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
precepts of Aristotle; of another to Cnæus Pompey on Plato and the
Historians; of a second to Ammæus on the idioms of Thucydides; of a
celebrated and interesting examination, at great length, of the chief
historians of Greece; and of another, also well known, which is usually
quoted by its Latin title, _De Admiranda Vi dicendi Demosthenis_, where
δεινότης, perhaps, might be more properly translated “Of Demosthenes'
oratorical resourcefulness.”
Footnote 186:
6 vols., Leipsic, 1775-77. The first four contain the historical, the
two last the rhetorical work. A pamphlet edition of rhetorical
fragments, by C. T. Rössler (Leipsic, 1873), may be usefully bound in
with this. But Usener’s still more recent edition of the so-called
περὶ μιμήσεως and the Epistles of Ammæus and Pompey (Bonn, 1889) is of
great importance for its remarks on Dionysius and Quintilian, and for
other animadversions.
Of these the least interesting by far is the professed _Rhetoric_: and
it is with the less reluctance that we may resign it to those [Sidenote:
_The_ Rhetoric.] who pronounce it, in whole or in part, spurious. It
opens, in the very worst and most sterile form of the ancient Rhetoric,
by a series of chapters on the different commonplaces available for
orations on different stock subjects and occasions,—a panegyric, a
marriage, a birthday, a funeral, an exhortation to athletes—things trite
and obvious to desperation, the very cabbage of the schools, the
opprobrium of all ancient literature, though perhaps not worse than our
own frantic efforts to avoid the obvious. It passes to the favourite
sub-subject of the Figures, but does not treat these in the worst way,
gives the usual, chiefly poetical, illustrations, and concludes with
observations on the (again usual) subdivisions of the matter. There is
nothing in it that is original and nothing that is characteristic, and
the most Dionysian traits, such as the curious stress laid upon the
Herodotean episode of Gyges, might as well have been copied by an
imitator as duplicated by the author himself.
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