CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY GIFT OF Prof. F. C. Prescott Cornell University Library The original of tliis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924026928097 Columbia SEnibcrsttg STUDIES IN LITERATURE Columbia Hmteattg STUDIES m LITERATURE A HISTORY OF LITERARY CRITICISM IN THE RENAISSAKCE : With Special Reference to the Influence of Italy in the Formation and Development of Modern Classicism. By Joel Elias Spingabn. In Press : ROMANCES OP ROGUERY: An Episode in the Development of the Modern Novel. Part I. The Picaresque Novel in Spain. By FbaiJk Wableigh Chandler. SPANISH LITERATURE IN ENGLAND . UN- DER THE TUDORS. By John Gaebbtt Underhill. *#* other nv/mh&rs of tJiAa series will he issued from Ume to tvme, coniaAm^g the remits of literary re- search or criticism, l>y the students or officers of ColwmMa Umversity, or others associated with th&m in study, vnder the authorization of the Department of Literature, Oeoboe Edwaed Woodbeeex and Bbandbr Matthews, Professors. A HISTORY • OF LITERAKY CEITICISM IN THE KENAISSANCB WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE INFLUENCE OF ITALY EST THE FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF MODERN CLASSICISM BY JOEL ELIAS SPINGAEN Nefa gotfe PUBLISHED FOB THE COLUMBIA UITIVEESITT PEES8 BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY LONDON : MACMILLAN 4 00., Ltd, 1899 All rigkts retervtd PA/ an coptbioht, 1899, By the MACMILLAN COMPANT. J. 8. Cuahing ft Co. — Berwick tt Smith Norwood Mail. U.S.A. PREFACE This essay undertakes to treat the history of literary criticism in the Benaissance. The three sections into which the essay is divided are de- voted, respectively, to Italian criticism from Dante to Tasso, to French criticism from Du Bellay to Boileau, and to English criticism from Ascham to Milton; but the critical activity of the sixteenth century has been the main theme, and the earlier or later literature has received treatment only in so far as it serves to explain the causes or conse- quences of the critical development of this central period. It was at this epoch that modern criticism began, and that the ancient ideals of art seemed once more to sway the minds of men; so that the history of sixteenth-century criticism must of necessity include a study of the beginnings of critical activity in modern Europe and of the grad- ual introduction of the Aristotelian canons into i- modem literature. This study has been made subservient, more par- ticularly, to two specific purposes. Wiile the critical activity of the period is important and even interesting in itself, it has been here studied primarily for the purpose of tracing the origin and yi PREFACE causes of the classic spirit in modern letters and of discovefing the sources of the rules and theories embodied in the neo-classic literature of the seven- teenth and eighteenth centuries. How did the classic spirit arise ? Whence did it come, and how did it develop ? What was the origin of the prin- ciples and precepts of neo-classicism ? These are some of the questions I have attempted to answer in this essay ; and, in answering them, I have tried to remember that this is a history, not of critical literature, but of literary criticism. For this reason I have given to individual books and authors less prominence than some of them perhaps deserved, and have confined myself almost exclusively to the origin of principles, theories, and rules, and to the general temper of classicism. Por a similar reason I have been obliged to say little or nothing of the methods and results of applied, or concrete, criticism. This, then, has been the main design of the essay ; but furthermore, as is indicated in the title, I have attempted to point out the part played by Italy in the growth of this neo-classic spirit and in the for- mulation of these neo-classic principles. The influ- ence of the Italian Eenaissance in the development of modern science, philosophy, art, and creative literature has been for a long time the subject of much study. It has been my more modest task to trace the indebtedness of the modern world to Italy in the domain of literary criticism ; and I trust that I have shown the Renaissance influence to be as great in this as in the other realms of study. The PBEFACE Tn birtih of modem criticism was doe to the critical acdTity of Italian hmnanism ; and it is ia SLxteenth- ccntury Italy that we shall find, more or less matored, the general spirit and even the specific piineiples of French classicism. The second half of the design, then, is tbe history of the Italian inSnence in literary criticism ; and with Milton, the last of the humanists in England, the essay nator rally closes. Bat we shall find, I think, that the influence of the Italian Senaissance in the domain of literary criticism was not even then all de- cayed, and that Lessrng and Shelley, to mention no others, were the Intimate inheritors of the Italian tradition. This essay was submitted to the Facnlty of Phi- losophy, ColnmWa University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The Mbliogiaphy at the end of tiie essay indicates sufiBciently my obligations to pre- ceding writers. It has been prepared chiefly for the purpose of ^cUitating reference to works cited iu the text ^id ia the foot-notes, and shonld be considted for the fuU titles of books thereia men- tioned ; it makes no pretence of beii^ a complete bibliography of the subject It will be seen that the history of Italian criticism ia the sixteenth century has received scarcely any attention from modem scholars. In r^pxd to Aristotle's Poetics, I have used the text, and in general followed the interpretation, given in Professor S. H. Batcher's ArvAoQ^s Theory of Poetry and Fine Art, a noble monument of scholarship vivified by literary feet vm PREFACE ing. I desire also to express my obligations to Professor Butcher for an abstract of Zabarella, to Mr. P. 0. Skinner of Harvard for an analysis of Capriano, to my friend, Mr. F. W. Chandler, for summaries of several early English rhetorical treatises, and to Professor Cavalier Speranza for a few corrections ; also to my friends, Mr. J. Gr. Un- derhill, Mr. Lewis Einstein, and Mr. H. A. Uter- hart, and to my brother, Mr. A. B. Spingarn, for incidental assistance of some importance. But, above all, I desire to acknowledge my indebt- edness to Professor George E. Woodberry. This book is the fruit of his instruction ; and in writing it, also, I have had recourse to him for assistance and criticism. Without the aid so kindly accorded by him, the book could hardly have been written, and certainly would never have assumed its pres- ent form. But my obligations to him are not lim- ited to the subject or contents of the present essay. Through a period of five years the inspiration derived from his instruction and encouragement has been so great as to preclude the possibility of its expression in a preface. Qiiare habe tibi quid- quid hoc libelli. Nkw Yobk, March, 1899. CONTENTS PAET FIRST LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY / PASS '' I. The ruNDAMBNTAL Fboblem of Kenaissancb Ceiticism 3 i. Mediaeval Conceptions of Poetry, ii. The Moral Justification of Poetry, ill. The Pinal JustlBcation of Poetry. ' n. The Genekal Theoet of Poetkt in the Italian Renaissance 24 i. Poetry as a Form of Scholastic Philosophy, ii. Poetry as an Imitation of Lite, iii. The Function of Poetry. in. The Theory op the Drama .... 60 i. The Subject of Tragedy, ii. The Function of Tragedy, iii. The Characters of Tragedy, iv. The Dramatic Unities. T. Comedy. IV. The Theory of Epic Poetkt .... 107 i. The Theory of the Epic Poem, ii. Epic and Bomance. V. The Growth of the Classic Spirit in Italian Criticism 126 1. Humanism, ii. Aristotelianism. iii. nationalism. ix X CONTENTS PAOB VI. Romantic Elements in Italian Criticism . 155 i. The Ancient Romantic Element, ii. Mediaeval Elements, iii. Modern Elements. PAET SECOND LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE I. The Chakaoter and Development of French Criticism in the Sixteenth Centurt . 171 i. Character, ii. Development. IL The Theory op Poetry in the Ebench Renaissance 190 i. The Poetic Art. ii. The Drama, iii. Heroic Poetry. III. Classic and Romantic Elements in French Criticism during the Sixteenth Century 214 i. Classical Elements. ii. Romantic Elements. V IV. The Formation or the Classic Ideal in the Seventeenth Century .... 232 i. The Romantic Revolt, ii. The Reaction against the PWiade. iii. The Second Influx of Italian Ideas, iv. The Influence of Rationalistic Philosophy. CONTENTS xi PAST THIED LITERARY CRITICISM I2f ENGLAND pAex I. The Evolution of English Criticism fbom AscHAH TO Milton 253 II. The General Theory op Poetry in the Elizabethan Age 261 in. The Theory or Dramatic and Heroic Poetry 282 i. Tragedy, ii. Comedy. ill. The Dramatic Unities, iv. Epic Poetry. rV. Classical Elements in Elizabethan Criticism 296 i. Introductory : Bomantic Elements. 11. Classical Metres, ill. Other Evidences of Classicism. Appendices 312 A. Chronological Table of the Chief Critical Works of the Sixteenth Century. B. Salviati's Account of the Commentators on Aristotle's Poetics. Bibliography ........ 317 Index 325 Pakt First LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY CHAPTER I THE FTJNDAMENTAI, PROBLEM OF RENAISSANCE CKITIOISM The first problem of Eenaissance criticism was the justification of imaginative literature. The ex- istence and. continuity of the aesthetic consciousness, and perhaps, in a less degree, of the critical faculty, throughout the Middle Ages, can hardly be denied ; yet distrust of literature was keenest among the very , class of men in whom the critical faculty might be presupposed, and it was as the handmaid of philoso- phy, and most of aU as the vassal of theology, that poetry was chiefly valued. In other words, the criteria by which imaginative literature was judged during the Middle Ages were not literary criteria. Poetry was disregarded or contemned, or was valued if at all for virtues that least belong to it. The Eenaissance was thus confronted with the necessity of justifying its appreciation of the vast body of literature which the Kevival of Learning had recov- ered, for the modern world; and the function of Eenaissance criticism was to reSstablish the aesthetic foundations of literature, to reaffirm the eternal 3 4 LITEEAEY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. lesson of Hellenic culture, and to restore once and for all the element of beauty to its rightful place in human life and in the world of art. I. Mediceval Conceptions of Poetry The mediaeval distrust of literature was the result of several cooperating causes. Popular literature had fallen into decay, and in its contemporary form was beneath serious consideration. Classical liter- V ature was unfortunately pagan, and was moreover but imperfectly known. The mediaeval Church V from its earliest stages had regarded pagan culture with suspicion, and had come to look upon the de- velopment of popular literature as antagonistic to its own supremacy. But beyond this, the distrust of literature went deeper, and was grounded upon certain theoretical and fundamental objections to all / the works of the imagination. These theoretical objections were in nowise new to the Middle Ages. They had been stated in antiq- uity with much more directness and philosophical efficacy than was possible in the mediaeval period. Plato had tried imaginative literature by the cri- teria of reality and morality, both of which are unsesthetic criteria, although fundamentally appli- cable to poetry. In respect to reality, he had shown that poetry is three removes from the truth, being but the imitation, by the artist, of the imitation, in life, of an idea in the mind of God. In respect to morality, he had discovered in Homer, the greatest 1.] THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM 5 of poets, deviations from truth, blasphemy against the gods, and obscenity of various sorts. Further- more, he had found that creative literature excites y the emotions- more than does actual life, and stirs up ignoble passions which were better restrained. These ideas ran throughout the Middle Ages, and indeed persisted even beyond the Eenaissance. Poetry was judged by these same criteria, but it was natural that mediaeval writers should substitute more practical reasons for the metaphysical argu- ments of Plato. According to the criterion of reality, it was urged that poetry in its very essence is untrue, that at bottom it is fiction, and therefore false. Thus TertuUian said that "the Author of truth hates all the false ; He regards as adultery all that is unreal. . . . He never will approve pre- tended loves, and wraths, and groans, and tears ; " ^ and he afRrmed that in place of these pagan works there was in the Bible and the Fathers, a vast body of Christian literature and that this is "not fabulous, but true, not tricks of art, but plain reali- v ties.'"' A-Ccording to the criterion of morality, it was urged that as few works of the imagination were entirely free from obscenity and blasphemy, such blemishes are inseparable from the poetic > art; and accordingly, Isidore of Seville says that a Christian is forbidden to read the figments of the poets, "quia per oblectamenta inanium fabularum mentem excitant ad incentiva libidinum." ' The third, or psychological objection, made by Plato, was similarly emphasized. Thus TertuUian 1 De Spectac. xxiii. ^ Ibid. xxii. ' Differentise, iil. 13, 1. 6 LITEKAKY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. pointed out that -while God has enjoined us to deal calmly and gently and quietly with the Holy Spirit, literature, and especially dramatic literature, leads to spiritual agitation.* This point seemed to the mediaeval mind fundamental, for in real beauty, as Thomas Aquinas insisted, desire is quieted.^ furthermore, it was shown that the only body of literary work worthy of serious study dealt with pagan divinities and with religious practices which were in direct antagonism to Christianity. Other objections, also, were incidentally alluded to by mediaeval writers. Tor example, it was said, the supreme question in all matters of life is the ques- tion of conduct, and it was not apparent in what manner poetry conduces to action. Poetry has no practical use ; it rather enervates men than urges them to the call of duty ; and above all, there are more profitable occupations in which the righteous man may be engaged. These objections to literature are not character- istically mediseval. They have sprung up in every period of the world's history, and especially recur in all ages in which ascetic or theological conceptions of life are dominant. They were stock questions of the Greek schools, and there are extant treatises by Maximus of Tyre and others on the problem whether or not Plato was justified in expelling Homer from his ideal commonwealth. The same objections prevailed beyond the Eenaissance; and they were urged in Italy by Savonarola, in Ger- i Be Spectac. xv. Of. Cyprian, Epist. ad Donat. vili. * Cf. Bosanquet, Mst. of Esthetic, p. 148. I.] THE FUKDAMENTAL PROBLEM 7 many by Cornelius Agrippa, i n England by Gosson and_Prynne^and in Trance by Bossuet and^ther ^C, ecclesiastics. ~ ~ "' II. The Moral Justijkaticm of Poetry The allegorical method of interpreting literature was the result of the mediaeval attempt to answer the objections just stated. This method owed its origin to the mode of interpreting the popular mythology first employed by the Sophists and more thoroughly by the later Stoics. Such heroes as Hercules and Theseus, instead of being mere brute conquerors of monsters and giants, were re- garded by the Stoic philosophers as symbols of the early sages who had combated the vices and pas- sions of mankind, and they became in the course of time types of pagan saints. The same mode of in- terpretation was later applied to the stories of the Old Testament by Philo Judaeus, and was first introduced into Occidental Europe by Hilary of Poitiers and Ambrose, Bishop of Milan.^ Abra- ham, Adam, Eve, Jacob, became types of various virtues, and the biblical stories were considered as symbolical of the various moral struggles in the soul of man. The first instance of the systematic application of the method to the pagan myths occurs in the Mythologicon of Fulgentius, who prob- ably flourished in the first half of the sixth century ; and in his Virgiliana Continentia, the ^neid is 1 Of. St. Augustine, Con/ess. v. 14, vi. 4; Clemens Alex. Stromata, v. 8. 8 LITEEAEY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. treated as an image of life, and the travels of ^neas as the symbol of the progress of the human soul, from nature, through wisdom, to final happiness. From this period, the allegorical method be- came the recognized mode of interpreting literar ture, whether sacred or profane. Petrarch, in his ■jC letter, De quihusdam fictionibus Virgilij,^ treats the ^neid after the manner of Fulgentius; and even at the very end of the Renaissance Tasso inter- / preted his own romantic epics in the same way. After the acceptance of the method, its applica- tion was further complicated. Gregory the Great ascribes three meanings to the Bible, — the literal, the typical or allegorical, and the moral. Still later, a fourth meaning was added; and Dante distinctly claims all four, the literal, the allegori- cal, the moral or philosophical, and the anagogical or mystical, for his Divine Comedy.'' This method, while perhaps justifying poetry from the standpoint of ethics and divinity, gives it no place as an independent art; thus considered, „ poetry becomes merely a popularized form of theol- ogy. Both Petrarch and Boccaccio regarded alle- gory as the warp and woof of poetry; but they modified the mediaeval point of view by arguing conversely that theology itself is a form of poetry, — the poetry of God. Both of them insist that the Bible is essentially poetical, and that Christ him- self spoke largely in poetical images. This point 1 Opera, p. 867. " df. Dante, Epiat. xi. 7 ; Oonvito, ii. 1, 1, I.] THE FITNDAMENTAL PROBLEM 9 was so emphasized by Renaissance critics that Berni, in his Dicdogo contra i Poeti (1537), con- '^ demns the poets for speaking of God as Jupiter and of the saints as Mercury, Hercules, Bacchus, and for even having the audacity to call the prophets and the writers of the Scriptures poets and makers of verses.^ The fourteenth and fifteenth books of Boccaccio's treatise, De Genecdogia Deorum, have been called " the first defence of poesy in honor of his own art by a poet of the modern world ; " but Boccaccio's justification of imaginative literature is still prima- rily based on the usual mediaeval grounds. The reality of poetry is dependent on its allegorical foundations ; its moral teachings are to be sought in the hidden meanings discoverable beneath the literal expression; pagan poetry is defended for Christianity on the ground that the references to Greek and Eoman gods and rituals are to be re- garded only as symbolical truths. The poet's func- if s ^ ■ tion, for Boccaccio, as for Dante and Petrarch, was to hide and obscure the actual truth behind a veil of beautiful fictions — veritatem rerum pulchris velor minibus adomare? The humanistic point of view, in regard to poe- try, was of a more practical and far-reaching nature than that of the Middle Ages. The allegorical interpretation did indeed continue throughout the Eenaissance, and Mantuan, for example, can only iBerni, p. 226S3. 2 Fetraich, C^era, p. 1205 ; (if. Boccaccio, Gen. degli Dei, p. 250, V. 10 LITEEARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. define a poem as a literary form -whicli is bound by the stricter laws of metre, and whicli has its funda- mental truths hidden under the literal expressions of the fable. For still later writers, this mode of regarding literature seemed to present the only loophole of escape from the moral objections to poetry. But in employing the old method, the humanists carried it far beyond its original appli- cation. Thus, Lionardo Bruni, in his De Studiis et Literis (c. 1405), after dwelling on the allegorical interpretation of the pagan myths, argues that when one reads the story of .ffineas and Dido, he pays his tribute of admiration to the genius of the poet, but the matter itself is known to be fiction, and so leaves no moral impression.* By this Bruni means that fiction as such, when known to be fic- tion, can leave no moral impression, and secondly, that poetry is to be judged by the success of the artist, and not by the eflB.cacy of the moralist. Similarly, Battista Guarino, in his De Ordine Dd- cendi et Studendi (1469), says that we are not dis- turbed by the impieties, cruelties, horrors, which we find in poetry; we judge these things simply by their congruity with the characters and incidents described. In other words, " we criticise the artist, not the moralist." ^ This is a distinct attempt at the aesthetic appreciation of literature, but while such ideas are not uncommon about this time, they express isolated sentiments, rather than a doctrine strictly coordinated with an aesthetic theory of poetry. 1 Woodward, Vittonno da Feltre, p. 132. « Ibid, p, 175. I.] THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM 11 The more strict defence of poetry was attempted for the most part on the grounds set forth by Horace in his Ars Poetica. At no period from the Augustan Age to the Eenaissance does the Ars Poetica seem to have been entirely lost. It is mentioned or quoted, for example, by Isidore of SevUle' in the sixth century, by John of Salis- bury ^ in the twelfth century, and by Dante' in the fourteenth. Horace insists on the mingled instruc- tiveness and pleasurableness of poetry ; and beyond this, he points out the value of poetry as a civiliz- ing factor in history, regarding the early poets as sages and prophets, and the inventors of arts and sciences : — " Orpheus, inspired by more than human power, Did not, as poets feigned, tame savage beasts, But men as lawless and as wild as they, And first dissuaded them from rage and blood. Thus when Amphion built the Theban wall. They feigned the stones obeyed his magic lute ; Poets, the first instructors of mankind, Brought all things to their proper native use ; Some they appropriated to the gods. And some to public, some to private ends : Promiscuous love by marriage was restrained, Cities were built, and useful laws were made ; So ancient is the pedigree of verse. And so divine the poet's fimction." * This conception of the early poet's function was an old one. It is to be found in Aristophanes ; " it 1 Etymologise, viii. 7, 5. * PoKcraticus, i. 8. ' Moore, Dante and his Early Biographers, London, 1890, pp. 173, 174. * Ars Poet. 391 (Roscommon). s Frogs, 1030 sq. 12 LITEEAEY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. runs through Renaissance criticism; and even in this very century, Shelley ^ speaks of poets as " the authors of language, and of music, of the dance, and architecture, and statuary, and painting," as " the institutors of laws, and the founders of civil society, and the inventors of the arts of life." To-day the idealist takes refuge in the same faith : " The tree of knowledge is of equal date with the tree of life ; nor were even the tamer of horses, the worker in metals, or the sower, elder than those twin guardians of the soul, — the poet and the priest. Conscience and imagination were the pioneers who made earth habitable for the human spirit." " It was this ethical and civilizing function of poetry which was first in the minds of the human- ists. Action being the test of all studies,' poetry must stand or fall in proportion as it conduces to righteous action. Thus, LionardoBruni* speaks of poetry as " so valuable an aid to knowledge, and so ennobling a source of pleasure"; and .^neas Syl- vius Piccolomini, in his treatise De Liberorum Educatione (1450), declares that the crucial ques- tion is not. Is poetry to be contemned ? but. How are the poets to be used? and he solves his own question by asserting that we are to welcome all that poets can render in praise of integrity and in condemnation of vice, and that all else is to be left unheeded." Beyond this, the humanists urged in 1 Defence of Poetry, ed. Cook, p. 6. 2 Woodberry, " A New Defence of Poetry," in Heart of Man, New York, 1899, p. 76. » Woodward, p. 182 sq. « Utid. p. 131. « Ibid. p. 150. I.] THE FUNDAMENTAL PEOBLEM 13 favor of poetry the fact of its antiquity and divine origin, and the further fact that it had been praised by great men of all professions, and its creators patronized by kings and emperors from time im- memorial. There were then at the end of the Middle Ages, and the beginning of the Kenaissance, two opposing tendencies in regard to the poetic art, one repre- senting the humanize reverence for ancient cul- ture, and for poetry as one of the phases of that culture, and the other representing not only the mediaeval tradition, but a purism allied to that of early Christianity, and akin to the ascetic concep- tions of life found in almost every period. These two tendencies are expressed specifically in their noblest forms by the great humanist Poliziano, and the great moral reformer Savonarola. In the Sylvce, written toward the close of the fifteenth century, Poliziano dwells on the divine origin of poetry, as Boccaccio had done in his Vita di Dante ; and then, after the manner of Horace, he describes its ennobling influence on man, and its general influ- ence on the progress of civilization.* He then pro- ceeds to survey the progress of poetry from the most ancient times, and in so doing may be said to have written the first modern history of literature. The second section of the Sylvce discusses the bucolic poets ; the third contains that glorification of Virgil which began during the Middle Ages, and, continued by Vida and others, became in 1 Pope, Selecta JPoemata, ii. 108; cf. Ara Poet. 398. 14 LITEEAEY CBITICISM IN ITALY [chap. Scaliger literary deification; and the last section is devoted to Homer, who is considered as the great teacher of wisdom, and the wisest of the ancients. Nowhere does Poliziano exhibit any appreciation of the aesthetic value of poetry, but his enthusiasm for the great poets, and indeed for all forms of ancient culture, is unmistakable, and combined with his immense erudition marks him as a repre- sentative poet of humanism.^ On the other hand, the puristic conception of art is elaborated at great length by Savonarola in an apology for poetry contained in his tractate, De Divisione ac Vtilitate Omnium Scientarum,^ written about 1492. After classifying the sciences in true scholastic fashion, and arranging them according to their relative importance and their respective utility for Christianity, he attacks all learning as superfluous and dangerous, unless restricted to a chosen few. Poetry, according to the scholastic arrangement, is grouped with logic and grammar; and this mediaeval classification fixes Savonarola's conception of the theory of poetic art. He expressly says that he attacks the abuse of poetry and not poetry itself, but there can be no doubt that, at bottom, he was intolerant of creative literature. Like Plato, like moral reformers of all ages, he feared the free play of the imaginative faculty; and in connecting poetry with logic he was tending toward the elimination of the imagination in art. The basis of his aesthetic system, such as it is, 1 Cf. Gaspary, ii. 220. * VUlari, p. 501 sq., and Perrens, ii. 328 sq. I.] THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM 15 rests wholly on that of Thomas Aquinas ; ^ but he is iu closer accord with Aristotle when he points out that versification, a merely conventional accompa- niment of poetry, is not to be confounded with the essence of poetry itself. This distinction is urged to defend the Scriptures, which he regards as the highest and holiest form of poetry. For him poetry is coordinate with philosophy and with thought; but in his intolerance of poetry in its lower forms, he would follow Plato in banishing poets from an ideal state. The imitation of the ancient poets especially falls under his suspicion, and in an age given up to their worship he denies both their supremacy and their utility. In fine, as a reformer, he represents for us the religious reaction against the paganization of cidture by the humanists. But the forces against him were too strong. Even the Christianization of culture ef- fected during the next century by the Council of Trent was hardly more than temporary. Human- ism, which represents the revival of ancient pa- gan culture, and rat ionali sm, which represents the growth of the modern spirit in science and art, were currents too powerful to be impeded by any reformerTIEowever great, and, when combined in classicism, were to reign supreme in literature for centuries to come. But Savonarola and Poli- ziano serve to indicate that modern literary criti- cism had not yet begun. Por until some rational answer to the objections urged against poetry in 1 Cf. Cartier, L'Esth^tique de Savonarole, in Didion's An- nales Archiologiques, 1847, vii. 255 sg. 16 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. antiquity and in the Middle Ages was forthcom- ing, literary criticism in any true sense was funda- mentally impossible; and that answer came only with the recovery of Aristotle's Poetics. III. The Final Justification of Poetry The influence of Aristotle's Poetics in classical antiquity, so far as it is possible to judge, was very slight ; there is no apparent reference to the Poetics in Horace, Cicero, or Quintilian,^ and it was entirely lost sight of during the Middle Ages. Its modern transmission was due almost exclu- sively to Orientals.'' The first Oriental version of Aristotle's treatise appears to have been that made by Abu-Baschar, a Nestorian Christian, from the Syriac into Arabic, about the year 935. Two centuries later, the Moslem philosopher Averroes made an abridged version of the Poetics, which was translated into Latin in the thirteenth cen- tury, by a certain German, named Hermann, and again, by Mantinus of Tortosa in Spain, in the fourteenth century. Hermann's version seems to have circulated considerably in the Middle Ages, but it had no traceable influence on critical lit- erature whatsoever. It is mentioned and censured by Eoger Bacon, but the Poetics in any form was probably unknown to Dante, to Boccaccio, and beyond a single obscure reference, to Petrarch. There is no question that for a long time before the beginning of the sixteenth century the Poetics I Egger, 209 sq. ^ Ibid. 656 sq. I.] THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM 17 had been entirely neglected. Not only do the critical ideas of this period show no indication of Aristotelian influence, but during the sixteenth century itself there seems to have been a well- defined impression that the Poetics had been re- covered only after centuries of oblivion. Thus, Bernardo Segni, who translated the Poetics into Italian in 1549, speaks of it as "abandoned and neglected for a long time " ; » and Bernardo Tasso, some ten years later, refers to it as "buried for so long a time in the obscure shadows of igno- rance." * It was then as a new work of Aristotle that the Latin translation by Giorgio Valla, published at Venice in 1498, must have appeared to Valla's con- temporaries. Though hardly successful as a work of scholarship, this translation, and the Greek text of the Poetics published in the Aldine Rhetwes Graed in 1508, had considerable influence on dra- matic literature, but scarcely any immediate influ- ence on literary criticism. Somewhat later, in 1636, Alessandro de' Pazzi published a revised Latin version, accompanied by the original; and from this time, the influence of the Aristotelian canons becomes manifest in critical literature. In 1648, Eobertelli produced the first* critical edition of the Poetics, with a Latin translation and a learned commentary, and in the very next year the first Italian translation was given to the world 1 Segni, p. 160. ' B. Tasso, Lettere, ii. 625. So also, Eobertelli, 1548, " Jacnit liber hie neglectus, ad nostras fere baec usque tempera." C 18 LITEEABY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. by Bernardo Segni. 'Fiona, that day to this the edi- tions and translations of the Poetics have increased beyond number, and there is hardly a single pas- sage in Aristotle's treatise which has not been dis- cussed by innumerable commentators and critics. It was in Aristotle's Poetics that the Renaissance was to find, if not a complete, at least a rational justification of poetry, and an answer to every one of the Platonic and mediaeval objections to imagi- native literature. As to the assertion that poetry diverges from actual reality, Aristotle* contended that there is to be found in poetry a higher reality than that of mere commonplace fact, that poetry deals not with particulars, but with universals, and that it aims at describing not what has been, but what might have been or ought to be. In other words, poetry has little regard for the actuality of the specific event, but aims at the reality of an eter- nal probability. It matters not whether Achilles or .iEneas did this thing, or that thing, which Homer or Virgil ascribes to either, but if Achilles or iEneas was such a man as the poet describes, he must necessarily act as Homer or Virgil has made him do. It is needless to say that Aristotle is here simply distinguishing between ideal truth and actual fact, and in asserting that it is the function of poetry to imitate only ideal truth he laid the foundations, not only of an answer to mediaeval objections, but also of modern aesthetic criticism. Beyond this, poetry is justified on the grounds of morality, for while not having a distinctly moral 1 Poet. ix. I.] THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM 19 aim, it is essentially moral, because it is this ideal representation of life, and an idealized version of human life must necessarily present it in its moral aspects. Aristotle distinctly combats the traditional Greek conception of the didactic function of poetry; but it is evident that he insists fundamentally that literature must be moral, for he sternly rebukes Euripides several times on grounds that are moral, rather than purely aesthetic. In answer to the ob- jection that poetry, instead of calming, stirs and excites our meanest passions, that it " waters and cherishes those emotions which ought to wither with drought, and constitutes them our rulers, •when they ought to be our subjects,"' Aristotle taught those in the Renaissance who were able to understand him, that poetry, and especially dra- matic poetry, does not indeed starve the emotions, but excites them only to allay and to regulate them, and in this aesthetic process purifies and ennobles them.^ In pointing out these things he has justified the utility of poetry, regarding it as more serious and philosophic than history, because it universalizes mere fact, and imitates life in its noblest aspects. These arguments were incorporated into Renais- sance criticism ; they were emphasized, as we shall see, over and over again, and they formed the basis of the justification of poetry in modern critical literature. At the same time, this purely aesthetic conception of art did not prevail by itself in the sixteenth century, even in those for whom Aristotle meant most, and who best understood his meaning ; 1 Plato, Bep. X. 660. ^ poet. vi. 2; Fol. viii. 7. 20 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. the Horatian elements, also, as found in the early- humanists, were elaborated and discussed. In the Poetica of Daniello (1536), these Horatian elements form the basis for a defence of poetry* that has many marked resemblances to various passages in Sir Philip Sidney's Defence of Poesy. After re- ferring to the antiquity and nobility of poetry, and afB.rming that no other art is nobler or more ancient, Daniello shows that all things known to man, all the secrets of God and nature, are described by the poets in musical numbers and with exquisite ornar ment. He furthermore asserts, in the manner of Horace, that the poets were the inventors of the arts of life ; and in answer to the objection that it was the philosophers who in reality did these things, he shows that while instruction is more proper to the philosopher than to the poet, poets teach too, in many more ways, and far more pleasantly, than any philosopher can. They hide their useful teach- ings under various fictions and fabulous veils, as the physician covers bitter medicine with a sweet coating. The style of the philosopher is dry and obscure, without any force or beauty by itself ; and the delightful instruction of poetry is far more effective than the abstract and harsh teachings of philosophy. Poetry, indeed, was the only form of philosophy that primitive men had, and Plato, while regarding himself as an enemy of poets, was really a great poet himself, for he expresses aU his ideas in a wondrously harmonious rhythm, and with great splendor of words and images. This defence of 1 Daniello, p. 10 sq. 1.] THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM 21 Daniello's is interesting, as anticipating the general form of sueli apologies throughout the sixteenth century. Similarly, Minturno in his De Poeta (1559), elab- orates the Horatian suggestions for a defence of poetry. He begins by pointing out the broad in- clusiveness of poetry, which may be said to com- prehend in itself every form of human learning, and by showing that no form of learning can be found^ before the first poets, and that no nation, however barbarous, has ever been averse to poetry. The Hebrews praised God in verse; the Greeks, Ital- ians, Germans, and British have all honored poetry ; the Persians have had their Magi and the Gauls their bards. Verse, while not essential to poetry, gives the latter much of its delightful effectiveness, and if the gods ever speak, they certainly speak in verse ; indeed, in primitive times it was in verse that all sciences, history, and philosophy were written.* To answer the traditional objections against im- aginative literature which had survived beyond the Middle Ages seemed to the Renaissance a simpler task, however, than to answer the more philosophi- cal objections urged in the Platonic dialogues. The authority of Plato during the Eenaissance made it impossible to slight the arguments stated by him in the Bepublic, and elsewhere. The writers of this period were particularly anxious to refute, or at least to explain away, the reasons for which Plato had banished poets from his ideal commonwealth. I Oe Poeta, p. 13 sq. 22 LITEEAET CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. Some critics, like Bernardo Tasso' and Daniello,' . asserted that Plato had not argued against poetry itself, but only against the abuse of poetry. Thus, according to Tasso, only impure and effeminate poets were to be excluded from the ideal state, and according to Daniello, only the more immoral tragic poets, and especially the authors of obscene and lampooning comedies. Other Eenaissance writers, like Minturno^ and Eracastoro,* answered the Pla- tonic objections on more philosophical grounds. Thus Pracastoro answers Plato's charge that, since poetry is three removes from ideal truth, poets are fundamentally ignorant of the realities they attempt to imitate, by pointing out that the poet is indeed ignorant of what he is speaking of, in so far as he is a versifier and skilled in language, just as the philosopher or historian is ignorant of natural or historical facts in so far as he, too, is merely skilled in language, but knows these facts in so far as he is learned, and has thought out the problems of nature and history. The poet, as well as the phil- osopher and the historian, must possess knowledge, if he is to teach anything ; he, too, must learn the things he is going to write about, and must solve the problems of life and thought; he, too, must have a philosophical and an historical training. Plato's objection, indeed, applies to the philosopher, to the orator, to the historian, quite as much as to the poet. As to Plato's second charge, that imag- ination naturally tends toward the worst things, 1 Lettere, ii. 526. » Be Poeta, p. 30 sq. " Poetica, p. 14 $q. * Opera, i. 361 sq. 1.3 THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM 23 and accordingly that poeta write obscenely and blasphemously, Fracastoro points ont that this is ' not the faiilt_qf the art, but of. those who abuse it; there are, indeed, immoral and enervating poets, and they ought to be excluded, not only from Plato's, but from every commonwealth. Thus va- rious Aristotelian and Horatian elements were combined to form a definite body of Eenaissanci criticism. CHAPTER II THE GBNEBAIi THEOBY OF POETRY IN THE ITALIAN BENAISSANGE In tlie first book of his Geography Strabo defines poetry as " a kind of elementary philosophy, which introduces us early to life, and gives us pleasura- ble instruction in reference to character, emotion,; action." This passage sounds the keynote of the Eenaissance theory of poetry. Poetry is therein stated to be a form of philosophy, and, moreover, a philosophy whose subject is life, and its object is said to be pleasurable instruction. I. Poetry as a Form of Scholastic Philosophy In the first place, poetry is a form of philosophy! Savonarola had classed poetry with logic and grammar, and had asserted that a knowledge of logic is essential to the composing of poetry. The division of the sciences and the relative importance of each were a source of infinite scholastic discus- sion during the Middle Ages. Aristotle had first placed dialectic or logic, rhetoric, and poetics in the same category of efficient philosophy. But Averroes was probably the first to confuse the function of poetics with that of logic, and to make 24 CHAP. II.] THE GENEEAL THEORY OF POETRY 25 the former a subdivision, or form, of the latter; and this classification appears to have been ac- cepted by the scholastic philosophers of the Middle Ages. This conception of the position of poetry in the body of human knowledge may be found, however^^ throughout the Eenaissance. Thus, Eobortelli, in ] his commentary on Aristotle's Poetics (1548), gives the usual scholastic distinctions between the various forms of the written or spoken word (oratio) : the demonstrative, which deals with the true ; the diar \ lactic, which deals with the probable ; the rhetorical, ^ with the persuasive ; and the poetic, with the false or fabulous.^ By the term " false " or " fabulous " is meant merely that the subject of poetry is not - actual fact, but that it deals with things as they ought to be, rather than as they are. Varchi, in his public lectures on poetry (1553), divides philosophy into two forms, real and rational. Eeal philosophy deals with things, and includes metaphysics, ethics, physics, geometry, and the like; while rational philosophy, which includes logic, dialectic, rhet- oric, history, poetry, and grammar, deals not with / things, but with words, and is not philosophy proper, but the instrument of philosophy. Poetry is therefore, strictly speaking, neither an art nor ' a science, but an instrument or faculty; and it is only an art in the sense that it has been reduced to rules and precepts. It is, in fact, a form of logic, and no man, according to Varchi, can be a poet unless he is a logician ; the better logician he is, I BobortelU, p. 1 sq. 26 LITERARY CRITICISM EST ITALY [chap. the better poet he will be. Logic and poetry dif- fer, however, in their matter and their instruments ; for the subject of logic is truth, arrived at by means of the demonstrative syllogism, while the subject of poetry is fiction or invention, arrived at by means of that form of the syllogism known as the example. Here the enthymeme, or example, which Aristotle has made the instrument of rhetoric, becomes the instrument of poetry. This classification survived in the Aristotelian schools at Padua and elsewhere as late as Zabarella ':, and Campanella. Zabarella, a professor of logic and later of philosophy at Padua from 1564 to 1589, explains at length Averroes's theory that poetics is a form of logic, in a treatise on the nature of logic, published in 1578.-^ He concludes that the two faculties, logic and poetics, are not instruments of philosophy in general, but only of a part of it, for they refer rather to action than to knowledge ; that is, they come under Aristotle's category of eflELcient philosophy. They are not the instruments of useful art or of moral philosophy, the end of which is to make one's self good ; but of civil philosophy, the end of which is to make othera! good. If it be objected that they are tS>v evavTiav, that is, of both good and evil, it may be answered that their proper end is good. Thus, in the Sympch'. 1 This analysis of Zabarella, Opera Logica, Be Natura Logiese, ii. 13-23, I owe to the kindness of Professor Butcher of Edinburgh. Zabarella probably derived his knowledge ol Aristotle's Poetics from Eobortelli, under whom he studied Greek. Cf. Bayle, Diet. s. y. Zabarella. n.] THE GENERAL THEORY OF POETRY 27 sium, the true poet is praised ; wliile in the Bepublic the poets who aim at pleasure and who corrupt their audiences are censured ; and Aristotle in his defini- tion of tragedy says that the end of tragedy is to purge the passions and to correct the morals of men (affectiones animi purgare et mores corrigere). Even later than Zabarella, we find in the Poetica of Campanella a division of the sciences very simi- lar to that of Savonarola and Varchi. Theology is there placed at the head of all knowledge, in accordance with the mediaeval tradition, while poetics, with dialectic, grammar, and rhetoric, is placed among the logical sciences. Considering poetica as a form of philosophy, another commen- tator on Aristotle, Maggi (1550), takes great pains to distinguish its various manifestations. Poetica is the art of composing poetry, poesis, the poetry composed according to this art, poeta, the composer of poetry, and poema, a single specimen of poetry.^ This distinction is an elaboration of two passages in Plutarch and Aphthonius. II. Poetry as an Imitation of Life In the second place, according to the passage from Strabo cited at the beginning of this chapter, poetry introduces us early to life, or, in other words, its subject is human action, and it is what Aristotle caUs^ it, an imitation of ^human life. This raises 1 Maggi, p. 28 sq. Of. B. Tasso, Lettere, ii. fil4; Scaliger, Poet. i. 2 ; Castelvetro, Poetica, p. 7 ; SaMati, Cod. MagUabecb. ii. ii. 11, fol. 384 v. ; B. Jonson, limber, p. 74. 28 LITERAEY CEITICISM IN ITALY [chap. two distinct problems. First, what is the meaning of imitation? and what in life is the subject-matter of this imitation ? The conception of imitation held by the critics of the Eenaissance was that expressed by Aristotle in the ninth chapter of the Poetics. The passage is as follows ; — " It is evident from what has been said that it is not the function of the poet to relate what has happened, but what may happen, — what is possible according to the law of probability or necessity. The poet and the historian differ not by writing in verse or in prose. The work of Herodotus might be put into verse, and it would still be a species of history, with metre no less than without it. The true dif- ference is that one relates what has happened, the other what may happen. Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophi- cal and a higher thing than history ; for poetry tends to ex- press the universal, history the particular. The universal tells us how a person of given character will on occasion speak or act, according to the law of probability or neces- sity ; and it is this universality at which poetry aims in giv- ing expressive names to the characters." In this passage Aristotle has briefly formulated , a conception of ideal imitation which may be re- garded as universally valid, and which, repeated over and over again, became the basis of Eenais- sance criticism. In the Poefica of Daaiello (1536), occurs the first allusion in modern literary criticism, to the Aristotelian notion of j.deal imitation. According to Daniello, the poet, unlike the historian, can min- gle fictions with facts, because he is not obliged, u.] THE GENERAL THEORY OF POETRY 29 as is the historian, to describe things as they actu- ally are or have been, but rather as they ought to be; and it is in this that the poet most differs from the historian, and not in the ■writing of yerses ; for even if Livy's works were versified, they would still be histories as before.^ This is of course almost a paraphrase of the passage in Aristotle; but that DanieUo did not completely understand the ideal element in Aristotle's conception is shown by the further distinction which he draws be- tween the historian and the poet. For he adds that the poet and the historian have much in com- mon; in both there are descriptions of places, peoples, laws; both contain the representation of vices and virtues ; in both, amplification, variety, and digressions are proper ; and both teach, delight, and profit at the same time. They differ, how- ever, in that the historian, in telling his story, recounts it exactly as it happened, and adds noth- ing ; whereas the poet is permitted to add whatever he desires, so long as the fictitious events have all the appearance of truth. Somewhat later, Robortelli treats the question of aesthetic imitation from another point of view. The poet deals with things as they ought to be, but he can either appropriate actual fact, or he can invent his material. If he does the former, he narrates the truth not as it really happened, but as it might or ought to happen ; while if he invents his material, he must do so in accordance with the law of possibility, or necessity, or probability and veri- 1 DanieUo, p. 41 sq. 30 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. similitude.^ Thus Xenophon, in describing Cyrus, does not depict Mm as lie actually was, but as the best and noblest king can be and ought to be ; and Cicero, in describing the orator, follows the same method. Prom this it is evident that the poet can invent things transcending the order of nature; but if he does so, he should describe what might or ought to have been. Here Robortelli answers a possible objection to Aristotle's statement that poets deal only with what is possible and verisimilar. Is it possible and verisimilar that the gods should eat ambrosia and drink nectar, as Homer describes, and that such a being as Cerberus should have several heads, as we find in Virgil, not to mention various improbable things that occur in many other poets ? The answer to such an objection is that poets can invent in two ways. They can invent either things according to nature or things transcending nature. In the former case, these things must be in keep- ing with the laws of probability and necessity ; but in the latter case, the things are treated according to a process described by Aristotle himself, and called paralogism, which means, not necessarily false reasoning, but the natural, if quite inconclu- sive, logical inference that the things we know not of are subject to the same laws as the things we know. The poets accept the existence of the gods from the common notion of men, and then treat all that relates to these deities in accordance with this system of paralogism. In tragedy and comedy I Bobortelli, p. 86 «g. 11.] THE GENERAL THEORY OF POETRY 31 men are described as acting in accordance with the ordinary occurrences of nature ; but in epic poetry this is not entirely the case, and the marvellous is therefore admitted. Accordingly, this marvellous element has the widest scope in epic poetry ; while in comedy, which treats of things nearest to our own time, it ought not to be admitted at all. But there is another problem suggested by the passage from the Poetics which has been cited. Aristotle says that imitation, and not metre, is the test of poetry ; that even if a history were versi- fied, it would still remain history. The question then arises whether a writer who imitates in prose, that is, without verse, would be worthy of the title of poet. KoborteUi answers this question by point- ing out that metre does not constitute the nature, jforce, or essence of poetry, which depends entirely ;on the fact of imitation; but at the same time, 'while one who imitates without verse is a poet, in ; the best and truest poetry imitation and metre are 'combined.^ In Fracastoro's Naugerius, sive de Poetica Dior logus (1655), there is the completest explanation of the ideal element in the Aristotelian conception of imitation. The poet, according to Aristotle, dif- fers from other writers in that the latter consider merely the particular, while the poet aims at the universal. He is, in other words, attempting to describe the simple and essential truth of things, not by depicting the nude thing as it is, but the idea of things clothed in all their beauties.^ Here 1 Roboitelli, p. 90 sq. * Fracastoro, i. 340. 32 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. Fracastoro attempts to explain the Aristotelian con- ception of the type with the aid of the Platonic notion of beauty. There were, in fact, in the / Eenaissance, three conceptions of beauty in gen- ' eral vogue. First, the purely objective conception that poetry is fixed or formal, that it consists in v/ approximating to a certain mechanical or geometri- cal form, such as roundness, squareness, or straight- y ness; secondly, the Platonic conception, ethical rather than aesthetic, connecting the beautiful with the good, and regarding both as the manifestation of divine power; and, thirdly, a more purely aes- thetic conception of beauty, connecting it either with grace or conformity, or in a higher sense with ^ whatever is proper or fitting to an object. This last idea, which at times approaches the modern conception that beauty consists in the realization of the objective character of any particular thing and in the fulfilment of the law of its own being, seems to have been derived from the Idea of the V Greek rhetorician Hermo genes , whose influence during the sixteenth "craitury was considerable, even as early as the time of Pilelfo. It was the celebrated rhetorician Giulio Cammillo, however, who appears to have popularized Hermogenes in the sixteenth century, by translating the Idea into Italian, and by expounding it in a discourse pub- lished posthumously in 1544. As will be seen, Pracastoro's conception of beauty approximates both to the Platonic and to the more purely aesthetic doctrines which we have men- tioned; and he expounds and elaborates this II.] THE GENERAL THEORY OF POETRY 33 sesthetic notion in the following manner. Eacli art has its own rules of proper expression. The historian or the philosopher does not aim at all the beauties or elegancies of expression, but only such as are proper to history or philosophy. But to the poet no grace, no embellishment, no ornament, is ever alien; he does not consider the particular beauty of any one field, — that is, the singular, or particular, of Aristotle, — but all that pertains to the simple idea of beauty and of beautiful speech. Yet this universalized beauty is no extraneous thing; it cannot be added to objects in which it has no place, as a golden coat on a rustic ; alt the essential beauty of each species is to be the es- pecial regard of the poet. For in imitating per- sons and things, he neglects no beauty or elegance which he can attribute to them; he strives only after the most beautiful and most excellent, and in this way affects the minds of men in the direc- tion of excellence and beauty. This suggests a problem which is at the very root of Aristotle's conception of ideal imitation ; and it is Fracastoro's high merit that he was one of the first writers of the Eenaissance to explain away the objection, and to formulate in the most perfect manner what Aristotle really meant. For, even granting that the poet teaches more than others, may it not be urged that it is not what per- tains to the thing itself, but the beauties which he adds to them, — that it is ornament, extraneous to the thing itself {extra rem), and not the thing itself, — which seems to be the chief regard of the 34 LITEEAKY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. poet? But after all, what is extra rem ? Are iDeautiful columns, domes, peristyles extra rem, because a thatched roof will protect us from rain and frost ; or is noble raiment extra rem, because a rustic garment would suffice ? The poet, so far from adding anything extraneous to the things he imitates, depicts them in their very essence; and it is because he alone finds the true beauty in things, because he attributes to them their true nobility and perfection, that he is more useful than any other writer. The poet does not, as some think, deia,l with the false and the unreal.' He assumes nothing openly alien to truth, though he may permit himself to treat of old and obscure legends which cannot be verified, or of things which are regarded as true on account of their ap- pearance, their allegorical signification (such as the ancient myths and fables), or their common accept- ance by men. So we may conclude that not every one who uses verse is a poet, but only he who is moved by the true beauty of things — by their simple and essential beauties, not merely apparent ones. This is Tracastoro's conclusion, and it con- tains that mingling of Platonism and Aristote- lianism which may be found somewhat later in Tasso and Sir Philip Sidney. It is the chief merit of Pracastoro's dialogue, that even while emphasiz- ing this Platonic element, he clearly distinguishes and defines the ideal element in sesthetic imitation. About the same time, in the public lectures of Varchi (1563), there was an attempt to formulate 1 Fracastoro, i, 357 aq. H.] THE GENEKAL THEORY OF POETRY 35 a more explicit definition of poetry on the basis of Aristotle's definition* of tragedy. Poetry, accord- ing to Varchi, is an imitation of certain actions, passions, habits of mind, with song, diction, and' harmony, together or separately, for the purpose of removing the vices of men and inciting them to virtue, in order that they may attain their true happiness and beatitude.' In the first place, poetry is an imitation. Every poet imitates, and any one who does not imitate cannot be called a poet. (Accordingly, Varchi follows Maggi in distinguish- ing three classes of poets, — the poets par excellence, who imitate in verse ; the poets who imitate with- out using verse, such as Lucian, Boccaccio in the Decameron, and Sannazaro in the Arcadia; and the ; poets, commonly but lessjproperly so called, who j use verse, but who do not imitate. Verse, while not an essential attribute of poetry, is generally required ; for men's innate love of harmony, accord- ing to Aristotle, was one of the causes that gave rise to poetic composition. Certain forms of poe- try however, such as tragedy, cannot be written without verse; for "embellished language," that is, verse, is included in the very definition of « tragedy as given by Aristotle. The question whether poetry could be written in prose was a source of much discussion in the Benaissance; but the consensus of opinion was overwhelmingly against the prose drama. Comedy in prose was the usual Italian practice of this period, and various scholars' even sanction the 1 Poet. yi. 2. * Vaxchi, p. 578. • E.g. Piccolomini, p. 27 tq. 36 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. practice on tlieoretical grounds. But tlie contro- versy was not brought to a head until the publica- tion of Agostino Michele's Discorso in cui si dimos- tra come sipossono scrivere le Commedie e le Trcigedie in Prosa in 1692; and eight years later, in 1600, Paolo Beni published his Latin dissertation, Di»- putatio in qua ostenditur prcestare Comoediam atque Tragaediam metrorum vinculis solvere.^ The lan- guage of Beni's treatise was strong — its very title speaks of liberating the drama from the shackles of verse ; and for a heresy of this sort, couched as it was in language that might even have been revo- lutionary enough for the French romanticists of 1830, the sixteenth century was not yet fully pre- pared. Faustino Summo, answering Beni in the same year, asserts that not only is it improper for tragedy and comedy to be written in prose, but that no form of poetry whatever can properly be composed without the accompaniment of verse.' The result of the whole controversy was to fix the metrical form of the drama throughout the period of classicism. But it need not be said that the same conclusion was not accepted by all for every 1 form of poetry. The remark of Cervantes in Don Quixote, that epics can be written in prose as well as tin verse, is well known; and Julius Csesar Scaliger ' speaks of Heliodorus's romance as a model epic. Scaliger, however, regards verse as a funda- mental part of poetry. For him, poetry and his- tory have the forms of narration and ornament in 1 Tiraboscbi, vii. 1331. s Poet. iii. 95. 3 Summo, pp. 61-69. n.] THE GENERAL THEORY OF POETRY 37 common, but differ in that poetry adds fictions to the things that are true, or imitates actual things with fictitious ones, — majore sane apparatu, that is, among other things, with verse. As a result of this notion, Scaliger asserts that if the history of Herodotus were versified, it would no longer be history, but historical poetry. Under no circum- stances, theoretically, will he permit the separation of poetry from mere versification. He accordingly dismisses with contempt the usual argument of the period that Lucan was an historian rather than a poet. "Take an actual history," says Scaliger; " how does Lucan differ, for example, from Livy ? He differs in using verse. Well, then he is a poet."' Poetry, then, is imitation in verse ; ^ but in imitat- ing what ought to be rather than what is, the poet creates another nature and other fortunes, as if he were another God.* -- It will be seen from these discussions that the Renaissance always conceived of eesthetic imitation' in this ideal sense. There are scarcely any traces of realism, in anything like its modem sense, in the literary criticism of this period. Torquato Tasso does indeed say that art becomes most per- fect as it approaches most closely to nature ; ' and 1 Poet. i. 1. 2 Another critic of the time, Vettori, 1560, pp. 14, 93, attacks poetic prose on the ground that in Aristotle's definition of the yarions poetic forms, verse is always spoken of as an essential part. It is interesting to note that the phrase " poetic prose " is nsed, perhaps for the first time, in Mintuino, Arte Poetica, 1564, p. 3, etc. • Opere, x. 254. Cf. Mintnmo, Arte Poetica, p. 33. / 38 lilTEEARY CEITICISM IN ITALY [chap. Scaliger declares that the dramatic poet must beyond all things aim at reproducing the actual conditions of life.^ But it is the appearance of reality, and not the mere actuality itself, that the critics are speaking of here. With the vast body of mediaeval literature before them, in which impossibilities fol- low upon impossibilities, and the sense of reality is continually obscured, the critical writers of the Eenaissance were forced to lay particular stress on the element of probability, the element of close I approach to the seeming realities of life ; but the imitation of life is for them, nevertheless, an imita- tion of things as they ought to be — in other words, the imitation is ideal. Muzio says that nature is adorned by art : — " Suol far 1' opere sue roze, e tra le mani Lasciarle a 1' arte, ohe le adornl e limi ; " * and he distinctly affirms that the poet cannot re- main content with exact portraiture, with the mere actuality of life : — " Lascia '1 vero a 1' historia, e ne' tuoi versi Sotto i nomi privati a 1' universo Mostra che fare e che non far si debbia." In keeping withjthis idealized conception of art, Muzio asserts that eTerything obscene or immoral must be_excluded from poetry; and this puristic notion of art is everywhere emphasized in Eenais- sance criticism. It was the verisimile, as has been said, that the writers of this period especially in- sisted upon. Poetry must have the appearance of 1 Poet. iii. 96. 2 Muzio, p. 69. n.] THE GENERAL THEORY OF POETRY 39 truth, that is, it must be probable ; for unless the reader believes what he reads, his spirit cannot be moved by the poem.^ This anticipates Boileau's famous line : — " li'esprit n'est potat &au de ce qu'il ne croit pas." " But beyond and above the verisimile, the poet must pay special regard to the ethical element (il lodevole e Vonesto). A poet of the sixteenth century, Palingenius, says that there are three qualities required of every poem : — " Atqui scire opus est, triplex gemis esse bonorum, trtile, delectans, majusqae ambobus honestum." ' Poetry, then, is an ideal representation of life; but should it be still further limited, and made an imitation of only human life? In other words, are the actions of men the only possible themes of poetry, or may it deal, as in the Georgics and the De Berum Natura, with the various facts of external nature and of science, which are only indirectly connected with human Ufe ? May poetry treat of the life of the world as well as of the life of men ; and if only of the latter, is it to be restricted to the actions of men, or may it also depict their passions, emotions, and character ? In short, how far may external nature on the one hand, and the internal working of the human soul on the other hand, be regarded as the subject-matter of poetry? Aristotle says that poetry deals with the actions of 1 Giraldi CSntio, i. 61. * Art Poit. iii. 50. Cf. Horace, Ars Poet. 188. » Zodiac. ViUe, i. 143. 40 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. men, but lie uses the word "actions" in a larger sense than many of the Eenaissance critics appear to have belicTed. His real meaning is thus ex- plained by a modern writer: — " Everything that expresses the mental life, that reveals a rational personality, -will fall within this larger sense of action. . . . The phrase is virtually an equivalent for ^Bri (character), irdffij (emotion), irpdfcis (action). . . . The common original from which all the arts draw is human life, — its mental processes, its spiritual movements, its outward acts issuing from deeper sources ; in a word, all that con- stitutes the inward and essential activity of the soul. On this principle landscape and animals are not ranked among the objects of aesthetic imitation. The whole universe is not conceived of as the raw material of art. Aristotle's theory is in agreement with the practice of the Greek poets and artists of the classical period, who introduce the external world only so far as it forms a background of action, and enters as an emotional element into man's life and heightens the human interest." i Aristotle distinctly says that " even if a treatise on medicine or natural philosophy be brought out in verse, the name of poet is by custom given to the author; and yet Homer and Empedocles have nothing in common except the material ; the former, therefore, is properly styled poet, the latter, physi- cist rather than poet. " ^ The Aristotelian doctrine was variously conceived during the Renaissance. Pracastoro, for example, asserts that the imitation of human life alone is not of itself a test of poetry, for such a test would exclude Empedocles and Lucretius ; it would make 1 Butcher, pp. 117, 118. 2 Poet. i. 8. n.] THE GENERAL THEOKY OF POETET 41 Virgil a poet in tlie ^neid, aaid not a poet in the Cfeorgics. All matters are proper material for the poet, as Horace says, if they are treated poetically ; and although the imitation of men and women may seem to be of higher importance for us who are men and women, the imitation of human life is no more the poet's end than the imitation of anything else.^ This portion of Fracastoro's argument may be called apologetic, for the imitation of human actions as a test of poetry would exclude most of his own poems,' such as his famous De Morbo GaUico (1529), written before the influence of Aristotle was felt in anything but the mere ex- ternal forms of creative literature. For Eracastoro, all things poetically treated become poetry, and Aristotle himself* says that everything becomes pleasant when correctly imitated. So that not the mere composition of verse, but the Platonic rap- ture, the delight in the true and essential beauty of things, is for Fracastoro the test of poetic power. Varchi, on the other hand, is more in accord with Aristotle, in conceiving of "action," the subject- matter of poetry, as including the passions and habits of mind as well as the merely external actions of mankind. By passions Varchi means those mental perturbations which impel us to an action at any particular time (irdBri); while by manners, or habits of mind, he means those mental qualities which distinguish one man or one class of men from another (rjdrj). The exclusion of the 1 Fracastoro, i. 335 sq. ' Rhet. i. 11. » Cf. CaBtelvetro, Poetica, p. 27 tg. / 42 LITEKAEY CRITICISM IW ITALY [chap. emotional or introspective side of human life would leave all lyric and, in fact, all subjective verse out of the realms of poetry ; and it was therefore essen- tial, in an age in which Petrarch was worshipped, that the subjective side of poetry should receive its justification.^ There is also in Varchi a most in- teresting comparison between the arts of poetry and painting.^ The basis of his distinction is Horace's ut pictura poesis, doubtless founded on the parallel of Simonides preserved for us by Plutarch; and this distinction, which regarded painting as silent ■poetry, and poetry as painting in language, may be considered almost the keynote of Renaissance criti- cism, continuing even up to the time of Lessing. In Capriano's BellaVera Poetica (1555) poetry is given a preeminent place among all the arts, because it does not merely deal with actions or with the ob- jects of any single sense. For Capriano, poetry is an ideal representation of life, and as such " vere nutrice e amatrice del nostro bene." ' All sensuous or comprehensible objects are capable of being imi- tated by various arts. The nobler of the imitative arts are concerned with the objects of the nobler senses, while the ignobler arts are concerned with the objects of the senses of taste, touch, and smell. Poetry is the finest of all the arts, because it com- prehends in itself all the faculties and powers of the other arts, and can in fact imitate anything, as, for example, the form of a lion, its color, its feroc- ity, its roar, and the like. It is also the highest form of art because it makes use of the most effi- 1 Cy. A Segni, 1B81, cap. i. 'Varchi, p. 227 sj. 8Capiiaiio,cap.ii. II.] THE GENEKAL THEORY OF POETRY 43 cacious means of imitation, namely, words, and es- pecially since these receive the additional beauty and power of rhythm. Accordingly, Capriano divides poets into two classes : natural poets, who describe the things of nature, and moral poets (such as epic and tragic poets), who aim at presenting moral lessons and indicating the uses of life; and of these two classes the moral poets are to be rated above the natural poets. But if all things are the objects of poetic imita- tion, the poet must know everything ; he must have studied nature as well as life; and, accordingly, Lionardi, in his dialogues on poetic imitation (1554), says that to be a good poet, one must be a good historian, a good orator, and a good natural and moral philosopher as well;'' and Bernardo Tasso asserts that a thorough acquaintance with the art of poetry is only to be gaiaed from the study of Aristotle's Poetics, combined with a knowledge of philosophy and the various arts and sciences, and . vast experience of the world." The Eenaissance, with its humanistic tendencies, never quite succeeded in discrimiaating between erudition and genius. Scaliger says that nothing which proceeds from solid learning can ever be out of place in poetry, and Fracastoro (1555) and Tomitano (1545) both affirm that the good poet and the good orator must essentially be learned scholars and philosophers. Scaliger therefore distinguishes three classes of poets, — first, the theological poets, such as Or- pheus and Amphion; secondly, the philosophical 1 Lionardi, p. 43 gq. * Lettere, ii. 525. 44 LITEEARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. poets, of two sorts, natural poets, such as Empedo- cles and Lucretius, and moral poets, who again are either political, as Solon and Tyrtseus, economic, as Hesiod, or common, as Phocy Hides ; and, thirdly, the ordinary poets who imitate human life.' The last are divided according to the usual Eenaissanoe classification into dramatic, narrative, and common or mixed. Scaliger's classification is employed by Sir Philip Sidney;" and a very similar subdivision' is given by Minturno.* The treatment of Castelvetro, in his commentary on the Poetics (1570), is at times much more in ac- cord with the true Aristotelian conception than most of the other Renaissance writers. While fol- lowing Aristotle in asserting that verse is not of the essence of poetry, he shows that Aristotle himself by no means intended to class as poetry works that imitated in prose, for this was not the custom of Hellenic art. Prose is not suited to imitative or imaginative subjects, for we expect themes treated in prose to be actual facts.* " Verse does not dis- tinguish poetry," says Castelvetro, " but clothes and adorns it ; and it is as improper for poetry to be written in prose, or history in verse, as it is for women to use the garments of men, and for men to wear the garments of women." ' The test of poetry therefore is not the metre but the material. This approximates to Aristotle's own view ; since while imitation is what distinguishes the poetic art, Aris- 1 Scaliger, Poet. i. 2. * Castelvetro, Poetica, p. 23 sq. " Defense, pp. 10, 11. 6 Ibid. p. 190. ' De Poeta, p. 63 sq. n.] THE GENERAL THEORY OF POETRY 45 totle, by limiting it to the imitation of human life, was, after all, making the matter the test of poetry. Castelvetro, however, arrives at this conclusion on different grounds. Science he regards as not suitable material for poetry, and accordingly such writers as Lucretius and Fracastoro are not poets. They are good artists, perhaps, or good philosophers, but not poets ; for the poet does not attempt to dis- cover the truth of nature, but to imitate the deeds of men, and to bring delight to his audience by means of this imitation. Moreover, poetry, as will be seen later, is intended to give delight to the populace, the untrained multitude, to whom the sciences and the arts are dead letters ; * if we con- cede these to be fit themes for poetry, then poetry is either not meant to delight, or not meant for the ordinary people, but is intended for instruction and for those only who are versed in sciences and arts. Moreover, comparing poetry with history, Castel- vetro finds that they resemble each other in many points, but are not identical. Poetry follows, as it were, in the footsteps of history, but differs from it in that history deals with what has happened, poetry with what is probable ; and things that have hap- pened, though probable, are never considered in poetry as probable, but always as things that have happened. History, accordingly, does not regard verisimilitude or necessity, but only tau^j poetry must take care to establish the probability of its subject in verisimilitude and necessity, since it cannot regard truth. Castelvetro in common with 1 Cf. T. Tasso, xi. 51. 46 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. most of tlie critics of the Eenaissance seems to mis- * I conceive the full meaning of ideal truth ; for to the Eenaissance — nay, even to Shakespeare, if we are to consider as his own various phrases which he has put into the mouths of his dramatic characters — truth was regarded as coincident with fact; and nothing that was not actual fact, however subor- / dinated to the laws of probability and necessity, was ever called truth. It is in keeping with this conception of the rela- tions between history and poetry, that Castelvetro should differ not only from Aristotle, but from most of the critics of his own time, in asserting that the order of the poetic narrative may be the same as that of historical narrative. " In telling a story," he says, " we need not trouble ourselves whether it has beginning, middle, and end, but only whether it is fitted to its true purpose, that is, to delight its auditors by the narration of certain circumstances which could possibly happen but have not actually V happened."' Here the only vital distinction be- tween history and poetry is that the incidents re- counted in history have once happened, while those recounted in poetry have never actually happened, or the matter will not be regarded as poetry. Aris- totle's fundamental requirement of the unity^pf the fable is regarded as unessential, and is simply ob- served in order to show the poet's ingenuity. This notion of poetic ingenuity is constant throughout Castelvetro's commentary. Thus he explains Aris- totle's statement that poetry is more phUosophio 1 Poetioa, p. 158. II.] THE GENEBAI- THEORY OF POETRY 47 than history — more philosophic, according to Cas- telvetro, in the sense of requiring more thought, more speculation in its composition — by showing 1 that it is a more difficult and more ingenious labor 1 to invent things that could possibly happen, than merely to repeat things that have actually hap- pened.* III. The Function of Poetry According to Strabo, it will be remembered, the object or function of poetry is pleasurable instruc- tion in reference to character, emotion, action. This occasions the inquiry as to what is the func- tion of the poetic art, and, furthermore, what are its relations to morality. The starting-point of all discussions on this subject in the Eenaissance was the famous verse of Horace : — "Ant piodesse volunt aut delectare poetse." * This line suggests that the function of poetry may be to please, or to instruct, or both to please and instruct ; and every one of the writers of the Ke- naissance takes one or other of these three posi- tions. Aristotle, as we know, regarded poetry as an imitation of human life, for the purpose of giv- ing a certain refined pleasure to the reader or hearer. " The end of the fine arts is to give pleas- ure (vpoi ^Sov^), or rational enjoyment (jrpos &oy Poetica, p. 191. » Ars Poet. 333. » Butcher, p. 185. 48 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. attempts to be true to human life in its ideal as- <^ peots, must fundamentally be moral ; but to give moral or scientific instruction is in no way the end or function of poetry. It will be seen that the Eenaissance was in closer accord with Horace than with Aristotle, in requiring for the most part the utile as well as the dulce in poetry. For Daniello, one of the earliest critical writers of the century, the function of the poet is to teach and delight. As the aim of the orator is to per- suade, and the aim of the physician to cure, so the aim of the poet is equally to teach and delight; and unless he teaches and delights he cannot be called a poet, even as one who does not persuade cannot be called an orator, or one who does not cure, a physician.^ But beyond profitableness and bfeauty, the poet must carry with him a certain persuasion, which is one of the highest functions of poetry, and which consists in moving and af- fecting the reader or hearer with the very passions depicted ; but the poet must be moved first, before he can move others.'' Here Daniello is renewing Horace's " Si vis me flere, dolendum est Primum ipaitibi," — a sentiment echoed' by poets as different as Vau- quelin, Boileau, and Lamartine. Pracastoro, however, attempts a deeper analysis of the proper function of the poetic art. What is the aim of the poet ? Not merely to give de- light, for the fields, the stars, men and women, 1 Daniello, p. 25. s Ibid. p. 40. u.] THE GENERAL THEORY OP POETRY 49 the objects of poetic imitation themselves do that; and poetry, if it did no more, could not be said to have any reason for existing. Nor is it merely to teach and delight, as Horace says ; for the descrip- tions of countries, peoples, and armies, the scientific digressions and the historical events, which consti- tute the instructive side of poetry, are derived from cosmographers, scientists, and historians, who teach and delight as much as poets do. What, then, is the function of the poet? It" is, as has already been pointed out, to describe the essential beauty'' of things, to aim at the universal and ideal, and to perform this function with every possible ac- companiment of beautiful speech, thus affecting the minds of men in the direction of excellence and beauty. Portions of Fracastoro's argument have been alluded to before, and it wUl suffice here to state his own summing up of the aim of the poet, which is this, "Delectare et prodesse imitando in imoquoque maxima et pulcherrima per genus dicendi simpliciter pulchrum ex convenien- tibus."' This is a mingling of the Horatian and Platonic conceptions of poetic art. By other critics a more practical function was given to poetry. Giraldi CLntio asserts that it is the poet's aim to condemn vice and to praise vir- tue, and Maggi says that poets aim almost ex- clusively at benefiting the mind. Poets who, on the contrary, treat of obscene matters for the cor- ruption of youth, may be compared with infamous physicians who give their patients deadly poison 1 Fracastoro, i. 363. E ill 50 LITBBAEY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. in tlie guise of -wholesome medicine. Horace and Aristotle, according to Maggi, are at one on this point, for in the definition of tragedy Aristotle ascribes to it a distinctly useful purpose, and what- ever delight is obtainable is to be regarded as a result of this moral function ; for Maggi and the Eenaissance critics in general would follow the Elizabethan poet who speaks of " delight, the fruit of virtue dearly loved." Muzio, in his versified Arte Poetica (1665), regards the end of poetry as pleasure and profit, and the pleasurable aim of poetry as attained by variety, for the greatest poems contain every phase of life and art. It has been seen that Varchi classed poetry with rational philosophy. The end of all arts and sci- ences is to make human life perfect and happy; but they differ in their modes of producing this result. Philosophy attains its end by teaching; rhetoric, by persuasion ; history, by narration ; poe- try, by imitation or representation. The aim of the poet, therefore, is to make the human soul per- fect and happy, and it is his office to imitate, that is, to invent and represent, things which render men virtuous, and consequently happy. Poetry attains this end more perfectly than any of the other arts or sciences, because it does so, not by means of precept, but by means of example. There are various ways of making men virtuous, — by teaching them what vice is and what virtue is, which is the province of ethics; by actually chas- tising vices and rewarding virtues, which is the province of law; or by example, that is, by the n.] THE GENERAL THEORY OF POETRY 61 representation of virtuous men receiving suitable rewards for their virtue, and of vicious men receiv- ing suitable punishments, which is the province of poetry. This last method is the most efficacious, because it is accompanied by delight. For men either can not or will not taEe"Qie trouble to study sciences and virtues — nay, do not even like to be told what they should or should not do ; but in hear- ing or reading poetic examples, not only is there no trouble, but there is the greatest delight, and no one can help being moved by the representation of characters who are rewarded or punished according to an ideal justice. For Varchi, then, as for Sir Philip Sidney later, the high importance of poetry is to be found in the fact that it teaches morality better than any other art, and the reason is that its instrument is not precept but example, which is the most delightful and hence the most efficacious of all means. The function of poetry is, therefore, a moral one, and it consists in removing the vices of men and incit- ing them to virtue. This twofold moral object of poetry — the removal of vices, which is passive, and the incitement to virtue, which is active — is admirably attained, for example, by Dante in his Divina Commedia; for in the Inferno evil men are so fearfully punished that we resolve to flee from every form of vice, and in the ParaMso virtuous men are so gloriously rewarded that we resolve to imitate every one of their perfections. This is the expression of the extreme view of poetic justice; and while it is in keeping with the common senti- 52 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. / ment of the Eenaissanoe, it is of course entirely im-Aristotelian. Scaliger's point of view is in accord witli the commonEenaissance tradition. Poetry is imitation, but imitation is not the end of poetry. Imitation for its own sake — that is, art for art's sake — re- ceives no encouragement from Scaliger. The pur- (i) fpose of poetry is to teach delightfully (docere cum \delectatione); and, therefore, notlmitation, as Aris- jtotle says, but delightful instruction, is the test of I poetry.^ Minturno (1559) adds a third element to that of instruction and of delight.^ The function ,,. of poetry is not only to teach and delight, butalso -. to move, that is, beyond instruction and delight the poet must impel certain passions in the reader or hearer, and incite the mind to admiration of what is described.' An ideal hero may be repre- sented in a poem, but the poem is futile unless it excites the reader to admiration of the hero de- picted. Accordingly, it is the peculiar office of the poet to move admiration for great men; for the orator, the philosopher, and the historian need not necessarily do so, but no one who does not incite this admiration can really be called a poet. This new element of admiration is the logical consequence of the Eenaissance position that phi- losophy teaches by precept, but poetry by example, and that in this consists its superior ethical efficacy. In Seneca's phrase, "longum iter per prseoepta, 1 Scaliger, Poet. vi. ii. 2. a De Poeta, p. 102. Cf. Scaliger, Poet. Hi. 96. 8 De Poeta, p, 11. n.] THE GENERAL THEORY OF POETRY 53 breve per exempla." If poetry, therefore, attains its end by means of example, it follows that to arrive at this end the poet must incite in the reader an admiration of the example, or the ethical aim of poetry will not be accomplished. Poetry is more than a mere passive expression of truth in the most pleasurable manner; it becomes like oratory an active exhortation to virtue, by attempt- ing to create in the reader's mind a strong desire to be like the heroes he is reading about. The poet does not tell what vices are to be avoided and what virtues are to be imitated, but sets before the reader or hearer the most perfect types of the various virtues and vices. It is, in Sidney's phrase (a phrase apparently borrowed from Minturno), "that feigning notable images of virtues, vices, or what else, with that delightful instruction, which must be the right describing note to know a poet by." Dryden, a century later, seems to be insisting upon this same principle of admiration when he says that it is the work of the poet " to affect the sotd, and excite the passions, and above aU to move admiration, which is the delight of serious plays." ' But Minturno goes even further than this. If the_poet is fundamentally a teacher of virtue, it follows that he must be a virtuous man himself; and in pointing this out, Minturno has given the first complete expression in modern times of the consecrated conception of the poet's office. As no form of knowledge and no moral excellence is for- eign to the poet, so at bottom he is the truly wise 1 Essay of Dramatic Poesy, p. 104. 54 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. and good man. The poet may, in fact, be defined as a good man skilled in language and imitation; not only ought he to be a good man, but no one will be a good poet unless he is so.' This conception of the moral nature of the poet may be traced hence- forth throughout modern times. It is to be found in Eonsard^ and other French and Italian writers ; it is especially noticeable in English literature, and is insisted on by Ben Jonson,' Milton,* Shaftesbury," Coleridge,' and Shelley.' In this idea Plato's praise of the philosopher, as well as Cicero's and Quintil- ian's praise of the orator, was by the Eenaissance transferred to the poet ; ' but the conception itself goes back to a passage in Strabo's Geography, a work well known to sixteenth-century scholars. This passage is as follows : — " Can we possibly imagine that the genius, power, and excellence of a real poet consist in aught else than the just imitation of lite in formed discourse and numbers? But how should he be that just imitator of life, whilst he himself knows not its measures, nor how to guide himself by judg- ment and understanding ? For we have not surely the same notion of the poet's excellence as of the ordinary crafts- man's, the subject of whose art is senseless stone or timber, 1 De Poeta, p. 79. i" CEuvret, vii. 318. " Works, i. 333. * Prose Works, iil. 118. ' CharacterisHcks, 1711, i. 207. 8 H. C. Robinson, Diary, May 29, 1812, " Coleridge talked of the impossibility of being a good poet without being a good man." ' Defence of Poetry, p. 42. 8 Minturno plainly says as much, De Poeta, p. 105. II.] THE GENERAL THEORY OF POETRY 55 \nthoat life, dignity, or beauty ; whilst the poet's art turn- ing principally on men and manners, he has his virtues and excellence as poet naturally annexed to human excellence, and to the worth and dignity of man, insomuch that it is impossible he should be a great and worthy poet who is not first a worthy and good man." ^ Another writer of the sixteenth century, BerMjdo Tasso, tells ns that in his poem of the Amadigi he has armed at delight rather than profitable instruc- ' tion.' " I have spent most of my efforts," he says, "in attempting to please, as it seems to me that this is more necessary, and also more difficult to attain ; for we find by experience that many poets may instruct and benefit us very much, but cer- tainly giva us very little delight." This agrees with what one of the sanest of English critics, John Diyden (1668), has said of verse, " I am satisfied if it caused delight, for delight is the chief if not the only end of poesie ; instruction can be admitted but in the second place, for poesie only instructs as it delights." ' ^ It is this same end which Castelvetro (1670) ascribes to poetic art. For Castelvetro, as in a lesser degree for Robortelli also, the end of poetry is delight, and delight alone.* This, he asserts, is the position of Aristotle, and if utility is to be con- ceded to poetry at all, it is merely as an accident, as in the tragic purgation of terror and compassion.' 1 Geog. i. ii. 5, as cited by Shaftesbury. 2 Lettere, ii. 195. » Essay of Dramatic Poesy, p. 104. * Of. Kccolomini, p. 369. 6 Castelvetro, Poetica, p. 505. Cf. Twining, ii. 449, 450. S6 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. But he goes further than Aristotle would have been willing to go ; for poetry, according to Castelvetro, is intended not merely to please, but t o please th e populace, in fact everybody, even the vulgar mob.* On'Sus he insists throughout his commentary; indeed, as will be seen later, it is on this conception that his theory of the drama is primarily based. But it may be confidently asserted that Aristotle would have willingly echoed the conclusion of Shakespeare, as expressed in Hamlet, that the cen- sure of one of the judicious must o'erweigh a whole theatre of others. At the same time, Castelvetro's conception is in keeping with a certain modern feel- ing in regard to the meaning of poetic art. Thus a recent writer regards literature as aiming " at the pleasure of the greatest possible number of the nation rather than instruction and practical effects," and as applying " to general rather than specialized knowledge." " There is, then, in Castelvetro's argu- ment this modicum of truth, that poetry appeals to no specialized^ knowledge, but that its function is, as Coleridge says, to give a definite and immediate pleasure. Torquato Tasso, as might be expected, regards poetry in a more highly ideal sense. His concep- tion of the function of poets and of the poetic art may be explained as follows : The universe is beauti- ful in itself, because beauty is a ray from the Divine splendor; and hence art should seek to approach as closely as possible to nature, and to catch and 1 Poetica, p. 29. 2 Posnett, cited by Cook, p. 247. II.] THE GENERAL THEORY OF POETRY 67 express this natural beauty of the world.' Eeal beauty, however, is not so called because of any usefulness it may possess, but is primarily beautiful , in itself; for the beautiful is what pleases every j one, just as the good is what every one desires.*! Beauty is therefore the flower of the good (guasi un fiore del buond) ; it is the circumference of the circle of which the good is the centre, and accord- ingly, poetry, as an expression of this beauty, imi- tates the outward show of life in its general aspects. Poetry is therefore an imitation of human actions, made for the guidance of life ; and its end -u is delight, ordinato al giovamento? It must essen- tially delight, either because delight is its aim, or because delight is the necessary means of effecting , the ethical end of art.* Thus, for example, heroic poetry consists of imitation and allegory, the func- tion of the former being to cause delight, and that of the latter to give instruction and guidance in life. But since difficult or obscure conceits rarely delight, and since the poet does not appeal to the learned only, but to the people, just as the orator does, the poet's idea must be, if not popular in the ordinary sense of the word, at least intelligible to the people. Now the people will not study difficult problems ; but poetry, by appealing to them on the side of pleasure, teaches them whether they will or "< no; and this constitutes the true effectiveness of poetry, for it is the most delightful, and hence the most valuable, of teachers." 1 Opere, viii. 2^ sq. ' Ibid. xn. 13. 6 ina. xii. 212. » Ibid. ii. 133. * Ibid. xi. 60. .h ^.•. 68 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. Such, then, are the various conceptions of the function of poetry, as held by the critics of the Eenaissance. On the whole, it may be said that at bottom the conception -was an ethical one, for, with the exception of such a revolutionary spirit as Castelvetro, by most theorists it was as an effective guide to life that poetry was chiefly valued. Even when delight was admitted as an end, it was simply because of its usefulness in effecting the ethical aim. In concluding this chapter, it may be well to say a few words, and only a few, upon the classi- fication of poetic forms. There were during the Eenaissance numerous attempts at distinguishing these forms, but on the whole all of them are fun- damentally equivalent to that of Minturno, who recognizes three genres, — the?^yric or melic, the ^aramatic or scenic, and the- epic or narrative. This classification is essentially that of the Greeks, and it has lasted down to this very day. With lyric poetry this essay is scarcely concerned, for during the Eenaissance there was no systematic lyric theory. Those who discussed it at all gave most of their attention to its formal structure, its style, and especially the conceit it contained. The model of all lyrical poetry was Petrarch, and it was in accordance with the lyrical poet's agreement or disagreement with the Petrarchan method that he was regarded as a success or a failure. Muzio's critical poem (1651) deals almost entirely with lyrical verse, and there are discussions on this sub- ject in the works of Trissino, Equicola, Euscelli, n.] THE GENERAL THEORY OF POETRY 69 Scaliger, and Minturno. But the real question at issue in all these discussions is merely that of external form, and it is mth the question of prin- ciples, in so far as they regard literary criticism, that this essay is primarily concerned. The theory of dramatic and epic poetry, being fundamental, will therefore receive almost exclusive attention. CHAPTEE III THE THBOEY OP THE DRAMA Aristotle's definition of tragedy is the basis of the Renaissance theory of tragedy. That definition is as follows : " Tragedy is an imitation of an ac- tion that is serious, complete, and of a certain mag- nitude ; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play ; in the form of action, not of narration ; through pity and fear effecting the proper katharsis or purgation of these emotions."* To expand this definition, tragedy, in common with all other forms of poetry, is the imitation of an action ; but the action of tragedy is distinguished from that of comedy in being grave and serious. The action is complete, in so far as it possesses per- fect unity ; and in length it must be of the proper magnitude. By embellished language, Aristotle means language into which rhythm, harmony, and song enter; and by the remark that the several kinds are to be found in separate parts of the play, he means that some parts of tragedy are rendered through the mediiun of verse alone, while others receive the aid of song. Moreover, tragedy is dis- 1 Poet. vi. 2. 60 CHAP, m.] THE THEORY OF THE DRAMA 61 tinguislied from epic poetry by being in the form of action instead of that of narration. The last por- tion of Aristotle's definition describes the peculiar function of tragic performance. I. The Subject of Tragedy Tragedy is the imitation of a serious action, that is, an action both^rave and great, or, as the six- teenth century translated the word, illustrious. Now, what constitutes a serious action, and what actions are not suited to the dignified character of tragedy? Daniello (1536) distinguishes tragedy from comedy in that the comic poets " deal with the most familiar and domestic, not to say base and vUe operations ; the tragic poets, with the deaths of high kings and the ruins of great empires." ' "Whichever of these matters the poet selects should be treated without admixture of any other form ; if he resolves to treat of grave matters, mere loveli- ness should be excluded ; if of themes of loveliness, he should exclude all grave themes. Here, at the very beginning of dramatic discussion, the strict separation of themes or genres is advocated in as formal a manner as ever during the period of clas- sicism ; and this was never deviated from, at least in theory, by any of the writers of the sixteenth century. Moreover, according to Daniello, the dig- nified character of tragedy demands that all un- seemly, cruel, impossible, or ignoble incidents should be excluded from the stage; while even comedy 1 Daniello, p. 31. 62 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. should not attempt to represent any lascivious act.' This was merely a deduction from Senecan tragedy and the general practice of the classics. There is, in Daniello's theory of tragedy, no sin- gle Aristotelian element, and it was not until about a decade later that Aristotle's theory of tragedy played any considerable part in the literary criti- cism of the sixteenth century. In 1543, however, ^ the Poetics had already become a part of university study, for Giraldi Cintio, in his Discorso sulle Com- edie e sulle Tragedie, written in that year, says that it was a regular academic exercise to compare some Greek tragedy, such as the (Edipus of Sophocles, with a tragedy of Seneca on the same subject, using the Poetics of Aristotle as a dramatic text-book.' Giraldi distinguishes tragedy from comedy on some- what the same grounds as Daniello. " Tragedy and comedy," he says, " agree in that they are both imi- tations of an action, but they differ in that the former imitates the illustrious and royal, the latter the popular and civil. Hence Aristotle says that comedy imitates the worse sort of actions, not that they are vicious and criminal, but that, as regards nobility, they are worse when compared with royal actions." Giraldi's position is made clear by his further statement that the actions of tragedy are called illustrious, not because they are virtuous or vicious, but merely because they are the actions of people of the highest rank.' This conception of the serious action of tragedy, 1 Of. Horace, Ars Poet. 182 sq. » Ibid, ii. 30. 3 Giialdi Cintio, ii. 6. ni.] THE THEORY OF THE DRAMA 63 wMcli makes its dignity the result of the rank of those who are its actors, and thus regards rank as the real distinguishing mark between comedy and tragedy, was not only common throughout the Ke- naissance, but even throughout the whole period of classicism, and had an extraordinary effect on the modem drama, especially in France. Thus Dacier (1692) says that it is not necessary that the action be Dlustrious and important in itseK : " On the con- trary, it may be very ordinary or common ; but it must be so by the quality of the persons who act. . . . The greatness of these eminent men renders the action great, and their reputation makes it cred- ible and possible." ' Again, Kobortelli (1548) maintains that tragedy deals only with the greater sort of men (prcestanti- ores), because the fall of men of such rank into misery and disgrace produces greater commiseration (which is, as will be seen, one of the functions of tragedy) than the fall of men of merely ordinary rank. Another commentator on the Poetics, Maggi (1550), gives a slightly different explanation of Aristotle's meaning. Maggi asserts that Aristotle,'' in saying that comedy deals with the worse and tragedy with the better sort of men, means to dis- tinguish between those whose rank is lower or higher than that of ordinary men; comedy dealing with slaves, tradesmen, maidservants, buffoons, and other low people, tragedy with kings and heroes.' This explanation is defended on grounds similar to 1 Cited by Butcher, p. 220. ' Maggi, p. 64. " Poet. iv. 7. 64 LITEEARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. those given by Robortelli, that is, the change from felicity to infelicity is greater and more noticeable in the greatest men.J This conception of the rank of the characters as the distinguishing mark between tragedy and com- edy is, it need not be said, entirely unrAristoteliaji. " Aristotle does undoubtedly hold," says Professor Butcher, " that actors in tragedy ought to be illus- trious by birthandposition. The narrow and triv- ial life of obscure persons cannot give scope for a great and signijS.cant action, one of tragic conse- quence. But nowhere does he make outward rank the distinguishing feature of tragic as opposed to comic representation. Moral nobility is what he demands; and this — on the French stage, or at least with French critics — is transformed into an inflated dignity, a courtly etiquette and decorum, which seemed proper to high rank. The instance is one of many in which literary critics have wholly confounded the teaching of Aristotle." ^ This dis- tinction, then, though common up to the end of the eighteenth century, is not to be found in Aristotle ; but the fact is, that a similar distinction can be traced, throughout the Middle Ages, throughout classical antiquity, back almost to the time of Aris- totle himself. The grammarian, Diomedes, has preserved the definition of tragedy formulated by Theophrastus, Aristotle's successor as head of the Peripatetic school. According to this definition, tragedy is ' Maggi, p. 164. » Butcher, p. 220 sq. in.] THE THEORY OP THE DRAMA 65 "a change in the fortune of a hero."' A Greek definition of comedy preserved by Diomedes, and ascribed to Theophrastus also/ speaks of comedy as dealing with private and civil fortunes, without the element of danger. This seems to have been the accepted Koman notion of comedy. In the treatise of Euanthius-Donatus, comedy is said to deal with the common fortunes of men, to begin turbulently, but to end tranquilly and happily ; tragedy, on the other hand, has only mighty per- sonages, and ends terribly ; its subject is oftenhis- torical, while that of comedy is always invented by the poet.' The third book of Diomedes's Ars Gfram- matica, based on Suetonius's tractate De Poetis (writ- ten in the second century a.d.), distinguishes tragedy from comedy in that only heroes, great leaders, and kings are introduced in tragedy, while in comedy the characters are humble and private persons ; in the former, lamentations, exiles, bloodshed predom- inate, in the latter, love affairs and seductions.* Isidore of Seville, in the seventh eentuiy, says very much the same thing: "Comic poets treat of the acts of private men, while tragic poets treat of public matters and the histories of kings; tragic themes are based on sorrowful affairs, comic themes on joyful ones."" In another place he speaks of tragedy as dealing with the ancient deeds and mis- 1 Batcher, p. 219, n. 1. — Miiller, ii. 391, attempts to harmonize the definition of Theophrastns with that of Aristotle, s Egger, Hist, de la Critique, p. 344, n. 2. » Cloetta, i. 29. Qf. Antiplianes, cited by Egger, p. 72. * Cloetta, p. 30. * Etymol. viii. 7, 6. 66 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. deeds of infamous kings, and of comedy as dealing with the actions of private men, and with the de- filement of maidens and the love affairs of strum- pets.^ In the Oatholicon of Johannes Januensis de Balbis (1286) tragedy and comedy are distinguished on similar grounds : tragedy deals only with kings and princes, comedy with private citizens; the style of the former is elevated, that of the latter humble ; comedy begins sorrowfully and ends joyfully, trag- edy begins joyfully and ends miserably and terribly.^ For Dante, any poem written in an elevated and sublime style, beginning happily and ending in mis- ery and terror, is a tragedy ; his own great vision, written as it is in the vernacular, and beginning in hell and ending gloriously in paradise, he calls a comedy.' It appears, therefore, that during the post-classic period and throughout the Middle Ages, comedy and tragedy were distinguished on any or all of the following grounds : — i. The characters in tragedy are kings, princes, l or great leaders ; those in comedy, humble persons and private citizens. ii. Tragedy deals with great and terrible actions ; s comedy with familiar and domestic actions. iii. Tragedy begins happily and ends terribly; i comedy begins rather turbulently and ends joy- fully. 1 Etymol. xviii. 45 and 46. 2 Cloetta, p. 28, and p. 31 sq. » Epist. xi. 10. Vf. Gelli's Lectures on the Divine Comedy, ed. Negroni, 1887, i. 37 sq. lu.] THE THEORY OF THE DEAMA 67 iv. The style and diction of tragedy are elevated , and sublime ; while those of comedy are humble and coUoquial. V. The subjects of tragedy are generally histori- cal ; those of comedy are always invented by the poet. vi. Comedy deals largely with love and seduc- tion ; tragedy with exile and bloodshed. This, then, was the tradition that shaped the un- Aristotelian conception of the distinctions between comedy and tragedy, which persisted throughout and even beyond the Renaissance. Giraldi Cintio has followed most of these traditional distinctions, but he is in closer accord with Aristotle ^ when he asserts that the tragic as well as the comic plot may be purely imaginary and invented by the poet.' He explains the traditional conception that the tragic fable should be historical, on the ground that as tragedy deals with the deeds of kings and illustrious men, it would not be probable that re- markable actions of such great personages should be left unrecorded in history, whereas the private events treated in comedy could hardly be known to all. Giraldi, however, asserts that it does not matter whether the tragic poet invents his story or not, so long as it follows the law of probability. The poet should choose an action that is probable and dignified, that does not need the intervention of a god in the unravelling of the plot, that does not occupy much more than the space of a day, and that can be represented on the stage in three or 1 Poet. ix. 5-9. " Giraldi Cintio, ii. 14. 68 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. four hours.^ In respect to the denouement of tragedy^ it may be iappy or unhappy, but in either case it must arouse pity and terror; and as for the classic notion that no deaths should be rep- resented on the stage, Giraldi declares that those ■which are not excessively painful may be repre- sented, for they are represented not for the sake of commiseration but of justice. The argument here centres about Aristotle's phrase iv t Other allusions to the unities, besides those already men- tioned, will be found in Castelvetro, Poetica, pp. 163-165, 168- 171, 191, 897, 501, 527, 631-536, 692, 697, etc. * Lintilhac, in the Nouvelle Bevue, Ixiy. 641. m.] THE THEORY OP THE DRAMA 101 practised by the ancients, was never one of their rules: we neither find it in Aristotle, Horace, or any -who have ■written of it, tiU in our age the French poets first made it a precept of the stage." ^ It may be said, therefore, that just as the unity of action is par excellence the Aristotelian unity, so the unities of time and place are beyond a doubt the Italian unities. They enter the critical literature of Europe from the time of Castelvetro, and may almost be said to be the last contributions of Italy to literary criticism. Two years after their formu- lation by Castelvetro they were introduced into France, and a dozen years after this formulation, into England. It was not until 1636, however, that they became fixed in modern dramatic litera- ture, as a result of the Oid controversy. This is approximately a hundred years after the first men- tion of the unity of time in Italian criticism. V. Comedy The treatment of comedy in the literary criticism of this period is entirely confined to a discussion and elaboration of the little that Aristotle says on the subject of comedy in the Poetics. Aristotle, it will be remembered, had distinguished tragedy from comedy in that the former deals with the nobler, the latter with the baser, sort of actions. Comedy is an imitation of characters of a lower type than those of tragedy, — characters of a lower type indeed, but not in the full sense of the word bad. 1 Essay of Dramatic Poesy, p. 31. 102 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. "The ludicrous is merely a subdivision of the ugly. It may be defined as a defect or ugliness which is not painful or destructive. Thus, for example, the comic mask is ugly and distorted, but does not cause pain." ^ Trom these few hints the Italian theorists constructed a body of comic doc- trine. There is, however, in the critical literature of this period no attempt to explain the theory of the indigenous Italian comedy, the commedia deW arte. The classical comedies of Plautus and Terence were the models, and Aristotle's Poetics the guide, of all the discussions on comedy during the Eenais- sance. The distinction between the characters of comedy and tragedy has already been explained in sufficient detail. All that remains to be done in treating of comedy is to indicate as briefly as possible such definitions of it as were formulated by the Eenaissance, and the special function which the Eenaissance understood comedy to possess. According to Trissino (1563), the comic poet deals only with base things, and for the single purpose of chastising them. As tragedy attains its moral end through the medium of pity and fear, comedy does so by means of the chastisement and vitupera- tion of things that are base and evil.^ The comic poet, however, is not to deal with all sorts of vices, but only such as give rise to ridicule, that is, the jocose actions of humble and unknown persons. Laughter proceeds from a certain delight or pleas- ure arising from the sight of objects of ugliness. 1 Foet. V. 1. Cf. Bhei. iii. 18. 2 Trissino, ii. 120. Cf. Butclier, p. 203 sq. III.] THE THEORY OF THE DRAMA 103 We do not laugh at a beautiful woman, a gorgeous jewel, or beautiful music ; but a distortion or de- formity, such as a silly speech, an ugly face, or a clumsy movement, makes us laugh. We do not laugh at the benefits of others ; the finder of a purse, for example, arouses not laughter but envy. But we do laugh at some one who has fallen into the mud, because, as Lucretius says, it is sweet to find in others some evil not to be found in ourselves. Yet great evils, so far from causing us to laugh, arouse pity and fear, because we are apprehensive lest such things should happen to us. Hence we may conclude that a slight evil which is neither sad nor destructive, and which we perceive in others but do not believe to be in ourselves, is the primary cause of the ludicrous.^ In Maggi's treatise, De Bidiculis, appended to his commentary on the Poetics, the Aristotelian conception of the ridiculous is accepted, with the addition of the element of admiratio. Maggi insists on the idea of suddenness or novelty ; for we do not laugh at painless ugliness if it be very familiar or long continued.^ According to Eqljoxtelli (1548), comedy, like all other forms of poetry, imitates the manners and actions of men, and aims at producing laughter and 1 Trissino, il. 127-130. Trisslno seems to follow Cicero, De Oral. 11. 58 sq. It is to these Italian discussions of the ludicrous that the theory of laughter formulated by Hohbes, and after him by Addison, owes its origin. For Renaissance discussions of wit and humor before the introduction of Aristotle's Poetics, cf. the third and fourth books of Pontano's De Serinone, and the second book of Castiglione's Cortigiano. 2 Maggi, p. 307. Cf. Hobbes, Human Nature, 1650, ix. 13. 104 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. light-heartedness. But what produces laughter ? The evil and obscene merely disgust good men ; the sad and miserable cause pity and fear. The basis of laughter is therefore to be found in what is only V slightly mean or ugly (subturpiculum). The object I of comedy, according to the consensus of Eenais- \ sance opinion, is therefore to produce laughter for ~^' the purpose of rendering the minor vices ridiculous. Muzio (1651) indeed complains, as both Si^iifiy_and Ben Jonso n do later, t hat the comic writers of tds day were more intent on producing laughter than oh' depicting character or manners : — "Intenta. alriso Piti ch' a i costumi." But Minturno points out that comedy is not to be contemned because it excites laughter ; for by comic { hilarity the spectators are kept from becoming ^ I buffoons themselves, and by the ridiculous light in which amours are placed, are made to avoid such things in future. Comedy is the best corrective of men's morals ; it is indeed what Cicero calls it, imitatio vitoe, speculum consu£tvdinis, imago verita- tis. This phrase, ascribed by Donatus to Cicero, runs through all the dramatic discussions of the Renaissance,^ and finds its echo in a famous pas- sage in Hamlet. Cervantes cites the phrase in Don \_ Quixote ; * and II Lasca, in the prologue to L'Ani- goglio, berates the comic writers of his day after this fashion: "They take no account of the ab- surdities, the contradictions, the inequalities, and 1 Cf. B. Tasso, ii. 515; Robortelli, p. 2; etc. » Don Quix. iv. 21. III.] THE THEORY OF THE DRAMA 105 the discrepancies of their pieces ; for they do not seem to know that comedy should be truth's image, the ensample of manners, and the mirror of life." This is exactly what Shakespeare is contending for when he makes Hamlet caution the players not to " o'erstep the modesty of nature ; for anything so overdone is from the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold as 'twere the mirror up to nature ; to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure." ^ The high importance which Scaliger (1561) gives to comedy, and in fact to satiric and didactic poetry in general, is one of many indications of the incipi- ent formation of neo-classical ideals during the Renaissance. He regards as absurd the statement which he conceives Horace to have made, that comedy is not really poetry ; on the contrary, it is the true form of poetry, and the first and highest of all, for its matter is entirely invented by the poet.* He defines comedy as a dramatic poem filled with intrigue (negotiosum), written ia popular style, and ending happily.' The characters in com- edy are chiefly old men, slaves, courtesans, all in humble station or from small villages. The action begins rather turbulently, but ends happily, and the 1 Samlet, iii. 2. 2 Scaliger, Poet. i. 2. Castiglione, in the second book of the Oortigiano, says that the comic writer, more than any other, expresses the true image of hmnan life. » Poet. i. fi. 106 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. m. style is neither high nor low. The typical themes of comedy are " sports, banquets, nuptials, drunken carousals, the crafty wiles of slaves, and the decep- tion of old men." ^ The theory of comedy in sixteenth-century Italy -y was entirely classical, and the practice of the time agrees with its theory. There are indeed to be heard occasional notes of dissatisfaction and revolt, especially in the prologues of popular plays. II I Lasca, in the prologue to the Strega, defiantly^ro- j tests against Jhe inviolable authority of Aristotle |and Horace, and in the prologue to his Gelosia re- ;serves the right to 'copy the manner of his own time, and not those of Plautus and Terence. Cecchi, iAretino, Gelli, and other comic writers give expres- sion to similar sentiments.'' But on the whole these protests availed nothing. The authors of comedy, and more especially the literary critics, were guided by classical practice and classical the- ory. Dramatic forms like the improvised commedia dell' arte had marked influence on the practice of European comedy in general, especially in France, but left no traces of their influence on the literary criticism of the Italian Eenaissance. 1 Poet. iii. 96. 2 Symonds, Ren. in Italy, v. 124 sq., 633 sq. CHAPTER rV THE THEOKT OF EPIC POETBT Epic poetry was held in the highest esteem dui- uig the Renaissance and indeed throughout the period of classicism. It was regarded by Vida as the highest form of poetry,^ and a century later, despite the success of tragedy in France, Eapia still held the same opinion.^ The reverence for the epic throughout the Renaissance may be ascribed in part to the mediaeval veneration of VugU as a poet, and his popular apotheosis as prophet and magician, and also in part to the decay into which dramatic literature had fallen during the Middle Ages in the hands of the wan- dering players, the histriones and the vagantes. Aristotle' indeed had regarded tragedy as the high- est form of poetry ; and as a result, the traditional reverence for Virgil and Homer, and the Renais- sance subservience to Aristotle, were distinctly at variance. Trissino (1561) paraphrases Aristotle's argument ia favor of tragedy, but points out, not- withstanding this, that the whole world is unani- mous in considering Virgil and Homer greater than any tragic poet before or after them.* Placed in 1 Pope, i. 133. • Poet. xxvi. s Bapin, 1674, u. 2. * Trissino, ii. 118 sq. 107 108 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. this quandary, he concludes by leaving the reader to judge for himself whether epic or tragedy be the nobler form. I. The Theory of the Epic Poem Vida's 4rs_Po^a, written before 1520, although no edition prior to that of 1527 is extant, is the earliest example in modem times of that class of critical poems to which belong Horace's Ars Foetica, Boileau's Art Poitique, and Pope's Ussay , on Criticism. Vida's poem is/entirely^based on thaty' of Horace; but he substitutes epic for Horace's dramatic studies, and employs the ^neid as the model of an epic poem. The incompleteness of the treatment accorded to epic poetry in Aristotle's Poetics led the Renaissance to deduce the laws of heroic poetry and of poetic artifice in general from the practice of Virgil ; and it is to this point of view that the critical works on the ^neid by Eegolo (1563), Maranta (1564), and Toscanella (1566) owe their origin. The obvious and even accidental qualities of Virgil's poem are enunciated by Vida as fundamental laws of epic poetry. The precepts thus given are purely rhetorical and pedagogic in character, and deal almost exclusively with ques- tions of poetic invention, disposition, polish, and style. Beyond this Vida does not attempt to go. There is in his poem no definition of the epic, no theory of its function, no analysis of the essentials of narrative structure. In fact, no theory of poetry 'in any real sense is to be found in Vida's treatise. IV.] THE THEORY OF EPIC POETRY 109 DanieUo (1536) deals only very cursorily with epic poetry, but his definition of it strikes the key- note of the Renaissance conception. Heroic poetry- is for him an imitation of the illustrious deeds of emperors and other men magnanimous and valorous in arms/ — a conception that goes back to Horace's "Res gestae legamqae dncamque et tristia beUa." * Triagino (1563) first introduced the AristoteKan theory of the epic into modem literary criticism ; and the sixth section of his Poetica is given up almost exclusively to the treatment of heroic poetry. The epic agrees with tragedy in deaUng with illus- trious men and illustrious actions. Like tragedy it must have a single action, but it differs from trag- edy in not having the time of the action limited or determined. While unity of action is essential to the epic, and is indeed what disting^shes it from narrative poems that are not really epics, the Ke- naissance conceived of vastness of design and large- ness of detail as necessary to the grandiose character of the epic poem.* Thus Muzio says : — " n poema sovrano 6 niia pittnra De 1' nniveiso, e peib in s6 compiende Ogni stilo, ogni forma, ogni ritoatto." Trissino regards versi sdglti as the proper metre for an heroic poem, since the stanzaic form impedes the continuity of the narrative. In this point he finds fault with Boccaccio, Boiardo, and Ariosto, whose romantic poems, moreover, he does not regard as epics, because they do not obey Aristotle's invio- iDaniello.p. 31. " Art Poet. 73. > Trissino, ii. 112 23. 110 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. lable law of the single action. He also finds fault with the romantic poets for describing the improb- able, since Aristotle expressly prefers an impossi- ble probability to an improbable possibility. Minturno's definition of epic poetry is merely a modification or paraphrase of Aristotle's definition of tragedy. Epic poetry is an imitation of a grave and noble deed, perfect, complete, and of proper magnitude, with embellished language, but without music or dancing; at times simply narrating and at other times introducing persons in words and actions ; in order that, through pity and fear of the 1 things imitated, such passions may be purged from / the mind with both pleasure and profit.^ Here Minturno, like Giraldi Cintio, ascribes to epic y. poetry the same purgation of pity and fear effected by tragedy. Epic poetry he rates above tragedy, since the epic poeT;, more than any other, arouses that admiration of great heroes which it is the pe- culiar function of the poet to excite, and therefore attains the end of poetry more completely than any other poet. This, however, is true only in the high- est form of narrative poetry ; for Minturno distin- guishes three classes of narrative poets, the lowest, or bucolici, the mediocre, or epici, who have nothing beyond verse, and the highest, or heroici, who imi- tate the life of a single hero in noble verse.' Min- turno insists fundamentally on the unity of the epic action ; and directly against Aristotle's state- ment, as we have seen, he restricts the duration of the action to one year. The license and prolixity I Arte Poetica, p. 9. a Ot Poeta, pp. 105, 106. !?-^/M.W IT.] THE THEORY OF EPIC POETRY 111 of the romanzi led the defenders of the classical epic to this extreme of rigid circumspection. Ac- cording to Scaliger, the epic, which is the norm by which all other poems may be judged and the chief of aU poems, describes heroum genus, vita, gesta} This is the Horatian conception of the epic, and there is in Scaliger little or no trace of the Aristo- telian doctrine. He also follows Horace closely in forbidding the narrative poet to begin his poem from the very beginning of his story {ab wo), and in various other details. Castelvetro (1570) differs from Aristotle in regard to the unity of the epic fable, on the ground that poetry is merely imaginative history, and can therefore do anySiing that history can do. Poetry follows the footsteps of history, differing merely in that history narrates what has happened, while poetry narrates what has never happened but yet may possibly happen ; and therefore, since history recounts the whole life of a single hero, without regard to its unity, there is no reason why poetry should not do likewise. The epic may in fact deal with many actions of one person, one action of a whole race, or many actions of many people; it need not necessarily deal with one action of one person, as Aristotle enjoins, but if it does so it is simply to show the ingenuity and excellence of the poet.* 1 Poet. iii. 95. » Castelyetro, Poetica, p. 178 »g. 112 LITEEAEY CEITICISM IN ITALY [chap. II. Epic and Romance This discussion of epic unity leads to one of the most important critical questions of the sixteenth century, — the question of the unity of romance. Aiiosto's Orlando Furioso and Boiardo's Orlando Innamorato -were written before the Aristotelian canons had become a part of the critical literature of Italy. When it became clear that these poems diverged from the fundamental requirements of the epic as expounded in the Poetics, Trissino set out to compose an heroic poem which would be ia per- /fect accord with the precepts of Aristotle. His Italia_ Liberata, which was completed by 1548, was the result of twenty years of study, and it is the first modern epic in the strict Aristotelian sense. With Aristotle as his guide, and Homer as his model, he had studiously and mechanically con- structed an epic of a single action; and in the dedication of his poem to the Emperor Charles V. he charges all poems which violate this primary law of the single action with being merely bastard forms. The romanzi, and among them the Orlando Furioso, in seemingly disregarding this funda- mental requirement, came under Trissino's censure ; and this started a controversy which was not to end until the commencement of the next century, and in a certain sense may be said to remain undecided even to this day. The first to take up the cudgels in defence of the writers of the romanzi was Giraldi Cintio, who in his youth had known Ariosto personally, and who IT.] THB THEORY OF EPIC POETRY 113 wrote Ms Discorso intomo al convporre dei Romanzi, in April, 1549. The grounds of his defence are twofold. ' In the first place, Giraldi maintains that the romance is a poetic form of which Aristotle did not know, and to which his rules therefore do not apply ; and In the second place, Tuscan literature, differing as it does from the literature of Greece in language, in spirit, and in religious feeliug, need not and indeed ought not to follow the rules of Greet literature, but rather the laws of its own development and its own traditions. With Ariosto and Boiardo as models, Giraldi sets out to formu- late the laws of the romanzi. The romanzi aim at imitating illustrious actions in verse, with the pur- pose of teaching good morals and honest living, since this ought to be the aim of every poet, as Giraldi conceives Aristotle himself to have said.* All heroic poetry is an imitation of illustrious actions, but Giraldi, like Castelvetro twenty years later, recognizes several distinct forms of heroic poetry, according as to whether it imitates one action of one man, many actions of many men, or many actions of one man. The first of these is the epic 'ik poem, the rules of which are given in Aristotle's Poetics. The second is the romantic poem, after the manner of Boiardo and Ariosto. The third is the biographical poem, after the manner of the TheseM and similar works dealing with the whole life of a single hero. These forms are therefore to be regarded as three distinct and legitimate species of heroic poetry, the 1 Giraldi Cintio, J. 11, 64. I 114 LITBKARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. first of them being an epic poem in tlie strict Aris- totelian sense, and the two others coming under the general head of romanzi. Of the two forms of 1 romanzi, the biographical deals preferably with an { historical subject, whereas the noblest writers of ; the more purely romantic form, dealing with many ; actions of many men, have invented their subject- ' matter. Horace says that an heroic poem should not commence at the very beginning of the hero's life ; but it is dif&cult to understand, says Giraldi, why the whole life of a distinguished man, which gives us so great and refined a pleasure in the works of Plutarch and other biographers, should not please us all the more when described in beautiful verse by a good poet.' Accordingly, the poet who is composing an epic in the strict sense should, in handling the events of Ms narrative, plunge im- mediately m medias res. The poet dealing -with many actions of many men should begin with the most important event, and the one upon which all the others may be said to hinge ; whereas the poet describing the life of a single hero should begin at the very beginning, if the hero spent a really heroic youth, as Hercules for example did. The poem dealing with the life of a hero is thus a separate genre, and one for which Aristotle does not attempt to lay down any laws. Giraldi even goes so far as to say that Aristotle ^ censured those who write the life of Theseus or Hercules in a single poem, not because they dealt with many actions of one man, but because they treated such a poem in exactly 1 Oiialdi Cintio, i. 24. » Poet. viii. 2. IT.] THE THEORY OF EPIC POETRY 116 the same manner as those who dealt with a single action of a single hero, — an assertion which is of course utterly absurd. GLraldi then proceeds to deal in detail with the disposition and composition of the romanzi, which he rates above the classical epics^i^ the efficacy of ethical teaching. It is the office of the poet to praise ■virtuous actions and to condemn vicious actions ; and in this the writers of the romanzi are far superior to the writers of the ancient heroic poems.* Giraldi's discourse on the romanzi gave rise to a curious dispute with his own pupil, Giambattista Tigna,, who published a similar work, entitled I Romanzi, in the same year (1554). Pigna asserted that he had suggested to Giraldi the main argument of the discourse, and that Giraldi had adopted it as his own. Without entering into the details of this controversy, it would seem that the priority of Giraldi cannot fairly be contested.^ At all events, there is a very great resemblance between the works of Giraldi and Pigna. Pigna's treatise, however, is more detailed than Giraldi's. In the first book, Pigna deals with the general subject of the romanzi; in the second he gives a life of Ariosto, and dis- cusses the Furioso, point by point ; in the third he demonstrates the good taste and critical acumen of Ariosto by comparing the first version of the Furi- oso with the completed and perfected copy.* Both 1 Giraldi, i. 66 sq. * Of. Tiraboschi, vii. 947 sq., and Giraldi, ii. 153 sq. Pigna's own words are cited in Giraldi, i. p. zxiii. s Canello, p. 306 sq. 116 LITERAEY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. Pigna and Giraldi consider the romanzi to consti- tute a new genre, unknown to the ancients, and therefore not subject to Aristotle's rules. Giraldi's sympathies were in favor of the biographical form of the romanzi, and his poem, the Ercole (1557), recounts the whole life of a single hero. Pigna, who keeps closer to the tradition of Ariosto, re- gards the biographical form as not proper to poetry, because too much like history. These arguments, presented by Giraldi and Pigna, were answered by Speroni, Minturno, and others. ; Speroni pointed out that while it is not necessary I for the romantic poets to follow the rules prescribed \by the ancients, they cannot jiisobey the funda- Imental laws of poetry. "The romanzi," says Speroni, "are epics, which are poems, or they are histories in verse, and not poems." ^ That is, how does a poem differ from a well-written historical narrative, if the former be without organic unity ? ' As to the whole discussion, it may be said here, without attempting to pass judgment on Ariosto, or any other writer of romanzi, that unity of some >■ sort every true poem must necessarily have ; and, flawless as the Orlando Furioso is in its details, the unity of the poem certainly has not the obviousness of perfect, and especially classical, art. A work of art without organic unity may be compared with an unsymmetrical circle ; and, while the Furioso is not to be judged by any arbitrary or mechanical rules of unity, yet if it has not that internal unity which transcends all mere external form, it may be 1 Speroni, v. 821. 2 C/. Minturno, De Poeta, p. 161. uli- "-/i n 1^ f'cb-j ^-n - \ — ^ — — _ IV.] THE THEORY OF EPIC POETRY 117 considered, as a work of art, hardly less than a failure ; and the farther it is remoTed from per- fect unity, the more imperfect is the art. " Poetry \ adapts itself to its times, but cannot depart from its i own fundamental laws." ' Minturno's answer to the defenders of the romanzi is more detailed and explicit than Speroni's, and it is of considerable importance because of its influ- ence on Torquato Tasso's conception of epic poetry. Mintumo does not deny — and in this his point of view is identical with Tasso's — that it is possible to employ the matter of the romanzi in the composi- tion of a perfect poem. The actions they describe are great and illustrious, their knights and ladies are noble and illustrious, too, and they contain in a most excellent manner that element of the marvel- lous which is so important an element in the epic action. It is the structure of the romanzi with which Mintumo finds fault. Theyjlack the first essential of every form of poetry, — unity. In fact, they are little more than versified history or legend; and, while expressing admiration for the genius of Ariosto, Mintumo cannot but regret that he so far yielded to the popular taste of his time as to employ the method of the romanzi. He approves of the suggestion of Bembo, who had tried to per- suade Ariosto to write an epic instead of a romantic > poem,^just as later, and for similar reasons, Gabriel Harvey attempted to dissuade Spenser from con- 1 Mintamo, Arte Poetica, p. 31. For varions opinions on the unity of the Orlando Furioso, cf. Canello, p. 106, and FoSano, p. 59 sq. * Arte Poetica, p. 31. 118 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. tinuing the Faerie Queene. Minturno denies that the Tuscan tongue is not well adapted to the com- position of heroic poetry ; on the contrary, there is no form of poetry to which it is not admirably fitted. He denies that the romantic poem can be distinguished from the epic on the ground that the actions of knights-errant require a different and broader form of narrative than do those of the classical heroes. The celestial and inffirnal gods and demi-gods of the ancients correspond with the angels, saints, anchorites, and the one God of Chris- tianity; the ancient sibyls, oracles, enchantresses, and divine messengers correspond with the modern necromancers, fates, magicians, and celestial angels. To the claim of the romantic poets that their poems approximate closer to that magnitude which Aris- totle enjoins as necessary for all poetry, Minturno answers that magnitude is of no avail without pro- portion ; there is no beauty in the giant whose limbs and frame are distorted. Finally, the romanzi are said to be a new form of poetry unknown to Aris- totle and Horace, and hence not amenable to their laws. But time, says Minturno, cannot change the truth ; in every age a poem must have unity, proportion, magnitude. Everything in nature is governed by some specific law which directs its operation ; and as it is in nature so it is in art, for art tries to imitate nature, and the nearer it ap- proaches nature in her essential laws, the better it does its work. In other words, as has already been Ipointed out, poetry adapts itself to its times, but y: cannot depart from its own laws. IV.] THE THEORY OP EPIC POETRY 119 Bernaxdp Tasso, the father of Torquato, had origi- nally been one of the defenders of the classical epic ; but he seems to have been converted to the opposite view by Giraldi Cintio, and in his poem of the Amadigi he follows romantic models. His son To rquat o, in his Discorsi deW Arte Poetica, origi- nally written one or two years after the appearance of Minturno's Arte Poetica, although not published until 1587, was the first to attempt a reconciliation of the epic and romantic forms ; and he may be said to have effected a solution of the problem by the formulation of the theory of a narrative poem which would have the romantic subject-matter, with its delightful variety, and the epic form, with its essential unity. The question at issue, as we have seen, is that of unity ; that is, does the heroic poem need unity? Tasso denies that there is any dif- ference between the epic poem and the romantic poem as poems. The reason why the latter is more pleasing, is to be found in the fact of the greater delightfulness of the themes treated.^ Variety in itself is not pleasing, for a variety of disagreeable things would not please at aU. Hence the perfect and at the same time most pleasing form of heroic poem would deal with the chivalrous themes of the romanzi, but would possess that unity of structure which, according to the precepts of Axistotle and the practice of Homer and Virgil, is essential to every epic. There are two sorts of unity possible in art as in nature, — the simple__unity of a chemi- cal element, and the complex_unityjof an jjrganism 1 T. Tasso, xii. 219 3q. 120 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. like an animal or plant, — and of these the latter is the sort of unity that the heroic poet should aim at.^ Capriajno (1565) had referred to this same dis- tinction, when he pointed out that poetry ought not to be the imitation of a single act, such as a single act of weeping in the elegy, or a single act of pas- toral life in the eclogue, for such a sporadic imita- tion is to be compared to a picture of a single hand without the rest of the body; on the contrary, poetry ought to be the representation of a number of attendant or dependent acts, leading from a given beginning to a suitable end.^ Having settled the general fact that the attrac- tive themes of the romanzi should be employed in a perfect heroic poem, we may inquire what particular themes are most fitted to the epic, and what must be the essential qualities of the epic material.' In the first place, the subject of the heroic poem must be historical, for it is not probable that illustrious actions such as are dealt with in the epic should be unknown to history. The authority of history gains for the poet that semblance of truth necessary to deceive the Teader and make him believe that what the poet writes is true. Secondly, the heroic poem, V according to Tasso, must deal with the history, not of a false religion, but of the true one, Christuinity. The religion of the pagans is absolutely unfit for •^epic material ; for if the pagan deities are not in- troduced, the poem will lack the element of the sj marvellous, and if they are introduced it will lack 1 T. Tasso, xii. 234. 8 T. Tasso, xii. 199 sq. ' Oella Vera Poetica, cap. ill IV.] THE THEORY OF EPIC POETRY 121 the element of probability. Both the marvelloiis and the verisimUe must exist together ia a perfect epic, and difficult as the task may seem, they must be reconciled. Another reason why paganism is (rj unfit for the epic is to be found in the fact that the perfect knight must have piety as well as other virtues. In the third place, the poem must not deal with themes connected with the articles of Ghiistiau fadth, for such themes would be unalter- able, and would allow no scope to the free play of j^ the poet's inventive fancy. Fourthly, the material must be neither too ancient nor too modem, for the latter is too well known to admit of fanciful changes with probability, and the former not only lacks interest but reqiiires the introduction of strange and alien manners and customs. The times of Charlemagne and Arthur are accordingly best fitted for heroic treatment. Fiaally, the events them- selves must possess nobility and grandeur. Hence I an epic should be a story derived from some event in the history of Christian peoples, intrinsically noble and illustrious, but not of so sacred a char- acter as to be fixed and immutable, and neither contemporary nor very remote. By the selection I of such material the poem gains the authority of i history, the truth of religion, the license of fiction, Ithe proper atmosphere in point of time, and the grandeur of the events themselves.^ Aristotle says that both epic and tragedy deal with illustrious actions. Tasso points out that if the actions of tragedy and of epic poetry were both IT. Tasso, xii. 208. 122 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. illustrious in the same way, they would both pro- duce the same results; but tragic actions move horror and compassion, while epic actions as a rule do not and need not arouse these emotions. The tragic action consists in the unexpected change of fortune, and in the grandeur of the events carrying with them horror and pity ; but the epic action is founded upon undertakings of lofty martial virtue, upon deeds of courtesy, piety, generosity, none of which is proper to tragedy. Hence the characters in epic poetry and in tragedy, though both of the same regal and supreme rank, differ in that the tragic hero is neither perfectly good nor entirely bad, as Aristotle says, while the epic_hero must have the very height of yirjne, such as ^Eneas, the type of piety, Amadis, the type of loyalty, Achilles, of martial virtue, and Ulysses, of prudence. Having formulated these theories of heroic poetry in his youth, Tasso set out to carry them into prac- tice, and his famous Gerusalemme lAherata was the result. This poem, almost immediately after its pu.blication, started a violent controversy, which raged for many years, and which may be regarded as the legitimate outcome of the earlier dispute in connection with the romanzi} The Oerusalemme was in fact the centre of critical activity durmg the latter part of the century. Shortly after its publi- cation, Camillo Pellegrino published a dialogue, en- 1 Accounts of this famous controversy will be found in Tira- bosohi, Canello, Serassi, etc. ; but the latest and most complete is that given in the twentieth chapter of Solerti's monumental Vita di Torquato Tasso, Torino, 1895. ly.] THE THEORY OF EPIC POETRY 123 titled 11 Caraffa (1583), in wMcli the Gerusalemme is compared with the Orlando Furioso, much to the advantage of the former. Pellegrino finds fault with Ariosto on account of the lack of unity of his poem, the immoral manners imitated, and yarious imperfections of style and language ; and in all of these things, unity, morality, and style, he finds Tasso's poem perfect. This was naturally the signal for a heated and long-continued controversy. The Accademia della Crusca had been founded at Florence, in 1582, and it seems that the members of the new society felt hurt at some sarcastic remarks regarding Florence in one of Tasso's dialogues. Accordingly, the head of the academy, Lionardo Salviati, in a dialogue entitled L' Infarinato, wrote an ardent defence of Ariosto; and an acrid and undignified dispute between Tasso and Salviati was begun.* Tasso answered the Accademia della Crusca in his Apologia; and at the beginning of the next century, Paolo Beni, the commentator on Aris- totle's Poetics, published his Comparazione di Omero, Virgilio, e TorqvMo, in which Tasso is rated >labove Homer, Virgil, and Ariosto, not only in dignity, in beauty of style, and in unity of fable, but in every other quality that may be said to con- stitute perfection in poetry. Before dismissing this whole matter, it should be pointed out that the defenders of "^SstDtie])had absolutely abandoned ^ dm the position of Giraldi and Pigna, that the romanzi ^ Nearly all the important documents of the Tasso contro- yersy are reprinted in Bosini's edition of Tasso, Opere, vols, xyiii.-zxiii. 124 LITEEABY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. it. constitute a genre by themselves, and are therefore not subject to Aristotle's law of unity. The ques- tion as Giraldi had stated it was this : Does ^ery poem need to have unity ? The question as dis- cussed in the Tasso controversy had changed to this form: What is unity? It was taken for granted by both sides in the controversy that every poem must have organic unity ; and the authority jOf Aristotle, in epic as in dramatic poetry, was ■''Jhenceforth supreme. It was to the authority of Aristotle that Tasso's opponents appealed; and Salviati, merely for the purpose of undermining Tasso's pretensions, wrote an extended commentary on the Poetics, which still lies in Ms. at Florence, and which has been made use of in the present essay.^ 1 The question of unity was also raised in another controversy of the second half of the sixteenth century. A passage in Varchl's Ercolano (1570), rating Dante above Homer, started a controversy on the Divine Comedy. The most important out- come of this dispute was Mazzoni's Difesa di Dante (1573), in which a whole new theory of poetry is expounded in order to defend the great Tuscan poet. CHAPTEE V THE GEOWTH OF THE CLASSIC SPIEIT DT ITALIAN CEITICISM The growth of classicism in Renaissance criti- cism was due to three causes, — humanism, or the imitation of the classics, Aristotelianism, or the influence of Aristotle's Poetics, and rationalism, or the authority of the reason, the result of the growth of the modem spirit in the arts and sciences. These three causes are at the bottom of Italian classicism, as well as of French classicism during the seven- teenth century. I. Humanism The progress of humanism may be distinguished by an arbitrary but more or less practical division into four periods. The first period was character- ized by the discovery and accumulation of classical literature, and the second period was given up to the arrangement and translation of the works thus discovered. The third period is marked by the formation of academies, in which the classics were studied and humanized, and which as a result pro- duced a special cult of learning. The fourth and last period is marked by the decline of pure erudi- 125 126 LITEEARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. tion, and the beginning of aesthetic and stylistic scholarship.^ The practical result of the revival of learning and the progress of humanism was thus the study and imitation of the classics. To this imita- tion of classical literature all that humanism gave to the modern world may be ultimately traced. The problem before us, then, is this: What was the result of this imitation of the classics, in so far as it regards the literary criticism of the Renaissance ? In the first place, the imitation of the classics resulted in the study and cult of external form. Elegance, polish, clearness of design, became ob- jects of study for themselves; and as a result we have the formation of sesthetic taste, and the growth of a classic purism, to which many of the literary tendencies of the Renaissance may be traced.' Under Leo X. and throughout the first half of the sixteenth century, the intricacies of style and versification were carefully studied. Vida was the first to lay down laws of imitative harmony ; ' Bembo, and after him Dolce and others, studied the poetic effect of different sounds, and the ono- matopceic value of the various vowels and con- sonants ; * Claudio Tolomei attempted to introduce classical metres into the vernacular ; ' Trissino pub- lished subtle and systematic researches in Tuscan 1 Symonds, ii. 161, based on Voigt. » Of. Woodward, p. 210 sq. > Hallam, Lit. of Europe, i. 8. 1. Of. Pope, 1. 182 : " Omnia Bed numeiis vocum concordibus aptant," etc. * Bembo, ie Prose, 1525; Dolce, Osservationi, 1650, lib. It.; etc. ' Versi e Segole de la Nuova Foesia Toscana, 1539. v.] GROWTH OF THE CLASSIC SPIRIT 127 language and versification.' Later, the rhetorical treatises of Cavalcanti (1565), Lionardi (1554), and Partenio (1560), and the more practical manuals of Tanucci (1533), Equicola (1541), and Euscelli (1569), all testify to the tremendous impulse which the imi- tation of the classics had given to the study of form both in classical and vernacular literatures. In Vida's Ars Poetica there are abundant evi- dences of the rhetorical and especially the puristic tendencies of modern classicism. The mechanical conception of poetic expression, in which imagi- nation, sensibility, and passion are subjected to the elaborate and intricate precepts of art, is every- where found in Vida's poem. Like Horace, Vida insists on long preparation for the composition of poetry, and warns the poet against the indulgence of his first impulses. He suggests as a preparation for the composition of poetry, that the poet should prepare a list of phrases and images for use when- ever occasion may demand.' He impresses upon the poet the necessity of euphemistic expressions in introducing the subject of his poem; for ex- ample, the name of Ulysses should not be men- tioned, but he should be referred to as one who has seen many men and many cities, who has suf- fered shipwreck on the return from Troy, and the like.' In such mechanical precepts as these, the rhetoric of seventeenth-century classicism is antici- " 1 Trissino, Poitica, lib. i.-lv., 1529; Tomitano, Delia Lingua Toscana, 1545 ; etc. s Pope, i. 134. Of. De Sanctis, ii. 153 tq. > Pope, i. 152. 128 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. pated. Its restraint, its purity, its mechanical side, are everywhere visible in Vida. A little later, in Danielle, we find similar puristic tendencies. He requires the severe separation of genres, decorum and propriety of characterization, and the exclusion of everything disagreeable from the stage. In Par- tenio's Delia Imitatione Poetica (1660), the poet is expressly forbidden the employment of the ordinary words in daily use,^ and elegance of form is especially demanded. Partenio regards form as of superior importance to subject or idea; for those who hear or read poetry care more for beauty of diction than for character or even thought.^ It is on merely rhetorical grounds that Partenio distinguishes excellent from mediocre poetry. The good poet, unlike the bad one, is able to give splen- dor and dignity to the most trivial idea by means of adornments of diction and disposition. This conception seems to have particularly appealed to the Kenaissance; and Tasso gives expression to a similar notion when he calls it the poet's noblest function "to make of old concepts new ones, to make of vulgar concepts noble ones, and to make common concepts his own." ? In a higher and more ideal sense, poetry, according to Shelley, "makes familiar objects be as if they were not familiar." * It is in keeping with this rhetorical ideal of classicism that Scaliger makes electio et sui fasti- dium the highest virtues of the poet.' All that is 1 Partenio, p. 80. * Defence, p. 13. » Ibid. p. 95. 6 Poet, v. 3. • Opere, xi. 61. T.] GROWTH OF THK CLASSIC SPIRIT 129 merely popular (plebeium) in thought and expres- sion is to be miQutely avoided ; for only that wMcli proceeds from solid erudition is proper to art. The basis of artistic creation is imitation and judgment ; for every artist is at bottom somewhat of an echo."^ Grace, decorum, elegance, splendor are the chief excellences of poetry and the Ufe of all excellence lies in measure, that is, moderation and proportion. It is in the spirit of this classical purism that Scaliger minutely distinguishes the various rhetori- cal and grammatical figures, and carefully estimates their proper place and function in poetry. His analysis and systematization of the figures were immediately accepted by the scholars and gram- marians of his time, and have played a large part ia French education ever since. Another consequence of Scaliger's dogmatic teaching, the Latiuization of culture, can only be referred to here in passing.^ A second result of the imitation of the classics was - ') the paganization of^Kenaissance culture. Classic art is at bottom pagan, and the Renaissance sacrificed everything in order to appear classical.' Not only did Christian literature seem contemptible when compared with . classic literature, but the mere treatment of Christian themes offered numerous dif&culties in itself. Thus Muzio declares that the ancient fables are the best poetic materials, since they permit the introduction of the deities into poetry, and a poem, being something divine, should not dispense with the association of divinity.'' To 1 Poet. V. 1 ; vi. 4. * Symonds, ii. 395 sq. ' Of. BronetiSre, p. 53. * Mnzio, p. 94. 130 LITERABY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. bring the God of Israel into poetry, to represent him, as it were, in the flesh, discoursing and argu- ing with men, was sacrilege ; and to give the events of poetic narrative divine authoritativeness, the pagan deities became necessities of Renaissance poetry. Savonarola, in the fifteenth century, and the Council of Trent, in the sixteenth, reacted against the paganization of literature, but in vain. Despite the Council of Trent, despite Tasao and Du Bartas, the pagan gods held sway over Parnassus until the very end of the classical period ; and in the seventeenth century, as will be seen, Boileau expressly discourages the treatment of Christian themes, and insists that the ancient pagan fables alone must form the basis of neo-classical art. A third result of the imitation of the classics ,' was the development of applied, or concrete, criti- cism. If the foundations of literature, if the for- mation of style, can result only from a close and judicious imitation of classical literature, this prob- lem confronts us : Which classical authors are we to imitate ? An answer to this question involves the ' application of concrete criticism. A reason must be given for one's preferences; in other words* they must be justified on principle. The literary controversies of the humanists, the disputes on the subject of imitation, of Ciceronianism, and what not, all tended in this direction. The judgment of authors was dependent more or less on individual impressions. But the longer these controversies continued, the nearer was the approach to a liter- ary criticism, justified by appeals to general prin- v.] GROWTH or THE CLASSIC SPIRIT 131 ciples, whicli became more and more fixed and determined; so that the growth of principles, or criteria of judgment in matters of literature, is in reaJity coterminous with the history of the growth of classicism.* But one of the most important consequences of the imitation of the classics was that this imita- f tion became a dogma of criticism, and radically changed the relations of art and nature in so far as they touch letters and literary criticism. The imitation of the classics became, in a word, the basis of literary creation. Vida, for example, af- firms that the poet must imitate classical literature, for only by such imitation is perfection attainable in modem poetry. In fact, this notion is carried to such an extreme that the highest originality be- comes for Vida merely the ingenious translation of passages from the classic poets : — " Haud minor est adeo virtus, si te audit ApoUo, Inventa Argivfim in patriam convertere vocem, Quam si tute aliquid intactom inveneris ante." " ■ Muzio, echoing Horace, urges the poet to study the classics by day and by night ; and Scaliger, as has been seen, makes aU literary creation depend ultimately on judicious imitation: "Nemo est qui non aliquid de Echo." As a result, imitation grad- ually acquired a specialized and almost esoteric meaning, and became in this sense the starting- poiat of aU the educational theories of the later I Of. Dennis, Select Works, 1718, u. 417 sq. a Pope, i. 167. 132 LITERARY CRITICISM KT ITALY [chap. humanists. The doctrine of imitation set forth by John Sturm, the Strasburg humanist, -was particu- larly influential.^ According to Sturm, imitation is mot the servile copying of words and phrases ; it is "a K. vehement and artistic application of mind," which judiciously uses and transfigures all that it imitates. Sturm's theory of imitation is not entirely original, but comes through Agricola and Melanchthon from Quintilian.^ Quintilian had said that the greater part of art consists in imitation; but for the hu- manists imitation became the chief and almost the only element of literary creation, since the litera- ture of their own time seemed so vastly inferior to that of the ancients. The imitation of the classics having thus become essential to literary creation, what was to be its re- lation to the imitation of nature ? The ancient poets seemed to insist that every writer is at bottom an imitator of nature, and that he who does not imitate nature diverges from the purpose and prin- ciple of art. A lesson coming from a source so authoritative as this could not be left unheeded by the writers of the Renaissance, and the ^volution of classicism may be distinguished by the changing point of view of the critics in regard to the relations between nature and art. This evolution may be traced in the neo-classical period through three dis- tinct stages, and these three stages may be indicated by the doctrines respectively of Vida, Scaliger, and Boileau. 1 Laas, Die Paedagogik des Johannes Sturm, Berlin, 1872, p. 65 sq. 2 Inst. Orat. x. 2. v.] GROWTH OF THE CLASSIC SPIRIT 133 Vida says that it is the first essential of literary art to imitate the classics. This, however, does not prevent him from warning the poet that it is his first duty to observe and copy nature : — "Prseterea hand lateat te, nil conarier axtem, Katuram nisi ut assimolet, piopinsque seqoatar." For Vida, however, as for the later classicists, nature is synonymous with civilized men, perhaps even further restricted to the men of the city and the court ; and the study of nature was hardly more for h^vn than close observation of the differences of human character, more especially of the external differences which result from diversity of age, rank, sex, race, profession, and which may be designated by the term decorum,} The imita- tion of nature even in this restricted sense Vida requires on the authority of the ancients. The modem poet should imitate nature because the great classical poets have always acknowledged her sway : — " Hanc imam vates sibi proposuere magistram." Nature has no particular interest for Vida in itself. He accepts the classics as we accept the Scriptures ; and nature is to be imitated and followed because the ancients seem to require it. In S calig er this principle is carried one stage farther. The^pet creates another nature and other fortunes as if he were another God.^ Virgil espe- cially has created another nature of such beauty and perfection that the poet need not concern him- 1 Pope, 1. 165. " Poet. i. 1. 134 IITEEARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. self with the realities of life, but can go to the second nature created by Virgil for the subject- matter of his imitation. " All the things which you have to imitate, you have according to another nature, that is, Virgil." ^ In Virgil, as in nature, there are the most minute details of the foundation and government of cities, the management of armies, the building and handling of ships, and in fact all the secrets of the arts and sciences. What more can the poet desire, and indeed what more can he find in life, and find there with the same certainty and accuracy? Virgil has created a nature far more perfect than that of reality, and one compared with which the actual world and life itself seem but pale and without beauty. What Scaliger stands for, then, is the substitution of the world of art instead of life as the object of poetic imitation. This point of view finds expression in many of the theorists of his time. Partenio, for example, asserts that art is a firmer and safer guide than nature ; with nature we can err, but scarcely with art, for art eradicates from nature all that is bad, while nature mingles weeds with flowers, and does not distinguish vices from virtues.^ Boileau carries the neo-classical ideal of nature and art to its ultimate perfection. According to him, nothing is beautiful that is not true, and noth- ing is true that is not in nature. Truth, for classi- cism, is the final test of everything, including beauty ; and hence to be beautiful poetry must be founded on nature. Nature should therefore be the poet's 1 Foet. iii. 4. 2 Partenio, p. 39 sq. v.] GROWTH OS THE CLASSIC SPmiT 135 sole study, althotigh for Boileau, as for Vida, nature is one with the court and the city. Now, in what way can we discover exactly how to imitate nature, and perceive whether or not we have imitated it correctly ? Boileau finds the guide to the correct imitation of nature, and the very test of its correct- ness, in the imitation of the classics. The ancients are great, not because they are old, but because they are true, because they knew how to see and to imitate nature ; and to imitate antiquity is there- fore to use the best means the human spirit has ever found for expressing nature iu its perfection.* The advance of BoUeau's theory on that of Vida and Scaliger is therefore that he founded the rules and literary practice of classical literature on reason and nature, and showed that there is nothing arbitrary in the authority of the ancients. For Vida, nature is to be followed on the authority of the classics; for Boileau, the classics are to be followed on the authority of nature and reason. Scaliger had shown that such a poet as Virgil had created another nature more perfect than that of reality, and that therefore we should imitate this more beautiful nature of the poet. Boileau, on the contrary, showed that the ancients were simply imitating nature itself in the closest and keenest manner, and that by imitating the classics the poet was not imitating a second and different nature, but was being shown in the surest way how to imitate the real and only nature. This final reconciliation I Cf. Bnmetieie, p. 102 sq., and Lanson, ffist. de la Litt. fr., p. 491 tq. 136 LITEEARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. of the imitation of nature and the imitation of the classics was Boileau's highest contribution to the literary criticism of the neo-classical period. II. Aristotelianism The influence of Aristotle's Poetics is first visi- ble in the dramatic literature of the early sixteenth century. Trissino's Sofonisba (1515), usually ac- counted the first regular modern tragedy, Kucellai's Bosmunda (1516), and innumerable other tragedies of this period, were in reality little more than mere attempts at putting the Aristotelian theory of trag- edy into practice. The Aristotelian influence is evident in many of the prefaces of these plays, and in a few contemporary works of scholarship, such as the AntiqucB Lectiones (1516) of Cselius Khodi- ginus, whom Scaliger called omnium doctisdmus prceceptor noster. At the same time, the Poetics did not immediately play an important part in the critical literature of Italy. From the time of Pe- trarch, Aristotle, identified in the minds of the humanists with the mediaeval scholasticism so ob- noxious to them, had lost somewhat of his suprem- acy; and the strong Platonic tendencies of the Eenaissance had further contributed to lower the prestige of Aristotelianism among the humanists. At no time of the Kenaissance, however, did Aris- totle lack ardent defenders, and Filelfo, for exam- ple, wrote in 1439, " To defend Aristotle and the truth seems to me one and the same thing." ' In the domain of philosophy the influence of Aristotle 1 Lettres grecques, ed. Legrand, 1892, p, 31, v.] GEOWTH OF THE CTiASSIC SPIRIT 137 was temporarily sustained by the liberal Peripateti- cism of Pomponazzi ; and numerous others, among them Scaliger himself, continued the traditions of a modernized Aristotelianism. From this time, how- ever, Aristotle's position as the supreme philoso- pher was challenged more and more ; and he was regarded by the advanced thinkers of the Eenais- sance as the representative of the mediaeval obscur- antism that opposed the progress of modem scien- tific investigation. But whatever of Aristotle's authority was lost in the domain of philosophy was more than regained < in the domain of literature. The beginning of the Aristotelian influence on modern literary theory may be said to date from the year 1536, in which year Trincaveli published a Greek text of the Poetics, Pazzi his edition and Latin ver- sion, and Danielle his own Poebica. Pazzi's son, iu dedicating his father's posthumous work, said that in the Poetics "the precepts of poetic art are treated by Aristotle as divinely as he has treated every other form of knowledge." In the very year that this was said. Ramus gained his Master's degree at the University of Paris by de- fendiug victoriously the thesis that Aristotle's doc- trines without exception are all false.^ The year 1536 may therefore be regarded as a turning-point in the history of Aristotle's influence. It marks the beginning of his supremacy in literature, and the decline of his dictatorial authority in philosophy. I " QnsBcnnque ab Aristotele dicta sint falsa et conuuentitia esse ; " Bayle, Diet. a. v. Bamos, note C. 138 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. Between the year 1536 and the middle of the century the lessons of Aristotle's Poetics were be- ing gradually learned by the Italian critics and poets. By 1550 the whole of the Poetics had been incorporated in the critical literature of Italy, and Fracastoro could say that "Aristotle has received no less fame from the survival of his Poetics than from his philosophical remains.'" According to Bar- tolommeo Eicci, in a letter to Prince Alfonso, son of Hercules II., Duke of Ferrara, Maggi was the first person to interpret Aristotle's Poetics in public* These lectures were delivered some time before April, 1549. As early as 1540, Bartolommeo Lom- bardi, the collaborator of Maggi in his commentary on the Poetics, had intended to deliver public lec- tures on the Poetics before a Paduan academy, but died before accomplishing his purpose.' Numerous public readings on the subject of Aristotle and Horace followed those of Maggi, — among them those by Varchi, Giraldi Cintio, Luisino, and Tri- fone Gabrielli; and the number of public read- ings on topics connected with literary criticism, and on the poetry of Dante and Petrarch, increased greatly from this time. The number of commentaries on the Poetics it- self, published during the sixteenth century, is really remarkable. The value of these commen- taries in general is not so much that they add any- thing to the literary criticism of the Eenaissance, but that their explanations of Aristotle's meaning 1 Fracastoro, i. 321. 2 Tiraboschi, vii. 1465. ' Maggi, dedication. v.] GROWTH OF THE CTLASSIC SPIRIT 139 were accepted by contemporaay critics, and became in a way the source of all the literary arguments of the sixteenth century. Nor was their influence restricted merely to this particular period. They were, one might almost say, living things to the critics and poets of the classical period in France. Baciae, CorneiUe, and other distinguished writers possessed copies of these commentaries, studied them carefully, cited them in their prefaces and critical writings, and even annotated their own copies of the commentaries with marginal notes, of which some may be seen in the modem editions of their works. In the preface to Kapin's Reflexions sur VArt Poitique (1674) there is a history of liter- ary criticism, which is almost entirely devoted to these Italian commentators ; and writers like Chape- lain and Balzac eagerly argued and discussed their relative merits. Several of these Italian commentators have been alluded to already.^ The first critical edition of the Poetics was that of EoborteUi (1548), and this was followed by those of Maggi (1550) and Vettori (1560), both written in Latin, and both exhibiting g^eat learning and acumen. The first translation of the Poetics into the vernacular was that by Segni (1549), and this was followed by the Italian com- mentaries of Castelvetro (1570) and Piccolomini (1575). Tasso, after comparing the works of these two commentators, concluded that while Castelvetro 1 In an appendix to this essay Trill be found an excerpt from Salviati's unpublished commentary on the Poetics, giving his judgment of the commentators who had preceded him. 140 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. had greater erudition and invention, Piccolomini had greater maturity of judgment, more learning, perhaps, with less erudition, and certainly learning more Aris- totelian and more suited to the interpretation of the Poetics} The two last sections of Trissino's Poetica, published in 1563, are little more than a paraphrase and transposition of Aristotle's treatise. But the curious excesses into which admiration of Aristotle led the Italian scholars may be gathered from a work published at Milan in 1676, an edition of the Poetics expounded in Terse, Baldini's Ars Poetica Aristotelis versibus exposita. The Poetics was also adapted for use as a practical manual for poets and playwrights in such works as Eiccoboni's brief Cdm- pendium Artis Poeticoe Aristotelis ad uswni conficien- dorum poematum (1591). The last of the great Italian commentaries on the Poetics to have a gen- eral European influence was perhaps Beni's, pub- lished in 1613; but this carries us beyond the confines of the century. Besides the published editions, translations, and commentaries, many others were written which may still be found in Ms. in the libraries of Italy. Eeference has already been made to Salviati's (1686). There are also two anonymous commentaries dating from this period in Ms. at Morence, — one in the Maglia- bechiana and the other in the Eiccardiana. The last work which may be mentioned here is Buona^- mici's Discorsi Poetici in difesa d' Aristotele, in which Aristotle is ardently defended against the attacks of his detractors. 1 Tasso, XV. 20. v.] GROWTH OF THE CLASSIC SPIRIT 141 It was in Italy during this period that the literary dictatorship of Aristotle first developed, and it was Scaliger to whom the modem world owes the for- miilation of the supreme authority of Aristotle as a critical theorist. Fracastoro had likened the im- portance of Aristotle's Poetics to that of his philo- sophical treatises. Trissino had followed Aristotle verbally and almost literally. Varchi had spoken of years of Aristotelian study as an essential prerequi- site for every one who entered the field of literary criticism. Partenio, a year before the publication of Scaliger's Poetics, had asserted that everything relating to tragedy and epic poetry had been settled by Aristotle and Horace. But Scaliger went farther still. He was the first to regard Aristotle as the perpetual lawgiver of poejry. He was the first to assume that the duty of the poet is first to find out what Aristotle says, and then to obey these precepts without question. He distinctly calls Aristotle the perpetual dictator of all the arts: "Aristoteles im- perator noster, omnium bonarum artium dictator "f" perpetuus."^ This is perhaps the first occasion in modem literature in which Aristotle is definitely regarded as a literary dictator, and the dictatorship of Aristotle in literature may, therefore, be dated from the year 1661. But Scaliger did more than this. He was the first apparently to attempt to reconcile Aristotle's Poetics, not only with the precepts of Horace and the definitions of the Latin grammarians, but with the whole practice of Latin tragedy, comedy, and 1 Poet. vii. ii. 1. 142 LITERARY CRITICISM m ITALY [chap. epic poetry. It was in the light of this recon- ciliation, or concord of Aristotelianism with the Latin spirit, that Aristotle became for Scaliger a literary dictator. It was not Aristotle that pri- marily interested him, but an ideal created by him- self, and founded on such parts of the doctrine of •f- Aristotle as receiyed confirmation from the theory or practice of Eoman literature ; and this new ideal, harmonizing with the Latin spirit of the Eenais- sance, became in the course of time one of the founda- tions of classicism. The influence of Aristotelianism was further augmented by the Council of Trent, ' which gave to Aristotle's doctrine the same degree of authority as Catholic dogma. All these circumstances tended to favor the importance of Aristotle in Italy during the six- teenth century, and as a result the literary dictar torship of Aristotle was by the Italians foisted on Europe for two centuries to come. From 1560 to 1780 Aristotle was regarded as the supreme author- ity in letters throughout Europe. At no time, even in England, during and after that period, was there a break in the Aristotelian tradition, and the influ- ence of the Poetics may be found in Sidney and Ben Jonson, in Milton and Dryden, as well as in Shelley and Coleridge. Lessing, even in breaking away from the classical practice of the French stage, de- fended his innovations on the authority of Aristotle, and said of the Poetics, "1 do not hesitate to acknowledge, even if I should therefore be held up to scorn in these enlightened times, that I con- sider the work as infallible a? the Elements of v.] GROWTH OF THE CLASSIC SPIRIT 143 Euclid." ' In 1756, a dozen years before Lessing, one of the precursors of tte Tomantic movement in Eng- land, Joseph Warton, had also said of the Poetics, " To attempt to understand poetry without having diligently digested this treatise would be as absurd and impossible as to pretend to a skill in geometry without having studied Euclid." ^ One of the first results of the dictatorship of Aristotle was to give modem literature a body of inviolable rules for the drama and the epic; that is, the dramatic and heroic poets were restricted to a certain fixed form, and to certain fixed characters. Classical poetry was of course the ideal of the Eenaissance, and Aristotle had analyzed the methods which these works had employed. The inference seems to have been that by following these rules a literature of equal importance could be created. These formulae were at the bottom of classical literature, and rules which had created such literatures as those of Greece and Eome could hardly be disregarded. As a result, these rules came to be considered more and more as essentials, and finally, almost as the very tests of literature; and it was in consequence of their acceptance as poetic laws that the modern classical drama and epic arose. The fiirst modern tragedies and the first modern epics were hardly more than such attempts at putting the Aristotelian rules into practice. The cult of form during the Ke- naissance had produced a reaction against the 1 Hamburg. Dramat. 101-104. * Euay on Pope, 3d ed., i. 171. '^4>>'' pi '•-■ — - - -, , 144 LITEKAKY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. formlessness and invertebrate character of mediaeval literature. The literature of the Middle Ages was infinitely inferior to that of the ancients ; mediaeval literature lacked form and structure, classical literal ture had a regular and definite form. Form then came to be regarded as the essential difference be- tween the perfect literatures of Greece and Rome, and the imperfect and vulgar literature of the Middle Ages ; and the deduction from this was that, to be classical, the poet must observe the form and structure of the classics. Minturno indeed says that "the precepts given of old by the ancient masters, and now repeated by me here, are to be •s regarded merely as common usage, and not as invi- olable laws which must serve under all circum- stances."^ But this was not the general conception of the Eenaissance. Muzio, for example, specifi- cally says : — " Queste legge oh' io serivo e questi esempi Sian, lettore, al tuo dir perpetua norma ; " and in another place he speaks of a precept he has given, as " vera, f erma, e inevitabil legge." '' Scali- ger goes still further than this ; for, according to him, even the classics themselves are to be judged by these standards and rules. "It seems to me," says Scaliger, "that we ought not to refer every- thing back to Homer, just as though he were the norm, but Homer himself should be referred to the »*■ norm."' In the modern classical period somewhat > Arte Poetica, p. 158. ' Muzio, pp. 81 v., 76 v. » Poet. i. 6. v.] GROWTH OP THE CLASSIC SPIRIT 145 later, these rules were found to be based on reason : — " These rules of old, discoveTed not devised, Are nature still, but nature methodized." ^ But during the Renaissance they were accepted ex cathedra from classical literature. The formulation of a fixed body of critical rules was not the only result of the Aristotelian influence. One of the most important of these results, as has appeared, was the rational justifica- tion of imaginative literature. With the introduc- tion of Aristotle's Poetics into modem Europe the Renaissance was first able to formulate a systematic theory of poetry ; and it is therefore to the redis- covery of the Poetics that we may be said to owe the foundation of modem criticism. It was on the side of Aristotelianism that Italian criticism had its influence on European letters; and that this influence was deep and widespread, our study of the critical literatures of France and England will in part show. The critics with whom we have been dealing are not merely dead provincial names ; they influenced, for two whole centuries, not only France and England, but Spain, Portugal, and Germany as welL Literary criticism, in any real sense, did not be- gin in Spain until the very end of the sixteenth century, and the critical works that then appeared were wholly based on those of the Italians. Ken- gifo's Arte Poitica Espandla (1592), in so far as it 1 Pope, Essay on Criticism, 88. J. 146 LITEEAEY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. deals with the theory of poetry, is based on Aris- totle, Scaliger, and various Italian authorities, according to the author's own acknowledgment. ' Pinciano's Philosophia Antigua Poitica (1696) is based on the same authorities. Similarly, Cascales, in his Tobias Poiticas (1616), gives as his authori- ties Minturno, Giraldi Cintio, Maggi, Eiccoboni, Castelvetro, Eobortelli, and his own countryman Pinciano. The sources of these and all other works written at this period are Italian; and the fol- lowing passage from the Egemplar Portico, written about 1606 by the Spanish poet Juan de la Cueva, is a good illustration, not only of the general influ- ence of the Italians on Spanish criticism, but of the high reverence in which the individual Italian critics were held by Spanish men of letters : — " De los primeros tiene Horaoio el puesto, En numeros y estilo sotierano, Qual en su Arte al mundo es manifesto. Escaligero [i.e. Scaliger] hace el paso llano Con general ensefiamiento y guia, Lo mismo el dooto Cintio [i.e. Giraldi Cintio] y Bipeiano.' Maranta^ es egemplar de la Poesia, Vida el norte, Pontano » el omamento, La luz Minturno qual el sol del dia Acuden todos a colmar sus vasos 1 Viperano, author of De Poetica Hbri tres, Antwerp, 1679. s Maranta, author of LucuUanse Qussstiones, Basle, 1564. • Three writers of the Renaissance bore this name : G. Pon- tano, the famous Italian humanist and Latin poet, who died iu 1503 ; P. Pontano, of Bruges, the author of an Ars Versiflcatoria, published in 1520; and J. Pontauus, a Bohemian Jesuit, author of Institutiones Poetics, first published at Ingolstadt in 1594, and several times reprinted. v.] GKOWTH OF THE CLASSIC SPIRIT 147 Al oceano sacro de Stagira [i.e. Aristotle], Donde se afirman los dudosos pasos, Se etemiza la trompa y tiema lira." ^ The influence of the Italians was equally great in Grermany. From Fabricius to Opitz, the criti- cal ideas of Germany were almost all borrowed, directly or indirectly, from Italian sources. Fabri- cius in his De Be Poetica (1584) acknowledges his indebtedness to Minturno, Partenio, Pontanus, and others, but above aU to Scaliger ; and most of the critical ideas by which Opitz renovated modern Ger- man literature go back to Italian sources, through Scaliger, Itonsard, and Daniel Heiosius. No better illustration of the influence of the Italian critics upon European letters could be afforded than that given by Opitz's Buck von der deutschen Poelerei.^ The influence of Italian criticism on the critical literature of France and England will be more or less treated in the remaining portions of this essay. It may be noted here, however, that in the critical writings of Lessing there is represented the climax of the Italian tradition in European letters, espe- V cially on the side of Aristotelianism. Shelley repre- sents a similar culmination of the Italian tradition in England. His indebtedness to Sidney and Mil- 1 Sedano, Parnaso Espanol, Madrid, 1774, viii. 40, 41. 2 Cf. Berghoeffer, Opitz' Buck von der Poeterei, 1888, and ' Beckherm, Opitz, Ronsard, und Heinsius, 1888. The first refer- ence to Aristotle's Poetics, north of the Alps, is to be found in Lnther's Address to the Christian Nobles of the German Nation, 1520. Schosser's JDisputationes de Tragwdia, published in 1559, two years before Scaliger's work appeared, is entirely based on Aristotle's Poetics. 148 LITERAEY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. ton, who represent tlie Italian influence in the Elizabethan age, and especially to Tasso, whom he contiQually cites, is very marked. The debt of modern literature to Italian criticism is therefore not slight. In the half century between Vida and Castelvetro, Italian criticism formulated three things: a theory of poetry, a rigid form for the epic, and a rigid form for the drama. These rigid forms for drama and epic governed the creative imagination of Europe for two centuries, and then passed away. But while modern aesthetics for over a century has studied the processes of art, the theory of poetry, as enunciated by the Italians of the sixteenth century, has not dimin- ished in value, but has continued to pervade the finer minds of men from that time to this. III. Bationdlism The rationalistic temper may be observed in critical literature almost at the very beginning of the sixteenth century. This spirit of rationalism is observable throughout the Eenaissance ; and its general causes may be looked for in the liberation of the human reason by the Eenaissance, in the growth of the sciences and arts, and in the reac- tion against mediaeval sacerdotalism and dogma. The causes of its development in literary criticism may be found not only in these but in several other influences of the period. The paganization of cul- ture, the growth of rationalistic philosophies, with their all-pervading influence on arts and letters, and T.] GROWTH OF THE CLASSIC SPIRIT 149 moreover the influence of Horace's Ars Poetica, with, its ideal of " good sense," all tended to make the element of reasou predominate in liteiature and ia literary criticism. In Vida the three elements which are at the bottom of classicism, the imitation of the classics, the imitation of nature, and the authority of reason, may aU be found. Season is for hiwi the final test of all things : — " Semper nuta rationis eant res." i The function of the reason in art is, first, to serve as a standard in the choice and carrying out of the design, a bulwark against the operation of mere chance,' and secondly, to moderate the expression of the poet's own personality and passion, a bul- wark against the morbid subjectivity which is the horror of the classical temperament.' It has been said of Scaliger that he was the first modem to establish in a body of doctrine the principal consequences of the sovereignty of the reason in literature.* That was hardly his aim, and certainly not his attainment. But he was, at all events, one of the first modem critics to affirm that there is a standard of perfection for each specific form of literature, to show that this standard may be arrived at a priori through the reason, and to attempt a formulation of such standard for each literary form. "Est in onmi rerum genere unum 1 Pope, i. 155. * Loc. cit., beginning, " Nee te fora inopina regat." ' Pope, 1. 161, beginning, " Ne tamen ah nimimu." * Lintilhac, in IfouoeUe Bevue, hdy. 5i3. 150 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. primum ac rectum ad cuius turn normari', turn ratio- nem csetera dirigenda sunt."^ TMs, the fundar mental assumption of Scaliger's Poetics, is also one of the basic ideas of classicism. Nqt_oiilj^ is there a standard, a norm, in every species of literature, but this norm caii be definitely formulated and de- fined by means of the reason ; and it is the duty of the critic to formulate this norm, and the duty of the poet to study and follow it without deviating from the norm in any way. Even Homer, as we have seen, is to be judged according to this stan- dard arrived at through the reason. Such a method cuts off all possibility of novelty of form or expres- sion, and holds every poet, ancient or modern, great or small, accountable to one and the same standard of perfection. The growth and influence of rationalism in Ital- ian criticism may be best observed by the gradual effect which its development had on the element of Aristotelianism. In other words, rationalism changed the point of view according to which the Aristotelian canons were regarded in the Italian Renaissance. The earlier Italian critics accepted their rules and precepts on the authority of Aris- totle alone. Thus Trissino, at the beginning of the fifth section of his Poetica, finished in 1549, al- though begun about twenty years before, says, "I shall not depart from the rules and precepts of the ancients, and especially Aristotle." * Somewhat later, in 1553, Varchi says, " Eeason and Aristotle are my two guides." ' Here the element of the 1 Scaliger, Poet. iii. 11. 2 Trissino, ii. 92. » Varchi, p. 600. v.] GROWTH OP THE CLASSIC SPIRIT 151 reason first asserts itself, but there is no intimation that the Aristotelian canons are in themselves reasonable. The critic has two guides, the individ- ual reason and the Aristotelian rules, and each of these two guides is to serve wherever the other is found wanting. This same point of view is found a decade later in Tasso, who says that the defenders of the unity of the epic poem have made " a shield of the authority of Aristotle, nor do they lack the arms afforded by the reason ; " ' and similarly, in 1583, Sir Philip Sidney says that the unity of time is demanded "both by Aristotle's precept and common reason." ^ Here both Tasso and Sidney, while contending that the particular law under dis- cussion is in itself reasonable, speak of Aristotle's Ponies and the reason as separate and distinct authorities, and fail to show that Aristotle himself based all his precepts upon the reason. In Denores, a few years later, the development is carried one stage farther in the direction of the ultimate classi- cal attitude, as when he speaks of " reason and Aristotle's Poetics, which is indeed founded on naught save reason." ' This is as far as Italian criticism ever went. It was the function of neo- classicism in France, as will be seen, to show that such a phrase as " reason and Aristotle " is a con- tradiction in itself, that the Aristotelian canons and the reason are ultimately reducible to the same thing, and that not only what is in Aristotle will 1 Tasso, xli. 217. * Defense of Poesy, p. 48. » Discorso, 1587, p. 39 v. ■V 162 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. be found reasonable, but all that reason dictates for literary observance will be found in Aristotle. Rationalism produced several very important re- sults in literature and literary criticism during the sixteenth century. In the first place, it tended to give the reason a higher place in literature than im- agination or sensibility. Joetry, it will be remem- bered, was often classified by Eenaissance critics as one of the logical sciences; and nothing could be in greater accord with the neo-classical ideal than the assertion of Varchi and others that the better logician the poet is, the better he will be as a poet. Sainte-Beuve gives Scaliger the credit of i having first formulated this theory of literature which subordinates the creative imagination and poetic sensibility to the reason ; ' but the credit or discredit of originating it does not belong exclu- sively to Scaliger. This tendency toward the apo- theosis of the reason was diffused throughout the sixteenth century, and does not characterize any in- dividual author. The Italian critics of this period were the first to formulate the classical ideal that the standard of perfection may be conceived of by the reason, and that perfection is to be attained only by the realization of this standard. The rationalistic spirit also tended to set the seal of disapprobation on extravagances of any sort. Subjectivity and individualism came to be regarded more and more, at least in theory, as out of keep- ing with classical perfection. Clearness, reasonable- ness, sociableness, were the highest requirements ^ Causeries du Lundi, iii. 44. T.] GROWTH OF THE CLASSIC SPIRIT 153 of art ; aad any excessive expression of the poet's individuality was entirely disapproved of. Man, not only as a reasonable being, but also as a social being, was regarded as the basis of literature. Boileau's lines : — " Que les vers ne soient pas votre 6temel emploi ; Oultivez vos amis, soyez homme de foi ; C'est peu d'§tre agr^ble et charmant dans vm livre, H faut savoir encore et converser et vivre," i were anticipated in Bemi's Dialogo contra i Poeti, written in 1526, though not published until 1537. This charming invective is directed against the fashionable literature of the time, and especially against all professional poets. Writing from the standpoint of a polished and rationalistic society, Bemi lays great stress on the fact that poetry is not to be taken too seriously, that it is a pastime, a recreation for cultured people, a mere bagatelle ; and he professes to despise those who spend all their time in writing verses. The vanity, the use- lessness, the extravagances, and the ribaldry of the professional poets receive his hearty contempt; only those who write verses for pastime merit ap- probation. "Are you so stupid," he cries, "as to think that I call any one who writes verses a poet, and that I regard such men as Vida, Pon- tano, Bembo, Sannazaro, as mere poets? I do not call any one a poet, and condemn him as such, xmless he does nothing but write verses, and wretched ones at that, and is good for nothing else. But the men I have mentioned are not 1 Art Po6t. Iv. 121. 154 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. v. poets by profession."* Here the sentiments ex- pressed are those of a refined and social age, — the age of Louis XIV. no less than that of Leo X. The irreligious character of neo-classic art may also be regarded as one of the consequences of this rationalistic temper. The combined effect of hu- manism, essentially pagan, and rationalism, essen- tially sceptical, was not favorable to the growth of religious feeling in literature. Classicism, the result of these two tendencies, became more and more rationalistic, more and more pagan; and in consequence, religious poetry in any real sense ceased to flourish wherever the more stringent forms of classicism prevailed. In Boileau these tenden- cies result in a certain distinct antagonism to the very forms of Christianity in literature : — " C'est done bien vainement que nos auteurs d^jus, Bannlssant de leurs vers ces omemens regus, Pensent faire agir Dieu, ses saints et ses proph6tes, Comme oes dieux 6clos du cerveau des pontes ; Mettent k chaque pas le lecteur en enfer ; N'oflrent rien qu'Astaroth, Belz6buth, Lucifer. De la foi d'un chr6tien les mystSres terribles D'ornemens ^gay^s ne sont point susceptibles ; L'ifevangile k I'esprit n'oflre de tous c6tfe Que penitence k faire et tourmens m6rit6s ; Et de vos Actions le melange coupable Mgme k ses v^rit^s donne I'air de la fable." * 1 Bemi, p. 249. " Art Poit. iii. 193. Cf. Dryden, Discourse on Satire, in Works, sdli. 23 sq. CHAPTER VI KOMANTIC ELEMENTS IN ITALIAN CRITICISM In the Italian critical literature of the sixteenth century there are to be found the germs of ro- mantic as well as classical criticism. The develop- ment of romanticism in Eenaissance criticism is due to various tendencies, of ancient, of mediaeval, and of mqdern origin. 'J The ancient element is Platonism ^ ^e mediseval elements are Christian- ity, and the jxifluence of the literary forms and the literary subject-matter of the Middle Ages; and 4he modem elements are the growth of na- tional life and national_literatures, and the oppo- sition of modern philosophy to Aristotelianism. I. The Ancient Somantic Element As the element of reason is the predominant feature of neo-classicism, so the element of im- agination is the predominant feature of roman- ticism; and according as the reason or the im- agination predominates in Renaissance literature, there results neo-classicism or romanticism, while the most perfect art finds a reconciliation of both elements in the imaginative reason. According 166 156 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. to the faculty of reason, -when made tlie basis of literature, the poet is, as it were, held down to y earth, and art becomes the mere reasoned expres- sion of the truth of life. By the faculty of im- / agination, the poet is made to create a new world of his own, — a world in which his genius is free to mould whatever its imagination takes hold of. This romantic doctrine of the freedom of genius, of inspiration and the power of imagination, in so far as it forms a part of Eenaissance criticism, owes its origin to Platonism. The influence of the Platonic doctrines among the humanists has already been alluded to. Plato was regarded by them as their leader in the struggle against medi- sevalism, scholasticism, and Aristotelianism. The V- Aristotelian dialectic of the Middle Ages appealed exclusively to the reason; Platonism gave oppor- tunities for the imagination to soar to vague and 'sublime heights, and harmonize with the divine mysteries of the universe. As regards poetry and imaginative literature in general, the critics of the Eenaissance appealed from the Plato of the Be- / public and the Laws to the Plato of the Ion, the "^ ^ Phixdrus, and the /S'ymposwm.'' Beauty being the subject-matter of art, Plato's praise of beauty was transferred by the Eenaissance to poetry, and his praise of the philosopher was transferred to the poet. The Aristotelian doctrine defines beauty accord- ing to its relations to the external world ; that is, poetry is an imitation of nature, expressed in gen- eral terms. The Platonic doctrine, on the con- ▼I.] KOMAIfTIC ELEMENTS 157 trary, is concerned with poetry, or beauty, in so far as it concerns the poet's own nature ; that is, the poet is divinely inspired and is a creator like God. Fracastoro, as has been seen, makes the Pla- tonic rapture, the delight in the true and essential beauty of things, the true tests of poetic power. In introducing this Platonic ideal of poetic beauty into modem literary criticism, he defines and dis- tinguishes poetry according to a subjective crite- rion; and it is according to whether the objective or the subjective conception of art is insisted upon, that we have the classic spirit or the romantic spirit. The extreme romanticists, like the Schle- gels and their contemporaries in Germany, entirely eliminate the relation of poetry to the external world, and in this extreme form romanticism be- comes identified with the exaggerated subjective idealism of Fichte and Schelling. The extreme classicists entirely eliminate the poet's personality ; that is, poetry is merely reasoned expression, a perfected expression of what aU men can see in nature, for the poet has no more insight into life — no more imagination — than any ordinary, judi- cious person. The effects of this Platonic element upon Eenais- sance criticism were various. In the first place, it was through the Platonic influence that the relation of beauty to poetry was first made prominent.' Ac- cording to Scaliger, Tasso, Sidney, another world of beauty^ is created by the poet, — a world that possesses beauty in its perfection as this world ^De Sanctis, ii. 193 sq. 158 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. never can. The reason alone leaves no place for beauty; and accordingly, for the neo-classicists, art was ultimately restricted to moral and psychologi- cal observation. Moreover, Platonism raised the question of the freedom of genius and of the imagi- nation. Of all men, only the poet, as Sidney and others pointed out, is bound down and restricted by no laws. But if poetry is a matter of inspiration, how can it be called an art ? If genius alone suf- fices, what need is there of study and artifice ? For the extreme romanticists of this period, genius alone was accounted sufB.cient to produce the great- est works of poetry; for the extreme classicists, studious and labored art unaided by genius fulfilled all the functions of poetic creation; but most of the critics of the sixteenth century seem to have agreed with Horace that genius, or an inborn apti- tude, is necessary to begin with, but that it needs art and study to regulate and perfect it. Genius cannot sufB.ce without restraint and cultivation. Scaliger, curiously, reconciles both classic and romantic elements. The poet, according to Scaliger, is inspired, is in fact a creator like God ; but poetry is an imitation (that is, re-creation) of nature, ac- cording to certain fixed rides obtained from the observation of the anterior expression of nature in great art. It is these rules that make poetry an art ; and these rules form a distinct neo-classic ele- ment imposed on the Aristotelian doctrine. ▼I.] ROMANTIC ELEMENTS 159 n. MedicevcU Elements The Middle Ages contributed to the poetic ideal of the Renaissance two elements : romantic themes and the Christuui spirit. The forms and subjects of mediaeval literature are distinctly ro- mantic. Dante's Divine Comedy is an allegorical vision ; it is almost unique in form, and has no classical prototype.* The tendency of Petrarchism was also in the direction of romanticism. Its "conceits " and its subjectivity led to an unclassical extravagance of thought and expression; and the Petrarchistic influence made lyric poetry, and ac- cordingly the criticism of lyric poetry, more roman- tic than any other form of literature or literary criticism during the period of classicism. It was for this reason that there was little lyricism in the classical period, not only in France, but wherever the classic temper predominated- The themes of the romanzi are also mediaeval and romantic; but while they are mediaeval contributions to literature,' they became contributions to literary criticism only after the growth of national life and the de- velopment of the f eeUng' of nationality, both dis- tinctly modem. Some reference has already been made to the paganization of culture by the humanists. But with the growth of that revival of Christian sen- timent which led to the Reformation, there were numerous attempts to reconcile Christianity with 1 Cf. Bosanqnet, Higt. of Esthetic, p. 152 tq. « Cf. FofEano, p. 151 sq. 160 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. pagan culture.* Such, men as Ticino and Pico della Miraudola attempted to harmonize Christianity and Platonic philosophy ; and under the great patron of letters, Pope Leo X., there were various attempts to harmonize Christianity with the classic spirit in literature. In such poems as Vida's Christiad and Sannazaro's De Partu Virginis, Christianity is cov- ered with the drapery of paganism or classicism. The first reaction against this paganization of cul- ture was, as has been seen, effected by Savonarola. This reaction was reenforced, in the next century, ^ by the influence and authority of the Council of Trent ; and after the middle of the sixteenth cen- /tury the Christian ideal plays a prominent part ^ in literary criticism. The spirit of both Giraldi Cintio and Minturno is distinctly Christian. Por /Giraldi the romanzi are Christian, and hence supe- rior to the classical epics. He allows the introduc- tion of pagan deities only into epics dealing with the ancient classical subjects ; but Tasso goes further, and says that no modern heroic poet should , have anything to do with them. According to \/ Tasso, the heroes of an heroic poem must be Chris- tian knights, and the poem itself must deal with a true, not a false, religion. The subject is not to be ^ -connected with any article of Christian faith or ^ dogma, because that was fixed by the Council of Trent ; but paganism in any form is altogether un- fit for a modern epic. Tasso even goes so far as to assert that piety shall be numbered among the virtues of the knightly heroes of epic poetry. 1 Symonds, ii. 470. VI.] KOMAHrrlC ELEMENTS 161 At the same time also, Lorenzo Gambara wrote his work, De Perfecta Poeseos RaMone, to prove that it is essential for every poet to exclude from his poems, not only everything that is wicked or ob- scene, but also everything that is fabulous or that deals with pagan divinities.^ It was to this reli- gious reaction that we owe the Christian poetry of Tasso, Du Bartas, and Spenser. But humanism was strong, and rationalism was rife; and the re- ligious revival was hardly more than temporary. Neo-classicism throughout Europe was essentially pagan. in. Modem Elements The literature of the Middle Ages constitutes, as it were, one vast body of European literature ; only with the Eenaissance did distinctly national litera- tures spring into existence. Nationalism as well as individualism was subsequent to the B«naissance ; and it was at this period that the growth of a national literature, of national life, — in a word, patriotism in its widest sense, — was first effected. The linguistic discussions and controversies of the sixteenth century prepared the way for a higher appreciation of national languages and literatures. These controversies on the comparative merits of the classical and vernacular tongues had begun in the time of Dante, and were continued in the six- teenth century by Bembo, Castiglione, Varchi, Muzio, Tolomei, and many others; and in 1664 Salviati summed up the Italian side of the question in an 1 Baillet, iu. 70. u 162 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. oration in which he asserted that the Tuscan, or, as he called it, the Florentine language and the Flor- entine literature are vastly superior to any other language or literature, whether ancient or modern. However extravagant this claim may appear, the mere fact that Salviati made such a claim at all is enough to give him a place worthy of serious con- sideration in the history of Italian literature. The other side of the controversy finds its extremest expression in a treatise of Celio Calcagnini ad- dressed to Giraldi Cintio, in which the hope is expressed that the Italian language, and all the literature composed in that language, would be absolutely abandoned by the world.^ In Giraldi Cintio we find the first traces of purely national criticism. His purpose, in writing the discourse on the romanzi, was primarily to defend Ariosto, whom he had known personally in his youth. The point of view from which he starts is that the romanzi constitute a new form of poetry of which Aristotle did not know, and to which, therefore, Aristotle's rules do not apply. Giraldi regarded the romantic poems of Ariosto and Boi- ardo both as national and as Christian works ; and Italian literature is thus for the first time critically distinguished from classical literature in regard to language, religion, and nationality. In Giraldi's discourse there is no apparent desire either to un- derrate or to disregard the Poetics of Aristotle ; the fact was simply that Aristotle had not known the poems which deal with many actions of many men, 1 Tiiaboschi, vii. 1659. Ti.] EOJIAMTIC ELEMENTS 163 and hence it would be absurd to demand that such poems should conform to his rules. The romanzi deal with phases of poetry, and phases of life, which Aristotle could not be expected to understand. A similar feeling of the distinct nationality of Italian literature is to be found in many of the prefaces of the Italian comedies of this period. II Lasca, in the preface of the Strega (c. 1555), says that " Aristotle and Horace knew their own times, but ours are not the same at all. We have other manners, another religion, and another mode of life; and it is therefore necessary to make come- dies after a different fashion." As early as 1534, Aretino, in the prologue of his Cortegiana, warned his audience "not to be astonished if the comic style is not observed in the manner required, for we live after a different fashion in modem Some than they did in ancient Athens." Similarly, Gelli, in the dedication of the Sporta (1543), justifies the use of language not to be found in the great sources of Italian speech, on the ground that "language, together with all other natural things, continually varies and changes." ^ Although there is in Giraldi Cintio no fundamen- tal opposition to Aristotle, it is in his discourse on the romanzi that there may be found the first at- tempt to wrest a province of art from Aristotle's supreme authority. Neither Salviati, who had rated the Italian language above all others, nor Galc^nini, who had regarded it as the meanest of 1 Several similar extracts from Italian comic prologues may be fonnd in Symonds, v. 533 sj. 164 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. all, had understood the discussion of the impor- tance of the Tuscan tongue to be concerned ivith the question of Aristotle's literary supremacy. It was simply a national question — a question as to the national limits of Aristotle's authority, just as was the case in the several controversies connected with Tasso, Dante, and Gruarini's Pastor Mdo} Castel- vetro, in his commentary on the Poetics, differs from Aristotle on many occasions, and does not hesitate even to refute him. Yet Ms reverence for Aristotle is great ; his sense of Aristotle's supreme authority is strong; and on one occasion, where Horace, Quintilian, and Cicero seem to differ from Aristotle, Castelvetro does not hesitate to assert that they could not have seen the passage of the Poetics in question, and that, in fact, they did not thoroughly understand the true constitution of a poet." The opposition to Aristotelianism among the humanists has abeady been alluded to. This op- position increased more and more with the develop- ment of modern philosophy. In 1636 E.amus had attacked Aristotle's authority at Paris. A few years later, in 1543, Ortensio Landi, who had been at the Court of France for some time, published his Paradossi, in which it is contended that the works which pass under the name of Aristotle are not really Aristotle's at all, and that Aristotle himself was not only an ignoramus, but also the most vil- lanous man of his age. "We have, of our own accord," he says, "placed our necks under the yoke, » FofEano, p. 164 sq. 2 Poetica, p. 32. VI.] ROMANTIC ELEMENTS 165 patting that vile beast of an Aristotle on a throne, and depending on his conclusions as if he were an oracle." ^ It is the philosophical authority of Aris- totle that Landi is attacking. His attitude is not that of a humanist, for Cicero and Boccaccio do not receive more respectful treatment at his hands than Aristotle does. Landi, despite his mere eccentrici- ties, represents the growth of modern free thought and the antagonism of modern philosophy to Aris- totelianism. The literary opposition and the philosophical op- position to Aiistotelianism may be said to meet in Francesco Patrizzi, and, in a less degree, in Gior- dano Bruno. Patrizzi's bitter Antiperipateticism is to be seen in his Nova de Universis Philosophia (1591), in which the doctrines of Aristotle are shown to be false, inconsistent, and even opposed to the doctrines of the Catholic Church. His liter- ary antagonism to Aristotle is shown in his remark- able work, Delia Poetica, published at Ferrara in 1586. This work is divided into two parts, — the first historical. La Deca Istoriale, and the second contro- versial. La Deca Disputata. In the historical sec- tion he attempts to derive the norm of the differ- ent poetic forms, not from one or two great works as Aristotle had done, but from the whole history of literature. It is thus the first work in modern times to attempt the philosophical study of literary history, and to trace out "the evolution of literary forms. The second or controversial section is di- rected agaiast the Poetics of Aristotle, and in part 1 Paradossi, Venetia, 1545, ii. 29. 166 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ITALY [chap. also against the critical doctrines of Torquato Tasso. In this portion of his work Patrizzi sets out to demonstrate — per istoria, e per ragioni, e per autoritd, de' grandi antichi — that the accepted criti- cal opinions of his time were without foundation ; and the Poetics of Aristotle himself he exhibits as obscure, inconsistent, and entirely unworthy of credence. Similar antagonism to the critical doctrines of Aristotle is to be found in passages scattered here and there throughout the works of Giordano Bruno, In the first dialogue of the Eroid Furori, published at London in 1685, while Bruno was visiting Eng- land, he expresses his contempt for the mere ped- ants who judge poets by the rules of Aristotle's Poetics. His contention is that there are as many sorts of poets as there are human sentiments and ideas, and that poets, so far from being subservient to rules, are themselves really the authors of all critical dogma. Those who attack the great poets whose works do not accord with the rules of Aris- totle are called by Bruno stupid pedants and beasts. The gist of his argument may be gathered from the following passage : — " Tans. Thou dost well conclude that poetiy is not born in rules, or only slightly and accidentally so ; the rules are derived from the poetry, and there are as many kinds and softs bit true rules as there are kinds and sorts of true poets. Cio. How then are the true poets to be known ? Tans. By the jjnging of their verses ; in that singing they give delight, or they edify, or they edify and delight together. Ti.] ROMANTIC ELEMENTS 167 Cic. To whom then are the rules of Aristotle useful ? TiLNs. To him who, unlike Homer, Hesiod, Orpheus, and others, could not sing without the rules of Aristotle, and who, having no Muse of his own, would coquette with that of Homer." i A similar antagonism to Aristotle and a similar literary individualism are to be found in a much, later work by Benedetto Moretti, who Tinder the pseudonym of Udeno Nisieli published the five vol- umes of his Proginnasmi Foetid between 1620 and 1639.* Just before the close of the sixteenth cen- tury, however, the Poetics had obtained an ardent defender against such attacks in the person of Francesco Buonamici, in his Discorsi Poetici; and three years later, in 1600, Faustino Summo published a similar defence of Aristotle. Th e att acks on Aristotle's literary dictatorship were of little avaU ; it was hardly necessary even to defend him. For two centuries to come he was to reign supreme on the continent of Europe ; and in Italy this supremacy was hardly disturbed until the days of Goldoni and Metastasio. 1 Opere, ii. 315 (Williams's translation). 2 Cf. the diverse opinions of Tiraboschi, viii. 516, and Hallam, Lit. of Surope, pt. iii. ch. 7. Part Second LITER ABT CRITICISM W FRANCE LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE CHAPTEE I THE CHAJBACTEB AND DEVELOPMENT OF FRENCH OKITICISM IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY LiTBBABT criticism in France, while beginning somewhat later than in Italy, preceded the birth of criticism in England and in Spain by a number of years. Critical activity in nearly aU the countries of western Europe seenis to have been ushered in by the translation of Horace^^rs Poetica into the vernacular tongues. Critical activity in Italy be- gan with Dolce's Italian version of the Ars Poetica ia 1535 ; in France, with the I"rench_versioa of PeUetier in 1545; in England, with the English ( — version of Drant ia 1567 ; and in Spain, with the ', Spanish versions of Espinel and Zapata in 1591 and 1592, respectively. Two centuries of literary dis- cussion had prepared the way for criticism in Italy ; and lacking this period of preparation, Fren^jcriti- cism during the sixteenth century was necessarily of a innch more .practical character than that of Italy during the same age. The critical works of France, and of England also, were on the whole designed for those whose immediate intention it 171 172 LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE [chap. was to write verse themselves. The disinterested and philosophic treatment of aesthetic problems, wholly aside from all practical considerations, char- acterized much of the critical activity of the Italian Renaissance, but did not become general in Prance until the next century. For this reason, in the French and English sections of this essay, it will be necessary to deal with various rhetorical and metrical questions which in the Italian section could be largely disregarded. In these matters, as in the more general questions of criticism, it will be seen that sixteenth-century Itgjiy furnished th e sourc e of all the accepted critical doctrines of western Europe. The comparative number of critical works in Italy and in France is also noteworthy. While those of the Italian Renaissance may be counted by the score, the literature of France during the six- teenth century, exclusive of a few purely rhetorical treatises, hardly offers more than a single dozen. It is evident, therefore, that the treatment of French criticism must be more limited in extent than that of Italian criticism, and somewhat differ- ent in character. The literature of the sixteenth century in France is divided into two almost equal parts by Du Bellay!g_g^j%nse et Illustration de la Langue fran- faise, published in 1549. In no other country of Europe is the transition from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance so clearly marked as it is in France by this single book. With the invasion of Italy by the army of Charles VIII. in 1494, the influence of Italian art, of Italian learning, of Italian poetry, I.] DEVELOPMENT OF FRENCH CRITICISM 173 had received its first impetus in France. But over half a century was to elapse before the effects of this influence upon the creative literature of France was universally and powerfully felt. Duriug this period the activity of Budseus, Erasmus, Dolet, and numerous other French and foreign humanists strengthened the cause and widened the influence of the New Learning. But it is only with the birth of the Pleiad e that modern French literature may be said to have begun. In 1649 Du BeUay's Defense, the manifesto of the new school, appeared. Eonsard's Odes were published ia the next year; and in 1552 Jodelle inaugurated French tragedy with his OUopdtre, and first, as Eonsard said, " Frangoisement chanta la grecque trag^die." The Defense therefore marks a distinct epoch in the -^ critical as well as the creative literature of France. The critical works that preceded it, if they may be called critical in any real sense, did not attempt to do more than formulate the conventional notions of rhetorical and metrical structure common to the French poets of the later Middle Ages. The Pleiade itself, as will be more clearly understood later, was also chiefly concerned with linguistic and rhetorical reforms ; and as late as 1580 Montaigne could say that there were more poets in France than judges and interpreters of poetry.^ The crea- tive refgr5as_of_&gJE!lfiiad6 lay largely in the direc- tion of the formation of a poetic lango^e, the introduction of new genres, the creation of new 1 EasaU, i. 36. 174j LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE [chap. r hythm s, and the imitation_of_cla^si£al_HtCT^ 1 But with the imitation of classical literature there came the renewal of the ancient subjects of inspira- Ition; and from this there proceeded a high and dignified conception of the poet's office. Indeed, many of the more general critical ideas of the Pl^iade spring from the desire to justify the func- tion of poetry, and to magnify its importance. The new school and its epigones dominate the second half of the sixteenth century ; and as the first half of the century was practically unproductive of criti- cal literature, a history of JFrench Benaissance criticism is harcyij"__jnore than^ an^ account of th e poetic theories^ the Fjeiade. The series of rhetorical and metrical treatises that precede Du Bellay's Difense begins with L'Art de dictier et de fere changons, balades, virelais et rondeaulx, written by the poet Eustache Deschamps in 1392, over half a century after the similar work of Antonio da Tempo in Italy.* Toward the close of the fifteenth century a work of the same nature, the Fleur de BJiitorique, by an author who refers to himself as L'lnfortun^, seems to have had some influence on later treatises. Three works of this sort fall within the first half of the sixteenth cen- tury : the Grand et vrai Art de pleine BMtorique of Pierre Pabri, published at Eouen in 1521; the Bhitorique metrifiie of Gracien du Pont, published at Paris in 1639 ; and the Art PoUique of Thomas Sibilet, published at Paris in 1548. The second 1 On these early works, see Lauglois, Da Artibus Bhetoricss ShythmiciB, Farisiis, 1890. 1.] DEVELOPMENT OF FRENCH CRITICISM 175 part of Fabri's Bhitorique deals with questions of versificatioii — of rhyme, rhythm, and the complex metrical form of such poets as Cretin, Meschinot, and Molinet, in whom Pasquier found prou de rime et Equivoque, mats peu de raison. As the Ehet&rique of Fabri is little more than an amplification of the similar work of L'Infortune, so the work of Gracien du Pont is little more than a reproduc- tion of Pabri's. Gracien du Pont is stUl chiefly intent on rime iquivoquee, rime entrelacie, rime retrograde, rime concatenee, and the various other mediaeval complexities of versification. Sibilet's Art Poetique is more interesting than any of its predecessors. It was published a year before the Difense of Du BeUay, and discusses many of the new_genres which the latter advocates. SibUet treats of the sonnet, which had recently 'Taeen borrowed from the Italians by Mellin de Saint-Gelais, the ode, which had just been employed by Pelletier, and the &^giam, as practised by Marot. The eclogue is described as "Greek by invention, Latin by usurpation, and French by imi- tation." But one of the most interesting passages in SibUef s book is that in which the French moral- ity is compared with the classical drama. This passage exhibits perhaps the earliest trace of the influence of Italian ideas on French criticism; it will be discussed later in connection with the drar matic theories of this period. It is about the middle of the sixteenth century, then, that the influence of Italian criticism is first visible. The literature of Italy was read with ^s> 176 LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE [chap. avidity in Trance. Many educated yonjgJFrench- men travelled Jxjitaly, and several ItaJianjmen, of lettOTS,_visited_Fr^ce. Girolamo Muzio travelled in France in 1524, and again in 1530 with Giulio Camillo.^ Aretino mentions the fact that a Vin- cenzo Maggi was at the Court of France in 1548, but it has been doubted whether this was the author of the commentary on the Poetics? In 1549, after the completion of the two last parts of his Poetica, dedicated to the Bishop of Arras, Trissino made a tour about France.^ Nor must we forget the number of Italian scholars called to Paris by Francis I.* The literary relations between the two countries do not concern us here ; but it is no insignificant fact that the great literary reforms of the Pleiade should take place between 1548 and 1550, the very time when critical activity first received its great impetus in Italy. This Italian influence is just becoming apparent in Sibilet, for whom the poets between Jean le Maire de Beiges and Clement Marot are the chief models, but who is not wholly averse to the moderate innovations derived by France from classical antiquity and the Italian Eenaissance. M. Brunetifere, in a very suggestive chapter of his History of French Criticism, regards the De- fense of Du Bellay, the Poetics of Scaliger, and the Art Poitique of Vauquelin de la Fresnaye as the most important critical works in France during 1 Tiraboschl, vil. 350. ' Morsolin, Trissino, p. 358. s Ibid. vii. 1465. * Egger, HelUnisme, ch. vii. l] development of FRENCH CRITICISM 177 the sixteenth, century.* It may indeed be said that Du Bellay ^_2>^/'ew se (1549) is^otjctanj tjrae sense ^*iJ'*»^'^nJ-^ a work of Uterajjcrijicisin at all ; that Scaliger's Poetics (1561) is the work, not of a French critic, but of an Italian humanist ; and that Vauquelin's Art Poetique (not published until 1605), so far as any influence it may have had is concerned, does not belong to the sixteenth century, and can hardly be called important. At the same time these three works are interesting documents in the literary history of France, and represent three distinct stages in the development of French criticism in the sixteenth century. Du Bellay's work marks the beginning of the introduction of classical ideals into French literature ; Scaliger's work, while writ- ten by an Italian and in Latin, was composed and publishgd^ in France, and marks the introduction i-' of the Aristotelian canons into French criticism ; and Vauquelin's work indicates the sum of critical ideas which France had gathered and accepted in the sixteenth century. With Du BeUay's D&fense et JUvMration de la Langue fran^ise (1549) modem literature and modem criticism in France may be said to begin. The D&fense is a monument of the influence of Italian upon French literary and linguistic criti- cism. The purpose of the book, as its title implies, is to defend the French language, and to indicate the means by which it can approach more closely to dignity and perfection. The fundamentaLfion- tention of Du Bellay is, first, that the French 1 Bronetiire, i. 43. N 178 LITEEARY CRITICISM IN S"RANCE [chap. language is capable of attaining perfection; and, zy secoodly, tliat it can only hope to do so by imitat- ^^ ing Greek and Latin. This thesis is propounded and proTed in the first book of the Difense; and the second book is devoted to answering the (ques- tion: By what specific means is this perfection, based on the imitation of the perfection of Greek and Latin, to be attained by the French tongue ? Du Bellay contends that as the diversity of lan- guage among the different nations is ascribable entirely to the caprice of men, the perfection of any tongue is due exclusively to the diligence and artifice of those who use it. It is the duty, there- fore, of every one to set about consciously to improve his native speech. The Latin tongue was not al- ways as perfect as it was in the days of Virgil and Cicero ; and if these writers had regarded language as incapable of being polished and enriched, or if they had imagined that their language could only be perfected by the imitation of their own national predecessors, Latin would never have arrived at a higher state of perfection than that of Ennius and Crassus. But as Virgil and Cicero perfected Latin by imitating Greek, so the French tongue can only be made beautiful by imitating Greek, Latin, and I talian , all of which have attained a certain share of perfection.^ At the same time, two things must be guarded against. The French tongue cannot be improved by merely translating the classic and Italian tongues. Translation has its value in popularizing ideas ; but 1 C/. Horace, Art Poet. B3 sj. l] development of FRENCH CRITICISM 179 by mere translation no language or literature can hope to attain perfection. Nor is a mere bald imitar tion sufficient ; but, in Da Bellay's oft-cited phrase, the beauties of these foreign tongues J.'jmustbe^con- ve rted into blood and nou rishmen t. " * The classics have "blood, nerves, and bones," while the older French writers have merely "skin and color."' The modem French writer should therefore dis- miss with contempt the older poets of France, and set about to imitate the Greeks, Latins, and Italians. He should leavejafLcQm£osing_jro2dBaAix,^ ballades, virelays, and suah^iceries, which corrupt the taste of the French language, and serve only to show its ignorance and pOTe^jJ and in their stead he should employ the epigram, which mingles, in Horace's words, the profitable with the pleasant, the tearful elegy, in imitation of Ovid and Tibullus, the ode, one of the sublimest forms of poetry, the eclogue, in imitation of Theocritus, Virgil, and Sannazaro, and the beautiful sonnet, an Italian invention no less learned than pleasing.' Instead of the morality and the farce, the poet should write tragedies and comedies; he should attempt another Hiad or ^neid for the glory and honor of France. This is the gist of Du BeUay's argument in so far as it deals in general terms with the French language and literature. The six or seven concluding chap- ters treat of more minute and detailed questions of language and versification. Du Bellay advises the adoption of classical words as a means of enriching the French tongue, and speaks with favor of the 1 Oifenae, i. T. * Ibid. ii. 2. » Ibid. u. 4. 180 LITEEAEY CMTICISM IN f-EANCB [chap. use of rhymeless verse in imitation of the classics. The Difense ends with an appeal to the reader not to fear to go and despoil Greece and Eome of their treasures for the benefit of French poetry.* From this analysis it will be seen that the De- fense is really a philological polemic, belonging to the same_ class as the Jong series of Italian d iscus- sions on the vulgar tongue which begins with Dante, and whiS~includes the works of Bembo, Castiglione, Varchi, and others. It is, as a French critic has said, a combined pamphlet, defence, and ars poetica ; ^ but it is only an ars poetica in so far . as it advises the French poet to employ certain poetic forms, and treats of rhythm and rhyme in a concluding chapter or two. But curiously enough, the source and inspiration of Du Bellay's work have never been pointed out. The actual model of the Difense was without doubt Dante's De Vulgari Moquio, which, in the Italian version of Trissino, had been given to the world for the first time in 1529, exactly twenty years before the Difense. The two works, allowing for the difference in time and circumstance, resemble each other closely in spirit and purpose as well as in contents and de- sign. Du Bellay's work, like Dante's, is divided into two books, each of which is again divided into about the same number of chapters. The first book of both works deals with language in general, and the relations of the vulgar tongue to the ancient and modern languages ; the second book of both works deals with the particular practices of the 1 Cf. Vida, in Pope, i, 167. * Lanson, op. cit., p. 274. 1.] DEVELOPMENT OP FEENCH CRITICISM 181 vulgar tongue concerning wHcli each author is arguing. Both works begin with a somewhat similar theory of the origin of language ; both works close with a discussion of the versification of the vernacular. The purpose of both books is the justification of the vulgar tongue, and the consid- eration of the means by which it can attain per- fection j the title of De Vulgari Eloquio might be applied with equal force to either treatise. The Defense, by this justification of the Prench language on rational if not entirely cogent and consistent grounds, prepared the way for critical activity in France ; and it is no insignificant fact that the first critical work of modern France should have been ^' based on the first critical work of modem Italy. V Thirty years later, Henri Estienne, in his PrheU lence du Langage frangois, could assert that French is the best language of ancient or modem times, just as Salviati in 1664 had claimed that preemi- nent position for Italian.^ It is not to be expected that so radical a break with the national traditions of France as was im- plied by Du Bellay's innovations would be left unheeded by the enemies of the Pldiade. The an- swer came soon, in an anonymous pamphlet, enti- tled Le QuintUHoratian sur la Difense et Ilhtstration de la Lm-^ue fran^ise. Until a very few years ago, this treatise was ascribed to a disciple of Marot, Charles Fontaine. But in 1883 an autograph letter of Fontaine's was discovered, in which he strenu- ously denies the authorship of the Quintil Horatian ; 1 Cf. T. Tasso, TTriii. 97. 182 LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE [chap. and more recent researches have shown pretty con- clusively that the real author was a friend of Fon- taine's, Barth^lemy Aneau, head of the College of Lyons.^ The Quintil Horatian was first published in 1550, the year after the appearance of the De- fense? The author informs us that he had trans- lated the whole of Horace's Ars Poetica into French verse " over twenty years ago, before Pelle- tier or any one else," that is, between 1525 and 1530.' This translation was never published, but fragments of it are cited in the Quintil Horatian. The pamphlet itself takes up the arguments of Du Bellay step by step, and refutes them. The author finds fault with the constructions, the metaphors, and the neologisms of Du Bellay. Aneau's tem- perament was dogmatic and pedagogic; his judg- ment was not, always good ; and modern French critics cannot forgive him for attacking Du Bellay'a use of such a word as patrie. But it is not entirely just to speak of the Quintil Horatian, in the words of a modern literary histo- rian, as full of futile and valueless criticisms. The author's minute linguistic objections are often hy- percritical, but his work represents a natural reaction against the PMiade. His chief censure of the D4- fense was directed against tUe'introduction of clas- sical and Italia n wor ds Into the French TaS^age. "Est-cela defense et illustration," he exclaims, "ou 1 H. Gbamard, "Le Date et I'Auteur du Quintil Horatian," in the Sevue d'Histoire littiraire de la France, 1898, v. 59 sq. * Ibid. V. 64 sg. ' Ibid. Y. 62; 63, n. 1. 1.] BEVELOPMENT OF PRENCS CRITICISM 183 plus tost offense et denigration?" He charges the Pldiade with having contemned the classics of French poetry ; the new school advocated the dis- use of the complicated metrical forms merely be- cause they were too difficult. The sonnet, the ode, and the elegy he dismisses as useless ianovations. The object of poetry, according to Horace, is to gladden and please, while the elegy merely saddens and brings tears to the eyes. " Poetry," he says, "is like painting; and as painting is intended to fill us with delight, and not to sadden us, so the ■^/ mournful elegy is one of the meanest forms of poetry." Aneau is unable to appreciate the high and sublime conception of the poet's office which '■^■i >/• t de la vie. Poetry is then compared with oratory and with painting, after the usual Renaissance fashion; and Pelletier agrees with Horace in re- garding the combined power of art and nature as 1 Defense, ii. 3. » Ibid. ii. 11. 192 LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE [chap. necessary to the fashioning of a poet. His concep- tion of the latter's o£6.ce is not unlike that of Tasso and Shelley, " It is the office of the poet to give novelty to old things, authority to the new, beauty to the rude, light to the obscure, faith to the doubt- ful, and to all things their true natui-e, and to their true nature all things." Concerning the questions' of language, versification, and the feeling for natural scenery, he agrees fundamentally with the chief writers of the Pleiade. The greatest of these, Eonsard, has given ex- pression to his views on the poetic art in his Ab- rigi de I' Art Poitique frangois (1565), and later in the two prefaces of his epic of the Pranciade. The chief interest of the Abr4g6 in the present dis- cussion is that it expounds and emphasizes the high notion of the poet's of&ce introduced into French poetry by the Pleiade. Before the advent of the new school, mere skill in the complicated forms of verse was regarded as the test of poetry. The poet was simply a rimeur; and the term "poHe," with all that it implies, first came into use with the Pleiade. The distinction between the versifier and the poet, as pointed out by Aristotle and in- sisted upon by the Italians, became with the Ple- iade almost vital. Binet, the disciple and biographer of Eonsard, says of his master that " he was the mortal enemy of versifiers, whose conceptions are all debased, and who think they have wrought a masterpiece when they have transposed something from prose into verse."* Eonsard's own account 1 Ronsaid, vii. 310, 325. II.] THE THEORY OF POETRY 193 of the dignity and high function of poetry must needs be cited at lengfth : — "Above all things you will hold the Muses in reverence, yea, in singular veneration, and you will never let them serve in matters that are dishonest, or mere jests, or inju- dicious libels ; but you will hold them dear and sacred, as • the daughters of Jupiter, that is, God, who by His holy grace has through them first made known to ignorant people the excellencies of His majesty. For poetry in early times was only an allegorical theology, in order to make stupid men, ^y pleasant and wondrously colored fables, know the secrets they could not comprehend, were the truth too openly made known to them. . . . Now, since the Muses do not care to lodge in a soul unless it is good, holy, and virtuous, you should try to be of a good dis- position, not wicked, scowling, and cross, but animated by a gentle spirit ; and you should not let anything enter your mind that is not superhuman and divine. You should have, in the first place, conceptions that are high, grand, beautiful, and not trailing upon the ground ^or the princi- pal part of poetry consists of invention, which comes as much from a beautiful nature as from the reading of good and ancient authors.^ If you undertake any great work, you wiD show yourself devout and fearing GSod, commenc- ing it either with His name or by any other which repre- sents some eSects of His majesty, after the manner of the Greek poets . . . for the Muses, Apollo, Mercury, Pallas, and other similar deities, merely represent the powers of God, to which the first men gave several names for the diverse efiects of His incomprehensible majesty." ^ In this eloquent passage the conception of the poet as an essentially moral being, — a doctrine first enunciated by Strabo, and repeated by Min- tumo and others, — and Boccaccio's notion of i Bonsard, vii. 37 sq. o 194 LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE [chap. poetry as originally an allegorical theology, are both introduced into French, criticism. Elsewhere Eonsard repeats the media&val concept that poets " d'un vfiile divers Par fables ont cacM le vray sens de leurs vers." i It will be seen also that for Ronsard, poetry is es- sentially a matter of inspiration ; and in the poem just quoted, the Discours d, Jacques Ghrivin, he fol- lows the Platonic conception of divine inspiration or madness. A few years later Montaigne said of poetry that " it is an easier matter to frame it than to know it; being base and humble, it may be judged by the precepts and art of it, but the good and lofty, the supreme and divine, are beyond rules and above reason. It hath no community with our judgment, but ransacketh and ravisheth the same."' In his various critical works Eonsard shows considerable indebtedness to the Italian theorists, especially to Minturno. He does not attempt any formal definition of poetry, but its function is de- scribed as follows : " As the end of the orator is to persuade, so that of the poet is to imitate, invent, and represent the things that are, that can be, or that the ancients regarded as true." ' The conclud- ing clause of this passage is intended to justify the modern use of the ancient mythology ; but the whole passage seems primarily to follow Scaliger * 1 Bonsard, yi. 311 sq. 2 Essais, i. 36, Florio's translation. » Ronsard, vii. 322. Cf. Aristotle, Poet. li. 1-4; xxv. 6, 7. * Poet. iU. 24. '^c. 11.] THE THEORY OF POETRY 195 and Mintumo.* It is to be observed that verse is not mentioned in this definition as an essential requirement of poetry. It was indeed a favorite contention of his, and one for which he was in- debted to the Italians, that all who write in verse are not poets. Lucan and SUius Italicus have robed history with the raiment of verse ; but according to Bonsard they would have done better in many ways to have written in prose. The poet, unlike the historian, deals with the verisimilar and the probable; and while he cannot be responsible for falsehoods which are in opposition to the truth of things, any more than the historian can, he is not interested to know whether or not the details of his poems are actual historical facts. Verisimili-7<. _ y tade, and not fact, is therefore the test of poetry. "u^ In Vauquelin de la Fresnaye may be found most , ^, of the Aristotelian distinctions in regard to imitar V, tion, harmony, rhythm, and poetic theory in general ; ""U but these distinctions he derived, as has already been said, not directly from Aristotle, but in all prob- ability from Mintumo. Poetry is defined as an art of imitation : — " C'est un art d'imiter, mi art de contrefaire Qne toute poesie, ainsi que de pourtiaire." ' Verse is described as a heaven-sent instrument, the language of the gods ; and its value in poetry consists in clarifying and making the design com- pact.' But it is not an essential of poetry ; Aris- 1 Be Poeta, pp. 44, 47. * Art Pott. i. 187. • lUd. i. 87 ««. 196 LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE [chap. totle permits us to poetize in prose; and the romances of Heliodorus and Montemayor are ex- amples of this poetic prose.^ The object of poetry- is that it shall cause delight, and unless it succeeds in this it is entirely futile : — " C'est le but, c'est la fin des vers que resjouir : Les Muses autrement ne les veulent ouir." -As it is the function of the orator to persuade and the physician to cure, and as they fail in their offices unless they effect these ends, so the poet fails unless he succeeds in pleasing.'' This comparison is a favorite one vfith the Italian critics. A similar passage has already been cited from Daniello ; and the same notion is thus expressed by Lodovico Dolce: "The aim of the physician is to cure dis- eases by means of medicine ; the orator's to per- suade by force of his arguments; and if neither attains this end, he is not called physician or orator. So if the poet does not delight, he is not a poet, for poetry delights all, even the ignorant." ' But delight, according to Vauquelin, is merely the means of directing us to higher things ; poetry is a delightful means of leading us to virtue : — " C'est pourquoy des beaus vers la joyeuse alegresse Nous conduit aux vertus d'une plalsante addresse." * Vauquelin, like Scaliger, Tasso, Sidney, compares the poet with God, the great Workman, -who made 1 Art Poit. 11. 261. ' Osservationi, Vinegia, 1560, p. 190. « Ibid. 1. 697 sq. * Art Poit. 1. 744. n.] THE THEORY OF POETEY 197 everything out of nothing.' The poet is a divinely inspired person, who, sans art, sans sqavair, creates works of divine beauty. Vauquelin's contemporary, Du Bartas, has in his Uranie expressed this idea in the following manner : — " Each art is learned by art ; but Poesie Is a mere heavenly gift, and none can taste / The dews we drop from Pindns plenteonsly, If sacred fire have not his heart embraced. " Hence is 't that many great Philosophers, Deep-learned clerks, in prose most eloqnent. Labor in vain to make a graceful verse. Which many a novice frames most excellent." ' While this is the accepted Renaissance doctrine of inspiration, Vauquelin, in common with all other followers of the Pleiade, was fully alive to the ne- cessity of artifice and study in poetry ; and he agrees with Horace in re garding both art an d^^atMe. as equaUy necessary to t he making of a good poet . It is usage that makes art, but art perfects and regu- lates usage : — " Et ce bel Art nous sert d'escalier pour monter ADieu."* n. The Drama Dramatic criticism in France begins as a reaction against the drama of the Middle Ages. The mediaeval drama was formless and inorganic, with- 1 Art Poit. i. 19. Cf. Tasso, cited by Shelley, Defence, p. 42, " No one merits the name of creator except God and the poet." 2 Sylvester's Du Bartas, 1641, p. 242. » Art Poit. i. 149. 198 LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE [chap. out art or dignity. The classical drama, on the other hand, possessed both form and dignity; and the new school, perceiving this contrast, looked to the Aristotelian canons, as restated by the Italians, to furnish the dignity and art which the tragedy of Greece and Rome possessed, and which their own moralities and farces fundamentally lacked. In the first reference to dramatic literature in French criti- cism, the mediaeval and classical dramas are com- pared after this fashion; but as Sibilet (1648), in whose work this passage appears, wrote a year or so before the advent of the Pl^iade, the comparison is not so unfavorable to the morality and the farce as it became in later critics. " The French morality," says Sibilet, "represents, in certain distinct traits, Greek and Latin tragedy, especially in that it treats of grave and momentous deeds (faits graves et principaus) ; and if the French had always made the ending of the morality sad and dolorous, the morality would be a tragedy. But in this, as in all things, we have followed our natural taste or in- clination, which is to take from foreign things not all we see, but only what we think will be useful to us and of national advantage ; for in the morality we treat, as the Greeks and Eomans do in their tragedies, the narration of deeds that are illustri- ous, magnanimous, and virtuous, or true, or at least verisimilar ; but we do otherwise in what is useful to the information of our manners and life, without subjecting ourselves to any sorrow or pleasure of the issue." ' It would seem that Sibilet regards 1 Sibilet, Art PoU. 11. 8. 11.] THE THEORY OF POETRY 199 the morality as lacking nothing but the unhappy ending of classical tragedy. At the same time this passage exhibits perhaps the first trace of Aris- totelianism in French critical literature ; for SibUet specifies several characteristic features of Greek and Latin tragedy, -which he could have found only in Aristotle or iu the Italians. In the first place, tragedy deals only with actions that are grave, •< *>',„, illustrious, aud for the most part magnanimous ^'^-%,7 or virtuous. In the second place, the actions of tragedy are either really true, that is, historical, or if not true, have aU the appearance of truth, that is, they are verisimilar. Thirdly, the end of tragedy is always sad and dolorous. Fourthly, tragedy performs a useful function, which is con- • -^ nected in some way with the reformation of man- - ' ^-^ ■ ners and life; and, lastly, the effect of tragedy is connected with the sorrow or pleasure brought about by the catastrophe. These distinctions antici- pate many of those found later in Scaliger and in the French critics. In Du BeUay (1549) we find no traces of dra- matic theory beyond the injunction, already noted, that the French should substitute classical tragedy and comedy for the old morality and farce. A few years later, however, in Pelletier (1555), there ap- pears an almost complete system of dramatic criticism. He urges the French to attempt the composition of tragedy and comedy. " This species of poetry," he says, " will bring honor to the French language, if it is attempted," — a remark which illustrates the innate predisposition of the French 200 lilTERAEY CBlTIClSM IN FBANCE [chap. for dramatic poetry.^ He then proceeds to dis- tinguish tragedy from comedy much, in the same manner as Scaliger does six years later. It is to be remembered that Pelletier's Art Po&tique was published at Lyons in 1555, -while Scaliger's Poetics was published at the same place in 1561. Pelletier may have known Scaliger personally; but it is more probable that Pelletier derived his informa- tion from the same classical and traditional sources as did Scaliger. At all events, Pelletier distin- guishes tragedy from comedy in regard to style, subject, characters, and ending in exact Scaligerian fashion. Comedy has nothing in common with tragedy except the fact that neither can have more or less than five acts. The style and diction of /I comedy are popular and colloquial, while those of ' I tragedy are most dignified and sublime. The comic characters are men of low condition, while those of tragedy are kings, princes, and great lords. The conclusion of comedy is always joyous, that of tragedy is always sorrowful and heart-rending. The themes of tragedy are deaths, exiles, and unhappy changes of fortune ; those of comedy are the loves and passions of young men and young women, the indulgence of mothers, the wiles of slaves, and the diligence of nurses." (51^5^ By this time, then, Aristotle|sjbheory of tragedy, as restated by the Italians, had become part of Prenchcriticism. The actual practice of the French drama had been modified by the introduction of these rules; and they had played so important a I Pelletier, Art PoM. ii. 7. a Ibid. n.] THE THEORY OF POETRY 201 part that Grevin, in his Bref Discours pour I'InteUir gence de ce Thidtre, prefixed to his Mort de CSsar (1562), could say that French tragedy had already attained perfection, even when regarded from the standpoint of the Aristotelian canons. " Our trage- dies," says Grrevin, "have been so well polished that there is nothing left now to be desired, — I speak of those which are composed according to the rules of Aristotle and Horace." Grevin's Dis- cours was published the year after Scaliger's Poetics, but shows no indication of Scaligerian influence. His definition of tragedy is based on a most vague and incomplete recollection of Aristotle, " Tragedy, as Aristotle says iu his Poetics, is an imitation or representation of some action that is illustrious and great in itself, such as the death of Caesar." He shows his independence or his ignorance of Scaliger by insisting on the inferiority of Seneca, whom Scaliger had rated above all the Greeks; and he shows his independence of the ancients by substi- tuting a crowd of Caesar's soldiers for the singers of the older chorus, on the ground that there ought not to be singing in the representation of tragedy any more than there is in actual life itself, for^,; . tragedy is a representation of truth or of what has the appearance of truth. There are in Grevin's Discours several indications that the national feel- ing had not been entirely destroyed by the imita- tion of the classics ; but a discussion of this must be left for a later chapter. In Jean de la Taille's Art de Tragddie, prefixed to his Saiil le Furieux (1572), a drama in which a 202 LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE [chap. biblical theme is fashioned after the manner of classical tragedy, there is to be found the most ex- plicit and distinct antagonism to the old, irregular moralities, which are not modelled according to the true art and the pattern of the ancients. They are I but amoves ipiceries — words that recall Du Bellay. But curiously enough, Jean de la Taille differs entirely from Grevin, and asserts positively that France had as yet no real tragedies, except pos- sibly a few translated from the classics. Waging war, as he is, against the crude formlessness of the national drama, perfect construction assumes for him a very high importance. "The principal point in tragedy," he says, "is to know how to dispose and fashion it well, so that the plot is well intertwined, mingled, interrupted, and resumed, . . . and that there is nothing useless, without purpose, or out of place." For Jean de la Taille, as for most Eenaissance writers, tragedy is the ^^^istj^pul^ and the most elegant and elevated form of poetry, exclusive of the epic. It deals with the pitiful ruin of great lords, with the in- constancy of fortune, with banishment, war, pesti- lence, famine, captivity, and the execrable cruelty of tyrants.' The end of tragedy is in fact to move and to sting the feelings and the emotions of men. The characters of tragedy — and this is the Aris- totelian conception — should be neither extremely bad, such men as by their crimes merit punishment, nor perfectly good and holy, like Socrates, who was wrongfully put to death. Invented or allegorical ^ Robert, app. iii. n.] THE THEORY OF POETRY 203 characters, such as Death, Avarice, or Truth, are not to be employed. At the same time, Jean de la Taille, like Grevin, is not averse to the use of scriptural subjects in tragedy, although he cautions the poet against long-winded theological discussions. The Seuecan drama was his model in treating of tragedy, as it was indeed that of the Renaissance in general ; and tragedy approached more and more closely to the oratorical and sententious manner of the Latin poet. Konsard, for example, asserts that tragedy and comedy are entirely didascaMqiies et en- f! sdgnantes, and should be enriched by numerous ex- cellent and rare sentences (sententice), " for in a few words the drama must teach much, being the mir- ror of human life." * SunUarly, Du Bellay advises poets to embellish their poetry with grave sen- tences, and Pelletier praises Seneca principally be- cause he is sentenderix. Vauquelin, in his Art PoUique, gives a metrical paraphrase of Aristotle's definition of tragedy : — " Mais le sujet tragic est nn fait imit^ De cliose juste et grave, en ses vers limits ; Aaquel on y doit voir de I'afEreux, du terrible, Un fait non attendu, qui tienne de I'liorrible, Du pitoyable aussi, le coeur attendrissant D'un tigre furieux, d'un lion rugissant." ^ The subject of tragedy should be [old] and should be connected with the fall of great tyrants and princes ; ' and in regard to the number of acts, the number of interlocutors on the stage, the deMS ex 1 Eonsard, iii. 18 sq. " Art Poet. iii. 153, s IbH. ji. 1113, 441, 204 LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE [chap. machina, and the chorus,' Vauquelin merely para- phrases Horace. Comedy is defined as the imi- tation of an action which by common usage is accounted wicked, but which is not so wicked that there is no remedy for it; thus, for example, a man who has seduced a young girl may recompense her by taking her in marriage.* Hence while the actions of tragedy are "virtuous, magnificent, and grand, royal, and sumptuous," the incidents of comedy are actually and ethically of a |ower_gr^eJ' For tragi-comedy Vauquelin has nothing but con- tempt. It is, in fact, a bastard form, since the tragedy with a happy ending serves a similar but more dignified purpose. Vauquelin, like Eoileau and most other French critics after him, follows Aristotle at length in the description of dramatic recognitions and reversals of fortune.* Most of the other Aristotelian distinctions are also to be found in his work. In the Art Poitique frangois of Pierre de Laudun, Sieur d'Aigaliers, published in 1598, these distinc- tions reappear in a more or less mutilated form. In the fifth and last book of this treatise, De Laudun follows the Italian scholars, especially Scaliger and Viperano. He does not differ essentially from Scaliger in the definition of tragedy, in the division into acts and the place of the chorus, in the discus- sion of the characters and subjects of tragedy, and in the distinction between tragedy and comedy." 1 Art Pom. ii. 469. « Ibid. iii. 181. » Ihid. iii. 143. * Ibid. iii. 189 sq. ^ Bobeit, app. iy. <^ n.] THE THEORY OF POETRY 205 His conception of tragedy is in keeping witli tlie usual Senecan ideal ; it should be adorned by fre- quent sentences, allegories, similitudes, and other ornaments of poetry. The more cruel and sangui- nary the tragic action is, the more excellent it mil be ; but at the same time, much that makes the ac- . tion cruel is to be enacted only behind the stage. Like Pelletier, he objects to the introduction of all allegorical and invented characters, or even gods tand goddesses, on the ground that these are not^^, , /^ jactual beings, and hence are out of keeping with f <-« ithe theme of tragedy, which must be real and his- , , torical. De Laudun has also something to say con- ^^ ' ■ ceming the introduction of ghosts in the tragic \')^ action ; and his discussion is peculiarly interesting 2: when we remember that it was almost at this very time, in England, that the ghosts played so impor- tant a part in the Shakespearian drama. "If the ghosts appear before the action begins," says De Laudun, "they are permissible; but if they appear during the course of the action, and speak to the i ( actors themselves, they are entirely faulty and rep- rehensible." De Laudun borrowed from Scaliger the scheme of the ideal tragedy: "The first act contains the complaiats; the second, the suspicions; the third, the counsels; the fourth, the menaces and preparations; the fifth, the fulfilment and efEu- ^«.,, '^ sion of blood." ^ But despite his subservience to Scaliger, he is not afraid to express his iadepen- dence of the ancients. We are not, he says, en- tirelybound to their laws, especially in the number 1 Art Poit. v. 6. 206 LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE [chap. of actors on the stage, whioli according to classic usage never exceeded three ; for nowadays, notwith- standing the counsels of Aristotle and Horace, an audience has not the patience to be satisfied with only two or three persons at one time. The history of the dramatic unities in Trance during the sixteenth century demands some atten- tion. That they had considerable effect on the actual practice of dramatic composition from the very advent of the Pleiade is quite obvious ; for in the first scene of the first French tragedy, the Cldopdtre of Jodelle (1662), there is an allusion to the unity of time, which Corneille was afterward to call the r&gle des r&gles: — " Ayant que ce soleil, qui vient ores de naitre, Ayant trac6 son jour chez sa tante se plonge, Cl^opStre mourra ! " In 1653 Mellin de Saint-Gelais translated Trissino's Sofonisba into French, and the influence of the Italian drama became fixed in France. But the first distinct formulation of the unities is to be found in Jean de la Taille's Art de Tragidie (1572). His statement of the unity is explicit, " II faut toujours repr^senter I'histoire ou le jeu en un mgme jour, en un mSme temps, et en un m8me lieu."' Jean de la Taille was indebted for this to Castelvetro, who two years before had stated them thus, " La mutatione trag- ica non puo tirar con esso seco se non una giornata e un luogo." ^ The unity of time was adopted by Eonsard about this same time in the following words : — 1 Robert, app. iji. * Poetica, p. 634, II.] THE THEORY OF POETRY 207 " Tragedy and comedy are circumscribed and limited to a short space oi time, that is, to one whole day. The most excellent masters of this craft commence their works from one midnight to another, and not from sunrise to sunset, in order to have greater compass and length of time. On the other hand, the heroic poem, which is entirely of a martial character (tout guerrier), comprehends only the actions of one whole year." i This passage is without doubt borrowed from Miaturno (1564) : — " Whoever regards well the works of the most admired ancient authors will find that the materials of scenic poetry terminate in one day, or do not pass beyond the space of two days ; just as the action of the epic poem, however great and however long it may be, does not occupy more than one year." * Minturno, it "will be remembered, was the first to limit the action of the heroic poem to one year. In another passage he deduces the rule from the prac- tice of Virgil and Homer ; ' but Konsard seems to thinlr that VirgU himself has not obeyed this law. We have already alluded to the influence of Minturno on the Pleiade. Vauquelin de la Fresnaye, who ex- plicitly acknowledges his indebtedness to Minturno, also follows him in limiting the action of the drama to one day and that of the epic to one year : — " Or comme eux I'heroic suivant le droit sentier. Doit son CBUvre comprendre an cours d'un an entier ; Le tragic, le comic, dedans une joumee Comprend ce que fait I'autre au cours de son annee : Le theatre jamais ne doit estre rempli D'un argument plus long que d'un jour accomplL" * 1 Bonsard, ili. 19. ' Ibid. p.Vi; De Poeta, p. 149. 'ArUPoetica,p.n. * Art Foil. u. 25S. 208 LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE [chap. The two last lines of this passage bear considerable resemblance to Boileau's famons statement of the unities three-quarters of a century later.' Toward the end of the sixteenth century, then, the unity of time, and in a less degree the unity of place, had become almost inviolable laws of the drama. But at this very period strong notes of I revolt against the tyranny of the unities begin to be heard. Up to this time the classical Italian drama had been the pattern for Trench playwrights ; but the irregular Spanish drama was now com- mencing to exert considerable influence in France, and with this Spanish influence came the Spanish opposition to the unities. In 1582 Jean de Beau- breuil, in the preface of his tragedy of Bigulus, had spoken with contempt of the rule of twenty-four hours as trop superstitieux. But De Laudun was probably the first European critic to argue formally against it. The concluding chapter of his Art Poitique (1598) gives five different reasons why the unity of time should not be observed in the drama. The chapter is entitled, " Concerning those who say that the action of tragedy must conclude in a single day ; " and De Laudun begins by asserting that this opinion had never been sustained by any good author. This is fairly conclusive evidence that De Laudun had never directly consulted Aristotle's Poetics, but was indebted for his knowledge of Aristotle to the Italians, and especially to Scaliger. The five arguments which he formulates against the unity of time are as follows : — 1 Boileau, Art Po€t. iii. 45. n.] THE THEORY OE POETET 209 "In the first place, this law, if it is observed hy any of the ancients, need not force us to restrict ovir tragedies in any way, since we are no t houn d by their manner ^f writing '^ or by the measure of feet and syllableswith which they com- pose their verses. In the second place, if we were forced to observe this rigorous law, we should fall into one of the greatest of absnrdities, by being obliged to introduce impos- sible and incredible things in order to enhance the beauty of our tragedies, or else they would lack all grace ; for besides being deprived of matter, we could not embellish our poems with long discourses and various interesting events. In the third place, the action of the Troades, an excellent tragedy by Seneca, could not have occurred in one day, nor could even some of the plays of Euripides or Sophocles. In the fourth place, according to the definition already given [on the authority of Aristotle], tragedy is the recital of the lives of heroes, the fortune and grandeur of kings, princes, and others ; and all this could not be accomplished in one day. I| Besides, a tragedy must contain five acts, of which the first is joyous, and the succeeding ones ezhibit a gradual change, as I have already indicated above; and this change a single day would not snf&ce to bring about. In the fifth and last place, the tragedies in which this rule is observed are not any better than the tragedies in which it is not observed ; and the tragic poets, Greek and Latin, or even French, do not and need not and cannot observe it, since very often in a tragedy the whole lite of a prince, king, emperor, noble, or other person is represented; — besides a thousand other reasons which I could advance if time permitted, but which V-»- must be left for a second edition." i The history of the unity of time during the next century does not strictly concern us here; but it may be well to point out that it was through the offices of Chapelain, seconded by the authority of Cardinal Eichelieu, that it became fixed in the 1 Amand, app. Hi. 210 LITEEAEY CRITICISM IN FRANCE [chap. dramatic theory of France. In a long letter, dating from November, 1630, and recently published for the first time, Chapelain sets out to answer all the objections made against the rule of twenty-four hours. It is sustained, he says, by the practice of the ancients and the universal consensus of the Italians; but his own proof is based on reason alone. It is the old argument of vraisemblance, as found in Maggi, Scaliger, and especially Castelvetro, whom Chapelain seems in part to follow. By 1635 he had formulated the whole theory of the three unities and converted Cardinal Richelieu to his views. In the previous year Mairet's Sophonisbe, the first " regular " French tragedy, had been produced. In 1636 the famous Cid controversy had begun. By 1640 the battle was gained, and the unities be- came a part of the classic theory of the drama throughout Europe. A few years later their prac- tical application was most thoroughly indicated by the Abb^ d'Aubignac, in his Pratique du TJiidtre; and they were definitely formulated for all time by Boileau in the celebrated couplet : — " Qu'en an lieu, qu'en un jour, un seul fait accompli Tieune jusqu'Ji la fin le tMS.tre rempli." i III. Heroic Poetry It was the supreme ambition of the Pl^iade to produce a great French epic. In the very first manifesto of the new school, Du Bellay urges every French poet to attempt another Iliad or ^neid for 1 Art Poet. iii. 43. II.] THE THEORY OF POETRY 211 the honor aad glory of France. For Pelletier (1555) the heroic poem is the one that really gives the true title of poet ; it may be compared to the ocean, and all other forms to rivers.^ He seems to be following Giraldi Cintio's discourse on the romami, published the year before his own work, when he says that the French poet should write a Heradeid, the deeds of Hercules furnishing the mightiest and most heroic material he can think of.* At the same time Virgil is for him the model of an epic poet ; and his parallel between Homer and Virgil bears striking resemblance to the similar parallel in Cap- riano's Delia Vera Poetica, published in the very same year as his own treatise." Like Capriano, Pelletier censures the superfluous exuberance, the loquaciousness, the occasional indecorum, and the inferiority in eloquence and dignity of Homer when compared with the Latin poet. It was Eonsard's personal ambition to be the French Virgil, as in lyric poetry he had been pro- claimed the French Pindar. For twenty years he labored on the Franeiade, but never finished it. In the two prefaces which he wrote for it, the first in 1572, and the second (published posthumously) about 1584, he attempts to give expression to his ( ideal of the heroic poet. In neither of them does he succeed in formulating any very definite or con- sistent body of epic theory. They are chiefly inter- esting in that they indicate the general tendencies of the Pleiade, and show Eonsard's own rhetorical prin- 1 Art Poet. ii. 8. ^ Ibid. i. 3. * Jbid. i. 6. Of. Capriano, cap. v. 212 LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE [chap. ciples, and Ms feeling for nature and natural beauty. The passage has already been cited in which he speaks of the heroic poem as entirely of a martial character, and limits its action to the space of one year. It has also been seen that for him, as for the n Italians, verisimilitude, and not fact, is the test of i I poetry. At the same time, the epic poet is to avoid anachronisms and misstatements of fact. Such faults do not disturb the reader so much when the story is remote in point of time; and the poet should therefore always use an argument, the events of which are at least three or four hundred years old. The basis of the work should rest upon some old story of past times and of long-established re- nown, which has gained the credit of men.* This notion of the antiquity of the epic fable had been accepted long ago by the Italians. It is stated, for example, in Tasso's Discord dell' Arte Poetica, written about 1564, though not published until 1587, fifteen years after Tasso had visited Ronsard in Paris. Vauquelin de la Fresnaye has the Pl^iade venera- tion for heroic poetry; but he cannot be said to exhibit any more definite conception of its form and function. For him the epic is a vast and magnificent narration, a world in itself, wherein men, things, and thoughts are wondrously mir- rored : — " C'est un tableau du monde, un miroir qui raporte Les gestes des mortels en difl erente so rte. ... ? 1 Ronsard, iii. 23, 29. n.] THE THEORY OE POETRY 213 Car toute poesie il contient en soym^me, Soit tragique ou comiqne, ou soit autre poeme." ^ With this we may compare what Muzio had said in 1651: — " n poema sovraao 6 nna pittora ,> '^ De I'liniverso, e perb in s6 comprende '^ v^' ' Ogni stilo, ogni forma, ogni ritxatto." But despite this very vague conception of the epic in the French Renaissance, there was, as has been said, a high veneration for it as a form, and for its masters, Homer and especially Virgil. This ac- counts for the large number of attempts at epic composition ia France during the next century. But beyond the earlier and indefinite notion of heroic poetry the French did not get for a long time to come. Even for BoUeau the epic poem was merely the vaste rScit d'une Umgue action? 1 Vanquelin, Art Poit. 1. 471, 503. « Boilean, Art Po£t. iii. 161. CHAPTER III CLASSIC AND EOMAIS'TIC ELEMENTS IN rEENCH CRITICISM DUBING THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY The principle for wMch. the Pleiade stood was, like that of humanism, the imitation of the classics ; and the Pldiade was the first to introduce this as a literary principle into France. This means, as regards French literature, in the first place, the substitution of the classi cal instead of it s, own nati onal tra ditJQn ; and, secondly, the substitution of the imitation of the classics for the imitation of nat ure itself. In making these vital substitutions, Du Bellay and his school have been accused of creating once and for all the gulf that separates French poetry from the national life.^ This accusa- tion is perhaps unfair to the Pleiade, which insisted on the poet's going directly to nature, which empha- sized most strongly the sentiment for natural scen- ery and beauty, and which first declared the 1 1 importance of the artisan and the peasant as sub- jects for poetry. But there can be but little doubt that the separation of poetry from the national life was the logical outcome of the doctrines of the Pleiads. In disregarding the older French poets and the evolution of indigenous poetry, in formu- 1 Biuneti^re, i. 45. 214 CHAP, in.] ELEMENTS IN ERENCH CRITICISM 215 lating an ideal of the poet as an unsociable and ascetic character, it separated itself from the nat- ural tendencies of French life and letters, and helped to effect the final sepaiation between poetry and the national development. L Classical Elements It was to Du Bellay (1549) that France owes the introduction of classical ideas into French litera- ture. He was the first to regard the imitation of the classics as a literary principle, and to advise the poet, after the manner of Vida, to_£uri(Mn all ,' the treasures of Greek and Latin literature for the benefit of French poetry. Moreover, he first formu- lated the aristocratic conception of the poet held by the Pleiade. The poet was advised to flee from the ignorant people, to bury himseK in the soli- tude of his own chamber, to dream and to ponder, and to content himself with few readers. " Beyond everything," says Ihi BeUay, " the poet should have one or more learned friends to whom he can show all his verses ; he should converse not only with learned men, but with aH sorts of workmen, mechanics, artists, and others, in order to learn the technical terms of their arts, for use in beau- tiful descriptions." ' This was a favorite theory of the Pleiade, which like some of our own contem- porary writers regarded the technical arts as impor- H tant subjects of inspiration. But the essential point at the bottom of all these discussions is a high ,u. U. 216 LITERARY CRITICISM IN PRANCE [chap. contempt for the opinion of the vulgar in matters of art. The Quintil Horatian (1550) represents, as has already been seen, a natural reaction against the foreign and classical innovations of the Pleiade. Du Bellay's advice, " Prens garde que ce poeme soit eslogn^ du vulgaire," — advice insisted upon by many of the rhetoricians of the Italian Eenais- sance, — receives considerable censure; on the con- trary, says the author of the Quintil, the poet must be understood and appreciated by all, unlearned as ■well as learned, just as Marot was. The Quintil was, in fact, the first work to insist on definite- ness and clearness in poetry, as these were after- ward insisted on by Malherbe and BoUeau. Like Malherbe, and his disciple Deimier, the author fl of the Acadimie de I'Art Poitique (1610), in which the influence of the Quintil is fully acknowledged, the author of the Quintil objects to all forms of poetic license, to all useless metaphors that obscure the sense, to all Latinisms and foreign terms and locutions.^ Du Bellay had dwelt on the importance of a knowledge of the classical and Italian tongues, and had strongly advised the French poet to nat- uralize as many Latin, Greek, and even Spanish and Italian terms as he could. The Quintil is par- . ticularly bitter against all such foreign innovations. V J The poet need not know foreign tongues at all; without this knowledge he can be as good a poet as any of the grcecaniseurs, latiniseurs, et italianiseurs en fran^ys. This protest availed little, and Du 1 Of. Bucktaschel, p. 10 sq. m.] ELEMENTS IN FRENCH CEITICISM 217 Bellay's advice in regard to the use of Italian terms was so well followed that several years later, in 1578, Henri Estienne vigorously protested against the practice in his Dialogues du Nouveau Langage Jrangois itoManisi. As Sonsard and Du Bellay represent the foreign elements that went to make up classicism in Prance, so the author of the QuintU HorcUianmayhe said to represent in. his humble way certain enduring elements of the e sprit gaido is. He represents the national traditions, and he pre- pares the way for the two great bourgeois poets of France, — Boileau, with his " Tout doit tendie au bon sens," and Molifere, with his bluff cry, " Je suis pour le bon sens." According to Pelletier (1555), French poetry is too much like colloquial speech ; in order to equal classical literature, the poets of France must be more daring and less popular.' PeUetier's point of view is here that of the Pleiade, which aimed at a distinct poetic language, diverse from ordinary prose speech. But he is thoroughly French, and in complete accord with the author of the QuintU Horatian, in his insistence on perfect clearness in poetry. "Clearness," he says, "is the first and worthiest virtue of a poem."^ Obscurity is the chief fa^t of poetry, "for there is~np difference between not speaking at aU and not being under- stood."' For these reasons he is against all un- necessary and bombastic ornament ; the true use of metaphors and comparisons of all sorts is " to ex- plain and represent things as they really are." 1 AH Poet. i. 3. » Ibid. i. 9. » Ibid. 1. 10. 218 LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE [chap. Similarly, Eonsard, while recognizing the value of comparisons, rightfully used, as the very nerves and tendons of poetry, declares that if instead of perfecting and clarifying, they obscure or con- fuse the idea, they are ridiculous.' ; Obscurity was the chief danger, and indeed the chief fault, of the Pleiade ; and it is no small merit that both Ron- sard and Pelletier perceived this fact. The Pleiade exhibits the classic temper in its insistence on study and art as essential to poetry ; but it was not in keeping with the doctrines of later French classicists in so far as it regarded the poetic labors as of an unsociable and even ascetic character. In this, as has been seen, Eonsard is a true exponent of the doctrines of the new school. But on the whole the classic spirit was strong in him. He declares that the poet's ideas should be high and noble, but not fantastic. " They should be well ordered and disposed ; and while they seem to transcend those of the vulgar, they should always appear to be easily conceived and understood by anyone."* Here Du Bellay's aristocratic concep- tion of poetry is modified so as to become a very typical statement of the principle underlying French classicism. Again, Eonsard points out, as Vida and other Italian critics had done before, that the great classical poets seldom speak of things by their bare and naked names. Virgil does not, for example, say, " It was night," or " It was day," but he uses some such circumlocution as this : — "Postero Phoebea lustrabat lampade terras." 1 Ronsard, iii. 26 sq. » Ibid. vii. 323. m.] ELEMENTS ES FRENCH CRITICISM 219 The unfortunate results of the excessive use of such circumlocutions are well exemplified in the later classicists of France. Bonsard perhaps foresaid this danger, and wisely says that circumlocution, if not used judiciously, makes the style inflated and bombastic. In the first preface to the Francir ade, he expresses a _decided_ pr^erence ^orthe naiveJacUity jofJHomer over tiie artful diligence of Virgjl."^ In the second preface, however, written a dozen years later, and published posthumously as revised by his disciple Binet, there is interesting evidence, in the preeminence given to Virgil, of the rapidity with which the Latinization of culture was being effected at this period. "Our French au- thors," says Konsard, " know Virgil far better than they know Homer or any other Greek writer." And again, "Virgil is the most excellent and the most rounded, the most compact and the most per- fect of aU poets."* Of the naive facility of Homer we hear absolutely nothing. _ We are now beginning to enter the era of [julesj Bonsard did not undervalue the " rules and secrets " of poetry ; and Vauquelin de la Fresnaye calls his own critical poem cet Art de B&gles rechercMes? In regard to the imitation of the classics, Vauquelin agrees heart and soul with the Pleiade that the ancients " nons ont desja ixaa6 Un sentier qui de nous ne doit estre laiss6." * Nothing, indeed, could be more classical than his 1 Bonsard, iii. 9 gq. ' Art Poit. ill. 1151. » Ibid. ill. 23, 26. * Ibid. i. 61. 220 LITERARY CRITICISM IN TEANCB [chap. comparison of poetry to a garden symmetrically laid out and trimmed.' Moreover, like tKe classi- cists of tlie next century, he affirms, as does Kon- sard also, that art must fundamentally imitate and resemble nature.' The imitation of the classics had also a decided effect on the technique of French verse and on the linguistic principles of the Pl^iade. Enjambement (the carrying over into another line of words re- quired to complete the sense) and hiatus (the clash of vowels in a line) were both employed in Latin and Greek verse, and were therefore permitted in French poetry by the new school. Eonsard, how- ever, anticipated the reforms of Malherbe and the practice of French classic verse, in forbidding both hiatus and enjambement, though in a later work of his this opinion is reversed. He was also probably the first to insist on the regular alternation of mas- culine and feminine rhymes in verse. This had never been strictly adhered to in practice, or re- quired by stringent rule, before B/onsard, but has become the invariable usage of French poetry ever since. Eonsard regards this device as a means of making verse keep tune more harmoniously with the music of instruments. It was one of the favorite theories of the Pleiade that poetry is in- tended, not to be read, but to be recited or sung, and that the words and the notes should be coupled lovingly together. Poetry without an accompani- ment of vocal or instrumental[55sE\exhibits but a small part of its harmony or perfection ; and while 1 Art Pott. i. 22 aq. " Ibid. i. 813. Of. Bonsard, 11. 12. in.J ELEMENTS IN FRENCH CRITICISM 221 composing verses, the poet should always pronounce them aloud, or rather sing them, in order to test their melody.^ This conception of music " married to immortal verse " doubtless came from Italy, and is connected with the rise of^ope^^jmusic|\ De Laudun (1598) differs from the members of the Pleiade in forbidding the use of words newly coined or taken from the dialects of France, and in objecting to the use of enjambement and hiatus. It is evident, therefore, that while the influence of the Pleiade is visible throughout De Laudun's trea- tise, his disagreement with Sonsard and Du Bellay on a considerable number of essential points shows that by the end of the century the supremacy of the Pleiade had begun to wane. The new school also attempted to introduce clas- sical metres into French poetry. The similar at- tempt at using the ancient versification in Italy has already been incidentally referred to.^ According to Vasari, Leon Battista Alberti, in his epistle, " Questa per estrema miserabile pistola mando," was the first to attempt to reduce the vernacular versification to the measure of the Latins.* In Octo- ber, 1441, the Scena ddP Amidzia of Leonardo Dati was composed and recited before the Accademia Co- ronaria at Florence.* The first two parts of this piece 1 Bonsard, Tii. 320, 332. 2 The early Italian poetry written in classical metres has been collected by Cardncci, La Poesia Barbara nei Secoli XV e Xn, Bologna, 1881. ' Cardncci, p. 2. * Ibid. p. 6 sq. 222 LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE [chap. are written in hexameters, the third in Sapphics, the fourth in sonnet form and rhymed. The prologues of Ariosto's comedies, the Negromante and the Oassa- ria, are also in classical metres. But the remarka- ble collection of Claudio Tolomei, Versi e Begole de la Nuova Poesia Toscana, published at Kome in 1539, marked an epoch in sixteenth-century letters. In this work the employment of classical metres in the vulgar tongue is defended, and rules for their use given ; then follows a collection of Italian verse written after this fashion by a large number of scholars and poets, among them Annibal Caro and Tolomei himself. This group of scholars had formed itself into an esoteric circle, the Accademia della Nuova Poesia; and from the tone of the verses addressed to Tolomei by the members of this circle, it would seem that he regarded himself, and was regarded by them, as the founder and ex- positor of this poetic innovation.' Luigi Alamanni, whose life was chiefly spent at the Court of France, published in 1556 a comedy. La Flora, written in classical metres ; and two years later Francesco Patrizzi published an heroic poem, the Eridano, written in hexameters, with a defence of the form of versification employed.^ This learned jnnovatipn spread throughout west- ern Europe.* In France, toward the close of the 1 Carducci, pp. 65, 87, etc. 2 ma. pp. 327, 443. Cf. Du Bellay, Defense, ii. 7. ' For the history of classical metres in France, of. Egger, HelUnisme en France, p. 290 sq., and Barmesteter and Hatz- feld, Seiziime Siicle en France, p. 113 «g. in.] ELEMENTS IN FRENCH CKITICISM 223 fifteenth century, according to Agrippa d'Aubigne, a certain Mo usset had translated the iTiod and the ^' Odyssey into French hexameters ; but nothing else is known either of Mousset or of his translations. As early as 1500 one Michel de Bouteauville, the author of an Art de mUrifier franqais, wrote a poem in classical distichs on the English war. Sibilet (1548) accepted the use of classical metres, though with some distrust, for to hirri rhyme seemed as essential to French poetry as long and short syllar bles to Greek and Latin. In 1562 Ramus, in his Grammar, recommended the ancient versification, and. expressed his regret that it had not been ac- cepted, with favor by the public. In the same year Jacques de la Taille wrote his treatise. La Manitre de faire des Vers en frangois comme en. grec et en laiin, but it was not published until 1573, eleven years after his death. His main object in writing the book was to show that it is not as difficult to employ quantity in French verse as some people think, nor even any more difficult than in Greek and Latin.' In answer to the objection that the vulgar tongues are by their nature incapable of quantity, he argues, after the manner of Du Bellay, that such things do not proceed from the nature of a language, but from the labor and diligence of those who employ it. He i s tired of \v^ garrEymes^ and is anxious to find a more ingeniousj'and'more 1 Estienne FasqnieT, in his Secherchet de la France, vii. 11, attempts to prove that the French langoage is capable of em- ploying qoantity in its verse, but does not decide whether quantity or rhymed verse is to be preferred. ( -■ 1 11 224 LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE [chap. ^^JBcult path\to Parnassus. He then proceeds to treat of quantity and measure in Frencli, of feet and verse, and of figures and poetic license.' The name most inseparably connected with the introduction of classical metres into France in the sixteenth century is that of Jean Antoine de Baif . This young member of the Pleiade, after publishing several unsuccessful volumes of verse, visited Italy, and was present at the Council of Trent in 1563. In Italy he doubtless learnt of the metrical innova- tions then being employed; and upon his return, without any apparent knowledge of Jacques de la Taille's as yet unpublished treatise, he set about to make a systematic reform in French versification. His purpose was to bring about a more perfect uni- son between poetry and music; and in order to accomplish this, he adopted classical metres, based as they were on a musical prosody, and accepted the phonetic reforms of £.amus. He also estab- lished, no doubt in imitation of the Accademia della Nuova Poesia, the Academic de Po^sie et de Mu- sique, authorized by letters patent from Charles IX. in November, 1570.'' The purpose of this academy was to encourage and establish the metrical and musical innovations advocated by Baif and his friends. On the death of Charles IX. the society's existence was menaced ; but it was restored, with a 1 Of. Euoktasohel, p. 24 sj., and Carducci, p. 413 sg. ' This academy has been made the subject of an excellent monograph by :fi. Fremy, L'Acadimie des Derniers Valois, Paris, n. d. The statutes of the academy will be found on page 39 of this work, and the letters-patent granted to it by Charles IX. on page 48. m.] ELEMENTS IN FRENCH CRmCISM 225 broader purpose and function, as the Acad^mie du Palais, by Guy du Faur de Pibrac in 1576, under the protection of Henry IH., and it continued to flourish until dispersed by the turmoils of the League about 1585. But Baif's innovations •were not entirely without fruit. A similar movement, , and a not dissimilar society, will be found some- what later ia Elizabethan England. II. Momantic Elements Some of the romantic elements in the critical theory of the Pleiade have already been indicated. The new movement started, in Du Bellay's Difen.se, with a high conception of the poet's ofRc e. It em- phasized the necessity, on the part of the poet, of prrfound and solitary ctudy, of a refined and ascetic life, and of entire separation from vulgar peo;^^andjileasures. Du Bcllay himself is roman- tic in that he decides against the traditions de r&gles,^ deeming the good judgment of the poet sufficient in matters of taste ; but the reason of this was that there were no rules which he would have been will- ing to accept. It took more than a century for the French mind to arrive at the conclusion that reason and rules, in matters of art, proceed from one and the same cause. Th e feeling for nature and for n atural beauty^ is very marked in all the members of the Pleiade. PeUetier speais of war, love, agriculture, and pas- toral life as the chief themes of poetry.' He warns 1 Dtfense, ii. 11. ' AH Poet. i. 3. 226 LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE [chap. I the poet to observe nature and life itself, and not I depend on books alone ; and he dwells on the value of descriptions of landscapes, tempests, and sunrises, and similar natural scenes.' The feeling for nature is even more intense in Eonsard ; and like Pelletier, he urges the poet to describe in verse the rivers, forests, mountains, winds, the sea, gods and god- desses, sunrise, night, and noon.^ In another place the poet is advised to embellish his work with ac- counts of trees, flowers, and herbs, especially those dignified by some medicinal or magical virtues, and with descriptions of rivers, towns, forests, moun- tains, caverns, rocks, harbors, and forts. Here the appreciation of natural beauty as introduced into modern Europe by the Italian Renaissance — the feeling for nature in its wider aspects, the broad landscape, the distant prospect — first becomes visible in France. " In the painting or rather imi- j tation of nature," says Eonsard, " consists the very soul of heroic poetry." Eonsard also gives warning that ordinary speech is not to be banished from poetry, or~too^much evaded, for by doing so the poet is dealing a death- blow to " naive and natural poetry." ' This sympa- thy for the simple and popular forms of poetry as models for the poetic artist is characteristic of the Pl^iade. There is a very interesting passage in Montaigne, in which the popular ballads of the peasantry are praised in a manner that recalls the famous words of Sir Philip Sidney concerning I Art Foit. ii. 10 ; i. 9. 2 Eonsard, vii. 321, 321. ' /6id. iii. 17 «g. m.] ELEMENTS IN FRENCH CRITICISM 227 the old song of Percy and Douglas/ and wMch seems to anticipate the interest in popular poetry in England two centuries later: — " Popular and purely natural and indigenous poetry has a certain native simplicity and grace by which it may be favorably compared with the principal beauty of perfect poetry composed according to the rules of art ; as may be seen in the viUanelles of Gascony, and in songs coming from nations that hav e no knowle dge of any science, not even of writing. But ^diocre poel CT? which is neither perfect nor popular, is held in disdain by every one, and receives neither honor nor reward." * The Pl&ade, as has already been intimated, accepted without reserve the Platonic doctrine of rmspiration.\ By 1560 a considerable number of the Platonic dialogues had already been translated into French. Dolet had translated two of the spurious dialogues ; Duval, the Lysis in 1547 ; and Le Roy, the Pkaedo in 1553 and the Symposium in 1559. The thesis of Bamus in 1536 had started an anti-J Aristotelian tendency in France, and the literature of the French Renaissance became impregnated with Platonism.* It received the royal favor of Marguerite de Navarre, and its influence became fixed in 1551, by the appointment of Ramus to a professorship in the College de France. Ronsard, Vauquelin, Du Bartas, all give expression to the Platonic theory of poetic inspiration. The poet, must feel what he writes, as Horace says, or his l reader will never be moved by his verses ; and for 1 Sidney, Defence, p. 29. * Essais, 1. 54. « Cf. the Revue d'Hist. litt. de la France, 1896, iii. 1 sq. 228 LITERARY CRITICISM EN FRANCE [chap. the Pleiade, the excitement of high emotions in the reader or hearer was the test or touchstone of poetry.^ The national and Christian points of view never found expression in France during the sixteenth century in so marked a manner as in Italy. There are, indeed, traces of both a national and a Christian criticism, but they are hardly more than sporadic. Thus, it has been seen that Sibilet, as early as 1648, had clearly perceived the distinguishing character- istic of the French genius. He had noted that the French have only taken from foreign literature what they have deemed useful and of national advantage ; and only the other day a distinguished French critic asserted in like manner that the high importance of French literature consists in the fact that it has taken from the other literatures of 1 ,1 Europe the things of universal interest and disre- r ' I ! garded the accidental picturesque details. Distinct traces of a national point of view may be found in the dramatic criticism of this period. Thus Gr^vin, in his Bref Discours (1562), attempts to justify the substitution of a crowd of Csesar's soldiers for the singers of the ancient chorus, in one of his tragedies, on the following grounds : — " If it be alleged that this practice was observed through- out antiquity by the Greeks and Latins, I reply that it is A,„. permitted to us to attempt some innovation of our own, es- pecially when thereTs occasion for it, or when the grace of the poem is not diminished thereby. I know well that it will be answered that the ancients employed the chorus of 1- Bonsard, iii. 28; Dn Bellay, Defense, ii. 11. m.] ELEMENTS IN FRENCH CEITlCISM 229 singeTS to divert the andience, made gloomy perhaps by the cruelties represented in the play. To this I reply that diverse nations reqjure diverse manners^ doing jhings, and that among the French there are other means of doing this without interrupting the continuity of a story." > The Cliristiaii point of view, on tlie other hand, is found in Vaaquelin de la Fresnaye, who differs from Eonsard and Du Bellay in his preference for scriptural_themes in poetry. The Pleiade was es- sentially pagan, Vauquelin essentially Christian. The employment of the pagan divinities in modem poetry seemed to him often odious, for the times had changed, and the Muses were governed by dif- ferent laws. The poet shoxild attempt Christian themes; and indeed the Greeks themselves, had they been Christians, would have sung the life and death of Christ. In this passage Vauquelin is evi- dently following Minturno, as the latter was after- ward followed by ComeUle : — " Si les Grecs, comme vous, Chrestiens eussent escrit, Us eussent les hauts faits chants de lesus Christ. . . . H6 ! quel plaisir seroit-ce ^ cette heure de voir Nos poetes Chrestiens, les f agons recevoir Du tragique ancien ? Et voir k nos misteres Les Payens asservis sous les loix sulutaires De nos Saints et Martyrs ? et du vieux testament Voir une tragedie extraite proprement ? " '^ Vauquelin's opinion here is out of keeping with the general theory of the Pleiade, especially in that his suggestions imply a return to the medi- 1 Amand, app. ii. a Vauquelin, Art Poet. iii. 845; qf. iii 33; i. 901. 230 LITEUAEY CRITICISM IN PHAUCE [chap. seval mystery and morality plays. The Uranie of Du Bartas is another and more fervid expres- sion of this same ideal of Christian poetry. In the Semaines, Du Bartas himself composed the typical biblical poem; and tragedies on Christian or scriptural subjects were composed during the French Eenaissance from the time of Buchanan and Beza to that of Garnier and Montchrestien. But Vauquelin's ideal was not that of the later clas- sicism; and Boileau, as has been seen, distinctly rejects Christian themes from modern poetry. Although the linguistic and prosodic theories of the PMiade partly anticipate both the theory and the practice of later classicism, the members of the school exhibit numerous deviations from what was afterward accepted as inviolable law in French poetry. The most important of these deviations con- ijcerns the use of words from the various French dia- ilects, from foreign tongues, and from the technical 'and mechanical arts. A partial expression of this theory of poetic language has already been seen in Du Bellay's Difense et Illustration, in which the poet is urged to use the more elegant technical dia- lectic terms. Eonsard gives very much the same advice. The best words in all the French dialects are to be employed by the poet ; for it is doubtless to the number of the dialects of Greece that we may ascribe the supreme beauty of its language and literature. The poet is not to affect too much the language of the court, since it is often very bad, being . . the language of ladies and of young gentlemen who I ! make a profession of fighting well rather than of in.] ELEMENTS Df FRENCH CRITICISM 231 speaking well.' Unlike Malherbe and his school, Ronsard allows a certain amotint of poetic license, but only rarely and judiciously. It is to poetic license, he says, that we owe nearly all the beau- tiful figures with which poets, in their divine rapture, enfranchising the laws of grammar, have enriched their works. " This is that birthright," said Dry- den, a century later, in the preface of his State of Innocence and the Fall of Man, " which is derived to us from our great forefathers, even from Homer down to Ben ; and they who would deny it to us have, in plain terms, the fox's quarrel to the grapes — they cannot reach it." Vauquelin de la Fres- naye follows Ronsard and Du Bellay in urging the use of new and dialect words, the employment of terms and comparisons from the mechanic arts, and the various other doctrines by which the Pleiade is distinguished from the school of Mal- herbe. How these useless linguistic innovations were checked and banished from the French lan- guage forever will be briefly alluded to in the next chapter. 1 Ronsard, Tii. 322. ^\x\Ul v. Ma^I'^^V CHAPTER IV THE rOBMATION OP THE CLASSIC IDEAL IN THE SEVENTEENTH CBNTUKY I. The Bomomtic Revolt It is a well-known fact that between 1600 and 1630 there was a break in the national evolution of French literature. This was especially so in the drama, and in France the drama is the con- necting link between century and century. The dramatic works of the sixteenth century had been fashioned after the regular models borrowed by the Italians from Seneca. The change that came was a change from Italian classical to Spanish romantic models. The note of revolt was begin- ning to be heard in Gr^vin, De Laudun, and others. The seventeenth century opened with the production of Hardy's irregular drama, Les Amours de Thia- g^ne et GaricUe (1601), and the influence of the Spanish romantic drama and the Italian pastoral, dominant for over a quarter of a century, was in- augurated in France. The logic of this innovation was best expounded in Spain, and it was there that arguments in favor of the romantic and irregular drama were first formulated. The two most interesting defences of the Spanish national drama are doubtless the ma CHAP. IV.] FOEMATIONOF THE CLASSIC IDEAI, 233 EgemjUar Portico of Juan de la Cueva (1606) and Iiope de Vega's Arte Nuevo de Racer Comedias (1609). Their inspiration is at bottom the same. Their authors were both classicists at heart, or rather classicists in theory, yet with differences. Juan de la Cueva's conception of poetry is entirely based on the precepts of the Italians, except in what regards the national drama, for here he is a partisan and a patriot. He insists that the differ- ence of time and^^ircumstance frees the Spanish plajrwrig^t from all necessity of imitating the ancients or obeying their rules. " This change in the drama," he says, "was effected by wise men, who applied to new conditions the new things they found most suitable and expedient; for we must consider the various opinions, the times, and the manners, which make it necessary for us to change and vary our operations."^ His theory of the drama was entirely opposed to his conception of the other forms of poetry. According to this stand- point, as a recent writer has put it, "the theatre was to imitate nature, and to please ; poetry was to imitate the Italians, and satisfy the orthodox but minute critic."* Lope de Vega, writing three years later, does not deny the universal applicabil- ity of the Aristotelian canons, and even acknowl- edges that they are the only true rules. But the people demand romantic plays, and the peoplS rather than the poet's Kterary conscience, musl be satisfied by the playwright. " I myself," he says, 1 Sedano, Pamaso StpaHol, viii. 61. * Haimay, Later Benaiseance, 1898, p. 39. 234 LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE [chap. " write comedies according to the art invented by those whose sole object it is to obtain the applause of the crowd. After all, since it is the public who j j pays for these stupidities , why should we not serve what it wants ? " ^ Perhaps the most interesting of all the exposi- tions of the theory of the Spanish national drama is a defence of Lope de Vega's plays by one Alfonso Sanchez, published in 1618 in Erance, or possibly in Spain with a false IVench imprint. The apology of Sanchez is comprehended in six distinct proposi- tions. First, the arts have their foundation in Qature. Secondly, a wise and learned man may alter many things in the existing arts. Thirdly, nature does not obey laws, but gives them. Fourthly, Lope de Vega has done well in creating a new art. Fifthly, in his writings everything is adjusted to art, and that a real and living art. Lastly, Lope de Vega has surpassed all the ancient j)oets.' The following passage may be extracted from this treatise, if only to show how little there was of novelty in the tenets of the French roman- ticists two centuries later : — "Is it said that we have no infallible art by which to adjust our precepts ? But who can doubt it ? We have art, we have precepts and rules which bind us, and the principal precept is to imitate nature, for the works of poets express the nature, the manners, and the genius of the age in which they write. . . . Lop e de Vega wr ites jn ponformity^Tiit^ ?:2i~5SS225? be follows nature. If, on the contrary, the Spanish drama adjusted itself to the rules and laws of the 1 Mene'ndez y Pelayo, ill. 434. 2 Ibid. iii. 447 sq. IV.] FORMATION OF THE CLASSIC IDEAI. 235 ancients, it wonld proceed against the requirements of nature, and against ttie foundations of poetry. . . . The great Loj* lias done tilings over and above the laws of the ancients, but never against these laws." Another Spanish, writer defines art as " an attentive observation of examples graded by efpenencej and reduced to method and the "m^g^jjtJaSsT! ^ It was this naturalistic conception of the poetic art, and especially of the drama, that obtained in France duringjthe first thirty years of the seven- teenth century. The^ French playwrights inaitated the Spanish drama in practice, and from the Span- ish theorists seemed to have derived the critical justi- fication of their plays. Hardy himself, like Lope de Vega, argues that " everything which is approved by i usage and the public taste is legitimate and more than legitimate." Another writer of this time, Fran- cois Ogier, in the preface of the second edition of Je^ de Schelandre's remarkable drama of Tyr el 5Mton^M8)7argues for intellectual independence of the ancients much in the same way as Giraldi Cintio, Pigna, and the other partisans of the romanzi had done three-quarters of a century before. The taste of every nation, he says, is quite different from any other. " The Greeks wrote for the Greeks, and in the judgment of the best men of their time they succeeded. But we should imitate them very much better by giving heed to the tastes of our ovm country, and the genius of our own language, than by forcing ourselves to follow step by step both their intention and their expression." This would 1 Menendez y Felayo, iii. 4^. 236 LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE [chap. seem to be at bottom Goethe's famous statement that we can best imitate the Greeks by trying to be as great men as they were. It is interesting to note, in all of these early critics, traces of that his- torical criticism which is usually regarded as the discovery of our own century. But after all, the French like the Spanish playwrights were merely beginning to practise what the Italian dramatists in their prefaces, and some of the Italian critics in their treatises, had been preaching for nearly a century. The Abbd d'Aubignac speaks of Hardy as "arresting the progress of the French theatre"; and whatever practical improvements the French theatre owes to him, there can be little doubt that for a certain number of years the evolution of the classical drama was partly arrested by his efforts and the efforts of his school. But during this very period the foundations of the great literature that was to come were being built on classical lines; and the continuance of the classical tradi- tion after 1630 was due to three distinct causes, each of which will be discussed by itself as briefly as possible. These three causes were the reaction against the Pleiade, the second iaflux of the critical ideas of the Italian Eenaissance, and the influence 1 of the rationalistic philosophy of the period. II. The Reaction against the PlUade The reaction against the Pleiade was effected, or at least begun, by [J^Iherber\ Malherbe's power or IV.] FOEMATION OF THE CLASSIC IDEAL 237 message as a poet is of no concern here ; in his r61e of grammarian and critic he accomplished certain im- portant and widespread reforms in French poetry. These reforms were connected chiefly, if not en- tirely, with the external or formal side of poetry . His work was that of a grammarian, of a prosodist — in a word, that of a purist. He did not, indeed, during his lifetime, publish any critical work, or formulate any critical system. But the reforms he executed were on this account no less influential or enduring. His critical attitude is to be looked for in the memoirs of his life written by his disciple . , Kacan, and in his own Commentaire sur Desportes, '. ' which was not published in its entirety until very recently."^ This commentary consists of a series of manuscript notes written by Malherbe about the year 1606 in the margins of a copy of Desportes. These notes are of a most fragmentary kind ; they seldom go beyond a word or two of disapproval, such as faible, mal congu, superflu, sans jiu/ement, soUise, or mai imagini ; and yet, together with a few detached utterances recorded in his letters and in the memoirs by Eacan, they indicate quite clearly the critical attitude of Malherbe and the reforms he was bent on bringing about. These reforms were, in the first place, largely linguistic. The Pleiade had attempted to widen the sphere of poetic expression in French litera- 1 The Commentaire is printed entire in Lalanne's edition of Malherbe, Paris, 1862, vol. iv. The critical doctrine of Mal- herbe has been formulated by Brunot, Doctrine de Malherbe, pp. 105-236. V^' Wii >»*V>* ?^^!A- 238 LITEEAKY CRITICISM IN FRANCE [chap. ture by the introduction of words from the classics, from the Italian and even the Spanish, from the provincial dialects, from the old romances, and from the terminology of the mechanic arts. All these archaisms, neologisms, Latinisms, compound words, and dialectic and technical expressions, Malherbe set about to eradicate from the Prench language. ^ His object was to purify French, and, as_itwere^_t0n^>^5 centralize it. The test he set up was [actual usage^ and even this was narrowed down to the usage of 11 the court. Eonsard had censured the exclusive use of courtly speech in poetry, on the ground that the courtier cares more about fighting well than about speaking or writing well. But Malherbe's ideal was the ideal of French classicism — the ideal of Boileau, Racine, and Bossuet. French was to be no longer a hodgepodge or a patois, but the pure and perfect speech of the king and his court. Malherbe, while thus reacting against the Pleiade, made no pretensions of returning to the linguistic usages of Marot; his test was present usage, his model the living language.* At the same time his reforms in language, as in other things, represent a reaction against foreign innovations and a return to the pure French id.iqm. They were in the in- terest of the national traditions; and it is this national^ element which is his share in. thg-Jiody of neo^-classical theqrj jjid practice. His reforms were all in the direction of that verbal and me- chanical perfection, the love of which is innate in the French nature, and which forms the indigenous I Gf. Horace, Ara Poet. 71, 72. IT.} FORMATION OF THE CLASSIC IDEAL 239 or racial element ia French classicism. He elimi- nated foomPreBfih verse hiatus, enjambementj in- versions, f^se and imperfect rhymes, and licenses or cacophonies of all kinds. iHe gave it, as has been said, mechanical perfection, — " Et r^msit la Muse aux regies du devoir." For such a man — tyran des mots et des syllcibes, as Balzac called him — the higher qualities of poetry could have little or no meaning. His ideals were pro^riety^ clearness,^ regularity, and force. These, as Chapelain perceived at the time, are oratorical rather than purely poetic qualities ; yet for these, all the true qualities that go to make up a great poet "were to be sacrificed. Of imagination and poetic sensibility he takes no account whatsoever . After the verbal perfection of the verse, the logical unity of the poem was his chief interest. Logic and reason are without doubt important things, but they cannot exist in poetry to the exclusion of imagination. By eliminating inspiration, as it were, Malherbe excluded the possibUity of lyrical production in France throughout the period of classicism. He hated poetic fictions, since for him, as for Boileau, only actual reality is beautiful. If he permitted the employment of mythological figures, it was because they axe reasonable and universally intelligible symbols. The French mind is essen- tialljjrational and logical, and ISTalherbe reintro- duced this native rationality into French poetry. He set up common sense as a poetic ideal, and made poetry intelligible to the average mind. The 240 LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE [chap. Pleiade had written for a learned literary coterie ; Malherbe wrote for learned and unlearned alike. Por the Pleiade, poetry had been a divine office, a matter of prophetic inspiration; for Malherbe, it was ajrade, a^craft, to be leajnt like any other. Du Bellay had said that " it is a well-accepted fact, according to the most learned men, that natural talents without learning can accomplish more in poetry than learning without natural talents." Malherbe, it has been neatly said, would have upheld the contrary doctrine that " learning with- out natural talents can accomplish more than natural talents without learning."* After all, eloquence was Malherbe's ideal ; and as the French are by nature an eloquent rather than a poetic peo- ple, he deserves the honor of having first shown them how to regain their true inheritance. In a word, he accomplished for classical poetry in Trance all that the national instinct, the esprit gaulois, could accomplish by itself. Consistent structural laws for the larger poetic forms he could not give ; these France owes to Italy. Kor could he appre- ciate the high notion of abstract perfection, or the classical conception of an absolute standard of taste — that of several expressions or several ways of doing something, one way and only one is the right one ; this France owes to rationalistic philos- ophy. Malherbe seems almost to be echoing Mon- taigne when he says in a letter to Balzac : — "Do you not know that the diversity of opinions is as natural as the difEerence of men's faces, and that to wish 1 Brunot, p. 149, IV.] FOKMATION OF THK CLASSIC IDEAL 241 that what pleases or displeases ns should please or displease everybody is to pass the limits where it seems that God in His omnipotence has commanded us to stop ? " ^^ With, this individualistic expression of the questions of opinion aoad taste, we have but to compare the following passage from La Bruyfere to indicate how far Malherbe is still from the classic ideal : — " There is a point of perfection in art, as of excellence or maturity in nature. He who is sensible of it and loves it has perfect taste ; he who is not sensible of it and loves this or that else on either side of it has a faulty taste. There is then a good and a bad taste, and men dispute of tastes not without reason." ^ III. The Second Influx of Italian Ideas The second influx of Italian critical ideas into France came through two channels. In the first place, the direct literary relations between Italy and France during this period were very marked. The influence of Marino, who lived for a long time at Paris and published a number of his works there, was not inconsiderable, especially upon the French concettists and prScieux. Two Italian ladies founded and presided over the famous Hotel de Rambouillet, — Julie Savelli, Marquise de Pisani, and Catherine de Vivonne, Marquise de Eambouillet. It was partly to the influence of the Accademia della Crusca that the foundation of the French Academy was due. Chapelain and Menage were 1 (Euvres, Lalanne's edition, iv. 91. ' Caracteret, "Des Ouvrages de I'Esprit." B 242 LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE [chap. both, members of the Italian society, and submitted to it their different opinions on a verse of Petrarch. Like the Accademia della Crusca, the rrench..4fiad; emy purposed the_grepMationd[^_greatdictionarjj and^ach began its existence by attacking a great work of literature, the Gerusalemme Liberata in the case of the Italian society, Corneille's Cid in the case of the French. The regency of Marie de Medici, the supremacy of Mazarin, and other politi- cal events, all conspired to bring Italy and France into the closest social and literary relationship. But the two individuals who first brought into French literature and naturalized the primal criti- cal concepts of Italy were Chapelaia and Balzac. Chapelain's private correspondence indicates how thorough was his acquaintance with the critical literature of Italy. " I have a particular affection for the Italian language," he wrote in 1639 to Bal- zac* Of the Cid, he says that " in Italy it would be considered barbarous, and there is not an acad- emy which would not banish it beyond the confines of its jurisdiction." ^ Speaking of the greatness of Eonsard, he says that his own opinion was in accord with that of " two great savants beyond the Alps, Speroni and Castelvetro " ; ' and he had con- siderable correspondence with Balzac on the subject of the controversy between Caro and Castelvetro in the previous century. In a word, he knew and 1 Lettres, i. 413. The references are to the edition by Tami- zey de Larioque, Paris, 1880-1883. 2 Ibid. i. 156. » Ibid. i. 631 sq. IV.] FORMATION OF THE CLASSIC TDTCAT. 243 studied the critics and scholars of Italy, and was interested in discussing them. Balzac's interest, on the other hand, was rather toward Spanish literature ; but he was the agent of the Cardinal de la Valette at Rome, and it was on his return to France that he published the first collection of his letters. The influence of both Chapelain and Bal- zac on French classicism was considerable. During the sixteenth century, literary criticism had been entirely in the hands of learned men. Chapelain , and Balzac Tulgaxized the critical ideas of the Italian ^Renaissance, and made them popular, hu- man, but inviolable. Balzac introduced into France the fine critical sense of the Italians; Chapelain introduced their formal rules, and imposed the three unities on French tragedy. Together they effected a humanizing of the classical ideal, even while subjecting it to rules. It was to the same Italian influences that France owed the large number of artifi d.al epics) that ap- peared during this period. About ten epics were published in the fifteen years between 1650 and 1665.* The Italians of the sixteenth century had formulated a fixed theory of the a rtificial e sic ; and the nations of western Europe rivalled one another in attempting to make practical use of this theory. It is to this that the large number of Spanish epics in the sixteenth century and of French epics in the seventeenth may be ascribed. Among the latter 1 These epics have been treated at length by Dnchesne, BUtoire des Poemes Spiques franfais du XTII Sieele, Paris, 1870. 244 LITERARY CRITICISM IN TRANCE [chap. we may mention Scudery's Jlaric, Lemoyne's Saint Louis, Saint-Amant's Moyse Sauvi, and Chapelain's own epic, La Pucelle, awaited by the public for many years, and published only to be damned for- ever by Boileau. The prefaces of all these epics indicate clearly enough their indebtedness to the Italians. They were indeed scarcely more than attempts to put the rules and precepts of the Italian Eenaissance into practice. "I then consulted the masters of this art," says Scud^ry, in the preface of Alaric, " that is to say, Aristotle and Horace, and after them Macrobius, Scaliger, Tasso, Castelvetro, Piccolom- ini, Vida, Vossius, Robortelli, Eiccoboni, Paolo Beni, Mambrun, and several others; and passing from theory to practice I reread very carefully the Iliad and the Odyssey, the u^neid, the Pharsalia, the Thebaid, the Orlando Furioso, and the Gerusor lemme Liberata, and many other epic poems in diverse languages." Similarly, Saint-Amant, in the preface of his Moyse 8auv4, s ays that he had rigorously observed " the ("^ mities^ of action and place, which are the principal requirements of the epic ; and besides, by an entirely new method, I have restricted my subject not only within twenty- four hours, the limit of the dramatic poem, but almost within half of that time. This is more than even Acistotle, Horace, Scaliger, Castelvetro, Pic- colomini, and all the other moderns have ever required." It is obvious that for these epic-makers the rules and precepts of the Italians were the final tests of heroic poetry. Similarly, the Abbd d'Au- IV.] FORMATION OF THE CLASSIC IDEAL 245 bignac, at the beginning of Ms Pratique du Thidtre, advises the dramatic poet to study, among other writers, "Aristotle, Horace, Castelvetro, Vida, Heinsius, Vossius, and Scaliger, of whom not a word should be lost." From the Italians also came the theory of poetry in general as held throughout the period of classicism, and expounded by the Abbe d'Aubignac, La Mesnardiere, Comeille, Boi- leau, and numerous others ; and it is hardly neces- sary to repeat that Kapin, tracing the history of criticism at the beginning of his Biflexums sur la Poitique, deals with scarcely any critics but the Italians. Besides the direct influence of the Italian critics, another influence contributed its share to the sum of critical ideas which French classicism owes to the Italian Eenaissance. This was the tradition of Scaliger, carried on by the Dutch scholars Heinsius and Vossius. Daniel Heinsius was the pupU of Joseph Scaliger, the illustrious son of the author of the Poetics; and through Heinsius the dramatic theories of the elder Scaliger influenced classical tragedy in France. The treatise of Heinsius, De T^agaedioB ConstittUione, published at Leyden in 1611, was called by Chapelaia " the quintessence of Aristotle's Poetics " ; and Chapelain called Hein- sius himself "a prophet or sibyl in matters of criti -X cism." ' Annoted by Racine, cited as an infallible authority by Comeille, Heinsius's work exercised 1 Lettres, i. 269, 424. On the theories of Heinsins, see Zerbst, Ein VorlSu/er Lessing$ in der AristoteletirUerpretation, Jena, 1887. 246 LITERARY CRITICISM m FRANCE [chap. a marked influence on French tragedy by fixing upon it the laws of Scaliger ; and later the works of Vossius cooperated with those of Heinsius in widening the sphere of the Italian influence. It is evident, therefore, that while French literature had already during the sixteenth century taken from the Italian Eenaissance its respect for antiquity and its admiration for classical mythology, the seventeenth century owed to Italy its definitive conception of the theory of poetry, and especially certain rigid struc- tural laws for tragedy and epic. It may be said without exaggeration that there is not an essential idea or precept in the works of Corneille and D'Aubignac on dramatic poetry, or of Le Bossu and Mambrun on epic poetry, that cannot be found in the critical writings of the Italian Renaissance. IV. The Influence of Bationalistic Philosophy The influence of rationalistic philosophy on the general attitude of classicism manifested itself in 1 1 what may be called the gradual rationalization of all ' Ithat the Eenaissance gave to France. The process thus effected is most definitely exhibited in the evo- lution of the rules which France owed to Italy. It has already been shown how the rules and precepts of the Italians had originally been based on author- ity alone, but had gradually obtained a general sig- nificance of their own, regardless of their &,ncient authority. Somewhat later, in England, the Aristo- telian canons were defended by Ben Jonson on the ground that Aristotle understood the causes of IT.] FORMATION OF THE CLASSIC IDEAL 247 things, and ttat what others had done by chance or custom, Aristotle did by reason alone .^ By this time, then, the reasonableness of the Aristotelian canons was distinctly felt, although they were still regarded as haviag authoritativeness in themselves • and it was first in the French classicists of the seventeenth century that reason and the ancient rules were regarded as one and inseparable. EationaJism, indeed, is to be found at the very out- set of the critical activity of the Eenaissance ; and Vida's words, already cited, " Semper nutu rationis eant res," represent in part the attitude of the Re- naissance mind toward literature. But the "rea- son " of the earlier theorists was merely empirical and individualistic; it did not differ essentially from Horace's ideal of " good sense." In fact, ra- tionalism and humanism, while existing together throughout the Eenaissance, were never to any ex- tent harmonized ; and extreme rationalism generally u took the^ormof anavw^daiitagonism to Aristotle. , i The complete rationali2a,tion of the laws of TitBrar ture is first evident toward the middle of the seven- teenth century. " The, rules of the theatre," says the Abbe d'Aubignac, at the beginning of his Pratique du ThidUre, "are foundesd, not on author- ity, but on reason," and if they are called the rules of the ancients, it is simply " because the ancients have admirably practised them." Similarly, Cor- neillej in his discourse Des Trois Unites, says that the unity of time would be arbitrary and tyrannical if it were merely required by Aristotie's Poetics, 1 Discoveries, p. 80. !l 248 LITERARY CRITICISM US SEANCE [chap. but that its real prop is the natural reason ; and Boileau sums up the final attitude of classicism in these words : — " Aimez done la raison ; que toujours vos §crits EmEramtentdVKtifi-S&jfle et leur lustre et leur prix." i Here the rationalizing process is complete, and the n actual requirements of authority become identical with the dictates of the reason. The rules expounded by Bofleau, while for the most part the same as those enunciated by the Ital- ians, are no longer mere rules. They are laws dic- tated by abstract and universal reason, and hence inevitable and infallible ; they are not tyrannical or arbitrar y , but im posed upon u s by the very na - ture of the human mind. This is not merely, as we have said, the good nature and the good sense, in a word, the sweet reasonableness, of such a critic as Horace.'' There is more than this iu the classi- cists o f the seventee nth century. Good_sensebe- co mes limiversaliz^ [}becomes. in fact, as has been ^id, not merely an empirical notion of good sense, but the abstract and universal reason itself. From this follows the absolute standard of taste at the bottom of classicism, as exemplified in the passage already cited from La Bruyfere, and in such a line as this from Boileau : — 1 1 "La raison pour marcher n'a souvent qu'une voie." ' This rationalization of the Eenaissance rules of 1 Art Poet. i. 37. ' Cf. Biuneti^re, ^tudei Critiques, iy. 136; and Krantz, p. 93 »«• » Art Poit. i. 48. IT.] FORMATION OF THE CLASSIC IDEAL 249 poetry was effected by contemporary philosophy; if not by the works and doctrines of Descartes him- self, at least by the general tendency of the human mind at this period, of which these works and doc- trines are the most perfect expressions. Boileau's Art PoMiqxie has been aptly called the Discmirs de\\ la Mkhode of French poetry. So that whUe the (contribution of MaJherbe and his school to classi- jcism lay in the insistence on clearness, propriety, and verbal and metrical perfection, and the contri- Ibution of the Italian Renaissance lay in the infusion of respect for classical antiquity and the imposition of a certain body of fixed rules, the contribution of contemporary philosophy lay in the rationalization or universalization of these rules, and in the imposi- tion of an abstract and absolute standard of taste. But Cartesianism brought with it certain impor- tant limitations and deficiencies. Boileau himself is reported to have said that "the philosophy of Descartes has cut the throat of poetry ; " ^ and there can be no doubt that this is the exaggerated expres- sion of a certain inevitable truth. The excessive insist ence on the reaso n brought with it a corre- sponding undervaliiation of J^_imagination. The ratiOT^LrandTri^Z]^ scientific basis of Cartesianism was forced on classicism ; and reality became its supreme object and its final test : — "Kien n'est beau que le vrai." () Reference has already been made to various dis- advantages imposed on classicism by the very nature 1 Beported by J. B. Bonssean, in a letter to Biossette, July 21, 1715. 250 LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE [chap. iv. of its origin and growth; but the most vital of all these disadvantages was the influence of the Car- tesian philosophy or philosophic temper. With the scientific basis thus imposed on literature, its only safeguard against extinction was the vast in- fluence of a certain body of fixed rules, which lit- erature dared not deviate from, and which it attempted to justify on the wider grounds of phi- losophy. These rules, then, the contribution of Italy, saved poetry in France from extinction dur- ing the classical period; and of this a remarkable confirmation is to be found in the fact that not un- til the rationalism of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was superseded in France, did French lit- erature rid itself of this body of Renaissance rules. Cartesianism, or at least the rationalistic spirit, humanized these rules, and imposed them on the rest of Europe. But though quintessentialized, they remained artificial, and circumscribed the workings of the French imagination for over a century. Part Third LITERARY CRITICISM IN ENQLAND LITERAEY CRITICISM IN ENGLAND CHAPTER I THE EVOLUTION OF ENGLISH CRITICISM FROM ASCHAM TO MILTON LiTEBAET criticism in England during the Eliz- abethan age was neither so influential nor so rich and varied as the contemporary criticism of Italy and France. This fact might perhaps be thought insufficient to affect the interest or patriotism of English-speaking people, yet the most charming critical monument of this period, Sidney's Defence of Poesy, has been slightingly referred to by the latest historian of English poetry. Such interest and importance as Elizabethan criticism possesses must therefore be of an historical nature, and lies in two distinct directions. In the first place, the study of the literature of this period will show, not only that there was a more or less complete body of critical doctrine during the Renaissance, but also that Englishmen shared in this creation, or inheritance, of the Renaissance as truly as did their continental neighbors ; and on the other hand this study may be said to possess an interest in itself, in so far as it wiU make the growth of classicism in England intelligible, and will indicate that the 263 254 LITEKARY CRITICISM IN ENGLAND [chap. formation of the classic ideal had begun before the introduction of the French influence. In neither case, however, can early English criticism be con- sidered wholly apart from the general body of Eenaissance doctrine ; and its study loses in impor- tance and perspicuity according as it is kept dis- tinct from the consideration of the critical literature of Prance, and especially of Italy. English criticism, during the sixteenth and seven- teenth centuries, passed through &v& more or less distinct stages of _development. The first stage, characterized by the purely rhetoricaLstudy of literature, may be said to begin with Leonard Coxe's Arte or Grafie of Rhetoryke, a hand-book for young students, compiled about 1524, chiefly from one of the rhetorical treatises of Melanchthon.^ This was followed by Wilson's Arte of Bhetorike (1553), which is more extensive and certainly more origi- nal than Coxe's manual, and which has been called by Warton " the first book or system of criticism in our language." But the most important figure of this period is Eoger Ascham. The educational system expounded in his Scholemaster, written between 1563 and 1568, he owed largely to his friend, John Sturm, the Strasburg humanist, and to his teacher. Sir John Cheke, who had been Greek lecturer at the University of Padua; but for the critical portions of this work he seems directly indebted to the rhetorical treatises of the Italians.^ Yet his obligations to the Italian human- 1 Cf. Mod. Lang. Notes, 1898, xiii. 293. 2 Cf. Ascham, Works, ii. 174r-191. 1.] EVOLUTION OF ENGLISH CKITICISM 255 ists did not prevent the expression of h.is stern and unyielding antagonism to the romantic Italian spirit as it influenced the imaginative literature of his time. In studying early English literature it must always be kept in mind that the Italian Eenais- sance influenced the Elizabethan age in two differ- ent directions. The Italianization of English poetry had been effected, or at least begun, by the publi- cation of Tottel's Miscellany in 1557; on this, the'! creative side of English literature, the Italian influence was distinctly romantic. The influence of the Italian humanists, on the other hand, was directly opposed to this romantic spirit ; even in their own country they had antagonized all that was not classical in tendency. Ascham, therefore, as a result of his humanistic training, became not only the first English man of letters, but also the first English classicist. The first stage of Engl ish criticism , then, was entirely given up to rhetorical study ; It was at this time that English writers first attained the appreciation of form and sty le as distinguishing features of literaturej and it was to this appre- ciation that the formation of an English prose style was due. This period may therefore be com- pared with the later stages of Italian humanism in the fifteenth century; and the later humanists were the masters and models of these early English rhetoricians. Gabriel Harvey, as a Ciceronian of the school of Bembo, was perhaps their last repre- sentative. i The second stage of English criticism — a period (.V> 256 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ENGLAND [chap. of classification and especially of metrical studies — commences with Gascoigne's Notes of Instruction concerning the making of Verse^ published in 1576, and modelled apparently on Eonsard's Ahrigi de I'Art Poitique franfois (1665). Besides this brief pamphlet, the first work on English versification, this stage also includes Puttenham's Arte of Eng- lish Poesie, the first systematic classification of poetic forms and subjects, and of rhetorical figures ; Bullokar's Bref Grammar, the first systematic treatise on English grammar ; and Harvey's Letters and Webbe's Discourse of English Poetrie, the first systematic attempts to introduce classical metres into English poetry. This period was charac- terized by the study and classification of the practical questions of language and versification; and in this labor it was cooperating with the very tendencies which Ascham had been attempting to counteract. The study of the verse-forms intro- duced into England from Italy helped materially to perfect the external side of English poetry ; and a similar result was obtained by the crude attempts at quantitative verse suggested by the school of Tolomei. The Italian prosodists were thus, directly or indirectly, the masters of the English students of this era. The representative work of the third stage — the period of philosophical and apolog etic criticism — is Sir Philip Sidney's Defence of Poesy, published post- humously in 1595, though probably written about 1 The Seulis and Cautelis of Scottis Poesie l)y Jamea VI. of Scotland is wholly based on Gascoigne's treatise. I.] EVOLUTION oi":english criticism 257 1583. Harington^ Apologie of Poetrie, Daniel's Defence of Byrne, and a few others, are also contem- porary treatises. These works, as their titles in- dicate, are all defences or apologies, and were called forth by the attacks of the Puritans on poetry, especially dramatic poetry, and the attacks of the classicists on English versification and rhyme. Eequired by the exigencies of the moment to de- fend poetry in general, these authors did not attempt to do so on local or temporary grounds, but set out to examine the fundamental grounds of criticism, and to formulate the basic principles of poetry. In this attempt they consciously or uncon- sciously sought aid from the critics of Italy, and thus commenced in England the influence of the Italian theor^~of poetry ." How great was their indebted- ness to the Italians the course of the present study will make somewhat clear; but it is certainly re- markable that this indebtedness has never been pointed out before. Speaking of Sidney's Defence of Poesy, one of the most distinguished English authorities on the Benaissance says: "Much as the Italians had recently written upon the theory of poetry, I do not remember any treatise which can be said to have supplied the material or suggested the method of this apology." * On the contrary, the doctrines discussed by Sidney had been receiv- ing very similar treatment from the Italians for over half a century ; and it can be said without ex- aggeration that there is not an essential principle in ^~~^. A. Symonds, Sir Philip Sidney, p. 157. Cf. also, Sidney, Deferiix, Cook's introdaction, p. xxvii, {Z") s 258 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ENGLAND [chap. the Defence of Poesy -wHch cannot be traced back to some Italian treatise on tlie poetic art. The age of which Sidney is the chief representative is there- fore the first period of the influence of Italian critics. ^•^ The fqurihjtage of English criticism, of which '' Ben Jonson is, as it were, the presiding genius, occupies the first half of the seventeenth century. The period that preceded it was in general romantic in its tendencies ; that of Jonson leaned toward a strict though nev er servile classicism. Sidney's contemporaries had studied the general theory of poetry, not for the purpose of enunciating rules or dogmas of criticism, but chiefly in order to defend the poetic art, and to understand its fundamental principles. The spirit of the age was the spirit, let us say, of Fracastoro; that of Jonson was, in a moderate form, the spirit of Scaliger or Castelvetro. With Jonson the study of the art of poetry became an inseparable guide to creation; and it is this element of self-conscious art, guided by the rules of criticism, which distinguishes him from his predecessors. The age which he represents is therefore the second period of the influence of Italian criticism ; and the same influence also is to , I be seen in such critical poems as Suckling's Session II of the Poets, and the Great Assises holden in Par- nassus, ascribed to Wither, both of which may be traced back to the class of critical poetry of which Boccalini's Bagguagli di Parnaso is the type.^ 1 Of. Foffano, p. 173 sq. In Spain, Lope de Vega's Laurel de Apolo and Cervantes' Viage del Parnaso belong to the same class of poems. 1.] EVOLUTION OF ENGLISH CRITICISM 259 ^ The fifth period, which covers the second half of the seventeenth century, is characterized by the introduction of French influence, and begins with Davenant's letter to Hobbes, and Hobbes's. answer, both prefixed to the epic of Gondibert ^ (1651). These letters, written while Davenant and Hobbes were at Paris, display many of the characteristic features of the new influence, — the rati onalistic spirit, the stringent classi cism, the re- stri ction of art to the imitation of nature , with the further limitati on of nature to the l ife of the pity m d the cou rt, and the confin ememt of th e imaffl .- na tion to what is called "wit." This specialized sense of the word "wit" is characteristic of the new age, of which Dryden, in part the disciple of Davenant, is the leading figure. The Elizabethans used the term in the general sense of the under- standing, — wit, the mental faculty, as opposed to will, the faculty of volition. With the neo-classi- cists it was used sometimes to represent, in a lim- ited sense, the imagination,' more often, however, to designate what we should call fancy,* or even mere propriety of poetic expression;' but what- ever its particular use, it was always regarded as of the essence of poetic art. With jtiie fif th s tage of English criticism this 9 essays is not_concemed. The history of literary criticism in England will be traced no farther than 1650, when the influence of France was substituted I Of. Dryden, ded. epist. to the Annus ifirabilis. X Addison, Spectator, no. 62. ' Diyden, preface to the State of Innocence. 260 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ENGLAND [chap. i. for that of Italy. This section deals especially with the two great periods of Italian influence, — that of Sidney and that of Ben Jonson. These two men are the central figures, and their names, like those of Dryden, Pope, and Samuel Johnson, represent distinct and important epochs in the history of literary criticism. CHAPTEE II THE GENERAl THEORY Or POETRY IN THE EIIZABETHAIT AGE Those who have some acquaintance, however superficial, with the literary criticism of the Italian Renaissance will find an account of the Elizabethan theory of poetry a twice-told tale. In England, as in France, criticism during this period was of a more practical character than in Italy; but even for the technical questions discussed by the Eliza- bethans, some prototype, or at least some equiva- lent, may be found among the Italians. The first toMi stages of English criticism have therefore little novelty or original value ; and their study is chiefly important as evidence of the gradual application of the ideas of the Kenaissance to English literature. The writers of the first stage, as might be ex- pected, concerned themselves but little with the theory of poetry, beyond repeating here and there the commonplaces they found in the Italian rheto- ricians. Yet it is interesting to note that as early as 1553, Wilson, in the third book of his Bhetoric, gives expression to the allegorical conception of poetry which in Italy had held sway from the time of Petrarch and Boccaccio, and which, more than anything else, colored critical theory in Elizabethan 261 II 262 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ENGLAND [chap. England. Tlie ancient poets, according to Wilson, did not spend their time inventing meaningless fables, but used the story merely as a framework for contents of ethical, philosophic, scientific, or historical import; the trials of Ulysses, for ex- ample, were intended to furnish a lively picture of man's misery in this life. The poets are, in fact, wise men, spirit ual legislat ors, reformers^^ who have at heart the redressing of wrongs; and in accomplishing this end, — either because they fear to rebuke these wrongs openly, or because they doubt the expediency or efficacy of such frankness with ignorant people, — they hide their true mean- ing un3er the veil of pleasant fables. This theory of poetic art, one of the commonplaces of the age, may be described as the great legacy of the Middle Ages to Renaissance criticism. The writers of the second stage were, in many cases, too busy with questions of versification and other practical matters to find time for abstract theorizing on the art of poetry. A long period of rhetorical and metrical study had helped to formu- late a rhetorical and technical conception of the poet's function, aptly exemplified in the sonnet describing the perfect poet prefixed to King James's brief treatise on Scotch poetry.^ The marks of a perfect poet are there given as skilful- ness in the rhetorical figures, quick wit, as shown in the use of apt and pithy words, and a good mem- ory; — a merely external view of the poet's gifts, which takes no account of such essentials as imag- 1 Haslewood, ii. 103. n.] THE GENEEAI, THEOEY OS" POETRY 263 ination, sensibility, and knowledge of nature and human life. Webbe's Discourse of English Poetrie (1586) gives expression to a conception of the object of poetry which is the logical consequence of the allegorical theory, and which was therefore almost universally accepted by Renaissance writers. Thepoet teaches by means of the allegorical truth hidden under the pleasing fables he invents ; but his first object must be to make these fables really pleasing, or the reader is deterred at the outset from any acquaint- ance with the poet's works. Poetry is t herefore a d elightful form of instniction ; it pleases and profits together ; but first of all it must delight, " for the very sum and chief est essence of poetry did always ^,^ for the most part consist in delighting the readers --' or hearers." ^ The poet has the highest welfare of ^ " ' man at heart; and by his sweet allurements to ^^ virtue and effective caveats against vice, he gains i^ his end, not roughly or tyrannically, but, as it «c^ were, with a loving authority.' From the very be- ginnings of human society poetry has been the means of civilizing men, of drawing them from barbarity to civility and virtue. If it be objected that this art — or rather, from the divine origin of [^ its inspiration, this more than art — has ever been made the excuse for the enticing expression of ob- scenity and blasphemy, Webbe has three answers. In the first place, poetry is to be moralized, that is, to be read aUegorically. The Metamorphoses of Ovid, for example, will become, when so understood, 1 Haalewood, ii. 28. ^ Ibid. il. 42. 264 MTERAKY CRITICISM IN ENGLAOT) [chap. a fount of ethical teaching; and Harington, a few years later, actually explains in detail the allegorical significance of the fourth book of that poem.^ This was a well-established tradition, and indeed a favo- rite occupation, of the Middle Ages ; and the Ovide Moralist, a long poem by Chretien Le Gouais, written about the beginning of the fourteenth cen- tury, and the equally long Ovidian commentary of Pierre BerQuire, are typical examples of this prac- tice." In the second place, the picture of vices to be found in poetry is intended, not to entice the reader to imitate them, but rather to deter sensible men from doing likewise by showing the misfor- tune that inevitably results from evil. Moreover, obscenity is in no way essentially connected with poetic art ; it is to the abuse of poetry, and not to poetry itself, that we must lay all blame for this fault. A still higher conception of the poet's function is to be found in Puttenham's Arte of English Poesie (1589). The author of this treatise informs us that he had lived at the courts of France, Italy, and Spain, and knew the languages of these and other lands; and the results of his travels and studies are sufficiently shown in his general theory of poetry. His conception of the poet is directly based on that of Scaliger. Poetry, in its highest form, is an art of " making," or creation ; and in this sense the poet is a creator like God, and forms a world out of nothing. In another sense, poetry 1 Haslewood, il. 128. * Hist. Litt. de la France, ixix. 502-525. 266 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ENGLAND [chap. Of t hese attacks, Gosson's, as the most celebrated, may be taken as the type. Underlying the rant and exaggerated Tituperation of his Schoole of Abuse (1579), there is a basis of right principles, and some evidence at least of a spirit not wholly vulgar. He was a moral reformer, an idealist, who looked back with regret toward " the old discipline of England," and contrasted it with the spirit of his own day, when Englishmen seemed to have "robbed Greece of gluttony, Italy of wantonness, Spain of pride, Erance of deceit, and Dutchland of quaffing." ^ The typical evidences of this moral degradation and effeminacy he found in poetry and the drama ; and it is to this motive that his bitter assault on both must be ascribed. He specifically insists that his intention was not to banish poetry, or to condemn music, or to forbid harmless recrea- tion to mankind, but merely to chastise the abuse of all these.'' He praises plays which possess real moral purpose and effect, and points out the true use and the worthy subjects of poetry much in the same manner as Puttenham does a few years later.' But he affirms, as Plato had done hundreds of years before, and as a distinguished French critic has done only the other day, that art contains within itself the germ of its own disintegration; and he shows that in the English poetry of his own time this disintegration had already taken place. The delights and ornaments of verse, intended really to make moral doctrine more pleasing and less abstruse 1 Gosson, p. 34. 2 Ihid. p. 65, » Ibid. pp. 28, 40. n.] THE GEXERAI, THEORY OF POETKT 267 and thorny, had become, with his contemporaries, mere alluring disguises for obscenity and bias- ! 1 phemy. In the first of the replies to Gosson, Lodge's De- fence of Poetry, Musick, and Stage Plays, written before either of the treatises of TVebbe and Putten- ham, are found the old principles of allegorical and moral interpretation, — principles which to us may seem well worn, but which to the English criticism of that time were novel enough. Lodge points out the efficacy of poetry as a civilizing factor in primi- tive times, and as a moral agency ever since. If the poets have on occasion erred, so have the philoso- phers, even Plato himself, and grievously.* Poetry is a heavenly gift, and is to be contemned only when abused and debased. Lodge did not perceive that his point of view was substantially the same as his opponent's; and indeed, throughout the EUzabetban age, there was this similarity in the point of view of those who attacked and those who defended poetry. Both sides admitted that not poetry, but its abuse, is to be disparaged ; and they differed chiefly in that one side insisted almost entirely on the ideal perfection of the poetic art, while tiie other laid stress on the debased state into which it had fallen. A dual point of view was attempted in a work, licensed in January, 1600, which pretended to be "a commendation of true poetry, and a discommendation of all bawdy, ribald, and paganized poets."* This Puritan movement 1 Lodge, Drfence {Shalcetpeare Soc. Publ.), p. 6. ' Arber, Transcript of the Stat. Seg., iii. 154. 268 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ENGLAND [chap. against the paganization of poetry corresponds to 1 1 the similar movement started by the Council of |- : Trent in Catholic countries. The theory of poetry during the second stage of English criticism was in the main Horatian, with such additions and modifications as the early Eenaissance had derived from the Middle Ages. The Aristotelian canons had not yet become a part of English criticism. Webbe alludes to Aristotle's dictum that Empedocles, having naught but metre in common with Homer, was in reality a natural philosopher rather than a poet ; ^ but all such allu- sions to Aristotle's Poetics were merely incidental and sporadic. The introduction of Aristotelianism into England was the direct result of the influence , of the Italian critics; and the agent in bringing this new influence into English letters was Sir Philip Sidney. /His Defence of Poesy is a veritable fepitome of the literary criticism of the Italian Eenaissance ; and so thoroughly is it imbued with this spirit, that no other work, Italian, French, or English, can be said to give so complete and so (inoble a conception of the temper and the principles 5|0f Eenaissance criticism. For the general theory of poetry, its sources were the critical treatises of Minturno ' and Scaliger.' Yet without any decided novelty of ideas, or even of expression, it can lay 1 Haslewood, ii. 28. 2 Sidney's acquaintance with Minturno is proved beyond doubt, even were such proof necessary, by the list of poets (Defence, pp. 2, 3) which he has copied from Minturno's De Poeta, pp. 14, 15. * Scaliger's Poetics is specifically mentioned and cited by II.] THE GENERAL THEORY OF POETRY 269 claim to distinct originality in its unity of feeling, its ideal and noble temper, and its adaptation to circumstance. Its eloquence and dignity will hardly appear in a mere analysis, wMcli pretends to give only the more important and fundamental of its principles ; but such a summary — and this is quite as important — will at least indicate the extent of its indebtedness to ItaJian criticism. In aU that relates to the antiquity, universality, and preeminence of poetry, Sidney apparently fol- lows Minturno. Poetry, as the first light-giver to ignorance, flourished before any other art or science. The first philosophers and historians were poets; and such supreme works as the Psalins of David and the Dialogues of Plato are in reality poetical. Among the Greeks and the Homans, the poet was regarded as a sage or prophet ; and no nation, how- ever primitive or barbarous, has been without poets, or has failed to receive delight and instruction from poetry.' But before proceeding to defend an art so ancient and universal, it is necessary to define it ; and the definition which Sidney gives agrees substantially with what might be designated Renaissance Aris- totelianism. " Poetry," says Sidney,^ " is an art of imitation, for so Aristotle termeth it in his word juiiricru, that is to say, a representing, counterfeit- ing, or figuring forth; to speak metaphorically, a Sidney fonr or five times; bat these citations are tax team ezhaosting liis indebtedness to Scaliger. ' Defence, p. 2 tq. ; cf. Minturno, De Poeta, pp. 9, 13. * D^ence, p. 9. 270 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ENGLAND [chap. speaking picture,' with this end, — to teach and delight."" Poetry is, accordingly, an art of imi- tation, and not merely the art of versifying; for although most poets have seen fit to apparel their poetic inventions in verse, verse is but the raiment and ornament of poetry, and not one of its causes or essentials.* "One may be a poet without vers- ing," says Sidney, " and a versifier without poetry." * Speech and reason are the distinguishing features between man and brute; and whatever helps to perfect and polish speech deserves high commen- dation. Besides its mnemonic value, verse is the most fitting raiment of poetry because it is most dignified_and^ compact, notjjolloguial^ and sl ipshod. But with all its merits, it is not an essential of poetry, of which the true test is this, — feigning notable images of vices and virtues, and teaching delightfully. In regard to the object, or function, of poetry, Sidney is at one with Scaliger. The aim of poetry is accomplished by teaching most delightfully a notable morality; or, in a word, by delightful in- struction." Not instruction alone, or delight alone, ' Thia ancient phrase had become, as has been seen, a com- monplace daring the Renaissance. Cf., e.g., Dolce, Oaservationi, 1560, p. 189 ; Vauquelin, Ari Po£t. i. 226 ; Camoens, Lusiad. vii. 76. ^ Sidney's classification of poets, D^ence, p. 9, is borrowed from Scaliger, Poet. i. 3. 8 Defence, p. 11. Cf. Castelvetro, Poetica, pp. 23, 190. • Defence, p. 33. Cf. Ronsard, CEuvres, iii. 19, vii. 310; and Shelley, D^ence of Poetry, p. 9: "The distinction between poets and prose writers is a vulgar error." ^Defence, pp. 47, 51. Cf. Scaliger, Poet. i. 1, and Til. i. 2: " PoetsB finem esse, docere cum delectatione." n.] THE GENERAL THEORY OF POETRY 271 5v as^ora£eJiad_said, but instruction made delight- ^ fnl; and it is this dual function which serves not only as the end but as the very test of poetry. The object of all arts and sciences is to lift human life to the highest altitudes of perfection ; and in this respect they are all servants of the sovereign, or architectonic, science, whose end is well-doing and not well-knowing only.^ Virtuous action is therefore the end of all learning;' and Sidney sets out to prove that the poet, more than any one else, conduces to this end. This is the beginning of the apologetic side of Sidney's argrument. The ancient controversy — ancient even in Plato's days — between poetry and philosophy is once more reopened ; and the question is the one so often debated by the Italians, — shall the palm be given to the poet, to the philosopher, or to the historian ? The gist of Sidney's argument is that while the philosopher teaches by precept alone, and the historian by example alone, the poet conduces most to virtue because he employs both precept and example. The philosopher teaches virtue by showing what virtue is and what vice is, by setting down, in thorny argument, and without clarity or beauty of style, the bare rule.' The his- torian teaches virtue by showing the experience of past ages; but, being tied down to what actually happened, that is, to the particular truth of things 1 Aristotle, Ethics, i. 1; Cicero, De Qfflc. i. 7. 'This was the usual attitude of the humanists; cf. Wood- ward, p. 182 sq. • Of. Daniello, p. 19; Minturno, De Poeta, p. 39, 272 LITEEAKY CRITICISM IN ENGLAND [chap. and not to general reason, the example he depicts draws no necessary consequence. The poet alone accomplishes ihis dual task. What the philosopher says should be done is by the poet pictured most perfectly in some one by whom it has been done, thus coupling thg- general notionjwith^theparticular instance. The philosopher, moreover, teaches the learned only ; the poet teaches all, and is, in Plu- tarch's phrase, "the right popular philosopher,'" for he seems only to promise delight, and moves men to virtue unawares. But even if the philoso- pher excel the poet in teaching, he cannot move his readers as the poet can, and this is of higher impor- tance than teaching ; for what is the use of teaching virtue if the pupil is not moved to act and accom- plish what he is taught ?^ On the other hand, the historian deals with particular instances, with vices and virtues so commingled that the reader can find no pattern to imitate. The poet makes history reasonable ; he gives perfect examples of vices and virtues for human imitation; he makes virtue I succeed and vice fail, as history can but seldom do. Poetry, therefore, conduces to virtue, the end of all learning, better than any other art or science, and so deserves the palm as the highest and the noblest form of human wisdom.* The basis of Sidney's distinction between the 1 Defence, p. 18. ^Ibid. p. 22. Cf. Mintumo, De Poeta, p. 106; Varohi, Lezzioni, p. 576. » That is, the highest form of human wisdom, for Sidney, as a Christian philosopher, naturally leaves revealed religion out of the discussion. II.] THE GBNEKAI, THEORY OF POETRY 273 poet and the historian is the famous passage in which Aristotle explains why poetry is more phil- osophic and of more serious value than history.* The poet deals, not with the particular, but with the universal, — with what might or should be, not with what is or has been. But Sidney, in the assertion of this principle, follows Minturno '^ and Scaliger,' and goes farther than Aristotle would probably have gone. All arts have the works of nature as their principal object, and follow nature as actors follow the lines of their play. Only the poet is not tied to such subjects, but create s another nature? ( better than ever nature itself brought forth. For, going hand in hand with nature, and being enclosed not within her limits, but only by the zodiac of his own imagination, he creates a golden world for nature's brazen ; and in this sense he may be com- pared as a creator with God.* Where shall you find in life such a friend as Pylades, such a hero as Orlando, such an excellent man as ^^neas ? Sidney then proceeds to answer the various ob- jections that have been made against poetry. These objections, partly following Gosson and Cornelius Agrippa," and partly his own inclinations, he re- duces to four.* In the first place, it is, objected that a man might spend his time more profitably than by reading the figments of poets. But since teaching virtue is the real aim of all learning, and since poetry has been shown to accomplish this 1 Poet. IT. 1-4. * Defence, pp. 7, 8. 2 De Poeta, p. 87 sq. ^ De Van. et Incert. Seient. cap. T. • Poet. i. 1. * D^ence, p. 34 aq. 274 LITERARY CRITICISM m ENGLAND [chap. better than all other arts or sciences, this objection is easily answered. In the second place, poetry has been called the mother of lies; but Sidney shows that it is less likely to misstate facts ■Ahan other sciences, for the poet does not publish his figments \ as facts, and, since he affirms nothing, cannot ever ' be said to lie.^ Thirdly, poetry has been called the nurse of abuse, that is to say, poetry misuses and debases the mind of man by turning it to wanton- ness and by making it unmartial and effeminate. But Sidney argues that it is man's wit that abuses poetry, and not poetry that abuses man's wit ; and as to making men effeminate, this charge applies to all other sciences more than to poetry, which in its description of battles and praise of valiant men notably stirs courage and enthusiasm. Lastly, it is pointed out by the enemies of poetry that Plato, one of the greatest of philosophers, banished poets from his ideal commonwealth. But Plato's Dia- logues are in reality themselves a form of poetry ; and it argues ingratitude in the most poetical of philosophers, that he should defile the fountain which was his source.' Yet though Sidney perceives how fundamental are Plato's objections to poetry, he is inclined to believe that it was rather against ioi^k the abuse of poetry by the contemporary Greek poets that Plato was chiefly cavilling ; for poets are praised in the Ion, and the greatest men of every age have been patrons and lovers of poetry. 1 Cf. Boccaccio, Gen. de.gli Dei, p. 257 sq, ; and Haslewood, U. 13T. 2 Defence, pp. 3, 41 ; cf. Daniello, p. 22. u.] THE GENERAi THEORY OE POETRY 275 In the dozen years or so which elapsed between the composition and the publication of the Defence of Poesy, during which time it seems to have circu- lated in manuscript, a number of critical works ap- peared, and the indebtedness of several of them to Sidney's book is considerable. This is especially so of the Apologie of Poetrie which Sir John Har- ington prefixed to his translation of the Orlando Furioso in 1591. This brief treatise includes an apology for poetry in general, for the Orlando Furioso in particular, and also for his own transla^ tion. The first section, which alone concerns us here, is almost entirely based on the Defence of Poesy. The distinguishing features of poetry are imitation, or fiction, and verse. ^ Harington dis- claims aU intention of discussing whether writers of fiction and dialogue in prose, such as Plato and Xenophon, are poets or not, or whether Lucan, though writing in verse, is to be regarded as an historiographer rather than as a poet ; * so that his argument is confined to the element of imitation, or fiction. He treats poetry rather as a propaedeutic to theology and moral philosophy than as one of the fine arts. AU human learning may be regarded by the orthodox Christian as vain and superfluous; but poetry is one of the most effective aids to the higher learning of God's divinity, and poets them- selves are really popular philosophe rs and pop ular divines. Harington then takes up, one by one, the four~specific charges of Cornelius Agrippa, that poetry is a nurse of lies, a pleaser of fools, a 1 Haslewood, ii. 129. * Ibid. n. 123. 276 LITERAEY CRITICISM m ENGLAND [chap. breeder of dangerous errors, and an enticer to wan- tonness ; and answers them after tlie manner of Sidney. He diffiKrsJr_oni_Sidney, however, in lay- ing particular stress on the allegorical^mterpEetation of imaginative^literature. This element is mini- mized in the Defence of Poesy; but Harington accepts, and discusses in detail, the mediaeval con- ception of the three meanings of poetry, the literal, the moral, and the allegorical.* The death-knell of this mode of interpreting literature was sounded by Bacon, who, while not asserting that all the fables of poets are but meaningless fictions, declared with- out hesitation that the fable had been more often written first and the exposition devised afterward, I than the moral first conceived and the fable merely ' framed to give expression to it.^ This passage occurs in the second book of the Advancement of Learning (1605), where Bacon has briefly stated his theory of poetry. His point of view does not differ essentially from that of Sidney, though the expression is more compact and logical. The human understanding, according to Bacon, in- cludes the three faculties of memory, imagination, and reason, and each of these faculties finds typi- cal expression in one of the three great branches of learning, memory in history, reason in philosophy, and imagination in poetry.' The imagination, not being tied to the laws of matter, may join what nature has severed and sever what nature has joined ; and poetry, therefore, while restrained in the meas- 1 Haslewood, ii. 127. " Bacon, Works, vi. 204r-206. s Cf. Anglia, 1899, xii. 273. II.] THE GENERAL THEORY OP POETRY 277 ure of words, is in all things else extremely licensed. It may be defined as feigned history, and in so far as its form is concerned, may be either in prose or in verse. Its source is to be found in the dissatis- il faction of the human mind with the actual world ; and its purpose is to satisfy man's natural longing for more perfect greatness, goodness, and variety than can be found in the nature of things. Poetry therefore invents actions and incidents greater and more heroic than those of nature, and hence con- duces to magnanimity; it invents actions more agreeable to the merits of virtue and vice, more just in retribution, more in accordance with re- vealed providence, and hence conduces to moral- ity ; it invents actions more varied and unexpected, and hence conduces to delectation. "And there- fore it was ever thought to have some participa- tion of diyiaeness, because it doth raise the mind, by submitting the shows of things to the desires of the mind; whereas reason doth buckle and bow the mind unto the nature of things."^ For the expression of affections, passions, corruptions, and customs, the world is more indebted to poets than to the works of philosophers, and for wit and eloquence no less than to orators and their orations. It is for these reasons that in rude times, when all other learning was excluded, poetry alone found access and admiration. This is pure idealism of a romantic type ; but in his remarks on allegory Bacon was foreshadowing the development of classicism, for from the time of I Works, Yi. 203. 278 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ENGLAND [chap. Ben Jonson tlie allegorical mode of interpreting poetry ceased to have any effect on literary criti- cism. The reason for this is obvious. The alle- gorical critics regarded the plot, or fable, — to use a simile so often found in Eenaissance criticism — as a mere sweet and pleasant covering for the ■wholesome but bitter pill of moral doctrine. The neo-classicists, limiting the sense and application of Aristotle's definition of poetry as an imitation of life, regarded the fable as the medium of this imi- tation, and the more perfect according as it became more truly and more minutely an image of human life. In criticism, therefore, the growth of classi- cism is more or less coextensive with the growth of the conception of the fable, or plot, as an end in itself. This vaguely defines the change which comes over the spirit of criticism about the beginning of the seventeenth century, and which is exemplified in the writings of Ben Jonson. His definition of poetry does not differ substantially from that of Sidney, but seems more directly Aristotelian : — " A poet, poeta, is ... a maker, or feigner ; his art, an art of imitation or feigning ; expressing the life of men in fit measure, numbers, and harmony ; according to Aristotle from the word Toielv, which signifies to make or feign. Hence he is called a. poet, not he which writeth in measure only, hut that felgneth and formeth a fable, and writes things like the truth ; for the fable and fiction is, as it were, the form and soul of any poetical work or poem." >- 1 Discoveries, p. 73. Jonson's distinction between poet (poeta), poem (poema), and poesy (poesis), was derived from Scaliger or Maggi. u.] THE GENERAL THEORY OF POETRY 279 Poetry and painting agree in that both are arts of imitation, both acconunodate all they invent to the use and service of nature, and both have as their common object profit and pleasure ; but poetry is a higher form of art than painting, since it appeals to the undeiatandilig, while painting appeals pri- \l marily to the senses.^ Jonson's conception of his art is thus essentially noble ; of all arts it ranks high- est in dignity and ethical importance. It contains all that is best in philosophy, divinity, and the science of politics, and leads and persuades men to virtue with a ravishing delight, while the others but threaten and compel.^ It therefore offers to mankind a certain rule and pattern of living well and happily in human society. This conception of poetry Jonson finds in Aristotle ; ' but it is to the Italians of the Renaissance, and not to the Stagy- rite, that these doctrines really belong. Jonson ascribes to the poet himself a dignity no less than that of his craft. Mere excellence in style or versification does not make a poet, but rather the exact knowledge of vices and virtues, with ability io make the latter loved and the former hated;* md this is so far true, that to be a good poet it is ^' lecessary, first of all, to_be_areally_good_man.° A - limilar doctrine has already been found in many iritical writers of the sixteenth century ; but per- laps the noblest expression of this conception of he poet's consecrated character and ofB.ce occurs in 1 Discoveries, p. 49. ' Ibid. p. 74. « Ibid. p. 2A. * Ibid. p. 34. 6 Works, 1. 333. 280 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ENGLAND [chap. the original quarto edition of Jonson's Every Man in his Humour, in which the " reverend name " of poet is thus exalted : — " I can refell opinion, and approve The state of poesy, such as it is, Blessed, eternal, and most true divine ; Indeed, if you will look on poesy. As she appears in many, poor and lame, Patched up in remnants and old worn-out rags, Half-starved for want of her peculiar food, SaoredJnventiOTi ; then I must confirm Both your conceit and censure of her merit : But view her in her glorious ornaments, Attired in the majesty of art, Set high in spirit with the precious taste Of sweet philosophy ; and, which is most, Crowned with the rich traditions of a soul, That hates to have her dignity prophaned With any relish of an earthly thought, Oh then how proud a presence doth she hear I Then is she like herself, fit to be seen Of none but grave and consecrated eyes." i Milton also gives expression to this consecrated conception of the poet. Poetry is a gift granted by God only to a few in every nation;^ but he who would partake of the gift of eloquence must first of all be virtuous.' It is impossible for any one to write well of laudable things without being himself a true poem, without having in himself the experi- ence and practice of all that is praiseworthy.* Poets are the champions of liberty and the^" strenu- 1 Works, i. 59, n. s Ibid. iii. 100. a MUtou, Prose Works, ii. 479. ^ Ibid. Iii. 118. rj' u.] THE GENEBAI. THEORY OF POETRY 281 ous e nemies of des potism" ; ^ and they have power to imbreed and cherish in a people the seeds of virtne and public civility, to set the affections in right tune, and to aUay the perturbations of the mind.* Poetry, -which at its best is " simple, sen- suous, and passionate," describes everything that passes through the brain of man, — aU that is holy and sublime in religion, all that in virtue is amiable and grave. Thus by means of delight and the force of example, those who would otherwise flee from virtue are taught to love her. 1 Prose Works, i. 241. « Ibid. u. 479. CHAPTEE, III THE THEORY OF DRAMATIC AND ECEROIC POETRY Dramatic criticisni in England began with Sir Philip Sidney. Casual references to the drama can be found in critical writings anterior to the Defence of Poesy; but to Sidney belongs the credit of having first formulated, in a more or less sys- tematic manner, the general principles of dramatic art. These principles, it need hardly be said, are those which, for half a century or more, had been undergoing discussion and modification in Italy and Prance, and of which the ultimate source was the Poetics of Aristotle. Dramatic criticism in Eng- land was thus, from its very birth, both Aristotelian and classical, and it remained so for two centuries. The beginnings of the Elizabethan drama were almost contemporary with the composition of the Defence of Poesy, and the decay of the drama with Jonson's Discoveries. Yet throughout this period the romantic drama never received literary ^ «.»-«..-.'«*'°— -«■«'--— — -.^ ,,^.*~* ^— - — —- ■ " /■ exposition. The great Spanish drama had its criti- cal champions and defenders, the Elizabethan drama had none. It was, perhaps, found to be a simpler task to echo the doctrines of others, than to formu- late the principles of a novel dramatic form. But the true explanation has already been suggested. 282 CHAP.m.] DRAMATIC AND HEROIC POETRY 283 The sources of the dramatic criticism -were the writings of the Italiaa critics, and these were en- tirely classical. In creative literature, however, the Italian Renaissance influenced the Elizabeth- ans almost entirely on the romantic side. This, perhaps, suffices to explain the lack of fundamen- tal coordination between dramatic theory and dra- matic practice during the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Ascham, writing twenty years before Sidney, indicated "Aristotle's pre- cepts and Euripides' example" as the criteria of dramatic art;^ and in spirit these remaLned the final tests throughout the Elizabethan age. I. Tragedy In Webbe's Discourse of English Poetrie we find those general distinctions between tragedy and comedy which had been common throughout the Middle Ages from the days of the post-classic grammarians. Tragedies express sorrowful and lamentable histories, dealing with gods and god- desses, kings and queens, and men of high estate, and representing miserable calamities, which be- come worse and worse untU they end in the most woful plight that can be devised. Comedies, on the other hand, begin doubtfully, become troubled for a while, but always, by some lucky chance, end with the joy and appeasement of all concerned.* This distinction is said to be derived from imitation of the Iliad and the Odyssey; and in this, as weU in 1 Scholematter, p. 139. ' Haslewood, u. 40. 284 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ENGLAND [chap. his fanciful account of the origins of the drama, Webbe seems to have had a vague recollection of Aristotle. Puttenham's account of dramatic devel- opment is scarcely more Aristotelian ; ^ yet in its gen- eral conclusions it agrees with those in the Poetics. His conception of tragedy and comedy is similar to Webbe's. Comedy expresses the common be- havior and manner of life of private persons, and such as are of the meaner sort of men.* Tragedy deals with the doleful falls of unfortunate and afflicted princes, for the purpose of reminding men of the mutability of fortune, and of God's just pun- ishment of a vicious life.^ The Senecan drama and the Aristotelian precepts were the sources of Sidney's theory of tragedy. The oratorical and sententious tragedies of Seneca had influenced dramatic theory and practice through- out Europe from the very outset of the Eenaissance. Ascham, indeed, preferred Sophocles and Euripi- des to Seneca, and cited Pigna, the rival of Giraldi Cintio, in confirmation of his opinion;^ but this, while an indication of Ascham's own good taste, is an exceptional verdict, and in direct opposition to the usual opinion of contemporary critics. Sidney, in his account of the English drama, could find but one tragedy modelled as it should be on the Sene- can drama." The tragedy of Gorboduc, however, has one defect that provokes Sidney's censure, — it does not observe the unities of time and place. 1 Puttenham, p. 47 sq. ' Ibid. p. 49. 2 Ibid. p. 41. » Ascham, Works, ii. 189. s Defence, p. 47 sq. m.] DRAMATIC AND HEROIC POETRY 285 In all other respects, it is an ideal model for Eng- lish playwrights to imitate. Its stately speeches and "well-sounding phrases approach almost to the height of Seneca's style ; and in teaching most de- lightfully a notable morality, it attains the very end of poetry. The ideal tragedy — and in this Sidney closely follows the Italians — is an imitation of a noble action, in the representation of which it stirs " ad- miration and commiseration," ^ and teaches the uncertainty of the world and the weak foundations upon which golden roofs are built. It makes kings fear to be tyrants, and tyrants manifest their tyran-l nical humors. Sidney's censure of the contempo- rary drama is that it outrages the grave and weighty character of tragedy, its elevated style, and the dignity of the personages represented, by mingling . kings and clowns, and introducing the most inap- propriate buffoonery. There are, indeed, one or two examples of tragi-comedy in ancient literature, such as Plautus's Amphitryon;" but never do the ancients, like the English, match hornpipes and funerals.' The English dramas are neither true comedies nor true tragedies, and disregard both the rules of poetry and honest civility. Tragedy is not tied to the laws of history, and may arrange and modify events as it pleases ; but it is certainly bound by the rules of poetry. It is evident, there- 1 Defence, p. 28. This is tlie Elizabethan equivalent for Aris- totle's katharsis of " pity and terror." 2 Of. Scaliger, Poet. 1. 7. 8 D^etice, p. 50. , IVBUtaT^ Cff— 286 LITEEARY CRITICISM IN ENGLAND [chap. fore, that the Defence of Poesy, as a French writer has observed, " gives us an almost complete theory of neo-classic tragedy, a hundred years before the Art Poitique of Boileau : the severe separation of poetic forms, the sustained dignity of language, the unities, the tirade, the r6cit, nothing is lacking." ' Ben Jonson pays more attention to the theory of comedy than to that of tragedy ; but his conception of the latter does not differ from Sidney's. The parts, or divisions, of comedy and tragedy are the same, and both have on the whole a common end, to teach and delight; so that comic as well as tragic poets were called by the Greeks SiSao-KoXoi.' The external conditions of the drama require that it should have the equal division into acts and scenes, the true number of actors, the chorus, and the unities.* But Jonson_does not insist on the 'strict observance of these formal requirements, for > (the history of the drama shows that each succes- {sive poet of importance has gradually and ma- ;-terially altered the dramatic structure, and there is no reason why the modern poet may not do like- wise. Moreover, while these requirements may have been regularly observed in the ancient state and splendor of dramatic poetry, it is impossible to retain them now and preserve any measure of £0^ ular delimit. The outward forms of the ancients, therefore, may in part be disregarded ; but there are certain essentials which must be observed by the tragic poet in whatsoever age he may flourish. These are, " Truth of argument, dignity of persons, 1 Breitinger, p. 37. ' Discoveries, p. 81. « Works, i. 69. in.] DRAMATIC AND HEKOIC POETRY 287 gravity an d height of elocuti on, fulnes s and fre- que ncy o f sentence." '■ In other words, Jonson's model is the oratorical and sententious tragedy of Seneca, with its historical plots and its persons of high estate. In the address, " Of that Sort of Dramatic Poem which is called Tragedy," prefixed to Samson Agonistes, Milton has minutely adhered to the Ital- ian theory of tragedy. After referring to the ancient dignity and moral effect of tragedy,' Milton acknowledges that, in the modelling of his poem, he has followed the ancients and the Italians as of greatest authority in such matters. He has avoided the introduction of trivial and vxdgar persons and the intermingling of comic and tragic elements; he has used the chorus, and has observed the laws of verisimilitude and decorum. His explanation of the peculiar efEect of tragedy — the purgation of II pity and fear — has already been referred to in the first section of this essay.' II. Comedy The Elizabethan theory of comedy was based on the body of rules and observations which the Ital- ian critics, aided by a few hints from Aristotle, had deduced from the practice of Plautus and Terence. 1 W(rrks, i. 272. 2 Of. Bacon, X»e Augm. Scdent. iii. 13; and Asoham, Schole- matter, p. 130. » He seems also to allude to the theory of katharsis in the Beaton of Church Government; Prose Works, ii. i79. 288 LITEBAKY CRITICISM IN ENGLAND [chap. It ■will, therefore, be unnecessary to dwell at any great length on the doctrines of Sidney and Ben Jensen, who are the main comic theorists of this period. Sidney defines comedy as "an imitation of the common errors of our hfe," which are repre- sented in the most ridiculous and scornful manner, so that the spectator is anxious to avoid such errors himself. Comedy, therefore, shows the " filthiness of evil," but only in "our private and domestical matters." * It should aim at being wholly delight- ful, just as tragedy should be maintained by a well-raised admiration. Delight is thus the first requirement of comedy; but the English comic writers err in thinking that delight cannot be ob- tained without laughter, whereas laughter is neither an essential cause nor an essential effect of delight. I Sidney then distinguishes delight from laughter I almost exactly after the manner of Trissinc' The great fault of English comedy is that it stirs laughter concerning things that are sinful, i.e. execrable rather than merely ridiculous — forbid- den plainly, according to Sidney, by Aristotle him- self — and concerning things that are miserable, and rather to be pitied than scorned. Comedy should not only produce delightful laughter, but mixed with it that delightful teaching which is the end of all poetry. Ben Jonson, like Sidney, makes human follies or errors the themes of comedy, which should be 1 Defence, p. 28. " Ibid. p. 50 sq. Of. Trissino, Opere, ii. 127 sq.; and Cicero, De Orat. ii. 68 sq. in.2 DRAMATIC AND HEROIC POETRY 289 " an image of the times, And sport with human f oUies, not with crimes, Except we make them such, by loving stUl Our popular errors, when we know they're ill ; I mean such errors as you'E all confess By laoghing at them, they deserve no less." ^ In depicting these hiunan follies, it is the office of the comic poet to imitate justice, to improve the moral life and purify language, and to stir up gentle affections.* The moving of mere laughter is not always the end of comedy; in fact, Jonson inter- prets Aristotle as asserting that the moving of laughter is a fault in comedy, a kind of turpitude that depraves a part of man's nature.' This con- clusion is based on an interpretation of Aristotle which has persisted almost to the present day. In the Poetics, to yeXdiov, the ludicrous, is said to be the subject of comedy ;■• and many critics have thought that Aristotle intended by this to distin- guish betvreen the risible and the ridiculous, be- tween mere laughter and laughter mixed vri.th contempt or disapprobation.^ The nature and the source of one of the most important elements in Jonson's theory of comedy, his doctrine of " hu- mours," have been briefly discussed in the first section of this essay. It will suffice here to define a " humour " as an absorbing singularity of char- acter,* and to note that it grew out of the concep- 1 Works, i. 2. " Discoveries, p. 82. » Und. i. 335. * Poet. v. 1. 6 Of. Twining, i. 320 sq., and Karnes, Elementt of Criticism, vol. i. chap. 7. • Cf. Jonson, Works, i. 67 and 31. u M 290 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ENGLAND [chap. tion of decorum, wMch played so important a part in poetic theory during the Italian Senaissajace. III. The Dramatic Unities Before leaving the theory of the drama, there is one further point to be discussed, — the doctrine of the unities. It has been seen that the unities of time and place were, in Italy, first formulated together by Castelvetro in 1670, and in France by Jean de la Taille in 1672. The first mention of Jhejgnit ies i n f England is to be found, a dozen years later, in the Defence of Poesy, and it cannot be doubted that Sid- ^ ney derived them directly f rom_Castelxe.tro. Sid- ney, in discussing the tragedy of Oorboduc, finds it " faulty in time and place, the two necessary com- panions of all corporal actions ; for where the stage should always represent but one place, and the uttermost time presupposed in it should be, both by Aristotle's precept and common reason, but one day, there [i.e. in Qorioduc'] is both many days and many places inartificially imagined." ^ He also ob- jects to the confusions of the English stage, where on one side Africa and on the other Asia may be represented, and where in an hour a youth may grow from boyhood to old age.'' How absurd this is, common sense, art, and ancient examples ought to 1 Defence, p. 48; cf. Castelvetro, Poetica, pp. 168, 534. 2 Cf. Whetstone, Promos and Cassandra (1578) , cited in Ward, Dram. Lit. i. 118; also, Jonson, Works, i. 2, 70; Cervantes, Don Quix. i. 48 ; Boileau, Art Po4t. iii. 39. In the theory of the drama, Sidney's point of view coincides very closely with that of Cervantes. III.] DRAMATIC AND HEROIC POETRY 291 teach the English playwright ; and at this day, says Sidney, the ordinary players in Italy mil not err in it. If indeed it be objected that one or two of the comedies of Plautus and Terence do not observe the unity of time, let us not f oUow them when they err but when they are right ; it is no excuse for us to do wrong because Plautus on one occasion has done likewise. The law of the unities does not receive such rigid application in England as is given by Sidney until the introduction of the French influence nearly three quarters of a century later. Ben Jonson is con- siderably less stringent in this respect than Sidney. He lays particular stress on the unity of action, and in the Discoveries explains at length the Aris- totelian conception of the unity and magnitude of the fable. " The fable is called the imitation of one entire and perfect action, whose parts are so joined and knit together, as nothing in the structure can be changed, or taken away, without impairing or troubling the whole, of which there is a proportion- able magnitude in the members."^ Simplicity, then, should be one of the chief characteristics of the action, and nothing receives so much of Jonson's censure as " monstrous and forced action." " As to the unity of time, Jonson says that the action should be allowed to grow untU necessity demands a con- clusion ; the argument, however, should not exceed the compass of one day, but should be large enough to allow place for digressions and episodes, which are to the fable what furniture is to a house.* 1 Discoveries, p. 83. " Works, i. 337. ' Discoveries, p. 85. 292 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ENGLAND [chap. Jonson does not formally recpure^ the_observance_of *^®J35i£^JBi5*'^» ^^^ even acknowledges having disregarded it in his own plays; but he does not favor much change of scene on the stage. In the prologue of Volpone, he boasts that he has followed all the laws of refined comedy, " As best critics have designed ; The laws of time, place, persons he ohserveth, From no needful rule he swerveth." Milton observes the unity of time in the Samson Agonistes : " The circumscription of time, wherein the whole drama begins and ends is, according to ancient rule and best example, within the space of twenty-four hours." WTEETEeTn&oduction of the French influence, the unities became fixed requirements of the Eng- lish drama, and remained so for over a century. Sir Eobert Howard, in the preface of his tragedy. The Duke of Lerma, impugned their force and authority ; but Dryden, in answering him, pointed out that to attack the unities is really to contend against Aristotle, H orac e, Ben Jonson, and Corneille.* Farquhar, however, in his Discourse upon Gomedy (1702), argued with force and wit against the uni- ties of time and place, and scoffed at all the legisla- tors of Parnassus, ancient and modern, — Aristotle, Horace, Scaliger, Vossius, Heinsius, D'Aubignac, and Bapin. 1 Essay of Oram. Poesy, p. 118. m.] DRAMATIC AND HEROIC POETRY 293 IV. Epic Poetry The Elizabethan theory of heroic poetry may be dismissed briefly. Webbe refers to the epic as "that princely part of poetry, whereui are dis- played the noble acts and valiant exploits of puissant captains, expert soldiers, wise men, with the far mous reports of ancient times;'" and Puttenham defines heroic poems as " long histories of the noble gests of kings and great priaces, intermeddling the dealings of gods, demi-gods, and heroes, and weighty consequences of peace and war." ^ The importance of this form of poetry, according to Puttenham, is largely historical, in that it sets forth an example of the valor and virtue of our forefathers.' Sidney is scarcely more explicit.* He asserts that heroic poetry is the best and noblest of all forms; he shows that such characters as Achilles, Mneas, and Einaldo are shining examples for all men's imita^ tion ; but of the nature or structure of the epic he says nothing. The second part of Harington's Apologie of Poe- trie is given up to a defence of the Orlando Furioso, and here the Aristotelian theory of the epic appears for the first time in English criticism. Harington, taking the ^neid as the approved model of all heroic poetry, first shows that Ariosto has followed closely in Virgil's footsteps, but is to be preferred even to Virgil in that the latter pays reverence to false deities, while Ariosto has the advantage of the 1 Haslewood, ii. 45. * Ibid. p. 54. * Puttenham, p. 40. * Defence, p. 30. 294 LITEEAEY CEITICISM IN ENGLAND [chap. Christian spirit. But since some critics, " reducing all heroical poems unto the method of Homer and certain precepts of Aristotle," insist that Ariosto is wanting in art, Harington sets out to prove that the Orlando Furioso may not only be defended by the example of Homer, but that it has even fol- lowed very strictly the rules and precepts of Aris- totle.^ In the first place, Aristotle says that the epic should be based on some historical action, only a short part of which, in point of time, should be treated by the poet ; so Ariosto takes the story of Charlemagne,, and does not exceed a year or so in the compass of the argument.^ Secondly, Aristotle holds that nothing that is utterly incredible should be invented by the poet ; and nothing in the Orlando exceeds the possibility of belief. Thirdly, epics, as well as tragedies, should be full of irepmirua, which Harington interprets to mean " an agnition of some unlocked for fortune either good or bad, and a sudden change thereof " ; and of this, as well as of apt similitudes and passions well expressed, the Orlando is really full. In conclusion, it may be observed that epic poetry did not receive adequate critical treatment in England until after the introduction of the French influence. The rules and theories of the Italian Eenaissance, restated in the writings of Le Bossu, Mambrun, Eapin, and Vossius, were thus brought into English criticism, and found perhaps 1 Haslewood, 11. 140 sq. J^Cf. Mlnturno, Arte Poetiea, p. 71 ; and Ronsard, (Euvres, ill. 19. III.] BRAMATIC AND HEROIC POETRY 295 their best expression in Addison's essays on Para- dise Lost. Such, epics as Davenant's GondibeH, | Chamberlayne's Pharonnida, Dryden's Annus Mira- ' i bills, and Blackmore's Prince Arthur, like the French epics of the same period, doubtless owed their inspiration to the desire to put into practice the classical rules of heroic poetry.' 1 Cf. Dryden, Discourse on Satire, in Works, xiii. 37. CHAPTER IV CLASSIGAX ELEMENTS IN ELIZABETHAN CRITICISM I. Introductory : Romantic Elements It were no less than supererogation to adduce evidences of the romantic spirit of the age of Shakespeare. No period in English literature is more distinctly romantic ; and although in England criticism is less affected by creative literature, and has had less effect upon it, than in France, it is only natural to suppose that Elizabethan criticism should be as distinctly romantic as the works of imagination of which it is presumably an exposi- tion. As early as Wilson's Rhetoric we find evi- dences of that independence of spirit in questions of art which seems typical of the Elizabethan age ; and none of the writers of this period exhibits any- thing like the predisposition of the French mind to submit instinctively to any rule, or set of rules, which bears the stamp of authority. From the (outset the element of nationality colors English criticism, and this is especially noticeable in the linguistic discussions of the age. At the very time when Sidney was writing the Defence of Poesy, h Spenser's old teacher, Mulcaster, wrote: "I love I ' Eome, but London better ; I favor Italy, but Eng- 296 f-'T^A- ' CHAP. IV.] CLASSICAL ELEMENTS 297 land more ; I honor the Latin, but I worship the English." ' It is this spirit which pervades what may be called the chief expression of the romantic temper in Elizabethan criticism, — Daniel's Defence'^ of Rhyme (1603), written in answer to Campion's attack on rhyme in the Observations in the Art of English Poesy. The central argument of Daniel's defence is that the use of rhyme is sanctioned both by custom and by nature — " custom that is before aU law, nature that is above all art." ^ He rebels against that conception which would limit " Wiihiii a little plot of Grecian groand The sole of mortal things that can avail ; " and he shows that each age has its own perfections and its own usages. This attempt at historical criticism leads him into a defence of the Middle Ages ; and he does not hesitate to assert that even classical verse had its imperfections and deficien- cies. In the minutiae of metrical criticism, also, he is in opposition to the neo-classic tendencies of the next age ; and his favorable opinion of enjambement and his unfavorable comments on the heroic couplet' drew from Ben Jonson an answer, never published, in which the latter attempted to prove that the couplet is the best form of English verse, and that all other forms are forced and detestable.* 1 Morley, English Writers, ix. 187. > Haslewood, ii. 197. » Ibid. ii. 217. 1 Jonson, Works, iii. 470. Cf. Gascoigne's comments on en- jamhement, in Haslewood, ii. 11. 298 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ENGLAND [chap. II. Classical Metres Daniel's Defence of Rhyme may be said to have dealt a death-blow to a movement which for over half a century had been a subject of controversy among English men of letters. In reading the critical works of this period, it is impossible not to notice the remarkable amount of attejatiQnjpaid by lithe Elizabethans to the question of classical metreg^ ' in the vernacular. The first organized attempt to introduce the classical versification into a modern language was, as Daniel himself points out,' that of Claudio Tolomei in 1539. The movement then passed into Prance; and classical metres were adopted by Baif in practice, and defended by Jacques de la Taille in theory. In England the first recorded attempt at the use of quantity in the vernacular was that of Thomas Watson, from whose unpublished translation of the Odyssey in the metre of the original Ascham has cited a single distich : — " All travellers do gladly report great prayse of Ulysses, For that he knew many mens maners, and saw many cities."' This was probably written between 1540 and 1550 ; toward the close of the preceding century, we are told, a certain Mousset had already translated the Iliad and the Odyssey into French hexameters. Ascham was the first critical champion of the use of quantity in English verse.' Ehyme, he says, 1 Haslewood, ii. 205. « Scholemaster, p. 73. • Ibid. p. 145 sg. IT-] CLASSICAL ELEMENTS 299 was introduced by the Goths and Huns at a time when poetry and learning had ceased to exist in Europe; and Englishmen must choose either to imitate these barbarians or to follow the perfect ' Grecians. He acknowledges that the monosyllabic character of the English language renders the use of the dactyl very difficult, for the hexameter "doth rather trot and hobble than run smoothly in our English tongue;" but he argues that English will receive the carmen iambicum as naturally as Greek or Latin. He praises Surrey's blank verse rendering of the fourth book of the uEneid, but regrets that, in disregarding quantity, it falls short of the " per- fect and true versifying.'' An attempt to put Ascham's theories into practice was made by Thomas Blenerhasset in 1677 ; but the verse of his Complaynt of Gadwallader, though purporting to be " a new kind of poetry," is merely an unrhymed AlexandrLae."^ In 1580, however, five letters which had passed between Spenser and Gabriel Harvey appeared in print as Threeproper, and wittie, familiar Letters and Two other very commendable Letters; and from this correspondence we learn that an organized move- ment to introduce classical metres into English had been started. It would seem that for several years Harvey had been advocating the use of quan- titative verse to several of his friends; but the organized movement to which reference has just 1 Cf. Haslewood, ii. p. xrii. The treatises of Gascoigne (1575) and King/James VL (1684) contain no reference to quan- titative verse. 300 LITEBARY CRITICISM IN ENGLAND [chap. been made seems to have been started independently by Thomas Drant, who died in 1578. Drant had devised a set of rules and precepts for English clas- sical verse ; and these rules, -with certain additions and modifications, were adopted by a coterie of scholars and courtiers, among them being Sidney, Dyer, Greville, and Spenser, who thereupon formed a society, the Areopagus,^ independent of Harvey, but corresponding with him regularly. This so- ciety appears to have been modelled on Baif's Acaddmie de Po^sie et de Musique, which had been founded in 1570 for a similar purpose, and which Sidney doubtless became acquainted with when at Paris in 1572. Prom the correspondence published in 1580, it becomes evident that Harvey's and Drant's systems of versification were almost antipodal. According to Drant's system, the quantity of English words was to be regulated entirely by the laws of Latin prosody, — by position, diphthong, and the like. Thus, for example, the penult of the word carpenter was regarded as long by Drant because followed by two consonants. Harvey, who was unacquainted with Drant's rules before apprised of them by Spenser in the published letters, follows a more normal and logical system. To him, accent alone is the best of quantity, and the law of position cannot make the penult of carpenter or majesty long. " The Latin is no rule for us," says Harvey ; ^ and often where position and diphthong fall together, 1 Cf. Pulei, Morgante Maggiore, xxv. 117. Haslewood, ii. 280. it] classical elements 301 as in the penult of merckaundise, we must pronounce the syllable short. In all such matters, the use, custom, propriety, or majesty of our speech must be accounted the only infallible and sovereign rule of rules. It was not, then, Harvey's purpose to Latinize our tongue. His intention was apparently two- fold, — to abolish rhyme, and to introduce new metres into English poetry. Only a few years be- fore, Gascoigne had lamented that English verse had only one form of metre, the iambic.^ Harvey, in observing merely the English accent, can scarcely be said to have introduced quantity into our verse, but was simply adapting new metres, such as dactyls, trochees, and spondees, to the requirements of English poetry. Drant's and Harvey's rules therefore constitute two opposing systems. According to the former, English verse is to be regulated by Latin prosody I regardless of accent; according to the latter, by accent regardless of Latin prosody. By neither system can quantity be successfully attempted in English; and a distinguished classical scholar of our own day has indicated what is perhaps the only method by which this can be accomplished.'' This method may be described as the harmonious ob- servance of both accent and position ; all accented syllables being generally accounted long, and no syllable which violates the Latin law of position 1 Haslewood, ii. 5. 2 E. Ellis, Poems and Fragments of Catullus translated in the original metres, London, 1871, p. xiv. sq. 302 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ENGLAND [chap. being used -when a short syllable is required by the scansion. These three systems, with more or less variation, have been employed throughout English literature. Drant's system is followed in the quantitative verse of Sidney and Spenser ; Harvey's method is that employed by Longfellow in Evange- line; and Tennyson's beautiful classical experi- ments are practical illustrations of the method of Professor Eobinson Ellis. In 1682, Richard Stanyhurst published at Leyden a translation of the first four books of the u^neid into English hexameters. Erom Ascham he seems to have derived his inspiration, and from Harvey his metrical system. Like Harvey he refuses to be bound by the laws of Latin prosody,^ and follows the English accent as much as possible. But in one respect his translation is unique. Harvey, in his correspondence with Spenser, had suggested that the use of quantitative verse in English neces- sitated the adoption of a certain uniformity in (Spelling; and the curious orthography of Stany- J hurst was apparently intended as a serious attempt at phonetic reform. Spelling reform had been agitated in Erance for some time; and in Baiif's Etrennes de Poisie fran^ise (1574), we find Erench quantitative verse written according to the phonetic system of Eamus. Webbe's Discourse of English Poetrie is really a plea in favor of quantitative verse. His system is based primarily on Latin prosody, but reconciled with English usage. The Latin rules are to be fol- i Stanyhurst, p. 11 aq. IT.] CTLASSICAL ELEMENTS 303 lowed when the English and Latin words agree; but no word is to be used that notoriously impugns : the laws of Latin prosody, and the spelling of Eng- I lish words should, when possible, be altered to conform to the ancient rules. The difficulty of observing the law of position iu the middle of Eng- lish words may be obviated by change ia spelling, as in the word moumfvUy, which should be spelled moumfvly; but where this is impossible, the law of position is to be observed, despite the English accent, as in royalty. Unlike Ascham, Webbe re- gards the hexameter as the easiest of all classical metres to use in EngUsh.^ Futtenham is not averse to the use of classical metres, but as a conservative he considers all sud- den innovations dangerous.^ The system he adopts is not unlike Harvey's. Sidney's original enthusi- asm for quantitative verse soon abated ; and in the Defence of Poesy he points out that although the ancient versification is better suited to musical ac- companiment than the modem, both systems cause delight, and are therefore equally effective and valu- able ; and English is more fitted than any other language to use both.* Campion, like Ascham, re- gards English polysyllables as too heavy to be used as dactyls ; so that only trochaic and iambic verse can be suitably employed in English poetry.* He suggests eight new forms of verse. The English accent ia to be diligently observed, and is to yield to nothing save the law of position; hence the 1 Haslewood, ii. 69. * Defenee, p. 55. s Pattenham, p. 126 sq. * Haslewood, ii. 167. 304 LITEEAEY CRITICISM IN ENOLAND [chap. second syllable of Trumpington is to be accounted long.'' In observing the law of position, however, the sound, and not the spelling, is to be the test of quantity ; thus, love-sick is pronounced love-dk, dangerous is pronounced dangerus, and the like.^ III. Other Evidences of Olassicism With Campion's Observations (1602) the history of classical metres in England may be said to close, until the resuscitation of quantitative verse in the present century. Daniel's Defence of Rhyme effectually put an end to this innovation; but the strong hold which the movement seems to have had during the Elizabethan age is interesting evidence of the classical tendencies of the period. Ben Jonson has usually been regarded as the forerun- ner of neo-classicism in England; but long before his influence was felt, classical tendencies may be observed in English criticism. Thus Ascham's c onserv atism and aversion to sTnguIaf^* in mat- ters of art are distinctly classical. " He that can neither like Aristotle in logic and philosophy, nor Tully in rhetoric and eloquence," says Ascham, " will from these steps likely enough presume by like pride to mount higher to the misliking of graver matters ; that is, either in religion to have a dissentious head, or in the commonwealth to have a factious heart.'" His insistence tliat it is no slavery to be bound by the laws of art, and the stress he lays on perfection of style, are no less classical.* 1 Haslewood, li. 186. " Scholemaster, p. 93. 2 Cf. Ellis, op. cit., p. xvi. ' Ibid. pp. 118, 121. IT.] CLASSICAL ELEMENTS 306 Similar tendencies may be observed in the writers that follow Ascham. Harvey's strictures on the Faerie Queene were inspired by two influences. As a humanist, he looked back with contempt on mediaeval literature in general, its superstitions, its fairy lore, and the like. As a classicist in art, he preferred the regular, or classic, form of the , epic to the romantic^ o r irresnilar fo rm; and his strictures may be compared in this respect with those of Bembo on the Orlando or those of Salviati ji on the Gerusalemme. So Harington attempts to make the Orlando chime with the laws of Aristotle, and Sidney attempts to force these laws on the English drama. So also Sidney declares that genius, without " art, imitation, and exercise," is as noth- ing, and censures his contemporaries for neglect- ing "artificial rules and imitative patterns.'" So Webbe attempts to find a fixed standard ) or criterion ij by which to judge good and bad poets, and trans- lates Fabricius's summary of the rules of Horace as a guide for English poetry.* English criticism, therefore, may be- said to ex- hibit classical tendencies from its very beginning. But it is none the less true that before Ben Jonson there was no systematic attempt to force, as it were, the classic ideal on English literature. In Spain, as has been seen, Juan de la Cueva declaied that poetry should be classical and imitative, while the(| drama should be romantic and original. Sidney, on the contrary, sought to make the drama classi- cal, while allowing freedom of imagination and 1 Defence, p. 46. * Haslewood, ii. 19, 85 sq. 306 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ENGLAND [chap. originality of form to the non-dramatic poet. Ben Jonson was the first complete and consistent Eng- lish classicist ; and his classicism differs from that of the succeeding age rather in degree than in kind. Bacon's assertion that poetry is restrained in the measure of words, but in all other points ex- tremely licensed/ is characteristic of the Elizar bethan point of view. The early critics allowed extreme license in the choice and treatment of material, while insisting on strict regularity of expression. Thus Sidney may advocate the use of classical metres, but this does not prevent him from celebrating the freedom of genius and the soaring heights of the imagination. There is noth- ing of these things in Ben Jonson. He, too, cele- brates the nobility and power of poetry, and the dignity of the poet's of&ce; but nowhere does he speak of the freedom of the imagination or the force of genius. Literature for him was not an expression of personality, not a creation of the . imagination, but an image of life, a picture of the I world. In other words, he effected what may be called an objectification of the literary ideal. In the second place, this image of life can be created only by conscious effort on the part of the artist. For the creation of great poetry, genius, exercise, imitation, and study are all necessary, but to these art must be added to make them per- fect, for only art can lead to perfection.* It is this insistence on /Mt) as a distinct element, almost as an end in itself, that distinguishes Jonson from 1 Works, vl. 202. 2 Discoveries, p. 78. IF.] CLASSICAL ELEMENTS 307 Ms predecessors; and nowhere is his ideal of art expressed as pithily as in the address to the reader prefixed to the Alchemist (1612) : — " In Poetry, especially in Plays, ... the concupiscence of dances and of antics so reigneth, as to run away from nature, and be afraid of her, is the only point of art that tickles the spectators. But how out of purpose, and place, do I name art? When the professors are grown so obsti- nate contemners of it, and presumeis on their own naturals, as they are deriders of all diligence that way, and, by sim- ple mocking at the terms, when they understand not the things, think to get off wittily with their ignorance. Nay, ttiexare^steemed the more learned, and sufficient for this, ' by the many j through their excellent yioe of judgment. For they commend writers as they do fencers or wrestlers ; who, if they come in robustiously, and put for it with a great deal of violence, are received for the braver fellows ; when many times their own rudeness is the cause of their disgrace, and a little touch of their adversary gives all that boisterous force the foil. I deny not but that these men, who always seek to do more than enough, may some time happen on some thing that is good and great ; but very seldom ; and when it comes it doth not recompense the rest of their ill. . . . But I give thee warning, that there is a great difference between those that, to gain the opinion of copy [i.e. copiousness], utter all they can, however unfitly ; and those that use election and a mean ^ [i.e. selection and moderation]. For it is only the disease of the unsMlfuJ/to i! think rude things greater than polished ; or scattered more i numerous than composed." * Literature, then, aims at presenting an image i of life through the medium of art ; and the guide ; 1 Cf. Scaliger, Poet. v. 3, where the highest virtue of a poet is said to be electio et sui fastidium ; and vi. 4, where it is said that the "life of all excellence lies in measnre." 2 Works, ii. 3; cf. Discoveries, pp. 22-27. 308 LITERAEY CRITICISM W ENGLAND [chap. to art, according to Jonson, is to be found in the rules of criticism. Thus, for example, success in comedy is to be attained " By observation of those comic laws Which I, your master, first did teach the age ; " ^ and elsewhere, it will be remembered, Jonson boasts that he had swerved from no " needful law." But though art can find a never-failing guide and moni- tor in the rules of criticism, he does not believe in mere servile adherence to the practice or theory of classical literature. The ancients are to be re- garded as guides, not commanders.^ In short, the English mind was not yet prepared to accept the neo-classio ideal in all its consequences ; and abso- lute subservience to ancient authority came only with the introduction of the French influence. This is, perhaps, best indicated by the history of Aristotle's influence in English criticism from Ascham to Milton. The first reference to the Poetics in England is to be found in Ascham's Scholemaster.^ There we are told that Ascham, Cheke, and Watson had many pleasant talks to- gether at Cambridge, comparing the poetic pre- cepts of Aristotle and Horace with the examples of Euripides, Sophocles, and Seneca. In Sidney's Defence of Poesy, Aristotle is cited several times ; and in the drama, his authority is regarded by 1 1 Sidney as almost on a par with that of the "com- / ( mon reason." * Harington was not satisfied until he 1 Works, ill. 297. s Scholemaster, p. 139. a Discoveries, p. 7. * Defence, p. 48. IV.] CLASSICAL ELEMENTS 309 had proved liiat the Orlando agrees substantially with Aristotle's requirements. Jonson wrote a commentary on Horace's Ars Poetica, with elucida- tions from Aiistotle, in which " All the old Venusine [i.e. Horace], in poetry. And lighted by the Stagyrite [i.e. Aristotle], could spy, Was there made English ; " 1 but the manuscript was unfortunately destroyed by fire in 1623. Yet Jonson was aware how ridiculous it is to make any author a dictator.' His admirar tion for Aristotle was great ; but he acknowledges that the Aristotelian rules are useless without natu- ral talent, and that a poet's liberty cannot be boimd within the narrow limits prescribed by grammari- ans and philosophers.' At the same time, he points out that Aristotle was the first critic, and the first of all men to teach the poet how to write. The Aristotelian authority is not to be contemned, since Aristotle did not invent his rules, but, taking the best things from nature and the poets, con- verted them into a complete and consistent code of art. Milton, also, had a sincere admiration for " that sublime art which [is taught] in Aristotle's Poetics, in Horace, and the Italian commentaries of Castel- vetro, Tasso, Mazzoni, and others." * But despite all this, the English independence of spirit never failed ; and before the French influence we can ^ Works, ill. 321 ; cf. i. 335, ill. 487. 2 Discoveries, p. 66. 3 Ibid. p. 78 sq. * Works, iii. 473. 310 LITERARY CRITICISM IN ENGLAND Cchap. iv. find no such thing in English criticism as the lit- erary dictatorship of Aristotle.* To conclude, then, it would seem that by the middle of the sixteenth century there had grown up in Italy an almost complete body of poetic rules and theories. This critical system passed into France, England, Spain, Germany, Portugal, and Hol- land ; so that by the beginning of the seventeenth century there was a common body of Renaissance doctrine throughout western Europe. Each country, however, gave this system a national cast of its own; but the form which it received in Erance ultimately triumphed, and modern classicism there- fore represents the supremacy of the Erench phase, or version, of Renaissance Aristotelianism. A number of modern writers, among them Lessing and Shelley, have returned more or less to the origi- nal Italian form. This is represented, in Eliza- bethan criticism, by Sidney; Ben Jonson repre- sents a transitional phase, and Dryden and Pope the final form of Erench classicism. 1 The chapter on poetry in Peacham's Compleat Gentleman (1622) is interesting chiefly because of its indebtedness to Scaliger, who is called by Feacbam (p. 91) "the prince of all learning and the judge of judgments, the divine Julius Ceesar Scaliger." This constitutes him a literary arbiter if not dic- tator. In the Great Assises holden in Parnassus (1645) , Scaliger is proclaimed one of the lords of Parnassus, in company with Bacon, Sidney, Erasmus, Budseus, Heinsius, Yossius, Gasaubon, Mascardo, Pico della Miraudola, Selden, Grotius, and others. APPENDICES 312 APPENDIX A C o ^ S ^ X p P-I y ^ E V '■S g 1 8- ^ 1 ■3 ^ i a APPENDIX A 313 "" I' o S Quo 5 i I ^ » S ** o a Itl-f^^ ■■^'i^ CQ o e g o o 2 (a (- g g 2 ►J K on I? ,lj '^ I" ^ o a -S M I? ^ ; oft, e3 1*1 P lO O O O CO t- fr- b- b* 00 00 lO lO lO lO O lO 1-1 n H 1-5 - t> g O » 3 S *** e3 2 0) * ■^■d B^ft. ® So 5--S ■3^ ~>^ 1 a ^ H^ ^i^ !!• il gft, goaj o § § lO C<1 Ol CO o •— ■ ^ o o 1^ •S ^ Ji OS a .. S 3 O 7s 13 -S 3St> o •d o o -^ p a t. IX, c -