New-York tribune., 1901-04-14

vi hteraiT CRITICISM. a closer resemblance 70
our modern conception of that criticism he dis
Germs in Dionysius of Halicarnassus hut .,s
swift survey of the entire body of Greek crsti-
cism that the first two hundred paees of this
volume afford makes great fact clear 8, ia
the fact that Greek criticism, despite the onror
tunities that the Homeric discussion alone pre-
sented for purely literary Improvement neces-
sarily moved more in the region of what Pro-
fessor Saintsbury calls "speechcrafr' than in
that of the written statement. PoIemic was to
the Greek as the breath OF his nostris. and
Oratory its handmaid-if so humble an epi-
thet may be applied to a form of human culture
which in antique times held in highest
honor. Aristophanes. hating most if not all
things Euripidean. exhibits in his castigation
of them a certain critical conscience and
method. But he is still long way OFF from the
spirit of the critic who resolutely abides by that
ideal which we have already cited, the ideal Of
judging the goodness badness of literature
from the purely literary point of view" Pro-
fessor Saintsbury declares of one passage in the
poet that it could be thrown. with the least
possible difficulty. into the form of a critical
causerie which would anticipate by two thou
sand years and more the very shrewdest work
OF Dryden the most thoughtful of Coeridge.
the most delicate and ingenious of Arnold and
Sainte- -Beuve" We cannot help feeling that
here. for once. personal opinion ObtrUdes itself
too aggressvely and too fancifully.
The restraint essential TO an adequate con-
sideration of Greek criticism is less importano
to the true appraisal of Latin, which. whether
ftfuI and tac!t in Cicero. or explicit and even
professional! in Quintilian. was still incurably
harnpered by Roman subservience TO Greek
ideals, and on the whole left the Middle Ages
more knots to unite than swords TO cut them
with In Cicero. as in Plato. the habit ot
&c I.at tax int
difference that the Greek possessed siSnlh-
canoe helpful, TO the ancient and the modern
alike while it is perhaps hazardous 70 assume
that the Latin's letters had for those who re-
ceved them the literary message that they nave
for US Professor Saintsbury draws some suS-
sestive tags with something like a modern
flavor from PetroniUs; from Quintiiian ne de-
rives many more. and his gleanings from the
contemporaries of both are often apt. But the
Latin section of his book. like the Greek Is more
| a museum of fragments than survey Of un-
broken and steadily increasing Development anu
if the last section. devoted To medieval criti-
cism introduces the tremendously !Inpotldh|
figure of Dante. it is marked by TO other phe-
nomenon of anything like the same interest
Professor Saintsbury is especially happy IN
these closing pages. He has healthy dlStaste
for the prejudice which has ERECTED renee
around the Middle Ages. marked NO lovers OK
literature need waste their time mere ana H'S
genial sympathy for the time enables hlm hot
only To write as we'll of Dante as others might
but To give the poet better setting than he
ordinarily receives. The analysis of the de
Vulgari Eloquio' is of the freshest. most
saneIy spirited and instructive things IN the
whole volume
That volume carries us only third Oh tne
distance which hope to traverse IN ProIes-
sor Saintsbury's company. He has stil TO deai
i'm a second volume with the matter from the
Renaissance TO the death of eighteenth century
Classicism. and in third. with Modern Critl-
csIn. In these two books he Will be IN the
thick of fray: he will have more tangible
material and more of il. and it is probable
that he will be more interesting But ne could
not be more useful than he is in his first install
ment Whatever defects of tone or dictiOn that
may possess. ii remains work unconlfnOnly
we'll pondered and we'll ordered The scheme OF
chapters and 'interchapters" is perfect, and
there is a good INDEX.