Reviewed by:

• Spectacle of Grief: Public Funerals and Memory in the Civil War Era by Sarah J. Purcell
• James J. Broomall (bio)

Sarah J. Purcell’s remarkable book, Spectacle of Grief: Public Funerals and Memory in the Civil War Era, adds depth and clarity to an ongoing debate about the claims of post–Civil War memory. By examining competing meanings of public [End Page 94] funerals and mourning rituals, Purcell considers how the living mourned and remembered the dead to better understand the shifting ground of American nationalism and Americans’ self-identities. Although historians have generally agreed that four strands (reconciliation, Lost Cause, emancipation, and Union Cause) framed postwar memory, they have disputed which paradigm dominated public discourse. Building on recent scholarship, especially work by Nina Silber, Purcell contends that “American identities were built out of competing and sometimes opposite ways of thinking and being” (5). Gracefully written and deeply researched, Spectacle of Grief explores politics through culture to demonstrate how memory and mourning created imagined communities.

Through five thematic chapters and with sweeping chronological breadth, Purcell connects mourning rituals from the early Republic to the Reconstruction era. Nine public figures underpin the study and are considered through a variety of source materials including newspapers, unpublished manuscripts, published accounts, and government documents. The author’s thoughtfully layered reconstruction of public discussions and deliberations is an especially rewarding aspect of the study. Chapter 2 sets the book’s tone. Upon the death of Henry Clary, Americans mourned the passing of a public figure that “provided a safe but high-stakes way to claim a part of national memory” (13). To many, Clay’s death signaled the end of sectional compromise. By the war years, martial sacrifice underpinned the formation of Confederate and American nationalism. Elmer Ellsworth and Stonewall Jackson, the subjects of chapter 2, illustrate how collective mourning “contributed to polarization and opposed versions of American and Confederate national identity during the Civil War” (93). Despite a climate of reunification, sectional tensions lingered during the postwar era, at least among many white Americans. Purcell clearly illustrates in chapter 3 how both the Lost Cause and the Union Cause, as seen in mourning events for George Peabody and Robert E. Lee, each formed parts of the public discourse. Here the author productively engages recent scholarship (see especially work by Caroline Janney and Brian Matthew Jordan) that has revealed the deeply contested ground of postwar memory.

As Reconstruction waned between the 1870s and 1890s, an unsteady memory of the Civil War continued to frame the creation of American national identity. Charles Sumner and Joseph E. Johnston, the figures of chapter 4, urged the public to forget elements of the Civil War in the interest of sectional reconciliation. Johnston proved a particularly complex figure who touted the Lost Cause but also worked toward reunion with a pro-Union flare. In the end, Purcell writes, “their funerals show how their sectional partisans could not afford to let them lie in peace” (176). Instead, promoters of Lost Cause mythology vocally claimed Johnston as a Confederate symbol, while Black orators emphasized Sumner’s fight for racial equality. [End Page 95]

Between the 1850s and the 1880s, white men populated the pantheon of national heroes who were recognized by public mourning. Yet, the 1890s witnessed two unprecedented events. Upon the deaths of Frederick Douglass and Winnie Davis, a Black man and white woman were elevated into national symbols and mobilized in the cause of memory. As Purcell perceptively remarks, the mourning of Douglass signaled “that emancipationist memory of the Civil War had not faded away in 1895 and that the national identities created by public funerals had expanded enough to include an African American subject” (178). Davis’s memory proved deeply layered, as she was mourned at once as a symbol of the Lost Cause but also national reconciliation. Taken together, Purcell’s fifth chapter powerfully traces the lingering and overlapping strands of Civil War memory.

Spectacle of Grief is a careful study of...

审核人：

• 悲伤的景象：内战时期的公共葬礼和记忆作者：Sarah J. Purcell
• James J. Broomall（生平）

莎拉·J·珀塞尔 (Sarah J. Purcell) 的非凡著作《悲痛奇观：内战时期的公共葬礼与记忆》(Spectacle of Grief: Public Funerals and Memory) 为正在进行的关于内战后记忆主张的辩论增添了深度和清晰度。通过研究公共[End Page 94]葬礼和哀悼仪式的相互竞争意义，Purcell 考虑了生者如何哀悼和缅怀死者，以更好地理解美国民族主义和美国人自我认同的不断变化。尽管历史学家普遍认为战后记忆由四部分（和解、失败原因、解放和联合原因）构成，但他们对哪种范式主导了公共话语存在争议。基于最近的学术研究，尤其是 Nina Silber 的研究，Purcell 认为“美国的身份是建立在竞争中的有时是相反的思维方式和存在方式”（5）。《悲痛奇观》文笔优美，研究深入，通过文化探索政治，展示记忆和哀悼如何创造想象中的社区。

通过五个主题章节和广泛的时间顺序，赛尔将从共和国早期到重建时代的哀悼仪式联系起来。九位公众人物支持这项研究，并通过各种来源材料进行考虑，包括报纸、未发表的手稿、已发表的账目和政府文件。作者对公共讨论和审议的深思熟虑的分层重构是该研究特别有益的方面。第 2 章奠定了本书的基调。亨利·克拉里 (Henry Clary) 去世后，美国人哀悼一位公众人物的逝世，他“提供了一种安全但高风险的方式来获得国家记忆的一部分”(13)。对许多人来说，克莱的死标志着局部妥协的结束。到战争年代，军事牺牲巩固了邦联和美国民族主义的形成。第 2 章的主题埃尔默·埃尔斯沃思 (Elmer Ellsworth) 和斯通沃尔·杰克逊 (Stonewall Jackson) 说明了集体哀悼如何“导致南北战争期间美国和南方邦联民族身份的两极分化和对立版本”(93)。尽管有重新统一的气氛，但在战后时代，地区紧张局势依然存在，至少在许多美国白人中是这样。Purcell 在第 3 章中清楚地说明了 Lost Cause 和 Union Cause，正如乔治·皮博迪 (George Peabody) 和罗伯特·E·李 (Robert E. Lee) 的哀悼事件中所见，它们各自如何构成公共话语的一部分。在这里，作者富有成效地参与了最近的学术研究（尤其是 Caroline Janney 和 Brian Matthew Jordan 的著作），这些研究揭示了战后记忆中备受争议的基础。说明集体哀悼如何“导致南北战争期间美国和同盟国民族身份的两极分化和对立版本”（93）。尽管有重新统一的气氛，但在战后时代，地区紧张局势依然存在，至少在许多美国白人中是这样。Purcell 在第 3 章中清楚地说明了 Lost Cause 和 Union Cause，正如乔治·皮博迪 (George Peabody) 和罗伯特·E·李 (Robert E. Lee) 的哀悼事件中所见，它们各自如何构成公共话语的一部分。在这里，作者富有成效地参与了最近的学术研究（尤其是 Caroline Janney 和 Brian Matthew Jordan 的著作），这些研究揭示了战后记忆中备受争议的基础。说明集体哀悼如何“导致南北战争期间美国和同盟国民族身份的两极分化和对立版本”（93）。尽管有重新统一的气氛，但在战后时代，地区紧张局势依然存在，至少在许多美国白人中是这样。Purcell 在第 3 章中清楚地说明了 Lost Cause 和 Union Cause，正如乔治·皮博迪 (George Peabody) 和罗伯特·E·李 (Robert E. Lee) 的哀悼事件中所见，它们各自如何构成公共话语的一部分。在这里，作者富有成效地参与了最近的学术研究（尤其是 Caroline Janney 和 Brian Matthew Jordan 的著作），这些研究揭示了战后记忆中备受争议的基础。至少在许多美国白人中。Purcell 在第 3 章中清楚地说明了 Lost Cause 和 Union Cause，正如乔治·皮博迪 (George Peabody) 和罗伯特·E·李 (Robert E. Lee) 的哀悼事件中所见，它们各自如何构成公共话语的一部分。在这里，作者富有成效地参与了最近的学术研究（尤其是 Caroline Janney 和 Brian Matthew Jordan 的著作），这些研究揭示了战后记忆中备受争议的基础。至少在许多美国白人中。Purcell 在第 3 章中清楚地说明了 Lost Cause 和 Union Cause，正如乔治·皮博迪 (George Peabody) 和罗伯特·E·李 (Robert E. Lee) 的哀悼事件中所见，它们各自如何构成公共话语的一部分。在这里，作者富有成效地参与了最近的学术研究（尤其是 Caroline Janney 和 Brian Matthew Jordan 的著作），这些研究揭示了战后记忆中备受争议的基础。

随着重建在 1870 年代和 1890 年代之间减弱，对内战的不稳定记忆继续构成美国民族认同的创造。第 4 章的人物查尔斯·萨姆纳 (Charles Sumner) 和约瑟夫·约翰斯顿 (Joseph E. Johnston) 敦促公众为了部分和解的利益忘记内战的因素。约翰斯顿被证明是一个特别复杂的人物，他吹捧失败的原因，但也致力于与亲联盟的重聚。最后，珀塞尔写道，“他们的葬礼表明，他们的党派支持者无法让他们安息”（176）。相反，Lost Cause 神话的推动者大声宣称约翰斯顿是邦联的象征，而黑人演说家则强调萨姆纳为种族平等所做的斗争。[第 95 页结束]

在 1850 年代和 1880 年代之间，白人成为了被公众哀悼的民族英雄的万神殿。然而，1890 年代发生了两件史无前例的事件。弗雷德里克·道格拉斯 (Frederick Douglass) 和温妮·戴维斯 (Winnie Davis) 去世后，一名黑人男子和一名白人妇女被提升为国家象征，并为纪念事业而动员起来。正如 Purcell 敏锐地评论的那样，道格拉斯的哀悼表明“1895 年内战的解放主义记忆并没有消失，公共葬礼所创造的民族身份已经扩大到足以包括非裔美国人”（178）。事实证明，戴维斯的记忆是深刻的，因为她既是失败事业的象征，也是民族和解的象征。总而言之，珀塞尔的第五章有力地追溯了内战记忆中挥之不去和重叠的部分。

悲伤的奇观是对...的仔细研究