with Allen C. Guelzo, Edwards on the Will: A Century of American Theological Debate (1989), which gives a less harshly critical account of the "new divinity" preached by those who tried to carry on Edwards's legacy. Joseph A. Conforti, Samuel Hopkins and the New Divinity Movement (1981), sheds additional light on this subject.

Bruce Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers: From Jonathan Edwards to John Dewey (1985), shows that opposition to the "new divinity" did not come from liberals alone. See also Joseph W. Phillips, Jedidiah Morse and New England Congregationalism (1983). Edmund S. Morgan discusses Puritan "tribalism" in The Puritan Family (1944). On liberal opposition to the new divinity, see Conrad Wright, The Beginnings of Unitarianism in America (1955); Edward M. Griffin, Old Brick: Charles Chauncy of Boston (1980); Sydney E. Ahlstrom and Jonathan S. Carey, eds., An American Reformation: A Documentary History of Unitarian Christianity (1985); and Conrad Edick Wright, ed., American Unitarianism (1989). Daniel Walker Howe, "The Decline of Calvinism," Comparative Studies in Society and History 14 (1972): 306-27, and The Unitarian Conscience (1970); Henry F. May, The Enlightenment in America (1976); and Alan Heimert, Religion and the American Mind (1966), bring out the social dimensions of the conflict between liberals and Edwardsians. Channing's essay "The Moral Argument against Calvinism" (1820), appears in the 1849 edition of his Works I:217-41.

EMERSON. Emerson's emergence as the central figure in this book and the mainstay of my argument was unpremeditated. Like many others, I used to think of Emerson as a foolish optimist. My rereading of his works began with "Fate," an essay that revealed my mistake. The Machiavellian overtones in the title drew me to this particular essay, but it was the growing realization that Emerson and Carlyle, together with their Puritan forebears, had more important things to say about "virtue" and "fortune" than writers in the republican tradition that largely determined the final substance and shape of this book. Although my argument has been developed in opposition to much of the recent speculation about "civic virtue" and "community"—one objection to which is precisely that it reinforces the usual view of Emerson as a writer whose work authorized an "isolating preoccupation with the self," as Robert Bellah and his collaborators put it in Habits of the Heart (1985)—at the same time it is deeply indebted to the interpretations it takes issue with. Without the recent attempt to revive a discourse of "virtue," I would have lacked the inclination to read Emerson's essay on fate or to reexamine the rest of his major writings: Nature (1836); "The American Scholar" (1837); the Divinity School Address (1838); "The Transcendentalist" (1841); Essays: First Series (1841), a book that includes "Self-Reliance," "Compensation," "Spiritual Laws," "Heroism," "The Over-Soul," "Man the Reformer," "Friendship," "Prudence," "Circles," "Intellect," and "Art"; Essays: Second Series (1844), especially "Nature," "Politics," "Character," and "New England Reformers"; the essays on Montaigne and Napoleon in Representative Men (1850); English Traits (1856); The Conduct of Life (1860), which includes, along with "Fate," the important essays "Wealth" and "Culture"; "Society and Solitude" (1870); and "Historic Notes of Life and

-546-