What Will He Do with It? — CompleteLytton, Edward Bulwer Lytton, Baron
General
What Will He Do with It? — Complete
Lytton, Edward Bulwer Lytton, Baron
English fiction -- 19th century
WAIFE.--“Hares! I am sure that there are not two house-flies on a
window-pane, two minnows in that water, that would not present to
us interesting points of contrast as to temper and disposition.
If house-flies and minnows could but coin money, or set up a
manufacture,--contrive something, in short, to buy or sell attractive to
Anglo-Saxon enterprise and intelligence,--of course we should soon have
diplomatic relations with them; and our despatches and newspapers would
instruct us to a T in the characters and propensities of their leading
personages. But, where man has no pecuniary nor ambitious interests
at stake in his commerce with any class of his fellow-creatures, his
information about them is extremely confused and superficial. The best
naturalists are mere generalizers, and think they have done a vast deal
when they classify a species. What should we know about mankind if
we had only a naturalist’s definition of man? We only know mankind by
knocking classification on the head, and studying each man as a class in
himself. Compare Buffon and Shakspeare! Alas, sir! can we never have a
Shakspeare for house-flies and minnows?”
GEORGE MORLEY.--“With all respect for minnows and house-flies, if
we found another Shakspeare, he might be better employed, like his
predecessor, in selecting individualities from the classifications of
man.”
WAIFE.--“Being yourself a man, you think so: a housefly might be of a
different opinion. But permit me, at least, to doubt whether such an
investigator would be better employed in reference to his own happiness,
though I grant that he would be so in reference to your intellectual
amusement and social interests. Poor Shakspeare! How much he must have
suffered!”
GEORGE MORLEY.--“You mean that he must have been racked by the passions
he describes,--bruised by collision with the hearts he dissects. That is
not necessary to genius. The judge on his bench, summing up evidence and
charging the jury, has no need to have shared the temptations or been
privy to the acts of the prisoner at the bar. Yet how consummate may be
his analysis!”
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