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
Another drawback which it may seem captious, or ungenerous, or even
childish, to urge, but which really has a great deal to do with the
matter, is that, active as the period was in criticism, it did not
produce a single very great critic practising on a great scale. Its four
or five critics of greatest literary genius were (I exclude Bacon for
reasons given, and Spenser hardly comes in) Ronsard, Du Bellay, Tasso,
Sidney, and Ben Jonson. The two Frenchmen dealt with but a small part of
the subject, and from but a special point of view; Tasso was mainly
“fighting a prize,” and his own prize; Sidney’s was a very little
tractate of general, if generous, protest, and entered into no
applications; Ben’s critical remains are un-co-ordinated notes. On the
other hand, of the specially critical writers, Scaliger on the strictly
erudite and strictly classical side, Castelvetro in a sort of middle
station, and Patrizzi as a voice crying in the wilderness, are perhaps
the only three who rise distinctly above mediocrity. And, as has been
pointed out already, Scaliger is too much of a pedant, Castelvetro is a
mere commentator, and Patrizzi a philosopher militant, who carries on
one of his campaigns in the province of criticism.
The disadvantages of this are twofold. Not merely do we get no brilliant
and, at least in appearance and claim, authoritative exposition of the
subject, like that of Boileau or that of Pope later on the dogmatic
side, like those of Dryden and Johnson on the illustrative and
exemplifying; but the whole critical system comes into existence by a
process of haphazard accretion—by (to repeat a metaphor already used) an
accumulation of individual judgments at common law. No doubt this gives
a certain strength, a certain naturalness, to the creed when it is
formed. It has not been foisted on the _communis sensus_—that _sensus_
has been inured and trained to it. The extraordinary toughness and
vitality of the resultant is very likely due to this. But it caused also
some of that inconsistency and apparent irrationality which a system of
common law almost necessarily contracts as it grows: and it was more and
more driven to throw over these inconsistencies and irrationalities that
cloak of factitious Reason, or Sense, or Nature which, by the eighteenth
century, becomes the mere threadbare disguise of a decrepit Duessa.
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