Chapter I: Front Matter (1)

THE
COLLECTED WORKS OF WILLIAM HAZLITT
IN TWELVE VOLUMES

VOLUME ELEVEN

_All rights reserved_

THE COLLECTED WORKS OF
WILLIAM HAZLITT

EDITED BY A. R. WALLER

AND ARNOLD GLOVER

WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY

W. E. HENLEY

❦

Fugitive Writings

❦

1904
LONDON: J. M. DENT & CO.
McCLURE, PHILLIPS & CO.: NEW YORK

Edinburgh: T. and A. CONSTABLE, Printers to His Majesty

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

This volume and volume XII. contain those of Hazlitt’s writings which remained uncollected during his lifetime and have not been included in earlier volumes of the present edition. Some of these writings were published by the author’s son in the three works of which particulars are given below; one of them, the essay ‘On Abstract Ideas,’ was published in the second edition (1836) of _An Essay on the Principles of Human Action_ (cf. Bibliographical Note, vol. VII. p. 384); a few, viz. ‘Common Places’ and ‘Trifles Light as Air,’ were included in Mr. W. C. Hazlitt’s edition of _The Round Table_ (Bohn’s Standard Library, 1871); but most of the papers are here reprinted for the first time. See the Table of Contents, where the essays which have never been republished before are marked by an asterisk. The evidence upon which the Editors have relied in respect of this fresh material will be found in the Notes. A great many of the Essays now printed have not hitherto been identified as Hazlitt’s, but none have been included concerning which the Editors feel any doubt.

The works published by the author’s son and referred to above are as follows:—

1. ‘_Literary Remains of the late William Hazlitt._ With a Notice of his Life, By his Son, and Thoughts on his Genius and Writings, By E. L. Bulwer, Esq., M.P. and Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, M.P. In Two Volumes. London: Saunders and Otley, Conduit Street. 1836.’ Vol. I. contained (as a frontispiece) Bewick’s crayon drawing of Hazlitt reproduced in vol. VIII. of the present edition; a Sonnet ‘written on seeing Bewick’s Chalk-Drawing of the Head of Hazlitt’ by Sheridan Knowles; a ‘Biographical Sketch’ of Hazlitt by his son; ‘Some Thoughts on the Genius of William Hazlitt’ signed ‘The Author of “Eugene Aram”‘; ‘Thoughts upon the Intellectual Character of the late William Hazlitt,’ by Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, M.P.; ‘Character of Hazlitt,’ by Charles Lamb, extracted from the well-known ‘Letter of Elia to Robert Southey, Esq.’ (1823); six ‘Sonnets to the Memory of Hazlitt’ by ‘A Lady’; and the following essays by Hazlitt, viz.: (i) Project for a new Theory of Civil and Criminal Legislation, (ii) Definition of Wit, (iii) On Means and Ends, (iv) Belief, whether Voluntary? (v) Personal Politics, (vi) On the Writings of Hobbes, (vii) On Liberty and Necessity, (viii) On Locke’s Essay on the Human Understanding, and (ix) On Tooke’s Diversions of Purley.—Vol. II. contained the following essays by Hazlitt, viz.: (i) On Self-Love, (ii) On the Conduct of Life; or, Advice to a School-boy, (iii) On the Fine Arts, (iv) The Fight, (v) On the Want of Money, (vi) On the Feeling of Immortality in Youth, (vii) The Main-Chance, (viii) The Opera, (ix) Of Persons One Would Wish to Have Seen, (x) My First Acquaintance with Poets, (xi) The Shyness of Scholars, (xii) The Vatican, and (xiii) On the Spirit of Monarchy. Of these, the essay ‘On the Fine Arts’ and the essay on ‘The Vatican’ are included in vol. IX. of the present edition; the rest are published in this volume or in vol. XII.

2. ‘_Sketches and Essays._ By William Hazlitt. Now first collected by his Son. London: John Templeman, 248, Regent Street. MDCCCXXXIX.’ An Advertisement states that ‘The volume which the Editor has here the gratification of presenting to the public, consists of Essays contributed by their author to various periodicals. None of them have hitherto been published in a collective form, and it is confidently anticipated that they will be received as an acceptable Companion to the “Table Talk” and “Plain Speaker.”’ The contents are as follows: (i) On Reading New Books, (ii) On Cant and Hypocrisy, (iii) Merry England, (iv) On a Sun-Dial, (v) On Prejudice, (vi) Self-Love and Benevolence (a Dialogue), (vii) On Disagreeable People, (viii) On Knowledge of the World, (ix) On Fashion, (x) On Nicknames, (xi) On Taste, (xii) Why the Heroes of Romance are insipid, (xiii) On the Conversation of Lords, (xiv) The Letter-Bell, (xv) Envy, (xvi) On the Spirit of Partisanship, (xvii) Footmen, and (xviii) A Chapter on Editors. This volume was reprinted in 1852 with ‘Sketches and Essays’ as a half-title and the following title-page: ‘Men and Manners: Sketches and Essays. By William Hazlitt. London: Published at the office of the Illustrated London Library, 227 Strand. MDCCCII.’ In this edition the essay entitled ‘Self-Love and Benevolence (A Dialogue)’ is omitted. A third edition (which has been reprinted from time to time) was published in 1872 in Bohn’s Standard Library, edited by Mr. W. C. Hazlitt.

3. ‘_Winterslow: Essays and Characters written there._ By William Hazlitt. Collected by his Son. London: David Bogue, Fleet Street. MDCCCL.’ This small 8vo volume contained the following essays: (i) My First Acquaintance with Poets, (ii) Of Persons One Would Wish to Have Seen, (iii) Party Spirit, (iv) On the Feeling of Immortality in Youth, (v) On Public Opinion, (vi) On Personal Identity, (vii) Mind and Motive, (viii) On Means and Ends, (ix) Matter and Manner, (x) On Consistency of Opinion, (xi) Project for a new Theory of Civil and Criminal Legislation, (xii) On the Character of Burke, (xiii) On the Character of Fox, (xiv) On the Character of Pitt, (xv) On the Character of Lord Chatham, (xvi) Belief, whether Voluntary, and (xvii) A Farewell to Essay-Writing. This volume was republished in 1872 along with _Sketches and Essays_ in the volume of Bohn’s Standard Library referred to above. Of the essays published in _Winterslow_ the Characters of Burke, Fox, Pitt and Lord Chatham are included in vol. III. of the present edition (_Political Essays_). The rest of the essays published in _Sketches and Essays_ and _Winterslow_ are included in vols. XI. and XII. of the present edition.

It will be seen that _Literary Remains_ and _Winterslow_ to some extent overlap one another, and that _Winterslow_ contained several essays which had already been published in _Political Essays_. Under these circumstances it has been found necessary in the present edition to adopt a fresh scheme of arrangement in place of republishing _Literary Remains_, _Sketches and Essays_ and _Winterslow_ as they stand. Each essay, whether contained in one of those posthumous collections or now republished for the first time, is printed in chronological order under the heading of the magazine or newspaper in which it originally appeared; and the magazines themselves are arranged in a chronological order based upon the respective dates at which Hazlitt began to contribute to them. The only exception to this last scheme of arrangement is that at the end of the present volume it was found convenient to take the ‘Common Places’ from _The Literary Examiner_ a little before their turn. They should strictly have followed the contributions to _The Liberal_ in vol. XII., but it was thought better not to divide between two volumes the important essays from _The New Monthly Magazine_ which now begin vol. XII.

This plan of arrangement seemed on the whole the simplest and best, and it is hoped that with the aid of the Tables of Contents and the Index the reader will have no difficulty in finding any particular essay.

In the present edition all the essays, the magazine source of which is known, have been printed _verbatim_ from the magazines themselves. In preparing _Literary Remains_, _Sketches and Essays_ and _Winterslow_ for the press the author’s son took considerable liberties with the text. In one or two cases the alterations which he made may have been based on a MS. or a copy of a magazine with corrections by Hazlitt, but far more often the essays were reprinted with omissions and trifling alterations made, as it would seem, by the editor himself on his own responsibility. Some passages thus omitted and now restored for the first time are of great interest. The more important of them are specially indicated in the notes. In the few cases where the author’s son added passages from a MS. or other authoritative source, the passages have been given either in the text (with a note indicating where they occur), or in the Notes.

In addition to the essays printed in the text of this volume and to those referred to in the notes it may be convenient to mention here a few essays which may have been written by Hazlitt but have been omitted from the present edition on the ground that his authorship is not sufficiently certain. They are arranged in the following list under the heading of the magazine in which they first appeared.

I. _The Examiner._

1. A review (Sept. 29 and Oct. 13, 1816) of George Ensor’s _On the
State of Europe in January, 1816_. This work of George Ensor’s
(1769–1843), ‘full,’ as the reviewer says, ‘of undeniable facts,
and undeniable inferences from them,’ was likely to appeal to
Hazlitt’s political sympathies. The review consists mainly of
extracts from the work itself, but what there is of comment is
certainly very much in Hazlitt’s vein.

2. ‘A Modern Tory Delineated’ (Oct. 6). This paper, which is dated
from Gloucester, Oct. 1, 1816, has certainly a very strong
flavour of Hazlitt.

3. Some political leaders and articles which appeared at the beginning
of 1817 and are not signed with Leigh Hunt’s mark. The most
important of these are: ‘Mr. Pitt—Finance, Sinking Fund’ (Jan.
19); ‘Defence of National Debt’ (Jan. 26); ‘Progress of Finance’
(Feb. 16); and ‘Friends of Revolution’ (Feb. 23).

4. Some theatrical notices published in 1828, viz.: June 29 (_The
Rivals_); Aug. 3 and 10 (_Cosi fan Tutte_); Oct. 19 (Kean’s
Shylock, _Figaro_, and Mathews in _The May Queen_); Oct. 26
(Madame Vestris in _The Marriage of Figaro_, and Rovere the
conjurer); Nov. 2 (Farren’s Dr. Cantwell in _The Hypocrite_, _The
Youthful Queen_, and Kean’s Overreach, Macbeth and Othello); Nov.
16 (_Guy Mannering_ and _The Stranger_).

II. _The Edinburgh Magazine_ (new Series).

Three papers on the criminal law, viz.: ‘Historical View of the
Progress of Opinion on the Criminal Law and the Punishment of
Death’ (March, 1819, vol. IV. p. 195); ‘Parliamentary Report on
the Criminal Laws’ (Dec., 1819, vol. V. p. 491); and a short
paper on the same subject (Jan. 1820, vol. VI. p. 26). Mr. W. C.
Hazlitt in his _Memoirs, etc._ (vol. I. p. xxvi.) attributes
these articles to Hazlitt, perhaps on the strength of some MS. or
proof in his possession at the date of the _Memoirs_ (1867).
Hazlitt’s authorship, however, though very probable, does not
seem to be certain, and as the papers consist largely of extracts
from a Parliamentary Report, they have been omitted from the
present edition. Hazlitt’s views on capital punishment will be
found in an extract which was first published in _Fraser’s
Magazine_ in 1831 and is reprinted in vol. XII.

III. _The London Magazine._

1. A review of ‘The Memoirs of Mr. Hardy Vaux’ (Jan. 1820, vol. I. p.
25).

2. ‘Letters of Foote, Garrick,’ etc. (Dec. 1820, vol. II. p. 647, and
Feb. 1821, vol. III. p. 202).

3. A review of Byron’s _Marino Faliero_ (May, 1821, vol. III. p. 550).

4. A review of Byron’s _Sardanapalus_ (Jan. 1822, vol. V. p. 66).

CONTENTS[1]

PAGE
On Abstract Ideas 1

_FRAGMENTS OF LECTURES ON PHILOSOPHY_ (1812) On the Writings of Hobbes 25 On Liberty and Necessity 48 On Locke’s Essay on the Human Understanding 74 On Tooke’s ‘Diversions of Purley’ 119 On Self-Love 132

_CONTRIBUTIONS TO_ THE MORNING CHRONICLE *Madame de Staël’s Account of German Philosophy and Literature 162 *The Same Subject continued 167 *The Same Subject continued 172 *The Same Subject continued (On Abstraction) 180 *Fine Arts. British Institution 187 *The Stage 191 *Fine Arts (The Louvre) 195

_CONTRIBUTIONS TO_ THE CHAMPION *Wilson’s Landscapes at the British Institution 198 *On Gainsborough’s Pictures 202 *Mr. Kemble’s Penruddock 205 *Introduction to an Account of Sir Joshua Reynolds’s Discourses 208 *On Genius and Originality 210 *On the Imitation of Nature 216 *On the Ideal 223 *L. Buonaparte’s Charlemagne: ou l’Église Délivrée 230 *The Same Subject continued 234 *L. Buonaparte’s Collection of Pictures 237 *British Institution 242 *The Same Subject continued 246 *The Same Subject continued 248 *On Mr. Wilkie’s Pictures 249

_CONTRIBUTIONS TO_ THE EXAMINER *On Rochefoucault’s Maxims 253 On the Predominant Principles and Excitements of the Human Mind[2] 258 The Love of Power or Action as Main a Principle in the Human Mind as Sensibility to Pleasure or Pain[2] 263 Essay on Manners[3] 269 *Kean’s Bajazet, and ‘The Country Girl’ 274 *Doctrine of Philosophical Necessity 277 *Parallel Passages in various Poets 282 *Mr. Locke a great Plagiarist 284 [The Same Subject continued] 578 *Shakespear’s Female Characters 290 *Miss O’Neill’s Widow Cheerly 297 *Penelope and The Dansomanie. 299 *Oroonoko 301 *The Pannel and The Ravens 303 *John Gilpin 305 *Don Giovanni and Kean’s Eustace de St. Pierre 307 *Character of the Country People 309 *Mr. Macready’s Macbeth 315 *Guy Faux 317 *The Same Subject continued 323 *The Same Subject concluded 328 Character of Mr. Canning 334 *The Dandy School 343 *Actors and the Public 348 *French Plays 352 *French Plays (continued) 356 *The Theatres and Passion-Week 358 *Charles Kean 362 *Some of the Old Actors 366 *The Company at the Opera 369 *The Beggar’s Opera 373 *The Taming of the Shrew and L’Avare 377 *Mrs. Siddons 381 *The Three Quarters, etc. 384 *Mr. Kean 389

_CONTRIBUTIONS TO_ THE TIMES *Munden’s Sir Peter Teazle 392 *Young’s Hamlet 394 *Dowton in The Hypocrite 395 *Miss Brunton’s Rosalind 396 *Maywood’s Zanga 397 *Kean’s Richard III. 399 *The Wonder 401 *Venice Preserved 402 *She Stoops to Conquer 403 *Kean’s Macbeth 404 *Kean’s Othello 405 *Kean and Miss O’Neill 407 *The Honey Moon 409 *Mr. Kean 410 *King John 410

_CONTRIBUTIONS TO_ THE YELLOW DWARF *The Press—Coleridge, Southey, Wordsworth, and Bentham 411 *Mr. Coleridge’s Lectures 416 *Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage 420 The Opera 426

_CONTRIBUTIONS TO_ THE EDINBURGH (NEW SCOTS) MAGAZINE *On the Question whether Pope was a Poet 430 *On Respectable People 433 On Fashion 437 On Nicknames 442 Thoughts on Taste 450 The Same Subject continued 454 The Same Subject continued[4] 459

_CONTRIBUTIONS TO_ THE LONDON MAGAZINE *On the Present State of Parliamentary Eloquence 464 *Haydon’s ‘Christ’s Agony in the Garden’ 481 *Pope, Lord Byron, and Mr. Bowles 486 On Consistency of Opinion 508 On the Spirit of Partisanship 521 *‘The Pirate’ 531 *‘Peveril of the Peak’ 537

_CONTRIBUTIONS TO_ THE LITERARY EXAMINER Common Places 540 NOTES 563

_ESSAYS NOT CERTAINLY HAZLITT’S, AND FRAGMENTS_ Character of Mr. Wordsworth’s New Poem The Excursion 572 The Duke D’Enghien 577 Coleridge’s ‘Christabel’ 580 Sketches of the History of the Good Old Times 582 Historical Illustrations of Shakespeare 601 Mr. Crabbe 603

FUGITIVE WRITINGS

ON ABSTRACT IDEAS

I shall in this essay state Mr. Locke’s account of generalization, abstraction, and reasoning, as contrasted with the modern one, and then endeavour to defend the existence of these faculties, or acts of the mind from the objections urged against them by Hume, Berkeley, Condillac, and others, which are in truth merely repetitions of what Hobbes has said on the subject. I must premise, however, that I do not think it possible ever to arrive at a demonstration of generals or abstractions by beginning in Mr. Locke’s method with particular ones: this faculty of abstraction is by most considered as a sort of artificial refinement upon our other ideas, as an excrescence, no ways contained in the common impressions of things, nor scarcely necessary to the common purposes of life, and it is by Mr. Locke altogether denied to be among the faculties of brutes. It is the ornament and top-addition of the mind of man, which proceeding from simple sensations upwards, is gradually sublimed into the abstract notions of things; ‘from the root springs lighter the green stalk, from thence the leaves more airy, last the bright consummate flower.’ On the other hand, I conceive that all our notions from first to last, are strictly speaking, general and abstract, not absolute and particular; and that to have a perfectly distinct idea of any one individual thing, or concrete existence, either as to the parts of which it is composed, or the differences belonging to it, or the circumstances connected with it, would imply an unlimited power of comprehension in the human mind, which is impossible. All particular things consist of, and lead to an infinite number of other things. Abstraction is a consequence of the limitation of the comprehensive faculty, and mixes itself more or less with every act of the mind of whatever kind, and in every moment of its existence. There is no idea of an individual object, which consists of a single impression, but of a number of impressions massed together: there is no idea of a particular quality of an object, which is perfectly simple, or which is not the result of a number of impressions of the same sort classed together by the mind without attending to their particular differences. Every idea of an object is, therefore, in a strict sense an imperfect and general notion of an aggregate: of a house, or tree, as well as of a city, or forest: of a grain of sand as well as of the universe. Every idea of a sensible quality, as of the whiteness of the sheet of paper before me, or the hardness of the table on which I lean, implies the same power of generalization, of connecting several impressions into one sort, as the most refined and abstract idea of virtue and justice, of motion, or extension, or space of time, or being itself. This view of the subject is not, I confess, very obvious at first sight, and it will be more easily understood after I have stated the arguments of others on this difficult question. The concise account of the nature of abstract ideas is that which Mr. Locke has given, as follows. ‘All things that exist being particular, it may be perhaps thought reasonable that words which ought to be conformed to things should be so too, I mean in their signification: but yet we find quite the contrary. The far greatest part of words that make all languages are general terms, which has not been the effect of neglect or chance, but of reason and necessity.’ ‘First, it is impossible that every particular thing should have a distinct peculiar name. For the signification and use of words depending on that connection which the mind makes between its ideas and the sounds it uses as signs of them, it is necessary in the applications of names to things, that the mind should have distinct ideas of the things, and retain also the particular name that belongs to every one, with its peculiar appropriation to that idea. But it is beyond the power of human capacity to frame and retain distinct ideas of all the particular things we meet with; every bird and beast we see, every tree and plant that affect the senses, could not find a place in the most capacious understanding. If it be looked on as an instance of a prodigious memory, that some generals have been able to call every soldier in their army by his proper name, we may easily find a reason why men never attempted to give names to each sheep in their flock, or crow that flies over their heads, much less to call every leaf of plants or grain of sand that came in their way, by a peculiar name. Secondly, if it were possible, it would not serve to the chief end of language. Men would not in vain heap up names of particular things that would not serve them to communicate their thoughts. Men learn names, and use them in talk with others, only that they may be understood, which is then only done, when by use or consent, the sound I make by the organs of speech, excites in another man’s mind who hears it, the idea I apply to it in mine when I speak it. This cannot be done by names applied to particular things, whereof I alone have the ideas in my mind, the names of them could not be significant, intelligible to another who was not acquainted with all those very particular things which had fallen under my notice. Thirdly, granting this feasible, which I think it is not, yet a distinct name of every particular thing would not be of any great use for the improvement of knowledge; which though founded in particular things, enlarges itself by general views, to which things reduced into sorts under general names are properly subservient. These with the names belonging to them come within some compass, and do not multiply every moment beyond what either the mind can contain, or use requires, and therefore in these men have for the most part stopped. But yet not so, as to hinder themselves from distinguishing particular things by appropriated names, where convenience demands it. And therefore in their own species, which they have to do with, and wherein they have often occasion to mention particular persons, they make use of proper names; and these distinct individuals have distinct denominations. Besides persons, countries, cities, rivers, mountains, and other like distinctions of place have usually found particular names, and that for the same reason; and I doubt not but if we had reason to mention particular horses, as often as we have to mention particular men, we should have proper names for the one as familiarly as for the other, and Bucephalus would be a word as much in use as Alexander. And therefore we see amongst jockies, horses have their proper names to be known and distinguished by, as commonly as their servants, because amongst them there is often occasion to mention this or that particular horse, when he is out of sight. The next thing to be considered is how general words came to be made. For since all things that exist are only particulars, how come we by general terms, or where find we those general natures they are supposed to stand for? Words become general by being made the signs of general ideas, and ideas become general by separating from them the circumstances of time and place, and any other ideas that may determine them to this or that particular existence. By this way of abstraction they are made capable of representing more individuals than one, each of which having in it a conformity to that abstract idea is (as we call it) of that sort.

‘But to deduce this a little more distinctly, it will not, perhaps, be amiss to trace our notions and names from their beginning, and observe by what degrees we proceed, and by what steps we enlarge our ideas from their first infancy. There is nothing more evident than that the ideas of the persons children converse with, are like the persons themselves, only particulars. The ideas of the nurse and the mother are well framed in the mind and like pictures of them there, represent only those individuals. The names they first give rise to are confined to these individuals, and the names of _nurse_ and _mamma_ which the child uses, determine themselves to those persons. Afterwards when time and a larger acquaintance has made them observe that there are a great many other things in the world, that in some common agreements of shape, and several other properties resemble their father and mother, and those persons they have been used to, they frame an idea which they find those many particulars do partake in, and to that they give with others the name _Man_, for example. And thus they come to have a general name, and a general idea. Wherein they make nothing new, but only leave out of the complex idea they had of Peter and James, Mary and Jane, that which is peculiar to each, and retain what is common to them all. By the same way that they come by the general name and idea of man, they easily advance to more general names and notions. For observing that several things that differ from their idea of man, and therefore cannot be comprehended under that name, have yet certain qualities wherein they agree with man, by retaining only those qualities and uniting them into one idea, they have again another and more general idea; to which having given a name, they make a term of a more comprehensive extension; which new idea is made, not by any new addition, but only as before, by leaving out the shape, and some other properties signified by the name man, and retaining only a body with life, sense, and spontaneous motion, comprehended under the name _animal_. That this is the way that men first formed general ideas and general names to them, I think is so evident that there needs no other proof of it, but the considering of a man’s self or others, and the ordinary proceedings of their mind in knowledge: and he that thinks general natures or notions are anything else but _such abstracts and partial ideas of more complex ones taken at first from particular existencies_, will I fear be at a loss where to find them. For let any one reflect and then tell me, wherein does his idea of _man_ differ from that of Paul and Peter, or his idea of horse from that of Bucephalus, but in the leaving out something that is peculiar to each individual; and retaining so much of those particular complex ideas of several particular existencies, as they are found to agree in? Of the complex ideas signified by the names _man_ and _horse_, leaving out those particulars wherein they differ, and retaining only those wherein they agree, and of those making a new distinct complex idea and giving the name _animal_ to it, one has a more general term that comprehends with man several other creatures.

‘Leave out of the idea of animal sense and spontaneous motion, and the remaining complex idea, made up of the remaining simple ones of body, life, and nourishment, becomes a more general one under the more comprehensive word _vivens_. And not to dwell upon these particular, so evident in itself, by the same way the mind proceeds to _body_, _substance_, and at last to _being_, thing, and such universal terms, which stand for any of our ideas whatsoever. To conclude: this whole mystery of genera and species, which make such a noise in the schools, and are with justice so little regarded out of them, is nothing else but abstract ideas, more or less comprehensive, with names annexed to them. In all which this is constant and invariable, that every more general term stands for such an idea as is but a part of any of those contained under it.’

The author adds, ‘It is plain by what has been said, that general and universal belong not only to the real existence of things, but are the inventions and creatures of the understanding, made by it, for its own use, and concern only signs, whether words or ideas. Words are general, when used for signs of general ideas, and so are applicable indifferently to many particular things; and ideas are general when they are set up as the representatives of many particular things, but universality belongs not to things themselves, which are all of them particular in their existence, even those words and ideas which in their significations are general. When, therefore, we quit particulars, the generals that rest are only creatures of our own making, their general nature being nothing but the capacity they are put in to of signifying many particulars. For the signification they have is nothing but a relation, that by the mind of man is added to them.’ See p. 15, vol. 2.

Mr. Locke at first here evidently supposes that we have ideas answering to general terms, i.e. certain ideas of such particulars as a number of things are found to agree in, or that there are some common qualities by retaining which and only leaving out what is peculiar and foreign, without adding anything new, we get at the general notion. He afterwards to all appearance reduces these general notions to mere signs or sounds with which several particular ideas are associated, but which do not correspond to any common properties or general nature really inhering in these particular things. In the same manner he continues to take different sides of the question, when he comes to treat of genera, and species, when his antipathy to the word _essence_ constantly drives him back into the notion that all our ideas of essences are mere terms, and the want of solidity in that opinion again as constantly disposes him to admit a real difference in the sorts of things, besides the difference of the names we give to them. For immediately after affirming that the abstract essences of things are the workmanship of the understanding, he adds, ‘I would not here be thought to forget, much less to deny, that nature, in the production of things makes several of them alike: there is nothing more obvious, especially in the races of animals, and all things propagated by seed. But yet, I think we may say, the sorting of them by names is the workmanship of the understanding taking occasion from the similitude it observes amongst them to make abstract general ideas, and set them up as patterns in forms (for in that sense the word form has a very proper signification), to which as particular things existing are found to agree, so they come to be of that species, have that denomination, or are put into that class. For when we say this is a _man_, that a _horse_, &c. what do we else but rank things under different specific names, as agreeing to those abstract ideas, of which we have made these names the signs? And what are the essences of those species set out and marked by names, but those abstract ideas in the mind, which are as it were the bonds between particular things that exist,’ &c. For my own part I must confess that I agree with the Bishop of Worcester on this occasion, who asks, ‘What is it that makes Peter, James, and John real men? Is it the attributing the general name to them? No, certainly, but that the true and real essence of a man is in every one of them. They take their denomination of being men from that common nature or essence which is in them.’ On the opposite system it is not the nature of the thing which determines the imposition of the name, but the imposition of the name which determines the nature of the thing; or giving them the name makes Peter, James, and John men, as in the opinion of some divines Baptism makes them Christians. That there is a real difference in things and ideas, answering to their general names, appears evident from this single observation, that if it were not so, we could never know how to apply these general names, and we could no more distinguish between a man and a horse than we could tell at first sight, that one man’s proper name was John and another’s Thomas. The puzzle about genera and species, in this view of the question, seems to arise from a very obvious transposition of ideas. Because the abstracting or separating these general ideas from particular circumstances is the workmanship of the understanding: it has, therefore, been inferred, that the ideas themselves are so too, and that they exist no where but in the mind which perceives them.

But I would fain ask, in the account which Mr. Locke gives of the abstract ideas of _animal_ for example, whether body, sense, and motion, as they exist in different individuals, have not a general nature, or something common in all those individuals. If _body_ in one case expresses the same thing, or same idea as _body_ in another, their generals belong to things and ideas, as well as to names; if body in one case expresses quite a different thing in one to what it does in another, then it is not easy to imagine what determines the mind to apply the name to these different things, or on what foundation Mr. Locke’s definition rests. Extreme opinions were not in general the side on which Mr. Locke erred; and, on the present occasion, he has qualified his opposition to the prevailing system in such a manner, that it is difficult to say in what point he admitted or rejected it. He evidently, in the general scope of this argument, admits the reality of abstract ideas in the mind, though he denies the existence of real sorts, or nature of things of the mind to correspond to them: for the expressions which intimate any doubt of the former are occasional and parenthetical, and his acknowledgment that there is something in nature which guides and determines the mind in the sorting of things and giving names to them is equally extorted from him. There is none of this doubt and perplexity in the minds of his French commentators; none of this suspicion of error and anxious desire to correct it; no lurking objections arise to stagger their confidence in themselves; it is all the same light airy self-complacency; not a speck is to be seen in the clear sky of their metaphysics, not a cloud obscures the sparkling current of their thoughts. In the logic of Condillac, the whole question of abstract ideas, of genera and species, and of the nature of reasoning as founded upon them, is settled and cleared from all difficulties, past, present, and to come, with as little expence of thought, time, and trouble, as possible. The Abbé demonstrates with ease. ‘General ideas,’ he says, ‘of which we have explained the formation, are a part of the aggregate idea of each of the individuals to which they correspond, and they are considered, for this reason, as so many partial or imperfect ideas. The idea of man, for instance, makes part of the complex ideas of Peter and Paul, since it is equally to be found in both. There is no such thing as man in general. This partial idea has then no reality out of the mind, but it has one in the mind, where it exists separately from the aggregate or individual ideas of which it is a part. All our general ideas are then so many abstract ideas, and you see that we form them only in consequence of taking from each individual idea that which is common to all.

‘But what, in truth, is the reality which a general and abstract idea has in the mind. It is nothing but a name: or, if it is any thing more, it necessarily ceases to be abstract, and general. When, for example, I think of a _man_, I consider this word as a common denomination, in which case, it is very evident, that my idea is in some sort circumscribed within this name, that it does not extend to anything beyond it, and that consequently it is nothing but the name itself. If, on the contrary, thinking of man in general, I contemplate any thing in this word, besides the mere denomination, it can only be by representing myself to some one man; and a man can no more be man in general, or in the abstract in my mind, than in nature. Abstract ideas are therefore only denominations. If we will absolutely think that they are something else, we shall only resemble a painter who should obstinately persist in painting the figure of a man in general, and who would still paint only individuals. This observation concerning abstract and general ideas, demonstrates that their clearness depends entirely on the order in which we have arranged the denominations of classes; and that, consequently, to determine this sort of ideas, there is only one means, which is to construct a language properly.

‘This confirms what we have already demonstrated, how necessary words are to us: for if we had no general terms, we should have no abstract ideas, we should have neither _genera_, or _species_, and without _genera_ and _species_, we could reason upon nothing. But if we reason only by means of words this is a new proof that we can only reason well or ill, according as the language, in which we reason, is well or ill made. The analysis of our thoughts can only enable us to reason in proportion as by instructing us how to class our abstract ideas, it enables us how to form our language correctly, and the whole art of reasoning is thus reduced to the art of well speaking.’

What in this supremacy of words is to be the criterion of well speaking the Abbé does not say.

‘To speak, to reason, to form general or abstract ideas, are then in fact the same thing: and this truth, simple as it is, might pass for a discovery. Certainly, men in general have not had any notion of it; this is evident from the manner in which they speak and reason; it is evident from the abuse which they make of abstract ideas; finally, it is evident from the difficulties which those persons confessedly find in conceiving of abstract ideas who have so little in speaking of them.

‘The art of reasoning resolves into the construction of languages, only because the order of our ideas itself depends entirely on the subordination that subsists between the names given to _genera_ and _species_; and as we arrive at new ideas only by forming new classes, it follows that we can only determine or define our ideas by determining their classes. In this case we should reason well, because we should be guided by analogy in our conclusions as well as in the acceptation of words.

‘Convinced, therefore, that classes or sorts of things are pure denominations, we shall never think of supposing that there exist in nature _genera_ or _species_; and we shall understand by these words nothing but a certain mode of classing things according to the relations which they have to ourselves and to one another. We shall be sensible that we can only discover those relations, and not what the things truly are.’

Berkeley handled his subjects with little tenderness, and he has perfectly anatomised this subject of abstract ideas. In choosing to answer the objections to this doctrine as stated by him, I shall not be accused of wishing to encounter a mean adversary. I can only trust to the goodness of my cause. I hope I shall be excused for going at some length into the argument, because it is one of the most difficult and complicated in itself, and is of the most extensive application to other questions relating to the human understanding. If we can come to any satisfactory issue to it, it will be worth the pains of enquiry.

‘It is agreed on all hands,’ says this author, ‘that the quantities or modes of things do never really exist in each of them, apart by itself, and separated from all others, but are mixed, as it were, and blended together, several in the same object. But we are told the mind being able to consider each quality singly, or abstracted from those other qualities with which it is united, does by that means frame to itself abstract ideas. For example, there is perceived by sight, an object, extended, coloured, and moved. This mixed idea the mind resolving into its simple constituent parts, and viewing each by itself exclusive of the rest, does frame the abstract ideas of extension, colour, and motion. Not that it is possible for colour or motion to exist without extension, but only that the mind can frame to itself by abstraction the idea of colour, exclusive of extension, and of motion exclusive both of colour and extension. Again, the mind having observed that in the particular extensions perceived by sense, there is something common and alike in all, and some other things peculiar, as this or that figure, or magnitude, which distinguish them one from another, it considers apart, or singles out by itself that which is most common, making thereof a most abstract idea of extension, line, surface, or solid, nor has any figure or magnitude, but is an idea prescinded from all these. So likewise the mind by leaving out of the particular colours perceived by sense, that which distinguishes them one from another, and retaining that which only is common to all, makes an idea of colour in abstract, which is neither red, nor blue, not white, &c. And in like manner by considering motion abstractedly, not only the body moved, but likewise from the figure it describes, and all particular directions and velocities, the abstract idea of motion is framed, which equally corresponds to all particular motions whatsoever that may be perceived by sense.

‘And as the mind frames to itself abstract ideas of qualities, or modes, so does it by the precision or mental separation, attain abstract ideas of the more compound beings, which include several co-existent qualities:—for example, the mind having observed, that Peter, James, John, &c., resemble each other in certain common agreements of shape, and other qualities, leaves out of the complex or compounded idea it has of Peter, James, &c., that which is peculiar to each, retaining only what is common to all; and so makes an abstract idea wherein the particulars equally partake, abstracting entirely, and cutting off all those circumstances and differences which might determine it, to any particular existence. And after this manner it is said, we come by the abstract idea of man, or if you please humanity, or human nature; ’tis true, there is included colour, because there is no man but has some colour, but then it can be neither white nor black, nor any particular colour, because there is no one particular colour, wherein all men partake; so there is included stature, but then it is neither tall stature, nor low stature, nor yet middle stature, but something abstracted from all these; and so of the rest. Moreover, there being a great variety of other creatures that partake in some parts, not all, of the complex idea, man, the mind leaving out those parts which are peculiar to men, and retaining those only which are common to all living creatures, frames the idea of animals, which abstracts not only from all particular men, but also, all birds, beasts, fishes, and insects. By _Body_ is meant body without any particular shape, or figure, there being no one shape or figure common to all animals, without covering of hair, feathers, or scales, &c. nor yet naked; hair, feathers, scales, and nakedness, being the distinguishing properties of particular animals, and for that reason left out of the abstract idea; upon the same account the spontaneous motion must be neither in walking, nor flying, nor creeping, it is nevertheless a motion, but what that motion is, it is not easy to conceive.’

‘Whether others have this wonderful faculty of abstracting their ideas, they best can tell: for myself I dare be confident I have it not. I have a faculty of imagining or representing to myself the ideas of those particular things I have perceived, and of variously compounding and dividing them. I can imagine a man with two heads or the upper part of a man joined to the body of a horse; I can consider the hand, the eye, the nose, each by itself, abstracted or separated from the rest of the body. But then, whatever hand or eye, I imagine, it must have some particular shape, and colour. Likewise, the idea of man that I frame to myself must be either of a white, or a black, or a tawny; a strait, or a crooked; a tall, or a low, or a middle-sized man. I cannot by any effort of thought conceive the abstract idea above-described: and it is equally impossible for me to form the abstract idea of motion distinct from the body moving, and which is neither swift nor slow, curvilinear nor rectilinear, and the like may be said of other abstract general ideas whatsoever: to be plain, I own myself able to abstract in one sense, as when I consider some particular parts or qualities separated from others, with which, though they are united in some objects, yet it is possible they may really exist without them. But I deny that I can abstract from one another, or conceive separately those qualities, which it is impossible should exist so separated:—or that I can frame a general notion by abstracting from particulars in the manner aforesaid, which two last are the proper acceptation of abstraction; and there is ground to think most men will acknowledge themselves to be in my case.

‘The generality of men, which are simple and illiterate, never pretend to abstract notions. It is said they are difficult and not to be attained without pains and study; we may therefore reasonably conclude that, if such there be, they are confined only to the learned. I proceed to examine what can be alleged in defence of the doctrine of abstraction, and try if I can discover what it is that inclines the man of speculation to embrace an opinion so remote from common sense as that seems to be. There has been a late excellent and deservedly esteemed philosopher, who no doubt has given it very much, by seeming to think the having abstract general ideas is what puts the difference in point of understanding betwixt man and beast.’

The author here quotes a passage from Mr. Locke on the subject, which it is not necessary to give, and afterwards his opinion that words become general by being made signs of general ideas. He then proceeds:—‘To this I cannot assent, being of opinion that a word becomes general by being made the sign, not of an abstract general idea, but of several particular ideas, any one of which it indifferently suggests to the mind.’

‘If we will annex a meaning to our words and speak only of what we can only conceive, I believe we shall acknowledge that an idea, which considered in itself is particular, becomes general, by being made to represent or stand for all other particular ideas _of the same sort_. To make this plain by example, suppose a geometrician is demonstrating the method of cutting a line in two equal parts. He draws for instance a black line of an inch in length: this which is in itself a particular line, is nevertheless, with regard to its signification, general, since, as it is there used, it represents all particular lines whatsoever, so that what is demonstrated of it is demonstrated of all lines, or in other words of a line in general; and, as that particular line becomes general, by being made a sign, so the name _line_, which taken absolutely, is particular, by being a sign, is made general. And as the former owes its generality not to its being the sign of an abstract or general line, but of all particular right lines that may possibly exist, so the latter must be thought to derive its generality from the same cause, namely, the various particular lines which it indifferently denotes.’

‘To give the reader a clearer view of the nature of abstract ideas, and the uses they are thought necessary to, I shall add one more passage out of the Essay on Human Understanding, which is as follows:—“Abstract ideas are not so obvious or easy to children, or the yet unexercised mind as particular ones. If they seem so to grown men, it is only by constant and familiar use they are made so. For when we nicely reflect upon them, we shall find that general ideas are fictions and contrivances of the mind, that carry difficulty with them, and do not so easily offer themselves as we are apt to imagine. For example, does it not require some skill and pains to form the general idea of a triangle (which is yet none of the abstract, comprehensive, and difficult), for it must be neither oblique nor rectangle, neither equilateral, equicrural, nor scalenon, but all and none of these at once. In effect it is something imperfect that cannot exist, an idea wherein some parts of different and inconsistent ideas are put together. ’Tis true the mind in this imperfect state has need of such ideas, and makes all the haste it can to them, for the convenience of communication and enlargement of knowledge, to both of which it is naturally very much inclined. But yet one has reason to suspect such ideas are marks of our imperfections, at least this is enough to show that the most abstract and general ideas are not those that the mind is first and most easily acquainted with, nor such as its earliest knowledge is conversant about.”‘—After laughing at this description of the general idea of a triangle, which is neither oblique nor rectangle, equilateral, equicrural, nor scalenon, but all and none of these at once, Berkeley adds, ‘much is here said of the difficulty that abstract ideas carry with them, and the pains and skill requisite to the forming of them. And it is on all hands agreed that there is need of great toil and labour of mind, to emancipate our thoughts from particular objects, and raise them to those sublime speculations that are conversant about abstract ideas. From all which the natural consequences should seem to be, that so difficult a thing as forming abstract ideas was not necessary for communication, which is so familiar to all sorts of men. But, we are told, if they seem obvious and easy to grown men, it is only because by constant and familiar use they are made so. Now I would fain know at what time it is, men are employed in surmounting that difficulty and furnishing themselves with those necessary helps for discourse. It cannot be when they are grown up, for then it seems they are not conscious of any such pains-taking; it therefore remains to be the business of their childhood. And surely the great and multiplied labour of framing abstract notions will be found a hard task for that tender age. Is it not a hard thing to imagine that a couple of children cannot prate of their sugar plums, and rattles, and the rest of their little trinkets, till they have first packed together numberless inconsistencies, and so framed in their minds general abstract ideas, and annexed them to every common name they make use of.

‘It is I know a point much insisted on that all knowledge and demonstration are about universal notions, to which I fully assent. But then it does not appear to me that those notions are formed by abstraction, in the manner premised; universality, so far as I can comprehend, not consisting in the absolute, positive nature and conception of any thing, but in the relation it bears to the particulars signified, or represented by it. But here it will be demanded, how we can know any proposition to be true of all particular triangles, except we have seen it first demonstrated of the abstract idea of a triangle which equally agrees to all?