This article originally appeared in the Winter, Vol. Moore, an acknowledged Shakespearean scholar and Society member, and the then Editor of the American Branch publication. Therefore, we are doubly grateful to him for both the original work and his gracious permission for its present re-publication.
William Hazlitt William Hazlitt. A self-portrait from about William Hazlitt, drama critic for the Morning Chronicle since the previous September, was in the audience. Hazlitt, having recently begun a career as a theatrical reviewer, was no better known than the subject of his reviews.
These notices quickly brought both Kean and Hazlitt before the public eye. But he also noted ways in which no actor's interpretation could live up to the dramatist's conception. The German critic Schlegel showed an appreciation for Shakespeare of a kind that no one in Hazlitt's country had yet demonstrated, and Hazlitt, sympathising with many of Schlegel's ideas, felt there was a place for a whole book that would provide appreciative criticism of all of Shakespeare's plays.
Such a book would provide liberal quotations from the text, and focus on the characters and various qualities particular to each play; and he felt that he could write it. Considerable material that he had already worked up in his drama reviews was incorporated into the book.
One essay, on A Midsummer Night's Dreamwas taken entire from a contribution to "The Round Table" series in the Examiner, first published on 26 Novemberwith a concluding paragraph tacked on from a drama review, also published in the Examiner, on 21 January There was material from other essays.
As a publicity tactic, copies were circulated privately. Finally, Hazlitt got the book published, by Rowland Hunter and the brothers Charles and James Ollier in collaboration, who brought it out on 9 July A second edition was issued by Taylor and Hessey in and later that year an unlicensed edition was brought out in Boston by Wells and Lilly.
The essays on the plays themselves there is a "Preface" as well as an essay on "Doubtful Plays of Shakespear" and one on the "Poems and Sonnets" number thirty-two, but with two of the essays encompassing five of the plays, the plays discussed amount to thirty-five in number.
Though each essay constitutes a chapter in a book, in style and length they resemble those of Hazlitt's miscellaneous collection The Round Table published also ina collaboration with Leigh Hunt which followed the model for periodical essays established a century earlier in The Spectator.
The greatest of the plays were tragedies—particularly Macbeth, Othello, King Learand Hamlet—and Hazlitt's comments on tragedy are often integrated with his ideas about the significance of poetry and imaginative literature in general.
Hazlitt found the Shakespearean criticism of Johnson, the premier literary critic of the previous era, troubling in several ways.
He insufficiently valued the tragedies; he missed the essence of much of the poetry; and he "reduced everything to the common standard of conventional propriety [ Rather than an English critic, it was the German August Wilhelm Schlegel, whose lectures on the drama had recently been translated into English, whom Hazlitt believed to be the greatest critic of Shakespeare's plays.
Hazlitt here includes long extracts from Schlegel on Shakespeare, differing with him principally with respect to what he called a "mysticism" that appears in Schlegel's interpretations. He shared with Schlegel an enthusiasm for Shakespeare that he found lacking in Dr.
Cymbeline As one of his favourites,  Hazlitt places Cymbeline first in his discussions of Shakespeare's plays, according it extensive treatment.
This includes his personal impressions of individual characters—as the book's title would lead us to expect—but also the kind of broader consideration for which he would not be credited for at least a century and a half.
We see her beauty as observed by others as by the villain Iachimo but more often we see her from the inside, and are touched when, after endless nights of crying herself awake over the loss of Posthumus, she is outraged to learn as she is falsely informed that "'Some Jay of Italy [ These three, for example, "are a fine relief to the intrigues and artificial refinements of the court from which they are banished.
Cloten, "with all the absurdity of his person and manners, is not without shrewdness in his observations. The striking and powerful contrasts in which Shakespear abounds could not escape observation; but the use he makes of the principle of analogy to reconcile the greatest diversities of character and to maintain a continuity of feeling throughout, has not been sufficiently attended to.
He will have nothing of criticising it in terms of the classical " unities ". If the action is long-drawn-out, "the interest becomes more aerial and refined from the principle of perspective introduced into the subject by the imaginary changes of scene, as well as by the length of time it occupies.
Johnson "that Shakespear was generally inattentive to the winding-up of his plots. We think the contrary is true; and we might cite in proof of this remark not only the present play, but the conclusion of Lear, of Romeo and Juliet, of Macbeth, of Othello, even of Hamlet, and of other plays of less moment, in which the last act is crowded with decisive events brought about by natural means.
Coriolanus 18th-century engraving of Coriolanus Act V, Scene III Hazlitt's focus in the essay on Coriolanus is less on the various characters of Shakespeare's tragedy than on the fundamental moral and political principles behind their actions. For Hazlitt, this play showed in action the concepts behind political writings of his own day, such as Edmund Burke 's Reflections on the Revolution in France and Thomas Paine 's Rights of Man.
The imagination is an exaggerating and exclusive faculty: It puts the individual for the species, the one above the infinite many, might before right.
There is nothing heroical in a multitude of miserable rogues not wishing to be starved [ This love of power is not necessarily expressed by a will to dominate others physically; but there is at least the tendency to side with power in the imagination, to be swayed and carried away emotionally by the power of poetic language.
Hazlitt's own worship of Napoleon, it was later observed, could be taken as an example of this tendency. The following year, in his Lectures on the English Poets, referring to tragic poetry especially, he would observe how "in proportion as it sharpens the edge of calamity and disappointment, it strengthens the desire of good.
Following an observation of Burke he notes that "people flock to see a tragedy; but if there were a public execution in the next street, the theatre would very soon be empty. The sense of power is as strong a principle in the mind as the love of pleasure.
The whole dramatic moral of Coriolanus is that those who have little shall have less, and that those who have much shall take all that others have left. The people are poor; therefore they ought to be starved. They are slaves; therefore they ought to be beaten.Get an answer for 'What are some comparisons between Shakespeare's Macbeth and the modern () adaptation?' and find homework help for .
Get an answer for 'Compare and contrast Christopher Marlowe and William Shakespeare as contemporary innovative dramatists' and find homework help for other Literature questions at eNotes.
The Similarities and Differences of Shakespeare and Cervantes. Report abuse. Transcript of The Similarities and Differences of Shakespeare and Cervantes. The Similarities and Differences of William Shakespeare and Miguel Cervantes Their Lives!
Their Ideas Their Works Conclusion Both Miguel de Cervantes and William . How did Shakespeare's writing style in plays differ from his style in poems?
Update Cancel. ad by My Clean PC. What was William Shakespeare's style of writing? Clara Hamilton, Shakespeare is my God. Answered Nov Comparison Between the Notebook Movie and Book. The differences and similarities between the stage directions and the directors shot selection in the film and in the text affect the readers interpretation of the final scene where Juror 3 says not guilty greatly.
In the mid Historicity in Shakespeare’s Richard III by James A. Moore, Ph.D. This article originally appeared in the Winter, (Vol. XX, No.4) edition of the Ricardian Register as the result of a lengthy correspondence on the subject between Dr.
Moore, an acknowledged Shakespearean scholar and Society member, and the then Editor of the American.