Abstract

This article offers a revised interpretation of the Scottish republican thinker and political activist Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun’s views on the issue of militias and standing armies. Reconstructing both its English and Scottish contexts, it is shown that Fletcher’s republicanism incorporated strong constitutionalist elements by engaging with several forms of political discourses and practices. On the one hand, his Discourse concerning Militias (1697) issued in London went much further than the moderate neo-Harringtonian propaganda of the anti-army camp, arguing for delivering the right to use arms to the parliaments instead of the king. On the other, the second version of Fletcher’s tract published in Edinburgh in 1698 and his 1703 parliamentary ‘limitations’ enlarged the participation in the militia to landless subjects, transcending both the Buchananite ethos of the nobility in arms and James Harrington’s original agrarian model. As a result of this study, Fletcher’s idea of government emerges as much closer to English Civil War authors and the likes of Algernon Sidney and Henry Neville than to any of his contemporaries. The conclusions stress how Fletcher’s radical stance should be considered as the most important facet of his legacy, presenting some cases of reception in the age of revolutions.