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
With both these great lights of criticism Coleridge agrees almost as
thoroughly as Wordsworth disagrees with them: and it is proper here to
fulfil the promise which was made[365] of a consideration of
Wordsworth’s work in reference to Dante specially, but with extension to
Longinus as well.
The collision of Wordsworth with Longinus appears in the very title of
the famous little treatise. Fight as we may about the exact meaning of
ὕψος, it must be evident, to poets and pedlars alike, that it never can
apply to the “ordinary language of real life”; struggle as
Wordsworthians may, they never can establish a _concordat_ between the
doctrine of the _Preface_ and the doctrine of the “beautiful word.” But
as Longinus was not specifically writing of Poetry, and as in reference
to Poetry he was writing from his own point of view only, on a special
function or aspect of Poetry and Rhetoric alike, he does not meet the
Apostle of the Ordinary full tilt and weapon to weapon. I have said that
I do not know whether, when Wordsworth wrote the _Preface_, he knew the
_De Vulgari_ or not. If Coleridge had known it at the time, he probably
would have imparted his knowledge in the celebrated Nether Stowey talks:
but his own reference, itself not suggestive of a very thorough
appreciation, is twenty years later. And as Wordsworth was a perfectly
fearless person, and had not a vestige of an idea that any created thing
had authority sufficient to overcrow W. W., he would pretty certainly
have rebuked this Florentine, and withstood him to his face, if he had
known his utterances.
[Sidenote: _The_ Preface _compared more specially with the_ De Vulgari,]
But, on the other hand, Dante himself might almost have been writing
with the _Preface_ before him (except that had he done so Wordsworth
would probably have been at least in Purgatory), considering the
directness, the almost rude lie-circumstantial of the antidote. “Take
the ordinary language, especially of rustic men,” says Wordsworth.
“Avoid rustic [“silvan”] language altogether,” says Dante, “and even of
‘urban’ words let only the noblest remain in your sieve.” “If you have
Invention, Judgment, and half a dozen other things,” every one of which
has been possessed in more or less perfection by most of the great
writers of the world whether in prose or poetry, “metrical expertness
will follow as a matter of course,” says Wordsworth. “You must, after
painfully selecting the noblest words and arranging them in the noblest
style, further arrange them in the best line that experience and genius
combined can give you, and yet further build these lines into the
artfullest structure that art has devised,” says Dante. “Poetry is
spontaneous utterance,” says he of Cockermouth. “Poetry, and the
language proper for it, is a regular ‘panther-quest,’ an elaborate and
painful toil,” says the Florentine.
[Sidenote: _and Dante’s practice_]
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