Page 127 - DENG502_PROSE

Unit 14: Hazlitt-On Genius And Common Sense-Introduction

It was with some difficulty that he eventually recovered his equilibrium. In order to ascertain Notes
Sarah’s true character, he persuaded an acquaintance to take lodgings in the Walkers’ building
and attempt to seduce Sarah. Hazlitt’s friend reported that the attempt seemed to be about to
succeed, but she prevented him from taking the ultimate liberty. Her behaviour was as it had been
with several other male lodgers, not only Hazlitt, who now concluded that he had been dealing
with, rather than an “angel”, an “impudent whore”, an ordinary “lodging house decoy”. Eventually,
though Hazlitt could not know this, she had a child by Tomkins and moved in with him.
By pouring out his tale of woe to anyone he happened to meet (including his friends Peter George
Patmore and James Sheridan Knowles), he was able to find a cathartic outlet for his misery. But
catharsis was also provided by his recording the course of his love in a thinly disguised fictional
account, published anonymously in May 1823 as Liber Amoris; or, The New Pygmalion. (Enough
clues were present so that the identity of the writer did not remain hidden for long.) Critics have
been divided as to the literary merits of Liber Amoris, which is quite unlike anything else Hazlitt
ever wrote. Wardle suggests that it was compelling but marred by sickly sentimentality, and also
proposes that Hazlitt might even have been anticipating some of the experiments in chronology
made by later novelists.
One or two positive reviews appeared, such as the one in the Globe, 7 June 1823: “The Liber Amoris
is unique in the English language; and as, possibly, the first book in its fervour, its vehemency,
and its careless exposure of passion and weakness—of sentiments and sensations which the common
race of mankind seek most studiously to mystify or conceal—that exhibits a portion of the most
distinguishing characteristics of Rousseau, it ought to be generally praised”.
However, such complimentary assessments were the rare exception. Whatever its ultimate merits,
Liber Amoris provided ample ammunition for Hazlitt’s detractors, and even some of his closest
friends were scandalised. For months he did not even have contact with the Lambs. And the strait-
laced Robinson found the book “disgusting”, “nauseous and revolting”, “low and gross and
tedious and very offensive”, believing that “it ought to exclude the author from all decent society”.As
ever, peace of mind proved elusive for William Hazlitt.

The philosopher, again
Unsurprisingly, there were times in this turbulent period when Hazlitt could not focus on his
work. But often, as in his self-imposed seclusion at Winterslow, he was able to achieve a “philosophic
detachment”, and he continued to turn out essays of remarkable variety and literary merit, most
of them making up the two volumes of Table-Talk. (A number were saved for later publication in
The Plain Speaker in 1826, while others remained uncollected.)
Some of these essays were in large part retrospectives on the author’s own life (“On Reading Old
Books” [1821], for example, along with others mentioned above). In others, he invites his readers
to join him in gazing at the spectacle of human folly and perversity (“On Will-making” [1821], or
“On Great and Little Things” [1821], for example). At times he scrutinises the subtle workings of
the individual mind (as in “On Dreams” [1823]); or he invites us to laugh at harmless eccentricities
of human nature (“On People with One Idea” [1821]).
Other essays bring into perspective the scope and limitations of the mind, as measured against the
vastness of the universe and the extent of human history (“Why Distant Objects Please” [1821/2]
and “On Antiquity” [1821] are only two of many). Several others scrutinise the manners and
morals of the age (such as “On Vulgarity and Affectation”, “On Patronage and Puffing”, and “On
Corporate Bodies” [all 1821]).
Many of these “Table-Talk” essays display Hazlitt’s interest in genius and artistic creativity. There
are specific instances of literary or art criticism (for example “On a Landscape of Nicholas Poussin”
[1821] and “On Milton’s Sonnets” [1822]) but also numerous investigations of the psychology of
creativity and genius (“On Genius and Common Sense” [1821], “Whether Genius Is Conscious of

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 121