^{page 56 note 236} Above, p. 17.

^{page 56 note 237} It is true that (as the reader who consults Appendix A will see) Ludlow gives the title of his manuscript afresh at the beginning of his table of contents for part five (which may be why the binder began a new volume at p. 721). The explanation, however, must be that Ludlow either paused after drawing up the table of contents for part four, or had completed it in a separate bundle of papers.

^{page 57 note 238} ‘Voyce’, pp. 898, 900Google Scholar. For other references in the Bodleian manuscript to events before 1660, see the two passages cited below, pp. 62–3, and: pp. 731 (the Rump's ‘engagement’); 741, 790, 967, 1148 (Ludlow's activities in Ireland, and opposition to Cromwell, during the Protectorate); 774 (Solemn League and Covenant); 779 (presbyterian plot of 1651); 795 (December 1648–January 1649); 800, 890 (Christopher Love and the Uxbridge negotiations); 831 (membership of the Rump); 1025, 1104, 1229– 30 (Irish massacre of 1641); 1077 (Westminster College); 1135 (Ludlow at the outbreak of the Civil War); 1169 (events of 1659); 1177 (Henry Manning); 1222–3 (James I); 1230 (death of Cromwell); 1251 (Cornet Joyce); 1274 (Robert Overton). See also pp. 1131, 1282.

^{page 57 note 239} Firth, , i. 153Google Scholar and n.,157, 168, 182n.

^{page 57 note 240} Firth, , i. 153n.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 241} ‘Voyce’, pp. 801, 1237, 1244, 1270, 1408, 1442.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 242} Compare the use of volume 3 of Ludlow's Memoirs and of Holtes's Memoirs to advertise each other in 1699 (above, pp. 30, 33–4). Did Toland and his friends perhaps acquire the Berkeley manuscript, directly or indirectly, from Sir William Temple, whom they assiduously cultivated in the 1690s? Berkeley had accompanied Temple to the negotiations at Nymeugen in 1675, and one of Berkeley's letters from Nymeugen is printed at the end of a work edited by David Jones and published by Anne Baldwin in 1699, Letters written by Sir William Temple …. to the Earl of Arlington. At the conclusion of the passage in Ludlow's Memoirs which is based on Berkeley, the narrative turns almost immediately to the Vote of No Addresses, in the account of which Toland's hand is probably busily at work.

^{page 58 note 243} On only one point do Ludlow's Memoirs elaborate on the Berkeley text: they refer (twice) to the letter left ‘on the table’ by Charles I at his flight from Hampton Court in November 1647 (Darby, , i. 216, 221Google Scholar: Firth, , i. 168, 171Google Scholar). The detail had been used in the debate over the 1691–3 Ludlow pamphlets (Hollingworth, , Defence of King Charles I, p. 29Google Scholar). The relationship between Berkeley's manuscript and Berkeley's Memoirs is unknown. It is possible that Berkeley wrote his narrative in Latin, and that a Latin edition was published in 1699: Lowndes, W.T., The Bibliographer's Manual (4 vols., 1858–1864), i. 161.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 244} Firth, , i. lxvi.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 245} Darby, , i. 13–14, 22–5, 31–7, 39, 155, 224, 232–3, 236, 271–2, 275ff., 326Google Scholar: Firth, , i. 17–18, 24–6, 29–34, 36, 121–2, 174, 179, 182, 210–11, 213ff., 251–2Google Scholar. See also Firth, , i. 12n.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 246} ‘Voyce’, p. 764Google Scholar; and compare ‘Voyce’, pp. 766–8, 779, 830Google Scholar, with The Works of John Milton (18 vols., New York, 1931–1938), vii. 326–7, 441–7Google Scholar, viii. 196–8, and Salmasius, , Defensio Regia (1649), pp. 258–9Google Scholar (also (e.g.) Husbands, Exact Collection, pp. 263ffGoogle Scholar; His Majesty's Reasons against the Pretended Court of Justice (1649)Google Scholar; Putney Projects (1647), p. 44Google Scholar;.Wolff, S. L., ‘Milton's “Advocatum Nescio Quern”: Milton, Salmasius, and John Cook’, Modern Language Quarterly, 1941, pp. 559–600Google Scholar; Sensabaugh, , That Grand Whig Milton, pp. 14, 19, 80–82, 87–8, 101–3, 133–4Google Scholar). Latin editions of Milton's two ‘Defences’ were, of course, widely available on the Continent. However, those who know Milton's Eikonoklastes and who read the text of the present volume may think it likely that Ludlow also had a copy of Eikonoklastes. There seem to me to be clear echoes of Eikonoklastes in the account in Ludlow's Memoirs of the years 1640–2, but it is hard to say whether the explanation of their presence lies with Ludlow or with Toland.

^{page 60 note 247} ‘Voyce’, p. 897Google Scholar; cf. p. 749.

^{page 60 note 248} Compare Firth, i. 264, 268–9, 296, 302, 306, with A Perfect Diurnal of …. the Armies, 1651–2, pp. 1058, 1189, 1840, 1850, 1879–80Google Scholar; and see Firth, , ii. 34n., 45n., 62n., 148n., 172n., 176n., 184n., 228nGoogle Scholar., and the numerous citations of newspapers in Firth's footnotes to the passages of the Memoirs which cover Ludlow’s service in Ireland. Ludlow evidently drew on Cromwell's speeches: Firth, , i. 334Google Scholar and n., 350–1, 359, 365, 391–2, 399–400. The Ludlow—Clanricarde letters were published in the newspapers (Perfect Diurnal, 1652, pp. 1777–9Google Scholar, has the versions which most closely resemble those in the newspapers), but the dates of the printed versions are different from those given them in the Memoirs, and the only plausible explanation of the differences is that Ludlow incorporated his own manuscript copies into ‘A Voyce from the Watch Tower’. Cf. Firth, , i. 341.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 249} ‘Voyce’, p. 1333.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 250} ‘Voyce’, p. 1083.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 251} In 1660 the government was anxious to seize (and claimed to have seized) papers in Phelps's possession: Parliamentary Intelligencer, 14–21 May 1660. Phelps figures regularly in the Bodleian manuscript; see especially p. 924.

^{page 61 note 252} Firth, , i. 22–3Google Scholar (cf. ibid., i. 191). For Ludlow's Irish sources, cf. ibid., i. 127, 129, 261–2, 341. Perhaps we should also allow something for Toland's interest in Ireland.

^{page 61 note 253} Firth, , i. 344, 347, 351–2, 354, 356, 358, 380, 406Google Scholar, ii. 5–9. Sir Peter Wentworth and Sir William Masham may also have given Ludlow information incorporated into his manuscript: see Firth, , i. 352–3, 372, 380, 413–14, ii. 139.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 254} Firth, , i. 134, 357Google Scholar, ii. 83, 118, 299, 337, 343, 347; cf. ‘Voyce’, pp. 895, 902.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 255} pp. 6–7.

^{page 62 note 256} ‘Voyce’, pp. 741–2, 1176–7.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 257} Firth, , i. 56, 62, 65, 131, 145, 435Google Scholar. Cf. ‘Voyce’, p. 1077.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 258} ‘Voyce’, pp. 762ff.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 259} ‘Voyce’, pp. 986–7Google Scholar. The problem raised by the chaos would not be resolved even if it could be established that Ludlow began to write ‘A Voyce from the Watch Tower’ before 1660. For if he possessed in exile a clear account of the 1640s which he had drawn up in the 1650s, why did he not make use of it in the two passages in the Bodleian manuscript which we are considering?

^{page 63 note 260} Darby, , iii. 133–6Google Scholar: Firth, , ii. 355–7.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 261} The only exceptions were the published accounts of the trial of Charles I, which were in any case widely available in the 1690s. For the sole original contribution of the Memoirs to the evidence concerning the trial, see Wedgwood, C. V., The Trial of Charles I (1964), pp. 159, 238.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 262} Whitelocke, , Memorials of the English Affairs (1682), pp. 77–8Google Scholar; Darby, , i. 106–7Google Scholar: Firth, , i. 85–6Google Scholar. Whitelocke seems to have made a little use, but did not make much, of Dering's Declaration of 1644.

^{page 66 note 263} Whitelocke, , Memorials, p. 484Google Scholar; Darby, , i. 364Google Scholar: Firth, , i. 281.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 264} Darby, , i. 67, 553–6, 186, 267Google Scholar: Firth, , i. 56, 121–3, 145–6, 207.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 265} Above, p. 15–16.

^{page 67 note 266} Ruth Spalding, The Improbable Puritan (1975), p. 229.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 267} ‘Voyce’, pp. 1180–1, 1333.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 268} Abbott, W. C., Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell (4 vols., Cambridge, Mass., 1937–1947), ii. 641–2Google Scholar. Ludlow was also able to draw (apparently) on a description of the dissolution given him by Harrison in 1656, and (certainly) on the account delivered by Harrison in 1660: Firth, , i. 354nGoogle Scholar., ii. 6.

^{page 68 note 269} Darby, , ii. 446–58Google Scholar: Firth, , i. 343–55Google Scholar; Whitelocke, , Memorials, pp. 526–9.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 270} ‘Voyce’, p. 987.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 271} Navy: ‘Voyce’, p. 1044Google Scholar (cf. p. 1055); Long Parliament's authority: pp. 780, 791, 816, 831, 874, 919; Cromwell's usurpation: pp. 726, 789–90, 802, 826, 893, 933, 987, 1005–6, 1064, 1079, 1131, 1166, 1241, 1250, 1274, 1300, 1389–90, 1400, 1408, 1448.

^{page 69 note 272} Amyntor, p. 166Google Scholar. Cf. A Short History of Standing Armies in England, p. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 273} Darby, , i. 453Google Scholar: Firth, , i. 349Google Scholar. Cf. the distorting emphasis in the account of Cromwell's speech of January 1655 on the virtues of the Long Parliament: Darby, , ii. 510Google Scholar:Firth, , i. 399.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 274} Below, p. 73.

^{page 70 note 275} Darby, , ii. 460–1Google Scholar: Firth, , i. 356–7.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 276} Mayer, , Transactions of the Historical Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 1860–1862.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 277} Darby, , i. 329, 430Google Scholar: Firth, , i. 254, 333–4.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 278} Sidney, , Discourses (1698), pp. 220–2Google Scholar; Darby, , i. 10, 309–10, 496Google Scholar: Firth, , i. 15–16, 239, 385–6.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 279} Cf. Victoria and Albert Museum, Forster MS. 48. G. 26, Sidney, to Whitelocke, , 4 03 1660.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 280} Cf. Worden, B., The Rump Parliament 1648–1653 (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 45–7, 51CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Firth, C. H. (ed.), Memoirs of the Life of Colonel Hutchinson (1906), pp. 272–3.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 281} Dictionary of National Biography, Rushworth; Whitelocke, , Memorials, p. 666.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 282} Robbins, , Two Republican Tracts, p. 148Google Scholar and n. We might also ask what became of Whitelocke's papers between the publication of the first edition of the Memorials in 1682 and the appearance of the second, expanded edition of 1732. Perhaps the papers included the material concerning James Nayler which was published for the first time in the younger Darby's edition of the State Trials (1719), ii. 265ffGoogle Scholar., and which included a speech by Whitelocke. The publishers of Whitelocke's Memorials of the English Affairs, from the supposed Expedition of Brute to this Island, to the Reign of King James I (1709)Google Scholar included Edmund Curll, to whom the first biography of Toland is normally attributed.

^{page 72 note 283} Phillips worked from Monde's papers; cf. Toland's works on Monck cited above, p. 25. See also Parker, W. R., Milton. A Biography (2 vols., Oxford, 1968), ii. 1073Google Scholar. Phillips had a strong reputation for plagiarism. Another historian whose narrative of the Puritan Revolution was written in the mid-1660s is Richard Baxter. In 1662 Baxter moved to Moorfields, where he would have found it difficult to remain ignorant of the political and literary plans laid against the government by the dissenters. One of the surprises of Baxter's narrative arises on a subject about which Ludlow's Memoirs agree with him. Arguing (like Ludlow, Whitelocke, Bethel and Sidney) that the political history of the 1650s was profoundly affected by Cromwell's ambition, Baxter claims that Cromwell had called Barebone's Parliament in order to give the radicals enough rope to hang themselves, and so to pave the way for his personal supremacy (Reliquiae Baxterianae (1696, ed. Sylvester, M.), p. 70Google Scholar). On the text of Baxter's narrative see G. F. Nuttall, ‘The Manuscript of Reliquiae Baxterianae’, Dr. Williams's Library Occasional Paper no. 1 (1954).

^{page 72 note 284} It is interesting to compare Ludlow's movements and affiliations in hiding in 1660 with what is known of Milton's.

^{page 72 note 285} Darby, , i. 334–6Google Scholar: Firth, , i. 258–9.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 286} Darby, , i. 42, 384, ii. 444–5, 512–13, 582, 672Google Scholar: Firth, , i. 38, 295–6, 342, 401, ii. 20, 97.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 287} Darby, , ii. 600–02Google Scholar: Firth, , ii. 35–6Google Scholar. Cf. the incident described on Darby, , ii. 559–60Google Scholar: Firth, , ii. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 288} Bodleian Library, MS. Eng. hist. b. 209, fos. 90, 93.

^{page 73 note 289} Forster, , Letters, pp. 82, 128Google Scholar; Fowler, , Shaftesbury and Hutchison, pp. 9–10Google Scholar; The Danger of Mercenary Parliaments.

^{page 73 note 290} Darby, , ii. 435–6, 497, 615Google Scholar: Firth, , i. 384, 386Google Scholar, ii. 48. (We may note, too, the tribute to the ideal of the independent country gentleman displayed by the transformation of the observation in the Bodleian manuscript (‘Voyce’, p. 932Google Scholar) that Sir Henry Vane had been elected to the Long Parliament ‘without his seeking’ into the statement in the Memoirs that Vane had been elected ‘without the least application on his part to that end’.) The Ludlow of the Memoirs, like Toland and Shaftesbury, shows considerable interest in the redistribution of seats, and none in the franchise. Can ‘levelling Ludlow’ have omitted to mention the franchise in his manuscript? Again, perhaps we should allow something for Toland's elaboration or invention in the interest in neo-Harringtonian ideas attributed to Ludlow in the Memoirs (Darby, , ii. 628–9, 674–5, 766–7Google Scholar: Firth, , ii. 59–60, 99, 172).Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 291} Forster, , Letters, pp. 99, 162Google Scholar; Darby, , ii. 439, 465–71, 500, 625Google Scholar: Firth, , i. 337, 361–5, 391, ii. 55–6.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 292} Darby, , ii. 518Google Scholar: Firth, , i. 405.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 293} For Toland's strategic use of the word ‘Englishman’ later in the Memoirs, cf. above, p. 7.

^{page 74 note 294} Darby, , i. 42ffGoogle Scholar: Firth, , i. 38ffGoogle Scholar. Cf. Persecutio Undecima (1648), p. 56Google Scholar; Darby, , i. 85ff., 111ff., 135ff., 346ffGoogle Scholar.: Firth, , i. 70ff., 89ff., 107ff., 268ffGoogle Scholar. (and the reference to Ludlow's expenses on Darby, , ii. 465Google Scholar: Firth, , i. 361Google Scholar). The text also supports the Calves-Head view that Ludlow would have been an ideal commander in Ireland in 1689.

^{page 75 note 295} p. 8.

^{page 75 note 296} Darby, , i. 365–6, ii. 447Google Scholar: Firth, , i. 282, 344Google Scholar. The word ‘dismissed’ may have been taken from Whitelocke (Memorials, p. 484Google Scholar), but Whitelocke does not use the word to criticise Cromwell.

^{page 75 note 297} Above, pp. 49–50.

^{page 75 note 298} The preface to volume 3 also refers to the tyranny of the Major-Generals, and the treatment of their rule in the text of the Memoirs clearly needs to be studied with a critical eye.

^{page 75 note 299} ‘Voyce’, p. 1214.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 300} Darby, , i. 43, ii. 463, 471, 604, 709Google Scholar: Firth, , i. 38, 359, 365Google Scholar, ii. 38, 127. For Ludlow and Cook see also ‘Voyce’, pp. 723–4Google Scholar, and compare Firth, , i. 246–7Google Scholar, with MacLysaght, E., Irish Life in the Seventeenth Century (Oxford, 1950), p. 444.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 301} Darby, , ii. 617–18Google Scholar: Firth, , ii. 50Google Scholar. Compare the use of the phrase ‘mature deliberation’ in the passage cited above, p. 6.

^{page 76 note 302} Darby, , ii. 605–7Google Scholar: Firth, , ii. 39–41.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 303} Smith, G. Ridsdill, Without Touch of Dishonour (Kineton, 1968), pp. 107–8.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 304} World's Mistake, pp. 12–13Google Scholar; Darby, , ii. 533Google Scholar: Firth, , i. 417–18Google Scholar. Compare also Bethel's ‘Brief Narrative’ of Richard Cromwell's parliament (Bethel, , The Interest of Princes, pp. 349–51Google Scholar) with Darby, , ii. 626–7Google Scholar: Firth, , ii. 57–8.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 305} World's Mistake (Rota edition, 1972), preface and pp. 3, 11; Darby, , ii. 559Google Scholar: Firth, , ii. 2–3Google Scholar. Cf. Bethel, , The Interest of Princes, pp. 56, 159, 187–8, 321–2.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 306} Anglia Libera, pp. 148–50, 160, 166Google Scholar; Reasons for addressing His Majesty, pp. 6, 13Google Scholar; The Art of Restoring, p. 5Google Scholar; State-Anatomy, pp. 53–4Google Scholar. Cf. the Darby-Baldwin publication A Letter to his Most Excellent Majesty King William III (1699), p. 15Google Scholar. Toland shared much of the dismay expressed by Bethel and in Ludlow's Memoirs about the sale of Dunkirk in 1662: see Toland, , Dunkirk or Dover (1713), p. 16Google Scholar; The Liberties of England Asserted, p. 32Google Scholar; The Second Part of the State Anatomy, p. 35Google Scholar; cf. Truth Brought to Light, p. 4Google Scholar, and above, p. 16, n. 68.

^{page 78 note 307} See particularly the surprising, grudging praise of Sir George Downing, for which I can find no basis in the Bodleian manuscript, on Darby, , iii. 237Google Scholar: Firth, , ii. 428.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 308} Compare Darby, , i. 388, 401–2Google Scholar: Firth, , i. 298, 310Google Scholar, with The Argument against a Standing Army Rectified (1697), p. 28Google Scholar. See also Memoirs of Denzil Lord Holles, p. xii.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 309} Darby, , i. 345–6Google Scholar: Firth, , i. 267Google Scholar. It seems possible that Toland turned to James Heath's A Chronicle of the Late Intestine War (1676 edn., pp. 286–7)Google Scholar in drawing up the account in the Memoirs of the Anglo-Dutch negotiations of 1651.

^{page 80 note 310} Since this introduction was written, the picture of late seventeenth-century studies has been changed by the appearance of three works: Horwitz, Henry, Parliament, Policy and Politics in the Reign of William III (Manchester, 1977)Google Scholar; Kenyon, J. P., Revolution Principles (Cambridge, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Pocock, J. G. A. (ed.), Political Works of James Harrington (Cambridge, 1977)Google Scholar. Material which complements my argument can be found in Andrew Sharp, ‘The Manuscript Versions of Harrington's Oceana’, Historical Journal, 1973, pp. 227–39Google Scholar, in the manuscript volumes there discussed, and in Douglas Greene, ‘The Authenticity of the Earl of Anglesey's Memoirs’, Bodleian Library Record, 01 1978, pp. 351–7Google Scholar. There is a new edition of Shaftesbury's Inquiry concerning Virtue, edited by Walford, David (Manchester, 1977).Google Scholar