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
On the other hand, Mr Nettleship is surely justified in calling the
Epistles of the second book “the best of Horace’s critical utterances,”
though perhaps they are not the most important. Indeed, their eulogist
hastens to add that “it is the incomparable manner of the writer, the
ease and sureness of his tread,” which really interests the reader. It
is so; but there is more in criticism than manner, and you must be right
as well as felicitous. Horace is not exactly wrong, but he is
limited—the Chrysostom of Correctness has acquired better breeding than
he showed in the Satires, but he has not enlarged his view. The
_horridus Saturnius_ still strikes its own horror into him: he still
girds at the ancients; and though in the epistle to Julius Florus there
is some pleasant self-raillery, as well as an admirable picture of the
legitimate poet, yet there is perhaps no piece of Horace which brings
more clearly home to us the fact that he was after all, as he has been
called, far more a critic of life than of literature, and much more
seriously interested in the former than in the latter. So much the
better for him perhaps; so much the better for all the ancients who more
or less agreed with him. But that is a matter of argument: the fact
remains.[290]
Footnote 290:
Mr Nettleship justly and, considering his enthusiasm for Horace
generously contrasts the “comprehensive sympathy” of Ovid (_Am._, i.
15-19, _Trist._, ii. 423) with the lack of the same quality in the
Venusian.
The third representative selected for Roman criticism of the latest
Republic and earliest empire, the elder Seneca—"Seneca Rhetor"—is again
of a different class and at a different standpoint, though he is very
much nearer to Cicero than to Horace.
The declamations of antiquity had an influence on its prose style—and
consequently an effect on its critical opinions of [Sidenote:
“_Declamations._”] style both in verse and prose—which it is almost
impossible to exaggerate. The practice of them began in boyhood; it
formed almost the greater part of the higher education; and it appears
to have been continued in later life not merely by going to the Schools
to hear novices, but in actual practice, half exercise, half amusement,
by orators and statesmen of the most established fame. It was a sort of
mental fencing-school or gymnasium, to which those who wished to keep
their powers in training resorted, even to the close of life. We know
that Cicero composed, if he did not actually deliver, declamations up to
the very end of his career; and, in a very different department of
letters, we know from Seneca himself that Ovid, though not a constant,
was a by no means infrequent, attendant of the schools, and either
acquired or exercised his well-known fancy for turns and plays of words
in prose as well as in verse.
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