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
Criticism excluded.] Classics, and which occupies, in regard to the
older and therefore more tempting documents of modern literature, a
position of activity midway between that exercised towards the sacred
writings and that exercised towards Greek and Roman authors, no word
will, except by some accidental necessity, be found in these pages. The
rules and canons of this Criticism are different from, and in most cases
antagonistic to, those of Criticism proper: its objects are entirely
distinct; and in particular it, for the most part if not wholly,
neglects the laws of Logic. Now Criticism proper, which is but in part a
limitation, in part an extension, of Rhetoric, never parts company with
Rhetoric’s elder sister.
In other words, the Criticism or modified Rhetoric, of which this book
attempts to give a history, is pretty much the same thing as the
reasoned exercise of Literary Taste—the [Sidenote: _Class retained._]
attempt, by examination of literature, to find out what it is that makes
literature pleasant, and therefore good—the discovery, classification,
and as far as possible tracing to their sources, of the qualities of
poetry and prose, of style and metre, the classification of literary
kinds, the examination and “proving,” as arms are proved, of literary
means and weapons, not neglecting the observation of literary fashions
and the like. It will follow from this that the History must pursue the
humble _a posteriori_ method. Except on the rarest [Sidenote: _Method._]
occasions, when it may be safe to generalise, it will confine itself
wholly to the particular and the actual. We shall not busy ourselves
with what men ought to have admired, what they ought to have written,
what they ought to have thought, but with what they did think, write,
admire. To some, no doubt, this will give an appearance of plodding, if
not of pusillanimity; but there may be others who will recognise in it,
not so much a great refusal, as an honest attempt to provide some sound
and useful knowledge which does not exist in any accessible form,—to
raise, by whatsoever humble drudgery, vantage-points from which more
aspiring persons than the writer may take Pisgah-sights, if they please,
without fear of their support collapsing under them in the manner of a
tub.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account