The Life and Genius of Nathaniel HawthorneStearns, Frank Preston
General
The Life and Genius of Nathaniel Hawthorne
Stearns, Frank Preston
Hawthorne, Nathaniel, 1804-1864; Novelists, American -- 19th century -- Biography
He is the romance writer of the English language; and there is no form
of literature which the human race prizes more. How many translations
there have been of “The Vicar of Wakefield,” and of “The Sorrows of
Werther”! The latter is not one of Goethe’s best, and yet it made him
famous at the age of twenty-eight. The novel deals with what is new and
surprising; the romance with what is old and universal. In “The Vicar of
Wakefield” we have the old story of virtue outwitted by evil, which is
in its turn outwitted by wisdom. There is nothing new in it except the
charming exposition which Goldsmith’s genius has given to the subject.
Thackeray ridiculed “The Sorrows of Werther,” and in the light of
matured judgment the tale appears ridiculous; but it strikes home to the
heart, because we all learn wisdom through such experiences, of which
young Werther’s is an extreme instance. It was only another example of
the close relation that subsists between comedy and tragedy.
It cannot be questioned that “The Scarlet Letter” ranks above “The
Sorrows of Werther;” nor is it less evident that “The Marble Faun” falls
short of “Wilhelm Meister” and “Don Quixote.” [Footnote: See “Cervantes”
in _North American Review_, May, 1905] Hawthorne’s position, therefore,
lies between these two--nearer perhaps to “Werther” than to “Wilhelm
Meister.” In certain respects he is surpassed by the great English
novelists: Fielding, Scott, Thackeray, Dickens and Marian Evans; but he
in turn surpasses them all in the perfection and poetic quality of
his art. There is much poetry in Scott and Dickens, a little also
in Thackeray and Miss Evans, but Hawthorne’s poetic vein has a more
penetrating tone, and appeals more deeply than Scott’s verses. If power
and versatility of characterization were to be the test of imaginative
writing, Dickens would push closely on to Shakespeare; but we do not go
to Shakespeare to read about Hamlet or Falstaff, or for the sake of
the story, or even for his wisdom, but for the _tout ensemble_--to
read Shakespeare. Raphael painted a dozen or more pictures on the same
subject, but they are all original, interesting and valuable, because
Raphael painted them. If it were not for the odd characters and variety
of incident in Dickens’s novels they would hardly be worth reading.
Hawthorne’s _dramatis personæ_ is not a long one, for his plots do not
admit of it, but his characters are finely drawn, and the fact that
they have not become popular types is rather in their favor. There
are Dombeys and Shylocks in plenty, but who has ever met a Hamlet or a
Rosalind in real life?
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