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!

The Folger

I found a reference by Frances Henderson to an item at the Folger Library.  For whatever reason, they have a copy of Mabbott’s commission as Cromwell’s agent in 1647.  I had so far only seen records of his payments in Clarke’s account books for his work as the army’s agent.  I submitted an order form to get a copy of the commission and a few other items.  I think it’s going to cost around 20 bucks, but it’s still cheaper than a trip to D.C.!

Also, I discovered that anyone can download the Firth edited Clarke Papers from the Online Library of Liberty.  It’s a terrible name, but a useful service.  I also discovered a little while ago that you can download just about all of Gardiner by using Google Books.  The most useful part of these downloads is that they have been OCRed, so you can search the text from your pdf viewer.  I’m hoping they’ll get around to the Calendars of State Papers soon; they’ve already done some.

I’m still slogging away through the Thomason Tracts, taking names.  It’s strange, but one publisher, Bernard Alsop, seems to keep trying to copy another one, Robert Ibbitson, but can’t.  Alsop will claim to have nearly identical matter in his pamphlet as Ibbitson, but then it will be entirely different.  I’m not sure what that means, but it could be significant.  In any event, it would certainly seem that Alsop knows in advance what Ibbitson will publish, since their pamphlets come out on the same day.

Gilbert Mabbott’s licensing habits

Right now, I’m working on taking some statistics on Mabbott’s licensing.  I’m compiling some spreadsheets, splitting up the different licensers (of course Mabbott is privileged) and the publishers, and I ‘m trying to put each licensed pamphlet into some kind of category for its political persuasion.  I’ve already had to start over twice.  I have to say, though, that having the Thomason Tracts online is a lifesaver.  I’ll be talking about it at SHARP if anyone is interested!