the miscellaneous writings and speeches-1-第29章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


the　same　vigour　and　amplitude　of　mind　to　which　both　physical　and　metaphysical　science　are　so　greatly　indebted。　　His　fundamental　principles　of　criticism　are　excellent。　To　cite　only　a　single　instance：the　doctrine　which　he　established；　that　poetry　is　an　imitative　art；　when　justly　understood；　is　to　the　critic　what　the　compass　is　to　the　navigator。　　With　it　he　may　venture　upon　the　most　extensive　excursions。　　Without　it　he　must　creep　cautiously　along　the　coast；　or　lose　himself　in　a　trackless　expanse；　and　trust；　at　best；　to　the　guidance　of　an　occasional　star。　　It　is　a　discovery　which　changes　a　caprice　into　a　science。

The　general　propositions　of　Aristotle　are　valuable。　　But　the　merit　of　the　superstructure　bears　no　proportion　to　that　of　the　foundation。　　This　is　partly　to　be　ascribed　to　the　character　of　the　philosopher；　who；　though　qualified　to　do　all　that　could　be　done　by　the　resolving　and　combining　powers　of　the　understanding；　seems　not　to　have　possessed　much　of　sensibility　or　imagination。　Partly；　also；　it　may　be　attributed　to　the　deficiency　of　materials。　　The　great　works　of　genius　which　then　existed　were　not　either　sufficiently　numerous　or　sufficiently　varied　to　enable　any　man　to　form　a　perfect　code　of　literature。　　To　require　that　a　critic　should　conceive　classes　of　composition　which　had　never　existed；　and　then　investigate　their　principles；　would　be　as　unreasonable　as　the　demand　of　Nebuchadnezzar；　who　expected　his　magicians　first　to　tell　him　his　dream　and　then　to　interpret　it。

With　all　his　deficiencies；　Aristotle　was　the　most　enlightened　and　profound　critic　of　antiquity。　　Dionysius　was　far　from　possessing　the　same　exquisite　subtilty；　or　the　same　vast　comprehension。　　But　he　had　access　to　a　much　greater　number　of　specimens；　and　he　had　devoted　himself；　as　it　appears；　more　exclusively　to　the　study　of　elegant　literature。　　His　peculiar　judgments　are　of　more　value　than　his　general　principles。　　He　is　only　the　historian　of　literature。　　Aristotle　is　its　philosopher。

Quintilian　applied　to　general　literature　the　same　principles　by　which　he　had　been　accustomed　to　judge　of　the　declamations　of　his　pupils。　　He　looks　for　nothing　but　rhetoric；　and　rhetoric　not　of　the　highest　order。　　He　speaks　coldly　of　the　incomparable　works　of　Aeschylus。　　He　admires；　beyond　expression；　those　inexhaustible　mines　of　common…places；　the　plays　of　Euripides。　　He　bestows　a　few　vague　words　on　the　poetical　character　of　Homer。　　He　then　proceeds　to　consider　him　merely　as　an　orator。　　An　orator　Homer　doubtless　was；　and　a　great　orator。　　But　surely　nothing　is　more　remarkable；　in　his　admirable　works；　than　the　art　with　which　his　oratorical　powers　are　made　subservient　to　the　purposes　of　poetry。　　Nor　can　I　think　Quintilian　a　great　critic　in　his　own　province。　　Just　as　are　many　of　his　remarks；　beautiful　as　are　many　of　his　illustrations；　we　can　perpetually　detect　in　his　thoughts　that　flavour　which　the　soil　of　despotism　generally　communicates　to　all　the　fruits　of　genius。　　Eloquence　was；　in　his　time；　little　more　than　a　condiment　which　served　to　stimulate　in　a　despot　the　jaded　appetite　for　panegyric；　an　amusement　for　the　travelled　nobles　and　the　blue…　stocking　matrons　of　Rome。　　It　is；　therefore；　with　him；　rather　a　sport　than　a　war；　it　is　a　contest　of　foils；　not　of　swords。　　He　appears　to　think　more　of　the　grace　of　the　attitude　than　of　the　direction　and　vigour　of　the　thrust。　　It　must　be　acknowledged；　in　justice　to　Quintilian；　that　this　is　an　error　to　which　Cicero　has　too　often　given　the　sanction；　both　of　his　precept　and　of　his　example。

Longinus　seems　to　have　had　great　sensibility；　but　little　discrimination。　　He　gives　us　eloquent　sentences；　but　no　principles。　　It　was　happily　said　that　Montesquieu　ought　to　have　changed　the　name　of　his　book　from　〃L'Esprit　des　Lois〃　to　〃L'Esprit　sur　les　Lois〃。　　In　the　same　manner　the　philosopher　of　Palmyra　ought　to　have　entitled　his　famous　work；　not　〃Longinus　on　the　Sublime；〃　but　〃The　Sublimities　of　Longinus。〃　　The　origin　of　the　sublime　is　one　of　the　most　curious　and　interesting　subjects　of　inquiry　that　can　occupy　the　attention　of　a　critic。　　In　our　own　country　it　has　been　discussed；　with　great　ability；　and；　I　think；　with　very　little　success；　by　Burke　and　Dugald　Stuart。　　Longinus　dispenses　himself　from　all　investigations　of　this　nature；　by　telling　his　friend　Terentianus　that　he　already　knows　everything　that　can　be　said　upon　the　question。　　It　is　to　be　regretted　that　Terentianus　did　not　impart　some　of　his　knowledge　to　his　instructor：　　for　from　Longinus　we　learn　only　that　sublimity　means　heightor　elevation。　　（Akrotes　kai　exoche　tis　logon　esti　ta　uoe。）　　This　name；　so　commodiously　vague；　is　applied　indifferently　to　the　noble　prayer　of　Ajax　in　the　Iliad；　and　to　a　passage　of　Plato　about　the　human　body；　as　full　of　conceits　as　an　ode　of　Cowley。　　Having　no　fixed　standard；　Longinus　is　right　only　by　accident。　　He　is　rather　a　fancier　than　a　critic。

Modern　writers　have　been　prevented　by　many　causes　from　supplying　the　deficiencies　of　their　classical　predecessors。　　At　the　time　of　the　revival　of　literature；　no　man　could；　without　great　and　painful　labour；　acquire　an　accurate　and　elegant　knowledge　of　the　ancient　languages。　　And；　unfortunately；　those　grammatical　and　philological　studies；　without　which　it　was　impossible　to　understand　the　great　works　of　Athenian　and　Roman　genius；　have　a　tendency　to　contract　the　views　and　deaden　the　sensibility　of　those　who　follow　them　with　extreme　assiduity。　　A　powerful　mind；　which　has　been　long　employed　in　such　studies；　may　be　compared　to　the　gigantic　spirit　in　the　Arabian　tale；　who　was　persuaded　to　contract　himself　to　small　dimensions　in　order　to　enter　within　the　enchanted　vessel；　and；　when　his　prison　had　been　closed　upon　him；　found　himself　unable　to　escape　from　the　narrow　boundaries　to　the　measure　of　which　he　had　reduced　his　stature。　　When　the　means　have　long　been　the　objects　of　application；　they　are　naturally　substituted　for　the　end。　　It　was　said；　by　Eugene　of　Savoy；　that　the　greatest　generals　have　commonly　been　those　who　have　been　at　once　raised　to　command；　and　introduced　to　the　great　operations　of　war；　without　being　employed　in　the　petty　calculations　and　manoeuvres　which　employ　the　time　of　an　inferior　officer。　　In　literature　the　principle　is　equally　sound。　　The　great　tactics　of　criticism　will；　in　general；　be　best　understood　by　those　who　have　not　had　much　practice　in　drilling　syllables　and　particles。

I　remember　to　have　observed　among　the　French　Anas　a　ludicrous　instance　of　this。　　A　scholar；　doubtless　of　great　learning；　recommends　the　study　of　some　long　Latin　treatise；　of　which　I　now　forget　the　name；　on　the　religion；　manners；　government；　and　language　of　the　early　Greeks。　　〃For　there；〃　says　he；　〃you　will　learn　everything　of　importance　that　is　contained　in　the　Iliad　and　Odyssey；　without　the　trouble　of　reading　two　such　tedious　books。〃　Alas！　it　had　not　occurred　to　the　poor　gentleman　that　all　the　knowledge　to　which　he　attached　so　much　value　was　useful　only　as　it　illustrated　the　great　poems　which　he　despised；　and　would　be　as　worthless　for　any　other　purpose　as　the　mythology　of　Caffraria；　or　the　vocabulary　of　Otaheite。

Of　those　scholars　who　have　disdained　to　confine　themselves　to　verbal　criticism　few　have　been　successful。　　The　ancient　languages　have；　generally；　a　magical　influence　on　their　faculties。　　They　were　〃fools　called　into　a　circle　by　Greek　invocations。〃　　The　Iliad　and　Aeneid　were　to　them　not　books　but　curiosities；　or　rather　reliques。　　They　no　more　admired　those　works　for　their　merits　than　a　good　Catholic　venerates　the　house　of　the　Virgin　at　Loretto　for　its　architecture。　　Whatever　was　classical　was　good。　Homer　was　a　great　poet；　and　so　was　Callimachus。　　The　epistles　of　Cicero　were　fine；　and　so　were　those　of　Phalaris。　　Even　with　respect　to　questions　of　evidence　they　fell　into　the　same　error。　The　authority　of　all　narrations；　written　in　Greek　or　Latin；　was　the　same　with　them。　　It　never　crossed　their　minds　that　the　lapse　of　five　hundred　years；　or　the　distance　of　five　hundred　leagues；　could　affect　the　accuracy　of　a　narration；that　Livy　could　be　a　less　veracious　historian　than　Polybius；or　that　Plutarch　could　know　less　about　the　friends　of　Xenophon　than　Xenophon　himself。　Deceived　by　the　distance　of　time；　they　seem　to　consider　all　the　Classics　as　c