Can there be some illusion mixed with the truth of this idea? Is it not the case that the nearer a thing is to our habit of thought the more clearly we see the individual, and the more vaguely, if at all, the universal? And would not an ancient Greek, perhaps, have seen as much of what was peculiar to each artist, and as little of what was common to all, as we do in a writer of our own time? The principle is much the same as that which makes all Chinamen look pretty much alike to us: we see the type because it is so different from what we are used to, but only one who lives within it can fully perceive the differences among individuals.
[7]. See the latter chapters of his Psychology of Suggestion.
[8]. See Harper’s Magazine, vol. 79, p. 770.
[9]. See The American Commonwealth, vol. ii., p. 705.
[10]. Memoirs of U. S. Grant, vol. i., p. 344.
[11]. See his Primitive Culture, vol. ii., p. 372.
[12]. K. C. Moore, The Mental Development of a Child, p. 37.
[13]. The Senses and the Will, p. 295.
[14]. See his First Three Years of Childhood, p. 13.
[15]. Oxenford’s Translation, vol. i., p. 501.