English Literary Criticism

The Renascence

J. W. H. Atkins

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN: 9780367763312
• eBook ISBN: 9781000378818
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Literature
• Subtopic: English Literary Criticism
• Index: Literature

Originally published in 1947, this volume reviews the critical achievement at the Renaissance. It discusses the ideas of literature then current in England, as revealed in contemporary theorizing and judgments. The period has sometimes been dismissed as lacking great critics, and the critical works themselves have been described as elementary and remote, but, as this work shows, viewed in the light of what came before and after, those texts will be found to be of considerable interest and possess intrinsic and historical value. This book charts the course of the movement and the main findings and their significance in critical history. There is an emphasis to show the part payed by the medieval tradition, with its inheritance of post-classical and patristic doctrine; the lead given by 15th Century Italian and other Humanists and the no less important attempts of independent native writers to work out new artistic and dramatic theory of their own.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

IN the various phases which make up the complicated development of English literary criticism none is of more vital interest than that bound up with the 16th-Century Renascence, the period which marks the break with medieval theories, a renewal of attempts to arrive at clearer conceptions of literature, and a beginning of what is called modem criticism. Not that the break with medievalism was by any means complete. Each period inherits from its predecessors ideas and tendencies of the past; and this, to a degree that has sometimes been forgotten, is notably true of Renascence times. Along with influences that gave fresh impetus and new direction to critical studies there survived during that period ideas handed down from earlier generations, ideas that were still cherished and tenaciously held. And this fact is one of prime importance in any attempt to understand the actual nature of the critical development at this stage. Moreover, this overlap of old and new traditions persisted until well into the 17th Century, when the formulation of what is known as the neo-classical creed in France diverted attention into new channels, giving rise to new problems, new theories and standards. There was, in short, an unbroken critical development in England from the beginning of the 16th Century to the middle of the 17th, in which Renascence, and to a lesser extent medieval, forces were still active. Hence the scope assigned to the present inquiry, which concerns itself not only with early Tudor and Elizabethan criticism but with the critical activities of the Jacobean and Caroline periods as well.

Of earlier treatments of the criticism of this period there has been no lack; and valuable light has in consequence been thrown on its progress from various angles. It has, for instance, been viewed as part of a European movement, attempts having been made to indicate sources and the general indebtedness of English critics to 16th-Century Italian scholars mainly, though in a lesser degree to contemporary French critics as well. Or again, it has been considered as a preliminary stage preparing the way for the later formulation of neo-classical doctrine ; and traces of classical theory, modified as yet by ‘romantic’ tendencies, have thus been noted, with the main problems described as the inculcation of decorum, the treatment of the ‘kinds’, prosody, diction and the like. These efforts to explain origins and to read some sort of system into the varied critical activities are undoubtedly of interest, though they tend to simplify unduly what is after all a somewhat complicated development, thus presenting part of the truth for the whole. What is more, they are apt to leave the reader with a sense of detachment, with some relevant facts, it is true, and some amount of abstract theory, but also with a vague and an imperfect notion of the actual performance and its relation to the literary activities of the time. This at least would seem to account for the judgment of certain eminent French critics who, describing the critical achievement of the period as of mediocre value and importance, declared that for the most part it was devoid of originality, dependent mainly on second-hand Italian doctrine, and with practically no bearing on contemporary English literature. In short, ‘it remains almost abstract’, they explained,¹ ‘by ignoring what was before its eyes’.

Yet nothing is more certain than that, despite some amount of borrowing from various sources, the critical movement at this stage was fundamentally of an independent character, distinct, that is, both in aims and methods, from those of contemporary Italian and French critics, free also from any attempt at a rigid or systematic treatment. For the truth is that so far from ignoring what was before its eyes or being indifferent to contemporary literary work, English criticism at this date, both in its nature and its course, was determined, broadly speaking, by immediate national needs and problems. ‘It develops itself’, so wrote a well-known authority,² ‘if not with entire independence, yet with sufficient conformity to its own needs.’ And considered in this light, against the background of contemporary literary conditions, the critical movement at this stage takes on new meaning and significance, as embodying something more than the vain repetition of abstract theories which in practice were for the most part ignored. What criticism there was, in short, is none other than a running commentary on the literary progress; a commentary, it is true, confused, intermittent, and wholly unregulated, yet one that faithfully reflects the notions of literature then current. It is therefore with the object of arriving at what Englishmen were thinking about literature at this date that the main effort will be made in this inquiry into the contemporary literary criticism, with its various theories, its judgments and appreciations of what was actually accomplished. And with this aim in view no less attention will be paid to conceptions and estimates of historical interest only, than to aesthetic doctrines and judgments of more definite and lasting value. To ignore all that has no bearing on our modem conceptions would be to lose sight of part of the historical picture and of some important features of this phase of criticism.

____________________________________

¹ E. Legouis and L. Cazamian, Histoire de la littirature anglaise, p. 350.

² G. Saintsbury, History of English Criticism, p. 98.

For a just appreciation of the critical achievement at this stage, however, it is necessary, in the first place, to recall something of those intellectual conditions which went to determine the character and scope of critical activities in England. That the period was one of general enlightenment in which a flood of new ideas came in with the New Learning, accompanied by a revival of men’s powers, a fresh vision of things and a new spirit of enterprise and initiative, all this and much else besides were characteristic of the Renascence period; and all alike were calculated to inspire a lively regard for literature, as well as a new critical attitude towards it. At the same time no less significant were the lack of knowledge and the confusion that prevailed in literary practice, as well as the formidable array of problems and difficulties that confronted men’s minds in their quest for clear ideas concerning poetry and the like. It was not only that strong prejudices existed against the vernacular in favour of Latin, that the make-up of the vernacular as a literary medium was itself a subject of debate ; or again, that rhyming verse was evoking a surprising amount of hostility. Apart from perplexities such as these there existed, for instance, but crude notions of the very nature of poetic and dramatic forms; there had also come down some unfinished controversies relating to the status of both the drama and the romance; while the wealth of new ideas that had now become available was as yet but imperfectly assimilated, owing partly to the native lack of interest in abstract theory, partly also to the failure of Elizabethan scholarship to fulfil the early Tudor promise and to grapple successfully with the difficult Greek text of Aristotle’s Poetics. Moreover, many of the new doctrines now enunciated were at variance with inherited traditions and native tendencies which still retained much of their earlier vitality; and the situation was further complicated by a violent Puritan hostility to art of all kinds. Most serious of all, however, were the vague and conflicting views current concerning poetry, a confusion due to the multitude of ideas drawn from different quarters. Along with classical theories that now became available, sometimes modified, it is true, by Italian interpretations, there were also post-classical and patristic conceptions which had filtered through from medieval times, Neo-Platonic doctrines relating to the Cabbala and such-like handed on by early Humanists, besides more modem theories based on Italian and French models. All these were presented with the weight of authority, while the native literature continued to develop on lines of its own ; and the confusion was further increased by the limited sympathy of Humanists with poetry as such, and by sundry efforts from abroad to discredit the teaching of the ancients in general and of Aristotle in particular.

Amidst all this confusion the main inspiration of the criticism that ensued has usually been ascribed to the practical recovery of Aristotle’s Poetics at the end of the 15th Century, and the subsequent exposition of that work by Italian scholars of the century following. It was thus, so it is claimed, that the break with medievalism came and that imaginative literature for the first time was really vindicated. Yet notable as was this new influence in its ultimate effects, another, and an earlier, influence which has hitherto received less notice in this connexion, has also to be taken into account. For it was the 15th-Century Italian Humanists who first broke away from medieval traditions, and by their teaching and inspiration alike made literary discussions possible. By them was inaugurated, for instance, a new approach to literature; and through their efforts later generations were made acquainted not only with a host of classical texts and theories, but also with a new sense of literary values and a more exalted conception of literature in general. In short, the part they played in the critical development, and this not in England alone, can scarcely be over-rated. Their influence was spread abroad partly by their published writings ; but much also came through by way of the works of later Humanists such as Colet, Erasmus, Vives, Sturm, and Melanchthon. And the essential fact remains that the vital part in the critical development at this stage was played, not by 16th-Century Italian scholars, but rather by Italian Humanists of the preceding century and those later Humanists who handed on their teaching. As Walter Pater later on maintained, ‘it is in Italy, in the 15th Century, that the interest of the Renaissance mainly lies’.¹ So that for a proper understanding of the origins of English Renascence criticism some appreciation of the foundations laid by these early Humanists is indispensable.

Most notable of the influences derived by English critics from the activities of these early Italian Humanists was the practice of bringing reasoned judgment to bear for the first time on literature and literary problems. For this, even more than the access afforded to classical literature and theories, was the determining factor in the development of contemporary English criticism. A heightened sense of the power of human reason had been instilled by these early Humanists, and this not only did much to foster critical discussion, it also helped to establish Nature or reason as the recognized instrument of inquiry in all fields of thought throughout the Renascence period. It is true that for this doctrine the Humanists were not alone responsible; though not without its significance is the fact that the ancient authorities upon whom they drew most freely, namely, Cicero and Quintilian,¹ had long ago adopted as their governing principles the laws of Nature or reason. Already, however, throughout Western Europe the idea was widely and firmly rooted that there existed in man a certain natural faculty which enabled him to arrive at the eternal law of natural fitness, and thus to perceive the fight of truth. To this lex naturalis or lumen naturale scholastic theologians (including Aquinas) had freely subscribed, its source being defined as summa ratio in Deo existens, which men were able to perceive by the fight of their natural understanding. Among English theologians, moreover, Reginald Pecock (15th Century), for one, had likewise exalted reason’s ‘doom of kinde’ (or judgment by the law of reason), which he claimed had been written ‘in men’s souls by the finger of God’. Or again, Italian thinkers in attacking Scholastic dogma had relied at first on the authority of the ancients, but later they had appealed to Nature against ecclesiastical and classical authorities alike.

____________________________________

¹ Pater, The Renaissance, p. xiv.

Of the widespread observance of this doctrine during the Renascence period there is abundant evidence; for its influence is illustrated by various writers treating of totally different subjects. Thus the Oxford Reformers and Sir Thomas More, for instance, both combined a profound faith in religion with faith in the dictates of natural reason. To Hooker again, in the absence of any fixed or absolute authority, the only guide left was a pure and elevated rationalism, ‘the light of the natural understanding, wit and reason’, which, he explained, was the gift of God. Then, too, references to the doctrine are occasionally found in contemporary poetry, as when, for instance, Sir John Davies in Nosce Teipsum (1599) declared that ‘Nature in man’s heart her laws doth pen’. It was, moreover, commonly appealed to by philosophical writers of the early 17th Century; while in yet another sphere, that of International Law, both Selden and Grotius, the most learned men of the age, based their theories on the same law of Nature or reason. It is therefore not strange to find that English critics, seeking for light amidst the literary confusion of the time, also looked to first principles, and, following the earlier Italians, relied primarily in their treatment of literary problems on Nature or reason as their main instrument for arriving at truth. This is not to say, however, that the New Learning was without its effects on English critical inquiries and judgments. To classical teaching great deference was paid by early Italian and English theorists alike; but generally, it should be noted, with reservations of a rational kind. Theories of various kinds were drawn from ancient authorities, and interesting principles of permanent value were from time to time assimilated. Nevertheless, the authority of the ancients was in general recognized only in so far as it was capable of being reconciled with the dictates of Nature or reason; while where native instincts suggested new theories or methods the necessary departures were freely advocated by English critics. And this was due not so much to a spirit of independence ascribed to the English genius as to the spirit of rationalism emphasized, though not originated, by Italian Humanists. So that, despite constant recourse to ancient teaching, the fundamental principle which governed English criticism at this stage was not, as is sometimes assumed, that of ‘following the ancients’, but rather of accepting Nature or reason as the ultimate guide in theory and practice alike; and this fact will be found to explain much in the critical performance.

____________________________________

¹ See Atkins, Literary Criticism in Antiquity, ii. pp. 24, 262.

For the actual development of English criticism during the 16th and early 17th Centuries we must look to pronouncements of various forms and kinds, that is, not only to treatises definitely devoted to literary matters such as the Rhetorics, the Artes and Apologies now appearing for the first time, but also to Prefaces, Dedications, Letters and the like, and not least, to those sporadic comments in creative literature itself in which writers casually explained their ideas of art, thus witnessing to the emergence of a new critical consciousness at this date. In general the movement may be said to have gathered strength under changing conditions, acquiring greater scope, insight and initiative as time went on. First came the critics of the early Tudor period who trader Humanistic influence were interested mainly in the media of literature, in rhetoric, style, and diction, and who wrote in scholarly yet unadorned fashion. In due course they were followed by the courtly critics of a later date who, concerned primarily with poetry, its nature and art, wrote with lighter touch for cultured circles, explaining what poetry was and its value to the community. Then in the last decade of the 16th Century, in the flowering time of Elizabethan literature, a marked advance was made by men of letters in the range, the methods and the significance of their critical activities. Generally speaking, a more intimate concern with contemporary literature now became apparent and writers from now on more freely expressed their ideas on the literary art. Thus notable attempts for the first time were made at discussing dramatic principles; judgments and appreciations of considerable value were at times forthcoming ; further recondite theories relating to poetry (and history) were also propounded; and at a later stage serious efforts were made to recover the teaching of classical antiquity, including some amount of Aristotelian theory. To this movement as a whole contributed most of the outstanding figures in contemporary literary history, notably, Wilson and Ascham, Sidney, Puttenham and Daniel, Nashe, Harvey and Hall, Lyly and Shakespeare, Bacon, Jonson and Milton ; and their writings at their best are full of good things, remarks suggestive and illuminating, and couched in those happy and picturesque phrases, the secret of which belonged to the Elizabethans. The value of this Renascence phase in the critical development has not infrequently been underestimated in the past. The critics themselves, summarily dealt with, have with few exceptions been belittled as a group of writers whose theories were purely academic in kind and with li...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Preface
• Table of Contents
• Chapter I Introduction
• Chapter II The Break with Medievalism: Italian Humanists
• Chapter III Humanism in England: Colet, Erasmus, and Vives
• Chapter IV The Rhetoric Tradition: Jewel, Wilson, and Ascham
• Chapter V The Defence of Poetry: Willis, Lodge, and Sidney
• Chapter VI The Art of Poetry: Gascoigne, Harvey, ‘E. K.’, Webbe, Puttenham
• Chapter VII Critical Developments: Nashe, Harington, Daniel, Meres, Hall
• Chapter VIII Dramatic Criticism: Early Tudor Critics, Gosson, Whetstone, Lyly, Shakespeare, Jonson
• Chapter IX Later Theorizing: Bacon, Chapman, Bolton, Jonson, Reynolds, and Alexander
• Chapter X Later Critical Judgments : Bolton, Peacham, Carew, Drayton, Suckling, Jonson
• Chapter XI The Last Phase: Jonson and Milton
• Chapter XII Conclusion
• Index