The early colonial history of Virginia

This topic has been one of enduring interest to me ever since I first came across the documentary material relating to the foundation of the Virginia colony in 1607 and the spectacular quarrels that led to the breakdown and dissolution of the Virginia Company of London in 1624. The voluminous material available to me  as a postgraduate in the works of Susan Kingsbury, Wesley Frank Craven and others has since then been supplemented by the publication of the Ferrar Papers held in Magdalene College, Cambridge's library and the discovery of a large number of smaller archive deposits in the United Kingdom. The protagonists in these quarrels - Sir Edwin Sandys, the Ferrar brothers and their supporters on one side and the 2nd Earl of Warwick, Sir Nathaniel Rich and their allies on the other - produced completely cóntradictory accounts of the issues at stake. But one feature of the historiography has been a highly puzzling feature to me, namely the belief amongst almost all colonial historians that Sandys and his allies were trustworthy guides to the causes, course and outcome of these spectacular disputes. They are usually depicted as quasi-heroic figures battling devious and unscrupulous enemies. In my personal opinion, this assessment is incorrect: the Sandys group were incompetent managers of the colonial enterprise and primarily responsible for the sufferings of the English settlers in Virginia and, given their opponents' possession of their correspondence, unable to reply to the charges levied against them. The arguments on both sides need serious reappraisal and a radically revised account of the fall óf the Virginia Company.

 

 

Ce sujet m'a toujours passionné depuis que j'ai découvert les documents relatifs à la fondation de la colonie de Virginie en 1607 et aux querelles spectaculaires qui ont conduit à la dissolution de la Compagnie de Virginie de Londres en 1624. Les volumineuses sources auxquelles j'ai eu accès durant mes études supérieures, notamment les travaux de Susan Kingsbury, Wesley Frank Craven et d'autres, ont été enrichies par la publication des Ferrar Papers, conservés à la bibliothèque du Magdalene College de Cambridge, et par la découverte de nombreux fonds d'archives plus modestes au Royaume-Uni. Les protagonistes de ces querelles – Sir Edwin Sandys, les frères Ferrar et leurs partisans d'un côté, et le 2e comte de Warwick, Sir Nathaniel Rich et leurs alliés de l'autre – ont livré des versions totalement contradictoires des enjeux. Un aspect de l'historiographie m'a toujours paru très déconcertant : la conviction, partagée par la quasi-totalité des historiens de la colonie, que Sandys et ses alliés étaient des guides fiables quant aux causes, au déroulement et à l'issue de ces conflits retentissants. Ils sont généralement dépeints comme des figures quasi héroïques luttant contre des ennemis fourbes et sans scrupules. À mon sens, cette appréciation est erronée : le groupe de Sandys était un gestionnaire incompétent de l'entreprise coloniale et le principal responsable des souffrances des colons anglais en Virginie. De plus, leurs adversaires ayant eu accès à leur correspondance, ils furent incapables de répondre aux accusations portées contre eux. Les arguments des deux camps méritent un réexamen approfondi, ainsi qu'une refonte radicale du récit de la chute de la Compagnie de Virginie.
Translation results available 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lawrence Stone and the historiography of the 'gentry controversy'

  LAWRENCE STONE AND THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE GENTRY CONTROVERSY The controversy over the economic and social origins of the English Revolution was a topic that excited ferocious debate over sixty years ago. Historians of the calibre of R.H.Tawney and Hugh Trevor-Roper, J.P.Cooper, Christopher Hill and Lawrence Stone advanced radically different interpretations to explain the violent events of the 1640s and 1650s in the British Isles. American scholars, most famously of all, J.H.Hexter, like Willson Coates, Harold Hulme, Judith Shklar and Perez Zagorin also commented with varying degrees of sharpness on the issues at stake. But only one of the major participants, Lawrence Stone, offered an account of the historiography of the dispute, first of all in his introduction to the anthology of academic articles and documentary sources entitled Social Change and Revolution in England 1540-1640 which he edited in 1965 and then, in slightly revised form, in Chapter 2 of his work...
Read more

Transcribing Walter Yonge's notes on proceedings in the House of Commons between 1642 and 1645

  In the spring of 1967, Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper, then the Regius Professor of Modern History in the University of Oxford, wrote to me to ask if I would assist Dr Pearl in her work by transcribing Walter Yonge’s diaries held (in Additional Mss.18,777-18,780) in the Manuscript Department of the British Museum at that time. I agreed and it was settled that I would be paid £150 per volume by the History Faculty of the University. I duly transcribed the first of these volumes in 1967 and the remaining three by 1973. I was not her “assistant” in this task but undertook it myself. I did not, moreover, keep copies of the first three volumes. In mid-1975, I read in The Times Higher Education Supplement that she was preparing the Yonge volumes for publication. But nothing happened. By 1984, seventeen years after I had transcribed the first volume and eleven years after finishing the last one I was puzzled by this failure to proceed and, having asked several academic friends if they th...
Read more

Recording historians

One of the things that surprised me until ten or so years ago was the record of history departments and universities in ensuring that proper collections were made of the work of historians. Admittedly, plenty of collections of correspondence survive but there was much less material available in the form of audio recordings or film or video evidence. This always struck me as strange. I was reminded of this issue last week when I found a long forgotten letter from Hugh Trevor-Roper in 1967 in a file dealing with the affairs of the Providence Island Company in the years between 1629 and 1641. (How it had got there is still a puzzle.) It had some characteristically perceptive comments to make on the Parliamentary politics of the 1640s and some observations on how he thought John Pym's career might have evolved had he lived beyond late-1643. His ability to suggest new ideas to explore was unrivalled and what made him so stimulating a supervisor. It also differentiated him from some of t...
Read more