The Putney Debates of 1647: The Army, the Levellers, and the English State (review)

Opportunities to eavesdrop on a passionate, 350-year-old debate about political theory are rare indeed, especially when the conversation is between officers and soldiers' representatives of a revolutionary army. Hence the interest in the New Model Army debates at Putney between the first and second English Civil Wars, which, by good fortune, were recorded and preserved. The tantalizing insights that these offer historians and students of political theory certainly justify the present collection.

In addition to the introduction, this slim volume boasts thirteen essays by distinguished contributors. The articles are organized in three sections: the artefact; the debates and their contexts; and the Levellers and "Levellerism" in history and historiography. Most of the material deals with one aspect or another of the context rather than a thorough-going analysis of the content of the debates, and five of the pieces are devoted to the history and historiography of the Levellers, a group scarcely suffering from neglect, and which several contributors found less influential at Putney than often thought. The essays in the Leveller section are original and valuable, but they seem to slide further and further from the core subject. A calendar of pertinent events would have helped those readers not close students of Putney.

That said, there is a rich array of material for specialists from such diverse fields as political theory, military history, law, crowd behavior, and women's studies. For example, Leslie LeClaire and Barbara Taft offer studies of Sir William Clarke, who recorded the debate, and the political theories of Henry Ireton, a key participant. Austin Woolrych's excellent piece on the debates from the army's perspective supplies background essential for understanding the clutter of petitions, pronouncements, and grievances. Barbara Donagan looks at practical and theoretical tensions between civilian and military law and issues of loyalty. Unfortunately, however, she never touches on that poignant plea from Edward Sexby, "But it seems now, except a man hath a fixed estate in this kingdom he hath no right in this kingdom. I wonder we were so much deceived. If we had not a right to the kingdom, we were mere mercenary soldiers." Morrill and Baker contribute a fine, close analysis of an important tract. In similar vein, Ian Gentles sets various surviving versions of "The Agreement of the People" in their political context and explores the significant alterations made between 1647 and 1649, information that would have been valuable earlier in the book. William Lamont's essay on the appropriateness of linking puritanism and liberty and Tim Harris' on the fright that Leveller ideas gave Restoration authorities are intriguing.

All the contributions are skillful and interesting, and the collection as a whole is a great resource. Perhaps it will entice other researchers to delve into this rich subject matter.