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
Certainly, if any devout Arnoldian says that Diderot’s greatness is due
to his “fertility in ideas,” no contradiction will be thought of here.
But then we have the old difficulty as to what “ideas” mean. I do not
remember that Mr Arnold himself makes much reference to our Denis; and,
indeed, Diderot must have been, from some points of view, nearly as
horrible—let us lay cards on table and say as incomprehensible—to him as
to his friend M. Scherer. But it may be that the critical “idea” is
neither more nor less than the result of that contact of subject and
critic which has been glanced at before—a contact intimate, physical,
uninterrupted, and resulting in conception and birth. This, if anything,
is the “idea” of modern criticism; and while few have been more prolific
of such results than Diderot, none before him and hardly any since have
so invariably and consciously guided themselves by its law. I do not
know that he has ever positively stated this law; I really do not know
that it ever has been explicitly laid down by any of the constituted, or
even the non-constituted, critical authorities. But his whole work is an
exemplification of it.
And the result is, that this whole work, wherever it approaches
criticism, is alive; and that he cannot help its becoming alive, even if
he has apparently given hostages to Death by attempting set
dissertations on cut-and-dried subjects, or by dallying with science, or
atheism, or what not. It is a further reason why even such
contemporaries as Lessing, and later, Goethe, found in him such an
extraordinary stimulus. The dead, mechanical deductions of too many
critics under the older system could produce nothing but copies, even
more dead and more mechanical than themselves, though, as we have seen
in many a figure of our gallery, the principle of life in human nature
made the greater critics of the older dispensation sometimes quicken
under it. But Diderot’s fecundity was contagious: his “cultures” have
propagated themselves from generation to generation directly, have set
the example of a similar creation of critical entities to fit subjects
ever since. From a formula you will never get anything but formulas:
from the living contact of critic and subject you will get live
criticism.
[Sidenote: _Rousseau revisited._]
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