[318]. III. § xxv.
[319]. IV. § xix. i. 160, ed. cit.
[320]. In the mood in which he did that eccentric frontispiece to the Maitland Club Sir Bevis of Hampton (Edinburgh, 1838) at the abgeschmackt-ness of which the late excellent Prof. Kölbing shuddered when he edited Arthur and Merlin (Leipzig, 1890, p. ix.) A picture of La Belle Dame sans Merci in the Royal Academy for 1902 seems to have been actually constructed on Mr Burke’s suggestions. For a very witty and crushing jest on The Sublime and Beautiful, v. inf., Bk. viii. ch. 3.
[321]. This was not the opinion of some person who has annotated the copy of the Essay on Taste (3rd ed., Edinburgh, 1780: the first appeared in 1758) which belongs to the University of Edinburgh, as “wonderfully profound.” Other annotators, however, both of this and the Essay on Genius (1774)—for the University authorities of the past appear to have been somewhat indifferent to the fashion in which students used books—do not agree with him. In plain truth both pieces are rather trying examples of that “saying an infinite deal of nothing” which is so common in philosophical inquiries. “Facility in the conception of an object, if it be moderate, gives us pleasure” (Taste, p. 29); “The rudest rocks and mountains ... acquire beauty when skilfully imitated in painting;” “Where refinement is wanting, taste must be coarse and vulgar” (p. 115). “Perfect criticism requires therefore” (p. 174) “the greatest philosophical acuteness united with the most exquisite perfection of taste.” “The different works of men of genius sometimes differ very much in the degree of their perfection” (Genius, p. 236). “Both in genius for the arts and in genius for science Imagination is assisted by Memory.” Certainly “here be truths,” but a continued course of reading things like them begins before long to inspire a considerable longing for falsehoods. Gerard, however, though habitually dull, is less absurd than Alison, whom he undoubtedly supplied with his principle of Association.
[322]. Ed. cit. See a little farther on a similarly uncritical criticism on the trahuntque siccas machinæ carinas of Horace.
[323]. Ibid.
[324]. The mother of Gwendolen Harleth was wiser. “Oh! my dear, any nose,” said she, “will do to be miserable with!” and if so, why not to be predatory? The only possible answer of course caps the absurdity. The conventional Bandit is an Italian; the conventional Italian has an aquiline nose: therefore, &c.
[325]. Had all æstheticians approached their subject in the spirit of our English historian of it, much of what I have said would be quite inapplicable. “The æsthetic theorist,” says Mr Bosanquet in his Preface (History of Æsthetic: London, 1892), “desires to understand the artist, not in order to interfere with the latter, but in order to satisfy an intellectual interest of his own.” With such an attitude I have no quarrel: nor, I should think, need those who take it have any quarrel with mine. I may add that from this point onwards I shall take the liberty of a perpetual silent reference to Mr Bosanquet’s treatment of subjects and parts of subjects which seem to me to lie outside of my own plan. I purposely abstained from reading his book until two-thirds of my own were published, and more than two-thirds more of the remainder were written. And I have been amused and pleased, though not surprised, to find that if we had planned the two books together from the first, we could hardly have covered the ground more completely and with less confusion. I cannot, however, help observing that Mr Bosanquet, like almost all æstheticians I know, except Signor Croce, though he does not neglect literature, at least devotes most attention to the plastic arts. This is perhaps a little significant.
CHAPTER VI.
THE STUDY OF LITERATURE.
[BEARINGS OF THE CHAPTER]—[ENGLAND]—[THE STUDY OF SHAKESPEARE]—[OF SPENSER]—[CHAUCER]—[ELIZABETHAN MINORS]—[MIDDLE AND OLD ENGLISH]—[INFLUENCE OF ENGLISH ABROAD]—[THE STUDY OF FRENCH AT HOME AND ABROAD]—[OF ITALIAN]—[ESPECIALLY DANTE]—[OF SPANISH]—[ESPECIALLY CERVANTES]—[OF GERMAN].