No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
William Hazlitt's ideas about the imagination have received widespread critical attention, but that attention has been confined almost entirely to his comments on the “sympathetic imagination.” In his opening sentence J. D. O'Hara (“Hazlitt and the Functions of the Imagination,” PMLA, LXXXI, December 1966, 552–562) intends, I think, to use the term “sympathetic imagination” in a broad sense—broader than in his second paragraph, where, in order to disclose “the limitations of sympathy in the creation of art,” Mr. O'Hara seems to confine “sympathy” to the poet's identification with character. He proceeds, then, to designate “associational theory” rather than “sympathy” as grounds for Hazlitt's objection to egotistical poetry—like Wordsworth's—and to describe this objection as “basically not aesthetic but moral” (p. 553). Mr. O'Hara has written a closely reasoned and useful article; but when, later in the article, he describes the “formative imagination” (p. 561), he again separates elements in Hazlitt's aesthetic which, I think, are not as readily separable as he implies.
1 AU references to Hazlitt's writings are to The Complete Works of William Hazlitt, ed. P. P. Howe (London, 1930–34).
1 Iago is a useful test case. Hazlitt admires qualities of Iago's mind and phrases of Iago's speech, but he does not admire Iago. “The part indeed would hardly be tolerated, even as a foil to the virtue and generosity of the other characters in the play, but for its indefatigable industry and inexhaustible resources” (iv, 209).
1 To cite only two of the better-known works on the subject: John W. Bullitt, “Hazlitt and the Romantic Concept of the Imagination,” PQ, xxiv (1945), 342–361 (esp. 354–361), and J. W. Bate, Criticism: The Major Texts (New York, 1952), pp. 283–287.
2 Cf. David Hartley, Observations on Man, 4th ed. (London, 1801), I, 419; Abraham Tucker, The Light of Nature Pursued, 2nd ed. (London, 1805), i, 259–262; ii, 149–151.