Talk:William Hazlitt

Untitled

This page needs a lot of work. It has too much about WH's father and too little about WH. --Jose Ramos 12:18, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

plus pretty subjective: 'humanist essays'? and thing about shakespeare johnson is pretty tenuous

---

that said, the writing in this article is outstanding. --Jim Abraham (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thing about Shakespeare/Johnson beyond tenuous... can't imagine anybody with any detailed knowledge of Shakespeare criticism agreeing with it - and even if they did, would they put it in an encyclopaedia entry? Edjack 20:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I think something is needed on Hazlitt's feud with Coleridge/Wordsworth/Southey.

---

William Hazlitt is a great writer who knew how the sound of a word could add depth to his topic. His other defining feature was the use of sentences that, while using proper grammar, were very long, and so seemed to drag a topic on continuously.

Hazlitt didn't actually manage to have an affair with Sarah Walker. He was completely infatuated, to the point of persuading an admirer of his to attempt to seduce Misslker. He divorced Sarah Stoddart in the hope of marrying Miss Walker, failed, nearly lost his mind but recovered enough to marry unsuccessfully for a second time. This article needs a wee bit more work :-)

The articles says "a few miles from Wiltshire". I think it should be "a few miles from Salisbury, Wiltshire" 92.16.157.124 (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I've fixed the slip. Thanks. --Alan W (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Education

The reference to Hazlitt's education gives the incorrect link to the present day College named Hackney. The Hackney College link says the name is a source of ambiguity and lists three previous unrelated Colleges. It is "One name for the college set up by Calvinist Dissenters in Homerton in 1786, also known in various accounts as the New College, Homerton Academy, or Homerton College" It seems the article should be reworded and linked to Homerton College, University of Cambridge instead. Tiddy (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed your comment. Though Homerton is near Hackney, in none of the sources mentioning the Hackney College that Hazlitt attended—the Unitarian New College at Hackney— have I seen its location given as Homerton. It's always Hackney. I wonder if any source could be found to establish that the two colleges, Homerton and Hackney, are one and the same. I am skeptical. My sources also say that the college closed for good in 1796, so I think that the Wikipedia article identifying it with Homerton College, which still exists, is mistaken. I just don't know enough for certain to be able to correct the mistake. I left the link as it is in this article only because Hazlitt is mentioned in the article on Hackney College (the current one, again, no connection with the one Hazlitt attended). Maybe that link should be "dewikified". If there are any experts on defunct Unitarian colleges around on Wikipedia, their help in sorting all this out would be appreciated. --Alan W (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To the Anonymous Editor at IP address 71.202.222.35...

Whoever you are, you have made some thoughtful, judicious edits here. Most of this text is mine, as I've been building up the Hazlitt article gradually over the past few months. So, speaking for myself at least, thank you! I really needed that second pair of eyes. And Happy New Year! --Alan W (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.... And now 69.117.71.159.... Another anonymous editor—or the same one, hiding behind a different IP address? I seem to detect the same master hand. Whoever you are, thank you again. Very well done. I am once more reminded how much tightening my bloated prose can stand.--Alan W (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

On further consideration, this time it's not so much tightening as sharpening, clarification, focus, better organization. In any case, thank you.--Alan W (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Essay Style and Organisation of Information

This article is fascinating and in-depth to those with a good knowledge of the Romantic/Revolutionary periods. However I get the feeling it is rather impenetrable for the non experts. Perhaps it could be re-organised in such a way as to be less biographical and more informative. Why should we care about Hazlitt etc etc. Some upsumming might be useful. The tone is very scholarly. Perhaps as simple as a more extensive summary for what is now a long article. I was prompted to discuss because of my admiration of the writing and effort, this surely has the potential to be featured. Tadramgo (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC) (A very seldomn contributer.)

As I look back, it seems that by now I have written by far the greater part of this article, so I thank you for your kind comments. I have been adding to it little by little for months now, as Hazlitt has long been a favorite (or favourite—as an American I have been trying to conform to British usage here) of mine, and it is about time that he received adequate coverage. I am nowhere near finished, and the article will get longer if I have anything to with it. That said, you make a good point. Expanding the "lead" at the beginning is something I have been thinking of for a while. As you say, that might solve the problem of the article's seeming impenetrable to the non-specialist. Of course, someone else might get to it first, but, for now, it is on my to-do list. It's all a matter of having the time; I have to balance this with that little annoying matter of having a full-time job, plus dealing with the rest of life. <grin> Regards, Alan W (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

---

To lengthen the introductory paragraph, perhaps you - the various editors - ought to name some of his famous essays and mention his friendships with Lamb and the poets. It looks irregularly short to me. Alienaliens (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Structure

With the massive size, we have a problem with WP:WEIGHT. Author pages should have biography, but of about 70k allowed (by MoS), only 45k should be biography. We have very little about his literary style, legacy, etc. There are also a couple recent biographies that are very good and left out of the citations. I think we need to rethink the strategy of the page a bit. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been building up the biography section little by little as time permits. I agree that there needs to be better balance, but I want to finish the biography before I think about other things. I'm working on it! Of course someone else could start first, but, in any case, I plan to go in other directions once I finish the biography. And, yes, I am aware that the recent books have been left out of the citations. I own them all, and once I read them I will modify the biography as needed. All part of my plans. So even if no one else does any of this, I will get to it eventually. It's just a matter of time. If only I didn't have a full-time job to worry about, I would have done all this a long time ago. Hazlitt is one of my favorite writers, and he certainly deserves the attention as far as I'm concerned. --Alan W (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The biography is already way too large - by about double the acceptable limit according to the MoS. There will need to be some forks - probably early life and some career forks. There is a problem with some of it written in an essay like manner (example: "She had aspirations to better herself, and a famous author seemed like a prize catch. But she never really understood Hazlitt"). I can put up a few suggestions for changes if you want. I performed the major overhaul of the Samuel Johnson article and got it to FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly some of the bio could be forked off. If I don't get to it for a while, maybe someone else will take on the task of the redistribution. As for the style, well, there have been one or two anonymous editors who did a fine job of tightening up the prose. I'm sure we could use more of that kind of thing. I know that my own writing can get bloated. As for writing in an essay-like manner, well, my own view is that that kind of thing is better than making the writing so dry that no one bothers to read it. The writing should of course still be as NPOV as possible and supported by citations, but I think it should be readable. The snippet you quote above was probably mine, and I know I can find more specific citations if needed to back up the implied assertions. I know, for example, that I didn't decide for myself that Hazlitt's second wife had aspirations to better herself; it's in the bios someplace. I already went through that kind of thing to bring an article up to GA standards a few months ago, and expect to have to do it here to make this better. As for suggestions, they are certainly welcome. Others may act on them--and probably I will eventually too--but again speaking for myself, I am just one person and can do only so much in a given period of time. I appreciate your interest in this article in any case, and it's good we've got a dialogue going here. --Alan W (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The essay aspect was the choice of "prize catch", which I think you can agree is a tad off. :) And I've been interested in the article for quite a while. I've just been building up the Romantics from the top down and slowly going back and forth through them (filling out works and the rest). I was planning on working on Hazlitt's and Hunt's works at the same time (and Southey's and Lamb's at the same time at a later date). I think that once we get some bulk author structures up (a page on childhood, essays, etc) we can find out the proportions needed (not necessarily remove text, but move it and then summarize it here). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean about "prize catch". To me that doesn't sound as bad as it seems to sound to you; on the other hand, I agree that that phrase and maybe a few others here and there could be viewed as a bit too colloquial for the context, and I suppose that in time such excrescences can be pruned as necessary. I am interested to see your overall plans for the Romantics. Hazlitt certainly deserves a place there. Eventually, all of what you say should no doubt be done. And your comments have got me thinking about other things this article needs. It could definitely use a few more good illustrations. I am not particularly good at that kind of thing, so it would be great if someone else could find some. Meanwhile, I will continue with my own plan of first finishing the story of Hazlitt's life (I really am almost through; I'm down to his last two or three years now), then doing the other things I mentioned, then probably building up the lead (a point that another Wikipedian brought up a while back, above), and then, well, I'll see. --Alan W (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I will make sure that you have the lead. Hazlitt deserves as much attention as the others - major works with entries, indepth coverage, etc. I mostly wanted to give you the heads up, as I saw that you were rather active as of late (more than you were previously). I would most likely work on secondary pages (works and the rest) before anything else. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Now that we have each given the other a heads-up about our plans, we should both be able to work cooperatively. And, yes, I have tried to be more active lately, since, as I said, I really do want to get the basic biography finished. I feel it would be nice to give the article's readers something complete to read while various editors are continuing the construction of this piece and that. Even if the house is not yet the mansion Hazlitt deserves, it should have a ceiling, floor, and four walls. :-) --Alan W (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

first paragraph; ranked with other great critics, writers

Being ranked so high may well be right, but the footnotes 2,3,4 quote Barzun Packer Howe as talking about other writers, only indirectly bringing in Hazlitt, which makes me less sure about Hazlitt's greatness. Footnote 1 is more direct about Hazlitt.-Rich Peterson69.181.160.248 (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point. There are many other sources that would support his now being generally ranked so high. I have been meaning to add them and to expand the "lead" of this article, but I been sidetracked a bit by work on another Hazlitt-related article—still Hazlitt, so I feel my time is well spent. I'll get back to this one eventually. Unless someone else adds those sources first, I'll see that they get there (later in the article as well as in the lead), sooner or later. --Alan W (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That's great, but don't feel hurried or even obliged--you and your family are, as you know, your highest priorities. And Rome wasn't built in a day. best wishes,69.181.160.248 (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your good wishes. Not to worry about my feeling in a hurry or obliged. Whatever obligation I feel, my motivation here, is my love of the subject matter, and the pleasure of sharing my knowledge with others and contributing to the general cause of building up Wikipedia as a public knowledge base. Even so, I always work much more slowly than many of those around here whom I think of as "Power Wikipedians" (or something like that). I think that if the building of Rome had been left to me, it would still be under construction! Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted 'In popular culture' section

Below is the 'In popular culture' section which I have deleted (in two stages) from the article. In my opinion it has no place in the article, because it reveals nothing about Hazlitt as a historical figure, and nothing about his posthumous reputation (for which we already have a dedicated section) or his cultural significance. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I support this deletion. The section has long made me uncomfortable. If the bare mention, in a book or movie, of the name of a known figure were admissible in a Wikipedia biography, then, to take the most extreme case, the William Shakespeare article would be longer than all the rest of Wikipedia together. And, as you say, there is little there that illuminates the real William Hazlitt in any notable way. --Alan W (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

==In popular culture==

The English dramatist and screenwriter [[Dennis Potter]] featured the ghost of Hazlitt as the central character of his 1965 television play ''The Confidence Course''; in that drama, Hazlitt appears as a disruptive outsider at a [[Dale Carnegie|Dale Carnegie Institute]] meeting. Potter has also referenced Hazlitt's work several times in his plays, most notably in ''[[Lipstick on Your Collar]]'' (1993) where a character recites an extract from an essay by Hazlitt named "The Gentleman in the Parlour", though the real William Hazlitt produced no essay by that title.

In the 1984 novel and the 1988 film [[Bright Lights, Big City (novel)|Bright Lights, Big City]] the protagonist character who hopes to write fiction, in the film named Jamie and played by [[Michael J. Fox]], at one point is given advice by a co-worker to "read Hazlitt and write before breakfast every day."

Some Recent Changes

Good to have another pair of eyes go over this, NotFromUtrecht, and I can't argue with most of what you did (not all of what you changed was my writing, but I think most was). I do think that some further revisions to your changes were needed here and there, especially in the passage about which you invited a discussion here, and I'm taking you up on the invitation. I don't think that saying the event had an "immense impact on his career" is emphatic enough. Meeting Coleridge was the event that Hazlitt himself believed to have unlocked his abilities as a writer, so I've recast the sentence to make it clear that this is representing Hazlitt's P.O.V. For good measure, I've brought in a secondary source. His biographers all speak of it as an event of enormous importance. Since none actually comes out and says in so many words that this was the event of greatest importance, I agree that it is best to remove those words. So I let Hazlitt speak for himself, and added the support of a biographer who considered it to be an event of life-changing significance. --Alan W (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Should we change the "Selected list of works" section to encourage new articles?

Some time ago I updated the "Selected list of works" section so that each item has a link which points to either Wikisource or Google Books. It strikes me that the problem with this is that it would be good to have Wikipedia articles for all these books, and that making them into external links means that we miss the opportunity to create red internal links, which might encourage their development. So, I was wondering if people had any thoughts on whether we should:

1. Leave the section as it is
2. Leave the section as it is, but create a template similar to Template:Jane Austen (but inevitably much smaller) which can be placed at the end of the article
3. Turn the book titles into Wikipedia internal links
4. Turn the book titles into Wikipedia internal links, but with a link to Google Books or Wikisource in brackets
5. Turn a table with both internal and external links
6. Move this section entirely to a new article entitled "Bibliography of William Hazlitt" (or something)

Of course, there is also the argument that creating articles for all his works will lead to duplication or fragmentation of content. But I think it would be useful to have an article on, say, The Round Table which tells the full story of its publication and which has an infobox with all the useful detail about its publisher, length, etc. But doing this might lead to the problem of whether to duplicate content from this article, whether to re-write it, or whether to move it across and delete it from here. Celuici (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

My vote, Celuici, would be for number 4, at least at this point. As for the problem of duplicating content, moving it, etc., I would not worry about that now. My thinking is that even if there is duplication, it is not so terrible on Wikipedia; modern technology allows for an amazing amount of storage space. (Frank disclosure: I tend to be an "inclusionist".) If we just restructure the list of works so that for each (with only one exception right now) there will be a red link plus outside sources, then that will satisfy those who want the red links there to encourage production of more articles on the works, as well as those who like having those external links to Google Books or Wikisource.

As for the idea that red links encourage the writing of new articles, well, I would question whether that is all it takes. Some time ago, you did something in the infobox, as I recall, for that professed purpose. The result was a whole bunch of red links, but not one new article. There is the matter of current popularity. You mention Jane Austen, and she makes for a good and convenient comparison. That page has 268 watchers; this one, only 30. (Frankly, I'm pleasantly surprised that Hazlitt has even that many.) Another factor: Hazlitt didn't live long, but Austen died even younger, and she wrote relatively little. Between these two factors alone, it's not surprising that all six of Austen's major novels are covered by substantial articles. So I don't think that red-linking alone will do the trick.

I have been intending to write more Hazlitt-related articles myself. To a great extent, I have had personal time constrictions in the past year or two. It is also true, I have to confess, that I work very slowly. As I've said elsewhere, maybe Rome wasn't built in a day, but if it were my responsibility, it would still be under construction.

But that's just me. I say, if, for a start, you want to take on the task of restructuring the list of works so that the red links appear, leaving any outside links appended in their own way, go for it. As you see I am skeptical about red links, but I doubt that they would offend anyone. You wouldn't be taking anything away, and no one has objected to your red-linking in the infobox, so very likely they wouldn't here. As you have seen, I still have enough personal time nowadays to keep an eye on things that interest me and jump in with minor edits that I feel are necessary. So I will be around and watch for any typos or other infelicities. --Alan W (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, #4 is probably the best option in my view, so I will do that, but any changes can of course be reverted if anyone wants to discuss the matter further. Regarding red links, I agree with all your points there. I think that part of the problem is also that it can be quite time-consuming to create even a rudimentary new article: filling out infoboxes, adding categories, adding stub categories, etc, takes a long time and is not particularly rewarding. But once an article has been created, it is much easier for users to add content incrementally. I don't think it is worth creating very basic stubs for all Hazlitt's works at this point, but I may create articles for two or three of Hazlitt's books over the next few months and then try to build them up over time, with the ultimate aim of creating an article for every book. Celuici (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Per the 2022-10-17 Youtube video Book Madness: The Story of Book Collectors in America, Denise Gigante (at minute 26:42) cites that William Hazlitt published On Reading Old Books in 1821 and On Reading New Books in 1827. Her discussion of Hazlitt continues a few minutes later. -- noted by D. Needham 2601:280:C480:7AB0:380C:6469:AECC:4931 (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Little read?

Hi Celuci.... I sympathize, but I'm not sure I agree with your latest edits here. My impression is that there has been some revival of academic interest in Hazlitt in the past couple of decades, and maybe a little beyond that. But not much more. It may have peaked around five years ago, when Wu's biography came out. And, at least here in America, I see fewer and fewer of Hazlitt's works in bookstores. Even two or three years ago I used to see more. So, perhaps the Paulin essay (and a wonderful essay it is) goes back ten years already, but I think he is, unfortunately, still correct. Hazlitt's works are, essentially, out of print, and, alas, I suspect he really is still "little read" today. And it is clear that his work still is "mostly out of print". Unless you can find a newer source than Paulin that suggests a real revival of Hazlitt interest among the general reading public and mass-market publishers (on either side of the Atlantic), I think that the deleted passage should be restored. We may not like this situation but, sadly, that's the way it is. Regards, Alan W (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A few more thoughts. I don't feel so strongly about this as to revert what you, Celuici, have done at this point. But I think it can bear some discussion. I'm entering this here, rather than on your own talk page, in the hope that someone else interested in Hazlitt will chime in.

I actually think that a good deal needs correcting and amplification regarding the revival of Hazlitt's "Posthumous reputation", and about the course that academic and more general interest in his writings has taken in the past two centuries. The section on his reputation, as it stands, is scarcely adequate. As I have been seeing, academic interest in Hazlitt rose gradually through the twentieth century, then really spiked up starting around 1970, with some further increase later in the century. Yet popular interest seems to have dissipated, though I don't see enough sources on that to be sure where it stands now. There is much more to be said about all this. I want to work on articles on individual works first (still doggedly, and slowly, plugging away at "Spirit"), and after that, if that section remains as it is now, I will get to it. --Alan W (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I think we actually have several separate issues here. (1) Whether a comment about most of his works being out of print should be in the lead and/or article; (2) whether Hazlitt's works should be described as "little read" in the lead and/or article; (3) whether the lead or article should reflect the fact that there has been a revival of interest in Hazlitt since c.2003. My views are as follows: (1) This is certainly true, and I will restore this information to the lead since I don't think anyone disputes it. (2) My problem was that "little read" is a vague phrase -- little read in comparison to what? Jane Austen? Charles Lamb? Harry Potter? This really is a matter of Tom Paulin's opinion, so perhaps the text could be reworded to reflect this more directly (i.e. "In 2003 the poet and academic Tom Paulin wrote that readership and study of Hazlitt's works had suffered decades of decline"). But I'm not particularly concerned if the text I deleted were to be readded without amendment: I think we can trust out readers to realise that "little read" is obviously a relative concept. (3) I know of a couple of sources from the 2000s which identify a "recent revival" or suchlike. I'll try to dig them out and update the posthumous reputation section when I can. It would be good to develop the reputation section further. Celuici (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Some good points and food for thought, Celuici. How much Hazlitt is read is a nebulous concept. I would add that so is a "revival". Still, for now, I will wait and see what you come up with, since you are thinking of specific sources from recent years. --Alan W (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Some notes

• 1803 is given as the date he first met Lamb. Several sources date that back to 1799, which looks dubious. Geoffrey Keynes says it was early in 1804, and another biographer, ‎George Thomas Clapton (1925), adds that the meeting took place at Godwin's. Perhaps intervening research pinned it down to 1803, but in any case, a little colour about the circumstance (in his brother's studio, or at Godwin's, might be added.Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The latest research, by Duncan Wu in his 2008 biography, taking into account previous research, is pretty convincing about the 1803 date. As for Clapton, the only thing I see "out there" that you might be referring to as a "biography" is his introduction to a collection of Lamb's letters. If he ever wrote a full biography of Hazlitt, I'd sure like to see it. And here I thought I had read all of the biographies, except for one century-plus-old one in French. But maybe I have read all of them, and you do mean his contribution to his collection of Lamb's letters. --Alan W (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Done, with at least a little dab of the color requested, plus the exact day. And the date is supported by not just one but two recent biographies, pointing back to another, by Hershel Baker (Wu, in an endnote), which corrects earlier misdatings by P.P. Howe, Catherine Macdonald Maclean, and others. Keynes, I suspect, followed Hazlitt's first major English-language biographer, Howe. And I agree, 1799 is dubious, all right. But that misconception is probably explained by the fact that Coleridge already knew both men by that year, and they may have heard about each other. --Alan W (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Alan. Yes, that is all persuasive, esp. the explanation for the odd notice dating their acquaintanceship back several years to 1799. Excellent.Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that between us, we're doing great! (American slang? Now I'm self-conscious.) I'm offsite now with limited time for editing but I just read your latest and you've made some very good contributions. Yes, all that about prostitution was helpful background. And that about Hazlitt's reaction to Coleridge's opinion of Hume, excellent! As for "run on" vs. "run in", I'm glad you caught that. It's "run in the family" in America too. Just a long-standing typo or something. Later ... --Alan W (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Low tolerance' of people. True, but it reminded me of that famous passage on hatred. One could also read that as the strain of an idealism that wouldn't brook equivocators, mugwumps and the like.It sounds as though it is just him, rather than being both him, and the company he had to work with often. Only a reflection, not a suggestion to change the text.Nishidani (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

"Low" is indeed a better adjective here than "poor"; and your observation is well taken. As some recent commentators have argued, his peevishness can many times be seen as justified. Yet it's also true, that on ordinary social occasions, even then Hazlitt often was incapable of just being able to "go along to get along", frequently letting his anger at a recent attack in some right-wing periodical spill over, making even his friends suffer. Overall, certainly, Hazlitt was more sinned against than sinning; yet he could be insufferable in company at times. But what you have just observed is something I will keep in mind, in case it might trigger further tweaks to the present text.

Oh, and even if I change the country in the URL to .de, I still can't see that page you linked to. I imagine it is from "On the Pleasure of Hating", right? Another great, original piece of Hazlittry, and one of the few pieces of his writing still in print and readily available in at least one anthology of essays I know of, to be found in major bookstores in these parts. --Alan W (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Just re them there links that don't let you see the page(s), Alan. I was told years ago to replace (it) with (de/fr etc). I see these days that some wise people just insert .com, to make such links readable. Perhaps, if this recurs, that may do the trick. In any case, they're only stop-gaps, provisory links to allow some possibility of an immediate check by third parties on whatever I add. The note re Hobbes. There were and are still different styles, based on different traditions in 'philosophy', and the way that read, it seemed as though what was a major English philosophical assumption after Hobbes was characteristic of the age. Hobbes's approach often summarized as 'reason is the slave of the passions', but that comes from Hume, thought more finely that reason is instrumental in securing an instinctive passion, such as self-survival. The German tradition down through to Kant had a completely different background in Pietest theology, for example, and French enlightenment thinkers overestimated the autonomy of reason with regard to the passions (a position rapidly eroded by Germany thinkers of that period). So since 'age' is generic - England being a 'part of the maine' as Donne put it - I think the correction emphasizing that we are dealing with a specific tendency in English thought necessary. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, understood, that about altering the URLs in the links; sometimes it works for me, sometimes not. Must be something in the underlying computer program that randomizes which pages of a copyrighted book's "preview" will be "unavailable" and which visible, and you don't get the same results on different-language versions of the Google Books sites.

About your edit before, sigh. I was afraid of this. You have opened a can of worms, and I've tried to gather them in a jar and slap a lid on them. You are certainly right to point out the predominant Englishness of what to Hazlitt was "the modern philosophy". Yet (and I've had to scurry to refresh my memory, since it's been a while since I've read about all this), Mandeville was among those philosophers, and he was Dutch-born. Also, it would appear that Locke had some influence on some of the French philosophes (they weren't all complete rationalists). It's true that German idealism and that kind of thing is a different strain of philosophy altogether. But we shouldn't convey the idea that the philosophy Hazlitt is attacking was all English; it seems to have had a very broad influence at the time. And what about the Scots? (Like Hutcheson, and in some ways maybe Smith.) Also, I don't think it quite on target to say that this philosophy was "associated with" Hobbes. As Hazlitt later pointed out, it did derive primarily originally from Hobbes. But at the time, Locke (who Hazlitt claimed "plagiarized" from Hobbes) was virtually worshipped as the originator of that school of thought, and so it was "associated with" Locke. What Burley actually writes is that the fundamental selfishness of humankind was "first articulated in the writings of Thomas Hobbes". (Yes, this time I was able, eventually, to view the page you linked to.) Hazlitt's philosophical contemporaries would have associated them with Locke.

Also, while Burley's book looks like a good one overall (again, I really must acquire a copy and read it!), I think his claim that Hazlitt's "career ... began by championing the benevolent, sociable, candid aspects of human nature" is unfortunate and misleading. All Hazlitt was arguing was that we are not inherently selfish, any more than we are inherently unselfish. Our "natural disinterestedness" simply allows altruism to be as natural to us as selfishness. Hardly the same as "championing" our benevolence; Hazlitt's first book was not about that at all. Bromwich and Grayling I have found especially good about Hazlitt as a philosopher (Natarajan makes some fine points as well, including noting how close Hazlitt could be to Kant at times).

So, I have effected a compromise in a re-editing of that passage, relegating much of the background to a footnote, where I now say that the "modern philosophy" was primarily English. We don't want too much of that kind of thing in the main text anyway. We have to keep a certain balance. This is a summary of Hazlitt's life and writings, not a history of philosophy. As always, you have stretched my mind, and I'm glad you made that edit when you did. I had plenty of time to ruminate on all this, as we are buried under a foot of snow in this part of the world today, and I have not once stepped outdoors. One thing you don't have to worry about where you are, unless, come to think of it, you live high up in some Italian mountain range. Regards, Alan W (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Kevin Gilmartin,William Hazlitt: Political Essayist, Oxford University Press, 2015 p.243:'The account of self-interest and psychological egoism in Hobbes was an important point of contact for Hazlitt’s early philosophical treatment of imagination as an active comprehensive faculty that could potentially reach beyond the individual . . Mark Garnett has shown that he also promoted Hobbes’s significance for the British philosophical tradition at a time when his reputation was not high, notably in an opening discussion of Hobbes in the 1812 lectures on English philosophy at the Russell Institution in Brunswick Square.'

But, okay, you call the shots. I began thinking about this when I saw the long list of French philosophers in his adolescent curriculum. Those name links are needed, and of course, all English philosophers regarded themselves as part of a continental discursive universe. Yet, even down to our day, there are very strong local traditions all over Europe against which the English trend, though inclusive, (Locke's Dutch exile, Hume's French years, Coleridge's plagiarism of Schelling,Carlyle's costively Germanic prose, the rising prominence of Hegel in Cambridge, Russell on Frege, Wittgenstein's influence etc.) was to rebuff it, downsize it, or make it compatible with what they thought was the native strain of a pragmatic, empirical, rational tradition which, undisguisedly, they attributed to Great Britain's commercial commonsense. Theory in itself was looked on in rather warily: Burke's whole polemic against the French revolution reflects this, and though impishly French in its ironies, Mandeville's marvellous treatise was in English, composed in an English milieu, and took on board, indeed radicalized, the English sense that they were fundamentally 'down-to-earth' and not Icareans redividi batting melting wings in an Aristophantic 'thought factory' (as Aristophanes called Socrates's ambiance). Well,any way, as long as no harm was done (Now that I've feasted on a plate of castagnole over a few glasses of Nocino while folks argued the merits and demerits of this infuriatingly lovely country, I should add what I recalled as I listened in, that Daniel J. Boorstin's trilogy of The American Experience adopts this 'English trait' as the basic basso ostinato of his thesis about a distinctive mentality underwriting American history: America is philosophically pragmatic, unlike Europe, something that is astonishingly meaningeless like all national generalizations, and rather rude since the colonies were ruled by Englishmen who prided themselves in the same putative virtue!). I didn't mean to open up a can of worms (I stop at sardines)! Bby English I thought of the shared linguistic tradition between Scots and the English, though the Scottish Enlightenment, an extraordinary output of creativity from a small country, based on the excellence of its schools, certains shook the 'Poms' up. Sounds like you need constant nips from a bottle of Indian toddy to fend off the blizzard: here it's all crisp sunshine, and nothing stronger than a bottle of montalcino before an open hearth is required to warm the mental cockles. Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, but in my "calling the shots", I have had no intention of ignoring all that you have taken the trouble to say, explicitly as well as implicitly in your edits under discussion here. I am paying attention! Valuable stuff, there, as well as, simply, enjoyable reading. Hence, my "compromise", rather than a simple revert. Even in my original wording (having had anticipatory glimmerings of the essence of your current objections), I had very deliberately said that Hazlitt's Essay was an answer to "much" of the thinking of the day. As you argue well (and from a basis of learning far broader than mine), that thinking was in some fundamental ways very "English", about which, even before I saw today's entry here, but in light of your editing at the time, and although I relegated it to a footnote, I wrote that "the 'modern philosophy', was primarily English," and that ultimately it does go back to "Thomas Hobbes". Re: Gilmartin (another recent book on Hazlitt I would love to read and probably will eventually): Although Hazlitt soon came to refer to Hobbes as the founder of that "school", when he wrote the Essay he might not have even read Hobbes, certainly not when he was first developing his thoughts about the "natural disinterestedness" of the human mind. As Grayling reminds us, Hazlitt, in looking back at the reading of his early years (in "On Reading Old Books"), mentions Locke among other philosophers, adding, "Hobbes, dry and powerful as he is, I did not read until long afterwards." He certainly does not mention Hobbes's name in the Essay and only once in passing in the appended "Remarks on the System of Hartley and Helvetius" (another Frenchman who adopted this "English" moral philosophy; again, the boundaries blur; but I don't deny that it is essentially and originally English).

It's a matter of finding the right balance. I don't think it's right to emphasize Hobbes heavily when explaining Hazlitt's early philosophy. A few years later, the picture changes radically: he not only discovers Hobbes, he argues vociferously for the unseating of Locke (of whose thinking he was always highly critical) and the naming of Hobbes as head and founder of that school of thought, from whom Locke "plagiarized" some of his fundamental ideas. You'll see in the next section of the article we're working on, "Marriage, family, and friends", I did mention this explicitly. So Hobbes gets his due!

And yes, the Scottish Enlightenment, that is one amazing phenomenon that I have been delving into in recent years. The Edinburgh Review alone is remarkable as the great-granddaddy of all of today's literary reviews, where a book review is made the starting point of a vigorous disquisition on some burning topic of the day (whenever that day might be).

Despite the Italian connections here that I've mentioned, I have never experienced the pleasures of castagnole or nocino. (Something else to look around for.) But that Montalcino sounds good, and I wish I had a bottle handy. I might just have a nip of (speaking of Indian liquors) an Indian scotch-like malt whisky a friend gave me a while back. Just the thing to warm the bones on a day like this (though it was lovely outside before, actually, with the only drawback being the huge mounds of snow everywhere). Regards, Alan W (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

As your edits show, you know the subject far more deeply than myself certaintly, and all of your comments, and the judgements following on them, hence the edits, strike me as spot on. I didn't know that he admitted he hadn't read Hobbes until much later, etc. I insist you make the calls, e non guardare in faccia a nessuno (without twitching with worries about what others may think). As to nocino, in Italy the ritual scansion of the seasons, so celebrated in Ovid's Fasti still holds, even for little things, so that one waits for mid-Summer night's eve, here the day after, St.John's, and climbs the walnut tree to pluck the unripe fruit. That is the essential timing, and then, as any recipe book will show, one gets down to the preparations, the ingredients, and the stewing in pure alcohol for 60 days. It takes as long as a traditional Christmas plum pudding, only the resultant grog is not seeded with dimes, nickels and cents, to use American usage! We make our own, only several bottles, which are sipped only when guests are around, and lasts a year.Nishidani (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Grazie. (That's about my whole Italian vocabulary.) Hmm, I'd say it's just a bit later than mid-summer, but of course you also say that a bottle lasts a year. So what you've been drinking is homemade. Sounds delicious. Someday for me. As for my edits here, thank you, indeed, but the result is certainly better as a result of your prodding, with your bringing to bear what is clearly a vast store of general knowledge. You continually make me think, and, as the old expression goes, you've kept me honest. (And on my toes.) You've added some fitting elements yourself, as well, e.g. that about the prostitution of the era. This collegial back-and-forth is what Wikipedia collaborative editing should be. As I can't help but notice in occasionally peeking over your shoulder as you edit on some other topics, it is not, alas, like that so much of the time around here. The sad thing is that so many fine contributors have, as a consequence, just thrown up their hands and walked away. Again, re Hazlitt, whenever you have the time and inclination, I'm here. To be continued. Regards, Alan W (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

oh, don't peek too much, that is definitely puking territory, and I can only justify my working there as a stress exercise in keeping fit into old age Adam's Smith's "impartial spectator", that imaginary chap who sits shotgun on the passions and reigns them in. I tend to get, against the Confucian dictum, more radical with age, which is a challenge to the detached analytical sobriety I admire most among the acquisitions of civilization, and it's useful to me to counterpoise the residual adolescent passion for justice, that is susceptible to the kind of provocations in the matter (on both 'sides'), with that quiet fellow in Smith's upper gallery of sentiments, quietly nudging the cavalier tendency to moralize with suggestions to look inside oneself. It doesn't help the ostensible 'cause', but I learn something from it. Enough of that!

I've been busy these days. Perhaps I can take a note from that thought about Smith's concept which came to me while training home, and get back to some notes over the weekend apropos. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No need to apologize for your other Wikipedia efforts; I do find your reasons interesting, though a passion to see justice done needs no excuses. More power to you. Not that I intend to get involved in any such thing myself; I just don't have the stomach for it.

I can't believe you are applying Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments to your own life nowadays. Nothing bad about that, just that it's a pleasant jolt to see that anyone still takes the great philosophers of old seriously or that anyone apart from a few specialists thinks of Smith except for a trite misconception or two about The Wealth of Nations. I have read the latter, though I must confess I have not gotten around to the former, which I know had a great influence in the 18th century. And, coincidentally (?), I've just been reading about the very idea of the "impartial spectator" in an excellent discussion of philosophical influences on Hazlitt, this in a rereading of Bromwich's marvelous Hazlitt: The Mind of a Critic. This is a book that gets better every time I look back into it, and if there is one book about Hazlitt I would recommend over all others, this is it. I'm sure you would be very interested (if you haven't already read it; sometimes it seems that you, like Coleridge in his day, have read everything), as Bromwich finds parallels between Hazlitt's thinking and that of William James. Regards, Alan W (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. Don't go there. That's a no man's land like those my grandfather, uncles and their friends talked about from WW1 (which got me used to the idea and its dangers early on, as did our neighbourhood's gang warfare!), and I've advised even many young editors to stay out for their own good, even if that is a self-goal in terms of the 'play'. Margaret Thatcher used to carry a copy of The Wealth of Nations in that horrible handbag of hers, and tout its merits to Presidents, Prime Ministers and any other 'nob' she met at home or abroad. Before she became PM she did the same with Hayek's Constitution of Liberty. Both important books, but I'm not the only one, when I read of her (ab)use of Smith, to wonder whether she had read the WoN closely, in those passages which clearly reflect The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Derivative traders on WS don't of course have the time to read either (on second thought that needs correction. Holden Karnofsky and Elie Hassenfeld were hedge fund managers who founded GiveWell, which sounds to me very Smithean in terms of 1759+1776). One can't take on board the latter without absorbing the premises set forth in the earlier work. As to taking philosophers seriously, I once dropped in out of a mere vagrant curiosity, and then stayed on to participate, as an Anglican divine took a handful of doctoral students through Plato's Timaeus, word for word, which he glossed with Jacques Monod's just published Le Hasard et la Nécessité. On my last visit to a great library, where I had once spent much of my time instead of attending high school amidst dozens of readers pouring quietly over its half million volumes, I noticed most people, in rooms that were almost vacant compared to 'my day', used the desks to plug in computers, and read off the net, while wearing headphones. Few books were physically in sight. The younger generation, thumbing their tablets, don't know what they're missing out on.

It’s a clear anticipation of the Freudian concept of a super-ego. Unlike Freud, whose notion of ‘e conomy’ was limited to organic instinctual arrangements, Smith developed a link between the pursuit of private interests in the economy and the regulation of the passions of the individual entrepreneur, or more largely, the person in the marked place (all of us). Deregulation was good for the economy at large, the ‘invisible hand’ would fix the optimal allocation of resources, but that was premised on a the functioning of a regulative tribunal within the self, presided over by the “impartial spectator”, whose judgements curb the irrational impulses of the pursuit of personal interests by calculating the value of a proposed action in contributing to the public good. In this sense the “impartial spectator” is the inward mirror of the “invisible hand”, and both bolster the dimension of a common public good. It’s a sign of the decadence of things, that all recognize the allusion in the “invisible hand”, but few, aside from people like yourself, get the resonance of its forgotten corollary, the “impartial spectator”. This is off the top of the head, and perhaps all wrong - it's been too long since I read these things-, but had students of both Marx and Freud read both works by Smith, much of the theoretical charge of the 20th century would have benefited immensely. Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes I think a gloss on what he is doing is worthwhile. His critique of The Excursion raised an important point on poetry, anticipating that vein you get from T.S. Eliot's (Flaubertian/Joycean) theory of impersonality in, was it, 1919, down to Wallace Stevens' 'Not Ideas About the Thing but the Thing Itself'. My edit summary documents my own prejudice here which may be sufficient grounds for warranting it being reverted. Since I added some words, on noting the reduplication about him dropping painting, I thought I might by removing them, keep my intrusive addition within the article word limits we have to care about. All very subjective, A. Revert or whatever, as you think fit.Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

'His self-esteem received an added boost when in early 1815 he began to contribute regularly to the quarterly The Edinburgh Review'.

This is perfectly acceptable, but it just, almost invisibly, tickles a certain finicky fastidiousness in my eye. I don't bridle at it. On reading it, however, I felt that when one writes 'of one's self-esteem receiving a boost', it is implied that an external piece of luck, support, encouragement came to one's aide. I mean, I didn't expect it to be followed by a line of the form 'when he began to contribute regularly to the ER'. I expected rather something like 'when he was invited to contribute regularly/his work was accepted on a regular basis by the Edinburgh Review'? I.e. his amour proper was boosted by an opportunity given, rather than an opportunity pursued. Perhaps the distinction in the balance of the line is hairsplittingly overwrought. Sometimes I can't help myself making observations that strike other, sensible writers/readers as absurd. So I note the point, but refrain from trying to rewrite it. It may not matter at all.Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I commented at some length on your last round of edits on your own talk page before I noticed the above. Yes! I had not seen it quite as clearly before you just pointed it out, but I think that about the "impartial spectator" and Freud's superego is absolutely right. A reminder that Freud didn't invent psychoanalysis out of whole cloth. Many of its ideas had been in the air in one form or another for well over a century.

As for Hazlitt's self-esteem, he does puff himself up with slightly self-mocking, but obviously genuine, pride, when he mentions his invitation to contribute to The Edinburgh Review, this at a time when he had not developed much confidence in the worth of his writings. I mention this in the context of the development of his career. On the other hand, you make a good point, and I will undertake a rewording along the lines you suggest. Again, you've kept me honest! Regards, Alan W (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps his father's death, which he learnt of somewhat later, had no direct effect on his emotional states as he moved into isolated quarters. But Keats', he knew, was dying, promise cut in the bud, something that must have entered his thoughts at that time as well.
• There's that old argument about the first modern man, variously claimed to be St. Augustine, Montaigne, Shakespeare (via Hamlet) etc., and Hazlitt also has a claim. The Liber Amoris has some role in this, depending on how one defines the quality of modernity (the ability to haul out one's dirty or disreputable self for public show in defiance of of honour codes and the pursuit of the heroic side, 'authenticity' as Trilling great study underlined, did this). I looked up a dozen vols on my shelves on the history of the concept of love to check if, as Stendhal is, Hazlitt gets a mention. Nope. So perhaps this angle needs some tweaking (if the sources note it!) Apropos, getting ready for bed last night, I was reviewing this mentally before settling down to some sustained nightcap reading and something curious happened. A habit of mine, as I settle in, sees me playing with phrases in my recent reading, and Sutor, ne ultra crepidam came to mind. I immediately thought it was connected with my antecedent mulling the Liber Amoris where Hazlitt is a 'suitor'. The English word is of course almost homophonous with the Latin word for cobbler sutor in Pliny's anecdote, which Hazlitt used to coin 'ultra-crepidarian'. But instantly this reminded me of Coleridge's phrase about the young Hazlitt: he registered his first impressions of H as a shoe-contemplative. Crepida is Latin for 'sandal' (from κρηπίς where however it's a solid boot). I wondered if this was ever fed back to Hazlitt in the intervening years, (espa. with the gossip that undermined his self-confidence), and, in the manner John Livingston Lowes once marvellously described as working on Coleridge's imagination, turned up as a description of his adversary. Probably not, I guess. On reflection, Coleridge would have had both Pliny and the anecdote re Thales in Plato's Theaitetus 174a of the philosopher tumbling down a well while gazing at the stars, and perhaps even Sophocles' Oedipus Rex line 130, intimating that the Sphinx forced people to ignore the obscure and examine one's immediate issues, which in the Greek runs:τὸ πρὸς ποσὶν σκοπεῖν, where 'pros posin' means 'by/at your feet'. It's precisely Oedipus/Swell Foot's failure to gaze down at his own feet which blinds him to the truth- I shouldn't write after gardening. It only makes my thoughts drift!Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Still recovering from a recent Internet outage, and I haven't gotten around to finish my tweaking of all of your most recent edits (as always, mostly very good, with just a few things, also as always, to which I take exception). Yes, the Liber Amoris is a fascinating thing, and it no doubt has something to do with Hazlitt's being one of those considered to be the "first modern man." (Rousseau is another one.) I do think that some of what you added, even if it is in footnotes, will have to go. This is, after all, not an article primarily about Liber Amoris. But that makes me think that you might be the very one to write that missing article on Liber Amoris. I might get to it myself, eventually, but at the rate I work, I might not live long enough. Stendhal, by the way, much admired Hazlitt, and you can see one reason why.

Ah, with all the "sutor"/"suitor" soaring of your unbridled imagination, I once again feel like I'm working side-by-side with a reincarnation of James Joyce. Amusing and thought-provoking, anyway. Have to go now, but I'll get back to more tweaking later on. --Alan W (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Take out by all means whatever. We can put the Liber Amoris article on the backburner. If I'm still round, we can do it it together in Duke horse, as John Wayne might have said. It's pleasant to work as if 'Time's winged chariot hurrying near' is ignored, with a peremptory wish that some kid in the offing might shy a stick into its wheels, or some short-sighted ornithologist clip its wings!Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Alan, the discussion on Hazlitt and Keats, at a glance, appears to overlook in the notes a page ref to Bromwich's detailed discussion. Hazlitt:The Mind of a Critic (1983)1999 Yale UP pp.362-409. See note 13 p.61 in Ley’s volume(forgot to add this from my notes' page)Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. In fact, the timing is perfect, as I am still in the middle of my latest rereading of Bromwich's wonderful book (I think of Hazlitt on Kean in one of his most stunning performances as Romeo, where the actor is said to "tread... close indeed on the genius of his author"; Bromwich often bowls me over in treading closely on the genius of Hazlitt, his book is that good), and it is at my fingertips. I will shortly get back to fiddling some more with the Hazlitt article, and will add what is necessary as I save aside some of the material on Liber Amoris (actually, no need to save anything, as it will be in the article's history for easy reference later).

As for time's chariot, yes, we are both clearly old enough to be hearing those wings flapping ever more insistently, but Liber Amoris would certainly be a fine project for us to collaborate on after this one should there be time enough remaining (hopefully enough remaining for many more projects, but as I am increasingly mindful of in recent years, one never knows). Yes, good night. --Alan W (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

More Notes

(About time we started a new section. "Some notes" was getting way out of control.) All right, then. Absurdly late on this side of the globe, but I think I have done all we agreed on. Re Liber Amoris, at first I chopped away as though I were wielding a machete in the Amazon jungle. Then I went back, gleaned your underlying intentions, and had second thoughts. So, in a compromise, keeping in mind what is suitable in this general article about Hazlitt, I did restore some excellent material of a more general nature, most of it in one or two footnotes. (The rest is more properly saved for that article on Liber Amoris.) I tweaked a few other things. And finally, for the part on Hazlitt and Keats, I added citations of not only Ley and Bromwich, but also Natarajan, whose book I also happen to have at hand. I think it's all up to date now, at least in what you have gotten up to at this point. I was able to correct a few mistakes in your quoting, recording of page numbers, etc. Such things are inevitable, but eventually come to light if you check and recheck everything carefully, as I am in the habit of doing. (From my old career as a book editor, in which I also did endless proofreading; I used to characterize myself as a "professional nitpicker".) Note that I began to write some other indirectly related things, but it occurs to me that that should be on your own talk page, Nish. So I am moving those comments. --Alan W (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

More than one editor has noted that my recent editing went through a patch of scatty lousy lapses in spelling, etc., so I welcome nitpicking, which in articles with a goal, GA/FA means 'grooming' the text. One effect of age is that I tend to do everything too fast, to save time for other things. I'll probably keep doing that, trusting that by background you'll keep your editorial comb's teeth rasped and then filed to the usual precision!Nishidani (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I am feeling the same effect of age, but I have determinedly been counteracting that by reinforcing my detail-oriented side. --Alan W (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• 'Though the essays were structured in the loose manner of conversations held at a table, this was a time when Hazlitt frequently secluded himself in isolation at Winterslow.'

(a) 'secluded himself in isolation at Winterslow' repeats what is already given in the paragraphs above (b) The contrastive function of the harbinger word 'Though' is not quite explicitly fulfilled in the following main clause. The concept of course is: 'though his essays bore the hallmarks of conversations with friends at table, these were written in the solitude of his seclusion at Winterslow'.

I think 'though' throws us the wrong hint. The literary dialogue is always a product of the writer working in solitude, at his desk, staring at the wall. ('secluded in isolation' also borders on the pleonastic (I'ìm beginning to think I might be responsible for that. I haven't checked) If one were free to interpret what was going on, rather than sedulously follow sources, one would be tempted to write: 'Cutting himself from the company of friends(ironically/paradoxically) seemed to spur Hazlitt to imagine conversations he was otherwise denied, and to polish them into a higher literary form. . .etc.Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Still, perhaps I'm being oversensitive.Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

To me, the "though" made sense—though I think your removing the "though" and moving the passage up is better. Yes, writing is generally done alone, but this kind of essay could have been the product of convivial evenings among friends, followed by faithful recording of the conversations the next day, or something like that. That they were produced in much more radical isolation is the "contrastiveness" I had intended to convey. But your restructuring is good, and I have made further changes in the structure and wording, sometimes improving on what I did originally, I think, while retaining the general intent of your current edits. I was guilty of the pleonasm, and I'm glad you caught that. In a tit for tat (wink), I have removed your near-anachronism here of "first marriage". Not only was Hazlitt nowhere near his second marriage at this time, he was technically still married to Sarah Hazlitt. Talk about "harbingers"! Much too soon to be foreshadowing the second marriage.

As always, while improving significantly what was there, your edits have made me think harder about what I put there before, and I was able to make some (I think) further improvements on that myself. We are collaboratively moving along nicely, I do believe. Again, very late here, and good night/morning! --Alan W (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of Last Edits

I have reverted the last edits by ManKnowsInfinity. While clearly good-faith edits, they are from a source that looks like a modern novel or semifictional account that is only loosely based on Hazlitt's love affair recorded in Liber Amoris. Anyone who has read Hazlitt's life and Liber Amoris will recognize that there are major differences in details, and what is needed here are the actual reliable biographical sources (see WP:Reliable source) that I and others have provided. I do not presume to judge Dan Cruikshank's book London's Sinful Secret. From the extract that was used here, I can see that it simply does not belong here as a source of biographical facts about Hazlitt's life. --Alan W (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Dan Cruickshank is a non-fiction author and is generally accepted as a reliable source along with his well-known publisher St. Martin's Press in New York. The material is an "actual reliable biographical source" which Cruickshank studies carefully in his book because of his detailed examination of the area of London where Hazlitt lived when Hazlitt lived there. This material, even if shortened or revised ought to be kept in the article since there is a full cite and page number reference included. The section of this Wikipedia article for this edit is very long and seems somewhat cumbersome. It you have a better place for a new section break then you can add your preference. It seemed at the time of my edit that the occasion of his father's death was notable in his life for mention as a subsection title. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Cruikshank may be notable in his own way, in a certain context. I don't know. I haven't read him. But anyone who has read Liber Amoris or any of the reliable sources about Hazlitt's life would know that no such person as "Batsy" ever entered into it. This passage may be fine in its own context in Cruikshank's book, but it adds nothing to this Hazlitt article. In fact, it is misleading to those who read it, who might be led to think that there really was a "Batsy". Also, it adds nothing to what was said already.

As for adding another section heading, there just isn't enough about the death of Hazlitt's father in the article to warrant such prominent mention. Hazlitt's father isn't even mentioned in the new section as you would have it. Mention of his death doesn't even occupy a full sentence! --Alan W (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The writing of Liber Amoris was a game changer for the career of Hazlitt who was part of the libertine culture of London still prominent in his time as discussed by Cruickshank in his well-documented book. "Betsy XXX" was a prominent mistress of public houses in the area where Hazlitt lived in London as documented by Cruickshank. Hazlitt's admission of having a Lolita-like obsession is notable to Cruickshank and he documented it fully and adequately as a moral lapse of some turpitude to Hazlitt and Hazlitt's career. Some mention of this, even in a shortened or revised form ought to be included. Regarding the outline of this entire section of Hazlitt's biography in this Wikipedia article, some shorted form should be considered since the current one has too many sections for simple access. I'll not change any of the Cruickshank material until you assess the merits of it further. Possibly I'll try to group the sections into a format more simple for reader access without any changes to the text as time allows. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@ManKnowsInfinity: While I can't claim any particular familiarity with Hazlitt, an evaluation of the cited source suggests it is of, speaking relatively, lower quality. Cruickshank is not a specialist on Hazlitt (his area is history of architecture), nor is the cited work's subject Hazlitt (it deals with prostitution in London in the Georgian era). Cruickshank's cite for the quoted claim is Jon Cook's William Hazlitt: Selected Writings, but this work only gives the excerpt from Liber Amoris and Hazlitt's identification of the bawd as "the Charming Betsy Careless" in Hogarth's "A Rake's Progress"; the interpretation of it is entirely Cruickshank's own.

Further, I can find no mention of Hazlitt and Betsy Careless in any journal articles, so it does not appear that this connection is being made by specialists in the field (nor even in other fields), making this incidental interpretation by Cruickshank, in a work on a completely different subject, unsupported by the body of Hazlitt scholarship.

So, while Cruickshank might squeak by as a reliable source on, say, the Hazlitt quote (but then, why not cite Cook directly?), he is effectively a primary source on the interpretation, and would need to be treated as such in our article. This also suggests including it would accord it undue weight; and even if future scholarship should validate it, including it now would be too soon.

In summary, I do not believe the relevant edit should be included in the article until and unless, say, a Hazlitt biography on a university press (using that as a proxy for determining reliability and due weight) or similar deals with the issue. --Xover (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Xover and Alan W: Both of your comments are useful to me in looking at this edit. If both Cruickshank and Cook are not persuasive to both of you then I will narrow my comment to focus on the words chosen to describe Hazlitt's dealing with the issues leading to Liber Amoris. Describing this event in Hazlitt's life as a mere 'infatuation' seems to fall short of the mark, just as referring to it as a 'clinical obsession' would improperly go to the other extreme. A more accurate description in the article should likely call it an 'extended fixation' or perhaps an 'undue obsession'. As I read Hazlitt's writings on Shakespeare with profit, my only concern at this point is that an adequate description of the events leading to the writing of Liber Amoris be properly designated in the article since this was a game changer for the reception of Hazlitt's writings after Liber was published. Merely calling it an 'infatuation' seems to fall short of an adequate description according to both Cruickshank and Cook. Since both of you are experienced editors, I'll leave it to both of you to make the best assessment of the most accurate phrase and wait to hear about the preferred suggestion. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Xover. And yours too, ManKnowsInfinity. You've started a good discussion. I think you are right that Hazlitt was obsessed. But I also think that, while Cruickshank might have been good at describing the "libertine" culture of London, I don't think he places Hazlitt quite right in relation to that culture. None of the biographies or anything else I have read about Hazlitt (and I have read a huge amount) ever, ever calls him a "libertine". Yes, there were moral lapses, but he was tormented about them. He never believed in flouting all morality, as a true libertine would. He even, deluded as he was, tried to persuade Sarah Walker, the young woman he was infatuated with (and that word is used by at least one reliable source, though I agree Hazlitt's emotional attachment might be interpreted as being more extreme than that) to marry him. As for all that about Betsy Careless, I think Cruickshank is really mistaken about what she meant to Hazlitt. She died forty years before Hazlitt was born! Hazlitt was, however, interested in the lowlife of London as portrayed by Hogarth, one of his favorite artists, and no doubt he heard of this Betsy Careless as a notable figure of that culture. None of that, however, had anything to do with Hazlitt's obsessive love. He made a radical separation in his mind between the sexual underworld and the woman he was obsessed with, idealizing her perhaps more than she deserved. It got more complicated than that, and, yes, it is a fascinating story.

Also, publication of the Liber Amoris did not by itself ruin Hazlitt's career, though it did contribute, I agree. Hazlitt had been unfairly attacked for political reasons long before then, and as Hazlitt noted himself, supported later by reliable sources, those politically motivated attacks also did a lot to besmirch his character and cause sales of his books to dry up. There is much about the "case" of Hazlitt's infatuation, or obsession, that is very interesting, but a bit complicated, too. No reliable source (and I've read all the biographies and most of the critical books) ever calls Hazlitt a "libertine". As for modifications related to "infatuation", I will go through the biographies, etc., and think this over some more, and maybe some footnote or parenthetical explanation can be added. Xover, again, thanks for joining in, and if you think of anything else, please let us know. ManKnowsInfinity, if you want to pursue this further, I suggest you read a biography or two. Since you are this interested in Liber Amoris, you might even want to start a separate article on that book. If you do, however, I suggest you steer clear of all that about libertines, and that culture. Despite Hazlitt's having visited prostitutes, which was quite common in London at that time, and one didn't have to be a libertine, his general moral stance was very complicated. As I said, a libertine would not have proposed marriage to Sarah Walker. And from all the reliable sources it can be seen that Hazlitt kept his promises and would have followed through with the marriage. If Cruickshank calls Hazlitt a libertine, I do believe, based on the truly reliable sources on Hazlitt, that Cruickshank was simply wrong, and not reliable in that respect. From what you have quoted from the book, it sounds like in that respect he really is not a reliable source, even if he is about some other things. Getting late here, so, for now, good night! --Alan W (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

As late as it is for me, a bit of insomnia (partly because I could not stop thinking about this) has led to my modifying some of the new headings. "First readings in poetry" is misleading. Hazlitt had read plenty of poetry before then. It was just that in 1798 he became acquainted with Wordsworth and Coleridge, which changed his life, recorded in his essay "My First Acquaintance with Poets". This is emphasized in the biographies, and will be familiar to those who know Hazlitt. Yes, his reading of their poetry was important, but we don't want to suggest that this was a period of his life when Hazlitt first read poetry. Now I will try to get some sleep. --Alan W (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Have you made any further progress on finding a more targeted description of these event other than a reference to a mere 'infatuation'. My main sources for the Hazlitt biography are the fine books by Duncan Wu (2008) and Herschel Clay Baker (1962), neither of whom are particularly forgiving to Hazlitt for his Liber Amoris and the events leading up to it. In the absence of Xover offering a follow-up, my suggestion based on Wu and Baker would be to incline towards justifiably referring to these events concerning Liber Amoris simply as an 'obsession', with or without some further qualification. The biographical fact remains that these events took up months and months of preoccupation in Hazlitt's life which ought to be accurately reflected in this Wikipedia article. An infatuation might last a few days, possibly a few weeks, though here the time frame of consternation to Hazlitt is well beyond a simple 'infatuation.' ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have made progress. I have read those biographies, as well as several others. (Over a course of years, naturally, not just recently.) Grayling (2000; The Quarrel of the Age, a biography I think is particularly well written) is good on describing Hazlitt's obsessive infatuation, and maybe leaving "infatuation" (which term I noticed Wu does use) but also qualifying that term with more about the protracted obsessive nature of the infatuation is the way to go. This is very involved, as it brings in many aspects of Hazlitt's life and personality. Also, since Cook was mentioned, Xover reminded me that it has been years since I read that book so I am rereading it. (Which is why you have not heard from me in a while.) I agree with you that "infatuation" alone suggests something less deep, serious, and protracted—like the brief if intense emotional involvement of an adolescent. But I think that this is not so simple as a matter of just fixing on a single word, as it is absolutely much too complicated to explain briefly. We should do this right. And maybe it cannot be done adequately here, nor should it. A separate article would solve that problem. As I said you might consider starting such an article, and I could help. Meanwhile, I am still rereading Cook and thinking about it. Cook does a great job of exploring all the issues, and it is a book devoted to this single event in Hazlitt's life. There are a few typos and such, but overall, it is very good, and I recommend it. --Alan W (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I just thought of a way to elaborate a bit without giving this whole part of Hazlitt's life, as Xover brought up, "undue weight". So I did make that change. I will continue to reread Cook, in case something more should be suggested. At this point, I am satisfied that adding what I have will not contradict the reliable sources, and at the same time it does interject the valid point you brought up that this was more than the usual kind of "infatuation". I'm sure a lot more could be said on this (Cook made a complete book out of it, after all), but, again, we don't want to give this part of Hazlitt's life undue weight. Liber Amoris, with its background, however interesting it is in its way, is far from Hazlitt's greatest book. (Even if I thought it was, well, since the reliable sources disagree, we can't write that here, anyway.) --Alan W (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to be sure I'm being perfectly clear: my comment above was in regards to Cruickshank's speculation about Hazlitt and Betsy Careless and Cruickshank as a source for an article on Hazlitt. I have as yet not ventured an opinion on Hazlitt and Sarah Walker, for the simple reason that my familiarity with Hazlitt is far too superficial for me to be any use there. FWIW, and without really being familiar with the sources, the current section seems an entirely adequate summary. It could be a mite shorter, or a mite longer, but in terms of "weight" it looks to me to be at least within spitting distance of balanced. I wouldn't recommend expanding it too much, without splitting the bulk off into its own article (which, incidentally, it sounds like there is material enough for), but on issues like balance and weight I wouldn't worry too much as it stands. But again, this isn't my area so season to taste. --Xover (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The new version of the Wikipedia article here looks like it takes both the comments of Xover and myself into good account. I cannot speak for Xover but if you do take up an article for Liber Amoris then I'll try to offer to proofread and offer other constructive comment if its of use. Two added words on Cruickshank since I appear to be the only one with his book in hand. Cruickshank was concerned with identifying the red-lights districts in London for the purpose of assessing London's architecture in those places during the Georgian period, when he discovered to his surprise that Hazlitt had decided to settle in one of those red-light districts of his own accord. That decision of Hazlitt's coupled with the subject matter of Liber Amoris, along with Cruickshank's reading of Cook, led Cruickshank to his published opinion, possibly of use if one of you might take up a Wikipedia article on Liber Amoris. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think our thinking (of all three of us, that is) is in alignment about this matter now. As for an article on Liber Amoris, if no one starts one, I might do so eventually, but I have other priorities in my Wikipedia work. If you, or anyone else, ManKnowsInfinity, want to start one, then I will read it, add some edits, and also offer hopefully constructive criticism; but, as I say, that book is not my highest priority right now. Someday I hope to read that Cruickshank book myself, I might add. You've got me interested in it now, ManKnowsInfinity. I wonder about all that about Hazlitt moving into the red-light district. He might well have done that, but not necessarily for the prostitution, though he certainly is known to have frequented prostitutes, apparently on a regular basis at periods of his life. There were all sorts of factors determining where he chose to reside, not the least of them being that in the City of Westminster, he had the right to vote, and he was highly involved in the political scene. Some day I will look further into all of that. Again, I'm glad you brought up Cruickshank, ManKnowsInfinity, as it has led to my rereading of Cook (which I recommend, despite a few embarrassing mistakes in names and such) and a deeper understanding of what was going on in Hazlitt's mind at that ghastly period of his life. Thanks also to you, Xover, for your valuable feedback and suggestions. Despite your not being as immersed in Hazlitt as I am, your perspective and constructive criticisms were very helpful. --Alan W (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Tone

This article is really well-written, if it was an academic essay, but I do have to question the writing.

"But other opportunities awaited him." / "His mind nearly snapped." I'm not sure these types of sentences belong in what should be an encyclopedic entry. It is my understanding that one individual is responsible for a great deal of authorship for this page, and that's great! It really is good, compelling writing--I'm just not sure it's appropriately NPOV.

"First Acquaintance with Poets" / "Philosopher, again" / "Success—and trouble" These subheadings read like chapter titles and don't really help the reader navigate.

It is also, as others have said, egregiously long. Hazlitt's significance should be fairly easily ascertainable by the average reader and I don't think it is in the article's current form. Tttttarleton (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I am that "one individual", and thank you for the complimentary words. My belief is that it only helps if the writing is good, and that in fact is one requirement of a featured article (not that this one ever reached that level). I will say that if you read something like "His mind nearly snapped", I did my best to assure that the tone of such a phrase follows the prevailing tone of the reliable sources. "NPOV" means "Neutral Point of View", not "Non Point of View". Of course if the tone were imposed by a feeling purely my own, that would not be following Wikipedia's rules. But I have cited my sources and done my best to capture the viewpoints and tone of those sources. My view is that if the tone of an article is bone-dry, readers are that much less likely to be motivated to read on. And many will wonder why the subject was ever an object of interest in the first place. Encyclopedia articles, like any articles, have value only if they are read with interest, and to create interest they have to be more than the equivalent of a listing of stock or real-estate prices. Good encyclopedia articles have always been more than just strings of facts. --Alan W (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Vital?

@Cewbot: In a note to an edit to this page, you wrote: "The article is NOT listed in any vital article list page." Ah, but it is: here. He's number 40 under "Art historians, theorists and critics". I didn't put him there. My own choice would have been "Writers and Journalists" or maybe even "Philosophers". But there you have it. --Alan W (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Cewbot is a bot and won't receive notifications. It looks like a tremendous amount of fiddling with talk page headers is occurring. The second row of the displayed header at the top of this page includes "level-5 vital article". That is a link which goes to the place you mention. My guess is that Cewbot used an obsolete edit summary after removing the deleted {{Vital article}} because that function is apparently now replaced with "vital=yes". Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, hello there, Johnuniq! It's been a while. I hope you've been well. Yes, after I posted the above, it hit me that Cewbot is a bot. But the thought also occurred to me that in these days of powerful AI, the bot might respond as if he/she were human, and I might not be able to tell the difference. :^) I never did pay much attention to what goes into denoting an article as "vital", but from what you say, it sounds like no harm has been done by whatever happened, exactly. Thanks for taking note of this. Regards, Alan W (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)