Act III. Scene 1.

At the end of this essay in _The Examiner_ Hazlitt added the

following ‘Note Extraordinary’: ‘We had just concluded our

ramble with _Puck_ and _Bottom_, and were beginning to indulge

in some less airy recreations, when in came the last week’s

_Cobbett_,[93] and with one blow overset our Round Table, and

marred all our good things. If while Mr. C. and his lady are

sitting in their garden at Botley, like Adam and Eve in

Paradise, the delight of one another, the envy of their

neighbours, and the admiration of the rest of the world,

suddenly a large fat hog from the wilds of Hampshire should

bolt right through the hedge, and with snorting menaces and

foaming tusks, proceed to lay waste the flower-pots and root up

the potatoes, such as the surprise and indignation of so

economical a couple would be on this occasion, was the

consternation at our Table when Mr. Cobbett himself made his

appearance among us, vowing vengeance against Milton and

Shakespear, _Sir Hugh Evans_ and _Justice Shallow_, and all the

delights of human life. We were not prepared for such an onset.

More barbarous than Mr. Wordsworth’s calling Voltaire

dull,[94] or than Voltaire’s calling Cato the only English

tragedy;[95] more barbarous than Mr. Locke’s admiration of Sir

Richard Blackmore; more barbarous than the declaration of a

German Elector—afterwards made into an English king—that he

hated poets and painters; more barbarous than the Duke of

Wellington’s letter to Lord Castlereagh,[96] or than the

_Catalogue Raisonné_ of the Flemish Masters published in the

_Morning Chronicle_,[97] or than the Latin style of the second

Greek scholar[98] of the age, or the English style of the

first:—more barbarous than any or all of these is Mr. Cobbett’s

attack on our two great poets. As to Milton, except the fine

egotism of the situation of Adam and Eve, which Mr. Cobbett has

applied to himself, there is not much in him to touch

our politician: but we cannot understand his attack upon

Shakespear, which is cutting his own throat. If Mr. Cobbett is

for getting rid of his kings and queens, his fops and his

courtiers, if he is for pelting _Sir Hugh_ and _Falstaff_ off

the stage, yet what will he say to _Jack Cade_ and First and

Second Mob? If we are to scout the Roman rabble, where will the

_Register_ find English readers? Has the author never found

himself out in Shakespear? He may depend upon it he is there,

for all the people that ever lived are there! Has he never been

struck with the valour of _Ancient Pistol_, who “would not

swagger in any shew of resistance to a Barbary-hen”?[99] Can he

not, upon occasion, “aggravate his voice”[100] like _Bottom_ in

the play? In absolute insensibility, he is a fool to _Master

Barnardine_; and there is enough of gross animal instinct in

_Calyban_ to make a whole herd of Cobbetts. Mr. Cobbett admires

Bonaparte; and yet there is nothing finer in any of his

addresses to the French people than what _Coriolanus_ says to

the Romans when they banish him. He abuses the Allies in good

set terms; yet one speech of Constance describes them and their

magnanimity better than all the columns of the _Political

Register_. Mr. Cobbett’s address to the people of England[101]

on the alarm of an invasion, which was stuck on all the

church-doors in Great Britain, was not more eloquent than

_Henry V.’s_ address to his soldiers before the battle of

Agincourt; nor do we think Mr. Cobbett was ever a better

specimen of the common English character than the two soldiers

in the same play. After all, there is something so droll in his

falling foul of Shakespear for want of delicacy, with his

desperate lounges and bear-garden dexterity, snorting, fuming,

and grunting, that we cannot help laughing at the affair, now

that our surprise is over; as we suppose Mr. Cobbett does, if

he can only keep him out of his premises by hallooing and

hooting or dry blows, to see his old friend, Grill,[102]

trudging along the highroad in search of his acorns and

pig-nuts.’

THE BEGGAR’S OPERA

One of Hazlitt’s ‘Theatrical Examiners,’ and published in _The Examiner_

on June 18, 1815.

PAGE

65. _The Beggar’s Opera_ was produced at Lincoln’s Inn Fields on

January 29, 1728.

‘_Happy alchemy of mind_,’ _etc._ Cf. Boswell (_Life of Johnson_,

ed. G. B. Hill, iii. 65): ‘I have ever delighted in that

intellectual chymistry, which can separate good qualities from

evil in the same person.’

‘_O’erstepping the modesty of nature._’ _Hamlet_, Act III. Scene

2.

‘_Woman is like_,’ _etc._ _Beggar’s Opera_, Act I.

_Taken from Tibullus._ Hazlitt probably means Catullus and refers

to the lines (_Carm._ 62)

‘Ut flos in saeptis secretus nascitur hortis,’ etc.

‘_I see him sweeter_,’ _etc._ Act I.

‘_There is some soul of goodness in things evil._’ _Henry V._,

The collected works of William Hazlitt, Vol. 01 (of 12) · 第 2 / 3 章