E Pluribus Unum: NineteenthCentury Literature and Constitutional Paradox W. C. Harris. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Press, 2005. This book is an extended comment on our national motto, E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one), which appears on Great Shield adopted by Continental Congress in 1782. It continues to be our daily companion on backside of one-dollar bill. The secretary, Charles Thomson, explained that shield and its motto represent several states all joined in one solid compact entire, supporting Chief, which unites whole & represents Congress. In valuable Afterword that I recommend reading first, Harris traces elusive origin of phrase E Pluribus. He rigorously and convincingly argues that slogan derived not from classical source such as Virgil or Horace, but was New World Latin invented to express both an ideal and tension of dilemma. Harris believes slogan's appearance was an important moment in conceptual search, a of writing, of finding words that are right and effective (198). He sees back and forth dialectic in founding period, with Declaration and Articles of Confederation expressing pluralism and quest for equality that was countered by unification of power represented in Constitution. The distinctiveness of this book lies in seeing these well-known polarities as continuing engagement with ancient metaphysical of the one-and-the-many, addressed in detail by Plato in Sophist (360 BCE) and by neoPlatonist Plotinus (205-270 CE) in collected writings called Enneads. Harris's machinery for treating this congeries combines extremely close textual readings with intensive reviews of political, social, and religious history. But above all, E Pluribus Unum illustrates assimilation of Continental metaphysics and discourse theory into American studies. Without even bibliographical reference to Derrida's Writing and Difference (1967) Harris discusses American literature's nineteenth-century engagement with work of difference, impulses of resistance against hierarchy in spirit of articulation, separation, and equality. Absent formal acknowledgment of French deconstructive inspiration, framework language is yet catechetical: issues are found at sites; positions are privileged; texts are decentered or imbricated; exhausted stances find textual expressions that recuperate them; hegemonic hierarchies are enforced through a quota of difference-work that can be disrupted, or fragmented; doctrines are textually inscribed or reinscribed. In significant footnotes regarding focus for this work, Harris rejects stringing our best writers in traditions (Daniel Rogers's phrase) but chooses instead neglected texts of major American Renaissance authors or texts by same authors which have not been read in light of one-and-the-many problem (210 fn5). The tendency to deal with textas-metaphysical puzzle results in some sentences of at least 100 words in length that show their syntactical pedigrees from Hegel, Heidegger, and Sartre that inspired deconstructionists. Here is shorter sample: What makes of many and one so thorny is constitution of social and compositional wholes on some version of problematic of unity which is less problematic, that is, which reassigns on less particularized basis inevitable quota of difference-work (33, author emphasis). Placed within such metaphysical framework, American literature, particularly Poe's Eureka, Whitman's Leaves of Grass, and assorted works of Melville and William James can be seen as instances of attempted mediation between unity and plurality. Harris contends that in these authors we witness formation of kind of secondary American documentary culture, set of new literary charters meant to compensate for unresolved problems attached to originating Constitution of United States and Lincoln's assertive efforts to preserve Union. …
Read full abstract