Introduction: Revisiting Revisionism : Personalities and the Profession

Abstract

IntroductionRevisiting Revisionism : Personalities and the Profession Lori Anne Ferrell (bio) revisionism, n. 1. The policy or practice of revision or modification; departure from the original interpretation of a theory, etc.; . . . 2. The theory or practice of revising one’s attitude to a previously accepted situation or point of view; spec… a movement or process involving the revision of an established or accepted version of historical events . . . what was “revisionism” in the context of early modern English history? As befits its elusive identity, the contributors to this special issue of the Huntington Library Quarterly offer disparate descriptions of what the OED might term Revisionism’s “policy or practice”—or perhaps, simply, “attitude.” Present at its conception, John Morrill names it a “revolt” (577); a latecomer to the debate, Tim Harris, less exuberantly reckons it “a reaction” (617). Anthony Milton calls it a rejection of the “assumption that Crown and Parliament were locked in a long-term struggle for sovereignty . . . that would inevitably lead to civil war” (723). We might seem to know Revisionism best, then, by the ideologies it disdained: Whig constitutional theory and Marxist theories of class struggle—two very different assessments of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century England, now intriguingly linked, forever fixed in historiographical hindsight if not current pedagogy. Revisionism forged its reputation in opposition to both, setting itself against political histories of the Tudor-Stuart period that detected the “rise” of anything: Puritanism, Commons, or the gentry. Built on provocative, ideologically uninflected—provocative, in fact, because they were so ostentatiously uninflected—close readings [End Page 571] of mostly manuscript accounts, mostly held at the Public Record Office, Revisionism was in fact a method, one wherein, by design, historiographical grasp never exceeded archival reach. Revisionists stressed the consensual rather than conflictual nature of early modern English society, pointing to the contingent rather than determined nature of serial events. They proved their case for the short-term origins of the English civil war with an overwhelming abundance of contemporary citations, read without fear or favor. In the process, cherished notions and familiar terms and expressions—among these Puritan, revolution, Puritan Revolution, any high road to—were stowed between inverted commas, radically redefined, or simply dismissed. But not for long, which might explain why the authors here often hesitate to distinguish Revisionism with any descriptor more academically substantial than moment. Armed with seemingly indisputable contemporary evidence, Revisionists rather handily demolished arguments for the increasing self-awareness, autonomy, and agency of early Stuart English parliaments—ideas that had driven and enlivened the writing of English political history since the nineteenth century. At the same time, they managed to sideline theoretical assessments by the social historians of the twentieth century who had located their causes of “English revolution” in inevitable class struggle. But then Revisionism underwent its own demolition and sidelining, fragmenting swiftly into several non-standard Revised Versions, the most startling and counterintuitive of which were not post-but second wave. Revisionism’s moment was brief and noticeable, but to call it a moment can rob it not only of any straightforward assessment of its work, which can easily be distilled into the distinct principles and practices that make up a methodology, but also of any claim to lasting influence. Methods persist long after the personalities that forged them fade. And Revisionism’s impact on the field of early modern British history is now mostly hidden in the plain sight of current best practice: in the rejection of strict teleologies, in a certain skepticism regarding ideologically driven explanations for historical events, and in a general reliance on archival evidence to prove—or disprove—arguments. This issue originated in a conference held in May 2014. The papers were often astonishingly personal for an academic gathering. Speakers opened with detailed reflections on how it felt to be present at the “birth” of Revisionism; or to witness or take part in the divisive conversions or rivalries that followed; or to realize that, for all the ballyhoo, the Revisionist method offered them little or nothing to work with. Marked by reflection as well as response, and with an acute awareness of those unable to be present (which gave the conference proceedings a distinctly valedictory air...