Sparks Commentary: “Publius”: The secret pen name of three Founding Fathers

"As the perusal of the political papers under the signature of Publius has afforded me great satisfaction, I shall certainly consider them as claiming a most distinguished place in my library. I have read every performance which has been printed on one side or the other of the great question lately agitated (so far as I have been able to obtain them) and, without an unmeaning compliment, I will say that I have seen no other so well calculated (in my judgment) to produce conviction on an unbiased mind, as the Production of your Triumvirate. When the transient circumstances & fugitive performances which attended this crisis shall have disappeared, that work will merit the notice of Posterity; because in it are candidly discussed the principles of freedom & the topics of government, which will be always interesting to mankind so long as they shall be connected in Civil Society."

- George Washington, in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (August 28, 1788)

It was common at this time for Americans to write under pen names named after great Romans

During the debates over whether or not to ratify the Constitution, authors on both sides of the debate wrote a series of anonymous "letters to the editor[s]" of newspapers under various pen names. There were advantages to writing these articles anonymously, of course, when one wished to say controversial things in these debates that could offend one's friends if they were known publicly. Among these authors were many who had actually named their alter egos after people in Roman history, whose accomplishments they thus wished to invoke in their arguments. The Constitution's opponents, for example, included "Brutus" (possibly Melancton Smith or Robert Yates or even John Williams), and "Cato" (possibly New York governor George Clinton). These were both names of people who had opposed the Roman monarchy (or at least, a particular manifestation of that monarchy). Thus, this would imply that they were opposed to a repeat of such monarchy in America.

George Clinton, a possible identity of the author that called himself "Cato"

Alexander Hamilton considered Gouverneur Morris and William Duer to write as "Publius"

The Constitution's supporters wrote under classical pen names, too; and theirs were equally indebted to Greek and Roman history. Alexander Hamilton made the unfortunate mistake once of using the pen name "Caesar." The condescending tone that he used when writing under this pen name made him almost as many enemies as the ill-chosen pen name itself. When he finally learned his lesson (and it fortunately didn't take him long to learn it), he returned to another pen name that he had used before, which was the pen name of "Publius." (Hamilton's prior use of this pen name, incidentally, was to attack fellow Federalist Samuel Chase for using some inside knowledge from Congress to try and dominate the flour market. Specifically, Hamilton used three letters under this name to question Chase's patriotism in 1778.) When he began recruiting collaborators for the now-famous Federalist Papers in 1787, Hamilton apparently approached Gouverneur Morris and William Duer about becoming contributors, before finally settling on James Madison and John Jay instead. Gouverneur Morris apparently turned down the invitation to work on the "Publius" papers, and Hamilton actually rejected three essays later written by William Duer, despite having invited him to participate in the first place. (William Duer would later write under the alternative pen name of "Philo-Publius," or "Friend of Publius," instead.)

Gouverneur Morris, who turned down the opportunity to write a portion of the Federalist Papers

William Duer, who wrote three essays that Hamilton later rejected as part of the Federalist Papers

Samuel Chase, whom Hamilton had once attacked under his prior use of the "Publius" pen name

The name "Publius" came from the Roman statesman Publius Valerius Poplicola (or Publicola)

In more than one way, the pseudonym of "Publius" was a much better-chosen pen name than the unpopular "Caesar." The authors of the Federalist Papers named their alternative persona after a famous Roman statesman named Publius Valerius Poplicola (the last name is also spelled Publicola). Publius was someone who (along with three other great Roman aristocrats of that time) had helped to overthrow the Roman monarchy. Choosing this man's name for this purpose was probably meant to suggest an opposition to monarchy, that was as strong as any found among the Constitution's detractors. This would certainly have been important for an audience that had just fought a protracted war against King George III of Britain. This audience would have hated monarchy almost as much as any of the Romans of these prior times did. More importantly, though, Publius Valerius Publicola had not contented himself merely with overthrowing a bad form of government, but had helped to make sure that it was replaced with a good form of government that would better protect the people's liberties. Publius is actually considered one of the founders of the Roman Republic, which was probably the most successful phase of the Roman government. Thus, it had a certain amount of prestige in eighteenth-century America.

King George III of the United Kingdom

British surrender at Yorktown, 1781

Why did these men choose "Publius" as their collective pen name for the Federalist Papers?

By choosing his name for their pen name, the authors of the Federalist Papers thus implied that they would not be content with merely "kicking out" the British monarchy from American shores, but would replace it with a better form of government that was on a par with the Roman Republic. After kicking out King George III, in other words, they would create a republic of equal (or even greater) stature by adopting a new Constitution, which would serve America's interests better than the "Articles of Confederation" that it would soon replace. In the heated environment of this time, the name "Publius" was thus a successful piece of pro-Constitution propaganda - "propaganda" in the best sense of that word. It helped to set the tone for the entire discussion of the "Federalist Papers." It helped to score a public relations victory for the supporters of the Constitution in this protracted campaign for the new Constitution, by comparing it with the best of classical Roman government. In a country that had an enthusiastic interest in Greek and Roman history - and this is something of an understatement - this was a feat worth accomplishing. Every one of the 85 articles of "The Federalist Papers" was thus signed with this pen name of choice. This constant repetition of their collective pen name thus drove home the classical comparisons with each successive essay, 85 separate times (although the name was never used at any other time than the signatures at the bottom of every essay - it only occurs once per essay, at the bottom of the articles.)

Newspaper advertisement for the Federalist Papers, 1787

Title page from the original printing of the Federalist Papers

We know Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the "Federalist Papers" ...

On one level, the name "Publius" has thus offered some real insights into the Federalist Papers, by showing what they were alluding to by choosing this name for their writings there. On the other hand, it has also created some confusion about the authorship of some of the particular essays in the series. These three different men all wrote under the collective pen name of "Publius." These men were Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Thus, when some particular essays were attributed to "Publius," people of that time had no idea who "Publius" was; and some of this confusion still persists today. To put it bluntly, we don't always know which "Publius" we're hearing from. The authorship was kept secret for many years afterwards, and the silence was not broken until after Alexander Hamilton's death at the hands of Aaron Burr, when a list that Hamilton had authored before his death became public. James Madison did not immediately dispute any of this list, but later offered a list of his own, which claimed a small number of those that Hamilton had instead claimed for himself. Madison actually suggested that the minor differences in the list were "owing doubtless to the hurry in which [Hamilton's] memorandum was made out," and there is some evidence to indicate that Madison may have been right about this part. For example, Hamilton incorrectly attributed No. 54 to John Jay, when it was actually No. 64 that Mr. Jay had written later on. (In total, Jay wrote about five of the Federalist essays; the other four of which were written much earlier on in the project - Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5, to be specific.)

John Jay, the author of five of the Federalist Papers

Aaron Burr, the man who killed Alexander Hamilton

... but we don't always have good information about which one of the men wrote particular essays

Thus, some of them were acknowledged by both men to be the work of Hamilton, some of them were acknowledged by both men to be the work of Madison, some of them were not claimed by either one at all (but are instead attributed to John Jay, usually accurately), and some were claimed by both men simultaneously. The truth is, we may never know for sure who authored these disputed essays; although we have some pretty good guesses about it. It is also likely that some of the essays were written by both of these men in a collaborative effort (probably Nos. 18, 19, and 20). This theory has gained some acceptance in some circles. By the time that the two men offered their lists, many years had passed since the writing of the papers, though. Thus, the memories of these two men may not have been entirely reliable when it came to the disputes over these particular essays. (They are probably reliable in the areas that they both agreed upon, but we should not expect too much in the areas where they ultimately disagreed, given the number of years that had transpired by the time that they finally offered these lists to the public.)

Alexander Hamilton, the probable author of more than half of the Federalist Papers

James Madison, the probable author of nearly half of the Federalist Papers

Nonetheless, all of these essays are timeless classics, which remain fresh and relevant today

Whoever the authors of these disputed essays were, it is nonetheless clear that all of the essays - disputed or otherwise - are timeless classics of American government and literature. Moreover, we really do know the authorship of at least 73 of these essays, and we have pretty good guesses about the other 12. The Federalist essays were not just "period pieces" written for a brief period in our history that has long since passed, but remain timeless commentaries that were written for the ages. In today's "Information Age," the Federalist Papers contain some of the best information ever written about governments. They have lasted for over two centuries as oracles of democracy. Their pearls of wisdom still ring true today as priceless national treasures, which are as fresh and relevant today as when they were first published, more than 200 years ago.

Footnote to this blog post:

James Madison asked in the Federalist Papers why "the experiment of an extended republic [is] to be rejected, merely because it may comprise what is new? Is it not the glory of the people of America, that, whilst they have paid a decent regard to the opinions of former times and other nations, they have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for custom, or for names, to overrule the suggestions of their own good sense, the knowledge of their own situation, and the lessons of their own experience? To this manly spirit, posterity will be indebted for the possession, and the world for the example, of the numerous innovations displayed on the American theatre, in favor of private rights and public happiness." (Source: Federalist No. 14)

If you liked this post, you might also like:

How the United States Constitution was almost not ratified

So what exactly are the "Federalist Papers," anyway?

The Federalist Papers on the difference between a "democracy" and a "republic"

How to prevent tyranny: Separation of powers and checks & balances

Do checks and balances actually conflict with separation of powers?

Part of a series about

The Constitution