Aesthetic as Science of Expression and General Linguistic

I Rhetoric: Or the Theory of Ornate Form

Rhetoric in the ancient sense.

Proceeding according to rank in importance, we inevitably head the list of theories for examination with the theory of Rhetoric, or Ornate Form.

It will not be superfluous to observe that the meaning given in modern times to the word Rhetoric, namely, the doctrine of ornate form, differs from that which it had for the ancients. Rhetoric in the modern sense is above all a theory of elocution, while elocution (λέξις, φράσις, ἑρμηνεία, elocutio) was but one portion, and not the principal one, of ancient Rhetoric. Taken as a whole, it consisted strictly of a manual or vade-mecum for advocates and politicians; it concerned itself with the two or the three “styles” (judicial, deliberative, demonstrative), and gave advice or furnished models to those striving to produce certain effects by means of speech. No definition of the art is more accurate than that given by its inventors the earliest Sicilian rhetoricians, scholars of Empedocles (Corax, Tisias, Gorgias): Rhetoric is the creator of persuasion (πειθος δημιουργός). It devoted itself to showing the method of using language so as to create a certain belief, a certain state of mind, in the hearer; hence the phrase “making the weaker case stronger” (τὸ τὸν ἥττω λόgον κρείττω ποιεῖν); the “increase or diminution according to circumstances” (eloquentia in augendo minuendoque consistit); the advice of Gorgias to “turn a thing to a jest if the adversary takes it seriously, or to a serious matter if he takes it as a jest,”1 and many similar well-known maxims.

Criticism from moral point of view.

He who acts in this manner is not only æsthetically accomplished, as saying beautifully that which he wishes to say; he is also and especially a practical man with a practical end in view. As a practical man, however, he cannot evade moral responsibility for his actions; this point was fastened upon by Plato’s polemic against Rhetoric, that is to say against fluent political charlatans and unscrupulous lawyers and journalists. Plato was quite right to condemn Rhetoric (when dissociated from a good purpose) as blameworthy and discreditable, directed to arouse the passions, a diet ruinous to health, a paint disastrous to beauty. Even had Rhetoric allied herself to Ethics, becoming a true guide of the soul (ψυχαγωγία τις διὰ τῶν λόγον); had Plato’s criticism been directed solely against her abusers (everything being liable to abuse save virtue itself, says Aristotle); had Rhetoric been purified, producing such an orator as Cicero desired, non ex rhetorum officinis sed ex academiae spatiis2 and imposing on him, with Quintilian, the duty of being vir bonus dicendi peritus;3 yet the unalterable fact remains that Rhetoric can never be considered a regular science, being formed of a congeries of widely dissimilar cognitions.

Accumulation without system.

It included descriptions of passions and affections, comparisons of political and judicial institutions, theories of the abbreviated syllogism or enthymeme and of proof leading to a probable conclusion, pedagogic and popular exposition, literary elocution, declamation and mimicry, mnemonic, and so forth.

Its fortunes in the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

The rich and heterogeneous content of this ancient Rhetoric (which reached its highest development in the hands of Hermagoras of Temnos in the second century B.C.) gradually diminished in volume with the decadence of the ancient world and the change in political conditions. This is not the place to dwell on its fortunes in the Middle Ages or its partial replacement by formularies and Artes dictandi (and later by treatises upon the art of preaching), or to quote the reasons given by such writers as Patrizzi and Tassoni for its disappearance from the world of their day;4 such history would be well worth writing, but would be out of place here. We will merely state that whilst conditions were at work on every side corroding this complex of cognitions, Louis Vives, Peter Ramus and Patrizzi himself were busy criticizing it from the point of view of systematic science.

Criticisms by Vives, Ramus and Patrizzi.

Vives emphasized the confused methods of the ancient treatise-writers, who embraced omnia, united eloquence with morality, and insisted that the orator must be vir bonus. He rejected four-fifths of ancient Rhetoric as extraneous: namely, memory, which is necessary in all arts; invention, which is the matter of each individual art; recitation, which is external; and disposition, which belongs to invention. He retained elocution only, not that which treats of quid dicendum, but of quem ad modum, extending it beyond the three styles or kinds to include history, apologue, epistles, novels and poetry.5 Antiquity furnishes us with few and faint attempts at such extension; now and then a Rhetorician ventures to suggest that the γένος ίστορικόν and ἐπιστολικόν be included in Rhetoric, and even (in spite of opposition) “infinite” questions, that is to say merely theoretical questions with no practical application, which amounts to a scientific or philosophical genus;6 others agreed with Cicero7 that when one had mastered the most difficult of all arts, forensic eloquence, all else seemed child’s-play (ludus est homini non hebeti...). Ramus and his pupil Omer Talon reproached Aristotle, Cicero and Quintilian with having confused Dialectic and Rhetoric; and they assigned invention and disposition to the former, agreeing with Vives that “elocution” alone should be allowed to Rhetoric.8 Patrizzi, on the other hand, refused the name of science to either, recognizing them as simple faculties, containing no individual matter (not even the three genera), and differentiating them only by attaching the term Dialectic to the dialogue form and proof of the necessary, and Rhetoric to connected discourse directed to persuasion in matters of opinion. Patrizzi observes that “conjoined speech” is used by historians, poets and philosophers, no less than by orators; and thus approaches the view of Vives.9

Survival into modern times.

In spite of these opinions the body of rhetorical doctrine continued to flourish in the schools. Patrizzi was forgotten; if Ramus and Vives had some followers (such as Francisco Sanchez and Keckermann), they were generally held up to odium by the traditionalists. In the end, Rhetoric found a supporter in philosophy when Campanella made the following declaration in his Rational Philosophy: “quodammodo Magiae portiuncula, quae affectus animi moderator et per ipsos voluntatem ciet ad quaecumque vult sequenda vel fugienda.”10 Baumgarten owed to it his tripartition of Æsthetic into heuristic, methodology and semeiotic (invention, disposition and elocution), adopted later by Meier. Among Meier’s numerous works is a little book entitled Theoretic Doctrine of Emotional Disturbances in General,11 considered by him to be a psychological introduction to æsthetic doctrine. On the other hand, Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Judgment observes that eloquence, in the sense of ars oratoria or art of persuasion by means of beautiful appearance and dialectical form, must be distinguished from beautiful speaking (Wohlredenheit); and that the art of oratory, playing upon the weakness of men to gain its own ends, “is worthy of no esteem” (gar keiner Achtungwürdig)12 But in the schools it flourished in many celebrated compilations, including one by the French Jesuit Father Dominique de Colonne, which was in use until some few decades ago. Even to-day, in so-called Literary Institutions, we come across survivals of ancient Rhetoric, notably in chapters devoted to the art of oratory; and fresh manuals on judicial or sacred eloquence (Ortloff, Whately, etc.13) are actually appearing, though rarely, to-day. Still, Rhetoric in the ancient sense may be said to have disappeared from the system of the sciences; to-day no philosopher would dream of following Campanella in dedicating a special section of rational philosophy to Rhetoric.

Modern signification of Rhetoric. Theory of literary form.

In compensation for this process, the theory of elocution and beautiful speech has been in modern times progressively emphasized and thrown into scientific form. But the idea of such a science is ancient, as we have seen; and equally ancient is the style of exposition, consisting in the doctrine of a double form and the concept of ornate form.

Concept of ornament.

The concept of “ornament” must have occurred spontaneously to the mind as soon as attention was directed to the values of speech by listening to poets reciting14 or to oratorical contests in public gatherings. It must very early have been thought that the difference between good speaking and bad, or between that which gave more pleasure and that which gave less, between grave or solemn, and commonplace or colloquial, consisted in something additional superimposed upon the canvas of ordinary speech like an embroidery by a skilful orator. These considerations led the Græco-Roman rhetoricians to adopt the practice, like the Indians, who arrived at the distinction independently, to distinguish the bare (ψιλή) or purely grammatical form from another form containing an addition which they called ornament, κόσμος: ornatum est (Quintilian will serve, as typical of all the rest) quod perspicuo ac probabili plus est.15

The notion of ornament as something added on from outside forms the basis of the theory which Aristotle, the philosopher of Rhetoric, gave of the queen of ornaments, Metaphor. According to him the high pleasure aroused by metaphor arises from the collocation of different terms and the discovery of relations between species and genera, producing “learning and knowledge by means of the genus” (μαθησιν καi γνῶσιν διὰ τοῦ γένους), and that easy learning which is the greatest of human pleasures,16 which amounts to saying that metaphor adds to the concept under consideration a group of minor incidental cognitions, as a kind of diversion and relief and pleasant instruction for the mind.

Classes of ornament.

Ornaments were divided and subdivided in a number of different ways. Aristotle (and previously Isocrates, rather differently) classified the ornaments which diversify bare or nude form, under the heads of dialect forms, substitutions and epithets, prolongations, truncations and abbreviations of words, and other departures from common usage, and, finally, rhythm and harmony. Substitutions were of four classes: species for genus; genus for species; species for species; and proportionate.17 After Aristotle, elocution was especially studied by Theophrastus and Demetrius Phalereus; these rhetoricians and their followers further solidified the classification of ornament by distinguishing tropes from figures (σχήματα) and dividing figures into figures of speech (scheimata τῆς λέχεως) and of thought (τῆς διανοίας), figures of speech into grammatical and rhetorical, and figures of thought into pathetic and ethic. Substitutions were divided into fourteen principal forms, metaphor, synecdoche, metonymy, antonomasia, onomatopeia, catachresis, metalepsis, epithet, allegory, enigma, irony, periphrase, hyperbaton and hyperbole; each divided into subspecies and contrasted with its relative vice. Figures of speech amounted to a score or so (repetition, anaphora, antistrophe, climax, asyndeton, assonance, etc.); figures of thought to about the same number (interrogation, prosopopœia, ætiopœia, hypotyposis, commotion, simulation, exclamation, apostrophe, aposiopesis, etc.). If these divisions have any value as aids to memory in relation to particular literary forms, considered rationally they are simply capricious, as is evidenced by the fact that many classes of the ornate appear now under the heading of tropes, now of figures; sometimes under figures of speech, then as those of thought, no reason for the alteration is given except the arbitrary caprice of an individual rhetorician which so decrees and disposes. And since one function which may be fulfilled by the rhetorical categories is to point out the divergence between two ways of expressing the same thing, one of which is arbitrarily selected as “proper,”18 it is easy to see why the ancients defined metaphor as “verbi vel sermonis a propria significatione in aliam cum virtute mutatio,” and figure as “conformatio quaedam orationis remota a communi et primum se offerenti ratione.”19

The concept of the Fitting.

So far as we know, antiquity raised no revolt against the theory of ornament or of double form. We do sometimes hear Cicero, Quintilian, Seneca and others saying, Ipsae res verba rapiunt, Pectus est quod disertos facit et vis mentis, Rem tene, verba sequentur, Curam verborum rerum volo esse sollicitudinem, or Nulla est verborum nisi rei cohaerentium virtus. But these maxims did not bear the weighty meanings which we moderns might attach to them; they were perhaps in contradiction with the theory of ornament, but as the contradiction was unheeded, it was ineffective: they were the protests of common sense, powerless to combat the fallacies of school doctrine. Moreover, the latter was fitted with a safety-valve, a sage contrivance to disguise its inherent absurdity. If the ornate consisted of a plus, in what degree should it be used? if it gave pleasure, must we not conclude that the more it were used, the greater the pleasure derived? would its extravagant use be attended by extravagant pleasure? Herein was peril: instinctively the rhetoricians hastened to the defence, snatching up the first weapon that came to hand, namely, the fitting (πρέπον) Ornament must be used carefully; neither too much too little; in medio virtus; as much as is fitting (ἀλλά πρέπον). Aristotle recommends a style seasoned with “a certain dose” (δεῑ ἃρα κεκρᾶσθαί πως τούτοις.) for ornament should be a condiment, not a food (ἤδυσμα, οὐκ ἒδεσμα). 20 The fitting was a concept quite inconsistent with that of ornament; it was a rival, and enemy, destined to destroy it. Fitting to what? to expression of course; but that which is fitting to expression cannot be called an ornament, an external addition; it coincides with expression itself. But the rhetoricians contented themselves with maintaining peaceful relations between the ornate and the fitting, without troubling to mediate them through a third concept. The pseudo-Longinus alone in answer to an observation of his predecessor Cæcilius that more than two or three metaphors must not be used in the same place, remarked that a larger number ought to be used where passion (τὰ πάθη) rushes headlong like a torrent, carrying with it as necessaries (ὡς ἀναγκαῑον) a multitude of such substitutions.21

The theory of ornament in the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

Preserved in the compilations of later antiquity (such as the works of Donatus and Priscian and the celebrated allegorical tract of Marcianus Capella), and in the compendia of Bede, Rhabanus Maurus and others, the theory of ornament passed to the Middle Ages. Throughout this period Rhetoric, Grammar and Logic continued to form the trivium of the schools. The theory was to some extent favoured in mediæval times by the fact that writers and scholars made use of a dead language; this helped to reinforce the idea that beautiful form was not a spontaneous thing but consisted in an addition or embroidery. Under the Renaissance the theory continued to flourish and was revived by study of the best classical sources; to the works of Cicero were added the Institutiones of Quintilian and the Rhetoric of Aristotle, with the host of minor Latin and Greek rhetoricians, amongst whom was Hermogenes with his celebrated Ideas, brought into fashion by Giulio Camillo.22

Even those writers who dared to criticize the organism of ancient Rhetoric left the theory of ornament unassailed. Vives lamented over the “exaggerated subtlety of the Greeks” which had multiplied distinctions to infinity in this matter without diffusing light,23 but he never took up a definite stand against the theory of ornament. Patrizzi was dissatisfied with the insufficient definition of ornament given by the ancients; but he asserted the existence of ornaments and metaphors as well as seven different modes of “conjoined speech,”—narrative, proof, amplification, diminution, ornament with its contrary, elevation and depression.24 The school of Ramus continued to entrust Rhetoric with the “embellishment” of thought. Owing to the vast extension and intensification of life and literature in the sixteenth century, it would be easy to quote phrases, as we have done from ancient authors, asserting the strict dependence of speech upon the things it wishes to express, and lively attacks on pedants and pedantic forms and rules for beautiful speech. But what would be the use? The theory of ornament was always in the background, tacitly admitted as indisputable by all. Juan de Valdés, for instance, makes the following confession of stylistic faith: “Escribo como hablo; solamente tengo cuidado de usar de vocablos que sinifiquen bien lo que quiero decir, y dígolo cuanto más llanamente me es posible, porqué, á mi parecer, en ninguna lengua está bien la afectación.” But Valdés also says that beautiful language consists “en que digais lo que quereis con las menos palabras que pudiéredes, de tal manera que... no se pueda quitar ninguna sin ofender á la sentencia, ó al encarescimiento, ó á la elegancia.”25 Here it seems that amplification and elegance are conceived as extraneous to the meaning or content.—A gleam of truth is visible in Montaigne, who, confronted by the laboured categories into which rhetoricians divide ornament, observes: “Oyez dire Métonymie, Métaphore, Allégorie et aultres tels noms de la Grammaire; semble il pas qu’on signifie quelque forme de langage rare et pellegrin? Ce sont tiltres qui touchent le babil de vostre chambrière.”26 That is to say, they are anything but language remote from the primum se offerens ratio.

Reductio ad absurdum in the seventeenth century.

The impossibility of upholding the theory of ornament was first noticed during the decadence of Italian literature in the seventeenth century, when literary production became but a play of empty forms, and the convenient, long violated in practice, was abandoned and forgotten even in theory, and came to be looked on as a limit arbitrarily imposed on the fundamental principle of ornamentation. The opponents of that style loaded with conceits which is known as “secentismo” from its prevalence in the seventeenth century (Matteo Pellegrini, Orsi and others) felt the viciousness of the literary production of their day; they were aware that decadence was due to the fact that literature was no longer the serious expression of a content; but they were embarrassed by the reasoning of the champions of bad taste, who were able to demonstrate that the whole business conformed in every particular with the literary theory of ornament, the common ground of both parties. In vain did the former appeal to the “convenient,” the “moderate,” the “avoidance of affectation,” to ornament as “condiment, not food,” and all the other weapons which had sufficed in times when healthy literary production and sound æsthetic taste had automatically corrected faulty theory: the other party replied, there was no reason to be sparing in use of ornament when it lay in masses ready to hand, or to avoid an ostentatious display of wit when one had an inexhaustible supply.27

Polemic concerning the theory of ornament.

The same reaction against the abuse of ornament, against “Spanish and Italian conceits” (whose supporters had been Gracian in Spain and Tesauro in Italy), took place in France. “... Laissez à l’Italie De tous ces faux brillants l’éclatante folie”; “Ce que l’on conçoit bien s’énonce clairement. Et les mots, pour le dire, arrivent aisément.”28 Among the sharpest critics of conceits was the Jesuit Bouhours, already quoted, author of the Manière de bien penser dans les œuvres d’esprit. The rhetorical forms were the subject of warm controversy. Orsi, on national grounds the opponent of Bouhours (1703), asserted that all the ornamental devices of wit rested on a middle term and could be reduced to a rhetorical syllogism, and that wit consists of a truth which appears false or a falsehood which appears true.29 If this controversy produced no great scientific result at the time, at least it prepared the mind for greater liberty; and, as we have remarked elsewhere,30 it may have influenced Vico, who, in framing his new concept of poetical imagination, recognized that it necessitated a wholesale reconstruction of the theory of rhetoric and the conclusion that its figures and tropes are not “caprices of pleasure” but “necessities of the human mind.”31

---

Du Marsais and metaphor.

We find the theory of rhetorical ornament jealously kept intact by Baumgarten and Meier, while in France it was as vigorously assailed by César Chesneau du Marsais, who published in 1730 a treatise on Tropes (the seventh part of his General Grammar)32 wherein he develops, on the subject of metaphor, the observation already made by Montaigne: indeed he was perhaps inspired by Montaigne, although he does not mention his name. Du Marsais remarks that it is said that figures are modes of speech and turns of expression removed from the ordinary and common; which is an empty phrase, as good as saying “the figured differs from the non-figured and figures are figures and not non-figures.” On the other hand it is wholly untrue that figures are removed from ordinary speech, for “nothing is more natural, ordinary and common than figures: more figures of speech are used in the town square on a market-day than in many days of academical discussion”; and no speech, however short, can be composed entirely of non-figurative expressions. And Du Marsais gives instances of quite obvious and spontaneous expressions in which Rhetoric cannot refuse to recognize the figures of apostrophe, congeries, interrogation, ellipsis, prosopopœia: “The apostles were persecuted and suffered their persecutions with patience. What can be more natural than the description given by St. Paul? Maledicimur et benedicimus; persecutionem patimur et sustinemus; blasphemamur et obsecramus. Yet the apostle makes use of a fine figure of antithesis; cursing is the opposite to blessing; persecution to endurance; blasphemy to prayer.” But further, the very language of the figure is figured, since it is a metaphor.—But after such acute observations, Du Marsais ends by himself becoming confused and defines figures as “manners of speech differing from others in a particular modification by which it is possible to reduce each one to a species apart, and give a more lively, noble or pleasing effect than can be gained by a manner of speech expressing the same content of thought without such particular modification.”33

Psychological interpretation.

But the psychological interpretation of figures of speech, the first stage towards their æsthetic criticism, was not allowed to drop here. In his Elements of Criticism, Home says that he had long questioned whether that part of Rhetoric concerning figures might not be reduced to rational principles, and had finally discovered that figures consist in the passional element;34 he set himself therefore to analyse prosopopœia, apostrophe and hyperbole in the light of the passional faculty. From Du Marsais and Home is derived everything of value in the Lectures on Rhetoric and belles lettres of Hugh Blair, professor at Edinburgh University from 1759 onwards;35 published in book form, these lectures had an immense vogue in all the schools of Europe including those of Italy, and replaced advantageously, by their “reason and good sense,” works of a much cruder type. Blair defined figures in general as “language suggested by imagination or passion.”36 Similar ideas were promulgated in France by Marmontel in his Elements of Literature.37 In Italy Cesarotti was contrasting the logical element or “cypher-terms” of language with the rhetorical element or “figure-terms,” and rational eloquence with imaginative eloquence.38 Beccaria, though a shrewd psychological analyst, held to the view of literary style as “accessory ideas or feelings added to the principal in any discourse”; that is, he failed to free himself from the distinction between the intellectual form intended for the expression of the principal ideas, and the literary form, modifying the first by the addition of accessory ideas.39 In Germany an effort was made by Herder to interpret tropes and metaphors as Vico had done, that is to say as essential to primitive language and poetry.

Romanticism and Rhetoric. Present day.

Romanticism was the ruin of the theory of ornament, and caused it practically to be thrown on the scrap-heap, but it cannot be said to have gone under for good or to have been superseded by a new and accurately stated theory. The chief philosophers of Æsthetic (not only Kant, who as we know remained in bondage to the mechanical and ornamental theory; not only Herder, whose knowledge of art seems to have been confined to a little music and a great deal of rhetoric; but such romantic philosophers as Schelling, Solger and Hegel) still retained the sections devoted to metaphor, trope and allegory for tradition’s sake, without severe scrutiny. Italian Romanticism with Manzoni at its head destroyed the belief in beautiful and elegant words, and dealt a blow at Rhetoric: but was it killed by the stroke? Apparently not, judging by the concessions unconsciously made by the scholastic treatise-writer Ruggero Bonghi, whose Critical Letters assert the existence of two styles or forms, which at bottom are nothing else than the plain and the ornate.40 German schools of philology have pretty generally accepted the stylistic theory of Gröber, who divides style into logical (objective) and affective (subjective):41 an ancient error masked by terminology borrowed from the psychological philosophy in fashion at modern universities. In the same spirit a recent writer rechristens the rhetorical doctrine of tropes and figures by the title “Doctrine of the Forms of Æsthetic Apperception,” and divides them into the four categories (the ancient wealth of categories reduced to a paltry four!) of personification, metaphor, antithesis, and symbol.42 Biese has devoted an entire book to metaphor; but one searches it in vain for a serious æsthetic analysis of this category.43

The best scientific criticism of the theory of ornament is found scattered throughout the writings of De Sanctis, who when lecturing on rhetoric preached what he called anti-rhetoric.44 But even here the criticism is not conducted from a strictly systematic point of view. It seems to us that the true criticism should be deduced negatively from the very nature of æsthetic activity, which does not lend itself to partition; there is no such thing as activity type a or type b, nor can the same concept be expressed now in one way, now in another. Such is the only way of abolishing the double monster of bare form which is, no one knows how, deprived of imagination, and ornate form which contains, no one knows how, an addition on the side of imagination.45

Notes

1 For Gorgias’ saying see Aristotle, Rhet. iii. ch. 18.

2 Cicero, Orat. ad Brut., introd.

3 Quintilian, Inst. orat. xii. c. i.

4 Fran. Patrizzi, Della rhetorica, ten dialogues, Venice, 1582, dial. 7; Tassoni, Pensieri diversi, bk. x. ch. 15.

5 De causis corruptarum artium, 1531, bk. iv.; De ratione dicendi, 1533.

6 Cicero, De or at: i. chs. 10-11; Quintil. Inst. oral. iii. ch. 5.

7 De orat. ii. chs. 16-17.

8 P. Ramus, Instil, dialecticæ, 1543; Scholæ in artes liberales, 1555 etc.; Talæus, Instit. orator., 1545.

9 Della rhetorica, dial. 10, and passim.

10 Ration. Philos., part iii. Rhetoricorum liber unus juxta propria dogmata (Paris, 1636), ch. 3.

11 Theoretische Lehre von den Gemüthsbewegungen überhaupt, Halle, 1744.

12 Kritik d. Urtheils kraft, § 53 and n.

13 H. F. Ortloff, Die gerichtliche Redekunst, Neuwied, 1887; R. Whately, Rhetoric, 1828 (for Encyd. Brit.); Ital. trans., Pistoia, 1889.

14 Aristotle, Rhet. iii. ch. 1.

15 Quintil. Inst. orat. viii. ch. 3.

16 Rhet. iii. ch. 10.

17 Poet. chs. 19-22; cf. Rhet. iii. cc. 2, 10.

18 See above, pp. 68-69.

19 Quintilian, Inst. orat. viii. ch. 6; ix. ch. 1.

20 Aristotle, Rhet. iii. ch. 2; Poet. ch. 22.

21 De sublimitate (in Rhet. græci, ed. Spengel, vol. 1. § 32.)

22 Giulio Camillo Delminio, Discorso sopra le Idee di Ermogene (in Opere, Venice, 1560); and trans. of Hermogenes (Udine, 1594).

23 De causis corruptarum artium, loc. cit.

24 Della rhetorica, dial. 6.

25 Diálogo de las lenguas (ed. Mayans y Siscar, Origines de la lengua espanola, Madrid, 1873), pp. 115, 119.

26 Essais, i. ch. 52 (ed. Garnier, i. 285); ci. ibid. chs. 10, 25, 39; 10.

27 Croce, I trattatisti italiani del concettismo, pp. 8-22.

28 Boileau, Art poétique, i. 11. 43-44, 153-154.

29 G. G. Orsi, Considerazioni sopra la maniera di ben pensare, etc., 1703 (reprinted Modena, 1735, with all polemics relating thereto).

30 See above, pp. 230-231.

31 See above, pp. 225-226.

32 Des tropes ou des différens sens dans lesquels on peut prendre un même mot dans une même langue. Paris, 1730 (Œuvres de Du Marsais, Paris, 1797, vol. i.).

33 Des tropes ou des différens sens dans lesquels on peut prendre un même mot dans une même langue, part i. art. 1; cf. art. 4.

34 Elem. of Criticism, iii. ch. 20.

35 Hugh Blair, Lectures on Rhetoric and belles lettres (London, 1823).

36 Lect. on Rhet. and belles lettres, lecture 14.

37 Marmontel, Éléments de littéral, (in Œuvres, Paris, 1819), iv. p. 559.

38 Cesarotti, Saggio sulla filos. del linguaggio, part ii.

39 Ricerche intorno alla natura dello stile (Turin, 1853), ch. 1.

40 R. Bonghi, Lettere critiche, 1856 (4th ed., Naples, 1884), pp. 37 65-67, 90, 103.

41 Gustav Gröber, Grundriss d. romanischen Philologie, vol. 1. pp. 200-250, K. Vossler, B. Cellinis Stil in seiner Vita, Versuch einer psychol. Stilbetrachtung, Halle a. S., 1899; cf. the self-criticism of Vossler, Positivismus u. Idealismus in der Sprachwissenschaft, Heidelberg, 1904 (It. trans., Bari, Laterza, 1908).

42 Ernst Elsteb, Principien d. Literaturwissenschaft, Halle a. S., 1097. vol. i. pp. 359-413.

43 Biese, Philos, des Metaphorischen, Hamburg-Leipzig, 1893.

44 La Giovinezza di Fr. de S. chs. 23, 25; Scritti varî, ii. pp. 272-274.

45 See above, pp. 67-73.