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
If the opinions of the criticism of the critical power and position of
Dionysius of Halicarnassus have varied rather [Sidenote: _Plutarch._]
strangely, those uttered concerning Plutarch as a critic are still more
irreconcilable. For he has not only been casually suggested but
elaborately championed[193] as a candidate for the signal honour of the
authorship of the Περὶ Ὕψους—that is to say, as one capable of producing
what is perhaps the critical masterpiece of antiquity, and certainly one
of the few critical masterpieces of the world. From this one would be
prepared to expect at least very strong evidences of critical faculty,
and some noteworthy pieces of critical accomplishment, in his extant
works, which, it must be remembered, are extremely voluminous, and of a
character remarkably well suited for the exercise of literary criticism.
The _Vitæ Parallelæ_ at least _might_ have been frequently directed in
this way; while the enormous miscellany of the _Moralia_ corresponds
more closely to the “Essays” of modern writers than any collection of
the kind that we have from ancient times. Now, it is hardly necessary to
say that the modern Essay has from the very first set strongly in the
literary direction, and that up to the present time the amount of
literary criticism, in essay form, is probably not less, while the value
of it is infinitely greater, than that of all the formal treatises and
non-essay-fashioned handlings of the subject.
Footnote 193:
By Vaucher and some others.
On turning to the _Lives_ we meet with an almost complete
disappointment. If it be said that Plutarch’s object was to give us
contrasts of practical men—soldiers and statesmen, not philosophers or
men of letters—that is, no doubt, a valid answer as far as it goes,
though it would scarcely be unfair to argue from the fact that, at any
rate, matters literary were not of the first importance to him. But in
one famous instance, the parallel of Demosthenes and Cicero, he not only
had a most proper opportunity for dealing with the subject, but was
almost obliged to deal with it. It must therefore be worth while to look
at his dealing.
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