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 — John Shaqi
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
To thread the mighty maze of the _Letters_[14] completely, for the
critical utterances to be picked up there, were more tempting than
strictly incumbent on the present adventurer, who has, however, not
neglected a reasonable essay at the adventure. The adroit and
good-humoured attempt to soothe the poetic discontent of Eobanus Hessus,
who thought Erasmus had not paid him proper attention,[15] contains, for
instance, a little matter of the kind, and several references to
contemporary Latin poets. The most important thing, perhaps, is the
opinion—sensible as usual with the writer—that, as the knowledge of
Greek becomes more and more extended, translation of it into Latin is
more and more lost labour. But Erasmus, as we should expect, evidently
has more at heart the questions of “reading and rendering” which fill
his correspondence with Budæus and others. To take the matter in order,
a curious glimpse of the literary manners, as well as the literary
judgments, of the time is afforded by an enclosure in a letter to John
Watson of Cambridge. Watson wanted to know what Erasmus had been doing,
and Erasmus, answering indirectly, sends him a letter on the subject by
one Adrian Barland of Louvain to his brother. [Sidenote: _The_ Letters.]
Some incidental expressions here about Euripides as _nobilissimus
poeta_, and Apuleius as producing _pestilentissimas facetias_, are more
valuable to us than the copious laudations of Barland on Erasmus’ own
work, which pass without any “Spare my blushes!” from the recipient and
transmitter. We note that the moral point of view is still uppermost,
though the observations are taken from a different angle. Aristophanes
would have regarded Euripides as much more “pestilent,” morally
speaking, than Apuleius. The long and necessarily complimentary letter
(ii. 1) to Leo the Tenth contains some praise of Politian and much of
Jerome, on whom Erasmus was then engaged; and while the language of this
correspondence naturally abounds in Ciceronian hyperbole, it is not
insignificant that Erasmus describes the Father with the Lion as _omni
in genere litterarum absolutissimus_, which, assuming any real meaning
in it, is not quite critical, though Jerome was certainly no small man
of letters. The letter to Henry Bovill (ii. 10), which contains the
famous story of “mumpsimus” and “sumpsimus,” as well as the almost
equally famous account of the studies of the University of Cambridge in
the ninth decade of the fifteenth century, contains also a notable
division of his own critics of the unfavourable kind. They are _aut adeo
morosi ut nihil omnino probent nisi quod ipsi faciunt; aut adeo stolidi
ut nihil sentiant; aut adeo stupidi ut nec legant quod carpunt; aut adeo
indocti ut nihil judicent; aut adeo gloriæ jejuni avidique ut carpendis
aliorum laboribus sibi laudem parent_. And their children are alive with
us unto this day.
-----
Footnote 14:
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account