I have stayed entirely out of this thread which is almost a psychosis
on this list — although there was a very useful new section on DNA,
which previous episodes have lacked — but agree with Kevin's
assessment, and decided to post. This G-R book is a triumph of form
over substance.
-- Stephan
Stephan A. Schwartz
Email:
[log in to unmask]
Personal Website:
www.stephanaschwartz.com
Schwartzreport:
www.schwartzreport.net
Explore - Schwartzreport Column:
www.explorejournal.com
On 27 Feb 2009, at 16:11, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Richard--
>
> I agree completely with your comment regarding Gordon-Reed's latest
> book, below. She is not a liar--but its not a book I'd recommend to
> my students either (or to anyone on this list for that matter). In
> both her assumptions and her evidence, she produces a structure
> built on a house of cards. Where the first book struck me as
> prudential and judicious, a model of careful exposition and
> argument, the second struck me as weak and flawed. Its a good read--
> she writes well. But that is about the extent that I can recommend
> it.
>
> Thank you for taking the time to post, and to expand my commentary
> so thoughtfully.
>
> All best,
> Kevin
>
> ---- Original message ----
>> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:30:30 -0500
>> From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: THOMAS JEFFERSON'S LIFE HISTORY
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Kevin
>> I don't think the transition between Annette Gordon-Reed’s first book
>> “Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings” and her current “The Hemings of
>> Monticello” is as seamless as you portray. The first book was a
>> legalistic
>> analysis of the paternity evidence and her theme was that evidence
>> indicating paternity had been ignored by historians, particularly
>> slave
>> “oral history” and the newspaper interview of Madison Hemings. She
>> never
>> quite asserts as historical fact that paternity is proven. In her
>> current
>> effort, it is correct she does make the assumption that paternity
>> is a
>> historical fact. Relying heavily on Stanton’s “Free Some Day,”
>> which is the
>> product of traditional research into the daily lives of the
>> Monticello
>> slaves, Gordon-Reed takes it further to imagine their emotions,
>> thoughts,
>> and aspirations. In constructing the book in this manner, she
>> failed two
>> challenges. The first is that she proceeded on the assumption of the
>> Jefferson paternity so she ignores any of the known evidence
>> contrary to
>> that assumption. This is the author’s prerogative so long as the
>> reader
>> understands that only one possible scenario is being developed. But
>> this
>> approach weakens the historical importance of the work. The second
>> is the
>> paucity of information about Sally Hemings and the exact nature of
>> any
>> intimate relationship within the Jefferson family. She must be
>> invented
>> almost whole cloth. She turns out to have the intelligence,
>> resourcefulness
>> and logical command expected from one with a Dartmouth education
>> and a
>> Harvard law degree. As you point out, this does not make these
>> musings
>> about what Sally felt or thought a “lie.” It is however, a novelistic
>> approach that leaves the reader somewhat lost between historical
>> truth
>> (what we know did happen) and fiction(what Gordon-Reed imagines
>> might have
>> happened).
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> Richard E. Dixon
>> Editor, Jefferson Notes
>> Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society
>>
>> ______________________________________
>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the
>> instructions at
>> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
> Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
> Department of History
> James Madison University
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
