Review: [untitled]

Author(s): Robert A. Ferguson

Source: Classical Philology, Vol. 82, No. 1 (Jan., 1987), pp. 85-89
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/270036
Accessed: 07/12/2010 19:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Classical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org
 BOOK REVIEWS 85

accountof his conversionimposedon the Westernmindthe conceptwith which

M. is forced to wrestle so vigorously. If nothing else, M.'s book stands as
testimonyto the extentto whichwe remainthe spiritualheirsof this one man.
Butto say this is to demanda differentbook andto missthe pointof the one M.
has written.This is firstandforemosta studyof a process,not of its content,and a
social history which addressesthe immenselyuseful question of conversionen
masse. Happily, M. has writtenhis book in a way that involvesus in his own
mental processes,as well as in the process that is his subject. In so doing, he
teachesus not only about one of the most importantdevelopmentsin Western
history,but how to thinklike historiansas well.
H. A. Drake
Universityof California,
Santa Barbara

Classica Americana: The Greek and Roman Heritage in the United States. By
MEYER REINHOLD. Foreword by WILLIAM M. CALDER III. Afterword by
GEORGE A. KENNEDY. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984. Pp. 371.
$27.50.
The classical tradition has been an ever-embattled subject in American culture.
Meyer Reinhold's Classica Americana traces the debate from colonial times
through the 1970s, from the broad cultural context of the tradition in the
eighteenth century to its current base within select precincts of the modern
academy. The terms and scope of that debate have changed but not its intensity
and certainly not its capacity to divide intellectuals of every persuasion. Many will
want to enter, or reenter, the fray after reading George A. Kennedy's lively
afterword on the place of the tradition in twentieth-century education.
Professor Reinhold gives special attention to what he calls the "Golden Age of
the Classical Tradition in America" from 1760 to 1790. "[N]ever since antiquity,"
he writes of this, the revolutionary era, "were the classics, in one form or other,
read by a greater proportion of a population." And yet even here scholars have
disputed the importance if not the presence of the classics in American life. Is
Hannah Arendt correct when she argues that the Founding Fathers would have
lacked the courage to act without classical examples before them? Or does Clinton
Rossiter come closer to the mark when he writes that the Founders learned little
from the ancients? Should one turn to Richard Gummere, who celebrates the
impact of classical works on early Americans, or to Bernard Bailyn, who finds the
same sources to be illustrative but not determinative of thought? R. is ideally
suited to ponder these matters because he can claim to be both a classicist and an
Americanist in an area where classicists have magnified and Americanists have
minimized influences. Perhaps in consequence, Classica Americana disappoints
just a bit in the end when it restates the questions without giving answers. A more
subtle strategy, in fact, prevails. R.'s sympathies lie with the classicists, but he
resists final judgments in order to clarify discussion and the bases of investigation.
Classica Americana generally succeeds on these terms, and the result is a useful
work for all concerned.
86 BOOK REVIEWS

Determiningthe depth and meaningof classical learningin early America

presentsa numberof problems.Not the leastdifficultyinvolvesa sharpreversalin
perspectivesacrosshistory.For if the eighteenthcenturywitnesseda goldenage in
classicalthought,only the twentieth,whichplacesless valueon that thought,has
achieveda reasonablesophisticationin Americanclassicalstudies.Therehas been
a naturaltendency,based on hindsight,to belittlethe learningand, hence, the
commitmentof earlyAmericans.For example,CharlesFrancisAdams,Jr. could
condemn the knowledgeof his own grandfather,John Quincy Adams, even
thoughJohn Quincyprofessedthat"tolive withouthavinga Ciceroand a Tacitus
at hand seems to me as if it was a privation of one of my limbs." Classica
Americana,in searchof a broaderunderstanding,carefullydisentanglesthis and
othercontroversiesbetweenthe generations.
A superficialknowledgemay nonethelesshave a profoundinfluence.R. builds
his case aroundthis fundamentalrecognition,with illustrationsof the purposes
achievedwithina relativelynarrowuse of the classics.The FoundingFathersand
the generationsimmediatelyafterthemconcentratedon certainworks,and they
read even those texts selectivelyand often in translation.They ransackedthe
writingsof Plutarch,Cicero,andTacitusin particularfor politicalprecedentsthat
would explain their own situation.Scorningmere scholarship,they thought of
ancienthistory and politicaltheory as a past usable for validatingthe present.
Simple ignorance(a heavy relianceon Plutarch'saccount of Lycurgus)caused
them to favor Spartanover Athenianrepublicanism,and their fear of political
instabilityled themawayfromGreekandtowardRomanmodels.Indeed,the way
the FoundersdistrustedPericleandemocracywhile exalting Roman oligarchy
says a greatdeal aboutboth theirpoliticsandthe revolutionthat theystartedand
then stopped.Neoclassictheoriesof translationactivelyencouragedthis search
for parallels. Dryden and Pope, to take the most famous instances, chose
paraphraseand free imitationover literaltranslationfor the latitudethis gave
them in bringingcontemporarymoralissuesto bearupon classicalworks.Their
respectiverenditionsof the Aeneidandthe Iliadstimulatedthe questfor historical
analogies one reasonfor an immenseand lastingpopularityin America.
In otherwords,earlyAmericansdid not haveto be wellgroundedin Greekand
Latinto extracttimelylessonsfromthe ancients.AlexanderHamiltonreliedupon
Dryden'stranslationof Plutarch'sLivesfor the long passagesthat he transcribed
into his copybook.Manyof his pseudonyms Phocion,Tully,Camillus,and, of
course, Publius came from Plutarch,and in each case the name addedsignifi-
cance to the writing in question. Publius, to take the most importantcase,
eloquentlyconveysHamilton'sown exaltedsenseof placeas creatoranddefender
of the Constitutionin TheFederalist;the namerecallsPubliusValerius,a founder
of the Roman Republic.No one can say for sure how much of Hamilton's
politicalphilosophycamefrom Plutarch,but a distinctadmirationfor individual
heroicsand a correspondingcontemptfor the people as a politicalforce suggest
importantparallels.Morecertainis the influenceof Pope'sversionof the Iliadon
anotherAmericanpatriot,Sam Houston. Houstonmemorizedlong portionsof
Pope'stranslationand constructeda heroicself-imageand an oratoricalstyle in
keepingwith its pages.
 BOOK REVIEWS 87

A much smallergroupof earlyAmericanintellectualsmasteredoriginaltexts.

The greatfigurewho growsgreaterin ClassicaAmericanais ThomasJefferson.R.
calls him "thelast greathumanist"and "thehighestconsummation"of the quest
for knowledgein early America.Neither dismissivenor doctrinaire,Jefferson
knew intimatelythose classics availableto him and incorporatedthem into a
complexvision of Americaneducationthat is startlingin its modernity.His plans
embracedthe formal study of English and other modern languages(French,
Italian,Spanish)alongwiththe classics,all of whichwereenrichedwithprograms
in science(mathematics,chemistry,agriculture,botany,and zoology).Jefferson's
correspondencewith John Adams ranged across the classics in an impressive
displayof the balancedwisdomandeloquencethatsuchlearningwas supposedto
instill. Even so, and despitethese glitteringmomentsin the golden age, no early
Americanattemptedto study the ancientson their own terms. When the next
generation of intellectualssought to improve their knowledge in the great
Europeanuniversities,they discoveredonly the depths of their own ignorance.
"We Americansdo not know what a Greekscholaris," wrote GeorgeTicknor
from Gottingenin 1815."Wedo not even knowthe processby whicha man is to
be made one." Not until the middle of the twentiethcenturywould American
classicalscholarshipequalthat of Europe.
What,in sum,did earlyrepublicansgleanfromthe classics,andhow important
was this knowledgeto them?In negativeterms,theyacceptedthe corruptingforce
of all powerand luxuryas well as a negativeviewof humannaturein generaland
a cyclicalviewof history,withthe ultimateruinthatthis implied.Morepositively,
they found civic heroesworthyof emulation,a conceptof personalvirtuegeared
to the publicgood, variouspoliticalsafeguardsin the form of a mixed constitu-
tion, and moral lessons that bespoke the comforting universalityof human
problemsand their solutions.In more immediatesocial terms,classicallearning
was the badgeof the gentleman,a meansof vocationaladvancement(particularly
in the law), and a vital foundationof literaryaspirationsand politicaldiscourse.
An American exceptionalismflourishedamidst these influences. Greek and
Romanexamplesallowedearlyrepublicansto slip out from underthe aegis of a
corruptmodernEurope.The Foundershopedto beginhistoryanewby returning
to its originalsources.
In identifyingand clarifyingthe functionsof the classics in early American
thought,R. makesan importantcontribution.Lesssuccessfulis his analysisof the
changingnatureof the classicalimpactfrom generationto generation.Classica
Americanabringstogethera numberof separate,overlappingarticlesthat have
appearedelsewherein print. The articleshave not been reworkedfor book- or
chapter-formas well as they mighthavebeen.Manyideasand quotationsappear
in three and four places without fresh development,a practicethat becomes
especiallytedious because R. tends to over-documentthe simplest of points.
Theseweaknesseswouldbe merelyirritatingexceptfor a largerfailing.Arranged
roughly in chronologicalorder, the twelve chapters of Classica Americana
connectmorethantheybuild.The overallargumentlacksa meaningfulsynthesis.
Timeand again,we areleftwithoutthe carefulintegrationof relatedelementsthat
couldhavemadethis book a masterpiece.A rhetoricalconceitseeksto masksome
88 BOOKREVIEWS

of these difficulties. After the golden age, R. presupposes a silver age of the
classical tradition, 1790 to 1830, to emphasize the sharp break in American
history after the generation of the Founders. In the context of the classical
tradition, however, there was no dramatic break, only a steady decline in
perceived usefulness, acceptance, and vitality. The conceit, while coyly apposite to
classical divisions, actually distorts a historical situation in which key terms
remained the same but took on different meanings.
In all fairness, R. is dealing with complex issues that require narrative simplifi-
cation.The heartof ClassicaAmericanaconsistsof two separatechapters:one on
the quest for useful knowledge and the other on a similar quest for virtue among
late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century American leaders. Calls for a useful
knowledge and for virtue are everywhere in the language of the formative period,
and the two come togetherin the classicaltradition.It is not too muchto suggest
that virtue, knowledge, and useful learning form a natural and central constella-
tion of concepts in eighteenth-centuryAmericaneducation. Moreover, these
concepts remain in place as long as study of the classics is thought to make men
virtuous.Whenthingscome apartin the nineteenthcentury,ClassicaAmericana
describes the pieces, but it never quite tells the whole story with a proper
weightingof the conditionsand forcesat work.
The story is all the moreinterestingbecauseit involvessomethingof a tragedy
in Americanintellectualthought.An eighteenth-century classicaleducationrein-
forcedcommunalaspirationsand identity;the lessonsof citizenshipwerea large
part of its presumed value. Virtue, as early Americans found the idea in their
readings of Cicero and Plutarch, signified a concern for the common good. This is
what John Adams meant when he declared that "public virtue is the only
Foundation of Republics." And this is also what Jefferson meant when he said
that "self-love is the sole antagonist of virtue, leading us constantly by our
propensities to self-gratification in violation of our moral duties to others." For
the Founders, the key to liberty was virtue as social responsibility. Meanwhile, the
notion of a useful knowledge developed along two lines. As R. summarizes the
situation, "the practical value of knowledge as useful for self-improvement was
balanced by an operative conviction of the social function of knowledge."
Somewhere along the line, certainly by 1830, Americans lost sight of the balance.
Immediate practicality became the criterion of utility, and this sense of practi-
cality simultaneously aggrandized self-improvement over communal service and
condemned large segments of formal learning as idle speculation. The ever-
widening debate over the kind of knowledge useful in a new country soon took on
anti-intellectual tones that condemned classical learning altogether. The admini-
stration of John Quincy Adams (1825 to 1829) would close the era in which
classicism determined intellectual thought in American life. And with that closing,
the high ideal of creating an educated moral community based on a common
notion of shared virtue also ended. The intellectual bases of American citizenship,
community, and education have been immeasurably less ever since.
Whatever its limitations, Classica Americana brings to life the precise nature of
an intellectual idealism that was crucial to national beginnings. It also contains
invaluable suggestions for future study. A closing chapter, a survey of existing
scholarship, performs a service that is as useful as it is rare. Here, a senior scholar
 BOOKREVIEWS 89

brings a lifetime of study into sharp perspective, making evaluations, asking

questions, and suggesting new directions for the field. Dissertation topics and
proposed projects abound. This is a book that classicists and Americanists alike
will want to own and, yes, assign.
Robert A. Ferguson
The University of Chicago