Prefaces to Four Seventeenth-Century Romances: Roger Boyle, Lord Broghill, preface to Parthenissa (1655) Sir George Mackenzie, "Apologie for romances," prefixed to Aretina, the serious romance (1660) Nathaniel Ingelo, preface to Bentivolio and Urania (1660) Robert Boyle, preface to Theodora and Didymus (1687) — John Shaqi
Prefaces to Four Seventeenth-Century Romances: Roger Boyle, Lord Broghill, preface to Parthenissa (1655) Sir George Mackenzie, "Apologie for romances," prefixed to Aretina, the serious romance (1660) Nathaniel Ingelo, preface to Bentivolio and Urania (1660) Robert Boyle, preface to Theodora and Didymus (1687)Boyle, Roger, Earl of Orrery
General
Prefaces to Four Seventeenth-Century Romances: Roger Boyle, Lord Broghill, preface to Parthenissa (1655) Sir George Mackenzie, "Apologie for romances," prefixed to Aretina, the serious romance (1660) Nathaniel Ingelo, preface to Bentivolio and Urania (1660) Robert Boyle, preface to Theodora and Didymus (1687)
Boyle, Roger, Earl of Orrery
English fiction -- Early modern, 1500-1700; Prefaces
The stylistic aspect of the Romancer’s problem is well illustrated by the
_Apologie_ prefaced to his _Aretina_ (1660) by Sir George Mackenzie. This
is the critical exercise of a young man in search of a style. Sidney,
Scudéry, Barkley and Broghill are his saints and patrons if only because
they had shown a distaste for “things impracticable ... above the reach of
man’s power” such as filled the pages of _Amadis de Gaulle_. But _serious_
Romance (and _Aretina_ is that) can “strain the christal streams of vertue
from the puddle of interest”; it allures “lazy Ladies and luxurious
Gallants ... to spend in their Chambers some hours, which else, the one
would consecrate to the bed and the other to the Bordell.” The one real
contribution he makes, however, is in his insistence on avoiding “the
style which because of its soaring pitch was inimitable.” In his own
writing there is much that savours of copy-book conceits but a style
“flourished with similies,” such as “Barrasters” use, is by no means to be
condemned. Mackenzie seems to be in two minds, pulled this way and that in
response to two guiding notions and allegiances. In his _Idea Eloquentiae
Forensis Hodierna_ (1681) he maintains that “Eloquence is not only
allowable, but necessary ... where Passions are to be excited.” To “the
profluvium Asiaticum” of the Codex and the (so-called) novels of the
lawyers, he opposes the narrowness of “the short or Laconick Way” which
was the only excellence of judges. In his condemnation of bombastic
periphrasis and the “carminated” hyperbole of Browne and Charlton, he
would have included some, at least, of the pretty effects so carefully
studied by “a ridiculous caball of Ladies at Paris.” Nevertheless the one
style he recommends is that “where the cadence is sweet, and the epithets
well adapted ... and this is that style which is used at Court, and is
paterned to us by eloquent Scuderie.” He never attained to that kind of
writing himself in _Aretina_ but the new style, for all that, was
presently to be succinctly catalogued in all its essentials by the members
of the Royal Society and was to provide the staple of the English novel
when it ventured outside “the circumference of wit” and attained
popularity in Defoe and Fielding.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account