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
Plato, inserted (with some on the historians) in the letter to Cnæus
Pompey, this is principally due to that horror of poetic prose, of
dithyrambic expression, which (perhaps for better reasons than we know)
was then creeping over criticism, and which we shall find dominant in
critical, though not in popular, estimate during the earlier centuries
of the Roman Empire.
The second epistle to Ammæus seems to be one of the latest of the
numerous utterances of Dionysius on the great Athenian historian. It is
somewhat meticulous and verbal; but it is curious that the
just-mentioned horror of gorgeousness reappears in it.
And so we come to the famous onslaught in form against the son of
Olorus. It is introduced by a somewhat elaborate [Sidenote: _The
judgment of Thucydides._] apology—the critic going so far as to shelter
himself under the leading case of Aristotle _v._ Plato. Thence he passes
to a short sketch of the predecessors of Thucydides in history, commends
him for dropping their fables, &c., but soon settles down to a regular
_éreintement_—a “slating” criticism of the familiar type, wherein the
desire to “dust the varlet’s jacket” is evidently not merely superior
but anterior to any desire whatsoever to criticise varlet or jacket on
the merits of either. The division into winters and summers, the setting
forth of the causes of the war, the conduct and details of the story,
the speeches—all come in for reprehension. But Dionysius is, as we
should expect from his other handlings, much kinder to the style, though
he objects to its occasional obscurity, urges difficulties on the score
of the Figures, criticises some passages at great length, and ends by
noticing the chief of the historian’s imitators, among whom he includes
Demosthenes. On the whole, the article (as we may call it), though
one-sided, is less so than some current descriptions of it may have
conveyed to those who have not read it. But still it belongs to the
class of critiques indicated above, a class in which few of the best
examples of criticism are to be found, except from the point of view of
those who hold the true business of that art to be, like the “backward
voice” of Trinculo-Caliban, “to utter foul speeches and to detract.”
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