AESTHETICS No.13 (2009)

The Japanese Society for Aesthetics / 121

Is logical analysis adaptable for art criticism?:
A comparison between Russell and Fry
KANAME Mariko
Osaka University, Osaka

Introduction
In this paper I will take up the topics of Bertrand Russell (1872-1964), who is regarded as
an out-dated philosopher in the domain of logic today, although in the early 20th century he
was quite accomplished. Following that period, with the rapid advancements in the field oflogic, he came to be forgotten. However, his approaches are still thought of as remarkable.
A. J. Ayer (1910-1989) has described Russell as “the Picasso of modern philosophy”[1]. Ayer
himself remained a logical positivist after the 1950’s, increasing the importance of the lateWittgenstein. Finding a base in Ayer’s statement, A. C. Danto is perhaps the first to call
Picasso “the Russell of modern art” in his 1996 essay [2]. Danto, also an analytic philosopher,later became one of the leading art critics of his time. Taking into account these statements
given by Ayer and Danto, interestingly, Russell evolved his new logic and Picasso developed
his new pictorial form at the same time in the early 20th century.
In the following analysis, I will try to explain that Russell’s logic, taken as seemingly
irrelevant to painting, is actually applicable to it. It is not what Russell himself had intended,
but plausible through the mediation of an art critic who knew Russell’s logic. Roger Eliot Fry(1866-1934), who was one of Russell’s friends since their college days [3], was also a dedicatedproponent of modern art. I will show that the analytic method proposed by Russell finds its
analogue in the cubist painting. As we have seen, it is already touched upon simply by Ayer
and Danto, but they left out a concrete confrontation between painting and Russell’s logic. In
the following chapter, we will confirm an analogy of logical propositions to paintings throughthe comparison between Fry’s criticism and Russell’s theory, and eventually, try to suggest the
point where they break away.

1. Russell’s analytic philosophy and Picasso’s analytic Cubism
How did Russell’s method of “analysis” develop to be received with a big impact in his
time? Bertrand Russell commenced his philosophical and mathematical studies in 1890 at
Trinity College, Cambridge. Initially, he supported idealism under the influence of a Hegelianphilosopher, John Ellis McTaggart (1866-1925), but eventually refuted it with one of his friends,
George Edward Moore (1873-1958), as they were not interested in “why things exist” but “howthings exist”. In his memoires “My Early Belief”, one of Russell’s friends, John Maynard
Keynes (1883-1946), recapitulated about Moore’s analytic method as follows: according to
Moore’s method, “you could hope to make essentially vague notions clear by using precise

122

KANAME Marikolanguage about them and asking exact questions. It was the method of discovery by the
instruments of impeccable grammar and an unambiguous dictionary”[4].
“How things exist?” Posing such a question, Russell often invoked everyday things suchas a table or glasses. Russell thought that a table or glasses could be known when they did notappear in anyone’s sight, since they could still be described. Russell preferred to use theproposition “the present king of France is bald” which consists of the parts “being the present
king of France” and “being bald”. There, “the present king of France” functions as a “denoting
phrase”. A denoting phrase can denote a certain object in correspondence to the everyday
world, but also can denote no particular object. From a viewpoint of existence, the proposition“the present king of France is bald” is “false”, since there is no king of France today. The
traditional logic deriving from Aristotle had put stress on such a correspondence between adenoting phrase and its real referent. But, even though a proposition itself is “false”, it makessome “false” meaning as a full-described proposition. And we must be able to know any kindof meaning of propositions from its described propositional form.
In his article “On denoting” (1905), Russell demonstrated that all propositions could bethought and discussed whether its denoting phrase had its real object or not [5]. He used theword “acquaintance” to designate a visual phenomenon. “All thinking has to start fromacquaintance; but it succeeds in thinking about many things with which we have noacquaintance”[6]. When we examine the proposition “the present king of France is bald” inrelation to the real world, we have to abandon examining it immediately since there is nopresent king of France. Even if this proposition is false, it is important to provide some special
method in order to examine the expressed meaning in it. By introducing variable “x”, Russell
analyzed the proposition as follows: when “x is the present king of France” and “x is bald” iscompatible, then the proposition “the present king of France is bald” is true. Russell called
such an expression that contains variables “x” and turns into a proposition by substituting for“x” a particular noun, a “propositional function”. In this way, the meaning of the proposition“the present king of France is bald” can be analyzed independently of its correspondence toreality. Russell called this method “description theory”.
However, further put forth in Russell’s description theory, he proposes that whether the
proposition is significant or not is based on the judgment of the subject who analyzes it. In
1914, he tried to reconstruct his theory accordingly, focusing on the autonomy of logic in his
article “The relation of sense-data to physics”[7]. In order to prove the existence of an individual object without any cognitive subject, he proposed the concept of “sensibilia” insteadof sense-data and tried to separate a proposition from its cognitive subject. This “sensibilia”
means literally “those which are able to be sensed”, or “the appearance that thing presents inplaces where there are no minds to perceive them”[8]. In Russell’s own definition, it means“those objects which have the same metaphysical and physical status as sense-data, without
necessarily being data to any mind”[9]. He said that the relation between a sensibile and sensedatum is similar to the relation between a man and a husband. That is, “a man becomes ahusband by entering into the relation of marriage, and similarly a sensibile becomes a sensedatum by entering into the relation of acquaintance”.
So how does one explain the existence of sensibile which have no percipient? To resolve

Is logical analysis adaptable for art criticism?

123

this question, Russell resorts to a conception of“perspective”. According to his account, this conception derived from Leibniz’s idea which made aclear distinction between the space as perceptions
within each monad and the space in which thesemonads themselves were disposed. On one hand,when a percipient sees objects, they are disposed
into its private space. This space is a phenomenon
within a private perspective (view) of the percipient
and there are as much private spaces as percipients.
On the other hand, this private space does notcontain sensibilia which are independent of any
percipient. This means that there is a more comprehensive space which contains sensibilia andpercipients themselves. Russell calls this kind of

fig. 1: “Phenomena of a coin from theperspectives” by Minosuke Emoriin Japanese version of Mysticism
and Logic, p.184.

space “perspective space”. In a lecture which was
titled “The Ultimate Constituents of Matter” (1906),
he explains the relation between each threedimensional private space and perspective space which embraces these private spaces in its
own three-dimensional space as follows: “… the one all-embracing three-dimensional space islogical construction, obtained by means of correlations from a crude space of six dimensions.
The particulars occupying this six-dimensional space, classified in one way, from “things”,
from which with certain further manipulations we can obtain what physics can regard asmatter; classified in another way, they form “perspectives” and “biographies”, which may, if asuitable percipient happens to exist, form respectively the sense-data of a momentary or of a
total experience”[10]. Within this embracing space which enables infinite possible perspectives,
there can be a perspective which belongs to no one (fig.1). This figure shows that one coin isseen in different distorted ways from each perspective. We will review this figure later
concretely in comparison to a vision of paintings.
Russell’s analytical philosophy, as Ayer and Danto have suggested, can compare to the
cubist method, because cubist painting also shows its own “analytic” method. Russell’sanalytic philosophy shows that a proposition such as “the present king of France is bald” canbe decomposed into plural propositional functions and, according to their relation, it can beconsidered a significant proposition whose meaning is analyzable. Meanwhile, what method
has Cubism achieved by decomposing a figure into plural elements?
It is known that Cubism began with Pablo Picasso’s Les demoiselles d’Avignon in 1907. As
its name suggest, cubist paintings consist basically of cubes and represent the same figure seenfrom different directions or angles on one picture plane to make distortion in the shape of avisual object. On the other hand, by doing so, they can express the changing or movement
which traditional representation has never acquired. In traditional representation of space, asingle-point perspective reveals a throw of one painter’s gaze, like as in Russell’s private space,being seen by one percipient deploys things into a single perspective [11]. And this painter’sKANAME Mariko

124

fig. 2: Lawrence Alma-Tadema, A Favorite
Custom, 1909, oil on panel, 66×45.1cm,
Tate, London.

fig. 3: Pablo Picasso, Portrait d’Ambroise Vollard,
1910, oil on canvas, 93×66cm, The Pushkin
State Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow.

private space which shows a single fixed view is also
possessed by the viewer who watches his painting. In
other words, viewers are restricted in their visionaccording to the single-point perspective in traditional paintings. Generally, Renaissance paintings are
known to be obedient to this single-point perspective(perspectiva), but actually it is rather academic paintings painted later on the model of them that are
willingly loyal to it (fig.2) [12]. While these pictorial
spaces constructed according to a code of perspectiva
are occupied by each viewer who watches them,cubist pictorial space abandons a single-point perspective so that there are plural vanishing points; infig. 4: Pablo Picasso, Tête d’homme
moustachu, 1912, oil on canvas,
61×38cm, Musée d’Art Moderne
de la Ville de Paris.

other words, it is not occupied by a single percipient.
In the later half of 19th century, before thecubist movement began, a French painter named
Cézanne created singular paintings to put the gap ofvision between both eyes into his picture plane [13].

Cézanne’s method of painting did not consist of
drawing contours to designate a shape then paint inside of them, but in putting touches
directly on the canvas to leave colored facets. As in seeing an object, both eyes see fromslightly different angles, so that its shape is represented distortedly. By considering their gap
strictly Cézanne created this effect in his paintings. Moreover, in Cézanne’s picture plane, thethree-dimensional depth is shallow and its composition does not converge to a single point.

Is logical analysis adaptable for art criticism?

125

As a result, viewer’s gaze can hardly penetrate into this depth before it is drawn backward. It
is said that Cubism originates itself from this kind of method that seizes the objects facet by
facet. But, unlike impressionist color patches, these facets still have a slight depth or threedimensionality which is not acquired through an imitation of reality. If Picasso’s method
around 1907-8 is called “proto-Cubism” or “Cubism cézannien”, it is because his method issimilar to Cézanne’s. In Picasso, a decomposition of three-dimensional space goes further thanintroducing the gap between both eyes in a pictorial plane. In 1910’s Portrait d’Ambroise Vollard(fig.3), while the head of Vollard leaves an aspect of three-dimensionality, the rest is decomposed in its shape. In 1912’s Tête d’homme moustachu (fig.4), all is so decomposed into plane
rectangles that the picture plane no longer shows any depth. The current from 1908 to 1911 or
12 is called “analytic Cubism”.
These paintings do not show a fixed space seen by one subject but perspectives of plural
percipients. Moreover, there exists a figure which should not have actually appeared to one’s
vision and could not exist but as a sensibile. The cubist method, as we have suggested in theabove explanation, turns our attention from the relation between a subject and a painting
toward the relation among components themselves within a construction on a picture plane. Itis very similar to Russell’s analytic method as these cubist paintings seem to embody his“perspective space”.

2. Seurat’s “empty space” and infinite distances – an analysis of colour
We regard the constituents of Russell’s theory of propositions as minimal denoting
phrases, and thus not phoneme. Therefore, it seems to be inappropriate for his theory toinclude shapeless colour in an analysis. A phenomenon of optical objects, Sense-Data, always
has colour. Russell’s theory of propositions enabled us to show the relationship between
sense-data and sensibilia in conceptual forms. Unfortunately, we can describe sensible colour
by verbal expressions, but not perceive it. What are important for geometric compositions
such as analytical cubism, are lines, forms and their location. So, analytic cubists eliminatedcolour which constitutes one of form and organized a monochromatic plane that often
included grey, blue and ochre. Now, I would like to consider the possibility that we can takethe relationship between sense-data and sensibilia perceptually, as colour, which is one of theessential elements of paintings, is impossible to be recognized by mathematic model or words(description).
One of Russell’s friends, art critic Roger Fry, introduced contemporary French art toEngland in the early 20century, giving the works of artists such as Cézanne, Van Gogh, andGauguin the name of “post-impressionists”. He equated the “relation” between colours andforms in paintings with “the way the constituents are put together”[14]. One of Fry’s cardinalterms was “significant form”; the common quality is significant form, that is to say, forms
related to one another in a particular manner, which is always the outcome of their relation tox (where x is anything that is not of itself form) [15]. “X” is an assignable sign which has thefeature of a variable in a propositional function. When the relation between forms and “x” issignificant, Fry called these forms of art work “significant form”. In this statement, he insisted

126

KANAME Marikothat the normative form did not exist
beforehand, but that the form is altered by
the way the constituents are put together.
Fry emphasized “Looking at” more than
Russell did. His form is of a plastic quality
made up of optical constituents.

fig. 5: George Seurat, Les Poseuses, 1888, oil oncanvas, 200×251 cm, The Barnes Foundation.

Look at George Seurat’s Pouseuses (fig.5).
The quiet atmosphere around the models’
picture plane implies that his painting is notcompletely representative. The model presented in this painting was taken from anumber of sketches he made. If we areseeing one model in three poses, not three
women posing together, Seurat has made thesame model pose from the back, side and front views in a corner of his room and reconstructed them. He emphasized a special plane. As we have discussed, Russell thought “theway the constituents are put together” in the propositional form is more important than if theconstituents exist or not. Likewise, Fry placed more emphasis on “the relation of forms andcolour to one another” within the pictorial form and less on the “accuracy in the imitation of
the appearances of nature”[16]. He viewed a painting as the place where a new world iscreated. Regarding Pouseuses, Fry mentioned “…but it is less remarkable here where thedeliberate arrangement by the artist of the models in the studio gives already a certain air of
unreality to the thing seen”[17]. The expression of Seurat’s painting is, “…primarily designs ofspecially conceived spaces filled by specially interpreted luminosities and colour vibrations”[18]. Fry asserted that Seurat’s painting, even if it is representative, is different from a
traditional picture plane which is occupied by one percipient, as, in Seurat’s painting, the samemodel appears from several perspectives at different times.
In the next of Seurat’s paintings, Fishing
Fleet at Port en Bessin (fig.6), Fry alluded to an
all-embracing perspective space in addition
to several perspectives. “When viewed at ashort range this appears as an almost flat
pattern design, but retire to the other end of
the room and the planes stretch to infinite
distances, with almost the effect of anillusion”[19]. When taking a close look at
the juxtapositioned patches of colours offig. 6: George Seurat, Fishing Fleet at Port-en-Bessin,
1888, oil on canvas, 54×65cm, The Museum ofModern Art, New York.

pointillism, they seem to be a sequence ofparticles, but at an appropriate range they
appear as shapes and inclinations. Goingback to Russell’s theory of perspective, they
appear as surfaces, a part of the forms withinIs logical analysis adaptable for art criticism?

127

our vision, their size or shape changing if
looked at from different angles or distances.
In fig.1, a coin looks like a precise circle
when viewed from directly above, or it looks
like an oval when viewed from an obliqueangle above. When the coin gets too close to
the eyes or too far from the eyes, it disappears out of sight. Thus, there is a practicaldistance within which we can look at an
object. In other words, we can postulate agiven perspective from a painting. Frysuggest that Seurat showed imperceptible
distance and shapes in his painting. These
spaces made by sensibilia and a given per-fig. 7: George Seurat, Le port de Gravelines, 1890,
Oil on canvas, 73×92.5cm, The Indianapolis
Museum of Art.

cipient are equivalent to perspective space. Fry suggested it “is always the outcome of theirrelation to x”.
Seurat consciously depicted a flat picture. Fry said that Seurat’s own definition of the artof painting was “the art of hollowing out a canvas”. “Who before Seurat ever conceived exactly
the pictorial possibilities of empty space? Whoever before conceived that such vast areas offlat, unbroken surfaces as we see in his ‘Gravelines’ (fig.7) could become the elements of aplastic design? And yet nothing less ‘empty’, pictorially speaking, can be imagined”[20].
According to this criticism by Fry, it is thorough Seurat’s particle field that the unoccupied
perspectives come to exists in the picture area, even though no one’s perspective is captured
within the plane.

3. Logic for description and logic for sensibility
When we postulate Russell’s perspective space, and introduce it into art criticism, we candiscuss art-work from a neutral standpoint. So, this idea does not require us to think about
them in the light of an absolute idea, nor to judge them by a prejudicial view of the subject ofperception. Be that as it may, his perspective including variable “x” is not the only model; it is
not completely objective, and thus I would like to call it the quasi-objective (a variable “x” is
not “sensibilia”)[21]. Depending on this perspective, we can talk about sensibilia as one of theconstituents of pictorial form. In other words its form is possible to be judged by abstract
forms without lines; unclear shapes like a stain and even “hollow” or “emptiness” in the allover style of painting which avoids any points of emphasis or identifiable parts within thewhole canvas [22].
However, art criticism and logic must inevitably split into two directions. Even if Fry’s
form is equivalent to the form of logical proposition, a painting is not as adequate an absoluteas a logical proposition. Fry put emphasis on a “logical coherence” which is an internal
principle unseen by the eye. But art-works are sensible compounds with colours and shapes.
Therefore, he had to analyze and evaluate “the relation” of internal components of an art-work

128

KANAME Marikofrom an aesthetic standpoint. It is from this point that there is a great divide between painting
and logical proposition, or art criticism and logic. At this point, it may be beneficial toconsider Russel’s theories and the difference in Fry’s own original criticism. It may show what
painting cannot deal with through Russell’s theory, and what painting can deal with throughFry’s.
The fundamental difference between the two theories is in the idea of “to see” and “to beseen”. As mentioned above, Russell thought of “things that can be seen” as an “appearance” ofthe object. His theory allowed us to discuss perspective space without percipients, apercipient’s private space, and objects that should be in a particular place. Following thisthought of Russell’s, we can recognize that painting exists in perspective space, although thesubject of perception who integrates pictorial space does not exist. However, for Fry, the“appearance” without percipients, or “sensibilia” can not only be described as constituents ofform, but also judged. “Sensibilia” should be perceived as sense-data. Because art-works
including painting have colours and texture, Fry as an art critic had to judge them from anaesthetic standpoint. Seeing colour definitely requires the faculty Fry calls “sensibility”, which
responds to life and “corresponds to our desire for variety, multiplicity, chance, theunforeseeable [23]”.
When we perceive an art-work as
sense-data with colour, we see it by thesenses. Its surface represents an artist’s
sensibility. On the other hand, when we
recognize the art-work as an ideal unity,
we see the internal relation within it logically, but taking into account the various
elements that make up the painting, we
see the artist’s sensibilities reflected in thepainting. For example, if we notice thetexture of Cézanne’s painting, this can be
fig. 8: “Drawing by Paul Klee (right) and ruled
seen as a trace of the artist’s sensibility. If
copy (left)” in Last Lectures, p.16.
we notice his painting as a form, there
exists logical relation. In his lecture on “sensibility (1933)”, distinct from ordinary logic formathematics or science, Fry called logic for art “sensual logic”, “it [intelligence] can even be
replaced by a machine as in calculating and logical machines… The order it seeks for, andpartially establishes, is one of absolute uniformity — all circles are identical statements of a
proposition — all ellipses which correspond to a given formula are identical. But the distinguishing characteristic of living things is precisely that each one is unique — all the leaves of atree conform to a recognizable type but no two leaves of a tree are identical in shape”[24]. His
statement reminds us of Leibnitz’s principle of the identity of indiscernibles. Fry compares
Paul Klee’s drawing with its copy drawn by a scale and a compass (fig.8). The ruled line of thecopy is truly representative of the original and its composition reflects Klee’s sensibility.
However, the original shows more than a drawing itself: lines which form the upper triangle
are drawn vigorously from the top downward to the rectangle body; in the middle of theIs logical analysis adaptable for art criticism?

129

rectangular face, jagged lines are drawn carefully; and there are lines with unequal width in
the leg parts. Furthermore, the pressure of the drawing makes a roughness of surface andshows texture. These two drawings represent the same composition, but they are two entirely
different things. It is the difference that a viewer can be aware of only by one’s sensibility.
There seems to be no difference between Klee’s drawing and the ruled copy from an allhomogenizing perspective. Both appear to be simply geometrical compositions. In an unoccupied perspective, we can recognize a partial difference, but we cannot note a difference
between textures because everything is flattened. Seurat’s painting as mentioned-above, even
if it contains representations of unoccupied perspective, the same as Russell’s logical constructions, it is necessary to be judged by a critic who has aesthetic vision.

Conclusion
In this paper, I have examined, through the criticism of Roger Fry, the analogy between
painting and logic, including “colour” and “texture” which we cannot perceive by way ofdescription. This type of speculation has not been explored completely by previous works,
such as Ayer or Danto. Russell thought logical components contain not only a mathematicalformula and language but even that of matter and space. His ideas enable us to deal with artworks as equivalents for logical proposition.
The reason why Russell’s unoccupied perspective is useful to analyze art-works thatappeared in modern art in the early 20th century is difficult to comprehend by the traditional
way of thinking. Regarding the works of those such as Matisse and Cézanne, made without
one-point perspective which represents an artist’s own perspectives, refuses any narrativeinterpretation: With how much accuracy does it represent the original object?; Who should we
focus on in the picture plane? These paintings require the objective attitude that is necessary todeal with abstract shapes the same as representative figures. When we encounter the new
pictorial space which does not resemble the real world, when we discuss the plastic relation ofworks, Russell’s theory of perspective is considered of value. However, it is necessary toemploy Fry’s “aesthetic vision” and “sensual logic” in order to realize the subtleties of thecolour and texture of art-works [25].

Notes[1] See Ralph Blumenau, Philosophy and Living, Thorverton: Imprint Academic, 2002, p.535, “In 1941,
reviewing Russell’s An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth (1940), A. J. Ayer strikingly described himas, ‘the Picasso of modern philosophy [who] has expressed himself very differently at different
periods, and in each period he has exerted deservedly great influence and aroused extravagant
hostility’ ”.
[2] Arthur C. Danto, “Picasso and the Portrait” in The Madonna of the Future: Essays in a Pluralistic Art
World, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001, p.221.
[3] There is the following mention, “Two other friends whom I met in my early days in Cambridge
and retained ever since, were Lowes Dickinson and Roger Fry” in The Autobiography of Bertrand
Russell, 1872-1914, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1967, p.63.

130

KANAME Mariko[4] The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, vol.10, London: Macmillan & Cambridge University
Press, 1972, p.440.
[5] Bertrand Russell, “On Denoting” in Mind, 14(1905), pp.479-493.
[6] Ibid., p.479.
[7] Bertrand Russell, “The relation of sense-data to physics” in Scientia, 16.4 (Jul. 1914), pp.1-27, (rpr.
In Mysticism and Logic, and Other Essays, London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1917).
[8] Bertrand Russell, My Philosophical Development, London/New York: Routledge, 1995, pp.80-81.
[9] Bertrand Russell, “The relation of sense-data to physics”, p.170.
[10] Bertrand Russell, “The Ultimate Constituents of Matter” in Monist, 25 (Jul. 1915), pp.399-417. (rpr.
In Mysticism and Logic, and Other Essays, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1917).
[11] There is ingenuity, of course; in overlapping the vanishing point onto a divine statue the linear
perspective shows a divine stare, but meanwhile this also corresponds to the painter’s own
viewpoint.
[12] Raffaello’s The Engagement of Virgin Mary or Leonardo’s Last supper are the typical examples of thiskind of composition.
[13] As for Cézanne’s picture plane,: see Erle Loran, Cezanne’s Composition, Berkley/Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 1947, p.77.
[14] On the relation between Fry’s “form” and Russell’s “form”, see my paper “Roger Fry’s art criticism:compared with Russell’s Logic” in Bigaku kenkyū; Studies in aesthetics & art criticism, in Japanese,
1(2001), pp.27-45.
[15] Roger Fry, “A New Theory of Art” in Christopher Reed(ed.), A Roger Fry Reader, Chicago/London:
The University of Chicago Press, 1996, p.161.
[16] Roger Fry, “Expression and Representation” in Christopher Reed(ed.), A Roger Fry Reader,
Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press, 1996, p.63.
[17] Roger Fry, “Seurat” in Transformations--Critical and Speculative Essays on Art, New York: A
Doubleday Anchor Book, 1956(London: Chatto & Windus, 1926), p.257.
[18] Ibid., p.258.
[19] Ibid., p.259.
[20] Ibid., p.250.
[21] Peter Frederick Strawson, who is a kantian philosopher as well as analytic philosopher, would
take a variable “x” confusedly as “sensibile”. However, now that we consider “x” as a certain
being, we are drawn back to an idealism to which Russell has objected. In Russell’s theory, “x” isnot a being but a propositional function.
[22] It is as if we read a physical datum recorded in graphs or a diagram. We can recognize “microdata” which our sensibilities miss to seize as a part of a “macro behavior”.
[23] Roger Fry, “Sensibility” in Last Lectures, London: Cambridge University Press, 1939, p.28.
[24] Ibid., pp.30-31.
[25] Now, I continue the consideration of Fry’s idea of “sensibility” and “sensual logic”.
List of Corrections
p.123, l.32: “the present king of France is bold” → “the present king of France is bald” [25/06/2009]