to mask the identit}’ of ends.rnBradford’s critique of Enlightenmentrnliberalism was framed in the heyday ofrnJohn Ravvls’ rationalist liberalism and ofrnl:Iarr’ Jaffa’s crude imposihon of fundamentalistrnrationalism on the AmericanrnFounding. In that intellectual climate,rnBradford’s critique seemed scandalous.rnBut in the last decade of his life, critics asrndiverse as Alasdair Maclnty’re, MichaelrnSandel, and John Gray offered their ownrndevastating criticisms of the Enlightenmentrnconception of reason—which, finally,rnhas been as decisively refuted asrnany philosophical doctrine could be.rnAnd although fundamentalist Americanrnliberalism hangs on ritualishcally amongrnthe courtiers of the Beltway, it is nornlonger credible to a rising generation ofrnyounger scholars. In the years to come, itrnis Bradford’s work, not that of Rawls andrnJaffa, that will be important.rnThe same may be said of Bradford’srncritique of Lincoln as a gnostic figure ofrnthe Enlightenment who, by his consolidationrnof pow er, derailed the Founders*rnfederal commonwealth and set in motionrna unitary state dedicated to an openendedrnand antinomic egalitarianism. Inrnhis critique of the Lincoln myth, Bradfordrnhit a raw nerve. Nothing less was atrnstake than the subversion of an EnlightenmentrnAmerican idendty. Yet contemporaryrnwriters such as Jeffrey Hummel,rnJames McPherson, and Garry Wills haverncome to the same conclusion, the differencernbeing that McPherson and Willsrncelebrate the destruction of the federalismrnof the Founders, while Bradfordrnlaments it.rnSince all the contributors to this volumernknew Bradford personally, thernessays, with their reminiscences andrntelling anecdotes, amount to a portrait ofrnthe man as well as an evaluation of hisrnwork, which ranged across American andrnBritish political history, philosophy, religion,rnrhetoric, classical studies, and literaryrncriticism. Worth the price of thernbook is a complete bibliography of Bradford’srnwritings, compiled by Alan Cornett,rnand another listing selected worksrnabout him.rnClyde Wilson and Thomas Flemingrndiscuss the importance of the Greek andrnRoman classics in shaping both thernSouthern tradition and Bradford’s ownrnwork and character; Thomas Landess, arnfellow student with Bradford during hisrngraduate career at Vanderbilt, describesrnhis studies under Donald Davidson (thernonly Agrarian to remain at Vanderbilt)rnand other teachers. Bradford was not arnself-made man: His scholarly disciplinernand critical gifts were earned by rigorousrnapprenticeship, as Bradford himself acknowledged.rnMark Winehell and Benjamin Alexanderrnexamine Bradford’s career as a literaryrncritic. The Enlightenment conceptionrnof rationality and its inverted mirrorrnimage, postmodernism, have been as dcstructirnc to literar)’ criheism as they haernbeen to polihcs and morals: The result isrnthe alienation of the typical modern writerrnfrom traditional society. But the responsernto modern life need not be alienation;rnrather, as T.S. Eliot and thernj^grarians showed, recollection and conservationrnare always alternatives. Literaturernis an act of civic piety, though onlyrnb}’ seeking to be art—not propaganda orrnideology. The literary theory that supportsrnthis conception of literature wasrnworked out by the Agrarians and appropriatedrnbv Bradford as he sought an understandingrnof the basic docmnents ofrnthe American Foimding, as well as ofrnimaginative literature. Modern Enlightenmentrncritics cannot comprehend a literaturernrooted in Memor)’, considered byrnthe Cireeks the mother of the Muses.rnHence, the Declaration of Independencernis read today as a Jacobin tract, andrnFaulkner and Frost as writers alienatedrnfrom their regional cultures. But Bradfordrnshows that, although Faulkner andrnFrost could be critical of the South and ofrnNew England respectively, they acknow 1-rnedged the cultural authority of their natirne grounds and were at home in tliern.rnJames McClellan and Marshall De-rnRosa discuss what, to my mind, isrnBradford’s most enduring contribuHon: arnhumane and adult understanding ofrnAmerica’s foimding documents. Forrnover a century, the Declaration of Independencernand the Constitution haernbeen transmuted by the philosophicalrnalchemy of Enlightenment liberalism intorninstruments for satisfying its perceivedrnneeds. The Agrarians taught Bradfordrnthat, while a literary work has its ownrnstructure as a work of art, it must also bernrecogni/ed as human speech framed inrnan historical context. Bradford gave a humanrnface to the Framers at the PhiladelphiarnConvention by writing a biographyrnof each, and to the Constitution by remindingrnus that its authority springs solelyrnfrom having been ratified by the politicalrnsocieties of sovereign states. Thernimage of original intent must be takenrnnot primarily from the PhiladelphiarnConvenHon, nor from the propaganda ofrnthe Federalist, but from the speeches ofrnthe state ratification conentions.rnElizabeth Fox-Cenovese and EugenernGenovese, in an otherwise sympatheticrnaccount, find two blind spots in Bradford’srnhistorical vision. The first (accordingrnto the Genoveses) is that, in stressingrnthe continuity of the Southern traditionrnwith Roman republican virhie, Bradfordrnignored the teaching of Cicero, Tacitus,rnand Polybius that such virtues require forrntheir operation a unitary experiencernwhich, in a imiversal empire (whetherrnRoman or American), is nearly impossible.rnSecond (the Genoveses believe),rnhe —and the Agrarians —pushed thernlegacy of slavery and the burdens it imposedrnon whites and blacks to the marginrnof memory, while leaving the ghosts tornsubvert their brightest hopes for the future.rnWhile there is some truth in thisrncriticism, it would be a mi.stake to thinkrnthat the decay of the Southern traditionrnwas caused by the failure to establish arnbetter relationship between the races.rnThe first assault on the Southern way ofrnlife was the Northern military invasion,rnmotivated not by a desire to emancipaternthe slaves but to consolidate a commercialrnempire; economic, not humane, motivesrnalso drove Reconstruction and producedrnthe economic discriminationsrnimposed on the South well into the 20tiirncentury. And, of course, among therngreatest blows to the Southern traditionrnwere the Supreme Court’s general andrnperxerse subversion of federalism and itsrnunconstitutional action of abolishingrnprayer in public schools. Que cannotrnmaintain a traditional societi’ of any kindrnabsent the local sovereignt’ reqiured torndo so. After full allowance has beenrnmade for racial injustice, it must also bernsaid that race has been manipulated as anrninstrument for centralizing power—powerrnthat would be, and has been, used forrnquite different purposes.rnThe forces that sought to destroy thernSouthern tradition in the 19th centurrnand which have all but completed thatrnwork today are centralization and consolidation:rnFrom the French Revolution tornthe present, they have produced severalrnworld wars and a long line of totalitarianrnrevolutions. Whether through liberal orrnMarxist regimes, they have operated accordingrnto the same pattern, sucking lifernfrom traditional social authorih and attemptingrnto breathe it into artificial constructsrnat the center. A more telling criti-rnSEPTEMBER 1999/2 7rnrnrn