Prerequisites: None

Exam Type: No Exam

The Federalist (it is titled The Federalist Papers  only in the 20th century) is, like many “classics,” far more often cited or alluded to than actually read.  Indeed, in an unscientific survey that I conducted several years ago, I discovered that it is almost never assigned in law school courses save for what I have come to call the “greatest hits,” i.e. Federalist ##10, 47, 51, and 78.  To be sure, a few professors assigned a few additional numbers, but I think it’s safe to say that no one assigned more than 10% of the overall 85 essays.  (This means, among other things, that you need not be embarrassed if you are in fact unfamiliar with almost all—or even any-of the essays, though anyone who’s read The Federalist in its entirety will obviously be welcome!)

The relative lack of knowledge about The Federalist  might raise no questions if the only reason to read it  were to increase one’s knowledge about late 18th-century American thought or, for that matter, if the purpose were seeking specific guidance on how to interpret the Constitution of the United States.  18th-century intellectual history is a specialized interest, and it also the case that extraordinarily few of the essays are in fact truly relevant to this latter enterprise.  Indeed, the Supreme Court, for all of its complimentary references to the Federalist, has notably rejected several of the purportedly clear guarantees put forth in one or another of the essays (see, e.g., #68 on the purpose of the electoral college).  Thus I wrote my own book, An Argument Open to All:  Reading the Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press, 2015), which  was shamelessly “presentist” in its focus.  The central question posed by the book was precisely whether there was any reason for us today, seeking insight into our own dilemmas about constitutional politics, to plod through more than a very few of the essays.  I honestly did not know what my answer would be when embarking on the project—which began as a reading course at HLS—but I now believe that each of the 85 essays did indeed have something in it that was worth thinking about today.

We will not, however, be reading all of the essays; twelve hours, spread over six meetings is nowhere near enough time to do justice to the complexities that all of them can be said to raise, especially given the fact that all are written in elegant 18th-century prose.  Instead, we shall focus on roughly 20-28 of them, in the hope that that will provide the occasion for serious examination in some depth of at least those chosen.  There is not yet a final list, but I assume it will include at least the following essays, ##1-2, 5-10, 14, 17, 23, 37, 39-41, 46-49, 51, 62-63, 68, 70-74, 78, and 84.   I will also ask you to read the accompanying essays from my book.  That will, I hope, constitute my major contribution to the discussion, which I hope will be dominated by your own reactions to the essays.  To encourage this, I will ask each of you to write one “response” essay during the term to any of the essay(s) that particularly pique your own interest.  I anticipate that the typical essay will be 600-750 words and will conclude with one or two questions you would particularly like to hear discussed.

The classes will meet for two hours (with a break).  Some of them will focus on two of the essays.  For example, our first meeting will look at Federalist 1 in the first hour and then move on to Federalist 2 in the second hour.  A couple of classes might look at several of the essays in the first hour and then move on to a single essay in the second half.  In any event, close reading and discussion will be encouraged.

All of you should buy whichever of the many editions of the Federalist you wish.  I will probably ask the Coop to order the edition edited by J. H. Pole, which has excellent notes on each of the essays, but there are obviously many others available.  I will also ask you to read (and the Coop to order) my own book.

Note: This reading group will meet on the following days: TBD.