1Writing against oblivion was a matter of urgency for many actors and witnesses of the English Civil Wars who wanted to vindicate their former actions and restore historical truth on the grounds of their first-hand experience of the conflict. Admittedly, in a deeply divided England, their testimonies were often biased and patchy, as the defence of particular interests and actions implied strategic amnesia and selective memory (Peck 166, Keeble). Although these testimonies were not originally called “memoirs,” they perfectly fit into the definition of the genre; they were indeed, as specified in Nathan Bailey’s dictionary, histories of the recent past written by actors or witnesses of histories, or, to quote Bailey, “by such persons who have had a hand in the management, or else have been eye-witnesses of the transacting of affairs, containing a plain narration, either of the actions of their prince or statesmen, or of themselves.” Furthermore, as Susan Wiseman has argued, “memoir, taken broadly, was one of the dominant genres in which the history of the Civil War was made in the period from 1660 to the publication of Catherine Macaulay’s pioneering History in the late eighteenth century” (316). Except for a few exceptions such as The Life of William Cavendish by Margaret Cavendish (1667), memoirs were rarely published at the time when they were written. Indeed, in the context of the political amnesia imposed by the 1660 Act of Indemnity and Oblivion, the revival of the “memory of the late Differences or the occasions thereof,” and the publication of dissident memoirs was unthinkable:
- 1 Charles II, “1660: An Act of Free and Generall Pardon Indemnity and Oblivion’, Statutes of the Real (...)
That if any person or persons within the space of three yeares next ensueing shall presume malitiously to call or alledge of, or object against any other person or persons any name or names, or other words of reproach any way tending to revive the memory of the late Differences or the occasions thereof, […] shall forfeit and pay unto the party grieved in case such party offending shall be of the degree of a Gentleman or above ten pounds, and if under that degree the summe of forty shillings.1
2Nevertheless, despite the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion, “seditious memories” did not disappear after the Restoration (Legon, Neufeld), and memoirs dealing with the “late Differences” circulated clandestinely; some were eventually published when the Licensing of the Press Act (1662) was relaxed between 1679 and 1685, or after its lapse in 1695 (Astbury). This was the case of a series of memoirs, edited by the deist John Toland (1670-1722), in close partnership with the Whig printer John Darby (Worden 1978, 1-2; Mahlberg 13-14, 167-200). As Mark Goldie explains, the publication of these writings was part of “a campaign that served to domesticate the memory of the mid-century rebellion in the service of the parliamentary politics of William III’s reign” (214). Among the most notable of these publications were the editions of the memoirs by Edmund Ludlow (1698), Denzil Holles (1699), Thomas Fairfax (1699), and Sir John Berkeley (1699). They were soon followed by Tory responses, with the publication of the memoirs of Philip Warwick and Thomas Herbert (1701), as well as Edward Hyde’s History of the Rebellion (172), which were based on their experience of the Civil War. As N. H. Keeble has put it, “the writing of private histories of the ‘troubles’ was the great literary enterprise of the Restoration period, printing them was to be the great publishing project of the later seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries” (703).
- 2 See “‘Black Tom’ – Sir Thomas Fairfax, Creator and Commander of the New Model Army,” https://www.wo (...)
3This article focuses on the manuscript and printed versions of Thomas Fairfax’s Short Memorials, in which the victorious general of Marston Moor (1644) and Naseby (1645) justified his decision not to vote the execution of Charles I and consciously crafted the image of himself which he wanted to pass on to posterity. Already in his own time, Fairfax was often represented as Cromwell’s stooge (Hopper and Major 118, Hopper 2007, 4)2, or, as Daxon has argued, as “a fine soldier but also as a political non-entity” (486). In this context, Fairfax’s Short Memorials can be read not only as an attempt to restore his reputation and honour, but also to rebalance his relationship with Cromwell.
- 3 See the list of manuscripts accessed so far in the bibliography.
- 4 See editions of 1699, 1776 and 1815.
- 5 See also John Morrill’s opinion of Denzil Holles’s Memoirs in the Oxford Dictionary of National Bio (...)
- 6 See “Remembering the English Revolutions in the British Isles, Europe and North America from the 17 (...)
4The survival of several manuscripts signals a relatively important circulation of Fairfax’s Short Memorials at the Restoration, at least among the members of Fairfax family most of whom had Whig sympathies and were close to Yorkshire dissenters (Hopper 2007, 230).3 Still, in 1699, at the time when dissident memories of the Civil Wars were revived, Brian Fairfax (1633-1711), who was a cousin of Sir Thomas Fairfax and his secretary in the 1660s, had Sir Thomas Fairfax’s memorials published, with the aim to dissociate the memory of the General from that of Cromwell and his friends (Hopper 2008). The Short Memorials continued to arouse interest in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when they were regarded as a key to understanding the revolutionary process in England, and also as a valuable document on the art of war.4 Since the beginning of the twentieth century, they have been treated with suspicion because of their alleged partiality and subjectivity. In his biography of Fairfax, Andrew Hopper is critical of the contents of Fairfax’s testimony, because it is full of untruths and silences (2007, 225-226).5 Yet, and perhaps for this reason, the Short Memorials have much to tell us about the mechanisms of remembering and the uses of memory at different moments in time. In the following case study, which is part of a broader project on memoir-writing and the memory of the English Revolution, I will show how memorial strategies vary from one state of the text to another, and attempt to explain these variations and their meaning.6 I will first examine Fairfax’s original aims as they appear in the manuscripts of his Short Memorials, before considering Brian Fairfax’s editorial strategies and choices.
- 7 I wish to thank Vivienne Larminie for sending me David Scott’s biography of Fairfax (2023).
5Fairfax’s decision not to sign the King’s death warrant in January 1649 and his resignation from the Army raised many questions about his role during the Civil War. He was blamed by Army grandees for not following them, and by Presbyterian royalists for his connections with Cromwell and the radical wing of the Army. Because of his mixed loyalties, the status of his Short Memorials has often been thought problematic: while celebrating Parliamentary victories during the First and Second Civil Wars, Fairfax also appears to be loyal to the King and the monarchy. Clements Markham, the author of an important biography of Fairfax, offers a sympathetic reading of the Short Memorials, but his hagiographical views have been nuanced by historians: Andrew Hopper writes that they are the work of a “tired and troubled mind” (2007, 225), and that the Parliamentary General was “either unable or unwilling to recall his role in specific events and offered excuses rather than explanations” (225). In his recent biography of Fairfax, David Scott refers to the “disillusioned valetudinarian who penned the Short Materials” (1012) and demonstrates that, contrary to what the General claimed, in his Short Memorials, he was “not regarded as a force for moderation by the army’s enemies at Westminster” (1005).7 Hence, in what follows, my aim is not so much to assess the reliability or exhaustiveness of Fairfax’s account, but rather to look at the memorials as an exercise in the inherently apologetic genre of memoirs, which can tell us much about the process of remembering and forgetting the Civil Wars. This approach is in line with recent studies of Fairfax’s works per se, rather than as contexts for other works (Major 1019-1020; Fitzgibbons 656).
- 8 “At least four manuscript versions of these memorials survive. Markham identified the version now h (...)
- 9 “A short [account] of some passages [ ]/ ye Civill warre in England /Yr Right Honble Tho: Fair[fax] (...)
6Both memorials, written in the first-person narrative, are bound together in the same “short Manuscript” (Fairfax 1699, i) of which, so far, I have been able to locate seven copies. Three out of the seven manuscripts consulted so far appear to have been written in the same hand (British Library, Add MS 63646; Beineke Library, Osborn b168, Bodleian, MS36), which contradicts former descriptions of Fairfax’s manuscripts.8 Some notes inside the British Library manuscript (Add MS 63646) indicate indeed that Thomas Hutton of Poppleton, the nephew of Sir Thomas Fairfax and the executor of his will (Markham 441, Fig. 1), is the author of that copy, and also, by way of consequence, of the manuscripts owned by the Beineke and the Bodleian Libraries.9
Fig. 1: “A short memoriall”.
From the British Library Collection: Add MS 63646 (inside cover)
- 10 I wish to thank Rosamund Paice for generously sharing her opinion on the hands to be found in this (...)
- 11 See Paice’s description of the Clark Library manuscript. https://www.rosamundpaice.com/Fairfax/MS95 (...)
- 12 See UCLA, Text 1, folio 30r, and Text 3, folio 13v and 15v (https://calisphere.org/item/ark:/21198/ (...)
- 13 The general title of the manuscript brings together the titles of the two memorials: “Short Memoria (...)
The other British Library manuscript (Add MS 25708) features an epitaph by Brian Fairfax and a monogramme (a simple “F”), which I have not found elsewhere. It is likely to be in the hand of Brian Fairfax, although the writing is not consistent.10 As for the manuscript acquired by the William Andrews Clark Memorial Library (UCLA) in 1995, there are strong presumptions that it is autograph (Fig. 2). The Center & Clark Newsletter (1995) describes it as “one of several copies that Fairfax wrote in his retirement years” (3) and its authenticity is confirmed by Rosamund Paice who has compared it with other papers in Fairfax’s hand.11 Furthermore, this manuscript is the fullest of the seven, as it includes some metrical Psalms (18, 24, 30, 85), which Fairfax is said to have translated after he retired from the Army (Paice 26), and three monogram signatures, besides the two memorials.12 It is this UCLA manuscript that I shall quote here unless mentioned otherwise (Fig. 2 and 3).13
Fig. 2: “Short Memorials”, v
UCLA, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, Public domain
7The first memorial is entitled “Short Memorials of Some things to be cleared during my com̃and in the Army” (30 folios). It covers the period 1645-1649, and deals with Fairfax’s role in the Civil War as General of the New Model Army, and his unconditional – although paradoxical – support of kingship. Fairfax, unlike the other Army grandees did not take part in Charles I’s trial and did not sign his death warrant. The second memorial is called “A short memorial of the northern actions during the war there from the yeare1642 til 1644” (57 folios). It is the beginning of the story and tells how Fairfax, who had first fought on the side of the King in the Bishops’ War, soon became a staunch supporter of the cause of Parliament in Yorkshire, where he commanded several regiments under the leadership of his father Ferdinando Fairfax (2nd Lord Fairfax of Cameron, 1584-1648). Evidently, Fairfax wrote these memorials for reasons that had to do with his politico-religious views, but one should not forget that writing one’s memoirs – like writing a diary – was also seen as a way to exercise one’s memory in the humanist tradition of the ars memoriae, an aspect which Fairfax himself underlines: “I shall set downe as they come into my mind such things […] not in that methodical & polish’d manner as might// have been done being but intended only for my owne satisfaction & helpe of my memory” (Text 1, folio1r-1v). Markham, whose biography of the General has often been deemed too sympathetic, argues that the first memorial is “full of mistakes and inaccuracies, having been written from memory, to show to a few friends, but without an idea of publication” (Markham 392-393). However, my point here is not to check facts, but to read the memorials in their own genre and with the author’s intentions in mind.
- 14 “Memorial, Adj. & N.” Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, July 2023,
https://doi.org (...)
- 15 The first English translation was The historie of Philip de Commines Knight, Lord of Argenton (Lond (...)
8Fairfax’s choice of the word “memorial” encapsulates his twofold project. We are expected to read his memorials both as “a monument” (OED, 2a) in the etymological sense of monumentum, namely a commemorative work, and as “record, chronicle, or memoir” (OED, 2b).14 Fairfax’s memorials share many features of the historical genre of memoirs, which had become fashionable in Europe in the sixteenth century (Kuperty-Tsur). For humanists such as Cornelius Agrippa or Montaigne, history had to be written by its witnesses and actors, and it had to be based on a first-hand experience of the events recounted. The admired models were Caesar’s Commentaries and Commynes’ Memoirs, which were often cited by early modern memorialists (Gheeraert-Graffeuille).15 Additionally, Fairfax intended his memorials for his family, which was typical of the genre (Deguin); this is also evidenced by the fact that Fairfax’s nephew, Thomas Hutton, produced at least three copies of the manuscript. In the preface to the 1699 edition, Brian Fairfax mentioned that “it was never intended by him, to be Published, but to remain for the Satisfaction of his own Relations” (ii). There is, however, every reason to believe that Fairfax thought of a broader readership: like the other post-Civil War memoirists it is evident that he wanted to set the historical record straight and justify his own actions and decisions. One can see easily why the printer John Darby, who already had Edmund Ludlow and Denzil Holles’s memoirs published, could have desired to publish Fairfax’s memorials, which were very much in the vein of the other “allamode way of memoirs” (Baron 8, Goldie 217-218).
9As for the date of composition, it is generally assumed that Fairfax wrote his memorials as he retired from public life in the 1670s. Andrew Hopper (2007) has argued that they were written in the 1660s, “around twenty years after the times [Fairfax] described” (225), while for Markham they were written “during the last year or two of his life” (392). This dating is based on Brian Fairfax’s observation in the preface to the printed edition in which he states that “[t]he retired part of his Life gave [Fairfax] greater Satisfaction than all his former Victories, when he lived quietly at his own House at Nun-Appleton in Yorkshire” (1699, vii). However, according to the military historian Malcolm Wanklyn, Fairfax’s memorials may have been penned much earlier and may have been based on a “document written at about the time of his resignation in June [1650]” (168).
10As most, if not all memoir-writers of the Restoration, Fairfax wanted to vindicate his reputation and to restore the truth about himself (Gheeraert-Graffeuille 99). This is most conspicuous in the opening folios of the first memorial – “the Short Memorials of Some things to be cleared during my com̃and in the Army” 1645-1649” –, in which he embarks on vindicating his action as Lord General of the New Model Army: “now therfore by [God’s] grace and assistance I shal set downe // truly the grounds my actions moued on during this unhappy war & those actions wch seemed to ye world most questionable in my steering through the turbulent & perilous seas of yt time” (Text 1, folio 1v). Fairfax’s position was complex: admittedly he was critical of Charles I’s government in 1642 when the First Civil War broke out, but he never opposed the institution of monarchy itself, at least in the “Short Memorials”. After 1645, he disagreed with the radical drift of some members of the Army, which, in his view, led to the execution of the King. Despite his full commitment to the Army as its leader, Fairfax did not want to be held responsible for its radicalization, and explicitly disapproved of “that horrible Attempt made by Colonel Pride upon the Parliament,” arguing that he did not have “the least knowledge of it before it was done” (Text 1, folio 16v). However, even after Pride’s Purge, Fairfax never resigned his charge as commander-in-chief because he had been appointed by Parliament, for which he had the utmost respect. Indeed, his loyalty to the cause of Parliament never wavered as he believed his own appointment to be a manifestation of God’s providence – until his commission was withdrawn from him by the Rump:
& though I might (so long as I acted their designs) attaine to what hight of Power & other advantages I pleased for so I understood from themselves yett by the mercys and goodness of God euer valuing loyalty and Conscience before these // perishing felicitys I did so longe as I continued in the Army oppose all those ways in their Counseles & when I could doe no more I also declined their Actions though not the Com̃ssion I had from the Parlt, till the remaining part of it tooke it from me. (Text 1, folio 28r-28v)
11Thus, at the heart of Fairfax’s vindication lies his disagreement with Cromwell, especially after 1649, when the regime in place took on a military turn. Fairfax makes it clear that unlike some members of the Army he never wished for the demise of the monarchy. He stresses his own weaknesses and errors the better to shift the blame onto Cromwell, whom he holds responsible for the ills of the nation: “Thus haue I given you in short the sum̃e of //the most Considerable things for which the world may censure me, during this unhappy war yet I hope amongst my weaknesses and failings ther shal not be found Crimes of that magnitude to be counted amongst those who haue done these things through Ambition and dissimulation” (Text 1, fiolio 28v-29r). Pleading before the court of history in this manner was typical of the memoir genre (Kuperty-Tsur 19-23), and a striking feature of Fairfax’s memorials. His hostile characterization of Cromwell and his friends is reminiscent of similar portraits in other memoirs, in particular those of Lucy Hutchinson, Edmund Ludlow, Richard Baxter, Bulstrode Whitelocke and Edward Hyde (Morrill 1990, 259-260).
12In these conditions Fairfax’s work of remembrance is the result of a selective process, involving difficult moral and political choices. It makes no doubt that it was delicate for him to celebrate the Army successes of 1647 while at the same time disapproving of the “factious” ideas that proliferated among the soldiers. What is most interesting here is Fairfax’s acute awareness of the difficulties inherent in remembrance and narration:
here again might be mentioned those great & difficult businesses the army went through that yeare, hoping (as wel aiming) it would be a good service to ye Kingdome but seing that // factious Party grew more insolent as Success made them more powerful I shall forbear to relate those actions wch would have deserued a better rememberance than in modesty were fit for me to recorde & rather punish my selfe here wth the continuance of this story of the Armies Irregularityes. (Text 1, folio 14r-14v)
13In fact, Fairfax was tormented in retrospect by the impossibility of preventing the King’s trial and execution in January 1649. In order to make the expression of his dilemma as persuasive as possible, he describes his emotions at two distinct points in time, namely the King’s seizure at Holmby in 1647, and the time of writing (probably after the Restoration), when grief predominated – a double temporality that the memoir genre allows:
But one thing (& that of very gr[e]at Concernement in al the after changes) wch should haue beene // incerted before the mentiōing of this second war but wil come well enough in this place wthout much interruption of this discourse was the King's removal from Holmby, the sad consequences whereof fil my hart wth griefe in the rememberance of it now, as it did then wth thougts & care how to have prevented it. (Text 1, folio 14v-15r)
14Fairfax cautiously justifies his paradoxical stance, by claiming that he was “rather desirous to clear [his] Actions // in it [the cause of the Parliament] than declare them” (Text 1, folio 3v-4r). In other words, his aim was not so much to give an exhaustive account of his military campaign as to reaffirm his loyalty to the English monarchy, and distance himself from the post-1647 events that had tarnished his honour. All in all, Fairfax’s intention was to provide posterity with a more balanced view of the New Model Army’s victory, rejecting views of him as disloyal to the monarch, but reminding the reader that he had pledged himself to serve the cause of Parliament from the outset.
15In the second memorial covering the years 1642-1645 (“A Short memoriall of the Northerne Actions during the war there, from 1642 till 1644”), Fairfax’s purpose is more straightforward, as he commemorates the achievements of the Parliamentary Army in the North of England when he fought alongside his father, Ferdinando Fairfax, who was a commander of the forces of Parliament in Yorkshire during the First Civil War (Scott 1001-1002). During this period, there seems to have been a perfect adequacy between Thomas Fairfax’s commitment to the Parliament’s cause, his military achievements and his Calvinist beliefs which he had inherited from his family. As Hopper points out, “[t]he twin goals of the Protestant cause in Europe and further reformation in England shaped a Fairfax family identity that fused a martial sense of honour with a blend of Calvinism, humanism and classical republicanism” (2007, 152; 152-172). No wonder then that in his second account, Fairfax asserted both martial and strong Protestant values, and that he was more intent on expressing his gratitude towards God’s favour in the war than on apologising for his former actions (Atherton 105-106). Remaining silent would have been ungrateful, almost ungodly, while remembrance was an essential form of thanksgiving that consisted in not letting the mercies of God be buried “in the grave of oblivion:”
I did not thinke to have taken up my pen any more to have writ on this subiect but that my silence seemed to accuse me of ingratitude to god for the many mercies and deliverances I have had & iniuriousness to myselfe in looking the comforts of them by suffering them to be buried in the grave of oblivion in my lifetime (Tex 2, folio 1r).
16Fairfax’s deeply religious outlook in this second narrative is corroborated by his remark on the art of writing. He opted for a plain narrative because remembrance should never be driven by concerns of virtuosity (understood as vanity) but only by devotional ends:
wherefore I shall set downe (as they come to my mind) such things wherin I have found the wonderful assistance of God to me in the Time of the War in the North though not in that methodical & polished manner as might have been done, being but intended only for my owne satisfaction & helpe of my memory (Text 2, folio 1r-1v)
- 16 The manuscripts in question are those held at the Bodleian, the British Library [Add. MS 63646], Ca (...)
- 17 “Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth’s (...)
- 18 “For there is no remembrance of the wise more than of the fool for ever; seeing that which now is i (...)
17The description of the Battle of Marston Moor (1644), which comes as the final episode of the first memorial, also bears the mark of Fairfax’s religious mindset. Although Fairfax played a major role in this Parliamentary success, his testimony does not sound triumphant, and remains faithful to an ideal of Christian humility – Hopper eloquently refers to his “studied modesty” (Hopper 2007, 229). In Fairfax’s providential understanding of events, God is envisioned as the source of all earthly successes, and, as a consequence, he can never be thankful enough. In the autograph manuscript held at the Clark Library, as well as in four copies which I have been able to consult,16 the narrative of battle is followed by a Non Nobis (Psalm 11517) when one would have rather expected a Te Deum. This refusal of any triumphalism is illustrated by a meditation on the vanity of all things (Ecclesiastes 2:1618), here understood as the vanity of remembering human endeavours, as well as an awareness of the relentless process of oblivion:
But my Intentiõ being only to keepe in minde what I had beene present in during this northern war I shal put an end to this discourse, wher it pleased god to put a determination of my service there yett thus with some smart from his rod //to let me see I was not mindful enough of returning my humble thankes & acknowledgements for the deliverances & mercies I received, & for wch (alas) I am not yett capable enough to praise him for them as I ought, that may say by experience who is a God like unto our god therefore not unto us o Lord not unto us but unto thy name give we the praise but as for my selfe &// what I have done I may say with Solomon. I looked on all the workes that my hands had wrought & on the labour that I had laboured to doe & behold all was Vanity & vexation of spirit.
For there is no remembrañce of the wise more than the foole for ever seeing that wch now is in the days to come shall be forgotten (Eccles 2 16) Finis
- 19 Fairfax’s poems are to be found in MS Farfax 40 at the Bodleian Library. This manuscript contains t (...)
18Only the UCLA manuscript continues with four metrical Psalms (18, 24, 30, 85) which, according to Markham, are an improved version of the metrical Psalms to be found in an earlier manuscript (Markham 368-369, 392, Fig. 3).19 The introduction to Psalm 18, immediately after the account of the battle of Marston Moor, is an unambiguous invitation to read the Psalms in continuity with the memorials:
That I chuse thus 18 Psalme let none thinke I arrogate anything to my selfe for farr be itt from me to aplie it other wise then as Davids triumph over his enemys but my humble acknowledgment for those many mercyes & deliuerances god vouchafed me in thes troublesome & dangerous times. (Text 3, folio 1r )
Fig. 3: “Short Memorials”, Text 3, folio 15v
UCLA, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, Public domain
- 20 Markham refers to two manuscripts at Leeds Castle, which were “both in the handwriting of Lord Fair (...)
19Finally, on the reverse of the UCLA manuscript, Fairfax took some notes from Calvin’s Institutes, which he entitled “Espiscopacie stated according to Calvin.” According to Markham this manuscript (originally kept in Leeds Castle, Kent)20 is the fair copy of an earlier writing, which is a plausible assumption. In any case, the religious ending, the Psalms and the notes from Calvin included in the autograph manuscript shed an important light on the religious dimension of Fairfax’s project, which proves very much in keeping with the Puritan culture of his family. It also urges us to view this manuscript as a “cohesive whole” (Wall 415), and to pay attention to the potential dialogue existing between its various parts. These devotional elements of Fairfax’s original memoirs can be seen as part of his attempt to shape a certain image of himself, or even, as Andrew Hopper puts it, “a propaganda construct calculated to appeal to [P]uritan concepts of honour” (Hopper 2007, 234). In this light, the Yale manuscript, which omits the Non Nobis and the Ecclesiastes, is an exception, as it ends in a more factual mode, although the references to providence remain: “But my Intention being onely to keep in mind wt I had beene present in during this Northerne war, I shall put an End to this Discourse, where it pleased God to put an End to ye determination of my Service there” (Yale 42). The decision of the scribe of the Yale manuscript to omit the devotional ending of the original anticipates the type of choice that was made by Brian Fairfax who deliberately played down the pious dimension of the memorials in his 1699 edition of the Short Memorials.
20Remembering the Civil War does not have the same meaning in the manuscripts and in the printed edition of the Short Memorials. The editorial agenda of Brian Fairfax significantly differs from the Lord Fairfax’s original intentions. In his epistle dedicatory, the editor highlights the royalist allegiance of his cousin, passing over in silence his defence of the Parliament’s cause and his adherence to Puritan values. From 1659 onwards, Brian Fairfax, was entrusted with several delicate missions by Sir Thomas; he soon became his private secretary, and was very close to him until his death (Hopper 2008).
- 21 “IT is with Your Lordship's leave, that this short Manuscript of my Lord Fairfax, Your Noble Predec (...)
21Brian Fairfax dedicates the Short Memorials to Thomas Fifth baron Fairfax,21 who was a Whig MP. He also includes at the end of his edition Thomas Fairfax’s epitaph (129), composed by his very royalist son-in-law, George Villiers, duke of Buckingham, who was the husband of his daughter Mary. He extols the General’s moral and martial qualities but only, as the last stanza suggests, “[b]ecause he was resolv’d to Fight no more” (131). To all appearances, his purpose was to commemorate the memory of his illustrious ancestor without offending his royalist connections (Hopper 2007, 227-228; Markham 393). It is not surprising, then, that he emphasizes the General’s allegiance to the monarchy, borrowing many elements from Richard Stretton’s funeral sermon which presented the General as “earnestly wishing and praying for the Restitution of the Royal Family, and fully resolved to lay hold on the first good Opportunity to contribute his part towards it” (vii; Hopper 2007, 229). Brian Fairfax also highlights Fairfax’s role in the restoration of the monarchy, when he gathered troops for General Monck in Yorkshire; interestingly, he does not mention his own crucial role as an intermediary between Monck and Fairfax in this episode (Hopper 2008):
As soon as he was invited by General Monk to assist him against Lambert 's Army, he cheerfully embraced the Occasion, and appeared at the Head of a brave Body of Gentlemen of Yorkshire […] This was always acknowledged, not only by General Monk, but by the King himself, as a signal Testimony of his Zeal to make amends for what was past, and of the very considerable Assistance he gave towards the restoring the Royal Family. (vii-ix).
- 22 “But of late something has hapned, which in the judgment of Your Lordship, and many other Persons o (...)
22In 1699, showcasing Fairfax’s loyalty to the Crown was crucial for Brian Fairfax, because the Irish free-thinker John Toland had just published the memoirs of Edmund Ludlow and Denzil Holles, and he was considering publishing Fairfax’s Short Memorials. His aim, with the publisher John Darby, was to unite the Whigs in the context of the Standing Army debate, which, after the peace of Ryswick (1697), opposed those in favour of a permanent army (under control of Parliament) against those who claimed such a military force could threaten liberty and lead to tyranny (Humphrey; Lurbe 118-119; Mahlberg 169). Moderate Whigs tended to side with William III, believing that a standing army was necessary for security, while radical Whigs favoured the recourse to the militia. Brian Fairfax was a moderate Protestant Whig, who supported William III’s policies, and he was suspicious of the republican ideas of some radical Whigs such as Toland. Hence his determination that the memory of Fairfax should not be associated with that of Commonwealthmen (Worden 1978, 19). In the preface to the Short Memorials, he alludes to a pirate edition, which forced him to act, arguing that “some imperfect [copies] [were] got into other hands” (iii).22 This urgency is underscored by his direct reference to Ludlow and Holles’s memoirs, both of which were critical of Fairfax’s politics during the Civil Wars (Worden 1978, 29; Hopper 2007, 226):
And this being an Age, wherein every Man presumes to Print what he pleases, of his own, or other Men, we are plainly told, That my Lord Fairfax’s Memorials are ready to be Published; and by the very same Person, who has lately set forth some Memoirs, wherein his Lordship is scarce ever nam’d but with Reproach. (iv-v)
23In this context of competing memories, Brian Fairfax, who was himself an equerry under Charles II and William III, forcefully reasserted the General’s loyalty to the King, and underlined his cousin’s remorse at having commanded an Army whose radical members had supported the regicide. His emotional portrayal of his cousin was evidently intended to win over those who continued to bracket Fairfax and Cromwell together: “That most Tragical and Deplorable part of the Civil War, the Death of the King, he utterly from his Soul abhorred, and lamented to his dying day; and never mentioned it but with Tears in his Eyes” (vi). The editor’s purpose was to rehabilitate the General whose “True Character” should be “better known to many Wise and Good Men, than to be blemished by such envious Detractions” (iv). He had to provide evidence that the General’s virtues far outweighed his tragic fault – his fighting the King – which he deeply regretted. In the editor’s view, Fairfax had found his redemption in retiring from politics and the acknowledging his mistakes. Accordingly, only his achievements and his Christian virtues should be remembered by posterity:
I shall now say no more of him, but, That so long as Unfeigned Piety towards God, Invincible Courage, joyned with wonderful Modesty, and exceeding Good Nature: Justice and Charity to all men in his private Life; and an Ingenuous Acknowledgment of his Publick Error, with hearty Endeavours to make Reparation, as soon as he was convinced of it, shall be esteemed in the World: So long shall the Name of my Lord Fairfax be honoured by good Men, and be had in perpetual Remembrance.” (ix-x)
24The paradox is that in Brian Fairfax’s view, “perpetual remembrance” also required that some of the decisions and actions of the General be forgotten – a form of oblivion that echoed the amnesia imposed by the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion in 1660: “[Fairfax’s] great Misfortune, and so he accounted it, was to be engaged in the Unhappy Wars, whereof he desired no other Memorial/ than the Act of Oblivion; which few that ever needed, better deserved” (iv-v). Had he lived, Fairfax would probably have denied the sentiments that his cousin posthumously attributed to him. For the General, remembrance was a way of thanking God for his “mercies and deliverances” (iv-v). It was simply inconceivable, he believed, to bury one’s past actions and mistakes in the “grave of oblivion.”
25Despite evidence to the contrary, Brian Fairfax claims that the Short Memorials were printed “without any Material Alterations from the Original,” except for a return to “the natural order of time” (ii), namely the reversal of the order of the two memorials. This change in the chronology has more impact than the editor claims, as it tends to depersonalize Sir Thomas Fairfax’s narrative and to turn it into a more factual account, thereby altering his original intentions. By promoting the glorious deeds of the First Civil War (“A short Memorial of the Northern Actions in which I was engag’d”), the editor diminishes the penitential and apologetic character of his cousin’s first memorial (“Short Memorials of Some things to be cleared during my Command in the Army”). Another notable consequence of this reversal is that the battle of Marston Moor (1644) is placed at the centre of the narrative rather than at the end, with obvious implications for the overall meaning of the book: Marston Moor was a battle in which the Parliamentary Army joined forces with the Scottish Covenanters to defeat the royalists in the north, i.e. at a time when the divisions among the supporters of Parliament, especially between the Presbyterians and Independents, were not irreversible.
26Furthermore, as suggested before, it is not true that the manuscript was published “without any Material Alterations” (ii). In his 2002 article on Ludlow, Blair Worden wrote that the Short Memorials “toned down and abbreviated the religious element of the original” (Worden 2002: 234, n136), an observation which was also made by Hopper in his biography of Fairfax (227-228). Likewise, the Clark Memorial Library catalogue insists that “[t]he text of the memoirs and of the psalms written here [in the manuscript] differs considerably from the version of the memoirs published first in 1699, and from other manuscript copies of Fairfax's poems.”23 This is also confirmed by Rosamund Paice on her blog.24 A comparison of the printed edition of “A short Memorial of the Northern Actions” with its manuscript version corroborates the fact that more changes were introduced than Brian Fairfax indicates. The passage in bold type below, which is the very beginning of the second memorial in the manuscript, was silently removed by the editor:
|
A short MEMORIAL of the Northern Actions in which I was engag'd, during the War there, from the Year 1642, to the Year 1644.
In Gratitude to God for his many Mercies and Deliverances, and not to deprive my self of the Comfort of their Remembrance, I shall set down, as they come into my Mind, those things wherein I have found the wonder/ful Assistance of God to me in the Time of the War in the North; though not in that methodical and polish'd Manner as might have been done, being intended only for my own Satisfaction, and help of my Memory. (i-ii)
|
A short memorial of the northern actions during the war there from the yeare 1642 til 1644.
I did not thinke to haue taken up my pen any more to have writ on this subiect but that my silence seemed to accuse me of ingratitude to god for the many mercyes and deliverances I have had & injuriousness to myself in looking the comforte of them by suffering them to be buried in the grave of oblivion in my lifetime wherefore I shall set downe (as they come to my mind) such things wherein I have found the wonderful assistance of God to me in the time of the war I was in the North though not in that methodical and polish’d manner as might // have beene done, being but intended only for my own satisfactione, and helpe of my memory. (Text 1, folio 1r-v)
|
27It is undeniable that both extracts insist on the need to remember Fairfax’s military achievements. But the meaning given to oblivion is very different in the printed edition. Whereas the manuscript describes oblivion as sinful ingratitude, the 1699 printed edition focuses exclusively on the more positive aspects of remembrance, and the importance of commemoration. Such an intentional omission shows the discrepancy between the manuscript, which borders on the confessional and personal, and a more factual account, which seeks to meet the expectations of a readership that equated Puritanism with fanaticism; it is also congruent with the erasure of the metrical Psalms and the notes from Calvin, which were part of the autograph manuscript.
28Another significant change appears in the opening of the first memorial, which comes second in the book (“Short memorials of some things to be cleared during my Command in the Army” [93]). Brian Fairfax removes the highly providential beginning, very probably because of what it says about divine justice as a response to the sins of the nation. Such a Puritan view was hardly acceptable to the royalists who did not see the Parliamentary victories as a manifestation of God’s providence. So, once again, Brian Fairfax erases his cousin’s deeply religious interpretation of his own experience:
Now when ye Ld is visiting ye Nation for ye transgression of their ways, As formerly he did to our Scotsmen, so doth he it to another sort, so yt all may see their errors & his Justice. As we have cause to Implore his mercy having sinned agt : him, so must we still vindicate his Justice who is alwayes cleare wn he judgeth.
Now therefore by his Grace & assistance I shall truly set downe ye grounds my Actions moved upon during that unhappy war & those Actions which seemed to ye world most questionable in my stearing through ye turbulent & perillous seas of yt time. (Text 1, folio 1r)
29At the other end of the memorial (and the very end of the book), Brian Fairfax excises the final lines of Fairfax’s first memorial, which finishes with “Amen:”
hoping also god wil, one day, cleare //this cause we undertooke so far as concernes his honor & the integrity of such as faithfully served in it for I cannot beleeve that such wonderful successes shall be given in vaine though cunning and deceiful men must take shame to themselves yett the purposes & determinations of // God shal have happy effect to his glory & the Comfort of his people. Amen (Text 1, folio 29r-30v)
30Once again, the editor’s omission of this paragraph changes the meaning of the memorials. We, as readers, miss Fairfax’s belief that God would eventually recognise his elect among the English godly, while we are left only with an admission of his errors and his desire to reassure his royalist readers:
Thus have I given you the Sum of the most considerable Things, for which the World may Censure me, during this unhappy War; and I hope in all my Weakness and Failings, there shall not be found Crimes of that Magnitude to make me be numbred with those who have done these Things through Ambition and Dissimulation.
31Instead of the final “Amen,” we have the simple “FINIS,” followed by “Thomas Lord Fairfax his Epitaph, made by the Duke of Buckingham,” proof enough that Fairfax was a full supporter of the monarchy and that by the end of his life he had completely renounced his republican ideals.
*
- 25 See for example the editions of 1776 and 1815, as well as Guizot’s translation in the bibliography.
32The different versions of Fairfax’s Short Memorials examined in this paper present us with two main uses of the past. In the manuscript version, Fairfax’s purpose is both to explain the dilemmas he faced during the Civil War and to thank God for all his mercies and deliverances – we have a typical Puritan Civil War memoir in which the author seeks to vindicate his earlier decisions. The epistle dedicatory to the 1699 edition suggests a different reading of the Short Memorials: most of the text is retained, but we are encouraged to read it less as an apologetic autobiography than as a commemoration of the General’s virtues and military achievements. What is clearly emphasized is Fairfax’s loyalty to the monarchy, not his Puritan ethos. The preface overlooks the providential framework and the General’s defence of the godly, while, in the main body of the text, several of the manuscript’s religious elements disappear. Moreover, most editions of the book in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries did not return to the manuscript, but used the 1699 edition instead.25 Fairfax’s text was often treated as a historical source rather than for its own sake. In his Collection des Mémoires relatifs à la Révolution d’Angleterre, accompagnés de notices et d’éclaircissements historiques, which includes Fairfax’s Short Memorials, François Guizot’s project was to gather all the sources necessary to write his Histoire de la Révolution d’Angleterre. It should be noted that Toland, more than a century before Guizot, had an intuition about the importance of collecting memoirs in writing the history of the mid-seventeenth-century Civil War. In the preface to Denzil Holles’s Memoirs, he wrote that “[s]uch as really desire to know the naked Truth […] have ever exprest a desire in their Writings of seeing the Memoirs of all parties made public, as the most effectual means of framing a true General History: For in those places where nothing is licens’d to appear but what visibly tends to the advantage of one side, there can be no sincere representation of Affairs” (x). To do justice to these sources, which were not necessarily intended for publication, it is important, as the study of Fairfax’s Short Memorials has shown, to return to the autograph manuscripts in order to trace the original intentions of the authors. For example, a digital edition of Fairfax’s manuscripts (and its variations) would allow us to retrieve a voice that is more radical than it has often been assumed (Hopper 2007, 234). It could also be a way of changing the image of Fairfax as Cromwell’s stooge, a status that has often been ascribed to him since the mid-seventeenth century.