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
Yet other groups or individuals in this abounding period might receive
notice if this history were to be in twelve volumes instead of in three.
[Sidenote: _Patru, Desmarets, and others._] There is Patru, not merely
in his time the glory of the French bar, but extolled, by Boileau and by
his enemies alike, as a sort of Quintilian and Quintilius in one[352]—as
a standard at once of style and of judgment. Yet his long life and his
constant occupation with literature, in talk and in reading, seem to
have left us hardly anything in the shape of written criticism. There is
Desmarets de Saint-Sorlin, a less belauded but more interesting and
perhaps more genuine man of letters. Not merely did Desmarets compose
the epics ridiculed by Boileau, not merely was he the author of the
excellent _Visionnaires_ (the best comedy in French before Molière
except Corneille’s _Le Menteur_), not merely was he a “visionary”
himself in his latter days, and a versifier, if not a poet, always, but
he was a not inconsiderable critic. Those who choose to read his
_Défense du Poème Héroique_[353] will find in it by no means the
imbecility that they may expect, either in the dialogues defending the
Christian poem, or in the somewhat meticulous, but sharp and not
ill-deserved, “cutting-up” of Boileau which follows. But these, and much
more the Conrarts and the Costars, the Maucroix, and the rest[354] must
here be as _silencieux_ as the first in his stock epithet. And one may
confess even to doubts whether, with the amplest room and verge, they
ought to have much space in a general History of Criticism as
distinguished from one of special countries and periods. Hardly any of
them is more than one of a _numerus_; hardly any has himself actual
distinction, as persons of much inferior talents may have at other
times. The Historian of Climate must have much to say about the
delightful variety of that phenomenon which the British Isles display,
about its causes, its phases, and the like, in general; but he would be
lost, and would lose his readers in more than one sense, if he were to
attempt to describe every shower or even every wet season.[355]
-----
Footnote 352:
The suggestion of this, though not the exact phrase, will be found in
Sainte-Beuve’s essay (_Causeries du Lundi_, v. 275).
Footnote 353:
Paris, 1675.
Footnote 354:
On all these, see Tallemant, Bayle, and others down to Sainte-Beuve.
For a typical literary and critical quarrel, beginning politely and
ending in something like Billingsgate, nothing can be better than that
battle of Costar and M. de Girac, first over the dead body of Voiture
and the live one of Balzac, and then over both these departed, which
Sainte-Beuve tells in his liveliest manner at pp. 210-231 of the 12th
vol. of the _Causeries_.
Footnote 355:
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