As it is impossible to read more than a very small
fraction of the immense number of books now in existence, the proper choice of
books is a matter of great importance. As popular writer lately drew out a list
of what were in his opinion the hundred best books to read. But although all
that Sir John Lubbock has to say on any question of general interest is sure to
be instructive and deserves serious consideration, it would be idle to suppose
that the hundred books that seem best to one particular person can be the best
for every other individual. The list he made out May him about as good a list
as could be devised for persons of his own character and education; hut must be
modified by each of us in accordance with our own tastes and the end we seek to
obtain by reading.
The chief end for which a young student studies
books is almost always success in examinations, for the attainment of which
success he sometimes sacrifices more important ends. He will therefore be
inclined to neglect general reading, and only care to obtain from his teacher a
list of the books that will help him in the work of mastering the prescribed
course of study. When he leaves college if he has acquired in the course of his
education a taste for reading, he will probably aim at the wider object of
increasing his culture. And at the same time he ought to be anxious to choose such
books as will not only increase his knowledge. But also make him a better and
happier man. In making his choice he will have to take into consideration his
own intellectual tastes arid of the nature occupation by which he earns his
subsistence.
Owing to differences in these matters the
intellectual food of one man may be another’s poison. For instance, a book
containing the records of minute observation of bees and ants, which would be
‘full of interest to a scientific mind like Sir John Lubbock’s, might he so
utterly’ distasteful to a person fond of poetry or abstruse metaphysics, that
it would be foolish waste of time for him to try and understand Even men of
similar taste may, owing to differences in their circumstances, find it
expedient to choose very different courses of reading. 01’ two persons equally
addicted to philosophy, one has light work and such an abundance of spare time
that, he ma profitably sketch out for himself a regular course of philosophical
books, while the other is engaged in such hard brain work every day in his
professional calling, that it would be unwise for him to employ his leisure
hours in any difficult study. Those who are unfortunately compelled to expend
the whole force of their intellects on their daily work must content themselves
with such light literature as is afforded b the novelists and the poets and the
columns of the daily press. If they attempt more, they are likely to ruin their
health by overtaxing their brains.
Even those who are required by prudence to avoid
philosophy and science, and have to confine themselves to light literature,
must not, however, think that it does not matter what they read. For them, and
for all others who are by circumstances limited to a narrow sphere of study,
the best rule to follow is that laid down by Emerson. That we should ‘never
ready any but famed books”. If rule were more generally observed, we should not
find so many readers of fiction in this country wasting their time over the
novels Reynolds, before they have read the great works of Scott Thackeray. Dickens
and George Eliot.
It has been objected that, if the rule we are
recommending has been followed in the past, no book would ever have be come famed.
Thus is a valid objection against the universal acceptance of the rule. But, as
there is no fear of its ever being universally accepted. And as there is a
large class of clever literary men whose business it is to examine all new
books and form an opinion upon their merits, the majority of mankind in
planning a course of reading for the few hours they can spare for self culture
cannot do better than follow Emerson’s precept.