If there were a writer, who "born for the universe"--

"----Narrow'd his mind,

And to party gave up what was meant for mankind----"

who, from the height of his genius looking abroad into nature, and

scanning the recesses of the human heart, "winked and shut his

apprehension up" to every thought and purpose that tended to the future

good of mankind--who, raised by affluence, the reward of successful

industry, and by the voice of fame above the want of any but the most

honourable patronage, stooped to the unworthy arts of adulation, and

abetted the views of the great with the pettifogging feelings of the

meanest dependant on office--who, having secured the admiration of the

public (with the probable reversion of immortality), showed no respect for

himself, for that genius that had raised him to distinction, for that

nature which he trampled under foot--who, amiable, frank, friendly, manly

in private life, was seized with the dotage of age and the fury of a

woman, the instant politics were concerned--who reserved all his candour

and comprehensiveness of view for history, and vented his littleness,

pique, resentment, bigotry, and intolerance on his contemporaries--who

took the wrong side, and defended it by unfair means--who, the moment his

own interest or the prejudices of others interfered, seemed to forget all

that was due to the pride of intellect, to the sense of manhood--who,

praised, admired by men of all parties alike, repaid the public liberality

by striking a secret and envenomed blow at the reputation of every one who

was not the ready tool of power--who strewed the slime of rankling malice

and mercenary scorn over the bud and promise of genius, because it was not

fostered in the hotbed of corruption, or warped by the trammels of

servility--who supported the worst abuses of authority in the worst

spirit--who joined a gang of desperadoes to spread calumny, contempt,

infamy, wherever they were merited by honesty or talent on a different

side--who officiously undertook to decide public questions by private

insinuations, to prop the throne by nicknames, and the altar by lies--who

being (by common consent), the finest, the most humane and accomplished

writer of his age, associated himself with and encouraged the lowest

panders of a venal press; deluging, nauseating the public mind with the

offal and garbage of Billingsgate abuse and vulgar _slang_; showing no

remorse, no relenting or compassion towards the victims of this nefarious

and organized system of party-proscription, carried on under the mask of

literary criticism and fair discussion, insulting the misfortunes of some,

and trampling on the early grave of others--

"Who would not grieve if such a man there be?

Who would not weep if Atticus were he?"

But we believe there is no other age or country in the world (but ours),

in which such genius could have been so degraded!

Hazlitt on English Literature: An Introduction to the Appreciation of Literature · 第 72 / 135 题