In January 1649, newspapers reported that James Harrington had been dismissed from his position at the court of Charles I, for saying that while he would not participate in the king's overthrow, neither would he stand in its way. This story highlights the complications and confusions that surround English republicanism, and it is in an attempt to resolve such apparent tensions and to deepen our understanding of seventeenth-century political thought, that Jonathan Scott's new book has been written. Scott fills a glaring gap in the scholarly marketplace, by producing a wide-ranging exploration of republican writing in the long seventeenth century, which engages with and challenges leading authorities in the field. By means of a tripartite structure, which explores long-term contexts, analyzes substantive content, and traces chronological development, Scott explores the protean nature of republican thought and its divergent strands, and a key aim appears to be to demonstrate Harrington's atypicality.

Section 1 highlights four key contexts that informed English republicanism. After demonstrating that classical republicanism was pervasive in early modern culture, Scott stresses the often neglected religious strand within republicanism, not least in order to strip away the editorial influence of John Toland. A third context involves engagement with recent social, economic, and political historiography, and the acceptance of arguments regarding the long-term instability of the English monarchy, given the failure of Tudor state-building and the impact of population growth. Republicans are shown to have been alive to such issues and interested in political participation, economic equality, and social justice, as well as in trade and military expansion. Indeed, the international aspects of republicanism lead Scott toward issues regarding time and space, and “old” and “new” worlds. He explores republican attitudes toward historical stability and change, stressing the importance of a relativism that grew out of geographical exploration, Protestant antiformalism, as well as Plato and Niccolò Machiavelli. This in turn underpinned attitudes toward constitutional forms, political economy, and expansionist colonialism.

Scott then applies such findings in an analysis of the content of republican thought, in terms of arguments regarding resistance and rebellion, constitutions, liberty, virtue and empire, as well as the “politics of time.” What emerges is that republicanism was a multifaceted phenomena, and Scott distinguishes between the broad strands and their respective advocates, notably John Milton, Marchamont Nedham, and Harrington, each of whom drew on different elements of the republican inheritance, in terms of the classical, humanist, and religious traditions, and in terms of respect for the rule of law, mixed constitutions, and morally virtuous citizens. In each chapter, Scott detects differences between the moralism, Christian humanism, and elitism of Milton and Sir Henry Vane, and the practical Machiavellianism of Nedham and John Streater, as well as the tendency for Harrington to represent a somewhat aloof and unorthodox voice, who consistently sought to break the republican mold.

The third, chronological, section of the book, traces the emergence and fortunes of these competing versions of republicanism, stressing not merely the reaction to regal tyranny but also the impact of parliamentarian oligarchy. Examining how republicanism developed after the execution of Charles I, Scott challenges Blair Worden's denial that the regime thought of itself as a republic, while nevertheless suggesting that the obstacles facing the commonwealth helped to develop mature republican ideologies (B. Worden, “Republicanism,” in Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, ed. Martin van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner [Cambridge, 2002]). That this development took place along divergent paths explains why some republicans defended the dissolution of the Rump and the formation of a Protectorate, while others were propelled into opposition. Although Harrington stood outside such divisions, Scott insists on Harrington's desire to counsel rather than merely criticize Oliver Cromwell, and in tracing the fortunes of republicanism after the collapse of the Protectorate, Scott demonstrates how prevalent Harringtonian views became. The final two chapters trace republican responses to both the Restoration and the achievement of a “monarchical republic” in 1688, not least in the face of standing armies and a new commercial society.

Certain specialist scholars will doubtless challenge Scott's interpretation of particular authors, not least Harrington. Nevertheless, this is unquestionably an impressive work. Scott offers a thorough discussion of an extended period of republican writing, and an extremely subtle reading, on big and small issues alike. His achievement is all the greater for having reintegrated intellectual thought within a variety of historical contexts, and for having progressed beyond canonical texts. Scott displays sensitivity to a variety of recent historiographical trends, as well as to political context, publishing formats, and editorial influences, and he draws material from parliamentary speeches and “ephemeral” pamphlets as readily as from weighty tomes. Unlike many scholars, he avoids becoming bogged down by preoccupation with republicans’ sources and constitutional prescriptions.

Scott's structure creates an enormous risk of repetition, and although this has largely been minimized in terms of detailed analysis, there are more serious problems regarding the distinction between the “context” and “content” of republicanism, particularly in terms of the “politics of time” (191). Moreover, the book arguably falls somewhere between the stools of monograph and textbook history. Too long for a textbook, it is also bereft of the kindnesses to readers that such works require, such as a conclusion, even if the author is blessed with stylish and lucid prose. As a monograph, however, its analysis seems at times to be truncated to the point of being superficial, particularly in terms of the contributions of Algernon Sidney, Henry Neville, Slingsby Bethel, and John Locke. I would have preferred either a longer book, or else a more focused and deepened analysis of a shorter period, most obviously from 1640–60. The latter would have permitted discussion of issues such as the republican response to the kingship debates of 1657, on which Nedham is fascinating while Scott is strangely silent. Nevertheless, those who have been spoiled ought to temper their demands for more and merely recognize an immense achievement that will enlighten scholars and students from any number of disciplinary backgrounds.