FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2030482181> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2030482181 endingPage "434" @default.
• W2030482181 startingPage "405" @default.
• W2030482181 abstract "Another Declaration of Independence:John Neal's Rachel Dyer and the Assault on Precedent David J. Carlson (bio) Since its publication more than 20 years ago, Robert Ferguson's Law and Letters in American Culture has largely defined the critical understanding of the relationship between law and literature in the early American republic. Ferguson's central thesis, of course, is that a tight configuration of law and letters, lasting from the Revolution until roughly the 1830s, was made possible by several closely related factors. The professional culture of late eighteenth-century America, first of all, essentially required individuals trained in the legal profession to acquire a broad liberal education and to perform in a variety of literary modes. Consequently, as Ferguson rightly points out, lawyers wrote many of the country's first important novels, plays, and poems (5). If the broad interdisciplinary demands (as we might now call them) of Revolutionary-era legal education encouraged literary pursuits by men of the bar, however, it was the specific content of that educational system that determined their form. According to Ferguson, the triumvirate of [classical] language study, the cult of eloquence, and emulation of Ciceronian balances immersed the early American lawyer in literature (75). The lawyer's focus on the study of classical language and literature furthered a natural affinity between his professional ideology and the spirit of neoclassicism. Neoclassical aesthetics, which emphasized the idea that the thoughtful imitation of past models could encourage scientific progress and perfection in the arts, seemed to blend perfectly with the precedent-centered jurisprudence of the Anglo-American common law tradition. The inherent conservatism of this tradition, in turn, seemed to be best expressed through the Ciceronian model of eloquence championed by men such as John Quincy Adams, a model that aimed to include and incorporate listeners, not to challenge their understanding (80). Tying all this together, Ferguson argues that a taste both for balanced, [End Page 405] affective oratory modeled on Cicero and for the neoclassical aesthetics of earlier English writers and critics dominated the intellectual landscape of American elites during the early decades of the republic. The lawyer-writers of the time thus found themselves in the midst of a harmonious conjunction of ideas, one that placed law and literature in remarkable accord based upon mutual reverence for the past. Ferguson concludes, however, that when neoclassical aesthetics and Ciceronian rhetoric lost their primacy in the early decades of the nineteenth century, this configuration of law and letters came permanently apart. As he puts it (effectively creating a literary period for the interaction of law and literature), the new aesthetic of the American Renaissance excluded the legal mind from literary enterprise. Ferguson's overall argument about the ways in which Revolutionary-era neoclassicism (combined with the Ciceronian rhetoric of the time) encouraged a blending of legal and literary discourse remains a powerful one. Nevertheless, by suggesting that this specific intellectual and professional climate in late eighteenth-century America was somehow essential for the configuration, Ferguson both created a misleading literary history and advanced an unduly limiting critical framework for understanding how law and literature might intersect. I hope to show here that the work of one early antebellum writer, John Neal, provides powerful evidence to challenge each of these positions.1Rachel Dyer, Neal's 1828 historical novel about the Salem witch trials is, of course, hardly a balanced, Ciceronian work that avoids challenging its readers. Critics today, in fact, are probably most familiar with the book's nationalistic Unpublished Preface to North American Stories, where Neal stridently demands of his audience another Declaration of Independence, in the Great Republic of Letters (xvii).2Rachel Dyer's fusion of law and letters extends well beyond such provocative phrases from its introductory frame, however. Indeed, if we consider both of Rachel Dyer's prefaces (for there are two) as integral parts of the whole fabric of the novel, what we find revealed is a text that simultaneously rejects the neoclassicism so vital to Ferguson's configuration and maintains that law and literature can work together as tools in shaping the nation.3 I argue here that Neal's historical novel is best read as a tightly..." @default.
• W2030482181 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2030482181 creator A5010160893 @default.
• W2030482181 date "2007-01-01" @default.
• W2030482181 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2030482181 title "Another Declaration of Independence: John Neal's Rachel Dyer and the Assault on Precedent" @default.
• W2030482181 cites W1513987857 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W1533085425 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W1536787082 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W1576632330 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W1577305080 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W1970159864 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W2010518664 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W2016646780 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W2022815386 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W2025104254 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W2025233640 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W2026145966 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W2030931574 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W2058026145 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W2074059931 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W2075035407 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W2086241431 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W2087162711 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W2105726565 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W2108308495 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W2150851423 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W2316895808 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W2329491974 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W2329871719 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W2483763844 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W2751031476 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W2795721529 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W2796483910 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W2796789325 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W2802518817 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W606741928 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W630237172 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W636699855 @default.
• W2030482181 cites W645856956 @default.
• W2030482181 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/eal.2007.0031" @default.
• W2030482181 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W2030482181 type Work @default.
• W2030482181 sameAs 2030482181 @default.
• W2030482181 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2030482181 countsByYear W20304821812012 @default.
• W2030482181 countsByYear W20304821812013 @default.
• W2030482181 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2030482181 hasAuthorship W2030482181A5010160893 @default.
• W2030482181 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2030482181 hasConcept C158071213 @default.
• W2030482181 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2030482181 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2030482181 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W2030482181 hasConcept C2778607876 @default.
• W2030482181 hasConcept C2780493273 @default.
• W2030482181 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2030482181 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2030482181 hasConceptScore W2030482181C144024400 @default.
• W2030482181 hasConceptScore W2030482181C158071213 @default.
• W2030482181 hasConceptScore W2030482181C17744445 @default.
• W2030482181 hasConceptScore W2030482181C199539241 @default.
• W2030482181 hasConceptScore W2030482181C2776154427 @default.
• W2030482181 hasConceptScore W2030482181C2778607876 @default.
• W2030482181 hasConceptScore W2030482181C2780493273 @default.
• W2030482181 hasConceptScore W2030482181C94625758 @default.
• W2030482181 hasConceptScore W2030482181C95457728 @default.
• W2030482181 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2030482181 hasLocation W20304821811 @default.
• W2030482181 hasOpenAccess W2030482181 @default.
• W2030482181 hasPrimaryLocation W20304821811 @default.
• W2030482181 hasRelatedWork W1597265668 @default.
• W2030482181 hasRelatedWork W1969500109 @default.
• W2030482181 hasRelatedWork W1998844580 @default.
• W2030482181 hasRelatedWork W2064248985 @default.
• W2030482181 hasRelatedWork W2074493307 @default.
• W2030482181 hasRelatedWork W2136807148 @default.
• W2030482181 hasRelatedWork W2163627853 @default.
• W2030482181 hasRelatedWork W2554173525 @default.
• W2030482181 hasRelatedWork W3099695869 @default.
• W2030482181 hasRelatedWork W2009212346 @default.
• W2030482181 hasVolume "42" @default.
• W2030482181 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2030482181 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2030482181 magId "2030482181" @default.
• W2030482181 workType "article" @default.