Chapter XLVIII: Conclusion: § I. the Present State of Criticism (2)

Footnote 137:

Boswell, Globe ed., pp. 363, 441.

Footnote 138:

Ibid., p. 598.

Footnote 139:

_Works_, ed. cit., vol. vi., p. 196.

Footnote 140:

In _Letter VIII._, ibid., p. 266 _sq._

Footnote 141:

P. 271.

Footnote 142:

P. 273.

Footnote 143:

P. 290.

Footnote 144:

P. 299.

Footnote 145:

P. 306.

Footnote 146:

P. 309.

Footnote 147:

P. 313.

Footnote 148:

Hurd knew Gray (who, characteristically in both ways, described him as
“the last man who wore stiff-topped gloves”) pretty well (see the
references in Mr Gosse’s Index). He may have caught some heat from one
who had plenty, though he concealed it.

Footnote 149:

“Skroddles” was _William_.

Footnote 150:

My copy contains all three bound together. It is interesting, though
not surprising, to find that there was no demand for the two original
and valuable constituents, and a brisk one for the commonplace third.

Footnote 151:

_Power of Numbers_, p. 9.

Footnote 152:

Ibid., p. 27.

Footnote 153:

_Prosaic Numbers_, passim.

Footnote 154:

Mason’s very errors are interesting, as where his delight in recovered
_rhythm_—in full melody of variety—leads him to something like the old
blasphemy of _rhyme_ (“one of the lowest ornaments and greatest
shackles of modern poesy” _Power of Numbers_, p. 14).

Footnote 155:

Even at this early date Mason was able to quote not a few writers—
Pemberton, Manwaring, Malcolm, Gay, who, as well as Geddes, Foster,
Galley, and others, had dealt with this subject. In fact, the list of
such authors in the eighteenth century is quite long, though few of
them are very important. For an excellent reasoned bibliography see Mr
T. S. Omond’s _English Metrists_ (Tunbridge Wells, 1903). Henry
Pemberton, Gresham Professor of Physic, and a man of various ability,
published on the to us surprising subject of Glover’s _Leonidas_, in
1738, _Observations on Poetry_, which I had hunted in the catalogues
for a long time, when Mr Gregory Smith kindly gave me a copy. It
shows, as the election of its text may indicate, and as its date would
further suggest, no very enthusiastic or imaginative appreciation of
the Muse, but is remarkably learned, not merely in the ancients and
the modern Frenchmen, but in Italians like Minturno and Castelvetro.
Pemberton deals with Epic and Dramatic poetry—their rise, dignity,
fable, sentiment, character, language, and difference; with
Versification, where his standpoint may be guessed, from his
denouncing “the mixture of iambic and trochaic” as a blemish on
_L’Allegro_ and _Il Penseroso_; with the Sublime. He is not an
inspiring or inspired writer, but holds some position, both as
influential on the Germans, who not seldom quote him, and in the
history of Prosody.

Footnote 156:

Not Cowper’s hero, but a son of “Picturesque” Gilpin. Mitford had been
a pupil of Gilpin the elder.

Footnote 157:

Foster’s (John) _Essay on the Different Nature of Accent and Quantity_
(second edition, Eton, 1763) is duly before me also, but I must not
touch it here.

Footnote 158:

As _An Essay on the Harmony of Language_. My friend, Mr T. S. Omond,
in the quite invaluable bibliography referred to above, thinks this
“clearer, shorter, more pointed” than the second. It is at any rate
well to remember that when it appeared, Johnson had ten years to live,
and Scott, Wordsworth, and Coleridge were in their nurseries.

Footnote 159:

_Harmony of Language_, second edition, p. 51.

Footnote 160:

Ibid., p. 81.

Footnote 161:

20 vols., ed. Assézat and Tourneux: Paris, 1875-76. I had known
Diderot before, not merely from Carlyle and Mr Morley, but from
Génin’s extraordinarily well-chosen _Pensées Choisies_ in the Didot
collection. But I remember very well, after more than a quarter of a
century, the delight with which I read this edition as the successive
volumes reached me at their appearance. I cannot take them down
without that anticipation of sentences at particular places of the
page which one only feels in such a case. They are quarrelling with
the edition now, of course: but that does not matter.

Footnote 162:

Cf. p. 160, vol. vi. ed. cit. “_Vous avez péché contre les règles
d’Aristote, d’Horace, de Vida, et de Le Bossu._” Even if (as so much
else in the book is) this was partly suggested by Sterne, it is none
the less a genuine fling of Diderot’s own irony and recalcitrance. And
an indignant note of the earlier edition of Brière, shocked in 1821 at
the substitution of Le Bossu (then much forgotten) for Boileau, who
was, though on the eve of dethronement, in full dictatorship, is a
valuable document for us, and for this chapter.

Footnote 163:

_Œuvres_, ed. cit., v. 211-227.

Footnote 164:

The _éloge_ dates from 1761: exactly the middle point between the
earliest of Hurd’s _Dissertations_ in 1757 and his Letters in 1765
(_v. sup._).

Footnote 165:

Ibid., 228-239.

Footnote 166:

_V. sup._, ii. p. 303.

Footnote 167:

_Œuvres_, vi. 366, 367.

Footnote 168:

Let us remember that this evil-famed book itself contains admirable
critical passages, notably (chap. xxxviii), that attack on the French
theatre which Lessing extracted in Nos. 84, 85 of the _Hamburgische
Dramaturgie_.

Footnote 169:

_Œuvres_, iii. 200-407.

Footnote 170:

Fortunately the contents and indices of the Assézat-Tourneux edition
are admirably abundant and clear: a merit not so common in French
books as some others.

Footnote 171:

_Œuvres_, viii. 339-426. The English reader has at his disposal the
excellent translation of Mr W. H. Pollock (London, 1883), with a
preface by Sir Henry Irving. I should like also to mention here Mrs L.
Tollemache’s _Diderot’s Thoughts on Art and Style_, an interesting
selection which has, I think, been more than once published.

Footnote 172:

_Œuvres_, vii. 299-410 (with appendices).

Footnote 173:

_Œuvres_, xi. 368-373.

Footnote 174:

The chief exceptions, such as a letter to Panckoucke (May 25, 1764)
and a sensible one to Chamfort (Oct. 6, same year) have a very little.
The words _Vous admirez Richardson_ to the elder Mirabeau (April 8,
1767) may raise expectations: they will be cruelly dashed. _Cf._ the
indignant renunciation of the description _homme de lettres_ a little
later (May 13), and the long and important review of his own career to
Saint-Germain, dated “1770-26/2.” The fact is, that a maniac of
egotism and self-torment cannot be a critic, the subject under
consideration being inevitably turned out of court by Self.

Footnote 175:

One book of some traditional note and interest from the eminence of
its author in other ways, Condillac’s _Art d'Écrire_ (which forms part
of his elaborate _Cours d’Étude_ for the Prince of Parma: Parma,
1769-1773), was not there noticed. It is of little intrinsic
importance, being a mere treatise on “Composition”—a common-sense and
common-place _Rhetoric_ adjusted to late French eighteenth century
standards. Its definition of style as depending on “netteté _et_
caractère,” is an obvious attempt to combine the elder with the
Buffonian ideal.

Footnote 176:

My copy is the Didot edition of the _Œuvres_, in three large vols.
(Paris, 1873). As, however, this is very cumbrous to hold, I also use
and here cite the smaller separate edition (same publishers: Paris,
1876) of the _De l’Allemagne_.

Footnote 177:

Even after publishing the two previous volumes, I find myself accused
of “_not having taken the trouble to acquaint myself with_ the fact
that the application of psychological tests has profoundly altered
criticism,” or words to that effect. εἴθ’ ὤφελ’ Ἀργοῦς μὴ διαπτάσθαι.
I only wish I had _not_ had to thread these more dismal and dangerous
Symplegades! But I am at any rate trying to save others from their
danger.

Footnote 178:

In the _Nouvelle Héloise_. The omission (perhaps due to a juvenile
unwillingness to acknowledge her idol indebted to anybody) is the more
striking because we know, and could have been sure if we did not know,
that she was early acquainted with, and enthralled by, the English
master.

Footnote 179:

I. 216 of the larger ed. cited.

Footnote 180:

220 of the larger ed. cited.

Footnote 181:

Ibid., pp. 252, 253.

Footnote 182:

Ibid., p. 257.

Footnote 183:

Ibid., p. 263.

Footnote 184:

Ibid., p. 265.

Footnote 185:

Goethe and Schiller might laugh at her; but there is no doubt that
they were secretly flattered at her interest in the things of Germany.

Footnote 186:

The Duke of Rovigo’s blunt information in his letter of expulsion,
that “the book is not French” (see the _Preface_, or any account of
Mme. de Staël), summarises his master’s terror very well.

Footnote 187:

P. 176 of the smaller edition cited; i. 80, of the larger.

Footnote 188:

“De l’art dramatique.”

Footnote 189:

Chap. xxvi. _L’idéal du caractère tragique consiste dans le triomphe
que la volonté remporte sur le destin et sur nos passions; le comique
exprime au contraire l’empire de l’instincts physique sur l’existence
morale._ From which it will follow that _Hamlet_ and _Lear_ are not
tragedies, and that _As You Like It_ and _Much Ado About Nothing_ are
not comedies.

Footnote 190:

P. 340, chap. ii. 148.

Footnote 191:

Of course not in the worst English connotation, but only in that of
“commonplace,” “ordinary,” “undistinguished.”

Footnote 192:

M. Des Essarts in the Petit de Julleville _History_.

Footnote 193:

For _René_ is only an episode of the _Génie_ itself; and _Les Martyrs_
a prose-poem in illustration of its theories.

Footnote 194:

See vol. i. p. 425.

Footnote 195:

Chateaubriand’s _Mélanges Littéraires_ contain in their later numbers
some interesting reviews, especially that of February 1819 on the
_Annales Littéraires_, which supplied almost the _Défense et
Illustration_ of the Romantic outburst. But I do not know that the
early pieces on English literature dating from the last year of the
eighteenth century, are not as important. In these the writer, either
from policy (for though he had a friendly editor in Fontanes, he was
writing under the eyes of Bonaparte’s police) or really imperfect
conversion, approximates much more to the “dunghill-and-pearl” view of
Shakspere than the innocent might think likely, and has not quite
reached his future state (_v. inf._) of illumination as to _Ossian_.
He is very severe on Young, and has a very curious passage on the
English view of the subject at the moment, which is probably not far
from the truth, and at any rate helps us to understand the
half-way-house attitude of men like Jeffrey and Campbell. The Queen
Anne men, we are told, were at a discount—Richardson was little read,
Hume and Gibbon were thought gallicisers, and so forth. But these
things are at best useful sidelights on their author’s position in the
_Génie_.

Footnote 196:

I use the 2-vol. ed. of the _Collection Didot_.

Footnote 197:

Six “books” of _dogma_, twelve of _recherches littéraires_, six of
_culte_, is the author’s own summary of his scheme (_Génie_, II. i.
1).

Footnote 198:

Ed. cit., ii. 306-326.

Footnote 199:

II. i. 5.

Footnote 200:

II. ii. 5-8.

Footnote 201:

II. ii. 10.

Footnote 202:

Vol. I. p. 235.

Footnote 203:

II. iii. 2, 3.

Footnote 204:

Vol. I. p. 257.

Footnote 205:

II. iii. 7.

Footnote 206:

II. iv.

Footnote 207:

Ibid., chap. iii.

Footnote 208:

Chap. viii. It is a pity that Chateaubriand did not live long enough
to read Mr Ruskin (who had begun to write before his death) on “The
Angel of the Sea”—one of the great conceptions whose poetic
suggestiveness he has himself here indicated.

Footnote 209:

This fills the whole of the Fifth or last Book of the Second Part, and
shows the author at nearly his best.

Footnote 210:

_Il y règne_ (_in_ Saint Louis) _une sombre imagination très propre à
la peinture de cette Egypte, pleine de souvenirs et de tombeaux, et
qui vit passer tour à tour les Pharaons, les Ptolemées, les solitaires
de la Thebaide, et les soudans des barbares_.

Footnote 211:

I have not thought it necessary to notice Chateaubriand’s literary
judgments in the _Essai sur les Révolutions_ at the beginning, or in
the _Mémoires d’Outre Tombe_ at the end of his career. The first,
interesting as it is, is too crude (_v. inf._, Bk. viii. Ch. ii.), the
second too much spoilt by “cooking of spleen,” and both too personal
and egotistic.

Footnote 212:

Chateaubriand, Joubert’s intimate friend, printed some of this
privately after the author’s death; and in 1842 Joubert’s nephew
published two vols. of _Pensées_, Letters, &c. These, with some
subsequent augmentations, had reached their 10th ed. in 1901. There is
an English translation of part by Mr Attwood, and perhaps others.

Footnote 213:

Sainte-Beuve, Sylvestre de Sacy, Saint-Marc-Girardin, Géruzez, and
Poitou—the last a scholarly lawyer and man of letters, who contributed
to the _Deux Mondes_, wrote books of various kinds, and died in 1880.

Footnote 214:

At p. 203 of the usual ed., extending to the end, and filling nearly
half the book.

Footnote 215:

P. 265 ed. cit.

Footnote 216:

P. 273-300.

Footnote 217:

P. 387.

Footnote 218:

xxiii. viii., pp. 303, 304.

Footnote 219:

Ibid., xvi., p. 305.

Footnote 220:

P. 376. But as there is in the book a sufficient index, I need not
perhaps multiply note-indications.

Footnote 221:

The numerous articles on the individual persons named and to be named—
most of which will be found indicated in the general index-volume to
the _Causeries du Lundi_, &c.—are importantly supplemented by a more
general dealing in _Chateaubriand et Son Groupe Littéraire_ (_v.
inf._, Bk. viii. Ch. ii.). This is a “standing order” of reference to
the end of the chapter.

Footnote 222:

Especially the brilliant paper in _C. du L._, i. 371-391, on _M. de
Feletz et la Crit. Litt. sous l’Empire_, February 25, 1850.

Footnote 223:

2 vols., Paris, 1839.

Footnote 224:

_v._ Victor upon William.

Footnote 225:

His chief work available in book-form is his _Cours de Littérature
Dramatique_, 6 vols., Paris, 1825.

Footnote 226:

This makes the almost inevitable coupling of him with his contemporary
and (_mutatis mutandis_) namesake, Jeffrey, a little unfair. He was a
genuine critical highwayman, who fired at the coach wherever he found
it: Jeffrey only peppered passengers who went the stages after he had
himself got down.

Footnote 227:

_Annales Littéraires_, 5 vols., Paris, 1818-1824.

Footnote 228:

I have seen things of his; but have somehow missed his _Œuvres_, 10
vols., Paris, 1828.

Footnote 229:

Andrieux deserves a note, perhaps, as having occupied a place of
strength—the chair of French Literature in the Collége de France—
during the critical time 1814-1833, and as having defended the Capitol
valiantly against the invaders. But his valiancy was greater than his
_vaillance_; and instead of criticising him it is nobler to salute
him, with M. de Jouy and some others, as respectably mistaken.

Footnote 230:

9 vols., Paris, 1811-1824. Ginguené died in 1816, and the book,
published in part posthumously from his MSS., was completed by another
hand.

Footnote 231:

It may be found subjoined to the _Pantheon Littéraire_ edition of La
Harpe vol. iii., Paris, 1840. In his _Œuvres_, 5 vols. (Paris, 1826),
and _Œuvres Posthumes_, 3 vols. (Paris, 1828-30), there is not much
else of importance.

Footnote 232:

Chap. iii., _op. cit._

Footnote 233:

Chap. vi.

Footnote 234:

4 vols., Paris, 1817. The lectures had been delivered in 1811-14. I
have had to rely on my reading of the British Museum copy, the only
one which I have ever seen in a catalogue, though rather high-priced,
having been sold before I could get it, and my advertisements for
another (it is a book worth having) not being successful. Some
accounts (_e.g._, that of Vapereau) are quite unfair to it.

Footnote 235:

_Mélanges_, 6 vols., Paris, 1828-1830.

Footnote 236:

I must find room, if only in a note, for the unfortunate Auger, who
succeeded Suard as universal provider of _éloges_ and Introductions in
the classic sense, who served as victim to one of Daudet’s most
ignoble transcripts of reality in _L’Immortel_, and whose _ton sec et
rogue_ Sainte-Beuve has somewhere despatched and impaled for ever in
one of his really immortal phrases.

Footnote 237:

Some will no doubt expect that a third, Guizot, should be joined to
them. He did much reviewing in his youth (as did his first wife,
Pauline de Meulan), and his much later companion volumes on Corneille
and Shakespeare are more than respectable. But he was perhaps even
less of a critic “in his heart” than Cousin.

Footnote 238:

Besides his better known works, such as those on Plato and Descartes,
and on the _grandes dames_ of the seventeenth century, which touch the
subject on different sides, his _Fragments Littéraires_ (Paris, 1843)
may be consulted. I fear that his summary dismissal may surprise some
and enrage others: but I cannot help it. I have nothing to do with his
psychology, and he has next to nothing to do with _my_ criticism.

Footnote 239:

_Œuvres_, Paris, 1854-1858.

Footnote 240:

_C. de L._ I. 108, _sq._ on the literary work of both Cousin and
Villemain.

Footnote 241:

It dates from the spring of 1823: I have used the complete posthumous
edition (Paris, 1854).

Footnote 242:

For so great an ironist Beyle _did_ lack humour to a surprising
degree.

Footnote 243:

P. 6, ed. cit.

Footnote 244:

P. 14 _sq._

Footnote 245:

As some have said: “When you _read_ _Twelfth Night_, you are in
Elysium; when you _see_ it, you are not even in Illyria.”

Footnote 246:

P. 19.

Footnote 247:

P. 32.

Footnote 248:

Lamartine, in a letter given in the book (p. 129 _sq._), says roundly
of Beyle: “Il n’y a selon lui et selon nous d’autres règles que les
exemples du génie”; and though I do not remember that Beyle himself
formulates this Brunonian (_v._ vol. ii. p. 95 note) trenchancy, he
evidently adopts it.

Footnote 249:

P. 180 _sq._, ed. cit. _inf._ All this passage is important,
especially the reference to B.'s habit of “taking the other side,” a
habit common with critics, but not critical.

Footnote 250:

_C. du L._, ix. 314 _sq._

Footnote 251:

It is fair to say that the oddity is Beyle’s own. See for instance
his _Lettres Inédites_, p. 235.

Footnote 252:

_Lettres Intimes de Stendhal_ (Paris, 1892).

Footnote 253:

My copy is in 2 vols. (Paris, 1879).

Footnote 254:

Himself a terrible critic in a certain sense: hardly one at all in
others, and in most parts of ours.

Footnote 255:

There is no complete edition, either of Nodier’s collected work or of
his criticism: and many of his books are not at all easy to obtain
separately. The editor of the _Tales_, &c., in the Charpentier
collection, has, however, most wisely prefixed certain capital
articles to the various volumes—_Des Types en Littérature to the
Romans_; _Quelques Observations sur la nouvelle école Littéraire to
Les Proscrits_; _Du Fantastique en Littérature_ to the _Contes_. All
these are important.

Footnote 256:

One of Crapelet’s best produced books (Paris, 1829).

Footnote 257:

The standard treatise on this is that of M. E. Krantz, _L’Esthétique
de Descartes_: Paris, 1882.

Footnote 258:

_Op. cit. sup._, Introduction.

Footnote 259:

Halle, in the year named.

Footnote 260:

Frankfort-on-the-Oder, 1750-58.

Footnote 261:

Later, Baumgarten did formally, while admitting metre as a sort of
adjunct of “perfection,” provide that a prose work such as _Telémaque_
may be a poem, while verse compositions may not,—the old notion back
again.

Footnote 262:

Frankfort: 1750 1st vol., 1758 2nd. It was never finished.

Footnote 263:

_Anfangsgründe aller schönen Wissenschaften_, 3 vols., Halle, 1748-50.

Footnote 264:

He is thought to have derived something from Arnold, _Versuch und
Anleitung zur Poesie der Deutschen_ (2nd ed., 1741), a book of which I
am still in search, while I should like to have rather fuller
opportunities than I have yet had of studying Baumgarten himself and
some others of the earlier Germans.

Footnote 265:

Leipzig, 1771-74, but mostly written much earlier. It was greatly
enlarged twenty years later. Blankenberg’s _Zusätze_ came after this
in 1796-98, and there are extensive _Appendices_ by others, making 8
vols. (1792-1808).

Footnote 266:

This book actually belongs to the nineteenth century, having been
published at Berlin in 1803-5 (4 vols.) But Eberhard was then a man
over sixty; he had published a _Theorie der schönen Künste und
Wissenschaften_ twenty years earlier, and his general position is that
of the third quarter of the eighteenth.

Footnote 267:

_V. sup._, ii. 513, note. First published in 1741, it was constantly
reprinted. André was a Jesuit, and his full name was Yves Marc _de
L’Isle_ André, whence the rigid virtue of the British Museum insists
that he shall be looked for under L.

Footnote 268:

For Vico’s æsthetic, see, in addition to Professor Flint’s admirable
_Vico_ (Edinburgh, 1882), the very interesting _Estetica_ of Signor
Benedetto Croce (Part II. chap. v. pp. 228-243: Milan, Palermo, and
Naples, 1902). This chapter, with some earlier ones, had been printed
separately as a specimen the year before. I owe copies of both, with
one of a still earlier series on _La Critica Letteraria_ (Rome, 1896),
to Signor Croce’s kindness; and the drift of the last named, which
condenses the _inesattezza_ of the term “literary criticism,” had
itself prepared me for the disapproval (not unmixed) which he
expresses of the first volume of this work as “deprived of method and
determinate object.” But as I still see, or seem to see, my own object
quite clearly defined before me, as I have found no fault in the
compass which I use, and feel the helm of my method quite solid and
obedient in my hand, I fear I must hold my course all the same. I
shall only say that the sketch of criticism or æsthetic before Vico
which precedes the chapter above referred to, shows remarkable
knowledge and faculty of statement.

Footnote 269:

The _Scienza_ first appeared in 1725, but was practically transformed
in its second ed., 1730. Its ideas on poetry were further developed
later; but anticipations of them appear even earlier in the _De
Constantia Jurisprudentis_ of 1721, if not even in the still earlier
Lectures—most of them but recently published—of 1699-1708.

Footnote 270:

_Franciscus Baco in aureo de Aug. Sci. libello_, &c., vol. ii. p. 5 of
Ferrari’s _Opere di G. Vico_ (6 vols., Milan, 1852). I owe the use of
the copy of this, with which I have worked, to the kindness of
Professor Flint.

Footnote 271:

_Omnium scientiarum artiumque commune instrumentum est nova Critica._
Ibid., p. 7.

Footnote 272:

P. 11.

Footnote 273:

Pp. 26-28.

Footnote 274:

Ed. cit., iii. 265 _sq._

Footnote 275:

P. 275, note.

Footnote 276:

Ed. cit., iv. 161-245. The earlier books are not superfluous for our
purpose.

Footnote 277:

I may observe that Vico, though an extremely consistent thinker in
reality, is apt to lay such stress on the particular side of his
thought prominent at the moment, that it may deceive the unwary and
must furnish the unscrupulous with handles. Compare, as one example of
many, the attack on the notion of poets being “_natural_ Theologians,”
at _De Const. Jurisp._ iii. 277, with the argument for their being
“_political_ Theologians” a few pages later (pp. 295, 296), comparing
also with both his later passage on “Teologia Poetica” in the second
_Scienza_ (v. 155).

Footnote 278:

Ed. cit., v. 1, 151-421, 422-461.

Footnote 279:

v. 163.

Footnote 280:

P. 168. Vico had anticipated this earlier.

Footnote 281:

iv. 200. (See the _First_ draft.)

Footnote 282:

No reasonable person will object to this the praise of Italian writers
in the _De Stud. Rat._, p. 125.

Footnote 283:

To do Vico full justice, we must admit that his object was less to
break up Homer, as they break up Cædmon and Isaiah, than to attribute
the whole work to the whole early Greek people.

Footnote 284:

On Adam Smith and Gibbon a note must suffice. The former has actually
left us nothing important in print concerning the subject, though he
is known to have lectured on it, and though to the partisans of
“psychological” criticism the _Moral Sentiments_ may seem pertinent.
His line seems to have been pretty identical with those of Hume and of
Blair, who knew and used Smith’s Lectures in preparing his own. As for
Gibbon, his great work did not give very much opportunity for touching
our subject, and he availed himself little of what it did give: though
on Byzantine literature generally, and on some individuals—Photius,
Sidonius, and others—he acquits himself well enough. His early _Essay
on the Study of Literature_ is extremely general and quite
unimportant.

Footnote 285:

These are to be found almost _passim_ in the _Characteristics_ (my
copy of which is the small 3 vol. ed., _s.l._, 1749), but chiefly in
his _Advice to an Author_ (vol. i., ed. cit., p. 105-end) and in the
_Third Miscellany_ (iii. 92-129).

Footnote 286:

i. 147.

Footnote 287:

iii. 187 _sq._

Footnote 288:

i. 224, &c.

Footnote 289:

iii. 173.

Footnote 290:

i. 35.

Footnote 291:

i. 147 _sq._

Footnote 292:

i. 157 _sq._

Footnote 293:

iii. 125.

Footnote 294:

i. 163 _sq._

Footnote 295:

The lively fashion in which Dr George Campbell in his _Philosophy of
Rhetoric_ (_v. sup._, ii. 470) beats up his lordship’s quarters, on
the score of precious and rococo style, is too much forgotten
nowadays.

Footnote 296:

The literary essays occur almost wholly in the First part (published
in 1742: my copy is the “new edition” of the _Essays and Treatises_, 2
vols.: London and Edinburgh, 1764).

Footnote 297:

_Essay on Delicacy of Taste_, pp. 5, 7, ed. cit.

Footnote 298:

_On the Rise and Progress of the Arts and Sciences_, ibid., p. 125.

Footnote 299:

Ibid., p. 126.

Footnote 300:

P. 141 _sq._

Footnote 301:

_V. sup._, vol. ii. pp. 327, 417.

Footnote 302:

_V. sup._, vol. ii. p. 418.

Footnote 303:

_The Sceptic_, p. 186.

Footnote 304:

Pp. 217-222.

Footnote 305:

“Refinement” seems here to mean “conceit,” “elaborate diction.” But
the “simplicity” of Lucretius, in any sense in which the quality can
be said to be pushed to excess by Sophocles, is very hard to grasp.

Footnote 306:

P. 257: “Whoever would assert an equality of genius and elegance
between Ogilby and Milton, or Bunyan and Addison, would be thought to
defend no less an extravagance,” &c.

Footnote 307:

P. 258.

Footnote 308:

P. 274.

Footnote 309:

“I must take pleasure in the thing represented before I can take
pleasure in the representation,” _v. sup._, vol. i. p. 381, _infra_ on
Peacock himself.

Footnote 310:

_Essay on Tragedy_, p. 243.

Footnote 311:

I may be excused for referring to the parabasis at the beginning of
the chapter, all the more that the text above was written considerably
earlier than that digression.

Footnote 312:

_A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime
and Beautiful, with an Introductory Discourse concerning Taste: 1756._
I use the Bohn edition of the _Works_, vol. i. pp. 49-181.

Footnote 313:

_Op. cit._, p. 175 _sq._ But Burke does not seem to have reached the
larger and deeper views of Lessing on this subject.

Footnote 314:

See vol. ii. p. 485 _sq._

Footnote 315:

Of this in turn Blair was perhaps thinking when he wrote the unlucky
passage quoted in the last volume.

Footnote 316: