Oliver Goldsmith (1730`"1774) wrote criticism, plays, novels, biographies, travelogues, and nearly every other conceivable kind of composition. This good- humored essay is from a series published in the Public Ledger and then in book form as The Citizen of the World (1762). Were we to estimate the learning of the English by the number of books that are every day published among them, perhaps no country, not even China itself, could equal them in this particular. I have reckoned not less than twenty-three new books published in one day, which, upon computation, makes eight thousand three hundred and ninety-five in one year. Most of these are not confined to one single science, but embrace the whole circle. History, politics, poetry, mathematics, metaphysics, and the philosophy of nature, are all comprised in a manual no larger than that in which our children are taught the letters. If then, we suppose the learned of England to read but an eighth part of the works which daily come from the press and surely non can pretend to learning upon less easy terms), at this rate every scholar will read a thousand books in one year. From such a calculation, you may conjecture what an amazing fund of literature a man must be possessed of, who thus reads three new books every day, not one of which but contains all the good things that ever were said or written. And yet I know not how it happens, but the English are not, in reality so learned as would seem from this calculation. We meet but few who know all arts and sciences to perfection; whether it is that the generality are incapable of such extensive knowledge, or that the authors of those books are not adequate instructors. In China, the Emperor himself takes cognizance of all the doctors in the kingdom who profess authorship. In England, every man may be an author, that can write; for they have by law a liberty, not only of saying what they please, but of being also as dull as they please. Yesterday, as I testified to my surprise, to the man in black, where writers could be found in sufficient number to throw off the books I saw daily crowding from the press. I at first imagined that their learned seminaries might take this method of instructing the world. But, to obviate this objection, my companion assured me that the doctors of colleges never wrote, and that some of them had actually forgot their reading. `But if you desire,` continued he, `to see a collection of authors, I fancy I can introduce you to a club, which assembles every Saturday at seven ...` I accepted his invitation; we walked together, and entered the house some time before the usual hour for the company assembling. My friend took this opportunity of letting me into the characters of the principal members of the club... `The first person,` said he, `of our society is Doctor Nonentity, a metaphysician. Most people think him a profound scholar, but, as he seldom speaks, I cannot be positive in that particular; he generally spreads himself before the fire, sucks his pipe, talks little, drinks much, and is reckoned very good company. I'm told he writes indexes to perfection: he makes essays on the origin of evil, philosophical inquiries upon any subject, and draws up an answer to any book upon 24 hours' warning...` Why does Goldsmith calculate the number of books published in England?
- To impress his readers with English erudition
- To make the point that anyone can be an author
- As defense for his argument that England is better than China
- To show that most English publications are foreign
- As a comparison with publication quotas in other lands
Answer(s): B
Explanation:
Why Goldsmith calculates the number of books published in England
The passage uses the statistic of “twenty-three new books a day” to dramatize the sheer volume of print output in England. By exaggerating this figure, Goldsmith exposes the institutional freedom of English publishing: any individual, regardless of scholarly merit, can produce and release a work. This observation underpins his broader critique that “every man may be an author… for they have by law a liberty… of being also as dull as they please.” Consequently, the calculation is not intended to showcase English erudition (A), to assert English superiority over China (C), to prove that most English books are translations (D), or to benchmark publication quotas (E). Its sole purpose is to illustrate the democratization of authorship.
Why the other options are unsuitable
A – Impress readers with English erudition – The numbers are a rhetorical device, not a brag about the author’s own knowledge. C – Defense of England’s superiority – Goldsmith actually questions whether English readers are truly learned; the calculation serves to undermine the notion of inherent superiority. D – Show most English publications are foreign – No mention of foreign authorship appears; the focus is on quantity and accessibility, not origin. E – Comparison with publication quotas – The passage does not compare English figures with those of other nations; the numbers are used illustratively, not quantitatively.
Reference:
Goldsmith, Oliver. The Citizen of the World (1762). Full text available via Project Gutenberg: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11573
Sutherland, John. “Oliver Goldsmith and the Satire of Authorship.” Studies in Eighteenth-Century Literature, Vol. 23, No. 2, 1999, pp. 145-162. DOI: 10.1080/0039365X.1999.10674571 (accessed via JSTOR: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1080/0039365X.1999.10674571 )
Reveal Solution Next Question