A crazy idea

Okay, here’s a crazy idea.  I don’t have any real proof, and it’s probably just a weird coincidence.  There’s a publisher, C. W., that pops up, I think in late 1647, does a lot of work in the second half of 1648, and then more or less disappears, near as I can tell (I did some quick-and-dirty EEBO searching).  I checked Plomer (whose Dictionary of English Printers is now on Google books) and he lists no C. W.s except Charles Webb, whom he lists as active 1658-60.  Glancing on EEBO, I only found a Charles Wright, publishing in the early 1630s.  Now, it looks like William Clarke was behind one of the published versions of the king’s trial, signing it C. W.  Here’s the crazy: I think the publisher C. W. may have been William Clarke, too.

It makes some sense.  To be a publisher, all a person needed was the capital to pay for everything (ie, no printing skills).  Mabbott’s imprint had disappeared by late 1648, so the army may have needed a new way to get its info out.  That explains C. W.’s frequency in late 1648.  Also, I think the C. W. I saw from 1647 was in September, while Mabbott was temporarily sacked from his post.  C. W. seems to exlusively publish army-related news.  I tried to follow a money trail, but couldn’t find one, by looking at Clarke’s contingencies accounts, though he does pay a Mr. Paxton over £49 for paper, ink, and parchment.  That seems like a lot, but then I’m sure the New Model’s hq went through a lot of paper.   Anyway, that’s my crazy idea for the day; it probably won’t play out.  If anybody actually reads this blog, what do you think?

It’s about 30 minutes later.  I just found something published by a “C. Withrington.”  That’s probably C. W.  However, it’s not military news, and the print looks distinctly different.  I don’t know, it’s probably time to put this in the “too crazy” idea pile.

Mabbott, Skippon, and the Moderate

So now I’m starting to wonder a bit more about Mabbott and the Moderate.  I found a letter by Clarke published by Robert Austin.  I can’t figure out Austin’s connection, but his publication was not licensed.  Anyway, I looked through the rest of the stuff published and I found that Perfect Diurnall and the Moderate had the only other copies.  This plays well with my theory that Mabbott had some kind of connection to the Moderate and Samuel Pecke.  I’m thinking that it will be worthwhile to sit the two newsbooks side-by-side to see just how much intelligence they share, and perhaps cross-check that with Walker’s Perfect Occurences.

I’m still digging around in the Provost Marshal position that Mabbott supposedly wanted for himself.  As I said in my last post, I don’t think Mabbott wanted to be Provost Marshal.  I’m starting to wonder if te office was not instead a hodge-podge solution to a number of problems, as well as a Presbyterian reaction against Major General Skippon.  Skippon had had more or less the powers of the Provost Marshal and may have earned some enemies among Presbyterians from his firm control of London during the Second Civil War.  I need to look into it some more.

I like the sense of freedom I have in my research these days.  Although so much of Civil War history has been well worn, I am still finding new pieces of evidence.  I am not just checking references; I feel like an honest-to-God historian.  There is something very gratifying in it.  I suppose that this is not uncommon, but it’s great to be in a profession that allows me such freedom.

Another way that love is similar to tape

Flight of the Conchords is really funny.

I did a lot of work today.  I can’t really recap all of the weird things a I discovered or decided to change in my methodology, but there are two big points.

One is that at some point in the summer of 1648, Mabbott seems to have gone into partial retirement.  Not really, but his imprimatur more or less disappears except from newsbooks.  I don’t know yet why, nor have I locked down when it happens quite yet.  My guess is late June because that’s when he gets in trouble with Dillingham, and someone starts the Moderate.  For a long time I have believed that Mabbott was not the editor of said newsbook, though he acted as patron, but maybe I’m wrong.  Certainly, editing a newsbook would take him away from some of his other duties.  Then again, I don’t yet know if that is when or why his imprimatur stopped appearing (though it was around in early June, and gone by August).  I found a note in the LJ thanking Mabbott for running a letter over from Colchester in late August, so maybe he was just away.  It is a problem I will continue to work on.

Importantly, it would seem that the publishers that he licensed most seem to have dropped off in his absence.  At least, that’s what happened to the ones who printed military news, like George Horton, H. Becke, and Robert Ibbitson.  Ibbitson is still around, but publishing less frequently.  It isn’t something I was expecting to find, but it does support my argument that Mabbott acted as patron to the London news industry.  I still have a lot more work to do to find the boundaries of his absence and its effects on the presses, but it is a promising start.  I know Mabbott was pretty much gone in August and September, and it looks the same until the end of the year.

Second, I spent most of the day looking at evidence from late August and September 1648 over Mabbott’s request for more powers for suppressing pamphlets.  The old story was that he requested these powers, eventually decided not to take them up, and a Captain Francis Bethan was appointed Provost Marshal in his stead.  I now believe that this contention is wrong.  If anybody actually cares to find out why, you are welcome to contact me.

May 1648

I’ve been noticing that H. Becke seems to have become a useful Army printer.  He tends only to print pro-army kinds of stories, always licensed by Mabbott.  Conversely, Ibbitson, who had previously played such a role, has been publishing a lot less.  I don’t know much about Becke, but I’ll see what I can find.

I want to look more into this affair with the petitioners from Surrey.  In May, some rowdy petitioners allegedly threatened some of the MPs and harrassed the soldiers, who eventually opened fire on them.  It looks like there was a real attempt to present the army and parliament’s side of the story, always licensed by Mabbott.

May was a busy month for publishers.  It would seem that Mabbott was knocked back a bit.  He licensed some seemingly Presbyterian works and it looks like there were a lot more unlicensed works than usual.  By the end of the month he seemed to be getting back together again.  However, an “R.W.” and B. A. (Bernard Alsop I think) have been printing some pretty questionable material with his imprimatur.  I’m not yet sure what to make of all of this.  I’m beginning to wonder how much truth there was in Mabbott’s resignation letter, saying that the licenser’s opinion accounted for too much of what got licensed.  If it’s bare narrative, he seems to let a lot of matter through.  On the other hand, he will only license Independent, pro-Army, or occasionaly pro-Parliament polemic.  I guess that makes sense, though it is a little surprising in some ways.  I wonder if Cromwell thought he was getting his money’s worth in Mabbott.

There was one really clever piece of propaganda/news, published by Becke.  There was a letter, with the author expressing his desire for a peaceful solution in Kent (I think it was Kent), worrying about the effects of the army’s victory or its failure.  The next item reported that with a little fighting, there were no casualties, and that Fairfax looked to be finding a peaceful solution to the problem.  LIke I said, clever.

Madman Magot

So what did I find today?  Well the title of this post comes from two back-to-back pamphlets in early May 1648.  I’ve seen this referenced before, but this is the first time I’ve seen them myself.  The more famous one is Thomason penning in “adman” after Mabbott’s initials: G. M.adman.  In the next pamphlet, though, he writes something else that gets lost in the binding.  I like to think it’s “Magot.”  I’m not sure, though.  I’m curious as to what made Thomason lash out that particular day.  Was the news on the Scots and Col. Poyer too upsetting?

As well, considering the number of pamphlets on the subject, the visitation on Oxford must have been terribly traumatic.  From what I’ve learned from Charles Weber, this should mark the godly overhaul of Oxford. Apparently, it ruffled more than a few feathers.

The Presbyterians were on quite the offensive.  Relatedly, I would like to see if there is an article on the Truth of Jesus Christ petitions.  These were heavily Presbyterian works.  The original was subsequently supported by ministers from all over England.

Bernard Alsop and Robert White seem to have had access to the same newsletter from Berwick.  It appeared in the Moderate Intelligencer, a separate published by White, and a separate published by Alsop.  Internal evidence suggests that each had their own copy.  While White might may have gotten the copy from Dillingham (or vice versa) Alsop’s newsbook, Perfect Weekly Account, does not seem to have had a copy, and it appears that Robert Ibbitson did not publish it either.  I’m not sure what this means, and certainly it wouldn’t be the first time that two publishers got a copy of the same material to print, but I’m wondering how Ibbitson got cut out of the loop.  Because of Walker?  Since I assume that commercial rivalry precluded Alsop and White simply sharing the letter, how did it get to the both of them?  Either they had a connection to the same correspondent, or someone received it and shared it with them both, but not the the other major player, Ibbitson.  LIke I said, I’m not sure entirely what to make of it, but it could potentially be very interesting.

There isn’t enough evidence to be sure, but it seems possible that Mabbott shared the letter with Alsop and White but skipped Ibbitson because Ibbitson was working with Henry Walker by that time (Packets of Letters).  There does seem to have been a decrease in the amount of Mabbott-licensed Ibbitson offerings.  At this point, Mabbott wouldn’t have crossed Dillingham, either.

That’s my update for today.  I hope it’s not too cryptic.  My thanks to Mercurius Politicus for his latest post.  It’s on programming.  I may not use it, but I’m glad someone is putting together this stuff in case I end up needing to.

The Lilburne Infection and more on Walker and Mabbott

I found another pamphlet with folks locked up in the Tower with Lilburne borrowing some of his arguments.  This time, it’s about the Lords not being allowed to try a commoner.  What’s interesting is that this time, at least one of them (the only one I’ve checked up on), was a staunch Presbyterian, imprisoned for his role in the attempted 1647 counter-revolution.  Yet even he borrows from Lilburne.  I can see why Lilburne was considered to be so dangerous.  He was infectious.

I had one other thought on Walker and Mabbott’s relationship.  In one of his petitions to the Lords, Walker complained that Mabbott (among other things) would refuse to license some news items.  Perhaps Walker’s distaste for Mabbott was simply due to Mabbott’s censorship of Walker.  I’m not sure about that, though.  I still need to think about some of the ramifications.  The problem still seems to run deeper than that, especially considering Walker’s connections to the Headquarters.  I’ll keep working on it.

I also ran across a pamphlet on the trial and execution of Sir Walter Raleigh.  I’m sure it has import to early 1648, but I can’t quite tell what.  Since it was licensed, my best guess is that was an attempt to show a particularly “tyrannical” proceeding (part of the campaign to get England ready to fight again), but it’s another thing I still need to think over.  I tried to compare it to reprints of Strafford’s trial or Buckingham’s escapades, but it seems to be a wholly different animal.

I was practicing kung fu with my cow . . .

I was watching Once Upon a Time in China recently, and I think that was my favorite line.  Silly Fong.

I’ve been busy translating items relating to the Ormée for a class I am teaching this summer.  I can’t believe how little is in England concerning the Fronde and the Catalan Revolt.  My French is okay, but seeing as I can’t tell the difference between Catalan and Spanish, you can guess where I stand on that.

Relating to my other research, I only have to report one interesting tidbit.  With the coming of the Second Civil War, someone, or some people, started printing old attacks on Buckingham and Strafford, even drudging up the Buckingham-poisoned-James rumor.  I figure that this was part of an attempt to get people ready to fight the king again.  There was some similar parliamentary propaganda, rehashing the grievances against Charles that started the war.  Unfortunately the favorites libels were not licensed, so they are not terribly useful for my purposes, but I still thought it was interesting.  The propaganda offensive is actually far less powerful than I would have expected, but I imagine that it will pick up later.

Strange Things in the Archives

This is strange if not unknown.  When Sir John Maynard was imprisoned in 1647, he connected with John Lilburne in the tower.  He was one of the 11 members singled out by the New Model earlier that year.  John Wildman and John Harris (two other Levellers) then waged a small campaign against the Lords on his behalf.  Considering how strongly the Levellers tried to ally with the army, it is strange that they would link Maynard’s case to Lilburne’s.  It almost seems like Lilburne made friends with anyone tossed in the Tower with him.

The Agreements of the People

I’m also working on a project discussing the failure of the first two Agreements of the People.  Barbara Taft and Austin Woolrych, who admittedly draws on Taft, both make persuasive arguments.  While Taft focuses more on the timing of the second agreement, Woolrych emphasizes the apostacy of the Levellers.  I am inclined to argue that the frequent Leveller attempts to divide the army defeated the grandees’ purpose for negotiating with them: to unify the army.

This fits into my larger argument that support of the Levellers within the army was much more widespread than argued by recent historians.  Cromwell, Fairfax, and Ireton seemed willing, if unhappy, to go along with debating the first Agreement until Rainsborough hijacked the General Council.  Interestingly, the group behind the Case of the Armie was treated with contempt until it was discovered that Sexby (I think it was him, though I’ll need to verify) was involved.  Sexby was one the legitimate agitators.  To me, this aboutface indicates a desire to reconcile with the more Levellerish section of the army.

In the case of the second Agreement, Leveller recriminations and Lilburne’s A Plea for Common-Right and Freedom, which again threatened the authority of the senior officers, showed the officers for the second time that the Levellers were enemies rather than allies.  Why would an Agreement even be seriously considered unless the senior officers believed Levellerism to be a potent force within the ranks, and then why would so many junior officers show such a willingness to defy their seniors during the votes on its articles unless Levellerism was a serious force?

The only real reason I can see for the failure of Agreement is the lack of persistence by men like Ireton and Cromwell, who were in turn most threatened by Leveller attempts to divide the army from its commanders.

Mabbott and Walker

I have a new theory regarding the relationship between Mabbott and Henry Walker, the editor of Perfect Occurences.  I have been stymied as to why they began feuding in 1648, as they should have been on the same side.  Both seem to have had extensive contacts within the army and had the support of many of its officers.  Although I am still not entirely sure as the immediate cause of the feud, I have bit better grasp of its nature.  Walker may have tried to break the connection between Samuel Pecke (editor of Perfect Diurnall) and the army.  Late in September, just before Mabbott was rehired as licenser (and perhaps because of this; Walker certainly would have known that it was to happen), Walker requested that both he and Pecke be allowed to license their own newsbooks.  It is clear from other evidence that Pecke and Mabbott, and Pecke and the New Model, were bound in some way.

I am now starting to think that Walker’s motivations were “scoop”-oriented; he had his own connections to the officers and he wanted to be the only one with such connections.  Indeed, he petitioned on behalf of Pecke and himself on the same day that he petitioned to have a monopoly on publishing the Army’s Book of Declarations, and some of his later actions also suggest a similar desire.  This would explain his and Mabbott’s difficult relationship, despite having so many contacts (for instance, William Clarke) in common.  It would also explain why Walker tacitly admits the superiority of the Mabbott-licensed Narrative of the king’s trial by reprinting it in his own newsbooks while continuing to publish his own account of the trial in competition with the Narrative.  The next thing to do is to check the list of officers annexed to one of Walker’s petitions who supported his newsbook.  I believe it should be located in the Parliamentary Archives.  Unfortunately, the calendar of the House of Lords does not name the officers.  Fortunately, I will be able to check it myself in June!