To create the collection of essays in Democracy and Anti-democracy in Early Modern England, 1603–1689, editors Cesare Cuttica and Markku Peltonen brought together scholars of early modern religion, politics, political thought, and literature to build upon a recent upsurge of interest in themes that are central to modern liberal societies—including popular sovereignty and freedom of speech—but that need to be shorn of Whiggery. In doing so, Cuttica and Peltonen seek to move beyond discussions that merely focus upon “democratic culture” or “democratization,” in order to probe contemporary definitions, understanding, and thinking, while avoiding teleological accounts that trace early modern “anticipations” of modern ideas (4). This openness to non-liberal forms of democracy inevitably makes the collection broad and diverse, and it demonstrates the value of moving beyond politics and canonical texts of constitutional thought, in order to reflect upon religion, morality, and literature. Essays tackle citizenship, representation, and religious practice, as well as attitudes toward Native Americans, slaves, and women; although considerable attention is rightly devoted to antidemocratic sentiments and arguments, it is also suggested that these helped to foster the development of more positive notions of democracy. The result is a volume full of insights, some of which emerge rather hazily, but which are hugely suggestive.

First, and least surprisingly, there was no inevitable correlation between advocacy of popular sovereignty (or republicanism) and the endorsement of democracy. As demonstrated by Rachel Foxley, Alan Cromartie, and (particularly) Martin Dzelzainis, John Milton was damning about popular capacities and virtue, and by decrying “a herd confus'd” he produced a politics of exclusion (240). Milton also demonstrates that antidemocratic fears of “popularity” and popular passions were evident across the political spectrum, and the pervasive nature of such claims is discussed by Cuttica, Matthew Growhoski, and John West.

Secondly, contemporaries were capable of developing more positive perspectives upon democracy. Some invoked the merits of participatory politics, as discussed by Cromartie, Peltonen, and Hannah Dawson. Thus, while Gaby Mahlberg demonstrates that hostility remained toward parliamentary institutions—most obviously when imaging female participation—many who embraced “democracy” did so on the basis of institutional arrangements, in terms of equality before the law, regular parliaments, and the rotation of office, as well as mechanisms for ensuring accountability, including accusations and ostracism. Democracy could thus be associated with free states and with representation. As Peltonen shows, some consciously distinguished “good” from “bad” forms of democracy, conjuring ideas about government “by” and “for” the people while damning licentiousness and mob rule. Their vision was sometimes described as government by laws.

Edward Vallance cautions against associating “participation” with democracy, emphasizing—with particular reference to women—that petitioning and other subscriptional activities could be antidemocratic, demonstrating notions of weakness, humility, and deference rather than asserting rights within a political community. Of course, it might still be possible to suggest that petitioning was integral to non-liberal forms of democracy, although a third key theme of the volume suggests that the language of rights did, in fact, become associated with democracy. Some contemporaries were not only more positive about popular capacities (not least because education could overcome servility), but also moved beyond the politics of virtue towards one that recognized and registered rational “interests.” This term emerges repeatedly, but is most obviously explored by Cromartie, who suggests that some of those who advocated democracy—like Marchamont Nedham and John Streater—came to associate “interests” with “rights.”

A fourth key theme involves the role of religious ideas in the development of democratic thinking. By focusing upon Presbyterians, Rachel Hammersley addresses claims and practices regarding the election of ministers and the way in which their debates with Independents helped to clarify the distinction between “direct” and “representative”—or consent-based—power. Her piece fits neatly with the chapter by Peter Lake, who likewise demonstrates that religiously based attacks upon democracy fostered democratic thinking. In Lake's case this involves revisiting the association between Puritanism and political radicalism, through the lens of attacks upon “popularity,” “people-pleasers,” and conventicles, and in terms of fears that free, scripture-interpreting subjects would become factious and disobedient, rather than just schismatical and heretical.

The fifth theme—and another that emerges rather hazily—involves majoritarianism. This is touched upon repeatedly, and obviously relates to religious ideas about the limits of inclusion within particular communities, as discussed by Camilla Boisen in relation to the debate between Roger Williams and John Cotton. As both Boisen and Cromartie recognize, some contemporaries felt able to accept inclusive policies and majoritarian practices by insisting on the separation between church and state, and thus upon the limits of popular sovereignty. Here, too, it is possible to detect an important shift, away from the concerns expressed by Lake's anti-Puritans (who detected and feared a validation of majority rule), and towards ideas that recognized a vital means for embracing popular sovereignty while tempering divisions, and avoiding persecutory outcomes.

In all of these ways, this volume is thought-provoking and insightful, even if some of its most interesting ideas do not quite come into focus. This is probably inevitable with a collection of essays, particularly on a topic where some commentators discussed democracy without precision, and where others made tentative, ambivalent, and experimental steps towards new ways of thinking, in an era of profound upheaval. In an undogmatic way, the volume makes the case for recovering alternative pathways to democratic ideas and non-liberal versions of democratic thinking, although the issue of majoritarianism perhaps indicates the element most obviously missing from the discussion. This is mostly a volume about discourse, and there would surely be scope to discuss other ways in which contemporaries grappled with democratic thinking and practice, not least in terms of elections, whether parliamentary, civic, or corporate. A case could be made that daily practice, like religious debate, was central to the process of intellectual change in early modern England.