CHAPTER X

THE PRESENT OUTLOOK

It has been my endeavor throughout this book to show that classic and

romantic art, though both at their best highly imaginative, differ in

the quality of the imagination. I pointed out in my first chapter that

in his recoil from the intellectual romanticism of the Renaissance

and the mediæval romanticism of actual adventure the neo-classicist

came to rest his literary faith on “reason” (by which he meant either

ordinary good sense or abstract reasoning), and then opposed this

reason or judgment to imagination. This supposed opposition between

reason and imagination was accepted by the romantic rebels against

neo-classicism and has been an endless source of confusion to the

present day. Though both neo-classicists and romanticists achieved much

admirable work, work which is likely to have a permanent appeal, it

is surely no small matter that they both failed on the whole to deal

adequately with the imagination and its rôle whether in literature

or life. Thus Dryden attributes the immortality of the Æneid to its

being “a well-weighed judicious poem. Whereas poems which are produced

by the vigor of imagination only have a gloss upon them at the first

which time wears off, the works of judgment are like the diamond; the

more they are polished, the more lustre they receive.”[292] Read on

and you will find that Dryden thus stresses judgment by way of protest

against the Cavalier Marini and the imaginative unrestraint that he

and other intellectual romanticists display. Dryden thus obscures the

fact that what gives the immortalizing touch to the Æneid is not mere

judgment but imagination--a certain quality of imagination. Even the

reader who is to enter properly into the spirit of Virgil needs more

than judgment--he needs to possess in some measure the same quality

of imagination. The romantic answer to the neo-classic distrust of

the imagination was the apotheosis of the imagination, but without

sufficient discrimination as to its quality, and this led only too

often to an anarchy of the imagination--an anarchy associated, as we

have seen, in the case of the Rousseauist, with emotion rather than

with thought or action.

The modern world has thus tended to oscillate between extremes in its

attitude towards the imagination, so that we still have to turn to

ancient Greece for the best examples of works in which the imagination

is at once disciplined and supreme. Aristotle, I pointed out, is doing

little more than give an account of this Greek practice when he says

that the poet ranks higher than the historian because he achieves a

more general truth, but that he can achieve this more general truth

only by being a master of illusion. Art in which the illusion is not

disciplined to the higher reality counts at best on the recreative

side of life. “Imagination,” says Poe, “feeling herself for once

unshackled, roamed at will among the ever-changing wonders of a shadowy

and unstable land.”[293] To take seriously the creations of this type

of imagination is to be on the way towards madness. Every madhouse,

indeed, has inmates who are very imaginative in the fashion Poe here

describes. We must not confuse the concentric or ethical with the

eccentric imagination if we are to define rightly the terms classic

and romantic or indeed to attain to sound criticism at all. My whole

aim has been to show that a main stream of emotional sophistry that

takes its rise in the eighteenth century and flows down through the

nineteenth involves just such a confusion.

The general distinction between the two types of imagination would seem

sufficiently clear. To apply the distinction concretely is, it must be

admitted, a task infinitely difficult and delicate, a task that calls

for the utmost degree of the _esprit de finesse_. In any particular

case there enters an element of vital novelty. The relation of this

vital novelty to the ethical or permanent element in life is something

that cannot be determined by any process of abstract reasoning or by

any rule of thumb; it is a matter of immediate perception. The art of

the critic is thus hedged about with peculiar difficulties. It does not

follow that Aristotle himself because he has laid down sound principles

in his Poetics, would always have been right in applying them. Our

evidence on this point is as a matter of fact somewhat scanty.

Having thus admitted the difficulty of the undertaking we may ourselves

attempt a few concrete illustrations of how sound critical standards

tended to suffer in connection with the romantic movement. Leaving

aside for the moment certain larger aspects of the ethical imagination

that I am going to discuss presently, let us confine ourselves to

poetry. Inasmuch as the ethical imagination does not in itself give

poetry but wisdom, various cases may evidently arise: a man may be wise

without being poetical; he may be poetical without being wise; he may

be both wise and poetical.

We may take as an example of the person who was wise without being

poetical Dr. Johnson. Though most persons would grant that Dr. Johnson

was not poetical, it is well to remember that this generalization has

only the approximate truth that a literary generalization can have. The

lines on Levet have been inserted and rightly in anthologies. If not on

the whole poetical, Johnson was, as Boswell says, eminently fitted to

be a “majestic teacher of moral and religious wisdom.” Few men have had

a firmer grasp on the moral law or been freer from the various forms of

sophistry that tend to obscure it. Unlike Socrates, however, of whom he

reminds us at times by his ethical realism, Johnson rests his insight

not on a positive but on a traditional basis. To say that Johnson

was truly religious is only another way of saying that he was truly

humble, and one of the reasons for his humility was his perception

of the ease with which illusion in man passes over into delusion,

and even into madness. His chapter on the “Dangerous Prevalence of

Imagination” in “Rasselas” not only gives the key to that work but to

much else in his writings. What he opposes to this dangerous prevalence

of imagination is not a different type of imagination but the usual

neo-classical reason or judgment or “sober probability.” His defence

of wisdom against the gathering naturalistic sophistries of his time

is therefore somewhat lacking in imaginative prestige. He seemed to

be opposing innovation on purely formalistic and traditional grounds

in an age which was more and more resolutely untraditional and which

was determined above all to emancipate the imagination from its

strait-jacket of formalism. Keats would not have hesitated to rank

Johnson among those who “blasphemed the bright Lyrist to his face.”

Keats himself may serve as a type of the new imaginative spontaneity

and of the new fullness and freshness of sensuous perception. If

Johnson is wise without being poetical, Keats is poetical without being

wise, and here again we need to remember that distinctions of this

kind are only approximately true. Keats has written lines that have

high seriousness. He has written other lines which without being wise

seem to lay claim to wisdom--notably the lines in which, following

Shaftesbury and other æsthetes, he identifies truth and beauty; an

identification that was disproved for practical purposes at least as

far back as the Trojan War. Helen was beautiful, but was neither good

nor true. In general, however, Keats’s poetry is not sophistical. It

is simply delightfully recreative. There are signs that Keats himself

would not have been content in the long run with a purely recreative

rôle--to be “the idle singer of an empty day.” Whether he would ever

have achieved genuine ethical purpose is a question. In working out a

wise view of life he did not, like Dante, have the support of a great

and generally accepted tradition. It is not certain again that he would

ever have developed the critical keenness that enabled a Sophocles to

work out a wise view of life in a less traditional age than that of

Dante. The evidence is rather that Keats would have succumbed, to his

own poetical detriment, to some of the forms of sham wisdom current in

his day, especially the new humanitarian evangel.[294]

In any case we may contrast Sophocles and Dante with Keats as examples

of poets who were not merely poetical but wise--wise in the relative

and imperfect sense in which it is vouchsafed to mortals to achieve

wisdom. Sophocles and Dante are not perhaps more poetical than

Keats--it is not easy to be more poetical than Keats. As Tennyson says,

“there is something magic and of the innermost soul of poetry in almost

everything he wrote.” Yet Sophocles and Dante are not only superior

to Keats, but in virtue of the presence of the ethical imagination in

their work, superior not merely in degree but in kind. Not that even

Sophocles and Dante maintain themselves uniformly on the level of

the ethical imagination. There are passages in Dante which are less

imaginative than theological. Passages of this kind are even more

numerous in Milton, a poet who on the whole is highly serious.[295] It

is in general easy to be didactic, hard to achieve ethical insight.

If Keats is highly imaginative and poetic without on the whole rising

to high seriousness or sinking to sophistry, Shelley, on the other

hand, illustrates in his imaginative activity the confusion of values

that was so fostered by romanticism. Here again I do not wish to be too

absolute. Shelley has passages especially in his “Adonais” that are

on a high level. Yet nothing is more certain than that the quality of

his imagination is on the whole not ethical but Arcadian or pastoral.

In the name of his Arcadia conceived as the “ideal” he refuses to

face the facts of life. I have already spoken of the flimsiness of his

“Prometheus Unbound” as a solution of the problem of evil. What is

found in this play is the exact opposite of imaginative concentration

on the human law. The imagination wanders irresponsibly in a region

quite outside of normal human experience. We are hindered from enjoying

the gorgeous iridescences of Shelley’s cloudland by Shelley’s own

evident conviction that it is not a cloudland, an “intense inane,” but

a true empyrean of the spirit. And our irritation at Shelley’s own

confusion is further increased by the long train of his indiscreet

admirers. Thus Professor C.H. Herford writes in the “Cambridge History

of English Literature” that what Shelley has done in the “Prometheus

Unbound,” is to give “magnificent expression to the faith of Plato and

of Christ”![296] Such a statement in such a place is a veritable danger

signal, an indication of some grave spiritual bewilderment in the

present age. To show the inanity of these attempts to make a wise man

of Shelley it is enough to compare him not with Plato and Christ, but

with the poet whom he set out at once to continue and contradict--with

Æschylus. The “Prometheus Bound” has the informing ethical imagination

that the “Prometheus Unbound” lacks, and so in its total structure

belongs to an entirely different order of art. Shelley, indeed, has

admirable details. The romanticism of nympholeptic longing may almost

be said to culminate, at least in England, in the passage I have

already cited (“My soul is an enchanted boat”). There is no reason why

in recreative moods one should not imagine one’s soul an enchanted

boat and float away in a musical rapture with the ideal dream companion

towards Arcady. But to suppose that revery of this kind has anything to

do with the faith of Plato and of Christ, is to fall from illusion into

dangerous delusion.

We may doubt whether if Shelley had lived longer he would ever have

risen above emotional sophistry and become more ethical in the quality

of his imagination. Such a progress from emotional sophistry to ethical

insight we actually find in Goethe; and this is the last and most

complex case we have to consider. Johnson, I have said, is wise without

being poetical and Keats poetical without being wise; Sophocles is

both poetical and wise, whereas Shelley is poetical, but with a taint

of sophistry or sham wisdom. No such clear-cut generalization can be

ventured about Goethe. I have already quoted Goethe’s own judgment

on his “Werther” as weakness seeking to give itself the prestige of

strength, and perhaps it would be possible to instance from his early

writings even worse examples of a morbid emotionalism (e.g. “Stella”).

How about “Faust” itself? Most Germans will simply dismiss such a

question as profane. With Hermann Grimm they are ready to pronounce

“Faust” the greatest work of the greatest poet of all times, and of

all peoples. Yet it is not easy to overlook the sophistical element

in both parts of “Faust.” I have already commented on those passages

that would seem especially sophistical: the passage in which the devil

is defined as the spirit that always says no strikes at the very root

of any proper distinction between good and evil. The passage again in

which Faust breaks down all precise discrimination in favor of mere

emotional intoxication is an extreme example of the Rousseauistic

art of “making madness beautiful.” The very conclusion of the whole

poem, with its setting up of work according to the natural law as a

substitute for work according to the human law, is an egregious piece

of sham wisdom. The result of work according to the human law, of

ethical efficiency in short, is an increasing serenity; and it is not

clear that Faust is much calmer at the end of the poem than he is at

the beginning. According to Dr. Santayana he is ready to carry into

heaven itself his romantic restlessness--his desperate and feverish

attempts to escape from ennui.[297] Perhaps this is not the whole truth

even in regard to “Faust”; and still less can we follow Dr. Santayana

when he seems to discover in the whole work of Goethe only romantic

restlessness. At the very time when Goethe was infecting others with

the wild expansiveness of the new movement, he himself was beginning

to strike out along an entirely different path. He writes in his

Journal as early as 1778: “A more definite feeling of limitation and

in consequence of true broadening.” Goethe here glimpses the truth

that lies at the base of both humanism and religion. He saw that the

romantic disease was the imaginative and emotional straining towards

the unlimited (_Hang zum Unbegrenzten_), and in opposition to this

unrestraint he was never tired of preaching the need of working within

boundaries. It may be objected that Goethe is in somewhat the same

case here as Rousseau: that the side of his work which has imaginative

and emotional driving power and has therefore moved the world is of an

entirely different order. We may reply that Goethe is at times both

poetical and wise. Furthermore in his maxims and conversations where

he does not rise to the poetical level, he displays a higher quality of

wisdom than Rousseau. At his best he shows an ethical realism worthy

of Dr. Johnson, though in his attitude towards tradition he is less

Johnsonian than Socratic. Like Socrates he saw on what terms a break

with the past may be safely attempted. “Anything that emancipates the

spirit,” he says, “without a corresponding growth in self-mastery, is

pernicious.” We may be sure that if the whole modern experiment fails

it will be because of the neglect of the truth contained in this maxim.

Goethe also saw that a sound individualism must be rightly imaginative.

He has occasional hints on the rôle of illusion in literature and life

that go far beneath the surface.

Though the mature Goethe, then, always stands for salvation by work,

it is not strictly correct to say that it is work only according

to the natural law. In Goethe at his best the imagination accepts

the limitations imposed not merely by the natural, but also by the

human law. However, we must admit that the humanistic Goethe has had

few followers either in Germany or elsewhere, whereas innumerable

persons have escaped from the imaginative unrestraint of the emotional

romanticist, as Goethe himself likewise did, by the discipline of

science.

The examples I have chosen should suffice to show how my distinction

between two main types of imagination--the ethical type that gives

high seriousness to creative writing and the Arcadian or dalliant

type that does not raise it above the recreative level--works out in

practice. Some such distinction is necessary if we are to understand

the imagination in its relation to the human law. But in order to

grasp the present situation firmly we need also to consider the

imagination in its relation to the natural law. I have just said that

most men have escaped from the imaginative anarchy of the emotional

romanticist through science. Now the man of science at his best is

like the humanist at his best, at once highly imaginative and highly

critical. By this coöperation of imagination and intellect they are

both enabled to concentrate effectively on the facts, though on facts

of a very different order. The imagination reaches out and perceives

likenesses and analogies whereas the power in man that separates

and discriminates and traces causes and effects tests in turn these

likenesses and analogies as to their reality: for we can scarcely

repeat too often that though the imagination gives unity it does not

give reality. If we were all Aristotles or even Goethes we might

concentrate imaginatively on both laws, and so be both scientific and

humanistic: but as a matter of fact the ordinary man’s capacity for

concentration is limited. After a spell of concentration on either law

he aspires to what Aristotle calls “relief from tension.” Now the very

conditions of modern life require an almost tyrannical concentration

on the natural law. The problems that have been engaging more and more

the attention of the Occident since the rise of the great Baconian

movement have been the problems of power and speed and utility. The

enormous mass of machinery that has been accumulated in the pursuit of

these ends requires the closest attention and concentration if it is

to be worked efficiently. At the same time the man of the West is not

willing to admit that he is growing in power alone, he likes to think

that he is growing also in wisdom. Only by keeping this situation in

mind can we hope to understand how emotional romanticism has been

able to develop into a vast system of sham spirituality. I have said

that the Rousseauist wants unity without reality. If we are to move

towards reality, the imagination must be controlled by the power

of discrimination and the Rousseauist has repudiated this power as

“false and secondary.” But a unity that lacks reality can scarcely be

accounted wise. The Baconian, however, accepts this unity gladly. He

has spent so much energy in working according to the natural law that

he has no energy left for work according to the human law. By turning

to the Rousseauist he can get the “relief from tension” that he needs

and at the same time enjoy the illusion of receiving a vast spiritual

illumination. Neither Rousseauist nor Baconian carry into the realm

of the human law the keen analysis that is necessary to distinguish

between genuine insight and some mere phantasmagoria of the emotions.

I am speaking especially, of course, of the interplay of Rousseauistic

and Baconian elements that appear in certain recent philosophies like

that of Bergson. According to Bergson one becomes spiritual by throwing

overboard both thought and action, and this is a very convenient notion

of spirituality for those who wish to devote both thought and action to

utilitarian and material ends. It is hard to see in Bergson’s intuition

of the creative flux and perception of real duration anything more

than the latest form of Rousseau’s transcendental idling. To work with

something approaching frenzy according to the natural law and to be

idle according to the human law must be accounted a rather one-sided

view of life. The price the man of to-day has paid for his increase

in power is, it should seem, an appalling superficiality in dealing

with the law of his own nature. What brings together Baconian and

Rousseauist in spite of their surface differences is that they are both

intent on the element of novelty. But if wonder is associated with the

Many, wisdom is associated with the One. Wisdom and wonder are moving

not in the same but in opposite directions. The nineteenth century may

very well prove to have been the most wonderful and the least wise

of centuries. The men of this period--and I am speaking of course of

the main drift--were so busy being wonderful that they had no time,

apparently, to be wise. Yet their extreme absorption in wonder and the

manifoldness of things can scarcely be commended unless it can be shown

that happiness also results from all this revelling in the element

of change. The Rousseauist is not quite consistent on this point. At

times he bids us boldly set our hearts on the transitory. _Aimez_,

says Vigny, _ce que jamais on ne verra deux fois_. But the Rousseauist

strikes perhaps a deeper chord when looking forth on a world of flux he

utters the anguished exclamation of Leconte de Lisle: _Qu’est-ce que

tout cela qui n’est pas éternel?_ Even as one swallow, says Aristotle,

does not make a spring, so no short time is enough to determine whether

a man deserves to be called happy. The weakness of the romantic pursuit

of novelty and wonder and in general of the philosophy of the beautiful

moment--whether the erotic moment[298] or the moment of cosmic

revery--is that it does not reckon sufficiently with the something

deep down in the human breast that craves the abiding. To pin one’s

hope of happiness to the fact that “the world is so full of a number of

things” is an appropriate sentiment for a “Child’s Garden of Verse.”

For the adult to maintain an exclusive Bergsonian interest in “the

perpetual gushing forth of novelties” would seem to betray an inability

to mature. The effect on a mature observer of an age so entirely turned

from the One to the Many as that in which we are living must be that of

a prodigious peripheral richness joined to a great central void.

What leads the man of to-day to work with such energy according to

the natural law and to be idle according to the human law is his

intoxication with material success. A consideration that should

therefore touch him is that in the long run not merely spiritual

success or happiness, but material prosperity depend on an entirely

different working. Let me revert here for a moment to my previous

analysis: to work according to the human law is simply to rein in one’s

impulses. Now the strongest of all the impulses is the will to power.

The man who does not rein in his will to power and is at the same time

very active according to the natural law is in a fair way to become

an efficient megalomaniac. Efficient megalomania, whether developed

in individuals of the same group or in whole national groups in their

relations with one another, must lead sooner or later to war. The

efficient megalomaniacs will proceed to destroy one another along with

the material wealth to which they have sacrificed everything else; and

then the meek, if there are any meek left, will inherit the earth.

“If I am to judge by myself,” said an eighteenth-century Frenchman,

“man is a stupid animal.” Man is not only a stupid animal in spite

of his conceit of his own cleverness but we are here at the source

of his stupidity. The source is the moral indolence that Buddha with

his almost infallible sagacity defined long ago. In spite of the fact

that his spiritual and in the long run his material success hinge on

his ethical effort, man persists in dodging this effort, in seeking to

follow the line of least or lesser resistance. An energetic material

working does not mend but aggravate the failure to work ethically and

is therefore especially stupid. Just this combination has in fact led

to the crowning stupidity of the ages--the Great War. No more delirious

spectacle has ever been witnessed than that of hundreds of millions

of human beings using a vast machinery of scientific efficiency to

turn life into a hell for one another. It is hard to avoid concluding

that we are living in a world that has gone wrong on first principles,

a world that, in spite of all the warnings of the past, has allowed

itself to be caught once more in the terrible naturalistic trap. The

dissolution of civilization with which we are threatened is likely to

be worse in some respects than that of Greece or Rome in view of the

success that has been attained in “perfecting the mystery of murder.”

Various traditional agencies are indeed still doing much to chain

up the beast in man. Of these the chief is no doubt the Church. But

the leadership of the Occident is no longer here. The leaders have

succumbed in greater or less degree to naturalism[299] and so have been

tampering with the moral law. That the brutal imperialist who brooks

no obstacle to his lust for dominion has been tampering with this law

goes without saying; but the humanitarian, all adrip with brotherhood

and profoundly convinced of the loveliness of his own soul, has been

tampering with it also, and in a more dangerous way for the very

reason that it is less obvious. This tampering with the moral law, or

what amounts to the same thing, this overriding of the veto power in

man, has been largely a result, though not a necessary result, of the

rupture with the traditional forms of wisdom. The Baconian naturalist

repudiated the past because he wished to be more positive and critical,

to plant himself upon the facts. Yet the veto power is itself a

fact,--the weightiest with which man has to reckon. The Rousseauistic

naturalist threw off traditional control because he wished to be more

imaginative. Yet without the veto power the imagination falls into

sheer anarchy. Both Baconian and Rousseauist were very impatient of

any outer authority that seemed to stand between them and their own

perceptions. Yet the veto power is nothing abstract, nothing that one

needs to take on hearsay, but is very immediate. The naturalistic

leaders may be proved wrong without going beyond their own principles,

and their wrongness is of a kind to wreck civilization.

I have no quarrel, it is scarcely necessary to add, either with the man

of science or the romanticist when they keep in their proper place.

As soon however as they try, whether separately or in unison, to set

up some substitute for humanism or religion, they should be at once

attacked, the man of science for not being sufficiently positive and

critical, the romanticist for not being rightly imaginative.

This brings us back to the problem of the ethical imagination--the

imagination that has accepted the veto power--which I promised a

moment ago to treat in its larger aspects. This problem is indeed

in a peculiar sense the problem of civilization itself. A curious

circumstance should be noted here: a civilization that rests on dogma

and outer authority cannot afford to face the whole truth about the

imagination and its rôle. A civilization in which dogma and outer

authority have been undermined by the critical spirit, not only can

but must do this very thing if it is to continue at all. Man, a being

ever changing and living in a world of change, is, as I said at the

outset, cut off from immediate access to anything abiding and therefore

worthy to be called real, and condemned to live in an element of

fiction or illusion. Yet civilization must rest on the recognition

of something abiding. It follows that the truths on the survival of

which civilization depends cannot be conveyed to man directly but

only through imaginative symbols. It seems hard, however, for man to

analyze critically this disability under which he labors, and, facing

courageously the results of his analysis, to submit his imagination

to the necessary control. He consents to limit his expansive desires

only when the truths that are symbolically true are presented to him as

literally true. The salutary check upon his imagination is thus won at

the expense of the critical spirit. The pure gold of faith needs, it

should seem, if it is to gain currency, to be alloyed with credulity.

But the civilization that results from humanistic or religious control

tends to produce the critical spirit. Sooner or later some Voltaire

utters his fatal message:

_Les prêtres ne sont pas ce qu’un vain peuple pense;_

_Nôtre crédulité fait toute leur science._

The emancipation from credulous belief leads to an anarchic

individualism that tends in turn to destroy civilization. There is some

evidence in the past that it is not quite necessary to run through this

cycle. Buddha, for example, was very critical; he had a sense of the

flux and evanescence of all things and so of universal illusion keener

by far than that of Anatole France; at the same time he had ethical

standards even sterner than those of Dr. Johnson. This is a combination

that the Occident has rarely seen and that it perhaps needs to see. At

the very end of his life Buddha uttered words that deserve to be the

Magna Charta of the true individualist: “Therefore, O Ananda, be ye

lamps unto yourselves. Be ye refuges unto yourselves. Look to no outer

refuge. Hold fast as a refuge unto the Law (_Dhamma_).”[300] A man may

safely go into himself if what he finds there is not, like Rousseau,

his own emotions, but like Buddha, the law of righteousness.

Men were induced to follow Rousseau in his surrender to the emotions,

it will be remembered, because that seemed the only alternative to a

hard and dry rationalism. The rationalists of the Enlightenment were

for the most part Cartesians, but Kant himself is in his main trend a

rationalist. The epithet critical usually applied to his philosophy is

therefore a misnomer. For to solve the critical problem--the relation

between appearance and reality--it is necessary to deal adequately with

the rôle of the imagination and this Kant has quite failed to do.[301]

Modern philosophy is in general so unsatisfactory because it has raised

the critical problem without carrying it through; it is too critical

to receive wisdom through the traditional channels and not critical

enough to achieve insight, and so has been losing more and more its

human relevancy, becoming in the words of one of its recent votaries,

a “narrow and unfruitful eccentricity.” The professional philosophers

need to mend their ways and that speedily if the great world is not

to pass them disdainfully by and leave them to play their mysterious

little game among themselves. We see one of the most recent groups, the

new realists, flat on their faces before the man of science--surely an

undignified attitude for a philosopher. It is possible to look on the

kind of knowledge that science gives as alone real only by dodging the

critical problem--the problem as to the trustworthiness of the human

instrument through which all knowledge is received--and it would be

easy to show, if this were the place to go into the more technical

aspects of the question, that the new realists have been doing just

this--whether through sheer naïveté or metaphysical despair I am unable

to say. The truly critical observer is unable to discover anything

real in the absolute sense since everything is mixed with illusion.

In this absolute sense the man of science must ever be ignorant of

the reality behind the shows of nature. The new realist is, however,

justified relatively in thinking that the only thing real in the view

of life that has prevailed of late has been its working according to

the natural law and the fruits of this working. The self-deception

begins when he assumes that there can be no other working. What I have

myself been opposing to naturalistic excess, such as appears in the

new realism, is insight; but insight is in itself only a word, and

unless it can be shown to have its own working and its own fruits,

entirely different from those of work according to the natural law, the

positivist at all events will have none of it.

The positivist will not only insist upon fruits, but will rate

these fruits themselves according to their bearing upon his main

purpose. Life, says Bergson, can have no purpose in the human sense

of the word.[302] The positivist will reply to Bergson and to the

Rousseauistic drifter in general, in the words of Aristotle, that the

end is the chief thing of all and that the end of ends is happiness. To

the Baconian who wants work and purpose but according to the natural

law alone, the complete positivist will reply that happiness cannot be

shown to result from this one-sided working; that in itself it affords

no escape from the misery of moral solitude, that we move towards true

communion and so towards peace and happiness only by work according

to the human law. Now the more individualistic we are, I have been

saying, the more we must depend for the apprehension of this law on

the imagination, the imagination, let me hasten to add, supplemented

by the intellect. It is not enough to put the brakes on the natural

man--and that is what work according to the human law means--we must

do it intelligently. Right knowing must here as elsewhere precede

right doing. Even a Buddha admitted that at one period in his life

he had not been intelligent in his self-discipline. I need only to

amplify here what I have said in a previous chapter about the proper

use of the “false secondary power” by those who wish to be either

religious or humanistic in a positive fashion. They will employ their

analytical faculties, not in building up some abstract system, but in

discriminating between the actual data of experience with a view to

happiness, just as the man of science at his best employs the same

faculties in discriminating between the data of experience with a view

to power and utility.

I have pointed out another important use of the analytical intellect in

its relation to the imagination. Since the imagination by itself gives

unity but does not give reality, it is possible to discover whether a

unification of life has reality only by subjecting it to the keenest

analysis. Otherwise what we take to be wisdom may turn out to be only

an empty dream. To take as wise something that is unreal is to fall

into sophistry. For a man like Rousseau whose imagination was in its

ultimate quality not ethical at all but overwhelmingly idyllic to set

up as an inspired teacher was to become an arch-sophist. Whether or not

he was sincere in his sophistry is a question which the emotionalist

is very fond of discussing, but which the sensible person will dismiss

as somewhat secondary. Sophistry of all kinds always has a powerful

ally in man’s moral indolence. It is so pleasant to let one’s self go

and at the same time deem one’s self on the way to wisdom. We need to

keep in mind the special quality of Rousseau’s sophistry if we wish to

understand a very extraordinary circumstance during the past century.

During this period men were moving steadily towards the naturalistic

level, where the law of cunning and the law of force prevail, and

at the same time had the illusion--or at least multitudes had the

illusion--that they were moving towards peace and brotherhood. The

explanation is found in the endless tricks played upon the uncritical

and still more upon the half-critical by the Arcadian imagination.

The remedy is not only a more stringent criticism, but, as I have

tried to make plain in this whole work, in an age of sophistry, like

the present, criticism itself amounts largely to that art of inductive

defining which it is the great merit of Socrates, according to

Aristotle,[303] to have devised and brought to perfection. Sophistry

flourishes, as Socrates saw, on the confused and ambiguous use of

general terms; and there is an inexhaustible source of such ambiguities

and confusions in the very duality of human nature. The word nature

itself may serve as an illustration. We may take as a closely allied

example the word progress. Man may progress according to either the

human or the natural law. Progress according to the natural law has

been so rapid since the rise of the Baconian movement that it has

quite captivated man’s imagination and stimulated him to still further

concentration and effort along naturalistic lines. The very magic

of the word progress seems to blind him to the failure to progress

according to the human law. The more a word refers to what is above the

strictly material level, the more it is subject to the imagination and

therefore to sophistication. It is not easy to sophisticate the word

horse, it is only too easy to sophisticate the word justice. One may

affirm, indeed, not only that man is governed by his imagination but

that in all that belongs to his own special domain _the imagination

itself is governed by words_.[304]

We should not therefore surrender our imaginations to a general term

until it has been carefully defined, and to define it carefully we

need usually to practice upon it what Socrates would call a dichotomy.

I have just been dichotomizing or “cutting in two” the word progress.

When the two main types of progress, material and moral, have been

discriminated in their fruits, the positivist will proceed to rate

these fruits according to their relevancy to his main goal--the goal

of happiness. The person who is thus fortified by a Socratic dialectic

will be less ready to surrender his imagination to the first sophist

who urges him to be “progressive.” He will wish to make sure first that

he is not progressing towards the edge of a precipice.

Rousseau would have us get rid of analysis in favor of the “heart.”

No small part of my endeavor in this work and elsewhere has been to

show the different meanings that may attach to the term heart (and the

closely allied terms “soul” and “intuition”)--meanings that are a world

apart, when tested by their fruits. Heart may refer to outer perception

and the emotional self or to inner perception and the ethical self. The

heart of Pascal is not the heart of Rousseau. With this distinction

once obliterated the way is open for the Rousseauistic corruption of

such words as virtue and conscience, and this is to fling wide the door

to every manner of confusion. The whole vocabulary that is properly

applicable only to the supersensuous realm is then transferred to the

region of the subrational. The impulsive self proceeds to cover its

nakedness with all these fair phrases as it would with a garment. A

recent student of war-time psychology asks: “Is it that the natural

man in us has been masquerading as the spiritual man by hiding himself

under splendid words--courage, patriotism, justice--and now he rises up

and glares at us with blood-red eyes?” That is precisely what has been

happening.

But after all the heart in any sense of the word is controlled by

the imagination, so that a still more fundamental dichotomy, perhaps

the most fundamental of all, is that of the imagination itself. We

have seen how often the Arcadian dreaming of the emotional naturalist

has been labelled the “ideal.” Our views of this type of imagination

will therefore determine our views of much that now passes current

as idealism. Now the term idealist may have a sound meaning: it may

designate the man who is realistic according to the human law. But

to be an idealist in Shelley’s sense or that of innumerable other

Rousseauists is to fall into sheer unreality. This type of idealist

shrinks from the sharp discriminations of the critic: they are like

the descent of a douche of ice-water upon his hot illusions. But it

is pleasanter, after all, to be awakened by a douche of ice-water

than by an explosion of dynamite under the bed; and that has been the

frequent fate of the romantic idealist. It is scarcely safe to neglect

any important aspect of reality in favor of one’s private dream, even

if this dream be dubbed the ideal. The aspect of reality that one is

seeking to exclude finally comes crashing through the walls of the

ivory tower and abolishes the dream and at times the dreamer.

The transformation of the Arcadian dreamer into the Utopist is a

veritable menace to civilization. The ends that the Utopist proposes

are often in themselves desirable and the evils that he denounces are

real. But when we come to scrutinize critically his means, what we

find is not a firm grip on the ascertained facts of human nature but

what Bagehot calls the feeble idealities of the romantic imagination.

Moreover various Utopists may come together as to what they wish to

destroy, which is likely to include the whole existing social order;

but what they wish to erect on the ruins of this order will be found

to be not only in dreamland, but in different dreamlands. For with the

elimination of the veto power from personality--the only power that can

pull men back to some common centre--the ideal will amount to little

more than the projection of this or that man’s temperament upon the

void. In a purely temperamental world an affirmative reply may be given

to the question of Euryalus in Virgil: “Is each man’s God but his own

fell desire?” (_An sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?_)

The task of the Socratic critic at the present time is, then, seen

to consist largely in stripping idealistic disguises from egoism, in

exposing what I have called sham spirituality. If the word spirituality

means anything, it must imply, it should seem, some degree of escape

from the ordinary self, an escape that calls in turn for effort

according to the human law. Even when he is not an open and avowed

advocate of a “wise passiveness,” the Rousseauistic idealist is only

too manifestly not making any such effort--it would interfere with his

passion for self-expression which is even more deeply rooted in him

than his passion for saving society. He inclines like Rousseau to

look upon every constraint[305] whether from within or from without

as incompatible with liberty. A right definition of liberty is almost

as important as a right definition of imagination and derives from

it very directly. Where in our anarchical age will such a definition

be found, a definition that is at once modern and in accord with the

psychological facts? “A man has only to declare himself free,” says

Goethe, “and he will at once feel himself dependent. If he ventures to

declare himself dependent, he will feel himself free.” In other words

he is not free to do whatever he pleases unless he wishes to enjoy the

freedom of the lunatic, but only to adjust himself to the reality of

either the natural or the human law. A progressive adjustment to the

human law gives ethical efficiency, and this is the proper corrective

of material efficiency, and not love alone as the sentimentalist is so

fond of preaching. Love is another word that cries aloud for Socratic

treatment.

A liberty that means only emancipation from outer control will result,

I have tried to show, in the most dangerous form of anarchy--anarchy

of the imagination. On the degree of our perception of this fact will

hinge the soundness of our use of another general term--democracy.

We should beware above all of surrendering our imaginations to this

word until it has been hedged about on every side with discriminations

that have behind them all the experience of the past with this form

of government. Only in this way may the democrat know whether he is

aiming at anything real or merely dreaming of the golden age. Here as

elsewhere there are pitfalls manifold for the uncritical enthusiast. A

democracy that produces in sufficient numbers sound individualists who

look up imaginatively to standards set above their ordinary selves, may

well deserve enthusiasm. A democracy, on the other hand, that is not

rightly imaginative, but is impelled by vague emotional intoxications,

may mean all kinds of lovely things in dreamland, but in the real world

it will prove an especially unpleasant way of returning to barbarism.

It is a bad sign that Rousseau, who is more than any other one person

the father of radical democracy, is also the first of the great

anti-intellectualists.

Enough has been said to show the proper rôle of the secondary power

of analysis that the Rousseauist looks upon with so much disfavor. It

is the necessary auxiliary of the art of defining that can alone save

us in an untraditional age from receiving some mere phantasmagoria of

the intellect or emotions as a radiant idealism. A Socratic dialectic

of this kind is needed at such a time not only to dissipate sophistry

but as a positive support to wisdom. I have raised the question in

my Introduction whether the wisdom that is needed just now should be

primarily humanistic or religious. The preference I have expressed

for a positive and critical humanism I wish to be regarded as very

tentative. In the dark situation that is growing up in the Occident,

all genuine humanism and religion, whether on a traditional or a

critical basis, should be welcome. I have pointed out that traditional

humanism and religion conflict in certain respects, that it is

difficult to combine the imitation of Horace with the imitation of

Christ. This problem does not disappear entirely when humanism and

religion are dealt with critically and is indeed one of the most

obscure that the thinker has to face. The honest thinker, whatever his

own preference, must begin by admitting that though religion can get

along without humanism, humanism cannot get along without religion.

The reason has been given by Burke in pointing out the radical defect

of Rousseau: the whole ethical life of man has its root in humility.

As humility diminishes, conceit or vain imagining rushes in almost

automatically to take its place. Under these circumstances decorum, the

supreme virtue of the humanist, is in danger of degenerating into some

art of going through the motions. Such was only too often the decorum

of the French drawing-room, and such we are told, has frequently been

the decorum of the Chinese humanist. Yet the decorum of Confucius

himself was not only genuine but he has put the case for the humanist

with his usual shrewdness. “I venture to ask about death,” one of his

disciples said to him. “While you do not know life,” Confucius replied,

“how can you know about death?”[306]

The solution of this problem as to the relation between humanism and

religion, so far as a solution can be found, lies in looking upon them

both as only different stages in the same path. Humanism should have

in it an element of religious insight: it is possible to be a humble

and meditative humanist. The type of the man of the world who is not

a mere worldling is not only attractive in itself but has actually

been achieved in the West, though not perhaps very often, from the

Greeks down. Chinese who should be in a position to know affirm again

that, alongside many corrupt mandarins, a certain number of true

Confucians[307] have been scattered through the centuries from the time

of the sage to the present.

If humanism may be religious, religion may have its humanistic side. I

have said, following Aristotle, that the law of measure does not apply

to the religious life, but this saying is not to be understood in an

absolute sense. Buddha is continually insisting on the middle path in

the religious life itself. The resulting urbanity in Buddha and his

early followers in India is perhaps the closest approach that that very

unhumanistic land has ever made to humanism.

It is right here in this joining of humanism and religion that

Aristotle, at least the Aristotle that has come down to us, does not

seem altogether adequate. He fails to bring out sufficiently the

bond between the meditative or religious life that he describes at

the end of his “Ethics” and the humanistic life or life of mediation

to which most of this work is devoted. An eminent French authority

on Aristotle,[308] complains that this separation of the two lives

encouraged the ascetic excess of the Middle Ages, the undue spurning

of the world in favor of mystic contemplation. I am struck rather

by the danger of leaving the humanistic life without any support in

religion. In a celebrated passage,[309] Aristotle says that the

“magnanimous” man or ideal gentleman sees all things including himself

proportionately: he puts himself neither too high nor too low. And

this is no doubt true so far as other men are concerned. But does the

magnanimous man put human nature itself in its proper place? Does he

feel sufficiently its nothingness and helplessness, its dependence on

a higher power? No one, indeed, who gets beyond words and outer forms

would maintain that humility is a Christian monopoly. Pindar is far

more humble[310] than Aristotle, as humble, one might almost maintain,

as the austere Christian.

A humanism sufficiently grounded in humility is not only desirable

at all times but there are reasons for thinking that it would be

especially desirable to-day. In the first place, it would so far as

the emotional naturalist is concerned raise a clear-cut issue. The

naturalist of this type denies rather than corrupts humanism. He is the

foe of compromise and inclines to identify mediation and mediocrity.

On the other hand, he corrupts rather than denies religion, turning

meditation into pantheistic revery and in general setting up a subtle

parody of what is above the ordinary rational level in terms of the

subrational. On their own showing Rousseau and his followers are

extremists,[311] and even more effective perhaps than to attack them

directly for their sham religion would be to maintain against them that

thus to violate the law of measure is to cease to be human.

Furthermore, a critical humanism would appear to be the proper

corrective of the other main forms of naturalistic excess at the

present time--the one-sided devotion to physical science. What keeps

the man of science from being himself a humanist is not his science but

his pseudo-science, and also the secret push for power and prestige

that he shares with other men. The reasons for putting humanistic

truth above scientific truth are not metaphysical but very practical:

the discipline that helps a man to self-mastery is found to have a

more important bearing on his happiness than the discipline that helps

him to a mastery of physical nature. If scientific discipline is not

supplemented by a truly humanistic or religious discipline the result

is unethical science, and unethical science is perhaps the worst

monster that has yet been turned loose on the race. Man in spite of

what I have termed his stupidity, his persistent evasion of the main

issue, the issue of his own happiness, will awaken sooner or later

to the fearful evil he has already suffered from a science that has

arrogated to itself what does not properly belong to it; and then

science may be as unduly depreciated as it has, for the past century

or two, been unduly magnified; so that in the long run it is in the

interest of science itself to keep in its proper place, which is below

both humanism and religion.

It would be possible to frame in the name of insight an indictment

against science that would make the indictment Rousseau has framed

against it in the name of instinct seem mild. The critical humanist,

however, will leave it to others to frame such an indictment. Nothing

is more foreign to his nature than every form of obscurantism. He

is ready indeed to point out that the man of science has in common

with him at least one important idea--the idea of habit, though its

scientific form seems to him very incomplete. One may illustrate from

perhaps the best known recent treatment of the subject, that of James

in his “Psychology.” It is equally significant that the humanist can

agree with nearly every line of James’s chapter on habit and that

he disagrees very gravely with James in his total tendency. That is

because James shows himself, as soon as he passes from the naturalistic

to the humanistic level, wildly romantic. Even when dealing with the

“Varieties of Religious Experience” he is plainly more preoccupied

with the intensity than with the centrality of this experience.[312]

He is obsessed with the idea that comes down to him straight from the

age of original genius that to be at the centre is to be commonplace.

In a letter to C. E. Norton (June 30, 1904) James praises Ruskin’s

Letters and adds: “Mere sanity is the most philistine and at bottom

unessential of a man’s attributes.” “Mere sanity” is not to be thus

dismissed, because to lack sanity is to be headed towards misery and

even madness. “Ruskin’s,” says Norton, who was in a position to know,

“was essentially one of the saddest of lives.”[313] Is a man to live

one of the saddest of lives merely to gratify romantic lovers of the

vivid and picturesque like James?

However, if the man of science holds fast to the results reached by

James and others regarding habit and at the same time avoids James’s

romantic fallacies he might perceive the possibility of extending the

idea of habit beyond the naturalistic level; and the way would then

be open for an important coöperation between him and the humanist.

Humanists themselves, it must be admitted, even critical humanists,

have diverged somewhat in their attitude towards habit, and that from

the time of Socrates and Aristotle. I have been dwelling thus far on

the indispensableness of a keen Socratic dialectic and of the right

knowledge it brings for those who aspire to be critical humanists.

But does right knowing in itself suffice to ensure right doing?

Socrates and Plato with their famous identification of knowledge and

virtue would seem to reply in the affirmative. Aristotle has the

immediate testimony of consciousness on his side when he remarks

simply regarding this identification: The facts are otherwise.[314]

No experience is sadder or more universal than that of the failure

of right knowledge to secure right performance: so much so that the

austere Christian has been able to maintain with some plausibility

that all the knowledge in the world is of no avail without a special

divine succor. Now the Aristotelian agrees with the Christian that mere

knowledge is insufficient: conversion is also necessary. He does not

incline, however, like the austere Christian to look for conversion to

“thunderclaps and visible upsets of grace.” Without denying necessarily

these pistol-shot transformations of human nature he conceives of

man’s turning away from his ordinary self--and here he is much nearer

in temper to the man of science--as a gradual process. This gradual

conversion the Aristotelian hopes to achieve by work according to

the human law. Now right knowledge though it supplies the norm, is

not in itself this working, which consists in the actual pulling back

of impulse. But an act of this kind to be effective must be repeated.

A habit is thus formed until at last the new direction given to the

natural man becomes automatic and unconscious. The humanistic worker

may thus acquire at last the spontaneity in right doing that the

beautiful soul professes to have received as a free gift from “nature.”

Confucius narrates the various stages of knowledge and moral effort

through which he had passed from the age of fifteen and concludes: “At

seventy I could follow what my heart desired without transgressing the

law of measure.”[315]

The keener the observer the more likely he is to be struck by the

empire of habit. Habit, as Wellington said, is ten times nature, and

is indeed so obviously a second nature that many of the wise have

suspected that nature herself is only a first habit.[316] Now Aristotle

who is open to criticism, it may be, on the side of humility, still

remains incomparable among the philosophers of the world for his

treatment of habit on the humanistic level. Any one who wishes to learn

how to become moderate and sensible and decent can do no better even at

this late day than to steep himself in the “Nicomachean Ethics.”

One of the ultimate contrasts that presents itself in a subject of

this kind is that between habit as conceived by Aristotle and nature

as conceived by Rousseau. The first great grievance of the critical

humanist against Rousseau is that he set out to be an individualist

and at the same time attacked analysis, which is indispensable if

one is to be a sound individualist. The second great grievance of the

humanist is that Rousseau sought to discredit habit which is necessary

if right analysis is to be made effective. “The only habit the child

should be allowed to form,” says Rousseau, “is that of forming no

habit.”[317] How else is the child to follow his bent or genius and

so arrive at full self-expression? The point I am bringing up is of

the utmost gravity, for Rousseau is by common consent the father of

modern education. To eliminate from education the idea of a progressive

adjustment to a human law, quite apart from temperament, may be to

imperil civilization itself. For civilization (another word that is

sadly in need of Socratic defining) may be found to consist above all

in an orderly transmission of right habits; and the chief agency for

securing such a transmission must always be education, by which I mean

far more of course than mere formal schooling.

Rousseau’s repudiation of habit is first of all, it should be pointed

out, perfectly chimerical. The trait of the child to which the sensible

educator will give chief attention is not his spontaneity, but his

proneness to imitate. In the absence of good models the child will

imitate bad ones, and so, long before the age of intelligent choice and

self-determination, become the prisoner of bad habits. Men, therefore,

who aim at being civilized must come together, work out a convention

in short, regarding the habits they wish transmitted to the young.

A great civilization is in a sense only a great convention. A sane

individualist does not wish to escape from convention in itself;

he merely remembers that no convention is final--that it is always

possible to improve the quality of the convention in the midst of which

he is living, and that it should therefore be held flexibly. He would

oppose no obstacles to those who are rising above the conventional

level, but would resist firmly those who are sinking beneath it. It

is much easier to determine practically whether one has to do with an

ascent or a descent (even though the descent be rapturous like that

of the Rousseauist) than our anarchical individualists are willing to

acknowledge.

The notion that in spite of the enormous mass of experience that has

been accumulated in both East and West we are still without light as

to the habits that make for moderation and good sense and decency, and

that education is therefore still purely a matter of exploration and

experiment is one that may be left to those who are suffering from an

advanced stage of naturalistic intoxication--for example, to Professor

John Dewey and his followers. From an ethical point of view a child has

the right to be born into a cosmos, and not, as is coming to be more

and more the case under such influences, pitch-forked into chaos. But

the educational radical, it may be replied, does stress the idea of

habit; and it is true that he would have the young acquire the habits

that make for material efficiency. This, however, does not go beyond

Rousseau who came out very strongly for what we should call nowadays

vocational training.[318] It is the adjustment to the human law against

which Rousseau and all the Rousseauists are recalcitrant.

Self-expression and vocational training combined in various

proportions and tempered by the spirit of “service,” are nearly the

whole of the new education. But I have already said that it is not

possible to extract from any such compounding of utilitarian and

romantic elements, with the resulting material efficiency and ethical

inefficiency, a civilized view of life. It is right here indeed in

the educational field that concerted opposition to the naturalistic

conspiracy against civilization is most likely to be fruitful. If

the present generation--and I have in mind especially American

conditions--cannot come to a working agreement about the ethical

training it wishes given the young, if it allows the drift towards

anarchy on the human level to continue, it will show itself, however

ecstatic it may be over its own progressiveness and idealism, both

cowardly and degenerate. It is very stupid, assuming that it is not

very hypocritical, to denounce _Kultur_, and then to adopt educational

ideas that work out in much the same fashion as _Kultur_, and have

indeed the same historical derivation.

The dehumanizing influences I have been tracing are especially to be

deprecated in higher education. The design of higher education, so far

as it deserves the name, is to produce leaders, and on the quality of

the leadership must depend more than on any other single factor the

success or failure of democracy. I have already quoted Aristotle’s

saying that “most men would rather live in a disorderly than in a

sober manner.” This does not mean much more than that most men would

like to live temperamentally, to follow each his own bent and then

put the best face on the matter possible. Most men, says Goethe in a

similar vein, prefer error to truth because truth imposes limitations

and error does not. It is well also to recall Aristotle’s saying that

“the multitude is incapable of making distinctions.”[319] Now my whole

argument is that to be sound individualists we must not only make the

right distinctions but submit to them until they become habitual.

Does it follow that the whole experiment in which we are engaged is

foredoomed to failure? Not quite--though the obstacles to success are

somewhat greater than our democratic enthusiasts suspect. The most

disreputable aspect of human nature, I have said, is its proneness to

look for scapegoats; and my chief objection to the movement I have

been studying is that more perhaps than any other in history it has

encouraged the evasion of moral responsibility and the setting up of

scapegoats. But as an offset to this disreputable aspect of man, one

may note a creditable trait: he is very sensitive to the force of a

right example. If the leaders of a community look up to a sound model

and work humanistically with reference to it, all the evidence goes to

show that they will be looked up to and imitated in turn by enough of

the rank and file to keep that community from lapsing into barbarism.

Societies always decay from the top. It is therefore not enough, as

the humanitarian would have us believe, that our leaders should act

vigorously on the outer world and at the same time be filled with the

spirit of “service.” Purely expansive leaders of this kind we have

seen who have the word humanity always on their lips and are at the

same time ceasing to be human. “That wherein the superior man cannot

be equalled,” says Confucius, “is simply this--his work which other

men cannot see.”[320] It is this inner work and the habits that result

from it that above all humanize a man and make him exemplary to the

multitude. To perform this work he needs to look to a centre and a

model.

We are brought back here to the final gap that opens between classicist

and romanticist. To look to a centre according to the romanticist

is at the best to display “reason,” at the worst to be smug and

philistine. To look to a true centre is, on the contrary, according

to the classicist, to grasp the abiding human element through all the

change in which it is implicated, and this calls for the highest use

of the imagination. The abiding human element exists, even though it

cannot be exhausted by dogmas and creeds, is not subject to rules and

refuses to be locked up in formulæ. A knowledge of it results from

experience,--experience vivified by the imagination. To do justice to

writing which has this note of centrality we ourselves need to be in

some measure experienced and imaginative. Writing that is romantic,

writing in which the imagination is not disciplined to a true centre

is best enjoyed while we are young. The person who is as much taken by

Shelley at forty as he was at twenty has, one may surmise, failed to

grow up. Shelley himself wrote to John Gisborne (October 22, 1821): “As

to real flesh and blood, you know that I do not deal in those articles;

you might as well go to a ginshop for a leg of mutton as expect

anything human or earthly from me.” The mature man is likely to be

dissatisfied with poetry so unsubstantial as this even as an intoxicant

and still more when it is offered to him as the “ideal.” The very mark

of genuinely classical work, on the other hand, is that it yields its

full meaning only to the mature. Young and old are, as Cardinal Newman

says, affected very differently by the words of some classic author,

such as Homer or Horace. “Passages, which to a boy are but rhetorical

commonplaces, neither better nor worse than a hundred others which any

clever writer might supply … at length come home to him, when long

years have passed, and he has had experience of life, and pierce him,

as if he had never before known them, with their sad earnestness and

vivid exactness. Then he comes to understand how it is that lines, the

birth of some chance morning or evening at an Ionian festival or among

the Sabine hills, have lasted generation after generation for thousands

of years, with a power over the mind and a charm which the current

literature of his own day, with all its obvious advantages, is utterly

unable to rival.”

In the poets whom Newman praises the imagination is, as it were,

centripetal. The neo-classic proneness to oppose good sense to

imagination, and the romantic proneness to oppose imagination to good

sense, have at least this justification, that in many persons, perhaps

in most persons, the two actually conflict, but surely the point to

emphasize is that they may come together, that good sense may be

imaginative and imagination sensible. If imagination is not sensible,

as is plainly the case in Victor Hugo, for example, we may suspect a

lack of the universal and ethical quality. All men, even great poets,

are more or less immersed in their personal conceit and in the zones of

illusion peculiar to their age. But there is the question of degree.

The poets to whom the world has finally accorded its suffrage have not

been megalomaniacs; they have not threatened like Hugo to outbellow

the thunder or pull comets around by the tail.[321] Bossuet’s saying

that “good sense is the master of human life” does not contradict but

complete Pascal’s saying that “the imagination disposes of everything,”

provided only due stress be laid on the word human. It would not be

easy to live a more imaginative life than Hugo, but his imagination was

so unrestrained that we may ask whether he lived a very human life,

whether he was not rather, in Tennyson’s phrase, a “weird Titan.” Man

realizes that immensity of his being of which Joubert speaks only in so

far as he ceases to be the thrall of his own ego. This human breadth he

achieves not by throwing off but by taking on limitations, and what he

limits is above all his imagination. The reason why he should strive

for a life that is thus increasingly full and complete is simply,

as Joubert suggests, that it is more delectable, that it is found

practically to make for happiness.

THE END

APPENDIX

CHINESE PRIMITIVISM

Perhaps the closest approach in the past to the movement of which

Rousseau is the most important single figure is the early Taoist

movement in China. Taoism, especially in its popular aspects, became

later something very different, and what I say is meant to apply above

all to the period from about 550 to 200 B.C. The material for the

Taoism of this period will be found in convenient form in the volume

of Léon Wieger (1913)--_Les Pères du Système taoïste_ (Chinese texts

with French translations of Lao-tzŭ, Lieh-tzŭ and Chuang-tzŭ). The Tao

Tê King of Lao-tzŭ is a somewhat enigmatical document of only a few

thousand words, but plainly primitivistic in its general trend. The

phrase that best sums up its general spirit is that of Wordsworth--a

“wise passiveness.” The unity at which it aims is clearly of the

pantheistic variety, the unity that is obtained by breaking down

discrimination and affirming the “identity of contradictories,” and

that encourages a reversion to origins, to the state of nature and the

simple life. According to the Taoist the Chinese fell from the simple

life into artificiality about the time of the legendary Yellow Emperor,

Hoang-ti (27th century B.C.). The individual also should look back

to beginnings and seek to be once more like the new-born child[322]

or, according to Chuang-tzŭ, like the new-born calf.[323] It is in

Chuang-tzŭ indeed that the doctrine develops its full naturalistic and

primitivistic implications. Few writers in either East or West have

set forth more entertainingly what one may term the Bohemian attitude

towards life. He heaps ridicule upon Confucius and in the name of

spontaneity attacks his doctrine of humanistic imitation.[324] He

sings the praises of the unconscious,[325] even when obtained through

intoxication,[326] and extols the morality of the beautiful soul.[327]

He traces the fall of mankind from nature into artifice in a fashion

that anticipates very completely both Rousseau’s Discourse on the Arts

and Sciences[328] and that on the Origin of Inequality.[329] See also

the amusing passage in which the brigand Chi, child of nature and

champion of the weak against the oppressions of government, paints

a highly Rousseauistic picture of man’s fall from his primitive

felicity.[330] Among the things that are contrary to nature and purely

conventional, according to Chuang-tzŭ and the Taoists, are, not only

the sciences and arts and attempts to discriminate between good and

bad taste,[331] but likewise government and statecraft,[332] virtue

and moral standards.[333] To the artificial music of the Confucians,

the Taoists oppose a natural music that offers startling analogies to

the most recent programmatic and descriptive tendencies of Occidental

music.[334] See especially Chuang-tzŭ’s programme for a cosmic symphony

in three movements[335]--the _Pipes of Pan_ as one is tempted to call

it. This music that is supposed to reflect in all its mystery and

magic the infinite creative processes of nature is very close to the

primitivistic music (“L’arbre vu du côté des racines”) with which

Hugo’s satyr strikes panic into the breasts of the Olympians.

The Taoist notion of following nature is closely related, as in other

naturalistic movements, to the idea of fate whether in its stoical

or epicurean form.[336] From the references in Chuang-tzŭ[337]

and elsewhere to various sects and schools we see that Taoism was

only a part of a great stream of naturalistic and primitivistic

tendency. China abounded at that time in pacifists,[338] in apostles

of brotherly love, and as we should say nowadays Tolstoyans. A true

opposite to the egoistic Yang-chu was the preacher of pure altruism

and indiscriminate sympathy, Mei-ti. Mencius said that if the ideas

of either of these extremists prevailed the time would come, not only

when wolves would devour men, but men would devour one another.[339]

In opposing discrimination and ethical standards to the naturalists,

Mencius and the Confucian humanists were fighting for civilization.

Unfortunately there is some truth in the Taoist charge that the

standards of the Confucians are too literal, that in their defence of

the principle of imitation they did not allow sufficiently for the

element of flux and relativity and illusion in things--an element for

which the Taoists had so keen a sense that they even went to the point

of suppressing the difference between sleeping and waking[340] and

life and death.[341] To reply properly to the Taoist relativist the

Confucians would have needed to work out a sound conception of the rôle

of the imagination--the universal key to human nature--and this they

do not seem to have done. One is inclined to ask whether this is the

reason for China’s failure to achieve a great ethical art like that of

the drama and the epic of the Occident at their best. The Taoists were

richly imaginative but along romantic lines. We should not fail to note

the Taoist influence upon Li Po and other Bohemian and bibulous poets

of the Tang dynasty, or the relation of Taoism to the rise of a great

school of landscape painting at about the same time. We should note

also the Taoist element in “Ch’an” Buddhism (the “Zen” Buddhism[342] of

Japan), some knowledge of which is needed for an understanding of whole

periods of Japanese and Chinese art.

In these later stages, however, the issues are less clear-cut than

in the original struggle between Taoists and Confucians. The total

impression one has of early Taoism is that it is a main manifestation

of an age of somewhat sophistical individualism. Ancient Chinese

individualism ended like that of Greece at about the same time in

disaster. After a period of terrible convulsions (the era of the

“Fighting States”), the inevitable man on horseback appeared from the

most barbaric of these states and “put the lid” on everybody. Shi

Hwang-ti, the new emperor, had many of the scholars put to death and

issued an edict that the writings of the past, especially the Confucian

writings, should be destroyed (213 B.C.). Though the emperor behaved

like a man who took literally the Taoist views as to the blessings of

ignorance, it is not clear from our chief authority, the historian

Ssŭ-ma Ch’ien, that he acted entirely or indeed mainly under Taoist

influence.

It is proper to add that though Lao-tzŭ proclaims that the soft is

superior to the hard, a doctrine that should appeal to the Occidental

sentimentalist, one does not find in him or in the other Taoists the

equivalent of the extreme emotional expansiveness of the Rousseauist.

There are passages, especially in Lao-tzŭ, that in their emphasis on

concentration and calm are in line with the ordinary wisdom of the

East; and even where the doctrine is unmistakably primitivistic the

emotional quality is often different from that of the corresponding

movement in the West.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

My only justification for these very unsystematic bibliographical notes

is that, bringing together as they do under one cover material somewhat

scattered and inaccessible to most readers, they may help to add to

the number, now unfortunately very small, of those who have earned

the right to have an opinion about romanticism as an international

movement. A list of this kind is a fragment of a fragment. I have

given, for example, only a fraction of the books on Rousseau and

scarcely any of the books, thousands in numbers, which without being

chiefly on Rousseau, contain important passages on him. I may cite

almost at random as instances of this latter class, the comparison

between Burke and Rousseau in the fifth volume of Lecky’s _History of

the Eighteenth Century_; the stanzas on Rousseau in the third canto

of _Childe Harold_; the passage on Rousseau in Hazlitt’s essay on the

_Past and Future_ (_Table Talk_).

The only period that I have covered with any attempt at fullness is

that from about 1795 to 1840. Books that seem to me to possess literary

distinction or to deal authoritatively with some aspect of the subject

I have marked with a star. I make no claim, however, to have read

all the books I have listed, and my rating will no doubt often be

questioned in the case of those I have read.

I have not as a rule mentioned articles in periodicals. The files of

the following special publications may often be consulted with profit.

Those that have current bibliographies I have marked with a dagger.

† _Revue d’Histoire littéraire de la France._--† _Annales

romantiques._--† _Revue germanique_ (Eng. and German).

† _Englische Studien_--_Anglia_.--† _Mitteilungen über Englische

Sprache und Literatur_ (Beiblatt zur Anglia).--† _Archiv für

das Studium der neueren Sprachen_ (_Herrigs Archiv_).--†

_Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur_--_Kritischer

Jahresbericht der romanischen Philologie_--_Germanisch-Romanische

Monatschrift_--_Euphorion_ (German lit.).--† _Zeitschrift für deutsches

Altertum und deutsche Literatur._

_Publications of the Modern Language Association of America._--†

_Modern Language Notes_ (Baltimore).--_Modern Philology_

(Chicago).--_The Journal of English and Germanic Philology_ (Urbana,

Ill.).--† _Studies in Philology_ (Univ. of North Car.).--† _The Modern

Language Review_ (Cambridge, Eng.).

Works that are international in scope and that fall either wholly

or in part in the romantic period are as follows: L. P. Betz: ✱ _La

Littérature Comparée, Essai bibliographique_, 2e éd. augmentée,

1904.--A. Sayous: _Le XVIIIe siècle à l’étranger_, 2 vols. 1861.--H.

Hettner: ✱ _Literaturgeschichte des 18. Jahr._ 1872. 6 vols. 5th edn.

1909. (Still standard.)--G. Brandes: ✱ _Main Currents in 19th Century

Literature_, 6 vols. 1901 ff. Originally given as lectures in Danish at

the University of Copenhagen and trans. into German, 1872 ff. (Often

marred by political “tendency.”)--T. Süpfle: _Geschichte des deutschen

Kultureinflusses auf Frankreich_, 2 vols. 1886-90.--V. Rossel: _Hist.

de la litt. fr. hors de France_. 2e éd. 1897.--C. E. Vaughan: _The

Romantic Revolt_, 1900.--T. S. Omond: _The Romantic Triumph_, 1900. (A

somewhat colorless book.)

ENGLISH FIELD

✱ _The Cambridge History of English Literature_, vols. X, XI, XII, 1913

ff. (Excellent bibliographies.)--See also articles and bibliographies

in ✱ _Dictionary of National Biography_, Chambers _Encyclopædia of

English Literature_ (new edn.) and _Encyclopædia Britannica_ (11th

edn.).

L. Stephen: ✱ _History of English Thought in the 18th Century_, 1876.

(To be consulted for the deistic prelude to emotional naturalism. The

author’s horizons are often limited by his utilitarian outlook.)--T.

S. Seccombe: _The Age of Johnson_, 1900.--E. Bernbaum’s _English

Poets of the 18th Century_, 1918. (An anthology so arranged as

to illustrate the growth of sentimentalism.)--W. L. Phelps: _The

Beginnings of the English Romantic Movement_, 1893.--H. A. Beers: _A

History of English Romanticism in the 18th Century_, 1898. _A History

of English Romanticism in the 19th Century_, 1901. (Both vols. are

agreeably written but start from a very inadequate definition of

romanticism.)--C. H. Herford: _The Age of Wordsworth_, 1897.--G.

Saintsbury: _Nineteenth Century Literature_, 1896.--A. Symons: _The

Romantic Movement in English Poetry_, 1909. (Ultra-romantic in

outlook.)--W. J. Courthope: _History of English Poetry_, vols. V and

VI, 1911.--O. Elton: ✱ _A Survey of English Literature, 1780-1830_,

1912. (A distinguished treatment of the period, at once scholarly and

literary. The point of view is on the whole romantic, as appears in the

use of such general terms as “beauty” and the “infinite.”)--H. Richter:

_Geschichte der englischen Romantik_, 1911 ff.--W. A. Neilson: _The

Essentials of Poetry_, 1912. (The point of view appears in a passage

like the following, pp. 192-93: According to Arnold high seriousness

“is the final criterion of a great poet. One might suggest it as a more

fit criterion for a great divine. … The element for which Arnold was

groping when he seized on the σπουδή of Aristotle was not seriousness

but intensity.”)--P. E. More: ✱ _The Drift of Romanticism_ (_Shelburne

Essays, Eighth Series_), 1913. (Deals also with the international

aspects of the movement, especially in the essay on Nietzsche. The

point of view has much in common with my own.)

George Lillo: _The London Merchant_; or _The History of George

Barnwell_, 1731. _Fatal Curiosity_, 1737. Both plays ed. with intro.

by A. W. Ward, 1906. (Bibliography.)--E. Bernbaum: _The Drama of

Sensibility, 1696-1780_, 1915.

=S. Richardson=, 1689-1761: _Novels_, ed. L. Stephen, 12 vols. 1883.

D. Diderot: _Eloge de R._, 1761. Reprinted in _Œuvres complètes_, vol.

v.--J. Jusserand: _Le Roman Anglais_, 1886.--J. O. E. Donner: _R. in

der deutschen Romantik_, 1896.--W. L. Cross: _The Development of the

English Novel_ (chap. II, “The 18th Century Realists”), 1899.--J.

Texte: ✱ _J.-J. Rousseau et les Origines du Cosmopolitisme littéraire_.

Eng. trans. by J.W. Matthews, 1899.--C. L. Thomson: _Samuel Richardson:

a Biographical and Critical Study_, 1900.--A. Dobson: _S. R._, 1902.

=L. Sterne=, 1713-68: Collected Works, ed. G. Saintsbury, 6 vols. 1894.

Ed. W. L. Cross, 12 vols. 1904.

P. Fitzgerald: _Life of S._, 2 vols. 1864. 3d edn. 1906.--P. Stapfer:

_Laurence Sterne_, 1870.--H. D. Traill: _Sterne_, 1882.--L. Stephen:

_Sterne. Hours in a Library_, vol. III, 1892.--J. Czerny: _Sterne,

Hippel, und Jean Paul_, 1904.--H. W. Thayer: _L. S. in Germany_,

1905.--P. E. More: _Shelburne Essays_, 3d Series, 1905.--W. L. Cross:

_The Life and Times of L. S._, 1909.--W. Sichel: ✱ _Sterne_, 1910.--L.

Melville: _The Life and Letters of L. S._, 2 vols. 1911.--F. B. Barton:

_Etude sur l’influence de S. en France au XVIIIe siècle_, 1911.

Henry Mackenzie: _The Man of Feeling_, 1771.--Horace Walpole: _The

Castle of Otranto_, 1765.--Clara Reeve: _The Champion of Virtue_, 1777.

Title changed to _The Old English Baron_ in later edns.--Thomas Amory:

_Life of John Buncle, Esq._, 4 vols. 1756-66. New edn. (with intro.

by E. A. Baker), 1904.--Henry Brooke: _The Fool of Quality_, 5 vols.

1766-70. Ed. E. A. Baker, 1906.--William Beckford: _An Arabian Tale_

[_Vathek_], 1786. In French, 1787. Ed. R. Garnett, 1893.--L. Melville:

_The Life and Letters of William Beckford_, 1910.--P. E. More: _W. B._,

in _The Drift of Romanticism_, 1913.

=Edward Young=, 1683-1765: _Works_, 6 vols. 1757-78. _Poetical Works_

(Aldine Poets), 1858.--George Eliot: _The Poet Y._, in _Essays_, 2d

edn. 1884.--W. Thomas: _Le poète E. Y._, 1901.--J. L. Kind: _E. Y. in

Germany_, 1906.--H. C. Shelley: _The Life and Letters of E. Y._, 1914.

=James Macpherson=, 1736-96: _Fingal_, 1762. _Temora_, 1763. _The Works

of Ossian_, ed. W. Sharp, 1896.--For bibliography of Ossian and the

Ossianic controversy see _Lowndes’s Bibliographer’s Manual_, part VI,

1861.--J. S. Smart: ✱ _James Macpherson_, 1905.

Thomas Percy: _Reliques of Ancient English Poetry_, 3 vols. 1765. Ed.

H. B. Wheatley, 3 vols. 1876 and 1891.--A. C. C. Gaussen: _Percy,

Prelate and Poet_, 1908.

=Thomas Chatterton=, 1752-70: _Complete Poetical Works_, ed. with

intro. and bibliography by H. D. Roberts, 2 vols. 1906. _Poetical

Works_, with intro. by Sir S. Lee, 2 vols. 1906-09.--A. de Vigny:

_Chatterton_. Drame, 1835--D. Masson: _Chatterton_ in _Essays_,

1856.--T. Watts-Dunton: Introduction to poems of C., in _Ward’s English

Poets_.--C. E. Russell: _Thomas Chatterton_, 1909.--J. H. Ingram: _The

True Chatterton_, 1910.

Thomas Warton: _The History of English Poetry_, 1774-88.--C. Rinaker:

_Thomas Warton_, 1916.--Joseph Warton: _Essay on the Genius and

Writings of Pope_, 2 vols. 1756-82.--Paul-Henri Mallet: _Introduction

à l’Hist. de Dannemarc_, 2 vols. 1755-56--F. E. Farley: _Scandinavian

Influence on the English Romantic Movement_, 1903 (Bibliography).--R.

Hurd: _Letters on Chivalry and Romance_, 1762; ed. E. J. Morley, 1911.

=W. Godwin=, 1756-1836: _Political Justice_, 1793. _Caleb Williams_,

1794.

C. K. Paul: _W. G., his Friends and Contemporaries_, 2 vols 1876.--W.

Hazlitt: _W. G._, in _The Spirit of the Age_, 1902.--L. Stephen: _W.

G.’s Novels. Studies of a Biographer_, vol. III, 1902.--P. Ramus:

_W. G. der Theoretiker des kommunistischen Anarchismus_, 1907.--H.

Saitzeff: _W. G. und die Anfänge des Anarchismus im xviii Jahrhundert_,

1907.--Helene Simon: _W. G. und Mary Wollstonecraft_, 1909.--H.

Roussin: _W. G._, 1912.

=R. Burns=, 1759-96: _The Complete Poetical Works_, ed. J. L.

Robertson, 3 vols. 1896.--J. C. Ewing: _Selected List of the Works of

R. B., and of Books upon his Life and Writings_, 1899.

W. Wordsworth: _Letter to a Friend of R. Burns_, 1816.--T. Carlyle:

_Burns_, 1828. Rptd. 1854. _On Heroes and Hero-Worship_, 1841.--J.

G. Lockhart: _Life of R. Burns_, 1828.--H. A. Taine: _Histoire de la

Littérature Anglaise_, vol. III, 1863-64.--J. C. Shairp: _R. Burns_,

1879.--R. L. Stevenson: _Familiar Studies of Men and Books_, 1882.--M.

Arnold: _Essays in Criticism, Second Series_, 1888.--A. Angellier: ✱

_R. Burns: la vie et les œuvres_, 2 vols. 1893.--T. F. Henderson: _R.

Burns_, 1904.--W. A. Neilson: _Burns: How to Know Him_, 1917.

=W. Blake=, 1759-1827: _The Poetical Works_, ed. with an intro. and

textual notes by J. Sampson, 1913.

A. Gilchrist: _Life of B._, 2 vols. 1863. New edn. 1906.--A.

C. Swinburne: _W. B._, 1868. New edn. 1906.--A. T. Story: _W.

B._, 1893.--J. Thomson (B.V.): _Essay on the Poems of W. B._, in

_Biographical and Critical Studies_, 1896.--W. B. Yeats: _Ideas of Good

and Evil_, 1903.--F. Benoit: _Un Maître de l’Art. B. le Visionnaire_,

1906.--P. E. More: _Shelburne Essays, Fourth Series_, 1906.--P. Berger:

_W. B._, 1907.--S. A. Brooke: _Studies in Poetry_, 1907.--E. J. Ellis:

_The Real B., a Portrait Biography_, 1907.--B. de Selincourt: _W.

B._, 1909.--G. Saintsbury: _A History of English Prosody_, vol. III,

1910.--J. H. Wicksteed: _B.’s Vision of the Book of Job_, 1910.--H. C.

Beeching: _B.’s Religious Lyrics, Essays and Studies by Members of the

Eng. Association_, vol. III, 1912.--A. G. B. Russell: _The Engravings

of W. B._, 1912.

=W. Wordsworth=, 1770-1850: _Poetical Works_, ed. T. Hutchinson, 1904.

_Poems_, chosen and edited by M. Arnold, 1879. _Prose Works_, ed. W.

Knight, 2 vols. 1896. _Wordsworth’s Literary Criticism_, ed. N. C.

Smith, 1905.

W. Hazlitt: _The Spirit of the Age_, 1825.--C. Wordsworth: _Memoirs of

W. W._, 2 vols. 1851.--T.B. Macaulay: _Critical and Historical Essays_,

1852.--J. R. Lowell: _Among my Books_, 1870.--R. H. Hutton: _Essays

Theological and Literary_, 2 vols. 1871.--J. C. Shairp: _W._, 1872.--S.

A. Brooke: _Theology in the English Poets_, 1874. 10th edn. 1907.--E.

Dowden: _Studies in Literature_, 1878. _New Studies in Literature_,

1895.--W. Bagehot: _Literary Studies_, 1879.--F. W. H. Myers: _W._,

1881.--J. H. Shorthouse: _On the Platonism of W._, 1882.--W. A. Knight:

_Memorials of Coleorton_, 2 vols. 1887. _Letters of the Wordsworth

Family from 1787 to 1855_, 1907.--M. Arnold: ✱ _Essays in Criticism,

Second Series_, 1888.--P. Bourget: _Etudes et Portraits_, vol. II,

1888.--W. H. Pater: _Appreciations_, 1889.--L. Stephen: _Hours

in a Library_, vol. II, 1892. _Studies of a Biographer_, vol. I,

1898.--Dorothy Wordsworth: _Journals_, ed. W. Knight, 2 vols, 1897.--E.

Legouis: ✱ _The Early Life of W., 1770-98_. Trans. by J.W. Matthews,

1897.--E. Yarnall: _W. and the Coleridges_, 1899.--W. A. Raleigh: _W._,

1903.--K. Bömig: _W. W. im Urteile seiner Zeit_, 1906.--A. C. Bradley:

_Eng. Poetry and German Philosophy in the Age of W._, 1909.--M.

Reynolds: _The Treatment of Nature in Eng. Poetry between Pope and

W._, 1909. (Bibliography.)--L. Cooper: _A Concordance to the Poems of

W. W._, 1911.--E. S. Robertson: _Wordsworthshire. An Introduction to a

Poet’s Country_, 1911.

=W. Scott=, 1771-1832: _Poetical Works_, ed. J. L. Robertson, 1904.

_The Waverly Novels_ (Oxford edn.), 25 vols. 1912. _The Miscellaneous

Prose Works_, 30 vols. 1834-71.

W. Hazlitt: _The Spirit of the Age_, 1825.--J. G. Lockhart: ✱ _Memoirs

of the Life of Sir W. S. Baronet_, 2 vols. 1837-38.--T. Carlyle: _Sir

W.S._, 1838.--G. Grant: _Life of Sir W. S._, 1849.--L. Stephen: _Hours

in a Library_, vol. I, 1874. _The Story of S.’s Ruin, Studies of a

Biographer_, vol. II, 1898.--R. H. Hutton: _Sir W. S._, 1876.--W.

Bagehot: _The Waverley Novels in Literary Studies_, vol. II, 1879.--G.

Smith: _Sir W. S._, in _Ward’s English Poets_, vol. IV, 1883.--R.

L. Stevenson: _A Gossip on Romance_ in _Memories and Portraits_,

1887.--J. Veitch: _The Feeling for Nature in Scottish Poetry_, 2 vols.

1887. Vol. II. _History and Poetry of the Scottish Border_. 2d edn.

2 vols. 1893.--C.D. Yonge: _Life of Sir W.S._ (bibliography by J.P.

Anderson), 1888.--V. Waille: _Le Romantisme de Manzoni_, 1890.--A.

Lang: _Life and Letters of J.G. Lockhart_, 2 vols. 1896. _L. and the

Border Minstrelsy_, 1910.--F.T. Palgrave: _Landscape in Poetry_,

1896.--A.A. Jack: _Essays on the Novel as illustrated by S. and Miss

Austen_, 1897.--G. Saintsbury: _Sir W.S._, 1897.--L. Maigron: ✱ _Le

Roman historique à l’époque romantique. Essai sur l’influence de W.S._,

1898.--W.L. Cross: _Development of the English Novel_, 1899.--M.

Dotti: _Delle derivazioni nei Promessi sposi di A. Manzoni dai Romanzi

di W.S._, 1900.--W.H. Hudson: _Sir W.S._, 1901.--W.S. Crockett: _The

Scott Country_, 1902. _Footsteps of S._, 1907. _The Scott Originals_,

1912.--A. Ainger: _S. Lectures and Essays_, vol. I. 1905.--A.S.G.

Canning: _History in S.’s Novels_, 1905. _Sir W.S. studied in Eight

Novels_, 1910.--G. Agnoli: _Gli Albori del romanzo storico in Italia e

i primi imitatori di W.S._, 1906.--C.A. Young: _The Waverley Novels_,

1907.--G. Wyndham: _Sir W.S._, 1908.--F.A. MacCunn: _Sir W.S.’s

friends_, 1909.

=S. T. Coleridge=, 1772-1831: _Dramatic Works_, ed. D. Coleridge, 1852.

_Poetical Works_, ed. with biographical intro. by J.D. Campbell, 1893.

_Complete Poetical Works_, ed. E.H. Coleridge, 2 vols. 1912. _Prose

Works_, 6 vols. in _Bohn’s Library_, 1865 ff.--_Biographia Literaria_,

ed. with his æsthetical essays by I. Shawcross, 2 vols. 1907. _Anima

Poetae_, ed. E.H. Coleridge, 1895. C.’s _Literary Criticism_, with

intro. by J.W. Mackail, 1908. _Biographia epistalaris_, ed. A. Tumbull,

2 vols. 1911.

W. Hazlitt: _Mr. C._, in _The Spirit of the Age_, 1825.--T. Allsop:

_Letters, Conversations, and Recollections of S.T.C._, 2 vols.

1836.--T. Carlyle: _Life of John Sterling_ (part I, chap, VIII),

1851.--Sara Coleridge: _Memoirs and Letters of Sara Coleridge_, 2

vols. 1873.--H.D. Traill: _Coleridge_, 1884.--A. Brandl: _S.T.C.

und die englishe Romantik_, 1886. Eng. trans. by Lady Eastlake,

1887.--W. Pater: _Coleridge. Appreciations_, 1889.--T. De Quincey:

_S.T.C._, 1889.--L. Stephen: _Coleridge, Hours in a Library_, vol.

III, 1892.--J.D. Campbell: _S.T.C._, 1894. 2d edn.; 1896.--E. Dowden:

_C. as a Poet. New Studies in Literature_, 1895.--E.V. Lucas: _Charles

Lamb and the Lloyds_, 1898.--R.H. Shepherd: _The Bibliography of C._,

1900.--C. Cestre: _La Révolution française et les poètes anglais

(1789-1809)_, 1906.--J. Aynard: _La vie d’un poète_. _Coleridge_,

1907.--A.A. Helmholtz: _The Indebtedness of S.T.C. to A.W. Schlegel_,

1907.--A.A. Jack and A.C. Bradley: _Short Bibliography of C._, 1912.

=C. Lamb=, 1775-1834: _Life and Works_, ed. A. Ainger, 12 vols.

1899-1900. _The Works of Charles and Mary L._, ed. E.V. Lucas, 7 vols.

1903-05. _The Works in Prose and Verse of Charles and Mary L._, ed. T.

Hutchinson, 2 vols. 1908. _The Letters of C.L._ Intro, by H.H. Harper,

5 vols. 1907. _Dramatic Essays of C.L._, ed. B. Matthews, 1891.

G. Gilfillan: _C.L._, vol. II, 1857.--B.W. Proctor: _C.L._, 1866.--P.

Fitzgerald: _C.L._, 1866.--A. Ainger: _C.L., a Biography_, 1882.

_Lectures and Essays_, vol. II, 1905.--W. Pater: _C.L. Appreciations_,

1889.--E.V. Lucas: _Bernard Barton and his Friends_, 1893. _C.L. and

the Lloyds_, 1898. _The Life of C.L._, 2 vols. 1905.--F. Harrison: _L.

and Keats_, 1899.--G.E. Woodberry: _C.L._, 1900.--H. Paul: _C.L. Stray

Leaves_, 1906.

=W. Hazlitt=, 1778-1830: _Works_, edd. A.R. Waller and A. Glover, 12

vols. and index, 1902-06.

L. Hunt: _Autobiography_, 3 vols. 1850.--W. C. Hazlitt: _Memoirs of W.

H._, 2 vols. 1867. _Four Generations of a Literary Family_, 2 vols.

1897. _Lamb and H._, 1899.--G. Saintsbury: _H. Essays in English

Literature (1780-1860)_, 1890.--L. Stephen: _Hours in a Library_, vol.

II, 1892.--A. Birrell: _W. H._, 1902.--P. E. More: _The Shelburne

Essays, Second Series_, 1905.--J. Douady: _Vie de W. H._, 1907.--_Liste

chronologique des œuvres de W. H._, 1906.

=Lord Byron=, 1788-1824: _The Works of Lord B._, ed. by R. H. Coleridge

and R. E. Prothero, 13 vols. 1898-1904. _Complete Poetical Works_, ed.

with intro., etc., by P. E. More, 1905.--_Poetry of B._, chosen and

arranged by M. Arnold, 1881.

S. E. Brydges: _Letters on the Character and Poetical Genius of Lord

B._, 1824.--T. Medwin: _Journal of the Conversations of Lord B._,

1824.--L. Hunt: _Lord B. and Some of his Contemporaries_, 3 vols.

1828.--J. Galt: _The Life of Lord B._, 1830, 1908.--V. E. P. Chasles:

_Vie et influence de B. sur son époque_, 1850.--T. B. Macaulay: _Lord

B._, 1853.--H. Beyle: _Lord B. en Italie_, in _Racine et Shakespeare_,

1824.--K. Elze: _Lord B._, 1870.--H. von Treitschke: _Lord B. und

der Radicalismus_, in _Historische und politische Aufsätze_, vol. I,

1871.--E. Castelar: _Vida de Lord B._, 1873.--A. C. Swinburne: B.,

in _Essays and Studies_, 1875.--C. Cant: _Lord B. and his Works_,

1883.--J. C. Jeaffreson: _The Real Lord B._, 2 vols. 1883.--M. Arnold:

✱ _Essays in Criticism, Second Series_, 1888.--R. Noel: _Life of

B._ (bibliography by J. P. Anderson), 1890.--O. Schmidt: _Rousseau

und B._, 1890.--S. Singheimer: _Goethe und Lord B._, 1894.--K.

Bleibtreu: _B. der Übermensch_, 1897. _Das Byron-Geheimnis_, 1912.--R.

Ackermann: _Lord B._, 1901.--F. Melchior: _Heines Verhältnis zu Lord

B._, 1902.--G. K. Chesterton: _The Optimism of B., in Twelve Types_,

1902.--E. Koeppel: _Lord B._, 1903.--J. C. Collins: _The Works of Lord

B., in Studies in Poetry and Criticism_, 1905.--W. E. Leonard: _B.

and Byronism in America_, 1905.--M. Eimer: _Lord B. und die Kunst_,

1907.--E. Estève: ✱ _B. et le romantisme français_, 1907.--J. Calcaño:

_Tres Poetas pesimistas del siglo xix_ (_Lord B., Shelley, Leopardi_),

1907.--P. H. Churchman: _B. and Espronoeda_, 1909.--R. Edgcumbe: B.;

_The Last Phase_, 1909.--B. Miller: _Leigh Hunt’s Relations with B._,

1910.--C. M. Fuess: _Lord B. as a Satirist in Verse_, 1912.--E. C.

Mayne: B., 2 vols. 1912.

=T. De Quincey=, 1785-1859. _Select Essays_, ed. D. Masson, 2 vols.

1888. _Collected Writings_, ed. D. Masson, 14 vols. 1889-90. _Literary

Criticism_, ed. H. Darbishire, 1909.

A. H. Japp: _T. De Q.: His Life and Writings._. 2 vols. 1877. New

edn. 1890. _De Q. Memorials_, 2 vols. 1891.--S. H. Hodgson: _Outcast

Essays_, 1881.--D. Masson: _T. De Q._, 1881.--G. Saintsbury: _De Q.

Essays in English Literature (1780-1860)_, 1890.--L. Stephen: _Hours in

a Library._ New edn. vol. I. 1892.--J. Hogg: _De Q. and his Friends_,

1895.--A. Barine: _Névrosés: De Q._, etc., 1898.--A. Birrell: _Essays

about Men, Women and Books_, 1901.--H. S. Salt: _De Q._, 1904.--J. A.

Green: _T. De Q.: a Bibliography_, 1908.

=P. B. Shelley=, 1792-1822: _Complete Poetical Works_, ed. T.

Hutchinson, 1904. _Prose Works_, 4 vols. Ed. H. B. Forman, 1880.

_Prose Works_, ed. R. H. Shepherd, 2 vols. 1888, 1912. _S.’s Literary

Criticism_, ed. J. Shawcross, 1909. _Letters to Elizabeth Hitchener_,

ed. B. Dobell, 1909. The _Letters of S._, ed. R. Ingpen, 2 vols. 1909.

New edn. 1912.

L. Hunt: _Lord Byron and his Contemporaries_, 1828.--T. Medwin: _The

Shelley Papers_, 1833. _Life of S._, 2 vols. 1847. Ed. H. B. Forman,

1913.--T. J. Hogg: _Life of S._, 2 vols. 1858. Ed. E. Dowden, 1906.--E.

J. Trelawny: _Recollections of the Last Days of S. and Byron_, 1858.

Ed. E. Dowden, 1906.--D. Masson: _Wordsworth, S., Keats, and other

Essays_, 1874.--J. A. Symonds: _S._, 1878.--J. Todhunter: _A Study

of S._, 1880.--_Shelley Society Publications_, 1884-88.--F. Rabbe:

_S._, 1887.--J. C. Jeaffreson: _The Real S._, 2 vols. 1885.--E.

Dowden: _Life of S._, 2 vols. 1886. Revised and condensed, 1896.--W.

Sharp: _Life of S._, 1887.--M. Arnold: ✱ _Essays in Criticism, Second

Series_, 1888.--F. S. Ellis: _A Lexical Concordance to the Poetical

Works of S._, 1892.--W. Bagehot: _Literary Studies_. New edn., vol. I,

1895.--H. Richter: _P. B. S._, 1898.--W. B. Yeats: _The Philosophy of

S.’s Poetry_, 1903.--S. A. Brooke: _The Lyrics of S._, etc. _Studies

in Poetry_, 1907.--E. S. Bates: _A Study of S.’s Drama The Cenci_,

1908.--F. Thompson: _S._, 1909.--A. C. Bradley: _S.’s View of Poetry_,

in _Oxford Lectures on Poetry_, 1909. _Short Bibliography of S._,

English Association Leaflet, no. 23, 1912.--A. Clutton-Brock: _S.,

the Man and the Poet_, 1910.--P. E. More: _S._, in _Shelburne Essays,

Seventh Series_, 1910.--A. H. Koszul: _La Jeunesse de Shelley_,

1910.--H. R. Angeli: _S. and his Friends in Italy_, 1911.--F. E.

Schelling: _The English Lyric_, 1913.--H. N. Brailsford: _S. and

Godwin_, 1913.--R. Ingpen: _S. in England_, 2 vols. 1917.

=J. Keats=, 1795-1821: _Poetical Works_, ed. with an intro., etc.,

by H. B. Forman, 1906. _Poems_, ed. Sir S. Colvin, 2 vols. 1915.

_Letters._ Complete revised edn., ed. H. B. Forman, 1895. _Keats

Letters, Papers and other Relics_, ed. G. C. Williamson, 1914.

M. Arnold: _Selections from K.’s Poems_, with _Introduction_, in

_Ward’s English Poets_, vol. IV, 1880. Also in ✱ _Essays in Criticism,

Second Series_, 1888.--A. C. Swinburne: _Miscellanies_, 1886.--W. M.

Rossetti: _Life of J. K._ (bibliography by J. P. Anderson), 1887.--S.

Colvin: _K._, 1887.--W. Watson: _Excursions in Criticism_, 1893.--J.

Texte: _K. et le neo-hellénisme dans la poésie anglaise_ in _Etudes

de littérature européenne_, 1898.--P. E. More: _Shelburne Essays,

Fourth Series_, 1906.--S. A. Brooke: _Studies in Poetry_, 1907.--A. E.

Hancock: _J. K._, 1908.--A. C. Bradley: _The Letters of K._, in _Oxford

Lectures on Poetry_, 1909.--L. Wolff: _An Essay on K.’s Treatment of

the Heroic Rhythm and Blank Verse_, 1909. _J. K., sa vie et son œuvre_,

1910.--J. W. Mackail: _Lectures on Poetry_, 1912.--Sir S. Colvin: ✱

_Life of J. K._, 1917.

FRENCH FIELD

Bibliography: G. Lanson: ✱ _Manuel bibliographique de la litt. fr.

moderne, 1500-1900_, vols. III and IV. Nouvelle éd. revue et complétée,

1915.--H. P. Thieme: _Guide bibliographique de la litt. fr. de

1800-1906_, 1907.--Asselineau: _Bibliographie romantique_, 3d edn.,

1873. Histories of French Literature: D. Nisard: _Histoire de la litt.

fr._, 4 vols. 1844-61. (For N.’s type of classicism see my _Masters

of Mod. Fr. Crit._, pp. 87 ff.)--F. Brunetière: _Manuel de l’histoire

de la litt. fr._, 1899.--G. Lanson: ✱ _Histoire de la litt. fr._ 11th

edn. 1909.--C. H. C. Wright: _A History of Fr. Lit._ (bibliography),

1912.--C.-M. Des Granges: _Histoire illustrée de la litt. fr._, 1915.

Eighteenth century: F. Baldensperger: _Lénore de Bürger dans la litt.

fr._, in _Etudes d’hist. litt._ 1e série, 1907. _Young et ses Nuits

en France_, _ibid._--J. Reboul: _Un grand précurseur des romantiques,

Ramond (1755-1827)_, 1911.--D. Mornet: _Le romantisme en Fr. au XVIIIe

siècle_, 1912.--P. van Tieghem: _Ossian en Fr._, 2 vols. 1917.

E. Bersot: _Etudes sur le XVIIIe siècle_, 1855. _Hist. des idées

morales et politiques en Fr. au XVIIIe siècle_, 2 vols. 1865-67.--H.

Taine: ✱ _L’Ancien Régime_, 1876. Vol. I of _Les Origines de la Fr.

contemporaine_.--E. Faguet: ✱ _XVIIIe siècle_, 1892.--Rocafort: _Les

Doctrines litt. de l’Encyclopédie_, 1890.--G. Lanson: _Le Rôle de

l’expérience dans la formation de la philosophie du XVIIIe siècle_,

1910.

Abbé Prévost: _Manon Lescaut_, 1731.--Harrisse: _Bibliographie et Notes

pour servir à l’hist. de Manon Lescaut_, 1875. _L’Abbé Prévost: hist.

de sa vie et de ses œuvres_, 1896.--Heilborn: _Abbé Prévost und seine

Beziehungen zur deutschen Lit._, 1897.

_Œuvres complètes de Gessner_, trad. par Huber, 3 vols. 1768. H.

Heis: _Studien aber einige Beziehungen zwischen der deutschen und der

französischen Lit. im XVII. Jahr._ I. _Der Uebersetzer und Vermittler

Huber_, 1909.

G. Lanson: ✱ _Nivelle de La Chaussée et la comédie larmoyante_, 1887.

2d edn. 1903.--E. Lintilhac: _Beaumarchais et ses œuvres_, 1887.--L.

Béclard: _Sébastien Mercier_, 1903.--Günther: _L’œuvre dramatique de

Sedaine_, 1908.--F. Gaiffe: _Etude sur le drame en Fr. au XVIIIe

siècle_, 1910.

=J.-J. Rousseau=, 1712-1778: _Discours sur les sciences et les arts_,

1750. _Discours sur l’origine et les fondements de l’inégalité_, 1755.

_Nouvelle Héloïse_, 1761. _Emile_, 1762. _Le contrat social_, 1762.

Ed. Dreyfus-Brisác, 1896. Ed. Beaulavon, 1903. 2 éd. revue, 1914.

_Confessions_, 1782-88. Ed. A. van Beyer, 1914. ✱ _The Political

Writings of R._, ed. with intro., etc. by C. E. Vaughan, 2 vols. 1915.

(Excellent work on the text. The estimate of the political influence

seems to me to lack penetration.) Collected works: Ed. Petitain, 22

vols. 1819-20. Ed. Musset-Pathay, 23 vols. 1823-26. Ed. Hachette, 13

vols. 1887. (No good collected ed. as yet.)

Streckeisen-Moultou: _Œuvres et Correspondance inédites de J.-J. R._,

1861. _J.-J. R., ses amis et ses ennemis_ (Lettres à R.), 1865.: E.

Asse: _Bibliographie de J.-J. R._ [no date]. For current bibliography

see ✱ _Annales de la Société J.-J. Rousseau_, 1905 ff. _Extraits de

J.-J. R._ publiés avec intro. p. L. Brunel. 3e éd. 1896.--_Morceaux

choisis de J.-J. R._ avec intro. etc., p. D. Mornet, 1911.

Studies (chiefly biographical): Musset-Pathay: _Histoire de la Vie

et des Ouvrages de J.-J. R._, 2 vols. 1821.--Gaberel: _R. et les

Génevois_, 1858.--H. Beaudoin: _La Vie et les Œuvres de J.-J. R._, 2

vols. 1891 (bibliography).--F. Mugnier: _Mme. de Warens et J.-J. R._,

1891.--F. Macdonald: _Studies in the France of Voltaire and R._, 1895.

_J.-J. R., a New Criticism_, 2 vols. 1906. (The evidence offered as to

the tampering with the memoirs of Mad. d’Epinay is of value. The work

is in general uncritical.)--E. Ritter: ✱ _La famille et la jeunesse

de J.-J. R._, 1896.--Stoppolini: _Le donne nella vita di G.-G. R._,

1898.--E. Rod: _L’affaire J.-J. R._, 1906.--Comte de Girardin: ✱

_Iconographie de J.-J. R._, 1908. _Iconographie des Œuvres de J.-J.

R._, 1910.--H. Buffenoir: _Les Portraits de J.-J. R._--E. Faguet: _Vie

de R._, 1912.--G. Gran: _J.-J. R._, 1912.

Hume: _Exposé succint de la contestation qui s’est élevée entre M. Hume

et M. Rousseau_, 1766.--Dussaulx: _De mes rapports avec J.-J. R._,

1798.--Comte d’Escherny: _Mélanges de littérature_, etc., 1811.--D.

Guillaume: _J.-J. R. à Motiers_, 1865.--Metzger: _J.-J. R. à l’île

Saint-Pierre_, 1875. _La conversion de Mme. Warens_, 1887. _Une

poignée de documents inédits sur Mme. Warens_, 1888. _Pensées de Mme.

Warens_, 1888. _Les dernières années de Mme. Warens_ [no date]. G.

Desnoiresterres: _Voltaire et J.-J. R._ (vol. VI of ✱ _Voltaire et la

société fr. au XVIIIe siècle_) 2e éd. 1875.--G. Maugras: _Voltaire

et J.-J. R._, 1886.--F. Berthoud: _J.-J. R. au Val de Travers_,

1881. _J.-J. R. et le pasteur de Montmollin_, 1884.--T. de Saussure:

_J.-J. R. à Venise, notes et documents_, recueillis par Victor

Ceresole 1885.--P. J. Möbius: ✱ _J.-J. R.’s Krankheitsgeschichte_,

1889.--Chatelain: _La Folie de J.-J. R._, 1890.--F. Mugnier: _Nouvelles

Lettres de Mme. Warens_, 1900.--A. de Montaigu: _Démêlés du Comte

Montaigu et de son secrétaire J.-J. R._, 1904.--B. de Saint-Pierre:

_La Vie et les Ouvrages de J.-J. R._, éd. critique p. par M. Souriau,

1907.--C. Collins: _J.-J. R. in England_, 1908.--A. Rey: _J.-J. R.

dans la vallée de Montmorency_, 1909.--D. Cabanès: _Le Cabinet secret

de l’histoire_, 3e série, 1909.--F. Girardet: _La Mort de J.-J. R._,

1909.--P.-P. Plan: _R. raconté par les gazettes de son temps_, 1913.

General Studies (chiefly critical): Bersot: _Etudes sur le XVIIIe

siècle_, t. II, 1855.--J. Morley: ✱ _R._, 1873. 2d edn. 2 vols.,

1886--Saint-Marc Girardin: _J.-J. R., sa vie et ses œuvres_,

1874.--H.-F. Amiel: _Caractéristique générale de R._, in _J.-J. R.

jugé par les Génevois d’aujourd’hui_, 1878.--Mahrenholtz: _J.-J. R.’s

Leben_, 1889.--Chuquet: _J.-J. R._, 1893.--H. Höffding: _R. und seine

Philosophie_, 1897.--J.-F. Nourrisson: _J.-J. R. et le Rousseauisme_,

1903.--Brédif: _Du Caractère intellectuel et moral de J.-J. R._,

1906.--J. Lemaître: _J.-J. R._, 1907.--L. Claretie: _J.-J. R. et

ses amis_, 1907.--L. Ducros: _J.-J. R. (1712-57)_, 1908. _J.-J. R.

(1757-65)_, 1917.--B. Bouvier: _J.-J. R._, 1912.

Special Studies (chiefly critical): Sainte-Beuve: ✱ _Lundis_, t. II

(_R. et Mme. de Franqueville_), 1850; t. III (_les Confessions_),

1850; t. XV (_Œuvres et Correspondance inédites_), 1861. _Nouveaux

Lundis_, t. IX (_Mad. de Verdelin_), 1865.--J. R. Lowell: _R. and

the Sentimentalists, in Lit. Essays_, II, 1867.--Brunetière: _Etudes

critiques_, t. III (1886) et IV (1890).--C. Borgeaud: _J.-J. R.’s

Religionsphilosophie_, 1883.--A. Jansen: _R. als Musiker_, 1884.

_R. als Botaniker_, 1885.--Espinas: _Le système de R._, 1895.--T.

Davidson: _J.-J. R. and Education according to Nature_, 1898.--M.

Liepmann: _Die Rechtsphilosophie des J.-J. R._ 1898.--F. Haymann:

_J.-J. R.’s Sozial-Philosophie_, 1898.--P. E. Merriam: _History of

the Theory of Sovereignty since R._, 1900.--E. Duffau: _La profession

de foi du Vicaire Savoyard_, 1900.--J. L. Windenberger: _Essai sur le

Système de politique étrangère de J.-J. R._, 1900.--A. Pougin: _J.-J.

R. musicien_, 1901.--G. Schumann: _Religion und Religion-Erziehung

bei R._, 1902.--Faguet: _Politique comparée de Montesquieu, Voltaire

et R._, 1902.--M. Gascheau: _Les Idées économiques chez quelques

philosophes du XVIIIe siècle_, 1903.--Grand-Carteret: _La Montagne à

travers les âges_, 1903.--Albalat: _Le Travail du Style enseigné par

les corrections manuscrites des grands écrivains_, 1903.--A. Geikie:

_Landscape in History and other Essays_, 1905.--B. Lassudrie-Duchesne:

_J.-J. R. et le Droit des gens_, 1906.--G. del Vecchio: _Su la teoria

del Contratto Sociale_, 1906.--P. E. More: _Shelburne Essays_, VI

(_Studies in Religious Dualism_), 1909.--D. Mornet: _Le sentiment

de la nature en France, de J.-J. R. à B. de S. Pierre_, 1907.--L.

Gignoux: _Le théâtre de J.-J. R._, 1909.--H. Rodet: _Le Contrat Social

et les idées politiques de J.-J. R._, 1909.--A. Schinz: _J.-J. R., a

Forerunner of Pragmatism_, 1909.--G. Fusseder: _Beiträge zur Kenntnis

der Sprache R.’s_, 1909.--J.-J. Tiersot: _R._, 1912 (_Les Maîtres de

la Musique_).--G. Vallette: _J.-J. R. Génevois_, 1911.--E. Faguet: _R.

contre Molière_, 1912. _Les Amies de R._, 1912. _R. Artiste_, 1913. _R.

Penseur_, 1913.

Sources: Dom Cajot: _Les Plagiats de J.-J. R. de Genève sur

l’Education_, 1765.--J. Vuy: _Origine des ideés politiques de

J.-J. R._, 1878.--G. Krüger: _Emprunts de J.-J. R. dans son

premier Discours_, 1891.--J. Texte: ✱ _J.-J. R. et les origines du

Cosmopolitisme littéraire au XVIIIe siècle_, 1895.--C. Culcasi: _Degli

influssi italiani nell’ opera di J.-J. R._--G. Chinni: _Le fonti dell’

Emile de J.-J. R._, 1908.--D. Villey: _L’influence de Montaigne sur les

idées pédagogiques de Locke et de R._, 1911.

Reputation and Influence: Mme. de Staël: _Lettres sur le caractère et

les ouvrages de J.-J. R._, 1788.--Mercier: _De J.-J. R. considéré comme

l’un des premiers auteurs de la Révolution_, 1791.--Kramer: _A.-H.

Francke, J.-J. R., H. Pestalozzi_, 1854.--E. Schmidt: _Richardson,

Rousseau und Goethe_, 1875.--Dietrich: _Kant et R._, 1878.--Nolen:

_Kant et J.-J. R._, 1880.--O. Schmidt: _R. et Byron_, 1887.--Pinloche:

_La réforme de l’éducation en Allemagne au XVIIIe siècle, Basedow

et le philanthropinisme_, 1889. _Pestalozzi et l’éducation populaire

moderne_, 1891.--Lévy-Bruhl: _L’Allemagne depuis Leibnitz_, 1890.

_La Philosophie de Jacobi_, 1894.--J. Grand-Carteret: _J.-J. R.

jugé par les Français d’aujourd’hui_, 1890.--R. Fester: _R. und

die deutsche Geschichtsphilosophie_, 1890.--H. Gössgen: _R. und

Basedow_, 1891.--C. H. Lincoln: _J.-J. R. and the French Revolution_,

1898.--A. Chalybans: _J.-J. R.’s Einfluss auf die französische

Revolution und die Socialdemokratie_, 1899.--V. Delbos: _Essai sur

la formation de la philosophie pratique de Kant_, 1903.--C. Cestre:

_La Révolution française et les Poètes anglais_, 1906.--P. Lasserre:

✱ _Le Romantisme français_, 1907.--Natorp: _Gesammelte Abhandlungen

zur Sozialpädagogik_, erste Abteilung: _Historisches (Pestalozzi

et R.)_, 1907.--M. Schiff: _Editions et traductions italiennes des

œuvres de J.-J. R._, 1908.--H. Buffenoir: _Le Prestige de J.-J.

R._, 1909.--E. Champion: _J.-J. R. et la Révolution française_,

1910 (superficial).--A. Meynier: _J.-J. R. révolutionnaire_, 1913

(superficial).--_Revue de métaphysique et de morale_, May, 1912.

Symposium on R. and his influence by E. Boutroux, B. Bosanquet, J.

Jaurès, etc. For similar symposium (by G. Lanson, H. Höffding, E.

Gosse, etc.) see _Annales de la Soc. J.-J. R._, VIII (1912). For

symposium by Italian writers see _Per il IIo centenario di G. G. R.

(Studi pubblicati dalla Rivista pedagogica)_, 1913.--P. M. Masson: ✱

_La Religion de J.-J. R._, 3 vols. 1917. (A storehouse of information

for the growth of deism and religious sentimentalism in France in the

18th century. Unfortunately the author is himself confused as to the

difference between genuine religion and mere religiosity.)

=D. Diderot=, 1713-84: _Œuvres_, p. par Assézat et Tourneux, 20 vols.

1875-79. _Diderot. Extraits_, avec intro., etc., par J. Texte, 1909

(excellent). _Pages choisies de D._, p. avec intro. par G. Pellissier,

1909 (excellent).

Naigeon: _Mémoire sur la vie et les ouvrages de D._, 1798. _Mémoires

de Mme. de Vandeul_, 1830.--Sainte-Beuve: _Portraits litt._, I (1830).

_Lundis_, III, (1851).--Rosenkranz: _D.’s Leben und Werke_, 2 vols.

1866.--E. Scherer: ✱ _D._, 1880.--Caro: _La fin du Dix-huitième

Siècle_, t. I, 1880.--E. Faguet: _Dix-huitième Siècle_, 1892.--J.

Morley: ✱ _Diderot and the Encyclopædists_, 2 vols. 1891.--L. Ducros:

_D., l’homme et l’écrivain_, 1894.--J. Reinach: _D._, 1894.--A.

Collignon: _D., sa vie, ses œuvres, sa correspondance_, 1895.--Bersot:

_Etudes sur le Dix-huitième Siècle_, t. II, 1855.--Brunetière: _Etudes

critiques_, t. II. _Les Salons de D._, 1880.--J. Bédier: _Le Paradoxe

sur le Comédien est-il de D.? Etudes Critiques_, 1903.

=Bernardin de Saint-Pierre=, 1737-1814: _Etudes de la nature_, 3

vols. 1784; 4 vols. 1787 (4th vol. contains _Paul et Virginie_); éd.

augmentée, 5 vols. 1792. _œuvres complètes_, p. par Aimé Martin, 12

vols. 1818-20. Supplément, 1823. _Correspondance_, p. par A. Martin, 3

vols. 1826.--A. Barine: _B. de Saint-Pierre_, 1891.--F. Maury: _Etude

sur la vie et les œuvres de B. de Saint-Pierre_, 1892.

Nineteenth Century: A. Nettement: _Histoire de la litt. fr. sous le

gouvernement de juillet_, 2 vols. 1854.--A. Michiels: _Histoire des

idées lit. en Fr._, 2 vols. 1842.--G. Pellissier: ✱ _Le mouvement

litt. au XIXe siècle_. (Eng. trans.) 6th edn. 1900.--E. Faguet: _Le

XIXe siècle_, 1887. ✱ _Politiques et Moralistes du XIXe siècle_, 3

vols. 1891-99.--F. Brunetière: ✱ _L’Evolution de la poésie lyrique

en Fr. au XIXe siècle_, 2 vols. 1894.--C. Le Goffie: _La Litt. fr.

au XIXe siècle_, 1910.--F. Strowski: _Histoire de la litt. fr. au

XIXe siècle_, 1911. Important material bearing on the romantic period

will also be found in the critical essays of G. Planche, D. Nisard,

Sainte-Beuve, A. Vinet, E. Scherer, Barbey d’Aurevilly, H. Taine, E.

Montégut, F. Brunetière, P. Bourget, E. Biré, E. Faguet, J. Lemaître,

G. Larroumet, G. Pellissier, R. Doumic, etc. For fuller information

see bibliography of my _Masters of Mod. Fr. Crit._, 395 ff. For tables

of contents of the different volumes of these and other critics see

Thieme: _Guide bibliographique_, 499 ff.

History, Critical Studies and Special Topics: Stendhal: _Racine

et Shakespeare_, 1823.--D. Sauvageot: _Le Romantisme_ (t. VIII de

_L’Hist. de la Litt. fr._, publiée sous la direction de Petit de

Julleville).--T. Gautier: _Hist. du Romantisme_, 1874.--Fournier:

_Souvenirs poétiques de l’Ecole Romantique_, 1880.--R. Bazin:

_Victor Pavie_, 1886.--T. Pavie: _Victor Pavie, sa jeunesse, ses

relations littéraires_, 1887.--L. Derôme: _Les éditions originales

des romantiques_, 2 vols. 1887.--G. Allais: _Quelques vues générales

sur le Romantisme fr._ 1897.--J. Texte: _L’influence allemande dans

le Romantisme fr._, in _Etudes de litt. européenne_, 1898.--E. Asse:

_Les petits romantiques_, 1900.--E. Dubedout: _Le sentiment chrétien

dans la poésie romantique_, 1901.--Le Roy: _L’Aube du théâtre

romantique_, 1902.--R. Canat: _Du sentiment de la solitude morale

chez les romantiques et les parnassiens_, 1904.--E. Barat: _Le style

poétique et la révolution romantique_, 1904.--H. Lardanchet: _Les

enfants perdus du romantisme_, 1905.--A. Cassagne: _La théorie de l’art

pour l’art en France_, 1906.--E. Kircher: _Philosophie der Romantik_,

1906.--E. Estève: ✱ _Byron et le Romantisme fr._, 1907.--Lasserre:

✱ _Le Romantisme fr._, 1907. (A very drastic attack on Rousseau and

the whole Rousseauistic tendency.)--L. Séché: _Le Cénacle de La Muse

Fr. (1823-27)_, 1908.--E. Seillière: _Le Mal romantique, essai sur

l’impérialisme irrationnel_, 1908. (One of about 18 vols. in which S.

attacks the underlying postulates of the Rousseauist. Like the other

leaders of the crusade against romanticism in France, S. seems to me

unsound on the constructive side.)--A. Pavie: _Médaillons romantiques_,

1909.--W. Küchler: _Französische Romantik_, 1909.--C. Lecigne: _Le

Fléau romantique_, 1909.--P. Lafond: _L’Aube romantique_, 1910.--L.

Maigron: ✱ _Le Romantisme et les mœurs_, 1910. _Le Romantisme et

la mode_, 1911.--G. Michaut: _Sur le Romantisme, une poignée de

définitions_ (extraits du _Globe_) in _Pages de critique et d’hist.

litt._, 1910.--J. Marsan: _La Bataille romantique_, 1912.--P. van

Tieghem: _Le Mouvement romantique_, 1912.--G. Pellissier: _Le Réalisme

du romantisme_, 1912.--A. Bisi: _L’Italie et le romantisme français_,

1914.--C. Maurras: _L’Avenir de l’intelligence._ 2e éd. 1917.--L.

Rosenthal: _Du Romantisme au réalisme_, 1918.

A. Jullien: _Le Romantisme et l’éditeur Renduel_, 1897.--P. Nebout: _Le

Drame romantique_, 1897.--F. Baldensperger: ✱ _Goethe en France_, 1904.

_Bibliographie critique de Goethe en France_, 1907.--C. Latreille:

_La Fin du théâtre romantique et François Ponsard_, 1899.--R. Canat:

_La renaissance de la Grèce antique (1820-50)_, 1911.--G. Gendarme

de Bévotte: _La Légende de Don Juan_, 2 vols. 1911.--L. Séché: _Le

Cénacle de Joseph Delorme_, 2 vols. 1912.--J. L. Borgerhoff: _Le

théâtre anglais à Paris sous la Restauration_, 1913.--M. Souriau: _De

la convention dans la tragédie classique et dans le drame romantique_,

1885.

Anthologies: _Anthologie des poètes fr. du XIXe siècle_ (Lemerre), 4

vols. 1887-88.--_French Lyrics of the Nineteenth Century_, ed. by G.

N. Henning, 1913. (An excellent selection.)--_The Romantic Movement in

French Literature_, traced by a series of texts selected and edited by

H. F. Stewart and A. Tilley, 1910.

The Press: _La Muse Française_, 1823-24. Reprinted with intro. by J.

Marsan, 2 vols. 1907-09.--P. F. Dubois: _Fragments litt._, articles

extraits du _Globe_, 2 vols. 1879.--T. Ziessing: _“Le Globe” de 1824 à

1830, considéré dans ses rapports avec l’école romantique_, 1881.--F.

Davis: _French Romanticism and the Press, “The Globe”_, 1906.--C. M.

Desgranges: ✱ _Le Romantisme et la critique, la presse litt. sous la

Restauration_, 1907.

B. Constant: _Adolphe_, 1816; avec préface de Sainte-Beuve, 1867; de

P. Bourget, 1888; d’A. France, 1889.--Sainte-Beuve: _Portraits litt._,

1844. _Lundis_, XI (sur _Adolphe_); _Nouveaux Lundis_, I, 1862.--E.

Faguet: _Politiques et Moralistes_, 1re série, 1891.--G. Rudler: _La

jeunesse de B. Constant (1767-94)_, 1909. _Bibliographie critique des

œuvres de B. C._, 1908.--J. Ettlinger: _B. C., der Roman eines Lebens_,

1909.

=Madame de Staël=, 1766-1817: _De la littérature_, 1801. Delphine,

1802. _Corinne_, 1807. _De l’Allemagne_, 1814. _Œuvres complètes_, 3

vols. 1836.

Biography: Mme. Necker de Saussure: _Notice en tête de l’édition des

Œuvres_, 1820.--Mme. Lenormant: _Mme. de S. et la grande duchesse

Louise_, 1862. _Mme. Récamier_, 1872.--A. Stevens: _Mme. de S._, 2

vols. 1881.--D’Haussonville: _Le Salon de Mme. Necker_, 1882.--Lady

Blennerhassett: ✱ _Mme. de S. et son temps_, traduit de l’allemand p.

A. Dietrich, 3 vols. 1890.--A. Sorel: _Mme. de S._, 1890.--Dejob: _Mme.

de S. et l’Italie_, 1890.--E. Ritter: _Notes sur Mme. de S._, 1899.--P.

Gautier: _Mme. de S. et Napoléon_, 1903.

Critical Studies: Sainte-Beuve: _Portraits Littéraires_, t. III, 1836.

_Portraits de Femmes_, 1844. _Nouveaux Lundis_, t. II, 1862.--Vinet:

_Etudes sur la litt. française. Mme. de S. et Chateaubriand_, 1849. New

edn. published by P. Sirven, 1911.--Faguet: _Politiques et Moralistes_,

1891.--F. Brunetière: _Evolution de la Critique_, 1892.--U. Mengin:

_L’Italie des Romantiques_, 1902.--Maria-Teresa Porta: _Mme. de S. e

l’Italia (bibliographia)_, 1909.--G. Muoni: _Ludovico di Breme e le

prime polemiche intorno a Mme. de S. ed al Romanticismo in Italia_.--E.

G. Jaeck: _Mme. de S. and the Spread of German Literature_, 1915.--P.

Kohler: _Mme. de S. et la Suisse_, 1916.--R. C. Whitford: _Mme. de S.’s

Reputation in England_, 1918.

=François René de Chateaubriand=, 1768-1848. _Essai sur les

Révolutions_, 1797.--Atala, 1801. _Le Génie du Christianisme_,

1802. _René_, 1802. _Les Martyrs_, 1809. _Mémoires d’Outre-Tombe_,

1849-50; éd. Biré, 6 vols. 1898-1901. _œuvres complètes_, 12 vols.

1859-61. _Correspondance générale_, p. par L. Thomas, vols. I-IV,

1912-13.--Rocheblave: _Pages choisies de C._, 1896.--V. Giraud:

_Mémoires d’Outre-Tombe: Pages choisies_, 1912.

Biography: Vinet: _Etudes sur la litt. française. Mme. de Staël et

C._, 1849. New edn. published by P. Sirven, 1911.--A. France: _Lucile

de Chateaubriand_, 1879.--A. Bardoux: _Mme. de Beaumont_, 1884. _Mme.

de Custine_, 1888. _Mme. de Duras_, 1898.--F. Saulnier: _Lucile de

Chateaubriand_, 1885.--G. Pailhès: _Mme. de C._, 1887. _Mme. de C.,

lettres inédites à Clausel de Coussergues_, 1888. _C., sa femme et ses

amis_, 1896. _Du nouveau sur Joubert, C._, etc., 1900.--J. Bédier: _C.

en Amérique_, 1899. _Etudes critiques_, 1903.--E. Biré: _Les dernières

années de C. (1830-48)_, 1902.--A. Le Braz: _Au pays d’exil de C._,

1909.--A. Beaunier: _Trois amies de C._, 1910.--A. Cassagne: _La vie

politique de C._, 1911.

Critical Studies: Sainte-Beuve: _Portraits Contemporains_, t. I, 1834,

1844. _Lundis_, ts. I, II, 1850; X, 1854. _Nouveaux Lundis_, t. III,

1862. ✱ _C. et son groupe littéraire sous l’Empire_, 1848.

Villemain: _C._, 1853.--Comte de Marcellus: _C. et son temps_,

1859.--P. Bourget: _C._, in _Etudes et Portraits_, 1889.--C. Maurras:

_Trois idées politiques (C., Michelet, Sainte-Beuve)_, 1898.--F.

Gansen: _Le rapport de V. Hugo à C._, 1900.--Lady Blennerhassett:

_Die Romantik und die Restaurationsepoche in Frankreich, C._,

1903.--E. Dick: _Plagiats de C._, 1905.--G. Daub: _Der Parallelismus

zwischen C. und Lamartine_, 1909.--E. Michel: _C., interprétation

médico-psychologique de son caractère_, 1911.--Portiquet: _C. et

l’hystérie_, 1911.--V. Giraud: _Nouvelles études sur C._, 1912.--J.

Lemaître: _C._, 1912.--G. Chinard: ✱ _L’Exotisme américain dans l’œuvre

de C._, 1918. (This volume with its two predecessors: _L’Exotisme

américain au XVIe siècle_ (1911), and _L’Amérique et le rêve exotique

au XVIIe et au XVIIIe siècle_ (1913) is an important repertory of

material for the legend of the “noble savage” and allied topics.)

=E. P. de Senancour=, 1770-1846: _Rêveries_, 1798, 1800. Ed. critique,

pub. par J. Merlant, vol. I, 1911. _Obermann_, 1804, 2d edn. with

preface by Sainte-Beuve, 1833.--J. Levallois: _Un précurseur,

Senancour_, 1897.--A. S. Tornudd: _S._, 1898--J. Troubat: _Essais

critiques_, 1902.--J. Merlant: _S., poète, penseur religieux et

publiciste_, 1907.--R. Bouyer: _Un contemporain de Beethoven, Obermann

précurseur et musicien_, 1907.--G. Michaut: _S., ses amis et ses

ennemis_, 1909.

=Charles Nodier=, 1783-1844: _Œuvres_, 13 vols. 1832-41

(incomplete).--S. de Lovenjoul: _Bibliographie et critique_, 1902.

_Œuvres choisies de N._ Notices p. A. Cazes, 1914.--Sainte-Beuve:

_Portraits littér._, I, 1840.--P. Mérimée: _Portraits histor. et

littér._, 1874.--E. Montégut: _Nos morts contemp._, I, II, 1884.--M.

Salomon: _C. N. et le groupe romantique d’après des documents inédits_,

1908.--J. Marsan: _Notes sur C. N., documents inédits, lettres_, 1912.

=Alphonse de Lamartine=, 1790-1869: _Méditations poétiques_, 1820.

_Nouvelles méditations poétiques_, 1823. _Harmonies poétiques et

religieuses_, 1832. _Jocelyn_, 1836. _Œuvres complètes_, 41 vols.

1860-66. _Œuvres_ (éd. Lemerre), 12 vols. 1885-87. _Correspondance_, p.

par V. de Lamartine, 6 vols. 1872-75.

Biographical and General Studies: F. Falconnet: _A. de L._,

1840.--Chapuys-Montlaville: _L._, 1843.--E. de Mirecourt: _L._,

1853.--E. Ollivier: _L._, 1874.--H. de Lacretelle: _L. et ses

amis_, 1878.--P. Bourget: _L._, in _Etudes et Portraits_, 1889.--De

Pomairols: _L._, 1889.--Baron de Chamborand de Périssat: _L. inconnu_,

1891.--F. Reyssié: _La jeunesse de L._, 1892.--Deschanel: _L._,

1893.--A. France: _L’Elvire de L._, 1893.--R. Doumic: _Elvire à

Aix-les-Bains_, in _Etudes sur la litt. française_, 6e série, 1909.

_L._, 1912.--Zyromski: _L. poète lyrique_, 1897.--Larroumet: _L._, in

_Nouvelles études de litt. et d’art_, 1899.--L. Séché: _L. de 1816

à 1830_, 1905. _Le Roman d’Elvire_, 1909. _Les amitiés de L., 1re

série_, 1911.--E. Sugier: _L._, 1910.--P.-M. Masson: _L._, 1911.--P. de

Lacretelle: _Les origines et la jeunesse de L._, 1911.

Critical Studies: G. Planche: _Portraits littéraires_, t. I, 1836.

_Nouveaux Portraits_, 1854.--Sainte-Beuve: ✱ _Lundis_, ts. I, IV,

X, 1849-54. _Portraits contemporains_, t. I, 1832-39.--J. Lemaître:

_Les Contemporains_, 6e série, 1896.--E. Faguet: _XIXe siècle_,

1897--Brunetière: _L’évolution de la poésie lyrique en France au XIXe

siècle_, 1894.--A. Roux: _La question de Jocelyn_, 1897.--M. Citoleux:

_La poésie philosophique au XIXe siècle, L._, 1905.--C. Maréchal:

_Le véritable Voyage en Orient de L._, 1908.--P. de Lacretelle: _Les

origines et la jeunesse de L._, 1911.--L. Séché: _Les Amitiés de L._,

1912.--R. Doumic: _L._, 1912.--H. R. Whitehouse: _The Life of L._, 2

vols. 1918.

=Alfred de Vigny=, 1797-1863: _Eloa_, 1824. _Poèmes antiques et

modernes_, 1826. _Cinq-Mars_, 1826. _Chatterton_, 1835. _Les

Destinées_, 1864. _Œuvres_ (Lemerre), 8 vols. 1883-85. _Le Journal

d’un poète_, p. par L. Ratisbonne, 1867. _La Correspondance d’A. de

V._, 1906 (incomplete).--S. de Lovenjoul: _Les Lundis d’un chercheur_,

1894.--E. Asse: _A. de V. et les éditions originales de ses poésies_,

1895.--J. Langlais: _Essai de bibliographie de A. de V._, 1905.

Biography: L. Séché: _A. de V. et son temps_ [no date].--E. Dupuy:

_La Jeunesse des Romantiques_, 1905. _A. de V., ses amitiés, son rôle

littéraire_, 2 vols. 1912.

Critical Studies: Sainte-Beuve: _Portraits littéraires_, t. III, 1844.

_Nouveaux Lundis_, t. VI, 1863.--Barbey d’Aurevilly: _Les Œuvres et

les Hommes_, III, 1862.--A. France: _A. de V._, 1868.--P. Bourget:

_Etudes et Portraits_, 1889.--Brunetière: _L’évolution de la poésie

lyrique_, 1894.--Faguet: _XIXe siècle_, 1897.--Paléologue: _A. de

V._, 1891.--Dorison: _A. de V. poète, philosophe_, 1891.--J. Lemaître:

_Contemporains_, VII, 1899.--E. Sakellaridès: _A. de V., auteur

dramatique_, 1902.--Marabail: _De l’influence de l’esprit militaire

sur A. de V._, 1905.--H. Schmack: _A. de V.’s Stello und Chatterton_,

1905.--P.-M. Masson: _A. de V._, 1908.--P. Buhle: _A. de V.’s biblische

Gedichte und ihre Quellen_, 1909.--E. Lauvrière: _A. de V._, 1910.--F.

Baldensperger: _A. de V._, 1912.--L. Séché: _A. de V._, 2 vols.

1914.--A. Desvoyes: _A. de V. d’après son œuvre_, 1914.--J. Aicard: _A.

de V._ 1914.

=Victor Hugo=, 1802-85: _Œuvres complètes_, ed. _ne varietur d’après

les manuscrits originaux_, 48 vols. 1880-85. _Œuvres inédites_, 14

vols. 1886-1902. _Correspondence (1815-84)_, 2 vols. 1896. _Lettres à

la fiancée (1820-22)_, 1901.

Biography: Mme. Victor Hugo: _V. H. raconté par un témoin de sa

vie_, 2 vols. 1863.--E. Biré: _V. H. avant 1830_, 1883. _V. H. après

1830_, 2 vols. 1891. _V. H. après 1852_, 1894.--G. Larroumet: _La

maison de V. H., impressions de Guernsey_, 1895.--A. Jullien: _Le

Romantisme et l’éditeur Renduel_, 1897.--A. Barbou: _La Vie de V. H._,

1902.--G. Simon: _L’Enfance de V. H._, 1904.--E. Dupuy: _La Jeunesse

des Romantiques_, 1905.--C. Maréchal: _Lamennais et V. H._, 1906.--L.

Séché: _Le Cénacle de Joseph Delorme._ I, _V. H. et les Poètes._

II, _V. H. et les artistes_, 1912.--L. Guimbaud: _V. H. et Juliette

Drouet_, 1914.

Critical Studies: G. Planche: _Portraits littéraires_, ts. I, II, 1836.

_Nouveaux Portraits littéraires_, t. I, 1854.--Barbey d’Aurevilly: _Les

Misérables de M. Victor Hugo_, 1862.--Sainte-Beuve: _Portraits litt._,

t, I (1827); t. II (1840); t. III (1829); _Portraits contemporains_,

t. I (1830-35).--Rémusat: _Critiques et études littéraires du passé

et du présent_, 2e éd., 1857.--E. Zola: _Nos auteurs dramatiques_,

1881. _Documents littéraires_, 1881.--A. C. Swinburne: _Essay on

V. H._, 1886.--E. Dupuy: _V. H., l’homme et le poète_, 1887.--G.

Duval: _Dictionnaire des métaphores de V. H._, 1888.--P. Bourget: _V.

H._, in _Etudes et Portraits_, 1889.--Nisard: _Essais sur l’école

Romantique_, 1891.--L. Mabilleau: _V. H._, 1893.--C. Renouvier: _V.

H., le poète_, 1893. _V. H., le philosophe_, 1900.--A. Ricard: _Mgr.

de Miollis, évêque de Digne_, 1893.--Brunetière: _L’évolution de la

poésie lyrique_, 1894. _Les époques du théâtre français_, 1892.--A.

Blanchard: _Le théâtre de V. H. et la parodie_, 1894.--Morel Fatio:

_L’Histoire dans Ruy Blas_, in _Etudes sur l’Espagne, 1re série_,

1895.--A. J. Theys: _Métrique de V. H._, 1896.--M. Souriau: _La préface

de Cromwell_, 1897. _Les idées morales de V. H._, 1908.--A. Rochette:

_L’Alexandrin chez V. H._, 1899 and 1911.--F. Ganser: _Beiträge zur

Beurteilung des Verhältnisses von V. H. zu Chateaubriand_, 1900.--E.

Rigal: _V. H. poète épique_, 1900.--P. Stapfer: _V. H. et la grande

poésie satirique en France_, 1901.--T. Gautier: _V.H._, 1902.--P.

and V. Glachant: _Essai critique sur le théâtre de V. H., Drames

en vers. Drames en prose_, 2 vols., 1902 and 1903.--P. Levin: _V.

H._, 1902.--_Leçons faites à l’Ecole Normale sous la direction de F.

Brunetière_, 2 vols. 1902.--F. Gregh: _Etude sur V. H._, 1902.--H.

Peltier: _La philosophie de V. H._, 1904.--H. Galletti: _L’opera di

V.H. nella letteratura italiana_, 1904.--E. Huguet: _La couleur, la

lumière et l’ombre dans les métaphores de V. H._, 1905.--L. Lucchetti:

_Les images dans les œuvres de V. H._, 1907.--P. Bastier: _V. H. und

seine Zeit._, 1908.--Maria Valente: _V. H. e la lirica italiana_,

1908.--A. Guiard: _La fonction du poète, étude sur V. H._, 1910.

_Virgile et V. H._, 1910.--C. Grillet: _La Bible dans V. H._, 1910.--P.

Berret: _Le moyen âge européen dans La Légende des Siècles_, 1911.--A.

Rochette: _L’Alexandrin chez V. H._, 1911.--P. Dubois: _V. H. Ses Idées

religieuses de 1802-25_, 1913.

H. Berlioz: _Correspondance inédite (1819-68)_, pub. par D. Bernard,

1879. _Lettres intimes_, pub. par Ch. Gounod, 1882. _Berlioz; les

années romantiques (1819-42), Correspondance_, pub. par J. Tiersot,

1907.--A. Boschot: _La Jeunesse d’un romantique, H. Berlioz (1803-31)_,

1906. _Un romantique sous Louis Philippe, Berlioz (1831-42)_, 1908. _Le

Crépuscule d’un romantique, Berlioz (1842-69)_, 1913.

=Alexandre Dumas=, 1803-70: _Henri III et sa cour_, 1829. _Antony_,

1831. _Les Trois Mousquetaires_, 1844. _Le Comte de Monte Cristo_,

1844-45.

J. Janin: _A.D._, 1871.--B. Matthews: In _Fr. Dramatists of the 19th

cent._ , 1881.--B. de Bury: _A. D._, 1885.--E. Courmeaux: _A. D._,

1886.--J. J. Weiss: _Le théâtre et les mœurs_, 3e éd. 1889.--H.

Parigot: _Le drame d’ A. D._, 1898. _A. D._, 1901.--H. Lecomte: _A.

D._, 1903.--J. Lemaître: _Impressions de théâtre_, t. III (1890), IV

(’95), VIII (’95), IX (’96).--R. Doumic: _De Scribe à Ibsen_, 1896;

also in _Hommes et idées du XIXe Siècle_, 1903.

=George Sand=, 1804-76: _Indiana_, 1832. _Lélia_, 1833. _Jacques_,

1834. _Consuelo_, 1842-43. _La petite Fadette_, 1849. _Histoire

de ma vie_, 4 vols. 1854-55.--_Correspondance_, 6 vols. 1882-84.

_Correspondance de G. S. et d’ A. de Musset_, p. par F. Decori, 1904.

_Œuvres complètes_ (éd. C. Lévy), 105 vols.--S. de Lovenjoul: _Etude

bibliographique sur les œuvres de G. S._, 1868.

Biography: H. Lapaire and F. Roz: _La bonne dame de Nohant_,

1897.--Ageorges: _G. S. paysan_, 1901.--A. Le Roy: _G. S. et ses amis_,

1903.--H. Harrisse: _Derniers moments et obsèques de G. S., souvenirs

d’un ami_, 1905.--A. Séché and J. Bertaut: _La vie anecdotique et

pittoresque des grands écrivains, G. S._, 1909.

Critical Studies: G. Planche: _Portraits littéraires_, t. II, 1836.

_Nouveaux Portraits littéraires_, t. II, 1854.--Sainte-Beuve: ✱

_Lundis_, t. I, 1850. _Portraits Contemporains_, 1832.--E. Caro: _G.

S._, 1887.--P. Bourget: _Etudes et Portraits_, 1889.--J. Lemaître:

_Les Contemporains_, t. IV, 1889. _Impressions de théâtre_, ts. I, IV,

1888-92.--Marillier: _La sensibilité et l’imagination chez G. S._,

1896.--W. Karénine: _G. S._, 3 vols. 1899-1912.--R. Doumic: _G. S._,

1909.--L. Buis: _Les théories sociales de G. S._, 1910.--E. Moselly:

_G. S._, 1911.

=Gérard de Nerval=, 1808-55: _Œuvres compl._, 5 vols. 1868. M.

Tourneux: _G. de N._, 1867.--T. Gautier: _Portr. et souvenirs

littér._, 1875.--Arvède Barine: _Les Névrosés_, 1898.--Mlle.

Cartier: _Un intermédiaire entre la France et l’Allemagne, G. de

N._, 1904.--Gauthier-Ferrières: _G. de N., la vie et l’œuvre_,

1906.--J. Marsan: _G. de N., lettres inédites_, 1909.--_Correspondance

(1830-55)_, p. par J. Marsan, 1911.--A. Marie: _G. de N._, 1915.

=Alfred de Musset=, 1810-57: _Œuvres Complètes_ (Charpentier),

10 vols. 1866, 10 vols. (Lemerre), 1886. 9 vols. p. par E. Biré,

1907-08.--Rocheblave: _Lettres de George Sand à Musset et à

Sainte-Beuve_, 1897.--_Correspondance de George Sand et d’A. de M._,

p. par F. Decori, 1904.--_Correspondance d’A. de M._, p. par L. Séché,

1907.--S. de Lovenjoul: _Etude critique et bibliographique des œuvres

d’A. de M._, 1867.--M. Clouard: _Bibliographie des œuvres d’A. de M._,

1883.

Biography: G. Sand: _Elle et Lui_, 1859.--P. de Musset: _Lui et Elle_,

1859. _Biographie d’A. de M._, 1877.--Louise Colet: _Lui_, 1859.--S. de

Lovenjoul: _La véritable histoire de Elle et Lui_, 1897.--P. Mariéton:

_Une histoire d’amour, George Sand et A. de M._, 1897.--E. Lefébure:

_L’état psychique d’A. de M._, 1897.--E. Faguet: _Amours d’hommes de

lettres_, 1906.--L. Séché: _A. de M._, 1907. _La Jeunesse dorée sous

Louis-Philippe_, 1910.

Critical Studies: Sainte-Beuve: _Portraits Contemporains_, t. II,

1833. ✱ _Lundis_, I., 1850, XIII, 1857.--D. Nisard: _Etudes d’hist. et

de lit._, 1859. _Mélanges d’hist. et de lit._, 1868.--P. Lindau: _A.

de M._, 1876.--H. James: _Fr. Poets and Novelists_, 1878.--D’Ancona:

_A. de M. e l’Italia_, in _Varieta Storiche e Letterarie_, 2 vols.

1883-85.--J. Lemaître: _Impr. de théâtre_, I, II (’88), VII (’93), IX

(’96), X (’98).--Arvède Barine: _A. de M._, 1893.--L. P. Betz: _H.

Heine und A. de M._, 1897.--L. Lafoscade: _Le théâtre d’A. de M._,

1901.--G. Crugnola: _A. de M. e la sua opera_, 2 vols. 1902-03.--J.

d’Aquitaine: _A. de M., l’œuvre, le poète_, 1907.--Gauthier-Ferrières:

_M., la vie de M., l’œuvre, M. et son temps_, 1909.--M. Donnay: _A. de

M._, 1914.--C. L. Maurras: ✱ _Les Amants de Venise_, Nou. éd., 1917.

=Théophile Gautier=, 1811-72: _Les Jeune-France_, 1833. _Mlle. de

Maupin_, 1836-36. _Emaux et Camées_, 1852. _Histoire du romantisme_,

1874. _Œuvres Compl._ (éd. Charpentier). 37 vols. 1883.--M. Tourneux:

_T. G., sa bibliographie_, 1876.--S. de Lovenjoul: _Histoire des œuvres

de T. G._, 2 vols. 1887.

Sainte-Beuve: _Premiers Lundis_, t. II, 1838. _Portraits

Contemporains_, II. 1846. _Nouveaux Lundis_, VI, 1863.--Barbey

d’Aurevilly: _Les Œuvres et les Hommes_, 1865.--Baudelaire: _L’Art

romantique_, 1874.--E. Feydeau: _T. G., souvenirs intimes_, 1874.--H.

James: _Fr. Poets and Novelists_, 1878.--E. Bergerat: _T. G._,

1880.--M. Du Camp: _T. G._, 1890.--E. Richet: _T. G., l’homme, la vie

et l’œuvre_, 1893.

GERMAN FIELD

Bibliography: Goedeke: ✱ _Grundriss zur Geschichte der deutschen

Dichtung_, 2 edn. vol. VI, 1898.--R. M. Meyer: _Grundriss der neuren

deutschen Literaturgeschichte_, 2 edn. 1907.--A. Bartels: _Handbuch

zur Geschichte der deutschen Literatur_, 2 edn. 1909.--_Jahresberichte

für neuere deutsche Literaturgeschichte_, 1892 ff. (bibliographical

notes on romanticism by O. F. Walzel).

General Studies: H. Heine: ✱ _Die romantische Schule_, 1836. Eng.

trans, in _Bohn’s Library_. (Filled with political “tendency.” A

brilliant attack on romanticism by a romanticist.)--J. v. Eichendorff:

_Ueber die ethische und religiöse Bedeutung der neuren romantischen

Poesie in Deutschland_, 1847.--J. Schmidt: _Geschichte der Romantik im

Zeitalter der Reformation und der Revolution_, 2 vols. 1848-50.--H.

Hettner: ✱ _Die romantische Schule in ihrem inneren Zusammenhange

mit Goethe und Schiller_.--R. Haym: ✱ _Die romantische Schule_,

1870. Unrevised reprint, 1902. (Heavy reading but still the standard

treatment.)--Ricarda Huch: ✱ _Blütezeit der Romantik_, 1899. ✱

_Ausbreitung und Verfall der Romantik_, 1902. (Attractively written.

The point of view, like that of practically all Germans, is very

romantic.)--Marie Joachimi: _Die Weltanschauung der deutschen

Romantik_, 1905.--O. F. Walzel: ✱ _Deutsche Romantik_, 3 edn. 1912.--R.

M. Wernaer: _Romanticism and the Romantic School in Germany_, 1909.

(The outlook, which professes to be humanistic, seems to me in the

main that of the beautiful soul.)--A. Farinelli: _Il romanticismo in

Germania_, 1911. (Simply reeks with the “infinite” in the romantic

sense. “Sono, ahimè, stoffa di ribelle anch’io.” Useful bibliographical

notes.)--A. W. Porterfield: _An Outline of German Romanticism_, 1914.

(Of no importance from the point of view of ideas. The bibliography is

useful.)--J. Bab: _Fortinbras, oder der Kampf des 19. Jahr. mil dem

Geist der Romantik_, 1912. (An attack on romanticism.)

See also A. Kobersteim: _Geschichte der deutschen Nationalliteratur_,

vol. IV, pp. 543-955, 1873.--G. G. Gervinus: _Geschichte der deutschen

Dichtung_, vol. V, pp. 631-816, 1874.--R. M. Meyer: _Die deutsche

Literatur des 19. Jahr._, pp. 1-243, 1898.--R. v. Gottschall:

_Die deutsche Nationalliteratur des 19. Jahr._, vol. I, 1901.--K.

Francke: _A History of German Literature_, 1901. (The point of view

is sociological rather than literary.)--W. Scherer: _Geschichte der

deutschen Literatur_, pp. 614-720, 1908.--C. Thomas: _A History of

German Literature_, pp. 328-76, 1909.--J. G. Robertson: _Outlines

of the History of German Literature_, pp. 178-253, 1911.--A. Biese:

_Deutsche Literaturgeschichte_, vol. II, pp. 288-693, 1912.

Anthologies: _Stürmer und Dränger_. An anthology ed. by A. Sauer.

_Deutsche Nat. Lit._, vols. 79, 80, 81, 1883.--_Sturm und Drang.

Dichtungen aus der Geniezeit_, ed. by Karl Freye.--A. Spiess: _Die

deutschen Romantiker_, 1903. (Poetry and prose.)--F. Oppeln-Bronikowski

and L. Jacobowski: _Die blaue Blume. Eine Anthologie romantischer

Lyrik_, 1908.

Philosophy: L. Noack: _Schelling und die Philosophie der Romantik_,

2 vols. 1859.--E. Grucker: _François Hemsterhuis, sa vie et ses

œuvres_, 1866.--E. Meyer: _Der Philosoph F. Hemsterhuis_, 1893.--W.

Dilthey: ✱ _Leben Schleiermachers_, 1870.--J. Royce: _The Spirit of

Modern Philosophy_, 1892.--L. Lévy-Bruhl: _La Philosophie de Jacobi_,

1894.--H. Höffding: _A History of Modern Philosophy_ (bk. VIII: _The

Philosophy of Romanticism_), 1900.--R. Burck: _H. Steffens, Ein Beitrag

zur Philosophie der Romantik_, 1906.--W. Windelband: _Geschichte der

neuren Philosophie_, 4 edn. 2 vols. 1907 (Eng. trans.).

Music and painting: H. Riemann: ✱ _Geschichte der Musik seit

Beethoven_, 1800-1900, pp. 106-356, 1901.--D. G. Mason: _The Romantic

Composers_, 1906.--E. Istel: ✱ _Die Blütezeit der musikalischen

Romantik in Deutschland_, 1909.--✱ _The Oxford History of Music_,

vol. VI (_The Romantic Period_, 1905).--C. Gurlitt: _Die deutsche Kunst

des 19. Jahr._, especially pp. 180-279, 1899.--A. Aubert: _Runge und

die Romantik_, 1909.--R. Muther: _Geschichte der Malerei_, 3 vols.

(vol. III for romantic period in Germany and other countries), 1909.

Special Topics (18th and 19th Centuries): L. Friedländer: _Ueber die

Entstehung und Entwickelung des Gefühls für das Romantische in der

Natur_, 1873.--J. Minor: _J. G. Hamann in seiner Bedeutung für die

Sturm und Drangperiode_, 1881. _Das Schicksalsdrama._ _Deutsche Nation.

Lit._, vol. 151. _Die Schicksalstragödie in ihren Hauptvertretern_,

1883.--R. Unger: ✱ _Hamann und die Aufklärung_, 1911.--G. Bonet-Maury:

_Bürger et les origines anglaises de la ballade littéraire en

Allemagne_, 1890.--S. Lublinski: _Die Frühzeit der Romantik_, 1899.--T.

S. Baker: _The Influence of L. Sterne upon German Literature_ in

_Americana Germanica_, vol. II, 1900.--R. Tombo: _Ossian in Germany_,

1902 (bibliography).--E. Ederheimer: _Jakob Boehme und die Romantiker_,

1904.--L. Hirzel: _Wieland’s Beziehungen zu den deutschen Romantikern_,

1904.--K. Joel: _Nietzsche und die Romantik_, 1904.--S. Schultze:

_Die Entwickelung des Naturgefühls in der deutschen Literatur des

19. Jahr._ 1906.--M. Joachimi-Dege: _Deutsche Shakespeare-Probleme

im 18. Jahr. und im Zeitalter der Romantik_, 1907.--E. Vierling:

_Z. Werner: La conversion d’un romantique_, 1908.--E. Glöckner:

_Studien zur romantischen Psychologie der Musik_, 1909.--R. Benz:

_Märchen-Dichtung der Romantiker_, 1909.--F. Brüggemann: _Die Ironie

als entwicklungsgeschichtliches Moment_, 1909.--O. F. Walzel: _Das

Prometheussymbol von Shaftesbury zu Goethe_, 1910.--F. Strich: _Die

Mythologie in der deutschen Literatur von Klopstock bis Wagner_,

1910.--F. G. Shneider: _Die Freimaurerei und ihr Einfluss auf die

geistige Kultur in Deutschland am Ende des 18. Jahr._ 1909.--R.

Buchmann: _Helden und Mächte des romantischen Kunstmärchens_, 1910.--K.

G. Wendriner: _Das romantische Drama_, 1909.--O. F. Walzel and H. Hub:

✱ _Zeitschriften der Romantik_, 1904.--J. Bobeth: _Die Zeitschriften

der Romantik_, 1910.--J. E. Spenlé: _Rahel, Mme. Varnhagen v. Ense.

Histoire d’un salon romantique en Allemagne_, 1910.--P. Wächtler: _E.

A. Poe und die deutsche Romantik_, 1910.--W. Brecht: _Heinse und das

ästhetische Immoralismus_, 1911.--E. Mürmig: _Calderon und die ältere

deutsche Romantik_, 1912.--G. Gabetti: _Il dramma di Z. Werner_,

1917.--J. J. A. Bertrand: _Cervantes et le Romantisme allemand_, 1917.

=J. G. Herder=, 1744-1803: _Fragmente über die neuere deutsche

Literatur_, 1767. _Kritische Wälder_, 1769. _Volkslieder_, 1778.

_Vom Geist der Ebräischen Poesie_, 1782. _Ideen zur Philosophie der

Geschichte der Menschheit_, 1784-85. _Sämt. Werke_, ed. B. Suphan, 32

vols. 1877-99.--Joret: _Herder_, 1876.--R. Haym: _Herder nach seinem

Leben und seinen Werken dargestellt_, 2 vols. 1885.--E. Kühnemann:

_Herder_, 2 edn. 1907.

=J. W. v. Goethe=, 1749-1832: _Götz von Berlichingen_, 1773. _Die

Leiden des jungen Werthers_, 1774. _Faust: Ein Fragment_, 1790.

Collected Works (Jubiläums Ausgabe), ed. E. von der Hellen, 40 vols.

1902-12.--T. Carlyle: _Essays on G._ in Critical and Mis. Essays, vols.

I, IV, 1828-32.--J. W. Appell: ✱ _Werther und seine Zeit._, 1855.

4 edn. 1896.--E. Schmidt: _Richardson, Rousseau und G._, 1875.--A.

Brandl: _Die Aufnahme von G.’s Jugendwerken in England. Goethe-Jahrb._,

vol. III, 1883.--R. Steig: _G. und die Gebrüder Grimm_, 1892.--J. O. E.

Donner: _Der Einfluss Wilhelm Meisters auf den Roman der Romantiker_,

1893.--E. Oswald: _G. in England and America_, 1899.--A. Brandl: _Ueber

das Verhältnis G.’s zu Lord Byron. Goethe-Jahrb._, vol. 20, 1900.--K.

Schüddekopf and O. F. Walzel: ✱ _Goethe und die Romantik, Briefe mit

Erläuterungen_, vols. 13 and 14 of the pub. of the Goethegesellschaft,

1893-94.--S. Waetzold: _G. und die Romantik_, 2 edn. 1903.--O.

Baumgarten: _Carlyle und G._, 1906.--H. Röhl: _Die älteste Romantik und

die Kunst des jungen G._, 1909.

=J. C. F. Schiller=, 1759-1805: _Die Räuber_, 1781. _Briefe über

die ästhetische Erziehung des Menschen_, 1795. _Ueber naïve u.

sentimentalische Dichtung_, 1795-96. (Trans. of these and other

æsthetic treatises of S. in _Bohn’s Library_.) Collected works, ed.

E. von der Hellen, 16 vols. 1904-05.--C. Alt: _S. und die Brüder

Schlegel_, 1904.--E. Spenlé: _Schiller et Novalis_, in _Etudes sur

Schiller publiées pour le Centenaire_, 1905.--A. Ludwig: ✱ _Schiller

und die deutsche Nachwelt_ (especially pp. 52-202), 1909.

=J. P. F. Richter=, 1763-1825: _Titan_, 1803. _Flegeljahre_, 1804.

_Die Vorschule der Æsthetik_, 1804. Selected works with intro. by R.

Steiner, 8 vols. (Cotta, no date).--P. Nerrlich: _Jean Paul und seine

Zeitgenossen_, 1876. _Jean Paul; sein Leben und seine Werke_, 1889.--J.

Müller: _Jean Paul und seine Bedeutung für die Gegenwart_, 1894.

_Jean Paul-Studien_, 1900.--W. Hoppe: _Das Verhältnis Jean Pauls zur

Philosophie seiner Zeit_, 1901.--H. Plath: _Rousseau’s Einfluss auf

Jean Paul’s “Levana”_, 1903.

=J. C. F. Hölderlin=, 1770-1843: _Gesammelte Dichtungen_. Int. by B.

Litzmann, 2 vols. (Cotta, no date). _Werke_, ed. M. Joachimi-Dege,

1913. _Hölderlin’s Leben in Briefen von und an Hölderlin_, ed. K. K.

T. Litzmann, 1890.--C. Müller-Rastatt: _F. H. Sein Leben und seine

Dichtungen_, 1894.--W. Dilthey: ✱ _Das Erlebnis und die Dichtung_, pp.

330-455, 1907.--E. Bauer: _H. und Schiller_, 1908.--L. Bohme: _Die

Landschaft in den Werken H.’s und Jean Pauls_, 1908.

=Friedrich Leopold, Freiherr von Hardenberg (Novalis)=, 1772-1801:

_Die Lehrlinge zu Saïs_, 1798. _Die Christenheit oder Europa_, 1799.

_Heinrich von Ofterdingen_, 1800. _Hymnen an die Nacht_, 1800.

Schriften, ed. E. Heilborn, 3 vols. 1901. _Schriften_, ed. J. Minor, 4

vols. 1907. _Werke_, ed. H. Friedemann [1913].--Carlyle: N., in _Crit.

Essays_, vol. II, 1829.--_Friedrich v. Hardenberg._ A collection of

documents from the family archives by a member of the family, 1873.--J.

Bing: _Novalis_, 1893.--C. Busse: _N.’s Lyrik_, 1898.--E. Heilborn:

_N., der Romantiker_, 1901.--E. Spenlé: ✱ _Novalis_, 1904.--W.

Olshausen: _F. v. Hardenbergs Beziehungen zur Naturwissenschaft seiner

Zeit_, 1905.--W. Dilthey: ✱ _Das Erlebnis und die Dichtung_, pp.

201-82, 1906.--H. Lichtenberger: ✱ _Novalis_, 1912.

=A. W. v. Schlegel=, 1767-1845: _Vorlesungen über dramatische Kunst und

Literatur_, 1809-11. Eng. trans. 1814. Fr. trans. 1815. Ital. trans.

1817. _Sämtliche Werke_, 12 vols. 1846-47; also _œuvres écrites en

français_, 3 vols. and Opera latine scripta, 1 vol. 1846.--_Vorlesungen

über schöne Literatur und Kunst_ (1801-03), ed. with intro. by J.

Minor in _Literaturdenkmäler des 18. und 19. Jahrs._ nos. 17-19,

1884.--Selections with intro. by O. F. Walzel in _Deutsche Nat. lit._,

vol. 143.--M. Bernays: _Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Schlegelschen

Shakespeare_, 1872.--E. Sulger-Gebing: _Die Brüder A. W. und F.

Schlegel in ihrem Verhältnisse zur bildenden Kunst_, 1897.

=Friedrich v. Schlegel=, 1772-1829: Lucinde, 1799. _Ueber die

Weisheit und Sprache der Indier_, 1808. _Sämt. Werke_, 15 vols.

1847. ✱ _Jugendschriften_ (1794-1802), ed. J. Minor, 1906. _F.

Schlegels Philosophische Vorlesungen aus den Jahren 1804 bis 1806.

Aus dem Nachlass_, von C. F. H. Windischmann, 2 vols. 1836-37.--✱

_F. Schlegel’s Briefe an seinen Brüder August Wilhelm_, ed. O. F.

Walzel, 1890. Schleiermacher: _Vertraute Briefe über die Lucinde_,

1800. (New edn. ed. by R. Frank, 1907.)--I. Rouge: _F. Schlegel et

la genèse du Romantisme allemand_, 1904.--_Dorothea und F. Schlegel.

Briefe an die Familie Paulus_, ed. R. Unger, 1913.--C. Enders: _F.

Schlegel. Die Quellen seines Wesens und Werdens_, 1913. (Attaches great

importance to the influence on S. of Hemsterhuis, a philosopher of

Neo-Platonic and Rousseauistic tendency.)--H. Horwitz: _Das Ich-Problem

der Romantik. Die historische Stellung F. S.’s innerhalb der modernen

Geistesgeschichte_, 1916.

=J. L. Tieck=, 1773-1853: _William Lovell_, 1796. _Der blonde Eckbert_,

1796. _Prinz Zerbino_, 1798. _Franz Sternbalds Wanderungen_, 1798.

_Leben und Tod der heiligen Genoveva_, 1799. _Schriften_, 28 vols.

1828-54. _Ausgewählte Werke_, ed. H. Welti, 8 vols. 1888. Two of

the tales trans. in Carlyle’s _German Romance_, 1841. ✱ _Briefe an

Ludwig Tieck_, selected and edited by K. von Holtei, 4 vols. 1864.--H.

Petrich: _Drei Kapitel vom romantischen Stil_, 1878.--J. Minor:

_T. als Novellendichter_, in _Akademische Blätter_, pp. 128-61 and

193-220, 1884.--J. Ranftl: _L. T.’s Genoveva als romantische Dichtung

betrachtet_, 1899.--K. Hassler: _L. T.’s Jugendroman William Lovell und

der Paysan perverti_, 1902.--H. Günther: _Romantische Kritik und Satire

bei L. T._, 1907.--G. H. Danton: _The Nature Sense in the Writings of

L. T._, 1907.--F. Brüggemann: _Die Ironie in T.’s William Lovell und

seinen Vorläufern_, 1909.--S. Krebs: _Philipp Otto Runge und L. T._,

1909.--W. Steinert: _L. T. und das Farbenempfinden der romantischen

Dichtung_, 1910.--E. Schönebeck: _T. und Solger_, 1910.

=W. H. Wackenroder=, 1773-98: _Herzensergiessungen eines kunstliebenden

Klosterbruders_, 1797, ed. by K. D. Jessen, 1904. _Tieck und

Wackenroder (Phantasien über die Kunst)_, ed. J. Minor in _Deutsche

Nat. Lit._, vol. 145.--P. Koldewey: _Wackenroder und sein Einfluss auf

Tieck_, 1903.

=Friedrich Baron de La Motte Fouqué=, 1777-1843: _Undine_, 1811.

_Lebensgeschichte des Baron F. de La M. Fouqué, ausgezeichnet durch ihn

selbst_, 1840. _Ausgewählte Werke_, 12 vols. 1841.--W. Pfeiffer: _Ueber

Fouqués Undine_, 1903.--L. Jeuthe: _Fouqué als Erzähler_, 1910.

=E. T. A. Hoffmann=, 1776-1822: _Sämt. Werke_. Intro. by E. Grisebach,

15 vols. 1899. _Ausgewählte Erzählungen._ _Bücher der Rose_ series,

vol. 6, 1911. _Contes fantastiques_, trad. par Loève-Veimars, 20 vols.

1829-33. G. Ellinger: _E. T. A. H.: sein Leben und seine Werke_,

1894.--G. Thurau: _H.’s Erzählungen in Frankreich_, 1896.--A. Barine:

_Poètes et Névrosés_, pp. 1-58, 1908.--P. Cobb: _The Influence of H.

on the Tales of E. A. Poe_, 1908.--A. Sakheim: _Hoffmann: Studien zu

seiner Persönlichkeit und seinen Werken_, 1908.--C. Schaeffer: _Die

Bedeutung des Musikalischen und Akustischen in H.’s literarischen

Schaffen_, 1909.--E. Kroll: _H.’s musikalische Anschauungen_, 1909.--P.

Sucher: _Les sources du merveilleux chez H._, 1912.

=Heinrich v. Kleist=, 1777-1811: _Sämt. Werke_, ed. F. Muncker, 4

vols. 1893. _Werke_, ed. E. Schmidt [1905].--A. Wilbrandt: _H. v.

K._, 1863.--R. Bonafous: _H. de K. Sa vie et ses œuvres_, 1894.--G.

Minde-Pouet: _H. v. K. Seine Sprache und sein Stil_, 1897.--R. Steig:

_K.’s Berliner Kämpfe_, 1901.--S. Rahmer: _Das Kleist-Problem_, 1903.

_H. v. K. als Mensch und Dichter_, 1909.--M. Lex: _Die Idee im Drama

bei Goethe, Schiller, Grillparzer, K._, 1904.--E. Kayka: _K. und die

Romantik_, 1906.--W. Herzog: _H. v. K. Sein Leben und seine Werke_,

1911.--H. Meyer-Benfey: _Das Drama H. v. K.’s_, 2 vols. 1911-13.--K.

Günther: _Die Entwickelung der novellistischen Kompositionstechnik K.’s

bis zur Meisterschaft_, 1911.--W. Kühn: _H. v. K. und das deutsche

Theater_, 1912.