|
|
|
Review
| The Federalist, by J.R. Pole, ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2005. 512 pages. $37.95 cloth, $12.95 paper.
|
| A quick glance at amazon.com reveals an astonishing 11,175 references to the Federalist Papers. Dozens of editions remain in print, from the revised 2003 Signet version edited by Charles Kesler and Clinton Rossiter, to the durable Penguin edition compiled by Isaac Kramnick. The constitution's critics get their due in Ralph Ketcham's 2003 The Anti-Federalist Papers, while those who wish to peruse both sides of the debate can turn to David Wootton's The Essential Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers (also 2003). Endless critical examinations of the essays may also be found, such as that by the late Douglass Adair, the longtime editor of the William and Mary Quarterly. Given these many editions—only Adair's 1980 Analysis is out of print—why the need for yet another version? Part of the answer lies in the fact that many of the classic versions had begun to show their age, at least in the editorial comments. The late Clinton Rossiter was a political scientist, and not surprisingly, his training and generational interests—he was born in 1917—led him to privilege certain topics over others in his commentaries. By comparison, the present volume devotes a good deal of attention to topics that have attracted the interest of more recent scholars. References to women, arms, Dorr's Rebellion, Daniel Shays, Jacob Fries, and especially slavery, may be found in the index. Such references, of course, rest beside more traditional referrals to David Hume, John Locke, and the Baron of Montesquieu. |
1
|
|
The other reason to purchase or assign this volume is the detailed historical commentaries by editor J.R. Pole, who has published dozens of monographs and essays on early American and constitutional history. Virtually every page of this volume contains elaborate notes, and in many cases these commentaries—more brief essays than notes, actually—comprise one-third of the page. Typical is Pole's discussion of English common law, which appears in James Madison's Federalist 36. In a wide-ranging note, Pole touches upon medieval corporations, ecclesiastical law, ironic humor, and even Madison's musings "on the imperfections of language as a medium for communication of thought" (p. 195). In some cases, Pole takes the authors to task for their lack of honesty. In discussing Madison's criticism of the African slave trade as an "unnatural traffic," Pole wonders whether Madison would have voiced these objections had the essay been published in Virginia rather than New York. Nor did Madison, Pole observes, "make clear how he expected the federal government to discourage the slave trade," especially since the Philadelphia Convention had agreed to provide the lower South with a twenty year window for the further importation of Africans (p. 229). |
2
|
|
The volume opens with an explanation of which version of the essays was used, which is followed by a lengthy introduction on the political background of the Federalist. An eighteen-page chronology begins with Magna Carta in 1215 and ends in 1791 when Virginia ratified the Bill of Rights. Pole also includes a brief listing of "themes," so that readers can quickly see which essays discuss what topics. The volume closes with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and all subsequent amendments. |
3
|
|
Given the completeness of this volume, together with the considerable erudition of Pole's commentaries, it is hard to imagine that another editor will produce a more useful compilation of the Federalist. Among all the versions currently in print, this will be the one to consult—and to assign in class. |
4
|
| | |
| Le Moyne College |
Douglas R. Egerton |
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|