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
Rarely—so rarely that it is an almost unknown event—shall a man
practise, as Sainte-Beuve had for years and decades been practising,
criticism of his contemporaries and in many cases friends, without
exciting ill-feeling. But that ill-feeling becomes still more certain,
and its complexion is likely to be darker, when the criticism is of the
peculiar character which it is Sainte-Beuve’s greatest claim in the
general view (not quite in mine) to have perfected, if not actually
invented. It is true that, in the case of his living subjects, he moves
about, among the extra-literary personal traits, which it is his delight
to assemble and to group beside the literary details in heightening or
contrasting light, with a cat-like dexterity. But even cats sometimes
upset things: and the things among which Sainte-Beuve moved were much
more ticklish and unstable than the objects of the cat’s legerde_pied_.
Moreover, he actually had, as some, though by no means all other great
critics have had, a certain predilection for the secondary. He never
quite attains to the Longinian soundness of view on the
faults-and-beauties question; and it is particularly unfortunate that
the two greatest men of letters of his own time and country,
Chateaubriand and Victor Hugo, were men who specially require a
Longinian judgment. Nor am I disposed to deny that his attitude towards
the great _Beltenebroso_ of French Literature “doth something smack;
doth a little grow to.” Sainte-Beuve’s strange Bonapartism—the strangest
instance[587] of that most incomprehensible of political faiths—may have
had a little to do with this: but one suspects, putting gossip aside,
something more. There was, no doubt, much injustice in the too famous
“Mérimée était gentilhomme: Sainte-Beuve ne l'était pas,” but there was
an infinitesimal something in it.[588]
Again, to pass to a less “scabrous” subject, the scheme of the book
leaves a very little to desire: it may be argued, with some justice,
that Sainte-Beuve might better have proceeded entirely by the
planet-and-satellite method which he has partly adopted, instead of
sometimes mixing planet and satellite up, and sometimes keeping them
separate.
[Sidenote: _Its extraordinary merits,_]
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