For Monday, have a look at the list of books that Thomas Jefferson recommends for his friend (I handed it out in class today, but it's also over there in the sidebar).
What strikes you as noteworthy, interesting, significant about the list?
How does it differ from the list of works (many read in excerpted form) that we've accumulated over the course of the semester?
How does it differ from the equivalent list that one might receive today if one asked a learned older friend for a recommended reading?
Deadline: Monday (4/11), 1pm. Posts before midnight on Saturday (4/9) count for Week 11, after that it's Week 12.
12 comments:
Jefferson's list features several items we've looked at this semester, including Ossian, Dodsley's works, Tristram Shandy, and Gray's works. Many of the mainstays of English literature find their way on the list (Chaucer and Spenser), and we see Pamela and Clarissa, which have been referenced more than once in class.
The first thing I noticed is that the Bible appears not in the "Religion" section but in the "History - Ancient" section. Though I'm not sure what to make of this, it seems to have implications for how Jefferson (and others at the time) viewed the Bible -- perhaps as a work that gives us insight into history and not as a primary religious text. Instead of the Bible, we get a series of philosophical and political treatises in the Religion section, including works by Hume, Cicero, and Locke.
What this list lacks is works from working-class, women, and other marginalized authors. This inherently makes sense (the works wouldn't be considered ignored if they weren't being ignored at this point), but that's likely the biggest difference between this list and what this list might look like if it were composed today.
I think these all of these discussion questions hinges on Jefferson's opinion on the purpose of literature. According to him, "Everything is useful which contributes to fix in the principles and practices of virtue" (741). He goes on to explain what he means by this and says that any sort of literature that contributes to the emotions that attract us towards virtue or to the repulsiveness of vice is important to read. What I found interesting about the play (and also as an answer to question #3) is that there is a small amount of prose pieces and novels. A majority of these works are instructive, treatises, or poetic. I believe that most of the works that we consider must-reads would fall under sub-categories among novels (e.g., fantasy, science-fiction, memoir, thriller, etc.). Of course, there are a number of instructional and nonfiction books that are widely read too, but there's a slim chance that any contemporary must-reads would be textbooks of history. Fundamentally, I believe that most people have a different view than that of Jefferson's when it comes to the purpose of literature. Nowadays, I believe recreational reading is for the purpose of being entertained or to appreciate works of art/literature for what they're worth. It's not to develop virtue or character. It's more so to engage and escape into a different world than their own.
A lot of the literature and authors on the list are unfamiliar to me. However, I did notice some authors from class, a few being Sterne, Ossian, and Gray. I also recognized some names from the in class anthology exercise we did at the beginning of the semester. It makes sense that the big players of the eighteenth century, like Pope and Gray, made the list. I was also not surprised that there was a strong pre-eighteenth century listing. If I were given a list I would expect to be given authors labeled as classic. Another observation (that might not be accurate because I don't know all of the names)is that there are few woman writers. This is in comparison to our class where we have looked at a fair amount of female authors. An example of a popular female who is absent from the list is Wollstonecraft.
In addition, I had a similar reaction as my classmate when I saw that the Bible was under the History section. I was a bit surprised that it was not under religion. So my question is: was valuing the bible as a secular piece of history a common view of the time?
I read the book list before reading Jefferson’s reasoning behind choosing these texts. I immediately came to the conclusion that Jefferson suggested readings from multiple genres suggesting that one cannot be well-rounded if they simply stick to a single set of readings. This idea was quickly thrown out the door once I read his comments on each section. The line that struck me most was “Thus a lively and lasting sense of filial duty is more effectually impressed on the mind of a son or daughter by reading King Lear, than by all the dry volumes of ethics, and divinity that ever were written” (742). As a person heavily invested in politics it’s surprising to see him latch on the literary so defiantly. I gathered that Jefferson appreciated the portrayal of human emotion and experience through literature more than reading a book that describes it. These are the type of books that create the nature of a person. This can be inferred from his line “In Law I mention a few systematical books, as a knowledge of the minutiae of that science is not necessary for a private gentleman” (742). It explains the long list of plays, poetry and novels we see in comparison to the other categories. I would even argue that he added the other categories simply to appease his reader.
His readings differ from our coursework on multiple levels. First, we are focused mostly on C18 poetry (which is completely reasonable for a college course). Jefferson offers a wide range of literature for his reader. His readings also come from numerous sections of the world (e.g. Don Quixote, The Vicar of Wakefield). There is a large variety of works from different time periods. Our section isn’t structured as such. In regards to how this would differ from a suggested reading list today, I have to agree with a commenter above. I feel today, reading is more for entertainment purposes. Not many people expect to pick up a book and learn something or adopt moral messages outlined in the novel (those parts come second to entertainment). A learned reader may recommend titles that we come across in college literature courses. Perhaps they will be unknown authors, but it will more than likely be from an author that many people have read before. Stepping completely outside of a person’s comfortable “reading zone” may discourage people. Jefferson didn’t seem to be concerned with that though.
I agree with psuh4 when he/she says that a list created today would mostly feature novels. I feel like most people today think that the only form of reading entertainment, with the exception of magazines/comics, is reading a novel, while reading a history book would be considered a drag. It seems today that people have the mindset that scholarly texts or any book you can learn from are reserved for school, whereas in the 18C any kind of reading, even scholarly ones are a form of entertainment. I feel like if someone today were to recommend a “political” book, it would be a book like Obama’s “Dreams from My Father,” rather than, say, Marx’s “The Communist Manifesto.” I also don’t think that a list today would have any religious books in it like The Bible or the Qur’an because the recipient might feel that the other person is trying to impose their religious beliefs on him/her. However, when Jefferson says, “Thus a lively and lasting sense of filial duty is more effectually impressed on the mind of a son or daughter by reading King Lear, than by all the dry volumes of ethics, and divinity that ever were written,” it is apparent that he puts the most value in books that are exciting and tell stories (742). This makes me question why he even included all the other categories on his list besides the Fine Arts.
I agree with the observations made by RS. The first thing I noticed was the gardening book in the Fine Arts section. I'm surprised that this would be a book referenced and considered noteworthy for anyone, nonetheless a recommendation made by a man. The next book recommended was Telemachus by Dodsley and I wonder if this is a reference to the Oddesey. The books that I was looking for, and found, were Pamela, Tristm Shandy, and The Rambler. I was happy that I found all these works and that the authors were ones we have focussed on in class. It was really thought-provoking to think of why the Bible would be placed in the History section opposed to the Religion section. Maybe because at that time it was more needed in terms of a reference to secularize government opposed to a religious reference. Or maybe because it was a "history" of Jesus in the Old Testament and the New Testament. On the same line, Criticism On The Fine Arts is about the sublime and more philosophical approaches to literature. But, it has Johnson's dictionary, which I would think needs no further interpretation and could be recategorized. The Criticism section has Reid on the Human MInd but a similar topic (based on the title) Locke's Conduct Of The Mind IN Search For Truth is in the Religion section. I can see how religion and philosophy and search for truth and meaning overlap, but maybe these two sections should be combined or be subsets in a larger section.
I found it interesting that the literature Jefferson recommended was not as specifically selected as the philosophical or nonfiction works he suggested should be read. In almost every instance he recommend literary works by author rather than title. Perhaps this can be seen as Jefferson's insistence that literature, unlike specifically informative works, must be read in compendiums to understand its significance or perhaps that of its author. As several people have mentioned, placing the Bible under the historical heading rather than the religious genre stood out to me as well. I interpreted this as Jefferson's own stance on the Bible. To him, its contents were likely absolute fact about the history of Christianity and existence rather than a debatable topic. Religious texts would then be those that delve into the issue of understanding the Bible and the practice of religion itself.
Of the works that might be covered in the scope of our class, it seemed Jefferson's had a much more expansive list of literature in mind than we have read. Most of the major authors or works that we have spent time on appear in his selections however. I think Jefferson's tendency to add more rather than less 18th century literature to his list is simply a product of the age he lived in. He was more likely to be affected by a contemporary work, as it would have had more relevance and significance in his own time.
While some people have insisted that a curremt list of must read works would lean more on modern prose forms such as the novel, I think Jefferson's selections are decidedly aimed towards intellectual substance. While there are many modern pieces of literature that are more widely read than classical works, a learned person would still have a tendency, like Jefferson, to focus more on the intellectual rather than the simply popular. I think any such list would include more of the very old works Jefferson chooses, while at the same time, overlooking many of the 18th century works he recommends. For a modern list to cover the overarching themes and concepts of a wider swath of history, it must necessarily overlook some of the lesser known works in favor of the major authors in history.
One of the things that struck me most about Jefferson's list is that under the Fine Arts section he recommends an author's entire body of work, like with "Mallet's works" or "Home's plays." Today, it seems as though for the most part we pick out one or two pieces of an author's work that are deemed most important or significant, or else that are viewed as being most representative of that author. For example, if surveyed I can guess that most of our class will have read either Jane Austen's Pride or Prejudice or Sense and Sensibility rather than Mansfield Park. Yet, as any Austen enthusiast can attest to, while these works are great they are in no way representative of Austen as a whole, nor do the reflect the themes in her lesser known works. Therefore, I think I prefer Jefferson's method for reading recommendations, as it seems unfair to authors to limit them in such a manner. If you want an encompassing knowledge of an author, you will need to read the majority of their works rather than a sampling like we do today.
I found one of the most significant parts of Jefferson's list to be that he would recommend an authors entire body of work, like "Mallet's works" and "Home's plays." Today, it seems like one or two of an author's work are recommended that are deemed most relevant or significant, or else that are seen as representative of an author's entire work. For example, if surveyed, I can guess that the majority of the class will have read Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" or "Sense and Sensibility" over "Mansfield Park." However, as any Austen enthusiast will tell you, these two works are in no way representative of Austen's entire works, and reading only them cannot give you a sense of the themes or inner workings of her lesser know works. And so I think that I agree with Jefferson's method for recommending texts, as it seems unfair to the author to limit them in such a way as to only suggest reading one of the novels or poems. I think that to get an encompassing view of an author, one needs to have read the majority of their works.
I find it interesting that most of the posts above me argue that a list such as Jefferson's is not emulated in the present day because our modern idea of must-reads are books with some sort of entertainment value. Strange to hear English majors say that.
Actually reading the thought process behind this list makes me feel like Jefferson is really on the same wavelength as many of the above comments. He has a reverie for literary works that spark "feeling" and "sentiment". Isn't seeking entertainment a means of harvesting an emotional response of some sort? His constant references to Shakespearean titles reemphasize his respect for the drama good literature can create.
As for the actual list enclosed, previous comments stated that Jefferson's subsets are not necessarily something we would use if we were to make our own modern-day list of recommended readings. Walk into any bookstore and you will find best-sellers, select titles, recommended readings, etc. under each of the same categories. I find it hard to believe that with all the political tension between the States and Muslim countries, that there are people who would not recommend the Quran as a must read. In this way, our American culture too affects the books we choose to read, just as it did with Jefferson.
I can't speak much to the actual titles listed because of my limited knowledge, but I feel like it is a good reflection of the literary culture that developed in C18. We have read many pieces (like during our segment on children's literature when we read about the development of a child) that at first glance don't seem to be of any great importance, but after analysis we found that they were of great historical and scholarly value, not just for us, but for eighteenth century readers as well.
Lastly, and a random note at that, as a conclusion of what we were discussing in class about forgery, I really liked when Jefferson said: "We never reflect whether the story we read be truth or fiction." In other words, who cares. I am still astounded that this was such an issue back then and that people were actually that invested in a piece's realness. But that's just me.
If you were to implore a learned man today for a list of suggested readings, you'd receive a similar list to the one derived by Jefferson. You wouldn't be given much of the same books, but you'd receive contemporary ones of the same nature. A scholarly person of today reads with much the same intent as Jefferson--that is, to better themselves. Sure, in today's society, many people read strictly for pleasure, but that's merely the result of pervasive literacy and its consequent market of terrible novels geared towards such people. A scholar wouldn't agree to this literary approach, and neither would the person inquiring about such a book list. A few things would be different on a contemporary version of the list. The Bible may still be in the History section, but not with the intention of being taken literally. And books on vocational specifics, such as Home's Principles of Agriculture, would be less represented, since in today's society people are less self-reliant when it comes to synonymous tasks.
I noticed that some of the works Jefferson put on his list I recognize and some I had no idea about. I found the way he broke down the categories interesting and which books he put into each. He placed the Iliad and the Odyssey and Virgil into Fine Arts rather than history, although I guess they could go into either. I also found it very interesting that he placed the Bible in ancient history rather than Religion.
I also found some of his books in the natural philosophy/natural history category odd, especially the works pertaining to agriculture and husbandry. I would think those specific ones should be placed into arts of a sort. They do not seem much like philosophy or history, rather works to be done around the house or on a farm.
He also places different works by the same author into multiple places, such as Locke has a couple of his works mentioned on here, some being in Religion and other in Miscellaneous. I think this shows Jefferson is very well read and has read items of all different sorts, but I still find that his way or categorizations is odd.
Post a Comment