[805]. See also infra in the last chapter of the next Book. I suppose the name most likely to be missed here is that of Ugo Foscolo. The author of the Letters of Jacopo Ortis must seem, to those who think Rousseau a critic, to be another, and the commentator on Petrarch and Dante certainly was one. But I think we can do without him.
INTERCHAPTER VIII.
(WITH AN EXCURSUS ON PERIODICAL CRITICISM.)
We here come to the point antipolar to that of the last volume, at which[[806]] we ventured to give a sketch of the Classic or Neo-classic creed. The challenge to array definitions of Classicism and Romanticism in a tabular form has already[[807]] been respectfully declined: but that this “declinature” comes neither from pusillanimity, nor from complacency in purblindness, may be best proved by undertaking the much more perilous adventure of an anti-creed to that formerly laid down. Even there we had to interpose the caution that absolute subscription, on the part of all the critics concerned, ought not to be thought of: but here the very essence and quiddity of the situation is that no such agreement is in any way possible. In fact, no single and tolerably homogeneous document could possibly here be drawn up, for there would be minority (and sometimes majority) counter-reports on every article. Even those who resist the extremer developments take large licenses upon the old classical position. You have your Jeffrey expressing admiration of a Pharonnida which would have seemed to Dennis a monstrous stumbling-block, and to Johnson mere foolishness: while among the extremists themselves, each man is a law unto himself. Still, it is perhaps possible to draw up some articles of the Modern or Romantic Criticism which was reached during this period, and we have already, in the last two books, described at some length the process by which they were reached. These articles will be best separated into two batches, the first representing the creed of centre and extremes at once, the second that of extremes (left or right) only: and it will be well to mark the difference from the former statement by giving the articles separately, and not arranging them in paragraphs.
The more catholic creed is very mainly of a negative and protesting character, and its articles might run somewhat thus:—
All periods of literature are to be studied, and all have lessons for the critic. “Gothic ignorance” is an ignorant absurdity.
One period of literature cannot prescribe to another. Each has its own laws; and if any general laws are to be put above these, they must be such as will embrace them.
Rules are not to be multiplied without necessity: and such as may be admitted must rather be extracted from the practice of good poets and prose-writers than imposed upon it.
“Unity” is not itself uniform, but will vary according to the kind, and sometimes within the kind, itself.
The Kind itself is not to be too rigidly constituted: and subvarieties in it may constantly arise.
Literature is to be judged “by the event”: the presence of the fig will disprove the presence of the thistle.