ellauri030.html on line 798: Hazlitt">William Hazlitt (1778-1830, kriitikko vaikka vähän tunnettu paizi briteissä; HK Riikonen mainizee sen esseistin ominaisuudessa, vähänkun enkkujen Sainte-Beuve) sanoi tänkin paremmin:
ellauri030.html on line 800: Man is the only animal that laughs and weeps: for he is the only animal that is struck with the difference between what things are, and what they ought to be. We weep at what thwarts or exceeds our desires in serious matters; we laugh at what only disappoints our expectations in trifles… . To explain the nature of laughter and tears, is to account for the condition of human life; for it is in a manner compounded of the two! It is a tragedy or a comedy—sad or merry, as it happens… . Tears may be considered as the natural and involuntary resource of the mind overcome by some sudden and violent emotion, before it has had time to reconcile its feelings to the change of circumstances: while laughter may be defined to be the same sort of convulsive and involuntary movement, occasioned by mere surprise or contrast (in the absence of any more serious emotion), before it has time to reconcile its belief to contrary appearances (Hazlitt 1819, 1).
ellauri054.html on line 206:

Yritelmät sisältää tyypillisesti mutua. Ei vaan asiaa vaan paljon miälipiteitä. Hazlitt oli terävä mutta Kalle Lammas lälly.
ellauri061.html on line 203: In 1817, Hazlitt">William Hazlitt found the play to be better as a written work than a staged production. He found the work to be "a delightful fiction" but when staged, it is reduced to a dull pantomime. He concluded that poetry and the stage do not fit together.
ellauri073.html on line 451: But I’m not the boss of you. This is America—you can do whatever you want to. For example, you could start with some articles I’ve written for a variety of publications, including The New York Times Magazine and Hazlitt.
ellauri109.html on line 697: Hazlitt">William Hazlitt believed the poem to have "more genius, vehemence and strength of description than any other of Dryden's works". Se ei välttämättä ole paljon sanottu.
ellauri321.html on line 78:

William Hazlitt jr.


ellauri321.html on line 88: Olen pannut merkille, että harvat läheisimmistä ihmisistäni ovat pysyneet ystävieni joukossa tai edes säilyttäneet minuun totunnaisen lämpimät välit. Me vihaamme vanhoja ystäviä, vanhoja kirjoja, vanhoja mielipiteitä, ja viimein päädymme vihaamaan itseämme. Olen riitaantunut melkein jokaisen vanhan ystäväni kanssa. He saattaisivat sanoa, että se johtuu hankalasta luonteestani, mutta he ovat riitaantuneet myös keskenään. Ainoa keino tehdä sovinto vanhojen ystävien kanssa on erota heistä lopullisesti, Hazlitt päättelee kuin Kristina-täti.
ellauri321.html on line 90: Turvautuminen prostituoituihin julkisesti panomielessä oli epätavallista kirjallisuuden ja muiden miesten keskuudessa tuona aikana, ja jos Hazlitt oli tässä erilainen kuin hänen aikalaisensa, ero piili hänen unabashed suorapuheisuudessaan hänen tehdessään tällaisia järjestelyjä henkilökohtaisesti. Hänen oli harvoin mukava olla keski-ja yläluokan naisten yhteiskunnassa, ja, halujen piinaamana joita hän myöhemmin kuvasi "ikuinen tukkeutuminen ja kuollut paino kelleissä" hän teki pelinavauxen paikalliselle naiselle vieraillessaan Lake Districtillä kanssa Coleridgen. Hän oli kuitenkin ymmärtänyt törkeästi väärin hiänen aikeensa ja riita puhkesi, joka johti hänen hätäiseen vetäytymiseensä kaupungista varjossa pimeyden. Tämä julkinen kömmähdys rasitti entisestään hänen suhteitaan sekä Coleridgeen että Wordsworthiin, jotka olivat muutenkin rispaantuneet muista syistä.
ellauri321.html on line 99: This little volume had made its mark on both sides of the Atlantic not many years before Hazlitt noticed it. It appeared in London in 1782 with this somewhat ponderous title-page: Letters from an American Farmer, Describing Certain Provincial Situations, Manners and Customs, and Conveying Some Idea Of The State Of The People Of North America, Written xi to a Friend in England, By J. Hector St. John, A Farmer In Pennsylvania. Tästä varmaan radikaali Mary otti matkakirjaan mallia.
ellauri321.html on line 103: Among other books there fell into a guy named Hazlitt's hands a little volume of double interest to him by reason of his own early sojourn in America, and in a fitting connection he gave it a word of praise. In the Edinburgh Review for October, 1829, he speaks of it as giving one an idea “how American scenery and manners may be treated with a lively poetic interest. The pictures are sometimes highly colored, but they are vivid and strikingly characteristic.” “The author,” he continues, “gives not only the objects, but the feelings of a new country.” Hazlitt had read the book and had been delighted with it nearly a quarter of a century before he wrote of it, and in the earliest years of the century he had commended it warmly to his friends. In November, 1805, Lamb wrote: “Oh, tell Hazlitt not to forget the American Farmer. I dare say it is not so good as he fancies; but a book's a book.”* And it is this book, which not only gained the sympathies of Hazlitt and Charles Lamb, but also by its idealized treatment of American country life may possibly have stirred, as Professor Moses Coit Tyler thought, the imaginations of Byron and Coleridge.
ellauri321.html on line 105: For many years after Hazlitt had sounded his note of praise, Crèvecoeur and his work remained practically unknown. The ideas for which he stood, the literary atmosphere that he created, were both old-fashioned. Few people took Rousseau from their upper shelves, and the dust gathered on the tomes of Chateaubriand. Even Werther was more talked about than read. And so no one cared for this Earthly Paradise of the Age of Reason dashed with Rousseau's sentimentality, filled with his love of Nature, and prophetic of the whole Emigrant literature of France.
12