The Usurper or the Developer of the Republic Oliver Cromwell’s Reputation in the 18th Century Britain
The subject of this study is the reputation that targeted to Oliver Cromwell in the history of Britain. What was it like, how it altered and why? Especially the study answers, how this reputation was build. As prime sources I have used 18th century British newspapers, contemporary literature and satirical drawings. Furthermore I have used 17th century contemporary literature, newspapers and diaries. I have parted this study in 2 main chapters. First considers Oliver Cromwell’s reputation in 1707 – 1759, from the official beginning of the Great Britain to the end of the era of George II. In this period there was constant political conflict between three parties: Whigs, Tories and Jacobites, which provoked a lot of political writings, in which Cromwell’s reputation was strongly linked, as a tool of political denigration. This period also witness the reputation’s improvement. Great Britain’s participation to the Seven Years War brought along the positive memories, concerning Oliver Cromwell’s military abilities. The second chapter examines Cromwell’s reputation in 1760 – 1799, from the beginning of the reign of Georg III to the end of French revolution. In this period the revolutions in America and France brought Oliver Cromwell with praise to the political writing. He was no longer considered as a tyrant or usurper as in the beginning of the century. Oliver Cromwell’s bad reputation in the beginning of the 18th century was inherited from the previous century and was gradually converted to more positive. His reputation was altered from the mere tool of propaganda to glorified heroism.
Topics: Oliver Cromwell, history of England, history of Great Britain, historical discourse, Commonwealth, Whig, Tory, Jacobite.
1.1. Oliver Cromwell’s Discordant reputation Theodore ROOSEVELT began his book Oliver Cromwell with words: “For over a century and a half after his death the memory of the greatest Englishman of the seventeenth century was looked upon with horror by the leaders of English thought, political and literary[.]”.1 This sounds like very judgmental but the President doesn’t mean that all the leaders looked Cromwell with horror, but he doesn’t say if there were those leaders who looked Cromwell with benevolence. The Roosevelt’s beginning is giving us, however, a very interesting question: How it really was? My interest lies in the question: How was it in the 18th century, because it opens us very interesting body of political changes that altered the reputation of long-past Lord Protector. In my time-frame considered, that reputation was indeed looked upon with horror, but it was also admiration and respect. In his lifetime, Oliver Cromwell ascend from a parliamentarian to war chief, with the help of civil wars in 1642 -1651, and finally to the leader of Commonwealth. He was religious puritan who came under criticism of the Catholics and the Presbyterians. He dissolved the parliament with arbitrary power, and declared himself as a Lord Protector, the title he kept until his death in 1658. After his death, and the end of the Commonwealth, he was declared as a main culprit on the death of Charles I, and was executed posthumously. Even after his death, in the reign of Charles II, were some historians and other writers who kept Cromwell in his glory. They gained criticism about their “vulgar” errors that they produced with their praise and glory for the Protector.2
ROOSEVELT 1919, 1. WORDEN 1998, 37.
Significant for this study, and for the 18th century, was the political resistance against the Stuart Kings at the end of the century. This situation created two political parties, hostile for each other, Tories and Whigs. For the latter, the politics of Cromwell’s Commonwealth were very useful. The “Glorious Revolution” in 1688, created a myth that was important for the Whigs during the 18th century. Cromwell’s policies in the 17th century, reflects in the opinions in the 18th.
1.2. The Situation of the Research In 1988, Blair WORDEN addressed Cromwell’s posthumous reputation between 1660 and 1900 in his short essay The English Reputations of Oliver Cromwell. He summarizes his work on 13 pages, so the analysis from 18th century remains very short. The main theme that he asks in his study is was Cromwell good or evil, sincere or insincere?3 Laura Lunger KNOPPERS considers Cromwell’s religious reputation in her book Cromwell: Ceremony, Portrait and Print, 1645 – 1660, by telling us about Cromwell’s public image in that time-frame, considering on ceremonies, portraits, and publications.4 KNOPPERS onwards, together with Joan B. LANDES, focuses on the 1650’s opinions about Oliver Cromwell’s monstrous and savior-like reputations, the former, from the panegyric poems of Andrew Marvell; and the latter from the (mostly) catholic theme that considered Cromwell as the Antichrist, or the whore of Babylon.5 Jonathan FITZGIBBON’s book Cromwell’s Head from 20086, considers among its main protagonist, the reputation that was presented to Cromwell in the time when the monarchy was restored in 1660, that was manifested as repulsion to the former Protector, and explains literature that satirizes Cromwell in the end of 17th century. The book does not mention any reputation from 18th century. However it mentions more about the Cromwell-mythology that heightened as a cult in the 19th century. Among these studies, the reputation has been widely studied, but the collective study does still not exist. There are plentitude about biographies of Oliver Cromwell, but none of them clears his posthumous reputation. However, I am using them to assist my study. According to Antonia FRASER, the first “honest” effort about a biography was Henry Fletcher’s Per3
WORDEN 1998, 35-48. Cambridge University Press 2000. 5 Monstrous Bodies/Political Monstrosities in Early Modern Europe. Cornell University Press, 2004. 6 The National Archives, Surrey 2008. 4
fect Politician from 1660.7 After this, from the end of the 17th century to the beginning of the 20th, has been written many biographies where the stance, whether positive or negative, seems to secede only after the end of the 19th century. In 1888, Frederick HARRISON wrote about Oliver Cromwell in very objective manner,8 similarly as did Samuel Rawson GARDINER in 1901.9
Theodore ROOSEVELT’s famous biography of Cromwell is written with a republican attitude. ROOSEVELT compares the English civil war with the American one. But the way that the civil war between “roundheads” and “cavaliers” is depicted is very fruitful to my study, by focusing on the Cromwell’s part of it.10 The widest and the most thorough biography that has been written about Oliver Cromwell is Antonia FRASER’s Cromwell – Our Chief of Men, from 1973.11 As for the newest one, I can mention a study from Professor Ian GENTLES, Oliver Cromwell: God’s Warrior and the English Revolution, from 2011.12 Regarding the reputation of Oliver Cromwell, there is no study that considers the 18th century. Therefore my study is focusing on new subject. As an entity the reputation is yet to be written.
1.3. Research questions and Time frame The meaning of this study is to clarify what was the Oliver Cromwell’s reputation in the 18th century Great-Britain, and how it altered in that century and in what context. Those I will study from the newspapers, political publications, 18th century biographies, etc. The study needs an introduction to tell those events that took place in the 17th century to clarify the circumstances that made the body of Oliver Cromwell’s reputation in the 18 th century. The first chapter of my study begins in 1707, and ends 1759. Since I am studying Cromwell’s reputation at the time of Great-Britain, is the beginning year of that union proper point for beginning on my study. The chapter ends on the last year when George II 7
FRASER 1979, 23. Oliver Cromwell, MacMillan & Co. London 1888. 9 Oliver Cromwell, Longmans, Green & Co. 1901. 10 Oliver Cromwell. New York, C. Scribner’s Sons, 1919. Mirlyn Library. 11 Weidenfield & Nicholson, London 1973. 12 British History in Perspective, Palgrave McMillan. 8
was on the reign. His death ended the strong Whig period which might be meaningful for Cromwell’s reputation. I study Cromwell’s reputation via political changes, such as Hanoverians rise to monarchy, the Jacobite rebellion, and the Seven Year War. These events raised Cromwell on the discourses, but how? The second chapter begins at the first year of George III’s reign. His politics differed from his predecessors because he had clear ambitions for the autocracy, which brought reminiscences about the events of 17th century to the newspapers. I end this chapter to year, which in my mind, was the end of the first French republic. Time-frame on this chapter includes the American Revolutionary War and the French Revolution; both of them had Oliver Cromwell displayed in the variety of ways. How this did influence his reputation? Occasionally my work is discourse analysis, which I use as Tuuli LÄHDESMÄKI wrote, as a theoretical frame of reference, for which is looked and modified different kind of ways of method, by the event in matter.13 Regarding Oliver Cromwell existed opinions, negative or positive, or between. Published poems were very biased, as were the biographies and the other history writings, occasionally unintended, occasionally indented. We might refer this study for the possible analysis about Marshall Mannerheim that is to be made in our century. E.g. how the Mannerheim is depicted in the movies and in theatres, the remembrance of the Finnish Civil War in 1918, the Winter War in 1939 -40, and the Continuation war in 1941 - 45, the effects of his politics, etc. These all effect the way how he is remembered in 21st century. The perceptions and patterns of thinking cannot be entirely seen from the sources. However I study how the reputation of Cromwell manifested in Great-Britain during this timeframe from the widest field of sources as possible. Although the printing was very much active and widespread, we cannot assume that it was available for everybody. We cannot assume that we know the opinions of farmers, servants or early industrial workers. Yet we can compose something that introduces a median of the discourses that can be seen from the sources, when the question is about a person who has been passed after 49 – 147 years ago. This is kind of a social constructivism as a study of history. In their book Historian kirjoittamisesta (About the History Writing) Marjo KAARTINEN and Anu KORHONEN explain: By doing and talking a person presents and utilizes meanings that culture offers, 13
LÄHDESMÄKI 2007, 51.
and every time summons, defines and recreates something that becomes a unique happening of a meaning.14 This means, that the sources reflect the culture and the public opinion. Thus the sources may bring forth what kinds of opinions about Oliver Cromwell were presented. There were not any Cromwell-myth in the 18th century; it was the phenomena of the 19th. Whigs had their own myth about the “Glorious Revolution” in 1688; Tories had their own myths. How was Cromwell involved in these myths? In my conclusion I am studying these via Duncan BELL’s mythological model that he explains in his book Memory, Trauma and the World Politics: Myths, meanwhile, can escape the bounds of experience – they are simplified, highly selective and widely shared narrations of an imagined past, the stories that people and groups tell about their location (and meaning) in time. History is the infinitely complex past out of which these mythological narratives are hewn and critical history, whilst always aware of the dangers of nationalist glorification and accommodation, stresses the contingency, opacity and plurality of the past.15
Another issue that I will study is the lower-class view of the Cromwell’s reputation. That part of the people whose voice is not “heard” from the sources, can be brought forth by the situations that Eric HOBSBAWM called the disintegrations of the society, such as rebellions, revolutions and riots.16 1.4. Sources of the study In my study, I have mainly used the 18th century newspapers. According to David ADAMS and Adrian ARMSTRONG in these centuries, interpretations of the incidents and persons were adjusted, depending by the writer’s opinion, either against, or behalf, and were introduced as a neutral interpretations.17 Thus, the writings were a political battle that went on the columns of the newspapers. In that way the newspapers are the best sources to point political discourses, notably, when the bulk of the papers were very political. In the beginning of the 18th century most of the papers were wield by the Tories and Jacobites. The latter, in their Weekly Journal, used propaganda that was created from the bad reputation of Oliver Cromwell, against Whigs. Many Newspapers cannot be held responsible on the published opinions, but we can assume that they had certain policy. 14
KAARTINEN & KORHONEN 2005, 123. About the Writing of History. BELL 2006, 27. 16 PELTONEN 2006, 27. 17 ADAMS & ARMSTRONG 2006, 10. 15
As an additionally sources I use printed pamphlets, contemporary diaries, published poems, histories, state documents etc. to search opinions and attitudes about Oliver Cromwell. In those days the publications were written with certain perspective in mind and expressed very clearly the opinions of the writers. I have presented the writers political stance, if it has been revealed. Pamphlets are critical and very acerbic publications, thus excellent sources to bring forth the attitude of the writer. Diaries that I use mainly concerning the 17th century are from Royalist John Evelyn and Samuel Pepys, the latter concerning the time after the restoration of monarchy in 1660. Histories from my timeframe cannot be called history-studies in their modern meaning. Mostly they are chronicles and sometimes propaganda disguised as biographies, and as such, a good source to reveal the writer’s attitude. Poems, that are either panegyric or blasphemous, are originally from the end of the 17th century but were reprinted in 18th century for the purpose of propaganda. Entire books from 18th century may contain writing that we in these days consider as a writing of opinion or letter-to-the-editor – style content. The collective matter for all sources is that their truthfulness is irrelevant for my study. Only their partialness is relevant. 1.5. Terms Commonwealth, in this study, is the British republic in 1649 - 1660. It included kingdoms of England, Ireland and Scotland, and few colonies in North America, and also Jamaica that was officially taken over by Commonwealth in 1650s. Protectorate is Commonwealth under the rule of Oliver Cromwell and his son Richard in 1653 – 1659 as a Lord Protectors. The title was used previously by Duke of Somerset, Edward Seymour during the infancy of King Edward VI. Oliver Cromwell held the title in 1653 – 1658, and his son Richard Cromwell (1626 – 1712) inherited the title but managed to hold it only eight months.18 Great-Britain was constituted in 1707 when the governments of Scotland and England were amalgamated as a single body. Later on, the Ireland was joined in by force in 1798. Whigs was the Parliament party that was originated by the era of Charles II when politician Lord Shaftesbury opposed Charles’ aspirations of autocracy and his catholic heir James in 1678 – 1681. Whigs’ agenda was that parliament is, according to Shaftesbury,
SCHAMA 2001, 229, 246, 248.
“that supreme an absolute power which gives life and motion to the English government”.19 In my time-frame of study the party was sided with Hanoverian dynasty, and held their state as a leading party until 1760 when Hanoverian King George III was crowned. Whig politics was based on the experimental politics of Commonwealth and Protectorate. Tories were the party that opposed the liberal politics of the Whigs and favored the monarchy. As a political party it was also originated when the issue of the catholic heir was creating schism in the Parliament. The party held the opposition until 1760. Jacobitism emerged after the “Glorious Revolution” in 1688 when the Irish, Scottish, and some English supporters of the dethroned King James II wanted his reign to be restored. During the early 18th century, and particularly in the beginning of Hanoverian dynasty, their agenda was to restore the Stuart monarchy. This restoration was attempted at a couple of times with the power of the arms and uprisings. Reputation, as I use it in this study, is the way how Oliver Cromwell manifested in the 18th century. It means political attitude, the manner how his memory was used as politically, the biographies written about him, reproduced poetry from his lifetime or after, or pure reminiscence in good and evil.
SCHAMA 2001, 295.
2. Background Oliver Cromwellâ€™s reputation in 18th century was based on the events that he influenced in his lifetime. Postmortem, he had a reputation that was political, and diabolically mythical. By then, a few biographies where written, from which the 18th century writers amassed the already distorted information. The political schisms of the late 17th century England is essential for this study.
The Civil War in 1642 â€“ 1651 was an important factor in Oliver Cromwellâ€™s life, giving him the impetus to rise from the parliamentarian to Lord Protector. How this had happened? King Charles I had ambitions for autocracy. According the President and a Historian Theodore ROOSEVELT, Charles was continuing the ideals of despotism from his father James I.20 But the Parliament was giving him constant trouble. He had difficulties to get necessary founding to his armies, especially in 1639 when Scotland was rebelling, and Charles had to summon back the Parliament with his high order, only to get some bad news from it. For this, the Parliament was duly dissolved. Next year Charles seeked to suppress the rebellious alliances in Scotland, and to achieve this he needed the founding. The Parliament was summoned once again, and after a long time, and Oliver Cromwell along it.21 Yet once more, the Parliament refused for any founding for the King, thus furious Charles dissolved the Parliament and decided to fight with the existing forces. He also planned to use Irish forces against Scotland, which acerbated the anti-Catholic Englishmen even more. 20
ROOSEVELT 1919, 23. FRASER 1979, 58. 22 SCHAMA 2001, 106-7. 21
Charles had no choice but to summon the Parliament again be-
cause the Scottish army was demanding a ransom to leave the English soil. The Parliament was to be dissolved again, only to be summoned again in November 1640, this time permanently, the next person dissolving it, being Oliver Cromwell himself in 1653. This “Long Parliament” fought King’s ambitions of autocracy to the point of civil war in two years.
The war begun in 1642 and Cromwell was fighting for the Parliament, this time literally with swords, not with the words. So what kind of a military talent was Oliver Cromwell? According to Roosevelt, he was very active from the beginning of the war. He assembled voluntaries and financed activities by his own, with not so rich expenses. His cavalry was composed from his neighbor farmers who keenly followed their leader, who taught them riding- and fencing skills. This Cromwell’s cavalry proofed to be very effectual.23 However, concerning the whole entity of the “Roundheads”, Cromwell thought that the Parliament’s army was not very spiritually motivated for its task, so he wanted to modify the army to be more democratic and more morally and ideologically motivated. The troops had to be “zealous and godly”, “and to be exemplary in their discipline”. To cite Simon Schama, again, “drink, cursing and whoring” were to be replaced by quiet session with the Souldiers Catechisme. Plunder would be savagely punished.24 Equipped with this modification, the “New Model Army” emerged in 1645.25 This is an example how Cromwell’s puritan faith was the factor that influenced his actions. ROOSEVELT saw Cromwell as a qualified stratagem, when SCHAMA sees him as a spiritual leader for the spiritual force, whose “spiritual armor-plating” didn’t made him a bad tactic, despite his lag of military training and praxis. He knew how to “read” the battle and dared to fight himself, giving and getting wounds. He made the soldiers believe that they were doing the God’s work, just like their leader believed that he himself was doing.26 In my time-frame 1707 – 1799, the discourse occasionally comes to Cromwell’s military reputation that remembers him as a qualified military leader. However there were events that gave him bad reputation in this matter, Drogheda. 23
ROOSEVELT 1919, 71-3, passim. SCHAMA 2001, 147-8. 25 HARRISON 1888, 98-9. 26 SCHAMA 2001, 201. 24
And Drogheda was the worst one. It happened in September 1649 when Lord General Cromwell was subverting the Irish rebellion that, by then, had lasted eight years. Cromwell’s forces were besieging that fortified town nine days. The forces finally managed to enter the city, and the alleged slaughter begun. According to Frederick HARRISON, the most of the defenders of the city were murdered when already disarmed or otherwise surrendered.27 Those who had fled on the belfry were burned alive. At least 3 000 royalist soldiers were killed on that onslaught. Some Cromwell’s officers were so convulsed that they defected to the royalist side.28 As the aftermath of Drogheda, the panic rose in the Irish cities, Dundalk and Trim were abandoned on the fear of Cromwell’s troops.29 Another massacre took place upon Wexford where at least 2 000 was perished, but for this Cromwell was not directly responsible.30 Cromwell’s actions in Ireland were not always so radical as alleged, in Waterford he made a peaceful pact for the terms of surrender.31
One circumstance that was associated with Cromwell was his “habit” to make a coup d’état. The words “usurper” and “tyrant” is seen plenty in discourses in 18th century. So, what was this “usurpation” like? In the beginning of the Commonwealth, Oliver Cromwell was displeased on the state of the republic and it’s Parliament. He also despised the trade that the members of the Parliament were doing with the impounded properties, and that how the war against Dutch was fought to benefit of the few. Cromwell could not just dissolve the Parliament before the war ended in March 1653.32 Then, at the 19th of April, he acted. He summoned negotiations with the Parliament, demanding the change to its members. The returning proposal was the retirement of the elder members; the rest was due to renew its agenda. To Cromwell, this sounded like shameless self-interest. The MP’s promised to delay their address on this matter. However, on the next morning Cromwell heard that the Parliament was gathered in the House of Commons, with the intention to execute their own plan. Armed with Musketeers, Cromwell barged into the Whitehall. He accused the MP’s furiously about their disregard of justice and piety. After the moment, getting some slander from the MP’s he or27
HARRISON 1888, 150. SCHAMA 2001, 205. 29 HARRISON 1888, 152. 30 STEWARD 2001, 86. 31 GAUNT 1997, 121. 32 ROOSEVELT 1919, 184-5. 28
dered the Musketeers inside. The parliament was cleared, its diaries were confiscated and the doors locked.33 Thus, he dissolved the very same parliament that he had sat on its first days. One matter that brought the memories of Cromwell was the Jewish Act in 1753. I will return to that later. It brought back memories of the Return of the Jews that occurred in the mid 1650s, and how it was supported by Cromwell. In the 17th century, the Jews had a strong grip in the economics and military net of Netherlands and Spain. John Thurloe34 pragmatically thought that if England is to get advantage on Atlantic Trade Empire and for that they needed the Jews. Thurloe heartened the Jews to take the first step about their return in England, wherefrom they were evicted in 1290. Oliver Cromwell supported the idea. The matter was introduced to the republic council in 1655, where it was received with harshness. Rumor has it, that Cromwell was about to sell St. Paul’s to Jews as a synagogue, and how the good English merchants were to be driven into poorness because of the greedy Jews. However, there were Jews in London and they were arriving secretly, and Cromwell protected them with his own authority. When the war with Spain begun in 1656, the Jews get their change to officially live, trade and have their religion in London. The pragmatic leaders now understood that their effort in technology, intelligence and economics were needed.35 How did this Protectorate worked de facto? The republic as we know it was an impossible concept in the 17th century, because the people were so habituated with the monarchy. Therefore the Protectorate established a government that practiced the matters of the state. To make it look like a monarchy, it was to give an impression that it was led by one man, Cromwell. According to SCHAMA, the republic had difficulties to have full support to the kingless state. As the Protectorate came more accepted, although not more popular, the less it separated from the monarchy.36 Thus it was made to look like a government that was led like a monarchy. According to Blair WORDEN, many republicans who fought with Cromwell in Civil War took Cromwell’s coup as treason to the principles of freedom.37 They were the Levelers who, long before Cromwell’s power, had wanted to change England’s political vacuum more social. John Lilburne38 and his companion Levelelers were merely asking only those every-man rights that were only 33
SCHAMA 2001, 224-6. 1616 – 68, the Secretary of the government and the spy-master of Cromwell. 35 SCHAMA 2001, 233-35. 36 SCHAMA 229-32. 37 WORDEN 1998, 38. 38 1614 – 57, Lieutenant-General in Cromwell’s army, leading Leveler. 34
partially restored in Magna Carta. Cromwell and others, that were called “Military Grandees” by Lilburne, were appalled of this kind of arrogance. The “Grandees” thought that Levelers were perverting divine discipline in army, social life and politics.39 Their rift with Cromwell had occurred long time before Commonwealth, when Lilburne had wrote in 1647, that Cromwell and the “Grandees” had negotiated the peace with Charles for their own interest, and had accused them for the erstwhile predicament of the army.40 The Commonwealth had enough of the Levelers, and in 28th of March 1649 the Levelers Lilburne, Overton, Walwyn and Prince were arrested and incarcerated in Tower, wherefrom they continued their series of pamphlets: Agreement of the Free People (1647 – 49), which included the insistence for the better Parliament. Eventually Lilburne was charged about his pamphlet An Impeachment of High Treason against Oliver Cromwell and Henry Ireton, which indeed included an impeachment against Cromwell, for committing highest treason ever made in England.41 John Lilburne directly accused Cromwell for his unjust and tyrannical prison sentence and considered him as zealous murderer.42 Oliver Cromwell was considered as an opportunist in 18th century. But was he? When he founded anew the House of Lords in 1657, the Parliament in return gained vetorights, which meant that taxes were not to be raised, or begin or end the war without its consent. The body of the government was so near of the monarchy that the coronation of Cromwell was considered.43 That irritated the Generals, whom threatened with general mutiny if the Lord Protector should get crowned. Therefore Cromwell ousted everyone from the army whom he considered as a thread to himself. Eventually he declined from his coronation, believing that this was the will of god.44 He however wear a purple coat in the Parliamentary sessions, holding the sword and globus cruciger in his hands, but however, without crown.45 According to Historian David SHARP, the declination of the crown was partially because of the army’s thread, and because that he considered himself as a part of the army. The religious matters played the minor part.46
SCHAMA 2001, 181-4. FRASER 1979, 209, 211. 41 Lilburne 1649a, passim. 42 Lilburne 1649b, passim. 43 SCHAMA 2001, 241. 44 SCHAMA 2001, 240-1. 45 FITZGIBBONS 2008, 153. More about Cromwell and his monarchism, read SHERWOOD 1997, passim. 46 SHARP 2003, 55. 40
The man, who didn’t want to be a King, lived like a King and looked like a King. Considering Cromwell’s pompous court life, it is really hard to tell was he the humble tool of god’s will, or just mere opportunist. As a puritan, he was denying people’s moderate musings, and yet he lived, during his protectorate, very extravagant life in Whitehall and Hampton Court. The latter decorated with expensive tapestries and paintings.47 The luxury was visible in his family life: In the wedding of his daughter, Frances, in 1657, there was an orchestra of 48 violinists, which provided the music for the guests to dance. Although Jonathan FITZGIBBONS emphasize that the extravagant court life was merely a scene for the people and foreign diplomats,48 Cromwell enjoyed musings that the puritans, to which he included himself, didn’t had in their piety. Oliver Cromwell died in the 3th of September 1658. After that the Commonwealth was soon abolished, and the monarchy restored in 1660. Cromwell was held as one of the main culprits of the execution of Charles I in 1649, and the culprits have to be punished, even posthumously. The bodies of Oliver Cromwell, Henry Ireton, John Bradshaw and Thomas Pride were ordered to be exhumed and be taken to Tyburn to be hanged, executed, and buried under the scaffolds. Before the burial, their heads were removed and set on the spikes on the rooftop of Westminster, Bradshaw in the middle, for his “monstrous higher justice”, Cromwell and Ireton on his sides.49
England’s politics changed during the reign of Charles II. He wasn’t any better than his father, when it came to ambitions of King’s absolutism. The connections to France that he had made during his exile caused the war against Dutch in March 1665. The war proved to be disastrous for England. In June 1667, the Dutch fleet penetrated to Thames, all the way to Chatham where it destroyed the English fleet. This incident hastened the peace-treaty that was concluded in Breda at the same month. The politics of Charles II caused two political parties, whose disputes raised the Cromwell’s reputation in the discourses in the beginning of the 18th century, Whigs and Tories. Lord Shaftesbury opposed King’s interests in the parliament, and was compelled to leave for it. Those members of parliament, who were on the side of Shaftesbury, established the Whig-party, and those, on the side of the King, formed to be the Tory-party. 47
FITZGIBBONS 2008, 150. FITZGIBBONS 2008, 154. 49 FITZGIBBONS 2008, 27-8, 34. Bradshaw was the leader in the court that ordered the execution of Charles I. 48
Whigs, especially Lord Shaftesbury had a problem with the royal succession. The next to be a King were the another son of Charles I, James, with one problem: he was a catholic. The Whigs wanted to replace him with the illegitimate son of Charles II, Duke of Manmouth. When the Whigs gained the majority in the Parliament of 1681, they voted the catholic heir excluded. Charles however didn’t accept the law and assembled a new parliament in Oxford. The new Civil War was threatening, and with the same formula that Charles’s father had executed. Some armed Whigs marched to Oxford, demanding a new Commonwealth. When the King of France, Louis XIV, was financing Charles’s cause, the situation was more secure than his father had had in 1642. 50 Finally, the Civil War didn’t happen, and Shaftesbury didn’t get to be a new Cromwell. In 1683, Tories, now in majority, excluded systematically all Whigs from the offices of the Sheriffs, Judges, and especially from the Parliament. Therefore all opposition to Charles’s absolutism was cleared away. But absolutism it was not: He didn’t order arbitrary taxes, and didn’t imprison anyone without judgment.51 According Simon SCHAMA, Charles accomplished to have a government that his grandfather, father and even Oliver Cromwell would have been proud of.52 So when the Whigs interpreted Charles’s politics as absolutism, it wasn’t entirely truthful. However, when compared to Cromwell’s government, Charles’s reign was a disappointment, because the restoration brought along the decline of the Navy and the King’s disability in diplomacy. According to the study of Blair WORDEN, the bad success of the Navy caused the nostalgia for the “better” days of Cromwell.53 After the death of Charles II in 1685, James II succeeded. His vague catholic heir and his clear ambition to absolutism caused his ousting in the Glorious Revolution in 1688. This revolution was later held by Whigs as their own political myth in 18th century, which gave their opponents opportunity to use Cromwell’s bad reputation against them. To the other political group, also against Whigs, the Jacobites, the ousting of James II was seen as de facto, but no way de jure.54 The Jacobites, the supporters of James II and the Stuarts, activated after the Glorious Revolution in many facets: The Irish desired James back to the throne for his Catholicism, the Scottish thought him as a justified (Stuart) King.55 They kept the reputation of Cromwell as bad as possible, and for a good 50
SCHAMA 2001, 300-3. BRETT 1961, 249-52, 262-3, 276-9. 52 SCHAMA 2001, 304. 53 WORDEN 1998, 39. 54 CLARK 1985, 123. 55 BRETT 1961, 314-7. 51
cause: The scholar of English language Murray PITTOCK dates the birth of literal Jacobitism to the year 1649 when Charles I was executed.56 Since that moment, Oliver Cromwell as a murderer of Stuart and/or anti-Catholic was the embodiment of the devil for them So much for the leaders, but how about their subjects, how did they see Cromwell? And this is important for my study, because this didn’t seem to change from the 17th century to the 18th. As I mentioned before, the Lord Protector didn’t exactly practiced what he preached. He lived among the amusements while his subordinates lived in puritan lives, both willingly and forced. One thing that lowered Cromwell’s popularity, if he ever had one, was how after the royalist rebellion in the spring of 1656, he ordered England to be divided on 12 regions, every one to be lead one Major-General. According Simon SCHAMA, that era was strictly puritan: Wrestling, shooting, bowling, ringing of the bells, all kind of festivities were banned. Alehouses were set under prohibition and were emptied of the violinist and players. Already, in the beginning of the Commonwealth, the Swearing and Cursing Act was getting people punished of their filthy mouths by fines. Fornicators were incarcerated for three months; Adultery gave one a death penalty.57 According to E.P. THOMPSON, after the restoration the puritan influences gave way to a free society, where excessive festivities were often held. Daniel Defoe claimed that during five years after the restoration, about 6 325 maypoles were erected, a habit that would have been a great abomination for Cromwell and the puritans. The selling of wives, the coarse way of divorce, increased. Cock-fights, horse-races, etc. came back to the lives of the peasants.58 It was like their lives had been suppressed over ten years, and suddenly released from it by the King. Seemingly that is what really happened. The history that was written about Cromwell was, despite the politics of the era, very positive in nature in the end of the 17th century. Some kinds of biographies were already written in 1659, like S. Carrington’s The History of the Life and Death of His Most Serene Highness, Oliver, Late Lord Protector. The book was written during the Protectorate or Commonwealth, and Cromwell is in it never mentioned without praising attributes.59 According to Andrea FRASER, the first real attempt for an honest biography is Henry Fletcher’s The Perfect Politician (1659/1660). At first it seems to continue the same praise that was used to write during Cromwell’s lifetime. Although Fletcher men56
PITTOCK 1994, 23. SCHAMA 2001, 239; FITZGIBBONS 2008, 148. 58 THOMPSON 1991, 55-6. 59 Carrington 1659, passim. 57
tions that the praise is for satire, he also mentions that the writer’s objective is moderation and what he writes is true.60 Unlike FRASER, I cannot keep this book as an objective biography, notably when Fletcher uses, as true information, the unverifiable tale how Cromwell, as a young man, returns the money that he has won by gambling.61 After the restoration, some biographies were published, some telling about the life of Cromwell realistically, some remembering him as a usurper or even worst, and some were yet very praising. William Winstanley’s The Loyall Martyrology (1665), mentions that Cromwell was “wicked (though fortunate), monster of nature, sceletaire villaine and wicked Machiavillian”.62 In the spring of 1665, the newspaper Newes Published for Satisfaction and Information of the People announced the book The Life, Death, Birth, and Triall of O Cromwell, the late usurper, with an exact Accompt of his Polities and Successes. It was the already the third edition (with additions), so we might assume that the demand for this book was high.63 This book was also mentioned by Samuel Pepys in his diary. In August 11th 1667, he wrote that he has seen the first biography of O. Cromwell in his life. Pepys mentions that in that book Cromwell was kept as a regarded soldier and a politician. Pepys himself praised the book.64
According to Blair
WORDEN, the historical commentary about Cromwell, with occasional demonization, praised his values, because he could not gain his high position without great virtues.65 As we may see in the titles of the books I have mentioned, some biographies saw Cromwell in good and bad.
3. From the Tyrant to a Name of the Warship, 1707 – 1759 Every rebel who has convulsed the state, and whose atrocious deeds have astonished mankind, has been represented as an Oliver Cromwell.66
In this chapter, I study what kind of a reputation Oliver Cromwell had in textual sources in 1707 – 1759. Furthermore, I study how the major incidents in the history of The 60
Fletcher 1660, passim. FRASER 1973, 23. 62 Winstanley 1665, passim. 63 News Published for Satisfaction and Information of the People. Nr. 32, 27.4.1665. 64 The Diary of Samuel Pepys, 11.8.1667. Digital source. 65 WORDEN 1998, 37. 66 Flower of the Jacobins 1792, 10. 61
Great Britain influenced these writings. The study being of the history of Great Britain, I set the timeline to the beginning of that institution, timeline ending to the last year of the reign of George II. In this time-frame, the Stuart monarchy changed to Hanoverian, and the Jacobites wanted to restore the Stuarts, even with the help of a coup. Under this thread the Whigs gained the respect of two first George’s, and a political majority. How did Cromwell’s reputation changed in this era? His name, and the positive and the negative attributes were seen often in the published writings. Blair WORDEN wrote, how Cromwell, was rarely mentioned without resentment and other than a monster. According to WORDEN, this “monster” remained in the end of the 18th century.67 This might be so, but I think this is a strong generalization.
3.1. The Jacobite Thread and the reputation of Cromwell The King William III died in 1702, and was succeeded by Anna Stuart, his sister-in-law. The Whigs feared this new Catholic Stuart how she would destroy all that they have gained in the Glorious Revolution in 1688. To arm themselves against that thread, the government wanted to have a law that would guarantee that the crown would be passed to the Hanoverian dynasty after her death. This caused resistance in Scotland. The opposition was, however, eased by the law that unified England and Scotland. This Act of Union was accepted in both parliaments, and was come in to effect in 1707.68 Cromwell and the Whigs gained notably amount of negative discourse on their behalf in the beginning of the 18th century. From the sources, we cannot find, in this time-frame, any opinions about Cromwell from the Whigs like Robert Walpole69. The Tories and Jacobites duly gave their opinions, and used them to slander the Whigs. Technically that was easy because by 1724 Tories had a majority of the daily newspapers in London. They also had nearly a half of the papers that came three times per week, and a half of the weekly papers. To add the load against the Whigs, the Jacobites also gave their strong effort in publishing.70 Therefore Cromwell and the Whigs were together under a heavy slander.
WORDEN 1998, 37. SCHAMA 2001, 336-7. 69 1676 – 1745, the leader of the Whig-party, 1st Prime-Minister. 70 FOORD 1964, 91. 68
And slander it was, not only on newspapers, but also in books. The miscalleneous works of the Right Honourable the late Earls of Rochester and Roscommon,71 (1707), includes occasional poems from the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th. One of these poems, marked to be first recited by Mr. Hall, A dialogue between Oliver Cromwell, the Late Usurper, and Charon. In that poem, after his death, Oliver has just arrived on the river Styx, by the ferry-man Charon who wonders how sinful must man be, to have asylum from the Hell. Oliver starts to praise his achievements and how he wants to oust Charles I again in Elysium. Charon, seemly displeased with Oliver, sends him straight to Hell: “Drag him down to the Abyss, Let Flames and vast Serpents still hiss; Draw him down, and make the Wretch know, Proud Tyrants of Earths Shall be Slaves here below”.72 This poem was presumably from the same time, in the end of the 17th century, when other horror poems from Cromwell were published. On these, he migrates above earth as a ghost, or in Hell, meanwhile he pities himself from the sins he had committed in his lifetime. In some poems he is not content on his current position in Hell, and tries to oust Satan himself, assembling an army, leading it himself as a general, making the King Gustav II Adolph of Sweden to his Lieutenant-General, and Henry Ireton to his Major-General. Naturally this does not succeed. In the higher court of Hell, Cromwell denies even knowing about the whole matter, the blame going solely to Gustav II Adolph who is as a punishment set chained in the chimney where “sulphur and poisons burn.”73 After his posthumous execution in 1661, another “hellish” trial was written, this time with Gustav II Adolph and Cardinal Mazarin. In this Hell’s Higher Court of Justice, a book written in poetical form, they are all three accused of their greed in power. Cromwell’s trial lasts longer than the others, but the sentence is same for all three: suffering in Hell. Oliver is mentioned as a person that would “scare the Beelzebub himself”.74 From these poems I cannot have any idea why the King of Sweden is been held so monstrous, but the part of Cromwell is evident. The republishing of the book of the works of Rochester and Roscommon might be a political act, pointed against Whigs. If the Cromwell-Whig connection is equivocal in these poems, in speeches it was more explicit. To have a clear picture how Cromwell was more directly used against Whigs, 71
John Wilmot 1647-80, “the libertine”, The Earl of Rochester, a friend of Charles II, a poet and play writer; Wenthwort Dillon 1630-85, Earl of Roscommon was a poet. 72 Hall of Hereford 1707, 84-8. 73 A Parly between the ghosts of the late protector, and the King of Sweden, at their meeting in Hell, 1660, 15-19. 74 Hell’s Higher Court of Justice 1661.
the “Ultra-Tory”, preacher Henry Sacheverell gave us an example. In 1710 he preached how the Stuarts were still legitimate for the throne, and disputed the parliament-set monarchy since 1688.75 His speeches were published, and soon become a best-seller. For the Whig ministers these speeches were too much, and they wished to prosecute Sacheverell. This caused objections and riots against Whigs.76 To defend himself from the charges Sacheverell proclaimed that the revolution of 1688 was a sin against the god’s anointed ones, and accused Whigs for them being tolerant towards nonconformist Christians (except for Catholics) was threatening the church of England. These both sins, according to Sacheverell, were about to bring again the “diabolical days of Commonwealth”.77 Sacheverell kept the decisions of King William III as justified as Cromwell’s and other tyrants.78 Nom de plume “William King”, who defended Sacheverell, wrote that the Short-Parliament, Cromwell and the present Whig-ministry were the one and the same monster with many heads.79 Surprisingly, albeit Sacheverell, it is not possible to define any divergent attitude from the clergy or deeply religious persons against Cromwell. We might assume that they wrote this kind of text rather as a private person than through the word of god. Considering the Sacheverell’s speeches, they were more written in the spirit of Toryism or Jacobitism, so I cannot truly count them made with the blessed guidance. However, Sacheverell accomplished something with his speeches. The general election in 1710 produced a majority for the Tories. This victory was however, short lived. George I, the first Hanoverian King was crowned in 1714. The new King was deeply aggrieved by the Tories whom had taken sides with the Jacobites. The government members were replaced with the Whigs before his crowning. The election in 1715 made the Whigs as considerably majority in the parliament.80 In these times, writings about Oliver Cromwell were nearly without any exception political. Only one writing in the Observator in 1708, warns, how a general who had any connections with parliament, might be a fateful combination. The writer uses, as an example, “Crowell with his Whigs”, who regarding the orders and the regulations of the parliament, dissolved the parliament after he had destroyed the King, and revoked the constitution in all three kingdoms. This writing is indeed against Cromwell, but very 75
Sacheverell 1710, 102. CANNON & CRIFFITHS 1988, 454-5. 77 SCHAMA 2001, 344-5. 78 Sacheverell 1710, 102. 79 King 1711, 11. 80 CANNON & CRIFFITHS 1988, 456, 461-2. 76
neutral, the writer annexes that for these reasons, “nor the Whigs and neither the Tories shall not be trusted with an army”.81 The pamphlets give the whole picture of the political opinions of that time. In the Eighteen queries for the seventeen ald----n [aldermen] and the R---r [Ruler?], published in Dublin, is given some instructions to how and to whom one may raise a toast. To drink a toast to late King William, according the writer, does not favor papists (we may presume that the writer was a protestant), and is not the same as saying the ave Marys or one pater noster. Article six of the pamphlet however, describe that drinking a toast to the memory of pious Oliver Cromwell is not addressing a great value for the monarchy.82 It seems that Oliver Cromwell’s reputation was negative in Ireland, even among the Protestants. The country was supporting Jacobites, but the massacre of the Drogheda might still have been effecting, at least in some regions. If the reputation was bad in Ireland during the entire 18th century, it was not so in the town of Waterford. In 1785, the Public Advertiser had a writing, how in this town has had a tale how Cromwell had expressed his will to make Waterford as Ireland’s commercial and governmental center.83 His reputation was not entirely bad in 18th century Ireland. The present-day Irish loath against Cromwell is more likely caused by the nationalism that rose in the 19 th century. The Jacobites strengthened their positions throughout the beginning the 18th century, and gained support from the Stuart-favor Tories, like In 1713, from Viscount Bolingbroke84 and a part of the Tories. Bolingbroke was systematically clearing the Whigs out of the army and the navy, and had a connection with the suitable Stuart heir. Another Civil War was threatening. Then Queen Anne died in the august 1714. Bolingbroke’s opponents acted. The moderate Tories, like Lord Marlborough, and the Whigs secured the safety for Hanoverian Prince to travel in London in the next month.85 Bolingbroke had similar support than Charles II had had: the finance from the King of France. He had a connection to Versailles through the marriage, thus the support against the main enemy of the Jacobites, Robert Walpole was ready. 86 The battle begun in the streets: the Whigs hired mobs to attack Tories and Jacobites, causing aggression in the streets.87
Observator, Nr. 15. 3-7.4.1708. Eighteen queries, for the seventeen ald----n and the R---r 1713, 3. 83 Public Advertiser, Nr. 15 939, 24.6.1785. 84 Henry St. John (1678 – 1751), 1st Viscount of Bolingbroke, a Tory leader. 85 BRETT 1961, 388, 391-2. 86 PLUMB 1960, 16. 87 SCHAMA 2001, 348. 82
These brawls between The Whigs and the Jacobites had long roots, beginning in the time of the Glorius Revolution. Then, in 1688, Edmund Bohun wrote in his The doctrine of non-resistance or passive Obedience, about the arguments between them, and asked: But tho’ they will not swear, they will promise to live peaceably under this King: That is, they will not own him for the lawful King of England, but they will submit to him as they did to Oliver Cromwell, till they have opportunity to dethrone him, and deliver him into the Hand of King James; and for this they would be allowed the same Condition with those Subjects that have sworn Allegiance to him. Is this reasonable? [Will] they admit a Servant or a Rival on the same Terms into their own Families?88
In this, Clearly Oliver Cromwell is compared to a King William, or William was assumed to be a similar temporary nuisance as Cromwell was. It seems that Bohun incorporates Jacobites to the royalist Parliament that ended the Commonwealth and supported the restoration. Bohun was a Tory, so all of the Tories were not affiliated with Jacobites, or it was not beneficial to him, yet. The Jacobite rebellion rose in 1715. It included two incidents where the effigies of Oliver Cromwell were used. In March, according to Weekly Journal, the vengeful mob intruded in Roe-Buck Club in Cheapside, London, stealing the effigy of Oliver Cromwell, and fired guns towards the owners. Their purpose for this violence was to revenge deaths of their comrades. Furthermore they attempt to burn the house, but the peacekeepers prevented this.89 Why steal one effigy? This news, produced by the Jacobite newspaper, was a possible attempt to slander the Whig-club as the Roe-Buck, and its customers. Whigs and Tories had their own clubs, in which they assembled, according to Simon SCHAMA, like two armed mobs.90 These political clubs continued their existence all the way to autumn 1792, when Prime Minister William Pitt diminished them severely to gain control of the radicals, like republican Whigs.91 The very existence of the Cromwell’s effigy in this club might have been mere propaganda to demonstrate that the Whig-clubs has their “idol” to worship. The Weekly Journal was entirely at the hands of the Jacobites, belonging to a fierce Jacobite and the enemy of Walpole, Nathaniel Mist.92 According to historian Martin CONBOY it was the first attempt of a newspaper that was entirely edited from the political essays. 93
Bohun 1689, 7. Weekly Packet, Nr. 176, 12-19.11.1715. 90 SCHAMA 2001, 344. 91 VICKERY 1998, 258. 92 CLARK 1985, 145. 93 CONBOY 2010, 44. 89
Nothing served the Jacobite cause than an old new reprinted. The Weekly Journal again, in June 4th 1715, had an article that also represented their attitude against Cromwell. That article commemorates the 25th anniversary of the return of Charles II in 1685, “Good old Stuart days”. In that day, thousands of people were gathered to watch the burnings of the “effigies of the eternal enemies of Christendom”. These were the devil himself with his two sons, Prester-Jack and Oliver Cromwell, the latter equipped with pair of horns, like his “father”.94 Yet in March 1715, the situation was getting harsher. Tories informed the authorities that they were about to burn effigies of Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw, apparently allowed material for this purpose. When the warehouse where the effigies were stored was inspected on the grounds of a whistle-blow, there were also found effigies of King George, King William, the Duke of Marlborough and the Arch-Bishop. When the effigies were removed by force, a riot rose, where two or three got killed. According to the Flying Post the killed where Jacobites,95 yet another paper to feed the flames of the rebellion. Burning of effigies was a popular habit to manifest unpopularity to the establishment. In 1733, during the parliamentary crisis, the effigies of Robert Walpole and Queen Caroline were burned while mobs brawled.96 But in 1715 it was not necessary the Tories or Jacobites to blame like the Flying Post did. Historian E. P. THOMPSON calls this kind of behavior as a “counter-theatre”. According to him, the common people indicated their presence to the establishment by the meanings of agitation. The unpopular minister might have get knowledge of his popularity by watching if his effigy was carried in the chair or was it “judged” in Tyburn. According to THOMPSON, the lower-class was using “Jacobite theatre” to annoy the Hanoverian King.97 This also reveals true the theory of Eric HOBSBAWM, how the opinion of the common comes present in the time of the crisis of the society, this time in riots.98 The burning of the effigies and particularly Cromwell’s was a long habit. When Charles II arrived in London in June 29th 1660, the people had demonstrated their opinion against “the King Oliver”. John Evelyn had been watching the arrival of the King and noticed the favour of the people: “The ways strewn with flowers, the bells ringing […], fountains running with wine. Lords and Nobles, clad in clothes of silver, gold and vel-
Weekly Journal, 4.6.1715. Flying Post or the Postmaster, nr. 3725, 17-19.11.1715. 96 PLUMB 1960, 270. 97 THOMPSON 1996, 69. 98 PELTONEN 2006, 27. 95
vet…”99 The commoners, however, had begun their festivities earlier: One week before, one of the Cromwell’s funeral effigies were demonstratively hanged from the windows of Whitehall.100 Christopher Hildyard wrote in 1719, how the birthday of Charles II was celebrated in March 29th (the year is not mentioned), “with grand festivities and with the effigies of the late usurper and a tyrant […] along with the effigy of unjust John Bradshaw”. These effigies were executed at Tyburn, like the real bodies of their subjects in 1661.101 The Jacobites attempt to get the Stuarts back to the throne with war. The union between England and Scotland had not removed the Jacobitism from the Highlands; meanwhile the Lowlands enjoyed the wealth that the union had brought.102 The poorer Highlanders had difficulties to see any advantage on the union, so they were easily dissuaded to raise arms for the cause of the Stuarts. Despite of this seemingly mighty power behind the cause, it withered out in 1715, when they were expecting the help of the French invasion that never happened. The Jacobite armies of Englanders and Highlanders disbanded to a looting mob. The French were actually planning to come but the death of Louis XIV and the new peace-demanding taxation in France removed the opportunity for any invasion.103 In generally, the Jacobite rebellion was left without popularity and support in 1715, and again in 1745. This, according to S. Reed. BRETT, was partly due the reason that the rising class of merchants were mostly the supporters of the Whigs, and that the Britain, incorporated by the Act of Union, removed their support from the Scottish majority.104
3.2. Whigs like Cromwell? The dividedness between the Whig-and Tory parties continued similarly how it was been on the end of the 17th century. However, after the beginning of the 18th century they were partly connected with their opposition to the Jacobites. The stance to Oliver Cromwell and the Commonwealth from the Tories comes clear, however with obvious bias, from the political publication The Persian letters, continued: or, the second volume of letters from Selim at London, to Mirza at Ispahan (1736): 99
John Evelyn 29.6.1660. Bray 1901, 332. Publick Intelligencer, Nr. 17. 18-25.6.1660. 101 Hildyard 1719, 116.; Kingdomes Intelligencer, Nr. 23. 3-13.6.1661. 102 SCHAMA 2001, 330. 103 SCHAMA 2001, 350. 104 BRETT 1961, 313, 350. 100
… The latter [Whigs] make no difference as to right, but they were the people who destroyed the monarchy in 41, they submitted to Oliver Cromwell as long as they liked him; and turn out any King they did not like, as they would have done King Charles II. But as the Tories say, that the rebellion was not lawful, and that Oliver Cromwell was an usurper, and therefore, if they had lived in those days, they would have taken arms against him.105
This “Selim” claimed that the Whigs and the Commonwealth were similar in their politics, desiring to oust the King, any King. He saw similarities between the execution of Charles I and the attempt to oust Charles II. It is obvious that Selim was suffering “the selective historical amnesia”, because the ousting was never the intention to the Whigs, only the question about the royal heir. Selim saw the Tories as the commendable defenders of the crown, and the enemies for those like Cromwell. For Tories, Oliver Cromwell had been a prime evil from the end of the 17th century, which has been indicated in the newspaper Oracle Bell’s New World in 1789 and in the book of Mark Noble, Memoirs of the Protectorate House of Cromwell, published in 1784. Both of these tell the same story, how Oliver’s grandson, Oliver Cromwell as well, had send a petition to the Parliament. In Parliamentary session, Sir Edward (Whig) had noticed that petition in question, and with evident impishness, handed it to an old Tory, Sir Edward Seymor, who took the petition and put on his glasses. Seymor started to read the petition with loud voice that was soon to be crumbled: “The humble Petition of – of – of the Devil! OF OLIVER CROMWELL”. The house was filled with laughter, and embarrassed Seymor left the session.106 Thomas Cordon complains the political situation of his era on his book A dedication to a great man, concerning dedications (1718), expressing his own opinions about the relations of the Whigs to the Oliver Cromwell’s reputation: “Some of our Candidates so lively imitate their glorious Ancestor Oliver Cromwell, that they can whine and weep over their Country’s Wrongs[.]”107 These “candidates” were the Whigs. Gordon, as a plausible Tory or even a Jacobite, combines Cromwell’s politics to the Whig parliamentary of the 18th century, and considers them as a similar revolutionary material. Historian Archibald FOORD explained the Whig-sided opinion of the revolution of 1688, and the myth that they held on about it, how the whiggism signified the principles of the
The persian letters 1735, 74. Oracle Bell’s New World, Nr. 102, 26.9.1789; Noble 1784, 245 . 107 Gordon 1718, 15. 106
revolution in its benevolent meaning, meanwhile the toryism was considered as a monarchist tyranny, historical connections to the Jacobitism and treason.108 In 18th century, no revolution was necessary, or even wanted, at least until the agitated days of French revolution. The King held his position, leaving the political parties and other political groups to plot with each other in their clubs. According to historian J. H. PLUMB, the King’s political position in Great-Britain was different than in e.g. Sweden, Denmark or Italy, where the aristocracy held their influential power. In Britain, the position of the nobility was weakened by their wars, treasons, plots or conspiracies.109 Thus nobody gained enough support to attempt any coup. What the Commonwealth and Cromwell had secured in the 17th century was that the King could be ousted out. In 18th century the King cooperated with the parliament, unlike both Charles’s. The King, especially George II (1727 – 60) favored the Whig-government, and kept all opponents of Robert Walpole as “rascals, scoundrels and villains.110 After all, they had secured the throne to his Hanoverian dynasty. The obvious success of the Whigs had any effect to the reputation of Oliver Cromwell. If Cromwell was their idol, as their opponents viperously claimed, they didn’t express it. If someone wrote about the Lord Protector in objective or with compliant sympathetic manner, he had a possibility to get some fiery feedback: An unknown writer from Lincoln wrote a letter to a Dr. Calamy in January 10th 1718, asking a correction to a history writing, which was a panegyric about Oliver Cromwell, written by an unknown Bishop. The man from Lincoln wanted “This bloody and inhuman Tyrant” to be added before the name of Cromwell, because these, “the Bishop had forgotten”.111 And Oliver was still the “devil”. In January 1720 was published a book called: A True and Faithful Narrative of Oliver Cromwell’s compact with the Devil. This book claims that Oliver had made a pact with the devil, lasting seven years, and beginning from the battle of Worcestershire, ending to his death. The very proof of this pact was the same date on both incidents, the September 3th. For prove this hellish pact, had a witness, Colonel Lindsey.112 Cromwell was considered as a devil during his lifetime but the free literal blasphemy had begun in 1660, when the first publications about his devilishness were printed. One of those publications from that year, the eight pages long writing 108
FOORD 1964, 327. PLUMB 1960, 9. 110 FOORD 1964, 6-7. 111 Anonymous Lincolniensis 1718(1719), 15. 112 Evening Post, Nr. 1635, 21-23.1.1720. 109
from an unknown writer, The English Devil, has a subtitle (typically long as it was custom with many publications) that reveals all that is essential: [T]his hellish monster, by way of revelation, touching king and kingdom; and a narrative of the infernal plots, inhumane actings, and barbarous conspiracies of this grand impostor, and most audacious rebel, that durst aspire from a brew-house to the throne, washing his accursed hands in the blood of his royal soveraign[sic]; and trampling over the heads of the most loyal subjects, making a foot-ball or a crown, and endeavouring [sic] utterly to extirpate the royal progeny, root and kinde, stem and stock.
This writing is an utter blasphemy from the start to the finish. According to the writer, as he continues, Cromwell is “a hellish monster, damned Machiavellian” who would kill an innocent children, if it would born Vive le Roy in its lips.113 So how did the common man used to remember Cromwell? The Weekly Journal from November 3th 1722 gives us a fragment. To the memory of Cromwell, the cups were still raised. In one incident this kind of impishness, after several cups taken, led to remembering the faith of Charles I combined with the faith of Oliver’s head: [t]he Head of Frog-Lane Meeting-house summoned his Brethren to meet him on the 30th of January last, by nine o’clock in the morning, which accordingly was done; so he and his company went into a boat, and sail down our River Avon, carousing and drinking Healths in Bumbers, to the dear Memory of Oliver Cromwell, and all that were Well-wishers to Him.
When the carousing group got drunker, a dog was killed, and its head was set on a spike on the prow of the boat while the group declared: “Here is the Head of a Traitor”. When the boat arrived on its quay, it was faced with a furious mob that was throwing rocks to the boat and its crew.114 The failure of the Jacobite rebellion did not succeed to diminish the Jacobite press, and the Weekly Journal was focused to seed discontentment for the Walpole’s government.115 Thus we can doubt the authenticity of the story. The editor of the Weekly Journal, Nathaniel Mist was driven to an exile to France in 1728 to avoid worsened troubles with the authorities. This didn’t encumber the publication of the Weekly Post as a prominent anti-Whig newspaper.116 However, it is possible that the commoners raised a cup or two to the health of the Cromwell, with a tongue-in-cheek manner. These cups have been raising a long before. In the book of Daniel Defoe (they eyes of the end of the century), The behaviour of servants in England inquired into, published in 1726, mentions how the commoners 113
The English Devil 1660, passim. Weekly Journal or Saturday’s Post, Nr. 170, 3.3.1722. 115 FOORD 1964, 168. 116 CONBOY 2010, 44. 114
were raising cups in the 1660s, to the health of the King and his family, to General Monck, and to that how the King was asking to forget the past and spread curse to Oliver Cromwell and his race.117 The drunkenness gives courage to do the impish thing, and surely had done. These racy toasts speeches that were practiced in the end of the 17th century, continued at least in 1740s, even in Ireland. The protestant Reverend of Dublin, Philip Skelton complained how many blasphemers drink a cup to Oliver Crowell, and if they don’t satisfy with that, they raise a cup to the health of the Devil himself.118 Cromwell itself had begun to live as a verbal concept; a possible synonym for the word “usurper”. In Daily Courant in December 1723 was an advertisement for a book The Persian Cromwell; or the life and actions of Miriways, Prince of Candahar, and Protector of Persia.119 The title itself reveals a lot. However, this Mirwais Khan Hotak (1673 – 1715), aka Miriways, had indeed made a coup that could have been called as a “Cromwellian”, although he was never the Protector.120 This book was allegedly written by a Swedish officer who had been imprisoned by the Khan, therefore the title might be entirely English origin, made for the translated version, or it was a mere English fabrication. The Cromwellian coup indicates for the way Cromwell had cleansed the parliament that he considered as an incompetent.
3.3. The Reputation Amends In 1730’s Cromwell’s reputation was rising. He was considered as an example of a free man of Britain, but yet more for one of the creators of its empire, especially by his role to build the empire at sea.121 This sympathy came to be visible in the portrait galleries of the wealthy Whigs, but on the newspaper writings it affected more gradually. The letterto-the-editor kind of writings in the newspapers was to be come later, but the newspapers, however, took texts to print, even long ones, and one could get a comment of them printed as well. In October 10th 1734 in Daily Courant, was a reply to a writing that considered human sanctity. This anonymous counter-writing defended the reputation of Lord Protector:
Defoe 1726, 60. Skelton 1745, 25. 119 Daily Courant, Nr. 6906, 9.12.1723. 120 More about Mirwais Khan Hotak, look www.afgahan.net. 121 SCHAMA 2001, 400. 118
You tell us that, that Cromwell was advised to declare himself a King, and to trust to this Law for his support: but if his Advisers knew no better, Cromwell did; he knew that his calling himself King would not do; that a King of England must be made by the Consent of the Three Estates of the Kingdom, otherwise he is but a Tyrant and Usurper […]122
Since Cromwell himself had destructed the institution that usually approved the kingship, the rationalization of this writer seems to be reasonable. However these lines can be seen in two ways: The writer may have been vindicating Cromwell’s reputation, trying to clean the word “usurper”, often incorporated with Cromwell, or the writer attempt was to indicate Protector’s hypocrisy, by making his actions more pragmatic than just made by the guidance of the lord. The satirical poems about Cromwell were still published. In Daily Gazetteer had a poem in December 5th 1735, which had the following stanza: By Arts, By Fraud, By Rapine, Caesar rose, and call’d th’ immortal Gods to quell his Foes. So Cromwell ruin both the Church and Crown, to found a worse dominion of his own;…123
The Daily Gazetteer was in 1735 a tool for the main Whig Robert Walpole,124 and with this information one may draw a conclusion that the Whigs were relatively unconcerned with Cromwell’s public reputation, albeit their personal admiration. This poem has an old theme that considers Cromwell as a regicide and a usurper. Caesar, in this connection, is a negative expression that indicates to Gaius Julius Caesar as a usurper and a dictator, albeit Caesar ended the republic, contrary to Cromwell who was one commencing such an institution. The poet considers Oliver as a destructor of the church; therefore his ambitions might have lied with the Presbyterians of even with the Catholic Church. However, in the era of the Commonwealth, the churches were not per se destructed, albeit very much closed. The royalist John Evelyn wrote on his diary, how on Christmas day 1652 “no sermon anywhere, no church permitted to be open, so observed it by home”. A year later, he wrote:”Christmas day. No churches, or public assembly. I was fain to pass devotions of that Blessed day with my family at home”. 125 The puritan way to close the churches was not actually Cromwell’s idea or by his orders. Despite of that fact, he got the blame for it. One man had to carry all that was wrong with this “republic of god”. 122
Daily Courant, Nr. 5775, 10.10.1734. Daily Gazetteer, Nr. 137, 5.12.1735. 124 CLARKE 2004, 82. 125 John Evelyn 25.12.1652; 25.12.1653; Bray 1901, 280,283. 123
However, in some writings the rising reputation was evident: In John Lockman’s A new history of England, by question and answer (1736), written with a dialogue between anonymous historian and questions (just like Plato had written). One question considers the qualities of Oliver Cromwell. The historian answers: “It is evident from what we have already related of him, that he was an illustrious warrior, a great politician, a man of most consummate prudence; and that he had the art of making himself both fear’d and respected”126 In the same year was published a book Letters from a Moor at London to his Friend at Tunis, which illuminates the superstitions about Cromwell: […] they [country-people] having a notion that Oliver Cromwell had dealings with that infernal spirit; and an English historian of some credit seriously says, he certainly had, which made him so successful in a bad cause.127
This “historian of some credit” is not mentioned by name. This “Moor” actually cites a book A True and Faithful Narrative of Oliver Cromwell’s compact with the Devil (1723). We can seriously doubt that this the entire picture of what the “country-people” believed. Surely they were very superstitious, and we cannot assume that they had much knowledge about the history of the 17th century from other sources that by lore. According to Blair WORDEN, due the folktales, Cromwell was still a Demon and an archcriminal to the commoners and to the people of the periphery in the 18th century.128 Accordingly, it might be possible that the Tories were spreading this superstition. They represented the nobility of the countryside, and gained support from the peasants by giving their approval to the country festivities, that were continued increasingly, including more pagan forms than before.129 In May 28th 1737 in Daily Gazetteer had a writing that considered Cromwell with very contemplated manner. It is difficult to draw a conclusion, if it is a praise or mere sarcasm: Most of those who have established Publick [sic] Slavery have done it under the Pretence and Banners of Liberty. Who courted the Populace more than Pisestratus and Caesar? Who was a greater Commonwealth-man than Oliver Cromwell?130
Pisestratus (ca. 607 – 528 BCE.) was a Greek statesman who made a coop in Athens, and despite of that gained popularity as an autocrat.131 Gaius Julius Caesar, however,
Lockman 1736, 175. Moor at London 1736, 245. 128 WORDEN 1998, 37. 129 THOMPSON 1991, 57. 130 Daily Gazetteer, Nr. 600, 28.5.1737. 131 More about Pisestratus, see RAAFLAUB 2003, 59-61. 127
attempt to gain peoples popularity and rule regardless of the senate.132 Cromwell did not even attempt to gain any popularity from the people; he only tried to make it more pious, even by force if necessary. Thence the analogy of the writer does not match. Contingently that viewpoint might be the writers own, or a public opinion of that time. To add his own political view, Nathaniel Mist stroke again. In the Common Sense or the Englishman’s Journal in March 1738, on the writings to the editor, about Cromwell was written how his comprehension was at same level as his accomplices, and how he laughed to his chosen ones and yet accepted their fanatical demands, eyes pointed towards heaven, and heart towards hell.133 According to J.C.D. CLARK, this paper continued the Jacobite traditions of Nathaniel Mist, and was published to support the pending accession of pretender James III.134 Canute Young wrote on his reference book Chronologia enucleata (1739) about Cromwell, how he was a great general, but a bad subject, and how he had desire to be rich. Young had some antipathy against Cromwell, possibly from religionist reasons. He wrote very clear propaganda when he adds how Cromwell had kept his family in destitution.135 This was, indeed, a black propaganda, when we have the knowledge of Cromwell’s background, and how he lived during his time in power. As I mentioned before, one praising theme in the 18th century was Cromwell’s role as a creator of the English grandeur at sea, and his conquests. In March 1740, the Country Journal had a writing, how he (the writer) had to praise the memory of Cromwell, because he, rather than let Englishman suffer about the insults, looting and bad treatment from the Spaniards, he let them feel the power of his resentment in the most sensible manner. About this, according the writer, can be thanked the possession of Jamaica, and how that profited England by hundreds of millions in money. 136 During the protectorate England really gained Jamaica, not owing to Cromwell, but with the help of his authority. The island had then only small group of Spanish soldiers, thus the invasion was over within ten days in May 17th 1655.137 Protector himself had encouraged the citizens to inhabit the island.138
More about Caesar’s politics, see GOLDSWORTHY 2006, passim. Common Sense or the Englishman’s Journal, Nr. 58, 11.3.1738. 134 CLARK 1980, 145. James III: James Francis Edward Stuart 1701 – 1766, the son of James II, the pretender. 135 Young 1739, 148-9. 136 Country Journal or The Craftsman, Nr. 752, 29.11.1740. 137 FRASER 1973, 530. 138 Cromwell 1655. 133
Opinions about Cromwell were indeed divided. Robert Dodsley, a book seller and a writer incubates this matter in his book The Chronicle of the Kings of England, from the Norman Conquest unto the present time (1742). He himself calls Cromwell as a hypocrite, but continues: Those who speak evil of him, that he set up himself as an idol, and made the streets of London like unto the valley of Hinnom [Gehenna=Hell] by burning the bowels of men as a sacrifice to him Molocship […] he summoned parliaments with a words of his pen, and dispersed them again with a breath of his mouth […] Howbeit there are others who defend him, saying, he was an illustrious warrior, a great politician, a man of the most consummate prudence […]
Dodsley however, was not entirely objective in this matter because he reveals his own attitude, by writing: “And now behold, he that was a monster is become a hero”. Accordingly he mentions a myth that seemed to feature the Cromwell-tales from the end of the 17th century, continuing on the 18th: “And it come[s] to pass on the third day on the month September, the day on which he had signed the Devil’s contract […]”.139 The myth refers to co-incidents where the date September 3th occurs in three times in Oliver Cromwell’s life: First, In June 1650, young Charles II had arrived in Scotland to receive his crown.140 Cromwell’s troops went on to pursuit, and crossed the border on late July.141 The pursuit ended to the battle of Dunbar in September 3th, when the Cromwell’s Parliamentary army won the Scottish-Royalist army. Charles escaped to the English side of the border with the Parliamentary army rapidly following behind. Second September 3th happened in 1651, one year after Dunbar, in the battle of Worcestershire, where the Parliamentary army, with the power of 28 000 men faced another ScottishRoyalist army that was only half of the power of the Parliament’s army. The massacre followed, thousands of Royalists were killed and the major parts of them were taken prisoners. Charles, again, fled, this time from the England.142 The third incident and the last was the very death of the Lord Protector that happened in September 3th 1658. This undeniably arouses the imagination even within our modern-day minds. In 17th and 18th centuries, in the minds of the superstitious people, it must have been seen as a sign of the Devil himself. Nom de plume A.F. wrote in his book The general entertainer: or, a collection of near three hundred polite tales and fables (1746), how Oliver Cromwell was such a person
Dodsley 1742, 57-8. HARRISON 1888, 162. 141 FRASER 1979, 365. 142 SCHAMA 2001, 212-3; BBC, Battle of Worcester, a web site. 140
who, after the Queen Elisabeth I, had won all the difficulties in the most surprising manner. He also wrote, how: [i]t is certain, that Cromwell stuck at no Wickedness to arrive at Power: Bu the it is [sic] certain, that when he was possessed of it, he used it Nobly. Few man have ever shewn a more ardent Zeal for the Honour and reputation of their Country or a greater Disregard for the private interest of their own Family.143
It is rather questionable whether Cromwell’s actions were so noble and pure than A.F. claimed. He is other writing through the “whiggish glasses” or the writing, or the entire book is mere satire. On the (entire) title has promised how the book is written with wit, humor and nobleness. It would be anachronistic to presume on with which one of those three that writing about Cromwell was made. If any positive writing so far has been abstruse, the clearly praiseful writing can be found in 1750, from Charles Owen, who writes in his book The danger of the church and state from the foreigners: In this foreign line there happened indeed one interruption from a native, I mean Oliver Cromwell, a true born Englishman, who by his valour raised the glory of England to an uncommon height by sea and land.
Owen, in his book, considers how England was governed by foreign races like Romans, Welshmen, Scottish, French, Danes and Germans (unknowing or ignorant the fact that Cromwells were from Wales). Accordingly he considers the etymology of the words that are related to the monarchy, like e.g. the King, that was, according to him, originally a German word. He kept Cromwell as a national exception in the group of foreignborn Kings.144 Owen was a keen supporter of the Hanoverian dynasty (despite its German origin), and that might signify that his ambitions were for the Whigs. He was a theologian and practicing reverend, albeit he was more focusing on politics than his sermons.145 Despite the rising fame, some of the Cromwell’s actions didn’t get any approval even after hundred years. When the matter was a clash between Whigs and Tories, one particular deed was unforgivable, especially for the Tories. A Scotchman, Andrew Henderson wrote to his book The case of the Jews considered, with regard to trade, commerce, manufacturies [sic] and religion (1753), how Cromwell allowed the Protestants from Savoy and Piedmont to have sanctuary, markedly from the Catholic persecution. The 143
A.F. 1746, 490. Owen 1750, 6. 145 Dictionary of National Biography 1885-1900, 400. 144
deed that acerbated Henderson most was the allowance of the Jews to return in England, and adds, regarding to the situation in 1753 that: “If England then is but mixture of strangers… why should the Jews be excepted [sic] more than the Roman Catholics?”146 Henderson’s outrage was due to the parliamentary decision that was approved by the George II in that year. That Jew Bill or Jewish Naturalization Act allowed Judaism as an official religion in Great-Britain. The law was approved by the Whigs and opposed bitterly by the Tories, so Henderson, apparent supporter of the Tories, demonstrated his bitterness when the law was accepted. The opposition of the Tories, however, worked when the law was annulled on the next year.147 Cromwell’s favorableness for the Jews was easy tool for Henderson to defame Whigs on this matter. If anything so important and valuable (and for Britain they were) than the man-of-war get named after Oliver Cromwell it barely happens for no more reasons than by admiration and respect. Even Winston Churchill wanted, in the early 20th century, to the horror of King George V, to name one of the British warships to be named as HMS Oliver Cromwell.148 In the 18th century, however, Cromwell got his namesake ship that serviced during the 7 Year War. The London Chronicle mentions, in its issue in January 18-20th 1757, how the French men-of-war whit 18 cannons got, during its journey from Le Havre to Martinique, captured by a privateer Oliver Cromwell, and was towed to St. Kitts.149 The Oliver Cromwell got its next reported victim, soon after this, when it arrived to New York, shot nearly to pieces, however towing along a great 22-cannon French man-of-war with one hundred personnel. The war against France brought along the writings about Lord Protector Cromwell’s achievements. In April 18-21th 1758 issue of the London Evening Post commemorated how he had punished the Spaniards whom had captured some English ships. The result of that punishment had been at least 15 ships that had had a cargo worth of over 100 000 pounds.150 Also in 1758, in the Read’s Weekly Journal, a writer that had been writing about the life of Oliver Cromwell wondered why Oliver Cromwell has to be on the top of the “black list” and considered the denigration that has been continuing since Charles II as strange:
Henderson 1753, 11. LEVY 2005, 370-1. 148 ROSE 1983, 160-1. 149 London Chronicle (Semi-Annual), Nr. 9, 18-20.1.1757. Privateers were private men-of-wars, which served under the certain flag, a kind of pirate ships that attacked only the enemy ships. 150 London Evening Post, Nr. 4726, 18-21.2.1758. 147
It was not enough to call him usurper, tyrant, and traitor but even those very personal qualities which enabled him to support the first character of the age, were to be rendered to contemptible and odious… we have been taught to believe that Cromwell was possessed of no real virtues, civil or military; yet acted more like a person possessed of them all, than any other ever met with in history.151
When the printing press was strongly in the hands of the Tories and the Jacobites, Oliver Cromwell could not have very positive reputation in the beginning of the 18th century. He was used for the means of propaganda, tarnishing the Whig-party. The situation didn’t alter much after the failure of the Jacobites, due to the writings by Nathaniel Mist from abroad. The situation, however, altered in the 1730’s when Cromwell became more acceptable than before. The success of the Whigs and eventually the war were raising his fame, which came visible e.g. on the ship that was named after him. The negative writing was almost totally the repetition of the blasphemy and the propaganda from the end of the 17th century. The satiric poems from the 17th century were republished in the beginning of the 18th, as a part of the Tory-Jacobite propaganda campaign. The positive writing, however, seems to overdo the achievements of the Protector, and that, at least at the beginning, may be written by the satirical purposes. From the Whigpoliticians, in this time-frame, cannot be found any praising word about Cromwell, not any word. That word was put on their mouths by their enemies, like Sacheverell, who told them that they are the “Cromwell-party”. In political situation such as the Jew-bill in 1753, Cromwell’s actions were keenly used against the Whigs. Despite the amending reputation, the word Cromwell was a political weapon.
4. The Political Radicalism Raises the Reputation of Oliver Cromwell, years 1760 – 1799 Oliver Cromwell, who, thought an usurper, had the strength and glory of the British Empire thoroughly at heart, summoned a parliament composed of members chosen from three nations, which met and sat together at Westminster.152
In this chapter, I study Cromwell’s reputation in the time when the King of Great Britain changed to a ruler who didn’t support the Whigs anymore like his two predecessors had done. In this time-frame occurred two major incidents that made Cromwell appear 151 152
Read’s Weekly Journal or British Gazetteer, Nr. 4002, 28.10.1758. An historical deduction of an union between Great Britain and Ireland 1799, 8.
on the writings more than before: The American Revolutionary War in 1775 – 1783, and the French Revolution in 1789 – 1799.
4.1. The Praise and its Feedback According to historian Archibald FOORD, the Whig-myth, that I have mentioned earlier, was more emphasized in 1760s, when their opposition was threatening the Whigsuperiority. The Whigs hold on to this myth how it was they who made the revolution in 1688 and saved the throne to the protestant King. They, in their minds, were true and real friends to his majesty’s family and his government, for them, the King had his crown.153 The new King, George III, who enthroned in October 1760, did not. According to J.C.D. CLARK, the new George took more active role seeking proper and acceptable statesmen, and spread both fear and hope when trying to reinforce the outlook of the kingship to look more like it was before 1688.154 Fear for the Whigs; hope for the Tories. If Georges I and II had taken sides with Robert Walpole and the other Whig-leaders, George III (1760 – 1820) kept the working opposition as a useful tool for the service of the Crown.
When the Jacobitism was dead and suppressed there was no reason to
keep the Tories aloof from the government.156 After his enthronement the divide between Tories and Whigs was not as black and white as it has been before. The parties split on parts where others leaned more towards their former opponents, when others got more radical, especially the Whigs, that later on got its republican wing. The more radical Whig, the more positive reputation was to become to Oliver Cromwell. The moderate old-school Whigs had still no opinions about Cromwell. Horace Walpole (1717 – 1797), the son of Robert, manifested his opinion about the Civil War and Cromwell, by saying that he would not have been on the side of Charles, but neither on the side of Cromwell’s. Sometimes Horace praised, sometimes reproved both.157 If the writing about Cromwell was to be more positive for Cromwell, in public anything wasn’t approved, at least not for the common people: In 1768, a milkman was dismissed
FOORD 1964, 312. CLARK 1980, 194. 155 FOORD 1964, 6-7. 156 CANNON&GRIFFITHS 1988, 484. 157 WORDEN 1998, 40. 154
without pay, as a punishment for hiring a man to attach a Cromwell’s speech on a wall in public place.158 Cromwell was yet to be found tarnishing the Whigs: According to a writer in Public Advertiser in April 1769, that how the result that the Whigs glorify, was the hardest tyranny from the low-birth and contemptuous man, Oliver Cromwell. Accordingly the writer asks: [what] would these Sons of Liberty, Mr. Woodfall? They would, says one of them, have on of their Member elected into Parliament. What Good would they do? They are abolishing the Power of House of Commons. They would have their idol [Cromwell] - perhaps – What for? They are diverting Royalty of it’s natural and divine rights.159
The latter phrase makes the writing as it was written by a Tory, or even a Jacobite, because it was clearly defending the status before 1688, the politics of Charles II and James II, and their attempts for autocracy. George III had similar ambitions,160 thus it is possible that the writer defends the King on this matter. A plausible Tory, wrote on Independent Chronicle in November 1769, wondering: “when it is accepted by worldwide that when Oliver Cromwell was a Protector and more than a King, he was the most loathed person in all three Kingdoms. Yet we are told that people loved and obeyed him”.161
A nom de plume “A Watchman” was keenly replying to him on London Chronicle, begging to forget the Oliver Cromwell’s past sins and to concentrate on his abilities: Let who will abuse Oliver Cromwell, he was worthy of the Crown he wore, if he had nor [sic] got it by invading the liberties of his country. He promoted men that were virtuous. He suffered none but such about him; and he was inexorable in punishing the bad[…]. Buried be his crimes, the crimes not of common dust; but live and flourish his virtues, and may all the Princes of the Earth learn to imitate them.162
Middlesex Journal was a newspaper that was entirely supporting the Whigs. 163 In its issue at November 1770, Cromwell was praised that “he had a good notion about commerce”, and how “in his lifetime the navigation was set at the first time on those good achievements that we undergo in these days”. The writer also adds on this praise the
Public Advertiser, Nr. 10660, 28.12.1768. Public Advertiser, Nr. 10762, 27.4.1769. William “Memory” Woodfall (1739 – 1803) was an English politician and a newspaperman, the founder of Public Advertiser and Morning Chronicle. He had an astonishing talent to remember the speeches of the parliamentarians by heart, and wrote them to public. 160 CLARK 1980, 194. 161 Independent Chronicle, Nr. 26. 24-27.11.1769. 162 London Chronicle, Nr. 2033, 30.11.-2.12.1769. 163 FOORD 1964, 351. 159
possession of Jamaica.164 At the later issue of that newspaper, on that same month, was told how the Spanish ships moved threateningly around Jamaica. The writer of that (actual) news adds a comment: “If Oliver Cromwell was alive; the English ships would not hover but go straight to Spanish Ports”.165 The Whig sympathy for the Lord Protector was getting very straightforward, however errant: The Navigation Act in 1651 had been a mere regulation, set to maximize the profit. It was meant to gain superiority of the sea trade from the Dutch.166 Cromwell himself had been despised the fact that the war against Dutch was profiting only few.167 The Act itself was more of the matter of the Commonwealth, not Cromwell’s. At last, it seems, that the Whigs himself had or had had an opinion about Cromwell, and it was coming visible. If Horace Walpole was neutral in this matter, the “lower” Whigs were not. Obviously this positive writing was à la mode, because a writer in London Chronicle in April 1774, had noticed that Oliver Cromwell had appeared on the writings “in the wrong way”, and decided to offer the people some “facts and observations of that remarkable man”. He wrote that he is not going to praise Cromwell, because it is possible to even Satan himself to fulfill good deeds.168 Words “Satan” or “Antichrist” were attributes that had been given to Cromwell even on in his lifetime. Especially the Catholics felt strong aversions against him. The tale has it that Cardinal Mazarin had said that he didn’t fear the Devil as much as Cromwell.169 The Fifth Monarchists had attacked against Cromwell in their writings, keeping him as an Antichrist, the whore of Babel and a great dragon. The Commonwealth’s “propaganda-machine” had stroke back in the form of a poet Andrew Marvell, who as a counterword had praised Cromwell as an “Angel who spreads his wings, and drives the whore of Babel back to its Roman cave”. The same blasphemous words had been thus, in turn, taken and given back. When Cromwell, in 1653, had dissolved the Parliament and begun his newmodeled government, it caused bitter opinions, especially on the Fifth Monarchists, how King Oliver had taken the place of King Jesus.170 In the 18th century the newspapers had a lot of writings that were written under the nom de plume. E.g. the “Junius” whose identity was never revealed, wrote statements against
Middlesex Journal or Chronicle of Liberty, Nr. 254, 15-17.11.1770. Middlesex Journal or Chronicle of Liberty, Nr. 257, 22-24.11.1770. 166 SCHAMA 2001, 219. 167 ROOSEVELT 1919, 184-5. 168 London Chronicle or Universal Evening Post, Nr. 2703, 5-7.4.1774. 169 Welwood 1702, 109; Lives, English and Forein 1704, 305. 170 KNOPPERS&LANDES 2004, 95,100,102. 165
George III and his government.171 Also “Oliver Cromwell” and the variations made from it were seen as aliases on the writings. In April 1770 in the London newspapers, nom de plume “Oliver Cromwell’s Ghost”, alias “Crusovite” was writing his satirical columns.172 The “Oliver Cromwell” himself was keenly writing his anarchistic opinions against monarchy and the Tories. He stated his opinion so heady that he gained criticism even from the Whigs: To the creature that calls himself as Oliver Cromwell[…] you are just a poor-minded scribbler, […] I recommend that you get yourself another occupation because you not by any means won’t get any reputation with your pen”.173
According to historian Bob CLARKE, the Public Ledger, from which this last statement is from, was entirely a newspaper that was concerned to commercial issues, and was not concentrated on politics.174 However, it had plenty of political letters-to-the-editor, so it was not completely left out on politics. However, it was not selective with these writings.
4.2. A Two Kind of Caesar The British American colonies commenced their revolutionary war in April 1775. Opinions and news about this “revolt” started to appear on the English newspapers. “Oliver Cromwell” wrote again in Public Ledger in July, recommending radically that Parliament should agree to the demands of the American colonies. He warned that the murder of the American leader, General Putnam, was a deed that would led the King’s Generals to Tyburn.175 In the same newspaper, at the end of the month, was written how the Americans are people that have suffered a lot, and who, defending their liberty had pulled the sword.176 And they were indeed the suffering part of the Great-Britain, and that suffering was caused by a Whig, Prime Minister George Grenville. His idea was to set a series of taxes to the American colonies. At first, he had made the Colonies to pay their own defense in the Seven Years War. At second, he set the taxes for the commodities other than those that were shipped from the other British colonies, such as sugar, and heavily. That 171
CANNON&CRIFFITHS 1988, 496. E.g. Middlesex Journal or Chronicle of Liberty, Nr. 161, 10-12.4.1770. 173 Public Ledger, Nr. 4870, 31.7.1775. 174 CLARKE 2004, 85. 175 Public Ledger, Nr. 4858, 17.7.1775. 176 Public Ledger, Nr. 4870, 31.7.1775. 172
Sugar Act of 1764 was not nearly enough. Grenville’s grand idea was the Stamp Act (1765) that levied the paper that was abundantly used for the newspapers, official documents, etc. Finally Grenville was ousted out of his position, and the Stamp Act was repealed, only to take a room for another hard tax for tea, that made forty percent of the whole import.177 Now it is important to notice that the Whigs were not, in any circumstance, a party that was promoting the welfare of the poor. The trade had made the Empire wealthy, and the Whigs were first to profit of it. One may ask, would Cromwell been first to dissolve that kind of Parliament? If Cromwell was any kind of Idol for the Whigs, he wasn’t exactly a role-model for them. And what does Oliver Cromwell had to do with the colonies? As in the motherland, the opinions considering about him were divided, albeit in the different manner. In the colonies he was either the ideal, or the tool for defiance. In St. James Chronicle in November 1768, had news that told about a child named Oliver Cromwell, whom had got this name by his parents’ caprice; he was baptized in Boston with this name in August 29th 1768. The same parents had already a two-year old boy who was baptized as John Wilkes, the namesake of the English radical politician.178 This kind of behavior represents no more than a clear defiance against the British. However it was more than a mere defiance. In the early 1770s Cromwell had become a pivotal symbol for the Boston resistance.179 If the Americans were using Cromwell to defend their honour, so did the British: In Westminster Journal and London Political miscellany, in March 1777, had a writing that reminisced how in the days of Oliver Cromwell’s Protectorate, the Spanish ships were not capturing the British ships without compensation. The writer added that they are now at war against America to protect the dignity of England. 180 Now the Americans were seen as similar enemies as Spaniards who had been fighting against Cromwell’s navy. In the same newspaper, a few weeks later, was a writing that compared General Washington to Cromwell: It is now thought that General Washington will hold the two posts of Protector and general, in imitation of the redoubted Hero of Republicanism, Oliver Cromwell, who was many years after he raised to the Protectoral Chair, his own Generalissimo. And the former will doubtless regard to the orders of the Congress, as Oliver did those of Rump Parliament.181 177
SCHAMA 2001, 454-64. St. James Chronicle or the British Evening Post, Nr. 1206, 19-22.11.1768. 179 PIECUCH 2001, 195. 180 Westminster Journal and London Political miscellany, Nr. 1689, 8.3.1777. 181 Westminster Journal and London Political miscellany, Nr. 1691, 22.3.1777. 178
The tarnishing that was so far used against the Whigs was now turned against the Americans. The writer seems to consider Washington as a similar opportunist that Oliver Cromwell was used to be considered. Actually Washington was not a “similar opportunist”, albeit the “apprentice” to Cromwell, because, according to historian Jim PIECUCH, Washington had really absorbed some Oliver Cromwell’s actions and politics.182 The news (or propaganda) that came from America seemed to verify the Cromwell-cult of the rebels: In April 1777, the London Packet or the New L’loyd’s Evening Post published news about an Englishman who was held as a prisoner by the Americans. When he got released he brought with him an American almanac where was not printed the ascension day of His Majesty or his birthday, instead of them, on the almanac had printed the anniversaries that were related to Oliver Cromwell, and the 4th of July.183 If there was a “cult” it would be vague to say. And If there was a cult, it was because of the ideas that were originally led to the Commonwealth. That might explain the almanac and make it existence more plausible. The puritans, who inhabited the colonies in early 17th century, brought their ideas with them, finally expanding to a revolutionary force.184 The war expanded the usage of the party names as a stereotypical meaning, the “rebels” called themselves as the (real) Whigs and all the loyalist as Tories. Meanwhile in England, Charles James Fox (1749 – 1806) who defended the rights of the colonies, called all the ministers as Tories, regardless of their parties, blaming them as the opponents of the liberty. The “Foxites” who thought like Fox, blamed the government and the King for their despotism for those Americans whose cause was based on the Whig principles. Against the King’s political activity Fox wrote that the King should only reign, not to govern.185 How Oliver Cromwell was respected in both sides of the war was seen with the name of the ship Oliver Cromwell, and now it was decorating several of them. In August 4th 1777, the General Advertiser and Morning Intelligencer published a bulletin of the Admiralty that announced that Englishmen had captured an American privateer Oliver Cromwell.186 After this the ship was tightly on the head-lines like the similarly named (or the same) ship had been during the Seven Year War. Only after a month the papers 182
PIECUCH 2001, 195. London Packet or New L’loyd’s Evening Post, Nr. 1174, 25-28.4.1777. 184 BLUM;CATTON; e.a. 1963, 87. 185 FOORD 1964, 328, 399. 186 General Advertiser and Morning Intelligencer, Nr. 234, 4.8.1777. 183
announced how an American brig Oliver Cromwell (this time smaller, a ship with 15 cannons) had taken a British ship The Fly with its crew.187 In the spring 1780, the Oliver Cromwell that was taken by the British, was ironically named as a Restoration.188 The Americans had three “Oliver Cromwells” during the war, two of them were taken by the British, and one was destroyed on the reef.189 After the war, in 1788, the Americans were constructing two new frigates that they were about to name as Oliver Cromwell.190 Well, maybe the almanac truly existed. If the Americans were naïve (at least on our modern perspective) with their admiration for Cromwell, so were the British. In some history writings the positivity went overboard: The History of Cheshire (1778) mentions that Oliver Cromwell was: [a] character the most extraordinary, perhaps that was ever exhibited on the stage of the world… What can be more wonderful than that a person of private birth, common education, no fortune, no eminent qualities of body, with have sometimes, nor shining talents, which have often, raised men to highest dignities.191
Oliver was not so person of private birth, and with a common education, as the writer of this acclaims. His family was lower noble that had its success in 16th century, and lost it in the beginning of the 17th, thus very poor. Oliver had studied in Cambridge, albeit on one year.
Unlike this “history” says, he had indeed had the fortune and the eminent
qualities (not on the body though) especially during the Civil War.193 And these “eminent qualities” are well revealed in the book Administration dissected. In which the Grand National culprits, are laid open for the public inspection (1779), where anonymous writers told about political dignitaries of England. One writer tells about the Cromwell’s career as an officer and its advancements in very objective manner. Other writing and other writer on that same book compares Oliver Cromwell’s military leadership to Julius Caesar and Timur (or Tamerlane), mentioning them as the most perfect heroes that he can use as an examples. The writer mentions that Oliver was lack of the military skills, albeit being yet courageous and noble military genius.194 As I had previously mentioned that Caesar was used in negative connotation, in this context it means military abilities par excellence. 187
Reading Mercury and Oxford Gazette, Nr. 834, 5.1.1778. London Courant and Westminster Chronicle, 11.3.1780. 189 Public Advertiser, Nr. 15 336, 23.7.1783. 190 Public Advertiser, Nr. 16 779, 29.4.1788. 191 The History of Cheshire 1778, 630. 192 GAUNT 1996, 31-2. 193 E.g. ROOSEVELT 1919, passim. 194 Administration dissected 1779, 139, 166-9. 188
How Cromwell was presented in the dictionaries was also changing. The annals of Europe or regal register (1779) enlist all monarchs, emperors and statesmen of Europe in alphabetical order, by their first names. On that dictionary Oliver is placed between the King Olliol of Ireland (d.483), and Roman Caesar Opilius Macrinus (d. 218). The short presentation to Oliver is very complimentary: “The Protector of England from 1653, was one of the most remarkable man of his time, or maybe the greatest if we scrutinize him by his military or political capabilities, died in 1658”. This is indeed very complimentary when one looks his mentioned companions on that dictionary: King Olliol is only merited by how “he was glorious to faith and government, when Macrinus had done “nothing remarkable”.195 In our days, it is hard to find anything from Olliol. Macrinus, however, was an Emperor, chosen by his troops, and lost battles to Parthians and the troops of the rival Emperor Elagabalus. He never gained any support in Rome.196 Thus Cromwell had relatively easy to outshine between those “lesser names”. Albeit their mutual “hero” in the war, it didn’t alter the attitudes of the Englishmen, and didn’t alter the compliancy of the writings on the newspapers. For instance, Cromwell’s relations to abroad was reminisced with warmth on London Chronicle: “Oliver Cromwell said that he hoped to make the name of the English as respectable as Romans, and so he did”.197 The naval achievements of the Cromwell’s time was missed, such as did one writer mentioning how the glory of the Protector’s navy seemed to be a forgotten thing.198 If there is the positive, there must be the negative, especially in Ireland. An alias, or real name, O’Connor wrote in the end of October 1779, how the offspring of the English, Scottish, and the Welshmen “bandits”, who were in time colonizing Ireland, are the very same treasonous matter than the rebels in New-England. “This matter”, O’Connor said, was the result of Oliver Cromwell, and the “glorious” revolution of the Prince of Orange.199 “That matter” was indeed the offspring of the English, Scottish, protestant Irish, and possibly Welshmen when the rebellion broke out in America. However, in that time the American colonies were not so British in population. E.g. in Pennsylvania had about 80 000 German, and in New York and Hudson Valley about 40 000 Dutchmen. Accordingly there was Quakers, Jews, etc. There was a general misconception in that time, crystallized in one sentence by Simon SCHAMA in 2001: “…all of whom made Ameri195
The annals of Europe, or regal register 1779, 357. SCARRE 1995, 147. 197 London Chronicle, Nr. 3299, 24-27.1.1778. 198 Public Advertiser, Nr. 14 036, 2.10.1779. 199 Morning Post and Daily Advertiser, Nr. 2193, 25.10.1779. 196
ca a much more heterogeneous, much less Anglo-pinko place than could be imagined at Westminster”.200 Obviously O’Connor had that misconception. “This matter” was simply too multicultural for being the result of Cromwell and the Prince of Orange. If the joke that was printed on the Public Advertiser in October 1779 is nearly true, the bad reputation remained among the commoners. It says how three gentlemen were having a conversation, and the question was asked who three were the greatest men of the late times. One of them, an Irishman, answered duly without hesitation: “[John] Paul Jones [the pirate], Oliver Cromwell and Queen Elizabeth”.201 The latest person mentioned makes this a mere joke, which might indicate how Irishman was not pleased with the rest of the persons he had mentioned. If the writings on the papers were heady, and loaded with negative attributes, so it was in the governmental level. David Turner, the President of the Westminster forum wrote to his book A Short History of the Westminster Forum, how in this forum in February 17th 1780, a young talented speaker attempt to vindicate Cromwell’s reputation, proclaiming how: [t]he internal happiness and security of Englishmen were never greater – that Britain never so nobly wore the laurel-firmly held the balance of power in Europe-or was so respected in the eyes of the surrounding nations, as in the days of Oliver Cromwell.
For this, another participant of the forum, answered on his speech: Mr. President, I did not excpect [sic] this evening to have heard a panegyric upon Oliver Cromwell – this worst of men – that regicide – that barest hypocrite – that usurper – that tyrant. With equal propriety might we allude Nero for clemency.202
The words that the latter speaker used: regicide, hypocrite, usurper and tyrant, which are usually being found on the writings of the Tory-minded, demonstrates some-kind of nervousness against the attitude of the previous speaker. In this dialogue really culminates the very discourse that was recently appearing on the newspapers: The Whigs had begun to write about Cromwell with clarity and eloquence (sometimes overdoing it), meanwhile the writings of the Tories appears to be filled with negative tirade. Nom de plume “Anti-Oliver”, a possible opponent to “Oliver Cromwell”, wrote in autumn 1780 with amazement, how Cromwell was considered as a dear hero to the “sons of the Lib-
SCHAMA 2001, 457. Public Advertiser, Nr. 14 036, 2.10.1779. 202 Turner 1781, 15, 18. 201
erty (Whigs)”: “This man was Brave, it is True; But Wolves have Courage, and Apes are as Furious as Tigers”.203 In December 1780, a “Paradox” dared to wrote how the execution of Charles I was more advantage to England than if he had allowed to sustain his governance. He also adds how the crimes of Cromwell were so “beautiful” in nature that the child who hears the name of this great man, crosses his hands with respect. 204 This “Paradox” is either ignorant or the entire writing is mere vexation. The specter of the 3th of September came back haunting the British, and this time in 1783 with the treaty of Paris that formally ended the American Revolutionary War. The date was known beforehand, and it was duly taken to wonder on the Morning Chronicle in 1st of September. Cromwell had won the battles of Dunbar and Worcestershire in that date, and died on that very same date. The writer mulled over, if Dr. (Benjamin) Franklin had knowingly selected this date, and stated how the Cromwell’s penchant on this day was a renowned circumstance.205 According to Charles B. CUSHMAN, the Cromwell’s specter was very much present when the constitution was composed in Philadelphia in 1787. The entire war was seen with resemblance to the English Civil War. According to CUSHMAN, for the many leaders of the thirteen states, the situation was like a flashback to the civil war in England: George III appeared to behave like Charles I had done before 1642.206
4.3. Propaganda and Satire The Tories continuingly liked to use Cromwell for tarnishing the Whigs, especially before the elections. J. Hartley’s History of the Westminster election (1784 has, as an example, some satirical newspaper-clips that had been used prior to the previous elections. In one of them, the voters are advised to vote Oliver Cromwell, “the friend of anarchy and confusion”. The other advert from that book is an example of pure black propaganda. It promises that Oliver Cromwell, should you happened vote him, will take your
St. James’s Chronicle or the British Evening Post, Nr. 3047, 14-16.9.1780. St. James’s Chronicle or the British Evening Post, Nr. 3084, 5-7.12.1780. 205 Morning Chronicle and London Advertiser, Nr. 4459, 1.9.1783. 206 CUSHMAN 2005, 22-3. 204
property and freedom, and take the power from the legal ruler. This was signed with a P, just like Oliver had done in his time as the Protector.207
An advertisement from J. Hartley's History of Westminster election.
Against the Whigs, especially to its radical side was used satirical graphics that was used plentifully on the political field of the 18th century, one of the most famous maker of them being James Gillray. Another artist, William Hogarth (1697 – 1764), had drawn some caricatures about Oliver Cromwell in 1726 to Samuel Butler’s Hubridas which was a satirical poem about the rise of the “Puritan-party” in the years of the civil war.208 The caricatures were rapidly gripping on the topical matters, like on the politics of Charles James Fox. In James Sayers’ The Mirror of Patriotism (1784) Charles James Fox was given Oliver Cromwell as his mirror image.
Hartley 1784, 98, 115. WEBSTER 1978, 9.
James Sayers: The Mirror of Patriotism (1784)
In the same year was issued another drawing from an unknown engraver, also spoofing Fox. In this, Fox and the witch manage to get Cromwellâ€™s ghost appearing in the midst of the fog.
The Ghost of Oliver Cromwell (1784)
In both of these drawings above, Cromwell was depicted on his harness like he had been keenly presented on the pompous paintings of the late civil war. On the first, Say-
National Portrait Gallery, London. The British Museum, London.
ers’ engraving, Cromwell who appears on the mirror is like Foxes alter ego; at the second Fox is clearly scared of Cromwell when he appears in the mist, like after invoking Cromwell from the underworld, only to realize that he was not so kind as he had hoped. Fox himself was often ridiculed as a Cromwell, and gained the very same attributes like “Satan” and “Machiavellian”.211 But if one gets, one also gives: Fox, on his part, called the King himself as a “blockhead” and “Satan”, and wished in public the King’s sudden death. To reward such a behavior, the King dissolved the Parliament after Foxes victory on the election in 1784.212 The freedom of the press was so large that in 1784 Philip Yorke, a moderate Whig, claimed how the free publication of the debates and the speeches of the opposition had caused the lost of America. According to Jeremy BLACK, the mockery on the papers was in 1772 so common that it had lost its sharpest edge.213 However, in 1784, the King seemed to have enough. The Famous people leave their memory for the posterity, and sometimes the places, such as where they were born become a public interest and place to visit. Oliver Cromwell’s house of birth in Huntington was in 1789 so badly deteriorated that it was decided to be demolished, excluding the room where Oliver was actually born. After the demolition, the house was rebuilt around this room.214 The rumor had it, how that room was decorated with the images of the devil. This was only a common habit, intent to mystically exorcise evil from the child’s future.215 For some, this might have been a proof of Oliver’s devilishness, or another opportunity for another tarnishing. It is hard to say how the people of that time considered a place that had something to do with controversial person like Cromwell. Well, would you like to see a room where Stalin was born? You just might. For James Brome, Cromwell was something like Stalin for some in our days. In 1694 he wrote An historical account of Mr. Rogers’s three years travel over England and Wales, a typical travel journey from that time about the sights and the cities and the historical background of England and Wales. When the Mr. Rogers come to Huntington, Brome writes about the location of the town, its books, ruins and the history. In that history part, the narration mentions that Oliver Cromwell, that usurper and religious imposter” was born in that town in 1599, the Brome’s narration (or Rogers’s) alters from placid telling to a furiously written eruption: 211
MITCHELL 1992, 73, CANNON&CRIFFITHS 1988, 513, 517-8. 213 BLACK 1986, 37-8. 214 Public Advertiser, Nr. 17 216, 21.9.1789. 215 FRASER 1979, 3-4 212
[W]e have reason to curse his very Name, and detest his Memory as odious and execrable, yet since prosperous Successes of the most cruel Tirants [sic], makes others inquisitive after those Persons which they did so fortunately attend. It will not be amiss to tell the World that this place gave him first Being, who, Nero like, destroyed his Father and his Mother too; the Father of his Country, and his Country too, being a Murderer of the one, and Plague to the other, who was of unparrallel’d [sic] and Base a Temper of Mind from his Cradle to his Grave, that nothing could stay with him, or be pleasing to him long, but what carried even the World before it Confusion and Ruin.
After this literal outburst the narration continues placidly with Huntingtonshire, how there is seventy eight churches and one hundred and six market towns. Mr. Rogers spend a night in there and continued to Northamptonshire.216 In the end of the 17th century the loath for this kind of a place of sight seemed to be far more vigorous than 100 years later.
4.4. A Paragon to a Republic? In the 18th century England very seldom dared to rise against the monarchy and declare the ideals of republicanism. According to historian Edward Palmer THOMPSON, the political boundaries were presented in the constitutional forms, and in the minds of the people as taboos, limited expectations and in the moods towards the traditionally forms of the protest. These taboos lasted until the French revolution.217 The knowledge of the destruction of Bastille in July 1789 ignited the idea how the reckoning with England’s own corruption cannot be far away. According to Simon SCHAMA, the spark of the revolution was hoped to carry over the canal. The toasts for the revolution were raised in the palaces of the nobility and in the taverns of the common-people. Charles James Fox stated how the revolution was the greatest event in the history.218 The revolution and its horrors made the newspaper writers to look on the bloody past of England itself. In December 28th 1789, the Public Advertiser had a writing that recommended everybody in “the church and the state” to remember with piety the January 30th, when “the most pious King” was murdered by the arch-rebel and tyrant Oliver Cromwell. The writer added that everyone who is pious should commemorate the suf-
Brome 1694, 75. THOMPSON 1996, 84. 218 SCHAMA 2002, 46. 217
ferings of their congregations during those twenty years when the land was “visited” by the persecuting and intolerant fanatics and the men of the Commonwealth.219 Inspirited by the revolution, a nom de plume “Oliver Cromwell” wrote a poem to the World in autumn 1789: Remember – I was not Hanged till after I Was dead – If you are not careful, to some of Your people, the SAME fate may come sooner! “Gird on thy sword” – and farewell.220
This “Cromwell” knew the history of the political satire: The sentence “I was not hanged till after I was dead” refers to a destiny of the three main “culprits” of the Commonwealth in December 4th 1660. The make-shift speeches that those culprits, Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw, should have spoken, if they had been alive, sounded very similar as “Oliver Cromwell” in 1789. In those speeches Cromwell had revealed his sins to the audience of the execution, through the anonymous writer: However, for my part I followed all waies Gentleman excercises; Swearing, Whoering, Drinking, and other the like commendable qualities, whilst I was a young man; When I grew more years, I grew more cunning, and having play’d the fools part before, I play’d the Knaves now.221
Marquis La Fayette, a leading figure of the French revolution, who had also participated the revolutionary war in America, and who attempt to bring American liberalism to France, was seen on the English newspapers as a Oliver Cromwell of France, King Louis XVI being like as Charles I had been.222 In August 1790, an anonymous writer decided to systematically assay this matter in St. James Chronicle. He compared the Protectorate to the revolutionary France, ousted and executed Charles I to yet a King (though without power) Louis XVI. The similarities were few, and differences were plenty. He had marked the Commonwealth parliament as chosen by Cromwell, when in France it was selected by the people. The England had been without national debt by Charles, unlike after the autocracy of the Bourbons whom had consumed the French purse voraciously. The writer of this anachronistic comparison concluded that there were not many
Public Advertiser, Nr. 17 300, 28.12.1789. Word, Nr. 844, 17.9.1789. 221 The Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, Henry Ireton, and John Bradshaw, Intendet to have been spoken at their Execution at Tyburne, Jan 30. 1660. 222 E.g. Public Advertiser, Nr. 17 486, 23.8.1790. 220
similarities.223 Within reason, Cromwell was not eligible hero-from-past to be icon to the possible English revolution. However, the politics tend to suffer the historical amnesia. If Cromwell and the Commonwealth had in anyway influenced the French revolution, it was not imitating it in any way. Despite of all the assurance, many in England still resembled the concept of republic to the era of Cromwell, like a writer on St. James Chronicle in November 1790, who considered it as the worst possible form of government. For him, it was “the most vicious regicide Oliver Cromwell’s the most tyrannical autocracy”.224 On the Diary or Woodsfall’s Register in July 4th 1791, was a laconism how the methods of Oliver Cromwell were obviously the model to the French National Assembly when they overturned the monarchist constitution. In the same issue, the revolution and the English Civil War was compared on the incident which Louis XVI attempt to escape in June 1791, it was seen as a similar case to the escape of Charles I in 1647.225 The similar it was not. Charles had escaped from the Parliamentary army in November 1647, only to be captured soon and be detained more securely in the Ile of Wight. Albeit imprisoned, he had yet attempted to gain support from the Presbyterians who opposed the army and from the Scotch. It worked, and the second civil war begun. Charles, as we know, lost this round, but yet he gained some support from the Parliament Presbyterians who travelled to Wight to have an anti-army agreement with the King.226 The Citizen Capet (Louis’s heavily demoted rank) had no such advances in 1791 that Charles had had. He never got even near of his supporters. For some (maybe the most) the Commonwealth was not seen as a paragon to a good republic. James Beattie, the Professor of the moral-philosophy and logic, wrote his own opinion to his essay Elements of moral science: I have heard modern republicans declaim on the prosperity of Rome under it’s Consuls, and England under Oliver Cromwell. But the Roman republic was generally a tumultuous government, and owed it’s preservation to a despotic principle… In fact England was never less republican, than under Cromwell.227
St. James Chronicle or the British Evening Post, Nr. 4602, 16-19.10.1790. St. James Chronicle or the British Evening Post, Nr. 4618, 23-25.11.1990. 225 Diary or Woodsfall’s Register, Nr. 711, 4.7.1791. 226 SCHAMA 2001, 161,163. 227 Beattie 1790, 388-9. 224
Unlike Fox, Beattie didn’t consider the Commonwealth as a republic, but as a mere dictatorship. And as such it was considered on the Cromwell’s lifetime. In December 16th 1653, Oliver Cromwell had given his vows to be the Lord Protector. 228 The Mercurius Politicus Comprising the summ of all intelligence had reported about the new government: A Proclamation of his Highness, with the Consent of his Council; for continuing all persons being in office for the Execution of public Justice at the time of the late change of the Government, until his Highness further direction.
The paper had furthermore stated how “Oliver Lord Protector” chairs the governance with the council, and act as higher member of the court.229 To his objectors, especially to the Levelers, this was nothing but mere tyranny: A charge of high treason exhibited against Oliver Cromwell Esq. (1653) complained how England was oppressed by one man, a man who has no fear of god in his eyes but has doings with the devil. The writer begs from the Lords of England justice against this treasonable enemy of god and mankind, Oliver Cromwell.230 The revolution, or the fear of it, didn’t manage to eat all that was so far seen as a positive. When in the Parliamentary sessions the present British sea power was mentioned, so was Cromwell by his participation on that. Especially Fox was keenly reminding how Oliver Cromwell, with his daring spirit, which had given the territorial and commercial power of East-Indies to England.231 Such as it has been in the previous decade, Fox was still mocked as a Cromwell. Fox opened up on this matter in the Parliament in March 2nd 1790: It has been imputed to me, that, like a second Oliver Cromwell, I have been desirious of subverting the Monarchy; it will perhaps be imputed to me, that, like the same person, I am willing to pull down the Church.232
Although Fox was representing and leading the Whig-Foxites who were clearly and without shame fanning to the French revolution, and even when he had been praising Cromwell’s abilities, he clearly wasn’t pleased with his Cromwell comparisons. Edmund Burke (1729 – 1797) who represented the conservative part of the Whigs opposed the daring republican prospects of the Foxites. In December 14th 1792, Burke answered
SCHAMA 2001, 229. Mercurius Politicus Comprising the summ of all intelligence, Nr. 185, 22-29.12.1653. 230 A charge of high treason exhibited against Oliver Cromwell Esq. 1653, passim. 231 Considerations humbly submitted to the House of Lords 1788. 232 Fox 1790, 44. 229
to one of Foxes long speeches that “rather than the French Republic is a recognition to the Republic of Oliver Cromwell, it is on the behalf of the French more sui generis. Apparently, on his speech, Fox had mulled the Commonwealth’s effect to the revolution. As far as Burke was concerned, the revolution was not primary aspiration in England – a pretty far from it.233 Burke, who was rather furious about the revolutionary enthusiasms, wrote himself about Cromwell in very positive manner: In England, the government of Cromwell was to be sure somewhat rigid, but for a new power, no savage tyranny. The country was nearly as well as in hands as in those of Charles the second, and in some points much better.234
According to the sources in hand, Burke was strongly defending Cromwell. He admitted that some crimes had happened, but considered them as justified due to the outcome of the crimes.235 Whit this knowledge, we can conclude that in the Whig-party as a whole, Cromwell’s reputation was considered very positive, and the zealous praising of the Foxites couldn’t alter that. This zealous praising was sometimes very naïve, at least from our 21th century standards. Apparently affected by the revolution, Charles Home wrote his A new chronological abridgment of the history of England (1791). It is a good example of a history writing, where the reputation of Oliver Cromwell is knowingly polished, and possibly written to support the Foxites. In some parts Home’s “research” is mere falsification or pure ignorance. He saw the actions of the Protectorate’s Major-Generals as independent, as he wrote how they come to be such tyrants that the Protector had to limit their authority.236 The authority was limited, all right, but only because the tasks that they were supposed to accomplish were overwhelming. The pleasures of the people were simply too hard to police.237 One man who should be deeply concerned about the even slightest hint of the revolution and the republic is the King himself. In 1792 George III wrote a declaration against the revolutionary writing, and at the same time happened to reveal his own opinion about Cromwell: As a subject of Great-Britain, I cannot politically regret the death of Charles the first, and therefore I cannot entertain a violent affection for the memory of Oliver Cromwell[…] From 233
Diary or Woodsfall’s Register, Nr. 1166, 15.12.1792. Burke 1798, 347. 235 Burke 1793, 41. 236 Home 1791, passim, 338. 237 SCHAMA 2001, 240. 234
an obscure man he ventured soul and body to become LORD PROTECTOR, having no other view in the world, but to procure the posterity the benefits of that great event[…]238
The King was no Tory, but neither was he a Whig. The Hanoverians had gained their crown whit the help of the Whigs, and two previous Georges had indeed been grateful about that, but not George III. He simply didn’t need so much Whigs around him when there were no more Stuarts threatening, as I mentioned earlier. This statement of the King just might be an opinion of his own, or some kind of a peace-offer to the Foxites. As the revolution in France went on, so did the comparisons between Commonwealth and the National Assembly. In August 1792 the World informed about the new turn on the revolution, where the main protagonist was that time, according to paper, M. Petion, assisted by the Jacobins. The World stated this Petion as a man “who has his place in history when it is about hate of mankind… To sum up this persons character in few word, he masters the all criminal, without any atom of Oliver Cromwell’s abilities”. 239 On the same writing, the revolutionary leaders were seen as tyrants and Oliver Cromwell as able and good leader. This time, the news of the brutality of the French revolution might have been affecting. The fear of the revolution was rising. In 1799 was published a pamphlet An account of the present English conspiracy, originally written in early 1790s. It revealed how in England, the meetings were held, where the main purpose was to change England as a republic with the help of France. The plan was to agitate general uprising and attempt to abduct or kill the royal family and the members from Parliamentary Houses, Lords and Commons. According to the writer, behind this plot was a coalition of English, Irish, and Scottish that was very active in the Irish and Scottish soils. The writer mentioned Oliver Cromwell as a “famous republican” who had judged people to eternal punishment without a trial, such as the French army was doing. On the end of the pamphlet, the writer warns about the revolutions, because it is only to giving changes to opportunists as Cromwell.240 Was he really an opportunist? John Evelyn, the contemporary of Oliver, who had seen Cromwell as an opportunist, wrote on his diary in 25th of March 1657:
George III 1792, 14. World, Nr. 1758, 7.8.1792. 240 An account of the present English conspiracy 1799, 1, 4, 18-20. 239
The Protector Oliver, now affecting kingship, is petitioned to take the title on him by all his newly-made sycophant lords, etc.; but dares not, for fear of the fanatics, not thoroughly purged out of his rebel army.241
Evelyn regarded Cromwell as a crown-reacher. That impression had been easy to gain. Cromwell, as a Protector, lived totally other life than a common puritan, and about this, he had got some feedback. During his reign, the Protector resided the Hampton Court, which, off-course, had classical sculptures outside in the garden. These were off-course naked, which was too much for the puritan subjects. Mrs. Mary Nethaway wrote directly to Cromwell, desiring to have these “monsters” destroyed, and predicted the god’s anger to fell upon Protector, should it wasn’t done.242 If Cromwell wasn’t an opportunist, he could be easily seen as such. If Cromwell had been in every matter obedient to Lord, the Lord hath giveth him a change to life less puritan, than a common puritan had. The change, if there ever was one, to the revolution in England was suddenly swept away when Great-Britain declared war to France in the spring 1793. All ideas for the revolution became suddenly treasonable. In 1794 the Government prosecuted everybody who seemed to be the writers, publishers, or the distributors of any revolutionary material. Even public speaking was a probable cause for prosecution. A man from Manchester, who dared to say “Damn the King”, got charged despite of his drunkenness at the time of the “crime”. The radicals who had connections with France were arrested in London. The habeas corpus was overturned, therefore about 2 000 people were incarcerated without any trial.243 It was not long ago, when An account of the present English conspiracy, a pamphlet that I mentioned before, had blamed Cromwell and the French National Assembly for the same deeds that the British government was doing now. This chaos was increasing the negative reputation for Cromwell. In St. James Chronicle, January 24th 1793, had a writing that declared about the execution of Louis XVI, how the republic which is based on the blood of the innocent cannot be anything but shortaged. According to this anonymous writer, this was a fact that was trialed by Oliver Cromwell, and proven on the restoration of Charles II.244 On the same newspaper in November of that same year had a statement: The Republic and Usurpation of Oliver Cromwell lasted eleven years. Compared with that of France, it was mild and dignified, yet the people become so heartily tired of it as to receive 241
John Evelyn 25.3.1657; Bray 1901, 315. FRASER 1973, 460. 243 SCHAMA 2002, 83. 244 St. James Chronicle or the British Evening Post. Nr. 4975, 24-26.1.1793. 242
Charles II with unanimous consent. Of the great mass of French people (out of Paris) there is every reason to hope well; the reign delusion cannot last long.245
This is actually very objective view towards the past. The Commonwealth and the French revolution is compared by their horrors, The French were winning with obvious violence, when Cromwell’s “usurpation” was “dignified” when compared to it. The word “usurper” seemed to found Cromwell after a while. However, his positive reputation didn’t have a big dent by the war. In his essay Blair WORDEN cited the notion of John Thelwall in 1796, how Thelwall, in his amazement had noticed how many, even in these days, cannot feign their admiration against him (Cromwell), as the greatest hero that the liberty had had in this country.246 There was even some religious admiration. Seemingly criticizing the excessive gambling of the women, a writer appealed to Cromwell’s piousness on the pages of Telegraph in February 1797: A great deal has been said about the character of famous Oliver Cromwell; but it is certain fact, that when he was a young man, and had become a puritan, he returned a Mr. Calton thirty pounds, which he had won of him at play. [C]onceiving it unjustly obtained, and criminal to keep. We hope Lady ELIZABETH Luttrell, Mrs. Stuart, Lady BUCKINGHAMSHIRE, and Mrs. PHILLIPS, will read this paragraph.247
The writer was articulately become offended with the habit of the upper class, especially its women, to play, and yet more sinful, about the money. The Cromwell’s reputation as a Puritan and a pious man was a good example that the writer wished to be followed. This “voice from the wilderness” comes after a long period, since the gambling was a usual pastime for the upper-class women already in the 1750s. Amanda VICKERY mentions in his citation, how Jane Schrimshire had nothing else to do in London in wintertime, than eat, sleep and play cards. Only the sick-bed kept players out of the game.248 One result of the French revolution was an interest towards Oliver Cromwell. It was not political, but rather a curiosity about the true revolutionist Oliver Cromwell. The head that was set on the spike in 1660, was mysteriously disappeared after the storm in the time of James II, and was now found its way to public. It was displayed together with the other curiosities that had something to do with Cromwell at Cromwelliana exhibi245
St. James Chronicle or the British Evening Post. Nr. 5605, 23-26.11.1793. WORDEN 1998, 38. 247 Telegraph, 14.2.1797. 248 VICKERY 1998, 208-9. 246
tion on Bond Street in 1799.249 The political writers, of course, noted the exhibition. In Morning Chronicle, a writer seized the subject: It is a wonder that it has escaped the vigilance Ministers and Anti-Jacobins, that Oliver Cromwell’s head has of late made its appearance. The head of such man as this cannot be called upon at such critical times as the present for nothing.250
During this latter period I have considered, the reputation rose significantly. This might something to do with the rising wealth and power of the middle-class.251 When the status of the nobility on the industry and commerce was dropping, the middle-class, who mostly supported the Whigs, filled the void with their entrepreneurship, thus possibly widening the positive reputation for Cromwell. The radical Whigs praised Cromwell’s achievements in public, thus making him more than a mere tool for anti-Whig propaganda, despite the fact that it was still happening on the writings and satirical drawings, especially against Charles James fox. The American revolutionary war revealed that Cromwell was respected among the both fighting sides. In America he was a paragon that was used as confrontation against the British. The French Revolution made the writers reveal the Protectoral skeletons from the closet of British history to make comparisons between Commonwealth and the new French republic. The wishers of British republic saw Cromwell as a historical paragon of a leader of the English republic. This can be seen on the plentitude of many writings that exaggerate the achievements of the Protector’s politics and his piety. The negative reputation still existed, especially in the writings and on the Parliamentary level. The negative didn’t alter, but it just now stood aside with the equally powerful positive.
When Oliver Cromwell first coined his money, an old Cavalier looking upon one of the new pieces, read the inscription on one side – God with us; on the other, The Commonwealth of England. “I see”, said he, “God and the Commonwealth are on the different sides”.252
FITZGIBBONS 2008, 63-5. Morning Chronicle, Nr. 9304, 19.3.1799. 251 More about this, see: VICKERY 1998, passim. 252 L’loyd’s Evening Post, Nr. 6433, 19-21.11.1798. 250
5. Conclusion As I mentioned on the introduction, my purpose was to clear what kind of a reputation Oliver Cromwell gained from different sources, such as newspapers, poetry and literature from 1707 to 1799. Inspecting the sources, it is difficult to tell if the “lower-class” is giving its voice on this matter. The anonymous writings, in some cases, are roughly written, and might be written by a commoner. Maybe the penmanship wasn’t enough widespread or the mere interest to demonstrate an opinion towards the person who had died long ago on the previous century, was not worth to waste paper and pen. Even when the presses were easily obtainable in the 18th century, the sources does not indicate keen interest from the commoner. The discourses of that class are more determined by its actions, like in riots or in possible mutiny. Some might criticize how this study can give the whole picture of the entire 18th century British society’s discourses regarding one person in question. Is this kind of study giving the whole picture of Cromwell’s reputation in the 18th century? As I mentioned there is a lacking voice of the lower-class, and that only makes that task impossible. The entire picture is not possible to gain, and after all, it is irrelevant. It was the writing part of the people who gave their voices on the sources, and the others by the way that Eric Hobsbawm had demonstrated. This other part gave its “voice” e.g. with the “Jacobite theater”, where the effigies of disliked persons, including Cromwell’s, were burned; the drinking habits of the people, how they liked to tease the authorities by toasts to Cromwell’s health; and on few humoristic tales. For some, this might seem as an enough to prove the view of the commoners, but a historian does not want to speculate. In the end, only thing that matters is what we can see from the sources. We cannot have the entire cross-section about any discourses from the 18th century, because that kind of crosssection is not possible to make of our 21st century discourses. Besides, the actions that we have read, that demonstrates the habits of the commoners might be false. The adventure of the drunken boatmen with their blasphemy might just be a mere propaganda from the Jacobites. Therefore, the text that we read was produced by the part of the people who was more educated. Although the clearly hostile writings were written with less deliberative manner, nearly furiously blasphemous attacking manner, while the defending writings were written, especially at the end of the century, with very measured and civilized manner,
such as Charles James Fox’s speeches, regarding the nom de plume “Oliver Cromwell’s” provocation. This is a clear contrast to the 17th century when very skillful users of words such as John Lilburne wrote against Cromwell with very measured words. The reputation on the 18th century newspapers was rarely anything more than political. The major part of the papers was, in the first half of the century, on the hands of the opponents to the Whigs. In that time, the Whigs didn’t have any view about Cromwell or they just carefully avoided the subject. When the Jacobites and their supporters dissolved under the mere impossible of their cause, in other words, the possibility to have Stuarts back to the reign lapsed, the voice of their press was dissolved with them. The Tories and their supporters used Cromwell as an instrument of propaganda against the Whigs. When Cromwell got more popular in the history of Britain after 1730s, the rise of the positive reputation on the newspapers was rising gradually, having its hay-day during the American revolutionary war, and the French revolution. The poetry that I have used to demonstrate the reputation of Oliver Cromwell is poetry from the 17th century, edited to collections in the 18th. It would be audacious to purport that they were printed only as a tools of propaganda for certain circumstances, such as before the elections, and compared with the existing studies, there was no affiliation to be found. But it was propaganda, all right. In every context they were mocking epigrams or ghost poems about Cromwell. As I have proven, there was direct continuum of the use of these poems from the end of the 17th century to the 18th. The literature where Oliver Cromwell is mentioned in the 18th century was often like long letters-to-the-editor style writings. That is, when it is not in encyclopedia or in biography. These books are, such as the newspapers, very negative for Cromwell in the beginning of the century. At the end of the century emerges some literature where Cromwell is mentioned with a positive manner, or rather objectively, like with Edmund Burke. In the literature, most of the positive reputation is seen on biographies where continues the manner from the middle of the 17th century to tell his biography very objectively, albeit often remembering him with the title “usurper”. At the late 18 th century the reputation in some biographies rises to downright extravagant. The politics of Cromwell is often embellished for obvious propaganda reasons, probably for to help of the Foxites. One more part of the 18th century media, which I have used, are the satirical drawings, and as such in very pivotal role on the discourses of the 18th century. On those drawings
Crowell was seen, at first, at the beginning of the century on the illustrations for the Hubridas, by William Hogarth, and later on, drawn by James Sayers on satirical drawings depicting Charles James Fox, who was very relevant regarding this study. The picture can tell more than a thousand words. Images can spread more certain kind of attitude, especially for the illiterate, than any writing. So how the reputation of Oliver Cromwell is manifested or alters during my time-frame, or during the certain incidents? At the beginning very Jacobitish Tory Henry Sacheverell used Cromwell against the Whigs on the question of succession. He was defending the rights of the Stuarts and was against the Whig-supported succession of the Hanoverians. He clearly stated that the era after the Glorious Revolution in 1688 was nothing more than the Cromwellish tyranny. The Jacobite rebellion in 1715 brought along the usage of Cromwell as a political weapon of words. The burning of the effigies of Cromwell that was continued from the 1660 yet existed. In that rebellion the effigy burnings intensified to a blasphemy, in which their own burnable images got the Whig-politicians such as Robert Walpole, and even the King George I. Before the Seven Year War, the incidents where Cromwell is taken as an example from the past are the improvement on his reputation, and the JewBill in 1753, when Protectors favor to the Jews was an issue that was, once more, used against the Whigs. In the Seven Year War, Cromwell’s rising reputation can be seen in the name of the ship, which acted as a privateer under the British flag. The ship’s own success in the war is does not have anything to do with the study in hand, however, the mere christening of the ship as Oliver Cromwell demonstrates the very high respect. In the American Revolutionary War were many warships on that name, on both sides, which indicates that Cromwell was respected on the both sides. The respect of the American side was seen also that, albeit reportedly, how they have been printing almanacs with the dates that were pertain with Cromwell. The studies that I have cited show how the Americans considered the Cromwell’s politics as a good example of a republic. During this war, it was after all the British who the most commemorated Cromwell’s reputation, it was seen negative and positive, and the latter, no less than in the Parliament. The French Revolution brought Oliver Cromwell on discourses in new perspective. This time in Britain he was seen as an example of a republic leader, in good and bad. The leaders of the revolution, such as LaFayette, were compared to Cromwell, and the tyr-
annies of the revolution were compared to the Commonwealth’s, and Protectorate’s alleged tyranny. The destinations of Louis XVI and Charles I was also under comparison. However, the sources from the both centuries 17th and 18th make these comparisons as false. The appearance of the Cromwell’s head, and the people’s interest towards it as a curiosity, demonstrates that Cromwell was an intriguing person, despite whether he was considered as good or bad. One may criticize how the mere wideness of my time-frame may give an impression of fragmentation. This, however, is due to the homogeneity of the source material, e.g. the newspapers had plenty of similar kind of writings, and I simply had to choose something that is more suitable for its time, more heterogenic material. If there is a cap of the years that does not mean that there are no sources to be found, the material is just repeating something that is already told. At the Introduction I mentioned, how my study is partially discourse analytic that I adapt with the adaptable manner as LÄHDESMÄKI has pointed. About Oliver Cromwell exists opinions, both positive and negative, the poems were full of attitude, such is the history writings, albeit occasionally unintended. In that state as the discourse analysis is usually thought to be, the discourses manifests in my sources with certain adjectives, such as “usurper, that seems to be the most usual attribute for Cromwell. Other negative adjectives were “hypocrite”, “tyrant, “devil”, “murderer”, “Caesar”, the latter with its negative connotation. The positive words appeared in 1742, and those were “an illustrious warrior”, “a great politician”, “valour”, “strength and glory”, and “Caesar with its positive connotation. What this analysis reveals is simply how the negative discourse was full of short sentences, much like swearing, whereas the positive includes plenty of longer sentences, more measured words. As I mentioned, my study is a social constructivism as a writing of history. If the study is examined by the way that KAARTINEN and KORHONEN explained, how the sources had reflected the culture that existed in the 18th century Britain, and the common opinion? As mentioned, the common opinion is difficult to study, but the culture is very much revealed. The lower-class demonstrates the similar culture which it had lived in the 17th century. Unlike the text-producing people, is the lower-class often slower in its progress? The reputation of Oliver Cromwell didn’t alter among the lower-class, at least during the beginning of the 18th century, especially when it was easily to be led to keep the negative attitude. Among the writing part of the people the culture changed in
the 1730s. Cromwell came more acceptable in visual arts as in the writings. As I mentioned, the French Revolution was the revolution of the middle-class, and the British middle-class that was gradually getting wealthier and more respectable, saw the plausible British revolution as a possibility. Cromwell gained more positive reputation, sometimes over-positive. The surprisingly positive attitude towards Lord-Protector from the King himself demonstrated how the political culture was changed. The sources truly reflect the change, at least on the political culture, on the bourgeoisie-nobility-monarchy levels. Yet one more aspect of political culture can be easily found: the historical amnesia. The Tories and the Jacobites used, on their purposes, only the negative aspects from the life of the Protector; whereas the Whigs tended to use only the positive. This amnesia is something that the politics of our recent history have “suffered”, and still does. E.g. the war against terrorism is the war against old U.S. allies, against something that they created themselves. This is a fact that the politics tend to be duly forgetting on their speeches. Similarly, the positive successes of Cromwell were duly forgotten by the Tories and Jacobites in the 18th century. Thus, this amnesia is an old disease and part of the western political culture. So what kind of a myth the Cromwell was in the 18th century? I inspect this via different political aspects according to the sources, via Duncan BELL’s mythological interpretation: The Whigs didn’t have a Cromwell-myth on their own; the myth was a weapon that was used against them. It was a myth of the usurper and regicide. It was like BELL mentioned a simplified, much selected, and widely distributed tale from the past, which was imagined. E.g. Cromwell was named as a regicide, albeit he was never able to decide Charles’s capital punishment by himself. The dissolving of the Parliament in 1653 was often seen as a tyranny, despite the fact that this Parliament was however very corrupted and with self-interest. The negative myth was fed with the poems from the 17th century. The Tories and the Jacobites both thought that the Whigs were equal to the Commonwealth and the Protectorate, themselves being the defenders of the pure monarchy, and in some level, they were right. In the end of the 18th century emerges a certain kind of Whig-myth that includes Cromwell as a hero of the republic. These myths can be simplified to the left-right model: The Whigs, with their Protectorate-style Parliament on the left; and the Tories on the right, defending the rights of the monarchy, even his autocracy when necessary. Duncan BELL writes about the mission of the critical history, which, according to my interpretation, is a mission for a historian to brought these myths in to the open, and,
hermeneutically interrelate them with the existing studies, and if possible, break them. This is why I have been using studies and sources from the time before my time-frame of the study. In the end, this study is only a fragment of the larger entity. It is only a part of the reputation of Oliver Cromwell and the discourses of it. Albeit the Cromwell-myth on the 19th century is already written, one might anyway collect a larger study, expanding from the death-year of Oliver in 1658, all the way to our days. The reputation of a person (if a known one) is never ending, thus the history of it cannot be completed. However, we can reveal from the past how, e.g. the person who had died on the previous century, was respected or hated, that is, what was his reputation. Oliver Cromwell’s reputation in Great-Britain, from 1707 to 1799, was labile, constantly altering. It was an era, when the bad reputation, inherited from the previous century, gradually changed better. In the beginning of the century, he had only negative reputation which mean its usage only then when it provided a weapon for political feuds. The positive reputation rose gradually after 1730’s, to rise as a great laud on the time of the French Revolution. Causally speaking, during the time-frame of my study, Cromwell’s positive reputation got buoyancy that cultivated the Cromwell-cult of the 19th century; it wasn’t created then, it was started on the discourses of the 18th century. If I would continue this study to the present history, and our days, we might found out how the reputation of Oliver Crowell has changed in many levels. There is no “lowerclass” in the 18th century terms, and the working-class is not anymore superstitious or illiterate. For the characters of the past, no matter how controversial, has been created a certain kind of aura, which can be utilized e.g. in tourism. This has happened in Huntington where the reputation of Cromwell is bringing tourists. The politicians, and the religions, however, seem to be repeating the same matters as in the 18th century. The history and its controversial figures are still used as tools of propaganda. What do the people in Drogheda, a town in Catholic Ireland, think about Cromwell now?
Bibliography Abbreviations: E.E.B.O.: Early English Books Online. E.C.C.O.: Eighteen Century Collections Online. E.S.T.C.: English Short Title Catalogue
Primary Sources: Publications and documents Cromwell, Oliver: By the Protector, a proclamation giving encouragement to such as shall transplant themselves to Jamaica. Printed by Henry Hills and Iohn Fields, Printers to His Highness, London 1655. EEBO. .Guildhall Library (London), Wing / C7154; Thomason / 669.f.20.
Contemporary literature, biographies, diaries and fiction An account of the present English conspiracy, taken from the report of the Secret committee of the House of Commons, just now published; In which are laid open, the Attempts to excite Mutiny in our Fleets, and also the Plan for a general Rising in London, and in other Parts, at this Time meditated by United Irishmen now here, and by numerous other Secret Societies in the Pay or Interests of France. N. B. In this Account is given the Substance of the Report drawn up by the Secret Committee, together with some very interesting Parts of the Appendix. To which is added, a suitable address. Printed and sold by J. Evans, Long-Lane, West-Smithfield; J. Hatchard, No. 173 Piccadilly, and all booksellers, newsmen, and hawkers, in town and country. Great Allowance will be made to Shopkeepers and Hawkers, London 1799. E.C.C.O. British Library, mf 4741; ESTC: T131231. Administration dissected. In which the grand national culprits, are laid open for the public inspection. Printed for J. Barker, Russel Court, Drury Lane, London 1779. E.C.C.O. Library of Congress, mf 12618; ESTC: N005777.
A.F: The general entertainer: or, a collection of near three hundred polite tales and fables. Wherein in contained the Lives, Adventures, Intrigues, Sayings, Laws, and Customs, of most of the Greatest Personages and Countries in the World. The whole collected for the entertainment and improvement of all gentlemen and ladies of wit, humour, and gallantry. In two volumes. Vol 2. Printed for Henry Slater, at the Golden Key, in Clare-Court, Drury-Lane; and Richard Adams, at Dryden's Head, Holborn-Bars, London 1746. E.C.C.O. British Library, mf 205; ESTC: T066895. The annals of Europe, or regal register; shewing the succession of the sovereigns, of Rome, Constantinople, Adrianople, Trebizond, Turkey, Russia, Germany, Lombardy, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, Hungary, Poland, Prussia, England, Scotland, and Ireland. Together with the Bishops and popes of Rome; From the Foundations of their States to the present Time: with The principal Events in each of their Reigns, and the Time when they happened. To which are added Tables of the Cotemporary Princes from the Year 800, and An Alphabetical Arrangement of all their Names, shewing the Time of their Accession and Death; with concise Characters of all, as handed down by the best Historians. Printed for F. Newbery, the Corner of St. Paul's Churchyard, London 1779. E.C.C.O. British Library, mf 40; ESTC: T090027. Anonymous Lincolniensis: A letter to Dr. Calamy: in vindication of Mr. Archdeacon Echard's History of England. Wherein 'tis prov'd, that the Doctor's grand-father was an incendiary, as appears from those three Sermons he quotes in his Vindication; and that the Doctor is notoriously guilty of the same faults with which he charges the Reverend historian. Printed for John Morphew, near Stationers-Hall, London 1719. E.C.C.O. Huntington Library, mf 12366; ESTC: N010938. Beattie, James: Elements of moral science. By James Beattie, LL. D. Professor of Moral Philosophy and Logick in Marischal College, Aberdeen. ... Printed for T. Cadell, London; William Creech, Edinburgh 1790. E.C.C.O. British Library, mf 506; ESTC: T138973. Bohun, Edmund: The doctrine of non-resistance or passive obedience, no way concerned in the controversies now depending between the Williamites and the Jacobites
by a lay gentleman of the communion of the Church of England, by law establish'd. London : Printed for Richard Chiswell ..., 1689. E.E.B.O. Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery, Wing / B3451. Brome, James: An historical account of Mr. Rogers's three years travels over England and Wales giving a true and exact description of all the chiefest cities, towns and corporations in England, Dominion of Wales, and town of Berwick upon Twede : together with the antiquities, and places of admiration, cathedrals, churches of note in any city, town or place in each county, the gentleman above-mentioned having made it his whole business (during the aforesaid time) to compleat the same in his travelling, : to which is annexed a new map of England and Wales, with the adjacent parts, containing all the cities and market towns bound in just before the title. Printed and Sold by J. Moxon and B. Beardwell at the Sign of Atlas in Warwick-Lane, and in Westminster-hall, right against the Parliament-stairs, London 1694. E.E.B.O. Cambridge University Library, Wing / B4857. Burke, Edmund: The beauties of the late Right Hon. Edmund Burke, selected from the writings, &c. of that extraordinary man, alphabetically arranged. Including the following celebrated Political Characters, drawn by himself: Antoinette, late Queen of France Comte D'Artois Paul Benfield, Esq; M. Brissot Richard Burke, Esq; Late Earl of Chatham M. Condurcet Right Hon. Henry Dundas Hon. C. J. Fox George III. Lord Grenville Late Mr. Grenville Warren Hastings, Esq; Late Lord Keppel Sir Hercules Langrishe Louis XVI. Louis XVIII. Lord North Right Honourable William Pitt Marquis of Rockingham Charles Townsend Esq; John Wilkes, Esq; &c. &c. To which is prefixed, a sketch of the life, with some original anecdotes of Mr. Burke. In two volumes. Vol. I. printed by J. W. Myers, and sold by W. West, No 1, Queen's-Head Passage, PaternosterRow, 1798. E.C.C.O. British Library, mf 2448, ESTC: T021449. Burke, Edmund: Burke's reflections on the Revolution in France, &c. &c. in a letter intended to have been sent to a gentleman in Paris. Printed for J. Parsons, No. 21, Paternoster Row, London 1793. E.C.C.O. British Library, mf 411, ESTC: T029798. Carrington, S: The history of the life and death of His Most Serene Highness, Oliver, late Lord Protector wherein, from his cradle to his tomb, are impartially transmitted to posterity, the most weighty transactions forreign or domestique that have happened in his time, either in matters of law, proceedings in Parliaments, or other affairs in church
or state / by S. Carrington. Printed for Nath. Brook, at the Sign of the Angel in Cornhill, London 1659. E.E.B.O. Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery, Wing / C643. A charge of high treason exhibited against Oliver Cromwell Esq; For several Treasons by him committed. 1653. E.E.B.O.British Library, mf: Thomason / 246:669.f.17. Considerations humbly submitted to the House of Lords, on the two East-India bills brought into Parliament by Mr. Fox & Mr. Pitt. Printed for the author (Joseph Cawthorne?), by J. Johnson, Whitechapel Road-Side. London 1788. E.C.C.O. Bodleian Library (Oxford), mf 12891; ESTC: T186725. Defoe, Daniel: The behaviour of servants in England inquired into. With a proposal containing such heads or constitutions as would effectually answer this great end, and bring servants of every class to a just regulation. Printed for H. Whittridge, under the Royal-Exchange, London 1726(?). E.C.C.O. British Library, mf 1561; ESTC: T070341. Dodsley, Robert: The chronicle of the Kings of England, from the Norman Conquest unto the present time. Written in the manner of the ancient Jewish historians. By Nathan ben Saddi, A Priest of the Jews. Printed for T. Cooper at the Globe in Pater-Noster Row London 1742. E.C.C.O. British Library, mf 449; ESTC: T125076. Eighteen queries, for the seventeen ald----n and the R----r. Printed by E. Waters, Dublin 1713. E.C.C.O. Department of Special Collections, Kenneth Spencer Research Library, University of Kansas, mf 12862; ESTC: N048512. The English Devil: [Or], Cromwel and his monstrous witch discover'd at White-Hall: With the strange and damnable speech of this hellish monster, by way of revelation, touching king and kingdom; and a narrative of the infernal plots, inhumane actings, and barbarous conspiracies of this grand impostor, and most audacious rebel, that durst aspire from a brew-house to the throne, washing his accursed hands in the blood of his royal soveraign; and trampling over the heads of the most loyal subjects, making a football of a crown, and endeavouring utterly to extirpate the royal progeny, root and
kinde, stem and stock. Printed by Robert Wood, for George Horton; and are to be sold at the Royal Exchange in Cornhill, London 1660. E.E.B.O. British Library, mf, Thomason / 153:E.1035. Evelyn, John: The Diary of John Evelyn. Edited by William Bray. Printed by M.W. Dunne, New York, London 1901. IA, AL. [Ref. 1.10.2011] http://www.archive.org/details/diaryofjohnevely01eveliala. Fletcher, Henry: The perfect politician, or, A full view of the life and action (military and civil) of O. Cromwel whereunto is added his character, and a compleat catalogue of all the honours conferr'd by him on several persons. Printed by J. Cottrel, for William Roybould at the Unicorn, and Henry Fletcher at the three Gilt [...] lips in St. Paul's Church yard. 1660. E.E.B.O. Yale University Library, mf Wing / F1334. Flower of the Jacobins containing biographical sketches of the leading men at present at the head of affairs in France. Dedicated to Lewis the Sixteenth, King of France and Navarre, &c. 2. Ed. Printed for the author, and sold by J. Owen, No. 168, Piccadilly, and H. D. Symonds, Pater-Noster-Row, London 1792. E.C.C.O. Harvard University Houghton Library, mf 990; ESTC: N003730. Fox, Charles James: The speech of the Right Hon. C. J. Fox, in the House of Commons, on Tuesday, March 2d, 1790, upon his motion for the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts. Printed for J. Ridgeway, York-Street, St. James's Square, London 1790. E.C.C.O. Bodleian Library (Oxford), mf 12265; ESTC: T176747. George III (Sovereign 1760-1820, Great Britain): His Majesty's proclamation of the twenty-first of May 1792. To which is added, an address to the Revolution Club. By Gibbie Burnet. Printed for and sold by the booksellers, Edinburgh 1792. E.C.C.O. British Library, mf 614; ESTC: T108704. Gordon, Thomas: A dedication to a great man, concerning dedications. Discovering, amongst other wonderful secrets, what will be the present posture of affairs a thousand years hence. London 1718. E.C.C.O. British Library, mf 3251; T032202.
Hall of Herefordin runo, luvussa Miscallenous Poems, teoksessa: The miscellaneous works of the Right Honourable the late Earls of Rochester and Roscommon. With the memoirs of the Life and Character of the late Earl of Rochester, in a Letter to the Dutchess of Mazarine. By Mons. St. Evremont. To which is added, a curious collection of original poems and translations by the Earl of Dorset, the Lord S----rs, The Lord Hx, The Lord G-Lle, Sir Roger L' Estrange, Mr. Otway, Mr. Prior, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Smith. Mr. Rowe & c. Printed and Sold by B. Bragge, at the Raven in Pater-Noster-Row, against Ivy-Lane, London 1707. E.C.C.O. British Library, mf 3811, ESTC: T095468. Hartley, J: History of the Westminster election, containing every material occurrence, from its commecement [sic] on the first of April, to the final close of the poll, on the 17th of May. To which is prefixed a summary account of the proceedings of the late parliament, So far as they appear connected with the East India Business, and the Dismission of the Portland Administration, with Other Select and Interesting Occurrences at the Westminster Meetings, Previous to its Dissolution on the 25th Day of March, 1784. By lovers of truth and justice. Printed for the editors, and sold by J. Debrett, opposite Burlington-House, Piccadilly, and all other booksellers, London 1784. E.C.C.O. Bodleian Library (Oxford), mf 9892; ESTC: T208371. Hellâ€™s Higher Court of Justice; or Trial of The Three Political Ghosts, viz Oliver Cromwell, King of Sweden and Cardinal Mazarine. London 1661. E.E.B.O. British Library, mf: Thomason / 162:E.1087. Henderson, Andrew: The case of the Jews considered, with regard to trade, commerce, manufacturies and religon [sic], &c. By a Christian. Printed for R. Richards, the Corner of Barnard's Inn, Holbourn; W. Reeves and E. Withers in Fleet-Street; J. James and E. Cooke at the Royal-Exchange. London 1753. E.C.C.O. British Library, mf 6079; ESTC: T014615. Hildyard, Christopher: The antiquities of York city, and the civil government thereof: with a list of all the mayors and bayliffs, Lord Mayors and sheriffs, from the time of King Edward the first, to this present year, 1719. Printed by G. White for F. Hildyard,
York, and are to be sold by W. Taylor in Pater-Noster-Row, and T. Ward in Inner Temple-Lane, London 1719. E.C.C.O. British Library, mf 1555; ESTC: T107434. An historical deduction of an [sic] union between Great Britain and Ireland. Printed by Robert Napper, for Bennett Dugdale, No. 6, Dame-Street, Dublin 1799. E.C.C.O. Harvard University Graduate School of Business, mf 12124; ESTC: T033098. The history of Cheshire: containing King's Vale-Royal entire, together with Considerable extracts from Sir Peter Leycester's Antiquities of Cheshire; and the observation of later writers, particularly, Pennant, Grose &c. &c. The whole forming a complete description of that county; With all its Hundreds; Seats of the Nobility, Gentry, and Freeholders; Rivers, Towns, Castles, and Buildings, ancient and modern. to which is prefixed an introduction, Exhibiting a General View of the State of the Kingdom previous to, and immediately after, The Norman Conquest. ... Vol. Volume 2. Printed by John Poole, Chester 1778. E.C.C.O. British Library, mf 4573; ESTC: T096758. Home, Charles: A new chronological abridgment of the history of England; from the earliest times to the accession of the House of Hanover. To each reign is added a list of the contemporary princes of Europe. Written upon the plan of the President Henault's History of France. By Charles Home, Esq. Printed for J. Dodsley, Pall-Mall, London 1791. E.C.C.O. British Library, mf 1457; ESTC: T055406. King, William: A vindication of the Reverend Dr. Henry Sacheverell, from the false, scandalous and malicious aspersions cast upon him in a late infamous pamphlet, entitled, The modern fanatick. Intended chiefly to expose the Iniquity of the Faction in general, without taking any considerable Notice of their poor mad Tool B-t in particular. In a dialogue between a Tory and a Wh-g. Printed for John Morphew near Stationers-Hall, London 1711. E.C.C.O. British Library, mf 11461, ESTC: T050892. Lilburne, John: [A] An impeachment of high treason against Oliver Cromwel, and his son in law Henry Ireton Esquires, late Members of the late forcibly dissolved House of Commons, presented to publique view; by Lieutenant Colonel Iohn Lilburn close prisoner in the Tower of London, for his real, true and zealous affections to the liberties of
his native countryâ€Ś Imprinted at London : [s.n.], Anno Dom. 1649. E.E.B.O. British Library, mf: Thomason / E.568. Lilburne, John: [B] The legall fundamentall liberties of the people of England revived, asserted, and vindicated. Or, an epistle written the eighth day of June 1649, / by Lieut. Colonel John Lilburn (arbitrary and aristocratical prisoner in the Tower of London)â€Ś Printed in the grand yeer of hypocritical and abominable dissimulation. London (?), 1649. E.E.B.O. British Library, mf, Thomason / 86:E.560. Lives, English and forein, [sic] viz. William Lord Burleigh. Sir Walter Raleigh. George Duke of Buckingham. Marquiss of Montross. Oliver Cromwell. Admiral Coligni. Don John of Austria, Son of Charles the Fifth. William the First, Prince of Orange. Alexand Farnese, Prince of Parma. Alb. Count Wallenstein. Including the history of England, and other nations of Europe, from the year 1550, to the year 1690. By several hands. ... Printed for B. Tooke, at the Middle-temple-gate in Fleetstreet; William Davis, at the Black Bull in Cornhill; and sold by J. Nutt, near Stationers-Hall, 1704. London. E.C.C.O. British Library, mf 9357; ESTC: T138313. Lockman, John: A new history of England, by question and answer. Extracted from the most celebrated English historians, particularly M. de Rapin Thoyras. Printed for Tho.Astley, at the Rose in St. Paul's Church-Yard, London 1736. E.C.C.O. British Library, mf 3245; ESTC: T155111. Moor at London: Letters from a Moor at London to his friend at Tunis. Containing an account of his journey through England, with his Observations on the Laws, Customs, Religion, and Manners of the English Nation. Likewise remarks on the public charities, with curious Memoirs relating to the Life of Mr. Sutton, Founder of the Charter-House. A description of Bedlam, with serious Reflections on Love, Madness, and Self-Murder. The whole interspersed with historical remarks and useful observations. Printed for J. Batley and J. Wood, at the Dove in Pater-Noster-Row ; and Richard Wellington, at the Dolphin and Crown without Temple-Bar, London 1736. E.C.C.O. British Library, mf 2362; ESTC: T073153.
Noble, Mark: Memoirs of the Protectorate House of Cromwell, Vol I. Printed by Pearson and Rollason; Sold by R. Baldwin, Pater-Noster-Row; B. White, Fleet-Street; J. Robson, New-Bond-Street; and S. Hayes, Oxford-Road, London 1784. Owen, Charles: The danger of the church and state from foreigners; proving in above two hundred entertaining articles that our religion and learning, arts and sciences, trade and navigation, food, raiment, phisick, &c. &c. are all foreigners, viz. ... By Cha. Owen, D.D. Printed for J. Robinson, R. Dodsley and J. Sheepy, London 1750. 3. ed. E.C.C.O. Bodleian Library (Oxford), mf 10876; ESTC: N000422. A parly between the ghosts of the late Protector, and the King of Sweden, at their meeting in Hell [s.n], 1660 [s.n]. E.E.B.O. British Library, mf: Thomason / 151:E.1023. Pepys, Samuel: The Diary of Samuel Pepys, Daily entries from the 17 th century London diary. [Ref. 23.11.2011] www.pepysdiary.com. The Persian letters, continued: or, the second volume of letters from Selim at London, to Mirza at Ispahan. Printed for, and sold by E. Davis Bookbinder in Fuller's Rents, near Gray's Inn, Holborn. And sold by the booksellers of London and Westminster, London 1735. E.C.C.O. Huntington Library, mf 2505; ESTC: N011440. Sacheverell, Henry: The tryal of Dr. Henry Sacheverell, before the House of Peers, for high crimes and misdemeanors; upon an impeachment by the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses in Parliament Assembled, in the Name of themselves, and of all the Commons of Great Britain: begun in Westminster-Hall the 27th day of February, 1709/10, and from thence continued by several adjournments until the 23d day of March following. Published by order of the House of Peers. printed for Jacob Tonson, at Grays-Inn-Gate in Grays-Inn-Lane, London 1710. E.C.C.O. British Library, mf 12019, ESTC: T176104. The speeches of Oliver Cromwell, Henry Ireton, and John Bradshaw. Intended to have been spoken at their execution at Tyburne, Jan. 30. 1660. But for many weightie reasons omitted. And now publish't by Marchiamont Needham and Pagan Fisher servants, poets, and pamphleteers to his infernal highnesse. Imprimatur, Tho. Dun, Esq. London : [s.n.], printed and are to be sold at the Old Exchange, and in Westminster-Hall 1660. [i.e. 1661].
E.E.B.O. British Library, Thomason / E.1081. Skelton, Philip (Ed): The Chevalier’s Hopes. Printed by and for James Esdall at the Corner of Copper-Alley on Cork-Hill, Dublin 1745. E.C.C.O. British Library, mf 442; ESTC: T108576. Turner, David: short history of the Westminster Forum: containing, some remarks upon the laws; wherein the nature of such Societies is examined: with an Abstract of every Evening's Debate: Together with Some Letters Relative to the Institution. In two volumes ... . By the president. Vol2(2). Printed: and sold by T. Cadell, in the Strand; W. Domville, under the Royal Exchange; Fielding and Walker, Pater-Noster Row; and J. Walter, Charing-Cross, London 1781. E.C.C.O. British Library, mf 5612; ESTC: T111683. Welwood, James: Memoirs of the most material transactions in England, for the last hundred years, preceding the Revolution in 1688. By James Welwood, M. D. Fellow of the College of Physicians, London. Printed for T. Goodwin at the Queen's-Head against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet, London 1702 (4.ed). Winstanley, William: The loyall martyrology, or, Brief catalogues and characters of the most eminent persons who suffered for their conscience during the late times of rebellion either by death, imprisonment, banishment, or sequestration together with those who were slain in the Kings service : as also dregs of treachery : with the catalogue and characters of those regicides who sat as judges on our late dread soveraign of ever blessed memory : with others of that gang, most eminent for villany / by William Winstanley.”Rebellion is a sin of Which-craft”. Printed by Thomas Mabb for Edward Thomas at the Adam and Eve in Little Britain, London 1665. E.E.B.O. Bristol (U.K.)Public Libraries, Wing / W3066. Young, Canute: Chronologia enucleata. Or, a pocket library. Shewing the most material occurrences from the creation of the world down to this time, viz. The Rise and Fall of Monarchies, Kingdoms, and States. The Lives and Actions of the greatest Monarchs, Heroes, Patriarchs, Philosophers, &c. under the Jews, Greeks, Romans, Saxons, Danes, Britons, Irish and Scots. In a Neat Pocket Volume in 12mo. Alphabetically digested by Canute Young, A.M.
Printed for the author, and sold by Mr. Hodges, on London-Bridge. Mr. Meadows, in Cornhill. P. Morony, in Hoxton-Square. Mr. Clark, at the Royal-Exchange. Mr. Jefferies, near Stationers-Hall. Mr. Jackson, in St. James's Street. Mr. Millan, opposite the Admiral-Office Charing-Cross Mr. Lewis, in Russel Street. Covent-Garden. Mr. Meighan, over against Red-Lion-Court in Drury Lane, London 1739. E.C.C.O. British Library, mf 111; ESTC: T078099.
Newspapers Common Sense or the Englishman’s Journal, London 1738. Country Journal or The Craftsman, London 1740. Daily Courant, London 1723, 1734. Daily Gazetteer, London 1735, 1737. Diary or Woodfall’s Register, London 1791. Evening Post, London 1709, 1757, 1758. Flying Post or The Postmaster, London 1715. General Advertiser and Morning Intelligencer, London 1777. Independent Chronicle, London 1769. Kingdomes Intelligencer, London 1661. Lloyd’s Evening Post, London 1798. London Chronicle (Semi-Annual), London 1757. London Chronicle, London 1778. London Chronicle or Universal Evening Post, London 1774. London Courant and Westminster Chronicle, London 1780. London Evening Post, London 1757, 1758. London Packet or New Lloyd’s Evening Post, London 1777. Mercurius Politicus Comprising the summ of all intelligence, London 1653. Middlesex Journal or Chronicle of Liberty, London 1770, 1771. Morning Chronicle, London 1799. Morning Chronicle and London Advertiser, London 1783. Morning Post and Daily Advertiser, London 1799. Newes Published for Satisfaction and Information of the People, S.l. 1665. Observator, London 1702. Oracle Bell’s New World, London 1784.
Public Advertiser, London 1768, 1769, 1779, 1783, 1785, 1788, 1789, 1790. Public Intelligencer, London 1660. Public Ledger, London 1775. Reading Mercury and Oxford Gazette, Reading 1778. Read's Weekly Journal or British Gazetteer, London 1758. St. James's Chronicle or the British Evening Post, London 1768, 1780, 1790, 1793. Telegraph, London 1797. Weekly Journal or Saturday’s Post, London 1722. Weekly Packet, S.l. 1715. Westminster Journal and London Political Miscellany, London 1777.
Studies ADAMS, David & ARMSTRONG, Adrian: Introduction. Print and Power in France and England, 1500-1800. Edited by David Adams & Adrian Armstrong. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Hants, England; Ashgate Publishing Co, Burlington, USA. Printed and Bound in GB by MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin, Cornwall 2006. BELL, Duncan: Introduction. Memory, Trauma and World Politics. Edited by Ducncan Bell. Palgrave MacMillan, New York 2006. BLACK, Jeremy: Newspapers and Politics in the 18th Century. History Today 1.10.1986. BLUM, John M.; CATTON, Bruce; MORGAN Edmund s.; SCHLESINGER Arthur M. jr.;e.a.: The National Experience, A History of the United States. Harbour, Brace & World, INC. San Diego, USA 1963. BRETT, S. Reed: The Stuart Century, 1603 – 1714. George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd. London Toronto, 1961. CANNON, John & GRIFFITHS, Ralph: The Oxford Illustrated History of British Monarchy. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1988.
CLARK, J.C.D.: English Society 1688-1832. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1985. CLARKE, Bob: From Grub Street to Fleet Street: an illustrated history of English newspapers. Ashgate Publishing, Burlington, Vermont, USA 2004. CONBOY, Martin: Language of Newspapers: Socio-Historical Perspectives. Continuum International Publishing, London 2010. CUSHMAN, Charles B.: Introduction to the U. S. Congress. M.E. Sharpe, Inc, New York, USA 2005. FITZGIBBONS, Jonathan: Cromwell’s Head, the National Archives, Surrey 2008. FOORD, Archibald S: His Majesty’s Opposition 1714 – 1830. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1964. FRASER, Antonia: Cromwell, Our Chief of Men. Weidenfield & Nicolson, London 1973.
GARDINER, Samuel Rawson: Oliver Cromwell. Longmans, Green & Co. London, New York 1901. GAUNT, Peter: Oliver Cromwell. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford 1996. GENTLES, Ian: Oliver Cromwell: God’s Warrior and the English Revolution. British History in Perspective. Palgrave McMillan, Basingstoke UK 2011. GOLDSWORTHY, Adrian: Caesar, Life of a Colossus. Yale University Press, New Haven 2006. HARRISON, Frederick: Oliver Cromwell. MacMillan & Co., London 1888. IA, AL. KAARTINEN, Marjo & KORHONEN Anu: Historian kirjoittamisesta (About the Writing of History) Turun yliopisto, Aurora kirja, Turku 2005.
KNOPPERS, Laura Lunger: Constructing Cromwell: Ceremony, Portrait, and Print, 1645-1661. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2000. KNOPPERS, Laura Lunger & LANDES, Joan B.: Monstrous Bodies/Political Monstrosities in Early Modern Europe. Cornell University Press, Ithaca NY 2004. LEVY, Richard S (Ed.): Antisemitism, A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution. ABC-Clio, Santa Barbara, USA 2005. LÄHDESMÄKI, Tuuli: Kuohahdus Kansan sydämestä, henkilömonumentti diskursiivisena ilmiönä 1900-luvun lopun Suomessa. (A Flare from the Heart of the People, A monument as discursive phenomena at the late 20th Century Finland) Jyväskylän yliopisto, Jyväskylä 2007. MITCHELL, Leslie, George: Charles James Fox. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1992. PELTONEN, Matti: Lukkari Saxbergin rikos ja herännäispappilan etiikka, Mikrohistoriallinen tutkimus 1800-luvun puolivälin Keuruulta. (The Crime of Cantor Saxberg, A Microhistorical study of mid 19th century Keuruu) Gaudeamus kirja, Oy Yliopistokustannus, Helsinki 2006. PIECUCH, Jim: Washington and the Specter of Cromwell. George Washington, Foundation of Presidential Leadership and Character. Edied by: Mark J. Rozell, Ethan Fishman, William D. Pederson. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, USA 2001. PITTOCK, Murray: Poetry and Jacobite politics in eighteenth-century Britain and Ireland. Cambridge studies in eighteenth-century English literature and thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1994. PLUMB, John Harold: Sir Robert Walpole, The King’s Minister. The Cresset Press, London 1960.
RAAFLAUB, Kurt A.: The Function of Tyranny in Fifth-Century Athenian Democracy. Sovereignty and Its Discontents in Ancient Greece: Popular Tyranny. Edited by Kathryn A Morgan. University of Texas Press, Austin 2003. ROOSEVELT, Theodore: Oliver Cromwell. C. Scribner's Sons, New York 1919. ROSE, Kenneth: King George V. Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London 1983.
SCARRE, Chris: Chronicle of the Roman Emperors, The Reign-by-Reign Record of the Rulers of Imperial Rome. Thames & Hudson Ltd. London 1995. SCHAMA, Simon: A History of Britain Vol. 2, the British Wars 1603-1776. BBC, London 2001. SCHAMA, Simon: A History of Britain Vol. 3, The Fate of the Empire 1776-2000. BBC, London 2002. SHARP, David: Oliver Cromwell. Heineman Educational Publishers, Oxford 2003. SHERWOOD, Roy Edward: Oliver Cromwell, King in All But Name, 1653-1658. Palgrave Macmillan. Basingstoke UK 1997. STEWART, A.T.Q.: Shape of Irish History. McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal 2001. THOMPSON E.P.: Herrojen valta ja rahvaan kulttuuri. Valta, kulttuuri ja perinnäistavat 1700 – 1800-luvun Englannissa. (Customs in Common) Translated Tuomas M. S. Lehtonen. Gaudeamus Kirja, Helsinki 1996. VICKERY, Amanda: The Gentleman’s Daughter, Women’s Lives in Georgian England. Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1998. WEBSTER, Mary: Hogarth. A Studio Vista book. Macmillan Publishing, New York 1979.
WORDEN, Blair: The English Reputations of Oliver Cromwell 1660â€“1900. Historical Controversies and Historians. Edited by William Lamont. UCL Press, London 1998.
Dictionaries and the pages online Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, Volume 42. Wikisource, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_National_Biography,_1885-1900 Mirvais Khan Hotak. Afghanan dot Net. http://www.afghanan.net/afghanistan/mirwais.htm Battle of Worchester. BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandworcester/features/battle_worcester/timeline.shtml
Picture Sources The British Museum, London. The Ghost of Oliver Cromwell. http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database/search_object_ details.aspx?objectid=1457953&partid=1&output=People%2F!!%2FOR%2F!!%2F12808 7%2F!%2F128087-19%2F!%2FAssociated+with+Oliver+Cromwell%2F!%2F%2F!!%2F%2F!!!%2F&orig= %2Fresearch%2Fsearch_the_collection_database%2Fadvanced_search.aspx¤tPa ge=1&numpages=10 [Ref. 12.2.2012]. National Portrait Gallery, London. The Mirror of Patriotism. http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw43276/The-mirror-of-patriotismCharles-James-Fox-Oliver-Cromwell-in-mirror. [Ref. 12.2.2012].