[168]. Let us remember that this evil-famed book itself contains admirable critical passages, notably (chap. xxxviii), that attack on the French theatre which Lessing extracted in Nos. 84, 85 of the Hamburgische Dramaturgie.
[169]. Œuvres, iii. 200-407.
[170]. Fortunately the contents and indices of the Assézat-Tourneux edition are admirably abundant and clear: a merit not so common in French books as some others.
[171]. Œuvres, viii. 339-426. The English reader has at his disposal the excellent translation of Mr W. H. Pollock (London, 1883), with a preface by Sir Henry Irving. I should like also to mention here Mrs L. Tollemache’s Diderot’s Thoughts on Art and Style, an interesting selection which has, I think, been more than once published.
[172]. Œuvres, vii. 299-410 (with appendices).
[173]. Œuvres, xi. 368-373.
[174]. The chief exceptions, such as a letter to Panckoucke (May 25, 1764) and a sensible one to Chamfort (Oct. 6, same year) have a very little. The words Vous admirez Richardson to the elder Mirabeau (April 8, 1767) may raise expectations: they will be cruelly dashed. Cf. the indignant renunciation of the description homme de lettres a little later (May 13), and the long and important review of his own career to Saint-Germain, dated “1770-26/2.” The fact is, that a maniac of egotism and self-torment cannot be a critic, the subject under consideration being inevitably turned out of court by Self.
[175]. One book of some traditional note and interest from the eminence of its author in other ways, Condillac’s Art d'Écrire (which forms part of his elaborate Cours d’Étude for the Prince of Parma: Parma, 1769-1773), was not there noticed. It is of little intrinsic importance, being a mere treatise on “Composition”—a common-sense and common-place Rhetoric adjusted to late French eighteenth century standards. Its definition of style as depending on “netteté et caractère,” is an obvious attempt to combine the elder with the Buffonian ideal.
[176]. My copy is the Didot edition of the Œuvres, in three large vols. (Paris, 1873). As, however, this is very cumbrous to hold, I also use and here cite the smaller separate edition (same publishers: Paris, 1876) of the De l’Allemagne.
[177]. Even after publishing the two previous volumes, I find myself accused of “not having taken the trouble to acquaint myself with the fact that the application of psychological tests has profoundly altered criticism,” or words to that effect. εἴθ’ ὤφελ’ Ἀργοῦς μὴ διαπτάσθαι. I only wish I had not had to thread these more dismal and dangerous Symplegades! But I am at any rate trying to save others from their danger.