Reviewed by:

• The Folly of Revolution: Thomas Bradbury Chandler and the Loyalist Mind in a Democratic Age by S. Scott Rohrer
• Daniel Diez Couch (bio)

In many ways, S. Scott Rohrer claims, British loyalism in the colonies during the eighteenth century remains an untold story. Despite canonical studies by scholars including Robert M. Calhoon, Catherine S. Crary, and Mary Beth Norton, as well as more recent studies by Maya Jasanoff and Phillip Gould, Rohrer finds an unexplored, and important, story of loyalism in the figure of Thomas Bradbury Chandler, the Anglican minister at St. John's in Elizabeth Town, New Jersey. Rohrer makes a convincing case throughout The Folly of Revolution: Thomas Bradbury Chandler and the Loyalist Mind in a Democratic Age. He situates Chandler as a major theological and political node in a network of colonial Anglican ministers, explaining Chandler's education, ideological formation, mission to further Anglicanism in the colonies, and resistance to American independence. For Rohrer, Chandler's life and worldview constitute an "alternative vision" that "has receded from historical memory" (3). Indeed, even as The Folly of Revolution provides a finely detailed biographical study of Chandler's life, it simultaneously tracks the broader intellectual milieu, with particular attention to the eighteenth-century debates surrounding Anglicanism and evangelicalism, as well as republicanism and monarchism. In many ways, for Chandler, the problems of evangelism and republicanism were one and the same. Rohrer's study does an admirable job of examining a range of intellectual traditions through the lens of Chandler's life and learning.

The Folly of Revolution begins by unfolding a central question for Chandler throughout much of his career: "How could social and political order [End Page 481] survive when subjects had the right to challenge authority?" (4). Beginning with his schooling at Yale, where Chandler rejected the Congregationalism of his youth, Rohrer takes us through the minister's meticulously monarchical positions, the most vital of which was his goal of establishing an Anglican bishop in America. He became friends early in his life with Samuel Johnson, one of the chief Anglican ministers in the colonies, a man who fought fiercely for the creation of a colonial episcopate. Chandler took up this cause when Johnson no longer could. In support of his position, Chandler "did not look to the ancient world for guidance," unlike many other American intellectuals, instead opting to examine late seventeenth-century Royalist thought (12). Chandler, Rohrer reveals, carefully studied the parliamentary quarrels that scholars such as Edmund S. Morgan have revealed as so central to the crucible of revolutionary American thought. Unlike the Patriots, however, Chandler took the High Church monarchical side, particularly in the cases of the nonjurors who refused to swear allegiance to William and Mary and the Bangorian controversy, two proceedings that deeply shaped Chandler's worldview. As Rohrer chronologically tracks forward through Chandler's life as the book progresses—successively examining his early life and schooling, his push for the Anglican episcopacy, his counterrevolutionary sentiments, and finally his exile and return to the United States—he simultaneously delves into the past that shaped the Anglican minister's religious and political positions. In this way, Rohrer's study provides an important means of understanding how seventeenth-century British history mattered for loyalists, not just Patriots.

The details of the past matter for understanding Chandler's perspective, a point that shows Rohrer's sensitivity to Chandler's own identity as a historian (The Folly of Revolution primarily relies on records of Chandler's library for its reading of his intellectual background). When Parliament deposed James II in 1688 and replaced him with William and Mary, a group of nine Anglican bishops refused to take an oath to the new sovereigns, explaining that "Parliament, acting on behalf of the people, cannot place someone on the throne. Such a thing was unnatural, and against all reason, in a divinely ordered universe" (73). Chandler concurred with this sentiment. In his historical studies Chandler sided with the so-called nonjurors and was alarmed by British republican thought...

 审阅者：

• 
  革命的愚蠢：托马斯·布拉德伯里·钱德勒和民主时代的保皇派思想 作者：S. Scott Rohrer
•  丹尼尔·迪兹·库奇（简介）

S.斯科特·罗勒 (S. Scott Rohrer) 声称，从很多方面来说，18 世纪英国对殖民地的忠诚仍然是一个不为人知的故事。尽管罗伯特·卡尔霍恩 (Robert M. Calhoon)、凯瑟琳·S·克拉里 (Catherine S. Crary) 和玛丽·贝丝·诺顿 (Mary Beth Norton) 等学者进行了经典研究，以及玛雅·贾萨诺夫 (Maya Jasanoff) 和菲利普·古尔德 (Phillip Gould) 最近的研究，但罗勒在托马斯的形象中发现了一个未经探索的重要忠诚故事。布拉德伯里·钱德勒 (Bradbury Chandler)，新泽西州伊丽莎白镇圣约翰教堂的圣公会牧师。罗勒在《革命的愚蠢：托马斯·布拉德伯里·钱德勒和民主时代的保皇派思想》一书中提出了令人信服的论据。他将钱德勒视为殖民地英国圣公会牧师网络中的一个主要神学和政治节点，解释了钱德勒的教育、意识形态形成、在殖民地推进英国圣公会的使命以及对美国独立的抵抗。对于罗勒来说，钱德勒的生活和世界观构成了一种“已经从历史记忆中消失”的“另类愿景”(3)。事实上，尽管《革命的愚蠢》对钱德勒的一生进行了详尽的传记研究，但它同时追踪了更广泛的知识环境，特别关注十八世纪围绕英国国教和福音派以及共和主义和君主制的辩论。在很多方面，对钱德勒来说，传福音和共和主义的问题是一回事。罗勒的研究做了令人钦佩的工作，通过钱德勒的生活和学习的视角审视了一系列知识传统。

《革命的愚蠢》首先向钱德勒揭示了他整个职业生涯中的一个核心问题：“当臣民有权挑战权威时，社会和政治秩序[结束第481页]如何生存？” （4）。从他在耶鲁大学求学开始，钱德勒年轻时拒绝接受公理会主义，罗勒带我们了解了这位牧师一丝不苟的君主立场，其中最重要的是他在美国建立一位英国圣公会主教的目标。他早年与塞缪尔·约翰逊成为朋友，塞缪尔·约翰逊是英国圣公会在殖民地的首席牧师之一，他为建立殖民地主教而进行了激烈的斗争。当约翰逊不再能做到这一点时，钱德勒接手了这一事业。为了支持自己的立场，钱德勒“没有向古代世界寻求指导”，与许多其他美国知识分子不同，而是选择研究 17 世纪末的保皇党思想 (12)。罗勒透露，钱德勒仔细研究了埃德蒙·S·摩根等学者所揭示的议会争吵，这些争吵对于美国革命思想的严峻考验至关重要。然而，与爱国者不同的是，钱德勒站在高教会君主一边，特别是在非陪审员拒绝宣誓效忠威廉和玛丽的案件以及班戈争议中，这两起诉讼深深地塑造了钱德勒的世界观。随着书的进展，罗勒按时间顺序追溯了钱德勒的一生——依次考察了他的早年生活和学校教育、他对英国圣公会主教职位的推动、他的反革命情绪，以及最后他的流亡和返回美国——他同时深入研究了过去塑造了英国圣公会牧师的宗教和政治立场。 通过这种方式，罗勒的研究提供了一种重要的方法来理解 17 世纪的英国历史对效忠派（而不仅仅是爱国者）的重要性。

过去的细节对于理解钱德勒的观点很重要，这一点表明罗勒对钱德勒自己作为历史学家的身份的敏感（ 《革命的愚蠢》主要依赖于钱德勒图书馆的记录来阅读他的知识背景）。当议会于 1688 年废黜詹姆斯二世并以威廉和玛丽取而代之时，九位英国圣公会主教拒绝向新君主宣誓，并解释说“议会代表人民行事，不能让某人登上王位。在神圣有序的宇宙中，这样的事情是不自然的，违背一切理性的”（73）。钱德勒同意这种观点。在他的历史研究中，钱德勒站在所谓的非陪审员一边，并对英国共和主义思想感到震惊……