Bearings of the chapter[171]
England[171]
The study of Shakespeare[172]
Of Spenser[173]
Chaucer[174]
Elizabethan minors[174]
Middle and Old English[175]
Influence of English abroad[176]
The study of French at home and abroad[177]
Of Italian[179]
Especially Dante[179]
Of Spanish[180]
Especially Cervantes[182]
Of German[182]
INTERCHAPTER VII.[184]

BOOK VIII.

THE RECONSTRUCTION OF CRITICISM.

CHAPTER I.

WORDSWORTH AND COLERIDGE: THEIR COMPANIONS AND ADVERSARIES.

Wordsworth and Coleridge[200]
The former’s Prefaces[201]
That to Lyrical Ballads, 1800[202]
Its history[202]
The argument against poetic diction, and even against metre[203]
The appendix: Poetic Diction again[204]
The Minor Critical Papers[204]
Coleridge’s examination of Wordsworth’s views[205]
His critical qualifications[206]
Unusual integrity of his critique[207]
Analysis of it[207]
The “suspension of disbelief”[208]
Attitude to metre[208]
Excursus on Shakespeare’s Poems[210]
Challenges Wordsworth on “real” and “rustic” life[210]
“Prose” diction and metre again[211]
Condemnation in form of Wordsworth’s theory[212]
The Argumentum ad Gulielmum[212]
The study of his poetry[213]
High merits of the examination[213]
Wordsworth a rebel to Longinus and Dante[214]
The Preface compared more specially with the De Vulgari[215]
And Dante’s practice[215]
With Wordsworth’s[216]
The comparison fatal to Wordsworth as a critic[217]
Other critical places in Coleridge[218]
The rest of the Biographia[218]
The Friend[219]
Aids to Reflection, &c.[220]
The Lectures on Shakespeare, &c.[220]
Their chaotic character[221]
And preciousness[222]
Some noteworthy things in them: general[223]
And particular[224]
Coleridge on other dramatists[224]
The Table Talk[224]
The Miscellanies[225]
The Lecture On Style[226]
The Anima Poetæ[227]
The Letters[229]
The Coleridgean position and quality[230]
He introduces once for all the criterion of Imagination, realising and disrealising[231]
The “Companions”[232]
Southey[233]
General characteristics of his Criticism[234]
Reviews[235]
The Doctor[235]
Altogether somewhat impar sibi[236]
Lamb[237]
His “occultism”[238]
And alleged inconstancy[238]
The early Letters[239]
The Specimens[240]
The Garrick Play Notes[241]
Miscellaneous Essays[242]
Elia[242]
The later Letters[243]
Uniqueness of Lamb’s critical style[244]
And thought[245]
Leigh Hunt: his somewhat inferior position[246]
Reasons for it[246]
His attitude to Dante[247]
Examples from Imagination and Fancy[248]
Hazlitt[251]
Method of dealing with him[251]
His surface and occasional faults: Imperfect knowledge and method[252]
Extra-literary prejudice[253]
His radical and usual excellence[254]
The English Poets[255]
The Comic Writers[256]
The Age of Elizabeth[257]
Characters of Shakespeare[258]
The Plain Speaker[259]
The Round Table, &c.[261]
The Spirit of the Age[262]
Sketches and Essays[263]
Winterslow[263]
Hazlitt’s critical virtue[263]
In set pieces[264]
And universally[265]
Blake[266]
His critical position and dicta[267]
The “Notes on Reynolds”[268]
And Wordsworth[268]
Commanding position of these[268]
Sir Walter Scott commonly undervalued as a critic[270]
Injustice of this[271]
Campbell: his Lectures on Poetry[272]
His Specimens[272]
Shelley: his Defence of Poetry[274]
Landor[276]
His lack of judicial quality[276]
In regular Criticism[276]
The Conversations[277]
Loculus Aureolus[278]
But again disappointing[278]
The revival of the Pope quarrels[279]
Bowles[279]
Byron[281]
The Letter to Murray, &c.[281]
Others: Isaac Disraeli[282]
Sir Egerton Brydges[283]
The Retrospective Review[283]
The Baviad and Anti-Jacobin[286]
With Wolcot and Mathias[287]
The influence of the new Reviews, &c.[288]
Jeffrey[289]
His loss of place and its cause[289]
His inconsistency[290]
His criticism on Madame de Staël[291]
Its lesson[293]
Hallam[293]
His achievement[294]
Its merits[294]
And defects[295]
In general distribution and treatment[295]
In some particular instances[296]
His central weakness[297]
And the value left by it[298]

CHAPTER II.

MIL-HUIT-CENT-TRENTE.