FOOT-NOTES:

"Tans.Thou dost well conclude that poetry 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 sorts of true rules as there are kinds and sorts of true poets.Cic.How then are the true poets to be known?Tans.By the singing of their verses; in that singing they give delight, or they edify, or they edify and delight together.Cic.To whom then are the rules of Aristotle useful?Tans.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."[308]

Cic.How then are the true poets to be known?

Tans.By the singing of their verses; in that singing they give delight, or they edify, or they edify and delight together.

Cic.To whom then are the rules of Aristotle useful?

Tans.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."[308]

A similar antagonism to Aristotle and a similar literary individualism are to be found in a much later work by Benedetto Fioretti, who under the pseudonym of Udeno Nisieli published the five volumes of hisProginnasmi Poeticibetween 1620 and 1639.[309]Just before the close of the sixteenth century, however, thePoeticshad obtained an ardent defender against such attacks in the person of Francesco Buonamici, in hisDiscorsi Poetici; and three years later, in 1600, Faustino Summo published a similar defence of Aristotle. The attacks on Aristotle's literary dictatorship were of little avail; 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.

top

FOOT-NOTES:[298]De Sanctis, ii. 193sq.[299]Cf.Bosanquet,Hist. of Æsthetic, p. 152sq.[300]Cf.Foffano, p. 151sq.[301]Symonds, ii. 470.[302]Baillet, iii. 70.[303]Tiraboschi, vii. 1559.[304]Several similar extracts from Italian comic prologues may be found in Symonds, v. 533sq.[305]Foffano, p. 154sq.[306]Poetica, p. 32.[307]Paradossi, Venetia, 1545, ii. 29.[308]Opere, ii. 315 (Williams's translation).[309]Cf.the diverse opinions of Tiraboschi, viii. 516, and Hallam,Lit. of Europe, pt. iii. ch. 7.

[298]De Sanctis, ii. 193sq.

[299]Cf.Bosanquet,Hist. of Æsthetic, p. 152sq.

[300]Cf.Foffano, p. 151sq.

[301]Symonds, ii. 470.

[302]Baillet, iii. 70.

[303]Tiraboschi, vii. 1559.

[304]Several similar extracts from Italian comic prologues may be found in Symonds, v. 533sq.

[305]Foffano, p. 154sq.

[306]Poetica, p. 32.

[307]Paradossi, Venetia, 1545, ii. 29.

[308]Opere, ii. 315 (Williams's translation).

[309]Cf.the diverse opinions of Tiraboschi, viii. 516, and Hallam,Lit. of Europe, pt. iii. ch. 7.

LITERARY CRITICISM IN FRANCE

Literarycriticism 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 all the countries of western Europe seems to have been ushered in by the translation of Horace'sArs Poeticainto the vernacular tongues. Critical activity in Italy began with Dolce's Italian version of theArs Poeticain 1535; in France, with the French version of Pelletier in 1545; in England, with the English version of Drant in 1567; and in Spain, with the Spanish versions of Espinel and Zapata in 1591 and 1592, respectively. Two centuries of literary discussion had prepared the way for criticism in Italy; and lacking this period of preparation, French criticism during the sixteenth century was necessarily of a much 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 itwas to write verse themselves. The disinterested and philosophic treatment of æsthetic problems, wholly aside from all practical considerations, characterized much of the critical activity of the Italian Renaissance, but did not become general in France 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 Italy furnished the source 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 sixteenth 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 different in character.

The literature of the sixteenth century in France is divided into two almost equal parts by Du Bellay'sDéfense et Illustration de la Langue française, 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,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. During this period the activity of Budæus, 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 Pléiade that modern French literature may be said to have begun. In 1549 Du Bellay'sDéfense, the manifesto of the new school, appeared. Ronsard'sOdeswere published in the next year; and in 1552 Jodelle inaugurated French tragedy with hisCléopâtre, and first, as Ronsard said,

"Françoisement chanta la grecque tragédie."

TheDéfensetherefore 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 Pléiade 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.[310]The creative reforms of the Pléiade lay largely in the direction of the formation of a poetic language, the introduction of newgenres, the creation of newrhythms, and the imitation of classical literature. But with the imitation of classical literature there came the renewal of the ancient subjects of inspiration; 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 Pléiade spring from the desire to justify the function 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 critical literature, a history of French Renaissance criticism is hardly more than an account of the poetic theories of the Pléiade.

The series of rhetorical and metrical treatises that precede Du Bellay'sDéfensebegins withL'Art de dictier et de fere chançons, 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.[311]Toward the close of the fifteenth century a work of the same nature, theFleur de Rhétorique, by an author who refers to himself as L'Infortuné, seems to have had some influence on later treatises. Three works of this sort fall within the first half of the sixteenth century: theGrand et vrai Art de pleine Rhétoriqueof Pierre Fabri, published at Rouen in 1521; theRhétorique metrifiéeof Gracien du Pont, published at Paris in 1539; and theArt Poétiqueof Thomas Sibilet, published at Paris in 1548. The secondpart of Fabri'sRhétoriquedeals with questions of versification—of rhyme, rhythm, and the complex metrical form of such poets as Crétin, Meschinot, and Molinet, in whom Pasquier foundprou de rime et équivoque, mais peu de raison. As theRhétoriqueof Fabri is little more than an amplification of the similar work of L'Infortuné, so the work of Gracien du Pont is little more than a reproduction of Fabri's. Gracien du Pont is still chiefly intent onrime équivoquée,rime entrelacée,rime retrograde,rime concatenée, and the various other mediæval complexities of versification. Sibilet'sArt Poétiqueis more interesting than any of its predecessors. It was published a year before theDéfenseof Du Bellay, and discusses many of the newgenreswhich the latter advocates. Sibilet treats of the sonnet, which had recently been borrowed from the Italians by Mellin de Saint-Gelais, the ode, which had just been employed by Pelletier, and the epigram, as practised by Marot. The eclogue is described as "Greek by invention, Latin by usurpation, and French by imitation." But one of the most interesting passages in Sibilet's book is that in which the French morality 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 dramatic 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 withavidity in France. Many educated young Frenchmen travelled in Italy, and several Italian men of letters visited France. Girolamo Muzio travelled in France in 1524, and again in 1530 with Giulio Camillo.[312]Aretino mentions the fact that a Vincenzo Maggi was at the Court of France in 1548, but it has been doubted whether this was the author of the commentary on thePoetics.[313]In 1549, after the completion of the two last parts of hisPoetica, dedicated to the Bishop of Arras, Trissino made a tour about France.[314]Nor must we forget the number of Italian scholars called to Paris by Francis I.[315]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 Pléiade 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 Belges and Clément Marot are the chief models, but who is not wholly averse to the moderate innovations derived by France from classical antiquity and the Italian Renaissance.

M. Brunetière, in a very suggestive chapter of his History of French Criticism, regards theDéfenseof Du Bellay, thePoeticsof Scaliger, and theArt Poétiqueof Vauquelin de la Fresnaye as the most important critical works in France duringthe sixteenth century.[316]It may indeed be said that Du Bellay'sDéfense(1549) is not in any true sense a work of literary criticism at all; that Scaliger'sPoetics(1561) is the work, not of a French critic, but of an Italian humanist; and that Vauquelin'sArt Poétique(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 written by an Italian and in Latin, was composed and published in France, and marks the introduction 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 Bellay'sDéfense et Illustration de la Langue française(1549) modern literature and modern criticism in France may be said to begin. TheDéfenseis a monument of the influence of Italian upon French literary and linguistic criticism. 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 fundamental contention of Du Bellay is, first, that the Frenchlanguage is capable of attaining perfection; and, secondly, that it can only hope to do so by imitating Greek and Latin. This thesis is propounded and proved in the first book of theDéfense; and the second book is devoted to answering the question: 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 language 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, therefore, of every one to set about consciously to improve his native speech. The Latin tongue was not always 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 Italian, all of which have attained a certain share of perfection.[317]

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; butby mere translation no language or literature can hope to attain perfection. Nor is a mere bald imitation sufficient; but, in Du Bellay's oft-cited phrase, the beauties of these foreign tongues "must be converted into blood and nourishment."[318]The classics have "blood, nerves, and bones," while the older French writers have merely "skin and color."[319]The modern French writer should therefore dismiss with contempt the older poets of France, and set about to imitate the Greeks, Latins, and Italians. He should leave off composing rondeaux, ballades, virelays, and suchépiceries, which corrupt the taste of the French language, and serve only to show its ignorance and poverty; 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.[320]Instead of the morality and the farce, the poet should write tragedies and comedies; he should attempt anotherIliadorÆneidfor the glory and honor of France. This is the gist of Du Bellay's argument in so far as it deals in general terms with the French language and literature. The six or seven concluding chapters 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 theuse of rhymeless verse in imitation of the classics. TheDéfenseends with an appeal to the reader not to fear to go and despoil Greece and Rome of their treasures for the benefit of French poetry.[321]

From this analysis it will be seen that theDéfenseis really a philological polemic, belonging to the same class as the long series of Italian discussions on the vulgar tongue which begins with Dante, and which includes the works of Bembo, Castiglione, Varchi, and others. It is, as a French critic has said, a combined pamphlet, defence, andars poetica;[322]but it is only anars poeticain 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 theDéfensewas without doubt Dante'sDe Vulgari Eloquio, which, in the Italian version of Trissino, had been given to the world for the first time in 1529, exactly twenty years before theDéfense. 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 design. 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 thevulgar tongue concerning which 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 consideration of the means by which it can attain perfection; the title ofDe Vulgari Eloquiomight be applied with equal force to either treatise. TheDéfense, by this justification of the French 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 modern Italy. Thirty years later, Henri Estienne, in hisPrécellence du Langage françois, could assert that French is the best language of ancient or modern times, just as Salviati in 1564 had claimed that preëminent position for Italian.[323]

It is not to be expected that so radical a break with the national traditions of France as was implied by Du Bellay's innovations would be left unheeded by the enemies of the Pléiade. The answer came soon, in an anonymous pamphlet, entitledLe Quintil Horatian sur la Défense et Illustration de la Langue françoise. 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 strenuously denies the authorship of theQuintil Horatian;and more recent researches have shown pretty conclusively that the real author was a friend of Fontaine's, Barthélemy Aneau, head of the College of Lyons.[324]TheQuintil Horatianwas first published in 1550, the year after the appearance of theDéfense.[325]The author informs us that he had translated the whole of Horace'sArs Poeticainto French verse "over twenty years ago, before Pelletier or any one else," that is, between 1525 and 1530.[326]This translation was never published, but fragments of it are cited in theQuintil 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 temperament was dogmatic and pedagogic; his judgment was not always good; and modern French critics cannot forgive him for attacking Du Bellay's use of such a word aspatrie.

But it is not entirely just to speak of theQuintil Horatian, in the words of a modern literary historian, as full of futile and valueless criticisms. The author's minute linguistic objections are often hypercritical, but his work represents a natural reaction against the Pléiade. His chief censure of theDéfensewas directed against the introduction of classical and Italian words into the French language. "Est-ce là défense et illustration," he exclaims, "ouplus tost offense et dénigration?" He charges the Pléiade with having contemned the classics of French poetry; the new school advocated the disuse of the complicated metrical forms merely because they were too difficult. The sonnet, the ode, and the elegy he dismisses as useless innovations. 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 the Pléiade first introduced into French literature; for him the poet is a mere versifier who amuses his audience. He represents the general reaction of the national spirit against the classical innovations of the Pléiade; and theQuintil Horatianmay therefore be called the last representative work of the older school of poetry.

It was at about this period that Aristotle'sPoeticsfirst influenced French criticism. In one of the concluding chapters of theDéfenseDu Bellay remarks that "the virtues and vices of a poem have been diligently treated by the ancients, such as Aristotle and Horace, and after them by Hieronymus Vida."[327]Horace is mentioned and cited in numerous other places, and the influence of the general rhetorical portions of theArs Poeticais very marked throughout theDéfense; there arealso many traces of the influence of Vida. But there is no evidence whatsoever of any knowledge of Aristotle'sPoetics. Of its name and importance Du Bellay had probably read in the writings of the Italians, but of its contents he knew little or nothing. There is indeed no well-established allusion to thePoeticsin France before this time. None of the French humanists seems to have known it. Its title is cited by Erasmus in a letter dated February 27, 1531, and it was published by him without any commentary at Basle in the same year, though Simon Grynæus appears to have been the real editor of this work. An edition of thePoeticswas also published at Paris in 1541, but does not seem to have had any appreciable influence on the critical activity of France. Several years after the publication of theDéfense, in the satirical poem,Le Poëte Courtisan, written shortly after his return from Italy in 1555, Du Bellay shows a somewhat more definite knowledge of the contents of thePoetics:—

"Je ne veux point ici du maistre d'Alexandre [i.e.Aristotle],Touchant l'art poétic, les preceptes t'apprendreTu n'apprendras de moy comment jouer il fautLes miseres des rois dessus un eschaffaut:Je ne t'enseigne l'art de l'humble comœdieNi du Méonien la muse plus hardie:Bref je ne monstre ici d'un vers horacienLes vices et vertus du poëme ancien:Je ne depeins aussi le poëte du Vide."[328]

In 1555 Guillaume Morel, the disciple of Turnebus, published an edition of Aristotle'sPoeticsatParis. It is interesting to note, however, that the reference in theDéfenseis the first allusion to thePoeticsto be found in the critical literature of France; by 1549 the Italian Renaissance, and Italian criticism, had come into France for good. In 1560, the year before the publication of Scaliger'sPoetics, Aristotle's treatise had acquired such prominence that in a volume of selections from Aristotle's works, published at Paris in that year,Aristotelis Sententiæ, the selections from thePoeticsare placed at the head of the volume.[329]In 1572 Jean de la Taille refers his readers to what "the great Aristotle in hisPoetics, and after him Horace though not with the same subtlety, have said more amply and better than I."[330]

The influence of Scaliger'sPoeticson the French dramatic criticism of this period has generally been overestimated. Scaliger's influence in France was not inconsiderable during the sixteenth century, but it was not until the very end of the century that he held the dictatorial position afterward accorded to him. No edition of hisPoeticswas ever published at Paris. The first edition appeared at Lyons, and subsequent editions appeared at Heidelberg and Leyden. It was in Germany, in Spain, and in England that his influence was first felt; and it was largely through the Dutch scholars, Heinsius and Vossius, that his influence was carried into France in the next century. It is a mistake to say that he had any primary influence onthe formulation and acceptance of the unities of time and place in French literature; there is in hisPoetics, as has been seen, no such definite and formal statement of the unities as may be found in Castelvetro, in Jean de la Taille, in Sir Philip Sidney, or in Chapelain. At the same time, while Scaliger'sPoeticsdid not assume during the sixteenth century the dictatorial supremacy it attained during the seventeenth, and while the particular views enunciated in its pages had no direct influence on the current of sixteenth-century ideas, it certainly had an indirect influence on the general tendency of the critical activity of the French Renaissance. This indirect influence manifests itself in the gradual Latinization of culture during the second half of the sixteenth century, and, as will be seen later, in the emphasis on the Aristotelian canons in French dramatic criticism. Scaliger was a personal friend of several members of the Pléiade, and there is every reason to believe that he wielded considerable, even if merely indirect, influence on the development of that great literary movement.

The last expression of the poetic theories of the Pléiade is to be found in the didactic poem of Vauquelin de la Fresnaye,L'Art Poétique françois, où l'on peut remarquer la perfection et le défaut des anciennes et des modernes poésies. This poem, though not published until 1605, was begun in 1574 at the command of Henry III., and, augmented by successive additions, was not yet complete by 1590. Vauquelin makes the followingexplicit acknowledgment of his indebtedness to the critical writers that preceded him:—

"Pour ce ensuivant les pas du fils de Nicomache [i.e.Aristotle],Du harpeur de Calabre [i.e.Horace], et tout ce que remacheVide et Minturne aprés, j'ay cet œuvre apresté."[331]

Aristotle, Horace, Vida, and Minturno are thus his acknowledged models and sources. Nearly the whole of Horace'sArs Poeticahe has translated and embodied in his poem; and he has borrowed from Vida a considerable number of images and metaphors.[332]His indebtedness to Aristotle and to Minturno brings up several intricate questions. It has been said that Vauquelin simply mentioned Minturno in order to put himself under the protection of a respectable Italian authority.[333]On the contrary, exclusive of Horace, Ronsard, and Du Bellay, the whole of whose critical discussions he has almost incorporated into his poem, Minturno is his chief authority, his model, and his guide. In fact, it was probably from Minturno that he derived his entire knowledge of the Aristotelian canons; it is not Aristotle, but Minturno's conception of Aristotle, that Vauquelin has adhered to. Many points in his poem are explained by this fact; here only one can be mentioned. Vauquelin's account, in the second canto of hisArt Poétique, of the origin ofthe drama from the songs at the altar of Bacchus at the time of the vintage, is undoubtedly derived from Minturno.[334]It may have been observed that during the Renaissance there were two distinct conceptions of the origin of poetry. One, which might be called ethical, was derived from Horace, according to whom the poet was originally a lawgiver, or divine prophet; and this conception persists in modern literature from Poliziano to Shelley. The other, or scientific conception, was especially applied to the drama, and was based on Aristotle's remarks on the origin of tragedy; this attempt to discover some scientific explanation for poetic phenomena may be found in the more rationalistic of Renaissance critics, such as Scaliger and Viperano. Vauquelin de la Fresnaye, the disciple of Ronsard and the last exponent of the critical doctrines of the Pléiade, thus represents the incorporation of the body of Italian ideas into French criticism.

With Vauquelin de la Fresnaye and De Laudun Daigaliers (1598) the history of French criticism during the sixteenth century is at an end. The critical activity of this period, as has already been remarked, is of a far more practical character than that of Italy. Literary criticism in France was created by the exigencies of a great literary movement; and throughout the century it never lost its connection with this movement, or failed to serve it in some practical way. The poetic criticism was carried on by poets, whose desire it was to furthera cause, to defend their own works, or to justify their own views. The dramatic criticism was for the most part carried on by dramatists, sometimes even in the prefaces of their plays. In the sixteenth century, as ever since, the interrelation of the creative and the critical faculties in France was marked and definite. But there was, one might almost say, little critical theorizing in the French Renaissance. Excepting, of course, Scaliger, there was even nothing of the deification of Aristotle found in Italian criticism. To take notice of a minute but significant detail, there was no attempt to explain Aristotle's doctrine ofkatharsis, the source of infinite controversy in Italy. There was no detailed and consistent discussion of the theory of the epic poem. All these things may be found in seventeenth-century France; but their home was sixteenth-century Italy.

top

FOOT-NOTES:[310]Essais, i. 36.[311]On these early works, see Langlois,De Artibus Rhetoricæ Rhythmicæ, Parisiis, 1890.[312]Tiraboschi, vii. 350.[313]Ibid.vii. 1465.[314]Morsolin,Trissino, p. 358.[315]Egger,Hellénisme, ch. vii.[316]Brunetière, i. 43.[317]Cf.Horace,Ars Poet.53sq.[318]Défense, i. 7.[319]Ibid.ii. 2.[320]Ibid.ii. 4.[321]Cf.Vida, in Pope, i. 167.[322]Lanson,op. cit., p. 274.[323]Cf.T. Tasso, xxiii. 97.[324]H. Chamard, "Le Date et l'Auteur du Quintil Horatian," in theRevue d'Histoire littéraire de la France, 1898, v. 59sq.[325]Ibid.v. 54sq.[326]Ibid.v. 62; 63, n. 1.[327]Défense, ii. 9.[328]Du Bellay, p. 120.[329]Parisiis, apud Hieronymum de Marnaf, 1560.[330]Robert, appendix iii.[331]Art Poét.i. 63.[332]Pellissier, pp. 57-63.[333]Lemercier,Étude sur Vauquelin, 1887, p. 117, and Pellissier, p. 57.[334]Minturno,Arte Poetica, p. 73;De Poeta, p. 252.Cf.Vauquelin, Pellissier's introduction, p. xliv.

[310]Essais, i. 36.

[311]On these early works, see Langlois,De Artibus Rhetoricæ Rhythmicæ, Parisiis, 1890.

[312]Tiraboschi, vii. 350.

[313]Ibid.vii. 1465.

[314]Morsolin,Trissino, p. 358.

[315]Egger,Hellénisme, ch. vii.

[316]Brunetière, i. 43.

[317]Cf.Horace,Ars Poet.53sq.

[318]Défense, i. 7.

[319]Ibid.ii. 2.

[320]Ibid.ii. 4.

[321]Cf.Vida, in Pope, i. 167.

[322]Lanson,op. cit., p. 274.

[323]Cf.T. Tasso, xxiii. 97.

[324]H. Chamard, "Le Date et l'Auteur du Quintil Horatian," in theRevue d'Histoire littéraire de la France, 1898, v. 59sq.

[325]Ibid.v. 54sq.

[326]Ibid.v. 62; 63, n. 1.

[327]Défense, ii. 9.

[328]Du Bellay, p. 120.

[329]Parisiis, apud Hieronymum de Marnaf, 1560.

[330]Robert, appendix iii.

[331]Art Poét.i. 63.

[332]Pellissier, pp. 57-63.

[333]Lemercier,Étude sur Vauquelin, 1887, p. 117, and Pellissier, p. 57.

[334]Minturno,Arte Poetica, p. 73;De Poeta, p. 252.Cf.Vauquelin, Pellissier's introduction, p. xliv.

Itis in keeping with the practical character of the literary criticism of this period that the members of the Pléiade did not concern themselves with the general theory of poetry. Until the very end of the century there is not to be found any systematic poetic theory in France. It is in dramatic criticism that this period has most to offer, and the dramatic criticism is peculiarly interesting because it foreshadows in many ways the doctrines upon which were based the dramas of Racine and Corneille.

In Du Bellay'sDéfensethere is no attempt to formulate a consistent body of critical doctrine; but the book exhibits, in a more or less crude form, all the tendencies for which the Pléiade stands in French literature. The fundamental idea of theDéfenseis that French poetry can only hope to reach perfection by imitating the classics. The imitation of the classics implies, in the first place, erudition on the part of the poet; and, moreover,it requires intellectual labor and study. The poet is born, it is true; but this only refers to the ardor and joyfulness of spirit which naturally excite him, but which, without learning and erudition, are absolutely useless. "He who wishes poetic immortality," says Du Bellay, "must spend his time in the solitude of his own chamber; instead of eating, drinking, and sleeping, he must endure hunger, thirst, and long vigils."[335]Elsewhere he speaks of silence and solitude asamy des Muses. From all this there arises a natural contempt for the ignorant people, who know nothing of ancient learning: "Especially do I wish to admonish him who aspires to a more than vulgar glory, to separate himself from such inept admirers, to flee from the ignorant people,—the people who are the enemies of all rare and antique learning,—and to content himself with few readers, following the example of him who did not demand for an audience any one beside Plato himself."[336]

In theArt Poétiqueof Jacques Pelletier du Mans, published at Lyons in 1555, the point of view is that of the Pléiade, but more mellow and moderate than that of its most advanced and radical members. The treatise begins with an account of the antiquity and excellence of poetry; and poets are spoken of as originally themaîtres et réformateurs de la vie. Poetry is then compared with oratory and with painting, after the usual Renaissance fashion; and Pelletier agrees with Horace in regarding the combined power of art and nature asnecessary to the fashioning of a poet. His conception of the latter's office 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 doubtful, and to all things their true nature, 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 Pléiade.

The greatest of these, Ronsard, has given expression to his views on the poetic art in hisAbrégé de l'Art Poétique françois(1565), and later in the two prefaces of his epic of theFranciade. The chief interest of theAbrégéin the present discussion is that it expounds and emphasizes the high notion of the poet's office introduced into French poetry by the Pléiade. 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 arimeur; and the term "poète," with all that it implies, first came into use with the Pléiade. The distinction between the versifier and the poet, as pointed out by Aristotle and insisted upon by the Italians, became with the Pléiade almost vital. Binet, the disciple and biographer of Ronsard, 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."[337]Ronsard's own accountof the dignity and high function of poetry must needs be cited at length:—

Back to Index Next