The Ways Historians Think (^) ‹ 19
Cromwell viewed the Catholic Irish not only as rebellious subjects, but as heretics. Was it
unusual to kill large numbers of people after a successful siege? The rules of war at the time
called for the inhabitants of a town to be spared, provided the governor of the town surren-
dered without a fight. Conversely, if the governor of a town decided to resist, he knew that
he was putting the inhabitants at risk of retribution.
The historian uses the knowledge gained from asking and answering these contex-
tual questions not to condone Cromwell’s actions, but to make sense of them. Once the
Drogheda and Wexford massacres are put into context, they remain ghastly, but they are
no longer unintelligible. Cromwell may indeed have been impulsive and cruel, but he was
not insane; there was a rationale behind his actions. He committed no more massacres in
Ireland in 1649 because he did not need to. The governors of the other towns had seen the
cruel consequences of resistance and surrendered without a fight.
Contextualization of Sources
Another aspect of historical thinking in which contextualization is important is in the use
of sources. Historians build their understanding of past events and processes on the use
of primary sources: all manner of artifacts that have come down to us from the times and
places we wish to study. In order to gain an understanding of those sources—and to use
them later as part of an interpretive argument—the historian must first put the sources in
context. The process is similar to the one discussed above. The historian begins by asking
a number of questions about the sources; the sum total of the answers to those questions
makes up the context in which the sources must be interpreted.
For example, in the writing of her remarkable account of the English Civil War, the his-
torian Diane Purkiss uncovered multiple primary sources offering eyewitness testimony to
the events that occurred at Barthomley Church in Cheshire, England, in 1643. During the
course of the English Civil War, Royalist troops arrived in the town of Barthomley, whose
inhabitants were sympathetic to the Parliamentary side. One source that Purkiss uncovered
asserts that the Royalist party encircled the church, where about 20 townspeople had taken
refuge in the steeple. When the people would not come out, the source asserts, the Royalists
set fire to the church, and when the people finally came out to escape the smoke and flames,
the Royalists stripped them naked, abused them, and killed them. Another source confirms
the report and asserts that it was one of many such instances in the area.
So, Purkiss has primary-source accounts that seem to corroborate each other, but Purkiss
knows that even corroborating reports have to be put in context. Both sources, though pro-
duced independently of one another, are what is known as “newsbooks.” Such newsbooks
were penned by Parliamentary sympathizers who were supplying “news” about the conflict.
In short, Purkiss knows that such newsbooks were essentially Parliamentary propaganda, and
that they cannot, therefore, be counted on as reliable accounts of what happened. Finally, it
is frequently easier to place an event in context if you have a visual or literary back-up. At
the end of this book, you will find a Resource Guide that contains both artistic and literary
resources that will flesh out the historical picture.
Arguing from Evidence
The process of putting sources in context leads the historian directly to the art of arguing
from evidence. For example, a historian would initially be tempted to argue that the exist-
ence of multiple primary sources asserting that an unprovoked massacre had been carried
out by Royalist troops at Barthomley was proof that such a thing had occurred. However,
by contextualizing those sources, Purkiss shows that such an argument will not hold up;KEY IDEA03_Bartolini_Ch03_013-022.indd 19 12/04/18 3:15 PM