Reviewed by:

• Aristocratic Education and the Making of the American Republic by Mark Boonshoft
• James P. Cousins

The United States was, at its inception, a union of ideas. Historians of education have worked to understand how these ideas were digested and then repackaged for the benefit of future generations. Most agree it was a reciprocal process, where lofty ideals, transmitted through high-flown rhetoric, shaped society and were reshaped from the bottom up. But in many histories, the bottom is never that far from the top; universities, intended for the sons of elite white men, take an outsized role at the expense of other, lesser understood but [End Page 331] equally significant, institutions. Mark Boonshoft's study of early American academies pushes beyond these boundaries and, in doing so, moves the entire field in a more inclusive and balanced direction.

Academies, something more than a grammar school but less than a university, were often attached to colleges and used to qualify prospective matriculates. These institutions' historical significance lies in their popular appeal and accessibility. Academy curricula were adapted to meet public demand, and, though such schooling was reserved for white families, the cost of attendance was generally low enough to accommodate the lower classes. Boonshoft details the origins and rise of early American academies from the late colonial era, a period when the expectations for American education were set by European, particularly British, standards, through the 1830s, when academies took on a more recognizably public form. Along the way, readers are treated to an exploration of America's emerging cultural landscape as it shifted and bent according to geopolitical forces and societal impulses.

Boonshoft traces the roots of the American academy to the Great Awakening and places reform-minded Protestant ministers at the vanguard of an early academy building boom. Scottish-born Presbyterian minister William Tennent arrived in the remote wilderness of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, and in 1727 founded his "Log College" (p. 19). A host of schools emulating Tennent's academic principles sprung up across the mid-Atlantic shortly thereafter; reformer Jonathan Edwards inspired a similar chain of academies across New England. The popularity of academies in this early period was undeniable, and, though they were originally intended as centers of ministerial training, they quickly found a wider audience. Benjamin Franklin's nonsectarian vision for education favored modern languages over dead ones, scientific literacy over theological training, and a practical curriculum that prepared students to enter a range of vocations. When his Academy of Philadelphia started to steal away matriculates from denominational schools, Protestant academy heads adapted with practical-minded programs of their own.

In the decades after the American Revolution, academies were again remade, this time into religiously plural institutions dedicated to the long-term stability of the fledgling country. The preservation of the republic was paramount, but whose vision of the republic would win the day? Federalist leaders, many of whom were trained in academies, grew uneasy at the site of so many unwashed, and unlettered, claimants to political power. Federalists considered merit to be a prequalifer of political authority, and there was nothing more meritorious than academic training in an academy—or so Federalists would argue. The War of 1812 and the Panic of 1819 upended Federalist control of academies and reframed the discussion once again, this time favoring a more populist vision for academies. In this climate of American self-sufficiency, anything that smacked of elitism, or British pretention, became anathema. This populist wave propelled a new publicly accessible vision of higher education; popular support, and tax dollars, followed suit.

Boonshoft's work is exceptional in most every regard, but his use of sources is especially noteworthy. Academy records from this era are, for the most part, nonexistent, so Boonshoft is forced to reconstruct the main lines of argument from fragmentary and peripheral accounts. He adeptly weaves these sources [End Page 332] into a composite whole while negotiating the complex interplay of political events...

审核人：

• 马克·布恩斯霍夫特（Mark Boonshoft）的贵族教育与美利坚合众国的建立
• 詹姆斯·P·考辛斯

美国从一开始就是一个思想联盟。教育历史学家一直在努力理解这些思想是如何被消化然后重新包装以造福子孙后代的。大多数人都认为这是一个相互的过程，崇高的理想通过高调的言论传播，塑造了社会，并从下而上进行了重塑。但是，在许多历史中，底部永远不会离顶部那么远。高校，意为精英白人男子的儿子，拿在其他较小的理解，但牺牲了丰厚的作用[尾页331]同样显著，机构。马克·布恩斯霍夫特（Mark Boonshoft）对美国早期学术界的研究超越了这些界限，并因此将整个领域朝着更加包容和平衡的方向发展。

学院不是一所文法学校，而是一所大学，但往往附属于大学，并用来对预科生进行资格鉴定。这些机构的历史意义在于其受欢迎的吸引力和可及性。学院课程进行了调整以满足公众的需求，尽管这种教育是为白人家庭保留的，但出勤成本通常很低，足以容纳下层阶级。Boonshoft详细介绍了早期殖民地时代以来美国早期学院的起源和兴起，在这段时期内，直到1830年代，欧洲，尤其是英国人对美国教育的期望开始设定，当时学院采用了更为公认的公共形式。一路走来，读者被视为对美国的探索。

布恩斯霍夫特（Boonshoft）将美国学术的根源追溯到“大觉醒”（Great Awakening），并将具有改革意识的新教牧师置于早期学术机构建设热潮的先锋阵营。苏格兰出生的长老会牧师威廉·特南特（William Tennent）到达宾夕法尼亚州雄鹿县的偏远荒野，并于1727年成立了他的“原木学院”（p。19）。此后不久，横跨大西洋中部的许多模仿Tennent学术原则的学校如雨后春笋般冒出来。改革者乔纳森·爱德华兹（Jonathan Edwards）启发了整个新英格兰的类似学院链。在早期，学院的普及是不可否认的，尽管它们原本是作为部长级培训的中心，但很快就吸引了更多的听众。本杰明·富兰克林（Benjamin Franklin）的非宗派主义教育观偏爱现代语言，而非死语，在神学训练上具有科学素养，并为学生准备了参加各种职业的实用课程。当他的费城学院开始从宗派学校偷走预科课程时，新教学院的校长们改编了自己的实用计划。

在美国独立战争后的几十年中，再次对学院进行了改建，这次改建为宗教多元化的机构，致力于该羽翼未丰国家的长期稳定。维护共和国至关重要，但是谁能想到共和国呢？联邦主义者的领导人，其中许多人是在学院里接受培训的，在如此众多未受洗，且没有文字的政权索取者的所在地变得不安。联邦主义者认为功绩是政治权威的先决条件，没有什么比在学院中接受学术训练更值得称赞的-联邦主义者会这样争论。1812年的战争和1819年的恐慌推翻了联邦主义者对学术界的控制，并再次重新组织了讨论，这一次有利于对学术界采取更加民粹主义的构想。在美国自给自足的氛围中，凡是带有高贵主义或英国自命不凡的东西的人，都会变得厌恶。这次民粹主义浪潮推动了对高等教育的新的公众视野。民众的支持，以及税款，随之而来。

Boonshoft的作品在大多数方面都是杰出的，但他对资料来源的使用尤其值得一提。从这个时代开始，在大多数情况下，学院记录是不存在的，因此，Boonshoft被迫从零散的和外围的叙述中重建争论的主要内容。他巧妙地将这些资料[End Page 332]编织成一个综合整体，同时谈判政治事件的复杂相互作用……