Jefferson the agrarian liberal. But unfortunatelynwhat Parrington discoverednwas an imaginary combination ofnFrench philosophe and midwesternnpopulist, not the planter of AlbemarlenCounty. Parrington, Claude Bowers andna host of other worthies soon turnednJefferson into the patron saint of Wilsonism,nthe New Deal and what currentlynpasses for liberalism.nThus, by a strange piling-up ofnironies, the intellectual descendants ofnJefferson’s opponents converted himninto one of them, a kind of urban, liberal,npuritan dogmatist of egalitarianism.nMore recently, some of them, likenFawn Brodie, have discovered that thenevidence does not fit this image, thatnJefferson never was a certifiable modernnliberal. They should have admitted thatnthey had been wrong all along. Insteadnthey chose to brand Jefferson as an aberrationnand a hypocrite for not being onenof them, that is for not being what henneverwas and never wanted to be. Jeffersonnwas an American republican, not anEuropean social democrat. Jefferson wasnagrarian, not urban and industrial. Jeffersonnwas a gentleman, which the classnof admirers I am talking about here certainlynis not.nAll of these distorted notions of Jeffersonnhave beeti possible only because of anlack of context, plausible because theynhave extrapolated one small portion ofnJefferson and built an image on thatnfoundation. This has been most conspicuousnin the peculiar, dogmatic, ahistoricalnrendering of one phrase of the Declarationnof Independence as a piece of egalitariannrevelation. Indeed, without thisnone distortion of Jefferson (and of Americannhistory) the contemporary Americannleft could hardly be seen to havenany legitimate tradition at all. (Evennmore peculiarly, the same dogma isnembraced as a main tenet by one schoolnof “conservative” political scientists.)nThere is one other important reasonnfor misreading Jefferson that must bentaken into account. Jefferson can benmisunderstood in the same way that anyngreat ujriter is subject to conflicting in­nterpretations. And Jefferson is importantnas a writer, a thinker and a stylist. If henhad never held public office, the immensenbody of his private correspondencenwould still be one of the most importantnAmerican cultural legacies of his period.nIn his correspondence he was imaginative,”npkyful, speculative. He adaptednhimself somewhat to the person he wasnaddressing. He liked to turn ideas aroundnand examine them from all angles.nExcept in his most narrowly politicalnactivities he wrote as a philosopher, notnas a tactician. Further, he was intellectuallynpolite and rg^gfianimous. Dogmatistsnfound that Jefferson did not contradictnthem in person. When they laterndiscovered that he disagreed, they callednhim a hypocrite. He was not; he wasnsimply a polite listener, a gentleman.nThus Jefferson can be quoted againstnJefferson. In order to see clearly the realnJefferson we have to know the context,nwe have to know the whole corpus ofnwork, we have to know which were thenconstant themes and which the occasionalnones. This Malone has madenpossible.nWh o, then, was the real Jefferson?nWhat were these constant themes.”nThey are clear. None offer comfort tonthe contemporary left. First of all, Jeffersonnstood for freedom and enlightenment.nThat he is our best symbol fornthese virtuous goals is Malone’s centralntheme. That does not mean, however,nthat his thought can be twisted to supportnsomething that very different mennwith very different goals postulate tonbe freedom and enlightenment. His conceptsnof freedom and enlightenmentnwere always rooted in the given naturenand the necessities of his Virginia communitynand always balanced harmoniouslynagainst competing claims. ReadnJefferson on the need for every citizennto be a soldier, on the prudential limitsnthat should have been observed in thenFrench Revolution, on the inappropriatenessnof liberty for a people unpreparednfor it; read of Jefferson’s approval ofnGovernor Patrick Henry’s summary exe­nnncution of a Tory marauder.nJefferson favored the liberty of thenindividual and the community, and henhad in mind certain reforms that he feltnwould enhance them. However, Jeffersonnwas nothing if not the enemy ofnprogrammatic, government-imposed reforms.nHis whole career proved this.nBut read his reaction to the nationalisticnprogram of our first “progressive”nPresident, John Quincy Adams:nWhen all government, domestic andnforeign, in little as in great things, shallnbe drawn to Washington as the centrenof all power, it will render powerlessnthe checks provided of one governmentnon another, and will become asnvenal and oppressive as the governmentnfrom which we have separated.nJefferson is on record as fearing thenharmful effects of slavery on the community.nBut he feared far more thenharmful effects of political antislavery.nRead him on the Missouri controversynand you will correct a thousand misrepresentations.nJefferson, it is true, wantednAmerica to be an example to all man-n. kind of successful free government. Butnwhen he said example that is just what hen17nJanuary/February 1982n