A history of criticism and literary taste in Europe, from the earliest texts to the present day. Volume 3 (of 3), Modern criticismSaintsbury, George
History
A history of criticism and literary taste in Europe, from the earliest texts to the present day. Volume 3 (of 3), Modern criticism
Saintsbury, George
Criticism -- History; Literature -- History and criticism; Literature, Medieval
people themselves pleasure, Classicism that of giving them what pleased
their grandfathers,”[247] we know what he means. He is very sound on
taste and fashion; and his severity on Voltaire is refreshing, because
it cannot be attributed, as it is the fashion to attribute severities on
that patriarch, to the _odium theologicum_. The whole, even in its
singularities and shortcomings, is an invaluable testimony to the set of
the current at the time:[248] but its words are not lightly to be taken
as other than “words to the wise,” and they are not invariably the words
_of_ the wise.
[Sidenote: _His attitude here_]
Beyle’s attitude in this tract has been commented on in a fashion very
illuminative (if you apply the proper checks in each case) by two
persons of unsurpassed competence, but not of quite unsurpassed
disinterestedness, Mérimée and Sainte-Beuve. The former[249] says
plumply, “Pour lui la poésie était lettre close,” and quotes the famous
_boutade_ in _De l’Amour_, that “Verse was invented as an aid to
memory.” His objection, says his disciple, to Racine (who “met with his
sovereign displeasure”) was that he had no character or local colour:
his reasons of preference for Shakespeare, that poet’s knowledge of the
human heart, the life and individuality of his characters, his command
of the nicest shades of passion and sentiment. Sainte-Beuve, on his
side,[250] affects rather to pooh-pooh the whole matter, as if it were a
battle of kites and crows, where the blood (if any) has been long
absorbed, the torn feathers blown away, and the dust settled to
quietness. Beyle was a fairly early, but excited and not quite judicious
partaker in it. He was unjust to La Harpe (Sainte-Beuve defending La
Harpe is rather good!), too much on the side of the _Edinburgh Review_
(this is better,[251] the “Blue and Yellow” as a Romantic organ!). One
remembers, of course, at once that both these great men of letters were,
if not exactly deserters and traitors in regard to Romanticism, at any
rate Romantics whose first love had grown pretty cold. Yet we must not
forget to notice that Sainte-Beuve practically confirms Mérimée on
Beyle’s “exclusion of poetry” in judging even Shakespeare.
[Sidenote: _and elsewhere._]
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