The Limits of Harrington’s Republicanism

While Harrington was a republican of a certain kind, his thought was not always typical of this discourse, resulting in conflict with other republicans of the time. Chapter 5 traces the limits of Harrington’s republicanism, examining his attitude towards royalists and considering the relativism reflected in his acknowledgment that absolute monarchy may be the best form of government for certain states. The chapter demonstrates that Harrington did not see his model as incompatible with a single figurehead. The Lord Archon in Oceana acts both as legislator and as princely ruler or doge. Harrington was then a pluralist, not an exclusivist, republican, more concerned with the exercise of popular power at the foundation of the system than with whether one or a few ruled at its apex. He thus offered a middle way between traditional monarchy and kingless republicanism, rendering more understandable his relations with Charles Stuart and Charles Louis.

Harrington’s Republicanism

Chapter 4 focuses on the nature of Harrington’s republicanism and the key features of his ‘equal commonwealth’. It begins by examining the complex publishing history of Oceana and the political and intellectual context in which that work was written. It then traces Harrington’s commitment to key features of commonwealth government: his use of republican models ancient and modern, his adoption of the neo-Roman understanding of liberty and his conflict with Thomas Hobbes on this issue, and his commitment to government in accordance with reason and the public good. Harrington’s understanding of, and emphasis on, the concepts of empire and authority are then explored. Finally, the central features of his equal commonwealth are set out: the agrarian law to ensure equality at the foundation, and then a bicameral legislature, rotation of office, and the Venetian ballot to secure equality and prevent corruption in the superstructure.

The Rota Club

Chapter 14 offers a novel and comprehensive account of the Rota Club, established by Harrington in the autumn of 1659. As well as seizing the opportunity for political speculation, the Rota Club took Harrington’s experimentation with form to a new level. It provided a means of putting into practice two of the more controversial elements of Harrington’s programme: open and inclusive membership of the citizen body, and the debating and balloting procedure. By welcoming members with diverse political and religious views to the Club, and encouraging them to engage in political debate in a peaceful and constructive manner, Harrington was showing that inclusive citizenship would not automatically lead to chaos. By instituting a formal system of debate and the use of a balloting box, Harrington was providing an opportunity for people to experience the controversial decision-making procedure he had described in Oceana.

Innovation in Style

While Harrington is best known as a political writer, he began his career as a poet. Chapter 8 argues that he never gave up his literary interests, that his political and literary writings were intertwined, and that his substantive arguments were reflected in the vocabulary and form of his works. Harrington coined new words or adapted old ones to reflect the revolutionary changes of the time. Both his hybrid constitutional vocabulary and Oceana’s composite form can be read as an embodiment of the combination of ancient, English, and modern practices that made up his system, and as a reflection of the idea that his model constitution would reconcile royalists and parliamentarians. Concerned that people find it difficult to understand written constitutional models, Harrington experimented with fiction, dialogue, and visualization to spark his audience’s imagination so that they could ‘experience’, and therefore come to understand and appreciate, his political model.

The Agent of Monarchy

Chapter 3 explores the ways in which Harrington maintained and extended his family’s long-standing connections with the Stuarts. He did so first as ‘agent’ to the Prince Elector Palatine Charles Louis, son of Elizabeth of Bohemia, handling his funds and delivering a Humble Remonstrance on his behalf. This role may have led to the choice of Harrington as gentleman of the bedchamber to the captive Charles I. In both cases Harrington was in an ambiguous position with regard to the division at the heart of the Civil War, since Charles Louis sided with Parliament rather than his uncle, and though Harrington worked as a close personal servant to Charles I, it was Parliament who appointed him to this position. These activities suggest that a more robust explanation is required as to how Harrington reconciled his royal service with his belief that England was ripe for republican government.

The Family Man

After setting out the limited range of sources available that provide information on Harrington’s life, Chapter 1 explores his family connections and early years. Detail is provided on his immediate family background and the close interaction between him and his siblings as reflected in testamentary evidence. Attention is also paid to the origins of the relationship between the Harrington family and the Stuarts, especially Charles I’s sister Princess Elizabeth, later Queen of Bohemia. The chapter traces Harrington’s early life from his birth in Northamptonshire in 1611 through to the outbreak of the Civil War in 1642. It examines, in particular, his education at Trinity College Oxford and the Middle Temple, and his European tour.

Introduction

James Harrington’s ideas emerged out of the turbulent circumstances of 1650s England, yet they continued to prove influential in late eighteenth-century America and France and nineteenth-century Germany. In part this enduring legacy was due to the breadth of Harrington’s interests and flexibility of his ideas, making them accessible and appealing to advocates of a variety of political positions. This introduction traces the popularity of Harrington’s ideas among eighteenth-century commonwealthmen, his relative neglect during the nineteenth century, and the revival of interest in him at the turn of the twentieth century. It also provides an overview of scholarly treatments of him including those emphasizing his utopianism, his role as the progenitor of a materialist theory of social change, and his position as a leading republican. It argues that a reassessment of Harrington’s life and work is overdue, and sets out the focus and structure of the book.

Controversies About History

Harrington engaged in controversy over particular historical models, over appropriate historical methodology, and over the relevance of history to politics. He sought not merely to impose past models in the present, but to use research into the past to inform present judgement. Harrington treated the commonwealth of Israel like any other ancient model, and emphasized its Erastianism and, more controversially, its democratic character. Sparta too was presented by him as a ‘democratic’ state against those who emphasized its monarchical or oligarchical elements. Harrington’s theory about the relationship between land and power was also grounded in his historical analysis, providing him with a distinctive account of the causes of the English Civil War. Finally, Harrington’s historical methodology set him at odds with those who championed mathematical over historical demonstration. In his historical debate, as in other aspects of his work, Harrington was charting his own middle course.

Innovation in Substance: ‘Empire follows the Balance of Property’

Chapter 6 focuses on Harrington’s innovative theory regarding the relationship between land and political power. It asserts the novelty of the theory, as claimed by Harrington and acknowledged by others, as well as its relationship to Harrington’s wider innovation of designing a large state republic. The chapter then elucidates the key elements of Harrington’s theory, its implications for his typology of government, and its application to England. Once a government suited to the distribution of property is established within a state it must be preserved by means of an agrarian law, and again the details of this provision are explored. The chapter also pays attention to Harrington’s distinctive imperial policy which emphasized colonial expansion within, rather than beyond Europe, and his consequent emphasis on the importance of the army rather than the navy. Thus Harrington’s innovative theory about property and power is presented as generating various other novelties.

Conclusion

The Conclusion explores the gains of approaching Harrington from beyond the republican paradigm. In the first place, we see more clearly the complexity and atypicality of Harrington’s republicanism, and even the possibility of characterizing him as a democrat. Secondly, it is evident that Harrington was neither wholly ancient nor thoroughly modern, but cut a distinctive path between the two. Moreover, his pursuit of a middle way is also reflected in his insistence on post-Civil War reconciliation and in the character of his republicanism, his democracy, his religious views, and his underlying philosophical position. Finally, Harrington’s contributions to historical, religious, and philosophical thought can now be more fully appreciated, along with his innovations in the form and presentation of his works. These findings not only enhance our perspective on Harrington, but have wider implications for our understanding of the seventeenth century and the discipline of intellectual history.