At the end of October, I had the opportunity to attend the 2024 Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) conference, which took place in the lovely city of Sheffield. This was my first time attending an AoIR conference and I was grateful to join such a vibrant meeting of Internet researchers from all over the world. As a Curatorial and Policy Research Officer for the Algorithmic Archive Project, currently exploring the ways in which social media and algorithmic data are being used across disciplines, this was a unique opportunity for me to engage with a diverse range of research on the web and social platforms.
This year’s AoIR conference was hosted by the University of Sheffield, with the Student Union building serving as the main venue. This impressive structure spans five floors and includes a cosy lounge area on the third floor, offering attendees a space to relax and network between sessions in a packed 4-day program. The main theme of this year’s AoIR2024 conference was “industry”, inviting the research community to reflect and discuss the relationship between the internet and industry. With over thirteen parallel sessions scheduled for each time block, choosing just one to attend proved to be rather challenging.
A view of the University of Sheffield, Student Union where some of the AoIR2024 conference sessions took place between 30 October – 2 November 2024. Photo taken by B. Cannelli
One aspect that really stood out to me from the conference was the diverse range of research involving information generated on social media platforms, spanning from creators’ economy dynamics, news polarization, AI applied in the context of online communities and content moderation, online pop culture and disinformation across various platforms. There were several panels discussing platform governance – the set of rules, policies and decision-making processes that shape how content is collected, accessed and used within a platform – shedding light on the power dynamics that influence user experience. From an archival perspective, understanding how platforms regulate access to data and the consumption of content is crucial, with significant implications for how this content can be archived by memory institutions.
Among the many sessions exploring virality phenomena and cultures on social media, it is worth mentioning the one reflecting on “mediated memory”. It examined how social platforms like TikTok serve, for instance, as spaces to remember displaced cultures, and how they facilitate the transmission of cultural aspects to younger generations, helping to perpetuate them through time and space. Additionally, the session titled “Times and Transformations” provided some excellent examples of research conducted with web-archived content from research libraries, along with insightful reflections on the epistemology of web archiving.
Firth Court, a Grade II listed Edwardian building that constitutes part of the Western Bank Campus of the University of Sheffield. Photo taken by B. Cannelli
Overall, the conference highlighted the crucial role social media data play in today’s communication landscape and underscored the value of platforms’ user-generated content as a key resource for researchers across a wide range of disciplines. The interplay of light and shadows explored in various panels on platform governance further emphasised the enormous power platforms hold over this user-generated data, as well as the pressing need for support to enable researchers to access and preserve these data over time.
I left the AoIR2024 conference with so much food for thought! It has also been a fantastic opportunity for networking, which will be important for the scoping phase of the Algorithmic Archive project.
Each January, the Archive of the Conservative Party releases files which were previously closed under the 30-year rule. This year, files from 1994 are newly-available to access.
Despite continuing to make a steady economic recovery from the recession that ended in 1993, John Major’s fourth year as Prime Minister was partly overshadowed by internal party conflict over Europe and allegations of scandal following the launching of the Party’s ‘Back to Basics’ campaign. These issues are amongst those covered within the newly-released files, alongside monitoring of opposition parties, including a profile of Gordon Brown written by David Cameron, and an insight into the foundation and meetings of the Commission for the Greater Europe.
Following on from recent years, a large proportion of our new releases are from our collections of CRD files, including subject briefings, directors’ papers, letter books of desk officers, and Conservative Research Department (CRD) files covering topics such as environmental policy, public opinion research on the NHS, and election preparations. Alongside these CRD files we will also be releasing papers, correspondence and memoranda from the Organisation Department of Conservative Central Office (CCO), Conservatives in the European Parliament, and Conservative Party think tanks, amongst other material.
This blog post will explore a number of highlights of the newly-available files, demonstrating their value for researchers and historians interested in the Conservative Party and/or British political history in general.
Opposition Monitoring, 1991-1992
This year’s releases contain a number of files relating to opposition monitoring, including profiles of the Labour Party shadow cabinet in the early 1990s. Carried out by the political section of the CRD, opposition monitoring involved creating profiles on opposition candidates and monitoring their media statements to provide the Conservative Party with crucial information and ammunition. They should be a useful resource for researchers, providing examples of the inside workings of the Research Department in the lead up to a general election and the processes involved in dealing with the opposition.
Some of the profiles in this year’s releases include Tony Blair, Neil Kinnock, John Smith, Bryan Gould and Gordon Brown, all of who played a key role in the Labour Party’s 1992 General Election team, and several in the later 1997 General Election, indicating that the Conservative Party was beginning to look ahead to the 1997 General Election. Of particular interest, is the file CRD 5/11/1/19 which contains a profile on Gordon Brown by David Cameron from March 1991. Written in the lead up to the 1992 General Election and during Cameron’s early political career as the head of the Political Section of CRD, this file provides us with an interesting insight into two future Prime Ministers. Firstly, the file sheds light on Browns’ position as an emerging figure in the Labour Party in the early 1990s, when he held the position of Shadow Trade and Industry Spokesman (1989-1992), and an insight into the Conservative Party’s perception of him. Furthermore, Cameron’s analysis demonstrates his abilities as a political strategist and researcher of opponents from his early career, setting the stage for the pairs battle for leadership at the 2010 General Election almost 20 years later.
A profile of Dr Gordon Brown MP – CPA CRD 5/11/1/19
Labour Party leadership election, 1994
In addition to the opposition profiles discussed above, an important part of the operations of CRD opposition monitoring was gathering information on the Labour Party leader. This was particularly important in 1994, as the death of the Labour Party leader John Smith triggered a Labour leadership contest. After a brief interregnum leadership by Margaret Beckett, Tony Blair won the leadership election on 21 July 1994, defeating John Prescott and Margaret Beckett.
Being released this year is CRD 5/11/1/34, which contains correspondence and research related to the leadership election, shedding light on the Research Department’s strategic approach to the change in Labour Leadership. One notable example is a memorandum from Rachel Whetstone titled ‘Ways of opening up Labours leadership contest’. In the memoranda, Whetstone highlights the minimum wage as a “weak point for Tony Blair”, stating that “Blair argues that youth unemployment is a major cause of crime”, yet he “supports policies that would increase unemployment among young people”. This provides insight into how the Research Department aimed to exploit perceived weaknesses in the candidate’s characters and their positioning on key policy areas, in order to undermine the change in leadership.
Ways of opening up Labour’s leadership contest – CPA CRD 5/11/1/34
Additionally, CRD 5/11/1/34 provides an interesting indication to broader trends in British political strategy, particularly in regards to the increasing emphasis on ‘spin’ in political communication. Throughout the 1990s, the use of spin by politicians and parties in the UK accelerated. The emergence of 24-hour news and the growing influence of the tabloids and television increased the pressure placed on journalists to provide non-stop content. This led to a marked decline in the quality of British media content, especially surrounding political commentary, prompting political parties to employ spin doctors to craft messaging, shape narrative, and manage crises. For example, the image below shows a memorandum from Andrew Lansley outlining the Conservative Party’s line toward the leadership election result. Lansley recognised the need to “brief independent spin doctors on our line to take” and specified a number of individuals to contact, such as Harvey Thomas, former Press and Public Relations Director, and Brendan Bruce, former communications director, to assist in shaping the party’s messaging on the leadership result, highlighting the growing emphasis on spin in the operations of CRD opposition strategy and political communication.
Labour leadership results: Lines to take – CPA CRD 5/11/1/34.
Commission for the Greater Europe, 1993-1996
Among this year’s releases from the papers of the Conservative Overseas Bureau, is COB 7/3/1, a file on the Commission for the Greater Europe. The Commission for the Greater Europe was an international, non-governmental organisation established on 28 May 1993, under the direction of Jacques Chirac. Formed in the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Commission aimed to bring together members of the European Democratic Union and the Liberal International with members of the Russian reformist movement with a view to ‘seeking new ways towards a united Europe’.
COB 7/3/1 contains foundational material, meeting papers, general correspondence, and reports on the state of Russian politics, economy, and security in late 1993, providing insight into the sensitive situation in Russia following the Russian constitutional crisis of October 1993. COB 7/3/1 should be a useful resource for researchers, providing examples of how European Leaders made efforts to bridge the divide between Eastern and Western Europe in the aftermath of the Cold War.
Of particular interest in this file, is a letter from Geoffrey Pattie to Jacques Chirac from December 1993. In this letter, Pattie expressed anger at Chirac’s decision to cancel the Commissions planned meeting in Moscow due to Boris Yeltsin’s inability to attend, stating that he was “disappointed and upset that you [Chirac] could have taken a decision so far remove from your usual sound political judgement”. Patties frustration at Chirac reveals the differing perspectives within European Leadership on how to navigate the potential integration of Russia into Europe, and reflects British concern for the need to address the post-Cold War situation in Europe through diplomatic cooperation and dialogue.
Correspondence from Sir Geoffrey Pattie to Jacques Chirac – CPA COB 7/3/1, folder 1
Back to Basics campaign, 1993-1994
‘Back to Basics’ – CPA CRD 5/35/12
Lastly, among the significant portion of CRD files being released this year, are files that concern Conservative Party tactics and strategy. One example is CRD 5/35/12, which offers insight into the planning and strategy of the Conservative Party’s ‘Back to Basics’ campaign, a campaign which sought to “reassert traditional values, common sense and concern for the citizen”. The image below shows a page from the background briefing for the ‘Back to Basics’ campaign from January 1994, outlining what exactly John Major meant by back to basics in social policy, economic policy, in all policy, and in the country at large. In the document, Major justifies the campaign, arguing that “we need to foster and encourage some of the traditional British values- neighbourliness, self-discipline, courtesy and decency, and taking responsibility for yourself and not shuffling it off on others”.
However, the campaign became infamous when a succession of Conservative Party politicians became emmeshed in allegations of scandal. The contradiction between the campaign’s messaging and the actions of some of the Party’s MPs highlights the challenges the Conservative Party faced in maintaining credibility and public support during the 1990s.
All the material featured in this blog post will be made available from 2 Jan 2025.
John le Carré at the ‘Zeit Forum Kultur’ in Hamburg, 10 November 2008 (Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported)
The archive of David Cornwell (1931-2020), better known by his pen name John le Carré, has been expanded to include drafts of his later novels (post-2010) and non-fiction work, correspondence and research relating to almost all of his novels, and scripts for both realised and unrealised film and television adaptations. Cornwell was best known for his espionage novels, inspired by his years working in both MI5 and MI6 in the 1950s and 1960s, many following the fictional intelligence officer George Smiley. These include The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (1963), Tinker Tailor Solider Spy (1974) and Smiley’s People (1979). He also used his work to explore wider global issues such as pharmaceutical corruption, in The Constant Gardener (2001), and the War on Terror, in A Most Wanted Man (2008). His 26th novel, Silverview, was published posthumously in 2021, whilst many of his novels have been adapted into successful films and television series.
Over 300 new boxes of material have been added to the existing John le Carré archive, previously comprising only manuscript and typescript novel drafts, offering a much greater insight into Cornwell’s research and writing processes. The newly catalogued material includes hundreds of handwritten novel drafts, notebooks full of character, plot and research notes, correspondence regarding edits, research trips and publicity, and scripts for film, radio and television adaptations. In addition to further demonstrating the meticulous technique that went into the creation of each of his novels, this expanded archive uncovers drafts of the novel Cornwell was writing when he died in December 2020, The George Smiley Years, as well as scripts of an array of both unrealised adaptations and entirely new (non-adaptation) plays and television shows. Readers can explore the countless iterations of Cornwell’s novel drafts, the depth with which he researched the people and places he brought to life, and a wealth of previously unseen stories and characters.
Cataloguing work of Cornwell’s correspondence files, interviews, speeches and personal papers is ongoing, and the archive will be further expanded in 2025.
On Tuesday 31st July 1894 the American-born inventor and engineer Hiram Maxim (1840-1916) was testing the latest version of his flying machine at his home, Baldwyn’s Park near Bexley in Kent. He had laid out a steel track, 1800 feet in length, in order to run the machine in a straight line between the trees of the Park.
Hiram Maxim’s flying machine in the grounds of Baldwyn’s Park, c.1894. MS. 21798, file 4. Click to enlarge.
On the final attempt of the day, having increased the pressure of the machine’s steam boiler, the wheels rose from the track and it flew for eight seconds at a speed of 45 miles per hour before crashing to the ground. The flying machine weighed more than three tons. Maxim was on board along with two mechanics, Arthur Guthrie and Thomas Jackson.
Should this be recognised as the first heavier-than-air flight, nine and a half years before the Wright brothers’ flight at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, on 17 December 1903?
The flying machine after crash landing, 31 July 1894. MS. 21798, file 4.
William McGregor Ross (1876-1940), a young admirer of Maxim who also became an engineer, thought that Maxim’s achievement had not received the recognition it deserved. He used every opportunity to correct this and a collection of papers and photographs, recently donated to the Bodleian by his grandson, records the efforts he made until the end of his life. William was educated at Southport Grammar School and began keeping a diary from an early age, recording in meticulous detail and tiny handwriting the events of his daily life. His diary of 1892, when he was 16 years old, reveals his interest in flying machines and in August he wrote to Hiram Maxim asking for advice on screw propellers.
William McGregor Ross’s diary, 30 August 1892, MSS. Afr. s. 2305, box 1, item 3
Maxim replied (sending ‘several wrinkles’, i.e. tips or hints) and a lifelong friendship developed between them with Maxim and his wife Sarah supporting William’s interest in engineering, which he went on to study at Liverpool and Dublin Universities. In September 1892 William was invited to visit Baldwyn’s Park where he saw the development of the flying machine which Maxim had been working on for a year, eventually testing the thrust of over 200 types of propeller before the flight in 1894.
William McGregor Ross’s diary, 5 September 1892. MSS. Afr. s. 2305, box 1, item 3
William’s diary entry for 15 September 1892 records the running of the machine on the track through the Park, reaching a speed of 27.5 miles an hour. He notes that photographs were taken after the experiments and the donation to the Bodleian includes one of the photographs of young William together with Hiram Maxim on board the flying machine.
William McGregor Ross’s diary, 15 September 1892. MSS. Afr. s. 2305, box 1, item 3
William McGregor Ross and Hiram Maxim on the flying machine, 15 Sep 1892. MS. 21798, file 4.
William did not witness the short flight in 1894 – his diary records that he was in Southport on the day – however his interest in flying machines continued as evidenced by a letter full of questions to Mrs Maxim in February 1899.
First page of letter from William McGregor Ross to Mrs Maxim, 9 Feb 1899. MS. 21798, file 2.
Second page of letter from William McGregor Ross to Mrs Maxim, 9 Feb 1899. MS. 21798, file 2.
Third page of letter from William McGregor Ross to Mrs Maxim, 9 Feb 1899. MS. 21798, file 2.
Letter from William McGregor Ross to Mrs Maxim, 9 Feb 1899. MS. 21798, file 2, click images to enlarge
Maxim continued to develop his machine but came to realise that powering it by steam, requiring boilers and water, added excessive weight and his experiments came to an end.
Following Hiram Maxim’s death in 1916 William continued to correspond with Sarah Maxim and in 1934 made particular efforts to have the 40th anniversary of the flight recognised, writing to the national press, scientific journals, the BBC and film companies. He repeatedly argued that any history of aviation excluding Maxim’s role in the development of heavier-than-air flight was incomplete and pointed out that he held the altitude and duration records for 9 years and 139 days and the weight record for even longer. The newly available papers present William’s observations on the remarkable events at Baldwyn’s Park on their 130th anniversary.
The Archive of the Conservative Party is pleased to announce the arrival of its expanded catalogue of the Conservative Central Office Publicity Department. Known variously as the Publicity Department, Communications Department, Press and Communications Department, and the Department of Political Operations, this department has been responsible for the production and dissemination of the Party’s publicity material and propaganda, as well as facilitating relations with the media, since the 1920s. This important collection has more than doubled in size following the addition of over 90 boxes of material, providing a unique insight into the Party’s approach to publicity and communications over time. The expanded collection includes the papers and correspondence of several Directors of Publicity, planning files relating to television and radio broadcasting, and the logistics behind decades of election campaigns and Party Conferences.
A significant portion of this new material relates to, or was kindly donated by, Harvey Thomas (1939-2022), Director of Press and Communications from 1985-1986 and Director of Presentation and Promotion from 1986-1991. Thomas also played a valuable role as a political advisor to the Party, particularly contributing towards Margaret Thatcher’s publicity and campaigning strategy. Many of his papers can be found in files covering Party Conferences and events, the organisation of which he was heavily involved in throughout the 1980s.
Campaigning and publicity
Much of the newly available material in this collection relates to the Party’s campaigning and publicity, whether material created for specific general elections, by-elections, and European elections, or for general publicity and marketing, often involving the input of external advertising and branding agencies. These files include details of poster campaigns, campaign tour programmes and schedules, and draft publication designs.
Whilst the majority of the new files date from the late 20th century, a couple of interesting publicity guides from the 1950s (CPA CCO 600/25/1) and 1970s (CPA CCO 600/25/2) are included in the expanded collection. The former, a scrapbook containing examples of election literature primarily created during the 1955 General Election, sought to provide a reference guide to propaganda techniques to help those creating such publicity material in the future. It contains dozens of examples of election addresses, broadsheets, leaflets, and posters, each with annotations explaining what they had done well and suggesting areas for improvement. Below is an example of an election address from Ronald Watson, candidate for Newark in both the 1951 and 1955 General Elections, with accompanying praise for its ‘enterprising’ photograph montage and ‘lively and interesting’ centre pages (CPA CCO 600/25/1).
Election Material and Techniques, 1955 – CPA CCO 600/25/1.
In addition to the distribution of impactful physical literature, successful campaign tours and television and radio appearances have long been deemed essential contributors to election victory. Several newly available files detail the tours and visits undertaken by Margaret Thatcher during election campaigns, demonstrating the detailed planning these involved. The pages below, included in a preparation file for the 1983 General Election, are a good example of this. The left page contains a list of the publicity material created in the lead-up to the election, including ‘Maggie In’ car stickers and ‘10 Reasons for Not Voting Labour’ leaflets, whilst that on the right shows a draft outline programme for a ‘sample day’ for Thatcher touring away from London, detailing an extremely long day of meetings, interviews, rallies, and travel. Such files provide a great insight into the behind-the-scenes effort behind these campaigns.
1983 General Election preparations – CPA CCO 600/14/51.
Party Political Broadcasts
Also included in the newly available material are the annotated scripts, planning papers, and correspondence behind many Conservative Party Political Broadcasts (PPBs). These files illustrate the thought-processes behind the creation of these key forms of publicity, particularly the development of various iterations and drafts over time. The image below shows a ‘final final’ draft of a PPB from November 1985. This was set in a courtroom, the Government on trial for ‘making serious cuts in everything this country holds dear’ (CPA CCO 600/3/10/17). The broadcast contains admissions to numerous ‘cuts’ carried out by the Tories, including cutting income tax, inflation, and hospital waiting lists. In order to have maximum impact this was accompanied by a widespread distribution of leaflets and poster displays pushing the same message: only positive cuts had been made by this Government. Creative ideas like these were clearly deemed necessary to continue to catch the audience’s attention.
Party Political Broadcast 20/11/1985 script – CPA CCO 600/3/10/17.
Each January the Archive of the Conservative Party releases files which were previously closed under the 30-year rule. This year, files from 1993 are newly-available to access.
Despite the recession of the previous couple of years coming to an end, John Major’s third year as Prime Minister was dominated by internal Party conflict over Europe and low public popularity, manifesting in two significant by-election defeats. These issues are amongst those covered within the newly-released files for 2024, alongside subject files and briefs from Conservative Research Department (CRD), material of the Young Conservatives and Conservative student organisations, and correspondence and subject files of Conservatives in the European Parliament. This blog post will highlight some of the material included in this year’s newly-available files, with a full list linked at the end.
Europe and the Maastricht Treaty
In early 1992, European leaders signed the Maastricht Treaty to bring greater unity and integration between the countries of the European Economic Committee, creating the European Union. The Treaty officially became effective on 1 November 1993 once each county had ratified it, following referendums in Denmark, France, and Ireland. Whilst no referendum was held in the UK, the Maastricht Treaty did bring divisions to Parliament, especially the Conservative Party. A small number of Eurosceptic Conservative MPs voted with the opposition, who opposed the decision to opt out of the ‘Social Chapter’ rather than the Treaty itself, against ratification. Combined, these MPs were able to defeat the implementation of the Treaty in a series of votes due to the small Conservative majority at the time. Whilst Tory rebels failed in their campaign for a referendum, and Parliament did eventually ratify the Treaty, this happened only after John Major called a confidence motion in his own government. The issue of Europe, and the internal divisions it caused, undoubtedly defined Major’s early years as Prime Minister.
Many of this year’s newly-released files offer an insight into the way the Conservative Party viewed and approached the issue of the Maastricht Treaty, especially the debate over whether to hold a referendum. These can be found primarily in the collections of Conservatives in the European Parliament, CCO 508, and Conservative Overseas Bureau/International Office, COB. The image below shows two documents relating to the question of a referendum. The House of Commons Library Research Paper (left) provides details on the background to the Treaty and the arguments on either side of the debate, whilst the CRD brief of May 1993 (right) lists arguments against a referendum. These include the fact that the House of Commons had firmly defeated a vote on the issue, and that a well-publicised telephone referendum, ‘Dial for Democracy’, had received a poor turnout, suggesting limited public interest in the Treaty.
Maastricht Treaty: The Referendum Campaign – CPA COB/8/5/7, Folder 2.
Newbury and Christchurch by-elections
Internal Party divisions over Europe, alongside slow economic recovery, resulted in the Conservative Party suffering a couple of significant by-election defeats in 1993. The Party lost two seats, Newbury and Christchurch, which they had won by substantial majorities in the 1992 General Election. The Newbury by-election, held on 6 May, saw a swing of 28.4% to the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative Party losing this seat for the first time since 1923. Only two months later, the Christchurch by-election of 29 July saw an even higher swing of 35.4% to the Liberal Democrats.
This year’s newly-available files contain much material relating to these by-elections, including detailed constituency profiles, briefings, memoranda, and analyses of results. The following images show examples of the ‘lines to take’ created by CRD in the lead-up to these elections. Notably, whilst the Newbury by-election offered two options: ‘The Conservatives hold Newbury’ or ‘The Liberal Democrats take Newbury’, the later Christchurch election included an additional defeat option, allowing for either ‘Tories lose by less than 12,000’ or ‘Tories lose by more than 15,000’. Evidently, expectations had fallen. Whilst the Party won back Christchurch in the 1997 General Election, Newbury remained Liberal Democrat until 2005, illustrating misplaced confidence in the assertion that ‘come the next election, Newbury will return a Conservative candidate’ (CPA CRD 5/21/13).
Newbury by-election: Lines to take – CPA CRD 5/21/13.
Christchurch by-election: Lines to take – CPA CRD 5/21/14.
Conservative student organisations
Amongst the material being released this year are several files of both the Young Conservatives and Conservative Party student organisations, including the Conservative Collegiate Forum (CCF), also known as Conservative Students. Alongside the addition of these new files from 1993, the collection of Conservative Student Organisations, CCO 506/D, has recently been updated and expanded, offering a valuable insight into the political activities of Conservative students throughout the late 20th century. Files being released this year include assorted meeting minutes, conference papers, campaigning and publicity material, and research files. A significant amount of the material within this collection relates to the CCF’s campaign for voluntary membership of NUS (National Union of Students), a campaign which occupied much of their time and resources. The image below illustrates a couple of examples of the briefings and reports created by CCF during the late 1980s and early 1990s as they monitored and documented various student union ‘abuses’ perceived as evidence that student union reform, in general, was needed.
CCF research file: NUS and student unions – CPA CCO 506/65/3.
Rachel Whetstone, Conservative Research Department
Lastly, as in previous years, files of CRD, including subject files, briefs, and desk officers’ letter books, comprise a significant proportion of the newly-released files for 2024. Amongst these are a handful of letter books of Rachel Whetstone, head of CRD’s political section between 1992 and 1993. These offer an insight into the campaigning techniques and opposition monitoring carried out by CRD at this time. The image below shows a memorandum from Julian Lewis, CRD Deputy Director, outlining campaigning methods. Lewis argues in favour of negative campaigning, suggesting ‘We did not win the General Election – Mr Kinnock’s Labour Party lost it, largely as a result of the ‘fear factor’ which we and others had helped generate’ (CPA CRD/L/5/24/8).
Rachel Whetstone letter book: Political section – CPA CRD/L/5/24/8.
All the material featured in this blog post will be available from 2 Jan 2024. The full list of de-restricted items can be accessed here: Files de-restricted on 2024-01-02
The CRD catalogue is currently being updated and will be available shortly. In the meantime, if you wish to access any of the newly-available CRD files, please email conservative.archives@bodleian.ox.ac.uk
Christmas is a time for tradition, and the University of Oxford is well known for diligently preserving its traditions for centuries. Many of these have long outlived the people who established them, and some are so old and mired in obscurity that even the University itself has no idea what they are or how they came to be. One such example of this is the strange case of Henry Symeonis.
In 1827 the University undertook a major review of its statutes. The statutes were, and still are, the written set of rules and regulations which governed everything that went on in the University. A product of many centuries, some of these were over already 500 years old by 1827. In going through the statutes as part of this review, the University found something rather odd in the section relating to Bachelors of Arts and the oaths they had to swear in order to become a Master of Arts.
As well as being required to swear that they would observe the University’s statutes, privileges, liberties and customs, as you might expect; and not to lecture elsewhere, or resume their bachelor studies after getting their MA, the Bachelors of Arts also had to swear that they would never agree to the reconciliation of Henry Symeonis (‘quod numquam consenties in reconciliationem Henrici Simeonis’).
The oaths required of those proceeding to MAs, from Corpus Statutorum (Statute Tit VII section 1. 5)
Nowhere in the statutes did it explain who this Henry Symeonis (or Simeonis) was, what he was supposed to have done or why those getting their MAs should never agree to be reconciled with him. Who was Henry Symeonis and why was he specifically named like this in the University’s governing regulations? What had he done to offend the University so much?
For much of the operational lifetime of the oath, no-one appears to have known. Brian Twyne, first Keeper of the Archives and renowned antiquary of the 17th century, claimed in his Antiquitatis Academiae Oxon Apologia of 1608 that Symeonis was a Regent in Arts at Oxford who fraudulently claimed he had a BA in order to obtain admission to a foreign monastery. Twyne gave no evidence or source for this so we don’t know where that might have come from.
Anthony Wood, in his published Life and Times writes about the University’s earlier review of its statutes in January 1651/2 when it was first proposed to abolish the statute concerning Henry Symeonis. He notes that the proposal to remove the oath was refused but gives no reason why. Even by that time, one suspects that the oath was of such antiquity that no-one knew anything about it and it was thought best to leave it be.
The identity of Henry Symeonis was only (re-)discovered in 1912 by the then Keeper of the University Archives, Reginald Lane Poole. In an article for the English Historical Review, he looked at the curious statute and tried to get to the bottom of the Henry Symeonis mystery.
Poole identified the man in question as Henry, son of Henry Symeonis. Henry Symeonis the elder was the son of a man named Simeon, hence the patronymic surname of Simeonis (or Symeonis) being passed down to his son and grandson. Henry Simeon, our Henry’s father, was a very wealthy townsman of Oxford; in the early 1200s, there were few richer. Our Henry was also wealthy, owning several properties in Oxford and both their names are found in many property deeds of the period.
For example, Henry is listed as a witness to a grant of c1243 of a boundary wall in Cat Street from William Burgess to Nicholas de Kingham. He is named as ‘Henry son of Henry son of Simeon’.
Grant of a boundary wall including Henry Symeonis as a witness, nd (c1243) (OUA/WPbeta/F/43)
But what was the reason for Henry’s condemnation by the University to five and a half centuries of infamy? It was a murder. In 1242 he and a number of other men of the town of Oxford were found guilty of murdering a student of the University. Henry and his accomplices were fined £80 by King Henry III in May 1242 and were made to leave Oxford as a result, forced to stay away (and allowed no closer than Northampton) at least until the King returned from abroad. The King returned in the autumn and by the spring of the following year, we know (from records of his property dealings) that our Henry, son of Henry Symeonis, was already back in Oxford.
What happened next is not easy to work out. There are few University records from that time and we have to rely on others’ accounts of what was happening to decipher the facts of the case. The chroniclers of those times notoriously disagree with each other, and the picture is muddy, to say the least. We know that over 20 years after the murder, on 12 March 1264, Henry III suspended the University and sent it away from Oxford, saying that he could not protect its masters and scholars in the city and that they would be safer elsewhere. The King was making Oxford the centre of his military operations and was unable to guarantee the safety of the students and masters. Many left, a large number moving to Northampton in spring that year where a thriving university was growing.
A fortnight after this, on 25 March 1264, the King issued letters patent saying that he’d pardoned Henry Symeonis for the murder which had taken place 22 years earlier. He ordered the University to allow Henry to return to Oxford to live there in peace provided he was ‘of good behaviour’ and demanded that the University didn’t leave Oxford in protest. The letters patent stated:
… that the chancellor and university would be content that Henry son of Henry Simeonis, who withdrew for the death of a man, would return to Oxford and stay there, so that the university should not retire from the said town on account of his staying there; then they should permit him to return without impediment and have the king’s peace; the king, at the instance of Nicholas de Yatingden, of his further grace, has pardoned the said Henry the said death, on condition that he stand his trial if any will proceed against him, and has granted that he may return and dwell there so long as he be of good behaviour and that the university do not withdraw from the said town on account of his return and the death of the said Henry
The interpretation of this series of events is difficult. Poole, in his 1912 article, linked the University’s departure from Oxford in 1264 to its unhappiness at having Henry Symeonis pardoned and thrust back upon them from exile. He suggested that a serious eruption of town-gown violence broke out as a result of the pardon. This cannot be the case, however, as the King didn’t pardon Henry Symeonis until after the University had been told to leave Oxford. Besides, Henry had already been back in Oxford for many years and it would have been a bit late to act on that.
Town-gown relations were, at this time, pretty volatile, the problem being that Oxford wasn’t big enough for two bodies fighting for supremacy in a relatively small space. This had often led to violence, and apparently did again in February 1264 when the longstanding bad feeling between the two flared up. But it seems that this was not, despite some chroniclers attributing it to that, the cause of the University leaving Oxford. Henry Symeonis’s pardon by the King would, however, have only added fuel to the town’s fire that the University was always unjustly favoured by the monarch at the town’s expense.
We know that the Government was aware of the volatile relationship between town and gown and was concerned, in 1264, at the prospect of the University leaving Oxford in protest if Henry was allowed to return. This is presumably why it was made a condition of Henry’s return that the University had to promise not to leave.
We also know that both the town and University of Oxford were unhappy about the growth of a rival university in Northampton. Henry III had allowed a university to be established there in 1261 (on the request of the burgesses of the town), the third in England, behind Oxford and Cambridge. At the time, it was believed that it wouldn’t damage its older rivals but such a large number of masters and students from Oxford migrated there that Northampton was soon felt to be a threat to the two more ancient universities. The city of Oxford pressed the King to terminate this threat and on 1 February 1265 he formally closed down the university at Northampton and forbade the establishment of any future university there. All this was playing out against a backdrop of civil war and political unease, with Henry III engaged in a war with his brother-in-law, Simon de Montfort, and both Oxford and Northampton being heavily involved in the conflict.
Further research is needed to discover the exact details of what happened here but it seems that Henry Symeonis had bought the King’s pardon and his permission to return to Oxford. The King was willing to allow his return if the University agreed to it. But the University refused and chose to ignore the King’s order of 25 March 1264, resuming its hostility to Henry Symeonis. In fact, it felt so strongly about it, that it gave Henry Symeonis the unique honour of being named in its own statutes, making the University’s dislike of him official and perpetual.
The oath against Henry Symeonis continued in the University’s statutes for centuries after the events of 1264. Having survived earlier reviews of the University’s statutes, it was finally abolished five and a half centuries later. The records of the decision taken in 1827 are frustratingly brief and unenlightening. Convocation (the body of MAs of the University and its chief decision-maker at the time) took the decision to abolish the oath in February that year, but no background information nor reason for the decision is recorded. It is possible that’s because nobody knew exactly what they were abolishing.
The case of Henry Symeonis is a very strange example of the longevity of some University customs, long after they’ve lost relevance or meaning. The persistence of tradition in the University is famous, but this appears to have been an extreme example of using tradition to hold a very, very long grudge. By naming Henry Symeonis in its statutes as a figure of institutional hatred for centuries, it actually resulted in prolonging his celebrity, immortalising a man whom it had considered a villain.
A pleasing coda to the story is that Henry III’s ban on a university at Northampton was finally ended in 2005 when a new university was established there, a mere 740 years after the suppression of its predecessor. See Drew Gray’s article on the ‘Ancient University of Northampton’ on the University of Northampton’s website at Microsoft Word – Ancient_University_of_Northampton[2].docx
The migration of Oxford students to Northampton is discussed in ‘The Alleged Migration of the University of Oxford to Northampton in 1264’ by FM Powicke in Oxoniensia (vol 8/9, 1943-4) at powicke.pdf (oxoniensia.org)
Christopher Hawkes (1905-1992) was an eminent archaeologist of European prehistory who made Oxford a centre for archaeological research and post-graduate teaching. This led to the foundation of the Institute of Archaeology in Oxford, of which Hawkes was the first director. His interest in learning about the past started when he was a child, when he visited monuments such as Hadrian’s Wall and Stonehenge, and continued through his time at New College, Oxford, where he took part in excavations at Brecon, Wroxeter and Winchester. After achieving a first-class degree, he worked at the British Museum in the department of British and Medieval Antiquities until he was appointed the new chair of European archaeology at Oxford in 1946. He stayed in Oxford with his second wife, archaeologist Sonia Hawkes, and continued to publish for many years after his retirement in 1972.
This collection comprises his personal and professional papers, including correspondence with colleagues and former students. His working notes show the wide scope of his work and include illustrations and drawings completed in his distinctive style.
Lt. Col. Charles Pascoe Hawkes (1877-1956) served in the Northumberland Fusiliers, 1900-1920, and was a barrister at the Inner Temple from 1902 until 1950. He was a political caricaturist, drawing for Granta, Cambridge University, and for the Daily Graphic. A keen traveller and an avid documenter of his adventures, his collection includes photograph albums titled ‘Kodakings in divers places’ and sketchbooks from his trips to Scotland, Europe and North Africa.
Guest post by Eleanor Newman, Summer intern in the Modern Archives & Manuscripts Department
As a Classical Archaeology DPhil student, I was thrilled to learn that my job as Archives Processing intern would be cataloguing the work files of Professor C.F.C. Hawkes (1905-1992), founder of the Institute of Archaeology at the University of Oxford. A complex but brilliant scholar, his archives are made up of everything from scribbled notes to full publications, drawings to photographs, and even a real Roman potsherd discovered in Colchester. The files of Hawkes contain a fountain of knowledge on archaeology from Prehistoric Europe to Bronze Age Greece to Roman Britain and beyond, and provide a wonderful insight into the life and career of an established archaeologist.
The correspondence of C.F.C. Hawkes has been particularly interesting, revealing close friendships, bitter rivalries, and even full-blown archaeological scandals (on more than one occasion). What I have found particularly striking, however, are the consistent references to the unstable political climate of the early 20th century and the effects of war on the field of archaeology. A collection of letters from this time highlight the devastation caused by the Spanish Civil War and World War II and the impact on the careers of archaeologists who were, otherwise, just trying to go about their lives.
Hawkes, like many of his colleagues, was called up for duty during WWII. A letter from Hawkes to the Headmaster of Colchester Royal Grammar School (1944) [MS. 21042/162, Colchester] reveals that he had “war-time duties”, which involved working for the Ministry of Aircraft Production. M. R. Hull, curator at the Colchester and Essex Museum states in a letter addressed to Hawkes (1942) [MS. 21042/162, Colchester] that he was part of the Observer Corps, which was taking time away from his ability to do archaeological work. Of course, war time duties carried great responsibility and may have even been traumatic, but I had personally never considered the impact that it must have had on careers which people such as Hawkes and Hull had dedicated their lives to.
References to war and its ongoing impact have appeared in unexpected circumstances throughout this archive. Correspondence between Hawkes and two colleagues working in Ireland, Seán Ó Ríordáin and Gerhard Bersu, refers to a dispute between the latter two about the approach to archaeology in Ireland in the early 1950s [MS. 21042/156, Ireland]. Bersu claims that Irish archaeologists should follow the continental European approach, while Ríordáin stresses that, actually, the Irish approach is perfectly good. The drama and, in some places, comedy of this dispute is overshadowed by one devastating fact: Gerhard Bersu was working in Ireland at this time because, as a German of Jewish ancestry, he had been removed from his position as director of the Römisch‐Germanischen Kommission in 1935 and was forced to flee Germany, eventually taking refuge in Ireland. As a letter from 1950 reveals, it was still not safe for him to return to Germany even five years after the end of the war [MS. 21042/156, Ireland].
Bersu was not the only one of Hawkes’ colleagues displaced from their home as a result of conflict. In 1947, a letter to Hawkes details the emotional struggle of Pere Bosch-Gimpera, a Spanish archaeologist and the Minister of Justice of Catalonia in the government of Lluís Companys, following the Spanish Civil War [MS. 21042/156, Iberia 1]: “I read…with emotion that my ancient colleagues and pupils remember me and still think that I have done something for the archaeology of my country…I fought more than 20 years for having a real Archaeological Museum in Barcelona and to make an organisation of Archaeology in Catalonia, and when things began to become settled I had to fly away.” This story told by Bosch-Gimpera, who fled to Mexico following the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, reflects the personal and professional devastation caused by conflict. Not only did he leave behind friends and colleagues, but he also was not able to witness the impact of his campaign for archaeology in Barcelona and broader Catalonia. A heart-breaking read, this letter shows one man’s touching dedication to archaeology through turmoil.
Finally, Hawkes’ correspondence reveals the severe physical impact of war on museums and collections of artefacts. Museums were no longer able to function as research facilities, as a letter from M.R. Hull to Hawkes in 1940 [MS. 21042/162, Colchester] suggests: “To what extent is the [British Museum] still functioning?” Instead, practical measures for the preservation of material took urgent priority over research and analysis. In a letter from 1947, Bosch-Gimpera details the earlier evacuation of artefacts from a museum in Spain to prevent their destruction by bombings [MS. 21042/156, Iberia 1].
Unfortunately, these preventative measures were not always successful. A devastating letter from A.J.E. Cave, Professor at the Royal College of Surgeons of England, to Hawkes details the damage caused by the London blitz in 1941: “You will be sorry, I know, to learn that our Museum was practically totally destroyed by enemy action on May 10th-11th, and that a mere handful of specimens alone remains of our former incomparable collections. The devastation is truly terrible: I cannot even attempt to describe the extent of this national loss. The most famous historical specimens in British biological science are gone for ever and two centuries of labour and collecting are wiped out at one foul blow. We were burned to the foundations in some places and material placed underground for ‘safety’ has suffered with the rest. A nucleus remains, it is true, for a future Museum, but nothing can ever replace the priceless specimens in osteology, anatomy, pathology and physiology now utterly vanished.” The extent of this loss is inconceivable and its impact on research is surely ongoing even now.
The correspondence of C.F.C. Hawkes highlights the ongoing struggle of archaeologists through conflict in the 1940s. These heart-breaking stories are reflections of the, sometimes surprising, impacts of war on individuals and their work. They are also inspiring demonstrations of persistence and tenacity during difficult times, and echoes of the love that these men held for archaeology.
Averil Cameron is a historian of late antiquity, classics and Byzantine studies. She was professor of Late Antique and Byzantine History at King’s College London and Warden of Keble College, Oxford, from 1994 to 2010.
She has been associated with various academic societies including as founding director of the Centre for Hellenic Studies at King’s College London. Since 2018 she has been President of the Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies.
She has published several works, including; Agathias (1970), History as Text (1989) and The Byzantines (2006). The archive comprises papers and correspondence mainly relating to Cameron’s academic work. This includes books, published and unpublished lectures, and articles.
