suggesting that the man of genius differs from the man of taste by
his ability to handle a medium, Armstrong implies the possibility of
a technical criticism in terms of the writer's craft, apart from moral
judgment.

[Footnote 3: _Ibid._, II, 168.]

Although the works of Cooper and Armstrong elicited contrasting
popular reactions--_Letters concerning Taste_ running into four
editions from 1755 to 1771 and Armstrong's writings, with the
exception of _The Art of Preserving Health_, never winning much public
favor--neither writer exerted a strong critical influence. Cooper did
not reassess or change significantly the assumptions of Shaftesbury
and Hutcheson. His work was primarily a popularization of their ideas,
and, in its enthusiastic language, its emphasis on sensibility,
and its epistolary form, it seems directed at flattering a female
audience. Armstrong's remarks on taste, written in imitation of
the simplicity and clarity of the rational tradition, are personal
assertions and opinions rather than well-defined or clearly
thought-out critical positions. They are random thoughts rather than a
coherent critical theory.

The significance of Cooper and Armstrong rests, therefore, on certain
representative attitudes toward taste which exhibit the change
"from classic to romantic." On the one hand, they accept the moral
postulates of art, and, on the other, they emphasize the emotional
basis of taste. Cooper treats art as a secondary form of knowledge,
yet emphasizes the thrill that art gives. Armstrong accepts
the standards of clarity and simplicity, while emphasizing the
individuality of response and the need for discriminating particular,