[157]. Foster’s (John) Essay on the Different Nature of Accent and Quantity (second edition, Eton, 1763) is duly before me also, but I must not touch it here.
[158]. As An Essay on the Harmony of Language. My friend, Mr T. S. Omond, in the quite invaluable bibliography referred to above, thinks this “clearer, shorter, more pointed” than the second. It is at any rate well to remember that when it appeared, Johnson had ten years to live, and Scott, Wordsworth, and Coleridge were in their nurseries.
[159]. Harmony of Language, second edition, p. 51.
[160]. Ibid., p. 81.
CHAPTER IV.
DIDEROT AND THE FRENCH TRANSITION.
[THE POSITION OF DIDEROT]—[DIFFICULT TO AUTHENTICATE]—[BUT HARDLY TO BE EXAGGERATED. HIS IMPRESSIONISM]—[THE RICHARDSON ÉLOGE]—[THE ‘REFLECTIONS ON TERENCE’]—[THE REVIEW OF THE ‘LETTRES D’AMABED’]—[THE EXAMINATION OF SENECA]—[THE QUALITY AND EMINENCE OF HIS CRITICAL POSITION]— [ROUSSEAU REVISITED]—[MADAME DE STAEL]— [HER CRITICAL POSITION]—[AND WORK]— [THE ‘LETTRES SUR ROUSSEAU’]—[THE ‘ESSAI SUR LES FICTIONS’]— [THE ‘DE LA LITTÉRATURE’]—[THE ‘DE L’ALLEMAGNE’]— [HER CRITICAL ACHIEVEMENT: IMPUTED]—[AND ACTUAL]— [CHATEAUBRIAND: HIS DIFFICULTIES]—[HIS CRITICISM]— [INDIRECT]—[AND DIRECT]—[THE ‘GÉNIE DU CHRISTIANISME’]— [ITS SATURATION WITH LITERARY CRITICISM]—[SURVEY AND EXAMPLES]— [SINGLE POINTS OF EXCELLENCE]—[AND GENERAL IMPORTANCE]— [JOUBERT: HIS REPUTATION]—[HIS LITERARY αὐτάρκεια]— [THE LAW OF POETRY]—[MORE ON THAT SUJECT]— [ON STYLE]—[MISCELLANEOUS CRITICISMS]— [HIS INDIVIDUAL JUDGMENTS MORE DUBIOUS]— [THE REASON FOR THIS]—[ADDITIONAL ILLUSTRATIONS]— [GENERAL REMARKS]—[THE OTHER ‘EMPIRE CRITICS’]— [FONTANES]—[GEOFFROY]—[DUSSAULT]—[HOFFMAN, GARAT, ETC.]— [GINGUENÉ]—[M.J. CHÉNIER]—[LEMERCIER]—[FELETZ]— [COUSIN]—[VILLEMAIN]—[HIS CLAIMS]— [DEDUCTIONS TO BE MADE FROM THEM]—[BEYLE]— [RACINE ET SHAKESPEARE]—[HIS ATTITUDE HERE]— [AND ELSEWHERE]—[NODIER].
The position of Diderot.
One of those judgments of the Common Sense which, while sometimes finding it necessary to contest or correct them, we have also found in the main not untrustworthy, has long ago decided that for good or for ill, the weakening of the neo-classic tradition in its great stronghold, France, is due originally to Denis Diderot more than to any one else—nay, that the Germans themselves owe him a heavy quit-rent. With this decision we shall have no quarrel here; on the contrary, a long familiarity with the writings[[161]] of this voluminous and disorderly genius, has made the present writer one of its very strongest supporters. There is not the slightest need to engage either in controversy or in compromise with others, or to hark back upon our own demonstrations that in Fontenelle, in La Motte, and elsewhere, there are seeds and germs of a critical calculus very different from Boileau’s. We may at this stage take these things for granted. Far be it from us to say that “there’s nothing new or true, and it doesn’t matter.” But we may very modestly, but very unflinchingly say that there is nothing wholly new or old; that there are at least very few things wholly true or false; and that it matters very much that it should be so.