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
Here we have the certainly pointed, if not very polite, excuse for not
submitting to the same tax of presentation copies, that he fears his
friend may reply with a present of _his_ works:[325] elsewhere (in those
triumphs of ingenious trifling the _apophoreta_, or gift-tickets) the
neat suggestion, with a blank album, that a poet can offer no more
acceptable present than paper _not_ written upon.[326] In one place
there is, to carry off a piece of sheer begging, an irresistibly comic
anecdote of a “curious impertinent,” who after asking whether the poet
is not the Martial whom everybody not a fool admires, and receiving a
confession of the soft impeachment, abruptly demands why such a poet has
such a shocking bad great-coat, and receives the meek reply, _quia sum
malus poeta_.[327] But these, and a good many others, which an easy
reading, and a not very troublesome classification, of the _Epigrams_
will enable any one to produce, are examples parallel rather to our
citations from Juvenal than to the capital one from Persius. That is to
say, they are examples rather of the selection of a particular subject,
as one of a hundred suitable to the special mode of treatment, than of
the assertion or the display of any particular interest in that subject,
or any special theories upon it. So, too, in some cases of more special
reference, Martial’s habits of flattery, and the unblushing way in which
(not for the first or the last time) men of letters in his generation
were wont to fish for presents, make it not always quite easy to know
how much seriousness to attach to his expressions of opinion on
particular writers. Did he, for instance, really think Silius Italicus
such a great poet?[328] One cannot say: it is certain that Silius was
rich, and a person who seems to have been able to keep his head above
water, and on his shoulders, during all the stormy changes of his
lifetime. And if such a man wrote poetry, if he was not his enemy—still
more if, as was the case here, he was his friend—we know but too well
that Marcus Valerius Martialis was never likely to _publish_ any
unflattering opinion of it.
Footnote 325:
vii. 3.
Footnote 326:
xiv. 10.
Footnote 327:
vi. 82.
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