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
For in this great space, occupied with equal method and erudition, it
could not be but that remarkable pronouncements on the more general
questions of literary criticism, whether given _obiter_ or in definite
reference to argued questions, should emerge. [Sidenote: _General ideas
on Unity and the like._] Scaliger is, indeed, less set than most of his
predecessors in Italian criticism, and than some at least of his
successors, on these general pronouncements. “The disinterested and
philosophic treatment of æsthetic problems wholly aside from all
practical considerations,” as the tendency of Italian criticism has been
rather unguardedly characterised,[104] does not seem to have had the
first attraction for him. Yet he could not, in the wide sweep of his
net, have avoided such questions if he would; and, with his fearless
temper and eager literary interests, there is no reason to suppose that
he would have avoided them if he could. He did not explicitly enjoin the
Three Unities,[105] but he did more than any other man had done to
inculcate that unfortunate notion of “verisimilitude”[106] from which,
much more than from Aristotle, they were deduced. Not many words need be
wasted (especially as the point will recur only too often during the
volume) on the absurdity of this wresting of _Incredulus odi_. The whole
arrangements of the theatre are _invraisemblables_, no matter whether
you have electric light or cross-shaped laths with candles on them,
marquises sitting on the stage or millionaires in stage-boxes, elaborate
scenery or directions to the audience, “Here is Thebes.” You do not
murder, or (if you can help it) make love, in real life, before a
miscellaneous audience who have paid to see you do it; in real life you
do not talk in any regular stage lingo that has hitherto been invented,
whether the outward form of it be senarii, or fourteeners, or
complicated rhymed stanzas, or doggerel, or couplet, or blank verse, or
stage prose. The sixteenth century _Globe_, and the twentieth century
_Lyceum_, are alike unlike any place in which one habitually performs
any action of life from birth, through marriage, to death. That there
_is_ a stage verisimilitude, which it is dangerous or fatal to break,
need not be denied. But neither Scaliger nor any of his successors in
purism has proved that we are, or ought to be, any more shocked by
Æschylus when he shifts from Delphi to Athens than by Thackeray when he
transports us from Flanders to Chelsea.
-----
Footnote 104:
Spingarn, p. 172. “Disinterested treatment” of practical problems,
such as poems certainly are, “wholly aside from all practical
considerations,” sometimes leads to awkward results.
Footnote 105:
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