Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T10:06:02.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Generality and particularity

from LANGUAGE AND STYLE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2008

By
Leo Damrosch
Edited by
H. B. Nisbet  and
Claude Rawson
H. B. Nisbet
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Claude Rawson
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Get access

Summary

Writers in the eighteenth century had much to say about the relative status of the general and the particular, but if one were simply to summarize their views on this topic, the complications and contradictions would seem exasperating if not inexplicable. To make sense of what is going on, one has to recognize that in this instance a literary-critical question is inseparable from a philosophical one, and also that discussions of it usually carry a polemical charge.

Modern accounts of the topic have until recently been shaped by the assumptions of mid-twentieth-century poetics. Reneé Wellek wrote in 1955:

Most modern critics want poetry to be concrete, visual, precise, and not abstract or universal … Some preromantic critics can be shown to be the first to have decidedly rejected the older view of poetry as abstract, universal, and wary of the ‘streaks of the tulip, the shades of the verdure.’ The shift happened late in the eighteenth century, and we have not returned to the neoclassical ideal.

(History, I, p. 4)

In this formulation, a critic like Samuel Johnson (whose words Wellek is quoting) is understood to be a devotee of ‘the neoclassical ideal’, in which the universal is equated with the abstract, and is opposed to the concrete and visual which ‘we’, together with certain ‘preromantic’ critics, prefer.

Such an account seriously misrepresents Johnson in a way that is symptomatic of the New Critical recension of Romantic aesthetics, and that continues to colour accounts of the eighteenth century. Now that New Critical assumptions are fading into the past, however, it is possible to address the question more dispassionately.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism , pp. 381 - 393
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrams, M. H., The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition (New York, 1953).Google Scholar
Adams, Hazard, ‘Revisiting Reynolds’ Discourses and Blake's Annotations’, in Essick, Robert N. and Pearce, Donald (eds.), Blake in His Time (Bloomington, 1978).Google Scholar
Barrell, John, The Political Theory of Painting from Reynolds to Hazlitt (New Haven, 1986).Google Scholar
Basney, Lionel, ‘‘Lucidus Ordo”: Johnson and generality’, Eighteenth-Century Studies, 5 (1971).Google Scholar
Blake, William, The Complete Poetry and Prose of William Blake, ed. Erdman, David V. (revised edn, New York, 1982).Google Scholar
Boswell, James, The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D., ed. Hill, G. B., rev. Powell, L. F. (6 vols., Oxford, 1934, 1950).Google Scholar
Campbell, George. Philosophy of Rhetoric, 2nd edn (2. vols., London, 1801).Google Scholar
Crane, R. S., ‘English neoclassical criticism: an outline sketch’, in Crane, et al. (eds.), Critics and Criticism Ancient and Modern (Chicago, 1952).Google Scholar
Damrosch, Leopold, Symbol and Truth in Blake's Myth (Princeton, 1980).Google Scholar
Damrosch, Leopold, The Uses of Johnson's Criticism (Charlottesville, 1976).Google Scholar
Dennis, John, The Critical Works of John Dennis, ed. Hooker, Edward N. (2 vols., Baltimore, 1939–43).Google Scholar
Eaves, Morris, William Blake's Theory of Art (Princeton, 1982).Google Scholar
Edinger, William, Samuel Johnson and Poetic Style (Chicago, 1977).Google Scholar
Elledge, Scott, ‘The background and development in English criticism of the theories of generality and particularity’, Publications of the Modern Language Association, 62 (1947).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagstrum, Jean H., Samuel Johnson's Literary Criticism (Minneapolis, 1952).Google Scholar
Hippie, Walter J., ‘General and particular in the Discourses of Sir Joshua Reynolds: a study in method’, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 11 (1952).Google Scholar
Hume, David, An Inquiry concerning Human Understanding, ed. Hendel, C. W. (Indianapolis, 1955).Google Scholar
Hurd, Richard, The Works of Richard Hurd (2 vols., London, 1811)Google Scholar
Johnson, Samuel, The History of Rasselas, Prince of Abissinia, ed. Tillotson, Geoffrey and Jenkins, Brian (Oxford, 1971).Google Scholar
Johnson, Samuel, The Lives of the Poets, ed. Hill, G. B. (3 vols., Oxford, 1905)Google Scholar
Johnson, Samuel, The Yale Edition of the Works of Samuel Johnson ed. Hazen, Allen T. et al. (11 vols. to date, New Haven, 1958–).Google Scholar
Kames, Henry Home Lord, Elements of Criticism, 2nd edn (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1763)Google Scholar
Keast, W. R., ‘The theoretical foundations of Johnson's criticism’, in Crane, R. S. et al. (eds.), Critics and Criticism Ancient and Modern (Chicago, 1952).Google Scholar
Lipking, Lawrence, The Ordering of the Arts in Eighteenth-Century England (Princeton, 1970).Google Scholar
Locke, John, An Essay concerning Human Understanding, ed. Fraser, Alexander C. (2 vols., Oxford, 1894, rpt New York, 1959).Google Scholar
Pope, Alexander, The Poems of Alexander Pope, ed. Butt, John et al. (11 vols., London, 1939–69).Google Scholar
Reynolds, Joshua, Discourses on Art, ed. Wark, Robert R. (New Haven, 1975).Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton, 1979).Google Scholar
Scott, John (of Amwell), Critical Essays of Some of the Poems of Several English Poets (London, 1785).Google Scholar
Wasserman, Earl R., The Subtler Language: Critical Readings of Neoclassical and Romantic Poems (Baltimore, 1959).Google Scholar
Wellek, René, A History of Modern Criticism: 1750–1950, vol. I, The Later Eighteenth Century (New Haven, 1955).Google Scholar
Young, Edward, Conjectures on Original Composition, in a Letter to the Author of Sir Charles Grandison (London, 1759).Google Scholar
Youngren, William, ‘Generality, science, and poetic language in the Restoration,’ ELH, 35 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×