¹ For the date of the publication of the first two volumes, see Bodleian Library, Ballard MS. xxiv, fo. 65 (Sloane to Charlett, 19 February 1698), and B.L., Add. MS. 17677SS, fo. 171 (letter of Dutch envoys, 7 March 1698). For their reception, see also A Just Defence of the Royal Martyr King Charles I from …. Ludlow's Memoirs (1699), p. 12Google Scholar, and Regicides no Saints or Martyrs (1700), p. 9Google Scholar. There seems to have been a series of fresh impressions of the Memoirs between 1698 and 1700: Arber, E. (ed.), The Term Catalogues 1688–1709 (3 vols., 1903–1906), iii. 77, 108, 179Google Scholar. The Memoirs were translated into French: Les Mémoires d'Edmond Ludlow (2 vols., Amsterdam, 1699)Google Scholar and Nouveaux Mémoires d'Edmond Ludlow (i.e. vol. iii: Amsterdam, 1707)Google Scholar; cf. Bernard, J. (ed.), Nouvelles de la République, 02 1699, pp. 145ff.Google Scholar, and Beer, E.S. de, ‘Edmund Ludlow in Exile’, Notes and Queries, 06 1962, p. 223Google Scholar. They also seem to have been translated into Dutch: Hull, W. H., William Sewel of Amsterdam (Swarthmore College, 1933), pp. 152, 209.Google Scholar

² Darby, iii, preface (or Firth, ii. 261n.).

³ Regicides no Saints, pp. 3, 7Google Scholar; Firth, i. xi.

⁴ This can be inferred from their prefaces; for Clarendon, see the edition by Macray, W.D. (6 vols., Oxford, 1888)Google Scholar, i. xix.

⁵ A Just Defence, pp. 5–6Google Scholar; Regicides no Saints, pp. 4, 8Google Scholar. The traditional attribution of these anonymous pamphlets to William Baron is surely correct: see [Willia]m [Baro]n, The Dutch Way of Toleration (1698), pp. 2, 21Google Scholar. A copy of A Just Defence in the Cambridge University Library (classmark VIII. 30. 8) carries a manuscript ascription to John Baron, Fellow and later Master of Balliol, but although John Baron probably disliked Ludlow's Memoirs as much as William did, his known writings make the ascription implausible.

⁶ Below, p. 18, n. 75; Firth, i. xi.

⁷ Christie printed them first in his edition of the Memoirs, Letters, and Speeches of Anthony Ashley Cooper, First Earl of Shaftesbury (1859), pp. 108–29Google Scholar, and later in his A Life of Anthony Ashley Cooper, First Earl of Shaftesbury (2 vols., 1871)Google Scholar, i, appendix iii. Locke's copies are now in the Bodleian, Locke MS. b. 4, fos. 1 &^v.

⁸ Firth, i. xii, ii. 528. We do not know how accurately Locke transcribed Ludlow's manuscript. Christie made errors of transcription when he copied Locke's text, and these, with two fresh errors, appear in Firth's text of the Memoirs. Christie amended the punctuation when he first reproduced Locke's copies, and amended it further in the second publication, from which Firth took the Ashley Cooper material. Firth amended Christie's punctuation. The cumulative effect of these changes was to reduce the discrepancies of style between the passages copied by Locke and the main body of the Memoirs. Even so, discrepancies remain: see the four departures into the present tense on Firth, i. 389, the use of the future tense on Firth, ii. 85, and the absent main verb on Firth, ii. 205. Firth noted (ii. 217n.) that one passage copied by Locke ‘cannot be convemently placed in the text’: it is, in fact, not the only passage which does not fit, as a comparison between Christie's transcriptions and Firth's insertions reveals.

Locke's extracts— which his notes show to have been made at some time after the publication of the first two volumes of the Memoirs—all come from the missing, pre-1660 section of ‘A Voyce from the Watch Tower’. His papers do not contain copies of the many hostile references to Ashley Cooper in the Bodleian manuscript which were omitted from the Memoirs (‘Voyce’, pp. 738, 740–1, 747, 752, 1117, 1264, 1332, 1337, 1364, 1368, 1443). Perhaps he took them down on a separate, and now missing, piece of paper; perhaps he saw no purpose in copying them. But the possibility also has to be considered that the pre-1660 section of the manuscript became divorced from the later sections during Locke's lifetime, and that Locke consequently never saw the post-1660 sections. If that is the explanation, our chances of recovering the missing portions of the manuscript seem thin.

⁹ The Levellers and the English Revolution (ed. Hill, C., 1961), p. 165.Google Scholar

¹⁰ For Ludlow's literary self-criticism, see ‘Voyce’, p. 1214, and below, p. 55. For eighteenth-century literary enthusiasm for the Memoirs, see e.g. Oldmixon, J., Clarendon and Whitlocke Compared (1727), p. 108Google Scholar, and Coxe, W., Travels in Switzerland (3 vols., 1789), ii. 77.Google Scholar

¹¹ Darby, , i. 5, 7, 41, 188, 319Google Scholar, ii. 449, 472, 476, 744, 751, 758, 808, 833: Firth, , i. 12–13, 37, 147, 246, 345, 365, 368Google Scholar, ii. 156, 161, 166, 204, 225.

¹² Darby, , i. 238, 267, 319Google Scholar, ii. 565–6: Firth, , i. 185, 207, 246Google Scholar, ii. 7–8. Other biblical allusions or professions of godliness in the Memoirs are usually attributed to Ludlow's enemies, to demonstrate their hypocrisy: Darby, , i. 214, 282–3Google Scholar, ii. 612, 726–7: Firth, , i. 167, 219Google Scholar, ii. 45, 140–1.

¹³ Orme, W., The Life and Times of Richard Baxter (2 vols., 1820)Google Scholar, i. 180n.

¹⁴ ‘Voyce’, pp. 1138–9, 1196–1200, 1206, 1209, 1224, 1248, 1256–7, 1274, 1310, 1315.

¹⁵ Ludlow seems normally to have used the Authorised Version (often quoting it, not always accurately, from memory), but his copy was possibly one of the seventeenthcentury editions which incorporated the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible: see the discussion of 1 Corinthians ii. 15 on ‘Voyce’, p. 1208.

¹⁶ These quotations come from ‘Voyce’, pp. 804, 823; cf. pp. 1005, 1228.

¹⁷ ‘Voyc’, p. 919.

¹⁸ ‘Voyce’, p. 920.

¹⁹ ‘Voyce’, pp. 871–3.

²⁰ ‘Voyce’, pp. 1194, 1196, 1200, 1209.

²¹ ‘Voyce’, pp. 962, 1237.

²² ‘Voyce’, pp. 923, 995, 1224–5, 1237–9, 1242–3, 1258, 1277–8, 1301, 1310, 1376ff., 1450. Milton had corresponded with de Labadiein 1659: Masson, D., The Life of Milton (6 vols., 1859–1890), v. 591–5.Google Scholar

²³ ‘Voyce’, pp. 1184–5; cf. pp. 1424–32.

²⁴ ‘Voyce’, pp. 996, 1096, 1165, 1274, 1423–4, 1427.

²⁵ ‘Voyce’, pp. 1000, 1028, 1030, 1036, 1149. The Memoirs normally restore the conventional phraseology.

²⁶ ‘Voyce’, p. 820.

²⁷ ‘Voyce’, pp. 1042, 1049, 1063, 1078, 1246. Ludlow's feelings about Quakers probably resembled those of his brother-in-law and close friend Nicholas Kempson, who had protected a Quaker colony in Ireland in the 1650s: Firth, , ii. 444Google Scholar; ‘Voyce’, p. 1096.

²⁸ ‘Voyce», pp. 1129, 1286–7.

²⁹ ‘Voyce», pp. 1192, 1212–13, 1224ff.

³⁰ ‘Voyce’, pp. 1200–03, 1264, 1301; cf. Darby, , i. 102Google Scholar: Firth, , i. 81–2.Google Scholar

³¹ ‘Voyce’, pp. 1225, 1238.

³² Unfortunately, few of Ludlow's letters of the 1640s and 1650s survive, and those which do are largely of a formal nature: Firth, i. 481, 486ff. For a glimpse of Ludlow's religious affiliations in the 1650s see Barnard, T. C., Cromwellian Ireland (Oxford, 1975), p. 101.Google Scholar

³³ ‘Voyce’, pp. 1082–6.

³⁴ Mayer, J., ‘Inedited Letters of Cromwell, Colonel Jones, Bradshaw and other Regicides’, Transactions of the Historical Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, new series, i (1860–1862).Google Scholar

³⁵ Nickolls, J. (ed.), Original Letters and Papers of State …. addressed to Oliver Cromwell (1743).Google Scholar

³⁶ Compare ‘Voyce’, pp. 750, 785, 787, 815, with ‘Williamson's Spy Book’, Transactions of the Congregational History Society, 1911–1912, pp. 304–7, 315, 347Google Scholar, and P.R.O., SP 9/26, fos. 44, 52^v, 69, 139.

³⁷ ‘Voyce’, pp. 808, 905, 996, 1042–3, 1077–9, 1094, 1096, 1111, 1115ff., 1123, 1165, 1223, 1258, 1274.

³⁸ The phrases are from ‘Voyce’, pp. 1006–7.

³⁹ ‘Voyce’, pp. 911–14,925–6, 947, 977, 1049–50, 1061, 1073–4, 1100–01, 1128, 1140, 1147, 1161, 1249, 1261, 1264, 1308, 1387–8, 1395, 1413. Some of Ludlow's information about ‘prodigies’ was derived from pamphlet literature which is described by Whiting, C. E., Studies in English Puritanism (1931), pp. 546–52Google Scholar; see also Thomas, K. V., Religion and the Decline of Magic (1971), pp. 9–6, 204.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ ‘Voyce’, pp. 1016, 1079, 1090, 1104–5, 1237; cf. pp. 841, 843, 892, 918, 1026, 1049, 1061, 1071, 1214, 1249, 1261, 1278, 1410, and Firth, , ii. 508.Google Scholar

⁴¹ ‘Voyce’, pp. 940, 1019, 1041, 1082, 1121, 1134, 1140, 1171–2, 1192, 1260, 1423–4; cf. pp. 750, 752, 853, 864, 994, 1035, 1095, 1101, 1161, 1174, 1255, 1274, 1300, 1400.

⁴² ‘Voyce’, pp. 1056, 1071, 1190, 1342.

⁴³ ‘Voyce’, pp. 744, 748–9, 761, 797, 822, 825–6, 834, 838, 863–4, 921, 924, 928, 931, 1049–50, 1056ff., 1066–7, 1105, 1113–15, 1147–8, 1153–4, 1277, 1282, 1315–19, 1400, 1423–4.

⁴⁴ E.g. ‘Voyce’, pp. 900, 927–8.

⁴⁵ ‘Voyce’, pp. 779, 1102; Firth, , i. 241.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ ‘Voyce’, pp. 757, 794, 802, 926ff., 976, 1055, 1063; cf. pp. 781, 930; P.R.O., SP 9/26, fos. 69, 139; Trans. Congreg. Hist. Sac., 1911–1912, p. 307Google Scholar. Vane's religious beliefs, and his role as a religious leader, have not been adequately explored. There are interesting sermons by him in the Victoria and Albert Museum, Forster MS. 48D. 41.

⁴⁷ ‘Voyce’, pp. 802–3, 805 (cf. p. 939), 1020, 1061, 1064–5, 1073–4, 1079, 1096, 1100, 1111–14, 1122ff., 1139, 1150, 1180, 1183, 1186, 1263, 1270.

⁴⁸ ‘Voyce’, p. 1222.

⁴⁹ ‘Voyce’, pp. 964, 1080, 1246; P.R.O., SP 29/81, no. 43. Cf. Bethel's The Interest of Princes (1681), pp. 171ff., 197ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ ‘Voyce’, pp. 1096, 1443; P.R.O., SP 29/31, no. 100; cf. ‘Voyce’, pp. 1132, 1348, and Firth, ii. 489–92, 504, 508.

⁵¹ Tracts: ‘Voyce’, pp. 800, 891, 903, 914 (cf. p. 935), 1166, 1170, 1217, 1241, 1250, 1254–7, 1294; newspapers: pp. 822 (cf. Mercurius Publicus no. 39, 20–27 09 1660Google Scholar), 824 (cf. Mercurius Publicus no. 42, 11–18 10 1660Google Scholar, and Parliamentary Intelligencer no. 43, 15–22 10 1660Google Scholar), 911 (cf. Mercurius Publicus nos. 48–3, 21 11 1661–1662 01 1662Google Scholar), 1005–6 (cf. The Newes no. 4, 14 01 1663–1664Google Scholar), 1042 (cf. B.L., Burney collection, no. 62a, p. 583), 1121 (cf. London Gazette, 4–7 06 1666Google Scholar), and Firth, , ii. 489–91Google Scholar; declarations: pp. 958–61, 1053–4, 1119, 1130; parliamentary proceedings: pp. 866, 914, 955–7, 970, 974, 1017, 1162, 1231, 1308, 1364, 1368ff., 1411ff., 1440.

⁵² ‘Voyce’, pp. 801, 822, 897, 926, 941, 993–4, 1059, 1063, 1143, 1176–8, 1424 (cf. p. 1261); de Beer, , Notes and Queries, 1962, p. 223Google Scholar; P.R.O., SP 29/81, no. 43. Some passages of the manuscript are clearly written for the eyes of Ludlow's wife.

⁵³ ‘Voyce’, pp. 1178, 1332–3; and see the references to Henry Wilkinson on pp. 808, 905, 935, 938–9, 991, 1094.

⁵⁴ ‘Voyce’, pp. 1040, 1083, 1180–1, 1333, 1348; for the Whitelockes see also below, p. 67.

⁵⁵ ‘Voyce’, pp. 754, 784, 977, 1270, 1274–5, 1284, 1301, 1326, 1349.

⁵⁶ ‘Voyce’, pp. 817, 819–22, 1051–2, 1124; Fraser, Peter, The Intelligence of the Secretaries of State and their monopoly of Licensed News 1660–1688, map facing p. 64.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ ‘Voyce’, pp. 908, 916, 1249, 1329 (cf. p. 1114); Firth, , ii. 491.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ French: ‘Voyce’, pp. 893, 945, 950, 1050, 1089, 1106, 1133, 1137, 1179, 1189, 1246, 1260, 1263, 1314, 1316, 1348, 1383 (cf. pp. 1108, 1118, 1125–6); Dutch: pp. 1263, 1389, and Firth, ii. 491.

⁵⁹ ‘Voyce’, pp. 1060, 1063, 1108 (cf. pp. 1124, 1222). For Ludlow's continental sources see also pp. 1059, 1109, 1111, 1129, 1145, 1168, 1266.

⁶⁰ For Hummel, see ‘Voyce’, pp. 978ff., 993, 1001, 1060, 1062, 1181, 1184–7, 1192, 1216, 1221, 1223, 1363, 1378, 1425; cf. Vaughan, R. (ed.), The Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell (2 vols., 1839), i. 196, 204, 217, 323Google Scholar. For Perrot, see ‘Voyce’, pp. 822, 923, 1181, 1186–7.

⁶¹ ‘Voyce’, p. 891; cf. pp. 903, 990–1, 1037–8 (and see Schickler, Baron F. de, Les Eglises du Refuge en Angleterre (3 vols., Paris, 1892), ii. 208, 223Google Scholar). Hummel figured prominently in the ecumenical movement.

⁶² Firth, i. ix; ‘Voyce’, pp. 1111, 1113–14, 1265 (cf. pp. 960–1, 1234, 1268, 1274).

⁶³ For 1665–7, see e.g. Ludlow's correction of ‘hope’ to ‘hoped’, and his insertion concerning the death of William Cawley, on ‘Voyce’, p. 1107; and observe how far his narrative proceeds before he discovers the identity of the men responsible for John Lisle's murder and for the attempts on his own life in 1664–5: pp. 993–5, 998, 1000–01, 1010, 1027, 1029–35, 1038–9, 1043–4, 1059, 1067, 1090, 1109, 1126, 1149, 1179, 1181–3, 1252–3.

⁶⁴ ‘Voyce’, p. 1178.

⁶⁵ The evidence is to be found in (i) changes of tense in Ludlow's corrections of his text, (ii) the occasions on which he gives the day and the month of an event but omits, or only adds subsequently, the year, (iii) corrections of errors which have come to Ludlow's attention after the composition of the narrative, (iv) references to the length of time which has passed since the occurrence of particular events, and (v) remarks about present and future contingencies: ‘Voyce’, pp. 1192, 1230, 1233–5, 1245, 1249, 1254, 1260–1, 1266, 1268, 1270–1, 1276, 1278–9, 1289, 1293–4, 1310, 1319, 1321, 1362, 1370, 1424, 1436, 1438, 1440. The point is confirmed by references to living individuals who died shortly after the episodes in which their roles are described (pp. 1077 (Edward Bagshaw: cf. p. 1274), 1093 (Montague: cf. p. 1300)) and to the recent deaths of regicides (pp. 1250 (Walton and Wogan), 1378 (Say), 1267–8, 1285–6 (Holland; cf. p. 964)).

⁶⁶ Ludlow's narrative provides some false trails here. In particular, his dependence on newsletters and newspapers sometimes leads him to describe events which must have taken place long in the past as if they have occurred very recently. And in a passage printed in this volume (‘Voyce’, p. 923), the reader will find a potentially misleading reference to the appointment of a new Lieutenant Bailiff of Lausanne ‘this very yeare’. By ‘this’, Ludlow means ‘that’: Jean-François Gaudard, the Lieutenant Bailiff whose death created the vacancy (and whom Ludlow calls ‘Mr. Godward’), died (as the Lausanne archives show) in January 1662—the year which the narrative is describing, not the year in which Ludlow is writing. Cf. ‘Voyce’, p. 914.

⁶⁷ The first of these manuscripts is preserved, in the hand of a copyist, in the Hertfordshire Record Office (MS. D/EP/F 45), and is published as an appendix to Rowe, V. A., Sir Henry Vane the Younger (1970Google Scholar). The second is in the Bodleian, MS. Eng. letters c. 200, fos. 24–5. For Sidney and Vane see also ‘The Trial of A. Sydney’, in The Works of Algernon Sydney (1772), pp. 5, 10Google Scholar, and, in the same volume, Sidney's ‘Apology’, pp. 6, 13–14.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ The resemblances between ‘Court Maxims’ and the Bodleian manuscript are numerous. Some are to be found in the illustrations, especially the biblical illustrations, with which the two authors justify their republicanism. Others lie in their treatments of contemporary political themes, such as the deaths of Corbet, Barkstead, Okey and Vane, the sale of Dunkirk, and the need to repair the divisions within the parliamentary party which had brought about its fall in 1660. Comments in ‘Court Maxims’ about the glorious achievements of the Rump, about the rule of Cromwell, and about the destruction of the balance of power in Europe as a result of the rise of France remind us of pre-1660 passages in Ludlow's Memoirs. ‘Court Maxims’, pp. 16, 70, 148, 150ff.Google Scholar, 158, 168–9, 172, 188–9, 196. (The pagination of ‘Court Maxims’ expires mid-way through the document: I have here supplied the missing pagination.) For Sidney's relations with Ludlow in exile, see ‘Voyce’, pp. 977–8, 1004, 1056, 1063–6, 1081–3, 1111–15, 1123, 1127, 1188, 1265; cf. p. 990, and Firth, , ii. 486Google Scholar. ‘Court Maxims’ also contains reminders of Bethel's writings, not only The World's Mistake but The Interest of Princes and The Providences of God (1691). The approximate dating of ‘Court Maxims’ can be determined from internal evidence: pp. 2, 23, 55, 61, 77–8, 96, 149, 155, 161–4, 166, 173. For Ludlow and The World's Mistake see below, pp. 76–7Google Scholar; for the context of the publication of The World's Mistake see A Free Conference touching the present State of England (1668).

⁶⁹ ‘Court Maxims’, pp. 86ff., 108, 192, 195–6.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ ‘Voyce’, pp. 1003, 1013; cf. Robbins, Caroline (ed.), Two Republican Tracts (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 12–13.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Dictionary of National Biography, Walton.

⁷² Both the punctuation and the spelling of the section of the manuscript which is in the scribe's hand differ significantly from Ludlow's own, and some of the corrections made by Ludlow to the scribe's text suggest that the scribe is likely to have misheard oral instructions rather than inaccurately transcribed written ones: for example, ‘accepted’ is twice corrected to ‘excepted’ (‘Voyce’, pp. 788, 907; cf. p. 878 (‘course’) and p. 903 (‘too’)). See also the idiosyncratic spellings on pp. 783 and 1242 of ‘Mews’ as ‘Muse’ and ‘Baxter’ as ‘Backster’. The scribe wrote in an impersonal hand. Was he perhaps Edward Dendy, a fellow exile of Ludlow who died in April 1674? See ‘Voyce’, pp. 1065, 1378–9; Darby, , ii, 574–5Google Scholar: Firth, , ii. 14–15.Google Scholar