Printer Friendly

The Complete Colonial Gentleman: Cultural Legitimacy in Plantation America.

By Michal J. Rozbicki (Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia, 1998. xii plus 221pp. $35.00).

William Byrd and company can now rest easy. Recently depicted as rather pathetic figures in their anxious pursuit of gentility, eighteenth-century Virginia gentleman have found their champion in Michal Rozbicki. Rozbicki aims to show how the pursuit of genteel status by these men served to legitimize them as an elite from the early decades of the century, and actually positioned them to articulate what would become democratic values in the Revolutionary era. In so doing, he takes on current notions (which he attributes to such scholars as Kenneth Lockridge and Jack Greene) that the planters' obsessive desire to be perceived as English gentleman was not only fruitless but also an aberrant and dysfunctional barrier to the emergence of a more truly American identity.

The book's five chapters do not offer a broad survey but rather explicate key components of this argument, in rough chronological order. After a first chapter which explores the historiography and theory of cultural legitimacy, Rozbicki then turns to a comparison of the pursuit of gentility among Virginia gentlemen of the early decades of the century with that of Daniel Defoe, as spokesperson for rising "new men" in Britain. A third chapter explores the "syndrome of provincialism" which he contends served to fuel the legitimizing process; in the fourth he argues that Virginia gentlemen succeeded in their pursuit of gentility even though they only adopted selected elements of the British model. The final chapter makes the argument about how the pursuit of gentility prepared Virginia gentlemen of the Revolutionary era to take the lead that they did in articulating Revolutionary values. Throughout, Rozbicki uses the papers of the leading Virginia gentlemen and a selection of contemporary British texts (Defoe and his critics, courtesy works, travellers' accounts and other descriptions of the colonies).

There is a great deal of common sense behind Rozbicki's central contention that the cultural program of the Virginia elite worked for them, and that we should explore how it worked and what it accomplished rather than pass "exceptionalist" judgement on it as somehow unAmerican. He reminds us that historical actors do not exercise a lot of choice in their cultural models, but are in large part "culturally programmed" by history itself. When he points out that "meeting metropolitan criteria of legitimacy was the only culturally viable means of succeeding in their ambitions,"(17) he makes us see that it is anachronistic to question why the planters took this path rather than invent something wholly new. His suggestion that the very success of the genteel project among the planters was what gave them the confidence by the Revolutionary era to assume the mantle of cultural arbiters and claim that they were preserving traditional genteel virtues of liberty and equality from a now corrupt England is also a useful corrective of the current view that gentility and republicanism were at odds.

While a useful counterbalance to the current tendency to see pathology in the strivings of the planters, Rozbicki's selective approach to the larger issue raises questions as one moves from chapter to chapter. He rightly stresses the importance of the larger transatlantic context at the outset by noting that new classes were striving in Britain as well as in America and that the British model was not static. He proceeds to shed light on the planters' ambitions by comparing them with Defoe's similar but not identical and ultimately unsuccessful challenge to the British "landed" model of gentility early in the century. But when discussing the Founders' rejection of the British aristocracy as cultural arbiters in the Revolutionary era, he fails to acknowledge that a new crop of middling writers were doing the same in Britain. He also needed to acknowledge that in matters of gentility, Americans continued to rely on British models for decades after the Revolution. While his focus is on Virginia, his comparison of the planters' genteel project with that of the rising commercial classes in Britain begs the question whether there were groups in the colonies who were even closer to the British mercantile model. Of course there were, in the north. There is slippage also between his insistence early in the book that "legitimizing" cultural arbiters were necessarily found in the mother country and his assertions, in the chapter on the actual elements of gentility in Virginia, that an incomplete, British-scorned and even unique model was successful because legitimacy only had to be achieved in the colonial context. These claims raise key questions: Who was the relevant audience for the planters' genteel performances? What was the measure of their success? Rozbicki doesn't entertain these (admittedly difficult) questions and yet they would seem central to an examination of "the legitimizing process."(xi) There is slippage between his insistence on the strong association between gentility and birth, which gave rise to the planters' pursuit of pedigrees and the persistent "allure of heraldry," and his claims in the last chapter that it was easy for the Virginia leaders to embrace notions of an aristocracy of merit and to reject heredity. Culminating as it does with an explication of the Revolutionary stance of the Virginia founders, Rozbicki's work is reminiscent of Edmund Morgan's American Slavery, American Freedom in that while both are highly suggestive and satisfying as regards the Virginians, neither suffices to explain the position of colonial elites outside the Chesapeake. Ironically, in describing the peculiar mix of elements of gentility adopted by Virginians (whether hospitality, horse-racing, country-dances or cock-fighting), and the role of slavery in allowing the planters to pursue a backward-looking feudal model of gentility in contrast to the more forward-looking model proposed by spokesmen for the commercial classes in Britain, Rozbicki's work unintentionally challenges a more recent argument of Jack Greene's: that the Chesapeake, not the northern colonies, was the key model of colonial development.

These questions notwithstanding, Rozbicki's work is important, suggestive, and provocative. It will be of interest to all historians of early American culture, but the limits of its scope and the complex language of the theoretical chapter make it unsuitable for undergraduate course use.

Ursinus College
COPYRIGHT 1999 Journal of Social History
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1999, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Review
Author:Hemphill, C. Dallett
Publication:Journal of Social History
Article Type:Book Review
Geographic Code:1U5VA
Date:Sep 22, 1999
Previous Article:The Nation as a Local Metaphor. Wurttemberg, Imperial Germany and National Memory, 1871-1918.
Next Article:Elites locales, senores, reformistas: redes clientelares y Monarquia hacia finales del Antiguo Regimen.

Related Articles
Slavery in North Carolina, 1748-1775.
Slavery in North Carolina: 1748-1775.
Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters