Thanks RDM - a profound passage from a profound writer
.
.
rdm68 wrote:
On the subject of re-reading, here's a passage I read yesterday from DHLawrence's final book, Apocalypse:
"A book lives as long as it is unfathomed. Once a book is fathomed, once it is known, and its meaning is fixed or established, it is dead. A book only lives while it has power to move us, and move us differently; so long as we find it different every time we read it. Owing to the flood of shallow books which really are exhausted in one reading, the modern mind tends to think every book is the same, finished in one reading. But it is not so. The real joy of a book lies in reading it over and over again, and always finding it different, coming upon another meaning, another level of meaning. It is, as usual, a question of values: we are so overwhelmed with quantities of books that we hardly realise any more that a book can be valuable, valuable like a jewel, or a lovely picture, into which you can look deeper and deeper and get a more profound experience every time."
My favourite Lawrence is Sons and Lovers which is a marvellous portrayal of the effect of the Oedipus complex upon his early life, together with excellent descriptions of the Nottinghamshire countryside and the lives of coal mining families at the turn of the century. I know (knew) the area well so can vouch for its authenticity. And I suppose you ought to read Lady Chatterley's Lover just to see what all the fuss was about.
I vaguely remember Hazlitt's Lectures on English Comic Writers and that there is an essay on Hogarth in that book. I can't remember whether he also wrote on Fielding? I like his biting wit on his contemporaries in The Spirit of the Age ('Wit is the salt of conversation, not the food.'). Better to be his friend rather than an enemy, although he said 'I like a friend better for having faults that one can talk about.'
.I vaguely remember Hazlitt's Lectures on English Comic Writers and that there is an essay on Hogarth in that book. I can't remember whether he also wrote on Fielding? I like his biting wit on his contemporaries in The Spirit of the Age ('Wit is the salt of conversation, not the food.'). Better to be his friend rather than an enemy, although he said 'I like a friend better for having faults that one can talk about.'
PeterP wrote:
Yes.
You all have me thinking about Lawrence. I have only a dim recollection of what I read when I was very young. Have you ever noticed that something that hasn't been in your mind for a long time will suddenly start popping up in all kinds of contexts? last night I was reading Tom Paulin on William Hazlitt (and looking into Hazlitt on Hogarth) and up pops Lawrence again. I guess I know what I should read - but what should I read? Any suggestions?
rdm68 wrote:
On the subject of re-reading, here's a passage I read yesterday from DHLawrence's final book, Apocalypse:
"A book lives as long as it is unfathomed. Once a book is fathomed, once it is known, and its meaning is fixed or established, it is dead. A book only lives while it has power to move us, and move us differently; so long as we find it different every time we read it. Owing to the flood of shallow books which really are exhausted in one reading, the modern mind tends to think every book is the same, finished in one reading. But it is not so. The real joy of a book lies in reading it over and over again, and always finding it different, coming upon another meaning, another level of meaning. It is, as usual, a question of values: we are so overwhelmed with quantities of books that we hardly realise any more that a book can be valuable, valuable like a jewel, or a lovely picture, into which you can look deeper and deeper and get a more profound experience every time."
Message Edited by Choisya on 08-18-2007 08:40 AM
Peter can probably throw more light on this but I think what Hazlitt meant was that Moliere wasn't as 'refined' as other French authors of his day and used more of the earthiness of English 17th century writing, like that of Fielding. Hazlitt was rather contemptuous of the refined writers who followed Fielding and this too, to touch on the subject again, was one of Lawrence's complaints about writing after the 17th century. If you look at English Literature from Chaucer to Fielding you will find a certain frankness, which some now call vulgarity, but which was in fact part of the common speech and expression of the times. This frankness disappeared during the Regency period and 'refinement' of language, the 'comedy of manners' and excessive politeness entered literature and life. It was the literary equivalent of covering up the legs of pianos
. The very mannered novels of Jane Austen are a good example of this latter style. At least I think this is what Hazlitt was getting at. I look forward to Peter's comments.
(Hazlitt very much admired Hogarth and the 'Grand Style' of painting and this was also followed by the more refined and restrained styles of Reynolds and Gainsborough. I think it was Hazlitt who said of Hogarth that 'all of human life is there' and that only Shakespeare equalled him.)
. The very mannered novels of Jane Austen are a good example of this latter style. At least I think this is what Hazlitt was getting at. I look forward to Peter's comments.(Hazlitt very much admired Hogarth and the 'Grand Style' of painting and this was also followed by the more refined and restrained styles of Reynolds and Gainsborough. I think it was Hazlitt who said of Hogarth that 'all of human life is there' and that only Shakespeare equalled him.)
rdm68 wrote:
Choisya wrote:
Peter: I found these titbits in the Lectures on Comic Writers:
That 'Moliere is almost an English author, quite a barbare [barbarian!], in all in which he excels.'
That 'Fielding's Comedies are very inferior to his novels...in both plot and character'. They are 'excellent in style in which his novels are deficient.' The only dramas that 'retain possession of the stage are The Mock Doctor, which is a tolerable translation from Moliere's Medecin Malgre lui and the burlesque Tom Thumb.' So it would seem that Fielding did use/know of Moliere's stuff.
PeterP wrote:
Yes.
Hazlitt discusses Hogarth a great deal - where you have mention and there is even a separate essay published in an old Oxford Classic that may be out-of-print. Hazlitt refers to Fielding a lot - and I think with some ambivalence - but I have to sort it out.
Paulin quotes this, which I like - "As he (Hazlitt) explains in 'Old English Writers and Speakers', the mark of the 'genuine English intellect' is the way it constantly combines as Hogarth and Fielding do, 'truth of external observation with strength of internal meaning'.
And speaking of quote – I know there is a passage “somewhere” in which Hazlitt cites Molière, Fielding, and Hogarth, all in one or two sentences – (at least I think so).
Well, I owe you a quote, Choisya.
Thanks for the tips on Lawrence.
Message Edited by Choisya on 08-18-2007 04:26 PM
I wonder what he meant by that (that Moliere is "almost an English author"). Trying to define the differences between English and French anything is always slippery, but Moliere seems so quintessentially French... Any idea what Hazlitt had in mind?
Choisya wrote:
Peter can probably throw more light on this but I think what Hazlitt meant was that Moliere wasn't as 'refined' as other French authors of his day and used more of the earthiness of English 17th century writing, like that of Fielding. Hazlitt was rather contemptuous of the refined writers who followed Fielding and this too, to touch on the subject again, was one of Lawrence's complaints about writing after the 17th century. If you look at English Literature from Chaucer to Fielding you will find a certain frankness, which some now call vulgarity, but which was in fact part of the common speech and expression of the times. This frankness disappeared during the Regency period and 'refinement' of language, the 'comedy of manners' and excessive politeness entered literature and life. It was the literary equivalent of covering up the legs of pianos
(Hazlitt very much admired Hogarth and the 'Grand Style' of painting and this was also followed by the more refined and restrained styles of Reynolds and Gainsborough. I think it was Hazlitt who said of Hogarth that 'all of human life is there' and that only Shakespeare equalled him.)
I wonder what he meant by that (that Moliere is "almost an English author"). Trying to define the differences between English and French anything is always slippery, but Moliere seems so quintessentially French... Any idea what Hazlitt had in mind?
That’s a very good point. I’ve often wondered about the rather strange divide in English literature. The novels of the 19th century, from Jane Austen onward, reflect a sort of teacup-and-saucer “refinement” that certainly has its charms – the charms of Victorian culture – but strongly contrasts with the heartier, earthier Englishness reflected in the works of Fielding, Defoe, Shakespeare, Chaucer, and probably tracing back to the literature of the Anglo-Saxons. I think a lot of people today are drawn to the gentility of Austen’s world (at least as portrayed in the movies and TV series based on her works) and think of it as expressing the quintessence of “Englishness”, but it’s actually a relatively recent development in the evolution of the English character - at least as reflected in literature.
