell? To truly understand Cromwell, we must grasp
the class forces that drove him to power, the economic changes that enabled the
revolution, the social tensions that influenced his religious rhetoric, and the
historical necessity that positioned him as the figurehead of a rising
bourgeois class. Achieving this understanding requires a Marxist analysis—an
approach that the bourgeois academy has largely avoided for decades. Morrill’s
project cleaned the portrait. It will not reveal the painter.
Sources and Bibliography
Primary Sources on Revisionism
- Fulbrook,
Mary. “The English Revolution and the Revisionist Revolt.” Journal
of Modern History. A foundational critique of revisionist approaches,
surveying Conrad Russell, Kevin Sharpe, Paul Christianson, and others.
- Russell,
Conrad. Parliaments and English Politics, 1621–1629. Oxford
University Press, 1979. A key text in the revisionist dismantling of
long-term social explanations.
- Russell,
Conrad. The Origins of the English Civil War. Macmillan, 1973. The
central revisionist statement rejecting class-based interpretations.
- Morrill,
John. The Revolt of the Provinces: Conservatives and Radicals in the
English Civil War, 1630–1650. Longman, 1980 (orig. 1976). A major
revisionist work emphasising localism and provincial grievances.
- Sharpe,
Kevin (ed.). Faction and Parliament: Essays on Early Stuart History.
Oxford University Press, 1978. A revisionist collection emphasising
political culture over social structure.
- Christianson,
Paul. “The Causes of the English Revolution: A Reappraisal.” Journal
of British Studies 15:2 (1976), 40–75. A revisionist attack on Marxist
and Whig causal frameworks.
- Ashton,
Robert. The English Civil War: Conservatism and Revolution 1603–1649.
Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1978. Often grouped with revisionists for its
scepticism toward long-term structural causes.
Responses to Revisionism
- Hexter,
J. H. “Power Struggle, Parliament, and Liberty in Early Stuart
England.” Journal of Modern History 50:1 (1978), 1–50. A
rebuttal defending structural and ideological explanations.
- Hill,
Christopher. “Parliament and People in Seventeenth-Century England.”
Past & Present 92 (1981), 100–124. A Marxist counter-argument
emphasising popular mobilisation.
- Rabb,
T. K. “The Role of the Commons.” Past & Present 92
(1981), 55–78. A critique of revisionist minimisation of parliamentary
radicalism.
- Hirst,
Derek. “The Place of Principle.” Past & Present 92
(1981), 79–99. A defence of ideological and principled motivations against
revisionist reductionism.
Marxist and Social-Historical Works
- Hill,
Christopher. The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the
English Revolution. Penguin, 1972. The classic Marxist study of
Levellers, Diggers, and plebeian radicalism.
- Hill,
Christopher. The English Revolution 1640. Lawrence & Wishart,
1940. Foundational Marxist interpretation of the revolution as a bourgeois
upheaval.
- Bernstein,
Eduard. Cromwell and Communism: Socialism and Democracy in the Great
English Revolution. Allen & Unwin, 1930. A pioneering Marxist
analysis of radical democratic and proto-communist movements.
- Manning,
Brian. The English People and the English Revolution. Heinemann,
1976. A major social-history rebuttal to revisionism, emphasising class
mobilisation.
- Manning,
Brian. The Far Left in the English Revolution. Bookmarks, 2006. A
detailed study of radical class forces suppressed by Cromwell.
- Shaw,
A. L. The Levellers. Longman, 1968. A key study of democratic
radicalism within the New Model Army.
Historiographical Context
- Fulbrook,
Mary. “The English Revolution and the Revisionist Revolt.” Journal
of Modern History. Essential for situating revisionism within broader
historiographical debates.
- Rosenberg,
John S. “Toward a New Civil War Revisionism.” Journal of Modern
History. Although focused on the American Civil War, it provides a
comparative framework for understanding revisionist cycles in national
historiography.
