cism of Bradford might be that, in an agernof Enlightenment ideology and corporaterncapitalism, neither the Southern traditionrnnor any other traditional societ’ isrncapable of maintaining itself If that is so,rnthen what arc we to make of Bradford’srnwitness?rn’I’his question is considered by MarkrnMalvasi, who argues that Bradford didrnnot view modernit}- as a seamless metaphysicalrnsubstance from which there isrnno escape. His defense of the Southernrntradition was merely part of his philosophicalrndefense of tradition as a conditionrnof humanit’, virtue, and rationality’.rnOpposed to this are a ast array of Enlightenmentrnideologies, eacii advocatingrnits own form of the autonomous self andrneach in implacable opposition to the rest.rnThere is no danger of man losing his tradihonrnfinally, because man in that casernwould cease being human. Tradition isrnalways being renewed, hi the end, therefore,rnBradford’s defense of traditionrnopens out into a jushfication of the waysrnof God to man. People gien to Enlightenmentrnsuperstition can become alienatedrnfrom their crdtural inheritance andrnlose confidence in it. To recover and restorerna valuable wav of life requires takingrnseriously the question, “Who am I?”rnBradford’s answer was that he was arnSoutherner, an American, a man of thernWest, and a human being, all together,rnand that he could not be any one of themrnwithout being the others as well.rnBradford disowned the tide of philosopher,rncalling himself a rhetor instead. Allrnthe same, he was a philosopher, and it isrnimportant to understand the philosophicalrntradition in which he worked. Bradfordrnwas not a philosopher in the Greekrnspeculative tradition of Plato, Descartes,rnHegel, and Marx: He belonged to thernLatin rhetorical tradition of philosophyrnwhich includes Gicero, the Renaissancernhumanists, Montaigne, Giambatista Vico,rnand David Hume. (Bradford had arnhigh regard for Hume.) This traditionrnviews transcendent Platonic philosophyrnas hubristic in its belief that it can grasprnthe real oiiK b freeing itself from the authorit)’rnof tradition, the result being a philosophyrntliat is either abstract and empt)’rnor self-decephve in its unwitting incorporationrnof traditional prejudices even as itrndisowns them, hi this respect, Bradfordrnparted eoinpanv with Richard Weaver, arnfellow Southerner who admired Platornand, therefore, Lincoln’s rationalism.rnhi the Latin humanistic tradition, reasonrnis inseparable from tradition andrnrhetoric. Truth is not a matter of correspondencernwith a single fact but an accountrnof the whole, and both philosophyrnand eloquence aim to comprehend thernwhole of the to])ic at hand. Vico says thatrneloquence is wisdom speaking: a philosophicalrntradition embracing sapientia,rnprudentia, and eloquentia together, ofrnwhich Bradford was a peripatetic icon.rn>:MAIN STREETSrnTHE MAIN STREET SPEAKERS BUREAUrnrnarcho-Tyranny, the Balkans, Bullfighting,rnCrime, the Gulture War, Defense, Education,rnFederalism, Fertilitv, Gambling, Greek, Guns,rnHoino Economicus mmigration, the InterstaternHighway System, Islam, Judicial Tyranny, Kosovo,rnLatin, Lyric Poetry, Marriage and Family, MiddlernAmerican Rebels, Nationalism, the Old West,rnPolities, Private Justice, Quantum Mechanics,rnRevenge, School Consolidation, Subsidiarity,rnthe Tenth Amendment, Trade, the UnitedrnNations, Vouchers, Welfare, the X-Files, Yugoslavia,rnjiLjoning . . .rnIs there anything Chronicles editors can’t speak on?rn(Olcay, we’re .still looking for a physicist.)rn•akcrs and to])ics,rn(815)%4-58llrn28/CHRONICLESrnrnrn