Samuel Johnson Response To Hope

A wounded heart encapsulated by the utmost hope exudes the very blood which symbolizes failure, only to be mended by the ease into rejection. It is with this mentality that Samuel Johnson writes his response to an eager mother; rejecting her proposal for his pristine validation aiding her son’s deemed qualities. Johnson wishes to only relay a warmthful touch from that of a cold heart. This cold heart being that he will infact not bear the duty proposed to him. It is with a validating shift in tone, carrassring diction, and mindful organization that Johnson comforts the women whilst defending his own reasoning almost altering the denoted dimension of why the women asked Johnson to begin with.
Strategically, Johnson destroys societal perceptions

of what “hope” truly is, this tone shifts to apply more to the family's situation at hand and why
hope applies to his newly condensed version of the word.

“Hope is itself a species of happiness, and, perhaps, the chief happiness which this world affords: but, like all other pleasures immoderately enjoyed, the excesses of hope must be expiated by pain; and expectations improperly indulged, must end in disappointment.” The tone of this sentence follows that of the whole introduction of the letter, Johnson anticipates the sadness of the mother upon opening and thus juxtaposes this emotion with a sense of stern happiness. For one cannot desire the unattainable, this is considered an “improper indulgence” that will end in dissatisfaction. Instead, Johnson proposes that hope should be used wisely, and not fueled by what is wanted but fueled by what makes sense. Thus this leads into the second phase of tone. “When you made your request to me, you should have considered, Madman, what you were asking.” This colloquial language now shifts the author's tone, so that Johnson doesn't discredit her son he instead almost discredits himself and discredits the mother’s “overindulgence.” The question, Johnson finds actually quite vacuous asking for reference when he “never spoke to [him].” Now, the author has removed the hasteness that accompanies denials and has replaced it with not only a new outlook on life, but a strengthening rejection. For it is with rejection that new life stems from the critique so that now achievement can be placed on the sole

individual.
Though Johnson is sending a hurtful letter, in anticipation of the repercussions of this, he uses vibrant, praiseful diction paired with nouns when addressing the mother and or her son to be understood. “ You ask me to solicit a great man, to whom I never spoke, for a young person whom I had never seen, upon a supposition which I had no means of knowing to be true” The first clause of this sentence begins with the author recognizing that the son may be a “great man.” It is not because the son is an atrocity to mankind that the Bishop’s patronage is denied, ultimately intended to reassure the qualities of her own son. Then, the author states an intriguing thought that induces a whole new perception for the mother to look through. The son is “young” thus implying that opportunities lie waiting for him. Mothers often think that when a child becomes the ripe age of eighteen that all is lost and they will become idol, which is contrary to what Johnson is saying; in fact there is still time to experience all that life has to offer, continuing to have hope and find joy stemming from these awaiting journeys. These journeys which Johnson then eludes are fully possible without patronage. “I have seen your son this morning; he seems a pretty youth, and will, perhaps, find some better friend than l can procure him; but though he should at last miss the University, he may still be wise, useful, and happy.” Thus adding the perfect ending to his letter, Johnson conveys that happiness cannot be imposed or allocated by himself, or by anyone so fit. Emotions and outcomes are direct results of the individuals who work for it.
Lastly, Johnson uses a mixture of syntax to propel his organization to almost deem himself less than that of her son making the conflict his error rather than the family's. “Hope is itself a species of happiness[.]” After denoting what happiness is in the beginning, the author now has time to present and solidify his own argument. Johnson presents the case that happiness is only accountable for when one truly earns it themself, for they cannot account for the purloin of others happiness. Later, in the middle, Johnson uses this idea that one must strive for their own success as reasoning for why he will fall short.“There is no reason why, amongst all the great, I should chuse* to supplicate the Archbishop, nor why, among all the possible objects of his bounty, the Archbishop should chuse your son.” The repetitions of personal pronouns exceeds the mentioning of the son or the mother. Thus, the reaction no longer goes towards the family but infact shifts towards the author. For he deems himself no different, and less superior “amongst all the great.” this continues to become the structure of Johnson’s rebuttal: stating his own personal flaw accompanied by his reasoning of not doing what is asked of him. Lastly in the end, Johnson fulfills his circular argument by hoping his message is understood for if it his, happiness will no longer be lurking, but be uncovered by her son.
In conclusion, Johnson has a very kind heart, going out of his way to soften a blow to a family whose dreams rotate around continuing of education which was a symbolism of wealth and social status at the time of this predicament. This passionate letter can be seen through the validating shift in tone, carrassring diction, and mindful organization that Johnson does care not to break this woman's heart, possibly showing a personal flaw of self doubt by Samuel Johnson.