ead, and I therefore cannot deny that her novels might
have been written by Venus; but I cannot admit that Wycherley's brutal
'Plain-dealer' is as good as ten volumes of sermons. 'It is curious to
see,' says Hazlitt, rather naively, 'how the same subject is treated by
two such different authors as Shakespeare and Wycherley.' Macaulay's
remark about the same coincidence is more to the point. 'Wycherley
borrows Viola,' says that vigorous moralist, 'and Viola forthwith
becomes a pander of the basest sort.' That is literally true. Indeed,
Hazlitt's love for the dramatists of the Restoration is something of a
puzzle, except so far as it is explained by early associations. Even
then it is hard to explain the sympathy which Hazlitt, the lover of
Rousseau and sentiment, feels for Congreve, whose speciality it is that
a touch of sentiment is as rare in his painfully-witty dialogues as a
drop of water in the desert. Perhaps a contempt for the prejudices of
respectable people gave zest to Hazlitt's enjoyment of a literature,
representative of a social atmosphere, most propitious to his best
feelings. And yet, though I cannot take Hazlitt's judgment, I would
frankly admit that Hazlitt's enthusiasm brings out Congreve's real
merits with a force of which a calmer judge would be incapable. His warm
praises of 'The Beggar's Opera,' his assault upon Sidney's 'Arcadia,'
his sarcasms against Tom Moore, are all excellent in their way, whether
we do or do not agree with his final result. Whenever Hazlitt writes
from his own mind, in short, he writes what is well worth reading.
Hazlitt learnt something in his later years from Lamb. He prefers, he
says, those papers of Elia in which there is the least infusion of
antiquated language; and, in fact, Lamb never inoculated him with his
taste for the old English literature. Hazlitt gave a series of lectures
upon the Elizabethan dramatists, and carelessly remarks some time
afterwards that he has only read about a quarter of Beaumont and
Fletcher's plays, and intends to read the rest when he has a chance. It
is plain, indeed, that the lectures, though written at times with great
spirit, are the work of a man who has got them up for the occasion. And
in his more ambitious and successful essays upon Shakespeare the same
want of reading appears in another way. He is more familiar with
Shakespeare's text than many better scholars. His familiarity is proved
by a habit of quotation of which it has been disp