The revelation that parts of Flagellum are actually quite accurate ought to be as uncomfortable as it has been surprising. One can think of several reasons why the importance of its anecdote about the Cambridge elections has so often been overlooked. The least damning would be to say that demonstrating its virtues has required extensive, unglamorous research of the sort few historians could ever have been expected to undertake and even fewer would have attempted had they had the opportunity to do so. A more critical view would be that too much was taken for granted. That Heath was obviously unreliable. That all the available evidence had been discovered. That some of the best historians in the field had exhausted the subject. All these assumptions could easily have been true. That is why showing that they were not must matter.

If nothing else, Heath's reputation now deserves to be at least partially rehabilitated. Disappointingly, the man behind the caustic polemics remains as enigmatic as ever. But dismissing him without due consideration is no longer good enough. There are, needless to say, many ways in which he remains as unfashionable as ever. Cromwell's modern biographers have been more sympathetic than hostile towards the lord protector's memory. This does not mean that they have ignored his faults. On the contrary, most have dwelt on, even agonized over, the darker aspects of Cromwell's character and legacy.