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
However this may be, the point, already more than once touched upon,
that we have now a Literary Criticism, regularly if not fully
constituted, may be regarded as established without need of further
exposition or argument. In some respects, indeed, we have got no further
than Aristotle; we are still arguing on his positions, defending or
attacking his theses. In others we have indeed got a good deal further,
by virtue chiefly of the mere accretion of material and experience. We
have, perhaps, learned (or some of us have) to resign ourselves rather
more to the facts than he, with the enthusiasm of the first stage still
hardly behind him, was able to do. We are less inclined to prescribe to
the artist what he shall do, and more tempted to accept what the artist
does, and see what it can teach as well as how it can please us. But in
the wider sense of critical method we have not got so very far beyond
him in the poetical division. While if we have got beyond him in the
direction of prose (as perhaps we have), the advance has been very late,
and can hardly be said even now to have, by common consent and as a
clear matter of fact, covered, occupied, and reduced to order the
territory on to which it has pushed. Great as are Aristotle’s claims in
almost every department of human thought with which he meddles, it may
be doubted whether in any he deserves a higher place than in this. He is
the very Alexander of Criticism, and his conquests in this field, unlike
those of his pupil in another, remain practically undestroyed, though
not unextended, to the present day.
-----------------------
_Note to p. 42._
Attempts have been made to confine Aristotle’s slighting remarks on
_lexis_ to mere “delivery.” It is true that in the whole passage there
is a certain confusion of the different senses of “elocution.” But in
this sentence Aristotle has just said, τὸ περὶ τὴν λέξιν _not_
ὑπόκρισιν—that is to say, has covered the entire ground which he is
going to discuss. Even if φορτικὸν be violently restricted, by the
help of καὶ before τό, to ὑποκριτική (which occurs further back), the
general drift will remain.
CHAPTER IV.
GREEK CRITICISM AFTER ARISTOTLE. SCHOLASTIC AND MISCELLANEOUS.
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