ANTTI TAHVANAINEN RHETORIC AND PUBLIC SPEECH IN ENGLISH REPUBLICANISM 1642-1681 Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by due permission of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Helsinki in auditorium XIV, on the 21st of January, 2012 at 10 o’clock. Helsinki 2012 Copyright Antti Tahvanainen ISBN 978-952-10-7580-3 (paperback) ISBN 978-952-10-7581-0 (PDF) Helsinki University Print “For his opinion touching the gouernment of the State, it is manifest that he least of all liked the Democracy. And vpon diuers occasions, hee noteth the emulation and contention of the Demagogues, for reputa- tion, and glory of wit; with their crossing of each others counsels to the dammage of the Publique; the inconstancy of Resolutions, caused by the diuersity of ends, and power of Rhetorique in the Orators; and the desperate actions vndertaken vpon the flattering aduice of such as de- sired to attain, or to hold what they had attained of authority and sway amongst the common people.” - Thomas Hobbes, “Of the life and history of Thucydides,” in Thucydides, Eight Bookes of the Peloponnesian Warre, London: 1629. Contents Acknowledgements vii Abbreviations ix Introduction 1 PART I CIVIL WAR WRITINGS TO 1649 1. John Milton 29 2. Marchamont Nedham 55 PART II COMMONWEALTH 1649-1653 3. Return of Milton 65 4. John Hall of Durham 78 5. Nedham’s fall and rise 96 PART III PROTECTORATE 1653-1655 6. Hall and John Streater at odds 109 7. Streater’s Observations 124 8. Nedham and Milton for the Protectorate 141 v vi CONTENTS PART IV PROTECTORATE IN 1656 9. Nedham, his Excellencie 153 10. James Harrington and his Oceana 162 PART V PROTECTORATE 1657-1660 11. Reception of Oceana – Nedham in 1657 196 12. Harrington’s Prerogative 205 13. 1659 212 14. Milton’s Ready and easy way 225 PART VI POST-RESTORATION ERA 1661-1681 15. Exeunt – Harrington and Streater 238 16. Milton – epic and education 241 17. Nedham’s last works 250 18. Epilogue: Henry Neville 256 Conclusion 269 Appendix 278 Bibliography 279 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Over the years spent writing this study I have accumulated debts of gratitude to many people. Markku Peltonen has been my supervisor at the University of Helsinki from the beginning, and has ever since encouraged me to work hard and to find my own voice as an author. Martin Dzelzainis and Jason Peacey served as the external examiners, and in the process gave important insights and made invaluable cor- rections to this study. Many added thanks go to Martin Dzelzainis for agreeing to act as the official opponent in the viva voce. I would like to thank Angus Gowland for his kind help and patience during my sojourn in University College London, Richard Serjeant- son for helpful comments on various occasions, and the organisers of all the conferences, seminars and symposia I have participated in – in particular, Martin van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner for their convegni on the history of liberty, and Kari Palonen for the biennial European workshops. I am grateful for the many travel grants I have received from the coffers of the University of Helsinki. Also, many thanks to the editors of the following books, where parts of this study can be found published as articles: Christophe Tournu (Milton in France), Rosalind Crone, David Gange and Katy Jones (New Perspectives in British Cultural History), and professors Skinner and van Gelderen (Freedom and the Construction of Europe: New Perspectives on Philo- sophical, Religious, and Political Controversies). One of the highlights of postgraduate studies is the opportunity to meet gifted and intelligent colleagues, such as Theo Christov, Rosanna Cox, Felicity Green, Tomasz Gromelski, Chloe Houston, Jaska Kai- nulainen, Susan Karr, Lovro Kuncevic, Avi Lifschitz, Adriana Luna, vii viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Reidar Maliks, Eric Nelson, Ere Nokkala, Christian Preusse, Antoi- nette Saxer, Freya Sierhuis, David Thorley, Christopher Warren and Márton Zászkaliczky. Dumitru Kihaï helped me with the intricacies of page layout – merci, cumatru. At the alma mater, old friends Mikko Tolonen and Jaakko Tahkokallio are keeping alive the spirit of the ‘Pengerkatu School’. I am also happy to have a large family to thank, but above all, the greatest thanks must go to my wife. In the words of James Harrington, “To be learned requires leisure and income.” My greatest debt of grati- tude is to Bianca, who earned the income that gave me the leisure to work on becoming learned. Part of that leisure was lost to our children Erik and Julia, but the trade was infinitely better. ABBREVIATIONS CPW John Milton, Complete Prose Works of John Milton, general ed. Don M. Wolfe, 8 vols., New Haven: Yale University Press 1953-82. MP Marchamont Nedham, Mercurius Politicus (March-April 1657) 352-356, pp. 7641-7720. PL John Milton, “Paradise Lost” [1667] in The Complete Poems, John Leonard (ed.), Penguin Classics 1998. PR Henry Neville, “Plato Redivivus” [2nd ed., 1681] in Two Eng- lish Republican tracts, Caroline Robbins (ed.), Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press 1969. PW James Harrington, The political works of James Harrington, John Greville Agard Pocock (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press 1977. The year is considered to start from January. ix Introduction This is a study of the role of public speech and rhetoric in late-sev- enteenth-century English republicanism. It will analyse the ambiva- lent relationship republicanism, as a form of self-government free from domination, had with the ideal of participatory oratory and non-dom- inated speech on the one hand, and with the danger of unhindered demagogy and its possibly fatal consequences to that form of govern- ment on the other. Although previous scholarship has delved deeply into republicanism as well as into rhetoric and public speech, the in- terplay between those aspects has only gathered scattered interest, and there has been no systematic, comprehensive study considering the va- riety of the republican approaches to rhetoric and public speech. The rare attempts to do so have been in the field of English literature, and these works, while commendable and useful studies in their own right, do not analyse the political philosophy of republicanism vis-à-vis public speech, but rather concentrate on republicanism as a literary culture – of prose and poetry rather than theory.1 The basic premise of this study is that we can legitimately argue for the existence of English republicanism, considering the extent of the shared frame of references by the authors under study. However, this study will show that within the tradition of classical republican- ism individual authors could make different choices when addressing the problematic topics of public speech and rhetoric, and the variety of their conclusions often set the authors against each other, resulting in the partial development of their theories through internal debates 1 Most notably: David Norbrook, Writing the English Republic: poetry, rhetoric and poli- tics, 1627-1660, Cambridge: 1999; Nigel Smith, Literature and Revolution in England, 1640-1660, New Haven: 1994. 1 2 INTRODUCTION within the republican tradition. The authors under study have been chosen to reflect this variety and the connections between them: the similarities between James Harrington and John Streater, and between John Milton and John Hall are shown as well the controversies between Harrington and Milton, and Streater and Hall, respectively. In addi- tion, by analysing the writings of Marchamont Nedham the study will show that the choices were not simply limited to more, or less, demo- cratic brands of republicanism. By means of this analysis, the study will show that the previous at- tempts to assess the role of free speech and public debate, through the lens of modern, rights-based liberal political theory, have resulted in an inappropriate framework for understanding early modern English republicanism. By approaching the topics through concepts used by the republicans – legitimate authority, leadership by oratory, republican freedom – and through the frames of reference available and familiar to them – roles of education and institutions – this study will present a thorough and systematic analysis of the role and function of rhetoric and public speech in English republicanism. The findings of this analy- sis will be shown to have significant consequences to our current under- standing of the history and development of republican political theory. Historical background Rhetoric and republicanism shared a common heritage, as humanism was a necessary background to republicanism, and similarly rhetoric was a crucial part of humanism. However, rhetoric, seen specifically as the art of public speaking, has historically been controversial in the re- publican tradition. It has been often viewed as conducive to democratic values and ideals, yet it has also been condemned, as the art of sedition and treachery, undermining political order and rational decision-mak- ing.2 The study starts from a perspective that the political use of rheto- 2 Literature on the subject is abundant, for a recent contribution: Benedetto Fon- tana, Cary J. Nederman, Gary Remer, eds., Talking democracy: historical perspectives on rhetoric and democracy, University Park, PA. 2004. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 3 ric can be seen as aiming for a similar golden mean as republicanism: instead of demagogy, with its allusions to anarchic democracy and mob rule, or fawning flattery in a tyrannical oligarchy, an ideal rhetoric in an ideal republic would lie between these two extremes. We can trace the origins of this approach to ancient Greece, and Aristotle’s description of the role of abusers of rhetoric in a tyranny, that “tyranny fauoureth the wicked, in as much as tyrans take a pleasure to be flattered, which neuer would any man of free and noble heart doe.” This quote in Aristotle’s Politics is a part of a double-pronged cri- tique of political forms.