[28]. He had a real zeal for his native tongue: and it is admitted that the Beiträge, by discarding the Spectatorian miscellaneousness, and concentrating attention upon letters, and by promoting, if mainly from the mere side of language, the study of elder German literature, did much good.
[29]. It has been debated whether “Sasper” or “Saspar,” by which names the Swiss critics sometimes (but very rarely) mention our poet, is a proof of ignorance or merely a phonetic accommodation. But it is admitted that the first German who felt his true inspiration and healing power was J. E. Schlegel, v. inf.
[30]. I have been remonstrated with, in no unfriendly manner, for not discussing the origin, progress, and variations of this famous word. I can only say of this, as of some other remonstrances, that all show rather imperfect realisation of what I intended to do in this book. Such a discussion would form a most fitting part of a volume of Abhandlungen or Excursus on this History—a volume which, if I found any encouragement to do so, I would very gladly write, and for which I have all the materials ready. But it and its possible companions would, according to my ideas of my plan, not merely enlarge the book itself too much, but throw it out of scheme and scale, if they were introduced into the text.
[31]. Antonio Conti (1677-1749) is called author of that Paragone which in vol. ii. p. [554] sup. I called “anonymous,” because Gottsched gave no author for it, and which was an offshoot of this correspondence in 1728-29. Conti was acquainted with Leibnitz and Newton, spent a long time both in England and in France, wrote tragedies and other things, which are imperfectly collected in his Prose e Poesie, Venice, vol. i., 1739; vol. ii. (posthumous), 1756. Professors D’Ancona and Bucci (Manuale della Litt. Ital., Firenze, 1897, iv. 379) speak highly of him. The passage which they give from him on Dante and Petrarch is respectable and erudite, but gives no very high idea of his critical powers. Milton sticks to history and tradition, but Dante does all “out of his own head.” Petrarch has in his poetry not only the sacred and the venerable, but the graceful and the delicate, &c., &c. For more on him and on König see note at end of chapter.
[32]. Kritische Abhandlung von dem Wunderbaren in der Poesie und dessen Verbindung mit dem Wahrscheinlichen in einer Vertheidigung des Gedichtes Joh. Milton’s von dem Verlorenen Paradiese. [By Bodmer.] 1740.
Kritische Abhandlung von der Natur, den Absichten und dem Gebrauche der Gleichnisse. [By Breitinger, edited (besorget) by Bodmer.] 1740.
Kritische Dichtkunst. Worinnen die Poetische Malerei in Absicht auf die Erfindung im Grunde untersuchet wird, &c. [By Breitinger.] 1740.
Kritische Betrachtung uber die Poetischen Gemahlde der Dichter. [By Bodmer, with an introduction by Breitinger.] 1741.
All these might, with advantage, be more accessible than they are. The Kritische Dichtkunst was promised long ago as a reprint in the Litteraturdenkmale. The originals appear to be rare, and when they occur are dear, and at once carried off.
[33]. V. sup., ii. 554. As an example of Gottsched in his less sad but more furious mood, nothing can be better than the passage quoted by Herr Braitmaier (op. cit., p. 139) from the Beiträge (xxix. 8). After much vituperation of Shakespeare (Julius Cæsar had just been translated) and other English playwrights, even Addison, he winds up: “That the English stage helps in such a shameless fashion to nourish the two principal vices of the English people—cruelty and lust—is something so horrible that all honour-loving Englishmen must blush as often as they think of their theatre. There is scarcely a comedy wherein blood and murder do not come in just as if it were a tragedy, and wherein both sexes do not openly, and with the most revolting expressions, speak of things that can only occur in disreputable and forbidden houses.” Poor Gottsched!