FOOT-NOTES:

"Intenta al risoPiù 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 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 vitæ, speculum consuetudinis, imago veritatis.This phrase, ascribed by Donatus to Cicero, runs through all the dramatic discussions of the Renaissance,[203]and finds its echo in a famous passage inHamlet. Cervantes cites the phrase inDon Quixote;[204]and Il Lasca, in the prologue toL'Arzigoglio, berates the comic writers of his day after this fashion: "They take no account of the absurdities, the contradictions, the inequalities, andthe 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."[205]

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 incipient 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.[206]He defines comedy as a dramatic poem filled with intrigue (negotiosum), written in popular style, and ending happily.[207]The characters in comedy are chiefly old men, slaves, courtesans, all in humble station or from small villages. The action begins rather turbulently, but ends happily, and thestyle is neither high nor low. The typical themes of comedy are "sports, banquets, nuptials, drunken carousals, the crafty wiles of slaves, and the deception of old men."[208]

The theory of comedy in sixteenth-century Italy 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. Il Lasca, in the prologue to theStrega, defiantly protests against the inviolable authority of Aristotle and Horace, and in the prologue to hisGelosiareserves the right to copy the manner of his own time, and not those of Plautus and Terence. Cecchi, Aretino, Gelli, and other comic writers give expression to similar sentiments.[209]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 theory. Dramatic forms like the improvisedcommedia dell' artehad 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 Renaissance.

top

FOOT-NOTES:[109]Poet.vi. 2.[110]Daniello, p. 34.[111]Cf.Horace,Ars Poet.182sq.[112]Giraldi Cintio, ii. 6.[113]Ibid.ii. 30.[114]Cited by Butcher, p. 220.[115]Poet.iv. 7.[116]Maggi, p. 64.[117]Maggi, p. 154.[118]Butcher, p. 220sq.[119]Butcher, p. 219, n. 1.—Müller, ii. 394, attempts to harmonize the definition of Theophrastus with that of Aristotle.[120]Egger,Hist. de la Critique, p. 344, n. 2.[121]Cloetta, i. 29.Cf.Antiphanes, cited by Egger, p. 72.[122]Cloetta, p. 30.[123]Etymol.viii. 7, 6.[124]Etymol.xviii. 45 and 46.[125]Cloetta, p. 28, and p. 31sq.[126]Epist.xi. 10.Cf.Gelli's Lectures on the Divine Comedy, ed. Negroni, 1887, i. 37sq.[127]Poet.ix. 5-9.[128]Giraldi Cintio, ii. 14.[129]Giraldi Cintio, ii. 20.[130]Poet.xi. 6.[131]Ars Poet.182-188.[132]Giraldi Cintio, ii. 119.[133]Scaliger,Poet.i. 6.[134]Scaliger, i. 11; iii. 96.[135]Ibid.vi. 6.[136]Ibid.iii. 96.[137]Ibid.i. 13.[138]De Poeta, p. 43sq.[139]Ibid.p. 173.Cf.Milton's phrase, "vain and amatorious poem."[140]Dacier, 1692, p. xvii.[141]Poet.vi. 19.[142]Poet.xiv. 1.[143]Castelvetro,Poetica, p. 30.[144]Castelvetro,Poetica, pp. 22, 23.[145]Ibid.p. 57.[146]Castelvetro,Poetica, pp. 35, 36.[147]Twining, ii. 3.[148]Butcher, ch. vi.[149]Giraldi Cintio, ii. 12.[150]Ibid.i. 66sq.[151]Trissino, ii. 93sq.[152]Robortelli, p. 52sq.[153]Vettori, p. 56sq., and Castelvetro,Poetica, p. 117sq.[154]Maggi, p. 97sq.[155]Cf.Shelley,Defence of Poetry, p. 35, "Tragedy delights by affording a shadow of that pleasure which exists in pain," etc.[156]Lezzioni, p. 660.[157]Scaliger,Poet.vii. i. 3; iii. 96.[158]Arte Poetica, p. 287.[159]Arte Poetica, p. 77.[160]Butcher, pp. 229, 230.[161]Opere, v. 178.[162]Butcher, p. 280sq.[163]Poet.xiii. 2, 3.[164]Daniello, p. 38.[165]Poet.xiii. 7.[166]Della Vera Poetica, cap. iii.[167]De Poeta, p. 182sq.[168]Arte Poetica, p. 118sq.; also in Scaliger and Giraldi Cintio.[169]Poet.xv. 1-5.[170]Ars Poet.154sq.[171]Muzio, p. 80.[172]Pope, i. 165.[173]Poetica, p. 36sq.[174]Capriano,op. cit., cap. v.[175]Cod. Magliabechiano, vii. 7, 715.[176]Another expression of Jonson's, "small Latin and less Greek," may perhaps be traced to Minturno's "poco del Latino e pochissimo del Greco,"Arte Poetica, p. 158.[177]Poet.viii. 1-4.[178]Poet.v. 4.[179]Giraldi Cintio, ii. 10sq.[180]Robortelli, pp. 50, 275, and appendix, p. 45.Cf.Luisino's Commentary on Horace'sArs Poetica, 1554, p. 40.[181]B. Segni, p. 170 v.[182]Trissino, ii. 95.[183]Brunetière, i. 69.[184]Maggi, p. 94.[185]Scaliger, iii. 96. So Robortelli, p. 53, speaks of tragedy as representing thingsquæ multum accedunt ad veritatem ipsam.[186]E.g.Lintilhac,De Scal. Poet.p. 32.[187]De Poeta, pp. 185, 281.[188]Vettori, p. 250.[189]Arte Poet.pp. 71, 117.[190]Ibid.p. 12.[191]Castelvetro,Poetica, pp. 157, 170.[192]Ibid.pp. 57, 109.[193]Castelvetro,Poetica, p. 534.Cf.Boileau,Art Poét.iii. 45.[194]Castelvetro,Poetica, p. 179.[195]Ibid.pp. 534, 535.[196]Other allusions to the unities, besides those already mentioned, will be found in Castelvetro,Poetica, pp. 163-165, 168-171, 191, 397, 501, 527, 531-536, 692, 697, etc.[197]Lintilhac, in theNouvelle Revue, lxiv. 541.[198]Essay of Dramatic Poesy, p. 31.[199]Poet.v. 1.Cf.Rhet.iii. 18.[200]Trissino, ii. 120.Cf.Butcher, p. 203sq.[201]Trissino, ii. 127-130. Trissino seems to follow Cicero,De Orat.ii. 58sq.It is to these Italian discussions of the ludicrous that the theory of laughter formulated by Hobbes, and after him by Addison, owes its origin. For Renaissance discussions of wit and humor before the introduction of Aristotle'sPoetics,cf.the third and fourth books of Pontano'sDe Sermone, and the second book of Castiglione'sCortigiano.[202]Maggi, p. 307.Cf.Hobbes,Human Nature, 1650, ix. 13.[203]Cf.B. Tasso, ii. 515; Robortelli, p. 2; etc.[204]Don Quix.iv. 21.[205]Hamlet, iii. 2.[206]Scaliger,Poet.i. 2. Castiglione, in the second book of theCortigiano, says that the comic writer, more than any other, expresses the true image of human life.[207]Poet.i. 5.[208]Poet.iii. 96.[209]Symonds,Ren. in Italy, v. 124sq., 533sq.

[109]Poet.vi. 2.

[110]Daniello, p. 34.

[111]Cf.Horace,Ars Poet.182sq.

[112]Giraldi Cintio, ii. 6.

[113]Ibid.ii. 30.

[114]Cited by Butcher, p. 220.

[115]Poet.iv. 7.

[116]Maggi, p. 64.

[117]Maggi, p. 154.

[118]Butcher, p. 220sq.

[119]Butcher, p. 219, n. 1.—Müller, ii. 394, attempts to harmonize the definition of Theophrastus with that of Aristotle.

[120]Egger,Hist. de la Critique, p. 344, n. 2.

[121]Cloetta, i. 29.Cf.Antiphanes, cited by Egger, p. 72.

[122]Cloetta, p. 30.

[123]Etymol.viii. 7, 6.

[124]Etymol.xviii. 45 and 46.

[125]Cloetta, p. 28, and p. 31sq.

[126]Epist.xi. 10.Cf.Gelli's Lectures on the Divine Comedy, ed. Negroni, 1887, i. 37sq.

[127]Poet.ix. 5-9.

[128]Giraldi Cintio, ii. 14.

[129]Giraldi Cintio, ii. 20.

[130]Poet.xi. 6.

[131]Ars Poet.182-188.

[132]Giraldi Cintio, ii. 119.

[133]Scaliger,Poet.i. 6.

[134]Scaliger, i. 11; iii. 96.

[135]Ibid.vi. 6.

[136]Ibid.iii. 96.

[137]Ibid.i. 13.

[138]De Poeta, p. 43sq.

[139]Ibid.p. 173.Cf.Milton's phrase, "vain and amatorious poem."

[140]Dacier, 1692, p. xvii.

[141]Poet.vi. 19.

[142]Poet.xiv. 1.

[143]Castelvetro,Poetica, p. 30.

[144]Castelvetro,Poetica, pp. 22, 23.

[145]Ibid.p. 57.

[146]Castelvetro,Poetica, pp. 35, 36.

[147]Twining, ii. 3.

[148]Butcher, ch. vi.

[149]Giraldi Cintio, ii. 12.

[150]Ibid.i. 66sq.

[151]Trissino, ii. 93sq.

[152]Robortelli, p. 52sq.

[153]Vettori, p. 56sq., and Castelvetro,Poetica, p. 117sq.

[154]Maggi, p. 97sq.

[155]Cf.Shelley,Defence of Poetry, p. 35, "Tragedy delights by affording a shadow of that pleasure which exists in pain," etc.

[156]Lezzioni, p. 660.

[157]Scaliger,Poet.vii. i. 3; iii. 96.

[158]Arte Poetica, p. 287.

[159]Arte Poetica, p. 77.

[160]Butcher, pp. 229, 230.

[161]Opere, v. 178.

[162]Butcher, p. 280sq.

[163]Poet.xiii. 2, 3.

[164]Daniello, p. 38.

[165]Poet.xiii. 7.

[166]Della Vera Poetica, cap. iii.

[167]De Poeta, p. 182sq.

[168]Arte Poetica, p. 118sq.; also in Scaliger and Giraldi Cintio.

[169]Poet.xv. 1-5.

[170]Ars Poet.154sq.

[171]Muzio, p. 80.

[172]Pope, i. 165.

[173]Poetica, p. 36sq.

[174]Capriano,op. cit., cap. v.

[175]Cod. Magliabechiano, vii. 7, 715.

[176]Another expression of Jonson's, "small Latin and less Greek," may perhaps be traced to Minturno's "poco del Latino e pochissimo del Greco,"Arte Poetica, p. 158.

[177]Poet.viii. 1-4.

[178]Poet.v. 4.

[179]Giraldi Cintio, ii. 10sq.

[180]Robortelli, pp. 50, 275, and appendix, p. 45.Cf.Luisino's Commentary on Horace'sArs Poetica, 1554, p. 40.

[181]B. Segni, p. 170 v.

[182]Trissino, ii. 95.

[183]Brunetière, i. 69.

[184]Maggi, p. 94.

[185]Scaliger, iii. 96. So Robortelli, p. 53, speaks of tragedy as representing thingsquæ multum accedunt ad veritatem ipsam.

[186]E.g.Lintilhac,De Scal. Poet.p. 32.

[187]De Poeta, pp. 185, 281.

[188]Vettori, p. 250.

[189]Arte Poet.pp. 71, 117.

[190]Ibid.p. 12.

[191]Castelvetro,Poetica, pp. 157, 170.

[192]Ibid.pp. 57, 109.

[193]Castelvetro,Poetica, p. 534.Cf.Boileau,Art Poét.iii. 45.

[194]Castelvetro,Poetica, p. 179.

[195]Ibid.pp. 534, 535.

[196]Other allusions to the unities, besides those already mentioned, will be found in Castelvetro,Poetica, pp. 163-165, 168-171, 191, 397, 501, 527, 531-536, 692, 697, etc.

[197]Lintilhac, in theNouvelle Revue, lxiv. 541.

[198]Essay of Dramatic Poesy, p. 31.

[199]Poet.v. 1.Cf.Rhet.iii. 18.

[200]Trissino, ii. 120.Cf.Butcher, p. 203sq.

[201]Trissino, ii. 127-130. Trissino seems to follow Cicero,De Orat.ii. 58sq.It is to these Italian discussions of the ludicrous that the theory of laughter formulated by Hobbes, and after him by Addison, owes its origin. For Renaissance discussions of wit and humor before the introduction of Aristotle'sPoetics,cf.the third and fourth books of Pontano'sDe Sermone, and the second book of Castiglione'sCortigiano.

[202]Maggi, p. 307.Cf.Hobbes,Human Nature, 1650, ix. 13.

[203]Cf.B. Tasso, ii. 515; Robortelli, p. 2; etc.

[204]Don Quix.iv. 21.

[205]Hamlet, iii. 2.

[206]Scaliger,Poet.i. 2. Castiglione, in the second book of theCortigiano, says that the comic writer, more than any other, expresses the true image of human life.

[207]Poet.i. 5.

[208]Poet.iii. 96.

[209]Symonds,Ren. in Italy, v. 124sq., 533sq.

Epicpoetry was held in the highest esteem during the Renaissance and indeed throughout the period of classicism. It was regarded by Vida as the highest form of poetry,[210]and a century later, despite the success of tragedy in France, Rapin still held the same opinion.[211]The reverence for the epic throughout the Renaissance may be ascribed in part to the mediæval veneration of Virgil 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 wandering players, thehistrionesand thevagantes. Aristotle[212]indeed had regarded tragedy as the highest form of poetry; and as a result, the traditional reverence for Virgil and Homer, and the Renaissance subservience to Aristotle, were distinctly at variance. Trissino (1561) paraphrases Aristotle's argument in favor of tragedy, but points out, notwithstanding this, that the whole world is unanimous in considering Virgil and Homer greater than any tragic poet before or after them.[213]Placed inthis quandary, he concludes by leaving the reader to judge for himself whether epic or tragedy be the nobler form.

Vida'sArs Poetica, written before 1520, although no edition prior to that of 1527 is extant, is the earliest example in modern times of that class of critical poems to which belong Horace'sArs Poetica, Boileau'sArt Poétique, and Pope'sEssay on Criticism. Vida's poem is entirely based on that of Horace; but he substitutes epic for Horace's dramatic studies, and employs theÆneidas the model of an epic poem. The incompleteness of the treatment accorded to epic poetry in Aristotle'sPoeticsled 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 theÆneidby Regolo (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 questions 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.

Daniello (1536) deals only very cursorily with epic poetry, but his definition of it strikes the keynote 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,[214]—a conception that goes back to Horace's

"Res gestae regumque ducumque et tristia bella."[215]

Trissino (1563) first introduced the Aristotelian theory of the epic into modern literary criticism; and the sixth section of hisPoeticais given up almost exclusively to the treatment of heroic poetry. The epic agrees with tragedy in dealing with illustrious men and illustrious actions. Like tragedy it must have a single action, but it differs from tragedy in not having the time of the action limited or determined. While unity of action is essential to the epic, and is indeed what distinguishes it from narrative poems that are not really epics, the Renaissance conceived of vastness of design and largeness of detail as necessary to the grandiose character of the epic poem.[216]Thus Muzio says:—

"Il poema sovrano è una pitturaDe l'universo, e però in sè comprendeOgni stilo, ogni forma, ogni ritratto."

Trissino regardsversi scioltias 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 inviolablelaw of the single action. He also finds fault with the romantic poets for describing the improbable, since Aristotle expressly prefers an impossible 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 things imitated, such passions may be purged from the mind with both pleasure and profit.[217]Here Minturno, like Giraldi Cintio, ascribes to epic 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 peculiar 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 highest form of narrative poetry; for Minturno distinguishes three classes of narrative poets, the lowest, orbucolici, the mediocre, orepici, who have nothing beyond verse, and the highest, orheroici, who imitate the life of a single hero in noble verse.[218]Minturno insists fundamentally on the unity of the epic action; and directly against Aristotle's statement, as we have seen, he restricts the duration of the action to one year. The license and prolixityof theromanziled the defenders of the classical epic to this extreme of rigid circumspection. According to Scaliger, the epic, which is the norm by which all other poems may be judged and the chief of all poems, describesheroum genus,vita,gesta.[219]This is the Horatian conception of the epic, and there is in Scaliger little or no trace of the Aristotelian doctrine. He also follows Horace closely in forbidding the narrative poet to begin his poem from the very beginning of his story (ab ovo), 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 anything 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.[220]

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. Ariosto'sOrlando Furiosoand Boiardo'sOrlando Innamoratowere 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 thePoetics, Trissino set out to compose an heroic poem which would be in perfect accord with the precepts of Aristotle. HisItalia 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 constructed 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. Theromanzi, and among them theOrlando Furioso, in seemingly disregarding this fundamental 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 theromanziwas Giraldi Cintio, who in his youth had known Ariosto personally, and whowrote hisDiscorso intorno al comporre 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 feeling, need not and indeed ought not to follow the rules of Greek literature, but rather the laws of its own development and its own traditions. With Ariosto and Boiardo as models, Giraldi sets out to formulate the laws of theromanzi. Theromanziaim at imitating illustrious actions in verse, with the purpose 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.[221]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 poem, the rules of which are given in Aristotle'sPoetics. The second is the romantic poem, after the manner of Boiardo and Ariosto. The third is the biographical poem, after the manner of theTheseidand 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, thefirst of them being an epic poem in the strict Aristotelian sense, and the two others coming under the general head ofromanzi. Of the two forms ofromanzi, 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 difficult 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.[222]Accordingly, the poet who is composing an epic in the strict sense should, in handling the events of his narrative, plunge immediatelyin 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 separategenre, and one for which Aristotle does not attempt to lay down any laws. Giraldi even goes so far as to say that Aristotle[223]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 exactlythe same manner as those who dealt with a single action of a single hero,—an assertion which is of course utterly absurd. Giraldi then proceeds to deal in detail with the disposition and composition of theromanzi, which he rates above the classical epics in 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 theromanziare far superior to the writers of the ancient heroic poems.[224]

Giraldi's discourse on theromanzigave rise to a curious dispute with his own pupil, Giambattista Pigna, who published a similar work, entitledI 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.[225]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 theromanzi; in the second he gives a life of Ariosto, and discusses theFurioso, point by point; in the third he demonstrates the good taste and critical acumen of Ariosto by comparing the first version of theFuriosowith the completed and perfected copy.[226]BothPigna and Giraldi consider theromanzito constitute a newgenre, unknown to the ancients, and therefore not subject to Aristotle's rules. Giraldi's sympathies were in favor of the biographical form of theromanzi, and his poem, theErcole(1557), recounts the whole life of a single hero. Pigna, who keeps closer to the tradition of Ariosto, regards 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 for the romantic poets to follow the rules prescribed by the ancients, they cannot disobey the fundamental laws of poetry. "Theromanzi," says Speroni, "are epics, which are poems, or they are histories in verse, and not poems."[227]That is, how does a poem differ from a well-written historical narrative, if the former be without organic unity?[228]As to the whole discussion, it may be said here, without attempting to pass judgment on Ariosto, or any other writer ofromanzi, that unity of some sort every true poem must necessarily have; and, flawless as theOrlando Furiosois 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 theFuriosois 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 beconsidered, as a work of art, hardly less than a failure; and the farther it is removed from perfect unity, the more imperfect is the art. "Poetry adapts itself to its times, but cannot depart from its own fundamental laws."[229]

Minturno's answer to the defenders of theromanziis more detailed and explicit than Speroni's, and it is of considerable importance because of its influence on Torquato Tasso's conception of epic poetry. Minturno does not deny—and in this his point of view is identical with Tasso's—that it is possible to employ the matter of theromanziin the composition 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 marvellous which is so important an element in the epic action. It is the structure of theromanziwith which Minturno finds fault. They lack 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, Minturno cannot but regret that he so far yielded to the popular taste of his time as to employ the method of theromanzi. He approves of the suggestion of Bembo, who had tried to persuade Ariosto to write an epic instead of a romantic poem,[230]just as later, and for similar reasons, Gabriel Harvey attempted to dissuade Spenser from continuingtheFaerie Queene. Minturno denies that the Tuscan tongue is not well adapted to the composition 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 infernal gods and demi-gods of the ancients correspond with the angels, saints, anchorites, and the one God of Christianity; 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 Aristotle enjoins as necessary for all poetry, Minturno answers that magnitude is of no avail without proportion; there is no beauty in the giant whose limbs and frame are distorted. Finally, theromanziare said to be a new form of poetry unknown to Aristotle 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 approaches nature in her essential laws, the better it does its work. In other words, as has already been pointed out, poetry adapts itself to its times, but cannot depart from its own laws.

Bernardo Tasso, the father of Torquato, had originally 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 theAmadigihe follows romantic models. His son Torquato, in hisDiscorsi dell' Arte Poetica, originally written one or two years after the appearance of Minturno'sArte 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 difference 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.[231]Variety in itself is not pleasing, for a variety of disagreeable things would not please at all. Hence the perfect and at the same time most pleasing form of heroic poem would deal with the chivalrous themes of theromanzi, but would possess that unity of structure which, according to the precepts of Aristotle 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 chemical element, and the complex unity of an organismlike an animal or plant,—and of these the latter is the sort of unity that the heroic poet should aim at.[232]Capriano (1555) had referred to this same distinction, 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 pastoral life in the eclogue, for such a sporadic imitation 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.[233]

Having settled the general fact that the attractive themes of theromanzishould 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.[234]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 reader and make him believe that what the poet writes is true. Secondly, the heroic poem, according to Tasso, must deal with the history, not of a false religion, but of the true one, Christianity. The religion of the pagans is absolutely unfit for epic material; for if the pagan deities are not introduced, the poem will lack the element of the marvellous, and if they are introduced it will lackthe element of probability. Both the marvellous and theverisimilemust exist together in a perfect epic, and difficult as the task may seem, they must be reconciled. Another reason why paganism is 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 Christian faith, for such themes would be unalterable, and would allow no scope to the free play of the poet's inventive fancy. Fourthly, the material must be neither too ancient nor too modern, for the latter is too well known to admit of fanciful changes with probability, and the former not only lacks interest but requires the introduction of strange and alien manners and customs. The times of Charlemagne and Arthur are accordingly best fitted for heroic treatment. Finally, the events themselves must possess nobility and grandeur. Hence 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 character as to be fixed and immutable, and neither contemporary nor very remote. By the selection of such material the poem gains the authority of history, the truth of religion, the license of fiction, the proper atmosphere in point of time, and the grandeur of the events themselves.[235]

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 bothillustrious in the same way, they would both produce 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 virtue, such as Æneas, 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 practice, and his famousGerusalemme Liberatawas the result. This poem, almost immediately after its publication, 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 theromanzi.[236]TheGerusalemmewas in fact the centre of critical activity during the latter part of the century. Shortly after its publication, Camillo Pellegrino published a dialogue, entitledIl Caraffa(1583), in which theGerusalemmeis compared with theOrlando 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 various 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 entitledL' Infarinato, wrote an ardent defence of Ariosto; and an acrid and undignified dispute between Tasso and Salviati was begun.[237]Tasso answered the Accademia della Crusca in hisApologia; and at the beginning of the next century, Paolo Beni, the commentator on Aristotle'sPoetics, published hisComparazione di Omero, Virgilio, e Torquato, in which Tasso is rated above 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 constitute perfection in poetry. Before dismissing this whole matter, it should be pointed out that the defenders of Aristotle had absolutely abandoned the position of Giraldi and Pigna, that theromanziconstitute agenreby themselves, and are therefore not subject to Aristotle's law of unity. The question as Giraldi had stated it was this: Does every poem need to have unity? The question as discussed 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 of Aristotle, in epic as in dramatic poetry, was henceforth 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 thePoetics, which still lies in Ms. at Florence, and which has been made use of in the present essay.[238]

top

Back to Index Next