TO THE LITERATURE OF ÆSTHETICS.. BY CHARLES MILLS GAYLEY, Professor of the English Language and Literature in the University of California; AND FRED NEWTON SCOTT, PH.D., Assistant Professor of English in the University of Michigan. No. Library Bulletin sa 11. [Supplement to the Report of the Secretary of the Board of Regents, UNIVERSIT B. The Mysterious, the Awful, the Horrible, etc.. 203495 LI UNIVAKSI PREFACE. It Neither exhaustiveness nor ideal completeness of classification is claimed for this guide to the literature of æsthetics. is mainly a list of the books consulted, in two libraries, during the preparation of lectures on Esthetics, and of a text-book on Literary Criticism. Whatever claim to consideration it may possess must be based on the fact that most of the works cited have been found valuable by the college classes of one or the other of the compilers, and that the more important subjectmatter has been indicated by definite references to volume and page. The compilers hope that the simple scheme of classification adopted by them may prove an efficient time-saver to the student of æsthetics. They deem it, however, only just to themselves to say that, since this is but the first of a series of bibliographies designed to cover a considerable portion of the field of æsthetic inquiry, the list here given is necessarily of a general character. The handbooks that follow will take up, in turn, special aspects of the subject. For this reason minute subdivisions have, in this pamphlet, been avoided; nor has any pains been taken to bring together, by means of cross-references, all the matter upon any one topic. The books and articles consulted have been classified as wholes, and assigned to the divisions into which they most obviously fall, or into which there seems least objection to putting them. Few titles have been repeated; nor has it. seemed feasible to supply from treatises of a general or miscellaneous character the gaps resulting from an absence of appropriate monographs. A more liberal policy would have stretched the line of references to the crack of doom. For a like reason the compilers have refrained from comments upon the merits of the various authorities cited. They have, however, while treating of the Subject-Matter of Esthetic Theory, of Types of Literature, and of Criticism, permitted themselves to supple |