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 langua