Jane Austen's Persuasion: A Discussion Guide

Jane Austen lived in a time when the two definitions of the word Gentleman were both in general use. The first definition was the older, economic sense of the word. This alluded to a man who does not have to “work” for a living, because they were independently wealthy. The most respected Gentlemen in this sense were landlords, who often owned whole towns as well as vast acreage for farming. The second definition was brand new, but is the only one that has survived to date. This alluded to a man’s behavior, and meant that he was courteous. Like the word Courtesy itself, which arose from a definition of proper behavior at the royal court, Gentlemen were those who understood proper etiquette. In essence, a Gentleman in this sense put everyone at their ease. He would never make anyone feel uncomfortable in his presence. Consider Frederick Wentworth in comparison to William Elliot. Setting aside, for the moment, the issue of motive (i.e. Mr. Eliot’s selfishness), what is it in their manners that makes Lady Russell prefer Mr. Elliot? Why does Anne prefer Captain Wentworth’s manners? Was it wrong that William Elliot held Mrs. Clay in contempt, “yet Mrs. Clay found him as agreeable as anybody”? In real life which do you prefer, someone who speaks their mind with frankness, or someone who is ever vigilant about your feelings? Are you susceptible to flattery? 

Do you find Anne Elliot a sympathetic character? Would you want to be friends with her? Does she have any faults? What, if any, are they? What are her defining characteristics? Would you want to be like her? 

Do you find Captain Wentworth an appealing character? What, if anything, do you like about him? What, if anything, do you dislike? Would you want to be friends with him? Would you want to be like him?

What do you think of the marriage of Charles and Mary Musgrove? Would you consider theirs a good marriage? We see their pettiness quite clearly, would our own marriage hold up under such close scrutiny? What do you think of Austen’s assumption that Charles would have been a different man if married to Anne? What do you think of the marriage of Admiral Croft and Sophie? Would you consider their marriage ideal? Their attachment is mocked by Austen when expressed by Louisa as the sentiment, “I would rather be overturned by him, than driven safely by anybody else.” Do you think her treatment overall reflects admiration for their marriage, or are they just for comic relief? Are they in any way a representation of Anne's possible future?

I’m sure you remember having a Reading Group discussion about this some months ago, but you’ve had some time to think about it now. What is Meekness? How does it manifest itself? Do you see meekness as “feebleness and timidity’ as Captain Wentworth did? Is it possible for a woman to be too meek? Do you think that Anne is too meek? Do you agree with Captain Wentworth that she has shown a “feebleness of character”? Or, do you agree with her conclusion that duty justified her meekness? Are you more willing to accept meekness in a woman than a man? Why? Is there a relationship between meekness and duty as Anne suggests? To whom do we owe meekness? To whom do we not? When is meekness a proper response? Do you think that Anne had become less meek over time? Why? Do you think meekness is related to maturity? Considering how important meekness is as a gospel principle, what role should meekness play in an adult personality? What role did it play in Christ’s life?

The primary theme in this novel is that of Persuasion, thus the title. Yet, this is a theme that Austen explores in all of her novels, so one that she considered of enormous consequence. What conclusions do you think the author has come to in this story? Which characters are persuaded by which other characters? Is it important to be persuadable? Or is there something to be said for Captain Wentworth’s expression, “Let those who would be happy be firm”? Who has a responsibility for influencing another person? Whom should we be influenced by? What can we conclude about someone who is a good influence? Was Captain Wentworth a good influence? What do you make of his statement of Louisa that, “she would not have been obstinate if I had not been weak”? Who ultimately influenced whom? Consider also the influence of such minor characters as Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Clay. 

What do you think of the role that Gossip plays in this novel? Do you believe that the characters were justified in their use of information about other people? 

The powerful people in Anne’s life tended to be inconsiderate of her needs and desires. Is this kind of behavior ever justified? Is there anyone in your life that you tend to overlook in this way? Or that you see others overlook on a regular basis? Are everyone's needs and desires important? What if their desires are wrong?

“How quick come the reasons for approving what we like.” This is the kind of Reasoning that Sir Walter Elliot uses in making decisions. Anne wants the family to retrench in the most drastic fashion. She believes that their Dignity depends on this. What is Anne’s view of dignity? What is her father and sister’s view of dignity? Does dignity play a role in today’s society? In which sense?

Have you ever experienced the situation that Anne does in which she removes from one set of people to another, and finds “a total change of conversation, opinion and idea”? Is it wrong that each group is so self-consumed? Is it right? Or is it just normal? 

Have you noticed how reserved Austen’s heroines always seem? How they keep their feelings to themselves almost constantly? For example, at one point Anne must play the piano while she watches others enjoy dancing, and “though her eyes would sometimes fill with tears as she sat at the instrument, she was extremely glad to be employed, and desired nothing in return but to be unobserved.” Do you honor her for her forbearance in not breaking into sobs and running from the room? Anne feels that she is “being treated with too much confidence,” of “being too much in the secret of the complaints of each house” while she’s staying with the Musgroves. Do you agree with Anne’s assessment? In today’s society, probably due to our modern forms of entertainment, we are used to sharing in everyone’s most intimate feelings, but is this right? With whom should we share our feelings? Anne believes that she values “open-heartedness”; in what way is that related to sharing feelings? Do you think that Austen is reacting against the strong stoical behavior that was evident in her own culture? In other words, do you think she was trying to maintain a balance? What would she have written about if she lived in our modern world in which it is rare for people to keep their feelings to themselves? Do you think she would have emphasized the opposite?

Anne at one point is walking with Harriet, and considers herself “as ready to do good by entering into the feelings of a young lady as of a young man.” She knows how rare true sympathy is, since so few are ever willing to listen to her. Is it an act of charity to listen, to empathize with another, and to agree with their perceptions? How does this differ from being open with ones feelings as above? Why do you think that Austen gives the character William Elliot the ability to show empathy to Anne, as confirmed by his “concern for what she must have suffered in witnessing” the scene at Lyme? Is sympathy an important character trait? In our modern day, influenced by the Romantic Philosophers, we tend to believe that sympathy is one of the highest virtues. Does Austen suggest there are more important ones?

One of the key elements of women’s fiction in Austen’s day was the melodramatic Rescue of the heroine. Austen parodies, or at least uses, this in several of her novels, including this one. Just for fun, can you find the Rescue scene? Is it an effective scene? Or, do you think it was over the top? Do you think rescue scenes are important elements in making us appreciate the hero? In other words, does it make him a hero? Do you remember the use of this idea in the movie Hitch? How might this scene be related to the kind of “rescue” that Hitch stages for his clients? How is it different?

What are your feelings about Captain Benwick? Do you recognize what Anne sees as a “duty and benefit of struggling against affliction”? What part do you think reading plays in encouraging indulgence of sentiment, or in helping people endure? Do you think this is important? Do you think that he and Louisa will find happiness together in spite of their difference of temperament? or, because of it?

What was revealed by the way that everyone looked to Anne for direction after Louisa’s fall? Does she show natural leadership? Would the same thing have occurred if the group were made up of people like Sir Elliot and Elizabeth? What makes the difference?

Do you believe that the “sick chamber” shows examples of “ardent, disinterested, self-denying attachment, of heroism, fortitude, patience, resignation—of all the conflicts and all the sacrifices that ennoble us most”? Or “selfishness and impatience rather than generosity and fortitude”? Do you agree with Mrs. Smith that there is “little real friendship in the world”? Do you think of friendship as actuating the kinds of sacrifice that Anne is talking about? What part did friendship play during Austen’s time in the care of the sick? What part does it play today?

In the latest movie production of Persuasion, the Masterpiece Classic version, Anne confesses to Captain Wentworth at the end that she has been wrong. She promises never to be so persuadable again. Did you find this ending as satisfying as the book ending? Who learns the lesson about persuasion in the novel? Do you think Jane Austen thought Anne was too persuadable? What was the ultimate cause of the long separation of Anne and Frederick? Do you believe that they will be happy as a married couple? Why? What part does persuasion play in domestic happiness? Do you think persuasion will play a part in their happiness? What was Jane Austen’s opinion on the matter?

The Relationship Cure by Dr. John Gottman--A Critique

Dr. John Gottman’s research on successful marriages at his laboratory at the University of Washington blazed new trials in the realm of psychology. With the publication of his seminal work The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, Gottman literally wrote the book on how to save failing marriages. Every relationship book written since that pivotal text has been heavily influenced by Gottman’s research.

It has been my experience that authors who discover successful psychological techniques tend to spin out a succession of books which are essentially clones of their original work. However, Gottman continues to blaze new trails in his research, and in each new text he offers his latest findings for our enrichment. In The Relationship Cure: A 5 Step Guide to Strengthening Your Marriage, Family and Friendships, Gottman offers a simple plan for improving our communication skills in our various relationships. Though simple in theory, each step could take a lifetime to master.

The five steps include:

-Recognizing and responding appropriately to Bids for Connection

-Recognizing human Command Systems and how they influence behavior

-Looking into your past for the origins of your behaviors

-Correctly identifying emotions in others

-Finding a shared meaning in life

In the first step, Gottman introduces the concept of “Bids for Connection.” The author admits that these petty, minor bids for attention seemed unimportant to him early in his research. However, he found, over time, that a major key to recognizing a healthy relationship was to be found in the manner in which couples offered and responded to these bids. Gottman explains how to recognize these bids in both self and others, whether they are offered in a negative or a positive fashion, and provides the reader with insight into how to respond appropriately. To my mind, this insight alone was worth the price of the book.

The second step seemed equally astounding to me. Gottman identifies the systems within our physiology, and explains how these have a profound impact on human psychology. A healthy human being responds to each of these human needs without letting it take over their life. However, individual life experience can make a person favor a particular Command System, and become exaggerated in their dependence upon it. Our own unique blend of responses to our Command Systems will determine major aspects of our personality. Recognizing these needs in others can help us to relate with their needs better, and so improve our relationship with even the most extremely distorted personality.

The third step seemed to me, at first, to be a rehashing of a classic psychological concept, since Freud, over a century ago, introduced the idea that our past relationship with our parents influences our present behavior. However, Gottman gives even this familiar ground a unique spin. He has classified the way that parents create a culture in a family which influences how the expression of emotions is treated. His brief sketches of these different cultures create recognizable pictures. We have all encountered these responses in our dealings with our fellow human beings. Gottman then goes further to share his research findings that indicate that one of these cultural responses to emotion produces a healthier more successful child. The author then offers basic guidelines to achieve this healthier culture in your own family.

The fourth step involves learning about emotional expressions, how to recognize them in their various manifestations. This section is full of exercises to improve your skills in this area. Gottman offers his own life experiences as illustrations of key principles, as well as the findings of various psychologists, so that the reader obtains a broad scope of understanding about how emotions are communicated.

The fifth step covers familiar ground for those who have read Gottman’s Seven Principles. Uncovering the dreams and ideals that guide us, and learning to share these, will help deepen any relationship. In addition, the establishment of relationship rituals and traditions helps to ground these dreams in our daily lives. The author again offers exercises that will bring out our latent dreams, and help us to identify other people’s dreams as well. He also offers scenarios that reveal how hidden ideals are often expressed through conflicts. Getting to the basis of these conflicts can help us to move beyond them to more meaningful interactions.

If there is a weakness in this book, it is that the author covers an enormous amount of ground in just a few hundred pages. Each section could easily have been expanded into an entire book. A less knowledgeable writer probably would have done so, but Gottman has a lot of insight to unfold and he doesn’t waste words while explaining the key communication techniques.

I highly recommended this book to anyone seeking to improve their relationships. And, frankly, who isn’t? 

A Reading Group Guide for Our Mutual Friend by Charles Dickens

1) What is the significance of the Thames River and its tides in the novel? Is there any meaning, beyond the literal, in Dicken's reference to the action taking place between an iron bridge (Southwark Bridge) and a stone bridge (London Bridge)? What is symbolic about the boat being allied to "the bottom of the river rather than the surface, by reason of the slime and ooze with which it was covered"? Are the "spoiling effects of water" (mentioned in Book I, Chapter XIV) symbolic of anything further in the novel?

2) Why the insistence on Twemlow's part to discover who Veneering's oldest friend might be? Is there any meaning in it beyond the humorousness of such an obsession? Does Veneering's friendship turn out to be valuable in any sense? How is this friendship a symbol of a social class? What is Dickens' feeling toward this class? What are your feelings toward it? How does this compare with Dickens' treatment of the poor in his novel? Do you believe that Betty Higden's making a "fury of the Good Samaritan" is a realistic depiction of pride in poverty?

3) In what way does Mr. Podsnap compare and contrast with Mr. Veneering? Mr. Podsnap believes that even providence is under his protection. Is his inflated self-estimate in any way encouraged by his society? How are the Capitalists Veneering and Podsnap related to modern day Capitalists? Do Capitalists today have an inflated sense of their own importance? How does Capitalism influence your society?

4) Old Mr. Harmon respected the Boffins for their hard-work and integrity. In what way do you find the Boffins admirable? Are the Boffins more or less admirable after inheriting the Harmon fortune? Is the whole plotline with Mr. Boffin's obsession with misers believable, or do you find it too great of a stretch on Dickens' part? How do you feel about the relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Boffin?

5) What is your take on the character of Sophronia Akersham Lammle? Is she sympathetic in any way? Do you think she is more a good person or a bad person? Are her actions in any way justifiable? Who do you blame more for the scheming behavior, Sophronia or her husband? How do these characters compare to and contrast with Mr. Fledgeby?

6) In speaking of Mrs. Betty Higden, Dickens says that she is not a logical-reasoning woman. However, he reflects, "hearts may count in Heaven as high as heads." Are you familiar with anyone that you value for their heart alone? How do you weigh the value of these two attributes? Do you believe one is superior to the other? In what ways? Do you think that Betty Higden represents the attributes of the heart well? Which other characters in the novel represent this side of human nature? Do you feel that Mr. Rokesmith's statement, "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burden of it for anyone else" (Book III, Chapter IX), is a wise saying?

7) How do you feel about Bradley Headstone, and why? Do you believe that he truly cares for Charlie Hexam? For Lizzie Hexam? Compare and contrast Mr. Headstone's actions under the influence of unrequited love with that of Mrs. Peecher. How would things have turned out if Mr. Headstone had married Mrs. Peecher? How is Charlie Hexam like his headmaster? In what ways is he different? What do you predict for Charlie's future?

8) Dickens refers to the gold dust of the Golden Dustman as attracting admirers (Book I, Chapter XVII). Is there any relationship in this novel between the dust of the heaps and the gold dust of the Harmon wealth? What does dust symbolize in this novel? In what way, if any, is the symbolism of the dust related to the grinding of the money-mills (referred to in Book III, Chapter XVI)? If wealth is dust and ashes, then what does Dickens consider to be enduring and worthwhile?

9) At some point, Bella Wilfer begins to notice Mr. Rokesmith's effects on her. She asks herself, "How do I come to mind him when I don't care for him?" (Book II, Chapter VIII). Does this moral influence relate to love in any way? Is love somehow more worthy when it influences someone to be a better person? Is there any relationship between Bella's rectifying her relationship with her family to please Mr. Rokesmith and Lizzie Hexam's being convinced by Eugene Wrayburn to pursue an education in spite of her father's prohibition? How do these two love stories compare and contrast?

10) How do you feel about Jenny Wren, the Doll's Dressmaker? How does her relationship to other characters influence your feelings about her (Jenny's drunken father, Lizzie Hexam, Mr. Riah, Mr. Fledgeby, Eugene Wrayburn, Sloppy)? Does her being crippled make her sympathetic, even admirable? Which parts of her predicament add most to your sympathy and admiration? Is her maturity and sense of responsibility believable in a child character? In what ways have hardships strengthened you and others you know?

11) Considering the prominence of the word Friend in the title, and that Dickens dedicated his book to a friend "as a memorial of friendship," what part do you think friendship plays in the novel? What part does friendship play in the relationship between Charlie Hexam and Bradley Headstone? Mr. Headstone and Rogue Ridderhood? What about the friendship between Mr. Wegg and Mr. Venus? Mr. Venus and Mr. Boffin? What do you think of the friendship between Mortimer Lightwood and Eugene Wrayburn? Would you consider the relationship between the Boffins and Bella Wilfer a friendship? Do the lovers in this novel begin with friendship? How does friendship influence their relationships? Are there other important friendships depicted in the novel? In what way do all of these friendships contribute to our understanding of the characters? What influence have friendships had in your own life?

12) Do you think that Eugene Wrayburn was in any way influenced by his concern for Lizzie's probable reception by society? If so, was he in any way justified in his concern, was any of his concern for Lizzie's best interest? How would a poor reception affect Lizzie herself? Are the "feelings of gratitude, of respect, of admiration, and affection" that Twemlow attributes to Eugene in relationship to Lizzie (Book IV, "Chapter the Last") an adequate description of love? In what way is Eugene Wrayburn the "greater gentleman" for his marriage to Lizzie?

Eugene Wrayburn of Our Mutual Friend—A Favorite Character

Even on the first reading of Our Mutual Friend by Charles Dickens, I had already learned to appreciate Eugene Wrayburn. Dickens gives him so many moments of witty dialogue and of compassion for the under-privileged I could not help but admire him. His best friend, Mortimer Lightwood, shows such adulation toward Eugene, it seemed natural to enter into the mode of looking up to him, if only out of sympathy with the gentle Mortimer. When Lizzie Hexam falls in love with Eugene, and deep tragedy follows, my feelings deepened into love. By the second reading, I was deeply smitten. Eugene Wrayburn is in many ways a combination of Jane Austen's Elizabeth Bennett and Baroness Emmuska Orczy's Scarlet Pimpernel, Sir Percy Blakeney.

At first blush it may seem odd to compare a male character to Elizabeth Bennett, the heroine of Pride and Prejudice. Elizabeth is a dependent character, because of her gender and her status in a society that subjugated women. Yet, Eugene is also in a subjective state due to his dependence on his father's wealth. As a fourth son, he has no property of his own to uphold himself in the status to which he was born. But, as a son, he is required to live up to that status in spite of the near impossibility of the task. Like Elizabeth, in order to achieve that objective, he is expected to marry for wealth and, again like Elizabeth, he refuses to marry without love.

There is a great deal to be said for his resemblance to Elizabeth in social status, but the way in which Eugene resembles Elizabeth the most is in his character traits. Elizabeth Bennett charms us with her ready wit. Even when she is humiliated by Mr. Darcy, she does not sit and brood, but almost immediately turns her disgrace into a humorous anecdote for her friend's amusement. Eugene also finds himself in humiliated circumstances, with a father who tries to arrange his life. As he explains his circumstances to his friend, he makes light of it, joking with him about not wanting to meet the lady in question. Eugene insists that, in spite of this near tyranny, his father amuses him. "Touching the lady?" asks his friend. "There [my respected father] ceases to be amusing," answers Eugene, "because my intentions are opposed to touching the lady." Both prefer to maintain a playful manner rather than to brood about their misfortunes.

Another way in which Eugene resembles Elizabeth is in his keen observation of human nature. When Charlie Hexam shows his true colors by deprecating his sister, Eugene grabs the boy by the chin to study his countenance, as if he is interested in seeing if his ingratitude was apparent in his face. More telling still is Eugene's behavior toward Charlie's school teacher, Bradley Headstone. When Mr. Headstone's passion gets the better of him, Eugene perks up. As Dickens has it, "Eugene Wrayburn looked on at him, as if he found him beginning to be rather an entertaining study."

As to the eponymous character in the Scarlet Pimpernel, Eugene takes on the most appealing characteristics of this character as well. The Baroness' main character plays a double role, as Lord Blakeney the foppish fool and as the Scarlet Pimpernel a swashbuckling hero. At first look, there would appear to be little resemblance between Eugene and Lord Blakeney, because Eugene is neither fool nor hero. The similarity is more subtle. Like Lord Blakeney, Eugene often affects an outward appearance that conceals his true character.

When Lord Blakeney acts the fool, we can tell it is mere pretense from the clever way he speaks. While outwardly Eugene appears gloomy, his lighthearted wit shows his true nature. Lord Blakeney conceals his identity in order to keep himself and his compatriots safe. Eugene uses his affectation more to reveal than to conceal, for through his affected gloom he shows his disdain for the trappings of high society. Yet, both characters only become truly admirable when their hidden nature shines through. Lord Blakeney shows that underneath his affected foppishness he is a hero who rescues the doomed aristocrats in revolution-torn France. Eugene Wrayburn shows that in spite of his lethargic, gloomy and bored exterior he can be both active and passionate in his concern for both Lizzie Hexam and her friend Jenny Wren.

There is something so very British about being outwardly able to blend in with any society, but inwardly to burn with a passion for social justice. These are the marks of a true British gentleman. Eugene, in spite of his gloomy front, blends seamlessly into the Verneering's dinner party group, which he qualifies for by his lofty birth. He seems even more at home in the industrious Jenny Wren's parlor-workshop. He does not even stand out uncomfortably in the lowly hovel of the Hexam family. His confidence makes him at home in the first extreme as his courtesy makes him at home in the last. At the Verneering's party, he feels that justice has been abused by the waste of resources in mere glittery show. At the Hexam's house, he feels that a sensitive soul is languishing for want of those resources, and so he works to right that injustice.

Those who would take Eugene Wrayburn as he merely appears to be, or even oft times by his words alone, would misread him disastrously. Lizzie catches a glimpse of Eugene's earnest conviction, behind the façade "usually so light and careless." It is this part of him that she falls in love with. But the true test of Eugene's character is in how his best friend perceives him. Eugene affects gloom, but Mortimer sees him as primarily playful, never able to take anything seriously. He affects a languishing demeanor, but Mortimer notices that he is vigorous enough to outpace the stalking Mr. Headstone night after night. Eugene affects boredom, but he becomes consumed with introspection so intense that his friend becomes concerned to know what is troubling him so deeply.

It is that matter that is trouble Eugene so deeply that most enables us to sympathize with him. He knows that he is falling in love with Lizzie Hexam, but he cannot decide if she is in love with him. Nor can he decide whether loving her is in her best interests. As becomes apparent in the final chapters, the vast majority of society would not accept Lizzie's rise in social status through marriage to an aristocrat. Most of them will make her feel unwelcome, and unworthy. It was serious business in those days to marry outside of one's class.

As a consequence, Eugene tries to repress his love, while still working to do as much good as he can for Lizzie. To marry such extremes of class difference could mean to give up society at both ends of the scale, and to be left friendless throughout life. Eugene hesitates to inflict this upon Lizzie, until he sees how passionately she loves him. When he sees that it is as painful for her to deny herself as it is for him to deny himself this love, he is completely torn. On the one hand, if he marries her she will become a social outcast, and on the other hand she will be denied her love. He can only decide to leave her because it is her decision to separate, and he respects her wishes. The intimate cluster of friends, who finally join the two in the end, are sufficient to ensure that this loving pair will not be friendless, though the rest of society disdains their union.

In short, Eugene Wrayburn is one of the most delightful, endearing and sympathetic characters of all time. His character alone makes Our Mutual Friend a book worth reading, but there are many more worthwhile characters in this novel and many fascinating themes to explore as well. Eugene is just my favorite reason to read and reread this classic.

Do you have a favorite Dickens character from this, or his other masterpieces?
 

Great Books of the Western World List

1. The Syntopicon: An Index to the Great Ideas
   Angel to Love
   
2. The Syntopicon (continued)
   Man to World
   
3. Homer
   Iliad
   Odyssey
   
4. Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes
   Aeschylus. Plays
   Sophocles. Plays
   Euripides. Plays
   Aristophanes. Plays
   
5. Herodotus, Thucydides
   Herodotus. History
   Thucydides. The History of the Peloponnesian War
   
6. Plato
   
   Dialogues
   Seventh Letter
   
7. Aristotle (I)
   
   Works
   
8. Aristotle (II)
   
   Works (continued)
   
9. Hippocrates, Galen
   
   Hippocrates. Hippocratic Writings
   Galen. On the Natural Faculties
   
10. Euclid, Archimedes, Nicomachus
    
    Euclid. Elements
    Archimedes. Works (including The Method)
    Nicomachus. Introduction to Arithmetic
    
11. Lucretius, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Plotinus
    
    Lucretius The Way Things Are
    Epictetus. Discourses
    Marcus Aurelius. The Meditations
    Plotinus. The Six Enneads
    
12. Virgil
    
    Eclogues
    Georgics
    Aeneid
    
13. Plutarch
    
    Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans
    
14. Tacitus
    
    Annals
    Histories
    
15. Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler
    
    Ptolemy. Almagest
    Copernicus. On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres
    Kepler. Epitome of Copernican Astronomy
    Kepler. The Harmonies of the World
    
16. Augustine
    
    The Confessions
    The City of God
    On Christian Doctrine
    
17. Thomas Aquinas (I)
    
    Summa Theologica
    
18. Thomas Aquinas (II)
    
    Summa Theologica (continued)
    
19. Dante, Chaucer
    
    Dante. Divine Comedy
    Chaucer. Troilus and Criseyde
    Chaucer. Canterbury Tales
    
20. Calvin
    
    Institutes of the Christian Religion
    
21. Machiavelli, Hobbes
    
    Machiavelli. The Prince
    Hobbes. Leviathan, or, Matter, Form and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil
    
22. Rabelais
    
    Gargantua and Pantagruel
    
23. Erasmus, Montaigne
    
    Erasmus. Praise of Folly
    Montaigne. Essays
    
24. Shakespeare (I)
    
    The Plays and Sonnets
    
25. Shakespeare (II)
    
    The Plays and Sonnets (continued)
    
26. Gilbert, Galileo, Harvey
    
    Gilbert. On the Loadstone and Magnetic Bodies
    Galileo. Concerning the Two New Sciences
    Harvey. On the Motion of the Heart and Blood in Animals
    Harvey. On the Circulation of the Blood
    Harvey. On the Generation of Animals
    
27. Cervantes
    
    The History of Don Quixote de la Mancha
    
28. Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza
    
    Bacon. Advancement of Learning
    Bacon. Novum Organum
    Bacon. New Atlantis
    Descartes. Rules for the Direction of the Mind
    Descartes. Discourse on the Method
    Descartes. Meditations on First Philosophy
    Descartes. Objections Against the Meditations and Replies
    Descartes. The Geometry
    Spinoza. Ethics
    
29. Milton
    
    English minor poems
    Paradise Lost
    Samson Agonistes
    Areopagitica
    
30. Pascal
    
    The Provincial Letters
    Pensees
    Scientific Treatises
    
31. Moliere, Racine
    
    Moliere. The School for Wives
    Moliere. The Critique of the School for Wives
    Moliere. Tartuffe
    Moliere. Don Juan
    Moliere. The Miser
    Moliere. The Would-Be Gentleman
    Moliere. The Would-Be Invalid
    Racine. Berenice
    
32. Newton, Huygens
    
    Newton. Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy
    Newton. Optics
    Huygens. Treatise on Light
    
33. Locke, Berkeley
    
    Locke. A Letter Concerning Toleration
    Locke. Concerning Civil Government, Second Essay
    Locke. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
    Berkeley. The Principles of Human Knowledge
    Hume. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
    
34. Swift, Voltaire, Diderot
    
    Swift. Gulliver's Travels
    Voltaire. Candide
    Diderot. Rameau's Nephew
    
35. Montesquieu, Rousseau
    
    Montesquieu. The Spirit of Laws
    Rousseau. On the Origin of Inequality
    Rousseau. On Political Economy
    Rousseau. The Social Contract
    
36. Smith
    
    An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
    
37. Gibbon (I)
    
    History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
    
38. Gibbon (II)
    
    History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (continued)
    
39. Kant
    
    The Critique of Pure Reason
    The Critique of Practical Reason, and Other Ethical Treatises
    The Critique of Judgment
    
40. American State Papers, The Federalist, Mill
    
    Declaration of Independence
    Articles of Confederation
    The Constitution
    Hamilton, Madison, Jay. The Federalist
    Mill. On Liberty
    Mill. Representative Government
    Mill. Utilitarianism
    
41. Boswell
    
    Life of Samuel Johnson, LL. D.
    
42. Lavoisier, Faraday
    
    Lavoisier. Elements of Chemistry
    Faraday. Experimental Researches in Electricity
    
43. Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche
    
    Hegel. The Philosophy of Right
    Hegel. The Philosophy of History
    Kierkegaard. Fear and Trembling
    Nietzsche. Beyond Good and Evil
    
44. Tocqueville
    
    Democracy in America
    
45. Goethe, Balzac
    
    Goethe. Faust: Parts One and Two
    Balzac. Cousin Bette
    
46. Austen, Eliot
    
    Austen. Emma
    Eliot. Middlemarch
    
47. Dickens
    
    Little Dorrit
    
48. Melville, Twain
    
    Melville. Moby Dick, or, The Whale
    Twain. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
    
49. Darwin
    
    The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection
    The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex
    
50. Marx, Engels
    
    Marx (edited by Engels). Capital
    Marx and Engels. Manifesto of the Communist Party
    
51. Tolstoy
    
    War and Peace
    
52. Dostoyevsky, Ibsen
    
    Dostoyevsky. The Brothers Karamazov
    Ibsen. A Doll's House
    Ibsen. The Wild Duck
    Ibsen. Hedda Gabler
    Ibsen. The Master Builder
    
53. James
    
    The Principles of Psychology
    
54. Freud
    
    The Major Works of Sigmund Freud
    
55. 20th Century Philosophy and Religion
    
    James. Pragmatism
    Bergson. An Introduction to Metaphysics
    Dewey. Experience and Education
    Whitehead. Science and the Modern World
    Russell. The Problems of Philosophy
    Heidegger. What is Metaphysics?
    Wittgenstein. Philosophical Investigations
    Barth. The Word of God and the Word of Man
    
56. 20th Century Natural Science
    
    Poincare. Science and Hypothesis
    Planck. Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers
    Whitehead. An Introduction to Mathematics
    Einstein. Relativity: The Special and the General Theory
    Eddington. The Expanding Universe
    Bohr. Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature (selections)
    Bohr. Discussion with Einstein on Epistemological Problemns in Atomic Physics
    Hardy. A Mathematician's Apology
    Heisenberg. Physics and Philosophy
    Schrodinger. What is Life?
    Dobzhansky. Genetics and the Origin of Species
    Waddington. The Nature of Life
    
57. 20th Century Social Science (I)
    
    Veblen. The Theory of the Leisure Class
    Tawney. The Acquisitive Society
    Keynes. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money
    
58. 20th Century Social Science (II)
    
    Frazer. The Golden Bough (selections)
    Weber. Essays in Sociology (selections)
    Huizinga. The Waning of the Middle Ages
    Levi-Strauss. Structural Anthropology (selections)
    
59. 20th Century Imaginative Literature (I)
    
    James. The Beast in the Jungle
    Shaw. Saint Joan
    Conrad. Heart of Darkness
    Chekhov. Uncle Vanya
    Pirandello. Six Characters in Search of an Author
    Proust. Remembrance of Things Past. "Swann in Love"
    Cather. A Lost Lady
    Mann. Death in Venice
    Joyce. A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
    
60. 20th Century Imaginative Literature (II)
    
    Woolf. To the Lighthouse
    Kafka. Metamorphosis
    Lawrence. The Prussian Officer
    Eliot. The Waste Land
    O'Neill. Mourning Becomes Electra
    Fitzgerald. The Great Gatsby
    Faulkner. A Rose for Emily
    Brecht. Mother Courage and Her Children
    Hemingway. The Short Happy Life of Macomber
    Orwell. Animal Farm
    Beckett. Waiting for Godot
    

Not Just a Matter of Taste

Contemporary versus Classic

Let me state at the beginning, that I prefer classic literature. I don't just prefer it in the sense that some people claim to subscribe to Scientific American, or Smithsonian Magazine out of mere pretence. I truly prefer great literature. I would much rather read Charles Dickens than Tom Clancy, Jane Austen than Nora Roberts, and Fyodor Dostoyevsky than Stephen King. Even though some contemporary writers have skills that I envy—A. S. Byatt and Anne Tyler's names spring readily to mind—there is something missing in contemporary literature.

Contemporary writers all show the strain of trying to compete with television, movies, CDs and electronic games for the reader's attention. The worst writers aim at shock and the better writers at awe, but it is all just a scramble for attention. The difference between contemporary and classical literature is much like the difference between fast food and a seven course meal.

Classic authors had the luxury of assuming that readers wanted to savor every chapter, every paragraph, every word. You can see this in the leisurely pace of their writing, the richness of their vocabulary, the complexity of their sentence structure and their bountiful collections of characters. They took the time to casually introduce character and setting with extensive, and often poetic descriptive passages.

Classic authors revealed themselves in their writing through a unique author's voice. The narrator was our friend and guide, and as such could be as important to the reader as any of the characters. They weren't afraid to reveal their personality through witty observations, philosophical reflections and unabashedly biased statements. They did not live to observe Hemingway's shudder, and so did not shy away from adjectives and adverbs, but used every form of speech to its fullest extent.

Classic authors liberally seasoned their stories with metaphor, symbolism, and irony, but they understood that the meat of any story was morality. A hero, to be truly honorable, needed to be good even given his human foibles. A villain might have comprehensible motivation, but the choices he made were reprehensible. These authors were untainted by the modernist trend toward moral relativism. They made it clear that compassion, unselfishness and benevolence were preferable to contempt, selfishness and tyranny. Their stories uplift and inspire us.

The Skill of Reading

It is a lamentable fact that not all people can enjoy the beautiful symmetry of a mathematical equation, the exhilaration of skiing safely down a steep downhill run, or the complex harmony of classical music. Yet, we cannot say that the inability to enjoy these wonders has to do with taste. A person must come to these fields with a certain level of aptitude in order to enter into that field's pleasures. In addition, they must hone their skills through years of study and practice. The same principle applies to reading classic literature.

In America today, nearly everyone has learned to read and write to a certain extent, so that most people believe that they are sufficiently prepared to tackle any reading opportunity. Statistical studies have made it clear that the average person today reads at a sixth grade level of comprehension. For this reason, contemporary newspapers and magazines pander to the average person by targeting their writing for this lower level of reading ability. This means that most people are not being challenged to expand their ability to read, but settle into a pattern of reading at an elementary level all of their lives.

In contrast, newspapers and other publications from the past were written on the assumption that their very nature as a supplier of information made them responsible to educate their readers. They did not shy away from big words, complex sentences or extended discourses. Readers knew that they were responsible to look up words they did not recognize, and work through the complex ideas by slow and repeated readings. The arguments in editorials and in lectures of the day were painstaking and thorough. It was not unheard of to have sermons and political speeches last for hours at a time. This high level of writing is reflected in the books of the period as well.

The contemporary reader, with a mere elementary level of reading comprehension, does not have sufficient skill to enjoy classic literature. When they read a classic author, naturally they find him difficult to understand. Since they are accustomed to have the publisher pander to their diminished ability, they become frustrated. They do not consider their own insufficient education, but criticize the author for not making himself clear to them. When pressed to explain why an author, who has the status of our classic authors, is incomprehensible to them they claim that the style is not after their taste.

Such readers will claim that they just prefer the quicker pace of most contemporary fiction, just as they prefer the quicker pace of popular music. However, I would point out that so does a two year old. The short attention span of a toddler is one measure of its immaturity. With greater education, one can expect to develop a longer attention span, and so an appreciation of those works that require greater concentration.

Those who enjoy classic literature have worked for years to gain the skills needed to read at a more mature level. They understand that one cannot acquire the strength to scale a mountain by strolling on flat ground, so they do not avoid difficult reading. They take the time to look up unfamiliar words, and study histories to understand the context. They read broadly and extensively, because they know that the more they study the better they will be able to comprehend what they read. They understand that it takes greater effort to read a great book, but that the rewards are commensurate with the effort involved. With time and practice, they learn to focus for longer periods of time, to notice subtleties and nuances, to comprehend broader connotations and to appreciate allusions that those who have read less extensively cannot see.

Indeed, those who have mastered the skills and knowledge involved in reading at a college level find contemporary sixth grade writing to be quite annoying. It is as evident to them when they are being "written down to" as when they are being "talked down to," and they find this patronizing style offensive. When one becomes accustomed to the predominance of complex sentences in classic works, the absence of complex sentences makes the writing seem to be at a breathless, frantic pace. There is no relaxation in such reading; every paragraph feels like a car chase, with each chopped sentence leading to the next in a breakneck fury of words. Classic authors knew that short sentence structure could be useful for creating tension when appropriate to the subject, but was most effective when kept to a minimum. Going back to the complex sentence structure of the classics is like sitting back with your feet up in a favorite recliner and contemplating the deeper meaning of life.

The length of classic literature intimidates the less educated reader, but comforts the college level reader. As C. S. Lewis said, "There is no such thing as a book too long or a cup of tea too deep." If you thoroughly enjoy reading a book, why would you want to cut that pleasure short?

The Pleasures of Rereading

The average reader looks for mere entertainment in their books. If a book ceases to entertain, and requires work, they lose interest. As C. S. Lewis pointed out, one sign of an inadequately educated reader is that they rarely reread a book. If they realize that they have already read a book, they will toss it aside like a used napkin. They know how the book ends, so they cannot imagine that it might be informative, suspenseful, adventurous or even romantic again.

In all honestly, most books do not reward rereading. Most contemporary literature is like an amusing anecdote. It may delight on the first telling, but grows stale in the retelling. The punch line can only surprise us once. There must be more to a novel than plot twists and suspense.

Classic literature has much in common with classical music. One would never listen to a classical music album one time and then cast it aside. In order to appreciate the complexity of this music, it requires repeated listening. We recognize that with each repetition of the experience our appreciation for the piece expands. Study of the techniques of musical composition can add even fuller appreciation for the mastery and skill required to produce those marvelous sounds. Those who, jaded by the quick pace of popular music, lack the patience to sit through a full symphony will never experience the rewards that such music can offer.

Lovers of classic literature have discovered the rewards of rereading. Since they have a basic familiarity with the plot structure and characters, they no longer focus entirely on those matters that consumed their attention on the first reading. They notice more and more the subtle details of word choice and symbolism. They become more aware of the implications of the story, how it reveals human nature and the broader human experience. They delight in the foreshadowing of incidents further into the story. They notice how small choices accumulate into larger consequences.

Rereading a classic novel is like visiting with an old friend. The same joy that we find in reminiscing about old times can be found in revisiting favorite books. Familiar characters, dialog, plot and settings play in the readers mind like a familiar refrain, becoming more precious with each retelling. Over time, the reader will find themselves growing more sympathetic with the main characters, and even to characters that they would not have considered sympathetic before. The more mature reader will find the wisdom accumulated over time makes them better prepared to appreciate classic authors, who lived in a more contemplative age and whose writing reflects their keen insight.

Style and Personality

To denigrate the skill of a great writer by calling it a matter of taste is to denigrate education. It is not a matter of taste to have a large vocabulary as opposed to a limited one. It is not a matter of taste to have mastery of syntax, or to be inept in its use. It is not a matter of taste to be able to use vivid imagery, instead of stumbling into clichés. The brighter and better educated the author, the more demand they will put upon the reader.

That being said, not every well-educated reader will enjoy every classic book to the same extent. The Bronte sisters disliked Jane Austen's style. Henry James disliked Charles Dickens' style. The less educated reader considers these squabbles among the classic authors as evidence that taste truly does factor into the judgment of great literature. However, likening these authorial preferences to taste does nothing to clarify these differences of opinion.

It is more instructive to consider these preferences as reflections of the personality and philosophy of the authors. The passionate and pessimistic Brontes found Austen too rational and optimistic. The flamboyant and extroverted Dickens did not accord well with James' austere introversion.

In addition, different ages of literature favored certain philosophies of life and reflected that preference in their works. This can be seen in other artistic endeavors of the time as well. Bach's mathematical precision reflects the age of Enlightenment in which he lived, and Beethoven's passionate expression reflects the age of Romanticism, just as Austen reflects Enlightenment thinking and the Brontes reflect Romanticism.

These differences are not an excuse to prefer one author and ignore the other, as mere taste would be. They present a challenge to the reader to study the life and the time of the author. We study their life in order to be able to see how their personality and unique experiences colored their works. We study the time in order to see how their culture is reflected in their works. Then we study their works to see to what extent they were able to escape the limitations of their personality and culture.

The reader should not be surprised to find that some authors are more congenial to their personality, just as some people are easier to get along with in life. However, to limit our reading to favored authors would be akin to trying to limit our social encounters to friends alone. The one cripples our reading ability, as the other cripples our social skills. A good reader learns to appreciate the strengths of every good writer, and to discern which authors are worth more of our time.

Conclusion

In order to keep fit, a person is required to exercise regularly. Few people today are unaware of this fact, and many enter into an exercise program knowing that it must be a lifelong commitment. Nor would they expect to be able to perform athletic feats like steep downhill skiing without a good deal of rigorous training. In the era when classic literature was written, it was not uncommon for a person to enter into a course of reading as contemporary people enter into an exercise program, knowing that lifelong learning is necessary for continued mental fitness.

Reading should not be relegated to the category of entertainment, but must be understood to be a matter of continuing education. With this attitude nobody would scoff at the classics as being not after their taste, but would aspire to attain a reading ability that would allow them to enjoy classic novels most fully. In addition, they will continue to study the works of the great philosophers, historians and political thinkers of the past in order to be able to comprehend the basis of our thinking today. Great literature demands a great mind to fully appreciate it, and we must continually seek to attain that goal.

The True Mother

"Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her bowels yearned upon her son, and she said, O my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it." 1 Kings 3:26

When Solomon was confronted by two women who both claimed to be the mother of the same baby, he decided to test the women to find out who was the true mother. He called for one of his servants to bring a sword. The he directed the servant to cut the baby in two, and give one half to each of the women. One of the women stepped forward to protect the baby from the sword, and pled with Solomon to give the child to the other woman rather than kill it. Solomon recognized this woman to be the true mother, and gave the child to her.

The scriptures tell us that the woman who protected the child was the one who had given birth to him, but the fact that she delivered the baby seems less significant than that she loved and protected the baby, and was willing to sacrifice her own interests. Regardless of whether she gave birth to the child or not, she was the one best qualified to raise the child. She was the True Mother.

What does it mean to be a True Mother, or for that matter a True Father, Sister, Brother, or Friend? The True Mother was willing to sacrifice her own possession of the child, in order to give the baby what was in its own best interest. A true friend, likewise, will never choose to act based on their own needs, desires, or interests. A true friend will act in accordance with their friend's best interests.

My sister cherished the time she had with her little ones, and as the time came that they were of age to begin school, she had a difficult time letting them go even for those few hours each day. As a child matures, it needs to develop a broad spectrum of relationships. It needs teachers, coaches, team mates and friends in order to grow in each aspect of its being. A mother who demands to be first in that child's life, past the time when the child needs her constant care, will hinder that child's development. She must cut the apron strings so that the child can be free to build its own life.

My son has a close friend who is engaged to be married. For most people, this situation presents a great temptation to selfishness. A false friend would choose to hinder this relationship by demanding more time with his friend, and putting down the fiancé in an attempt to distance the couple from one another. A true friend would welcome this opportunity for his friend, share in his happiness, and sacrifice time that they may have spent together so that the couple can develop their relationship. The true friend would know that, even though so much time apart might have an adverse impact on their friendship, it is best for his friend.

Ultimately, the love that we bear for each loved one must lead us to make choices informed by the other's best interests, even if that means that we lose something of the very relationship that we cherish. A true friend willingly makes the sacrifice, and finds that the well-being of their loved one makes the relationship stronger as a consequence. It no longer seems a sacrifice, but the making of a true relationship.