Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King: Reactions to Oliver Cromwell’s Power by Benjamin Woodford (review)

Woodford’s book derives from his doctoral thesis and bears many of the hallmarks of that genre. It insistently lays claim to a niche in the subject area it seeks to fill, its structure is notably programmatic, and the tone of the writing is very earnest. The chief chronological focus is the short period which began on March 31, 1657, when the first version of the Humble Petition and Advice with its proposed new constitution and offer of the crown was laid before Oliver Cromwell. Its closure came a few weeks later on May 27 when a revised version of the Humble Petition was accepted but without the kingly title; “Lord Protector” was judged to be a more appropriate and prudent fit than “King Oliver”. Woodford explores issues relating to the title, substance and trappings of kingship in this phase of the English republic, the reactions to the growth of Cromwell’s power both inside and outside government, and the ways in which kingship became a topic of lively debate in the print culture of the day. Printed pamphlets from the 1650s constitute the major source.

Logically, the author begins with Cromwell’s own views – far from fixed–on the subject of kingship and the factors which ultimately swayed him from accepting the undoubtedly tempting offer of the crown. In an article which appeared in 2012, Woodford previously visited the vexed question of the accuracy of the record of Cromwell’s speeches on the subject and the merits and demerits of different modern published editions. The first chapter of his book goes over the same ground, underlining the contrast between Cromwell’s guarded utterances to Parliament and his greater openness in discussions with the Kingship Committee. Woodford also has important things to say about the timing of the contemporary publication of Cromwell’s kingship speeches and indeed the reluctance to release more than summaries in some cases. Opening up the debate to all on the same terms (and so offer double-edged swords), after all, was not likely to happen.

But Cromwell’s own views and final decision on kingship – self-evidently central though they were – do not provide the principal focus of Woodford’s survey. Seven other chapters significantly extend the range first by examining the carefully limited place of the kingship debate in printed propaganda of the 1650s and then by reviewing an assortment of pamphlet writers, poets, Royalists, sectarians, as well as the lengthy political allegory/instruction manual offered by James Harrington in his Oceana. Predictably, Marchamont Nedham, Milton, and Marvell get the generous allocation of space their respective contributions merit. But since so many other modern scholars, historians and literary critics alike, have traversed this part of the field before him, readers of Woodford’s book are likely to look elsewhere for his most original contributions to Cromwell studies. In particular, they will be sure to welcome his discussion of lesser-known writers such as John Hall of Richmond, Michael Hawke, James Howell, John Lineall, and John Spittlehouse and his judicious assessment of how precisely they fitted in to the ongoing dialogues on Cromwellian kingship. The Welshman Arise Evans also finds a place in Woodford’s discussion, though he fails to mention Christopher Hill’s pioneering essay (in Change and Continuity in Seventeenth-Century England [London, 1976]) on this frank and fearless commentator. Chapter 7 draws attention to the partial overlap between sectarian judgements on kingship – as being cancelled by God’s intervention – and Cromwell’s own. Elsewhere, the chapter structure of Perceptions of Monarchy does not always provide a neat fit for the contents. Nedham straddles two chapters, firstly as a newspaper editor (of the semi-official Mercurius Politicus) and then as a writer of tracts. Milton’s famous sonnet “To the Lord General Cromwell” of May 1652 gets drawn into a chapter on prose-writing.

Cromwell, of course, as well as being...