With these faults, Ovid had such
enchanting
graces, that his style and
manner infected every branch of literature.
manner infected every branch of literature.
Tacitus
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. The tribe of imitators had
not the genius of their master; but being determined to shine in spite
of nature, they ruined all true taste and eloquence. This is the
natural progress of imitation, and Seneca was well aware of it. He
tells us that the faults and blemishes of a corrupt style are ever
introduced by some superior genius, who has risen to eminence in bad
writing; his admirers imitate a vicious manner, and thus a false taste
goes round from one to another. _Hæc vitia unus aliquis inducit, sub
quo tunc eloquentia est: cæteri imitantur; et alter alteri tradunt. _
Epist. 114. Seneca, however, did not know that he was describing
himself. Tacitus says he had a genius suited to the taste of the age.
_Ingenium amœnum et temporis ejus auribus accommodatum. _ He adopted
the faults of Ovid, and was able to propagate them. For these reasons,
the Abbé Gedoyn is of opinion, that Ovid began the mischief, and
Seneca laid the axe to the root of the tree. It is certain, that,
during the remaining period of the empire, true eloquence never
revived.
Section 7.
[a] Historians have concurred in taxing Vespasian with avarice, in
some instances, mean and sordid; but they agree, at the same time,
that the use which he made of his accumulated riches, by encouraging
the arts, and extending liberal rewards to men of genius, is a
sufficient apology for his love of money.
[b] Titus, it is needless to say, was the friend of virtue and of
every liberal art.
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. The tribe of imitators had
not the genius of their master; but being determined to shine in spite
of nature, they ruined all true taste and eloquence. This is the
natural progress of imitation, and Seneca was well aware of it. He
tells us that the faults and blemishes of a corrupt style are ever
introduced by some superior genius, who has risen to eminence in bad
writing; his admirers imitate a vicious manner, and thus a false taste
goes round from one to another. _Hæc vitia unus aliquis inducit, sub
quo tunc eloquentia est: cæteri imitantur; et alter alteri tradunt. _
Epist. 114. Seneca, however, did not know that he was describing
himself. Tacitus says he had a genius suited to the taste of the age.
_Ingenium amœnum et temporis ejus auribus accommodatum. _ He adopted
the faults of Ovid, and was able to propagate them. For these reasons,
the Abbé Gedoyn is of opinion, that Ovid began the mischief, and
Seneca laid the axe to the root of the tree. It is certain, that,
during the remaining period of the empire, true eloquence never
revived.
Section 7.
[a] Historians have concurred in taxing Vespasian with avarice, in
some instances, mean and sordid; but they agree, at the same time,
that the use which he made of his accumulated riches, by encouraging
the arts, and extending liberal rewards to men of genius, is a
sufficient apology for his love of money.
[b] Titus, it is needless to say, was the friend of virtue and of
every liberal art.
