Page:Lubbock - The Best Hundred Books (1886).pdf/39

Rh our friend added the following suggestion: Why not send a confidential interviewer to ask Sir John Lubbock whether he has read all his hundred books, and if not, why not?"

IR JOHN LUBBOCK certainly has good reason to be gratified at the general approval which his list of the Best Hundred Books has secured among "those that know." There is nothing to place on record from many of the best judges, simply because they either endorsed Sir John Lubbock's list as it stands, or did not feel themselves competent to improve it.

Thus the of  said:—"I regret that I am not really able to add anything of value to the discussion of the needful list of books. Sir John Lubbock's list seems to me very good, as far as such lists can possibly go."

As for —"The encyclopædic spirit of my friend Lubbock surprises me. If I could imitate him I should willingly lend you a helping hand, but I cannot."

was similarly modest:—"I am afraid that I cannot add anything worth your having to Sir John Lubbock's list. It is a very good list, the chief fault being that it is too long."

and Mr. too, agreeing for once, sent expressions of modest inability to compete with Sir John Lubbock. Mr. said: "People must choose their own reading, and Sir John Lubbock's list will do for a guide as well as others. I, at any rate, do not wish to put myself into competition with him."

And "I feel myself quite unable to draw up such a list as you propose, as I could not trust my own judgment on any matter not bearing on my own special studies, and I should be doubtless tempted to give too great prominence to them."

Another distinguished man who was for once at a loss is Sir He wrote: "I have to own that my acquaintance with Philosophy and Letters is neither so wide nor so close as to furnish me with the materials for pronouncing, even if I had the faculty to determine, which hundred books, taken together, contain a liberal education."

A good many of our correspondents, however, took a different line, and thought that everybody was his own best judge about books. Thus the author of "John Halifax," Mrs. "always thinks readers know best how to choose their own books—what they like, and (equally important) what it is in their power to get."

Mr. too, seemed to think a medicine chest of this kind better for external than internal application. "Lists such as Sir John Lubbock's," he wrote, "are interesting things to look at, but I feel no disposition to make one." Mr. Matthew Arnold is busy with educational work of another kind—and, besides, has he not told us already "who prop in these bad days his mind"—Homer, to wit, and Epictetus and Sophocles? Equally modest was the reply which we received from Mr., who said:—"My reading has been much more in the direction of science than in the direction of general literature; and of such works in general literature as I have looked into I know comparatively little, being an impatient reader and usually soon satiated."

E now give Sir John Lubbock's reply on the whole correspondence, to which we add his full and amended list, as published in the Contemporary Review:—

33, Belgrave-square, S.W., Feb. 13.

Dear Sir,—I am obliged to you for kindly forwarding me copies of the various letters which you have received on the selection of books, and I have read them with much interest. My most sanguine hopes have been realized by the valuable discussion which has taken place; and my list has been far more favourably received than I had ever ventured to hope. It will be observed that while large additions, amounting to several hundred works in all, have been proposed, very few omissions have been suggested. As regards the few works with reference to which doubts have been expressed—namely, the few Oriental books, the Apostolic Fathers, &c.—I may observe that I drew up the list, not as that of the hundred best books, but, which is very different, of those which on the whole are perhaps best worth reading.

For instance, as regards the "Sheking" and the "Analects " of Confucius, I must humbly confess that I do not greatly admire either, but I recommended them because they are held in the most profound veneration by the Chinese race, containing 400,000,000 of our fellow men. I may add that both works are quite short. The "Ramayana" and "Maha Bharata" (as epitomized by Wheeler) and St. Hilaire's "Bouddha" are not only very interesting in themselves, but very important in reference to our great Oriental Empire.

As regards the Apostolic Fathers, I cannot say that I found their writings either very interesting or instructive, but they are also very short, and as the only works (which have come down to us) of those who lived with and knew the Apostles, it seemed to me that they are well worth reading.

I have been surprised at the great divergence of opinion which has been expressed. Nine of your correspondents have favoured us with lists of some length. These lists contain some 300 works not mentioned by me (without, however, any corresponding omissions), and yet there is not one single book which occurs in every list, or even in half of them, and only about half a dozen which appear in more than one of the nine.

If your correspondents, or even a majority of them, had concurred in any recommendation, I would have availed myself of it; but as they differ so greatly I will allow my list to remain as I first proposed it.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,