Lipking has written a "writer's life," examining Johnson not from the viewpoint of celebrity, but as a history of his writing, and "career development" as an author. Lipking's thesis is that the transformations Johnson underwent in his career went a long way in shaping what we think of authors, and in that interest spends the bulk of his time examining Johnson's written words. While one may initially think this approach is redundant with Kernan's ("Samuel Johnson and the Impact of Print"), in fact Lipking is far less concerned with the publishing industry and more concerned with Johnson's writings themselves. A more direct comparison might be made to DeMaria's "Samuel Johnson," but even there the comparison is weak. Like Lipking, DeMaria analyzes Johnson's writings, but Lipking is less concerned about context, and concentrates far more on the writings.

Well, if I've only given this four stars, and not five, it's not due to any failure of Samuel Johnson's. Everything in this book is fine. But the anthology published by Oxford (edited by Donald Greene) is decidedly better.

The Oxford Anthology has twice as many of his essays, the Preface to Shakespeare is -complete-, not "From...", and the complete preface to the Dictionary; it also has his short fiction Rasselas (complete), as well as a sermon or two and some early examples of his biographies; the Vision of Theodore, Hermit of Tenerife.

Honestly, I can't complain about ANY anthology of Johnson; and this will do you very well. But the Oxford Anthology will do you so much better.

I bought this book for my AP US history summer assignment, and although i've only read the first 10 chapters of this book i think it is very comprehensive and has many quality features. This is definitely a good book for history teachers and students.

American history can best be understood if the fundamental conditions that control both the social lives of ordinary people and the practice of politics are investigated through the decades. This means moving beyond conventional ways of organizaing a book around political events that historians like to think of as "turning points". Social change has a pace and rhythm of its own, and understaning its flow enables us to see poliitical changes in a new light.

The authors have divided American history into three unique periods: Preindustrial America, from the beginning of the sixteenth century to the 1820s; Industrializing America, from the 1820s to the 1920s; and State and Society, from the 1920s to the present. Each of these periods has its own logic and contains special kinds of human relationships that prodice a distinct history of the United States.

I grew up reading political and military history; that's what I was taught in high school and college, for the most part. When I took over my school's Advanced Placement program in US History, I decided that while I could teach the traditional forms of history, such as politics and the wars, I simply didn't know enough social history. Given the fact that social history is the dominant form of history today (and realizing that there simply wasn't that much new to say about politics or wars), I turned to this masterful textbook. My students love this book: it's readable, entertaining, and thorough. I add in the political and military stuff, when it's needed. About the only major hole in the text is some short-changing of the Monroe Doctrine, which is the biggest error that I could see. Teachers have to choose textbooks that address their shortcomings; if you don't know your political or military history, choose another textbook. But if you have the same background I do (and most people over thirty do), then choose this one. It's been very successful in my classroom.

If you're looking for clues as to how Rehnquist will preside over the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton you'll be disappointed. In fact this book is more like a simple retelling of events than a focus on constitutional issues. Rehnquist does make the point that the acquittal of Justice Chase helped foster a judiciary independent of political litmus tests by Congress, and the acquittal of President Johnson did likewise for the executive branch, both of which Rehnquist feels are good things, but other than that you'll be hard pressed to find anything about the author's personal opinions. The narrative of the book is far too much concerned with broad historical developments which are discussed in much better detail in other sources, rather than focussing on the particulars of the impeachment trials. The material on the trials themselves probably takes up no more than a quarter of the book.

I reviewed this book for the JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HISTORY when it first appeared, and nothing that has happened in the seven years since 1992 has changed my mind. Chief Justice Rehnquist writes clearly and well, but his research and historical perspective are sadly outdated. For example, he accepts the hoary myth that there was no good reason at all to consider Andrew Johnson an appropriate target for impeachment, despite Michael Les Benedict, THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL OF ANDREW JOHNSON (New York: W. W. Norton, 1973), a fine study showing that Johnson deliberately violated many Congressional civil-rights and Reconstruction statutes validly enacted over his veto, that he also sought to gut efforts to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, and that ultimately he deliberately provoked the 1868 attempt to remove him from office. Moreover, Rehnquist's analysis of the impeachment and trial of Justice Samuel Chase fails to situate it in the context of the previous year's impeachment, conviction, and removal of U.S. District Judge John Pickering, or the larger battle between Jeffersonian Republicans and Federalists over the control of the nation's judiciary -- a context without which the Chase impeachment is all but impossible to understand. Readers seeking light on this subject should consult Richard E. Ellis, THE JEFFERSONIAN CRISIS: COURTS AND POLITICS IN THE YOUNG REPUBLIC (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971; Norton paperback, 1973).

Chief Justice Rehnquist's book extols executive and judicial independence -- unexceptional and unexceptionable positions, to be sure -- but he also implicitly denounces the actions of democratically-elected legislatures -- a position more open to question, even as it is consistent with much of his constitutional jurisprudence as shown in Sue Davis, JUSTICE REHNQUIST AND THE CONSTITUTION (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988).

Ultimately, perhaps, readers may value this book for its potential illumination of the presiding officer over the Senate's trial of President Clinton, but it adds little or nothing to our understanding of the history and law of the impeachment process. -- Richard B. Bernstein, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York Law School

It's obvious to the reader that Chief Justice Rehnquist has a good command of the subject he is discussing, which are the political and the historical implications of two very important impeachment decisions in the U.S. My only criticism was really that the book delves into a lot of history and one begins to wonder why, but then the relavence to the impeachments is made clearer as the reader progresses through the book. History enthusiasts may find it somewhat redundant in that respect, but the conclusions are well drawn and the American political system is shown for what it has always been- alive with partisanship and designed, through the constitution, to put at least a small roadblock to allowing one branch of government or party from completely dominating.

James Boswell wrote what is considered by many to be the greatest biography ever written. He does do an excellent job of describing to the reader what kind of person Samuel Johnson was, as he makes an artfully vivid portrait of his subject. However, it is unfortunately better art than history. It is factually inaccurate, painfully repetitive, and leaves the reader with little understanding of why Samuel Johnson was an important man at all.

The only review for this book ('a reader from Kansas City') is somewhat misguided and perhaps refers to the Life of Johnson in general.

Professor Waingrow's volume (1 of a projected 4) of the Original Manuscript of James Boswell's Life of Johnson is an invaluable work of scholarship which should stimulate Boswellian and Johnsonian studies for generations to come.

The reader is able to trace, though Waingrow's thorough and careful annotations, changes made to the text by Boswell throughout all stages of composition. Much is explained through detailed footnotes and there is a full introduction which explains Prof. Waingrow's own method of annotation and includes some speculation concerning the interest of the manuscript edition for scholars.

The work is designed as a companion to the Hill-Powell edition of the Life of Johnson; each page is provided with the corresponding number in their edition.

It thus holds much for those interested in the study of Boswell's methodology, but all Johnsonian scholars and those interested in the tradition of biographical writing will benefit from this work.

In its time I'm sure that Boswell saw the commercial advantage (and likely popularity) of publishing a journal of his travels in Scotland with England's preeminent genius. Sort of like some little known writer taking Stephen Hawking to Tierra del Fuego. But with the passage of time, it is Boswell overshadowing Johnson that makes this book worth reading. The prose is crisp and mercifully unaffected by the stylistic impenetrability of Johnson's writings. One can see the journal as a travel book, but it is more akin to an 18th century version of William Least Heat Moon's "Blue Highways". There is an argument to be made that Boswell's prose has had greater impact on the english language than the entire Johnson canon. Worthwhile.

I've never been a fan of Samuel Johnson. The greater writer and more interesting character, to my mind, has always been Boswell. I don't doubt that Boswell had a sincere affection for the man, but I sometimes wonder if Boswell (perhaps subconsciously) duped Johnson into letting him write his biography as well as this account of their travels to show him up. Time and time again, Johnson shows himself to be, well, a curmudgeon, both in word and deed. From his comments on Hume, the great Scottish philosopher and historian, "I know not indeed whether he has first been a blockhead and that has made him a rogue, or first been a rogue and that has made him a blockhead." to his ordering Boswell back by his side when Boswell was just trying to ride ahead and prepare things for his arrival (all according to Boswell, of course), Boswell's Johnson does not come off very well. Though Boswell attests to his worship of the "Great Cham" again and again, one can't help wondering if there was a smirk on Boswell's face as he penned this journal of their travels...Surely, it had to have occurred to him that readers would come away with a snicker or two at his descriptions of what almost seems a straw man for Boswell's sharp pen. I, for one, am not convinced by his show of naive devotion to Johnson.-What then was Boswell trying to do? Make a name for himself, of course. And what better way than to associate himself indelibly with the man many considered the greatest literary figure of the time.-He was very successful in doing so, and his writings are now much more in demand by readers than anything written by Johnson, who, in turn, has turned out to be the "harmless drudge" he ironically defined himself as in the dictionary that made him famous. Finally, then, my verdict on the book is that it is passing weird.-Weird, in that the psychological interplay always just below the suface in Boswell's account of the journey leaves the reader in constant doubt throughout the book as to Boswell's true intent in writing his descriptions of Johnson.-Was Boswell smirking with a mercenary eye to the future of his own literary reputation, writing ludicrous descriptions of a man considered great at the time, all beneath a faux-naif bluster?-I, for one, am convinced that, at least subconsciously, he was.-But this is what, for me, makes the book so much more intriguing than your average day-in, day-out journal.-4 stars though because it's still a journal and makes for yawns at times.

There is a great deal of material here, but it is organized haphazardly and distributed in bits and pieces. Ms. Picard's knowledge of Johnson (and Boswell) is minimal. She does not appear to respect either and repeats anecdotes and commonplaces of the sort that were common in the Victorian period. The book's facts and details are valuable, but it is more a reference work to be consulted than an organized narrative (or set of narratives) to be enjoyed. Richard Schwartz's DAILY LIFE IN JOHNSON'S LONDON anticipates much of the material here, though Picard covers areas of experience not treated by Schwartz. Schwartz's illustrations are far superior. Copies of Rocque's map (cited by each) may be purchased from the Guildhall Museum in London. It provides a detailed sense of the city's streets and surrounding areas. The Museum of the City of London, a few short blocks away in the Barbican, has booklets that deal with pertinent aspects of 18thc social history, e.g., descriptions of wigs, clothing, etc. with illustrations of existing examples. There you can actually see a sedan chair, irons in which executed felons' bodies were hung, eyebrows made of mouse hair, the door of Newgate Prison, and so on.

There is some useful information in this book -- for example, I didn't know that prostitutes in the 18th century actually lined up to attract customers -- but the main failing is the writer's style and tone. Yes, it is good that it is not a scholarly tome and written snootily, but Picard seems to overcompensate. She tries to present herself as "right there," and it is especially annoying when she interpolates herself into direct quotations with her square-bracketed commentaries [my italics, that sort of thing]. There is an apparent lack of scholarly rigor, too: the reader gets tired of seeing "apparently" and "supposedly" and "I can imagine" and all that sort of thing. Does she know or not? If she does, tell us unambiguously. If not, then stop speculating.

This book is for those who want something more than the obvious. Liza Picard's strength is that she does not attempt to be an historian. She states her limitations and then proceeds to examine the things that are of interest to her in the period.
I enjoyed the fact that the author is present in the text. It adds to the book and reminds the reader that this is one person's description of the life and times of London mid-1700s.

The chapter and section headings are clear and precise allowing the reader to dip into areas of particular interest. Picard brings the period to life with her own style which is rarely boring and never pedantic.

The tendency of this book to ridicule America (its history, its culture, its priorities, etc.) really calls into question the objectivity and political persuasion of its authors. Whether it's the destruction of the environment or world poverty, America and the American people are always to blame. We use too much energy; we don't share enough; blah blah blah. America does more to promote peace and economic development throughout the world than any other country. While the authors of this book don't seem to be so, I, for one, am PROUD to be an American

The general feel of this book is dark and dull. Graphics are oddly benign,upside, the Geography in Action sections offer realistic insight into Geographic concepts. Clawson and Fisher tried.

I am loathe to waste *any* time reviewing this volume, except that I cannot bear that the names of "The Globe" and "Shakespeare" are suffering by being used here. Additionally, I would save unsuspecting buyers some money.
Note first that Howard Staunton, the editor of "The Globe Illustrated Shakespeare" died in 1874. That is how current this edition is. Unfortunately modern corporations continue to reprint this woefully out-dated version of Shakespeare (the long-deceased editor requiring no royalty payments) and assign a "publication date" that makes this reprint sound contemporary. [Publisher names associated with this uncritical approach to reproducing Shakespeare may vary. This "Globe Illustrated" printing has come out under publisher names "Gramercy", "Random House VALUE", and (in 1983) "Greenwich House".] Caveat, caveat, caveat emptor!
Do not assume that "Shakespeare is Shakespeare". This version may be great "for your collection" but you will not find yourself wanting to dip into the Bard's momental works here. It is NOT accurate. Scholarship has advanced so far in the past century that those in the know LAUGH at many of the editorial decisions that were passed along in Staunton's day.
Rather than repeat here my thoughts about better editions, please see the discussion in the review of one of the Gramercy printings ( ISBN 0517053616 ) for REWARDING editions of Shakespeare [ e.g., those published by Arden/Routledge, Oxford, Addison-Wesley (ed.: David Bevington), Penguin ].
Do your love of Shakespeare some justice and do not support this attractive *looking* offer.
PS: The illustrations are quaint Victorian fantasies - obscuring rather than illustrating what the Elizabethan master achieved. For an appreciation of how we may finally reach back to the original Shakespearean intent (without Victorian filters), please see Fintan O'Toole's recently re-released "Shakespeare is Hard, but So Is Life" (search for Amz ISBN 186207528X ).

Saw this book on in a friends library and picked it up because it was so attractive. I've always thought i should read shakespeare, so i tried browsing in it. Not much fun. So i came to amazon to look for reviews. Now i see what the problem was.
Sure it seems awesome to have such a polished looking volume on the coffee table, but i'm starting with the Oxford student edition of a couple plays and finally starting to GET shakespeare! This one is too expensive a centerpiece for my table if i'm never going to feel able to understand it!

I'll not claim to be a Shakespeare expert, nor will I even lie and say that I've read all the plays. Shakespeare's work hardly needs my uneducated commentary. What I will say is that this is a simply gorgeous book, rich with explanations of those phrases my beloved English teacher understood and I've long since forgotten. The pages are thin, and the type unique. You feel like you are travelling to another place and time. Beautiful end papers, gilt edges and delicate illustrations make this a visual treat. This book will be much argued over when the time comes for it to be passed to the next generation.

This tragedy written by Mr. Samuel Johnson is as frigid as the regions of Nova Zembla. Now and then you feel a little heat like what is produced by touching ice.

Samuel Johnson's play is surprisingly satisfying theatre despite almost two hundred and fifty years of critical condemnation. Far from being cold (that was James Boswell's criticism), the play contains a quite sophisticated story of a Christian woman caught between certain death and apostasy in the days following the Turkish conquest of Constantinople in 1453. The morality is quite complex and the tragedy, although diluted through the interference of a character named Abdalla, can be quite touching. This play has long deserved a new critical examination and a new production. Read it for yourself. It may surprise you. But be aware that the language is suited more for the declamatory stage than the realistic one. When we produced the play, the results were more than surprising. They were pleasing.
Give it a chance.