[607]. The Lundis (though that is not their fault) have perhaps given a rather terrible amount of “knowledge which is not knowledge” at second hand or further. I have often smiled at seeing some honest, if not consummate, first-hand study of a subject loftily pooh-poohed, by some one who evidently knew nothing of it but what he had learnt from Sainte-Beuve.
[608]. Longinus, c. xxxv. sub. fin.
[609]. He was Professor of it for years; he was a constant contributor to the Deux Mondes; he welcomed the new study of Old French, and took early part in it. But if any reader wants any more from me on him I must refer to “A Paradox on Quinet” in my Miscellaneous Essays (London, 1892), p. 274 sq.; on Michelet, to an article in the Encyclopædia Britannica.
[610]. Edd. so numerous that reference to particular ones would be very little helpful: the original dates of important works will be specified.
[611]. 1864.
[612]. 1827.
[613]. 1828.
[614]. 1834.
[615]. There is a very curious and interesting half-palinode, half-explanation, as to “art-for-art” here, which is worth noting.