The marvellous was with him better than the
natural; and he chose to surprise and dazzle, rather than merit the
approbation of sober judgement.
natural; and he chose to surprise and dazzle, rather than merit the
approbation of sober judgement.
Tacitus
_
Quintil. lib. x. cap. 1. From this it is evident, that Seneca, even in
the meridian of his fame and power, was considered as the grand
corrupter of eloquence. The charge is, therefore, renewed in this
Dialogue, with strict propriety. Rollin, who had nourished his mind
with ancient literature, and was, in his time, the Quintilian of
France, has given the same opinion of Seneca, who, he says, knew how
to play the critic on the works of others, and to condemn the strained
metaphor, the forced conceit, the tinsel sentence, and all the
blemishes of a corrupt style, without desiring to weed them out of his
own productions. In a letter to his friend (epist. 114), which has
been mentioned section xxvi. note [c], Seneca admits a general
depravity of taste, and with great acuteness, and, indeed, elegance,
traces it to its source, to the luxury and effeminate manners of the
age; he compares the florid orators of his time to a set of young
fops, well powdered and perfumed, just issuing from their toilette:
_Barbâ et comâ nitidos, de capsulâ totos_; he adds, that such affected
finery is not the true ornament of a man. _Non est ornamentum virile,
concinnitas. _ And yet, says Rollin, he did not know that he was
sitting to himself for the picture. He aimed for ever at something
new, far fetched, ingenious, and pointed. He preferred wit to truth
and dignified simplicity.
The marvellous was with him better than the
natural; and he chose to surprise and dazzle, rather than merit the
approbation of sober judgement. His talents placed him at the head of
the fashion, and with those enchanting vices which Quintilian ascribes
to him, he was, no doubt, the person who contributed most to the
corruption of taste and eloquence. See Rollin's _Belles Lettres_, vol.
i. _sur le Gout_. Another eminent critic, L'ABBE GEDOYN, who has given
an elegant translation of Quintilian, has, in the preface to that
work, entered fully into the question concerning the decline of
eloquence. He admits that Seneca did great mischief, but he takes the
matter up much higher. He traces it to OVID, and imputes the taste for
wit and spurious ornament, which prevailed under the emperors, to the
false, but seducing charms of that celebrated poet. Ovid was,
undoubtedly, the greatest wit of his time; but his wit knew no bounds.
His fault was, exuberance. _Nescivit quod bene cessit relinquere_,
says Seneca, who had himself the same defect. Whatever is Ovid's
subject, the redundance of a copious fancy still appears. Does he
bewail his own misfortunes; he seems to think, that, unless he is
witty, he cannot be an object of compassion. Does he write letters to
and from disappointed lovers; the greatest part flows from fancy, and
little from the heart. He gives us the brilliant for the pathetic.
With these faults, Ovid had such enchanting graces, that his style and
manner infected every branch of literature.
Quintil. lib. x. cap. 1. From this it is evident, that Seneca, even in
the meridian of his fame and power, was considered as the grand
corrupter of eloquence. The charge is, therefore, renewed in this
Dialogue, with strict propriety. Rollin, who had nourished his mind
with ancient literature, and was, in his time, the Quintilian of
France, has given the same opinion of Seneca, who, he says, knew how
to play the critic on the works of others, and to condemn the strained
metaphor, the forced conceit, the tinsel sentence, and all the
blemishes of a corrupt style, without desiring to weed them out of his
own productions. In a letter to his friend (epist. 114), which has
been mentioned section xxvi. note [c], Seneca admits a general
depravity of taste, and with great acuteness, and, indeed, elegance,
traces it to its source, to the luxury and effeminate manners of the
age; he compares the florid orators of his time to a set of young
fops, well powdered and perfumed, just issuing from their toilette:
_Barbâ et comâ nitidos, de capsulâ totos_; he adds, that such affected
finery is not the true ornament of a man. _Non est ornamentum virile,
concinnitas. _ And yet, says Rollin, he did not know that he was
sitting to himself for the picture. He aimed for ever at something
new, far fetched, ingenious, and pointed. He preferred wit to truth
and dignified simplicity.
The marvellous was with him better than the
natural; and he chose to surprise and dazzle, rather than merit the
approbation of sober judgement. His talents placed him at the head of
the fashion, and with those enchanting vices which Quintilian ascribes
to him, he was, no doubt, the person who contributed most to the
corruption of taste and eloquence. See Rollin's _Belles Lettres_, vol.
i. _sur le Gout_. Another eminent critic, L'ABBE GEDOYN, who has given
an elegant translation of Quintilian, has, in the preface to that
work, entered fully into the question concerning the decline of
eloquence. He admits that Seneca did great mischief, but he takes the
matter up much higher. He traces it to OVID, and imputes the taste for
wit and spurious ornament, which prevailed under the emperors, to the
false, but seducing charms of that celebrated poet. Ovid was,
undoubtedly, the greatest wit of his time; but his wit knew no bounds.
His fault was, exuberance. _Nescivit quod bene cessit relinquere_,
says Seneca, who had himself the same defect. Whatever is Ovid's
subject, the redundance of a copious fancy still appears. Does he
bewail his own misfortunes; he seems to think, that, unless he is
witty, he cannot be an object of compassion. Does he write letters to
and from disappointed lovers; the greatest part flows from fancy, and
little from the heart. He gives us the brilliant for the pathetic.
With these faults, Ovid had such enchanting graces, that his style and
manner infected every branch of literature.
