The collected works of William Hazlitt, Vol. 01 (of 12)Hazlitt, William
General
The collected works of William Hazlitt, Vol. 01 (of 12)
Hazlitt, William
English essays -- 19th century
have for folly; what an instinct for absurdity; what a sympathy in
sentiment; how they find one another out by infallible signs, like
Freemasons! The secret of this unanimity and strict accord is, that not
any one of them ever admits any opinion that can cost the least effort
of mind in arriving at, or of courage in declaring it. Folly is as
consistent with itself as wisdom: there is a certain level of thought
and sentiment, which the weakest minds, as well as the strongest, find
out as best adapted to them; and you as regularly come to the same
conclusions, by looking no farther than the surface, as if you dug to
the centre of the earth! You know beforehand what a critic of this class
will say on almost every subject the first time he sees you, the next
time, the time after that, and so on to the end of the chapter. The
following list of his opinions may be relied on:—It is pretty certain
that before you have been in the room with him ten minutes, he will give
you to understand that Shakspeare was a great but irregular genius.
Again, he thinks it a question whether any one of his plays, if brought
out now for the first time, would succeed. He thinks that _Macbeth_
would be the most likely, from the music which has been since introduced
into it. He has some doubts as to the superiority of the French School
over us in tragedy, and observes, that Hume and Adam Smith were both of
that opinion. He thinks Milton’s pedantry a great blemish in his
writings, and that _Paradise Lost_ has many prosaic passages in it. He
conceives that genius does not always imply taste, and that wit and
judgment are very different faculties. He considers Dr. Johnson as a
great critic and moralist, and that his Dictionary was a work of
prodigious erudition and vast industry; but that some of the anecdotes
of him in Boswell are trifling. He conceives that Mr. Locke was a very
original and profound thinker. He thinks Gibbon’s style vigorous but
florid. He wonders that the author of _Junius_ was never found out. He
thinks Pope’s translation of the _Iliad_ an improvement on the
simplicity of the original, which was necessary to fit it to the taste
of modern readers. He thinks there is a great deal of grossness in the
old comedies; and that there has been a great improvement in the morals
of the higher classes since the reign of Charles II. He thinks the reign
of Queen Anne the golden period of our literature, but that, upon the
whole, we have no English writer equal to Voltaire. He speaks of
Boccacio as a very licentious writer, and thinks the wit in Rabelais
quite extravagant, though he never read either of them. He cannot get
through Spenser’s _Fairy Queen_, and pronounces all allegorical poetry
tedious. He prefers Smollett to Fielding, and discovers more knowledge
of the world in _Gil Blas_ than in _Don Quixote_. Richardson he thinks
very minute and tedious. He thinks the French Revolution has done a
great deal of harm to the cause of liberty; and blames Buonaparte for
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account