FOOT-NOTES:

"De los primeros tiene Horacio el puesto,En numeros y estilo soberano,Qual en su Arte al mundo es manifesto.Escaligero [i.e.Scaliger] hace el paso llanoCon general enseñamiento y guia,Lo mismo el docto Cintio [i.e.Giraldi Cintio] y Biperano.[279]Maranta[280]es egemplar de la Poesia,Vida el norte, Pontano[281]el ornamento,La luz Minturno qual el sol del dia....Acuden todos a colmar sus vasosAl oceano sacro de Stagira [i.e.Aristotle],Donde se afirman los dudosos pasos,Se eterniza la trompa y tierna lira."[282]

The influence of the Italians was equally great in Germany. From Fabricius to Opitz, the critical ideas of Germany were almost all borrowed, directly or indirectly, from Italian sources. Fabricius in hisDe Re Poetica(1584) acknowledges his indebtedness to Minturno, Partenio, Pontanus, and others, but above all to Scaliger; and most of the critical ideas by which Opitz renovated modern German literature go back to Italian sources, through Scaliger, Ronsard, and Daniel Heinsius. No better illustration of the influence of the Italian critics upon European letters could be afforded than that given by Opitz'sBuch von der deutschen Poeterei.[283]

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, especially on the side of Aristotelianism. Shelley represents a similar culmination of the Italian tradition in England. His indebtedness to Sidney and Milton,who represent the Italian influence in the Elizabethan age, and especially to Tasso, whom he continually 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 æsthetics 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 diminished in value, but has continued to pervade the finer minds of men from that time to this.

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 Renaissance; and its general causes may be looked for in the liberation of the human reason by the Renaissance, in the growth of the sciences and arts, and in the reaction against mediæval 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 culture, the growth of rationalistic philosophies, with their all-pervading influence on arts and letters, andmoreover the influence of Horace'sArs Poetica, with its ideal of "good sense," all tended to make the element of reason predominate in literature and in 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 all be found. Reason is for him the final test of all things:—

"Semper nutu rationis eant res."[284]

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,[285]and secondly, to moderate the expression of the poet's own personality and passion, a bulwark against the morbid subjectivity which is the horror of the classical temperament.[286]

It has been said of Scaliger that he was the first modern to establish in a body of doctrine the principal consequences of the sovereignty of the reason in literature.[287]That was hardly his aim, and certainly not his attainment. But he was, at all events, one of the first modern critics to affirm that there is a standard of perfection for each specific form of literature, to show that this standard may be arrived ata priorithrough the reason, and to attempt a formulation of such standard for each literary form. "Est in omni rerum genere unumprimum ac rectum ad cuius tum norman, tum rationem cætera dirigenda sunt."[288]This, the fundamental assumption of Scaliger'sPoetics, is also one of the basic ideas of classicism. Not only is there a standard, a norm, in every species of literature, but this norm can be definitely formulated and defined 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 standard arrived at through the reason. Such a method cuts off all possibility of novelty of form or expression, 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 Italian 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 Aristotle alone. Thus Trissino, at the beginning of the fifth section of hisPoetica, finished in 1549, although begun about twenty years before, says, "I shall not depart from the rules and precepts of the ancients, and especially Aristotle."[289]Somewhat later, in 1553, Varchi says, "ReasonandAristotle are mytwoguides."[290]Here the element of thereason first asserts itself, but there is no intimation that the Aristotelian canons are in themselves reasonable. The critic has two guides, the individual 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;"[291]and similarly, in 1583, Sir Philip Sidney says that the unity of time is demanded "both by Aristotle's precept and common reason."[292]Here both Tasso and Sidney, while contending that the particular law under discussion is in itself reasonable, speak of Aristotle'sPoeticsand 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 classical attitude, as when he speaks of "reason and Aristotle'sPoetics, which is indeed founded on naught save reason."[293]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 "reasonandAristotle" is a contradiction in itself, that the Aristotelian canons and the reason are ultimately reducible to the same thing, and that not only what is in Aristotle willbe found reasonable, but all that reason dictates for literary observance will be found in Aristotle.

Rationalism produced several very important results 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 imagination or sensibility. Poetry, it will be remembered, was often classified by Renaissance 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 having first formulated this theory of literature which subordinates the creative imagination and poetic sensibility to the reason;[294]but the credit or discredit of originating it does not belong exclusively to Scaliger. This tendency toward the apotheosis of the reason was diffused throughout the sixteenth century, and does not characterize any individual 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 keeping with classical perfection. Clearness, reasonableness, sociableness, were the highest requirementsof art; and 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 éternel emploi;Cultivez vos amis, soyez homme de foi;C'est peu d'être agréable et charmant dans un livre,Il faut savoir encore et converser et vivre,"[295]

were anticipated in Berni'sDialogo 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, Berni 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 uselessness, the extravagances, and the ribaldry of the professional poets receive his hearty contempt; only those who write verses for pastime merit approbation. "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, Pontano, Bembo, Sannazaro, as mere poets? I do not call any one a poet, and condemn him as such, unless he does nothing but write verses, and wretched ones at that, and is good for nothing else. But the men I have mentioned are notpoets by profession."[296]Here the sentiments expressed 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 humanism, essentially pagan, and rationalism, essentially 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 tendencies result in a certain distinct antagonism to the very forms of Christianity in literature:—

"C'est donc bien vainement que nos auteurs déçus,Bannissant de leurs vers ces ornemens reçus,Pensent faire agir Dieu, ses saints et ses prophètes,Comme ces dieux éclos du cerveau des poëtes;Mettent à chaque pas le lecteur en enfer;N'offrent rien qu'Astaroth, Belzébuth, Lucifer.De la foi d'un chrétien les mystères terriblesD'ornemens égayés ne sont point susceptibles;L'Évangile à l'esprit n'offre de tous côtésQue pénitence à faire et tourmens mérités;Et de vos fictions le mélange coupableMême à ses vérités donne l'air de la fable."[297]

top

FOOT-NOTES:[239]Symonds, ii. 161, based on Voigt.[240]Cf.Woodward, p. 210sq.[241]Hallam,Lit. of Europe, i. 8. 1.Cf.Pope, i. 182: "Omnia sed numeris vocum concordibus aptant," etc.[242]Bembo,Le Prose, 1525; Dolce,Osservationi, 1550, lib. iv.; etc.[243]Versi e Regole de la Nuova Poesia Toscana, 1539.[244]Trissino,Poetica, lib. i.-iv., 1529; Tomitano,Della Lingua Toscana, 1545; etc.[245]Pope, i. 134.Cf.De Sanctis, ii. 153sq.[246]Pope, i. 152.[247]Partenio, p. 80.[248]Ibid.p. 95.[249]Opere, xi. 51.[250]Defence, p. 13.[251]Poet.v. 3.[252]Poet.v. 1; vi. 4.[253]Cf.Brunetière, p. 53.[254]Symonds, ii. 395sq.[255]Muzio, p. 94.[256]Cf.Dennis,Select Works, 1718, ii. 417sq.[257]Pope, i. 167.[258]Laas,Die Paedagogik des Johannes Sturm, Berlin, 1872, p. 65sq.[259]Inst. Orat.x. 2.[260]Pope, i. 165.[261]Poet.i. 1.[262]Poet.iii. 4.[263]Partenio, p. 39sq.[264]Cf.Brunetière, p. 102sq., and Lanson,Hist. de la Litt. fr., p. 494sq.[265]Lettres grecques, ed. Legrand, 1892, p. 31.[266]"Quæcunque ab Aristotele dicta sint falsa et commentitia esse;" Bayle,Dict.s. v. Ramus, note C.[267]Fracastoro, i. 321.[268]Tiraboschi, vii. 1465.[269]Maggi, dedication.[270]In an appendix to this essay will be found an excerpt from Salviati's unpublished commentary on thePoetics, giving his judgment of the commentators who had preceded him.[271]Tasso, xv. 20.[272]Poet.vii. ii. 1.[273]Hamburg. Dramat.101-104.[274]Essay on Pope, 3d ed., i. 171.[275]Arte Poetica, p. 158.[276]Muzio, pp. 81 v., 76 v.[277]Poet.i. 5.[278]Pope,Essay on Criticism, 88.[279]Viperano, author ofDe Poetica libri tres, Antwerp, 1579.[280]Maranta, author ofLucullanæ Quæstiones, Basle, 1564.[281]Three writers of the Renaissance bore this name: G. Pontano, the famous Italian humanist and Latin poet, who died in 1503; P. Pontano, of Bruges, the author of anArs Versificatoria, published in 1520; and J. Pontanus, a Bohemian Jesuit, author ofInstitutiones Poeticæ, first published at Ingolstadt in 1594, and several times reprinted.[282]Sedano,Parnaso Español, Madrid, 1774, viii. 40, 41.[283]Cf.Berghoeffer,Opitz' Buch von der Poeterei, 1888, and Beckherrn,Opitz, Ronsard, und Heinsius, 1888. The first reference to Aristotle'sPoetics, north of the Alps, is to be found in Luther'sAddress to the Christian Nobles of the German Nation, 1520. Schosser'sDisputationes de Tragœdia, published in 1559, two years before Scaliger's work appeared, is entirely based on Aristotle'sPoetics.[284]Pope, i. 155.[285]Loc. cit., beginning, "Nec te fors inopina regat."[286]Pope, i. 164, beginning, "Ne tamen ah nimium."[287]Lintilhac, inNouvelle Revue, lxiv. 543.[288]Scaliger,Poet.iii. 11.[289]Trissino, ii. 92.[290]Varchi, p. 600.[291]Tasso, xii. 217.[292]Defense of Poesy, p. 48.[293]Discorso, 1587, p. 39 v.[294]Causeries du Lundi, iii. 44.[295]Art Poét.iv. 121.[296]Berni, p. 249.[297]Art Poét.iii. 193.Cf.Dryden,Discourse on Satire, inWorks, xiii. 23sq.

[239]Symonds, ii. 161, based on Voigt.

[240]Cf.Woodward, p. 210sq.

[241]Hallam,Lit. of Europe, i. 8. 1.Cf.Pope, i. 182: "Omnia sed numeris vocum concordibus aptant," etc.

[242]Bembo,Le Prose, 1525; Dolce,Osservationi, 1550, lib. iv.; etc.

[243]Versi e Regole de la Nuova Poesia Toscana, 1539.

[244]Trissino,Poetica, lib. i.-iv., 1529; Tomitano,Della Lingua Toscana, 1545; etc.

[245]Pope, i. 134.Cf.De Sanctis, ii. 153sq.

[246]Pope, i. 152.

[247]Partenio, p. 80.

[248]Ibid.p. 95.

[249]Opere, xi. 51.

[250]Defence, p. 13.

[251]Poet.v. 3.

[252]Poet.v. 1; vi. 4.

[253]Cf.Brunetière, p. 53.

[254]Symonds, ii. 395sq.

[255]Muzio, p. 94.

[256]Cf.Dennis,Select Works, 1718, ii. 417sq.

[257]Pope, i. 167.

[258]Laas,Die Paedagogik des Johannes Sturm, Berlin, 1872, p. 65sq.

[259]Inst. Orat.x. 2.

[260]Pope, i. 165.

[261]Poet.i. 1.

[262]Poet.iii. 4.

[263]Partenio, p. 39sq.

[264]Cf.Brunetière, p. 102sq., and Lanson,Hist. de la Litt. fr., p. 494sq.

[265]Lettres grecques, ed. Legrand, 1892, p. 31.

[266]"Quæcunque ab Aristotele dicta sint falsa et commentitia esse;" Bayle,Dict.s. v. Ramus, note C.

[267]Fracastoro, i. 321.

[268]Tiraboschi, vii. 1465.

[269]Maggi, dedication.

[270]In an appendix to this essay will be found an excerpt from Salviati's unpublished commentary on thePoetics, giving his judgment of the commentators who had preceded him.

[271]Tasso, xv. 20.

[272]Poet.vii. ii. 1.

[273]Hamburg. Dramat.101-104.

[274]Essay on Pope, 3d ed., i. 171.

[275]Arte Poetica, p. 158.

[276]Muzio, pp. 81 v., 76 v.

[277]Poet.i. 5.

[278]Pope,Essay on Criticism, 88.

[279]Viperano, author ofDe Poetica libri tres, Antwerp, 1579.

[280]Maranta, author ofLucullanæ Quæstiones, Basle, 1564.

[281]Three writers of the Renaissance bore this name: G. Pontano, the famous Italian humanist and Latin poet, who died in 1503; P. Pontano, of Bruges, the author of anArs Versificatoria, published in 1520; and J. Pontanus, a Bohemian Jesuit, author ofInstitutiones Poeticæ, first published at Ingolstadt in 1594, and several times reprinted.

[282]Sedano,Parnaso Español, Madrid, 1774, viii. 40, 41.

[283]Cf.Berghoeffer,Opitz' Buch von der Poeterei, 1888, and Beckherrn,Opitz, Ronsard, und Heinsius, 1888. The first reference to Aristotle'sPoetics, north of the Alps, is to be found in Luther'sAddress to the Christian Nobles of the German Nation, 1520. Schosser'sDisputationes de Tragœdia, published in 1559, two years before Scaliger's work appeared, is entirely based on Aristotle'sPoetics.

[284]Pope, i. 155.

[285]Loc. cit., beginning, "Nec te fors inopina regat."

[286]Pope, i. 164, beginning, "Ne tamen ah nimium."

[287]Lintilhac, inNouvelle Revue, lxiv. 543.

[288]Scaliger,Poet.iii. 11.

[289]Trissino, ii. 92.

[290]Varchi, p. 600.

[291]Tasso, xii. 217.

[292]Defense of Poesy, p. 48.

[293]Discorso, 1587, p. 39 v.

[294]Causeries du Lundi, iii. 44.

[295]Art Poét.iv. 121.

[296]Berni, p. 249.

[297]Art Poét.iii. 193.Cf.Dryden,Discourse on Satire, inWorks, xiii. 23sq.

Inthe Italian critical literature of the sixteenth century there are to be found the germs of romantic as well as classical criticism. The development of romanticism in Renaissance criticism is due to various tendencies, of ancient, of mediæval, and of modern origin. The ancient element is Platonism; the mediæval elements are Christianity, and the influence of the literary forms and the literary subject-matter of the Middle Ages; and the modern elements are the growth of national life and national literatures, and the opposition of modern philosophy to Aristotelianism.

As the element of reason is the predominant feature of neo-classicism, so the element of imagination is the predominant feature of romanticism; and according as the reason or the imagination 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. Accordingto the faculty of reason, when made the basis of literature, the poet is, as it were, held down to earth, and art becomes the mere reasoned expression of the truth of life. By the faculty of imagination, 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 Renaissance 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 mediævalism, scholasticism, and Aristotelianism. The Aristotelian dialectic of the Middle Ages appealed exclusively to the reason; Platonism gave opportunities 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 Renaissance appealed from the Plato of theRepublicand theLawsto the Plato of theIon, thePhædrus, and theSymposium. Beauty being the subject-matter of art, Plato's praise of beauty was transferred by the Renaissance to poetry, and his praise of the philosopher was transferred to the poet.

The Aristotelian doctrine defines beauty according to its relations to the external world; that is, poetry is an imitation of nature, expressed in general terms. The Platonic doctrine, on the contrary,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 Platonic 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 modern literary criticism, he defines and distinguishes poetry according to a subjective criterion; 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 Schlegels and their contemporaries in Germany, entirely eliminate the relation of poetry to the external world, and in this extreme form romanticism becomes 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 all men can see in nature, for the poet has no more insight into life—no more imagination—than any ordinary, judicious person.

The effects of this Platonic element upon Renaissance criticism were various. In the first place, it was through the Platonic influence that the relation of beauty to poetry was first made prominent.[298]According to Scaliger, Tasso, Sidney, another world of beauty is created by the poet,—a world that possesses beauty in its perfection as this worldnever can. The reason alone leaves no place for beauty; and accordingly, for the neo-classicists, art was ultimately restricted to moral and psychological observation. Moreover, Platonism raised the question of the freedom of genius and of the imagination. 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 suffices, what need is there of study and artifice? For the extreme romanticists of this period, genius alone was accounted sufficient to produce the greatest 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 aptitude, is necessary to begin with, but that it needs art and study to regulate and perfect it. Genius cannot suffice 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, according to certain fixed rules 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 element imposed on the Aristotelian doctrine.

The Middle Ages contributed to the poetic ideal of the Renaissance two elements: romantic themes and the Christian spirit. The forms and subjects of mediæval literature are distinctly romantic. Dante'sDivine Comedyis an allegorical vision; it is almost unique in form, and has no classical prototype.[299]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 accordingly the criticism of lyric poetry, more romantic 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 theromanziare also mediæval and romantic; but while they are mediæval contributions to literature,[300]they became contributions to literary criticism only after the growth of national life and the development of the feeling of nationality, both distinctly modern.

Some reference has already been made to the paganization of culture by the humanists. But with the growth of that revival of Christian sentiment which led to the Reformation, there were numerous attempts to reconcile Christianity withpagan culture.[301]Such men as Ficino and Pico della Mirandola 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'sChristiadand Sannazaro'sDe Partu Virginis, Christianity is covered with the drapery of paganism or classicism.

The first reaction against this paganization of culture was, as has been seen, effected by Savonarola. This reaction was reënforced, in the next century, by the influence and authority of the Council of Trent; and after the middle of the sixteenth century the Christian ideal plays a prominent part in literary criticism. The spirit of both Giraldi Cintio and Minturno is distinctly Christian. For Giraldi theromanziare Christian, and hence superior to the classical epics. He allows the introduction 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 Christian 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 unfit 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.At the same time also, Lorenzo Gambara wrote his work,De Perfecta Poeseos Ratione, to prove that it is essential for every poet to exclude from his poems, not only everything that is wicked or obscene, but also everything that is fabulous or that deals with pagan divinities.[302]It was to this religious reaction that we owe the Christian poetry of Tasso, Du Bartas, and Spenser. But humanism was strong, and rationalism was rife; and the religious revival was hardly more than temporary. Neo-classicism throughout Europe was essentially pagan.

The literature of the Middle Ages constitutes, as it were, one vast body of European literature; only with the Renaissance did distinctly national literatures spring into existence. Nationalism as well as individualism was subsequent to the Renaissance; 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 sixteenth century by Bembo, Castiglione, Varchi, Muzio, Tolomei, and many others; and in 1564 Salviati summed up the Italian side of the question in anoration in which he asserted that the Tuscan, or, as he called it, the Florentine language and the Florentine 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 consideration in the history of Italian literature. The other side of the controversy finds its extremest expression in a treatise of Celio Calcagnini addressed 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.[303]

In Giraldi Cintio we find the first traces of purely national criticism. His purpose, in writing the discourse on theromanzi, was primarily to defend Ariosto, whom he had known personally in his youth. The point of view from which he starts is that theromanziconstitute 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 Boiardo 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 underrate or to disregard thePoeticsof Aristotle; the fact was simply that Aristotle had not known the poems which deal with many actions of many men,and hence it would be absurd to demand that such poems should conform to his rules. Theromanzideal 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. Il Lasca, in the preface of theStrega(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 comedies after a different fashion." As early as 1534, Aretino, in the prologue of hisCortegiana, 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 modern Rome than they did in ancient Athens." Similarly, Gelli, in the dedication of theSporta(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."[304]

Although there is in Giraldi Cintio no fundamental opposition to Aristotle, it is in his discourse on theromanzithat there may be found the first attempt to wrest a province of art from Aristotle's supreme authority. Neither Salviati, who had rated the Italian language above all others, nor Calcagnini, who had regarded it as the meanest ofall, had understood the discussion of the importance of the Tuscan tongue to be concerned with 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 Guarini'sPastor Fido.[305]Castelvetro, in his commentary on thePoetics, differs from Aristotle on many occasions, and does not hesitate even to refute him. Yet his 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 thePoeticsin question, and that, in fact, they did not thoroughly understand the true constitution of a poet.[306]

The opposition to Aristotelianism among the humanists has already been alluded to. This opposition increased more and more with the development of modern philosophy. In 1536 Ramus 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 hisParadossi, 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 villanous man of his age. "We have, of our own accord," he says, "placed our necks under the yoke,putting that vile beast of an Aristotle on a throne, and depending on his conclusions as if he were an oracle."[307]It is the philosophical authority of Aristotle 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 eccentricities, represents the growth of modern free thought and the antagonism of modern philosophy to Aristotelianism.

The literary opposition and the philosophical opposition to Aristotelianism may be said to meet in Francesco Patrizzi, and, in a less degree, in Giordano Bruno. Patrizzi's bitter Antiperipateticism is to be seen in hisNova 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 literary antagonism to Aristotle is shown in his remarkable work,Della Poetica, published at Ferrara in 1586. This work is divided into two parts,—the first historical,La Deca Istoriale, and the second controversial,La Deca Disputata. In the historical section he attempts to derive the norm of the different 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 directed against thePoeticsof Aristotle, and in partalso 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 autorità de' grandi antichi—that the accepted critical opinions of his time were without foundation; and thePoeticsof 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 theEroici Furori, published at London in 1585, while Bruno was visiting England, he expresses his contempt for the mere pedants who judge poets by the rules of Aristotle'sPoetics. 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 Aristotle are called by Bruno stupid pedants and beasts. The gist of his argument may be gathered from the following passage:—

Back to Index Next