A history of criticism and literary taste in Europe from the earliest texts to the present day. Volume 2 (of 3), From the Renaissance to the decline of eighteenth century orthodoxySaintsbury, George
History
A history of criticism and literary taste in Europe from the earliest texts to the present day. Volume 2 (of 3), From the Renaissance to the decline of eighteenth century orthodoxy
Saintsbury, George
Criticism -- History; Literature -- History and criticism; Literature, Medieval
Not such was Gabriel Harvey that he might take even a polite correction;
and his reply is a proper donnish setting-down of a clever but
presumptuous youth. He respects the Areopagus—indeed they were persons
of worship, and Harvey was a _roturier_—more than Spenser can or will
suppose, and he likes the trimeters (indeed, though poor things, they
were Spenser’s own after all, and such as no man but Spenser could have
written in their foolish kind) more than Spenser “can or will easily
believe.” But—and then follows much reviewing in the now stale
hole-picking kind, which has long been abandoned, save by the
descendants of Milbourne and Kenrick, and a lofty protestation that
“myself never saw your gorbellied master’s rules, nor heard of them
before.”
The Three Letters which follow[235] are distributed in subject between
an Earthquake (which has long since ceased to quake for us) and the
hexameters. They open with a letter from Spenser, in which he broaches
the main question, “Whether our English accent will endure the
Hexameter?” and doubts. Yet he has a hankering after it, encloses his
own—
“See ye the blindfoldèd pretty god, that feathered archer,” &c.,
and prays that Harvey would either follow the rules of the great Drant,
indorsed by Sidney, or else send his own. Harvey replies in double. The
first part is some very tragical mirth about the earthquake; the second,
“A Gallant Familiar Letter,” tackles the question of versification.
-----
Footnote 235:
In order of composition, not of publication.
-----
This gallant familiarity might possibly receive from harsh critics the
name of uneasy coxcombry; but it is at any rate clear that the author
has set about the matter very seriously. He expresses delight that
Sidney and Dyer, “the two very diamonds of her Majesty’s Court,” have
begun to help forward “the exchange of barbarous and balductum[236]
rhymes with artificial verses”; thinks their “lively example” will be
much better than Ascham’s “dead advertisement” in the _Schoolmaster_. He
would like (as should we) to have Drant’s prosody. His own Rules and
Precepts will probably not be very different; but he will take time
before drafting them finally. He thinks (reasonably enough) that before
framing a standard English Grammar or Rhetoric (therein including
Prosody), a standard orthography must first be agreed upon. And he
suggests that “we beginners” (this from the author of these truly
“barbarous and balductum” antics to the author of the _Faerie Queene_ is
distinctly precious) have the advantage, like Homer and Ennius, of
setting examples. “A New Year’s Gift to M. George Bilchaunger,” in very
doleful hexameters, follows, and after a little gird at Spenser’s “See
ye the Blindfoldèd,” another sprout of Harvey’s brain in the same kind,
which has been, perhaps, more, and more deservedly, laughed at than any
of these absurdities, except the scarcely sane jargon-doggerel of
Stanyhurst—
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