Untitled Document

After decades of relative biographical silence on this most alluring figure in the American legal establishment, a plethora of biographies of OW Holmes appeared in the early 1990s. I decided, once and for all, that I would not be satisfied simply with piecing together a few odds and ends in coming to my own "take" on Holmes, but would patiently comb his life year by year to form a mature perspective on him. I chose Edward White's 1993 biography, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, to help me on my journey.

White's Approach

Each biographer comes at his/her subject a bit differently, even if there is a rather standard way to write a biography today. This method includes copious citations to primary sources, rich construction of the subject's "background," penetration into the "inner life" of the subject and analysis of his/her most significant writings. White, a veteran biographer as well as a historian and laywer, would seem eminently suited for this task. And, in addition, he mentions that his special "take" on Holmes would include things not discussed by most commentators, that is, "the parallels between Holmes' private and public lives, the spheres of 'work' and 'play' into which he divided his life" (4). Lest we miss his point, he states it again: "My emphasis, throughout, is on what I take to be the central organizing principle of Holmes' life history--his attempt to integrate, but at the same time keep separate and distinct, the professional and private spheres of his life" (5). Though I don't really know how you can logically integrate two things that at the same time you keep separate (White's interest sounds vaguely like the concern around the time he was writing of how one could "integrate" career and family), I am, like Ross Perot in the 1992 Presidential debates, all ears.

Holmes' Heritage (Ch. 1)

White begins his story with an exciting and insightful approach to describing Holmes' heritage. He takes Holmes' brief (about 500 word) autobiographical statement he wrote for publication in the college album two weeks before he was to graduate from Harvard in July 1861 and uses it as the key to unlock various shaping influences in Holmes' life. About 1/3 of the statement describes Holmes' paternal and material ancestors while the remaining 2/3 gives insight into Holmes pre-college education and mentions some of his college activities and writing. White's chapter, then, is a sort of exegesis of this statement. In so interpreting it we recognize White as a historian who carefully reads documents, is uncommonly interested in themes relating to the inner life, and shows his facility with intellectual history in the early 19th century. Three things, however, tend to limit the effectiveness of his chapter: (1) he loads unnecessary or insufficiently defined terminology on the reader; (2) he does not adequately describe the theological context in which Holmes and his family lived; and (3) he overreads some of the primary sources he quotes in his eagerness to explore themes of Holmes' inner life. The effect of all three is to give the narrative a sort of vagueness just where some precision would be most appreciated. Let me illustrate what I mean.

Starting with Religion

Anyone who writes a biography about a Bostonian born in the early 19th century must have a feel for religion or else the person will escape the biographer. But White really does not have that "feel." Here is what a person needs to know: (1) That the Puritanism of the forebears was derived from a Reformed or Calvinistic Protestantism refracted through 17th Century English Puritanism; (2) that the three religious groups/movements that need to be understood in the 19th century are the "old light" orthodox Congregationalists; the low-church and "new light"-inclined Baptists and Congregationalists; and the Unitarians. The most important dates to understand are 1805, when Henry Ware of Hingham, a Unitarian-leaning minister became Hollis Professor Divinity at Harvard and 1819, when William Ellery Channing preached the ordination sermon for Jared Sparks on the nature of Unitarianism. Thus, it helps not at all when White describes the spirit of Yale under President Ezra Stiles simply as "theological" (18). Ezra Stiles was a more liberal old light, but still safely within the orthodox fold, but he, for example, withdrew his name from the consideration at the Stockbridge church in 1750 (a position that was eventually filled by Jonathan Edwards) because he had imbibed too deeply the increasingly moralistic tone of 18th century Congregationalism. He also wanted to raise funds from the state of CT (unsuccessfully) for a position in legal instruction at Yale; not exactly what you would expect from a person who wanted to perpetuate a "theological" education.

Then, with respect to Abiel Holmes, OW's paternal grandfather, you would need to know not that he was "severe and scholastic" (p. 18, two terms that make no sense to anyone who studies religion of this period) but that, as Ezra Stiles' biographer, Abiel was a typical old light Congregational preacher. When White says-- "that Abiel Holmes declined to allow Unitarian ministers to exchange sermons with him testified to his severe and scholastic character" (and this hastened his departure from First Congregational Church, Cambridge), he has emphasized the wrong thing. Abiel Holmes didn't exchange sermons with Unitarians because he thought them heretical, that they had departed from orthodoxy. Thus, the issue was not that the Boston Brahmins between 1825-1840 were "constrained by orthodox religion" (20); they were divided between orthodox Congregational and Unitarian; both of these, however, possessed the same conservative ethical code. Thus, the issue for OW Jr. in his days as a Harvard student was not whether he would be a Unitarian or Congregationalist but whether the Unitarianism in which he was nurtured would be too oppressive of the spirit of creativity which was welling up within him.

Well, that's enough on one point. Let's turn to the others.

1397