A history of criticism and literary taste in Europe, from the earliest texts to the present day. Volume 1 (of 3), Classical and mediæval criticismSaintsbury, George
History
A history of criticism and literary taste in Europe, from the earliest texts to the present day. Volume 1 (of 3), Classical and mediæval criticism
Saintsbury, George
Criticism -- History; Literature -- History and criticism; Literature, Medieval
Enough, perhaps, has been said of the defects of this great mass of
composition, both from the point of view of our special [Sidenote:
_Survey of School Rhetoric._] investigation and from more general ones.
It remains to say something of its merits from the former. As will have
been seen, the relations of the rhetoricians to literary criticism
differ at first sight surprisingly—less so, perhaps, when they come to
be examined. Sometimes the general literary view seems to be almost
entirely lost in a wilderness of details and technicalities. But
sometimes also the merely forensic tendency disappears, the merely
technical one in the narrow sense effaces itself, and we have an almost
pure treatise on Composition, limited it may be by arbitrary
restrictions, conditioned by professional needs, but still Composition
in general—that is to say, after a fashion, and in a manner, Literature.
Every now and then, as we saw above, the writer rises to the conception
of Rhetoric as Prosaics—as the other half of that Art of Literature of
which Poetics is the one. And—a less good thing, but also not without
its good side—we even find glimpses and glimmerings of the notion, to be
taken up and widely developed later, of Rhetoric as _including_ Poetics.
But the best and most important part of the matter has yet to be
summarised. The technical study of Rhetoric, even when pushed to the
extremities of the terminological and classifying mania, encouraged and
almost necessitated constant overhauling of actual literature for
examples, and encouraged the characterisation of famous authors from
this point of view. Even the orators by themselves formed no
inconsiderable or undistinguished _corpus_ of Greek prose literature.
But, as we have seen, it was customary, even for very strict formalists,
to include the historians whose connection with the orators was so
close; and it was very difficult to exclude philosophical writers,
especially Plato. A man must have been of preternatural stolidity if he
could ransack Demosthenes and Isæus, Herodotus and Thucydides and
Xenophon, Plato, and the school philosophers whom we have so freely
lost, and if he did not in the process develop some notion of prose
literary criticism at large, nay, formulate some rules of it. And, as we
have also seen from the very first, poetry was by no means barred. The
orator might very often quote it; he was constantly to go to it for
suggestions of subject or treatment, beauties of style, examples of
figure and form. Therefore, directly if not indirectly, the rhetorical
teacher and the historical student accepted the whole of literature for
their province.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account