accomplishments in a poet. However that may be,
let us consider of our own epigrams wherein all these
qualities are combined, perhaps we shall find in them
far less point, nay, I would venture to add, far less
charm than in those of Marot or Saint-Gelais, although
almost all the works of the latter poets are full
of the same faults as are attributed to us. We
will be told that these were not faults in their day,
whereas they are very great faults in ours.
To this we answer by a similar kind of argument, by
saying, as we have already said, that these would undoubtedly
be faults in another style of poetry, but not in
this. The late M. de Voiture is a proof in point.
We need only read the works in which he brings to life
again the character of Marot. For our Author
does not lay claim to praise for himself, nor to rounds
of applause from the public for having put a few tales
into rhyme. Without doubt he has entered on quite
a new path, and has pursued it to the utmost of his
power, choosing now one road, now another, and always
treading with surer step when he has followed the
manner of our old poets “quorum in hae re imitari
negligentiam exoptat potius quam istorum diligentiam.”
But while saying that we wished to waive this question,
we have unconsciously involved ourselves in its discussion.
Perhaps this has not been without advantage; for
there is nothing that resembles faults more than these
licenses. Let us now consider the liberty which
the Author has assumed in cutting into the property
of others as well as his own, without making exception
even to the best known stories, none of which he
scruples to tamper with. He curtails, enlarges,
and alters incidents and details, at times the main
issue and the sequel; in short, the story is no longer
the same; it is, in point of fact, quite a new tale;
its original author would find it no small difficulty
to recognise in it his own work. “Non sic
decet contaminari fabulas,” Critics will say.
Why should they not? They twitted Terence in
just the same way; but Terence sneered at them, and
claimed a right to treat the matter as he did.
He has mingled his own ideas with the subjects he
drew from Menander, just as Sophocles and Euripides
mingled theirs with the subjects they drew from former
writers, sparing neither history nor romance, where
“decorum” and the rules of the Drama were
at issue. Shall this privilege cease with respect
to fictitious stories? Must we in future have
more scrupulous or religious regard, if we may be
allowed the expression, for falsehood than the Ancients
had for truth? What people call a good tale
never passes from hand to hand without receiving some
fresh touch of embellishment. How comes it then,
we may be asked, that in many passages the Author
curtails instead of enlarging on the original?
On that point we are agreed: the Author does
so in order to avoid lengthiness and ambiguity,—two
faults which are inadmissible in such matters, especially
Print
Word
PDF
