Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

oar

okey

ARTILLERY MASKED BY INFANTRY

1

(From Robert Ward's Inimadversions of Warre, 1639. The dots repre. sent a plan view of the formations, the rear rank of each battalion bein: shown in vlevation.) 1 Sep page 257.)

[blocks in formation]

Two terms present themselves to the literary historian seeking •
name for the new kind of style that came into general use in Latin
and all the vernacular languages at the end of the sixteenth
century. 'Anti-Ciceronian prose' has the merit of indicating the

"
character of the controversy out of which the new tendency emerged
victorious: it connects the successful movement led by Lipsins,

"It is perhaps necessary to say that the present paper is part of a more
extended study with the same title, the object of which is to show that the
successful Anti-Ciceronian movement inaugurated by Muret, Lipsius, Mon
taigne, and Bacon, in the last quarter of the sixteenth century, gave a no
direction to European prose-style and determined its characteristic formas
throughout the seventeenth century. For the history of this movement
and the description of the forms of style which it created, the reader minst
be referred to other parts of this study, not yet published.

Various discussions of the Ciceronian movement of the Renaissance are
familiar, and in all of these the earlier phases of the opposition to it
led by Erasmus, Pico, and other receive due attention. On the other
hand, the decisive Anti Ciceronian movement of the last quarter of the
century has heretofore received but cursory mention, as by Norden (Die
Antike Kunstprosa, 778-9), Sandys (Ciceronianism, in Harvard Lectures
on the Redioal of Leaming), and Izora Scott (Controversies over the Ims
tation of Cicero, 106-11l). Miss Scott concludes with the unhappy stato
ment that “barring a few individual dissertations ... controversial wilt
ing on the question ceased with the contribution of Muretus. An account
us full as the limits of my subject permitted is given in my paper in the
Reovo du Sciciėmo siècle (, 1914, 200-242) on Justo Lipec ot lo Towce
mont Anti-Oiobronion.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Montaigne, and Bacon with the frustrated efforts of Erasmus, Bude, and Pico early in the sixteenth century. But it is open to several objections. In the first place, it indicates only revolt, suggests only destructive purposes in a movement that had a definite rhetorical program. Secondly, it may be taken as describing a hostility to Cicero himself, in the opinions of the new leaders, instead of to his sixteenth-century" apes," whereas in fact the supreme rhetorical excellence of Cicero was constantly affirmed by them, as it was by the ancient Anti-Ciceronians whom they imitated. And thirdly, it was not the term usually employed in contemporary controversy, and was never used except by enemies of the new movement. The only name by which its leaders and friends were willing to describe the new style during the century of its triumph, from 1575 to 1700, was “ Attic.”

For these reasons Attic” is the preferable term, and should take its place in literary history as the name of the dominant tendency in seventeenth-century prose-style in contrast with that of the sixteenth century. To use it at the present time, however, for this purpose, without a full and clear explanation of the meaning attached to it could only cause positive misunderstanding or utter confusion. For it is a word that has suffered vicissitudes. In current and uncritical literary writing of the last two centuries it has often been employed to designate a style conformed to the conversational customs of a well-trained and sophisticated societythe society of Paris in the eighteenth century rather than of Athens in the age of Pericles. This meaning, it is true, was imposed by a later age than the seventeenth century and might safely be disregarded, the more safely, indeed, because it does not correspond to any of the more important meanings recognized as sound by the best students of antiquity. But unhappily in the usage of classical scholars themselves the word does not now carry a single and definite meaning; and the most recent researches tend to add complexity rather than clearness to its history. For the truth is that it was never a formalized word of rhetorical theory in ancient

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Montaigne is franker than any other of the leaders in expressing a dislike of Cicero. Yet he admires his eloquence. “There is no real a. cellence in him," he says, “ unless his eloquence itself is so perfect that it might be called a real and substantive excellence.” Of course part of the point of this is, however, in the implied doubt of the value of pare ela quence, in itself; for no Ciceronian would think of doubting it.

« VorigeDoorgaan »