<< . .

. 24
( : 30)



. . >>

A, when impressed alone, shall be able to excite in the Mind, b, c, &c. the
Ideas of the rest™ ( p. µ).
±± Ibid., p. .
±±· Ibid., pp. ·°“± (emphasis added).
±± Not every commentator has taken this view, arguing that Hartley uni¬ed
perception through the notion of ˜coalescence™. See, for example, Walter
Jackson Bate, From Classic to Romantic: Premises of Taste in Eighteenth-Century
England (New York: Harper and Row, ±±), pp. ±±“°, and Stephen
H. Ford, ˜Coalescence: David Hartley™s “Great Apparatus” ™, Psychology and
Literature in the Eighteenth Century, ed. Christopher Fox (New York: AMS, ±·),
pp. ±“. However, what Hartley designates as ˜the highest Kind of In-
duction, and as amounting to a perfect Coincidence of the Effect concluded
with those from which it is concluded™, he con¬nes to mathematics alone
(Observations, vol. ©, pp. ±“).
±± Ibid., p. .
±° Ibid., p. ·±.
±± Ibid., p. µ°±.
± Locke, Essay, p. ±±·.
± Hutcheson, Inquiry, p. .
Notes to pages µ“µ ·
± One notable opponent of Hartley was Burke, who in the Philosophical Enquiry
argued that ˜it would be absurd [ . . . ] to say that all things affect us by
association only™ (p. µ).
±µ William Davenant, preface, Gondibert. Critical Essays, vol. © © , p. ·.
± John Dennis, ed., Letters Upon Several Occasions (London, ±), p. µµ.
±· Kames, Elements of Criticism, vol. © , pp. ±“±.
± Adam Smith, ˜Of the Nature of that Imitation which takes place in what are
called The Imitative Arts™, The Works of Adam Smith, LL.D. (London, ±±±“±),
vol. , p. .
± Joshua Reynolds, The Works of Sir Joshua Reynolds, [ed.] Edward Malone
(London, ±··), vol. ©, pp. ±°°“±.
±° Thomas Rymer, preface, Re¬‚ections on Aristotle™s Treatise of Poesie. The Critical
Works of Thomas Rymer, ed. Curt A. Zimansky (New Haven: Yale University
Press, ±µ), p. . Compare Henry Felton, for example, who wrote that even
the ancients ˜knew every good Genius would write and judge by Nature,
whether any Rules had been set or no™ (preface, A Dissertation on Reading the
Classics (London, ±·±µ), p. ix).
±± Dennis, Critical Works, vol. ©©, p. ±°. See, also The Impartial Critick (±):
˜Poetry in general, being an imitation of Nature, Tragedy must be so too™
(ibid., vol. ©, p. ±±), and ˜The Causes of the Decay and Defects of Dramatic
Poetry™ (±·µ): ˜all poetry is an Imitation of nature™ (ibid., vol. © © , p. µ).
± The Spectator, vol. ©©, pp. ±“·.
± Ibid., pp. ±“°.
± Young, Conjectures, p. .
±µ Ibid., pp. “.
± Ibid., pp. , ±.
±· The ambiguity of the term remained, however. Compare Abram Robertson,
An Essay on Original Composition (n.p., ±·), p. : ˜[n]ovelty is the most certain
proof of originality in the productions of a re¬ned people. Every suspicion
of imitation must vanish, when we behold truth before unknown to man,
sentiment not before expressed™ “ and Robert Wood, An Essay on the Orig-
inal Genius of Homer (London, ±·), p. vi: ˜however questionable Homer™s
superiority may be, in other respects, as a perfect model and standard for
composition, in the great province of Imitation he is the most original of all
Poets, and the most constant and faithful copier after Nature™.
± Young, Conjectures, pp. ±, “·. As well as using the model of vegetable
growth, Young writes of how ˜Genius implies the rays of the mind concen-
ter™d, and determined to some particular point [ . . . ]™ (ibid., pp. “µ).
± Henry More, An Antidote Against Atheism (London, ±µ), p. ±·.
±° William Sharpe, A Dissertation upon Genius (London, ±·µµ), pp. , .
±± Ibid., p. ±.
± Ibid., pp. ±, “.
± See Locke, Essay, pp. ±“.
± George Campbell, The Philosophy of Rhetoric,  vols. (Edinburgh, ±·),
vol. ©, p. .
 Notes to pages µ“
±µ Adam Ferguson, Principles of a Moral and Political Science,  vols. (Edinburgh,
±·), vol. © , p. .
± Dugald Stewart, Elements of the Philosophy of the Human Mind,  vols. (London
and Edinburgh, ±·“±·), vol. © , p. ±µ.
±· James Beattie, Dissertations Moral and Critical (London, ±·), p. ±µ.
± Isaac D™Israeli, An Essay on the Manners and Genius of the Literary Character (Lon-
don, ±·µ), p. .
± Bacon, Works, vol. ©©© , p. .
±µ° Hobbes, Leviathan, p. ±.
±µ± See Locke, Essay, p. ±µ: ˜ ™Tis the business therefore of the Memory to
furnish to the Mind those dormant Ideas, which it has present occasion for,
and in the having them ready at hand on all occasions, consists that which
we call Invention, Fancy, and quickness of Parts.™
±µ John Dryden, preface, De Arte Graphica. Prose ±± “±: De Arte Graphica and
Shorter Works, eds. A. E. Wallace Maurer and George R. Guffey (Berkeley:
University of California Press, ±), pp. ±“.
±µ Rymer, preface, Re¬‚ections on Aristotle™s Treatise of Poesie, by R. Rapin. Critical
Works, p. ±.
±µ William Temple, ˜Of Poetry™, Critical Essays, vol. ©© © , p. ±.
±µµ The Spectator, vol. ©© , pp. µ“·.
±µ Two Dissertations Concerning Sense and the Imagination, with an Essay on Consciousness
(London, ±·), pp. ·“. This work continues mistakenly to be attributed
to Zachary Mayne (±±“). See Tim Milnes,˜On the Authorship of Two
Dissertations Concerning Sense and the Imagination, with an Essay on Consciousness
(±·)™, Notes and Queries ·. (°°°), ±“.
±µ· Joseph Warton, An Essay on the Genius and Writings of Pope, µth edn,  vols.
(London, ±°), vol. © , p. ±°.
±µ Ibid., p. ±±µ.
±µ Ibid., p. ·.
±° Samuel Johnson, The Rambler, eds. W[alter] J[ackson] Bate and Albrecht B.
Strauss (Yale University Press, ±), vol. ©© , p. °°.
±± Samuel Johnson, Lives of the English Poets, ed. George Birkbeck Hill (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, ±°µ), vol. © , pp. ±, ±.
± Johnson attributed many other qualities to the imagination, most of which
are listed by Raymond Havens in his article, ˜Johnson™s Distrust of the
Imagination™, English Literary History ±° (±), “µµ. Most importantly,
however, as Havens notes, ˜he did not believe the imagination creates™
(p. ), or that it stood for ˜a means of insight into truth™ (p. ).
± Samuel Johnson, The Idler and the Adventurer, eds. W[alter] J[ackson] Bate,
et al. (Yale University Press, ±), p. ±·.
± Johnson, Lives, vol. ©©© , p. ·.
±µ Gerard, Essay on Taste, p. ±.
± Gerard, Essay on Genius, p. ·.
±· William Duff, An Essay on Original Genius, ed. John L. Mahoney (Florida:
Scholars™ Facsimiles and Reprints, ±), p. ·.
± Gerard, Essay on Genius, pp. ±, .
Notes to pages “·± 
± Ibid., pp. “.
±·° Ibid., p. ·±.
±·± Ibid., pp. µ, ·“·, .
±· See Immanuel Kant, Critique of the Power of Judgement, ed. Paul Guyer,
trans. Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews (Cambridge University Press, °°°),
pp. ±“·: Since originality is genius™s primary quality, and ˜there can also
be original nonsense, its products must at the same time be models, i.e. exem-
plary, hence, while not themselves the result of imitation, they must yet serve
others in that way, i.e. as a standard or a rule for judging™.
±· Duff, Essay on Original Genius, pp. ·“.
±· Gerard, Essay on Genius, pp. , ± (emphasis added).
±·µ Ibid., pp. , ±°±.
±· Ferguson, Principles, vol. © , pp. “.
±·· Stewart, Elements, vol. © , pp. , ±°.
±· See Ferguson, Principles, vol. ©, p. : ˜Mere efforts of ingenuity, which are
thus made to adorn what is otherwise useful and necessary, or to gratify an
original disposition of the mind to fabricate for itself on the models of beauty
presented in nature, are commonly termed the ¬ne arts.™
±· Stewart, Elements, vol. ©, pp. ·µ, ±µ, ±.
±° Ibid., vol. © ©©, p. °.
±± Ernest Lee Tuveson, The Imagination as a Means of Grace: Locke and the Aesthetics
of Romanticism (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press,
±°), p. ±µ.
± Archibald Alison, Essays on the Nature and Principles of Taste (Edinburgh, ±·°),
pp. , µ, .
± Ibid., pp. °“±, ±°.
± See James Engell, Forming the Critical Mind: Dryden to Coleridge (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, ±), p. : ˜The controversy surround-
ing ideas of progress and decline in English literary culture fascinates the
strongest minds [ . . . ].™
±µ Ferguson, Principles, vol. ©, p. ±.
± Beattie, Dissertations, pp. ±±“.
±· Young, Conjectures, pp. ±“±.
± D™Israeli, Essay, p. xv.
± ¯
Francis Jeffrey, rev. of De la Lit´rature conside´´e dans ses Rapports avec les Inst±tutions
e re
Sociales, by Mad. de Sta¨ l-Holstein, Contributions, vol. ©, p. ±°°.
e
±° Thomas Pfau, Wordsworth™s Profession: Form, Class, and the Logic of Early Romantic
Cultural Production (Stanford University Press, ±·), p. µ.
±± Leslie Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, rd edn
(London: John Murray, ±·), vol. ©, p. µµ.
± Stewart, Elements, vol. ©© , p. .

     ¦ ¬§©: · ¤ ·  ™ °
± William Wordsworth, The Prelude (±°µ), © © , ·“.
 Coleridge, Biographia Literaria, vol. © © , p. ±µ.
° Notes to pages ·± “··
 Kenneth R. Johnston, Wordsworth and The Recluse (Yale University Press,
±), p. ±µ.
 Aubrey de Vere, ˜Recollections of Wordsworth™, The Prose Works of William
Wordsworth, ed. Alexander B. Grossart (London: Edward Moxon, Son, and
Co., ±·), vol. ©©© , p. .
µ Geoffrey H. Hartman, Wordsworth™s Poetry ±··“±±, ± (New Haven: Yale
University Press, ±·±), p. .
 Paul de Man, ˜Wordsworth and the Victorians™, The Rhetoric of Romanticism
(New York: Columbia University Press, ±), p. ·.
· Richard Elridge, ˜Wordsworth and “A New Condition of Philosophy” ™,
Philosophy and Literature ±.± (±), µ, µ. See also Johnston, p. ±±.
 John Barrell, introduction, Poetry, Language and Politics (Manchester University
Press, ±), p. ±µ.
 Alan Bewell, introduction, Wordsworth and the Enlightenment: Nature, Man, and
Society in the Experimental Poetry (Yale University Press, ±), pp. ±, ±.
±° Rajan, The Supplement of Reading, pp. ±, ±µ.
±± See Hartman, Wordsworth™s Poetry, p. ±: In Wordsworth, Hartman claims, ˜it
is the evidence of the poems which is decisive; the prose, in fact, depends for
its sense on the poetry™.
± Johnston, preface, Wordsworth and The Recluse, p. xiv.
± James Chandler, Wordsworth™s Second Nature (University of Chicago Press,
±), pp. , ·.
± Wordsworth, Prose Works, vol. ©©© , p. .
±µ John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive, ed. J. M. Robson,
 vols. (University of Toronto Press, ±·“), vol. ©, p. ·.
± W. V. Quine, Pursuit of Truth (Harvard University Press, ±°), p. ±.
±· Ibid., p. ±.
± Wordsworth, Prose Works, vol. ©© , p. .
± Quine, Pursuit of Truth, p. °.
° W. V. Quine, Word and Object (The MIT Press, ±°), p. µ.
± Wordsworth, Prose Works, vol. ©, p. ±.
 Ibid., vol. ©©© , p. ·±.
 Henryk Skolimowski, ˜Quine, Ajdukiewicz, and the Predicament of °th
Century Philosophy™, The Philosophy of W.V. Quine, eds. Lewis Edwin Hahn
and Paul Arthur Schlipp (Open Court, ±), p. ·±.
 Wordsworth, ˜Essay, Supplementary to the Preface™, Prose Works, vol. © © ©,
p. .
µ See, for example, Engell, Forming the Critical Mind, p. : ˜Wordsworth™s
primary distinction, and what is most representative about the Preface for
romanticism as a whole, is not between forms of writing but forms of knowing.
The difference is ¬rst a philosophical one.™ Mark Kipperman notes that ˜the
epistemology of post-Kantian idealism [ . . . ] seems to take as its central topic
the same question that drives the psychological quest of English romantic
poetry: what does it mean for a subject to conceive himself as the maker of his
own circumstances?™ (Beyond Enchantment, p. ix). Keith Thomas, meanwhile
Notes to pages ··“° ±
(Wordsworth and Philosophy: Empiricism and Transcendentalism in the Poetry (Ann
Arbor: UMI Research Press, ±)), argues that ˜[t]he project Coleridge and
Wordsworth set themselves in ±··“ is essentially epistemological, for at
the center is the interaction of self with nature™ (p. ).
 Wordsworth, preface, Lyrical Ballads. Prose Works, vol. ©, p. ± (emphasis
added).
· Wordsworth, The Prelude (±°µ), © © , °±“, °·“±.
 Wordsworth, [˜Reply to “Mathetes” ™], Prose Works, vol. © © , p. °.
 Ibid., vol. ©, p. ±.
° Wordsworth, ˜To William Matthews™,  May ±·, letter ° of The Letters of
William and Dorothy Wordsworth, ed. Alan G. Hill, nd edn (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, ±·), vol. © , p. ±±.
± Pfau, Wordsworth™s Profession, pp. ±±“±.
 Young, Conjectures, p. ±.
 D™Israeli, Essay, p. xvi.
 John Keats, ˜To J. H. Reynolds™,  April ±±, letter · of Letters, vol. ©,
p. ·. Keats had already written that ˜I have not the slightest feel of humility
towards the Public or to any thing in existence, but the eternal Being, the
Principle of Beauty, and the Memory of great Men™ (ibid., p. ). Lamb™s
advice to an aspiring author is similar in outlook: ˜Trust not to the Public, you
may hang, starve, drown yourself, for anything that worthy Personage cares™
(˜To Richard Barton,™  Jan ±, letter µ of Letters (±µ), vol. © ©, p. ).
µ Wordsworth, ˜To Lady Beaumont™, ± May, ±°·, letter ·µ of Letters, vol. © © ,
p. ±µ°.
 Wordsworth, ˜To Sir George Beaumont™, [Feb. ±°], letter  of Letters,
vol. ©©, p. ±.
· Lamb, ˜Readers against the Grain™, The Works of Charles and Mary Lamb,
ed. E. V. Lucas (London: Methuen and Co., ±°), vol. © , p. ·.
 Pfau, Wordsworth™s Profession, p. ±.
 Jerome J. McGann, The Romantic Ideology: A Critical Investigation (Chicago
University Press, ±). See also: Paul Hamilton, Wordsworth (The Harvester
Press, ±). Hamilton sees it as a feature of Wordsworth™s conservatism
that he makes ˜alternative, richer conceptions of people™s worth a matter of
poetic rather than political endeavour™ (p. ). Richard Bourke, meanwhile, in
Romantic Discourse and Political Modernity (Harvester Wheatsheaf, ±), notes
how Wordsworth™s theory after ±·· ˜increasingly came to identify authority
with the inner resourcefulness of the individual™, and after ±° took ˜the
elected or chosen individual as its point of departure™. In doing so, ˜political
validity is substituted by aesthetic credibility, that the rules of pleading are
con¬ned to a speci¬c register the aesthetic dimension in relation to which one
can argue only as one of the unbelievers or as one of the converted™ (p. ±).
A similar tack is taken by Terry Eagleton, who observes in The Ideology of the
Aesthetic (Basil Blackwell, ±°) that the birth of aesthetics in the eighteenth
century ˜coincides with the period when cultural production is beginning to
suffer the miseries and indignities of commodi¬cation™ (p. ).
 Notes to pages ± “·
° Wordsworth, Prose Works, vol. ©, p. ±µ.
± Ibid., vol. ©©, p. ·.
 Ibid., vol. © , p. ±.
 For a discussion of the connection of the idea of ˜genius™ with Jacobinism,
see Simon Schaffer, ˜Genius in Romantic Natural Philosophy™, Romanticism
and the Sciences, eds. Andrew Cunningham and Nicholas Jardine (Cambridge
University Press, ±°).
 Wordsworth, ˜To William Rowan Hamilton™,  July ±, letter  of
Letters, vol. , pp. “·.
µ Wordsworth, [˜Preface to the Edition of ±±µ,™] Prose Works, vol. © © ©, pp. “·.
 Ibid., vol. © , p. ±.
· Ibid., vol. ©©, p.  (emphasis added).
 Ibid., vol. © © © , pp. ±“.
 It is noteworthy that any potential lawlessness in imagination™s creativity is
attributed by Wordsworth to the type of materials with which it works, as it
˜recoils from every thing but the plastic, the pliant, and the inde¬nite [ . . . ]™.
These, together with its ˜different purpose™, constitute its distinctness from
fancy “ not the nature of the imaginative process itself, which is likewise
˜ “aggregative and associative” ™ (ibid., vol. ©©© , p. ).
µ° Ibid., vol. ©© ©, pp. “·.
µ± Ibid., p. .
µ Ibid., vol. ©, p. ±°.
µ Indeed, Bewell claims that since the essay ˜was originally drafted as part of
a preface explaining why Wordsworth was taking up moral issues in verse™
(Wordsworth and the Enlightenment, p. ±°), the ˜Essay on Morals™ fragment should
be renamed ˜Against Moral Inquiry™.
µ Wordsworth, Prose Works, vol. ©, pp. ±“.
µµ Ibid., p. ± (emphasis added).
µ Jacobi, Main Philosophical Writings, p. µ.
µ· Wordsworth, Prose Works, vol. © , p. ± (emphasis added).
µ Sidney, Apologie for Poetrie, p.  .
µ See Wordsworth™s letter to Joseph Kirkham Miller in ±±, which implicitly
attacks Benthamite utilitarianism, with its interpretation of right action ac-
cording to a system of ends based upon notions of what is useful to human
well-being. Wordsworth counters that ˜means, in the concerns of this life, are
in¬nitely more important than ends, which are to be valued mainly accord-
ing to the qualities and virtues requisite for their attainment.™ (˜To Joseph
Kirkham Miller™, ±· Dec. ±±, letter µ of Letters, vol.  , pp. “µ).
° Wordsworth, Prose Works, vol. ©, pp. ±“.
± On one side, hedonistic act-utilitarianism is distinguished from rule-
utilitarianism by its claim that an action should be judged according to
the consequences of the particular action itself, rather than according to the
consequences of that action being adopted as a rule by any individual in simi-
lar circumstances. On the other side, a hedonistic utilitarian like Bentham is
distinguishable from a non-hedonistic or ˜ideal™ utilitarian like G. E. Moore
Notes to pages ·“ 
in that he evaluates an action™s outcome simply in terms of the net pleasure
produced, rather than other criteria such as knowledge or virtues of char-
acter. For a succinct discussion of these positions, see J. C. C. Smart, ˜An
Outline of a System of Utilitarian Ethics™, Utilitarianism: For and Against, by
J. C. C. Smart and Bernard Williams (Cambridge University Press, ±·),
pp. “·.
 Wordsworth, Prose Works, vol. ©, p. ±°.
 Ibid., p. ±.
 Ibid., p. ±.
µ Hazlitt, ˜Coriolanus™, Works, vol. , p. .
 Wordsworth, Prose Works, vol. © , p. ± (emphasis added).
· Ibid., pp. ±°“±.
 Ibid., pp. ±°“±.
 See Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation,
eds. J. H. Burns and H. L. A. Hart (University of London: The Athlone
Press, ±·°). Bentham argues that of all the species of pleasure, ˜the only
difference there is among them lies in the circumstances that accompany
their production™ (p. ).
·° Wordsworth, Prose Works, vol. © , p. ±µ°.
·± Ibid., p. ±.
· Ibid., p. ± (emphasis added).
· Ibid., p. ±±.
· Ibid., p. ± (emphasis added).
·µ Ibid., vol. © © , p. .
· Elridge, ˜Wordsworth™, ·.
·· Wordsworth, The Prelude (±·), © , ±.
· Wordsworth, The Prelude (±°µ), © , ±.
· Cooke, Acts of Inclusion, p. °.
° Wordsworth, The Prelude (±°µ), © , ·“µ, ·“.
± For example, line , containing the reference to the ˜charm of logic™,
is dropped between the  -stage (±°µ“) and  -stage (±±“°) versions
of the text. See William Wordsworth, The Thirteen-Book Prelude, ed. Mark
L. Reed,  vols. (Cornell University Press, ±±), vol. ©, p. , and vol. © ©,
p. °.
 Wordsworth, Prose Works, vol. ©, p. ± (emphasis added).
 Wordsworth, ˜To William Mathews™, [] June [±·], letter  of Letters,
vol. ©, pp. ±“µ.
 Wordsworth, ˜To Sir George Beaumont™, [Feb. ±°], letter  of Letters,
vol. © ©, p. ±µ.
µ Wordsworth, Prose Works, vol. ©, p. ±.
 Ibid., vol. ©©© , p. .
· Ibid., p. µ.
 Ibid., p. .
 Ibid., vol. ©©, pp. µ±“.
° Ibid., p. µ.
 Notes to pages “±°µ
± Cf. Kant, Critique of the Power of Judgement, p. ±: For Kant, the ˜modality
of aesthetic judgements, namely their presumed necessity [ . . . ] makes us
cognizant of an a priori principle in them, and elevates us out of empiri-
cal psychology, in which they would otherwise remain buried among the
feelings of enjoyment and pain [ . . . ]™.
 Wordsworth, Prose Works, vol. ©© , p. µ°.
 Ibid., p. µ·.
 Ibid., p. µ.
µ Ibid., pp. µµ“·.
 Ibid., vol. ©©©, p. .
· Ibid., p. .
 The eighteenth-century genius was a colonizer, discovering, appropriating
and assimilating new lands by force of imagination. Campbell writes of the
modern genius in the arts that ˜it may be said to bring us into a new country,
of which, though there have been some successful incursions occasionally
made upon its frontiers, we are not yet in full possession™ (Philosophy of
Rhetoric, vol. ©, p. ±).
 Wordsworth, Prose Works, vol. ©©© , p. .
±°° Wittgenstein, On Certainty, p. ; par. ·±.
±°± Wordsworth, ˜To Lord Lonsdale™,  Nov. ±±, letter µ of Letters,
vol. © ©© , p. µ°.
±° Wordsworth, ˜To Sir William Rowan Hamilton™,  Jan. [±], letter ±±·
of Letters, vol. ©, µ°. However, Wordsworth™s output of essays in the
years following the ¬rst Preface suggests, as Stephen Gill notes, that he
˜cared more than a straw about theory™ (William Wordsworth: A Life (Oxford
University Press, ±), p. ±·).
±° Wordsworth, Prose Works, vol. ©, p. ±.
±° Marjorie Levinson, Wordsworth™s Great Period Poems: Four Essays (Cambridge
University Press, ±), pp. ±·, .
±°µ Wordsworth, Prose Works, vol. ©©© , p. °.
±° Ibid., vol. ©©, p. µ· (emphasis added).
±°· Louis Althusser, ˜Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses™, Lenin and
Philosophy, trans. B. Brewster (New Left Books, ±·±), p. ±.

   ¤   ®  :  ¬ © ™ ©® ®  © ¤¬©  
± Hazlitt, Works, vol. © , p. ·.
 See W. P. Albrecht, Hazlitt and the Creative Imagination (Lawrence: University
of Kansas Press, ±µ); Roy Park, Hazlitt and the Spirit of the Age: Abstraction
and Critical Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ±·±); John Kinnaird, William
Hazlitt: Critic of Power (New York: Columbia University Press, ±·);
John L. Mahoney, The Logic of Passion: The Literary Criticism of William
Hazlitt (Salzburg, ±·), and David Bromwich, Hazlitt: The Mind of a
Critic (Oxford University Press, ±). Superseded, but still valuable, is
Elisabeth Schneider™s pioneering The Aesthetics of William Hazlitt: A Study of the
Philosophical Basis of his Criticism (Philadelphia, ±).
Notes to pages ±°µ“±° µ
 See, for example, M. H. Abrams, The Mirror and the Lamp, p. ±µ: In Abrams™
view, with Hazlitt, ˜[w]e are well on the way to critical impressionism
[ . . . ]™; an opinion echoed by Marilyn Butler in Romantics, Rebels and
Reactionaries (Oxford University Press, ±±), p. ±·°.
 For a defence of Hazlitt as a sustained thinker who draws upon materialist
analogies for his theory of mind, and who ˜uses the methods of empiricism
to achieve a criticism that combines sensitive observation with inductive
inference™ (p. µµ), see James Mulvihill, ˜Hazlitt and “First Principles” ™,
Studies in Romanticism  (±°), ±“µµ. A persuasive case for Hazlitt as
a psychologist and a philosopher of personal identity ˜whose insights and
perspectives are so far ahead of his own times that they drop through the
cracks of history™ (p. µ) is assembled by Raymond Marin and John Barresi,
˜Hazlitt on the Future of the Self ™, Journal of the History of Ideas µ. (±µ),
“±.
µ See Thomas McFarland, Romantic Cruxes: The English Essayists and the Spirit of
the Age (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ±·), p. µ: McFarland describes Hazlitt™s
imagination as ˜coarctive™, by which he means ˜a tendency, restricted to
Hazlitt alone, to express his sympathy or antipathy with the claims or merits

<< . .

. 24
( : 30)



. . >>