For me the preface or introduction to a non-fiction book can be the difference between reading the book or not. A good one provides insight into why the book was written or what questions are trying to be answered. In the case of Steinbeck’s, The Log from the Sea of Cortez, the preface stands on its own as a loving testimony of the character of his friend Ed Ricketts. “About Ed Ricketts” is 60 pages which is long but worth it. Most are shorter and should be.  

I just finished reading the preface to Original Meanings by historian Jack N. Rakove. The four-pages are compelling, and I am going to read the book. Here are some reasons.

He lays out the two positions regarding originalism in a way that only someone who cares and who has a deep understanding could.

The advocates of originalism argue that the meaning of the Constitution (or of its individual clauses) was fixed at the moment of its adoption, and that the task of interpretation is accordingly to ascertain that meaning and apply it to the issue at hand.

The critics of originalism hold that it is no easy task to discover the original meaning of a clause, and that even if it were, a rigid adherence to ideas of the framer and ratifier would convert the Constitution into a brittle shell incapable of adaptation to all the change that distinguish the present from the past.

He then discusses some of the challenges and asks: How do we know what the Constitution originally meant? According to Rakove it takes more than reading “pertinent snatches of debate from the Federal Convention and salient passages of the Federalist.” This was interesting, but it was not what sold me.

He believes there is too much reliance on the The Federalist Papers because they are available and as such the Anti-Federalist’s positions and views are not as well understood as they should be. To me, that is profound.