Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS.

The Round Table, a Collection of Essays on Literature, Men, and Manners. By WILLIAM HAZLITT. 8vo. 2 vols. 1817. Constable, Edinburgh, Longman, London. Characters of Shakespeare's Plays. By WILLIAM HAZLITT. 8vo. pp. 352. London, 1817. Hunter and Ollier. JOSEPH SCALIGER said, "Les Ecossois sont bons philosophes." The terra incognita of the intellectual world has much decreased since the time of that literary hero. Without vanity, or weak national feelings, we may aver, that the Scots have had their share in this desirable improvement; and have continued to merit his encomium by keeping pace at least with the march of genius elsewhere. To ascertain the limits, and appreciate the varieties of human genius, is a task which, without meaning or pretending to offer a hint on it ourselves, we venture to assert has not been often or happily attempted by the mercurial wits of our day. In the plenitude of their powers, they have found this task, so flattering to the pride of intellect, rather extensive and laborious for them. Our own countrymen afford, we think, a good subject for this kind of distinctive delineation. Though reckoned still philosophers, they are not particularly rich in that kind of acquired knowledge which is called scholarship; and, though rather indisposed either to such exertions as tend to those acquirements which constitute the learned character, or to the admiration of them in other people, are not deficient in pursuing truth through a long train of research, nor in eliciting it, by that power of the mind which is exerted in the act of generalization, from the accumulated labours of those who have gone before them. As a nation of talkers and disputers on religion and politics, they have been remarkable for " that unsettled speculative mode of conversation" of which Johnson complained. In their set reasonings, they are perhaps too contemptuous of facts, and too eager to get at a conclusion before the proper time. We have been

tempted also to think that this did not arise so much from the sanguine quickness and vivacity in which they have been compared to the French, as from a stark love of paradox. This experience of many of our neighbours affection for hypothesis, as the sad ed from the very mother's milk suckcan attest, would appear to be inherited in by Scotsmen. To say merely that Scotsmen are fond of theory would not be enough. The plain matter of fact men are, after all, the most inveterate theorists of any. It is that sort of deception, even in extremes, and thinking to catch_truth by processes equally short and safe, which leads people to like this and that, without the trouble of giving the why and the wherefore. By those, therefore, who boast of their own caution in reasoning, and constant attention to facts, it is certain that the venerable name of Theory has been much abused by a too constant application of it to the casual and careless lucubrations of men like-minded with our countrymen. Thus are we led to characterize whole classes of men by a few high-sounding words, merely because they are a little more inquisitive than ourselves, and because they may thus happen to take a longer or more circuitous route for coming at the truth. We forget, all the while, that they adopt a most excellent process for opening up new directions, or framing unexpected combinations, of thought. More than all the speculative faults of our countrymen could be forgiven them by their free-souled neighbours, provided they were a little less exclusive in their intellectual habits. But the Scots have never yet become witty. They are rather apt, in the way of criticism, to dissect a man's pretensions unmercifully, and take him to pieces with a bitter tone of sarcasm that offends, and wounds, and rankles. There is a saturnine air,—a sardonic and not self-satisfied sneer about their humour. They are more caustic than tickling in their attacks. The pastoral quali ties of that rude and unmusical patois, which they call their dialect, is fa vourable to the expression of broad

humour, and in that they get on pretty well,—when they dare attempt it without the fear of being deemed foolish. But, for that again, they are more cynical than alert in their retorts. They cannot play round a subject. They must grasp and wrench it in the downright earnestness of their natures. But of this enough.

Our readers, it is presumed, have such confidence in our wisdom as to believe that we could not have said all this for nothing; and, we can freely confess that we have brought in these remarks rather a little forcibly, it must be allowed,-only to shew our own moderation and caution in speaking of how people think, and what they say at this day in Old England. We have been fairly led into them, by natural association, from the perusal of those agreeable volumes whose titles appear at the head of this article, and which, in spirit and temper, abound with characteristics so different from those which distinguish the compositions of Scotsmen.

It may be observed, probably, that it savours of affectation to get up, in three expensive volumes, a series of newspaper criticisms, and that the criticisms themselves, from their tone and style, are not fit to be considered as polite literature. This will be the language of those who are disposed to contemn Mr Hazlitt. But it is enough for the character of these intelligent and most cheerful compositions, that the public itself,-the ultimate and greatest judge of merit, has already decided in their favour.

Mr Hazlitt is not one of the most acute thinkers on every subject; neither is he the most profound expositor of the theory of literature which the present times, prolific enough in talent of that sort, have produced. But he is a man with a great deal of elegant knowledge,—with a wide range of illustration and reference in polite letters. In his airy and brief discussions, we sometimes desiderate harmony and fulness of view, or precision of thought. But there is never any want of directness. He gives a number of extraneous elements and extreme points,-not bound together easily by any common tie, and not very specially designated for their various purposes. They are placed together with great sharpness and spirit, and merely named for a pur

VOL. I.

pose of his own, as if that alone were enough to denote their power and application at all points. We cannot say, on the whole, that they are misplaced; but we may complain that they are not seldom put down with the carelessness of one who sees a certain length and instantly,-but who is more solicitous about the grasp and generality of his idea than about the severe affinity of its relations, or the accuracy of its expression.

The Round Table bears his name. But part of it was written and some of the best parts also, we think, by Mr Leigh Hunt. In the manner of the title-page, however, we shall make Mr Hazlitt the principal person; and, as the book on Shakespeare is wholly his, we shall merely name what we think the best essays of the Round Table, and then proceed with that general account of him as a writer to which the joint consideration of the two books has fairly given rise.

The best papers in the Round Table, as they occur to us, are those On the tendency of Sects-On Man◄ ner (a good compound of all that we have noted in Mr Hazlitt)-On Chaucer On the Causes of Methodism-On the Beggar's Opera-On Common-Place People-On Mr Kean's Iago-A Day by the Fireside-Characters of John Bull, and of Mr Pitt, and of Rousseau-On the Literary Character-On Washerwomen On Gusto. But these, of course, will be marked according to the different tastes and peculiar associations of different

[ocr errors]

persons. It would be minute and te-. dious trifling to point out or defend our sense of their beauties.

Mr Hazlitt seems to have been early aware, that a writer on subjects of taste and the lighter departinents of morals, requires, in addition to a fund of ingenuity, that, to use a peculiar phrase, he should have all his wits about him. Men, without having become a whit more sensitive or fanciful, are now so sagacious, that it is extremely difficult for an essayist to say how he shall attack them." Le public," as M. Say observes, public demande à un écrivain dont il achète le livre, de lui donner du neuf; et le public se fâche quand on lui donne quelque chose qui choque les idées reçues; cette contradiction est sur-tout bien sensible en morale, où tout ce qui est reçu, est excessive

[ocr errors]

"Le

[ocr errors]

ment commun, et où tout ce qui ne l'est pas, fait rejaillir toujours un certain degré de blâme sur l'écrivain qui le hasarde "* Mr Hazlitt escapes all this; and while he eschews every thing that is flat or common-place he is such as we have endeavoured faithfully to represent him in the following very slight and obvious considerations.

Mr Hazlitt is very far from being a simple writer, and yet he is, perhaps, the most pleasing chastiser of the lighter follies of mankind,-the best critic on the proper gout for painting, and on the tasteful appreciation and fanciful adjustment of the drama. He is the best writer of a short essay since Goldsmith,-only he cares less about seriously hurting worthy prejudices or respectable weaknesses, and has infinitely less aversion from bustle or pretension. In this latter respect, indeed, he is quite up to the tone of the age, and gives judgments, and comes to conclusions, or deals censures, with great rapidity and decision. One great charm about him is the apparently unconscious gravity, and deep tone of absolute impression and responsibility with which he dispatches all the trifling details of his subject, and all the fleeting interests and well-turned small talk with which a critic on actors and plays has to deal. He is, in this respect, all in all. He thinks no more of questioning the depth and interest of his discussions, than M. De La Place would of making a doubt concerning his investigation of the problem of the three bodies, or his theorems of the eccentricities of the planetary orbits. He does not seek to cover his assertions, or to justify them by any very minute process of defence. He throws them out, and leaves the adjustment and harmonising of them to the taste or caprice of his various readers. All this is clearly what is wanted in a cri

We have uncommon pleasure in referring to a work of light and agreeable literature, published the other day in Paris. "PETIT VOLUME contenant quelques apperçus Des Hommes, et de la Société. Par Jean Baptiste Say, De l'Academie Imperiale de Saint-Petersbourg." The first political economist of his day appears in that little book as a person of genuine wit and acuteness of observation, and a lover and a successful cultivator of the belles-lettres.

tie who attempts to guide the public opinion, or to excite discussion on the lesser departments of criticism, or the more transient topics of taste. And the consequence is, that these essays were more generally read, and excited a wider interest when they first appeared in the Examiner, than any thing of the kind which had been produced for many years.

An essay is not expected to contain the developement of a theory, or the complete exposition of ultimate truth. Its object is to excite others to think for themselves, or, by the exhibition of agreeable imagery, and the use of smart allusion, to make them pleased with the labour of thinking. * * If Mr H. does not expound any new or beautiful theory, he certainly conveys more vivid images, in a slight and unpretending shape, and in the smallest compass, than any other periodical writer we know. If he pushes his view of a question in taste or manners rather farther than a more grave critic would venture, or than the judicious or fastidious among his readers can go along with him, there is in all he says so much frankness and good humour, that his paradoxes are never distasteful. He never sneers at common men,-nor speaks with contempt of their humble vocations, or disgust at their harmless though unenlightened propensities. He frequently discovers, and, in short, never omits to express, where there is occasion or opportunity for it,-a warm regard and a noble-minded respect for the happiness and liberties of the great mass of human beings. His power of throwing a shade of tasteful and amusing illustration over the most common topics, from all parts of learning, and especially from the whole range of poetry, eloquence, painting, and the drama, is not equalled, we believe, by any popular writer of these times. He seems always to have in his eye that cutting remark of M. Say, "Entre un penseur, et un érudit il y a la même différence qu'entre un

Hume is the writer who unites the deepest thought with the winning graces of classical language and the various charms of harmonious composition. A great critic of our own time and country, is the man who stimulates the most thought, and simplifies the exposition of a theory in the smallest space.

livre et une table des matières,"--and would appear to regard his learning very little, if it did not afford him the instruments for putting those about him in better humour with themselves. He seems not to have the smallest portion of the intellectual saturnine about him,-and, while his object is to furnish ordinary men with those fruits, in which, perhaps, after all, consist the only enviable results of erudition, he is no pedant himself, and seems to view it in others with that easy contempt which is more likely to put it down, than the angry impatience with which men of warm apprehensions are apt to meet it. He avows his sentiments, and the whole of them, with the fearless openness of an Englishman. He defers to no prejudices. He flatters no weaknesses. And all his efforts seem bent on producing in the world a greater stock of candour in judgment,-unpretending uprightness in conduct, and feelings of tolerance and kindness towards the general mass of human beings. The scope and object of his writings, indeed, is to increase the sum of human happiness, by clearing and enlarging the avenues of elegant and innocent gratification. He labours to render common those noble inquiries of which Mr Payne Knight has remarked, in his forcible language, that they "bring the highest efforts of human taste or genius into a strong, er or clearer light,-adding to the intellectual pleasures of man, which are certainly the most valuable belonging to his nature, because they can be at all times enjoyed without injury to health, fame, or fortune." The certain effect of his good temper and well applied ridicule, is to pull down intolerance. His aim is to teach the religious part of the community to look at their erring brethren without hating them, and those who have been at some pains to form tastes and habits, and opinions, not to suppose that they know all that is worth knowing, or that the rest of mankind who do not see with their eyes, are either very stupid or very weak. This is the right tone for a public writer. It would be reason enough for us to like Mr Hazlitt, and to overlook his faults, even though he

See "An Analytical Essay on the Greek Alphabet." Lond. 4to, 1791.

did not write with a vigour and brilliancy, a tasteful, ornate, and uninflated eloquence, and a rich natural vivacity, which are all, to an uncommon degree, the rightful praise and the natural possessions of his fine intellect.

There has been much sneering at Mr Hazlitt, and reproach of him for having dared to say, that he wrote "in the manner of the earlier periodical essayists, the Spectator and Tatler." Nothing, however, it appears to us, could be more absurd than this sneering, except the ineffective spleen and littleness of mind which gave rise to it. It would be unfair to institute a direct comparison between Addison and a favoured writer of this day, with all those advantages on his side, which the progress of science and philosophy has given to even the humblest of speculators. Good taste in manners and in literature also have descended to ranks in society lower than those at which they were fixed in Addison's day. This has given a prepared manner to those who write for the public. There is none of that lordly slovenliness or boobyishly condescending carelessness of manner, or privileged contempt of method in argument, which characterized the Buckinghams, the Halifaxes, and the Shaftesburys, while there is less of the raciness and persuaded intensity of Molesworth. The standard of taste must still fluctuate. Ideas, bowever, are more fixed; and there is less palliation, and less excuse for haste, or indolence, or indistinctness. We venerate the name of Addison. We think that there is something of the bland and calm,-the benevolent and ingenuous,-the real atticism of polite letters, associated with it. There was a grace and chasteness in every thing which he wrote,-something, in fact, which, if the repose and coldness of marble could speak,-is very like the air and attitude of his statue in Westminster Abbey. is the author of the finest allegorical vision in our language. But, Mr Hazlitt's writings are incomparably fuller of ideas than Addison's. He cannot even jest with a subject without letting out notions and fragments of thought as it were, which have an incidence which shews them to be the product of a philosophical observer. He condenses, we repeat it, a great

He

[ocr errors]

many ideas on subjects of taste and letters, in a small space. Addison's thoughts hung too loosely about him. His fulness of language,-his quantity of words,-the cloying redundance of his expression, are, it strikes us, inadequate to the result of ideas which they convey. He has seldom that precision of thought which stirs thought in others. His wit is wiredrawn, and his mirth languid. Mr Hazlitt is a different writer. And, moreover, we are quite sure he did not refer to Addison from any undue presumption, or any disrespect to him as the father of our periodical litera

ture.

In every thing which Mr Hazlitt writes there is much of the ease and unstudied variety of conversation;only that the flow of language is more ornate, the transitions smoother, and, in the painter's term, better shaded in. We have no doubt, in short, that many essays in the Round Table are fair copies of his table-talk. We know, at least, that the essay on Methodism, one of the most poignant and effective pieces of satire in the shape of essay, was delivered at a literary conversatione in London, nearly verbatim as it appears; the dialogue on Mr Hazlitt's part, beginning "The first methodist on record was David. He was the first eminent person we read of who made a regular compromise between religion and morality, between faith and good works." We should guess him to be just that sort of man who could open well a debateable question, and mark out its bearings and relations in the way best calculated to excite discussion. But he might possibly appear to less advantage, if a keen and adroit questioner were to press home on him for the reason of his faith. He would be better in attack than in reply. He would appear, also, to most advantage after men of nice belief, and formal distinctions, had exhausted their common-places of good faith. He is fond of cutting at right angles into a subject, and making short work of his conclusions. His talent, however, does not appear to be that of simplifying. He is dogmatically facetious. He is not lazy-minded, though, like other dogmatists: He does not trifle away his time in clothing old saws with vehement amplification, and vigorous language; he produces his results

by a happy grouping of conceptions, and a simple combination of thought; he comes to the end of his logic sooner than we could wish. His process is so direct, and rests on so few expletive circumstances, or qualifying conditions, that we come to the belief with which he wishes to inspire us, not with the slow and interrupted pleasure of professed investigation, but we rather receive impressions with the vividness of a poetical figure of eloquence, or the soothing titillation which can be conveyed by a witty man who gives the best wine, and points all his jokes in support of the side we like best. This costs a much greater expenditure of the energies of the thinking principle, and goes into an infinitely smaller space than the wire-drawn statements, and technically supported ingenuity, of writers who have neither quickness of spirit, nor comprehension of sympathy, to trust their first impressions.

As a writer on art, Mr Hazlitt's power has been greatly shewn. Here he has, by a rare felicity of language, found means to express all the capricious ideas, and minute distinctions, and to arrest all the fleeting impres sions which enter into our judgment of a picture, or constitute the pleasures we receive from painting. His sentences sparkle with imagery. It is true that he too often appears familiar or affected, and sometimes uses freedoms with language which it can hardly bear. But his illustrations are so profuse and happy, that he gives to a criticism on a picture the inventiveness and spirit-stirring facility of poetry, without losing the propriety of prose. We would offer him a tribute in his own way by saying, that he attends not merely to the graceful grouping of his figures, and the proper distribution of his lights and shadows, but elaborates with care the minutest objects, and brings out distinctly, by a happy stroke, all the adjuncts and paraphernalia of his representation. He is a foe to formality, and a determined lover of gaiety. His air is perhaps rather free and familiar, His art,

his manner tranchant. however, it is fair to say, might be defined, on the whole, as that of making slight and trivial things the object of serious discussion, rather than of the easy and familiar explication of great subjects. His is an acute mind

« AnteriorContinuar »