| January 26, 2004 I recently finished reading Walter Isaacson's excellent biography of Benjamin Franklin. I'd originally picked it up out of a sense of "equal time" -- last year, I read David McCullough's equally excellent John Adams, which paints Dr. Franklin in a not-entirely-flattering light, because Adams had a conflicted, begrudging, and ultimately unflattering opinion of Franklin himself. In reading this new book, I quickly regained the admiration I'd held for Franklin since my first impression of him (Howard Da Silva's portrayal in 1776, of course), but I also reaffirmed why Adams is a hero of mine, and Franklin, in the final analysis, is not. Franklin had many qualities I admire: practicality, diplomacy, and social liberalism, to name a few. He was a sort of non-denominational Christian deist, but preached and practiced many aspects of faith which are very similar to my own. He was an avid experimenter (though not an empiricist - he experimented first out of pure love of science, not out of the need to explain nature). But: He lacked the ability to make great passionate attachments to people, as you'd expect in someone who was foremost a diplomat. And he didn't, despite the many fictions he created over is life, care much for writing that did not "serve the public good" Adams, to be fair, had some qualities that I would probably disagree with. He was very conservative in the practice of his religion, for example. And, while well-read and passionate, he let his biases (especially about dispassionate geniuses like Franklin) cloud his opinions terribly. But: he was a man who recognized the power of the word, and its attachment to principal, and its value as vessel of comminication and thought. And he let the word deliver his passions without shame. Read their letters to the women in their lives, and you conclude Franklin was a flirt, Adams was a lover. Read their pamphlets and public writings, you conclude Franklin was a persuader, Adams was a leader, a rallier. Where Franklin invented the lightning rod, Adams attracted the lightning. They were both great men. They were both essential to the founding of America. They both served critical roles that only they could play in the revolution. But where Franklin's writings were to be criticized - vigourously - by the great romantics such as Keats, Emerson, and Thoreau, Adams said "you'll never be alone with a poet in your pocket." It seems to me that Adams was connected to the world's passions in a way Franklin, for all his cleverness, never was. I realize this is a highly imperfect logic, but to me, that's the difference between being a great man, and being a hero. I should add one thing: Neither of these books has much nice to say about Jefferson. I guess I know what my next historical resarch needs to be. I'll update this set of opinions then, no doubt. David Vincenti Advisor, Center for the Performing Arts at DeBaun Auditorium www.debaun.org; www.davidvincenti.com |