He in fact
found the general species or DIDACTIC form in Shakespeare's
characters, which was all he sought or cared for; he did not find
the individual traits, or the DRAMATIC distinctions which
Shakespeare has engrafted on this general nature, because he felt no
interest in them.
Nothing is easier to prove than that in this world nobody ever
invented anything. So it may be proved that, Johnson having written
'Great thoughts are always general', Blake had countered him by
affirming (long before Hazlitt) that 'To generalize is to be an
idiot. To particularize is the great distinction of merit': even as
it may be demonstrable that Charles Lamb, in his charming personal
chat about the Elizabethan dramatists and his predilections among
them, was already putting into practice what he did not trouble to
theorize. But when it comes to setting out the theory, grasping the
worth of the principle, stating it and fighting for it, I think
Hazlitt may fairly claim first share in the credit.
He did not, when he wrote the following pages, know very much, even
about his subject. As his biographer says:
My grandfather came to town with very little book-knowledge ... He
had a fair stock of ideas ... But of the volumes which form the
furniture of a gentleman's library he was egregiously ignorant ...
Mr. Hazlitt's resources were emphatically internal; from his own
mind he drew sufficient for himself.
Pages:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27