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
Another short letter to Antoninus (iv. 18) not merely repeats the praise
of his Greek epigrams, but informs us that Pliny himself has put some of
these in Latin. A longer one, which follows, to Calpurnia Hispulla,
contains an elaborate eulogy of the lady’s niece, Pliny’s second wife,
who shows her good taste and virtue by learning her husband’s books by
heart, instructing herself in literature generally for love of him, and
singing his verses. And later, with something of the same innocence or
lack of humour which was a Roman—in fact, has generally been a
Latin—characteristic, he tells us that he has been for three days
listening _cum summa voluptate_ to a certain Sentius Augurinus, reciting
his poems or poemkins (_poematia_). Sentius, it seems, performed many
things with lightness, many with sublimity, many with beauty, many with
tenderness, many with sweetness, many _with bile_. It is not quite clear
under which head comes the specimen he produces, which is a rather
feeble compliment to Pliny himself. “Vides,” says Pliny, after quoting
it, “quam acuta omnia, quam apta, quam expressa.” Besides, he is the
friend of Spurinna and Antoninus. What an _emendatus adolescens_!
V. 8[363] is a not uninteresting paper on History. Tutinius Capito
wishes him, as he tells us others had done, to write this. Pliny is not
ill-disposed to do so, not because he thinks he shall do it very well,
but (the sentiment is a fine one, though a little bombastically
expressed) because “it seems to him one of the best of actions to rescue
from perishing that which ought to be eternal.”[364] His idea of
history, however, is not very lofty. Oratory and Poetry, he says, must
have style; History pleases howsoever it be written, because of the
natural curiosity of man—a doctrine which, in slightly changed matter,
has been joyfully accepted by the usual novelist. Besides, his uncle had
been a diligent historian. Then why does he delay? Because he wants to
execute a careful recension of his speeches in important cases, and he
hardly feels equal to both tasks, while, though there is much in common
between Oratory and History, they are also different. The contrast is
curious, and shows the overweening position which Oratory had with the
ancients. To History, says Pliny, things humble and sordid, or at least
mediocre, belong: to Oratory, all that is exquisite, splendid, and
lofty.[365] The bare bones, muscles, and nerves suit history: Oratory
must have the swelling bulk of flesh and the waving plumes of hair.
History pleases by rough, bitter energy:[366] Oratory by long-drawn
sweetness. Diction, style, construction—all are different. After which
he gives a somewhat unexpected turn to the famous Thucydidean saying, by
admitting that history is the _ktema_, and the _agonisma_ oratory. And,
therefore, he thinks that he had better not attempt at once two things
so different. A letter to Suetonius about the books of both (v. 10),
another to Spurinna (v.
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