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
Ariosto, while admitting his charm on the next, having thus set up the
idol again, he proceeds once more to lop it of hands and feet and tumble
it off its throne by saying that “if things are found to please, they
cannot be faults; let the pleasure which they produce be ever so
unexpected and unaccountable.” The most dishevelled of Romantics, in the
reddest of waistcoats, could say no more.
In his remarks upon the qualifications and functions of the critic,
Hume’s anthropological and psychological mastery is evident enough: but
it is at least equally evident that his actual taste in literature was
in no sense spontaneous, original, or energetic. In comparing him, say,
with Johnson it is not a little amusing to find his much greater
acquiescence in the conventional and traditional judgments. Indeed,
towards the end of his Essay[308] Hume anticipates a later
expression[309] of a perennial attitude of mind by declaring, “However I
may excuse the poet on account of the manners of his age, I never can
relish the composition,” and by complaining of the want of “humanity and
decency so conspicuous” even sometimes in Homer and the Greek tragedies.
That David, of all persons, should fail to realise—he did _not_ fail to
perceive—that the humanity of Homer _was_ human and the decency of
Sophocles _was_ decent, is indeed surprising.
[Sidenote: _His inconsistency._]
Such things might at first sight not quite dispose one to regret that,
as he himself remarks,[310] “the critics who have had some tincture of
philosophy” have been “few,” for certainly those who have had more
tincture of philosophy than Hume himself have been far fewer. But, as is
usually the case,[311] it is not the fault of philosophy at all. For
some reason, natural disposition, or want of disposition, or even that
necessity of clinging to _some_ convention which has been remarked in
Voltaire himself, evidently made Hume a mere “church-going bell”—pulled
by the established vergers, and summoning the faithful to orthodox
worship—in most of his literary utterances. Yet, as we have seen, he
could not help turning quite a different tune at times, though he
himself hardly knew it.
[Sidenote: _Burke on the Sublime and Beautiful._]
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