LITERARY STUDIES IN NINETEENTH CENTURY 337 



modern criticism has been immense, and has by no means begun to 

 exhaust itself. It affects rather the matter than the manner, and 

 is more a philosophy than an aesthetic of poetry (see Miscellanies, 

 Goethe, etc., Lectures on Heroes, History of Literature). In their recog- 

 nition of national literary development and in their familiarity with 

 German literature Carlyle and De Quincey were sympathetic; but 

 as regards the appreciation of German literature De Quincey is more 

 insular than Carlyle, and as regards literary history, while Carlyle 

 would discover the bearing of the poet's ethical significance, De Quin- 

 cey is concerned with that of his literary characteristics. Macau- 

 lay, who knew not Germany, and with all his biographical industry 

 never learned the comparative method, represents the "personal" 

 wing of the historical school. He is judge and advocate combined. 

 He derives from Samuel Johnson, Gibbon, Jeffrey, Hallam, and 

 Hazlitt. 



These tentative efforts at historical procedure (thwarted, of course, 

 by imperfection of material and of method) are succeeded in the latter 

 half of the century by a movement which has for its purpose the 

 investigation of principles and the establishment of a scientific 

 basis for poetic and artistic appreciation. The leaders, among oth- 

 ers, are John Stuart Mill (System of Logic, 1843, etc.; Thoughts on 

 Poetry and its Varieties, etc.), Herbert Spencer (Social Statics, 1851; 

 Psychology, 1855, etc.; Philosophy of Style, 1852; On Gracefulness, 

 1854), G. H. Lewes (Problems of Life and Mind, 1874-79, etc.; 

 Principles of Success in Literature), and Bain (The Emotions and the 

 Will, 1859, etc.). Later still in the century valuable service has been 

 rendered to the cause of scientific aesthetic, and hence to that of 

 literary science, by the researches, psychological, physiological, etc., 

 of Darwin, Grant Allen, Sully, Gurney, and the studies philosophical 

 and historical of Caird in his exposition of Kant's Critique of Judg- 

 ment, Bosanquet, whose History of Esthetic stands easily first, 

 Butcher, who has given us the most subtle of modern interpret- 

 ations of Aristotle's aesthetic theory, Jowett in his introductions to 

 Plato's Dialogues, Knight, Baldwin Brown, W. P. Ker, R. P. Hardie, 

 and others. 



By the earlier of the scientific teachers Morris, Ruskin, and Arnold 

 were more or less affected. But Morris and Ruskin confined them- 

 selves principally to the aesthetics and economics of the plastic arts, 

 while the aesthetics and didactics of poetry were the immediate 

 concern of Matthew Arnold. Arnold did for the comparative method 

 of literary criticism what Ruskin tried to do for art-criticism. A 

 combination and modification of the qualities of Ruskin and Arnold 

 (by omission of the economics of the first and the didactics of the 

 second) appear in the essays of Walter Pater, who, with Symonds, 

 may be regarded as the leader of the hedonistic school. But Pater's 



