Work continues on my dissertation. I’ve added a further few names to my list of Mabbott’s correspondents, and I’ve codified much of his known correspondence and am in the process of going through it for any missed clues. I’ve found a few already. Then I will resume going through the pamphlets published while he served as licenser.
There has been one interesting development, however. I may have tracked down Gilbert’s son, Kympton, to Cornwall. I’m headed down to the Huntington soon to see if I can find a will in any of their indices of wills. I am hopeful. Apparently, Ellen, the widow of a Kympton Mabbott, left some money for a charity in 1711. The timing is right for Kympton’s second wife, and I do believe that he remarried in 1702 or 1703. More on that soon.
As well, there does seem to be some strange information floating around out there. A number of genealogical sites seem to think that Diana Mabbott, Gilbert’s daughter, was the niece of Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon. One site thought that she was the daughter of Kympton Mabbott and Susan Hyde. As far as I can tell, this is wrong. I think that it is a the result of a sham lineage for an early nineteenth-century family. I can’t prove that yet, but none of the years add up. According to the report published by the Deputy Keeper of the Records in Ireland, Kympton married one Susan Moss in 1676 (which has some other ramifications for my research which I won’t get into now). There is no way that a man born in 1653 could have a marriageable daughter by 1675, a year before he married. Diana Mabbott did marry Sir Henry Tuite, as the genealogy sites say, but she was much more likely the daughter of Gilbert, born to him and his wife in 1652, than any offspring of Kympton. Could there have been another Kympton Mabbott in Dublin? Yes, but since Kympton was clearly a name borrowed from Gilbert’s wife’s side of the family (brother’s and mother’s maiden name), it seems unlikely.
But if the Mabbotts married into the Hyde family, that would definitely be something to note.
I spent several hours in the microfilm department on campus today. No dust or delicate paper, just reel after reel of make-you-blind microfilm. The goal was to look through pertinent areas of the Clarke Papers to find any unpublished letters from Mabbott or relatives, or other people whom I am looking into. There was some moderate success; I found a handful of unpublished letters, though I haven’t looked at them enough to know if they will be useful.
One thing that I did note, however, is that Clarke seems to have been actively trying to protect some of his correspondents. When letters were recopied, he often left off the author’s name (quite frustrating!). However, in two cases where he appears to have included Mabbott’s original letters, he tried to mark out Mabbott’s name. In one, he simply drew an “X” over it, perhaps to remind himself not to copy it over later. In another, he scribbled over it in an attempt to make it illegible. Since it is generally accepted that Clarke was in the process of compiling a history of the Civil Wars when he died, it seems likely to me that he was trying to provide cover for old friends. I’m sure that someone else has already argued as much with better evidence and style, but it was my observation for today.
Something else puzzled me. According to the microfilm table of contents, the Clarke MSS from Littlecote should all have been there. However, none of the letters I was looking for were there. Indeed there was very little before 1659, whereas there is a great deal in the HMC report on them. According to the editor, part of the collection has become part of the Egerton collection at the BL, but these do not include the letters that I am looking for. I would like to see the original letters, since the calendars do tend to cut out bits of information that are useful to me. I may post something on H-Albion to see if anyone knows where I might find them.
I think that I will be doing some work on the press coverage of Horton’s victory near St. Fagans in May 1648. I am not ready to report anything just yet, but I was just reading through Horton’s letter to Fairfax, and he says: “we had a sharp dispute with them for about two hours.” That has little to do with what I will be examining, but I thought that it was hilarious.
Rather, what I will be looking at is a particular type of pamphlet that I’ve seen pop up a few times before in different incarnations. It’s been nice; I’ve been able to do some actual dissertation-related work since classes ended.