Published as part of the *Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Second Series*, *Jefferson's Literary Commonplace Book* is the definitive edition of a collection of about four hundred quotations Jefferson gathered from his more literary readings during his student years. It represents, according to the editor, «one of the few surviving documents from Jefferson's formative years» and reveals a transitional, private facet of a man most of us know through his mature, public years.

«Commonplacing » seems to have been one of the practices of the readers of Jefferson's time: it consisted in copying the most eloquent or profound passages one encountered in one's readings into a notebook one would presumably read over and over again. If I remember correctly, John Locke also commonplaced, and Jefferson himself left us more specialized notebooks, such as the legal ones he produced in the mid 1760s.

Most of the quotes in the present volume are from works of «imaginative literature»- mostly poems Jefferson enjoyed in his youth, from Homer to another favorite of his, «Ossian», whom he believed to be a genuine third-century Celtic bard but who was in fact a fabrication of his eighteenth-century «translator», James McPherson. Most of the quotes are in English, but a substantial number of them are in foreign languages Jefferson was fluent in: ancient Greek, latin and French, all of them translated in the footnotes. Two criteria seem to have presided to their inclusion: their felicity of expression and very often the little gems of wisdom they contain - on the law of identity: «If white, & black, blend, soften & Unite/ A thousand Ways ; is there no black or White ?» ; on the virtue of productivity: «without employ/ the soul is on a rack ; the rack of rest» ; or on objective reasoning: «He who has judged aught, with the other side unheard, may have judged righteously, but was himself unrighteous.»

Perhaps more interesting to the historian of ideas, this literary commonplace book also contains thirty pages of extracts from Bolingbroke's essays and letters, which almost singlehandedly shaped Jefferson's religious outlook and help explain the «self-evident» standards Jefferson applied in his heretical selective rewriting of the Gospels. Bolinbgroke's crucial influence on Jefferson's philosophical outlook is stressed by the editor in the highly helpful thirty-two-page «Register of Authors» which follows the excerpts : «the major tenets of Bolingbroke's philosophical program were ultimately adopted by Jefferson as his own: a thoroughgoing materalism; a rejection of metaphysics and all speculation that ventures beyond the reach of human apprehension; an uncompromising commitment to reason as the final arbiter of knowledge and validity; a disposition to regard churchmen and theologians as the corrupters of Christianity; a distate for the doctrines of Plato and his influence on Christian teachings; and a strong skepticism regarding the historicity of biblical accounts. » (p156)

In addition to being a window on the young Jefferson's soul (or lack thereof), this volume is remarkable for the thorough and careful work of its editor (except for a grammatical error in a French quotation from Racine, in §395) and will be beautifully complemented by *Jefferson's Extracts from the Gospels*, published in the same series.

Albert J. Nock has long been known by those familiar with his work as a shrewd commentator who is always eager to "tell it as it is." When his premises are correct, this can be refreshing, to say the least. However, when he misses the mark, the results can be embarassing. This work, much like his infamous "Our Enemy the State," is a great testament to this.

However, to begin with, there is much of great worth and interest in this volume. Nock, as one scholar has observed, was a supremely literate man, and his great learning and intelligence is clearly evident throughout this work. Unlike many other authors, Nock reflects a deep, thorough knowledge of Jefferson's life and writings. Furthermore, few modern authors can equal Nock's beautiful prose style. Thus, when one reads of Jefferson's opinion on architechure, art, philosophy, or agriculture, we have some of the most delightful passages in all of the Jefferson literature.

Unfortunately, a large portion of the work is consumed by Nock's grossly inaccurate analysis of the political environment of the early republic. Economic determinism in the tradition of Charles A. Beard and Henry George is the gist of what you find, and all of their fallacies and flaws are given full exercise. Indeed, as one Jefferson scholar has remarked, this work reveals a "uncritical" use of the Beard thesis. Thus, Jefferson is portrayed, not as an advocate of natural rights or anything of the sort, but as the supporter of the interests of the producing class against those of the exploiting class. As one would expect, the Constitution is portrayed simply as a tool for economic exploitation, and much ink is spilled documenting the evils of Hamilton, the Federalists, as well as "speculators." While all of this is not without a semblance of truth, his simplistic and often misleading exegesis is very dissapointing.

Nevertheless, as I have said, the work still has great value, largely as a brilliant account of Jefferson's interests and character. Nock is fundamentally correct when he focuses on the fact that Jefferson's real views are very far from those of his comtemporaries, and even farther from those who claim his name for support in later days. Ultimately, I would only recommend this work to individuals who have already done a good deal of study in Jefferson's life and ideas, for only these individuals will be able to see the true worth of this study despite its many flaws.

I had been thoroughly enjoying this book -- amazingly written as though it were the journal of Martha Jefferson. With all of its rich detail and character, I could almost believe I was hearing the voice of Martha herself. About halfway through, I had taken the book on a car trip when an accident occurred. I am fine, but the book was demolished. I would dearly love to finish the story, but the book is out of print. If you have a copy that you wish to sell, please contact me at JudyGHartzog@juno.com. Thanks!

As a lover of American law and a 'court-watcher', this title hooked me in immediately. Trying to find the balance between maximum democracy and learned aristocracy has always been a struggle so the main thesis should come as no suprise. Our constitution has rough edges. What is suprising is Hook's diagnosis.

The first thing Hook does is to lambaste those who believe in absolute rights. The first and fifth amendment have clashed. The first amendment can even clash against itself and when these happen, one right must yield to the other. The bill of rights offers us no roadmap in how to decide this so Mr. Hook reaches for the first available solution- that of utilitarianism. I've always been skeptical of 'The greatest good for the greatest number. All others get screwed.' but sometimes it is unavoidable. Hook still seems too eager to use this 'quick-fix' to resolve the issue.

Next, he goes on to textualism in the constitution. Like it or not, there is no text that conveys with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY what it's author meant. Our constitution comes close. 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion,' seems pretty clear on the surface but what constitutes a religion, is it a pre-existing establishment congress may not respect or simply their own establishment, and does this imply that congress may offer 'respect' to many religions thereby avoiding the problem by not showing preference to only one? Whew! Difficult stuff. At some point (godels proof), we have to rely on someone's interpretation. Who better than the supreme court? Here, the only skepticism I have is Hook's use of the 'Bork Method' of trying to figure out what the founders- He uses Jefferson and Madison- meant by quoting their personal letters. I know that Hook realizes there was more than two people's intentions, but you'd never think it.
The point of disagreement I have with Mr. Hook is on judicial review. He's right, it's not authorized by the constitution, merely implied. But there are two extremes. One is congress as the final arbiter of which laws are constitutional an which aren't, or the courts could do it. Mr. Hook seems to trust the congress more than the courts. He does not recognize that the danger in democracy is that the people are generally short-sighted and are not likely to read the constitution closely (how many of your friends can name the first ten amendments?). The congress, being, through elections, directly accountable to the people, may not do what is in the best interest of the constitution if it will not help them get re-elected. With the supreme court there is not this difficulty, but another. They are not at all accountable to the people having been appointed for life. The only check on them is that they can only rule on cases brought to them (they must adhere to jurisdiction) but I'd rather the justices (who'se job it is to read the constitution) be safeguarding congress than congress do it themselves. We can either trust Scalia and Ginsburg or Helmes and Daschale. The choice is obvious. The tentative compromise- You'll have to read the book to find out- Hook offers is brilliant so in a round-about way, I agree with him again.

For such an exacting subject, the author must be excused for a little pedantry. This is difficult stuff, but the book is short and if you're into American law and judiciary, you'll not be able to put this one down!!

Written in 1854 and published the next year,this book is fascinating in providing personal sketches of distinguished Americans Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Jackson,Henry Clay and John Randolph with many references to other prominent men who were their contemporaries. The author's
analysis is interesting not only in the spirited description of the individuals profiled but in his comparison of each of them with their political antagonists. The unique perspective he brings a man whose life overlapped some of these figures is worth a read for history or politics buffs. His admiration and defense of some he buttresses with argument. His passion is clear.
His oratorical style is typical of the time yet conveys a vivid impression of his subjects, and reminds one of a time before soundbites and simple words geared to a mass audience.

The problem with books about history is that they are almost always an interpretation: the author's. At best the author is willing to share the conflicting evidence with his reader, at worst the author omits it and pretends it doesn't even exist. But even the most faithful author can't put everything in a book so a selection has to be made. That's why the critical reader ends up reading a lot of books about the same subject. To be able to grasp most of the material, evidence and theories that are circulating. That way he/she is able to form his/her own opinion about an issue. But if the issue is Thomas Jefferson & Sally Hemings the reader will likely end up digging through tons of material and will still be very confused and very indecisive. Until recently one of the only books on the topic worth reading was Anette Gordon-Reed's "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Heming: An American Controversy". Because of it's painstakingly revealing of the mistakes, omissions and lies that previous writers had committed and for it's refusal to take a final stand.

This book however was written after the 1999 DNA tests that revealed that Thomas Jefferson very likely fathered Sally's last child Eston. And that he didn't father Thomas C. Woodson. But one has to keep in mind that the recent testing still don't prove Jefferson's paternity exclusively. Another male relative from the Jefferson line could have fathered Sally's last child, since they share the same Y chromosome. The book offers a number of refreshing essays written by scholars. Each one of them looks at the relationship from his/her own field. Trying to describe and explain what this new evidence means to themselves and their previous writings and views on TJ. Sometimes describing how they fell into the trap that so many historians fell into when dealing with TJ. They also try to describe the way the American mind thought about TJ and how this new evidence will influence peoples views and opinions.

The strength of the book is that it has been written after the revealing DNA tests. It also presents a lot of authors, each with his/her specific knowledge, views and convictions. Rather than just one author. But the really weak point is that the book fails to give a clear outline and explanation of the recent DNA test. That's the chapter that it should have started with. Since that test is the core, the very foundation upon which all these "revisionist" writings build. And also because a test like this needs explanation: not everyone is familiar with cellular biology and what it really means.

The School That Refused To Die by Daniel Duke is the story of how a school went from a prosperous and thriving entity to a shell of its former self.

I found the begining of the book to be very slow and uninteresting. I wasn't until the author began to describe the school and the "glory days" that the book began to come to life. In the beginning, Thomas Jefferson High School had a purpose and a goal of greatness. Teachers and students both shared high expectations and strived for the best. Not only for their sakes, but for the sake of the school.

The author takes us through the 60+ year exsitance of Thomas Jefferson High School and its downward spiral. While reading the book, the correlates of effective schools seemed to jump off of the page. The author did an excellent job of pointing out the greatness of this school, as its struggle to somehow stay "alive" through all the the years and changes in society.

Although this juvenile biography of Thomas Jefferson is part of the Encyclopedia of Presidents series, it actually does one of the better jobs of looking at the third President as an inventor, scientist and naturalist through the use of photographs of several of his inventions and pages from his notebooks. Jim Hargrove follows the standard format for the volumes in this series by beginning with the story of how Jefferson came to write the Declaration of Independence, including some of the better reproductions of the early draft written in Jefferson's own hand with various changes. Chapters are devoted to Jefferson growing up in Colonial Virginia and his public life divided into discrete units ending with the American revolution, his election to the presidency, and his leaving the White House. A final chapter looks at Jefferson's final years as the Sage of Monticello, which ended with his death on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration (and includes his instructions for his tombstone). Because each volume runs about 100 pages (including chronologies and index), the Encyclopedia of Presidents series is able to provide more detailed information about each President than any other comparable series. There are other juvenile biographies that will work much better as introductions to the life and work of Thomas Jefferson, but this is where you can find the most detailed information about this or any other president short of turning to an adult biography hundreds of pages long. Sometimes it is hard for an author to stretch out the life and accomplishments of a President to a hundred pages (e.g., Warren G. Harding), but Hargrove does a nice job with the exact opposite problem in covering the enormous accomplishments of Jefferson in these few pages.