This pamphlet is published to prove what nobody will deny, that we shall be less happy if we were conquered by the French. The intention of the author is undoubtedly good, but his labour is superfluous at a time when all ranks of people are unanimously zealous and active against our enemies; and when indeed there is no great danger of invasions while we have the sea covered with our ships, and maintain fifty thousand men in arms on our coasts.
— Samuel Johnson, review of An Impartial Account of the Invasion under William Duke of Normandy, and the consequences of it, with proper Remarks (1756), by Charles Parkin, A. M. Rector of Oxburgh in Norfolk. IN Johnson on Demand: Reviews, Prefaces, and Ghost-Writings, edited by O M Brack, Jr., and Robert DeMaria, Jr. (The Yale Edition of the Works of Samuel Johnson, Volume XX; Yale University Press, 2019), pp. 347-348
— posted by Roger W. Smith
March 2020
*****************************************************
addendum:
A reader of this post commented: “I don’t understand the purpose of this post. Can you explain?”
I should have made this more clear.
Samuel Johnson died in 1784. James Boswell’s Life of Johnson was published in 1791. Because of Boswell — primarily because of him — Johnson has been known mostly for his conversation, not his writings.
The late Donald Greene wrote about Boswell’s Life: “I can think of no other book that … has deterred so many intelligent people from making a firsthand acquaintance with the work of a very great writer and thinker.” A contemporary writer, Stephen Miller, in a 1999 essay wrote: “I know many people who have read — or dipped into — Bowell’s Life but have not read a word of Johnson.”
Therefore, I am trying to get Johnson’s writings in front of persons with a taste for good writing.
Boswell did a great service in preserving so much of Johnson’s conversation. He also wrote one of the great, if not the greatest, biographies of all time. Yet, his Johnson is often a caricature of himself. The supposedly reactionary thinker brilliant in conversation and unsurpassable in repartee known for his ability to get the best of his interlocutor on any conceivable subject.
Johnson was witty and quotable; he had a penetrating intellect. But one gets to know him a lot better from his various and voluminous output as a writer. And, he could be the opposite of mean-spirited. His kindly offices throughout his life to many persons and the help and encouragement he gave to writers, often ones younger and less well known than him, were not negligible and are apparent to serious students of his life and writings.
*****************************************************
This brief excerpt, passage, to me illustrates what Johnson could do so well: express points cogently and forcefully with (in this case) the minimum of words required. In just two sentences, Johnson shows why the book under review is not worth reading. Most writers — including myself probably — would struggle to make the same point. I might find myself, if I were the reviewer, writing something like: This book is based upon a flawed premise. Yes, a book has to have point of view, but the author is arguing a point that was already made, and he really has nothing new to say. Many historical works have already gone over the same ground.
And so on.
One can see this facility in Johnson’s conversation. He could get to the point — to the essence of the argument — and unsnarl it much faster than his interlocutors and listeners. While they were still mulling over it, he already had seized upon the essence.
*****************************************************
My high school English teacher, Robert Tighe, was once asked by a student how long should a paper be? As long as required to cover the subject, Mr. Tighe replied. No more and no less.
— Roger W. Smith
March 2020
I don’t understand the purpose of this post. Can you explain?
One more question: could you explain please what you mean by “his kindly offices throughout his life” means? I checked sources including the OED (which oddly suggested that ‘offices’ might mean ‘ouhouses’ which I’m sure was not your intent) but some clarity here would help.
Thanks, Pete.
Was the outhouses suggestion made at my expense?
I am surprised you haven’t come across this rather common secondary meaning of the word.
Under the word “office,” you will find among its multiple meanings: A SERVICE OR KINDNESS DONE FOR ANOTHER PERSON OR GROUP OF PEOPLE. “Good offices” does have a sort of formal, antiquated ring to it, but it is still commonly used and is not regarded as being archaic.
The Collins English dictionary defines “good offices” as follows; help given to other people who are trying to achieve something and gives as an example: “She sought the good offices of the President for the smooth passage of the Bill.”
At your expense? How so? I had looked up “office” instead of “good offices” or “kindly offices” and thus didn’t acquire the proper definition; one dictionary (maybe the OED?) had included outhouse as a possible definition of “office” so I mentioned this in jest — not to cost you anything. And yes, I am not familiar with the “kindly offices” terminology but probably have come across it in reading Dickens or some Victorian novelists; it does seem a bit outmoded to me.