Page 156 - DENG502_PROSE

Prose Digvijay Pandya, Lovely Professional University

Notes
Unit 16: Hazlitt--On Genius and Common Sense:
Critical Appreciation

CONTENTS
Objectives
Introduction
16.1 Basic Principle of Hazlitt Essays
16.2 Wit, Humour, Irony and Satire
16.3 Observations of Style
16.4 Hazlitt’s Style
16.5 Critical Appreciation
16.6 Summary
16.7 Key-Words
16.8 Review Questions
16.9 Further Readings

Objectives

After reading this Unit students will be able to:
• Understand Hazlitt literary style and taste
• Examine critically Hazlitt’s essay On Genius and Common Sense

Introduction

Hazlitt’s literary tastes are catholic. He read widely and wisely. He knew intimately the literature
of the Elizabethan age. He brought his sympathetic insight into an understanding of the Restoration
drama, admired Pope for his technical virtuosity, and joined no group to condemn or praise any
period in its entirety. Cazamian observed: “he it was who traced the first roads, marked out the
vantage points and gauged the heights on the virgin soil of Romanticism, and almost in every case
his literary judgment remains that of today; he anticipates the future, and sees with the eyes of
posterity”. His remarks on Shakespeare, Pope, Burns, and Coleridge show his understanding and
estimate of the nature of genius. Though he looks like Sainte-Beuve, “he is” , says Hugh Walker,
“not so safe as the French critic; he is not so careful; he lacks the lucidity of style which apparently
is the inalienable birthright of all French critics; but there is more vigour in him than there is in the
southern writer, less of that cool detachment which may chill the enthusiastic but which is a
healthy corrective against prejudice”. But is should be noted that his study of literature was
imperfect, and that there were large gaps which he never cared to fill. Thus forgetting his own
incomplete knowledge, he spoke of the rugged metre of Chaucer, and admired the Greek spirit in
Pope’s translation of Homer. Evidently he did not grasp the Greek spirit of Homer. Though he did
not read well, he could write about the authors in a nonchalant way. It is a casual approach based
on a defective knowledge that appears at times in the Lectures on English Poets. Yet he is never
without his characteristic gusto which makes the literary text he examines breathe vitality. He
presents his grasp of the text with a personal love. As Saintsbury remarked: ‘where Hazlitt is
inadequate, he more instructive than many men’s adequacy could be, and where he is not, he

150 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY