Reviews for Lord Chesterfield's Letters

The average rating for Lord Chesterfield's Letters based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2009-09-12 00:00:00 Calvin Haws This is one of the notable books because I have known its title and eminence since I studied in my secondary school years, that is, I came across its fame as those interesting letters from a celebrated father to his son while reading a column revealing a letter sent from a Thai student studying law in England to publish in a weekly magazine aiming at improving students' English knowledge. The letters have long since become famous because one day in 1754 the father in question, Lord Chesterfield, notoriously neglected Samuel Johnson, an unknown lexicographer who kept waiting to meet him in person regarding his "Plan for a Dictionary of the English Language" addressed to him as a prospective patron in 1747 (Boswell 1980, pp. 185, 12). That incident immensely disappointed and displeased Dr Johnson, therefore, his opinion on the letters despised by him reached a verdict as for teaching "morals of a whore and the manners of a dancing-master" (back cover). Reading these letters simply requires one's interest and persistence due to a few reasons; first, they were written in 1737 onwards so some parts of their writing style, grammar, vocabulary, etc. belonged to unfamiliar English written some 277 years ago; and, second, Lord Chesterfield obviously enjoyed training his son to be more fluent in French so it is a bit intimidating for those who do not readily know French in his letters. Of course, most of the French phrases, sentences, etc. are asterisked and translated into English in its Explanatory Notes section, but not all. For example: No woman ever had more than she has le ton de la parfaitement bonne compagnie, les manieres engageantes, et le je ne scais quoi qui plait. (p. 209) …, saying to the master or mistress, ceci est de mon departement; je m'en charge; avouez que je m'en acquitte a merveille. (p. 218) Or is it des petites societies, moins bruiantes, mains pas pour cela moins agreables? (p. 222) etc. A few extracts primarily focusing on the letters to his son that follow should interest some of my Goodreads friends so that, I hope, they would literally entice such avid readers to find or borrow a copy from any good public or university library to read. Please take your time and enjoy. 1) The sure way to excel in any thing, is only to have a close and undissipated attention while you are about it; and then you need not be half the time that otherwise you must be: for long, plodding, puzzling application, is the business of dulness; but good parts attend regularly, and take a thing immediately. … (p. 26) 2) Never maintain an argument with heat and clamour, though you think or know yourself to be in the right; but give your opinion modestly and coolly, which is the only way to convince; and, if that does not do, try to change the conversation, by saying, with good humour, 'We shall hardly convince one another; nor is it necessary that we should, so let us talk of something else.' (p. 58) 3) Speak the language of the company you are in; speak it purely, and unlarded with any other. Never seem wiser, nor more learned, than the people you are with. Wear your learning, like your watch, in a private pocket: and do not merely pull it out and strike it; merely show that you have one. If you are asked what o'clock it is, tell it; but do not proclaim it hourly and unasked, like the watchman. (p. 67) etc. However, when I came across two of Lord Chesterfield's expressions, namely, "words are the dress of thoughts" (p. 200) and "Style is the dress of thoughts" (p. 219) written in his two letters dated January 25, O.S. 1750 and January 21, O.S. 1751, these instantly remind me of another one written in "On Style" by Jonathan Swift (1667-1745), that is: "words are the clothing of our thoughts" (Peacock 1947, pp. 57-58) which, I think, is the source of a Thai motto: "ภาษาเป็นอาภรณ์แห่งความคิด" as nobly translated and exhibited in a demonstration school. Therefore, I guess he might have paraphrased them after Swift, they are probably not his original ideas. References: Boswell, J. Life of Johnson. R.W. Chapman ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980. Peacock. W. ed. Selected English Essays. London: Oxford University Press, 1947.

Review # 2 was written on 2016-02-08 00:00:00 David Sevshek Eighteenth century English aristocrat obsesses over his son's "parts". If this lead-in appeals to you then you may have the wrong idea. Chesterfield's letters are mostly addressed to his son, though a smattering are addressed to others concerning his son or current affairs pertaining to the time & person to whom each were written. Each of the former is for the purpose of furthering his son's education of the world. The story is an old one, even in the 18th century. Chesterfield, though an adept political insider, felt he never "went as far as he should have" and vowed to himself to give his son all the advantages that he lacked. His contacts were open to him. Education was provided through the best available tutors. His purse was liberally accessed within shrewd reason. And, speaking of shrewd reason, most importantly, Chesterfield took upon himself to provide his son with a thoroughly practical education for getting on in this world. He is very specific that this isn't just familial obligation followed through with diligence. Chesterfield states unequivocally, "I want the rays of your rising to reflect new luster upon my setting light". C could apply pressure, indeed. "My object is to make you fit to live;which, if you are not, I do not desire that you should live at all." All topics are covered, all bases stomped upon repeatedly: from speaking, to appearance, to dancing. Not all recommendations are entirely mercenary and mean. Chesterfield actually has a very modern view of the salubriousness of exposing the young to multiple languages as a prompting to proficiency in them later in life. He is also very modern in his reluctance to utilize physical punishment, though it does enter in(18th century, you know). C's focus is on how to impress superiors for promotion, utilizing peers for personal benefit, and keeping proper distance from, while maintaining a working relationship with inferiors. The man of parts(educated & endowed) was thusly nothing without fine and gracious manners. Samuel Johnson, angered over a promise of support for his dictionary which didn't materialize, savaged Chesterfield for his ethics fit for a dance master. Smollett felt of C's character in a similar fashion. In truth, much of the advice C offered is far from PC. On this International Woman's Day I take time to quote Chesterfield as to the feminine: "Women...are only children of a larger growth; they have an entertaining tattle and sometimes wit; but for solid, reasoning good-sense, I never knew in my life one that had it, or who reasoned or acted consequentially for four and twenty hours together". Sadly, his son fell far short of the mark Chesterfield notched for him. The last tenth of the letters are addressed to C's godson who eventually replaces C's son as a potential political/spiritual heir, later to become his legal heir after C's son dies. The godson fared no better and it is rather sad to hear the lessons repeated, with the same sorry result, as C has entered old age. One walks away with the impression that these letters were published for the purpose of assisting some other "son" out there who might finally benefit from the lessons given by a master of the everyday-political-practical world. Given, received, but not actualized in either intended case in Chesterfield's lifetime.