The Commonwealth of Oceana and A System of Politics

by James Harrington, J.G.A. Pocock (Editor)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.

This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.

As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, History

332 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1656

About the author

James Harrington (or Harington) was an English political theorist of classical republicanism, best known for his controversial work, The Commonwealth of Oceana (1656). This work was an exposition on an ideal constitution, designed to facilitate the development of a utopian republic.

James Harrington was born in 1611 in Upton, Northamptonshire, eldest son of Sir Sapcote(s) Harrington of Rand, Lincolnshire who died 1629, and great-nephew of the first Lord Harington of Exton who died 1615. His mother was Jane Samwell (or Samuell) of Upton, daughter of Sir William Samwell. He was also for a time a resident, with his father, in the Manor House at the village of Milton Malsor, Northamptonshire.

Knowledge of Harrington's childhood and early education is practically non-existent; both, it seems, were conducted at the family manor in Rand. In 1629, he entered Trinity College, Oxford as a gentleman commoner and left two years later with no degree. For a brief time, one of his tutors was the royalist High Churchman William Chillingworth. He entered then abruptly left the Middle Temple despising lawyers forever, an animus which later appeared in his writings.

Reviews

[Jesse · Rating 4 out of 5]

I didn't enjoy this book, as it is rather dry, but I am glad I read it. I recommend reading Machiavelli's "Discourses on Livy" first, not only because Harrington cites him all the time, but because what's most interesting about Harrington is the ways in which he diverges from Machiavelli's vision. Harrington seems like a key figure for understanding the way that a landed, rural elite modified Machiavelli's more populist (although still somewhat elitist), urban republicanism, which celebrated civil conflict between the classes as a way of maintaining "virtue", into a doctrine which uses representative bodies to stifle all debate within society. Debate is the privilege of the elected Senate, who are to act as the advisors to the people (really, the representatives of the people in a larger House that he calls the "prerogative tribe"). The people and their representatives are not allowed to debate at all - their prerogative is merely that of deciding, via a vote, to accept or reject the decrees of the Senate.

Harrington continues Machiavelli's praise of Roman imperial expansion, turning it into a more Protestant vision of spreading civic liberty and (anti-Catholic) freedom of conscience across the globe, in a empire where most government and military power stays in the hands of English citizens, who will obtain plots of land in the conquered provinces in order to prevent vast disparities in property from arising among them. This seems to diverge from Machiavelli's vision, where Rome's expansion is attributed to the fact that conquered peoples were allowed to bear arms and serve in the military - but I'm a bit fuzzy on the details of this, as Harrington suggests that Rome had different types of citizenship for conquered cities within Italy and for those further away.

Harrington and Machiavelli disagree about land reform, and specifically about the role of the Agrarian Laws in the rise of Caesar and the end of the Roman Republic. Despite Machiavelli's praise of civil conflict, he's not a big fan of parties/factions, and thought that the Agrarian Laws, in trying to revive a lost tradition whose reintroduction would have been infeasible, ended up promoting a demagoguery whereby a faction of elite could gain the support of the people in the creation of a tyranny. Harrington, on the other hand, is non-noble landowner who wants to break the power of the nobility, which he believes resides in their property and not merely in their titles. Hence he wants to prevent inheritance by primogeniture, which allows a family to hold its wealth undivided in a single heir, by insisting that there should be a maximum amount of land/wealth that a person can pass on to any one child. This is Harrington's proposal for Agrarian Laws in England.

While Harrington frequently says that this Agrarian Law leads to "equality", he is clearly opposed to "levelling", or the complete equalization of property. He refers to the distribution of property as the "foundation" of society, while the government is the "superstructure". He insists that the (limited) equality in the foundation, eternally regulated by the Agrarian Laws, necessarily leads to and preserves the (limited) equality in the superstructure, which is Democracy.

Harrington also differs from Machiavelli on the nature and role of "virtue" as it relates to changes in government. Machiavelli says that virtue is a product of necessity, is maintained through civil and military conflict, and that a corrupt city whose people's virtue is replaced with effeminacy and luxury is no longer fit to be a republic and will turn into a monarchy. Monarchies maintain this corruption within society, and have no hope of becoming a republic, unless maybe, just maybe, a single individual willing to do dishonorable deeds in the service of virtuous ends is able to create a situation of poverty/necessity, revitalizing the virtue of the people and laying down the laws of a republic.

Harrington wholly ignores this description of revival of virtue through a single individual, despite it being clearly implicit in his laudatory depiction of Cromwell as Legislator (really, his fictionalized Cromwell, Olphaus Megaletor). Instead, he suggests that there are different types of virtue - there is some sort of virtue even within a monarchy, which can also be corrupted, and in being corrupted turns into the virtue appropriate for a republic. This has the rhetorical advantage of insisting on the necessity of instating a republic in England after the collapse of the monarchy, while Machiavelli's analysis would leave this as a contingency, a mere possibility, with another monarchy being overwhelmingly more likely. In short: Machiavelli thinks that one prince can be replaced by another by conspiratorial methods, while Harrington thinks that monarchies only fall when there has been a fundamental change in the balance of property and power within society, necessitating a different form of government.

Machiavelli is not confident that a republic can last forever, even if he'd like it to - this would require frequent acts of revitalization by virtuous, cunning individuals, as corruption always remains a possibility. Harrington thinks that corruption cannot occur at all as long as the foundation in the distribution of property is maintained.

[Keerthi Vasishta]

Notes to self-
Commonwealthsman.
Lord Archon
Weird elections with golden and silver balls alternating and yearly 'revolutions'.
Agrarian laws and agrarian republic to ensure bread and income is sufficient
no standing army
loyalty based on equality
Revenue expansion through minimal taxation
Oppress Jewish people because they are traders but only in neighbouring countries but Jewish people, if they settle down like in Canaan can replicate Oceana
The agrarian republic is only one which can foster a peaceful republic because it rids people of sloth while also providing wealth.
Hole in the plan (my criticisms)-
All lands are not equally fertile
People are wicked according in Harrington and yet he believes wicked people will have no choice but to be straight if all things and opportunites are equal, I'm not sure
All the absurd things about Jewish people
etc etc

[Lily · Rating 5 out of 5]

Is it Stockholm Syndrome? Perhaps. But I love him.

[Hurid Von]

Abandoned towards end.