The essay describes a remarkable feat of human ingenuity, performed by an Indian juggler. The juggler can catch four balls in succession in less than a second, making them revolve around him and chase one another like sparkles of fire. This precision and rapidity are like mathematical truths, and the juggler’s grace and carelessness make the audience laugh and enjoy the spectacle.
The juggler’s skill surpasses difficulty, and beauty triumphs over skill. The difficulty once mastered resolves into ease and grace, and to overcome it, it must be overcome without effort. The juggler’s feet are bare, and his rings on his toes turn round all the time.
The author is ashamed of his own abilities and wonders what he can do as well as the jugglers. He believes that he has been doing nothing but wasting his life, trying to prove arguments in the teeth of facts and looking for causes in the dark. He tries to write a description of the jugglers’ abilities, but finds them to be ill-written and ill-structured.
The author is fond of arguing, but with practice and pain, he can often beat his opponent. A common fencer would disarm his adversary in the blink of an eye, but there is no complete mastery of execution. The professor is different from the impudent pretender or the mere clown.
The author expresses dissatisfaction with intellectual progress compared to mechanical excellence, comparing the rope-dancer’s performance to the rope-dancer’s skill. He argues that mechanical dexterity is confined to performing a specific task repeatedly, with the point of perfection being succeeding in the task. In contrast, mechanical efforts require continuous practice and improvement, as the object to be attained is not a matter of taste, fancy, or opinion but actual experimentation.
The author argues that danger, defeat, exposure to immediate scorn, and laughter are essential for learning and developing skills. They argue that there is no opportunity for self-delusion, idling time away, or being off guard. The author also discusses the ambiguity of style in manual dexterity, as the juggler cannot make a bad antithesis without cutting his fingers.
The author argues that manual dexterity involves gradual aptitude acquired through constant repetition and an exact knowledge of what is still needed. Muscles ply instinctively to the dictates of habit, and the limbs require little more than to be put in motion for them to follow a regular track with ease and certainty. The author compares this to the mechanical precision of Locksley in Ivanhoe, who shoots at a mark to allow for the wind.
Perfection in mechanical exercises involves performing feats to a uniform nicety, which is achievable only by the individual’s own abilities. The mechanical performer must emulate themselves, not equal another, and there is no abstract standard of difficulty or excellence beyond their own powers. The artist must imitate nature or copy what nature has done, which is more difficult than keeping up four brass balls simultaneously. Reynolds, for example, is more respected than Richer, as he could dance on a rope like Reynolds but paint like Sir Joshua.
The objects of fine art are not objects of sight but objects of taste and imagination, appealing to the sense of beauty, pleasure, and power in the human breast. Nature is also a language, and the true artist interprets this language by knowing its application to other objects in different situations. The more ethereal part of art is seeing nature through the medium of sentiment and passion, as each object symbolizes the affections and a link in our endless being.
The power of the Muse’s gift, or genius, imagination, feeling, and taste, is the key to unraveling this mysterious web of thought and feeling. The mechanical excellence of Dutch painters in colouring and handling is the nearest in fine art to the perfection of certain manual exhibitions of skill. Up to a certain point, everything is faultless, but there is only a need for taste and genius. The undefined and imaginary regions are difficult and doubtful, and execution comes with practice.
Cleverness is a talent or aptitude for performing certain tasks, often requiring liveliness, intelligence, or sleight of hand. Accomplishments are external graces that can be learned from others and are displayed to the beholder. These are appropriate for those with ease in mind and fortune. Talent is the capacity to perform tasks that depend on application and industry, such as writing a criticism or studying the law. Talent differs from genius, as voluntary differs from involuntary power. Ingenuity is genius in trifles, while greatness is genius in undertakings of great importance. A clever or ingenious man can do any task well, while a great man can do something of the highest importance. Themistocles’ statement that he could not play on the flute but could make a small city a great one demonstrates the distinction between these two concepts.
Greatness is the power that produces great effects and is not just about having great power in oneself. It must be applied to great purposes, resulting in a lasting impression on others. A great man’s actions and thoughts must be communicated to their understanding, either through an increase of knowledge or by subduing and overawe them. Admiration must be based on proofs from which we cannot escape, and it is neither a slight nor a voluntary gift.
Great men are not just those who have great powers, but also those who shew the marks of a great moving intellect so that we trace the master-mind and can sympathize with the springs that urge them on. The rest is just a craft or mystery. A great man always has an idea of something greater than himself, and it is in the nature of greatness to propagate an idea of itself.
Some sectaries and polemical writers have no higher compliment than to say that a great man was a considerable man in his day. However, greatness is not limited to a rich man, but also extends to his dependants and stewards. A lord is a great man in the idea we have of his ancestry and probably of himself, if we know nothing of him but his title.
The French have produced three great men that belong to every country: Moliere, Rabelais, and Montaigne. They have produced great men that belong to every country, and greatness sympathizes with greatness, while littleness shrinks into itself. In summary, greatness is a result of great power and the ability to spread it to others.
John Cavanagh, a renowned hand fives-player, was a remarkable example of manual dexterity. He died in 1889, leaving a gap in society as he left a lasting legacy. Cavanagh was twice young, feeling neither past nor future, and had no other desire or thought. He played the game with equal power, skill, quickness, and judgment, out-witting opponents by finesse or beating them by main strength. He could tell the degree of force necessary to be given to a ball and the precise direction in which it should be sent. Cavanagh did his work with greatest ease, never taking more pains than necessary, and was as cool and collected as if he had just entered the court. His style of play was remarkable, with no affectation or trifling, and he did what he could, but that was more than any one else could even affect to do. His blows were not undecided or ineffectual, but rather, they were not ineffectual like other writers’ works. Cavanagh’s death leaves a lasting impact on the game of fives and continues to inspire others to strive for manual dexterity.
Jack Cavanagh was a world-renowned up-hill player who never gave up the game, even when his opponent was fourteen. He never volleyed but allowed the balls to hop, and he never missed having them. Cavanagh was an Irishman by birth and a house-painter by profession. He played with Woodward and Meredith together in the Fives-court, St. Martin’s-street, making seven and twenty aces following by services alone. He was also admired for his ability to give any other player half the game or beat him with his left hand.
Cavanah was an Irishman by birth and a house-painter by profession. He had a clear, open countenance, and was a young fellow of sense, humor, and courage. He once had a quarrel with a waterman at Hungerford-stairs and served him out in great style. There are hundreds today who cannot mention his name without admiration as the best fives-player that perhaps ever lived.
John Davies, the racket-player, was noted for his ability to follow the ball, giving any one of these two hands a foot of wall and giving the best player now in London the same odds. Cavanagh died from a blood-vessel, which prevented him from playing for the last two or three years. He was a first-rate tennis player and an excellent fives-player, and is now the keeper of the Fives-court. Cavanah was a zealous Catholic and could not be persuaded to eat meat on Friday, the day he died. His memory is honored with a tribute to his memory.
Summary of Mahatma Gandhi The Way to Equal Distribution
Joseph Addison Death of Sir Roger Summary
William Hazlitt On Genius and Common Sense Summary
One Reply to “Summary of William Hazlitt The Indian Jugglers”