The Age of Criticism: The Late Renaissance in Italy 9781501743443

Citation preview

The Age of Criticism The Late Renaissance

in Italy

By Baxter Hathaway DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH CORNELL UNIVERSITY

CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRESS ITHACA,

NEW YORK

THE AGE OF The Late

CRITICISM

Renaissance in Italy

'

This work has been brought to publication with the assistance of a grant

from the Ford Foundation.

©1962 by

Cornell University

CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRESS

First published 1962

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 62-8488

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BY VAIL-BALLOU

PRESS, INC.

Preface

ALL

theory

gray, as

is

Goethe

said,

which human beings must acquire either

our

own

but

if

if

its

gray ness

a toleration.

practical business, to

sionately, or the picture

which

but

something for

is

What

is

not theory

which our egos commit us

pas-

of concrete experiences moving past

show

is

us,

they are illuminations of gray theory are colorful enough

outside the bounds of theory are chaotic and often meaningless.

More than

in

most ages the

literary critics of the Renaissance

committed to pure theory, and,

like

our

own

were

age, the sixteenth century

has often disparagingly been referred to as “an age of criticism.”

Those

who

domi-

disparage ages in

which the power of

nant or strong usually claim that

much

critical speculation is

theorizing dries up the flow of

who assert, with how to dance. If it is

creative impulses; but they have their opponents

Pope, that grace of motion comes from learning true that sixteenth-century Italy

velopment of

literary criticism

was pre-eminently

and

if

poetry, the fact that Ariosto and Tasso poets

—lived

away.

It is

in that stifling

conceded that

a stage for the de-

criticism thwarts the creation of

—two of the four greatest

Italian

atmosphere must somehow be explained

literary Italy turned to

theory later than the

which Ariosto flourished and that Tasso’s some of the faults which critics of criticism attribute

early part of the century in

poetry exhibits

to the effects of criticism.

by means of attainment.

it,

A

The

best defense of criticism

is

to assert that

in the long run, cultures reach higher general levels of

tradition of artistic

development can hardly

exist

with-

out some continuity of consciousness of what the development implies. Criticism

is

the armature. In literary history a large percentage of the

significant literary theorists turn out to

have been poets, playwrights,

v

Preface and

novelists,

even though some

may wish

to define aesthetic specula-

tion as a branch of philosophy. Philosophical theory is

and

especially gray,

life is

not worth

was

Plato

if

the theory that

is

right in saying that the

living, the life that

worth

is

living

unexamined

in part at least,

is,

gray.

Sixty-some years ago

was the one who had importance of the his

J.

E. Spingarn could rightfully claim that he

called the attention of the world’s scholars to the

Italian literary critics of the sixteenth century,

claim has been acknowledged in the intervening years

Saintsbury, Ciro Trabalza, Giuseppe Toffanin, and the

who

have dealt more briefly with

in spite of the high

this

segment of

by George

many

others

literary history.

honor formally granted them, those

and

But

Italian critics

have remained for the most part unread in the English-speaking world, either because their

books are hard to come by or because the languages

which they wrote have posed obstacles to the readers with the greatest interest in their ideas. And, above all, many who have given lip

in

service to the importance of Italian criticism have attempted to treat

own

the history of criticism as the history of the criticism of their tions,

pale reflections and derivations. Professor Allan steps to correct this situation

by

H. Gilbert took great from the

liberally translating passages

Renaissance Italians in his Literary Criticism Plato to ,

But the whole

As

na-

ignoring the substantive object while concerning themselves with

field

even

now

Dry den

(1940).

has scarcely been scratched.

book

the reader will immediately perceive, the attempt in this

to deal with the complexities of the criticism of the period

1540 and 1613

by means of

is

between

“histories” of five of the ideas particularly

important for the understanding of the literary aesthetics of the Ren-

This

aissance.

is

an act of sinking depth shafts into the area rather than

of trying to strip-mine the whole.

proach

will, I fear,

The shortcomings

be apparent. There

distorted in being abstracted

from

its

is

of such an ap-

danger always that an idea

context. In

any

critical

is

system

concepts are entangled one with another, and to deal with the evolution of several ideas separately entails

much

repetition or

demands of the

reader that he reassemble parts of idea clusters that have been scattered

widely. But there are also advantages in this approach. critic

specific

arguments or doctrines even

eral attractions or repulsions. is

When

one

responds to another or builds upon another’s work, he turns to

to put

To

he

is

motivated by vague, gen-

look at the history of a significant idea

any expression of opinion vi

if

in a context quite possibly as

im-

Preface portant as the context of the writer’s system from which lifted.

Our

general familiarity with the

make apology unnecessary. Since this book is aimed speaking world,

what

available

I

have used should

at the interested reader in the English-

have surrendered some scholarly amenities to make

I

clearly has not been sufficiently available.

that the kind of translation

I

am aware

I

is always to some degree falsifisome modicum of interpretation of the

engage in

cation since translation involves text. I

method

bodily

it is

quake on remembering that Saintsbury attributed great impor-

word “transport” in describing the ofwhen Minturno’s word was simply movere “to move,”

tance to Minturno’s use of the fices

as

of poetry,

commonplace

my

in his time as

nights.

I

cannot hope that

To

share of them.

H.

I

necessarily

worthy of mention. The Latin

Theory

realized that

impossible to cover

is

with

one of

its

these.

many

are

especially

meanings, ren-

To make

the meaning

must be distinguished from

species

“image,” or “phantom,” use of a

Three

difficulties.

species,

dered here often as “appearance,”

which

it

I

in the vocabularies of the sixteenth-

present particular

clear in passages in

make

game

chose to be as serviceable as possible.

words used frequently

critics

like

engage in translation

B. Charlton did in his Castelvetro's

would

the area satisfactorily, and

Certain

it is slips

have succeeded in avoiding making

I

of course, ideal; but early in the

is,

printing parallel passages

century

find; for

print original passages alongside English trans-

lations or paraphrases, as

of Poetry,

one could

who must

keep the historian of ideas

this that

awake

term

a

less

common

equivalent

is

“sight,”

sometimes

necessary. Likewise, the Renaissance Italian costumi cannot uniformly

be translated

by any

single

expresses the meaning;

word; sometimes “character” adequately

more often

the significance

is

“individual traits

of character,” “usages,” “manners,” or “manifestation of custom.” Al-

though

I

have not tried to be consistent in translating

most often presented ( fabula ,

lating

it

fable)

are not

is

a

all

it

this

word,

as “character traits.” Finally, the

word

booby

I

have

favola

and the dangers encountered in transof our making, for the Renaissance critics often used trap,

uncertainly and were even more confused by the Greek mythos, which they took to be its equivalent. By favola the Renaissance Italians generally meant simply “plot” or “structure,” but often in the same it

breath they

made

reference to the “fables” of Aesop as

were the same. Here

I

have frequently

left the

if

the

meaning

reader the task of de-

termining the range of denotations by using the direct cognate “fable.” vii

Preface Since the ideas that are traced out here are those that provide the philosophical bases for criticism

—the those

critics

more

to say, are items of pure theory

is

casts of

mind play

larger roles than

The

consistently concerned with techniques.

however, of the Renaissance

and

—that

with philosophical

great virtue,

was their ability to comprehend which the critics of the twenty

critics

utilize the Poetics of Aristotle,

centuries that preceded had apparently been unable to do.

they had to be concerned with the philosophy of

segment of history some of the great

studies of this

Any

To

do

it

literature. In previous critical theorists of

the period have been

slighted.

of the Renaissance,

not of the whole modern world, should include

if

list

Sperone Speroni, Robortelli, Francesco

of the great critical theorists

Ludovico Castelvetro,

Patrizi,

Tasso, Giacopo Mazzoni, Francesco Buonamici, and Paolo Beni, but of these only Tasso and Castelvetro have received the attention they de-

no other reason, Professor Gilbert’s Literary Criticism

serve. If for

Plato to

Dry den

,

has been an invaluable aid to the understanding of the

history of criticism because of the translations

it

contains of passages

from Mazzoni.

My

labors in gathering the materials for this study

greatly

by easy

were lightened

access to the riches of the Willard Fiske collections of

Petrarch and Dante works in the Cornell University Library, and

wish to express particularly over the period of at Cornell. I

am

many

my

years

gratitude for the assistance rendered

by

the Rare

Book Department

also indebted to the kindness

I

me

librarians

and co-operation of the

Emmanuele in Rome and of the Marciana in Venice. I have been twice aided by grants from the Faculty Research Grants Committee and twice by the English Department Grant-in- Aid Fund of Cornell University. A year in Italy on a Fulstaffs

of the Biblioteca Vittorio

bright grant and the co-operation of the Fulbright Commission in

Rome were the

likewise of great value to me.

Department of

Classics at Cornell

patience the innumerable questions

to

make amends

for

the

all

may show

my

debted to Professor Joseph A. Mazzeo.

that

ignorance.

To

I

many

a

very pleasant summer

at

Ca

must

similarly in-

the neighborly proximity I

owe not only

Savio, near Venice, but also

helpful hints, elucidations, and illuminations. viii

I

have not asked

am

I

of Professor G. F. Folena of the University of Padua

memories of

members of

have put to them, though

I

hasten to say that the following text

them enough

Almost

have answered with unflagging

I

wish to thank

Preface

M. Durling

Professors Mario A. Levi and Robert

for their kindness in

reading large parts of the manuscript. I

am

indebted to

his translations

Andrew Bongiorno

Commentary on

“Castelvetro’s

for permission to quote

from

of Castelvetro in his unpublished doctoral dissertation,

versity, 1935); to

the Poetics of Aristotle” (Cornell Uni-

Allan H. Gilbert for use of

Criticism, Plato to

his text

or translations of

Minturno, and Mazzoni, from Literary

Sidney, Aristotle’s Poetics

Dry den,

cited

by permission

of the

Wayne

State

University Press, Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A.; to Ruth Kelso and the University of

Illinois Press

Navagero (University of vol. IX, no. 3;

for use of her translations of Fracastoro in

Illinois

Urbana, 1924); and to

sion to quote a passage

which appeared

Language and Literature, the Kenyon Review for permis-

Studies in

from Lionel

Trilling’s

“Freud and Literature”

in its Spring, 1941, issue.

B. Ithaca,

May

New

York

1961

IX

H.

Contents

v

Preface

One

Part

:

Poetry

1

The Theory

2

Patrizi’s

as Imitation

of Imitation in the Renaissance

3

Instruments, Subjects, and

4

Were Empedocles and

5

Is

6

Are prose

7

Imitation as Idol

Fart

3

Attack on Mimesis

9

Modes

of Imitation

23

Lucretius poets?

65

poetic imitation limited to imitation of action?

Two:

8

What

9

a

fictions

8

poems?

Making and

87 Particularization

1

1

Universals and Particulars

world should be and what

129

it is

Tasso’s Perfect Exemplars

144

10

Truth and Reality

159

11

Universality as Unity

167

12

Penumbral Ideas

17

13

The Grandeur

189

Part Three:

A

of Generality

Purgation of Passiotis

A New

14

Catharsis:

15

Robortelli and

16

The Development

Implement

205

Maggi

214

of the Opposition

225 xi

Contents Consolidations

239

18

Moving by Pathos or Ethos

264

19

Syntheses

274

20

Omnibus Purgations

291

17

The

Part Four:

Poetic Imagination

21

The

22

Speroni and Tomitano

23

Girolamo Fracastoro

316

24

Paduans and Aristotelians

329

25

Platonism, Love, Beauty, and Florence

341

26

Mazzoni’s Immediate Predecessors

349

27

Mazzoni and Bulgarini

355

28

Mazzoni on Dreams

29

Tasso’s

Revival of Classical Ideas

Part Five: 30

Platonists

Poet's

310

375

Magic Realism

The

303

390

Art and the Poet's Furor

and Aristotelians

399

Patrizi’s Synthesis

4

32

Christians and Aristotelians

421

33

The Four Furors and

431

34

True wit

3

1

Index

is

the Music of the Spheres

nature to advantage dress’d

1

437 46

Xll

Part One

POETRY AS IMITATION

'

\

1

The Theory

of Imitation

in the Renaissance

SOME

our day

themselves Aristotelians;

it

cannot, therefore, be assumed that the theory of poetry as imitation

is

a

dead

literary critics in

still call

thing. Literary creation in the past century

characterized both

by

realism, especially in the novel,

result

On

a half has

been

and by expres-

would of emphasis upon “holding the mirror up to

sionism, especially in poetry.

seem to be the

and

the surface, realistic literature

upon the theory of poetry as imitation; and expressionistic literature would seem to be the result of emphasis on theories that stress not a faithful rendition of what lies outside the human mind but created art objects that are responsive only to what comes into being in the poet’s soul. M. H. Abrams, in The Mirror and the Lamp has amply demonstrated the shift in “constitutive” metaphors by which the expressionistic “lamp” critics of the Romantic period supplanted or nature,” that

is,

,

overthrew the “mirror”

critics of the

Renaissance or Neoclassic period.

In the mid-twentieth century, mirror theories of art have very poor social standing,

and

it

has long been customary to berate the critics

of the Italian cinquecento for falling prey to theories of poetry as mirrorings.

Mimetic and mirror theories of

art

are not,

however,

precisely identical, and before the Renaissance critics are summarily dismissed, there should be a clear understanding

the broad problem most occupied

The

on what aspects of

them and why.

twentieth-century Aristotelian usually does battle for art

imitation not because he puts a high value

on

as

faithful representations

The Age

of Criticism

of external nature in poetry or painting but because he needs to dis-

communicated by

tinguish the nature of the thing

from

a

work

of fine art

must be

abstract, philosophic, or scientific expression. Since it

conceded that not every poem, novel, or play possessing the

qualities

of fine art unmistakably imitates something, the concept of imitation

and no doubt must,

can,

if it is

to be

embraced

at

all,

be extended

which an organization of relative concreteness expresses or embodies a set of more general relations. If this much to cover

all

instances in

granted, the concept of imitation can

be useful in defining

latitude

is

what

central to poetic discourse, in contradistinction to other kinds

is

still

of discourse.

For

instance, in reading

difficulty, it

the

poem

is

By

is.

most poems that offer some obscurity or

perhaps well to determine

first

what the

“situation” of

I mean what concrete action is being preWhat, in other words, even for a lyric poem, is its in “Dover Beach” the situation is of a man asking a

“situation”

sented or imitated.

mise en scene (as

woman

come

to

to a

window

overlooking the Channel so that he can

project onto the scene below his

comments

to her about love and

darkness in the appearances and realities of the world)? In a dramatic

monologue the

situation

is

usually obvious. Likewise the situation

usually obvious in a Shakespeare sonnet.

A

is

simple extension of prin-

ciple can lead to understanding of the nature of the shifting situation in Eliot’s

“(x

A

-f-

“The Waste Land.” To

y) (x

+ y)

=x

-f-

poetic without

would seem

that

its it

may

by an image

+y

“A

the contrary, an assertion such as

2”

quite abstract and situationless.

is

man’s

first instinct is

to

sit

down”

is

have an ingredient of ironic wit that renders

being in any

way

imitative of a situation. So

cannot be said that imitation

element in poetry. In a pressed in

2xy

statement such as Shaw’s

similarly abstract but it

2

poem with

cluster in

is

it

an indispensable

highly abstract subject matter ex-

which the images

are unrelated except

connection with the abstract idea, the images are concrete but do not

comprise a situation, and in such a case “concreteness” seems to be a better term for the essential element in poetry than “imitation,” even

though “imitation” always implies concreteness but “concreteness” does not always imply sequential imitation.

Many without

poems, be

it

said,

with highly abstract subject matter and

a hint of landscape or external situation can nevertheless be

thought of

as imitative if the poet’s voice in the

presence of the poet speaking. This 4

is

poem

implies the

an aspect of the problem clearly

The Theory

of Imitation

recognized in the Renaissance and debated then.

“The Second Coming” may poem with a situation and consequently

be defended in

Yeats’s

a poet’s imitation of his

ment

own

as

poem such manner

this

as

as a

an imitation. Whether such

voice constitutes the central poetic ele-

“The Second Coming” or whether

in

A

that element

is

the total

imaginative conception or the use of such vivid means of concrete expression as the falcon image, the image of the slouching beast, or such

“The ceremony

uniqueness of expression as I

would be reluctant

is

Plato in the Republic a

On

to assert.

or mirror reproduction

of innocence

is

drowned”

the other hand, mere photographic

clearly not in itself necessarily poetic.

compared the

poet’s imitating of things to

mirror image. Renaissance scholars found in Aristotle mirror refer-

The

ences linked to imitations. the

phrase

Cicero:

the

comedy

is

vitae.

The

man

as imitation. In

a mirror”

a

mirror of custom, an image

metaphor was abundantly used

mirror late

question, unless asserting so is

life,

could find the same significance in Horace’s

throughout the middle and

ment “Poetry

mirror figure was

grammarian Donatus attributed to

“an imitation of

of truth.” Renaissance

exemplar

classical locus for the

fourth-century

Renaissance.

much

was

Of

implies in

can be

this there

any way that the

also little

state-

central in Renaissance theories of poetry

any theory of imitation more attention

is

paid to the

nature of the thing imitated than in any theory in which there

nothing “outside there” to which the expression advantage of mimetic theory

is

that

it

is

is

related, but the one

offers a basis, although quite

between poetry

as

one kind

done during the great burst of

aesthetic

possibly an incomplete one, for distinction

of discourse and other kinds.

The

literary theorizing

speculation in sixteenth-century Italy, and to a far lesser extent in

sixteenth-century France and England, bears a parental relation of

both father and mother to

all

theorizing done since then. Either six-

teenth-century theorizing contained oppositions often unresolved until later centuries, or the precarious

mating of ideas which occurred then

contained genes that did not become evident until later generations.

For sixteenth-century ophers turned their

Italy

was the time and place

full attention to

in contradistinction to the fifteenth

in

which

philos-

the nature of creative activity,

century

when

the Humanists

were

with passion for the study of the poetry of Greece and Rome, supposing it to be more important than philosophy, and to the followfilled

ing epochs beginning with Bacon, Descartes, Pascal, and

Locke when 5

The Age

of Criticism

philosophy meant something more like interest in mathematics, and the

life

scientific

method,

of reason. Historians of philosophy have

most completely ignored the philosophers of sixteenth-century

al-

Italy,

except for some recent signs of interest in the origins of scientific rationalism, as humanistic philosophy has had entific rationalism.

over

as if it did

no place

in histories of sci-

That part of the map is left blank or, rather, is sealed exist. The Romantic movement found philosophers

not

again devoting a significant part of their thinking to problems of aesthetics

—witness Kant, Schelling, Hegel, even John Stuart Mill—but

with insufficient force to overcome the bias of the preceding two centuries.

Even now, with

the sole exception of Pomponazzi, the only

sixteenth-century Italian philosophers the early scientific rationalists

who

—Telesio,

known

are extensively

are

Giordano Bruno, Campanella,

and Galileo. The vast philosophic compendia of Mazzoni and

Patrizi are

And even in histories of literary criticism it has more common to give lip service to the great importance of

virtually unobtainable.

been far

sixteenth-century speculation than to indulge in actual reading of the texts.

In strict justice to

what happened,

it

must be conceded that sixteenth-

century Italian literary criticism was more a re-creation than an original

what

creation. Subtract the attempts to understand

Cicero, Horace, and Quintilian had

meant

Plato, Aristotle,

in their literary criticism,

only a small heap of random original comments seems to be

and

The

left.

Renaissance philosophers attempted to pick up right where the Alexandrian commentators, grammarians, and rhetoricians had

having in their turn

as if the intervening

But they did not wish to stand

still.

of putting together a complete

completed

in antiquity,

left off,

chasms of centuries did not

They were

body of

well aware that the task

literary doctrine

had not been

and they addressed themselves to the job of put-

ting the pieces together and filling in the gaps. In this sense their

was both

original

and complicated, and they carried on

campaign for the better part of

a century.

Out

of the

the classical world, extant in the Renaissance, that critical

comments, only

literary theory.

One

a

many

were

work

continuous treatises of

repositories for

Aristotle’s Poetics provided a full system of

of the puzzling questions of

more was not made of

be-

exist.

all

time has been

why

Aristotle’s Poetics in classical times. If discovery

implies use, the sixteenth-century Italians can be said to have invented Aristotle’s Poetics certainly they

cism

a

were the

first

to

make

a literary criti-

going concern, in other than handmaiden status to rhetoric, 6

ethics,

The Theory

of Imitation

Thus, even though their main work was

religion, or philosophy.

dredging of the texts of antiquity for pertinent

complishment was far from

small.

They

not fully exist until they discovered

For the theory of clusively

a

citations, their net ac-

existed in a tradition that did

it.

imitation, the Renaissance writers relied almost ex-

on Plato and

Aristotle.

They were

by

upset

that side of Plato

that disparaged poetry as an imitation of an imitation, fully scanned the Republic

and they care-

and the dialogues for proof of the existence

of the other side of Plato that allowed the poet’s imitation to transcend the limitations of the world of particulars. In their attempts to under-

stand the subtleties of Aristotle’s theory of imitation they turned im-

mediately and regularly to Plato.

decade or so of the

after the first

The evidence is overpowering that, new critical theorizing, the curricula

of the schools and universities were systematized to ensure familiarity

on the part of

a large

number of

Aristotle bearing in particular

who

and Puritans

on poetry

as imitation.

had gleefully made use of

poetry were apparently defense of the poet’s Nevertheless,

students with the passages in Plato and

still

mode

if it is

make

the

of imitation a burning issue.

asked

why

Renaissance writers accepted so unilittle

interest in exploring the

possibility of other philosophic bases for poetry, all

Philistines

Plato’s disparagement of

present in sufficient numbers to

formly the doctrine of imitation and had that

The

it

must be remembered

antiquity had accepted the doctrine. In whatever authority they

turned to they found variations of the same doctrine. This uniformity in their heritage accounts also for their habit of not

going

much beyond

Plato and Aristotle in their search for relevant ideas.

For the mirror concept they could

also find

support in Horace and

Cicero^ (Donatus). Paolo Beni claimed that the three important classical authorities for doctrines of imitation in his

and Plutarch. writers

was

On

minor points of doctrine

utilized. Vettori, for instance,

Athenaeus on dancing

as a

mode

day were

Plato, Aristotle,

a variety of other classical

made

use of a passage in

of imitation. Mazzoni used Proclus as

authority in explaining the theory of imitation as proportion or similitude. Similar elaborations rhetoricians,

who

were garnered from an assortment of

in their classifications of tropes

classical

and figures of thought

had touched upon relationships comparable to that between imitations and things imitated. These same rhetoricians often also came near to exploring the nature of symbolic imitation; but Plato had already culti-

vated this territory in his handling of language as symbol. 7

It is

note-

The Age worthy

of Criticism

that Patrizi, in launching his revolutionary attack

theory of imitation, dealt

roughly with Plato

as

though he was customarily

as

on

al-

a professing Platonist.

Finally, the sixteenth-century writers

made

use of the classical

cations of kinds of reasoning in formulating their ideas, for rational or speech arts poetry

and rhetoric because of

Aristotle’s

with Aristotle,

was distinguished from

classifi-

among

the

dialectic, sophistic,

dependence on imitation. But the existence

its

of these supporting authorities merely confirmed them in their practice of relying primarily

upon the

ideas of Aristotle

and Plato.

Had

there

been no possibility of debate over moot points in Aristotle and Plato, speculation on the theory of imitation in the Renaissance might have

been far

The

extensive than

less

it

was.

Renaissance theorists did, in

fact,

handle a considerable number

of complex problems, some already extensively bruited in antiquity and

some

not.

imitation?

Can lyric or dithyrambic poetry legitimately be Of what is it an imitation? Does not the theory of

called an

imitation

apply better to prose fiction or to comedies and tragedies in prose than to poetry characterized in

by

verse?

imitation the distinguishing element

Is

poetry and not verse? Under what conditions can philosophic doc-

trine

be used in poetry

if

poetry

concepts out of place in poetry? poetic imitation, and to imitate his

own

which

is

the

is

concrete imitation? Are scientific

Is

poetic invention different

more important? Can

a

from

poet be said

voice or use himself as persona? All of these and

other questions were fought over, and the harvest of critical ideas that resulted It

was

a

bumper

one, even

the fruit

was not of high

quality.

bears repeating that one of the principal reasons for close scrutiny of

Renaissance critical activity intensely, is,

if all

is

that

it

was carried on over

and with consecutive development.

consequently,

less a

The corpus

a

long period,

of

its

product

matter of a few gems of prose style or surpassing

genius than of a rather plodding but intelligent effort to think through the questions that faced the age.

8

2

Patrizi’s

IN

Attack on Mimesis

1586, Franceso Patrizi, at that time the

pher

volumes of

showpiece Platonic philoso-

court and university of Ferrara, published the two separate

at the

his Poetica.

The second

of these,

La deca

disputata , contains

ten books illustrative of Patrizi’s forensic ability, the greater

which

consist of a slashing attack

imitation.

He

conducted

his

upon

number of

Aristotle’s theory of

poetry

as

argument with such gusto that the thinking

of an age normally uncritical of Aristotle

is

best revealed

by

this opposi-

tion to Aristotle, for Patrizi’s stand less reveals an unalterable opposition

between himself and the

which

extent to

by

rest of his

contemporaries than

it

indicates the

contemporaries were cramped within and hampered

his

was occasionally carmethod into hairsplitting and into trying to win his argument even if he went beyond common sense in doing so. La deca disputata however, is a document of real importance in the history of the confines of the Aristotelian dicta. Patrizi

away by

ried

his

,

literary criticism,

and

its

contents merit close analysis.

The attack upon Aristotle’s mimetic concept begins in dead earnest with Book III. Patrizi presented himself as one who followed scientific reason at

all

times,

whether

it

did or did not accord with authority.

He

claimed that Aristotle had presented his theory of imitation without

proof and even without adequate explanation. Quite to the contrary, he

“we have always been

said,

facts themselves

and

in the authority of sible,

was

inclined and accustomed to put beliefs in the

in the reasons inferred

anyone.” So

any truth that might reside

his

from the

program was to

in Aristotle’s idea,

facts rather than

ferret out,

and

his first

to eliminate equivocations hidden in the uses of the

tion” as Aristotle had defined

word

it.

9

if

pos-

attempt “imita-

The Age As

of Criticism

found

a result of his researches, Patrizi

six different

meanings of

imitation in Aristotle: (

1

nouns taken

all

)

by

Aristotle

as imitations of things,

from the Cratylus of

an interpretation borrowed

Plato, in

whether words should be thought of bols, signs, similars, images, figures,

which Plato had asked sym-

as imitators, imitations,

or declarations

(2) the rhetorical concept of enargeia (putting scenes concretely and

vividly before our eyes) extended to

mean

imitation

(3) the fable or plot of an action thought of as an imitation of an action (4) imitation consisting of the relation between an action presented on a stage

and

a real-life action

(5) an extension of the principle in 4 to include epic and dithyrambic

poetry

accompaniment

(6) a further extension including musical If these

meanings are ultimately

all

the same, Patrizi argued, Aristotle’s

was not equivocal. If it was equivocal, his thinking was diswas bothered by the fact that some of these meanings were more generic than others and that many did not make clear whether any kind of prose as well as verse could be thought of as imitation. One failure of Aristotle was therefore that he did not sufficiently definition

orderly. Patrizi

define or circumscribe his term. Patrizi next tested these different

meanings against

sertion that poetry imitates with words,

words and is

all

are imitations, he said, users of

words

The concept

harmony, and rhythm.

any use of words

is

are poets, but he thought

not what gives poetry

its

form and

Aristotle’s asIf all

then similarly imitation, it

self-evident that this

essence.

of enargeia Patrizi treated

more

“describing something in words in such a

way

He defined we not only

gently. that

it

as

hear

them but seem to see it as if it were present and in plain view.” He observed that Hermogenes had understood poetic imitation in this way, that “Longinus” (one of the few references to “On the Sublime” in the sixteenth century even though Robortelli had published a Latin translation in 1548) had exalted Homer on account of his depiction of images, and that Aristotle had suggested the same in praising Homer for his metaphors. Patrizi, speaking for himself, added that enargeia so

much

virtue that one of our

modern

writers has included

the four ‘properties’ (as he called them) of poetry

.

.

.

truly of

as

one of

the others being

prudence, variety, and suavity.” But Patrizi argued that 10

“is it

this quality in

Attack on Mimesis

Patrizi' s itself

makes

a

poet only

minor poet and pertains to the aspects of

a

poem that are not really vital. The modern writer to whom on one

was

Patrizi referred

1

who

enargeia with poetic

occasion at least practically identified

imagination

Castelvetro,

a

Patrizi said that this expositor of Aristotle often called

.

poetry a resemblance but never told precisely what he meant by re-

“The

semblance, although he did say, ing well

how

to resemble; that

mind with harmonized words

right thing in poetry

is

in

know-

to present clearly to the eyes of the

is,

that

which is far from us either because make us see it not otherwise than

of distance of place or of time and if it

were before our

, tion.’ 2 Patrizi still

eyes.

And

in

doing that poetry finds

found grounds for objecting,

he was predisposed to accept enargeia enargeia

is

not necessarily present in

the essential element in poetry,

poems where

as

important in poetry, that

parts of poems, so that

all

would follow

it

perfec-

its

in spite of the fact that

if it

were

that only those parts of

did exist could be called poetry. Furthermore, he

it

claimed, not even Aristotle asserted that enargeia should be present

everywhere

poem. Again,

in a

any vivid speaker or orator be classed

as a poet.

And

enargeia

if

who makes

is

the discriminating feature,

a picture

come

clear for us

must

again, since dramatic poetry brings us actors

who

are in front of our eyes, not as

in

for the transporting of distant objects to us; dramatic poets do not

it

need “words of evidence” there must be

two kinds of

the other perfecting

enargeia

is

it;

in

if

they are there, there

order for us to

Although

it is

see. So, Patrizi

no demand concluded,

poetic imitation, one giving poetry

its

but neither Plato nor Aristotle asserted

a perfecting kind of imitation,

kind that gives poetry

is

its

essential

we

form,

that. If

yet need to discover the

form.

a digression at this point to turn

from

Patrizi’s willing-

ness to identify enargeia usually thought of as a kind of rhetorical figure ,

or embellishment, with imitation,

it is

important to

call attention to

the

fact that several of the literary critics of sixteenth-century Italy dealt at

more or

less

length with enargeia and to

of Patrizi’s problem depends raised

by

insist that a full

upon understanding

these other treatments.

Some

understanding

the complex questions

of the outstanding treatments of

enargeia are to be found in Pigna, Giraldi Cinthio, Cavalcanti’s Retorica

Ludovico stotele

Castelvetro, Foetica d’Ari-

vulgarizzata

1576), pp. 366-373.

et

sposta

(Basilea,

2

Francesco Patrizi, Della poetica: La deca disputata (Ferrara, 1586), p. 64; Castelvetro, Poetica d’Aristotele, p. 601. 11

The Age

of Criticism

Muzio, Tasso, Mazzoni, and Beni

some

3 .

This concept

significance in Renaissance theorizing

also

played a role of

on imagination

4

and led to

speculation on the place of particularity or concretion in poetry sequently, an understanding of the importance of

its

functioning

comprehension of the true nature of Renaissance

to

5 .

is

poetry, the

poem

ness belongs to a

vital

critical theory.

perception that, however necessary vivid concreteness

Patrizi’s

Con-

is

in

more than provide vivid concretesecond-rate kind of poetry was an acute one. that does nothing

To prove that poetry should not be only, Patrizi used the genetic

and for which he had

laid the

confined to imitations of an action

method which was customary with him groundwork in his La deca istoriale by

showing that many of the prose writings of the period preceding Aristotle’s

He

Poetics contained fables and

said that if Aristotle

meant

his

many poems

in the third

by

this way it would poem and every poem

theory to apply in

follow that every fable should be considered a

would have

did not contain fables.

and he tried to prove by use of Plato’s distinctions book of the Republic between poetry and mythology and a fable,

the distinctions

made by Diodorus

Siculus

between poetry and other

kinds of writing in primitive times that this definition of poetry had no

standing outside of Aristotle. Patrizi indicated that fables could be com-

monly found among

writers of

all sorts:

historians, philosophers, dia-

logue writers, and writers of novelle. Patrizi

had an easy time with the fourth possible meaning of poetic

imitation, for

it

was

to

him unthinkable

that

all

kinds of poetry could

be represented on a stage; Aristotle himself had confessed to the impossibility of staging the pursuit of

Hector by Achilles around the

And, to the contrary, the Platonic dialogues and other kinds of writing, which are self-evidently not poetry, can be presented

walls of Troy.

3

See Giovan Batdsta Pigna,

/

romanzi

(Vinegia, 1554), pp. 49-51; Giovambattista Giraldi Cinthio, “Discorso intorno al

comporre de

i

romanzi,” in Discorsi

(Vinegia, 1554), pp. 56 (where, significantly, Giraldi suggests his immediate

authority was Vida for the idea that enargeia etry),

La

is

the essential element in po-

161-162; Bartolomeo Cavalcand,

ret orica

(Vinegia,

1559),

p.

296;

Girolamo Muzio Giustinopolitano, Deirarte poetica

1551), p. 79;

in

Rime

diverse (Vinegia,

Torquato Tasso, Discorsi 12

del

poema

eroico, in Opere, XII (Pisa,

Giacopo Mazzoni, Della Comedia di Dante ed. by Mauro Verdoni and Domenico Buccioli 1823), 126, 184;

difesa della

(Cesena,

1688),

II,

18-20; Paolo Beni,

Comparazione di Omero, Virigilio, e Torquato in Tasso, Opere, XXI (Pisa, 1828), 250; and Beni, In Aristotelis poetic am commentarii (Patavii, 1613), pp. 24, 57, 60, 92. 4

6

See infra, p. 333. See infra, p. 201.

Attack on Mimesis

Patrizi' s

on

may

a stage. Stage presentations

clearly be called imitations, but this

kind of imitation does not belong to If in epic

an imitator

when

he presented the speeches of

discourse but not an imitator

Homer

poetry.

all

poetry, Patrizi argued, Aristotle meant the poet to be called

when

was not

in a large part of Iliad

his characters in direct

own

he narrated in his a poet, for

person, then

according to

Patrizi’s

count there are 8474 verses of straight narration in the Iliad but only 7286 verses in direct discourse; thus Homer was a poet in only half of his

poem.

In his sixth usage of the term “imitation” Aristotle mistook musical

instruments for genres of poetry. Patrizi’s general conclusion then fol-

lowed that no one of these

six

meanings was adequate to

tation as the essential feature of

all

establish imi-

poetry.

In the fourth book Patrizi retraced his steps through the maze of these six

ways of

treating imitation, testing against the six definitions the oft-

repeated dictum that poetry

is

Patrizi claimed that Plutarch’s

“poetry

like

painting in being an imitation. is

speaking picture” [derived

a

by Plutarch from Simonides] and Horace’s ut Aristotle’s Plato’s

pictura poesis as well as

comparisons of poetry and painting, were

comment

all

derived from

Republic Book X, that the poet

in the

is

,

painter in presenting a variety of colors, using

but Patrizi then disposed of

his

words

own argument by

like the

instead of colors,

asserting that Plato’s

comparison was between words and colors, not between poetry and painting as imitations.

More

difficult it

was

to dispose of Plato’s comparisons of poets

painters as icon makers, even

though he reverted to

that in such cases the differentia classes, since sculptors,

casters also

make

do not exclude members of other

makers of pictures with

images,

effigies,

and

argument

his usual

and

icons.

wood

and bronze

inlays,

Mazzoni based

his

theory

of poetic imitation on Plato’s concept of poetry as ikonopoeia the same ,

matters that Patrizi reviewed at this point. Mazzoni’s Della difesa della

Comedia

di DaJite

tion of Patrizi’s

appeared in 1587, in the year following the publicadisputata. Both Patrizi and Mazzoni were moti-

La deca

vated in large measure by the desire to refute the Aristotelianized

Platonism of Tasso, and

were destined in Platonic first Patrizi

it is

to be the first

these two,

who

newly constituted

chair

curious to observe

two holders of

philosophy in the Sapienza at

and then Mazzoni, differed

the

Rome

in their

how

in the following decade,

handling of

Platonic doctrine.

H

this

item of

The Age

An

image, Patrizi

of Criticism

said, “is a certain figure that has a

blance to something,” whereas an effigy resembles person. Both are imitations, the one a poet can make both images and

less,

general resem-

a particular thing or

the other more.

effigies, like

true that

It is

any other icon maker, he

conceded, relying on Plato’s definition in the Sophist of an imitator

as a

maker of idols, on a statement in the third book of the Republic that “making oneself resemble someone else in voice or figure is imitating him whom one tries to resemble,” and on a similar statement in Book II of Laws. Plato as Patrizi understood him meant imitation clearly to be resemblancing. After identifying Plato’s icastic imitation

with effigy making, he determined that any true imitation

made by

resemblance, whether

and

that “if the poet imitates

imitation he should

and poetry should be

The

a

is

an imitator and

may

possibility of faithful

poetry

if

is

really an

maker of resemblances

become impatient with the slow the need of skipping ahead some

well

grinding out of his logic and feel distance in order to understand

a

be a

and added

6

resemblance.”

reader of Patrizi

tries to

a painter, sculptor, or poet,

make resemblances and be

( Sophist

why

he failed at

point to accept the

this

resemblancing of a picture originating in the poet’s

or painter’s mind, particularly

when he was

aware, as

many

of his

learned contemporaries were not, that Plato himself had described this

kind of imitation. But Patrizi refused to identify expression with imita-

He

tion.

said:

“Others

nection, that the poet

him, in the same

way

may

say to me, as Plato says in this same con-

makes manifest the example that he has within

that the painter imitates the example of something

either of nature or of art put before

exact a resemblance that nothing

having in

his

expresses

it

all

is

falsified,

his colors creates so

and likewise the poet,

mind the example which resembles nothing

with

not imitation, or to

him and with

his verses that others if it is

it;

And

as a painter

art or nature, so

it

is

is

common

his colors

resemble

can he also feign something that has

never existed in art or nature, but only in 6

can with

outside, yet so

but expression

not peculiar to the poet, since

writers and speakers.

something out of

seem to see

his

own

fantasy. Likewise,

it

For Plato’s treatment of the distincbetween icastic and fantastic imitation (which is very brief, in view of what the Renaissance critics made of

“appearance” of what does not actually But from the context in Plato it is apparent that he would have classed

Sophist 236. Icastic imitation presents a true likeness of an object or

tive

tion

it),

see

person. Fantastic imitation presents an

exist.

as fantastic a portrait that

since

surface.

the

actual

used perspec-

canvas

is

a

flat

Attack on Mimesis

Patrizi’ s

seems that

a

poet can both make a portrait that

is

what

similar to

exists

and can express those imaginations that he has conceived within himself, often corresponding to nothing in

is common to much turn away from

sion, Patrizi insisted,

Patrizi did not so

nature, or divinity.”

art, all

nature of poetry as he refused to

make

The term

equivalent of imitation.

to particular resemblance

—

kinds of

it

men

But expres-

7 .

the Romantic concept of the

the earmark of poetry and the

“imitation” he confined to reference

And

in effect to Plato’s icastic imitation.

how, he asked, can this resemblancing be done better with the use of words than by enargeia by putting before our eyes that which pertains to our ears. But again he said that this technique leads only to minor ,

poetry, takes into account only sections of poems, not wholes, and also

is

used by writers other than poets.

Turning

to conceptions of imitations primarily based

on particular

genres of poetry, he briefly entertained the notion that the kind of imitation found in

drama resided

comic masks and the

realities

between

in the relation

He

they represented.

tragic

and

objected to this

—

two grounds that masks are things whereas poetic imitation must pertain to words primarily and that even if this kind of resemblance could be said to give form and essence to dramatic poetry theory, however, on

it

could hardly be extended to apply to other kinds.

show

to

tive

that

then proceeded

poetry could not claim the support of Plato and Aristotle, since

Plato had specifically said that a poet imitates only hides his

own

different

words

own

his

He

any theory of imitation based primarily on epic or narra-

presence and Aristotle had in saying a poet

And,

person.

is

made

not imitating

when

he completely

the same assertion in

when

Patrizi added, in other kinds of

he

is

speaking in

poetry poets more

more obviously speak in their own person than in epic poetry. was at this point begging the question as it was framed by his contemporaries, for many literary theorists of his generation were ask-

often and Patrizi

ing

if

a lyric poet in the creation of the

poem could not be

imitating himself, to be speaking behind a

separating himself as a character in a life self. Patrizi,

who

claimed to be a

mask representing

poem from

rationalist,

said to

be

himself, in

his practical

or real-

was here using the

logic

of authority to refute the rationalistic theories of the authoritarians, so that the result had value only as a tactical maneuver.

Since in dealing with the theories of special genres he had lost sight of his testing of poetry against painting, Patrizi had to point out, in 7

Patrizi,

La deca

disputata, p. 91. 5

The Age moving

of Criticism

poem

to his final item (considering a

an imitation of an

as

making any of these

action or fable), the difficulty of

theories except

that of enargeia apply to both media. In the eighteenth century, especially in the school of

DuBos, the formula of ut pictura poesis was

re-

versed so that critics urged painters to try to give their pictures literary

by portraying such things as “The Slaughter of the Innocents” “The Assassination of Caesar.” But Patrizi denied the validity of this parallel. Not only did he suppose that merely a few kinds of poetry had fables

or

fables or concrete actions, but he also asked

an imitation. Insofar

how

a fable could

a fable was a fable simply by

as

its

be called

adherence to

would have to consist in the the resemblance between what the poet showed

necessity and probability, the resemblance probability, that

is,

in

and what should have happened. Is the fable then an imitation of the poem? Or is it the image or effigy that poetry makes? Patrizi was not stalling for time but was availing himself of the dilemma all literal interpreters of Plato have found themselves in, a dilemma caused by the ambiguity of Plato’s use of reality concepts in Patrizi

was face

to face with the

poetry and history.

He

his treatments of poetry.

commonplace

distinctions

between

argued that since Plato had banned poets

who

presented a false imitation of reality one can infer that epic poems are

not really poems unless they have true heroes to imitate, because an

an imitation of a

imitation of a false hero

is

to these discriminations

Homer was

side of imitation conceived as fable,

the fable bears tation, in

little

which

false reality,

not a poet. But arguing from the

one

led to conclude that

is

resemblance to the exemplar there

case there

is

and according

imitation

which

is

true poetic imi-

not imitation. Like

is

Mazzoni, Patrizi believed Plato had intended to define poetry tastic,

not

as icastic, imitation,

and

like Castelvetro

defenders of the romances he believed that

when

and

like

as fan-

some of the

many poems do

not even

bear the apparent resemblance to be found in fantastic imitation.

The

only possible conclusion, he decided, was that Homer, the greatest of poets,

was admired not for

or for not imitating at is

not the cause of

his

likes

and nobody

quite separate

On

from

his

poetry

is

not imitation and imitation

What can be said who do imitate exactly

(this

mediocre poets.

“real imitation but either for false imitation

So

poetry.”

for lesser poets. Poets poets,

all.

It

is

a

Homer

can be said

turn out to be minor

cheap authoritarian reference to Horace)

can be seen that Patrizi was keeping invention

imitation.

the basis of this line of argument, Patrizi 1

for

was

able to conclude

Patrizi that

if

poetry

and

imitation,

is

Attack on Mimesis

must be something of which

imitation there

this

s

something must not

tion

is

nothing more than history;

only in the poet’s mind.

exist

exemplar to be imitated must be true,

the external object

if false,

said,

must be the work of

any case the imitation of

it is

God,

either

history.

He

it

in-

is

included

Anything

description of any particulars in the objective world.

he

The

or both. If true, the imita-

false,

vented. Patrizi used a concept of history so broad that

true,

an

it is

that

is

nature, or man, and in

“when

claimed that

poets

make make images just as they are.” And showed that poetry cannot be made

describe the dawn, the setting of the sun, and night in verse, they history out of

it

because they

Aristotle, he

added smirkingly,

from

history.

Again

case,

not to

in his time

make

Patrizi

seems to have been arguing only to win

True,

sense.

this definition

his

of history was widespread

and allowed most writers to speak of natural history and

as history. Aristotle’s usage was much the was not enough that Patrizi tried not at all to understand the distinction between universal truth and particular truth that was common in his day and that constituted the dilemma in Plato; he was intent on eliminating the word “imitation” from the critic’s vocabulary even if the idea expressed by the word remained intact. He also caused himself trouble by refusing to consider the possibility that poetic ele-

even geographical description same. But

it

ments could be found

in prose fiction, in oratory, in history,

other kinds of writing. His real

enemy was

who

the critic

and

in

attempted to

limit poetry to icastic imitation, to portraiture of real-life particulars

in short, to rigid realism. Patrizi

was

like later

rejected the mimetic concept because

the mirroring of

it

Romantic

who

seemed to confine the poet to

what lay outside him rather than

express the images that had their origin within his real

theorists

him

to

mind. But

his

to allow

own

problem was one of defining terms.

Many

of the arguments that

fill

the remaining books of

La deca

disputata deal with specific problems to be treated later in this study as

V

separate aspects of the total question. In

Book

whether or not poetry can be written

Book VI he asked if He challenged in Book VII

plot

is

more

essential to

Aristotle’s assertion that in

Book VIII showed

Patrizi questioned

in prose. In

poetry than verse.

Empedocles was

that poetry can be

less a

poet than

made from

handled questions of harmony and rhythm, and Book

Homer

history.

X

and

Book IX

covered prob-

lems connected with modes of imitation. All of these questions bear important relations to the theory of imitation.

At

this point,

however, con-

The Age

of Criticism

cern need be only with the resounding statement he made at the

Book

conclusion of

VIII.

After contending for some pages with Castelvetro, Patrizi said that being a poet does not consist either in the subject matter used or in inventing or in not inventing poetic manner.”

He

it

“so

much

proper

as in treating it in the

proclaimed that here

the one universal and, true

is

conclusion that can be drawn concerning the subject matter of poetry

—“that the matters comprised by either science, 8

would show

Patrizi said that he

meant by “treated poetically,” but if he did do so, too tangential and unmarked for me to find them. in

his

printed works,

it

would seem

advocacy of enargeia and

or history can be

and for poems, provided that they are

suitable subjects for poetry

treated poetically.”

art,

in

his

Empedocles, that Empedocles was

If his

answer

be located in

to

much

what he

his explanations are

argument, during as

later

his

his

limited

defense of

Homer

a poet as

exists

because

mysteries and allegories provided a second level of meaning in the natural science of

Empedocles

much

poetically ran counter to

was nevertheless

far

well as in the narrative of

poet can treat

Patrizi’s belief that a it

as

from unique

Homer.

subjects provided that he does

all

of the thought of the Renaissance but in

its

time, as Professor

H.

B. Charlton

pointed out several decades ago. Scaliger had taken the line that everything can be used in poetry, for to him poetic qualities were matters of diction and the castoro,

who

form of poetry was

belonged in

spirit to

which poetry was primarily

its

metrical arrangement

if

only

it

can be adorned.”

Bruno

said, “I

10

day

against the Aristotelian formalists of his belief;

The

is

took an even

suitable for the

Giordano Bruno’s outburst is

a

famous instance of the

many kinds of and human inven-

say that there are and can be as

poets as there can be and are kinds of sentiments tions.” 11

contrary positions were of great diversity and represent

the subject matter of other sections of this work; some, however, 8

Ibid., p. 175.

9

J.

C. Scaliger, Poetices

(Lugduni,

1561),

p.

125.

libri

See

septem

H.

B.

vanni Aquilecchia

18

Nauger

ius, in

1555), p. 337.

p.

“Giordano Bruno, De gVheroici fuin Dialoghi italiani ed. by Gio-

55

Girolamo Fracastoro, Opera omnia (Venezia,

di

132.

rori,

-

came

See also Antonio Fusco, ha poetica Ludovico Castelvetro (Napoli, 1904),

Charlton, Castelvetro' s Theory of Poetry (Manchester, Eng., 1913), pp. 5310

Fra-

the pre-Aristotelian generation to

a matter of ornamentation,

stronger stand than Patrizi, saying that “everything poet’s matter,

9 .

959

-

,

(Firenze,

1957),

p.

Attack on Mimesis

Patrizi' s

When

close to coinciding with this stand.

Minturno, for instance,

said

that the poet can handle anything that can conveniently be put into verse, 12

tions

he seemingly anticipated

upon what was “convenient.”

that a poet puts that the fable exist

is

all his

but he really imposed limita-

Patrizi,

Just before saying this he remarked

force into inventing and soon afterward added

the most important part of a

poem and

poem can

that a

without characters but not without action. His stand on the ques-

was much

tion of imitation

closer to orthodox Aristotelianism than the

one statement taken out of context would suggest.

When

Tasso or

Castelvetro advised poets to be careful to choose the kinds of subject

matter that were

fit

for poetry or that

form of poetry, they

essential

were capable of receiving the

in effect closed the

door to heterodoxy. 13

When Giraldi Cinthio asserted that a romance writer can use under the sun their

as grist for his mill if

he

is

due measure and proper ornament “so that the

and well-composed body,”

14

everything

judicious and gives result

is

things

all

a regulated

he was making a localized remark about

one kind of poetry and probably did not have the same questions

mind

that

were plaguing

his rhetorical treatises,

Patrizi

and Bruno.

When

in

Robortelli, in one of

questioned the prohibition of the subject matter

of the arts and sciences to the poet, he was concerned only that the prohibition be relaxed to permit occasional references

imitation. 15

When,

by

poets to

he was orthodox in making poetry an

scientific or philosophic concepts;

attempted to prove that

in 1599, Alessandro Guarini

even doctrinal lyric poetry could be conceived

form of

as a

imitation,

the looseness of his definition of “imitation” allowed him to embrace a position not unlike Patrizi’s even

he approached

if

it

from quite an

opposite angle. Although poetry usually deals with invented subject matter,. Alessandro Guarini said,

must be of that kind that “bears

it

can handle true

ideas,

but the truth

which truth either receives such semblance from the poetic mode with which it somehow is masked (so to speak), so that it almost comes actually to lose its own form, or

it

has through

a universal falseness, ject, as

its

own

a

semblance of

nature

however) so that

its it

fable,

similarity

becomes

with the a

false

(with

proper poetic sub-

by saying rare, wonderful, and excellent things, and in short manner in which poets usually treat them even though

just in that

“Antonio Sebastiano Minturno, De poeta

(Venetiis,

Charlton, loc. 11

1559),

.

107.

See

“Giraldi Cinthio, “I romanzi,”

“Francesco Robortelli,

De

cit.

19

p. 26.

artificio

dicendi (Bononiae, 1567), pp. 7-8.

cit.

Charlton, loc

p.

The Age

of Criticism

they have happened just in his failure to separate

this

way.”

16

Where

Guarini faltered was in

well enough accounts of true facts in history from

statements of reputedly true doctrine. His recognition of the existence of the no-man’s-land between poetic substance and abstract doctrinal

substance was, however, penetrating for his century.

Not only was

Patrizi not entirely alone in his

few

cally treated, but also a

century in holding that

could be used in poetry

sorts of subject matters

all

if

they were poeti-

scattered writers, notably Scaliger and

Paolo Beni, joined him in stepping out of the closed ranks of those fully accepted the theory of poetry as imitation. It

Scaliger nor Beni

theory

made

as Patrizi did.

as consistent

Before

treatise

he

said,

“We

poetry in general.”

up

set

18

hear too

And

classes of religious

and moral and

scientific

poetry

all

17 ,

but later in

his

imitation being the basis of

grouping of poets by subject matter he

and philosophic poets, including subclasses of and thus room was made for

political poets,

poets such as Empedocles and Lucretius imitators

upon the

began with acceptance of

imitation

is

much about

in his

true that neither

or as complete an attack

Patrizi, Scaliger

the notion that the basis of

is

who

whom

he did not consider

19 .

Beni, following Patrizi in time,

was very much aware of

Patrizi’s line

of attack. Like Patrizi, he pointed out that Aristotle never really defined imitation,

and he charged Aristotle with having used synonyms for

imitation that confused the picture

more than they

clarified

it:

eikazein

(to liken), apeikazein , zoographein (to depict). Poets are eikonopoioi

(makers of images). Beni found also in Aristotle the concept of enargeia , or evidentia , that

is,

sense orators, historians, and

hypotyposis; but he believed that in this

anyone

else

who

brings either external or

internal characteristics of things before our eyes

he followed

Patrizi’s

reasoning closely.

is

an imitator. So

He went beyond

this

far,

point to

develop one of the most comprehensive treatments of mimetic theory of the late Renaissance, one that bears interpretations of trizi’s

attack

upon

Mazzoni than

more resemblance

to the Platonic

to the standard Aristotelian

line.

Pa-

the mimetic concept can be thought of as one of the

polar positions in the triangular tensions of Renaissance speculations on the question, Beni’s and Mazzoni’s Platonic interpretation representing 16

Alessandro Guarini, “Lezione

Accademia

nell’

Mantova sopra il sonetto, Doglia, che vaga donna di Monsignor della Casa,” in Giovanni della Casa, Opere (Venezia, 1728), .

I,

.

degl'Invaghiti

in

17

20

M.

18 19

Padelford, Select

T ranslatians

Scaliger’s Poetics (Yale Studies in

English,

.

351-352.

F.

from

XXVI; New

Ibid., p. 27. Ibid., p. 16.

York, 1905), p.

1.

VatrizJs Attack on Mimesis another, and the Aristotelian orthodox view the third.

No

one of these

should be thought to dominate completely the aesthetic speculation of the sixteenth century.

God is an

mind (“by

imitator, Beni said, in ‘‘realizing” the ideas in his

which term Nature is said to imitate God, and Art to imitate Nature”) 20 Although for most of the ranges of implication behind this idea Beni relied upon Plato’s Timaeus and Sophist as well as on Christian doctrine, he also tried to show that generally among the Peripatetics “imitation is a thing in the class of those

nouns that are called analogues

which can primarily be applied some analogy or proportion or parison

to

similitude or,

indeed, Cicero treats analogy).”

(as,

of distinctions, mostly on the relation of

tempted to show that as imitator

.

that

if

you

With

prefer,

by com-

a long, intricate play

God to the logos, Beni atGod could be thought of

in this sense that

and manifestations of them;

plete creations of

Godhead

stituted.

was

.

or Creator and that the same relationship prevailed between

Plato’s Ideas

of

it

.

one thing and then to another by

—

God

than

just as angels are

man is—man

representing merely vestiges

a kind of hierarchy of imitation as analogues

The same

force of imitation

is

more comcan be con-

not to be found in

all

things;

power of imitating. What is peculiar in this account of Beni’s is the way in which the subject matter is considered as an agent faculty having the power of imitating God or the more intelligible orders of things. To say that certain media have limitations not shared by others is one thing; to say, that

as

is

to say,

some

faculties

have greater and some

less

Beni did, that a variety of powers can be found in painting, poetry,

and sculpture

is

quite another.

follows from this interpretation that Beni

would find Aristotle’s theory of imitation unclear. He also said that from Plutarch’s idea poetry is like painting we cannot learn what we want to know. To the contrary, he thought Plato was clear but came to this conclusion only after deciding that Plato implied a distinction between simple and It

—

total imitation, the

kind of presentation

when

a

poet speaks in

his

own

person in the historian’s manner, as in lyric poems, being simple, and direct presentation of the speech of a character being dramatic or total.

So to Plato imitation meant portraying either the words or the characteristics of

someone. In the course of

term to

from “simple imitation”

shift

his discussion,

Beni allowed

his

to “simple narration,” the latter

term being the one usually thought of as representing Plato’s meaning; Beni’s broadening of it to allow such pieces of writing as Hesiod’s “Beni, In Aristotelis poeticam commentarii,

p. 57.

21

The Age

of Criticism

Works and Days and

Virgil’s

Georgies to have a place in the room of

imitations represented

more

wish to find Plato consistent and clear

a

than an agreement with his contemporaries.

He

believed that Aristotle

intended to follow Plato’s line of reasoning throughout but failed to express himself sufficiently.

The

extension of the mimetic principle to include a historian’s nar-

must have bothered Beni.

ration

He

provisionally decided that

when

a

poet narrated simply he differed from a historian only in using verse,

but after some floundering he attempted to

predicament by deliberately

work

himself out of his

utilizing the sense of imitation as a bor-

rowing from one’s predecessors. Whether the

distinction he

made

as a

this maneuver is an important one or not is unclear. It whole host of scattered observations in the critical literature of sixteenth-century Italy that did honor to the earnestness of the

consequence of is

typical of a

critical

endeavor of that time even

if

they led no place in particular.

Beni said that the historian can hardly avoid accepting the facts provided him by the best of his historian predecessors, but the poet differs

from him

in

having more liberty of at

least

choosing which of

cessors he will imitate. Virgil could create an original

his

prede-

work while

form and content, but Tacitus could not have done this. This difference in the obligations of historian and poet shows something about the different way in which they employ the broad concept stealing both

of mimesis. In a long passage that followed, Beni tried to justify Aristotle’s inconsistencies in

using the term “imitation”

range of the “analogue” concept

all

the

way from

by showing

the

the imitation of

former writers to the direct imitation of the speech and persons of

human

beings on a stage

21 .

This account of Beni’s explanation does not do Aristotelianism, for although one finds

full justice to his

him spending much time accus-

ing Aristotle of inconsistency and lack of clarity, he nevertheless im-

on which he put near the top any which we can hear the voice of a persona and

plied consistently a scale of imitations

poem

or part of

can sense,

as if

poem

in

with our eyes

particular people.

That

( enargeia ),

the gestures and actions of

sense of “being there”

was important

of understanding the concept of imitation in poetry.

began

his explanation as if

Ibid., pp. 62-63.

22

way

he were a follower of Patrizi, Beni did ac-

cept the theory of imitation as he chose to define 21

And

in his

although he

it.

3

Instruments, Subjects, and

Modes of Imitation

THE best entry to the complexities of the on poetic imitation can be found

Renaissance

critics’ attitudes

in tracing out the conflicting interpre-

tations of Aristotle’s classification of kinds of imitations to be

found

in

which was dependent upon differences in subject matter being imitated, differences in the modes of the imitation, and differences in the instruments used in the imitation. This was a text that the sixteenthcentury critics often expounded since the problems it dealt with were very real and present among them. At stake was contemporary writing

poetry,

as

well as the theory of imitation. If the theory of imitation did not

account for what went on in most of the kinds of poetry that their instincts

accepted

as poetry,

theory, even though all

it

they would look with suspicion upon the

had the authority of Aristotle

antiquity, for that matter

—behind

the defenders of mimetic theory pliable

enough

Some

to

account for

all

— and of Plato and

Patrizi has already

it.

were hard-pressed

to

make

shown

the facts.

of the questions pestering Beni were the important ones:

narration be called imitation?

that

the theory

What

is

Can

the instrument of imitation in

Does the narrative poet imitate when he speaks in his own voice? In what way can lyric poems be called imitations? In an-

narrative poetry?

swering these questions, the sixteenth-century

critics

found

Plato’s in-

consistency of statement as significant as Aristotle’s clarity, and the total

confusion can be simplified by using

Plato’s statements,

as a

bridge Mazzoni’s study of

which, paralleling Beni’s and coming twenty -six years 23

The Age

of Criticism

Summary

provided the foundation for Beni.

earlier,

of other parts of

Mazzoni’s theory of poetic imitation must wait until

Comedia

In his introduction to Della difesa della

between

after describing Plato’s distinction tion,

Mazzoni

Now

I

icastic

later.

1

Dante (1587),

di

and fantastic imita-

said:

add that poetry should be placed among the imitative subordinate to

this class of imitation, as a species

ginning to define poetry one can say

and very important

member

difficulty.

For

persons themselves

who

understanding of

full

poems can be of three

that

speak, as do

sorts, that

is,

comedy and

it

arts and, in

Hence on

But here

imitation.

it is

genus.

its

arises a

we

be-

new

should re-

either representing the

tragedy, or merely relating

the things in the person of the poet, as dithyrambic poetry usually does

and

as

is

done

in the first three

books of the Georgies of Virgil, or partly

narrating and partly introducing other speakers, as the Odyssey , and the Aeneid of Virgil. imitation

is

found

poem

in that sort of

sons as speakers. But

it

It

may

it

which

seems then that imitation

is

is

And

be clearly seen that

is

imitation in those

narrated through the

mouth

of

the genus containing only the poetry

that Aristotle called dramatic, and that imitation can

genus of narrative poetry.

seen in the Iliad and

are introduced other per-

does not appear that there

other sorts of poems in which something the poet.

Now

in

is

this difficulty

is

by no means be the

the greater because

it

ap-

pears to be founded on the reason immediately apparent and on the authority of Plato,

who

in the

beginning of the third book of the Republic says

clearly that dramatic poetry alone

nothing to do with imitation

is

imitative and that narrative poetry has

2 .

Plato called the genus of poetry “narration” instead of Aristotle’s “imitation,” first

Mazzoni

asserted, using Proclus’ interpretation, to

be found in the

chapter of his commentary on the Republic of the three species of ,

which is imitative, as in comedy and tragedy; (2) the narrative which is nonimitative, as in dithyrambic poems and in poems “that tell the history of men without prosopopoeia”; and (3) a mixture of the first two, as in Homer. Maznarration according to Plato: (1) the dramatic,

zoni called special attention to Proclus’ comparison of poetry and history, as did Beni later, in constituting narrative as the generic term.

History

is

presented. 1

narrative in Its

which the

direct discourse of characters

is

not

opposite, dramatic poetry, imitates.

Infra , pp. 51-52, 76-78, 85, 103,

1

18—

gan,

U.S.A.,

Literary

124. 3

Cited by permission of the Wayne State University Press, Detroit, Michi24

(New

from Allan H.

Criticism ,

York, 1940),

Plato p. 361.

to

Gilbert,

Dry den

Modes Then, by use of tion as a lever,

between

Plato’s distinction

Mazzoni constructed

poetic imitation implied

by

of Imitation

a

novel

icastic list

and fantastic imita-

of the four species of

Aristotle in his various uses of the term,

defining imitation generically as analogue and listing Aristotle’s four

(“which

species as (i) the dramatic-fantastic

necessarily contains

two

sorts of idols

that of the person represented.

The

an imitation because

is

and images. The

other

is

first

image

it

is

the false but verisimilar

image which the actor presents; since he does not represent the true but the verisimilar, he consequently represents the image and the simulacrum

of the truth”); (2) the dramatic-icastic,

which

gives the direct imitation

of a real person; (3) the narrative-fantastic imitation, “which always certainly presents the image and the simulacrum of the truth and can

have another

as well,

which

is

always found in narrative-icastic poetry”;

and (4) the narrative-icastic, “which ought to contain the idol and the in particularization.” 3 Mazzoni conceded that

image which consists Aristotle,

though he used the term “imitation”

in

all

of these senses,

thought some of them were more properly or completely imitations than others.

The term must be understood

Next, in spite of

his interpretation

suggesting that narration

is

to be relative.

of Plato’s handling of the problem

the genus, not imitation, Mazzoni attempted

to prove that Plato did not consistently intend to exclude narrative

the genus of imitation. Although,

denied that narrative poetry

is

from

Mazzoni argued, Plato sometimes

imitation, at other times he hinted that

narrative poetry should be thought of as less completely imitative than

dramatic poetry, and in the Sophist he identified narrative with imitation.

The

difference,

Mazzoni thought Plato meant,

is

between narrative

poetry which uses an instrument in order to imitate and dramatic poetry which imitates directly without instrument. Furthermore, Mazzoni pointed out that since fantastic narrative must represent the verisimilar or an idol or

simulacrum of truth Plato must have thought

of such narratives as imitations. Mazzoni had to use

preamble to

as

which

a poet should be identified as

to create images,

by

all

these arguments

his principal interpretation of imitation,

and he achieves

this

according to

an imitator primarily by

his ability

end by sharp particularization and

the use of enargeia. But this aspect of Mazzoni’s theorizing deserves

separate handling later, as one of the significant

of literary criticism in the Renaissance.

purposes

is

What

moments is

in the history

notable for present

the line of reasoning Mazzoni took to adjudicate between

Plato and Aristotle and to provide a broad definition for the concept of 3

Translations

by

Gilbert, loc.

cit.

25

The Age

of Criticism

would apply

to narrative

imitation so that

it

to dramatic. In

comparison with

distinction

and lyric poems

between imitation by means of instrument

drama

that without instrument in

is

as well as

enlargement of definition,

this

his

and

in narrative

of lesser importance.

When

Paolo

Beni said that only recently had the central problems concerning

mimetic theory been

enough

clarified

to be useful, he almost certainly

had Mazzoni in mind. Needless to say, a vast literature on the instruments, subject matters,

and modes of imitation had come into being between the early years of

Much

the utilization of the Poetics of Aristotle and 1587.

when

however, uncritical, and in the early speculation imitation had not been seriously challenged, lessly

made

or easily

that

came hard

many

been questioned. Since

after

many

of

it

was,

the principle of

statements were care-

some of the primary

had

tenets

of the mid-century scholars, such as

Robortelli, Maggi, and Vettori, could be counted

on

to

show an

in-

timate acquaintance with the texts of both Platonists and Peripatetics, the ultimate difference between their stands and those of Mazzoni and

Beni

is

revealed in the greater sorting and

terials at

hand for the

later writers

naivete of the earlier writers

Trissino,

who was

not,

all

was

in

all,

one of the really

is

greater

influential critics of

in his handling of the

beginning to give an expanded interpre-

tation of Aristotle’s division according to means, subject, said: “Just as all imitating

The

text of the Poetics.

from impressive

far

varieties of poetic imitation. In

which the ma-

to

often revealed whenever they stray far

is

from immediate interpretation of the the sixteenth century,

winnowing

had been subjected.

and mode, he

or counterfeiting [contrctfare] of other

done with shapes and words

men

(as Plato says) and, as Aristotle adds,

with colors, likewise, in attempting to counterfeit someone, you not only determine

hunchback

if

shape arfd form (that

his

he

is

a

hunchback, or make him

man, or assign him any other

and counterfeit

his

is,

trait

him the

give

a cripple

figure of a

or a cross-eyed

he has), but also you determine

speech and determine

his color; that

is,

in order to

man you make him white, and a Moor or Saracen is by making him black.” 4 All of this is simple-minded enough, and Trissino did not get much more profound in adding that

counterfeit a white

counterfeited

the three instruments or tools in poetic imitation are speech, correspond-

ing to words,

rhythm corresponding

* G. G. Trissino, Poetica, Bk. but written earlier), in Tutte

2

6

V

(1563,

!e

opere

to shapes,

and harmony corre-

(Verona, 1729),

II,

92-93.

Modes sponding to colors, even though

of Imitation

an afterthought he decided that

as

dance and song used in the theater are not in themselves to be confused with the poetic, so that in speaking of poetic imitations fine ourselves to

we

should con-

words and rhythms.

In discussing Aristotle’s division of imitations according to subject matter, Trissino did

make an

merely dividing mankind into either

moral

social or

that characters can be imitated as better than, the

they are at present, he remarked that than they were,

Montagna

distinctions he

found revealed

forms worse. In music,

fifes, flutes,

imitate worse.

as,

Vinci painted

or worse than

men

as better,

and

and the Padoane and Spingardo

organ music, and “sounds and songs

and similar songs imitate the better”; other kinds

Homer imitated

better,

Theocritus worse, Burchiello and

Berni worst; Petrarch and Dante better. This, Trissino said, difference

as better

The same

in dances, the Giojosi, Lioncelli,

men

call to battle

Da

classes in saying

same

worse, and Titian as they were.

as

Rosine forms showing

which

contemporary

interesting comparison with

and music. Supposing accurately that Aristotle was not

painting, dance,

is

also the

between comedy and tragedy. Trissino differed from many

of the critics of his time in keeping his eye steadily on the aesthetics of

Dante this

as well as

on the Poetics of

Aristotle,

point in his thinking, that Dante in his

and he was well aware,

De

at

vulgari eloquentia had

distributed poetic genres according to their correspondence with the

vegetable, animal, and rational souls of

responding to the vegetable soul

is

men

—

a division in

which cor-

the useful (useful pertaining to arms

and our safety; ergo war poetry); to the animal or sensible soul light

(Venus

—love poetry); to the rational soul are honor,

is

virtue,

de-

and

the regulated will. This system of Dante’s, Trissino affirmed, “is not truly different

from what we have determined following

arms, Venus, and the regulated will

all

pertain to virtuous and vicious

stemming from virtuous or vicious character

actions

that every reader of classical poetry

Aristotle,” for

knows

traits.

that there are

But he

said

more genres of

poetry than these three.

On

the crucial question of the

to offer

beyond

modes of imitation, Trissino had poems falling into each

a listing of the kinds of

gory. His three modes

show

Aristotle’s division already accepted

established: (i) elegies, odes, canzoni , ballades,

speaking in his

own

little

cate-

and

and so on show the poet

person; (2) comedies, tragedies, and eclogues are

dramatic representations; and (3) in heroic or epic poems the poet sometimes speaks himself and sometimes introduces characters speaking. Tris27

The Age

of Criticism 5

was unable

sino thus blithely cut the knot that Patrizi

For the

how

significant question of

to untie later.

a poet speaking in his

own

voice

could be said to imitate, Trissino had no real explanation, but clearly he considered stage representation as only one In

Book VI

common

of imitation.

Trissino stated that the heroic poet imitates

not by representation. In showing he found three

possibilities

mode

(3)

by

narrative,

imitations could be credible im-

lines of defense:

on the grounds

opinion, (2)

same thing, and

how

(i)

on the grounds of done the

that other poets have

on the grounds that these can present an exemplum

,

exemplum should be better than ordinary reality. Epic and romance writers both go beyond imitation of realistic traits, he afsince an

firmed, in order to provide exemplar Trissino thus did not conceive of imitation merely as a mirroring.

In his trail-blazing

more

commentary on

the Poetics Robortelli had

much

to say about the pleasures of imitating than of the kinds of imita-

tions.

He

did believe that a poet can rightfully be called an imitator

when he speaks in his own “What other end therefore to please

human

by means of

person. 7 In his introduction

of the poetic faculty do

we

when

said,

say exists than

representation, description, and imitation of

all

actions or emotions, of anything either animate or inanimate?”

he seems to be treating the concept of imitation cavalierly

broadly in making tion.”

he

He was

not,

cluded description terms,

it

found

in

it

a

term

parallel to “representation”

however, speaking loosely as

would seem

as

well as

and “descrip-

at this point, for

one of the kinds of imitation. In

8

he in-

this list of parallel

what can be covered by “repre-

that imitation applies particularly to

an epic poem, since dramatic imitation

is

sentation.”

Robortelli’s

found

most important contribution to mimetic theory can be under the general heading of

in his inclusion of “description”

imitation, for in his

commentary on

modes of

Aristotle’s classification of

imitation, he pointed out that the previous creators of Latin translations

of the text, Pazzi and Valla, had failed to understand the significance of

the verb enargein in literary criticism and had not associated

it

with the

“The meaning

is,

the poet

concept of enargeia. Robortelli’s statement imitates either

when

he shows

all

is:

as if acting

and manifestly or when

expressing those things the speech and actions of 5

6 7

Ibid., p. 96. Ibid., pp.

1

arte

13,

1

17.

Robortelli, In librum Aristotelis de

28

poetica

which

explicationes

1548), pp. 280-282. 8

Ibid., p. 2.

are imitated.” (Florentiae,

Modes

of Imitation

Not only

did he argue here that the concept of enargeia should be

identified

with Cicero’s evidentia

but

also in his use of the

words

exprimentes and evidenter he set the stage for the fuller treatment Beni

brought to the question sixty-five years

later 9 .

Robortelli was particularly concerned with the

be found in poems such acter like

Aeneid and Odyssey

Aeneas or Odysseus embarks upon

and in

tive

as the

his

mode

a

in

of imitation to

which

a char-

long retrospective narra-

narrative presents dialogue imitating the characters

introduced into the story, so that not only

is

the poet hidden but a

modes of imitation which the poet hands

character becomes imitator. In his classification of Robortelli consequently

over his whole

poem

made room

for a

mode

in

to a narrator other than himself. In his second class

he included poems narrated

by

the poet, including or not including

direct discourse of the characters. In the third class he included stage

representations, in totle,

which the poet professes nothing on his own. Arisfrom Plato’s Laws

Robortelli believed, took his classification

much

without

modification.

Vincenzo Maggi’s commentary on the Poetics, which appeared two years later than Robortelli’s but the differences of imitation

modes of poetic

ences of

was begun

among

imitation.

earlier,

put more

stress

upon

the various arts than on the differ-

Of particular interest is a protracted by means of rhythm. Maggi indi-

passage on the nature of imitation

rhythm as any kind of movement, not to was customary among later interpreters of Aristotle. In this way he could think of the metrical movements of a poetic line as a kind of imitation. Rhythm, he said, can imitate movement or anything that has motions by means of motions that bear corcated his willingness to define

limit

it

to dancing only as

respondent proportions to habits, actions, and emotions.

Working with

passages in Plato’s Timaeus, in Aristotle, and in Boethius, he developed

rhythm as the reducing of motions in us tempering by means of the imitated proportion. Into

the notion of the function of to a middle state, a this

context he brought a discussion of the rhythmical principles of con-

temporary

Italian poetry,

classical quantitative

pondering the effects of the changes from

rhythms to

stress

and building

his notions of Italian

metrics

upon what he could

him

Dante and Antonio da Tempo. In several of the Renaissance on metrics, it should be pointed out, the dependence of poetic

in

find immediately in Trissino

and through

treatises

meters upon dance steps was 9

Ibid.,

made

particularly evident, as

pp. 24-25. 29

would be

The Age true with us

if

we

customary meters “waltz” or “polka” or

called our

comments upon the

“rock-and-roll.” In his tions,

of Criticism

imitation of manners,

and actions by means of dancing, Maggi spent most of

defining mores , ethos pathos and so on. Like Robortelli, ,

,

his

emotime

Maggi was

especially concerned with the question of the pleasures of imitating. 10

Giovan Battista Pigna, less occupied with interpreting Aristotle, than were Robortelli and Maggi, produced statements about kinds of imitation that had some originality but no great value in an age largely dominated by Aristotelians. His classification of modes of imitation is not

clear.

The

three modes, he said, are: (i) imitating an object in the

in a different medium, as when a painter expresses a by means of colors and lines or a poet does it with words; (2) imitating qualities by like qualities, such as representing beautiful things by beautiful verses or ugly things by ugly verses; (3) imitating some-

same manner but horse

thing differing only in manner, as in the difference between epic poetry

and tragedy, both of which present poetic imitations of heroes. In tragedy characters are brought upon the stage speaking and acting,

how deeds are done and The more the total action is

while in epic poetry the poet narrates

presents

dialogues between the characters.

brought

before our eyes

( enargeia

but Pigna made no scholarly reference to

the rhetorical principle), the

Comedy and

tragedy

more

epic poetry can be said to imitate.

are, therefore, closer to real imitation,

poems recites dialogues, he by making his voice conform

but

when

the poet reading his

gives a lifelike rendition

of the character

to the character’s

ner. Since heroic verse has

man-

an unnatural ring in the mouths of most

characters, the writer of epic

poems should avoid

and should spend more time narrating.

It is

this

kind of imitating

for this reason that dramatic

fables are written in iambic verse since this verse

form

is

most

like prose

and, consequently, lifelike.

That Pigna thought of imitation as strict lifelikeness is shown also by opposing the demands of imitation and the marvelous in poetry.

his

Narrative poetry adds study and thought to imitation, and to reflect these additions poetry

must be more than

life size.

Exaggeration also

creates marvels for the sake of novelty. Since both marvels and imitation

are necessary in epic poetry, the poet

One

must compromise between them.

should be tempered by the other, Pigna

the same

way

10

as a

balance of humors

Vincenzo Maggi and Bartolommeo Lombardi, In Aristotelis librum de po3

°

is

etic a

much human body.

said, as in Virgil, in

necessary in the

communes

explanationes (Venetiis,

1550), pp. 42-49, 68-71.

Modes This need for compromise

parade of imitated speeches

is

by

the fact that a constant

boring, and, contrariwise, constant de-

and circumstances

character, dialogue imitation

character from another

11

It

.

problem of poetic imitation as

greater

is obfuscating, and the becomes tiresome. In the portrayal of manners or

scription of places, persons,

beauty that results

made

is

of Imitation

is

necessary in order to distinguish one

can be seen that Pigna’s handling of the as

is

much

practical application of theory

pure theory.

Sperone Speroni was even

a systematic literary theorist than

less

Pigna. His critical observations are scattered through so that

it is

easy to forget that he was one of the

first

many works

writers to give evi-

dence of close study of Aristotle’s Poetics. Even more importantly, Speroni was one of the

first

to use the ideas in the Poetics for other

purposes than simply to explain what Aristotle meant. In

his

Apologia

dei dialogic the long explanation of literary principles that he read to

the Inquisitors in

Rome

in order to clear himself of charges of

morality and unseemliness of behavior,

were

poetic imitation

made

all

im-

comments on the nature of Most of these comments

tangentially.

concerned dialogue writing rather than poetry, but Speroni strove to

how

consider dialogues as a genre of poetry. His argument reveals closely in the Renaissance the concept of imitation

was

tied to the

moral

question of the propriety of presenting evil as well as good characters, of showing the dramatic clash in the Oneness of true doctrine

Manyness

—the

At some dialogue in

opposed to presenting

same moral question

whom, by way

pervaded the works of Plato, from Fathers, the

as

that, in fact,

of the Church

Church had acquired its belligerent attitude toward poetry. length, Speroni made a distinction between the kind of which the author introduces himself as one of the characters

and peddles

— resembles epic poetry and history — and

doctrine to compliant interlocutors, as in Cicero

his

kind of dialogue, Speroni the kind of dialogue in

said,

which the author keeps himself hidden,

this

as in

Plato and Lucian, so that the characters decide questions in dramatic conflict, in is

comedy, for example. In the

to select only

what

is

notable and

first

kind, the aim of the author

worthy of

attention and to intro-

duce only ideas that do honor to the speaker. Although Speroni compared this

first

kind with epic poetry,

it

seerhs clear that he

tion. 11

This second kind, “being

Pigna, op.

cit.,

like

thought of

more exactly be called imitacomedy, which is a form of poetry,

the dramatic kind as something that could

pp. 15-16. 3i

The Age would,

like

return to

it,

its

of Criticism

share in poetic privileges.”

comedies

similarity to

comic and poetic matter without

.

.

A moment .

verse.”

later

he

“We

said:

imitation in the dialogue 12

The

is

implication was that

Cicero’s kind of dialogue can less easily be called poetry and therefore

can

less easily

be classed as imitation. Speroni did not, however, refuse

to call epic poetry imitation, for in his treatises

on Virgil he doubted

the possibility of calling Virgil’s Georgies an imitation, in contradistinction to the

Aeneid which, according to the firm tradition he followed, ,

was one.

certainly

He

things,

“Concerning the Aeneid

said:

although, in respect to

its

I

must explain that

by means of which

verses

it

imitates

characterizations of gods and men, the figures used in

its

the fables that in

poem and

many

places are scattered about in

it, it

it,

and

seems to be a

not because of these not a poem, in respect to the main fable

is

—which

is

There

no explanation of how he considered verse narrative

is

many

poem

the soul of a

imitation, but that he did so

—

it is

true history and nothing else.”

13

to be an

evident.

is

Benedetto Varchi, in one of

his

Lezzioni of 1553, gave a thumbnail if un-

sketch of a theory of imitation that followed Aristotle slavishly

To

critically.

Varchi,

meant “to represent.” Speroni

“to imitate”

stressed the constitution of the fable in his definition of poetry, but

Varchi stressed imitation. is

to imitate.

To

find

if

The

poet’s first

and principal

artifice,

he

said,

work is a poem you first see if it does you decide the best poet by deciding who imitators and all poems are imitations: epic,

a literary

or does not imitate. Similarly, imitates best. All poets are tragic, elegiac,

and

all

others.

The

three kinds and three kinds only.

differences

One

among

genres can be of

imitates either different things,

or with different things, or in a different manner. 14 If these doctrines of

Varchi’s were not Speroni’s, they were at least the doctrines that Varchi

imported into Florence from critics in the

his

contacts with the group of Aristotelian

Paduan Accademia degl’Infiammati, of which Speroni was

the central figure.

Alessandro Lionardi, a disciple of Speroni, presented in della inventione poetica (1554) conversations

his Dialogi

between Speroni and one

of the well-known Aristotelian philosophers of the generation preceding Speroni’s,

12

13

What

Sperone Speroni, “Apologia dei dia-

logi,” in

in

Marcantonio Genova.

Opere (Venezia,

Speroni,

Opere

,

II,

1740),

I,

275.

“Dialogo sopra Virgilio,” 200-201. 32

14

is

found

Benedetto

in Lionardi

Varchi,

renza, 1590), p. 580.

is

proto-

Lezzioni

(Fio-

Modes

dominated by rhetorical theory, but by a

largely

iVristotelianism,

of Imitation

rhetorical theory that had already been adjusted to the needs of poetry.

Invention, for instance,

was no longer the

orator’s searching out of the

facts

and figures to support

least,

the creation of about any kind of idea. Diligence and imitation

his case

but was, in poetic invention at

were the modes used by the poet

in arriving at knowledge through inshowed Speroni saying, is “following the effects of things and observing them well.” The poet has to know the nature of things in order to portray them and to create traits corresponding to them in respect to time and place. Speroni the Platonist then got off on the Platonic notion of speech as “an image and simulacrum of the mind.” Furthermore, he said Aristotle’s assertion that the fable, not verses, determines poetry shows that invention is more im-

vention. Imitation, Lionardi

portant than disposition and style, for in constructing his fable the poet’s

powers of inventing and imitating are

At

Genova,

a later point,

in

When

tested.

mere narrator

imitate, he should be called a

a writer does not

15 .

summarizing what Speroni had

said dur-

ing the previous day’s conversation, stated: “Poetry consists in imitation,

which

is

either of things or of persons,

and mind, in regard to their

A

and of

body

that pertains to

all

qualities, operations, conditions,

and

states.

poet should therefore studiously, diligently, and artfully represent

speech, actions, manners, and emotions, painting

with words

as a painter

that a historian as describing

is,

would with

like a poet,

colors.”

At

all as

this

well as he can

point Speroni said

an imitator since imitation can be defined

—supposing Speroni —one can see why,

anything or any action well (so that

and Lionardi’s Speroni to be one and the same person

on

in his later treatise

Aeneid

as

Virgil, he

had no trouble in thinking of the

an imitation). But Genova proceeded to distinctions between

poetry and history partly on the grounds that the poet does not simply is

concerned more

own

person than the

narrate everything as the historian does, “since he

with adornment and historian is.” 16

At

between imitation

less

with speaking in

still

later point,

troduces characters speaking he imitates, but voice

we

should

call the

said,

Alessandro Lionardi, Dialogi della inventione poetica (Venetia, 1554), pp. 1

when

he speaks in

kind of utterance “enunciation,” that

and simple narration. Plato, he 15

his

Genova explained his distinction and simple narration by saying that when a poet ina

divided imitations into

w lbid.,

pp. 50-51.

1-12.

33

his

own

is,

pure

two kinds

The Age (fantastic still

later

and

we

of Criticism

icastic?),

and Aristotle made the same

distinction. 17

But

learn that the three basic kinds of poetic imitation are the

the lyric, and the elegiac. Tragedy, comedy, and epic poetry are

satiric,

mixed forms. 18

Although G. to

P. Capriano, in his Della vera poetica (i 555),

make invention or

feigning of material a

seemed

more important earmark

of poetry than imitation in his general treatment of the subject, his treatise

opens with

a

chapter dealing with imitation. In

he

it

said: “All

comprehended by the intellect or can fall under one or another of the senses are in some mode or by some means imitable, the latter in the form in which the senses present them to us and the former not in the form in which they actually exist but in that in which we can imagine them when they are reduced to the senses, in

things that can either be

such instances

as angels, gods, spirits,

and

souls.

And

in this case, imita-

tion (leaving aside that other kind of imitation in things

by which

imitating themselves they attempt to perpetuate themselves)

representation of something things, since this imitation

is

simply a

by means of appearances, not

of true

not the appearance of the true but of the

feigned and simulated.” Capriano described imitative arts, one noble, the other ignoble.

two broad

The

statues

— of

smell,

and touch

sight

and hearing. The ignoble

—senses

classes of the

noble kind

nobler senses and more ample faculties

utilizes the

in

is

is

that

—poetry,

which

pictures,

arts are outlets for taste,

do not leave

that are ignoble because they

durable impressions, are by nature lower, and are incapable of convey-

They

ing teachings.

are

fit

“rather for the pleasure of the

for the proper delight of the mind.” Poetry art because

alone

it

the sensible.

It

is

is

body than

the supreme and absolute

fully capable of imitating

both the

follows that words are the best

intelligible

medium

and

of imitation,

give greater delight than other media, and can bear up under a variety of ornaments. Poetry

is

like

music in possessing rhythm or numbers. 19

Leaving aside for the time being the implications of these remarks

in

on the question whether philosophy or science in verse is imitation and therefore poetry, we can see that this broad approach to the definition of imitation not only leads to no real distinction between their bearing

the kind of imitation found in represented drama and that found in narrative poetry but even tion, if 17 18

indeed

it

Ibid., p. 76.

Ibid., pp. 79-80.

34

makes narrative poetry central

does not even

make

in the defini-

philosophic discourse central, since 19

Giovanni

Pietro

Capriano,

vera poetica (Vinegia, 1555),

sig.

Della

A3.

Modes

of Imitation

between words and the things the words imitate

the relationship

basis of the definition.

This

more Platonic than

is

showed, but Capriano was an important forerunner of such Segni, Patrizi,

is

the

Aristotelian, as Patrizi critics as

and Mazzoni.

was more concerned with the modes of

Pier Vettori, like Maggi,

mode

imitation found in the various arts than with distinctions of

within the art of

poetry alone. Relying upon what Athenaeus had said

about kinds of dances (thirteenth book of the Deipno sophists ), he tried to define imitation so that the kind of imitation used in

He was

be reflected in the definition.

dancing would

certain that epic, tragic, and

poetry could be said to imitate the mores and actions of men. cepted dancing as imitation but was

less

comic

He

ac-

certain that music could

properly be called imitative. Although he distinguished genres of poetry

according to the usual understanding of Aristotle’s division of mode, subject,

and instrument of imitation, he did

little

with

Vettori was

it.

very conscious of the notion that the concept of imitation should not be limited to direct or mirror transcriptions of reality but could apply to conventionalizations or correspondences in forms, filtered

projected

upon

a

medium,

as in

dancing or music.

He

through or

pointed out that

mores and actions can be imitated that dancers in their tated.

He

wished to substitute the term “imitated and expressed” for

any simple and the

word

in rhythms as well as emotions and movements can be said to reflect the thing imi-

literal

use of the

“imitation.” But although he gave

great latitude, he nevertheless doubted that elegies and lyric

poems could be

called

called imitations,

and he

it

word

poems

since he did not see

insisted that if

poetry

is

perforce

show

words or

they could be

to be called an imitation

must have characters doing things and not be

inactive or at leisure in

how

a static picture of

deeds. Dramatic poets, he said,

characters doing things, but the opportunity

other kinds of poets equally

is

men must

open to

20 .

Minturno brings us face to face with other problems. In dealing with Aristotle’s division of

men

poems according

to the subject matter imitated

the same as or better or worse than the

—Minturno was one of the

first

men we know

in

our age

to lead literary critics onto the stony

path followed by countless Neoclassical critics in the following two

mean the distinction to be opposed to low or vicious characters

centuries, for he asked if Aristotle did not

between princes and noblemen 20

Pier Vettori,

Commentarii

in

as pri-

mum librum Aristotelis de arte poetarum

(Florentiae,

1573), pp.

3,

18, 21.

35

5,

10,

13-14,

The Age

of Criticism

up three

usual lines in setting

He

parasites. 21

workmen, and

like farmers, shepherds,

followed more

poems: narrated, imitative, and

classes of

mixed. Since this classification was of poems, not of imitations,

would

it

seem that Minturno included tinder poetry many poems that were not imitations at his

all

either

or only partly imitations, but, in fact, he extended

concept of imitation to cover instances in which the poet can be said

to imitate himself speaking. Moreover, in the Latin

made

the point that imitation

De

poeta (1559), he not confined to dramatic poetry but is

is

any kind which by means of narration shows some surface aspect of the thing described. 22 Similarly, in Varte poetica (1564), he found

in

made by

speaking of the kind of imitation

said,

cannot say that he does not imitate

body or

poet addresses someone

a

leaves his character as poet

form of the

depicts well the

for in Petrarch

we 23

which does not

he makes

.

.

.

seem that he

it

and adopts or maintains another character,

can recognize two persons, one of the poet

narrates and the other of the lover

donna Laura.”

else,

we

“For

the passions of the mind, or reveals manners acceptably.

when

In fact,

who

lyric poets:

when

he directs

his

when he Ma-

speech to

His distinction between speech that imitates and that imitate thus rested either

on the notion of poetry’s

concreteness in depicting the particular surface of objective things or

on the

poet’s introduction of himself into his

with an individual’s dramatic subject matter that he

slant

toward or

poem

an individual

as

interest in the

nonconcrete

exposing. According to this distinction,

is

Long-

“The Psalm of Life” “The human soul is immortal,”

fellow could be considered to imitate himself in

when he

instead of saying nonconcretely,

said,

me not in mournful numbers/ Life is me involves us in the individuality of

“Tell

dream,” for the

Auden’s in

its

“Sir,

no man’s enemy

relation to the poet

It

by

its

the prayer

his

own

form used

is

dramatic

history and point of view, particu-

the use of “Sir” as a

should be clear from

faced one of

.

and to the abstract subject matter and implies

an individual speaker with larly illuminated

.

but an empty the speaker. In

all this

form of address for God.

that the theory of poetry as imitation

severest tests in the sixteenth-century criticism

question of whether

it

on the

could or could not embrace lyric poetry. In-

terpretations of imitation as “expression” or “description” could contain lyric poetry adequately. 21

Minturno,

Varte

Napoli, 1725), pp. 2-3.

36

Minturno was one of the

poetica

(1564;

however, to

first,

“Minturno, De poeta p. 48. 23 Varte poetica pp. 173— 175. ,

,

Modes

of Imitation

bring the question out into the open. In an age of Petrarchists, a theory of poetry excluding Petrarch

noted totle

that,

had

was doomed

to hard going.

Minturno

while Plato had called dithyrambic poems narrations, Aris-

them among

listed

imitations.

The

ancient grammarians, he

added, accounted for lyric poetry in the “mixed”

class.

In innumerable points of doctrine, Ludovico Castelvetro’s tary on Aristotle’s Poetics

development of

was

a

commen-

landmark or turning point

On

literary criticism in the sixteenth century.

had

ject of Aristotle’s classifications of kinds of imitation he

in the

the sub-

much

to

say that was subtle and important, even though here as elsewhere he infuriated his readers by his method as often as he enlightened them. The non- Aristotelians were angered by his close adherence to Aristotle’s

main

show

lines of

thought; the Aristotelians were angered

that in the

working out of the

by

his eagerness to

details Aristotle either

or did not say enough. His introduction to the subject Aristotelian; he said that the general

mode

of poetry

is

was wrong

was

strictly

imitation,

and

of imitations there are three genera: according to object, according to

medium, and according

more

differentia to

to manner.

show how

But he believed Aristotle needed

imitation in poetry corresponds to imita-

tion in painting and sculpture. Poetry, he said, its

object

medium

“men

as better

is

imitation having for

than they are, or worse, or as they are; for

language, rhythm, and harmony; and for

its

mode

its

narration

and drama.” His usual refinement upon Aristotle was not, however, long in following. Castelvetro said:

the

modes of poetry more

“And

precisely

yet Aristotle could have explained if

he had not used the example of

painting as his point of departure, and had used the following argument instead.

Poetry represents a possible action either by using words to

words and things to represent things, or by using words to words and things.” Castelvetro’s “words to represent words and things to represent things” is the imitation of life found in the stage presentation of dramatic poetry. “Words to represent both words and things” is narrative imitation. Castelvetro continued: “Of these two modes of representing an action, the first gives the more lifelike representation. We have an analogous phenomenon in painting, which reprerepresent

represent both

sents objects either

by

their natural colors or

by

light

and shade, the

second kind of representations being called by the Greeks

Monochromes, as regards their mode, are like narrative poetry, which uses only words to represent both words and things; and paintings in 37

The Age color, as regards their

of Criticism

mode

which

again, are like dramatic poetry,

uses

24

words to represent words, and things to represent things.” Genres of poetry should be determined by subject matter and by meter, Castelvetro said. He had a minor quarrel with Aristotle on this point, for he understood Aristotle to have said that kinds of poets are

determined by the kinds of subjects they treat rather than by diction or meter. Distinction on the basis of diction Castelvetro especially refused, since he claimed that a poet

not a poet

is

when

he uses nonpoetic diction.

Castelvetro carped at Aristotle also for not giving a precise

He

kinds of possible imitations.

list

of the

reasoned that since there are three ob-

worse), five media, and three modes,

jects of imitation (better, same,

even without compounding these Aristotle should have described eleven species of imitation.

By compounding them

he calculated that the largest

number of species would be ninety-five; but he decided that a number would be fifty-five species, since some of the items would not combine well with some of the others. He did not tell how he arrived at the number fifty-five. Addressing himself to questions that were creating more stir in his own day, he distinguished between modes of imitation in which speeches are summarized or paraphrased possible

more

realistic

and those with direct discourse and indirect imitation of the descriptive items of the situation. But

when

he came to constitute the three main

genres of poetic imitation, these idiosyncrasies did not prevent him from achieving a

that

list

he had defined in

was

in the

classes as narrative, dramatic, his similitudinary class

find

him saying

that

traditional. Instead of the

two kinds

poetry with painting, he

listed the

and similitudinary, without making clear

from the other two. When we the similitudinary kind uses words and things to

how

resemble words and things, fers

main

his paralleling

was

we

distinct

can be puzzled to determine

from the dramatic and can therefore be puzzled to

ing the Iliad as an example of the similitudinary kind. If to represent things” Castelvetro objects,

why

is

find

how him

by using

it

dif-

offer-

“things

meant that Homer gave descriptions of

the result not simply narrative? Furthermore, on the

same page Castelvetro claimed that one of the subclasses of the narrative

mode

actually belonged in the similitudinary category.

mode, he

said,

can be compared to chiaroscuro. In

“in expressing

words stored

in his

Andrew Bongiorno, “Castelvetro’s Commentary on the Poetics of Aris38

narrative

mode, the writer,

memory,” may follow one of

methods, two of which are direct and one 24

this

The

is

three

oblique:

totle” (unpublished thesis, Cornell

Uni-

versity, 1935), p. 31. See also pp. 22, 24.

Modes First direct kind

own

his

of Imitation

—the poet or the narrator used speaks throughout

in

person.

Oblique kind

—the action —the

Second direct kind verbatim.

It is this

is

presented in indirect discourse.

poet presents speeches of

characters

his

kind that belongs to the similitudinary category,

according to Castelvetro’s assertion. Aside from Castelvetro’s claim that the similitudinary kind uses words and things to resemble words and things, this is simply the usual 25 list of narrative, dramatic, and mixed kinds Tasso often followed the .

and sometimes

ideas of Castelvetro

objecting to them. But

all

clarified Castelvetro’s distinctions in

does not

come

clear

when Tasso

imitation should not be defined as a resemblance since

occur accidentally; imitation should be thought of

says that

some resemblances even

as a similitude

though only those similitudes that are intentionally created by study and

art should

tation

is

be called imitations. “I say,” remarked Tasso, “that imi-

and imitating

artful similitude,

and what does not

exist

the intention of resembling,

is

cannot be imitated or resembled.”

26

In Castel-

vetro’s interpretation of poetic imitation the outstanding feature latitude he gave to narrative, but he

than

many

of his contemporaries.

was

He

is

the

far less specific in this regard

argued that gnomic poetry could

legitimately be called poetry because wise sayings have affinities with

oracular sayings and so have something of the divine in sequently,

it

would seem

If Castelvetro’s basis

that for

him not

all

them

27

Con-

.

poetry was imitative.

of classification remains

somewhat confused, one his comments on the

can nevertheless feel the cogency of some of separate modes.

The

narrative

mode can be

subdivided, he said, in terms

of whether or not the poet slants his material.

viding

it is

Still

another

way

of di-

between universalized narrative and particu-

to distinguish

larized narrative. Universalized narrative concerns classes, species, or

wholes, whereas particularized narratives concern individuals or units.

This distinction would no doubt remain entirely unclear had Castelvetro not added that the Aeneid

is

a generalized narrative,

sey and Iliad are particularized. This distinction cal

one originating from distinctions of

Two, “Universal and

was primarily

style, as will

a rhetori-

be seen in Part

Particulars.”

In spite of the fact that

some of

Castelvetro’s

"’Ibid., pp. 87-97. 28

whereas the Odys-

Torquato Tasso, Del giadizio sovra

comments on

the nature

“ Gerusalemme di Torquato Tasso, Opere, XII, 302-303.

1

^Bongiorno, op.

cit ., p. 60.

39

in

The Age

of Criticism

mode have been

of the dramatic

cited as the first insistence

on the

unities of place

and time and hence the significant beginning of the

rigidities of the

Neoclassic attitudes toward drama and hence a prime

instance of his wrongheadedrifess, taken in context of the distinctions

between the narrative and the dramatic modes of

they seem to make rather good sense. said,

can move about

mode.

It

narrative

making of imitating,

dramatic mode, Castelvetro

time and space than can the narrative

less easily in

can represent only the

mode can more

The

and the audible, whereas the

visible

easily bring into play states of consciousness

and internal promptings. The dramatic mode

stirs

emotions more than

narrative but gives a simpler and less full-bodied account of the nature

of the events since some aspects of the action cannot be directly or fully

represented on a stage. This certain media such as

done

in

is

the kind of analysis of the limitations of

we make

today

when we

motion pictures that can be done only

in novels.

When Castelvetro said further that

sents actions as occurring in the time in

occur” and that for limited

by

this

decide what can be

less

well on the stage or

“the dramatic

mode

repre-

which they would naturally

comedy

reason the length of a

or tragedy

the comfort of the audience and “cannot represent

is

more

which it takes to what is simply imitative. The concept of poetic imitation held in the Renaissance was capable of extension to include expressive poems as well as poems that are content to mirror externals, but Castelvetro as well as some of the others was trapped by his own logic to assume that no special case had to be made for drama as direct imitation and that consequently the nature of drama was to imitate wholly and directly. For such reasons an expressive theater like that of Shakespeare came to be excluded from things than those

which can occur

present the drama,” he did,

it is

in the space of time

true, limit the

drama

to

—

—

the Neoclassic world.

On

the other hand, Castelvetro was led

to argue that the dramatic

mode must

by

the literalness of his

mind

present feigned or imaginary

events that could happen, presumably because

impossible to con-

it is

ceive of the staged event as an imitation of itself as a historical action.

Cicero delivering an oration of an oration delivered

is

not an imitation.

by Cicero would have

Castelvetro allowed the narrative

happened and what

is

in the

mode

to treat

A

stage presentation

to be imaginary.

But

both what has actually

realm of the possible; that

is

to say,

it

can

be either a rendition of actuality or a rendition of something feigned

which

is

made 4°

to look like actuality.

Who

can

tell

why

he did not see

Modes

of Imitation

the possibility of a stage rendering of actuality? But Castelvetro claimed

was due not to its tradition handed down by

that his restriction of the stage to imaginary actions inability to handle actual

happenings but to a

the Ancients. Passion plays are a violation of this principle.

Castelvetro gave

mode

metaphor later.

by

some

insight into the nature of his similitudinary

in asserting that the dramatic

The

is

to a simile

—

mode

to the similitudinary as a

is

remark Mazzoni was to repeat

a

similitudinary, Castelvetro continued,

narrative but

—a antiquity— and Heroides

is

works like Ovid’s supposedly written by famous women of

found separate and alone

series of letters

in

few years

a

usually accompanied

is

in

epigrams involving a speaker other than the poet.

Richardson’s Pamela or Clarissa he would no doubt have called similitudinary, or Browning’s dramatic monologues. the true similitudinary

He

said,

poem demands some words by

the scene for the simile

28 .

All in

all,

however, that

the author to set

Castelvetro claimed that there are

seven ways of representing speech: three simple and four compound. Precisely

cluded

what

among

these are he did not say, but they

his fifty-five

in-

kinds of imitation.

Although Castelvetro seemingly consented to imitation into three principal

the similitudinary

were probably

modes

— he did not,

—the

in his

imitation, patently indicate that

a division of poetic

dramatic, the narrative, and

main discussions of the modes of

narrative should be thought of as

all

Near the end of his commentary, in his discussion of Aristotle’s treatment of the modes of narrative in epic poetry, he showed more plainly his reluctance to consider as imitation narrative in which a poet speaks in his own person. The epic poet’s manner of introduc-

imitation.

ing characters to speak in direct discourse

but similitudinary, he

we

said.

When

is

words

have imitation (rassomigliare), but

not really representational

are represented with

we do

not have

this

resembling when words have to represent things. So he argued words cannot represent actions in some manner epic poetry imitation.

Following

this line

entation of characters

two modes, degree.

He

on

that is

if

not

is

truly imitative and that the other

the narrative and the similitudinary, are so only to a lesser

revealed his methods of defining in saying:

we

can say

instrument by means of which the action

is

that,

“Moreover,

comparatively, that

best imitated

imitative one, in contrast to those instruments Ibid.,

direct

of reasoning, he decided that only pres-

a stage

following this line of reasoning,

28

words

by means

is

the only

of which one

pp. 100-103. 4i

The Age imitates

less,

and that these

are not imitative;

from

is

which

in contrast to

they do not imitate of speech

was

this

latter in

comparison and

reasoning

we

in contrast to

it

can be secure in saying that

the only imitative instrument, in relation to dance and melody,

speech

it

of Criticism

is

can be called nonimitative instruments, since

it

as fully as

the most imitative mode,

also the

29

speech does.” it

Since the dramatic

follows that for Castelvetro

The same

only truly imitative one.

mode

relative principle he

applied to the distinctions between particularized and generalized narratives

He

and between biased and unbiased narratives.

more

the poet imitates

“For since

said:

fully in narrating the particularized material of

the action than the universalized,

it

follows that only the particularized

material of the action can be called imitable

we

if

consider

that Castelvetro considered

Homer more

alongside

it

The

of the universalized, which can be called nonimitable.”

result

was

an imitator than Virgil not

only because he introduced characters speaking more often and allotted

them longer speeches but

also because he particularized

more

in describ-

ing actions.

Even

poet an imitator, according to Castelvetro’s view, to

less is a

the extent that he introduces expository

comment upon

the material

supposedly being imitated. Castelvetro’s analysis was: “If the poet in that part of the epic in

which he

narrates only and recounts the action

and does not introduce characters speaking

not an imitator according

is

not a poet, what shall we say about which he neither narrates action nor introduces a character to speak but passes judgment on the things narrated, either blaming or praising them or deriving from them common utility or instructions about civil life or the good life? Surely no

to Aristotle a

and consequently

poet in that part of

other than that he

is

is

his epic in

not an imitator by reason of the mode, since he

—that any character among —or by reason of the material of the

does not introduce any character to speak those

who

intervene in the fable

fable, since that material

feeling of the poet

because of the

is

separate

toward the

mode

is,

from the

action.

Now

or of the material,

it

fable

if

he

is

and

arises

from the

not imitator either

follows that he

is

not

a

poet

any way.” By-products of adding judgments to narrative presentain Castelvetro’s view of things, were that we recognize the poet to be partisan and hence not to be trusted and that he makes him-

in

tions,

self hateful

to us

a certain pride 20

by adopting

a stance of superiority to us “in revealing

and confidence

in his

Castelvetro, Poetica d'Aristotele, pp.

42

own

544-545.

goodness

when

in putting

Modes aside the office of narrator

which was

of Imitation

rightfully his he takes

on the

office

of preacher and corrector of behavior out of reason, into which

error

Homer

never

falls

but Virgil on occasion does.” Since Castelvetro

broadly considered poetry an imitation of history,

it

was

characteristic

of him to apply the historian’s prohibition against bias to the poet.

Furthermore, since he believed that the pleasure of poetry comes

from our admiration for the poet’s artistry, there need be no surprise to find him advocating the writing of the more purely imitative largely

modes of poetry because he thought introducing characters to speak requires more skill and acuteness of wit than simple narration. Shall we say that Aristotle’s theory of imitation as it was described

by

was

Castelvetro

defined,

many

poems

that had passed as

and had even been thought of in the essence of poetry, if

from the

Most

territory.

relativists

With

ripe for Patrizi’s plucking?

kinds of

and defined

as imitations

the theory so

poems for

centuries

were denied participation

they were not indeed completely excluded

of the Aristotelians of Castelvetro’s time were

entities in

terms of centers of purity or intensity

with gradations receding into the periphery. But although Castelvetro

made some concessions to definitions of imitation based upon realization of particulars and upon creation of cognate structures, he did not compromise his literal conception enough to make it flexible. The result was that

Patrizi rejected

Another of the

entirely.

it

significant treatments of the range or

gamut of the

was that of the Florentine Agnolo Segni. His leading question, like that of Minturno, was whether or not the canzoni of Petrarch were true poems. He argued that we must take on

idea of poetic imitation

faith

and

as

axiomatic that the genus of poetry

this belief rests

on both the authority of

all

is

imitation,

inasmuch

as

major philosophers and

common

opinion. Since imitation extends to other arts than poetry, he

asked

we

if

could arrive at a sound answer about poetic imitation

merely by looking

most of

varieties

at its

his predecessors

in

poetry. This, Segni affirmed,

had held to be

possible, for

they believed

that poetic imitation had already been adequately defined: the poet u imitates when he in his narration speaks in another’s person and as

much

as possible

does everything to resemble him.” Segni thought these

predecessors believed that both Plato and Aristotle did not include a poet’s speaking in his this

was no doubt

right, since

it

own person among imitations, and

Plato’s

he responded:

and Aristotle’s view of mimesis, but

is

it

reduces the majestic expanse of poetry to a small ter43

The Age ritory?

According

of Criticism

to this traditional view,

wise and divine man, speaks in

when he shows

but

ing, then

on

this

poetry

is

own

his

a slave, a prostitute, a

revealed in

its

account.” If this view

lyric

made dithyrambic poetry out

is

many

who

is

a

not poetry,

is

a criminal speak-

and vaunted

glorified

correct, Segni continued,

is

poems

the poet,

madman, or

divinity and

have to stop calling Petrarch and

Dithyrambic and

“when

person the result

we

shall

other famous poets poets.

though Aristbtle

are not poetry, even

to be a species of poetry. So, he con-

cluded, this view of poetic imitation must be wrong.

Unlike

Patrizi,

Segni did not so

much

attack the theory of imita-

He

tion as the traditional interpretation of imitation. Aristotle’s theory

was derived from Plato and had

its full

show

Plato’s theory. Therefore, he decided that if he could

his point. It

images that

was

enough now

when

in

that Plato’s

traditional interpretation he

to Plato’s

view of the poet

terms must await the development of

idol

meaning

would have maker of idols or Segni turned. His explanation of poetic imitation on these

meaning went deeper than the

won

believed that

to note that Segni

as

this aspect of the theory. It

conceded that

he adopts the mask of someone

else,

a poet

that

is

is,

maker of an

a

“invests himself

with another’s person and speaks through him.” But he argued that poet can also make idols in speaking in

his

own

is

a

person.

Our problem in understanding Segni is one of separating from his whole system the particular aspects of his body of thought with which we are momentarily concerned. All imitation, he said, is done with some instrument: painters use figures and colors, sculptors sculpt, and dancers dance. Segni faced such questions as whether marble or chisel should

be called instrument of the sculptor and brush or design and color the instrument of the painter.

He

instrument of imitation,

say,

idol itself

— especially

I

voted against incidental is

tools:

“But the

either the material of the idol or the

the latter, because the idol

is

composed of its is composed with

form of the exemplar, and although it we do not mean instrument for the imitation but the Segni’s problem was complicated here by Aristotle’s having

material in the

an instrument, idol itself.”

distinguished between kinds of imitations

on the

basis of

both material

and instrument. Segni’s point was simply that the idol (which can be no more than words of any kind)

is

the instrument of the imitation

of the ideal exemplar and not the subject matter. In poetry the is

word

the instrument for the poet’s composing of the idol. This becomes

clear as Segni continues: “In this

manner

a thing

comes

in imitation j

44

Modes

of Imitation

to have three aspects: as instrument in respect to the artifice, as idol

and

in respect to the exemplar,

figure or

motion

—

also as

what

and

a figure in sculpture

it

is

in itself; that

motion

a

is,

in the dance.” 30

evident even from his handling of this one critical problem that

It is

Segni was one of the penetrating critical theorists of the sixteenth century. But his account of imitation as idol making had the one serious flaw, to be as

found among most

symbol, an imitation of

its

with Segni in mind, there

Platonists, that

any word became

in

it,

idea, and, as Patrizi objected, quite possibly

then no basis for distinguishing between

is

poetic imitation and other uses of speech. Segni tried to bypass this difficulty

without really resolving the oppositions by making the

dis-

He

said

tinction rest that,

on the difference between true and

false speech.

although Plato and Aristotle, caught in their

moment

of history,

had entertained the possibility of including dance and song

ments of poetry,

essential

its

disregarding

everyday,

into the true

and the

and Lucian are

instrument

Holy

names and words that are

effected

Segni

by means

we

call

by what

Plato,

speech

divided

true speech, Boccaccio

But

in false speech,

idols of true things, the

commonly known

is

summed up

is

as instru-

Now

idols of the

names according to both Plato and

Aristotle are forms of imitation.

is

Scripture

Concepts are imitations or

false speech.

things they stand for, so that

uses

clearly speech.

forms of speech,

practical

false.

is

which

likewise

communication

as fable.

his point in saying:

“Idols are therefore created

two ways, with

the false and with the true;

of speech in

the false ‘fable’ and the Greeks called

it

The

mythologia

kind of speech, he added, does not belong to poetry, for

this

true

is

the

province of history or science, the province of that which asserts what has happened or idols

with

what

is.

In consequence, the poet’s province

is

to

make

speech and with fables that are similar to the true

false

but not true. So Se^ni, in availing himself of standard Aristotelian tinctions in order to solve the relied heavily

Patrizi

upon

had Segni

in

the concept of fable, in a

mind

in setting

of the fable in order to knock It is

speaks in his 30

le

it

up

Agnolo

show how

own

Segni,

way

suggesting that

theory of imitation by means

a

down.

plain that in the distinction itself

Segni did not

dis-

problems of the instruments of imitation,

between true and

false

the poet can be called an imitator

person, or had not yet

Ragionamento sopra

shown how. For

1581), pp. 1-16.

cose pertinenti alia poetica (Fiorenza,

45

speech

when

he

this further

The Age

of Criticisvi

demonstration he needed a distinction between fabulous speech of ac-

which had

tion and fabulous speech of nonaction, both of

from true speech. Poetic

imitation, he said,

of images with false speech”; that

is, it is

to be distinct

“a particular composition

is

“mythology and

fable.”

Segni had another try at interpreting Aristotle and Plato in an

attempt to show that both believed that some imitators struments and some use themselves as instruments.

He

work with

found the

who

ence in instrument especially clear between the dancer

by using

who

in-

differ-

imitates

himself as imitative instrument and the painter or musician

uses instruments other than himself. Extending the dancer’s prin-

ciple,

the dancer does in imitating and in his

we find a bridge between what what the poet does when he imitates

Segni suggested that in orators

own

person, for orators often engage in incidental imitation.

Segni showed that the principle could be carried even further the real-life hypocrite as one

ment for

When

who borrows

his

own

person

by

citing

as instru-

imitation.

an actor or orator uses himself

as instrument,

Segni

said,

the imitator and the idol created are one and the same. This he believed

was the kind of imitation Plato outlined in the Sophist treating the sophist as the kind of imitator in whom two imitations are joined into one. The classification of modes of imitation that Segni arrived at with his complex argument was the standard one: a poet can narrate in his own person, introduce characters to speak, or mix the two modes. But his defense of the pure narrative mode demanded that the narrator be thought of as making an idol of himself. When a cast of characters is introduced to speak, as in Homer, the poet imitates with himself as instrument and idol together. The reader could well wish for more clarity when Segni tried to show that there is the same kind of imitation but slight difference in the use of instrument whenever a poet ,

speaks in his

own

person; but

of a full explanation.

He

what he

said that

gets

when

is

a brief statement instead

“the poet speaks in the

name

of the person he himself has introduced he then imitates with himself

and makes himself instrument and his

own name

idol of the exemplar;

and when

in

he imitates by means of himself, he imitates by himself

with different instruments. Plato says that when the poet speaks in another’s person he does to take our attention

the poet if

who

is

all

he can to make the poet not appear and

away from him,

the poet puts on the dress of 46

so that

we

can believe

it is

not

speaking but the one he has introduced and named. So

someone

else

and

in his

own

person

Modes

of Imitation

expresses the stranger and presents his appearance, in this case

own

he imitates with his

it

manifest that

is

person and in counterfeiting an-

other makes himself into an idol and an image of that other.”

who

putting on the dress of someone else applies to a poet

31

This

uses direct

discourse.

own voice, Segni repeated, is imitation He argued that when Plato said the poet

with

Narration in the poet’s a different instrument.

does

not imitate in narrating the doings of others he was obviously using the

term “imitation” in

means any kind of feigning of

false speech,

things can be of “immutable things, character

mind”

as

well as of actions.

a fable, since

argued that fable

a limited sense. Elsewhere, Segni

Thus

and the imitation of traits,

Petrarch’s poetry can be said to have

he conceives of himself

as a perfect lover to imitate

projects Laura as a lady of singular virtue.

The

was never

rendering of an ideal exemplar, the

was implicated here

as

much

as the

far

and

between

real situation

Petrarch and Laura was not what the imitation in the poems be. Since imitation to Segni

false

and passions of the

made

it

removed from the concrete problem of universality

critical

theory of imitation

32 .

False speech

or fable was for him speech that held up an image or icon for our

contemplation.

What

remains unclear

is

where the boundary

between abstract propositions expressed

line lies

as abstract propositions,

thus in the area of truth, and abstract propositions cast in the

and

form

of an idol because the poet as poet has a role to play in his utterance,

and thus operates

in the area of the false.

One can

see,

by keeping

in

mind how the Renaissance theorists justified the inclusion of lyric poems within imitations, that this doctrine was not unusual for the sixteenth century, both before and after Segni (especially in

and Mazzoni), but in Segni In including lyrics in disposing

To

his

among

imitations, Segni faced a serious

human

actions.

He saw

why

no reason

and thought cannot be subjects of imitation

way

Minturno

found subtle expression.

problem

of the further Aristotelian discrimination that poetry

an imitation of passions,

it

as

is

characters,

well as actions.

of thinking, Aristotle’s classification of the qualitative parts

of poetry into characters, passions, actions, and thought

( dianoia )

It seemed to him that Aristotle meant to refer only to dramatic imitations in specifying imitation of

implied the range of poetic imitations.

actions. Instead of conceiving that a poet treating himself as instru-

ment could make an action out of 31

Ibid.,

pp. 34-35.

his passions 82

or thoughts, Segni, to

Ibid., pp. 61-64.

47

The Age

whom

the

of Criticism

making of the

idol in false speech constituted imitation,

treated imitation of actions as only one of the parallel forms of imitation.

Although

poems have no

lyric

mores and human

action, he argued, but imitate

both Aristotle and Plato did make room

passions,

for lyric poetry in the province of poetry. Fable had to

the composition of a fake idol.

He

they

totle said that poets imitate things as as

mean

him

for

showed, further, that when Aristhey ought to be, or

are, as

they are said to be he made no restriction of imitation to actions.

Since Aristotle had set up in a series of preferences action, character,

and thought, he believed that Aristotle meant imitation of

was in

possible. In this

way

all

of these

Segni supported his contention that imitation

poetry consisted of the making of the

but verisimilar

false

idol.

Tasso’s aesthetic theory in general ran parallel to Segni’s, but con-

cerning matters pertaining to poetic imitation he was far

less explicit

than Segni, even though

his

it is

obvious that Patrizi created

Only

disputata with Tasso as his central antagonist.

an addendum to La deca disputata,

Gerusalemme

the quarrel over the

numbered by

is,

but Patrizi

liberata,

among

the contestants in that controversy

T rimer one,

the

strictly speaking, a

La deca

document in was usually

the leaders of

the opponents of Tasso. Tasso’s direct reply to Patrizi’s argument at the

end of Tasso’s

life

when

the

two of them, both

came

Rome

in

and

both near death, were cast together in a strange final friendship (Patrizi was buried in Tasso’s tomb) which indicated probably that they had more to share in their opposition in critical matters than they had in

common

with the

Tasso agreed, in

rest of the world. his

Del giudizio sovra

la

Gerusalemme

to Patrizi’s attempt to refute the theory of imitation, that possible to demonstrate with

any certainty what

Aristotle,

in response

was imor his comit

mentator Averroes, had meant by imitation. Tasso’s primary defense of Aristotle was a defense of the logic of equivocal definitions. protested: “I say then that

and some analogous,

some genera

are universal,

some

and of

as Patrizi himself affirms,

He

equivocal,

these, as

Am-

who

have

monius, Alexander of Aphrodisias, and other Peripatetics

explained the logic of Aristotle teach, the species participate equally in some, so that the genus

for another, or

first.”

is

not named any more for one species than

Such genera

are univocal, as in the classifications

of animals, for lions, horses, and elephants are

all

equally species, and

one no more than the others. In other genera, which are not truly equivocal, the genus 48

name

applies equally to

all

species but originated

Modes

of Imitation

with one species and then was extended to cover the others. Tasso said that the

genus “imitation”

that of the relativist.

of this kind. Thus, his position was

is

He meant

that the concept of imitation applies

most completely to dramatic or representative and was extended

originated,

by

tion used

later to narration

“which

epic poets,

own

poets always speak in their

midway

that point there

it

yet more imitation than the pure

is

narration of dithyrambic poets.” According to Tasso,

poets only

where

imitations,

and the kind of imitadithyrambic

But Tasso put dithyrambic

voice.

beyond

in the scale of imitations, for he said that

extension of the principle to any kind of writing

is

and speaking, since words (according to Plato

Phaednis) are

in the

symbols imitating their meanings, and, even further, the characters of letters

were formed by

imitation, as

Athenaeus indicated

in

Book

X

of the Deipno sophists?* Between Patrizi’s rationalism, to which a general

to

term seemed inappropriate

all

on

members of

its

and periphery choice

distinctions of centrality

both

sides

are battles

Even

were engaging

had relatively

poema

del

in

merely verbal

from the opposition between him and

,

he

flatly stated that all

well as sculpture, painting, and other

since

Patrizi,

Tasso

genera of poetry imitate,

arts,

and

and the painter can use the same subject matter

—the differentiation between the two

the thing imitated. Poetry, he said, In DelParte poetica

imitation

is

arts

is,

imitate the

cannot reside

made

kinds of

poems and

the early version of the Discorsi

,

Discorsi del

imitate are actions, its

its

modes

eroico , he

showed

pure narration

much with

as imitation that

35 .

36

But

in the Discorsi ,

33

Tasso, Del giudizio, in Opere, XII,

34

in

Tasso, Discorsi del

poema

eroico,

Tasso

the specific difficulties of conceiving

were worrying

his

contemporaries,

although, like Segni, he identified imitation with false speech.

300-301.

In the

that actions could include con-

templations, as “action of the intellect.”

did not involve himself

,

all

are narration and repre-

instruments are speech, song, and dance

poema

in

in verses, not

Tasso made clearer than he did in the revision that the things

sentation,

as

since the poet

that,

—that

same thing

.

difficult

to say about the kinds of imitation. In the Discorsi

little

eroico

in colors 34

is

battles. Nevertheless, these

being fought in literary criticism.

still

aside

did not apply clearly and distinctly

if it

group, and Tasso’s Aristotelian relativism based

35

He

Tasso, Discorsi delParte poetica

Opere, XII, 205. 30 See infra, pp. 74-75.

Opere, XII, 9-10.

49

re-

in

The Age marked:

“When

of Criticism

Aristotle says that poetry considers the universal

more

[than history], he teaches us in consequence the office of the other [the writer of history],

which

not to imitate, since imitation

but with the verisimilar.”

37

to narrate the particular, but this

is

is

not by

its

is

nature joined with the true

he added, that historians do on

It is true,

occasion imitate, or feign, orations, but in doing so they trespass upon the territory of the poet. Again, he said that poets pursue beauty in

two ways, by

narration and

tion; narration

lyric

poems

is

by

representation; both are forms of imita-

the province of epic poets

in creating his

38 .

Tasso largely ignored

theory of poetry, and most of

his

his

arguments

pertain primarily to epic poetry.

Since he needed to argue that heroic poets should base their fables

upon history, he chose to emphasize the poet’s need to select material upon which the form of a heroic poem can be best impressed. Instead of quoting Plotinus, whom he was obviously following, he cited the late Alexandrian Peripatetic Philoponus as saying that

it is

necessary

to consider not only the kind of subject but also the ability of the

matter to receive the forms.

Not only

material capable of receiving

all

but particularly

form of

it

does the poet have to select

ornament and perfection, Tasso

has to be able to receive the forms.

Wax

a seal better than either softer or harder materials.

ing statues marble imitation

is

is

better than

concerned,

verisimilitude

we

wood 39

by inventing

up

Here, so far

some of

as the

takes the

For maktheory of

about gaining

his scruples

actions as against gaining credence

ing the main action from history, fully face

.

are lost in

which

is

said,

by

tak-

not imitation. Tasso did not

to the problem.

Malatesta Porta, defender of Tasso but disciple generally of Afazzoni, deliberately confused imitation and invention, since for

him invention

and imitation were much the same. Since with Aristotle he believed that fable qualities of

the substance of poetry, he could say that the essential

is

poetry are to be found in the “mode and quality of inventing

and imitating.” According to Porta,

becomes

a writer dealing

a historian if he does not imitate

—

this

with human actions

means

does not invent. Although he said epic poetry, which

clearly is

if

he

narration,

from tragedy as imitation only in the mode and instrument of imitation, what he more specifically meant was that epic poetry should differs

be considered imitation because the poet mixes the speech of others 37

Discorsi del

poema

eroico in Opere,

39 39

XII, 23.

50

Ibid., p.

Ibid.,

17.

pp. 27-30.

Modes with

his narration in his

own

imitation and nonimitation.

40

voice; that

of Imitation is,

he creates a mixture of

Porta followed Mazzoni’s ideas on icastic

and fantastic imitation, especially because

this distinction

was important

to the question of the place of invention in poetry, but he overlooked,

or did not understand, Mazzoni’s subtler distinctions.

kinds of imitation he held himself

probe too Patrizi

down

questions of

to Tasso’s unwillingness to

far.

argued that Plato made imitation one of the specific varieties

made

of narration whereas Aristotle varieties of imitation

epic poetry that a poet

is

narration one of the specific

and that Aristotle never definitely affirmed that

borrowed from Plato the statement

imitation, since he

when

not an imitator

is

speaking in his

concluded that Plato’s meaning was unclear,

was primarily

we

choose

On

a

maker of

idols;

own

person. Patrizi

an imitator

in that to Plato

but Patrizi concluded that

should agree with Plato that imitation

is

we must

if

one form of

narration. 41

In the year following Patrizi’s difesa di

La deca

Dante appeared. In contrast

disputata, Mazzoni’s Della

to his classification of imitations

(dramatic-fantastic, dramatic-icastic, narrative-fantastic, and narrativeicastic),

already examined, and to his extensive and valuable

on imitation its

as idol

making and

comments

particularization, to be dealt

with

in

proper place, 42 Mazzoni had quite conventional things to say about

modes of poetic imitation. In this more conventional side of his nature, Mazzoni was, like Tasso, a relativist. There are, he said, three degrees of poetic imitation: (i) the dramatic, using no narrator; (2) the hybrid of dramatic and narrative

modes

as in epic poetry, less clearly imitative

than the dramatic; and (3) pure narration in the poet’s own person, a still tower degree of imitation although still to be called imitation, for otherwise Aristotle

would have been wrong

poetry imitative. 43 But Mazzoni wavered

as did

in calling

many

dithyrambic

of his contem-

poraries in regard to the nature of pure imitation.

Although he

poetic imitation a kind of class that can contain a

more and

partially reversed himself in the

was 40

Malatesta Porta,

sopra

dal'lnfarinato

Rossi, ovvero del

obbiezioni

Accademico

Gemsalemme

Tasso

II

alcune

in Tasso,

liberata di

Opere,

XX

fatte

41

Patrizi,

La deca

with

disputata, pp. 197—

198.

Crusca

42

Torquato

43

della

he

second volume of Della difesa (which

not, incidentally, published until 1688), in a passage dealing

Parere alia

called

a less,

See pp. 24-25 and 118-125. Mazzoni, Della difesa, I, 368-369.

(Pisa, 1828),

66-69. 5

1

The Age

of Criticism

whether or not a poet

imitating

is

when

he passes judgment upon

the events portrayed. Bulgarini had adopted Castelvetro’s position, to be Aristotle’s, in arguing that

believing

it

imitating

when he

Mazzoni answered

rative.

own it

voices, for

judgments

poems

his

own

said, that

voice,

an epic poet

when he

when

not imitating he can make

is

As

to classify as even a third-degree imitator?

he added, soon

he speaks for himself

affirmed that Piccolomini

after, that the

as

when he

was confused

of deeds and actions, not of words.

sists

not imitating

is

How then did he leave room for the maker of dithyrambic

44 .

this question,

when

that obviously epic poets often speak in their

they did not they would be dramatic poets. Although

if

must be granted, he

he speaks in

Dante was not properly

expressed his bias toward the characters of his nar-

can describe (that

is,

imitate) actions

what does not

poet

is

if

in

much

as

answer to an imitator

has a character speak, and he in insisting that imitation con-

The

historian,

and deeds.

Mazzoni argued,

What

the poet does

exist as if it did. Imitation of actions

is

imitation of external things, “but the imitation of a person speaking

is

is

to describe

an imitation of habits and the internal disposition revealed by means of

Mazzoni meant “words” by these “external signs,” how, with many of his contemporaries, he considered

external signs.”

and it

it is

plain

possible to say that a poet speaking in his

words

his

own

mean when he imitate?

the

What

two kinds

habits

and internal

own

dispositions; but

said that a poet speaking in his is

uncertain

is

person imitates with

what then did he

own

voice does not

where he drew a boundary line between two statements from being con-

of speech to keep the

tradictory.

Mazzoni then returned

to the question of the biased or partisan

writer whose passions color his portrayals or interfere with them. His point on this score was that the writer should not try to withhold his

judgment but should make

his

judgment

dispassionate.

A

poet should

man

of good will, but to be a man of good will he should be condemn the vicious and praise the virtuous. Poets, he claimed, must be even more judges of things than historians since they are under greater obligation to move their readers 45 What is to be seen in

be a

able to

.

tracing out Mazzoni’s line of thought

is

a crux never quite

to resolution in Renaissance aesthetics. Imitation

meant

brought

faithful rendi-

tion of the particulars, and finally full concretion implied recording

the nature of the perceiver as well as that of the thing perceived. 44

Ibid., II, 131-132.

52

45

Ibid., II,

140.

Modes But on the

of Imitation

level of abstract philosophic speech, bias

was

a distortion.

his

preliminary

arguments were more extensive than

Bulgarini’s

statement would indicate. His main thought was that a poet should present his narratives in such a

own mind

way

make up

that the reader can

He

about the significance of the actions.

his

consequently

thought Mazzoni was wrong for defending Dante’s speaking in

own

person and passing judgments upon his characters.

does

this,

he

said,

“the reader

is

When

his

a poet

deprived of the opportunity of reason-

ing about and judging the things narrated that the poet himself has

already judged, and

low opinion of

it

would seem

his reader’s wit,

that he

determine rightly by himself without

his aid.”

menting, the poet treats his material as asserted that of essay-like

all

shows that he has

poets Ariosto

if it

Furthermore, by com-

were

history. 46 Bulgarini

was the one who most provided

commentaries upon the significance of

his actions, especially

in the discourses preliminary to his cantos. Bulgarini

would be

liable to the

poetry

to praise

is

a rather

not thinking him likely to be able to

same charge were

and blame, not to

it

thought Petrarch

not that the function of lyric

imitate, so that the rule against

commentary should not be extended to Petrarch’s kind of poetry. Hieronymo Zoppio, one of the first writers to come to the defense of Dante and Mazzoni after the publication of Bulgarini’s Alcune con1583, retorted that Aristotle could not have rejected

siderazioni in

poetry in which poets were found speaking in their

he accepted lyric and elegiac poets

as poets.

He

own

voices since

remarked

that,

if

dialogue writers are truly, “as the learned say,” imitators, then Boethius

must be

a poet

and an imitator. Zoppio

also called attention to the fact

that Cicero had imitated himself in the Tusculan Disputations. This

usage of Cicero provided him the avenue to his

own

explanation, for

he did not want to stretch the concept of imitation to include poets speaking ex professo. Instead, in a manner like Minturno’s and Segni’s,

two selves, one which pair it is the poet Dante who imitates and the philosopher Dante who is imitated. 47 Zoppio repeated this notion in answering the question whether a poet can be said to imitate himself when he as poet passes judgment on the situation that he is he mulled over the possibility of splitting Dante into poet, one philosopher, of

445

Bellisario

Bulgarini,

Alcune

siderazioni sopraH discorso di

copo Mazzoni

(Siena,

1583),

con-

M. Giapp.

21,

47

Hieronymo Zoppio, Ragionamenti

in difesa di

Dante

et del Petrarca

logna, 1583), pp. 8-9.

24-25.

53

(Bo-

The Age imitating; that

he

is

is

of Criticism

which

to say, can he universalize about a situation in

supposedly a character? His dubious response was that the judg-

ment is made by the philosopher

self

and the imitation by the poet

Like Zoppio, Opazio Capponi objected to some of Bulgarini’s

self.

48

critical

doctrines. In his reply to Capponi, Bulgarini once again protested that

The

a poet should not imitate himself. like Segni,

subtle distinctions of writers

Mazzoni, or Zoppio apparently went over

his

head.

could comprehend only that a poet functions in a story either

He

as real-

actor or as narrator, not as an imitator of himself. Bulgarini then

life

added about

new

a

wrinkle to the problem in asserting that

his virtuous actions

that a poet’s account of his

and

if

the effect

own

happy for another

out his

critical

if

tells

about

actions can be taken as either true

as of truth the result will

is

reason, namely,

be called history,

of falsehoods the story will be patently incredible. 49

if

poet

he becomes guilty of vainglory or boasting. In

addition, his effects will not be

or false;

if a

he seems shameless to the reader and

his vicious actions

writings Bulgarini was to be

persistence, or stubbornness, in defending

Through-

commended more

for his

what he thought was the

Aristotelian position than for eagerness to think through the actual

problems that poets

He was

face.

a

man with

were, as he himself claimed, that he forced

blinders on. His virtues his

opponents to reveal

themselves fully in order to combat his arguments.

The

critical

war

was waged over Guarini’s here, for no one doubted that

that

need not detain us long,

11

a

pastor fido

tragicomedy

could be called an imitation. However, after a preamble in which he defined imitation broadly, Guarini presented his readers with a standard version of the

modes of

imitation.

Imitation,

he

said,

is

making

resemblance to truth. Everything in the world participates in one

a

way

or another in imitation, “commencing with the creation of the world

when

Maker produced it” in conformity with the divine mind ab eterno .” In creating man, the microcosm, God said, “Let man be made in our image and similitude.” Man has learned everything by imitation to live well, to gain happiness by trying to resemble God. When the sciences express the truth, they give imitations or pictures of what exists in the intellect, that is, of the forms of concepts by means of words. This was an iteration of the broad conthat Divine

Idea “in his

—

—

48 40

Ibid.,

pp. 52-53.

Bulgarini, Repliche alle risposte del

54

Sig.

Orazio Capponi (Siena, 158 5), pp.

73-74.

Modes

of Imitation

cept of imitation usually considered vaguely Platonic, although

form was

specific

Turning

its

distinctly Christian.

to the question of the species of poetic imitation, Guarini

explained that of the imitative arts only poetry uses speech and that the three species of poetic imitation derive

from the combining of

speech imitation with other kinds. His three kinds were: the poet does not intervene but represents actions in acters act out everything before

(2)

when

the poet narrates in his

(i)

which the char-

our eyes, not before our

own

when

intellects;

person and uses no “discourse”

and dithyrambic poetry; (3) when the poet mixes the dramatic and the narrative, as in epic poetry.

which

not

is

Homer,

own,

his

as in lyric

Virgil, Dante, Ariosto,

and Tasso were

all

users of this

mixed

form. Unlike some of his contemporaries, Guarini dismissed the notion that a dithyrambic or lyric poet can be considered an imitator to the

extent that he

on occasion introduces other speakers or because those

genres are capable of such introductions. This usage, he so rarely that

He

argued that lyric poets present

characters not in order to simulate the dramatic

in

use of the figure of prosopopoeia.

one ode of Horace’s in dialogue form but

did not

make Horace

The problem

occurs

should be considered merely accidental and not a

it

force materially affecting the species.

make

said,

a

He

mode but simply

to

allowed one exception

insisted that this aberration

dramatic poet. 50

of relating the ideas of the Pisan philosopher Fran-

cesco Buonamici to the history of the particular ideas being traced is

although Buonamici never strayed far from the Aris-

difficult, for,

totelian line, his Aristotelianism

was the expression of

a

profoundly

indoctrinated Peripatetic rather than a mere paraphrase of the Poetics.

He

had far more to say about the nature of imitation in general than

about the modes or varieties of poetic imitation. assertions

Poetry”

come

in his

—rather

second

— “On discourse

his

The

of his significant

the Essential Parts of

than in the third discourse, which

cerned with the question of imitation.

comes from

Many

is

directly con-

uniqueness of Buonamici

approaching the question of the essence of poetry from

the angle of the poet as “maker” rather than as “imitator.”

The

funda-

mental distinction for him was between “doing” and “making.” Singers

and dancers are “doers”; architects and poets' are “makers.” 50

G.

B.

Guarini,

poesia tragicomica

Compendio

della

d’ltalia,

LXI

(Bari,

1914), 220-222.

(1601), in Scrittori

55

The Age To

distinguish

separated

he

this,

from

it

of Criticism

poetry from some of the other arts that

we must

said,

(i) the creative arts,

merely use adornment

Buonamici

arts,

kosmetikai.

which make something new;

adorned,

is

A

he continued,

is

that

which

exists

do

arts:

(2) the arts that

use things already made; and (3) those by which something embellished, or beautified. This third kind is kosmetikai. classification,

To

think in terms of a three-part division of

different

between absolute

making (when an object such as a chair results from the work) and the kind of making which retains “some relation to a substantive thing, such

as painting, sculpture, music,

or dancing, since the

semblance of something.” Arts of

a

is

mimetic or imitative

arts.

this

Poetry, however,

them

in

not a pure mimetic art

is

but an art of a hybrid or complex kind. In terms of the tion, it creates in the

work

second kind are the true

first classifica-

invention of the fable and beautifies in dressing

the fable in verse; and in terms of the second classification

it

an

is

imitator, not absolute. “Poetry,” he said, “is therefore the art of fabling

which

in verse

Buonamici

creates and adorns and imitates the fact.”

revealed his interest in the current controversy over Dante in adding:

“Therefore, Dante, in writing in verse and fabling and in imitating,

is

necessarily a poet.”

As

good Aristotelian, Buonamici was a relativist, making distinctions on the basis of center and periphery, and claimed that his definition allowed leeway for poems to differ one from another. His central a

principle

is

in general

Not

all

that a poet should imitate and create fables in verse but

need conform only “more or

less” to this central principle.

kinds of whiteness, he said, are identical.

The

best poet

who conforms best to the central principle. 51 By relating poetry to painting, Buonamici showed how

is

the

one

of poetry differed from that of the other

arts.

The

the matter

architect, he said,

directly expresses his idea in building his house. In comparison, poets

and painters have double “ideas”: (1) the idea which, like the architect’s, finds its form in the created work and (2) the idea of the thing to

be represented, for the representing of which instruments are

required.

Thus poetry

represent to us, the

two ideas, one of the thing other the form and disposition that “has

give to the material, which, in fable that proceeds

my

opinion,

from the ordering of

it

wants to

it

means to

the constituting of the

is

its

parts,

and up to

point poetry does not differ from painting since the fable ^Francesco Buonamici, Discorsi poetici (Fiorenza, 56

is

1597), pp. 24-25.

this

like the

Modes and

design,

just as the design

a disposition of colors, so the fable

is

52 a disposition of the parts of the action.”

is

plot or structure

There was

critics

basing poetic imitation on the relation between the

and the raw-material mass of is

how

a vast literature

on the importance of fable — that —in poetry. We have encountered hints of doctrine

by the sixteenth-century

left is,

of Imitation

rarely connections

as the essential feature

real-life particulars.

composed

What

were made between the two

fable

surprising

is

ideas, imitation

of poetry and fable as the essential feature.

which the imitative arts were made to be one division of the “making” arts, the relation between fable, the thing made, and imitation, the limited kind of making, was closer than was generally the case. Although in his discourse which is directly concerned with imitation Buonamici based his definition of imitation upon some kind of In Buonamici’s system in

correspondence that

exists

between two things

—

a

broad definition

he extended the term to embrace the even broader concept of enargeia

he

as imitation. In imitation,

imitated; this thing

is

said,

there

first

has to be a thing to be

absolute and can exist without being imitated

or without an imitator. But an imitation cannot exist unless something is

imitated, just as a

name means nothing

Thus, imitation should be thought of

unless

it

names something.

as “a counterfeiting

and

before the eyes of the mind and of the head a thing that

something

like

by is

itself, it

as

else;

this

reference to exist the reader of a

Thus when

and cannot properly is

man sees the not know what he is

a stupid

picture of a hippopotamus on a canvas he will

This failure

which it poem must

nevertheless always refers us to something else of

an image.” For

at

held to be

is

and even though the imitating thing can stand

be able to identify the referent.

looking

a putting

treat the imitation as an imitation.

like the failure of the

man who, not knowing how

to

read, sees the shapes of the letters as things in themselves but does not see

what the shapes symbolize. Buonamici did

not, however,

demand

that the things imitated have real existence in the external world.

The

thing represented, he said, can be substantive either in nature or in the imagination. existing thing;

When

when

a

painter represents a man, he imitates an

he represents a chimera, he imitates an imagined

whence it would be no representation representing thing is given the same name as the thing repre-

one, “for otherwise there is

that the

sented and the picture 52

is

.

said to

.

.

be a chimera or a man, in

Ibid., p. 37.

57

much

the

The Age same way and

of Criticism

as colors are called

both what

spiritually in the eye, so that

exists materially in the wall

both wall and eye are

colored for the simple reason that the real either

form and quality

the same

as the spiritual,

and

is

said to be

or seems to be of

in fact the real

is

made

manifest to us through the spiritual.” In this process of imitation, the thing doing the representing

is

immediate, the thing represented

is

mediated. But Buonamici added, with Patrizi’s argument in mind, no doubt, that imitation should be thought of as an equivocal term. For instance, in painting

can apply either to a representation with colors

it

or to one with design. 53

Buonamici was concepts are

all

a latitudinarian in

between the imitation and the thing

relationship

he wanted excluded from poetry, at

arguing that colors, words, and

instruments the poet can use in achieving his desired

as poetry,

pure contemplation or speculation, he

by concepts tolerance

why

is

if

any use of concepts aiming ample room for imitation

left

human

the concepts concerned the

coupled with

his basic stress

he was not perturbed, as were

will. 54

upon enargeia

many

Although

imitated.

,

it

When

this

can be seen

of his contemporaries,

by

the necessity of distinguishing between narration and dramatic representation as imitations.

were the

The

questions he was most concerned about

relation of imitation to thought, the nature of the pleasure that

comes from imitating, and the overlap between imitating other writers and imitating the real world. Partial reference to the

arguments of Alessandro Guarini has

al-

ready been made. 55 In an academy lecture read in Mantua in 1599, Guarini the younger, following a line of reasoning that was substantially Segni’s, addressed himself directly to the question of

lyric

poem could be

said to be an imitation of

how

a

an action. Segni had

argued that lyrics are imitations but not imitations of action. 56 Alessandro Guarini

commenced

his

reasoning with the reminder that

many

great literati had affirmed that lyric poetry could not legitimately

be called poetry according to Aristotle’s definitions, since neither imitation nor action. But although he spent

showing that said to be

was

to

a lyric poet in imitating a

forming

show

a “fable,”

it

some

possesses effort in

sequence of passions could be

and hence an

action, his principal

aim

that the concept of imitation could be extended to cover

imitations of passions as well as actions. Guarini’s framing of the ques53 64

Ibid.,

pp. 40-41.

Ibid., pp. 50-51.

58

65

Supra,

50

See supra p. 49.

p. 20. ,

Modes tion differs

little

from

eighteenth century

who

as a passive, rather

of Imitation

Blackmore

that of Sir Richard

in the early

called attention to the possibility of using

than an active, hero. As

a stoic hero,

Job

Addison’s

was hardly a man of passion, but since he was things were done rather than a doer, his import for

Cato, of the same period, a character to

whom

literary criticism

was much the same.

Alessandro Guarini remarked that Aristotle’s failure to account fully for the kind of imitation to be found in lyric poetry can be explained

only by the incompleteness of the Poetics as to

the lacuna in Aristotle

fill

we

have

it

and added that

there can be an imitation of passions as well as of actions.

should be a kind showing “characters suffering since

human

affections are

no

how

incumbent upon us to show

it is

less

There

( pazienti ), so to speak,

imitable than

human

effects

and

which is the end of the art of poetry.” a good part of the kind of imitation to be of this kind: witness the passions of Dido in

imitable with that same delight

Actually, Guarini said,

found

in epic poetry

is

the Aeneid and in Ariosto (“the ,

new Homer

of our age”) the

many

examples of passages reflecting pathos rather than action. Guarini added: “I understand patient characters to be those who, while not

doing anything outwardly, suffer those passions in their minds of which the lyric poets in their poetic compositions undertake to create re-

semblances: anger,

joy, sorrow,

desperation,

love,

desire,

hope, fear, jealousy, disdain,

and any others similar to them. Elegies, odes,

epigrams, distichs, sestinas, canzoni madrigals, and sonnets are full of ,

such emotions.

When

poets express these passions and affections, do

they not succeed in imitating and feigning them in their most excellent

mode

of existence in a

these passions,

human mind? And while they

do they not form

invention of something that displayed in verses.”

But even

if

is

a lyric fable?

—a poetic fable being the

untrue but verisimilar, and verisimilarly

57

Guarini founded

passion and action as subjects for lyric poetry. Sonnets,

acting,

feign and imitate

he

upon the parallel between imitation, he left room for actions in his case

said, are also

capable of presenting characters

with the poet either representing himself

ing other characters to act. This

is

as acting or introduc-

the idea that his father had already

rejected, arguing that actions appear too rarely in lyric poetry to

be important. Guarini asked,

when 67

Is

not Laura a character introduced acting

in paradise she takes Petrarch

A. Guarini, op.

cit.,

by hand and

talks to

pp. 347-349.

59

him? The

The Age

of Criticism

greatest difficulty Guarini foresaw in this regard

was

in distinguishing

When

between descriptions of amorous passions and true

histories.

what we have

how do we

the difference

to deal with

not objective action,

is

tell

between feigned and true statement? Mazzoni had not Guarini’s answer was that, although

faced this question squarely.

amorous passions truly a

exist,

we

cannot for that reason suppose, that

poet cannot feign them. Guarini’s reliance upon the distinction be-

tween true and

false

speech

is

again reminiscent of Segni.

Paolo Beni’s In Aristotelis poeticam commentarii (1613), which on was a routine commentary following Aristotle’s text, was

the surface

in actuality

an exposition of one hundred of the chief

troversies of the sixteenth century.

critical

As might be expected,

con-

several of

these controversies dealt with problems connected with the theory of imitation. Certain resemblances existing lines

between

of attack have already been indicated.

length some of the controversies which are

58

Beni’s and Patrizi’s

But Beni

now

also treated at

the subject of concern.

Since his book served the dual purpose of reviewing current critical theories and interpreting Aristotle,

it

is

hard at times to distinguish

between comments serving one aim and those serving the

other. In

both, however, he directed his remarks to the main questions of

how

is to the definition of poetry and what employment of the concept in the various genres of poetry. Certainly, Beni said, however poetry is defined, there must be room in the definition for lyric poetry. In order to dissipate the confusion attending the whole problem of poetic imitation, Beni subdivided it into ten questions, some of them dealing with the interpretation of Aristotle and some with the burning issues of his own day: (1) Did Aristotle mean that the epic, tragic, comic, dithyrambic, auletic, and citharistic forms are genres of poetry or have a com-

central the concept of imitation

the variations are in the

mon

quality as imitations?

(2) If the auletic and citharistic forms are arts that are closely related to poetry,

why

did Aristotle not put in the same

related arts? Perhaps painting

list

other closely

and sculpture are more closely

lated to poetry than these as imitations, since painting

poetry and poetry (3) (4)

is

Supra, pp. 20-22.

60

mute

a speaking picture.

Why did Aristotle confuse poetry with music? Why did he parallel species of poetry and not the auletic and citharistic?

58

is

re-

the genus with

Modes

of Imitation

(6)

Why did he leave no room for lyric poetry? Why did he make imitation the essence of poetry?

(7)

What

(5)

mean by

did Aristotle

imitation? God’s creation

be an imitation, and nature to imitate God. In imitates

and imitators are

Aristotle called

Can we

(8)

uses of

all

identify the

who

all

words

this sense

is

said to

everyone

use words. Both Plato and

imitation.

dithyrambic poetry with lyric

ancient

poetry? Lyric poetry often seems not to imitate but to narrate like history

or philosophy or oratory. So,

(10) poetry are the same,

if

dithyrambic and lyric

was imitation only accidental with the

dithyrambic but necessary with comedy and tragedy?

Did the

(9)

auletic or citharistic

forms use imitation?

What

overlap existed between epic poetry and the mimes of Sophron and Xenarchus and the Socratic dialogues? Should

poems

dialogues be thought of as epic

Many

in prose?

of these questions, simple technicalities though they were

in the clarification of the

among

debated

meaning of

Aristotle’s text,

much

had been

the expositors of Aristotle, as Beni indicated. Beni

pointed out that Robortelli, Maggi, Vettori, and Castelvetro had

sumed

meant the

that Aristotle

auletic

and

citharistic to

all as-

be forms of

poetry and capable of imitation, but he chose to agree with Alessandro Piccolomini and Riccoboni,

Beni argued that

these

if

out speech and speech poetry, for classify

and

if

why

as the

distinguished

them from poetry.

were kinds of poems poetry could is

poetry can

poetry

who had

if

with-

exist

without words,

why

in

did the Peripatetics

product of the rational faculty using words,

did Plutarch call poetry a speaking picture?

called Tfiythologues

exist

one element not to be dispensed with

Why

are poets

they do not use words?

Beni acknowledged the fact that

it

is

hard to distinguish between

sung music and poetry, and he was troubled that Aristotle

in the

eighth book of the Politics seemed to treat poetry as one of the sub-

many ancient authors on the range of the showed how the words for “tragedy,” “comedy,”

divisions of music. Citing

species of music, he

and “epic” originally meant song; and he indicated that epic poems

were

originally

sung in public. But poetry to him meant words, not

music. So for him imitation in poetry meant something done with

words. In his thirteenth controversy, after asking

make mention of

why

Aristotle did not

certain obvious kinds of poetry such as epigrams, 61

The Age odes,

of Criticism

hymns, epithalamia,

satires,

eclogues, tragicomedies, and saints’

of auletic and citharistic forms and indicating his un-

lives instead

willingness to believe that Aristotle

meant

to refer to lyric poetry in his

references to the auletic and citharistic

arts,

Beni declared that

though Aristotle included prose works

like

the

Socratic

al-

dialogues

among poems he excluded works on history or physics from poetry by means of his stress upon fable, internal coherence, and imitation. Epigrams and short too

lyrics he perhaps excluded

both because they were

and so lacked beauty, since he determined beauty by

little

just

magnitude, and because they lacked fable and imitation, so that he

would have

called lyric poets versifiers, like Empedocles, and not poets. But Beni believed that Aristotle would have approved of a constant

new genres to respond to new social situations and had he lived in modern times would have commended the writing of saints’ lives and triumphs (like those of evolution of art forms and the invention of

Petrarch), provided they

made

use of imitation and fable. Although

Beni was often a timid formalist, he was consistently on the side of

He

the Moderns.

did not believe that Aristotle intended to confine

poetry to comedy, tragedy, epic poetry, and dithyrambs. Nor, whatever Aristotle meant, was Beni willing to go along with the notion

mere by which

that lyric poets should be called relativist

lightly

and

up

set

a scale

would be placed

in

He preferred to who used imitation

versifiers.

poets

be a only

secondary or tertiary ranks of poets but

not excluded completely. In doing

this,

he supposed that virtues to

— ornaments and excellences —could somehow compensate for lack of He

be found in what he called “poetic lights” of diction that

if

nonimitators are excluded completely from poetry, the

of poet It

imitation.

is

denied to too

many

said

name

writers of great fame and excellence.

should be observed, however, that in spite of these great concessions

to relativism, Beni

still

held to the belief that Aristotle had laid

down

general principles for the writing of poetry, even of kinds that had

not yet been invented, though he took those general principles loosely

enough

to

make room,

proved successful

in

one

way

or another, for

all

forms that had

in the practical test of influencing readers.

After showing that the term “imitation” could refer to almost any kind of analogue or proportion, to the relation between logos and

God, and nature and faculties

logos,

and concluding that some

have greater, and some

to the particular 62

less,

powers of

problem encountered

entities

or

imitating, Beni turned

in Aristotle, Plato,

and Plutarch

Modes

—whether

poets imitate

when they

of Ivtitation

own

speak in their

person in the

manner of the historical narrator. Beni felt that Plutarch did not distinguish between historical narration and imitation. As has been inBeni created a distinction between “simple” imitation, to

dicated,

include a poet’s narration in his

when

characters speak.

imitation.

As Beni

own

Complex

person, and “complex” imitation,

imitation

“dramatic” and “total”

is

interpreted him, Plato allowed imitation to consist

of the portraying of either kind. Dithyrambic, or lyric poetry,

by simple

tion

narration. Epic poetry contains

Aristotle, Beni said,

distinctions

some of each

seemed both to accept and to be unaware of

declaring that

in

imita-

is

kind.

Plato’s

Homer was imitating only when he when he spoke in his own voice. I cannot see why he is not inconsistent

presented characters speaking and not

He

added: “At the same time,

since

from the beginning he conceded imitation

ration.”

also to simple nar-

59

Beni was aware that Plato was every bit as inconsistent as Aristotle,

but he found stronger support in Plato for calling

imitators.

Unlike some of

his predecessors,

he failed to

all

poets

come

forth

with a clear theory of imitation because he refused to surrender anything.

He

tried to justify the inconsistencies in classical doctrine

by

allowing imitation to cover the whole range of “analogy” from imitating past masters of the art to the direct dramatic presentation of

“words and personae.” Thus he could say that the only imitation

was the dramatic even while he was stretching

real

kind of

his

concept

of dramatic imitation to include any kind of narration from which our

imaginations can derive the sense of a character present before us.

Although

his

declared intention was to

far less than Segni did he wrestle

for his interests

were

show

that lyric poets imitate,

with the actual problems involved,

in epic poetry, not in lyric. In his role of reviewer

of the many-sided critical activity of the century preceding him, he

encumbered himself with it

can be said that

many

virtues,

some negative

some

heatless complexities.

his interpretation of the

positive in thoroughness

Yet

in fairness to Beni,

theory of imitation has

and comprehensiveness,

make and in the weak answers Over more than two decades he waged a battle for

in the mistakes he did not

that he avoided.

the enlargement of the concept of poetry to include prose fiction

and other prose imitations. In

this

personal crusade he revealed

central to poetry he considered the mimetic concept to be. In 69

Beni, In Aristotelis poeticam covmientarii , pp. 46-63.

63

how

view of

The Age this stress

upon

of Criticism

imitation,

it is

significant to note that he consistently

strove to identify poetic imitation not with a naive holding to nature but

summed up

up

a mirror

with a sense of the voice of the individual character.

his

64

age accurately in stressing vivid concretion.

He

4

Were Empedocles and Lucretius poets?

AT

the heart of the speculating done

by

the Italian literary critics

of the late Renaissance on the nature of poetic imitation was the issue of whether or not poetry could legitimately be called imitation

when

the poet merely narrated his matter, summarized

upon

it

in his

the

own

it,

or discoursed

voice, instead of introducing characters

show from

the poet or

who would make

who would

steal

the reader forget the

presence of the poet. Following the clear but not entirely consistent leads of Plato

and

Aristotle,

they worked out interpretations of the

theory of imitation which generally implied gradations from a center of full dramatic representation shading off to

modes of expression

could be called imitative only secondarily or slightly. In

managed

to maintain subtle and important distinctions

this

way

that

they

between poetic

and other forms of discourse, to separate poetic modes from the modes of discourse used orators.

Among

by theologians, philosophers, natural scientists, and more advanced thinkers, from Robortelli to Segni,

the

Mazzoni, Buonamici, and Beni, imitation consisted of realizing the con-

was done by composing external particulars or whether abstract ideas were individualized by being passed through the particular temperament of the poet. These, however, were apex discriminations the vitality of which depended to a considerable degree on agreements reached in respect to several issues cutting tangentially across this central problem in cretion of a situation whether this

critical speculation.

Some

of these overlap so

much with 65

the central

The Age

of Criticism

problem that they cannot be reviewed

as

separate entities without

considerable retraveling of ground already covered. as the

Some

of them, such

between poetry and science and the question of

distinction

whether or not poetic imitations must be confined to human

action,

arose almost entirely out of the desire to explain Aristotle’s position fully.

Other

although likewise deriving from Aristotle or Plato,

issues,

assumed importance because answers were needed to explain variations not well covered in the Poetics.

in poetic practice

The

extension of

was one of

poetics to cover the aesthetics of prose fiction

these even

though the argument was based largely upon the interpretation of phrase or

two of

Aristotle’s, for the

a

aim was not so much to understand

Aristotle as to gain Aristotle’s authority in support of kinds of writing,

such

as the novella

and prose comedy, that the concept of poetry

as

highly ornamented verse did not account for. Here the central question

was reopened:

The

Is

imitation or verse the essential quality of poetry?

Renaissance theory of imitation cannot be fully understood with-

out involvement in these attendant questions. Aristotle said:

“Even

losophy in meter they in

common

if

still

a writer present

Homer and Empedocles

to

medicine or natural phi-

speak of him as a poet, yet there

is

nothing

except their meter; the one

is

justly called a poet, but the other should be called a natural philosopher

rather than a poet.” his substance, if

1

not

The

implication plainly was that the poet finds

his subject matter, in

and abstract discourse are

that imitation

what can be imitated and two different things. This

distinction of Aristotle’s has generally been thought of as a highly significant aspect of his theory of poetry;

one of the key aspects

it is

that ever since the revival of the Poetics during the Renaissance has

tended to separate Aristotelians and non-Aristotelians. ful in principle

faith of

way

many

most of the Renaissance

critics

were

However

faith-

to Aristotle, the

wormed their common argument that

of them wavered at this point, and they

out of their difficulty either by using their

more or less evident or by which they thought also to be Aristotle’s, that poetry should give profit and in order to give profit would have to

the essential quality of poetry can be relying on the belief,

deal with the subject matter of abstract learning.

The

great contest of

the century over Dante, culminating in the polemic between Mazzoni

and Bulgarini, was caused in large part by the unwillingness of the Aristotelians to accept the large quantity of abstract doctrine to be 1

Poetics 1447228. See Gilbert, op.

66

cit ., p. 70.

Empedocles and Lucretius found

Divine

in the

Comedy

.

Castelvetro, following, he believed, the

logic of Aristotle, assigned poetry the function of giving pleasure to

the uneducated classes, but in reasoning in this fashion Castelvetro

was

which

pas-

particularly at variance with his century, the majority of

wisdom of poetic utterance and could wisdom not somehow related to philosophic

sionately believed in the ultimate

not readily conceive of a concepts.

Tomitano’s great argument for poetry, in 1545, was that any excelmust be an intimate synthesis of eloquence and

lent kind of discourse

To

philosophy.

him, although poets should specialize in eloquence

and philosophers and the

poet was a philosopher

in abstract doctrine, the ideal

ideal philosopher a poet.

Aristotle’s distinction, for he

Tomitano

at this date

had one of the speakers

was aware of

in his dialogue

by verses or by imitation; were pronouncedly un-Aristotelian.

question whether poets are to be identified

but his sympathies on

this score

Both poets and

orators, he said, are

truth, the poet

by

concerned

“This imitation in the poet

tinued:

is

in their

by

imitating and the orator

ing.

The Count,

if this

consets

shadow follows the

an imitator of nature, a poet will obtain greater

is

grace and strength from studying nature.” This

Speroni explaining

with

study that he

a certain

himself of emulating nature, following her as a

body. Thus, since he

own way He

persuading.

why

Tomitano showing

is

and to reveal

a poet has to be learned

his learn-

another of the speakers, interrupts Speroni to ask

who

means that painters and sculptors

should, like poets, study philosophy.

Not

for the painter imitates with colors that

so,

likewise imitate nature

Speroni

which

is

made

to answer,

pertains to the eye only,

but the poet in using verses imitates that in nature which pertains to

He

the mind.

also said:

“Just as the

harmony of

the poet

is

known

more by the intellect than by the senses, its contrary, music, pleases the ear more than the mind.” 2 But Tomitano’s Count refused to be overwhelmed by these argu-

He poetry. He ments.

still

objected to the direct use of philosophic material in

found

fault

with Dante for being

fantastic articles of clothing

in interlarding philosophy

passages.

He

with alternating

and theology among

Bernardino Tomitano, Quattro

libri

this

della

who

stripes of satin

called attention to the fact that

Empedocles and Lucretius were of 3

like the tailor

created

and velvet

more purely poetic among ancient poets

his

kind and claimed that the lingua

thoscana

(Padova,

p. 86.

67

1570),

The Age

of Criticism

elucidation of arts does not belong to poets

—not medical matters

as in

Fracastoro’s Syphilis or agriculture as in Virgil’s Georgies or Columella’s verse treatise

be above

all

on gardening. Speroni agreed that

a

poet should

making and was under no obligation

excellent in verse

to

explain the subject matter of the arts but repeated that to achieve his effects he

had to be well indoctrinated in philosophy. 3

Turning from Tomitano

we

to Speroni himself,

find Speroni in

defense of his dialogues attempting to define poetry and oratory

his

knowledge, not knowledge

as imitations of as in

comedies

real prostitutes, parasites, ruffians, or

“Thus

saying:

itself,

young

lovers should

not appear but representatives that seem to be they but are not so also the doctrine is

which we

learn in

just

them [comedies and

.

.

.

dialogues]

not demonstrative science but a portrait of knowledge which re-

sembles

it.”

The

relationship

is

that of the

shadow

to the body, the

mirror to the image, or the thing in relation to the portrait. things like the natural sciences are completely

known

other things are

less

true knowledge. Process

logism

opinion

is is

less

true, for

what we

known and

Some

understood;

completely. Demonstrative knowledge

knowledge derived from the

opinion

is

generated from

find in dialogues; the effect

it.

is

dialectical syl-

This world of

persuasion through

is

eloquence and use of enthymemes and examples.

Quite possibly, Speroni, quisition in this

argument

(1) those

is

defending himself before the In-

in defense of his dialogues, did not

understood perfectly. His into three groups

who was

wish to be

classification of “cognitions or imitations”

not entirely

clear.

They

are as follows:

from things made by nature from which true knowledge

can be created, as Aristotle showed, by means of demonstrative syllogisms (2) those, as in Plato, Socrates,

and Xenophon, which use

give us probable opinions concerning our civil (3) that

found

in

Cicero’s kind of dialogue,

dialectic to

life

which persuades the

reader or listener

The enthymeme

of oratory, Speroni said,

effigy of the probable syllogism,

image of perfect demonstration, character

traits,

and the parrot

that rhetorical persuasion 3

Ibid., p. 92.

68

is

just as the

in

is

“a

more or

less

imperfect

and the probable syllogism

monkey

words. Should

a picture

it

is

of

man

is

an

in certain

not then be inferred

and imitation of opinion, and

Empedocles and Lucretius

And if And

opinion an imitation of science?

which derives from dialogue an image of images

play.

to imitate

difficulties since it

is

to play, opinion

oratorical persuasion

play also on account of

is

This argument presents as a

is

which

is 4

great uncertainty.”

its

seemingly concerns dialogues

form of oratory and not of poetry. But

it

was Speroni’s wont

to

minimize the differences between the two. Here he absolved the writer of poetry from

all

responsibility for the soundness of the ideas

he projects but defended the poet’s use of ideas. Speroni believed, in

most important ideas

fact, that the

deal

in

human

life

are those that merely

with probabilities, not with demonstrable

assigned this area of the probable to poets and orators. in the

and he

certainties,

true that

It is

“Dialogo sopra Virgilio” Speroni, following the more usual Aris-

totelian discriminations, used the principle of imitation as the criterion

among

poems the Bucolics were the most properly poetry since the Georgies were not imitations but direct instructions like the poems of Lucretius and Empedocles and since the Aeneid was more like history than like a poetic imitation 5 These concessions Speroni could make, but to him poetry had its own for poetry in deciding that

Virgil’s

.

kind of knowledge.

Varchi

said, briefly, that

Hesiod and Virgil were not poets

ing the cultivation of the earth retical Scaliger said,

basis of

“We

6 .

The much about

in teach-

historical-minded but untheo-

hear too

imitation being the

poetry in general,” and he divided poetry by subject matter

into religious

and philosophical poetry. The philosophical kind he

subdivided into (a) natural poetry, as in Empedocles and Lucretius,

and (b) moral and

political

poetry

7 .

Most poems he no doubt con-

signed to the “moral” category; the fact was, however, that this critic

whom

Northern Europeans exalted into the archwas in many key respects not Aristotelian at all, showing neither sympathy nor understanding of Aristotelian aesthetics. But Scaliger showed more clearly where he stood than did Ludovico Dolce, later generations of

Aristotelian

who

reflected Aristotle’s

all versifiers

judgment of Empedocles

in saying that not

are poets but confused the current issues

by adding, “for

beside the diversity of doctrines that this faculty requires, there

need of invention, arrangement, 4

Speroni, “Apologia dei dialogi,” in

Opere, 6

artifice,

I,

279-281.

and diction,”

all

of

0

Varchi, Lezzioni, p. 580.

7

Padelford, op.

cit.,

pp. 27,

Speroni, “Dialogo sopra Virgilio,” in

Opere,

II,

which

200-201.

69

16.

is

are

The Age necessary but hard to

of Criticism

come

by. 8 Vettori, to the contrary, followed

Empedocles and the poetry of

Aristotle closely in rejecting

specific

doctrine. 9 Bernardino Partenio, in addressing himself directly to the

problem of poetic imitation times had changed

in 1560, revealed to his readers

by showing how

how

the

the older concept of imitation as

imitation of one’s predecessors (the view presented in Partenio’s

first

two books through the mouth of the old master Trifon Gabriele) had given way to the newer Aristotelian concept, for the elucidation of which Partenio used Trissino as the spokesman. “He who does not imitate,” Partenio said, “should not be called a poet.” It

is

popular

usage only that mistakes the writing of verses for poetry; Aristotle

showed

Homer and

that

Virgil should be called poets,

Empedocles and

Lucretius philosophers, and Lucan a historian. But Partenio did not

allow Trissino to follow up

much

of reasoning. 10

this line

explored in Minturno,

who

Nor

is

the matter

took the straight Aristotelian

line.

Poets should imitate; Empedocles and Lucretius did not imitate; there-

Empedocles and Lucretius were not

fore,

poets.

Hesiod and the Virgil

of the Georgies were not poets “if the definition of poetry given

according to the opinion of Aristotle

is

true.” Minturno’s understand-

ing was that poets should not try to teach directly, and he decided that

Horace was not functioning

as a

poet in writing

poetry

his art of

in verse. 11

Had

he paid attention, the sixteenth-century reader could have

found a more complex explanation of the matter

in Capriano’s Della

vera poetic a (1555), the publication of which preceded the publication of Scaliger’s Poetices libri septem by six years. With a division of

on the mind and those of

imitations into those of senses operative

senses

operative only on the senses, reminiscent of Tomitano’s distinction,

and with truth,

a limiting of

poetry to the world of appearances and not of

Capriano was able to say that poetry could imitate anything,

either intellectual or sensible,

and to make room for a division of

poems

moral. Since poets deal with

things,

into

into

(

1

)

both of

natural and intellect

two groups:

(2 )

and of

(1) those

who

sense,

he

8

accidents

Ludovico Dolce,

I

of the senses”

quattro

libri delle

osservatione (Venetia, 1560), p. 189. 0 Vettori, op. cit., p. 16.

70

created

can divide poets

“have depicted and imitated natural

things with fictions, adumbrating and veiling

ances and

we

said,

all

(natural 10

them with the appearpoetry,

Bernardino

according to

Partenio,

Della

tione (Vinegia, 1560), p. 93. 11 Minturno, Uarte poetica, p.

imita-

4.

Empedocles and Lucretius Capriano, was anything apart from the sphere of moral behavior, in-

cluding the invisible and the eternal), and (2) those that represent

only human actions “for moral instruction and the use of Capriano

it

life.”

For

then followed that poets dealing .with the natural sciences

should as a matter of course be expert in their knowledge, “rising on the wings of intellect as an eagle, philosophizing about nature and the causes and effects of things.”

Such poets pry

into the innermost secrets

of things, into physics, astrology, theology. But Capriano did not so

much throw overboard

the concept of imitation as he conceived of

imitation as the conversion of doctrinal materials to poetry

of inventions and ornaments. Verse, he said,

is

by means

an important ingredient

from nature and brings great delight. The more mysterious would have in prose. Verse is a fitting accompaniment

in poetry because

it

is

abstract idea expressed in verse receives greater and

majesty than

it

for lofty subjects and gives emphasis to ideas. Capriano belonged to

the school, later led

by

Castelvetro, to

which

invention, the fiction,

and not imitation precisely, was the basic element in poetry. imitation, conceived as invention, gives us

is

What

the conjunction of sense

appearance and intellectual content, that conjunction in which deeper

meanings take on marvelous accidental sense forms.

The

perfect poem, Capriano said, has three essential parts: fiction,

imitation,

and

verse. Strangely

enough, he rejected Empedocles and

Lucretius as perfect poets not because they did not imitate but be-

what had said. In Capriano’s view, the trouble with Empedocles his fictions were only incidental, not dominant. The true fic-

cause they did not use fictions, and he asserted that this was Aristotle

was tion,

that

said Capriano,

whole poem “fiction”

an is

idea.

as

its

“should be diffused universally throughout the soul,”

and thus he revealed that he identified

with mythos and meant poetry to be

myth

a

A

poet whose fiction

poem

is

like a painter

not universally diffused throughout

his

does not create a consistent and completed work. that

Lucan

in describing the

he did not fictionalize

Some

or story about

But the myth or story must be created.

war

It

who

follows from this

Thessaly did not imitate because

in

12 .

of Castelvetro’s ideas about the use of special doctrines in

poetry have already been dealt with

13 ,

or, rather, his ideas

here are so

mixed with other ideas that separation is impossible. His plain intention was to agree with Aristotle that no art or science is fit subject matter 12

Capriano, op.

cit.,

sig.

Bl.

13

Supra, pp. 37-43. 7

*

The Age

of Criticism

for poetry. Castelvetro remarked that Aristotle’s insistence on this point

had perplexed the literary minds of poet to

many good

his

time since

it

some

writers and encouraged

refused the

critics to reject Aris-

important point

totle entirely. Since Castelvetro stressed invention, the

him was

for

that a poet

not doing anything original

is

his

he uses

subsequent assertion that poets dealing with

philosophic or scientific subject matter

but not good poets, for

scientists

when

This belief of Castelvetro’s squares

scientific or philosophic materials.

only partly with

name of

if

may

be good philosophers or

a poet

is

a

good philosopher or

he presumably has an original over-all comprehension of

scientist

material. Castelvetro resolved this dubiety

by

his

resorting to the belief that

the poet’s function, unlike the philosopher’s or scientist’s,

is

to “imitate

faithfully the fortuitous events of the world,” to give delight

by means

of imitations, and to leave the discovery of truth to philosophers and

The poet should stay in his own province and benefit men in his own way 14 Finally, however, Castelvetro made

scientists.

light

.

He

the principle of gradation.

Empedocles was scientific

use of

claimed Aristotle did not say that

a poet. Instead, Castelvetro

argued that the

poet could be said to bear “some of the outward marks of the

poet, just as a to bear

no way

in

or de-

wolf

in sheep’s clothing remains a

some resemblance

a concession!

He

to a sheep.” This

felt that Cicero,

is

wolf but could be

not, to be sure,

said

much

of

Horace, and Quintilian proved that

they did not understand Aristotle by calling Empedocles a good poet.

The

Renaissance critics consistently refused to believe that the text of

Aristotle’s Poetics

was not

available to

all classical

writers.

words into the false and the true was a way of distinguishing between what a poet does and what a philosopher or natural scientist does. He was the Segni’s division of the idols that can be created

Renaissance critic above

all

who

as

the use of

sufficiently enlarged the

fable or mythologia to enable a distinction

and Empedocles

by

concept of

between Empedocles

as

poet

nonpoet. But Patrizi, in spite of his attack on the

theory of imitation, clearly showed both what the province of poetry should be and

why Empedocles

amused

commentators on the Poetics had made

that the

Aristotle’s assertion that

could be called a poet. Patrizi was

Empedocles was

a big fuss

a natural scientist

sertion which, he said, had led to the cruel banishment of poets:

—an

many

,

Bongiorno, op. 72

cit.,

pp. 55-56.

his

Urania Fracastoro for ,

as-

great

Hesiod, Aratus, Nicander, Lucretius, Varro, Virgil for

Georgies Serenus, Manilius, Pontano for 14

about

his his

Empedocles and Lucretius Syphilis.

He

was based upon two concepts of both of which were unclear: (i) “that no science or art can

Aristotle’s,

claimed

this rejection

be suitable material for poetry, nor should one verses,”

make

explanations in

and (2) “that the history of things that have happened cannot

provide suitable material for poetry.” These

beliefs, Patrizi asserted,

are contrary to the general opinion of the greatest writers of

and to the

common

he shifted

his

all

time

practice of poets. But then, following Castelvetro,

argument

show

to

that Aristotle did not really say that

Empedocles was no poet and quoted Castelvetro’s saying that in sheep’s clothing possesses

vetro had asserted, as

if

some

qualities of a sheep.

anticipating Patrizi’s

Where

argument (the

fact

a

wolf

Castelis

that

they were probably both responding to typical academic briefs), that Cicero, Horace, and Quintilian revealed ignorance of Aristotle in call-

ing Empedocles a good poet, Patrizi argued that he was a good poet

because these eminent judges had called him one.

on

Patrizi’s attack

Aristotle here

use of authority, but he

proceeded with consistent, casions.

less

was one of

his outbursts against the

was not beyond complaining

than

full logical

that Aristotle had

demonstration and had been in-

having called Empedocles a poet on three separate oc-

Descending to

Aristotle’s system,

by which

entities are

termined by form, not matter, Patrizi tried to show that verse

deis

at

form of poetry, while still keeping in reserve his more many poems had become famous without having a narrative fable which made them imitations. Patrizi’s central argument was, however, that Empedocles was a true poet because he had a reputation in antiquity as a mythmaker, and he had a reputation as a mythmaker because there were many mysteries in his poetry. Thus, to Patrizi, mythology should be equated principally with mysteries. He based his case on stray passages and scraps of references for which there were no extant texts, making allusion to the exposition by Heraclides of Pontus of the natural mysteries expressed by Homer, and on discussions in Porphyry, Syrianus, and Proclus of Homer’s handling of divine mysteries. He believed that the expression

least the external

important argument that

of mysteries implied the use of allegory, and he based his defense of

Empedocles poetry.

The

as a

of poetry based tion based

poet on

his liberal use

issue as Patrizi

upon

saw

it

of allegorical meanings in his

was between the Platonic conception

upon the use of allegory and the the imitation of an action.

He

Aristotelian concep-

thought he was arguing

directly with Castelvetro and Tasso in saving: “But

if

the generality of 73

The Age

of Criticism

the opinions obtains that although the fables of

Homer are not who know,

for hidden meanings while, in the opinion of those

a veil

those

of Empedocles do contain allegories, without which neither they nor the fabric of the world nor the

and

if

allegory

works of nature can be

all

many

one of the four characteristics

is

attribute to great poets,

at

understood, [cf.

Empedocles has great merit and was

Dante]

a greater

poet than Homer.” In argument aimed particularly at Tasso, Patrizi turned to a picayune belittling of

Homer

more important

in

an attempt to show that Empedocles handled the

Homer’s

material.

was not good; he

fable

filled

his

events with acts unseemly in gods and heroes; he allowed Achilles to

be a rebel against heroic dignity.

his rightful lord;

What

is

the Odyssey but

petty noblemen of the barren great epic? events.

There

Who

is

there

much

isle

is

much low

two

jaunts

little

made by two

of Ithaca, an insignificant locale for a

and eating

talk

action instead of

can say that such material

is

Odyssey but few

in the

any better for poetry than

Empedocles? Then turning directly to Castelvetro’s three

that of

charges against Empedocles

—

(

i

)

that poets are inventors but cannot

invent the arts and sciences, (2) that speculating belongs to philosophers,

and

( 3 )

that poets should please the rude multitude,

of being pleased

by

which

the teachings of the arts and sciences

is

incapable

—Patrizi did

15

Thus was constituted his defense of Empedocles. Others, as he knew, were uneasy about Aristotle’s exclusion of scientific doctrine from poetry, but no one in the sixteenth century attacked Aristotle’s concept more vigorously. Patrizi made clear that he was prepared to defend Dante’s use of not argue but

flatly stated that all this

was

false.

doctrinal matter.

Inasmuch Patrizi’s

as Tasso’s revised

La deca

Discourses on the Heroic

On

the

followed

make

ground that

Aristotle’s con-

,

sions to Patrizi’s kind of argument.

Poem

certain conces-

disputata he had opportunity to

cept of poetic action could be understood broadly, he allowed that

Empedocles could be admitted

as a heroic

poet (although he

cluded Lucretius on the extraneous principle that times heretical), for “if sity

be

many

and since is

all

Patrizi,

La deca 74

disputata

.

the action of the intellect.”

Tasso could conceive even of 15

many

in this equivocal genus, as Simplicius said is

still

ex-

were some-

actions can be imitated, there will of neces-

species of poetry since there are

contemplation, which

his ideas

.

kinds of actions .

the

With

first

species

this latitude

dialectical progression as action; he said

pp. 137-156.

Empedocles and Lucretius some of his contemporaries were defending Dante’s Divine Comedy as a poem on the basis of its having a contemplation as its subject, an action in which Dante’s journey through hell and purgatory projects a that

“speculation of his intellect.” Tasso to

Mazzoni since he proceeded

view that the Divine Comedy found Bulgarini’s explanation

made

clear that his reference

was

to defend this position against Bulgarini’s is

merely the

retelling of a dream.

distasteful for he

Tasso

thought that an imitation

removed from reality instead even though he had to contend with

of a dream must of necessity be four times of the usual Platonic three times, the authority of Synesius, in

dreams “and that

end

as

it is

who had

believed that fables have their origin

not unfitting for poems to have dreams

vetro that Aristotle meant to treat Empedocles as a poet of rather than no poet at

ing that

if

other poets

all.

He

Empedocles was

who

followed through with a poet so

divine actions

is

low degree

his logic

by

assert-

were Lucretius, Pontano, and we would have to

had written about nature, and

suppose that the definition of poetry as the imitation of

human and

incomplete. But Tasso preferred to think of a con-

templative action as a

human

With Tasso one can never were mere facades for

his

action tell

16 .

how

often the theoretical projections

defense of poems with verisimilar historical

actions. Mazzoni’s preference for fantastic left

as their

well as their beginning.” In the main Tasso agreed with Castel-

the door open to

poetry bothered him since

making Ariosto’s kind of romance

it

central in a

definition of poetry. Tasso preferred to extend the concept of imitation to cover the conception of poetry as a

form of

logic capable

on oc-

casion of using logical demonstrations (as in Empedocles, Lucretius,

and Dante) rather than to This

to say that for

is

imitation

let

poetry be an imitation of wild

fantasies.

him probability was more important than

17 .

In the critical writings of Camillo Pellegrino, as in those of most of

war over Tasso’s Gerusalemme liberata, concerning the theory of imitation was whether

the participants in the critical the principal issue

poetic imitation should be defined in terms of invention or invention

should be made central in the definition of poetry and not imitation. Although Pellegrino approached his question in such a way that his opponent Salviati rightly understood him to mean that imitation and not verse makes the poet, Pellegrino let Attendolo, his chief speaker in 16

in

Tasso, Discorsi del

Opere

,

XII, 10-1

poema

eroico,

17

Ibid., p. 35.

1.

75

The Age his

show

dialogue,

of Criticism

himself unwilling to agree wholeheartedly with

either side. Lucretius, Lucan,

make proper choice

granted, did not

and imitation, but he

fables

and Virgil

like Tasso, Pellegrino

in the

Georgies Attendolo ,

of subject matter in not using

wa's reluctant to call

them not

was concerned about the wrong

uses of historical

subject matter rather than of philosophical subject matter

As

whole question came

has been said, this

at the

by Mazzoni

knowledge of

his

theory of imitation

18 .

to a head in the quarrels

end of the century over the place of Dante

stand the position adopted

But

poets.

as a poet.

To

under-

necessary to garner some

it is

whole from other places

as a

in

study. In defending Dante’s use of philosophical materials, he

this

neither surrendered the theory of imitation nor gave in entirely to the

He

enough fashion in claiming that Aristotle did not say that Empedocles was not a poet but said he was more a physicist than a poet, in a kind of statement in which the latitudinarians.

started out in an ordinary

use of a comparative presupposes the existence of the positive.

He

also

entertained the notion that Aristotle could have meant that Empedocles

did

wrong not

scientist

in treating scientific matters

would, not

treat materials,

as a

poet would

Mazzoni was

19 .

but in treating them

how

In deciding

close to Segni

a

and elaborated Segni’s

while basing his arguments upon Plato’s distinction between fantastic imitation. Since, according to tation, the

important distinction

fidelity to truth

purposes.

Thus

tastic imitation,

own

is

Mazzoni,

poetry, no matter

which

to

use of words

and imi-

is

false deliberately for its

how

Mazzoni meant

sake. Consequently, the

ideas,

icastic

between imitation that pretends

and that which uses the all

all

as a

poet should

to

own

verisimilar, should be fan-

practically imitation for

important question in Mazzoni’s

its

critical

system was hove a poet uses doctrinal materials, not whether or not he uses them.

The

following passage

theorizing in the Renaissance, I

say then that everyone

who

in a certain sense an idol

similitude and an

if

is

one of the high points of

not of

all

critical

time.

mirrors some true concept with words creates

by means

of speaking, since every concept

image of the thing that corresponds to

in particular, in the opinion of

both Plato and Aristotle,

it,

and names

like idols

is

a

are,

and imita-

tions of things; so that not only the historian but also the natural philosopher

and every other man of

arts

who

in teaching

something reveals the truth

creates something like an idol with his speech and imitates things with con18

Camillo Pellegrino, II Caraffa in Tasso, Opere, XVIII (Pisa, 1828), 65. 76

19

Mazzoni, Della

difesa,

I,

51.

Empedocles and Lucretius cepts and with names. But

of the sciences and arts

who might

still

say that the speech in histories and that

would not be poetic

imitation and that the poet

deal with either history or science or arts

we

of poetic imitation that

we must

stand this,

would have the kind

we

in respect to itself than to represent

and perfect

idols, since

arts,

idols

by means

and of history

they are not made solely for represent-

and whoever teaches what

degree that they are

we

can say

forms

true, although he

form them to the idols; that is, he does not establish them to the end represent or resemble something but goes beyond

that point to another

mode and

order of objective, that

is,

of wanting to

some

the truth of the things that have happened or of wanting to teach

doctrine.

But the imitator creates the perfect

that

an

it is

insofar as

it

who

(as Plato

takes history as the subject for his

differ in this respect, that the historian will

memory

the purpose of leaving behind a

write about

them

in

them

in order to imitate

the respect that

it

is

will be constrained to write about

historian

and to adorn

his

a

and recognized by anyone

who

to leave behind a

them with

reads his

will

recount the things done for

simulacrum.

writing with

poem

idol

that

of the truth, but the poet will

them and

many

colors so that the simulacrum he wishes to

It

idol, the idol in the respect

showed in the Sophist) the represents or resembles the other. So we can conclude which means

idol,

the historian and the poet

of

is

of his concepts and words, does not

only of wishing to

tell

that

is

and resemble.

ing but for teaching and for discovering the truth of things. So that the historian,

under-

have said above) that the idol

consequently, the concepts of philosophy, of the

are not true

To

have earlier called “similitudinary.”

realize (as

which has no other use

And

I

And

simulacrum

indeed the poet

greater diligence than the

lights

and with many poetic

form may be

better envisioned

poem 20 .

followed for Mazzoni that the truth-seeking philosopher or histo-

rian seeks profit primarily

whereas the poet seeks delight. In

treatments of the function of poetry he built a

much

his

longer

stronger case

than this for profit as the end for poetry, even though from the intro-

work onward he

duction of his massive

held fast to the hypothesis that

was imitation for its own sake. His philosowho went beyond the simple projecthe assertion of the truth of the words projected, the

the specific end of poetry

phers and historians were writers tion of

words

to

historian with particular facts

Unlike

Patrizi,

allegorical

who

defended Empedocles

meanings carried by

Mazzoni declared that 20

and the philosopher with abstract as a

poet because of the

his explanation of the

allegorical

ideas.

nature of things,

meanings could belong to the area of

Ibid., p. 564.

77

The Age

of Criticism

truth and be icastic resemblances while the

and

fantastic. In saying that allegory

a

is

sense could be false

literal

hybrid form of expression, he

presumably implied the existence of two kinds of allegory, for what to keep a poet

from projecting

allegorical

meanings

is

as idols in the

respect that they are idols in contrast to a philosopher’s use of allegory

means of expressing

as a

that fantastic poetry,

terms of

its

a truth

which

he wishes to maintain? Mazzoni said

pure poetry, can be considered either in

is

the fantasy,

it is

fantastic.

At

the same time,

coincide with an invented action; that tasy

21 .

poem has by chance

genesis or as a finished product. If a

history

one with origin

is,

genesis in

its

may

in the fan-

Dante’s poem, as a poetical conceit, was a creation of the fantasy,

and even

if

abstract doctrine can be found in

made

its

own

for

sake, not a direct

the

it,

propounding of

poem

is

an idol

truth.

In comparison with Mazzoni’s account, Zoppio’s defense of Dante as imitator call

was markedly shallow. Although the average man, he

Empedocles and Lucretius poets because they are

only true poets are the imitators; but Dante was

anyone

—he imitated

Bulgarini’s

was wrong

kinds of people

all

main attack upon Dante

as

said, will

versifiers, the

good an imitator

as

22 .

as

in trying to imitate himself.

an imitator had been that he

He

was, however, also con-

cerned about Dante’s dealing with philosophic matters ex professo. In returning to this question in his reply to Capponi, rather than going to Aristotle directly he built his

argument around the comment by

Averroes that poetry was not invented for purposes of disputation and argument. Bulgarini’s friend, Capponi, had argued that Dante’s primary intention had been to

tell

about

his

journeys and, being the kind of

man

he was, had naturally concerned himself with the philosophic questions he encountered along the way.

He saw no

reason

why

a reader should

not tolerate philosophy in incidental and subordinate parts of a poem. Bulgarini, in responding,

was

less

concerned with any absolute

differ-

ence between poetic and philosophic speech than with the reaction of poet’s audience to

weighty philosophic language. Like Castelvetro, he

thought poetry should be read mainly by the middle claimed, did not in general understand philosophy.

classes,

He

which, he

thought poetry

should be an imitation and provide plot structures because the

man can be child,

appealed to

by

those things.

The common man

common is

like a

but the learned can gain instruction better by turning directly

to the arts and sciences. 21

a

Ibid., p. 579.

78

The

poet cannot teach them anything they do 22

Zoppio, op.

cit.,

p. 7.

Empedocles and Lucretius not already know. These ideas came to him from Piccolomini

from

as

Castelvetro, Bulgarini said.

well

as

23

After having earlier rejected Tasso’s notion that the concept of poetic

by which

action could be extended to include actions of the intellect,

extension imitations of logical sequences could provide subject matter

Summo

for poetry, 24 Faustino

addressed himself in the tenth discourse

of his Discorsi poetici (1600) to an attack

upon Francesco

Patrizi for

extravagance in rating Empedocles higher as a poet than Homer.

his

Much

of his accomplishment was the summoning up of the usual ideas. Can writers like Hesiod, Empedocles, Pontano, and Fracastoro be called good poets? he asked. He conceded that, since Aristotle normally al-

lowed

comparative to imply

a

be

still

and that Aristotle, using the term loosely and popularly,

called half poets

identified poetry

with verse. But

After summarizing

Summo

Patrizi’s position,

show

the Poetics to

could

a positive, doctrinal poets

that imitation

held that Patrizi

went too

far.

he assembled the usual passages in the genus or essence of poetry

is

and added references to the same end extracted from Plato, Plutarch, and Maximus of Tyre. imply positives

He

then claimed that Aristotle did not always

in using comparatives

and argued that when

Aristotle,

Cicero, Horace, and Quintilian lightly called Empedocles a poet they

were speaking only verse and metaphors.

human

actions; in

“they do not

No,

said

Summo,

answering people

know what

that “imitation using verse as

makes

a

its

uses

is,

one can only say that

and they do not

in Aristotle’s

know what

way.” The truth

is

proper instrument and not verse only

poet a poet. This was the opinion not only of Aristotle but also

of Plato, of Plutarch, and of the best minds of tion

who

the poet must be an imitator of

like Patrizi,

a poetic fable

means to imitate or not to imitate

it

one

in the popular sense of “poet” as

Summo was

complex.

The

On

ages.” 25

this ques-

one of the most faithful of the Aristotelians of

century and one of the most Buonamici, in

all

his

rigid.

his Aristotelianism,

was

little less

was more between the

rigid but

instruments used to achieve the relationship

imitation in poetry and the thing imitated, he said, are colors, words,

and concepts; but

—pure

we

should perceive that concepts are of two kinds

contemplations and concepts relating to the

human

will.

The

poet cannot very well handle concepts of the contemplative kind but 23

.

.

Bulgarini, Repliche alle risposte del .

Capponi pp. 21-26. ,

24

Faustino

Summo,

Discorsi

(Padova, 1600), p. 69. 25

Ibid., pp. 70-72.

79

poetici

The Age

of Criticism should leave them to philosophers and confine himself to human since he instructs and delights

and vices

as

more

actions,

displaying manners and treating virtues

they are found in particular persons.

poets were given

Dante, he

by

He

thought the Latin

liberty to be philosophical than the

Greek

functioned well as a theologian on occasion, that

said,

conveyer of the divine

from the high

light of truth,

level of his

own

and

in so

poets. is,

as a

doing did not descend

dignity, but in playing the role of a

theologian he was not, strictly speaking, playing a poet’s role. 26 In the final years of the sixteenth century, after Segni and Mazzoni,

there

was some

theorists like

drift

back toward

a straight Aristotelianism. Critical

Summo, Denores, Buonamici, and Beni were

the fore-

fathers of the Neoclassicism of the seventeenth century, rather than

Mazzoni,

who

remained, however, the most honored authority on poetic

matters in Italy for the half century following 1587. But

it

can hardly

be said that even a majority of the Aristotelians of sixteenth-century Italy followed Aristotle so closely in their conception of poetic imita-

from the realms of poetry poets whose doctrine or speculation. Although not re-

tion as to exclude completely

subject matter

was

abstract

jecting the limitation of poetic subject matter, they struggled valiantly to discover

under what conditions the blanket proscription did not

obtain. 26

Buonamici, op.

80

cit.,

pp. 50-51.

5

poetic imitation limited

Is

to imitation of action?

THIS

question

is

the other face of the coin from that of the use of

abstract explanations in poetry, but involved here also, as

what

indicated, are the limitation of poetry to will

and

Aristotle’s ethical belief that only in action

ascertainable.

Modern

this

way

his reason,

human

If

Renaissance writers were fond of saying, therefore the imitation of something

affairs

—but not neces-

poetry

is

is

like painting, as the

poetry often descriptive and not the imitation of an

static,

which can be handled only weakly in painting? commentator on Aristotle’s Poetics although ap-

Robortelli, the first

proaching poetry

,

as “representation”

and “description”

tation” nevertheless said: “Poetic speech

any

as well as “imi-

moreover does not represent

interior habits either of virtues or of vices, but the actions

selves

which

find their origin in these habits.” This

internal habits can be revealed only in actions limitations; the poet,

painter

would with

1 .

was

them-

to say that the

Lionardi created no such

according to him, could imitate “speeches, actions,

manners, and emotions, painting

1

intention

that of the

actions are liberally interpreted to include

contemplative sequences, as Tasso did.

action,

is

human

or instincts, or emotions, and in

they in effect confine poetry to human

sarily to actions unless

human

is

writers often say that a poet’s world

whole man, not merely of

Buonamici

pertains to the

colors.”

2

all as

as

he can with words

as a

Varchi managed somehow to maintain

Robortelli, In librum Aristotelis de

arte poetic a explicationes, p.

much 2

Lionardi, op.

cit.,

p. 50.

2.

8

The Age

of Criticism

both of these positions

at once.

He

who

they must imitate somebody

said that, since poets

must

does something; hence the

imitate,

demand

for action. But he added: “Just as sculptors and painters imitate principally exteriors, that

is,

bodies, so poets imitate principally interiors, that

mind

the minds, or rather the passions of the

is,

sorrow, joy.”

poet

And

3

later

“The

said:

like love, hate, anger,

first office

and

artifice of

every

to imitate or to represent. Poets can represent or imitate only

is

those

who

he

endowed with

is

he

No

are performing something. reason.

reason. Therefore, only

No

one can really perform unless

animal except

man can be

imitated.”

4

man is endowed with By “perform” Varchi

obviously meant something like “act significantly or responsibly.” In this sense, actions reveal interiors. Practically, his

poet can imitate actions, passions, or character

meaning was traits

that the

since these

all

interlock.

Capriano made the imitation of human action only one kind of poetry

5 ,

actions

6 .

but Partenio had Trissino say that poetry aims to express

Ludovico Dolce

poet

is

said:

“The matter

to imitate the actions of that

we

7

men.”

And

select to imitate

and the deeds of the characters.”

These writers with

human

said Aristotle teaches that “the office of the

Minturno, to the contrary, the manners, the emotions,

is

8

comments

their brief

reveal that differences of

opinion did

exist,

but they passed largely unnoticed until the time of

Castelvetro.

Even

Castelvetro did

He

approached the questions

totle’s division

we

of characters into

are. In Aristotle’s

ways

stances.

He

better, the same,

and worse than

system, he said, a man’s true moral nature

is al-

firmly denies

in action in order to reveal their

moral

and of goodness and wickedness, which Aristotle

it

to be.

in action, that

like history

men

argued: “If that were true, poetry would be an imitation

chiefly of morals,

is

men

discernible since his morals determine his actions, but Castelvetro

denied that poets imitate

men

more than skirt the territory. obliquely while commenting upon Arislittle

is,

.

.

.

it is

Poetry, on the contrary, the imitation of a story

but differs from

it

in that

it

is

the imitation of

which

is

in general

has never happened, though

always within the realm of the possible.

.

.

.

Now

it

these stories are

told not to reveal the goodness or wickedness of the persons imitated

but to delight the 3

Varchi, Lezzioni,

*

Ibid.,

6

Supra, p. 70.

p. 602.

82

common

people as

much 6

p. 583. 7

8

as possible

with the novelty

Supra, p. 69, Dolce, op. cit., p. 189.

Minturno, Varte poetica, pp.

2-3.

hnitation of Action

which give them more pleasure than

of the events represented, events

do the exposition of philosophers, the portrayal of character, the exposition of doctrines concerning the arts and sciences, or the representation

of events which possess no novelty.” limited to

way had tive

to

human

he not limited

human

action

Since effects of novelty are not

action, Castelvetro could not well have his

came

in

to

all

men

this

problem with the limitation of poetry

real

connection with the other genres, and aside

these idiosyncrasies, Castelvetro’s explanation

Common

argued in

concept of poetry almost entirely to narra-

and dramatic forms. The

from

9

was conventional.

are five things, he said: mind, will, fortune, station,

and action, of which mind and

whereas the other three

will are essential

are external or accidental. Questions of mind embrace distinctions between intelligence and stupidity, those of will between goodness and wickedness, those of fortune between happiness and unhappiness, those of station between royal and private situation, and those of action between philosophical and political activity. Now any of these except philosophical activity can be a subject of poetic imitation. Genres, however, Castelvetro distinguished by differences in station and made matters of will relatively unimportant. He thought that stupidity is more likely to be found in low station and intelligence in high and that “the nobility or humbleness of a person is not revealed by his virtue or his wickedness but by his deportment.” Gentility or rusticity these proceed from intelligence or stupidity, not from morals. In barring philosophical activity from poetry, Castelvetro rejected Tasso’s “actions of contemplation.” Otherwise, his approach was negative: he accepted the

—

definition of poetry as the imitation of

human

actions, but not because

He

did nevertheless envision

these revealed the moral nature of mankind.

the possibility of imitations in poetry of five kinds of beings, of

human

which

men and women; (2) gods and supercommon people think personified moral traits and human ab-

beings were only one: (i)

natural beings, a possibility only because the

anthropomorphologically; (3) stractions such as wealth, poverty, glory, infamy, and so on (these

would seem as are

to encroach

found this

and (5)

in Aesop’s fables;

(Castelvetro did not

he took

upon philosophical

make

category).

clear

activity); (4) animals such

senseless animals

and plants

what he meant here or how

The main

drift of this classification

is

seriously that any-

thing can be imitated that can be personified. 10

Alessandro Piccolomini more directly attacked the kind of descriptive 9

Bongiorno, op.

cit.,

p. 68.

10

Ibid., p. 93.

83

The Age

of Criticism

poem in which no human

action appears.

He

said that

be mere portrayals of the events of a night or river, the

present

coming of springtime, or any

human

in asking

why

11

Later, Paolo Beni took

.

a day, the flooding of a

similar natural event but should

Poetry Should be, thus, not

action.

and not epigram

up

lyrical description

and expanded

this idea

it,

poetry provides imitations of people and not of such

things as houses and mountains.

He

felt

apparently the presence of de-

fenders of lyrical descriptive poems in his milieu

who were

descriptions of storms, sunsets, and other natural

poems and

poetry should not

pointing to

phenomena

in lyric

to long lyrical passages in epic poetry that could

stretch of the imagination be called imitations of

held out for the imitation of

human

human

by no

action. Beni

action not only in poetry but in

painting also, even though he conceded that static descriptions could

be used in subordinate parts of poems in episodes or did not

comprehend how

a

poet could write a

as

ornament.

poem about

a

man

He

asleep

or in idleness, since the end of poetry could not be reached in this way,

where no misfortunes existed from which to derive benefit. He also conceded that the description of such phenomena as night and tempests could be thought of

as imitation of

realization of experience,

another kind

which the poet

—

as enargeia, the vivid

common

shares in

with the

orator and the historian, but at this point he refused to believe that this

kind of imitation Beni were the call

did not imitate

truly and particularly the poet’s

critics

Empedocles

rigidity here

is

who

a poet

human

with

12 .

Piccolomini and

especially fought this battle. Beni refused to

not because he failed to imitate but because he

actions. Less clear

his liberalism in

is

how

he squared

his particular

conceiving of poetic imitation gen-

erally as analogue.

Segni was one of the determined opponents to the limiting of poetry to

human action, but he was less interested

aspect.

He saw

not be imitated totle

no reason as

why

in action than in the

“human”

character, passions, and thought could

well as action, thinking that neither Plato nor Aris-

had intended any such

strict limitation.

He

felt

the evidence indi-

cated that Aristotle meant his concept of action to refer only to dra-

matic poetry, since most lyrics have no action but imitate passions or mores. Most of his arguments were attempts to

show why

Plato agreed with him. His real contribution, however,

u Alessandro

Piccolomini,

Annota -

tioni nel libro della poetica d’Aristotele

(Vinegia, 1575),

84

sig.

A5r.

Aristotle and

was

his

concep-

“Beni, In Aristotelis poeticam commentarii, p. 92.

Imitation of Action

by which he

tion of fable as “false speech,”

an action in

its

did in fact give lyric poetry

projection of the conditions of falseness. 13 Tasso,

have likewise seen, interpreted “action” broadly.

human

tation in poetry should be of

He

we

did assert that imi-

fumbling with

actions, ‘but after

Stoic and Platonic opinions, he concluded that gods and animals also

could be the subject matter of imitation provided that they were treated as

if

they were human beings. This shows patently the influence

of Castelvetro, with

whom

he did not in the main agree.

In the critical contest between Mazzoni and Bulgarini over the posi-

Dante as a poet, much space was devoted to the question of whether or not dreams should be called products of the imagination and thus a kind of human action or natural fact produced by nonhuman tion of

forces. Bulgarini claimed that Dante’s

was not

human

a

as the

account of a dream

much

action, his strict Aristotelianism being

Piccolomini’s and Beni’s.

should concern

poem

human

He

like

said that “the principal poetic imitation

actions, at least in epic

and dramatic poetry”

even though in descriptions and other accidental background material

something which the poet needs

is

not

human

human

vices, a

own

added that

Furthermore, to portray virtues

actions.

poet must depend upon the free will of

dream of the kind portrayed by Dante

controlled

dream

He

be involved.

actions in order to reach his end of portraying

generalized forms of our

a

may

and vices and to achieve the pleasure that comes from seeing

virtues

and

action

is

by

will

and

we

is

a

his characters.

product of fantasy un-

cannot dream or not dream

human

a natural action, not a

one.

Since

at

The poet

over the propriety of the behavior of the characters in

our discretion, has

his

no control dreams, and

without will there can be no responsibility for their decorum. 14 Mazzoni’s

answers to these charges were substantially like Segni’s, although

he devoted

The from

it

much

space to the analysis of the nature of dreams.

reader of Faustino

Summo’s

Discorsi poetici (1600) can emerge

with the feeling that he has been perusing a

critical treatise of a

high order even though the historian of ideas can find novel or penetrating as he breaks

component

parts. In dealing

can, however, see

down Summo’s

with

how Summo’s

critical

this question of

there that

system into

human

actions,

is

its

we

urbanity kept him detached from some

of the stereotypes and truisms of his day.

He

that poets are imitators of the actions of

men

13

little

See supra, pp. 44-48.

argued in standard fashion in their happiness

“Bulgarini, Repliche .

.

.

and un-

alle risposte del

Capponi pp. 81-83. 85

The Age

of Criticism

happiness and not of their mere eccentricities of character, but in opposition to those

who wanted

to

broaden the concept of poetry to include

prose imitations he stressed the importance of verse as a means of getting

below surface action to blend

with the interior

exteriors

states of soul.

To the writers who argued that a poet is obliged to be like the painter who is more successful as a painter to the extent that his work resembles the actual features of his subject, he answered that “he will be the better

master and imitator to the extent that the figure will emphasize not only the exterior in its

its

good or bad

natural beauty or ugliness but also the interior with

soul,

making, for instance, in the imaging of Our Lady

her face shine out serene with her great humility and sanctity, and fraud

and betrayal

words the

in judas’s; in a similar

passions and the

represents.” Far

way

the poet ought to express with

manners of the characters he imitates and

from thinking of verse

as

mere ornamentation

that

Summo

be destructive of the verisimilitude carried by a poetic imitation, stressed the poet’s act as an “expression”

tion” and

made

whether or not he confined himself to If in this

as

verse an important part of the expression

however, that Summo’s poet was one

seen,

even more than

who

portrayed

15 .

may

an “imitaIt

human

can be beings

their actions.

medley of sixteenth-century opinions there

is little

that

is

constant and never questioned, the general tendency was nonetheless to

agree with Aristotle, at least to the extent of not wishing to eliminate

both action and human

norm

affairs.

Buonamici’s doctrine was as close to the

of thinking as that of anyone, even

when

he said that Dante as

theologian was not, strictly speaking, playing a poet’s role.

The

true

poet, he said, “proposes to himself the imitation of actions, directed to

chances of fortune, which are conjoined with our are various, they are

most

wills,

and when these

showing our moral

suitable for

acts,

by means

men

already habituated to acting in a set fashion.”

habits

through

of actions. Actions are determined and particular and of

absent in the critical thinking of the Renaissance

is

16

What

is

noticeably

the attempt to apply

the concept of action to lyric poems. ^Faustino Summo, Discorso in difesa del metro nelle poesie, e nei poemi, et in

86

particolare

nelle

tragedie,

e

(Padova, 1601), pp. 14-19. 10 Buonamici, op. cit., p. 51.

comedie

6

Are prose

THE Renaissance as

fictions

poems?

were quick to notice that imitation the term “poetry” becomes generic for

works

critics

poetry

if all

that exhibit renderings of concrete experience,

defined

is

kinds of literary

whether

in prose

or verse, provided at least that the works are not primarily didactic in

make seem to exist for their own sake. What was needed then, and what is still needed in order to overcome some of the confusing preconceptions based upon the meaning of terms in popular usage, is a general term for works of literature to distinguish them from tracts, treatises, recipe books, textbooks, lawnature and are such that the imitations they

court pleadings, sacred writings, most histories, and newspaper accounts.

One

of the chief advantages of mimetic concepts of “imagi-

native” literature has always been their usefulness in furthering, without entirely clarifying, this needed distinction. Since our terms “imaginative

writing,” “creative writing,” or simply “literature” have never been

more^than temporary makeshifts and have generally been understood such,

we

can sympathize with the plight of the Renaissance

as

critics in

their persistent testing of the theory of imitation against the facts of literary history

and against their

own

desire to be as

comprehensive

possible. In this respect literary criticism in later centuries has little

advance over the

Italian

Renaissance or has in

as

made

comparison sunk

into a slough of obscurantism. It will

be impossible here to give complete accounts of the

critical

debates in the sixteenth century over the relationships between prose

and verse, since hundreds of pages were devoted to the question and no clear-cut orthodoxy emerged.

no more resolved than

at the

At

the end of the period the issues

were

beginning although a great amount of heat 87

The Age

of Criticism

had been generated in the interim. In general the staunch Aristotelians,

who

put their faith in a definition of poetry based upon the concept of

imitation, took the stand that comedies, tragedies, novelle , dialogues,

romances

in prose should

Aristotelians like Patrizi

be thought of

were most vocal

as poetry,

and

while the anti-

in their rejection of prose

poetry, since they considered verse the indispensable element. But- on this

question traditional enemies often agreed with one another and

battled with their friends, so that the

lists

of the contestants should not

be drawn up on the basis of their Aristotelianism.

Among

the defenders

of the limitation of poetry to verse forms can be listed Tomitano, Speroni, Speroni’s

enemy

Cavalcanti, Giraldi Cinthio, Vettori, Scaliger,

Castelvetro, Segni, Frachetta, Patrizi, both Pellegrino and Salviati (op-

ponents in other respects in the Tasso controversy), Giacomini, Mazzoni, Buonamici,

and Faustino Summo. The

list

of those advocating the

extension of the definition of poetry to include prose writings for theirs it

was the position

that

was

at variance

with popular

is

smaller,

belief,

but

includes stalwarts such as Trissino, Varchi, Minturno, and Paolo Beni,

as well as writers

with

less

reputation such as Bonciani, Malatesta Porta,

Masini, and Michele.

The issue

in the Renaissance

hinged not only upon the weight given to

upon the exact translation of that brief of the Poetics in which Aristotle (according to said: “But the art which imitates by means of

the concept of imitation but also

passage in Chapter

I

modern translations) words only, in prose or in meter that is either the same throughout or of several kinds, is up to the present without a name. For we have no common name for the mimes of Sophron and Xenarchus and the Socratic dialogues, nor would we have any if someone made an imitation in the meters of epics or elegies or anything else of the sort; yet by associating a composition with its meter people call some writers elegiac poets and others epic poets, giving them the name of poets not because of their imitation but in popular fashion according to the meter they use.”

1

Most

specifically, the quarrel in the

Renaissance depended on

the translation of the phrase “in prose or in meter”; the 1

Poetics

cited

1447328. This translation

by permission

University U.S.A.,

Press,

a

State

Michigan,

Gilbert, Literary

Dry den (New York, based on Gudeman’s

1940), p. 70. It is In a footnote

text.

Wayne

Detroit,

from Allan H.

Criticism , Plato to

adds

of the

is

Professor

Gilbert

comment by Croce, from La 88

modern

transla-

poesia (Bari, 1936), p. 40: “There can

never be such a name, because poetry and literature, though touching on one always remain two diverse things.” might be better able to find this common term if we knew what belongs on the side of poetry and what on the side,

We

side of literature.

Are prose tion decides the question unequivocally

poems?

fictions

on the

side of those

who wanted

poetry to include Boccaccio’s Decameron and the Arcadia of Sannazaro.

The

alternative interpretation in the Renaissance

was “with meters only were

or with musical accompaniment,” and countless reams of paper

used in the scholarly search through the writings of Plato and Aristotle

meaning of the term the

to establish the range of

Italians translated as

parlari ignudi (bare speech, naked language). For the sake of brevity the technicalities of this protracted argument will be avoided here, but since for

many

of the disputants the outcome of the argument rested on

were the important part of

the authority of Aristotle, the technicalities

the dispute.

Having argued

that poetry

is

not an imitation but any kind of written

disputata to

show

that verse and not prose

V

Book

or spoken composition, Patrizi turned in is

of his

ha deca

poetry’s necessary instru-

ment. In so doing, he obviously thought he was serving to undermine Aristotle’s

theory of poetry

that theory

he

said,

their

was

a

foundation support of

have discovered that verse

argument on four

one of the by-products of

as imitation, as if

is

it.

Some

writers of our time,

not necessary in poetry, basing

loci in Aristotle’s Poetics:

(

i

)

that

poems

imitate

( sermone ), and harmony; (2) but epic poems imionly with bare speech or with meters; (3) while, to the contrary,

with rhythm, speech tate

Homer and Empedocles

have only verse in common, and Empedocles

not a poet; and (4) a poet needs a fable more than verses. These four items in Aristotle were, in fact, those most commonly

was

a physicist,

utilized,

and although Patrizi was not the

of poetry to verse, he was the question. His attack

upon the

that

upon

tain

key words,

and

Italian equivalents

Sermo, he “verse.”

first

first

to argue for the limitation

to engage in full-scale debate

on the

interpreters of Aristotle, as distinct

from

upon his different readings for cergame in which the meanings of the Latin of the Greek words were usually in question.

Aristotle himself, rested in a linguistic

said, instead

The word

of “speech” or “discourse” means “meter” or

epos can

mean

(1)

any use of words, (2) any writ-

ing in verse, or (3) only hexameters; but Aristotle intended only to refer to epic poetry in using the term. By “bare speech” ( parlari nudi) Aristotle

meant verse without musical accompaniment,

though he conceded that

it

could mean “prose” since in antiquity verse

was usually accompanied by music and had used the term in

had made too

much

Patrizi insisted, al-

this sense.

that both Aristotle and Plato

But he believed Vettori and Castelvetro

of the evidence for this reading. In Dionysius of 89

The Age

of Criticism

Halicarnassus and Strabo, Patrizi found evidence that the meaning could

be either “prose” or “unaccompanied verse.” History taught him that

poems often had had musical accompaniment, but he found no evidence that epic poems had ever been written in prose. He further argued that Aristotle implied the use of verse in all poems in describing epic

the particular meters to be used in epic poems, and he asked how,, if Aristotle

meant that iambic meters are too much

for epic poetry,

it

like prose to

be suitable

can be said that epic poetry can be written in prose.

Further points of dispute were whether Suidas was wrong in asserting

mimes of Sophron were written in prose and whether Plato’s were referred to by the “Socratic dialogues.” But after all this Patrizi said that Aristotle was wrong, for otherwise all prose containing imitations would have to be called poetry, such as the novelle of Boccaccio, the Aethiopica of Heliodorus, and the Golden Ass of that the

dialogues

The

Apuleius. as

truth

is,

Patrizi asserted, orators

and

historians, as well

other kinds of writers, use imitation for the purpose of gaining better

were poetry, Herodotus,

expression. If imitations

denied the

name

of poet,

would be

one, as

would

thenes. If the dialogues of Plato are called poems,

to

whom

Isocrates it is

Aristotle

and Demos-

necessary to point

out that they cover a great range; some are history, some natural science,

some matters of the

and

arts

sciences. Before turning to the settling of

three special problems, Patrizi said: “So

we

can conclude not only that

prose has no concern in the formation of poetry and that the Socratic dialogues were neither epics nor poetry but also that

poetry cannot be composed without verse.” Patrizi’s three special questions

were:

(1) Is the prose translation or recasting of a

(2)

If a fable is

version a

written

poem but

first in

clear that

it is

2

poem

a

poem?

prose and then versified,

is

the verse

the prose version not?

(3) Should comedies written in prose be called poems or sermoni? His answers were that comedies and pastorals written in prose are not

poems, that the

which Virgil fied

it,

Iliad in prose translation

first cast in a

is

prose form, was not a

that the tales of Boccaccio are not

prose, and that

not a poem, that the Aeneid

poems

poem

until

so long as their

works presenting mixtures of verse and prose

mixtures of prose and poetry.

Where

,

he had versi-

form

is

are simply

Castelvetro had attacked the

writing of works like Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy or Sannazaro’s Arcadia in both verse and prose as the creation of monsters, Patrizi said: •’Patrizi,

“But unless everything composed of contraries

La deca 90

disputata, p. 120.

is

a monster,

Are prose such

man who

as

is

poems?

fictions

composed of what

is

corporeal and incorporeal,

these specified compositions should not be called monsters but compila-

what

tions of

The

and what

is

cally treated” if

was

it

is

not poetry.”

too readily that Patrizi called anything “poeti-

suspicion arises

“Thirty days hath

cast in verse form, so that

September” would have been

a

poem

for him, whereas a prose transla-

would not have been. Furthermore, he showed no com-

tion of the Iliad

prehension of the subtle distinctions that are necessary in drawing a line

between what

many

is

a verse

and what

a prose

form, distinctions of which

of his contemporaries were fully aware. This failure did not

argument but indicates that

seriously impair the efficacy of Patrizi’s

was exclusively

negative. Since the

main

critical

war between

it

the prose

defenders and the verse defenders came in the years following Patrizi’s

La deca

disputata,

is

likely that Patrizi’s

Summo, and

ideas of Beni,

This

it is

Michele.

not to say, however, that

their stands or Patrizi did

portance in

argument gave impetus to the

Patrizi’s predecessors

supported their positions with amassed evidence.

was

to elevate this contention to a position of

critical speculation. Robortelli,

as authorities,

had not taken

What

major im-

using Suidas and Eustathius

decided that the “bare speech” term simply meant “with-

out musical accompaniment.”

3

For him, consequently, the prose prob-

lem did not occur. Tomitano presented significant arguments that did not stem primarily from the text of the Poetics the context for ,

statements being a discussion of style.

He

had Speroni say that

comedy

it

his

had

poems should always be written in verse. One prong of the attack upon Speroni’s Canace had been that the verse forms were so unconventional as to become in effect prose. But in Tomitano’s version Speroni said that the always been

comedy

his

opinion that tragedy and

writers of the early sixteenth century

were converted

who

as

had written

in prose

Horace and Aristotle. Tomitano defended the use of verse with a mystical Pythagorean argument that number is the measured order of all things,

More

to verse after once mastering

significantly,

and he devoted

a couple of pages to describing the deep-seated effects

harmony and proportion upon the human spirit and the nature of things. He made measured speech important because of the greater force meter gives to words, but he was as much concerned with cadence in prose as with regularity of meter and stressed the need for rhythm of

to 3

match the sense

4 .

Robortelli, In librum Aristotelis de

4

Tomitano, op.

cit

pp. 226-235.

arte poetica explicationes, p. 13.

9i

The Age The

of Criticism

author of the principal attack upon Speroni’s tragedy, the

Giudicio sopra attributed to

la

tragedia di Canace e

Macareo (Lucca,

1550), usually

Bartolommeo Cavalcanti, presented dialogues representing

some of the writers in TrissinoV circle. Since one of the unique features of Trissino’s prosody was his introduction of blank verse, the contest between verse and prose in the Giudicio was a four-sided affair among

rhymed forms used by Dante and Petrarch, and the irregular line lengths used by Speroni. One of the minor characters in the dialogue asked why tragedies could not be made in prose “because to see vernacular verses without rhyme (conceding that they are verses) prose, blank verse, the

seems to

me

like seeing a

man without

a soul.”

This disputant was aware

that Aristotle had called fable the soul of tragedy and presumably held

The

a different opinion.

nom

Florentine (the

for himself) answered that tragedy certainly verse of

some

kind, arguing that Aristotle

essential ingredients of poetry, for

does not

make

and did teach

would be

meant verse

soulless

without

to be one of the

although Aristotle said verse alone

poetry could be written in prose

a poet, he did not say

how

de guerre Cavalcanti used

verses are written. Implying a fault in Trissino’s

from the Goths the Florentine hinted that happy form for Italian heroic poetry than terza rima, the excellence of which had been established by Dante and Petrarch, but he believed that Dante and Petrarch would surely have practice in Italy Liberated

blank verse

is

,

a less

chosen blank verse for tragedy had they chosen to write tragedies. Citing in

Bembo and

Ariosto, he also approved of the use of blank verse

comedy; the ottava rima of the romances, he

said, is closer to elegiac

verses than to heroic. 5

Since with his rhetorical orientation Speroni identified poetry with

eloquence and consequently with ornament over and beyond the

amount allowed an orator or

He

firmly stated that prose

making concepts said, “uses it

a historian, he is

clearly understandable.

contrary to

or vulgar reasonings

it

its

was

a

champion of

“Who

nature.” If poetry

would be inept

“like

uses

it

otherwise,” he

were used for doctrine going dancing to one’s

business activities or singing in speaking to one’s friends.”

we

should be able to see

verse.

speech intended for teaching and for

why poems

should not be made

6

From

this

in prose or

history in verse, he added. Giraldi Cinthio, in his turn, hardly admitted

e

5 Giudicio sopra la tragedia di Canace Macareo, in Speroni, Opere (Venezia,

1740), IV, 117-119.

92

6

Speroni, “Sopra Virgilio,” in Opere,

IV, 534.

Are prose

poems?

fictions

the possibility of poetry in prose form. In indicating his awareness that

some early comedies had been written in prose, he suggested the reason was that the verse forms had not yet been developed 7 In these early years of the development of modern literary criticism, Varchi and Minturno were firmly entrenched on the other side. Many of Varchi’s utterances and test cases were those that reverberated .

throughout the simplicity:

if

a writer imitates he

is

many

the virtues of

all

a poet, if he does not he

Varchi loudly asserted that Lucian in

called one.

Cicero in

His formula had

rest of the century.

his

cannot be

prose dialogues,

of his works, and Boccaccio in his hundred novelle

were poets and not orators. Whoever might translate Homer or Virgil into prose would be a poet and not an orator, but whoever might translate Aristotle into verse would not be a poet but a philosopher. Lucan should be called a historian, not a poet.

Varchi and in the whole of Renaissance were.

If

and

“historian,”

and

scientific observations

Varchi was

Arcadia and

at

was

to isolate and define

one with Speroni

Bembo

in his Asolani

speeches

is

it

imitates

in also

He is

what we

acknowledging the

also said that

had been true poets.

“Indeed, the very book of Bembo’s which

poetry because

century the guise under

could be called history, one of the principal

overlapping between poetry and oratory. in his

what the alternatives it was usually

appeared was that of history. Since even philosophic

tasks of the Renaissance philosopher call history.

criticism,

at least as late as the eighteenth

fiction

interesting to note, in

is

term existed for “prose writer”

a generic

which prose

It

Sannazaro

He

entitled Prose

with speeches, and that which

poetry.” After these dogmatic assertions,

it is

added:

is

really

imitates

with

perhaps with

some wonderment that we find Varchi setting up a scale of what is more and what is less poetic, in which the ideal poet both imitates and uses verse, the poet

who

without verse, and

tates

solely because poetry

is

follows only the letter of the definition imi-

lastly

comes the poet who sneaks under the wire

identified in the popular

mind with

verse rather

than imitation. So Varchi put Sannazaro and Boccaccio in the second category, and Empedocles, Lucan, and Lucretius in the third

Like Varchi, Minturno revealed a

what

the logic of poetics permitted.

evitable to 7

him

split

On

die,

come-

204.

intorno

al

his taste it

and

seemed

in-

that poetry could be written in prose since imitation and

Giraldi Cinthio, “Discorso, over let-

tera

between what

the side of logic

8 .

comporre

delle

8

et

delle

tragedie,” in

Discorsi

Varchi, Lezzioni, pp. 580-581.

93

p.

The Age

of Criticism

“feigning” determines the poet and gives to the “material which treated that

form which

is

required in poetry.” Thus, he thought the

is

parables of the Evangelists should be called true poetry even though

they were written in prose such

of verse,

as

9 .

A little later

he identified unrhymed forms

blank verse, with prose and said that Boccaccio’s

novelle and prose comedies should be classed as poetry, even though he

modern comedies would be

hinted that

better

if

written in verse.

presumably with approval, mixtures of prose and poetry

cited,

Sannazaro’s Arcadia

10 .

Still later,

at a point

when Uarte

He like

poetic a had

undergone transformation to dialogue form, Minturno returned to an

upon prose comedies, saying that the delight of the speech in drama comes from song and so requires verse. One of the speakers, Angelo, who had written a comedy in prose, reminded Minturno that attack

in his

De

poeta he had said that poetry could be written in either verse

or prose and argued that prose could better present thoughts than verse and that

demands

comedy

prose, since

in particular,

it is

which

deals

with low characters,

unnatural that such characters should speak

in verse. Minturno’s response

was

were wiser in all some Ancients wrote poetry in

that the Ancients

things than the Moderns; and although

prose, those primitive efforts did not reach the stage, “so should

we

not refrain from being presumptuous and desirous of seeking another

way

of making comedies?”

need

all

he

still

While agreeing that low matters do not more exalted matters require, comedy since verse delights more than prose.

the beautiful ornamentation that

held for meter in

Inasmuch

as

comic verse should resemble popular speech, he agreed that

blank verse was better for natural

comedy than rhymes, which were un-

11 .

Vettori’s concerns with poetics

were limited almost

entirely to in-

terpreting Aristotle; consequently, he addressed himself vigorously to

solving the questions of Aristotle’s linguistic usage in connection with

the “bare speech” problem. Although he agreed that poetry consisted

of imitations

more than

verses,

he did not believe that Aristotle meant

by “bare speech.” In interpreting Aristotle’s reference to the mimes of Sophron and Xenarchus and to the ‘fables’ of Socrates, Vettori decided that the passage was too obscure to have much made of it, al-

prose

though he took the stand that Suidas was wrong

were written 8

in prose.

On

Minturno, Uarte poetica,

w lbid.,

p.

3.

94

in claiming that these

the other side, he agreed that the identificasig.

A3V.

11

Ibid., pp. 66-67.

Are prose tion of poetry with verses

fictions

was primarily

a

poems?

product of the popular

mind. 12 Castelvetro should likewise be called a fence straddler, even though

he maintained stoutly that verse forms are the proper instruments for expressing fictions and

prose for expressing truths.

On

“bare

the

speech” question, he said that poetry “which imitates with language

may

only the

be written in prose,” and he was at pains to decide whether

mimes of Sophron and Xenarchus and the dialogues of

that they

Plato, granted

ought to be considered poems, should be classed with epic

poems or with drama. By drama Castelvetro thought Aristotle meant only those poetic forms using language, harmony, and rhythm. He found evidence in Plutarch that of Plato

were presented

after Aristotle’s time certain dialogues

dramas for children, but he

as

knew

also

that

Athenaeus had classed the dialogues of Plato with epic poems. In genCastelvetro

eral,

condemned medleys of prose and poetry

like

The

Consolation of Philosophy of Boethius, but he did divide them into

were: (i) those

made some distinctions among them. His categories works which develop their subjects with both prose

and poetry, such

as the

three categories and

the

Satyricon of Petronius Arbiter, the

Capella,

prose

part of

and the Arcadia of Sannazaro; (2) verse with introductions in Statius and the Epigrams of Martial; (3) works that

—the Silvae of

are mainly prose but with

some

or in some writings of Cicero. classes

The

He

first

Golden Ass of Apuleius, Boethius, the Philologia of Martianus

illustrative verse, as in the

Of

monstrous, especially the

Decameron two

these Castelvetro called the first

first.

classification of dialogues also

preyed upon Castelvetro’s mind.

recognized the existence of three kinds of dialogues in antiquity:

were presented on the stage, (2) those for which stage presentation was impossible since the writers wrote in a historian’s manner, as in some of Cicero’s dialogues, and (3) those that combine the first two methods, in which the author first speaks in his own per(1). those that

son and then presents

his characters dramatically. Castelvetro asserted

that dialogues are often defective said:

“Now

when they

are written in prose.

an author should never write in prose unless

truth and not fiction, and never in verse unless tion and not truth.” His conclusion

they should be written in verse.

was

A

...

He

his subject

his subject

is

is

fic-

that since dialogues are fictions

special

argument was that prose

dialogues like Plato’s are not suited to the stage because prose utterance 12

Vettori, op.

cit.,

pp. 11-18.

95

The Age calls

of Criticism

low

for speaking in a

voice,

whereas verse

is

utterance designed to

be spoken in a loud voice. This idea of Castelvetro’s was debated at

some length throughout the

On

rest of the century.

the basis of

it

Castelvetro decided that contemporary dramatists should not write in prose. Furthermore, he

found that dialogues with

defect of faulty verisimilitude, because it is

if

highly improbable that the narrator could remember

recorded or because they are rable events and these

trivialities since

have the

a narrator

they are thought of all

as history

the speeches

history deals with

memo-

would be the mere opinions of someone on

the

matters of the arts and sciences, as in Bembo’s Prose or in some of Cicero’s dialogues.

Castelvetro

made

a strange but, for him,

understandable exception for

dialogues containing conversations of animals and plants, as in Aesop or

Hesiod, since these dialogues are purely imaginary, dealing only with “lies,”

He

whereas the other kinds are true or probable.

be borne in mind, however, that the presence of does not render them contemptible, for the

lies

lies

added: “It must

in these dialogues

are both delightful and

with allegories and

instructive. Dialogues of this kind are to be classed

with the figures called prosopopoeias, to which they doubtless owe

and their form.

their origin

Now the subjects

of these dialogues delight

us for their universal and miraculous novelty, and

with them for the same reason that

we

miraculous things but with prosopoeias small pleasure

from being kept

aim of the dialogue, which to

is

opinions

is

are delighted

are delighted not only with

as well.

Moreover,

in suspense before

we

we

see the

all

drawn from this melange of not really make up his mind whether

pertinent conclusion to be

that Castelvetro did

In Segni,

him as often to chaotic inconclusiveness what was called in Tomitano the mystical

He

declared that he

who

“sophistries” of those

many had argued

question

that

it

which contain

all

wish to write poetry

could be done.

He

96

strain crops

it

in prose

up the

even though

held verse to be the neces-

from other kinds of writing

other features of poetry. Segni trusted popular in-

stincts in this respect, saying that just as

Bongiorno, op.

as to brilliancy.

would not concern himself with

sary ingredient in poetry distinguishing

13

this

too typical of his method, for his slow, grinding exploration of

possibilities led

again.

end and

13

poetry could be written in prose or not. His handling of

was

derive no

to teach us sound morals or to induce us

do or to avoid doing some particular thing.”

The only

we

cit.,

pp. 34, 37, 40-47.

common

belief

knows

that

Are prose motion of

it,

even though some philosophers have denied the possibility

exists,

so

poems?

fictions

common

opinion

is

right about poetry.

He

claimed that both

Plato and Aristotle assumed the necessity of verse. Segni’s Neoplatonic

mysticism

is

when he

revealed particularly

“The furor

says:

of the poet

—

according to symmetry that is, divine proportion and harmony, of which everything is full and it is for this reason that it is dressed out in verses and not prose, for verse is no other than symmetry and meter and proportion and harmony. I mean that God particularly wants to show is

—

harmony in poets and therefore fills them with furor, according to whence also for this reason verse seems to be essential to 14 poetry.” Although he made room for the theory of imitation, Segni his

Proclus:

gave verse higher priority.

The whole argument over in a Florentine

academy

Francesco Bonciani, a

verse and prose

lecture “Sopra

work

il

came

to one sort of head

comporre

delle novelle,”

far less frequently cited than

by

deserts

its

would warrant. Since Bonciani proceeded point by point to show how the principles outlined in Aristotle’s Poetics can be made to apply to prose fiction,

it

follows that he faced squarely the possibility of extend-

ing the term “poetry” to include prose compositions of certain kinds.

He

based his case mainly on Boccaccio’s use of plots and imitation.

“Fables,” he said,

“which are what novelle more properly should be

called, are equivalent to those kinds of

tragic, heroic,

which a

is

and comic

the imitation of

—since human

all

poetry that are called perfect

function with a

actions.” Bonciani

proper instrument for poetry, but, aware that

work, he did not choose to be overly dogmatic.

common

subject,

would add prose as was a pioneering

his

He said that the

example

mode

of Lucian should lead us to assign the novella to the representative

of poetry but was willing to argue that he can be included in the sion

lists

demanded an extension of the

Equating the term Bonciani

Jiovella

if

Lucian cannot be called

novella-principle to include dialogues.

with the Latin fabula and the Greek mythos

listed three distinct possible definitions for the novella:

entirely false

poet

a

of novellatori; he stated that this conces-

and lying mode of speech

(

i

)

,

an

—the definition used by Dante

in saying

Favoleggiava colla sua famiglia

De’Trojani e di Fiesole

and implied

in the popular equation of fables

the romances; 14

Segni, op.

e di

(2)

cit.,

a

term for

jests

Roma with

lies

and ridiculous

and the tales;

pp. 40, 44.

97

follies

of

and (3)

a

The Age

of Criticism

poem

more perfect, as that which gives it is essence and is its form, called its soul by Aristotle that which we should call ‘fable’ rather than novella .” Bonciani wanted to consider a novella not as a bare skeleton of an action but as a fully extended work designation for “that part of a

that

is

—

with

all

stressed

the parts required of a poem. Considering its

frivolity but not

its falsity.

it

as a

poem, he

In a short adventure into literary

history, Bonciani claimed that Lucian’s admission that his

work was

a

“hippocentaur” came about because philosophers had practically pre-

empted the dialogue form after Plato. Bonciani was willing to surrender the pure dialogue and said that “the mixed narrative mode is that in

which the novellatore ought

to create his imitation.” Dialogues, he said,

imitate conversations, not actions. After creating a

list

of ancient writers

of novelle , he showed how, according to Aphthonius, something like novelle had been classified as tales (i) with animals only, (2) with

animals and

men

together as characters, and (3) with human beings was the one who not only followed

only. Boccaccio, Bonciani claimed,

the best models of antiquity but enlarged the range of prose fictions “to

the imitation of the better sort of men.”

As he came

to the conclusion of his lecture, Bonciani adjusted

it,

with-

out really undermining the position he had adopted, to match the

more in

traditional views.

He

instrument only, not in

said that novelle in prose differ

mode

from poems

or subject of imitation, since poetry

always uses verse. Aristotle, he asserted, did not say that imitation or fable

He

was the poem, only

added

also that

that these

were

qualitative parts of poems.

both Plato and Horace had assumed verse to be

necessary and that Horace was even doubtful about including comedies

among poems. Bonciani

repeated that novelle can be like heroic poetry

except in the instrument used. 15

Another rarely verse

is

that of

cited treatment of the relation

Girolamo Frachetta, which comes

between prose and

as part of his explica-

tion of a canzone of Cavalcanti (1585). Since canzoni had not been

described

by

Aristotle, Frachetta felt obliged first to

remarks about the nature of poetry, while actually using

make his

general

announced

subject as a pretext for attacking Castelvetro’s ideas about the relation

of the art of poetry and the art of versifying. But like Castelvetro,

Frachetta believed that poems should be written in verse; he differed

only in

his reasons for believing so.

^Francesco Bonciani, “Sopra il comporre delle novelle,” in Prose fiorentine, 98

His point was that the ed. II,

art of

by Carlo Dati (Venezia, I,

65-83.

poetry

1751), pt.

Are prose cannot

poems?

fictions

without the art of versifying but the

exist

can

art of versifying

who

exist without the art of poetry, so that Castelvetro,

considered

them inseparable, was wrong. Aristotle, he claimed, said only that a poet is more a poet for his subject matter than for his verse. Frachetta made invention and not imitation the important feature and suggested that

poetry needed verse to make oracles. In particular

verse

is

its

he criticized Castelvetro for

needed so that an actor can declaim

Patrizi, in a

summary

—

like

argument that

16 .

,

com-

a great variety of kinds of poetry, along

methods of development, which poems were directed, but

a great variety of kinds of inventions, of

of ornamentation, and of the ends to all

his

loudly

it

life-size

of his historical studies in La deca istoriale

mented that history showed with

more than

utterance seem

the varieties had in

common

verse or measured speech, for verse had

been constant throughout the entire history of poetry.

hundred early poets existed of a pieces,

he

poem

said,

sive reliance

whom

he had

listed

in prose; if later poets

they uniformly did not

upon reasoning from

Of

the five

he reported that no record

sometimes

call

also

them poetry.

definitions

wrote prose It

was

exces-

and not observing the

actual evidence of history that led critics to extend poetry to prose, Patrizi said

17 .

Tasso in effect agreed with him. Aristotle’s “bare speech,”

he believed, meant verse without song and dance

A curious teapot tempest over the question in the interchange of critical salvos

18 .

of prose poetry occurred

between Pellegrino and

Salviati in

the Tasso controversy; the actual difference of opinion between the

two

is

whom

hardly discernible. Pellegrino, to

rather than a “feigner,” followed a

common

a poet

line in

was

a

“maker”

saying that popular

usage has limited the term “poet” to the imitator with words only definition, he claimed that led Castelvetro astray into totle

—

supposing Aris-

had meant that prose imitations are possible forms of poetry; he

was counter to the opinions of both Plato and Aristotle. came in his insisting that the traditional meaning for the “bare speech” phrase was “artful locutions.” In his gloss on Pellegrino’s dialogue, Salviati likewise insisted that verse is necessary

said this

Pellegrino’s chief originality

to poetry, with a fierceness that

is

not understandable since the two were

practically in agreement. In his reply to Salviati, Pellegrino repeated a 10

Girolamo Frachetta, La spositione la canzone di Guido Cavalcanti,

sopra

Donna mi prega 2-3.

(Venetia,

1585), pp.

17

Patrizi, Della poetic a:

18

La deca

isto-

(Ferrara, 1586), pp. 202-203. Tasso, Discorsi del poema eroico, in

riale

Opere, XII,

49.

99

The Age distinction he

of Criticism

had made between what perfect poets and mere

garden variety poets do. prose poetry, for he

To

made

common

was a defender of enough that an ordinary poet might

a slight extent Pellegrino

clear

deserve the label either for imitation or for verse, but he called attention to the fact that Aristotle in the Rhetoric had said that

beyond cadence

into verse

Salviati apparently

it

would become the

speech went

if

poet’s kind of utterance.

understood Pellegrino to mean that prose could

reveal “artful locutions” as well as verse; he argued that artfulness and

perfection of speech are necessary, not to the essence of poetry, but to

by

artfulness he

full

poetic style”

the essence of superior poetry. Pellegrino replied that

meant “both verse and and

insisted that

Then

poetry.

by

that

all

which

needed for

is

he had always argued for the need of verse in good

in the Infarinato

secondo reply

Salviati closed the dispute

pointing out that Plato in his dialogues imitated with artful locution

but for doing so was not called a poet of the

That was

first

or any other grade.

to say that Salviati recognized that prose had

the presence of

which did not

its

constitute poetry, but there

to believe that Pellegrino contested this point. 19

The

artful styles is

no reason

principal differ-

ence between them was that Pellegrino advocated using a scale bv which writers could be classed as “more-or-less” poets whereas Salviati wanted to confine the term “poet” to users of both imitation and verse, so that of the

At

two

Salviati

was on

this

occasion the rigorist.

a later point in his 11 Caraffa (1584, although

circulated earlier

it

remark that Plato and Lucian

in manuscript), Pellegrino let fall the

could be called poets because they used imitation in their dialogues. Salviati,

pouncing on

this statement,

answered, “This

doctrine and Aristotle never dreamed of

it,”

invention of a universal subject in poetry.

everyone knows

how much

is

Robortelli’s

for Aristotle called for the

He

added:

“On

such matters

one ought to pay attention to the chattering

of later grammarians and others of that sort.” Pellegrino put on a of being shocked

by

Salviati’s scorn, saying:

“This

is

show

the doctrine of

by Piccolomini and other learned and famous men in our century who did not dream it up but if the Academicians [della Crusca] make light of such men, what marvel is it that they hold little store by me?” Salviati in turn Robortelli and of Maggi,

.

.

which

has been accepted

.

replied that he esteemed those

when they run

commentators on Aristotle “but not

counter to the truth and to the teachings of their

master.” Pellegrino had further argued, in the 19

For

this material see Tasso,

100

Opere, XVIII, 26-33.

initial

dialogue, that

if

Are prose

fictions

poems?

Plato and Lucian can be called poets for using only imitation, writers like

Lucan and Lucretius can be

called poets for using verse only.

he maintained that Scaliger had defended Lucan for the

—saving Lucan was fictions

having no

a poet for

less

than

wrong

Homer

But

reason

used poetic

superimposed upon history. But Scaliger reasoned badly, Pel-

legrino said, because Lucan's inventions flourishes

and

which which he

figures,

sided with the view,

to incidental

attributed to Maggi, that there are three

sorts or grades of poetrv: (i) the best tation; (2) imitations

were confined

are “accidental in epic poetrv.” Pellegrino

without verse,

poetrv with both verse and imi-

as in the dialogues of Plato

and

Lucian and in Boccaccio's prose; and (3) verse without imitation as in Lucan, Lucretius, and the Georgies. Few, it is true, of Pellegrino’s contemporaries were so bold

as to

rank prose pieces above the non-

works of Virgil and Lucretius, and it was no doubt this ranking was all Maggi’s dream.” Pellegrino in return asked him what he meant since it seemed evident to him that it was also the belief of Robortelli, Cicero, Horace, and Quintilian, trving thus to obscure the issue bv acting as if Salviati were asserting that a mere versemaker like Empedocles could not be called a poet. He lined up the opinions of Maggi, Piccolomini, Scaliger, and Lambinus against those of Yettori and Castelvetro on the issue of the ranking of Empedocles and retorted, “But the Signori Accademici would probablv class these with the grammarians and others of that

imitative

that stung Salviati into replving, “This

sort, as

as the

thev have previouslv hinted.”

man on

and reminded

He

held that eminent

men

the street classed the Pharsalia and the Georgies as Salviati that Castelvetro

had pointed to

as

well

poems

a passage in

Athenaeus indicating that Plato, the attacker of poets, was himself poet in his dialogues. As for the use of prose in poetrv, he differ widely,

said,

a

opinions

but in such a situation could anything be wrong in

Maggi’s taking up a middle groundin rebuttal Salviati argued that Pellegrino’s classical authorities had

used the term “poet” loosely and popularlv, even Aristotle, times had written as

poets but did not

if

mean

who

some-

musicians, singers, dancers, and actors

it.

While agreeing

were

that Lucretius and Virgil in

the Georgies covered their nonpoetdc subject matter with the “mantle

of poetry” and that “Alberto da Imola might well be called ‘Bear’ dressed himself in the

form of

if

he

that beast,” he maintained that Castel-

vetro and Vettori were not merelv quibbling about Aristotle’s use of the term “bare speech” in epic poetrv, for Aristotle

meant verse withIOI

The Age out song and dance.

of Criticism

The

phrase “bare speech or verse” should be in-

terpreted not as alternatives but as restatement is,

—

“bare speech, that

as

verse” and not as “prose or verse.”

Where

Pellegrino in

Carnffa said that failure either to use verse

11

or to imitate leads to imperfection in a poem, Salviati answered that the result

poem.

is

To

not imperfection but deprivation of the essential form of a

form meant essence to Salviati, form would be tantamount to depriving it of he meant by form only outer appearance, extrinsic

this Pellegrino replied that, if

depriving a

poem

everything, but

of

if

its

aspects or accidental form, as a man’s having

two

legs, this

form

is

not

necessary in the definition of poetry. Pellegrino agreed that verse and imitation are both principal parts of poetry, the former for decoration

and the

latter for essence;

whereas imitation which

but body or outer decoration the soul

is

between body and soul

ship

only to say that verse

is

form, while agreeing that imitation

body

the lack of either

body or

either imitation or verse

body

‘Poet,’ ” Salviati said, “is

is

for poetry, not the accidental

He

essential.

soul deprives

taken

is

poetry.” “

accidental

important. Salviati, in turn, disagreed

the proper

is

is

even though the relation-

essential,

is

away

added: “Just as in the

man form

the

of his form, so is

if

removed from

one of those terms that do not take well

a

‘more-or-less’ but ‘the-better-and-the-worse.’ ” Thus, Virgil’s Georgies ,

though

by

tion

called a

poem by

the unlearned,

who know. He added

those

excellent verse but also in treatise

on an

is

it is

and

relation,

an accident

it

goodness

not essential to

would be

Pellegrino answered that this

but since

its

called a very fine composi-

doctrine, so that

its

verse

art, since

that

is

must be

so

if

it is

this

lies

not only in

not a

its

poem but

a

kind of composition.

poetry were a substance,

a quality because

as a quality it will reflect a “more-or-less.”

it

cannot be

He

a

remarked

that Castelvetro, Salviati’s man, had said this repeatedly. Salviati rejoined:

and

did not absolutely say there

I

why

do you say

commentator?

20

I

make any more

And on

upon

in poetry,

of Castelvetro than of any other

inconclusive note the exchange of opin-

this

ions ended, an exchange that relatively little bearing

was no more-or-less

was

all

the

more strange

in that

it

had

the real issues in the warfare between the

adherents of Tasso and Salviati of the Accademia della Crusca of Florence.

According to the Diario of the Accademia 20

Ibid.,

pp. 73-79.

102

degli Alterati of Florence,

Are prose Lorenzo Giacomini, one of

on November

a lecture

its

fictions

most learned and

27, 1584, in

poems?

brilliant

members, gave

which he maintained “that verse

is

necessary to poetry and that comedies in prose are not poetry but

should not for that reason be called monsters.”

21

Four years

later,

Filippo Masini of Perugia argued the primacy of imitation for the peculiar reason that Castelvetro had found fault with Petrarch’s

ing and metaphors, and Masini tried to prove that insignificant

his

rhym-

censure was an

one because of the unimportance of verse in poetry. 22 In

1587 Mazzoni added his bit to the long debate, taking the side of verse

without adding anything substantially new. Plato and Aristotle, he rarely spoke about poetry without associating

said,

with music, so that

it

confusion occurs only because of Aristotle’s assertion that epic poetry imitates “with bare speech or is

usually interpreted as

that

measured verse,” in which “bare speech”

meaning “prose.” But Mazzoni did not believe

any poetry could be written

in prose.

After reviewing some of the

usual linguistic problems and the question of

whether the dialogues of

mimes of Sophron and Xenarchus were written in prose and spending some time on the question of the propriety of

Plato and the

or verse

writing part in verse and part in prose, he stated his belief that he had

demonstrated that ignndi does not necessarily mean prose.

He

confessed

whenever he was faced with a knotty problem he sought the advice of Adouardo Gualandi, the Bishop of Cesena. When he consulted Gualandi on this “bare speech” problem, the answer he got was that the Greek word psiloi always implies the sense of “being separate.” that

Although Mazzoni recognized that Aristotle’s usage was inconsistent and that, so far as the modern argument was concerned, larger problems than the translation of the phrase and linguistic usage were involved, he concluded that in the debated place in the Poetics Aristotle

meant only “without the accompaniment of music and dance” by “bare speech” and that, to be good, poetry should use verse, especially epic poetry. 23 In view of the date of their publication

(1597), the remarks of Buonamici concerning the place of prose in poetry would seem to be-

long to the violent upheaval of the argument

at the

end of the century,

and Buonamici should be thought of in company with Michele, Faustino 21

Lorenzo Giacomini, Lezione sopra

un sonetto p.

del Petrarea (Firenze, 1808),

tico Insensato

(Perugia,

23

22.

Masini,

Lettioni

dell'Esta-

14,

Mazzoni, Della difesa (Cesena, 1688)

.

“Filippo

1588), pp.

24.

I.

28-32.

103

The Age Summo, and Paolo

of Criticism

Beni; but Buonamici

was

fighting battles with

still

twenty-five-years-dead Castelvetro, and his arguments did not

contact with those of his more exact contemporaries.

poet is,

is

one

who makes

nothing about imitation.

He

use verse.

Buonamici, a

plot structures in verse, so that both plot (that

and verse are necessary. In

fable)

To

make

He

this

connection he said practically

assumed that Aristotle meant that

all

ppets

argued that in the beginning poets could be versifying

scientists as well as

fablemakers and later the term was restricted to those

fabling in verse. Like Salviati, Buonamici held that fable

is

the soul of

poetry and verse the body, but he was unwilling to take a stand between Aristotle

who made

made

body

its

without fabling

The

the soul of anything essential and Democritus

essential. is

He

no poet

One

24 .

since music

is

in expression or

harmony can be added

something that

is

more

good for nothing. Better to the expression of them in verse

it is

express concepts in prose, he said, unless

sion of

their pro-

the ultimate justification of verse. Verse must have

some use or function results in

is

of his penetrating arguments can be found in his assertion

that a poet’s verse ought to be such that musical it,

who

writes in prose

particular strength of Buonamici’s Discorsi poetici

fundity.

to

who

he

said firmly that

beautiful than either the prose expres-

them or the prose expression

On

set to music.

the other hand,

if

the meters are so hidden that the verse forms no longer appear, the effect

is

that of a dead

does not submit

itself

man

ordinary speech. Indeed,

nounced

comparison to

so pronounced, since I

affirm this, that

in an ordinary voice, prose

since nothing

would be

if

—

man “and prose that a much greater effect

a live

harmony would have

to

made and

than verse so

in

a

it

would be more

comic

fable

would be more

altered in the speaking.

like

must be pro-

suitable for

But would he be

it,

a

who wrote thus? Certainly not, but a maker of fables only, in the same way that we believe that Aesop, Lucian, and our Boccaccio are, and they should be called mythologues. And if he did not have the poet

name of poet in doing that, he should content himself with that rank which Boccaccio has been put on account of his Decameron .” 25

into

Thus, Buonamici admitted the existence of kinds of literature that are not poetry because they are lacking the higher harmony of verse, but at the

same time he defined poetry narrowly

in terms of that higher

harmony. ^Buonamici, op. °4

cit.,

pp. 23-24.

25

Ibid., p. 58.

Are prose

poems?

fictions

In his quarrels with the ghost of Castelvetro, Buonamici objected that dialogues should aim at disputation, not at representation; that

is

to say

they belong in the area of the logical projection of probabilities and not in that of drama. Consequently,, he said that they should be written

not in verse.

in prose, certainly

presented on

He

added, however, that

people can comprehend with interest only capable of interest in fictions

if

they were

a stage an audience could be found for them, for

all

sorts of subjects.

human

if

some

events, others are

Buonamici denied that

should be written in verse, as Castelvetro had claimed.

all

He

pointed out that ?iovella writers had consistently used fictions as had

—

among the Greeks Aesop, Lucian, Apuleius. “Nor do any contradiction,” he continued, “between prose and the fable

the mythologoi I

see

that

would induce me

Buonamici

to believe that they cannot stand together.”

heightened

also objected to Castelvetro’s assertion that the

voice required in drama

is

not suited to the conversational prose of

dialogues, saying that Castelvetro had forgotten about oratory and the

by

pulpit voices used

preachers. Buonamici recognized no fundamental

difference in the enunciation of verse and prose even though he granted that stage traditions

had encouraged the perpetuation of the use of

heightened musical voices. But he added that

if

dialogues in prose cannot

be presented well in public theaters they can always be given in other places

more

fit

for them,

more

their size, if

need be. 26

This resume of opinions about the inclusion of prose within the ritory of poetry should

show

that the field had been well

harrowed before the end of the century. instead of withering

the 1590’s.

One

ter-

plowed and

It

might seem surprising that

away from exhaustion

the question burgeoned in

reason was that, although comedies had been written in

prose throughout the century, only toward the end of the century did dramatists begin in

of

comedy

in the

any number to write tragedies

status

much energy on tragedy,

and, to the Renaissance

tragedy was not poetry nothing was. Agostino Michele was

critic, if

one of the writers

who

had written

a prose tragedy; in defense of his

practice he published in 1592 his Discourse in

Shown Contrary

Which

It Is

Clearly

Opinions of All the Most Illustrious Writers Praiseworthy Fashion Comedies and Tragedies Can Be Written

in Prose. 26

The

realm of poetry had always been somewhat dubious,

but Aristotle had spent

How in

in prose.

to the

Summary

Ibid., pp.

1 1

of his discourse will reveal that

many

1— 1 14.

I0 5

of his argu-

The Age

of Criticism

ments review the century’s work on the subject while others have certain novelty.

He

others,

and

in the

two parts; in the first he more fitting instrument than more cogent and pertinent than

divided his discourse into

presented twelve reasons verse for drama,

a

why

prose

some of which

are

is

a

second he attempted to answer fifteen objections that

had been made to the use of prose. In presenting his reasons for preferring prose, Michele said that,

and comedy follow the same laws and prose has proved

since tragedy

successful in

showed

comedy,

follows that

it

it is

that Ruscelli preferred prose for

suitable for tragedy also.

comedy.

He

He

turned also to

the precedents or critical approvals of Vettori, Piccolomini, Guarini, the Sienese comic poets, Ariosto, and Caro, list

among

of tragedies that had been written in prose.

A

and gave

others,

a

fellow academician

of Michele’s had argued that although Italian prose was too sonorous for

comedy

was not lofty enough for tragedy; ATchele answered Tasso, Guarini, and other poets had demonstrated that this was not

that

it

so.

all

Another argument was that appeals to tradition are unavailing things change and rightfully so. Michele said:

There

is

nothing under the sun that remains stable and firm; and

stability that establishes taste of the arts

in

about the art of poetry,

many

in-

in food, in clothing, in habitations, in the

every other thing found here below either pro-

duced by wise nature or fabricated by human music, in which

is

laws for everything terrestrial and mortal; thus the

world often changes

and sciences, and

it

since

we

wit.

But since

I

should discover this verity in the

am

talking

arts.

Take

years ago Giusquino and Adriano flourished; in the

and Orlando were famous; and in these days Marenzio and Vecchi become singular and illustrious; and nevertheless their manners of composing are so different that it seems they are not practitioners of the past age Cyprian

same

art.

Take

painting, in

which Giovanni

Bellini

and Pordenone, formerly

very famous, had the most honored acclaim; Titian and

Salviati

were highly

gone by; and Tintoretto and Palma hold the first place in these days; and yet their pictures are so different that anyone even modpraised in times

erately expert can

tell

the author of each one of them, and

ent they are they nevertheless the same thing happens.

What

all

however

differ-

give equal pleasure. In the art of poetry

tragedy

among

celebrated than the Oedipus of Sophocles?

the Greeks was ever

What

tragedy

among

more

the Latins

was ever more praised than The Golden Rain of Antonio Telesio [a telling citation!]? What tragedy among the Tuscans was ever more exalted than Giovanni Battista Cinthio’s Orbecche? And yet in their qualitative and 106

Are prose were so

quantitative parts these

the same

name should belong

to

poems?

fictions

from one another them all. 27

far

that

it

does not seem

Oedipus

Aristotle, he indicated, created his Poetics using Sophocles’ as

mirror and called

it

revealed, but in the recent

Olympic Theater acting,

failed to

it

Muzio new show place

“the most perfect idea of tragedy” as

performance of

in the

it

in Vicenza, in spite of excellent production

and

have “that noble success promised by the immortal

acclaim of that poem.

And

sentences, the verse, the episodes,

with the soft and delicate

happened because the manner, the

that

and

its

other parts are not in accord

taste of these times.”

Thus, changes should

be expected. Since even Aristotle had described the evolution through

which comedy and tragedy had gone up to his time, Michele said, the modern change to the use of prose should be thought of as a small departure from tradition. Quoting Riccoboni to the effect that verse is

the proper instrument of poetry but not

its

essential

element and citing

Varchi’s claim that prose imitators are poets since poetry imitation,

Michele argued that prose does not

is

primarily

at all offend the essential

“however much many elevated wits of our time are more by the usages that they ordinarily observed than by any reason, even apparent.”

parts of poetry

moved see

to believe so, impelled

Another of Michele’s arguments was that

come to be used in the tradition

in

in antiquity verse

drama because musical accompaniments were

had

central

and verse was the necessary adaptation of speech to the

demands of the music. In taking considerable pains to establish this Michele showed a commendable scholarship, even though his reliance upon the current Paduan authorities such as Denores and point,

Riccoboni, along with Patrizi, Mazzoni, and Castelvetro, hints that this

range was derived from stock lecture-hall proceedings.

that regularity of meters without musical assistance in his

He

felt

day was

merely boring and cited an opinion of Denores’ that modern poets strove to

make

their verse

argument blended into verse.

seem

as

his next, that

much

like prose as possible.

This

prose allowed greater variety than

Variety in prose utterances, he had learned from Cavalcanti’s

Rhetoric

,

is

a

product of the judgment and

fine ear of the individual

writer and not of mechanical external principles. Furthermore, prose

can express our ideas

as

well as verse can. For his part, he testified

^Agostino Michele, Discorso in cui contra Vopinione di tutti i piu illustri scrittori del arte poetica

chiaramente

si

dimostra come

molto lode

le

si possono scrivere con comedie e le tragedie in

proso (Venetia, 1592),

p. 4.

107

The Age

of Criticis?n

by Valla and

that he had read the prose translations of the Iliad

Odyssey by Raffaello Volaterrano with great

of the

Prose well-

delight.

developed can express our concepts with greater gravity and sweetness than verse. Prose has

had shown in

his

its

rhythms

Dialoghi

Daniele Barbaro

as well as verse, as

much

dell' eloquenza;

prose

is

practically

metered, as he was able to demonstrate with a passage from Della Casa’s oration to Charles V. Prose has the advantage of allowing uneven line

which verse form is right for any given purpose with the attendant drawbacks that come from having to commit oneself to one choice, and can mix rhythms just as the elements in the human body combine earth, air, fire, and water. lengths, avoids the question of

In a digression, Michele reopened the question of calling prose

dialogues poetry. Using (sometimes out of context) the opinions of

and Robortelli against Zoppio to support

Castelvetro, Mazzoni, case,

he

his

and Speroni were

Lucian, Pontano,

Cicero,

“Plato,

said:

marvelous poets in their dialogues because they imitated, and to the extent that the dialogue imitates with speech tained within the species of epic poetry.”

tragedy and

comedy be

written in prose

if

it is

to that extent con-

Why,

28

he asked, cannot

dialogue can be?

In answering specific objections to his thesis Michele covered a wide

range of territory.

The

following summarizes the problems:

(1) If prose can substitute for verse,

The answer was

use prose?

why

that one

did not poets in the past

might

as

well apply the

same argument to anything: “This argument would destroy the inventions of very

awe than

many

arts

usefulness, since

it

which we now

possess with

could be said that printing,

no

less

artillery,

and musical instruments are not good and praiseworthy things because ages;

if

they were they would have been made in the early

and so invention would come to be trampled

destroyed not only in the mechanic arts but

and sciences

down and

in the liberal arts

as well.”

(2) Writing tragedies

in prose implies censure of past masters

and

imputation of greater knowledge of the art of poetry than Giraldi Cinthio, Trissino, Speroni, Guarini, Cremonini, Anguillara, Tasso,

and so on. Nonsense,

conform

said Michele.

to the usages of his time.

Every writer has the right to The same can be said about

change in painting, sculpture, architecture, music, and the tary 28

Ibid., p.

art. 19.

08

“I

am

not so stupid,” he

said,

“that

I

mili-

judge that the

Are prose entire cognition of this art

There (3)

depends upon

my

conclusion alone.”

are a thousand other kinds of excellence to consider.

No new

custom ever succeeds with the public unless

has great talent and reputation. kinds;

poems?

fictions

some come

chance. There

is

by chance;

others are created

necessary to impose changes dependent on

no reason for

is

inventor

Answer: Inventions are of two

as concomitants,

Authority

rationally.

its

a dress to be long or short. In

changes dependent on reason, fame and reputation are irrelevant. (4) Mixtures of prose

is

and verse are bad (Michele had done

this in

Cianippo). Michele gave detailed reasons showing that this

his

not

so.

(5) Castelvetro had argued that verse ought to be used because prose is too verisimilar, too much like history. Michele, who based his

argument on differs

(6)

from history

Poems with this

verisimilitude, simply reversed the argument.

are

in

its

universality, not in

its

Poetry

verses.

expressed in verse so that they can be presented

a raised voice.

argument.

It

Answer: Piccolomini had already disposed of

destroys verisimilitude to have one lover shout-

ing verses at another a

only because they

few

know

feet

away. The spectators accept

they must hear

the art

if

is

to

this

com-

municate. (7)

Denores

said that the glory of

drama

lies in

the poet’s ability to

make verse seem like prose, and the appreciation of this technique would be lost if prose were actually used. Answer: When a play is

well acted, the audience can

tell

the difference between verse

and prose. (8) Patrizi said prose could not be used in

dramas because poetry

in

(10) antiquity was always linked with song. Yes, Michele said, just so; verse was necessary so long as plays were sung.

Answer: The

(9) Patrizi said that verse and prose are contraries.

premise

is

denied; they are not contraries.

they are both instruments and no reason use contrary instruments.

no

less

“The body

is

make an

if

they were,

exists

why

made

visible to

with black than with white,” Michele

prose can

Even

said.

a poet cannot

our eyes

Either verse or

idea intelligible.

Patrizi said that, if poetry could be made without verse, verse would not be essential to it. If it could be made without prose, prose would not be essential, and the fact is that it has been made

for centuries in verse. Answer: Neither verse nor prose 109

is

essential

The Age

of Criticism

since both are instruments. It

not true that poetry has always

is

been made in verse (mimes, Socratic dialogues, comedies), but continual usage in the past (

1

1

)

no sure sign of essence. The explanation

is

poems were sung. The essence of poetry

is

that

imitation.

is

In his definition of tragedy Aristotle specified “numbers, rhythm,

and harmony.” Answer: The translation should be “speech made

which does not

delightful” instead of numbers,

necessarily

mean

verse,

and the authority of Aristotle cannot be used to support

verse.

Michele added: “Thus

am

I

composed

greatest poets tragedy had been

have given

if

in that age of the

he would

in prose

precept that tragedy ought to be written in

as a

it

sure that

prose, for these principles are not eternal as those of natural

matters are but are variable just as

ment from which they receive change the rules to (12)

Many

fit

our

human opinion and

their being are.”

We

Rhyme may

it is

easier.

present some difficulty but blank verse

easy to write. Ruscelli said that

all

sorts of

men

is

could write

Varchi debated whether prose or verse was the

verses.

need to

tastes.

will say that writers use prose simply because

Answer:

judg-

easier to

write. Actually both are very difficult. It takes as long to develop a

good orator

as a

good poet;

this

point was debated

Lodoici. Children can learn to write verses

more

by Giacopo

easily

than they

can master oratorical rhythms. (13)

Some

say that a poet writing in prose does not differ from a his-

torian.

Answer: The difference between poetry and history does

not depend upon verse, the

for

one narrates the true and

the

other the verisimilar; poetry

has unity

of action.

Poets

can color events described with emotion; historians cannot; and so on.

(14) Scaliger said that

if

imitation and not verse

were

essential to

poetry lyric poets and writers of epigrams, odes, sonnets, madrigals,

and canzoni cannot be called poets. Answer:

poems do not

imitate,

we

can say they are not poems;

the logic of definition, (b) that

poems of

(a) If these

these kinds

It

may

do not

be argued that

this

it is

follows

not true

imitate. Painters imitate

greatly in portrayals of battle scenes than in portraits of one

and more greatly

in portraying a

but the painter of the poet,

who 1

10

meadow

is

man

more

man

than in drawing a meadow,

nevertheless an imitator. “So the

does not differ from the painter, as Aristotle and

all

Are prose commentators teach

his

comedy, more

in

more

in

tragedy than in

in epic poetry,

and more in epic

imitates

us,

comedy than

poetry than in canzoni or sonnets, but these completely lacking in imitation.” For (15) It can be argued that, in prose, lyric

and epic poetry

ready seen that imitation is

however,

proof here Michele

his

comedy and tragedy can be

if

also

manifestly impossible the former

yet

last are not,

Mazzoni’s four kinds of poetic imitation.

utilized

is

poems?

fictions

Prose

essential.

tragedy,

can be, and since the is

also.

most

suitable to

to

all

comedy,

and much

to epic poems,

less suitable

We

Answer:

common

not equally

is

is

written latter

have

al-

poems and suitable to

less

suitable to

sonnets and other lyric poems. Sonnets and canzoni depend for their

form much more on meter and rhyme schemes than on it is thus a contradiction to talk of making a

external causes;

sonnet in prose since

its

dramas use

(16) Pastoral

verse

verse.

form

rigidly specified.

is

Answer: Pastoral drama

separate species of poetry but either tragedy,

comedy. But shepherds

like

to

is

comedy, or

not

a

tragi-

and verse does well in

sing,

pastorals.

Although Michele sometimes lapsed into

moved

at ease

accurately the

through the complexities of

gamut of

development of ideas slightly

is

at the

prolixity.

his

argument and

thinking of his day.

Only

was other than

accomplishment was

The

and Houdar de

la

in fashion

and

of the

exists for

a routine critical theorist of his

a tribute to the

advanced battle

state of criticism

between verse and

prose in drama was destined to be restaged at the time of

was

reflected

evil

been investigated

ideas that have

end of the sixteenth century. This

heroic drama

later in the

Dryden when

polemic between Voltaire

Few if any arguments emerged from the upon by Michele.

Motte.

contests not touched

he

in general

can be disposed of quickly. Although no reason

believing that Michele age, his

critical

inanities,

later

In the year 1600 Paolo Beni published his Oratio qua ostenditur

comediam atque tragoediam metrorum vinculis solvere a work in which it was argued that not only is prose possible in drama but even desirable. His cry was, Let drama be freed from the chains of

praestare

,

meter. In the same year, Beni’s fellow Paduan, Faustino

voted one of the discourses in

Summo,

his Discorsi poetici to the

verse and after the appearance of Beni’s attack followed

it

de-

defense of

up with

a

Discorso in difesa del metro nelle poesie e nei poemi et in particolare ,

,

The Age

of Criticism

comedie a forty-four-page booket

nelle tragedie , e

which he

in

,

panded somewhat the arguments

ex-

in his discourse of the previous year.

In his commentaries on Aristotle, which appeared in 1613, Beni summed up the controversy about the use of prose in poems and enlarged upon the ideas he had expressed more than a decade before. Beni repeated

himself so completely that earlier

work.

Summo

we need

not concern ourselves with /the

in his act of rebuttal

broached a few

Summo

In the ninth discourse of his Discorsi poetici to settle the contest

between prose and verse

joint bases of the rules of Aristotle

new

ideas.

endeavored

in stage plays

on the

and human reason. First he

listed

the arguments in favor of prose and then those in favor of verse as

he were proceeding impartially, although he weighted the side of verse. Actually, most of the discourse arized

from the

treatise of Michele,

who

is

is

if

on

his findings

shamefully plagi-

not mentioned. In support

of the use of prose he listed Michele’s reasons in order, with the same lists

of authorities and illustrations and with, rarely, the addition of

names and

citations of his

the side of verse

own. Although he

more alive and somewhat less

the tunes but with

efficacious,

reliance

called the

he again

arguments on

let

Michele

call

upon Michele’s gathering

of

evidence.

In his effort to upset Michele’s argument on the point that the

Ancients should have written in prose

Summo

if it is a

better instrument for

“Thus abandoning verse to take up prose in their compositions would be like abandoning the purple and taking up gray for clothing a great king, a change which is not proper.” He showed that Aristotle (third book of Rhetoric) had distinguished between the language of prose and poetry while admitting the presence of some metaphors and rhythm in prose, and he claimed Plato had identified poetry and verse. Other authorities in antiquity were Dionypoetry than verse,

sius

said:

of Halicarnassus and Hermogenes.

On

the “bare speech” question

he argued that since Aristotle was usually a stickler for using only certain meters for certain genres of poetry he lax

enough

also to suitable.

to allow prose. It

Summo

would never have been

seemed reasonable

as

well as traditional

that for heroic poetry only heroic meters should be

Like several of

his predecessors,

Summo

reviewed the evidence

mimes of Sophron and Xenarchus were written in prose and found it wanting. According to his taste, the Iliad and Aeneid reduced to prose would no longer be poems but pure sermoni. for supposing that the

He

argued that Michele’s syllogism 12

—comedy

is

as poetic as tragedy;

Are prose comedy tragedy

which

has been written in prose; therefore, prose

—had

minor premise since

a faulty

an argument of

useless in

is

argument that customs are

where

those matters

or another. But

that resides in the in nature

and

he

was based upon authority

said:

response to Michele’s

answer that

“I

one speaks of that good and

if

common

this is

free will in

they are fashioned in one

if

little

it is

stable usage

men and

consensus of excellent

conformity with reason,

in

satisfactory in

is

upon the consent of our

imports

it

it

this kind. In

relative,

true of that usage that depends

mode

poems?

fictions

not true.”

29

is

founded

The

varia-

came while poetry was developing toward perfection; a change now from verse to prose would be a retrogression. In refutation of the argument (which Summo tions to be

found

in early tragedy, he claimed,

called Zoppio’s thesis)

that poets should use prose because iambics

most resemble prose among meters, prose

is

Summo

better than iambics, for “prose

said

it

did not follow that

entirely alien to poetry

is

and

poetry cannot be perfect without verse.” Against the argument that verse cannot express our thoughts any better than prose,

quipped that the trouble with those

Homer

of

ears

are as

with their

ment

at the

Homer

as

Summo

say that the prose translations

that “they measure other people’s

is

he asserted, himself answered the argu-

more verisimilar in showing how a poet is conceded depart from ordinary modes of speaking in order to aim

that prose

the right to

good

ears.” Aristotle,

who

is

marvelous and

at delight.

Against Castelvetro he argued that

dialogues are not representational and like

comedy “not only because

they are simply discourse without other aids to communication but because they are merely expressions of the actions of the intellect and pertain solely to the mind, but comedies and things like

about ^he

common

life

man and

of

them

certain accidents that

all

and experience, matters very different one from the other.” telli

he answered that not

all

are actions

of us feel

To Robor-

poems must be

imitations are poems, since

showing happiness and unhappiness. dialogues were poems, “histories, and disciplines either moral or

actions occurring in ordinary If

contemplative, and even

life

the arts

all

would be poetry.” History

capable of imitating passions, actions, and manners but Reflecting the stress put

Summo

devoted more of

by Beni on

his

Discourse in Defense of Meter (1601) to

he sought to refute were that

Summo,

not poetry.

the greater lifelikeness of prose,

questions of the effects of verse in drama.

29

is

is

it

is

not

The main lifelike

propositions that

for ordinary people

Discorsi poetici, p. 67. 1

13

The Age

of Criticism

to speak in polished verses, that since art should imitate nature poetry

should follow the true or the verisimilar, that poetry should seek exact

from verse

likenesses as painting does, that audiences get less profit

because verse

and obscure and delights the ears and senses

difficult

is

only, and that verse belongs to the poetry of praise only since there a conflict

between thought and diction when

of blame.

Summo

called

it

it is

is

used for the poetry

comedy and tragedy

stupidity to argue that

should be in prose but epic poetry in verse since the same kind of

When

characters appears in epic poetry as in drama.

argued that only lyric poetry needs verse in

since, unlike

does not have to appear to be impromptu,

it

Summo

sought a

between the overelaboration of ornaments and the problem

distinction

of verisimilitude. the fact that

important to note that

It is

much

word

tude meant “lifelike”; proposition,” that

Summo was

aware of

of he whole argument rested on differences of mean-

ing attached to the

To

“verisimilitude.”

Summo

argued that

which “ought

it

to be,” that

his

us believe that simply because

men more

opponents

should is,

mean

verisimili-

“a probable

an ideal or methodized

nature and not a nature cluttered with accidents.

in

opponents

his

drama, speech

Summo would

have

often use prose than verse

normal discourse does not imply an opposition between verse and

He

verisimilitude.

more

usual the said

men

that

implication

said that the farther poetic speech gets

attractive

learned to

was

that verse

and delightful

it

becomes.

make poems because is

from the

When

dull

Aristotle

of their nature, his

the emergence of the natural.

Rhythm

is

not unnatural to man.

Summo

granted the existence of a certain obscurity in verse but

claimed that changes in language over the course of centuries accounted for

much

of

it,

a fault

not to be attributed to poets or poetry. Quite

to the contrary of being profitless it

to be

more

on account of

its

obscurity, he held

useful than prose because the delightfulness of the verse

compelled the reader or spectator to become involved in the content. Besides, he remarked, writers can write obscurely in prose as well as in verse.

Summo

poet to see to

On

always called attention to the responsibility of the it

that verse does not have the faults charged to

it.

the question of the naturalness of iambic meters, he called attention

to the antiquity of the belief that

of effects from an iambic In stating that in verse,

Summo

it is

good poets can get

a

wide range

line.

entirely proper for slaves and domestics to speak

appealed to what to him was the Aristotelian doctrine

Are prose

fictions

that poets “are imitators only of the actions of

and unhappiness, not of the

men

no violence to

men and

themselves,” that

eccentricities of character; therefore,

verse does

poems their happiness

is,

not of their

having the lowborn speak in

verisimilitude.

However, he

that

insisted

even the lowborn do speak in natural iambics part of the time, pecially in

moments

of

Although Paolo Beni, coming

at the

end of

a

long line of disputants

on the question, presented the most comprehensive treatment of to be found

of

in the Renaissance,

more rapidly

encountered in

if

been

Michele, or earlier writers. In his treatment of

problem he showed more

the complexities of the

it

not at any time, he can be disposed

solely because the expression of his ideas has

Summo,

Even when he was

es-

stress.

finesse than Michele.

talking about the inclusion of certain prose

works

within the province of poetry, he kept in mind the need for poetic “sentences and lights” and exploited fully the possibilities of the con-

cept of gradations, assigning the top place in poetry to poems with imitation and verse and fable. Imitation he held to be about the same as fable.

The

poet

who

does not use verse

diction and other ornaments of poetry.”

may

He

still

use “fable and poetic

thought of

all

poems

as

representing various possible mixtures of several ingredients that can

be excellent products

as

wholes even though imperfect

in

one or more

A comparable situation he found in Aristotle’s concept of good life as composed of many kinds of goods from which one or more might be absent without impairing the goodness of the whole.

respects.

the

In arguing that poetry should be freed

was

from the chains of

verse, he

chiefly concerned that metrical matters should not take precedence

over those pertaining to verisimilitude and decorum. slave

cannot very properly be made to mouth

He

said a

but highly recommended the use of verse in heroic poetry,

any other form

drunk

his stupidities in verse lyrics,

or

which the texture should be finely wrought and elaborate and in which a vulgar diction and pedestrian style are out of place. But he left no doubt that imitation, somehow conceived, in

should be the touchstone of poetry and not verse. Aristotle, he thought,

was

deliberately unclear about the necessity of verse and song “either

because he thought song was nevertheless a matter of some importance in this business or because he dared not differ

from general opinion,

except gradually and by dissimulation.” Aristotle that the

maker of

fables

was more

made it very clear maker of verses

a poet than a

and disagreed with Plato’s belief that poetry implies song.

Among

ex-

The Age

of Criticism

amples of works that could be called poems without verse, Beni

The Golden

carelessly listed the Aethiopica of Heliodorus, Erastus,

Ass of Apuleius, and, among the Spaniards, Splandian, i\rthur, Palmerin,

and Primaleones, holding thaC“these will have to be considered poems if

they show imitation.”

The term

be stretched so far as this but

way between which

in

should not

said,

These forms are

should.

half-

prose speech dealing exclusively with truth and poems

fables, imitations,

just as nature

“heroic poetry,” he

“poem”

and song are to be found.

He

added

that,

had created zoophytes to be part animal and part plant

and human beings to be part mortal and part immortal, “so an imitation

won

of unmeasured speech has

for

neighbor to poetry on account of

middle place

itself a

its

when

it

is

imitation and therefore fable (I

speak in the Aristotelian manner) and to history and pedestrian doctrine

on account of

unmeasured speech.”

its

He

said that if dialogues

such

as

those of Lucian are full of metaphors and poetic lights and are not

more packed with are

much

At

a later point

doctrinal precepts than with poetic inventions they

closer to poetry than the dialogues of Plato or Cicero

30 .

Beni returned to the question of dialogues and, after

Decameron Amadis, and

Greek romances can which no human action and fable can be found but which “explain and examine the subject matter more broadly for the sake of doctrine

stating that the

,

the

legitimately be called poetry, repeated his belief that dialogues in

(like the dialogues of Plato

Beni

made

a

and Cicero)” are not poetry

long study of the “bare speech” problem in the text

of Aristotle, marshaling

all

the pertinent evidence

from the

of classical authorities as well as

was

by

in Aristotle’s text

term in

its

and the

avoided some of the

difficulties

trying to argue that sometimes Aristotle used the

summed up

literary

some of the Michele and

But

He

generic sense and sometimes to refer only to heroic poetry

Thus, Beni

developments of the

Summo were more fictions

was used

Were

it

"Beni, In Aristotelis poeticam commentarii, pp. 80-83.

116

more than he

it

we

problems of their can see

as a test of the

not that 81

33

reflected

later years of the period.

specialists in the

in Beni’s treatment of the question

the Renaissance critics.

32 .

sixty-five years of Aristotelian scholarship

theory that evolved from

special

problem of prose

by

from a wide range main conclusion

Poetics. His

that Aristotle used the term epos generically to include almost

any kind of “feigned narration.”

time.

31 .

it

how

the

theory of imitation

constituted a severe

Ibid., p.

own

whole

182.

Ibid., pp. 69-74.

test,

Are prose

fictions

poems?

our long concern here with the interpretation of “bare speech” would be a digression.

It is

noteworthy

that,

although the impetus to the

works was in the interest which there was greater portrayals of “nature” than in most kinds of

extension of poetry to certain kinds of prose

of narrative fictions and dramatic dialogues in

probability of realistic

poems, the

critics

tion in terms of

terms of

its

of the Renaissance continued to explain poetic imitaits

opposition to abstract doctrine rather than in

rendering a mirror image of the world around them.

What

they wanted was concreteness and poetic inventions, not fidelity to

fact.

7

Making

Imitation as Idol

and Particularization

THE most

fully developed system of literary aesthetics in the Renais-

sance was without question that of Giacopo Mazzoni. serious

drawbacks of the

method used

necessity of splitting apart the system of

how

his separate ideas related to the

of the

Mazzoni

in order to

show

development of those ideas

in

time even though the result has been to make the force of Mazzoni’s

his

thinking a

One

in these pages has been the

evident.

less

At

this

point further advance

is

needed toward

comprehension of Mazzoni’s central concepts related to the theory of

imitation and a perception of the relationship between

had to say about imitation

as particularization

and

what Mazzoni

his ideas

about the

balance to be achieved between particulars and universals (to be dealt

with more fully

managed tions

and

in Part

Two ).

1

It

to include the narrative

how

has been

mode

shown

in

what way Mazzoni

of writing poetry under imita-

in listing the kinds of imitation as dramatic-fantastic,

narrative-fantastic, dramatic-icastic,

and narrative-icastic he made room

for a theory of imitation as particularization in order to explain the narrative-icastic this

form; and there have been some hints that he extended

theory of imitation

narrative-icastic.

How

as particularization

beyond the

limits of the

he adjusted these ideas to make them apply to

the traditional division of imitations into the purely dramatic, the

purely narrative, and the mixed form and tions of the poet’s expressing bias 1

Infra, pp. 197-202. 1

18

how

he disposed of the ques-

and passing judgments

upon

his

Making and

Idol

Particularization

material have also been viewed. Again, as part of the examination of

the use of abstract doctrines in poetry

we

have encountered Mazzoni’s

highly significant distinction between idols

and

idols

made

own

for their

question whether dreams are actions

now

made

for the sake of truth

sake and, also, his handling of the 2 .

Some

synthesis of these ideas

is

called for.

It is

evident that Plato rather than Aristotle provided the basic ideas

upon which Mazzoni’s system of completely Plato himself

aesthetics

was founded

as Plato interpreted

—but

not so

and modified by

late

Greek and Roman and Byzantine scholiasts. It is remarkable how many of his key discriminations Mazzoni was able to extract from tenthcentury Suidas, whose lexicon expositions of ideas were by their nature fragmentary but culminative of a long tradition. the perennial existence of a sound the history of

Western

ability to find ultimate

But of

body

civilization

No

can be found than in Mazzoni’s

answers in Suidas.

in his distinguishing of the idol-making arts

arts, his

and the

better proof of

of critical doctrine throughout

from other kinds

source books for kinds of idols were particularly the Sophist

sixth

book of the Republic of Plato

Mazzoni

himself. Idols,

explained, can occur either as a result of artifice or without

would have us look thought

how

it

especially at the kinds

necessary to

list

in a

He

said that idols

He but

show

not made by

can come from either bodily or spiritual matter and can be

either clear or obscure. Clear idols can

being in

it.

artifice

the other kinds as well in order to

these fitted into the larger scheme.

artifice

demanding

this

come from almost any

world; obscure idols are shadows of these,

mirror or in water. Each idol

is

or having visions are of this

not involve the imitative

class,

arts.

The

like reflections

thus a similitude of

and the cognitions that our senses have of things while

visible

some

we

object,

are sleeping

born from the body since they do ancient “heathen,” he said, divided

two classes in terms of their origin: (i) from pure intellect and (2) from souls separated from their bodies. Those of pure intellect can come either from angels or from the demons called phantasmata by the Greeks. Many visions in antiquity, Mazzoni explained, were demon inspired. The other class included, or was prin-

images of

spirit into

cipally comprised by, ghosts.

In the imitative

They 2

arts,

however, idols must be the result of

are “those images that

come from our

Supra, pp. 24-26, 51-53, 76-78, 85, 103.

fantasy and

artifice.

from our

The Age by means

intellect

ing, sculpture, or

human

of Criticism

of election and our will, such as an image in a paint-

some such

and images deriving

artifice,

These are

thing.”

totally the result of

from human

artifice all

have

as

At this point, in turning to a study of other views of idol making than what he took to be the pure Platonic view, Mazzoni rejected the definition given by Suidas, whose interpretation was close to that which was standard in North Europe from the Renaissance through the associational psychologists of the Neoclassical period that an image made by artifice must be a compoundobject an image of this kind.

—

ing of items existing in nature in order to create something nonexistent.

Mazzoni

Suidas,

called images “effigies of things nonsubsistent

said,

or centaurs.” Images of existing things,

such

as

Tritons, sphinxes,

such

as

animals or men, Suidas called similitudes instead. Mazzoni

understood that Suidas was limning Plato’s distinction between

icastic

and fantastic imitation but identified the fantastic kind exclusively with the creation of the “wonders” to be found said that tion,

we

one of the

true, as

when

the other

in

romances. Mazzoni

can learn from Suidas that there are two kinds of imita-

when

a painter attempts a faithful likeness,

the artist imitates his

Mazzoni wanted the term “idol” to apply this definition

too restrictive, collated

it

own

caprice of fantasy, but

to both kinds and, considering

with some of the definitions

of “idol” to be found in other dictionaries and glossaries left from antiquity. Hesychius, he found, said:

and

a

icastic

“The

idol

is

a similitude,

an image,

would include both

This definition, he believed,

sign.”

the

and the fantastic kinds. Likewise he found that both Phavorinus

and Ammonius defined definition he said

meant

idols as resemblances

and appearances, and

this

that idols are “of apparent things that are not

invented and of things that are invented of which they represent the similitude.”

He

then reviewed what Plato had to say in dividing imita-

tions into fantastic

and

icastic kinds in the Sophist

an imitation of what

or can

and showed that

the icastic

is

fantastic

like the capricious invention of the artificer,

is

the while that in the tenth

the object of

all

imitations

exists

exist,

whereas the

remembering

book of the Republic Plato called idols At this point Mazzoni turned to the

3 .

scrutiny of poetry as one of the imitative arts using idols with artifice

and to the cataloguing of the kinds of imitation to be found

summary 3

of

which has already been made.

Mazzoni, Della 20

difesa,

I,

7-13. See Sophist 235-236.

in poetry,

Idol

Making and

Particularization

Mazzoni’s thesis that narrative poetry can be included in the

by means of

of imitations achieves

was developed

the particularization of details

his

cataloguing of

Mazzoni anticipated no trouble with the

the four kinds of imitation,

and the nar-

three, the dramatic-fantastic, the dramatic-icastic,

rative-fantastic,

and put forth effort to show that even the narrative-

forms can be considered imitations

icastic

as particularized description,

“evidence” or enargeia or as a speaking picture. But

as

it

of his larger need to prove that Plato

as part

did not exclude narrative poetry from imitation. In

first

class

which

,

it is

evident

in his

prolonged treatment of the question that whatever can be said

about

icastic narratives in this

regard can

all

the

more strongly and

obviously be said about fantastic narratives since the problem funda-

mentally was one of defending the nonrepresentational forms of poetry as imitations

and not of defending

fidelity to fact or truth as imitation,

even though in the defense of Dante he had to protect Dante against the charge of using too

thus

Starting

Mazzoni

As

much

abstract doctrine.

with the problem of the narrative-icastic forms,

said:

for the narrative-icastic,

which he particularly. For imitate,

I

do well

will

say that the poet in if

it

is

also

obliged to

he endeavors to describe everything most

manner also are made the idols and images that pertain to narrative, as is shown at length in the second and sixty-ninth chapters of the third book. A vernacular commentator [Castelvetro] of the Poetics called this kind of imitation particularization, in which indeed Homer was very excellent; in fact, it was said by Longinus that he in this

eikonographei that ,

is,

“describes images.”

And

for this reason Lucian, in

narrating in one of his dialogues the beauties of Pantha minutely, gave the general

title

of eikones , that

the same dialogue he

named

is,

Images.

And

in

many

it

other places in

that description “image” and said the

making

of images of that sort was the business of the sculptor, the painter, and the poet

and

.

.

Homer

imitate

it.

he showed clearly that narrating anything .

.

.

And

in describing the behavior traits

an image. this

a little earlier

was to

particularly

.

.

.

And

finally,

he also shows a

little

later that

and the beauties of Penelope made

near the end of the dialogue, he concludes that

kind of poetic narrating creates images worthy of being put alongside

those of Apelles, Parrhasius, and Polygnotus. ... So

we

can see

how

Lucian clearly called particularized narrative “an image made by the Muses.”

Hermogenes said that this kind of imitation was the best that poetry could ... I conclude then that even narrative-icastic poetry will make

have.

The Age idols

and images

of Criticism

manner that I have declared. This is not shared by some believe), unless by accident only, but is always

in the

history and prose (as

property of narrative poetry

a true

4 .

Pliny the Younger, he observed, had said that frequent descriptions of places were

more poetic than

historic,

and Demetrius Phalereus had

indicated that emphasis on metaphorical qualities in comparison results in poetic parable

and belongs there rather than

book of Images

wise, Philostratus in his first

picture on account of

ment of

its

in prose forms. Like-

said

poetry was

like a

exact descriptive particularization. This state-

what Horace, Plutarch, and Cicero had said of the resemblances between poetry and painting. Filippo Beroaldo, in commenting upon Cicero’s remarks, revealed the connection between Cicero’s statement and the concept of “evidence” or enargeia. Mazzoni said, in summary: “On account of all these authorities I can warmly confess that in my judgment even in narration poetry can resemble a speaking picture. And indeed all good Philostratus reminded

Mazzoni

in turn of

poets in narrating are forced to display their subject matters with so

much

‘evidence’ that they are almost to be seen with the eyes in our

done by means of characterismos diatyposis ,

heads. This they have

,

and merismos, of which

we 5

from Ariosto, Catullus, Ovid, show the shape taken by these descriptive idols

chapter of the third book.”

and Virgil follow to

have spoken sufficiently in the sixty-ninth Illustrations

in actual practice.

In stating once again that “narrative poetry even

forms images and particularization”

idols

and

is

Mazzoni made

it

it is

icastic

sufficiently evident that

he was

modes and

that the

talking about fantastic as well as icastic narrative principle should operate even

when

consequently imitation by means of

more obviously

in the fantastic

mode

than

in the icastic.

The

heart of the problem, however,

was the necessity of

distinguish-

ing between history and poetry, for Mazzoni believed that history

could easily be said to use icastic-narrative imitation and was also

concerned with particulars and hence with particularization. In dealing with

this special aspect

of the problem, Mazzoni had to juggle Castel-

vetro’s terms, for Castelvetro

by Suidas

which true

had followed the tradition represented

were distinguished from similitudes. In the second chapter of the third book Mazzoni said: “But a great and difficult question is that one which we must now deal with that is, in

imitations

—

4

Della difesa pp. 17-18. 122

c

See infra, p. 201.

Making and

Idol

Particularization

poetry can ‘represent’ with similitudinary imitation. Certainly,

if

seems to

many

handles

if it

it

it

that poetry cannot handle this sort of imitation, since

how

they do not see

can be distinguished from history,

it

which forms that kind of idol that represents things done outside of our minds and consequently imitates (so to speak) similitudinarily. So if poetic imitation is to be distinguished from that of history, as Aristotle wishes,

will of necessity follow that fantastic imitation

it

belongs to the poetic and the similitudinary to the historic. For

many have been

reason

this

subject of the poetic.”

6

come

a slightly different route.

idols as “a similitude of that

when

He

had shown that Plato had defined

which

something that

exists,”

from

He

it.”

had

(

)

i

“according to whether

it is

the intellect” or (2) “according to whether

and by our fantasy.” Mazzoni was thus concept of idols included both the

to being a defender of Dante,

it is

a

formed by the

When

Mazzoni was,

of

in addition

contemporary of Tasso, and the

much with

he ultimately determined that in a scale from perfect to

he knowingly replaced Plato’s preference for the icastic with

Aristotle’s

compromise

that a poet

provided he handles them

Mazzoni arrived

“The and

as

may

use true or historical subjects

he should.

at three conclusions in setting

true and perfect poet

who

that fable (2)

intellect

argue that

perfect poets fantastic imitators are better poets than icastic imi-

tators,

(1)

shown

icastic, similitudinary idol

question of using historical subject matter in poetry was him.

also

presented from outside

in a position to

history and the fantastic idol of poetry. But

less

“similar

is

Plato spoke of the nature of Being his concept could be

taken either as

Plato’s

the true

same conclusion but

to practically the

to the true thing while being distinct

that

is

This was Segni’s important distinction, and

Afozzoni was prepared to

by

of the opinion that the false

is

who

he

consequently has the

false

up

his scale:

adopts fantastic imitation

and the

lie

for subject,” so

of great importance.

is

Sometimes “a true and perfect poet may imitate true things by

means of

fantastic imitation

two kinds of

and

consequence put together the

in

imitation in his writing, the icastic and the fantastic;

but the second

is

wanted for

its

own

sake and the former

by

accident. (3)

The

icastic

poet can be called truly

than the fantastic. 6

a

poet but a

less

7

Mazzoni, Della difesa

,

I,

561.

7

Ibid., pp. 562-564.

I2 3

perfect one

The Age

of Criticism

Mazzoni’s central distinction followed:

poet of any kind imitates

a

for the sake of imitation, the historian, the philosopher, or the scientist for the sake of going beyond imitation to make assertions about what is and is not true 8 According to Mazzoni, the proper objects of the two kinds of poetic imitation, the fantastic and the icastic, differ .

rather

little.

Striking in this connection

the extent to which' he

is

could find most of the significant answers in the definitions given

by

Mazzoni

Suidas, with the exception that

both to

icastic similitudes

the term “idol” refer

and to fantastic imitations. Suidas had

that the object of icastic imitation

imitation the idol.

let

Mazzoni

said:

“So

it

can be said that according

to the opinion of Suidas the object of icastic poetry

by

credible represented

poetry

ing Suidas less

similitudes

by using

is

the marvelous

and that the object of

by

the marvelous credible represented

is

said

the similitude and of fantastic

is

fantastic

After correct-

idols.”

the authority of Plato directly, he could neverthe-

approve warmly of the clarity and brevity of Suidas’ remark that

“the object of icastic poetry credible,

is

the true insofar as

and the object of fantastic poetry

the marvelous credible.”

9

One

it is

the marvelous

the false insofar as

is

it is

of the cardinal doctrines of Mazzoni’s

not sufficiently relevant to these pages, was that of the

aesthetics,

importance of the “marvelous credible” in poetry. But the “marvelous credible” for him for

its

own

was

that

which held the

reader’s interest

by

and

itself

sake and delighted him, but Mazzoni’s notion did not

exclude the possibility that the marvelous credible could be the vehicle for important truth so long as the poet

was handling

his material so

was not primary. Allegorical poetry he called had one aspect of its meaning planted on implication

that the assertion of truth a hybrid since

it

of the truth of something in the objective world. ever, that fantastic poetry

He

can be considered either

did agree,

how-

terms of

in

its

genesis in the fantasy or as a finished product.

Tasso’s concern with history trapped

him

lower aesthetic stance even though he used tion as analogy.

He

called

all

a

into a noticeably shal-

broad concept of imita-

imitations similitudes but limited poetic

imitations to similitudes created intentionally and artistically. This can

be seen in

his saying:

imitating

the intention of resembling, and

is

“I say that imitation

be imitated or resembled.”

He

is

artful similitude,

what does not

8

See supra pp. 76-78.

124

He

cannot

disagreed fundamentally, therefore, with

Mazzoni and Segni, for he claimed that not the true can be imitated.

exist

and

false

but only the

could nevertheless say that in imitating truth 0

Mazzoni, Della

difesa,

I,

575.

Idol art

is

Making and P articidarization

alchemy which

a falsifier “like

in the imitation of gold falsifies

metals or like the art of tinters

who

whiteness of the wool or the

Tasso wanted imitations to be called

silk.”

“feignings” and not “falsifications”

ence

—but he showed

ending of

a fable

merited no praise in the historical a poetical

in

mixing colors corrupt the

—seemingly

his true colors in

only a verbal differ-

arguing that the beginning and

should particularly resemble truth. as a poet,

he

He would

have

had he “narrated the true material

said,

mode,” but he was

with having “treated

satisfied

it

in

manner” and “sought out the marvelous” while keeping the

image of history and almost the appearance of truth Tasso’s handling of the terms reveal,

if

nothing

10 .

else,

the penetra-

Mazzoni and of Segni before him. But Tasso, more than Mazzoni, was motivated by a desire to remain in touch with a world

tion of

was pre-eminently credible even though tinctured with marvels. He was a poet making a defense for the kind of art he practiced. However much Mazzoni was or was not a lover of Dante (and the evidence suggests that he undertook Dante’s defense because he was a knower not a lover), his attitude toward poetry remained ambiguous, for he was a philosopher not finally committed even to broad human-

that

istic

concerns. His principal aim in

was

life

the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle; only his vast learning to

theory of

did he bring

it is

poetry was, for him, merely entertainment

true,

of the best minds of a society

worthy of

and business. Yet there was difficult

life,

such

as

a strong strain of

drawing

tions of his distinctions

the attention and the energies

—but not to be confused with the serious

and therefore important things in

which makes

by accident

bear upon the development of a comprehensive

literature. Finally,

—an entertainment,

to achieve a synthesis of

a line

philosophy, statecraft,

Pyrrhonism

between the

in

Mazzoni

finer ironic implica-

and the implications of their crass

literalness.

There should have been few real quarrels between Patrizi and Mazzoni over the theory of imitation, for by making his conceptions complex Mazzoni transcended any simple theory of imitation that Patrizi

would have

poetry rested then

attacked. as

now on

The

strength of the mimetic theory of

ability to

its

make

distinctions

the nature of poetic expression and nonpoetic expression. Patrizi

was able

inherited

to

show

Although

that a shallowly interpreted theory of imitation

from both Plato and

the nature of poetry, he failed in

Aristotle

La deca

was inadequate make

disputata to

the essential elements of poetry are. 10

between

Tasso, Del giudizio, in Opere, XII,

302-304. 25

to

explain

clear

what

Part

Two

UNIVERSALS AND PARTICULARS

t

8

What

a world should be

and what

“THE “is to

it is

business of a poet,” Imlac says in Samuel Johnson’s Rasselas ,

examine, not the individual but the species; to remark general

He

properties and large appearances.

does not

number

the streaks of

the tulip, or describe the different shades in the verdure of the forest;

he

is

to exhibit in his portraits of nature, such prominent and striking

features, as recall the original to

every mind; and must neglect the

minuter discriminations, which one

may

have remarked, and another

have neglected, for those characteristics which are alike obvious to vigilance

made

and to

carelessness.”

these remarks,

speaking of what

“What

is

Matthew Arnold,

is

interesting

not interesting

is

of any kind; that which representation

About

which

is

that

is

a century after

Samuel Johnson

in the preface to

and not interesting

which does not add

Poems

(1853),

in poetry, said:

to our

knowledge

vaguely conceived and loosely drawn;

a

general, indeterminate, and faint; instead of

being particular, precise, and firm.”

On

the surface these

son, in his

two opinions would seem

to be opposite. John-

famous passage, rigidly excluded particularization from

poetry in Neoclassic fashion, and Matthew Arnold, as an heir of

was more interested in particularity than in That the difference between them was not so great as this contrasted pair of opinions would suggest can be found from more detailed and responsible studies of the whole thought structures of the

the Romantic revolution, universality.

129

The Age two men

of Criticism

As Arnold framed

1 .

the proposition, Johnson

certainly have agreed with him, as can be seen

from Johnson’s

pressed dislike of the “general and undefined” portraits of in

Nicholas Rowe’s plays

poetry

is

some kind of

2 .

Literary critics in

ex-

nature

reconciliation of the universal and the particular,

move

the taste and metaphysics of the time

from dead

human

ages have assumed that

all

but the important question for any given period

the other

would almost

center.

The

question

is

the extent to

the emphasis one

whiqh

way

or

partly one of metaphysics

is

and partly one of style. Arnold spoke of knowledge as well as of what was interesting and asserted the interconnection of two things that he might have kept separate, for the appreciation of a poem is not a

poem

matter of the

in itself

only but a relation between the

and the experience that

as conventionalization of experience

ventionalizes. Just as

it

poem con-

synecdoche can be played both ways, by the

rendering of both the particular in general terms and the general in particular terms, to achieve greater textural depth

the interest of the reader toward a whole

upon

felt contrasts

demands some degree of

so

poem may depend in part a poem and

universality, for even

degree or kind of universal. Even the is

interest,

between the particularity or generality of

the disorder or order of the experienced universe.

of the poet

and

classicist

all

Knowledge always words signify some

Johnson

said the business

to examine the species, not the genus.

In revolt though they

were

against Scholasticism, the literary critics

of the Renaissance never penetrated far into metaphysical regions where

odd collocations or organizations of having value for their

own

particulars could be thought of as

sake as monads, or as symbolic or significant

forms, deriving meaning from intension rather than extension. extent that they

were

Platonists, the Renaissance critics

To

the

were loyal to

the Ideal and on occasion to the belief that any connection between particulars cident.

and divine universal was

The

generality

closest

was

a matter of

pure chance or ac-

they came to a universal which was not simply

in their entertaining of Aristotle’s idea that

an organiza-

tion of particulars according to causal necessity might be looked

upon

as a universal; but Aristotle had inextricably linked necessity with

probability, and probability 1

See William K. Wimsatt,

meant

Jr.,

and

Cleanth Brooks, Literary Criticism:

Short History

(New

329.

130

York, 1957),

A p.

generality.

2

Lives,

II,

Brooks, loc.

For the most part the 76. cit.

Cited by Wimsatt and

What

world should be

a

Renaissance critics had nothing of vital significance to say about the balancing of universality and particularity because they had no strong

borrowed from Aristotle. But it will be shown that, operating within their narrow limits, they did arrive at the verge of more elaborate ideas and did subject Aristotelian doctrines to cautious testing. This was in the nature of their method, for the job they set themselves was to understand fully what was contained in

ideas to play against their phrases

Aristotle’s

condensed phrasings.

ized Neoclassical aesthetics

From Horace

Few

their range.

and the classical rhetoricians the Renaissance critics

had learned doctrines of decorum

more

of the ideas that later character-

were not included within

—doctrines

that

seem to us to be

closely connected with those of universality than they did to

Renaissance writers; and from the rhetoricians, Cicero and Quintilian especially,

they had learned the importance of particularity to the

orator for the achieving of enargeia, vividness, in the mastery of the Asiatic style, in

which

case particularity

was

a matter of style rather

than of metaphysics. But in spite of the presence of these other sources for ideas, in almost

all

the significant treatments of the problem of

“the concrete universal” in the Renaissance, the repetition of Aristotle’s

key phrases was the

starting point,

and

all

too often the end point as

well.

History, Aristotle said in the Poetics

what could or should or ought

tells

what did happen, poetry

to have happened. History emphasizes

poetry universals by dealing with events according to

particulars,

probability and necessity. Poetry

is

more philosophic than

regularly were these phrases repeated

—that

—

flatly,

history.

uncritically,

So

and with

would seem on the surface that the problem of the universality of poetry was no problem at all for the Renaissance. Castelvetro, it is true, distinguished poetry from history only slight elaboration

in

its

it

feigning of actions, as opposed to the recording of real ones,

and not primarily the other.

The

in the universality of the

one and the particularity of

writers of the arts of history

which were becoming

popular in the sixteenth century were sometimes unwilling to agree that history had less philosophic import than poetry. Patrizi openly dis-

agreed with Aristotle, and Zinano was not sure that Aristotle had

made found

However, the parade of Aristotle’s opinions few phrases was long and rarely broken. Simple acceptance

the right distinctions. in his

was the rule rather than the exception. Statements that poetry deals with what ought to happen rather than with what did happen, either

The Age elaborated

of Criticism

upon or not elaborated upon, appear

of Trissino, Robortelli,

Speroni,

in the critical writings

Muzio, Lionardi,

Varchi,

Giraldi,

Capriano, Scaliger, Vettori, Minturno, Piccolomini, A. Segni, Tasso, Guastavini, Salviati, A. Guarini, Zinano, Faustino

Pescetti,

can be compiled of those

that poetry

is

in many who made

no doubt,

Beni, and Tassoni and, lists

more philosophic than

3

other places

Summo,

Quite similar

.

use of Aristotle’s assertions

history and that universality in

poetry follows the principles of necessity and verisimilitude. Concernis more philosophic than history, additional comments were made by Maggi as well as by Trissino, Robortelli, and Minturno, by Castelvetro as well as by Segni. Segni is particularly important here for working out a philosophic position

ing the notion that poetry

significant

for poetry

midway between philosophy and

Sidney did a few years 3

later.

G. G. Trissino, Poetica, Bk. V,

Tutte

in

opere (Verona, 1729), II, 98; Francesco Robortelli, In librum Aristotelis de arte poetica explicationes (Flole

rentiae,

pp.

1548),

Speroni,

Giovambattista corso intorno die

Giraldi

al

1740),

Sperone V, 426;

Cinthio,

comporre

tragedie,”

delle

et

90;

86,

Opere (Venezia,

delle

“Dis-

come-

Discorsi

in

(Vinegia, 1554), p. 226, and “Discorso intorno al comporre de i romanzi,” in ibid.,

pp.

58-59;

Benedetto

much

history

as Sir Philip

Riccoboni’s classification of four kinds of

Varchi,

Lezzioni (Fiorenza, 1590), pp. 616-617; Girolamo Muzio, DelVarte poetica, in

alia

24,

poetica (Fiorenza, 1581), pp. 1764-67; see Francesco Patrizi, Della

La deca

poetica:

disputata

(Ferrara,

pp. 161-166; Torquato Tasso, Discorsi del poe?na eroico, in Opere, 1586),

(Pisa, 1823), 22-23, 65-71, an d Discorsi delVarte poetica, in ibid., XII,

XII 2

1

1-2 13;

sovra

see

la

Tasso, Del giudizio

also

Gerusalemme

di

Torquato

Tasso, in ibid., XII, 265, 31 1; for ments by Pescetti, Guastavini, Salviati, see

Lionardo

nato pri?no,

owero

Salviati,

comand

Ulnfari-

risposta delVlnfari-

1

Alessandro Lionardi, Dialogi della inventione poetica (Venetia, 1554), p. 51;

Apologia di Torquato Tasso, (Pisa, in Tasso, Opere, XIX 1827), 133, 294-296, 300; Alessandro Guarini, “Lezione nell’Accademia degl’Invaghiti

G.

in

Rime

(Vinegia,

diverse

P.

Capriano,

Della

1551),

vera

p.

82;

poetica

nato

all

Mantova sopra

il

sonetto,

Doglia,

(Vinegia, 1555), sigs. A4r, B2; for Scaliger, see F. M. Padelford, Select Trans-

di Monsignor della che vaga donna Casa,” in Giovanni della Casa, Opere

from ScaligePs Poetics

(Venezia, 1728), I, 352-353; Gabriele Zinano, Discorso della tragedia (Reggio, 1590), pp. 12-13; Faustino Summo, Dis-

lations

Studies in English, 1905), pp. mentarii in

17;

1,

(Yale

XXVI; New York, Pier Vettori, Com-

primum librum

Aristotelis

de arte poetarum (Florentiae, 1573), pp. 92-94; Antonio Minturno, Uarte poetica (Napoli, 1725), p. 39, and De poeta (Venetiis, 1559), pp. 45, 123; Alessandro Piccolomini, Annotationi nel libro della poetica sigs.

d'Aristotele

B5V, B6r, p.

154;

Ragionamento sopra !

32

(Vinegia,

le

Agnolo

1575), Segni,

cose pertinenti

.

.

.

(Padova, 1600), pp. 41Paolo Beni, Comparazione di Omero, Virgilio e Torquato, in Tasso, Opere,

corsi poetici

42

;

,

XXII In

(Pisa,

1828),

Aristotelis

101,

poeticam

and commentarii

196-223,

(Patavii, 1613), pp. 24-29, 277, 279280; Alessandro Tassoni, Diece libri di

pensieri (Venetia, 1627), p. 473.

What universality

important in

also

is

this

a

world should be

connection. Patrizi cited Aristotle’s

dictum that poetry was more philosophic than history but again dicated his disbelief. Tasso

made important

in-

contributions, and Malatesta

Porta handled the idea curiously. Further restatements or elaborations

can be found in the pages of Mazzoni, Alessandro Guarini,

Summo,

Buonamici, and Paolo Beni. Beni’s remarks are particularly elaborate

4 .

In their use of the Aristotelian concept that universals in poetry

follow necessity and verisimilitude, the Renaissance critics found themselves

most engaged with the differences between history and poetry

and with the particular offshoot of those distinctions, the question

whether the epic or dramatic poet ought to action or invent his

question was

own

what was

select a

known

historical

action. Here, as in Aristotle, the crux of the

Since verisimilitude, or probability, was

real.

which was

usually considered as that

normal in any given

likely or

had

situation or character, interpretations involving statistical averages little

or no force. But

when

the Renaissance

necessity, the causal interlinkage of events,

critic

put

upon

his stress

and related necessity to

probability, he had to ignore the all-pervading concept of universality as

simple generality. However, the evidence here must be handled

gingerly, for the writers sality

who worked

out concepts of poetic univer-

based on causal unities likewise dealt with Aristotle’s other

phrases. Pellegrino, Bulgarini,

and Michele had more to say

universality with necessity and verisimilitude than in

other ideas

5 ,

but otherwise the

lists

are

4

Vincenzo Maggi, in Vincentii Madii Bartholomaei Lombardi Aristotelis librum de poetica communes explanaet

tiones

(Venetiis,

Trissino,

loc.

1550),

pp. 34, Robortelli, De

cit;

13 1;

arte

poetica explicationes, pp. 89, 91; Minturno, De poeta, p. 39; for Castelvetro,

H. B. Charlton, Castelvetro’s Theory of Poetry (Manchester, Eng., 1913),

see

p. 29; Segni, op. cit., pp. 66-67;

Poeticam

Riccoboni,

Antonio

per periphrasim explicans, et nonnullas Ludovici Castelvetrii captiones refellens Aristotelis

La

(Vicetiae, 1585), pp. 43-44; Patrizi,

deca disputata, p. 166; Tasso, Del giudizio, in Opere, XII, 265, and Apologia in

difesa

della

Accademici (Pisa,

1824),

sua

della

Gerusalemme

Crusca,

24-25;

in

agli

ibid.,

Malatesta

X

Porta,

II

much

in equating

making use of the

the same.

Rossi, in Tasso,

What

Opere,

is

XX

ap-

(Pisa,

Giacopo Mazzoni, Della difesa della Comedia di Dante, ed. by Mauro Verdoni and Domenico Buccioli (Cesena, 1688), I, 319; A. Guarini, op. 1828), 92, 167 ;

cit.,

p.

p.

42;

poetici

344;

Summo,

Discorsi poetici,

Francesco Buonamici, Discorsi (Fiorenza,

1597 ),

p.

17 ;

Beni,

Comparazione, in Tasso, Opere, XXII, 222-223, and In Aristotelis poeticam commentarii pp. 277, 279, 281. 5 alia Replica Pellegrino, Camillo risposta degli Accademici della Crusca, in Tasso, Opere, XVIII (Pisa, 1828), Betlisario Bulgarini, Repliche alle 5; risposte del Sig. Orazio Capponi (Siena, 1585; dated 1579 at end of book), p. cui 1 19; Agostino Michele, Disc or so in contra Vopinione di tutti i piu illustri 33

The Age parent on the surface

of Criticism is

the willingness of almost every one of

to follow the lead of Aristotle,

phrases

even

them

the interpretations of the separate

if

were inconsistent with one another.

But saying that almost

the writers agreed with Aristotle

all

the same as saying that they

were

all

in

is

not

agreement or that there was

in their theorizing. Only when we turn to the were played upon these basic Aristotelian themes do we come to the areas in which the critics revealed what their true views were. Does “what should happen” imply moral judgment? Is

no range or diversity variations that

truth an idea or a historical fact?

Are

and truth one and the

reality

same, or are realities particulars and truths universals?

Is

with universal truths or does

what

include accidents?

it

happened more probable than what a universal?

relation

Is

allegorizing the

Is

nature identical has actually

totally invented? Is a causal unity

is

same

as universalizing?

between universals and hero types?

Is

What

is

the

comedy more universal mean merely “general

than tragedy and epic poetry? Can “universal” plot outline”?

What

particularization

is

needed

in

poetry for the sake

of vividness? In the diversity of answers to these and similar questions its reliance upon comments on universality in his Poetics. In treating of the ways of creating characters in comedy, Trissino, in Book VI of his Poetica (1563), said: “A character trait has double

the profile of the period was revealed, not merely in Aristotle’s

modes; that

is,

one

is

common and philosophic, and the other common and philosophic kind

is

particular and rhetorical; and the

that

which

incites

men

to virtue

ought to be the intention of is

which words

that in

all

and dissuades them from

good

vice,

is

which

poets; the particular or rhetorical

are said or things are

done that are consonant

with the nature and disposition of each of the characters introduced into the

poem.” Since modern writers do not use the words “philo-

sophic” (that

is,

“universal”) and “particular” in this way, his distinc-

A whole tangle of ideas is presented in it. must be shown that Trissino did mean “universal” by “philosophic.”

tion should give us pause. It

This

shall

be done in due course by scrutiny of parallel statements in

Muzio and Paolo

Beni.

Here and now

the province of demonstrative rhetoric

The prevailing tendency in human activities and insights scrittori si

del

arte

dimostra come x

34

si

is

must be remembered that to show praise and blame.

Renaissance thought was to subject

all

to praise-blame discriminations, but con-

chiaramente possono scrivere

poetica

it

con molto lode in prosa

le

comedie

e le tragedie

(Venetia, 1592), pp. 29, 38.

What

world should be

a

templative or speculative thought should have been exempt.

Now

the

point

was made by many

dealt

with particulars, the point being that an orator deals with case

histories

a Renaissance writer that oratory like history

and descends to the particular

reasoning

upon them

facts of the case before him,

persuade the jurors.

as particulars in his efforts to

work with

Either judicial or deliberative orators therefore If a council must decide

what strategy to adopt in

particulars.

a military campaign,

the participants have to solve particular problems, not to formulate abstract military theory. A. situations,

and

comic poem

is

independent of specific

as a result its didactic implications, or its expository

meanings, are free-floating and abstract. But admitting that they are

not aimed at particular cases universal (or tion of

what ought

what ought

is

not tantamount to saying that the

to have been done)

to be praised or blamed,

of “ought” to moral obligation.

What is

equivalent to recogni-

is

which would be

a reduction

even more puzzling

is

labeling of character traits relating to nationality, sex, age

determinants of a character’s decorum

A

moral abstraction

is

—“particular

Trissino’s

—the

usual

and rhetorical.”

philosophical, but the reduction of an individual

character to type according to his condition

is

particular. Trissino,

however, would explain that tagging a character according to the

—nationality, country, family or disposition, habits— to define him by

usual adjustments to typicality class,

economic

accidents and

is

class, age,

social

is

not to universalize him.

the Renaissance critic

was thinking of

he embraced doctrines of decorum.

with typicality of sality

traits

It

should not be assumed that

a character’s universality

He

his

when

did not identify universality

according to time, place, or condition. Univer-

he saved for aspects of man’s moral nature.

made frequent use of the philosophic kind of character portrayal. Horace referred to this kind, he decided, in describing what is beautiful, wicked, or useful in human behavior. Obliquely, Trissino suggested that putting stress upon the philosophic mode of character portrayal detracts from the creation of Poets in antiquity, Trissino affirmed,

individual characters and encourages philosophizing about the results of

human

actions.

Apparently he approved of

the philosophic handling of character

this stress.

traits,

he

As examples

listed the

of

punishment

of Paris for breaking the rules of hospitality and the punishment of

Pandar, as

if

a

poetic action properly universalized should exhibit

poetic justice.

But

philosophically

drawn character

in

the same connection he also as the

embodiment

in a

conceived the

marked degree

U5

The Age

of Criticism

of a particular virtue. Nestor, he said,

Antenor prudent, and Hector or the other of these

is

temperate, Ulysses tolerant,

religious, so that

what

ways of being philosophic

is

is

found

in

one

the responsibility

of a character to a moral ideal as against responsibility to the conditions of his class and accidents.

He

“And

added:

good ancient

browsing through the books of other

similarly, in

many

authors, one can discern

similar qualities of char-

acter and be able, as in a spacious theater, to examine the

human

life.

poetry,

which

tions about

Plato,

it

would seem, confirms

in olden times

human

life,

and seek

Trissino was, to the

it

adorned many works, taught

and to achieve

life;

this end, it is sufficient

must be admitted, addressing himself

problem of character creation and not to

more

later genera-

virtue, so far as these general traits are concerned.”

role of universality in poetry. self

whole of

saying that

for the consideration of character traits pro-

vides an education about to flee vice

this belief in

And when,

6

in this place

a discussion of the

elsewhere, he addressed him-

directly to the question, he parroted Aristotle in terms that

suggest either the usual Aristotelian meanings or ones indifferent to this.

In

known main

V

Book

he said the poet

particularly concerned with

is

how

events should have happened. Consequently, except for the

lines of a story, a poetic action

the “ought” element, to

make

it

can be feigned in order to heighten

verisimilar, possible, necessary. It

way that the poet differs from the historian, for how things did happen and the poet how they

is

in this

the historian

tells

should have

happened. 7

But Girolamo Muzio,

in

his

well-turned verse DeH’arte poetica

(1551), had said that the poet should leave matters of truth to the historian

and should reveal the universal under the guise of private

names. Showing the universal, he

said,

is

what we should do and what we should not phrases

is

unmistakable in

totle’s universal

his lines,

indicating to the reader do.

The echo

of Aristotle’s

and yet Afuzio connected Aris-

with praise and blame. 8 Over half a century

later,

Paolo Beni likewise connected the two ideas plainly. Both the poet

and the to

historian, he said,

“descend to particular matters,” the historian

what was done and the poet

What

After asking,

that the poet narrates in such a 6 1

Trissino, op.

cit.,

II,

to

what ought

223.

way

“as to 8

36

he answered

remind us of some certain

Muzio, DelVarte poetica

diverse, p. 82.

Ibid., p. 98.

to have been done.

does “ought to be done” mean?

in

Rime

What

a

world should be

form whence mortals can in each kind of situation contemplate what ought to be avoided and what followed and imitated.” 9 The idea or

and epic

basic kinds of situation are, of course, those of comic, tragic,

poems. Comedies give instruction to the

run their

to

lives;

common

people about

how

tragedy governs kings and rulers; epic poetry pro-

vides examples for heroes. Beni added an interesting side remark that a

poet

not concerned primarily with what cannot be done.

is

Some men

object, Beni said, that in detaching poetry

Aristotle allied fell

from

torian

too

it

much with

The

into Scylla.

relating

dialectic,

and so

question can be asked,

what

is

from history

in avoiding

What

Charybdis

prevents the his-

verisimilar, considering particularly that

work

often have only legends and reputed accounts to

historians

with and

as a result

have to follow the verisimilar? Aristotle,

it

ap-

peared to Beni, implied that historians are not concerned with universal; he

was

certain that universals belong to philosophers and that

poets invade the territory of philosophy

when they concern

with universality. According to Beni, by following universality,

we

to praise

we

classes of

men

for

whom

the poet can furnish ex-

are back to Beni’s “ought” as “moral obligation,” back

and blame. But Beni was aware that there might be

the ointment.

The

added

his

demands for

human conduct, but when

verisimilitude and necessity, his terms

“do not seem so much to apply to these three ideas with verisimilar and necessary action.” Beni had

much more

particularity of poetry

place

11 ,

but nothing in

virtuous behavior this place.

a fly in

three genres of poetry, he said, provide us with

“three ideas and very noble forms” for Aristotle

themselves

concept of

can reduce poetry to three genres, each representing

one of the three amples. So

this

is

Whatever

than

this to

as to

say about the universality and

and history, to be dealt with his

in

its

proper

treatment of poems as idealizations of

inconsistent with his Aristotle

any form

10

meant by

his

warping of the concept

in

“ought to have happened,”

he quite certainly did not mean “what should have happened hero were to act according to the highest degree of virtue.”

if

the

Very few

of the literary critics of the sixteenth century did, actually, create such a farfetched reading for this specific passage in Aristotle’s text,

great

many

which B

this distortion

was congruent.

Beni, In Aristotelis poeticam

mentarii

but

a

of them did assent to general attitudes toward poetry to

p. 277.

com-

10 11

Ibid., p.

279.

See infra, p. 185. 37

The Age It

is

of Criticism

important to note that another interpretation of Aristotle’s

much

“ought” frequently found in the Renaissance led to

end and was related to cording to

the same

Acshows “what ought to have

in point of origin in Platonic doctrine.

it

this interpretation,

when

a poet

happened,” the universalizing that occurs

is

a heightening of reality

by transcending mundane affairs. The poet universalizes by making events more striking or delightful than they are in the reality we know. On one hand, as can be seen in the distinctly Platonic renderings of Agnolo Segni, this heightening can be no more nor less than an expression of the world of particulars which makes them conform “perfectly” or entirely to the dimensions of the shadowy or an approaching of reality

Idea behind them.

On

on one occasion,

the other hand, as with Tasso

can mean the substitution of events that are delightful for historical

it

events that are

less so.

we

But before

look at Segni’s distinctly Platonic renditions,

we

should be aware of the at best slight difference in net effect between Segni’s ideas

and what had already become standard doctrine

time. Trissino believed the philosophically

embodiment

in a

degree of virtue in

marked degree of is

drawn character

a particular virtue,

and

G.

a heightening of virtue. Similarly,

1 555, in a passage devoted to an explanation of the great

at the

to be an a

marked

P. Capriano,

moral

utility

of poetry, interpreted Aristotle’s “ought” phrase as universality

means of the heightening of example, the teaching of moral

ideals

by by

the universalizing of actions. But “ought” to Capriano also explicitly

meant “according to reason,” which was the implied meaning for most sixteenth-century writers. Capriano could say that a poet should reduce his historical materials “to the

to the

end of teaching us

moral value of poetry this latter

is

how

Universal Ideas of actions and manners,” to live the

good

life.

He

said the actual

greater than that of moral philosophy “since

teaches us only with bare and abstract precepts derived

merely from formal action and practice, while poetry,

as the perfect

and best instructor, the true nurse and most ardent lover of our wellbeing, taking us

by

the hand as

if

we were

by means of

children

its

use of the feigned and represented but perfect example, shows us virtue in a mirror, guides us to the cognition of

it,

and by indicating

to us

how

Thus

for a thinker of the Renaissance like Capriano these

to achieve

it

renders us most prudent with

of universality could merge into one. “Capriano, op.

U8

cit., sig.

A^x.

The

all

historical

sweetness.”

12

two views

kind of poem,

What Capriano remarked,

which since

it

is

world should be

not subject to the principles of verisimilitude

the base of morality.

is

a

The moral kind

can add instruction to

of poetry

But

delight.

at the

is

the greater

same time, for

Capriano what was morally instructive was almost identical to what

was reasonable.

He

gave himself away

as a Platonist

by

calling not

only for “Universal Ideas of actions and manners” but also for “perfect” examples. In the Phaedrus tradition, mankind, cut off from perfection

by the conditions of bodily

approach the

existence, strives always to

perfect and relies on intimations of moral beauty or other manifestations of transcendental perfection to lead

quest for beatitude.

shows

his

The

More

is

tellingly revealed

he discusses the love lyrics of Petrarch, that

Petrarch was not being a

realist

love feelings for Laura but a

in his eternal

indebtedness to Plato.

practical application of Segni’s Platonism

in his conclusion, while

and of

him onward

plainly than Trissino and Capriano, Segni

and was not describing

was creating

his real-life

a picture of a perfect lover

lady of singularly heightened virtue, even though in order to

give a concrete imitation of these models he had to have resort to the accidents of nature and history.

Segni

said:

“Human

and those of nature are never entirely

affairs

what they ought to be, or perfect; but all have defects, one here and another there, some more and some less: this is the fault of matter and of our corrupt nature and the contraries of which we are composed.

among us but is understood and perceived by the intellect. And this, among other things, gave occasion to Plato to posit his Ideas, since with the power of his mind he searched in So perfection

is

never found

things for perfection and, not finding

declared the existence of Ideas, that existing outside of things

human

intellect

is,

it

there,

and outside of the human mind, so that the

could find an object or be able to

object conforming to

its

he determined and

the most perfect nature of things

perfection.

The

come

to rest in an

Ideas outside of things are

therefore their most perfect nature, intelligible and certain in intellect, either in

that

is

the

human

or,

according to Plato, in another intellect

superhuman, divine, and

eternal, like those eternal substances

that in his opinion exist in the divine mind. This perfecting of things,

we

say,

is

the cause and

first

principle of poetry,

when

narrated in terms of the all-perfect, and each item in

materials are

its

highest and

most sovereign form, for such speech must necessarily be fabulous, not history, since

among

us there

is

false

and

no perfection, or any 39

The Age

of Criticism

semblance of what ought to be; but tion and

truth,

its

ments of

poetry.”

it is

13

theory (which, taken

his

when This as a

a fable imitates that perfec-

is

one of Segni’s main

whole,

one of the clearest

is

Renaissance statements of Aristotle’s meaning, in spite of

and from

trappings),

flows his distinction between

it

state-

its

Platonic

philosophy,

poetry, and history. Segni put his stress on the poet’s holding an action

up

to contemplating or

knowing,

a phrase

he repeated several times.

History, he had said in an earlier ragionamento

,

lets

know

us

every-

thing an Alexander or a Caesar did or suffered as single magnanimous

and brave men. But poets “contemplate strong and magnanimous

man

and the wise, and what he would form and perfect Idea and all this in

in his universality, or the just

say and do ... in terms of the person particularly

“what those things This

is,

its

named by them.” Poets show

are in their excellence

in feigned things

and perfect exemplar.”

14

of course, going beyond the arranging of particulars with a

upon what

highlight put

and Alexander conceived

seem to do

that.

is

relevant to their universality, for Caesar

as single

magnanimous and brave men would

Segni wanted a particularization of nothing but the

conceded that such perfection

attributes of perfection, although he

among corrupt

was almost impossible

particulars

to find.

Varchi, more like Tasso than like Segni, put stress on the heightening of reality in order to gain delight for the reader. Varchi said that poets should not “for the most part consider things but

how

nature, though not

beyond the reason-

able or verisimilar, so that they can procure for mortal

more

utility

actually do

they ought to be done, even to the extent of conceding

them many things beyond

to

how men

but also more delight and wonder.”

man

not only

15

In the youthful version of his discourses on heroic poetry, the Discorsi delFarte poetica (c. 1565?), Tasso said, in a passage dealing

with

how

a poet gives his

chosen material form and poetic disposition:

“But because that which principally constitutes and determines the nature of poetry and makes

it

different

from history

is

the considera-

tion of things not as they have been but as they should have been,

having regard rather to the probable in universals rather than to the truth in particulars, the poet should investigate, before he does any-

thing treat

else,

to see

whether any event

would give

13

A. Segni, op.

14

Ibid ., p. 23.

cit.,

40

greater delight pp. 64-67.

in the material he has

chosen to

had happened otherwise, with

if it 15

Varchi, Lezzioni, pp. 616-617.

What more of

either

that could have

is,

at his

of the events of this

all

happened better

some other way

in

and reduce the quantity of accidents

manner he

believes to be

with truth that

is

—he should

better, paralleling

altered.”

16

Only

in

in the material in the

what

delight compelled the difference

this insight that the greater

between what fact “ought” to be

poetry and in actual happenings. Universality, as

we may

in

paraphrase,

well as greater abstractness. In this passage, truth

term that Tasso applied only to particular

The main problem sality as a

entirely feigned

one significant phrase, in one

poetry and universality, did Tasso reveal

be beauty

is

handlings of the relations of poetry and history, of

of several of his

a

kind that he finds

will change and reshape, without any concern for truth or for

history,

may

any other

the verisimilar or of the marvelous or for

reason whatsoever; and that

world should be

a

in trying to isolate a

is

historical fact.

conception of poetic univer-

heightening of normal qualities

is

in distinguishing

it

from

ordinary normative conceptions, and in large measure the distinction

cannot be clearly made. class, that

ceived. as the

If a universal is

most perfect instance

We

is

the most perfect instance of a

also the

norm, or can be so con-

tread close to the line of the conception of the universal

composite image, Zeuxis’ perfect female form come upon by

putting together the ideal parts of several ing of delight

is

doubt, be achieved merely relevancies.

young women. The heighten-

only one kind of heightening. Heightening may, no

by

the elimination of accidents and

ir-

But where, precisely, did Francesco Buonamici stand in

saying (1597), while arguing with Castelvetro, that the poet does not so

much

follow a particular as

he presupposes a particular, but one that looks to the idea that for he does not describe

it

exactly as

actions and behavior to the degree of

and which cannot be attributed

less

it

is

or as

it

acts,

is

but

universal, raises

the

which human nature can be capable to them than to another; so that in

imitating in a given subject this or that particular fact, such as a pious act

by raising the act by considering what the cause was of this habit of piety, which in actuality did not exist, he comes to consider it according to his idea abstracted from the material and universally. In this way he considers the particular universally; and that which of Aeneas, he deals with and imitates the particular, but, to a higher degree than

is

to

in itself universal

Aeneas and to 18

Tasso, Discorsi

it

actually had and

and perhaps not found with the material he attributes

a particular case, just as dell’ctrte

philosophers say that geometry

poetica, in Opere, XII, 211.

The Age

of Criticism

considers a natural line mathematically without matter and perspective.

The

opposite view considers the mathematical line naturally; and the poet

does both of these at the same time, leaving aside the particular conditions

and considering

first

the idea, and then afterward applying

particular, just as a painter does,

tion of the a

man with

universal

who

members, of the composition of colors and all

it

to a

known

will arrive at his idea of the proporlines,

and will feign

the beauties that do exist in the materials but are nevertheless

—depicting, for instance, Venus, whom he has never seen and who

perhaps never even existed, and from the beauties resident in the material

he will form the idea and make

it

that particular picture; and even

when

particular, creating it is

it

as a

chance he sees something the changing of which would not appreciably he will strive to improve

it.

property of

naturally well mirrored,

The

if

by

alter the effigy

poet works similarly, and so

both of them both universalize and particularize. 17

which in spite of the turgidities of Buonamici’s prose is one of the most complex and valuable treatments of the subject in the period of the Renaissance, Buonamici focused his attention on the In this passage,

necessity of uniting universality and particularity in poetry, while asserting, in contrast to Castelvetro, the qualities of universality that

The

universal aspect is made manifest not only by the embodying his idea in particular matters, so that no particulars are given which do not exemplify the idea, but also by heightening qualities found in historical subject matter. If Aeneas was by nature pious, according to history or legend, the poet makes him all the more pious. The poet makes the world’s dross metal golden, as Sidney suggested. When Aristotle said that poetry deals with what ought to have been done and history with what was done, Buonamici thought he meant this heightening, even though many other ideas about the universality of poetry were present in his mind. Buonamici was not thinking about norms of behavior in wanting Aeneas to be made ever more pious nor was he thinking about probability.

hold interest.

poet’s directly

—

What

can be found in Buonamici’s system,

cept of the poet’s

work

as in Segni’s,

is

the con-

as the presentation of a Platonic Idea. In the

modern commentaries on the Poetics Robortelli had pointed out that Plato had shown in the Sophist that a painter should always aim at “the Idea and paint things more beautiful than 18 they are.” Although among the many writers who repeated Arisvery

first

of the

,

.

17

Buonamici, op.

cit.,

p. 48.

.

.

“Robortelli,

tions 142

p. 91.

De

arte poetica explica-

What totle’s

poet as

phrase that “the historian

tells

world should be things as they happened, the

they should have happened” only a minority paid

to the poet’s action,

a

much heed

need to jack up quality or intensity or beauty of

and most stressed instead

real-life

a negative sort of universality

from

deletion of accident, the ghost of Plato nevertheless hovered close

and nudged the hand of Buonamici

as well as that of

Tasso and Segni.

9

v

Tasso’s Perfect Exemplars

THE

intersection of the concept of poetic universality as moral im-

perative with that of universality as heightened reality,

or reality

transcending reality in the form of a Platonic Idea, was the point of residence of the belief, most readily to be ascribed to the aesthetics of

poem

Tasso, that the central character of a heroic

emplary behavior ideal

should exhibit ex-

one of the moral virtues and that the

in respect to

hero should be a composite of

all

the virtues needed in a prince

or leader, a mirror in which contemporaries in executive positions

could see

how

their social

and moral

easy to show, as tangentially

we

affairs

should be managed.

have already done, that

this

It is

kind of

thinking was one of the by-products in the Renaissance of speculating

on

Plato’s Ideas.

But

we

one of the forces most represented

in

As

of

it,

the

human

beings

abstractions

of

and uncomplicated and incapable of generating out

of the conflicts within their

of princely virtues. True, he his

a result

poems became stick-men, walking

virtues, flat

own

natures the unfolding actions that

were more than melodrama. Hamlet and

both theory and practice, to the

vitiating, in

poetic activity of the Renaissance.

moral

was

are also likely to feel that this doctrine

group based

is

their case

is

a

a tragic,

world away from an exemplar not an epic, hero; and Tasso

more on Aeneas than on

Achilles,

who

puzzled them. Significantly enough, the example of complex hero in epic poetry since Tasso’s

Lucifer in Paradise Lost.

day that comes most readily to mind

Modern man

has avoided the issue

is

by writing

novels instead of epic poems.

That the theory of the epic hero

as perfect

exemplar was closely

related to the Renaissance concept of the universality of poetry should 1

44

Tasso's Perfect Exemplars be obvious, especially

when

connections with Platonic Ideas are

its

understood. In fact, the relation will no doubt seem so close that discussion of

it

here runs the danger of appearing to be mere repeti-

tion or useless expansion of

what was shown

The theory was not unique

to the Renaissance or to Neoclassicism,

its

in the preceding chapter.

presence full-blown in the 1548 commentaries of Robortelli

indication that tury. It

is

it

and

is

an

had been slowly gaining force in the preceding cen-

properly enough associated with the

Gemsalemme

liberata

of Tasso, since that was the major heroic poem in which the formula was employed. But Robortelli’s efforts to demonstrate that it was well grounded in the literary theories of antiquity can be convincing that in this respect as in others what the Renaissance critic did was to

bring into focus assortments of doctrine that ancient writers had often intended but had never systematized or agreed upon.

commenced

Robortelli

his

treatment of the idea with Aristotle’s

recommendation that character

The

be heightened.

traits

tragic poet,

Robortelli declared, should provide “a perfect exemplar of the char-

which

acter traits

are to be described.”

us with an absolute example of wrath.

He should, for instance, provide He should not try to delineate

an individual exactly but should look to nature (that

and should

select the individual

is,

to the type)

example best representing the

trait.

method with that Xenophon in the Cyropaedia the warping of history in moral history making to show what ought to have been rather than what was. Robortelli drew the ends of his circle together by pointing out that Cicero had determined in his Orator ad Brutum that Plato had also embraced this method and had called the resulting perfect representaRobortelli was not reluctant to identify the poet’s

used by

,

tions “Ideas”

—“the

genes this

form of its kind.” Robortelli presented from Athenaeus, Theopompus, and Hermo-

ultimate

a collection of citations

ideon) to

show

that others had defined Plato’s Ideas in way. The subject matter of poetry for Robortelli was not the ( Peri

individual

man but man

that Aristotle had

in his

common

meant an application

form, and he did not doubt to poetry

painters heighten character traits in this his day,

he associated

when

he said that

way. As was customary

in

done by painters with Cicero’s book of De inventione of the method of

this universalizing

description in the second

Zeuxis of Croton. Robortelli concluded that

it

would seem

that a poet bent

on present-

ing a perfect picture of wrath could never use anything that had *45

The Age happened

actually

theory and

history;

in

realistic

of Criticism

practice,

was example of what

but he compromised between pure for the practical application

principle, he decided,

that the poet

excellent

existed in

was

of the

free to choose the

any given

class

most

without violating

the principle. 1

Robortelli later returned to the point in

commenting on

Aristotle’s

statement that Sophocles created characters as they ought to be but Euripides

Homer as

made them

as

they actually

are.

Here Robortelli argued that was in actuality “but

did right in portraying Achilles not as he

what the

greatest kind of hero could be.” This Robortelli maintained

knew that the detractors of Homer had claimed that Homer had made the history he was narrating incredible by heightening the character of Achilles. Robortelli added: Not only did Virgil even though he

heighten his hero’s character in a like manner, but also the creation of ideal characters

that readers feel

was the standard practice in antiquity. He believed more admiration and are more moved by perfect ex-

amples than by portraits of ordinary people. Perfect characters are those

whom we

concluded, in

“is

hope to emulate. “For what king or prince,” Robortelli

not incited to virtue on reading the education of Cyrus

Xenophon and does not hope

like

him.”

2

The

in Robortelli in

the century

is

difference

that

between

1548 and as

it

by

this

imitating

him he can become

complex of

ideas as

it is

found

appears in Paolo Beni at the end of

actually very slight.

In fact, Castelvetro was almost the only critic of the century specifically objected to the stress traits

upon

who

selection of perfect character

for poetry. Others approached the question of the universality of

poetry from other directions but without directly trying to under-

mine Robortelli’s doctrine. In the years between Robortelli and Tasso, Robortelli’s views

were more standard and accepted than the conone of his dialogues on poetic invention

trary. Alessandro Lionardi, in

mouth of Sperone Speroni an account of the way which poets show how captains or princes ought to conduct them-

(1554), put in the in

selves in

all

the activities and situations they are likely to encounter. 3

Capriano said that a poet, by means of a “feigned and represented but perfect example, shows us virtue in a mirror.”

Many

writers of the cinquecento in attempting to

their categories of logical discourse interpreted ’Robortelli,

De

arte poetica explica-

2 8

tiones, p. 91.

146

it

as

fit

poetry into

proof by means

Ibid., p. 296.

Lionardi, op.

cit.,

p. 22.

Tasso's Perfect Exemplars of example, even though, in the tradition they inherited

Thomas Aquinas had

of Scholasticism,

ample was the weakest of

from the Age

by

established that proof

ex-

kinds of proof and had consequently given

all

poetry the lowest position in

The Humanists

his scale.

in reversing

order of nobility retained the idea that poetry functioned through

this

who

example. Mario Equicola,

“we esteem

said that

poets to excel

all

other writers,” also said that poetry “reduces to our use the examples

of

many

things.”

4

Varchi fully discussed the use of example in poetry,

example poetry’s logical instrument and

calling

support

asserting, in

of his main claim that the function of poetry was to

make mankind

blessed and perfect, that the poet’s “office

—that

—

things that render

man good and

happy.” His two ways of doing or

by

this

injecting virtues, and both

to imitate

is

virtuous,

and

is,

were by removing mankind’s

methods

feign

consequence

as a

vices

called for the use of clear

examples arranged so that not only the acts but also their consequences

were understandable. Once to

found

pile of ideas, are

5

mode

Other discussions

.

use of example can be

Viperano and Bodin on the writing of history,

history, Castelvetro, Tasso,

but to follow is

by

of proof

in Speroni, Lionardi, Capriano, Luisino, Robortelli’s treatise

history,

it

under the

be found the principles of demonstrative rhetoric

of poetry regarded as a

on

again, buried

this side

on

Patrizi’s treatise

Mazzoni, Summo, Buonamici, and Beni

road would take us too far

afield.

To

6 ,

be sure,

evident that the line of reasoning which turned poetry into

proof by example did not inevitably lead to proof by example through the selection

by the poet of

Tasso’s literary speculation,

it

perfectly virtuous heroes. Principally, in

was the hero of

should be the perfect exemplar of

all

a heroic

virtues.

4

Mario Equicola, Institutioni al comporre in ogni sorte di rime della lingua volgare, con della pittura

gorie circa le

uno eruditissimo discorso e con molte segrete allemuse e la poesia (Milano,

1541), sigs. Bi, B3. 6

Varchi, Lezzioni

6

See

pp. 572-576.

Opere, V, 427; Lionardi, op. cit., p. 42; Varchi, Lezzioni, PP* 573 57

Robortelli, in

Artis

De

scribenda historia liber,

historicae

penus

(Basileae,

898;

I,

Giovanni Antonio Vipe-

1579), rano,

De

Artis

historicae

scribendi

historia

penus,

I,

liber,

848;

in

Jean

Bodin, Methodus ad facilem historia-

rum

cognitionem,

Artis

in

historicae

Francesco Patrizi, De historia dialogi X, in Artis historicae penus,

penus,

Speroni,

poem only who

I,

516;

I,

6;

Ludovico

varie critiche, ed.

(Lione, del

Castelvetro, Opere by L. A. Muratori

1727), p. 215; Tasso, Discorsi eroico, in Opere, XII, 143;

poema

Mazzoni, Della

difesa,

II,

305;

Summo,

Discorsi poetici, pp. 11-12; Buonamici, op. cit., p. 81; Beni, Comparazione, in

Tasso, Opere, XXII, 146, 199.

147

The Age

of Criticism

was the proper one. The equivalent of the which should be perfect) in poetry, he believed,

Castelvetro’s objection

Platonic Idea (that

should be found

of action, not in a static character.

in the structure

His most pertinent passage

connection

in this

mind an

true that the poet should keep in

which he ought

is:

“Moreover,

it is

not

idea of perfect virtue and

compose

good poem. What he ought to keep in mind, in my opinion, is an idea of the most perfect and delightful history, from which his mind must never swerve when he is engaged in composing a poem.” 7 As a corollary to this perfect vice,

to contemplate to

a

proposition, Castelvetro advanced the idea that characters could their functions fully

poem

fulfill

without being perfect exemplars. “To make the

perfect and like that idea,” he said, “he will have to introduce

persons of different kinds, sometimes perfectly valiant men, sometimes perfect cowards, and sometimes these

two extremes; otherwise

men who

his story will

are

means between

be only slightly possible

or slightly marvelous.” Furthermore, Castelvetro was even willing that his principle

be used to

method of Zeuxis and

question the

call into

to argue that “the art of painting does not consist in creating a figure

beautiful or ugly in the highest degree, but in

sembles the

real,

the living, and the natural.”

making one

that re-

8

In his Poetica , Castelvetro returned often to expression of doubts

about the ut pictura poesis formula. Aristotle had said that painters

ought to find perfect examples of beauty. Here was an opportunity of the kind Castelvetro was always looking for, the chance to

that less

show

that

from impeccable. Castelvetro thought Aristotle’s advice to poets to follow the painter’s method was useunless he could in addition specifically tell how perfection was judgment was

Aristotle’s

far

formed. Castelvetro wanted no rigid concept of perfection; he said that

when we

find even

more ideas about what perfection is what ideal feminine beauty is. At

try to decide

but

his

human nature we can than among those who

are dealing with the diversity of

remarks are interesting.

He

said:

this

“And

point he digressed,

Perino del Vaga,

Florentine painter of great fame in our day, was able,

beauty of beauty, to Virgin, so 7

by using

a

the

wife which he fixed in his mind as an example of supreme draw the faces of many women, especially pictures of the that one could find in all of them only one kind of supreme

his

Andrew Bongiorno,

Commentary on

“Castelvetro’s

the Poetics of Aris-

totle” (unpublished thesis, Cornell versity, 1935), p. 79. 8

48

Ibid. , p. 80.

Uni-

Tasso's Perfect Exemplars beauty. But Giotto, another Florentine painter,

mended

in times past,

(in the Portico of

who was much com-

would not or could not portray

San Pietro

Rome) with

at

all

the Apostles

the same identical ex-

awe and fear on their faces when the Lord suddenly appeared to them walking on the water, but he assigned to each one particularly a distinct expression of wondrous fear, nor was he able to judge which in his opinion was the most praiseworthy.” 9 The besetting sin of Castelvetro was his willingness to compromise his own set of beliefs in order to win a point against established authority. His intent in this particular argument was to destroy the

pression of

imputed

between poetry and painting, and to do so he had

parallel

who

to use arguments that played into the hands of his opponents

wanted perfect exemplars used the painter’s job

is

while the poet’s job character

traits;

which

work

To

two kinds of

of the

be consistent with

that

beauty,

is

to represent goodness of mind, that

is

so that the

really comparable.

show

in poetry, for he tried to

to represent goodness of body,

is,

artificers

good is

not

his theoretical system,

he

should have said that poets use characters whose actions will constitute a

good

fable.

The

terms “goodness of mind” and “beauty of mind”

presumably interchangeable, and goodness of mind

are

mere heightening of any moral

is

not the

good or bad. But Castelvetro partly protected himself by his argument that “goodness” can be manifested in many different ways in the world of particulars. And he added a significant corollary to his meaning when he stated that the painter’s perfection

does not

creating a likeness since cellent painters insights

when he remarked

were not

that

we

real-life

of a beginning painter

that he

had

raised,

is

and not

he concluded

original line of attack.

all

beauty but

the subjects of

was

all

in

ex-

close to important

can readily observe that statues do

people around us do, but the mark

may

find himself creating imitations

like people.

this particular

Why,

so

Castelvetro

alike.

look more alike than the

that are like statues

in creating perfect

lie

if this

would look

quality,

Undaunted by the doubts he argument by returning to his

he asked, did Aristotle not say a poet

should have in mind a perfect example of a fable, “since

it is

just as

possible to find a perfect example of a fable as a perfect example of a character trait”? Characters exist for action,

Modern 9

literary critics,

it

Castelvetro, Poetica d’Aristotele vul-

garizzata et sposta

(Basilea,

not action for character.

would seem, should applaud

Castelvetro’s

341-343.

1576), pp.

149

The Age having taken

of Criticism

this stand, for

he probed some of the chief weaknesses of

the thought structure of his age. But

H.

B. Charlton scolded Castelvetro

for his opposition to “idealization” (that

exemplars). Charlton’s belief Was, “Art

by

dressed, but

art nature

drawn

is

to

the creation of perfect

is,

not nature to advantage

is

Charlton’s master

ideal.”

its

who looked always for the perfect example of beauty way made the ideal and the actual interdependent. At the

poet was one

and

in that

same time, Charlton commended Castelvetro for realizing that the moral interpretation, which he thought Castelvetro was duped into accepting,

apparent

irrelevant in aesthetic criticism

is

is

that Castelvetro was unwilling to

10

But what should be

.

commit himself

fully to

Platonic ideas of beauty.

was not

Castelvetro

entirely alone in

most violently anti-Aristotelian

his

for Patrizi, the

stand,

century, likewise held up

critic of his

Now

to scorn the doctrine of the “perfect exemplar.”

usually a Platonist, but he believed that the conceiving of

was precisely what

acters as Ideas of moral behavior

intended. His effort

was

to

show

that Aristotle

Patrizi

was

model char-

Aristotle had

was wrong. In attack-

ing Aristotle’s distinction between poetry and history on the basis of

what ought

to be

and what

is,

he scornfully asked

And

high rank ought to be.

good king and

a

Nor would

supply.

Any

his people,

Homer

his

baron of

he often titled

as

did not create ideal char-

Tasso to argue that

Patrizi allow

be excused because he had

a

form “Agamemnon and Greek camp after the Idea of

good shepherd of

them”? His simple answer was that acters.

what

did he really

the other kings and captains of the a

Homer made

if

Achilles spotless so that he could be an example of

left part

Homer

could

of his meaning for the reader to

by

that argument, Patrizi an-

Homer

or any other poets of early

writer can be defended

swered.

So what

Patrizi denied

was

that

antiquity had ever created any characters as ideal types. Consequently,

he concluded that Aristotle could not have based

on

practice.

And, he added,

Greek, Latin, and

with the

sole exception of the

Scipione Gonzaga, “has

so-much-praised Idea.” zaga’s 10

poem

is

made

He

Charlton, Castelvetro' s

Aristotle

had created the

uniformly disregarded

it,

rule,

and no one,

Fidamente of Tasso’s patron and friend his principal characters

conform

to this

conceded that the main character of Gon-

“informed by

150

after

Italian poets all

his generalization

all

the virtues, chivalric as well as moral,

Theory of Poetry pp. ,

38-39.

Tasso's Perfect Exemplars

and

in addition

to a man nobly and faithfully in way from these.” The implication is

by those pertaining

love, and never deviating in any

was never taken seriously Gonzaga circle. Furthermore, Patrizi argued, if Aristotle’s “that which could be” is equated merely with “that which is possible,” the evidence from poets themselves would again be found to run counter, for poets gain effects from the impossible and the wonderful far more often than do historians. There is also no profit in arguing that in antiquity what would now be considered impossibilities actually seemed possible to the average man, since the average man must have learned his wonders from the poets, not the poets from the average man 11 But now to turn to Tasso, in whose critical writings the idea of the that the doctrine of the “perfect exemplar”

or employed

by any

poets outside of the current

.

perfect exemplar reached first

book of the Disc orsi

its

del

culmination. In the introduction to the

poema

immediately and unequivocally

eroico

Tasso presented himself

propounder of the doctrine that

as a

poetry, especially heroic poetry, presents ideal images of character.

He

even supposed that readers would want to read discourses upon heroic poetry because such discourses would contain talk about ideal characters.

their

Tasso stated boldly that readers of heroic poetry “seek to make

minds conform to the example” of virtues such

as

temperance,

bravery, prudence, justice, faith, piety, and religion to be found in

poems “in order to acquire them as a result of prolonged exercise with them or through divine grace.” Tangentially, Tasso also compared his task of creating a body of critical theory about heroic poetry to the task of Zeuxis in fashioning the Helen of Croton; and in Platonic fashion he remarked that the Idea of a perfect heroic poem should be the exemplar and ideal example of such a

In his youthful treatise later into the Discorsi del

on the poetic

poema

perfect virtues.

was impelled

He

tained

by means of

was

in tragic

poetry the “illustrious” (that

wonder-provoking) quality was ob-

upon perfect characters

to achieve a similar

Tragic characters can be of middling virtue, but characters in

“Patrizi, 163.

it

element needed in poetry that

surprises or unexpected turns of events, but the

epic poet had to rely effect.

expanded twenty years

to the creation of characters exhibiting

thought that

glittering, attention-holding,

is,

art,

12 .

eroico , Tasso indicated that

in order to provide the “illustrious”

the heroic poet

poem

La dec a

disputata, pp. 160-

“Tasso, Discorsi del poema eroico in Opere, XII, 7-9.

The Age epic poetry must

of Criticism

show extreme forms

Tasso returned to the same

of virtue

13 .

In the later Discorsi ,

idea. Tasso’s theories of

poetry were based

upon heroic poetry, and for him, as for most other critics of his time, heroic poetry was defined as the imitation of an illustrious action. The hidden shift comes in his substitution of perfect characters and heightened character traits for actions, but it was his concern for heroes that led him to his conclusions 14 He never completely lost sight of the fact that perfect characters were intended to provide grandeur .

He

and splendor. beautiful

among

said that the heroic poet should

from among

the marvelous.

beautiful

He

choose the most

from

the most marvelous

objects,

should always try to heighten novelty and

grandeur and should avoid

all

that

is

low, popular, or improper.

The

poet should “add loftiness to the mediocre, notice and splendor to the obscure, artifice to the plain, ornament to the true, and authority 15

to the false.”

In the Discorsi delParte poetica Tasso seemed to be thinking only

of the allotting of one outstanding virtue to each character (for ex-

ample, piety to Aeneas, military bravery to Achilles, prudence to Ulysses, loyalty to Amadigi, constancy to Bradamonte) that

all

these virtues might be

work he was somewhat more

combined explicit.

in

He

but he granted

;

one character

16 .

In the later

had decided that the method

of parceling out virtues to different characters (industry to Ulysses,

confidence to Diomedes, the art of archery to Teucer) was a questionable one, and he felt that Virgil had done

what the proper heroic

poet should do by making Aeneas a composite showpiece of

main

virtues

—

a

model of

piety, religion, continence, bravery,

all

the

magnani-

mity, and other such virtues. Tasso’s conclusion was that “in forming a cavalier” Virgil It

was

“came

closer to the proper idea than

Homer

did.”

17

inevitable that the Renaissance critics should perceive an

overlapping between the classical concept of decorum and the pressure for the creation of morally ideal characters.

was firm

the relation

in Tasso,

who

The

recognition of

tended to think of “decorous”

behavior as behavior fitting to dignified and respectable men. point, he

worried about an assertion by Maximus of Tyre that Nestor

was an image of perfect

virtue, for he felt that

“Tasso, Discorsi dell’arte poetica in Opere, XII, 206-207. 14

in

Tasso, Discorsi del

Opere XII, 15

At one

50.

Ibid., pp. 60-61. *

5*

poema

eroico

1(5

XII, 17

XII,

Nestor was too old

Discorsi delVarte poetica

in

Opere

206-207.

Discorsi del 105-106.

poema

eroico, in Opere,

Tasso's Perfect Exemplars for the job and that an all-virtuous hero in a heroic

man

poem

should be a

capable of heroic physical actions. Before he was through ponder-

ing this proposition, however, he had decided that there was an ideal

An

type for each age of man.

ideal,

old

man

will be “slow in action,

prudent in deliberations, mature in counsel, and cautious rather than the contrary,” while the ideal

young man

good public

will not be a

speaker but will be quick to act. Tasso derived from Horace out of

book of Aristotle’s Rhetoric sanction for the further argumust be performed by agents, and if their force is to be evident, agents must be given some marked good or bad quality worthy of praise or blame 18 Tasso wanted the complex of virtues constituting his perfect exthe second

ment

that actions

.

emplar to be Christian virtues. In forming the Idea of a perfect cavalier,

he

said,

the poet should choose to portray a Charlemagne

or an Arthur rather than a Theseus or Jason.

He

defended

his usefulness, it

is

much

better for

him

his

own

pay attention

practice in saying: “Since ultimately the poet has to

to kindle the

to

minds of our

knights with examples of the faithful than with those of infidels.”

To

have

this effect, the

and not from

poet should take

false religion.

He

his

found

a

argument from true history danger in taking material

directly from Scripture, since he thought it untoward in a poet to make up sacred stories and was convinced that without feigning a poet was simply a historian. But he argued that some sacred histories were less

sacred than others; and the history of the Crusades subject

—was

—Tasso’s

chosen

sacred enough but not so sacred that the happenings

could not be fictionalized, and the events were far enough distant in

unknown 19 soma la Gerusalemme

time to be unfamiliar but not so remote as to be

At

the very end of his

life,

in

Del giudizio

.

,

he tried to reconcile what he thought were contradictions in Plato, particularly

between the notion of exemplars and implications that

could be derived from the distinctions Plato made in the Sophist

between painters

who

who

use foreshortening and perspective and painters

render exactly and faithfully the nature, length,

colors of their originals.

Tasso associated with

The

size,

depth, and

use of foreshortening and perspective

a poet’s creation of

heightened characters; con-

was disturbed on finding that Plato considered paintings employing those expressive techniques almost phantasms and unsequently, he

realities. 16

He

thought that

Ibid ., pp. 105-106, hi.

if

one followed Plato’s 19

line

of argument

Ibid ., pp. 45-46. '5 3

The Age

of Criticism

Homer would have to best men rather than

be condemned for portraying examples of the painting

Xenophon and

solace in

men

they

as

whom

Aristotle,

But Tasso found

are.

he considered in agreement,

and chose to believe that when Plato said

book of Laws)

(fifth

that

imitation should present very beautiful objects to us he likewise

showing approval of Tasso

said: “I

a

heightened characters.

poet’s creating ideal,

think that Plato’s doctrine

is

when

true

he says that the

image should resemble the exemplar; nevertheless, the exemplar

any particular man or

good

chieftain; indeed,

chieftain,

was

is

not

man or of work resemble

the

but the idea of the

whoever wants

to

make

his

Idea will form not only better but the best characters.”

20

the

So he made

peace again with Plato.

Homer

Elsewhere, in answer to Patrizi’s objection that Achilles and

Agamemnon

perfect, Tasso said,

through

“Homer was

attacked

representing himself in a dialogue: rather strong reasons, to

somewhat

less subject;

did not a

character

by

Plato for

which objections the Aeneas of

Virgil

found

is

however, the former paid greater attention to

the universal considered in respect to actions, the latter to that is

make

in character traits;

and both of them did not intend

which

in their

manner but to form which kind is much more stable and certain.” 21 As part of this argument, Tasso made concessions to Castelvetro’s point that the heightening to be found in Homer is in action. Castelvetro’s perfection became Tasso’s universality of action. poetizing to portray particulars in the historian’s universals as philosophers do, the truth of

Tasso’s

ments

as

camp

followers, as might be expected, repeated his argu-

long as the quarrel between Tasso and Salviati was kept

alive.

Camillo Pellegrino, the originator of the quarrel, repeated Tasso’s distinction

between tragedy’s need for central characters of middling

virtue and the need in epic poetry for the highest degree of goodness

Malatesta Porta, however,

heroes should be of

came up with the strange

more than

life size in

22 .

variant that epic

presenting a

show of more

than usual passion rather than of more than usual virtue; for example, the salient characteristic of Achilles

AHlatesta Porta believed that excesses,

immoderation for the most

“Tasso, Del giudizio, in Opere, XII,

anger or immoderate love. For call

part,

in

heroic virtue consists of

and usually either an

difesa

Tasso, Apologia di Torquato Tasso

22

irascible

Gerusalemme,

in

331.

Pellegrino,

Opere, XVIII, 15 4

sua

della

Opere, XII,

331. 21

is

what we

11

113.

Caraffa,

in

Tasso,

Tasso's Perfect Exemplars 23

or a concupiscent passion, excepting cruelty or avarice to derive his theory of heroic

.

Porta tried

immoderation from the doctrines of

the Platonist school and claimed that the Peripatetics, especially Proclus (curiously identified here as a Peripatetic), tried to refute

it .

24

comment of Mazzoni’s that Homer make Ulysses prudent consistently and Penelope chaste, but what particularly upset him was the inference that if two or more characters were made consistent models of specific virtues, the poem in which they appeared would have a diversity of moral functions to perform and the unity of the poem would be destroyed. Beset by this worry, Bulgarini could not make up his mind whether “poets ought to show an extreme degree of some virtue” in creating a character, even 25 if only one character was so handled .” Jason Denores, who was Bulgarini took exception to a

intended to

similarly

concerned with the impact of the doctrine of the perfect hero

on other aspects of

literary theory, asked

whether

a

change of fortune

poem

could not be dispensed with in the action of a heroic hero needs to exhibit perfect virtues throughout.

good one

—although

tions in asking

heroes

it

side

is

since

its

question was a

Denores was apparently unaware of

its

implica-

since he unfalteringly accepted the need for nonpareil

—for how can there be

when one

The

invincible?

a true contest

between opposing forces

But Denores asserted that even the perfect

hero must suffer adversity so that his virtues can “gain force and vigor.” 26

we

In a passage of Buonamici’s that

which Buonamici

said that

poetry

is

have already scrutinized, in

more

like

philosophy than

like

history since both philosophy and poetry deal with universals, one

what universality meant to Buonamici: “Although the poet undertakes to imitate Ruggiero or Orlando, he has in mind the idea of magnanimity, bravery, or piety.” 27

sentence shows adequately

In

few of

his

literary critic for

many

doctrines

summing up

is

Paolo Beni more the appropriate

the tendencies of the sixteenth century

than in this of the perfect exemplar, since his Comparazione di Virgilio , e

Torquato made ultimate and

notions of Tasso. Beni 23

Porta,

XX, 24

11

Rossi,

in

went even

Tasso,

Opere,

101-102.

Ibid., p. 109.

“Bulgarini, Repliche

alle risposte del

Orazio Capponi, p. 102. “Jason Denores, Discorso

Sig.

intorno

rigid the

more

Omero

,

pliant aesthetic

farther than Tasso in applying the cCque'principii,

cause,

et

accrescimenti

che la comedia , la tragedia, e il poema heroico ricevono dalla philosophia morale, e civile, e da governatori delle republiche (Padova, 1587), p. 18. 27 Buonamici, op. cit., p. 17. I

55

The Age

of Criticism

by

efficacy of the examples furnished

heroic poetry only to princes

and governors. Pertinent statements can be found Beni’s critical writings, but the

“And

key idea

is

in

many

places in

expressed in the following:

surely, just as poetry wasffirst invented for the edification of life

through the encouragement of good

by means of heroic poem forms

of character

traits

imitation and delight, similarly and particularly the

the idea of the perfect captain and hero, especially through the ex-

ample of those

who

rule

Beni called Tasso a better poet than figured forth a

in either peace or war.” 28

and govern people

Homer

more noble and perfect

or Virgil insofar as he

idea of a valorous captain and

hero than they did. Beni did not doubt, however, that

what only Tasso had succeeded in doing comit was Homer’s intention in the Iliad to

Virgil had tried to do pletely.

He

Homer and

believed that

portray an ideally brave captain and in the Odyssey a perceptive, wise,

and prudent one.

It

follows from

this,

he

that the Iliad does

said,

provide “an example and idea of bravery and valor to warriors and

“To

captains of the highest rank.” Furthermore:

Odyssey wherein Ulysses ,

a fine theater, the life

is

the contrary, the

celebrated, should represent for us, as in

and manners of

both adverse and prosperous fortune

is

a

prudent and wise man,

who comes

we

need to turn to

close to being

what an

in

seen to be constant and perfect.”

But since these virtues need to be amalgamated before perfect captain,

who

Virgil’s

we

Aeneas to find

can get a

a character

epic hero should be. Aeneas

was an

outstanding leader in both peace and war, and the only real fault to

be found with Virgil was that he was a heathen. Tasso’s main superiority lay in his portrait of Christian heroes; nevertheless, in other as

what constituted Homer’s 29

well his ideas of

Virgil’s or

a perfect prince

ways

were sounder than

.

One of the specialized problems faced by Beni was whether a poet was guilty of artistic error if he allowed his hero’s attention to be deflected from serious matters such as fighting and governing to dally in affairs of love (cf. Racine’s Le Grand Alexandre ), as Aeneas was allowed to be sidetracked by Dido. Beni, of course, approved of Tasso’s solution to the problem. Tasso’s Goffredo, Beni said, although “pro-

voked by the beautiful and insidious Armida always resisted the blows and arrows of love with a constant and chaste mind, making an .

.

.

adamantine shield for himself out of the virtue of Christian con28

In Tasso, Opere,

199.

156

XXI

(Pisa,

1828),

29

Ibid.,

pp. 145-147.

Tasso's Perfect Exemplars

To

tinence.”

only to

do

this

and

maintain a love interest, Tasso allowed

still

human

his lesser captains to give in to

prove

his point of Tasso’s superiority,

weaknesses. In an attempt

Beni permitted himself an ex-

tensive study of the life stories of the great .military personages of

were imperiled by time spent in love-making when they should have kept their minds on their fighting: Holof ernes,

whose

antiquity

Hannibal,

careers

Mark Antony,

Alexander, and others

30 .

In Beni’s opinion, a dislocation can be found in the Iliad since

Agamemnon

the leader but Achilles

is

the hero, and according to

is

Tasso’s theory of heroic poetry as Beni understood

show

should principally tion

31

Related to this

.

not revealed in

his

is

a prince’s control

the proposition that,

government of

the heroic action

it,

over the events of the acif

the prince’s virtues are

what

his subordinates,

results are

the unbelievable deeds of the knight-errant of the romances heroic poetry proposes an Idea or

or

civil

prudence and since these

govern

exemplum of bravery and of

like the

who

hero of romance, Beni believed,

function of heroic poetry.

better in heroic

It is

when

ideal traits are revealed

states or lead armies, to create a character

wanderer

32 .

is

poems

is

Since

military

princes

a solitary

to evade the to have Alex-

anders, Scipios, or Goffredos as heroes than Herculeses or knights-

He

errant.

had argued for

tests

between military ments

33 .

who had

called attention to critics

Only

taken the opposite stand

Mazzoni, Denores, and Riccoboni) and

(listing Castelvetro, Speroni,

of prowess in single combat, not chess games

strategists,

in Scripture,

but he was not impressed by their argu-

he

said,

can

we

expect to find superhuman

characters.

Beni carried a

when

that occurs

Beni’s point

Idea of

was

human

little

farther Bulgarini’s concern for the

virtues are distributed

that a heroic

virtue, a notion

poem

which

among

several

should present a single Platonic clearly attaches the unity to

the character represents statically and not to the action of the

Everybody knows, he hero, in the as

same

way

said, that

that

30 31 32

33

he made

all

187.

Ibid., p.

197.

poem

treated Cyrus

Beni, In Aristotelis poeticam

34 .

— and

as

—creating him not

Polygnotus did in painting

the features of his subjects excellent in their kinds

35 .

34 Tasso, Beni, Comparazione, in Opere, XXII, 46. 35 Beni, In Aristotelis poeticam com-

Ibid., p. 157.

Ibid., p.

what

an epic poet gives a perfect idea of a

Xenophon

he was but as he should have been

when

disunity

main characters.

com-

mentarii, p. 478.

mentarii, p. 478.

157

The Age

of Criticism

Beni used Vettori as well

as Robortelli as early

modern

authorities for

the belief that heroic poetry should present a Platonic Idea of perfect virtue 36 .

Thus between

the time of Robortelli and Beni the doctrine of the

Many variamany variations

epic hero as perfect examplar remained remarkably stable. tions existed in theory, in practice.

and

Most of the

as a result there

critics

started to build their structures

was

could be

whose comments have been examined with

loci in Aristotle’s Poetics ,

but

it

their ability to convert Plato’s doctrine of ideas into an explanation

of the functioning of universality in poetry that provided most of the it was unimby centering the meaning or significance of poetry upon static ideal figures they were forced to separate meaning from action, so that action was useful only because it was pleasing. This concept of universality was hardly the only one widespread in the Renaissance, but it was the most common one.

particular coloration to their theorizing. Presumably,

portant to the sixteenth-century critics that

86

Ibid., p. 549.

58

10

Truth and Reality

A DIGRESSION

necessary at this point in order to ask

is

Renaissance critics meant, precisely,

when they

what

used such terms as

“true,” “truth,” “fact,” or “actual.” It can be seen that they

we do

nothing more consistently or precisely than

the

meant

in carelessly using

the terms. Their chief question was: are particulars or universals true,

or are there “fact”

is

be a fact?

If a fact

is

on occasion be

truth

A

two kinds

start

what

is

of truth? But there

were other

“a doing,” are only actions fact, and things not?

and nothing

true,

at variance

is

true that

in effect true but also true, since

with what in effect

is

it is

1

with

may

deal

it

never existed, but

it is

it

should be like

Speroni never quite faced up to a double standard of truth, a

trutfr of fact

and

a truth

hood of poetry was, this

can

with that which, considered by reason,

true according to reason because according to reason this.”

fact,

said, “deals

true counter to reason. Poetry

because in effect

false

not a

is

if

a passion

with reason?

can be made with Speroni. “History,” he

ought not be

questions:

Can

double standard.

of reason.

The whole

squabble over the false-

in the Renaissance, primarily the obfuscation of

The

illogicality of Speroni’s using

two ways of

defining truth but only one paired opposition of truth and falsehood

order for poetry to partake of both

in

is

apparent but also points to

the non-Platonic nominalism or fact-mindedness of the usual thinker in the Renaissance.

Poetry

is

not the truth, but an image of the truth,

Speroni continued, seemingly assigning truth to the side of fact.

image of the truth cannot be truth not have 1

made

in

forming

a

itself

distinction

—

a

An

concession he should

between poetry and history

Speroni, Opere, V, 426.

59

The Age

of Criticism

any language

since (its Platonic origins aside)

His conclusion was

and

since according to reason is

poetry

that, as fable,

false since it is part false (that it

not the thing in

is

halfway between the true

“is

and part true (that

in fact)

is,

ought to be

like this).”

The

not fable, and he defined fact

narration of

is

feigned

as “a true action, for the

may sometimes

not a fact.” Although, he granted, the historian

is,

truth of poetry

the truth of reason. Elsewhere, Speroni said history

fact,

itself.

is

invent

speeches to put into the mouths of historical personages, he intends

always

whereas the poet uses fact

a reduplication of the truth of fact,

only for the coloring of fiction and the orator departs from he needs to do so in order to persuade In a fragment left

by Speroni of

“If an orator

said:

is

not truth

itself

draw

who

man from

which

like angels

is

is

is

He who

he were a poet.

difficult to

can be seen and touched—it

a picture of truth,

being seen and

if

but a depictor of the truth

must be

hard to draw a portrait of a

If it is

corporeal being to

it

whenever

on oratory,

a projected treatise

Speroni treated the orator differently, more as

says things that resemble truth,

it

2 .

be an orator.

—

man as a much more difficult real life

an intellectual entity incapable of

and God.” The orator must have clear

knowledge of this truth in order to portray it, but the crowd to which he speaks will be capable of understanding only the portrait of truth and not truth itself as the philosopher understands

opinion and said that “just

man

as the painter

does not have cognition of the

portrayed, in himself, through true and scientific

in his essence

—

”

but only of

akin to the senses, so the orator

which

are 3

sense.”

In this

Speroni allocated portraits of truth to the area of persuasion or

treatise

is,

it.

known

In writing

“knows truth

in respect to

not through knowledge this,

knowing

—that

appearance and of the parts

his surface

scienzia ] [

Speroni was thinking of truth

its

accidents

but through as

belonging

only to the world of universals.

A

can be created between Varchi’s saying that a poet can

parallel

go beyond nature but not beyond reason mini that

“men

ought to do, achieve 2

what

in their actions

just as

II,

do not always conform to what they

she ought to do and

346. In this passage

claims to be reporting the Trifon Gabriele.

160

and assertions by Piccolo-

nature herself in her operations does not always

Speroni, “Dialogo della istoria,” in

Opere,

4

Speroni ideas

of

what she 3

desires.

Speroni,

And

“Dell’arte

Opere, V, 541. 4 See supra, p.

140.

that happens

oratoria,”

in

Truth and Reality because of the impediments that run counter to her operations and

oppose them in

world, although in this respect

this inferior

men may

be even worse off than the other objects of nature since the latter

from things with which they do not consent

receive impediments only

or concur while

senses

man

to the contrary faces

without the consent of

suffers

which with

often sidetrack

his

own

many impediments

free will,

their attractions, allurements,

man from what

that he

the fault of the

all

and seductive delights

he ought to do. For this reason

it

hap-

pens not always, not often, but in fact only very rarely that he guides his actions as

he should or intends to do at the time, so that in his

what ought

case the verisimilar and true.”

5

In Varchi, however, nature

is

to be are far fact

removed from the

and presumably truth, or

at

from reason, but in Piccolomini nature can intend that which is distinct from what happens, and the “what ought to be” is “far removed from the truth.” Segni said that nature is never as it ought to be 6 Capriano seemingly implied a distinction between truth and reason in asserting that a poet may at times make use of what has least separable

.

happened “in order to scatter some seeds of truth and so obtain greater faith” but should in general describe events as “they

happened, according to

reason .” 7

ought to have

Vettori similarly identified truth

with particulars and with what actually did happen. Poetry not true but more universal

When

is

thus

8 .

brief statements like these are taken out of context, writers

may seem

to have said things that in their larger utterances they did

not intend. However, there can be

little

doubt that most of these

writers accepted a naive position that truth belongs certainly to the

domain of actual particular rational constructs. sality

is

different

But

if

fact

and only dubiously does

it

apply to

Piccolomini and others implied that univer-

from and beyond what

is

merely

true, Segni

and

Tasso worked with a concept of poetic or universal truth which transcendent to factual truth. In other words, they entertained

is

two

kinds of truth.

More

clearly than

most of

interpretation of universality

his

contemporaries, Segni adopted an

which

since his time

we

think of as the proper rendition of Aristotle’s meaning. the question

by comparing Plato’s and

6

Piccolomini, op.

6

See supra,

7

cit.,

p. 154.

p. 139.

Capriano, op.

cit.,

sig.

A4r.

have come to

He

Aristotle’s attitudes 8

Pier

Vettori,

approached

toward poetic

Commentarii

in

pri-

mum

librum Aristotelis de arte poeta-

rum

(Florentiae,

1573),

161

p.

94.

The Age

of Criticism

book of the Republic he pointed

imitation. In the second

this

out, Plato

,

had equated fabling with

falsity

and lying, but Aristotle had emended

judgment by showing the existence of

a

kind of

false fabling that

allows us “to contemplate and recognize the truth.” Segni continued:

“The

fable that

pure

is

false narration, so

long

as its

are nevertheless possible and in conformity with ones,

I

is,

only

say, not

to history, true as to

its

but

false,

untrue matters

and similar to true

and true together;

false

semblance to the truth.”

An

9

false

as

Achilles created

what truth should be will show us “true behavior according Here nature and probability are alike. the basis of some of these distinctions, Segni distinguished be-

similar to

to nature.”

On

tween the three

and poetry. History

faculties of history, philosophy,

and philosophy represent two extremes of truth around us with

we

These

call Ideas.

history

when

their defects, the other

all

latter

two

the

—“one

the things

with their perfections that

account for philosophy and the former for

are taken separately; but the

two of them taken

together generate poetry. History, which consists of things past and present, explains

and narrates them separate from their

Ideas, just as

they are or were in themselves. Philosophy soars to the Ideas of things, as distinct

from the things themselves, and contemplates them

as

they

are in their perfect nature. Poetry joins the one kind and the other

together

were but

by narrating

things of the past and present, not as they are or

similar to the Ideas,

and showing Ideas not

resident in things that have happened or that exist

was

in themselves but

now.” The upshot

that Segni decided that “history and philosophy,

which have

their

being on the outer extremes, are both entirely true,” whereas poetry

midway between two both extremes. By participating

part true and part participating in

false,

better than history even though

because of

its

it

in philosophy

it

is

lacks history’s kind of truth, “but

participation in history and in the particulars that sense

can perceive of the historic object the poet has

is

kinds of truth yet

less

it

is

lower than philosophy, and

dignity than the philosopher.”

simple account of the same division of truth into

10

Mazzoni gave

two kinds

a

in saying

that “truth can be considered (as the logicians say) either in the con-

crete or in the abstract. facts

about some one

Truth

man

is

or another are considered.

kind of truth out of which a poet makes an icastic Idol. of truth, that 9

A. Segni, op.

which cit.,

is

taken in the abstract,

pp. 17-19.

when

taken to be in the concrete

10

is

And The

this

is

the the

other kind

found when

we

con-

Ibid., pp. 65-67.

162 1

Truth and Reality not the part of

sider,

in themselves.”

this

or that man, but the nature of vice and virtue

11

was

Tasso’s line of reasoning

equally influenced

by

similar to Segni’s

and Mazzoni’s and

Plato nist terms. Both Tasso and Segni thought

of poetry as presenting perfect exemplars.

The

poet has regard rather

“to the verisimilar in universal than to the truth of particulars,”

Tasso

said,

and similarly seemed to find truth only

in particulars in

saying that the poet need have no concern for truth or for history

But Tasso came to the center of things the poet

kills

truth with

only in particulars.

lies

The

derives

historian

Tasso continued, “but seeks

in

it

its

from

a belief that truth

with particular truth, the

needs to be said that

Salviati,

whereas to

in

Salviati universality

found

the poet does not spoil truth,”

which

are ‘ideas.’

one of

his

”

attacks

revealed that to Tasso universal truth had to be based fact,

is

perfect form, supplanting the truth

of particulars with that of universals, it

in stating that the belief that

deals

“Then

philosopher with universal truth.

12 .

meant merely the

13

However, upon Tasso,

upon

particular

false verisimilar,

and whatever truth poetry contained for him did not need to be based

upon the truth of

The

particulars

14 .

crux of the whole problem of the nature of truth,

it

can readily

be seen, was, for the literary critic of the Renaissance, more the distinction

between

historical factuality

and

fiction than a recapitulation

of the old wars between the realists and the nominalists. to notice that, although the Italian critics

of Aquinas and Scotus and

Occam on

made

Reflections of differences of attitude there

who

like

varieties of truth

curious

other occasions, on the questions

of the nature of truth, fact, and reality they left

those

It is

rather frequent use

them

quite alone.

were certainly between

Tasso and Segni explicitly made references to two

and the philosophically more naive writers

who

seem-

upon which they teetered were almost exclusively Plato and Aristotle, and the ponderings of the Schoolmen were consigned to some limbo. Even more striking, in view of the general and continuing tendency of the ingly identified truth only with particular fact; but the fulcrums

Renaissance writers to their

u Mazzoni, Della 12

make

fine distinctions

about everything, was

unconcern about resolving some of the discrepancies and opposidifesa,

I,

684.

See supra p. 141. ,

14

Salviati,

Vlnfarinato

Tasso, Opere, XIX, 133.

“Tasso, Apologia in difesa della sua in Opere, X, 24-25.

Gerusalemme

163

primo

in

The Age

of Criticism

tions in their use of terms like truth

be drawn

reality.

The only

was general agreement

that there

is

and

conclusion to

that reality

demanded

the double vision and could not be attributed solely either to Platonic Ideas or to historical fact. Tasso, the Platonist,

with the romance

Gerusalemme

fictionalizer Ariosto.

liberata

particulars even

encouraged had

The

was

war primarily

at

Neoclassicism that the

at its base the

world of

though the intention was to present

historical

gallery

a

of

Platonic perfect exemplars.

who was

Paolo Beni,

the archrationalizer of the system of beliefs

implied in Tasso’s practice

become almost

—so

absurdities

persistently, in fact, that Tasso’s ideas

Beni’s

in

renditions

clearly as did Tasso that truth could be of

—never

revealed

two kinds but

as

consistently

spoke both of the truth of history and of the truth of philosophy.

He

said,

on one hand,

that the historian’s business

comes from the

poet’s the delight that

statement

by

asserting that Aristotle eliminated

of poets because the poet’s business

list

things,” in

reason.

which instance “truth”

The

is

is

is

gathers particulars.

manner of the

The

truth and the

but he countered

this

Empedocles from the

“not to teach the truth of

identified

with the discourse of

philosopher seeks the truth of divine and

and does not confine himself to

the

false,

particulars,

human

matters

whereas the historian

poet should not represent true particulars in

historian,

but by feigning events he can reduce the

historian’s particulars to a beautiful idea better than the historian can.

What

remains unclear in Beni

is

the relation between this beautiful

idea of the poet’s and the philosopher’s truth in universal. Aristotle,

Beni

said,

did not believe that the historian and the poet differed in

respect to truth and falsehood, since true stories can also be probable; Beni, however, did agree with Piccolomini that truth

is

accidental to

the poet but not to the historian. Beni attempted a distinction of im-

portance in ruling that for the logician and the historian probability relates to questions of subject

matter while for the poet

questions of form. Beni thus had

sal

15 .

What

he stressed

even though

it is

is

little

it

relates to

to say about the truth of univer-

that poetry should appear to be like history

better for the poet to avoid both truth and necessity

than to violate the principle of verisimilitude. Fact as fact belongs to the historian

16 ,

but the poet can turn even

this defect to his

own

ad-

vantage by taking his actions from history. Comparazione, “Beni, Opere, XXII, 196-206. 164

in

Tasso,

“Beni, In Aristotelis poeticam commentarii, pp. 24, 28, 277.

Truth and Reality

common

Since, according to the

Renaissance cosmology,

more

higher intelligible beings participate beings,

can hardly be said that the

it

and

do sublunar

in reality than

critics of the sixteenth

between the range of truth and that of

distinguished

God

reality.

century

Neverthe-

the Aristotelian temper prevailed, and reality was usually at-

less,

tributed to the

world of

particulars. In this regard,

some statements

of Benedetto Varchi can be taken as typical of the thought of the

century. Varchi said: ticular things

“No

science and no art ever discourse of par-

And

but always of universals.

the reason

to the fact that the sciences are always of necessary

in addition

is,

and eternal matters

and not ever of contingent and corruptible things, that particulars cannot be reduced to rules since they are

and whatever cannot

infinite

be reduced to rules cannot be learned and what cannot be learned

cannot be known.” Platonist

is

instance,

that

An

this

was

that Varchi

with the

necessary to see

are

universals

made

particulars are

know

it is

whoever knows the

the particulars also.”

the claim

For

in ideas,

since

that,

considered,

way

seems from

who made no compromise

found truth only true

If it

rigid

of the senses and

affairs

how

a

he continues: “It

is

nothing but particulars universally universals

ambiguity

comes to know

exists

here

in a certain

for although

still,

from particulars, deductions from the universals.

that universals are, in fact, derived

knowable only

still

Varchi

said, if

as

we know

any particular mule

that

also sterile.

is

mules are

all

The

knowledge and (we may suppose) truth depend

result

solely

on

we

sterile, is

that,

if

universals,

universals are nevertheless not real things but products of our minds,

and only particulars can be called

real.

This passage of Varchi’s

is

a

comparison of the values of science and experience, rather than of truth

and

reality,

but the application can easily be made. Varchi argued:

“But because universals, which are merely concepts created by our minds, are apprehended only real things, are

—for

instance,

science,

is,

known by a

which

by

the intellect, whereas particulars, being

the senses,

good physician is

if

one wants to be

—both

qualities

are

ticulars, because, in addition to the general fact that

Donna Berta

man but always

17

would not be

able to

artificer

required, that is

of par-

no one ever gives to the particular

who knows know which meats are

or Ser Martino, anyone

that light meats are easy to digest but does not light

good

of universals, and experience, which

medicine to the universal or species or the individual

a

make

use of this kind of science.”

Varchi, Lezzioni, p. 597. 165

17

All

The Age this

is

of Criticism

reminiscent of Speroni’s or Tomitano’s stress on the necessity

of experience, the cognizance of a complex world of particulars.

Experience related,

is,

of course, not really experience unless particulars are

however dimly,

knew, entirely

to generalities, but as

both Speroni and Varchi

particulars can function as experience

fictitious

and

hence can make our vague notions of truth irrelevant to problems of

knowledge.

We in

our period have

a

semantic problem of our own.

of some item of thought depends

which we deposit

belief,

we

upon

its

fidelity to

If the truth

some system

in

can likewise refer both to the truth of

thought and to the truth of particular

fact, since

we

believe in the

constancy of nature and of our perceptions, and within

limits

we

extend credence to propositions that are based upon sense perceptions.

When members and the

light,”

of religious sects speak of their insights as “the truth

we

can equate the word truth only with what they

are willing to believe. In our everyday usage of the

do not, consequently, totelian

literary

differ

critics

word

“truth”

we

markedly from the sixteenth-century Aris-

who found

probability in the credible.

universality

in

However, only rarely

century are to be found hints of

probability and in the

sixteenth

a partitioning of truth or reality into

two contrasting systems of constructs, one to be called appearance and one reality, as is common enough in modern aesthetics as well as metaphysics. Truth with us, as a result, has several valences in place of the two ascribed to it on occasion in the sixteenth century. And we are less

unwilling than the

man

of the sixteenth century to allot truth only

to particulars or to ideas. This aesthetics

is

more

66

part of the reason

why modern

interested in particularity than the philosopher or

literary critic of the sixteenth

1

is

century was.

11

Universality as Unity

MOST

of the elements comprising the cosmos of Renaissance

man

conspired with a concept of universality equivalent to heightened and ideal morality.

evident.

The

connections between

Moral goodness was

The

of any transcendent truth.

Goodness, and he performed as did the

it

and rhetorical theory were

preceding and determining condition

a

was to co-operate with by praising or blaming,

poet’s business this

demonstrative orator.

function

Now

not

all

the literary theorists of

the sixteenth century co-operated fully in the development of this

system of sality as

ideas, for

many

of them merely referred vaguely to univer-

an emphasizing of the generic rather than the specific

character or action. But so often did writers

more

fully begin in just this

attendant ideas that unless

we

who

traits

developed their ideas

same fashion and proceed to ring find particular objection to this

of ideas, as in Castelvetro and Patrizi,

we

of

in

all

complex

cannot be certain that they

any significant way from the majority. There were, however, minority reports about the nature of poetic

differed in

universality, hesitantly,

implying

a quarrel

with the orthodox views, but made

and rarely involving an aesthetic or metaphysical system of

any complexity. One of the most important of these was the concept of universality as unity of action. Aristotle’s assertion that the universality

of poetry depended

couragement to as a

necessity and probability lent en-

view, provided that necessity was not interpreted

term synonymous with probability,

meant

by

this

upon

either “essence” or “probability,”

as it often it

was. If “necessity”

meant what ought to happen

natural or moral law in a given situation, and the floodgates

were

again opened to the then orthodox interpretation of universality. But 167

The Age

was interpreted

“necessity”

if

of Criticism as

meaning

—the “coagmentation of things,” idea — the emphasis was shifted from

as

a situation

static

commonly

law to

just as

less

was

that

when

with

bore an

coherent entity,

a

was

classifications.

was put upon “necessity” in speculawas greater readiness to identify univeror a composed unity in which the parts

stress

tions about universality there sality

it

temptation existed to

create abstract structures of causality than of static result

now,

and necessary patterns of change, and

even of an abstract dialectic of moral law, far

The

expressed the

a particular action, to

undergoing change; and although then,

possible to conceive of abstract

sequence

a necessary causal

Vettori

intelligible relationship to

one another, than with

classes of

objects or types of characters.

Riccoboni, in a significant passage dealing with the usual distinction

between poetry and

history,

following Aristotle, implied twin ap-

He

proaches to universality in terms of causes and modes.

defined four

kinds of universality, saying: “For indeed Eustratius on the

first

book

of Ethics of Aristotle wrote that the universal was triplex, one ante-

cedent to the parts, of which kind are the ideas of

mind of God; another

in the

all

things given

to the whole; the third subsequent to the parts, as genera

To

these should be added a fourth kind of universal,

to poets, concerning the parts, that

when

form

in the parts, as the relation of the parts

is,

and

which

is

species.

peculiar

concerning singular actions

modes by which they could happen are considered The first three kinds, as authority for which Riccoboni

causes and 1

universally.” cited a

minor twelfth-century Byzantine commentator, actually cor-

respond to a division commonly accepted in the great quarrels between nominalists and realists in the late medieval period.

The way

to the

conceiving of universality of poetry through unity came, however,

through consideration of universality of causes and

also

from the second

—

ways the recognition of the wholeness in the parts from the fourth kind which Riccobini particularly at-

of the three rather than

tributed to poetry.

With some of these ideas in mind, we can see the far reach of when Giulio Camillo said that a poet should rather con-

implications

any object in respect to whole than consider aspects as they

sider the aspects of

their fitting together to

form

relate to like aspects of

a

other things.

It is better, thus,

individual he

is

1

Riccoboni, op. 168

for a painter to consider the eyes of the

about to paint in respect to the totality of the individual cit.,

p. 44.

Universality as Unity than in relation to the eyes of other things, such as animals or angels

2 .

Camillo did not relate this notion to universals but was plainly telling the artist to consider the being, or existential qualities of the

was operating

to be created, rather than the essential qualities. Tasso

when, on one occasion, he

outside the circle of his usual explanations said that, to

make

work

a historical action universal, a poet should give his 3

But although was used frequently in showing the difference between poetry and history, Tasso was unusual in explicitly stating action wholeness, with a beginning, middle, and end

.

this distinction of unity

that the unity gives the action universality.

poem would be mere

Pigna said that the action of a

were not given unity

episodes

4

Moreover, a

.

history

can be made for the conjunction of universality and

airtight one,

unity in Robortelli’s constellation of ideas. In the midst of his

on

particular,” Robortelli said that

only one action,

comment

is more philosophic and grave than more upon the universal, the latter

Aristotle’s saying that “poetry

history because the former turns

upon the

if its

even though not an

case,

when

the historian handles

conspiracy of Catiline, he

as Sallust did in treating the

has something of the poet in him, but only something since “the poet

changes the action, augments, diminishes, adorns, amplifies, and rather narrates the action as

it

ought to have been done than

Later, he based the difference

as it

was done.”

5

between history and poetry on unity, or

the interrelationships of the parts, but without reference to universals. Aristotle, he said, intended epic

poetry to be unlike history in that

man

history deals with the actions either of one

man

poetry should present one

employing

in

tween

thesis

relationship triangles,

and

He moved

or of

to

at this point Aristotle’s distinction

and is

only.

taxis relations

that lines;

which

among

found

is

many men but

more

fertile

the parts of a whole.

such

in

ground

(P re die aments')

The

be-

thesis

figural entities as circles,

the taxis to the contrary,

is

a matter of quantity,

involving numbers or times, in which the particles do not have an or-

ganized coherence. “Historic actions,” Robortelli

do not have

diverse,

but

thesis

taxis,

which

disjunctive order. History therefore differs

tory uses that order in the pursuit of 2

Giulio

teria del

Camillo,

(Vinegia, 1568), 8

“Discorso

suo teatro,” in Tutte I,

maopere

26.

Tasso, Disc orsi del

Opere XII,

in le

poema

eroico, in

4

its

I

they are

said, “since

shall call fortuitous or

from poetry because

his-

matter or in the narration

Giovan Batdsta Pigna,

I

romanzi

(Vinegia, 1554), p. 44. 6 Robortelli, In librum Aristotelis de arte poetica explications, pp. 89-90.

71.

169

The Age of events that

we

of Criticism

have called disjunctive or fortuitous, or that Aristotle

has called taxis , for the matters diverse.

on account of

and Odyssey of

these

two

it

seeks a connected series, and

one action from many,

Homer and

in Virgil’s

as

we

can 6

Aeneid .”

assertions of Robortelli’s are put together, an iden-

and universality

tification of the ideas of unity

stronger and firmer than

it

apparently was

although the component ideas were partial overlapping It

and

relates are dissimilar, separate,

their affinity constitutes

see in the Iliad

When

it

Poetry does far otherwise, for

is

was Speroni and

mind appears mind of Aristotle,

in his

in the

taken from Aristotle, and their

all

at least implicit in Aristotle. his

group that particularly popularized the notion

poem contains one action of one man and history many actions many men. In one of his dialogues, Speroni had the philosopher

that a

of

what his master Pomponazzi had had to say about the difference between poetry and history. Speroni was another of Pomponazzi’s disciples, and the answer of Pomponazzi in the Speroni dialogue was the same as Speroni always gave 7 Late in the century, Denores, Zabarella asked

.

one of Speroni’s followers, was historian narrates

many

using Speroni’s formula:

still

actions of

many men,

the biographer

actions of one man, the epic poet one single, entire action of one

the

many man 8 .

Since the volume of critical comment on the question of artistic unity was great throughout the late Renaissance, there is no need to push these distinctions far. Speroni and others were willing to concede, rightly enough, that history could be unified and, sometimes, was not merely fortuitous. But it is also important to remember that Pic-

who

colomini,

devoted

much energy

between essence and accident,

dealt

to explanation of the difference

with essence in terms of actions

rather than in terms of static objects or beings that

many

sality

of these same writers

who

left

When we

consider

room for a concept of univerpoem to a unified whole

based upon the relations of parts in a

were the same

as those

who on

other occasions markedly developed

the theory of universality as perfect exemplar,

too

9 .

much upon

In the light of

the force of this

modern

less

common

literary theory, their

we

should not

concept

tendency was to err

the opposite direction. 6 7

Ibid., p. 268.

8

Denores, op.

Speroni, “Dialogo della istoria,” in

9

Piccolomini, op.

Opere,

II,

224.

170

insist

of universality.

cit.,

p. 22.

cit., sig.

B6r.

in

12

Penumbral Ideas

THE Renaissance

critics

derived from Aristotle (or thought they did)

both their concept of the poetic universal their

more unusual one

when they that

is,

as the idealized

as the unified or integrated action.

hero and

Repeatedly,

talked about unity of action they talked about necessity;

about necessary causal connections between events; but

it

is

obvious that they did not always feel compelled to identify necessity

with universality these

two

as

they used the term in

to the periphery, in all directions.

we

When we turn from

find, as

we might

aspects of the

body of

this central

ideas

expect, that ideas shoot off

These can best be handled

So what follows

common

connection. However,

ideas taken together resided at the center of Renaissance

thinking on the question.

listing.

this

unorganized

as a simple,

an account of five of the limited or un-

is

problem of universality

impinged upon

as it

the Renaissance mind. Tasso's concept of an allegorical universal. Tasso, like most of his

contemporaries, defended farfetched poetic inventions and morally

dubious portrayals in poetry by recourse to the allegorical meaning

when he was

hidden behind the indefensible surface. In one argument following this

line,

he could have been deliberately obscuring the issue

in using for illustration a tale written full

of personified abstractions such as

this fable

or parable, Tasso

as characters

“because in

by grace and made

it

said, St.

man

is

by

St.

Hope,

Bernard, Desire,

Bernard used no particular

the heir of heaven

is

filio

regis ,

men

considered universally to be elected .

.

.

which consideration or

description, being not of particulars but of universal,

than historical, and

De

and Wisdom. In

more philosophic than

is

poetic rather

not, and, in Aristotle’s 171

The Age judgment,

is

of Criticism

writer,

my

appropriate to a philosopher and, in

appropriate to a theologian. So

shows himself

St.

and in another fable

in this

as

some of

philosopher, and theologian; consequently, to be understood literally

opinion, most

Bernard, although he

is

a prose

well to be a poet,

meanings are

his

and with the obvious sense of history and

others allegorically in other senses.”

In applying this parallel to his Gerusalemme liberata

poem “some

that he had inserted into his

though they seem

false

true since they aim

it

is

This extension of meaning escence, even

remarks.

Idea,

toward which

for this reason that Aristotle affirms that

poetry has more of the philosophic in

totle’s often-cited

plainly

is

What

1

than history has.”

it

made upon

pulls us

up short

the base of Arisis

Tasso’s acqui-

only for the purposes of tactical warfare of

if

which

or feigned in their particulars are nevertheless

toward the universal and the

the poet strives, and

Tasso said

fables or allegories,

ideas, in

the limiting of the concept of universality allied with the Platonic Idea to abstractions that even in a

poem do not need

bodies. So long as he used his

mands of both

to be given particular

mask of Platonism

to reconcile the de-

universality and particularity in a figure that remained

human although

which humanity between universal meaning

raised to the highest degree of

capable, Tasso kept alive a distinction

poetry and that in philosophy; but

when

is

in

he applied Aristotle’s distinc-

tions to St. Bernard’s fable, the distinction vanished.

Comedy

as the

most universal form of poetry. Throughout history New Comedy, comic writers, tellers of tales, and

since the birth of the

writers of novels have often indicated the type of genus intended in

the portrayal of a character

Mrs. Malaprop, or Gradgrind.

by naming him Pinchpenny, Volpone,

When

a writer does this,

attention to the universal aspect of his character, or

him according

to his type and giving

him

a

is

is

he calling

he merely tagging

common

rather than a

philosophic trait of character, as Trissino distinguished the two?

Minturno, one of the influential sixteenth-century

critics,

2

arrived at

conclusions out of kilter with Trissino’s and consequently with some of the dominant ideas of the century.

De

in

poeta (1559),

something suited to

is

when essence. The

his

universality of a character 1

by

poet

his art of

Tasso, Del giudizio, in Opere, XII,

265.

The

universal,

Minturno

said,

a character either does or says

revealed

2

is

aided in aiming at the

giving him the right sort of

See supra

p. 134.

Fenumbral Ideas name, and from

this

proposition

it

follows that comic characters are

especially likely to be universalized ones, for the characters of tragedy

and epic poetry are generally given their

historic,

particular names.

Since poets should constantly refer meanings back to their generic

forms and to universal nature,

like philosophers,

it

followed that comic

poets were, in Minturno’s view, the most philosophic kind of poets. 3

Five years

later, in his

of reasoning explicit.

Uarte poetica (1564), Minturno made

Comedy, he

any other kind of poetry. This poet, in the

and to with

its

manner

is

this line

aims at the universal more than

said,

the gist of his argument:

“Thus the

of the philosopher, reduces the material to

universal nature; the historian, like the orator

its

genus

when he

deals

descends to the particular. But the comic poet shows more

cases,

how

than any other

the universal

handled,

is

who by

penetrating

within to the verisimilar makes up names as the characters and the matter require.”

4

The

illustrations

he provided came from Terence.

believed that epic poetry and tragedy, unlike historic

names but that poets

comedy, should use

He

true,

in these genres should try to stress the

generic aspects of their situations and the universal nature of the material.

That this generalizing need not be confined to Terence’s kind showed in hints that Ulysses must be always astute and

of typing he

Aeneas pious. Vettori, be

some of

his

it

noted, said in passing that

it

is

not necessary,

as

contemporaries seemed to believe, for the names given to

characters to reflect their universal qualities, especially in tragedy.

By

we

turning to a related idea here,

can see how, because of the

variety of uses for the term “universal” in vogue, the sixteenth-century critic lines

had

a harder time than his

of thought clear.

modern counterpart

Comedy was

in

said generally to deal

keeping

his

with private

matters, tragedy and epic poetry with public matters. Kings and princes

—the proper characters for epic and tragic poems—were often thought of as representing the state at large and so of the state.

The same

were universal representatives

is shown even today in the military Some of these terms could with slight

distinction

terms “general” and “private.”

juggling be realigned so that public matters dealt with in poetry were

thought of

as universal

and private matters

as particular,

an employ-

ment of the terms inconsistent with Minturno’s disposition of them. As it actually happened, the Renaissance writers remained acutely aware of the 8

Minturno,

historicity of tragedy

De

poeta, p. 123.

and epic and the identification of 4

Minturno, Uarte poetica

U3

,

p. 39.

The Age

of Criticism

Maggi muddied

history with particularity.

De

the clear flow of idea when,

commentary on Aristotle’s Poetics (1550) and while borrowing an idea from Cicero’s De oratore he said that ridiculous things come partly from art that is, always privately. 5 Art was an equivalent term for generality of statement in

in his essay

ridiculis

appended to

his

,

—

common

most

its

usage, but the equating of nature with the private

The only

and with particulars was more unusual. universal

was Malatesta Porta,

at the

What

mean

before him was,

does

it

universal? His unusual answer

conforms to actual sible.

tion

was

form

to

a fable according to the

that a fable

is

and private

those events that are generally

his

when

universal

what

history, or to accepted legend, or to

affairs

my

to

with the

affairs

end of the century. The question

Porta found principal support for

between public

who,

critic

knowledge, completed the identification of public

is

it

pos-

notion in Horace’s distinc-

affairs. 6

Public

affairs,

known, Porta thought of

which

are

as universal,

private affairs as particular. 7

Malatesta Porta’s exotic views. Malatesta Porta’s the

minor documents

much

attention

more than

it

in the

from the

has received

11

Rossi

,

one of

Tasso controversy, has never attracted

historians of literary criticism but deserves if

only because of the range of unusual ideas

about poetic universality and particularity that Porta believed that the subject of a heroic

it

poem

contains. Like Tasso,

should be an illustrious

action that really happened, but in his use of terms he promptly

deviated from Tasso’s in declaring that Virgil took from history not

only “the universal of this

his

poem but

also in a sense the particular.” In

antinomy “universal” means the general plot outline and “par-

ticular”

means the

Tasso and the poet

is

details.

In the direct quarrel between them, both

his Florentine antagonist Salviati

under obligation to

had taken the stand that

create, or invent, the

broad universal

Under

Porta’s handling

plot outline but does not create the particulars.

the question of universality

of inventions.

Many

was more than usually confused with

of the preceding analyses of the differences be-

tween poetry and history had been based on feigned (that

is,

invented) plots and plots

books, but only Porta confused those 6

Maggi, Aristotelis librum de poetica

communes 6

explanationes p. 307. Horace, Art of Poetry, ed. by Albert

13

distinctions

between

taken from the history

distinctions

with Aristotle’s

Cook (New York,

S.

1926), vv.

128-

1. 7

87.

74

that

Porta,

II

Rossi, in Tasso, Opere,

XX,

Penwnbral Ideas separation of poetry and history on the basis of universality and particularity.

Tasso and

were orthodox Aristotelians in supposing and if a poet is to borrow from what he must borrow. Porta, to the contrary,

Salviati

that history gives us particulars, history, particulars are

took pains to show that etymologically the word “poet” could mean

from which premise

“finder” as well as “maker,”

it

could follow that

the poet “finds” his general plot line in history and turns the history

by feigning or inventing

into poetry

the particulars.

We

can see the

strange cast he gave to the terms “universal” and “particular” in his

“we must recognize

saying that particulars

no

than for

less

that the poet

his universal;

find the

argument and the universal

upon

but

it;

certainly

it is

in history

and can base

his fable

incumbent upon him to invent the particular

means by which the bare argument and the bare

by

fable are converted

whole thing; and so he

into the composition of the

of the action precisely

responsible for his

is

indeed more, for he can

‘finding’

it,

making and the feigning of the means.”

will be the finder

and then maker by both the 8

Unconventional and without immediate progeny

as this explanation

weak

or merely willful.

it is

is,

not for that reason to be scorned

The key terms the universal

we would

as

have, nevertheless, been turned topsy-turvy, for

comes

to

mean

the rough argument

say in unphilosophic talk

neither to the general

—of the

meaning embodied

when

—the general idea

as

story, universality refers

in the conditions of the story

nor to the composition of the particulars to comprise

a unity.

“More-

over,” Porta reasoned, “the poet reduces the universal in history to the particularity of poetry.

And

just as the creator of a

garden

is

the

maker of it even though he obtains from someone else the terrain and space in which he makes it, so because the poet has found his universal action in history or has taken

and then by means of fable and made from is

it

a

it

from fame [legend: common

filled it

belief]

out to be verisimilar and necessary

composition of things,

not the maker of a heroic poem.” As a

it

cannot be said that he

result, the universal

is

defined

by Porta as what is publicly or generally known, and to make a fable conform to the principle of universality the poet must make it conform either to history, to accepted legend, or to what is possible. Porta was not an ignorant eccentric. His citations show that he had a sophisticate’s knowledge of the problems before him. There is some evidence that he took his meaning general idea as D O of universality J 6

lbid. } pp. 85-86.

U5

The Age

of Criticism

of the story from Mazzoni’s partition of the subspecies of fantastic

on universally known history with particular

imitation (i, founded

by

additions

from history or legend;

the poet, retaining names

2,

founded on the inventions by the poet of both universal and particular

9

).

Porta claimed, wanted only the kind of pure fan-

Salviati,

tastic imitation

“which

is all

feigned in both universals and particulars”

Flower of Agathon

as in the

In support of his definition of “poet”

made use of researches of Bartolommeo Amanzio, a unknown writer, as well as those of Scaliger; he based his

as “finder,”

generally

10 .

he

answer to the question whether or not a poet must change

a story

he finds a section of history in which everything happens accord-

line if

ing to necessity and probability and the particulars are already adequate for the universal on another little known book, the Antexegemata ad Petrum Victorium (1559) of Cristoforo Rufo, in which the ideas of

Robortelli as well as those of Vettori are carefully examined. In this place,

should be noticed, Porta allowed

it

to shift to that

which follows

his definition of universality

necessity and probability. Yet to Porta

which

the concept of probability applied principally to particulars,

must have probability

The

in every part.

possibility of finding actions in history that

were already uni-

who

versal

was pondered frequently by the

in the

Tasso controversy. Giulio Guastavini claimed that

totle called

sometimes particular; poetry

is

when

is

Aris-

sometimes universal and poetry

merely more philosophic

how

Orlando Pescetti responded by asking naively

from the

took part

poetry more philosophic than history he was not making

an absolute distinction, since history is

lesser writers

historian

11 .

To

this,

the poet differs

the poet can deal with actual deeds. In turn,

if

Guastavini replied that poetry and history can both

make

use of the

same

material, each in

its

own way,

form

it entails,

not by

its

subject matter. But actually the differences

of opinion

among some

for an art

is

determined by the

of these contestants was not great. Salviati had

agreed, for his side, that history can accidentally be poetic but had said that the poet

to ask

if

history 9

is

II 11

is

truly universal

12 .

He

further asked us

that real-life actions and history are not identical, since

a narrative

Mazzoni, Della

10

must pause frequently

uses historical accounts

the real-life account

remember

to

who

based on actual fact but

difesa,

I,

399-400.

Rossi, p. 92.

See Tasso, Opere, XIX, 294.

176

12

Ibid.,

w lbid.,

is

not actual fact

pp. 295-296. p. 300.

13 .

Penumbral Ideas Castelvetro and his opponents. rists

whose views have been

The

usual Renaissance literary theo-

scrutinized could well have availed them-

most of them, following

selves of Salviati’s reminder, for

Aristotle,

acted as though written history were an exact replica of real-life events

and not of

art.

a selection

But

Salviati’s

and rendition of data according to some principle views in general on the relationship of poetry and

were conventional enough. As in respect to many other items of doctrine, here also it was Castelvetro who struck out in untried directions, motivated, if one were to judge by his contemporaries,

history

simply by an invincible obtuseness of

spirit.

The

clue to the understand-

down any

ing of Castelvetro’s method was his willingness to follow

avenue of thought, whether or not he had any reason to believe that it

would

lead

him anywhere.

every square yard of ideas

He was

who worked

a gold hunter

As a result, even by accident.

his territory.

seem to have been arrived

at

over

most valuable

his

In his principal accounts of the relationship of poetry and history, the question of the universality of the one and the particularity of the

other was an irrelevancy. For he believed that poetry imitation of history in

attempts to be.

He

said,

make

his

“Now

if

history if

it

were

14 .

The

poem

as lifelike

it

must not be

identical

it

and convincing

identical

would not

like a

invention

as a history

would

with the matter of history,”

imitate history but

poet would not have to labor to show

he merely had to follow history;

him more

an invented

is

his skill at

the matter of poetry must resemble and imitate the

matter of history, but for

which the poet by means of

god than

like a

it is

his

his inventiveness

his inventive faculty that

makes

man. In addition to not inventing

subject matter, the historian uses a diction that

whereas the poet in handling

would be

like

is

his

ordinary speech,

invented material uses a diction unlike

ordinary speech.

But the idea of Castelvetro’s that was starkly novel was that first

must know what the

art of history

is

before

we

about the art of poetry, since before an imitation

can

is

know

we

anything

possible the thing

must be understood. The crux of Castelvetro’s problem was the old question of what is truth and what is reality. From his comments it would follow that truth pertains not to the raw datum, to be imitated

the individual fact, but to the assembling of facts according to

general principle. History he defined as

“the story of memorable

actions that have been actually accomplished, 14

Bongiorno, op.

cit.,

some

and

its

distinguishing

p. 54.

177

The Age quality

is

of Criticism

truthfulness,”

may

actions that

verisimilitude.”

tinguish poetry

15

and poetry

as “the story of

be accomplished, and

The

attribute

from history

memorable human

distinguishing quality

[is]

“memorable” does not so much

dis-

its

as it limits

and conditions the nature of

the truthful facts of history.

A

series of passages will reveal the full

scope of Castelvetro’s argu-

ment: “If either Aristotle or another had written a book on the art of history before one on the art of poetry

have been treated adequate,

we

first

—and

are certain that

if his

we

—and the

art of history should

treatment of the subject had been

should either have found the present

booklet of Aristotle’s of even greater service to us in writing poems, or should have found

unnecessary.”

it

For “truth, by nature, came before also,

verisimilitude, and,

the thing represented before the representation.

It

by nature

therefore fol-

lows that verisimilitude depends entirely upon the truth, and models itself after

it,

and the representation depends entirely upon the thing

represented, and models

itself after

it.

And

since

we

cannot have a right

knowledge of dependent and modeled things unless we have first knowledge of the things upon which they depend and are modeled, follows that

we

cannot acquire the faculty of judging aright

a it

if verisi-

militude and the representation are accurate or do not accord, unless

we

have

first a

complete and correct knowledge of the truth and the

thing represented.” His conclusion was that “no art of poetry that has

been written hitherto or

may

be written in the future can give us a

complete and distinct knowledge of the art of poetry unless first

a complete

and

distinct

knowledge of the

we

art of history.”

have

16

This novel reasoning of Castelvetro’s can be readily taken either as the

work

tion. It

of a crank or a complete fool or as an act of real penetra-

seems to prevent the poet from taking the much-celebrated

knowledge in the modifying of Plato’s placing poetry at two removes from truth by allowing the poet to turn from the world of sense and mere things directly to the creation of Ideas of transcendental truth. For in Castelvetro’s system, truth was not the truth of particulars, but an ideal truth, the method of arriving at which was to short cut to

be described in the books on the art of history that he called for. This was another way of showing that when the poet creates Ideas he has no way of assuring himself and others that what he has concocted has real being and is not merely a chimera. But since no art of history of the kind described 15

by

Castelvetro existed, or indeed can 16

Ibid., p. 8.

178

Ibid., pp. 7-8.

exist, his

Penumbral Ideas reasoning had the effect only of casting doubt upon the poet’s ability

“borrows

to create transcendent Ideas. Poetry, he said,

history, a light that does not yet

should, and, unable to ness.”

At bottom,

borrow

it,

burn or

at least

light

its

from

as brightly as

it

poetry must wander in great dark-

reasoning was a slap

this

not

at

humanistic Neo-

platonism which had tended to glorify the poet for his ability to create higher universals directly.

Granted,

hard to

it is

whether Castelvetro was thinking of the

tell

modes of gaining knowledge or more simply of the

arts of

history as matters of technique or disposition. His

“memorable.” His

were more or

art of history

would

tell

us

“memorable and worthy of

less

poetry and

key word was

what kinds of

things

a place in history.”

iVIemorability can be equated with value, and value for Castelvetro, as for

almost

all

writers of his century, led to the rhetorician’s “praise

and blame.” The rhetorician was interested in knowing effects

could be achieved technically.

desired art of history

And

would go on to what

told briefly and summarily, and

of other things; that historian

may

or

may

it

tell

us “what things should be

If the

when and where

and descriptions of

what

digres-

places, of persons, or

would have determined for us whether

the

not be allowed to pass judgment upon the things

that he narrates, praising

draw from them

his ethical

elaborately and in detail;

order should be followed in narrating events; sions should be introduced,

how

so Castelvetro stated that his

one thing and condemning another, and to

lessons useful to his readers

and to

political life.” 17

higher uses of the Jamesian “point of view” in fiction or Allen

were

Tate’s concept of “authority” vetro’s aesthetics,

it

in

any way appropriated

in Castel-

was at this point, at this conversion of epistemo-

problems to technical problems. The chances are that Castel-

logical

vetro was not unconscious of

what he was doing.

However, some hundreds of pages

later in his

commentaries Castel-

vetro attacked the problem differently and considered the “universal” part of a narrative

poem

of

how

different

to be the general outline of the plot,

meant

this

as

later.

the same legend of history. Castelvetro

totle did

much

Here the taking-off point was the problem poets could create differing tragedies on the base of

Malatesta Porta did

was done by varying the

first

assumed that Aristotle

episodes; later he decided Aris-

not mean variation to consist only in a rearrangement of the

accidents of a story

(as,

for instance, in the

way

the particulars of the

death of Clytemnestra and Aegisthus had been varied) but meant in17

Ibid., p. 9.

79

The Age stead that

we

of Criticism

reduce fables to their universal form by changing time

and place and not using the same particular characters. From Castelvetro

He

said:

was

back to renewed

led

this idea,

upon poetry as invention. as we saw above, that

stress

“So he [Aristotle] was of the opinion,

not only can imaginary names be given to the characters of the tragedy

by

we

did leave

made

room

fable

forming similar

18

fables.”

is

composed can be

wanted

are obliged to believe that he

to imagine matter for

he

which the

a poet but also the material of

imagined, since

Although Castelvetro

for the use of historical subjects, particularly in tragedy,

concession grudgingly at the expense of his usual

this

how

to teach

demand

for poetry defined in terms of invention.

Especially noticeable in Castelvetro’s treatment of universal

He

handling of them as stock-plot patterns. aspect of the broad problem and

than

his

his

more copiously

illustrated his idea

contemporaries had done. In reducing any given fable to

universal form, he said,

we

particular

ways by which

it is

And

“the

perchance Aristotle

if

holds this view and understands universality in this for poetry can then be taken not only

from

made but

others have already

way

here, subjects

tragedies and epic also

poems

from comedies and

they can be differentiated by episodes to the point of

histories, since

being no longer recognizable as having universalized,

is,

recognizable, are taken out and in then-

place other and different ones are inserted.

we and

its

should make the original specific situations

and characters no longer recognizable. So the episodes, that

that

is

delved deeper into this

whether they are

come from them, and have been

tragedies, epic poems, comedies, or

histories.”

For

instance, he added, let us consider the basic plot situation of

an ardent lover who, unable to reveal his love, shuts himself up pre-

pared to die of

his love pangs, so that his friends

scheme whereby he can enjoy

his mistress.

This

Antiochus, and Stratonice universalized, but it

applies to a Tito, Gisippo,

Giachetto and Gianetta universal to pertain

19 .

more

“ Castelvetro, Poetica

In history Stratonice

(fl.

Her husband gave her

“And because we do not

c. I

300

b.c.)

of Syria.

to his son

by

a

former marriage, Antiochus, since the was pining away with love for

latter

180

can be changed so that recognize this

to the latter than to the former,

d’Aristotele, pp.

was the wife of Seleucus

have to invent a

the plot of Seleucus,

and Sofronia or to Boccaccio’s story of

366-367.. 19

it

is

her.

Sofronia,

Gisippo,

we

can use

it

and Tito are

characters in the eighth story of the tenth day of the Decameron; Gianetta

and Giachetto of the eighth story of the second day. The plots of the three tales are not very similar.

Penumbral Ideas in

forming other

but

fables,

by which we recognize

And

if

cannot in other fables use the particulars

the universal as pertaining to certain persons.

a certain particular

as stolen

we is

used there,

will deservedly be

it

blamed

goods.” Castelvetro cited a particular incident in which Boc-

caccio duplicated too exactly a set of incidents he had previously used;

he argued that a poet must create for himself the particular ways and

means of expressing the

Doubts arose

in his

universal.

mind when he

He

the Iphigenia story.

tried to apply his principle to

concluded: “For however

when they

are taken

all

we

this universal that

together

recognize

And

not to another character.

how we

has not taught us

it

of

to other persons,

seems that they so particularize

it

as pertaining

if

this

how

is

only to Iphigenia and things stand, Aristotle

should reduce a fable to the universal, nor

any norm or adequate or

has he given us

much any one

happen

the things told universally about Iphigenia can

suitable example.”

At what

point, in other words, can the particulars be

changed and give the

when some

basic plots are already

newness to

effect of

a basic plot

closely identified with particular situations? In this connection, Castel-

vetro said positively that situation It

all

particulars that tend to identify the basic

with any particular character should be discarded.

must be remembered that Castelvetro believed the function of

poetry was to give delight, not basic tenet of his

profit, to the

hard to match with

is

“rude multitude.” This

his notions of universality

the relations between history and poetry. Quite possibly the

“universal” had

two

distinct

philosophic and one popular.

and

word

meanings in Castelvetro’s vocabulary, one

At

the time

exclusion of Empedocles and his like

when he

from the

discussed Aristotle’s

roles of poets, Castel-

vetro asserted that a poet making use of scientific or philosophic material

would not be engaging

be a poet.

He

in original creation

and so would not

foresaw the need to answer the objection that

happened to be

a

presumably create

if

that the poet’s function, unlike the philosopher’s or scientist’s,

imitate faithfully the fortuitous events of the his imitations to

who

“to

world” and by means of

phenomena

to philosophers

and

own way (one different from that of the poets) benefiting men 20 These remarks can be used as

have their

of delighting or

evidence to

is

give delight to his listeners, leaving the discovery of the

truths hidden in natural or accidental artists,

a poet

good original philosopher or scientist he would a good part of his own material, and he responded

.

show

"Bongiorno, op.

that Castelvetro broke sharply with Aristotle over

cit.,

pp. 55-56.

181

The Age

of Criticism

the differences between history and poetry and reinforced his belief

no

that

satisfactory art of poetry could be written until an art of

history had been

worked

For Aristotle had

out.

distinctly

made poetry

not an imitation of the fortuitous events of the world. But

it

should be

And

clear that Castelvetro’s theories never achieved final coherence.

yet at this point he was quite conscious that he differed from Aristotle,

even though

page before he had scolded writers bold enough to

a scant

challenge Aristotle

—“whom

we

cannot contradict without shame.”

Nevertheless, he assured his readers that poetry does not differ from

had

history, as Aristotle

more

said,

by being more

philosophical (that

universal, in the usual critical vocabulary of the sixteenth cen-

tury) than history but significant difference

by being an invented

static character.

The kind

his

contemporaries was

composed action and not character.

In the years following the publication of Castelvetro’s

on the Poetics

,

the incitements

commentary

a storm of protest arose against his ideas,

was

his giving

precedence to the

and one of

art of history. Tasso,

often did accept novel ideas from Castelvetro, objected but partly

misunderstood what Castelvetro had

preceded poetry in origin that truth

must precede

said.

Tasso denied that history

—Castelvetro had never verisimilitude.

several centuries older than history,

said that

it

did

—or

Poetry, Tasso insisted, was

and he argued that

a poet therefore

could hardly have needed to learn an art that was developed

He

in a

of universality that he consistently failed to

was the perfect exemplar of

find in poetry

The

imitation of history.

between Castelvetro and

that he envisioned a Platonic Idea in a

who

is,

supposed Castelvetro to have meant that history came

later.

first

by

nature even though not in time, but he responded firmly that “the poet considers the verisimilar only as sality

it

is

universal.”

An

art of univer-

should be learned before the art of particularity. Tasso held that

Aristotle obviously thought that the art of history

was simpler than

the art of poetry and that the rules of rhetoric should be adequate for

the writing of

it

(unless there

was some truth

in the belief of

Demetrius

Phalereus that history writers followed a few distinct principles of their

own ). 21 Patrizi,

who was no

lover of Aristotle, took Castelvetro to task

for following Aristotle too closely, and so his quarrel Aristotle.

He

between poetry and history were based upon 21

was

really

with

argued that the notions of Castelvetro on the differences

Tasso, Discorsi del 182

poema

Aristotle’s dismissal of

eroico, in Opere, XII, 22-23.

Venumbral Ideas Herodotus

poet and on

as a

statement that poetry

his

The

have been done and history what was done. here,

according to

Herodotus should have been and necessity

verisimilitude

was

Patrizi,

be found with

to

fault

achieve unity of action, not

his failure to

as Aristotle said.

poets had written history in verse

less

the

that

what should

tells

fallacy in the logic

Furthermore, since count-

form before

Aristotle’s day, the

accounting of a difference on the basis of verisimilitude and necessity carried

little

always that

force. Patrizi

if

was

rules for poetry

he asserted

a consistent descriptivist:

were

to be formulated they should be

based upon the range of actual practice. For him, the existence of histories written in verse

was proof

Scrutiny of actual practice, he claimed, would differed

from

historians in dealing

The

show

poetic.

that poets usually

with fantastic improbabilities rather

than with idealized constructions. Poetry poetically.

made

that histories could be

is

which

that

is

handled

poetic substance of minor poetry Patrizi identified

with the rhetorical principle of enargeia (vividness) or “evidence,” and he thought that the historian could use poet.

He

this principle as

what

also said the historian imitates in telling

he can compose his action so that

hang together

it

becomes

in necessary connection.

well as the

has happened:

a fable; the parts

So what difference

can

there

is

according to these criteria between poetry and history? Surely none at

all.

And

if

none,

why

are not the historian and the poet one and

the same according to these precepts?

22

After fighting

Patrizi felt that Tasso’s notion of the hero of an epic

perfect exemplar

needed

still

leveling,

and

this

as Idea

or

he proceeded to do.

Francesco Buonamici turned a large part of (1597) into a rebuttal against Castelvetro. His

battle

this

poem

his first

complex study of the determinants generally used

Discorsi poetici

discourse

was

a

in the classification

of the arts and sciences for the purpose of showing

how

senseless

and

confusing were Castelvetro’s theses about the relations between the arts

he

of poetry and history in terms of classical methodology.

said, differs

from

a science in that a science

An

art,

contemplates only, and

an art must carry science over into practice. Art can be divided into

theory and practice.

The

theoretical aspect of an art

is

science and submits to the same conditions as science.

reduced to practice,

from the as

it

actually a

When

it

is

should function with the right reason derived

theoretic; but practice depends

upon the

material used as well

on the theory employed, and the material can impede the intention. 22

Patrizi,

La deca

disputata, pp. 157-161.

83

The Age But although poetry

of Criticism

is

more

like

philosophy than

like history since

both poetry and philosophy deal with universals and history with particulars, Castelvetro

was guilty of

terms by comparing poetry

a shift of

and history and not poetics and history in saying poetry bases

shadow images of the

on what

true

Buonamici assumed that poetry

really

subordinate to politics since 'he

is

found that both Plato and Aristotle

its

true.

is

The two

said so.

of poetry are metrics and hypocritics, that

principal parts

verse forms and the

is,

explication of concepts. Hypocritics, he said, consist of “the explication

of

its

concepts with modes not signifying what

is

true, as affirmations

and negations do, but with modes signifying affective imperatives, prayers, and desideratives.” Buonamici

modern

traits

was

makes use of rhetoric

semanticist. Poetry, he added,

such

as

not unlike a in several

ways. But he made the distinction between the true and the verisimilar

fundamental to definitions of poetry, for he allowed logic and metaphysics to be concerned with what

(“which

a

is

is

true, dialectic

with the probable

semblance of the truth”), rhetoric with the persuasible,

and poetry with the verisimilar (which “shows

how

it

ought to be

done”). Buonamici’s classification here, however, was subject to further distinctions

between what

is

true in itself and

what

is

true conditionally

and between complex and uncomplex truth, even though classification

was standard

his

initial

in his time.

Buonamici made use of these general remarks

in

determining that

for both the orator and the poet “the theoretic part concerns the

true and the other part formally and as secondary intention and, leaving

consideration of essences to the metaphysician or logician, addresses itself

more

showing how they can be obtained, as, method uses sweetness of verse as guide and when one comes to practice, the former [rhetors]

to giving rules

for instance, the poetic

inducement; so that

to debates and the latter [poets] to poetizing, the [essences] are dealt

form but by means of the fable,” as in the particular condition of Aeneas’ meeting Dido at a time when her political position was insecure. The argument came to a head when Buonamici said that an art of

with according to what

made appropriate

history

is

to

is

true or verisimilar, not in universal

some one

situation

then not necessary or important for an art of poetry.

pointed out that Aristotle

made many

cross references

metrics, rhetoric, and hypocritics, but since he to an art of history the clear implication 184

is

among

made no such

that he

He

poetics,

references

found such

refer-

Penumbral Ideas ences unnecessary. History should be thought of as a kind of writing of value principally in oratory and politics “since the

good orator has

to

be a historian in order to have copious examples at hand, and a politician [has to be one] in order to base his discourses

No

art

The

is

necessary for the knowledge of history

on experience.”

23 .

contender against Castelvetro on

final principal

this score

was

when the have been laid. And

Paolo Beni, in the early years of the seventeenth century,

by then

ghost of Castelvetro’s irregularities should

some of

in actuality Beni used

He

upset Castelvetro.

Castelvetro’s arguments in the attempt to

said that the reason Castelvetro

was

led to argue

both that poetry should be derived from history and that

it is

useless

to try to determine precepts for writing poetry without first determin-

ing the rules for writing history was that the poet tries so hard to

make

us forget

we

are dealing with feigned materials that he convinces

us an actual event

is

unrolling before our eyes. Beni, like Castelvetro,

emphasized invention, but although their assertions

conformed more

seem

beliefs

similar, Beni’s

to the usual set of doctrine of his time than

“Thence it cannot be readily conceded that a poet imitates things which have happened, since he either invents everything, as in comedy, or varies, changes, and makes addidid Castelvetro’s. Beni continued:

poetry or tragedy.”

tions, as in epic

And

later

borrows some things from the monuments of represent

done.

He

them

as

they have been done but

refers everything

poet does not so

much

back

imitate

as if to

what has

as

he added: “For

if

he

history, he does not

they should have been

Ideas.” Consequently, the

actually happened as he tries

not to imitate them just as they happened. For the historian the highest praise praise

is

comes from following

in deceiving eyes

the false for the true.”

image of history

When

“In poetry the highest

a result,

poetry

is

not at

all

the

mere shadow

24 .

the extremity of Beni’s position as a defender of Tasso’s

idealized heroes

he could have

considered,

is

moved

Castelvetro stressed in

was

As

truth.

and minds and in making the auditors mistake

interested in a

away from Castelvetro

strict

becomes

common was

poem with

a matter of

cit.,

that

he and

the doctrine of verisimilitude. Beni

stories that

pp. 138-139.

wonder

What

historical subject matter universalized

adherence to history but

wanted invented

“Buonamici, op.

it

so close to Castelvetro’s position.

24

still

seemed

resembling history.

as true to life as his-

Beni, In Aristotelis poeticam

ment arii,

pp. 24, 28.

185

com-

The Age tory,

of Criticism

and he had relatively

concede that “just out from

it

fable

as a

little

shadow follows

body and seemingly comes

a

and poetry follow history and entirely flow out from

Thus, while the historian

it.

to say about universality. Beni could

is

for

you which

men

concerning himself with things

have done and pursues the deeds and saying of mortals, here

poetry

is

represents the deeds of heroes and powerful leaders, and

the misfortunes and fates of kings and of

men in high places, and the loves,

laughter, frauds, brawls, in both deeds and sayings, of citizens and

populace. ... In this respect, poetry seems to be merely the shadow

and image of history, and is

in this

feigned history and history

is

connection

or falsehood in poetry verisimilar. It

is

is

can be said that poetry

true poetry.” But the poet refers the

true events of history to the Ideas,

is

it

which

Truth

are superficially false.

unimportant, Beni

said, as

long

poetry

as the

better that a poet avoid the true and necessary than

the verisimilar. 25

The

ideas of

century such

some of the writers of the

relevant to this point in our study, since stressed verisimilitude in their

end of the sixteenth

and Faustino

Zinano, Michele,

as

tail

comments on

Summo

most

are

of them particularly

all

universality. Since the

main

Disc orso della tragedia (1590) was that tragedies should have invented plots, his link with Castelvetro is apparent. The

thesis of Zinano’s

tragic poet

does not differ from the historian, Zinano

said,

if

his

emotional effect upon his readers or audience comes from the sequence of events and not from his

art.

But “art” here to Zinano must have

meant primarily the invention of the cannot move by

by

itself,

why

itself, it is

events, for he continued: “If art

imperfect, but

if it is

move they would say

perfect and can

search further for history and truth? If

come from both, we would answer that even if this were true the movement coming from art should be the one more highly praised, and that of the feigned should be the one more praised because it comes more from art.” According to Zinano a true that the effect should

event can indeed be handled artfully, but even with the addition of art the emotion aroused

by

the resulting product

would not be

an art-produced emotion but in part raw passion. narrates things as they are

thesis

was

See supra p. 164.

186

if

the event

a defense of a

and can therefore be looked upon 26

asked: “If history

and poetry things as they ought to be,

not tragedy be history and not poetry

Although Zinano’s

He

entirely

as

were

a true

poem he had

would one?”

written

an instance of special pleading,

Venumbral Ideas new and imsomething was wrong in the

he found himself moving half-blindly in the direction of

He

portant distinctions.

recognized that

To

concern expressed about the universality of names for characters. the extent that tragedy has to

shrewdly,

it

become

he observed

particularized,

done with feigned

better that the particularizing be

is

names, and yet the use of the feigned names should not be considered a particularizing of the action, for since a

does not aim at the world of particulars. he said,

“is

meant

poem should be universal, it “By the universal in poetry,” happen to certain

relating those events that can

kinds of persons according to verisimilitude and necessity.” If tragedy

works with universal, of vital importance

26 .

then, the particularity of

names

not

is

a

matter

Zinano insisted that he was not anti-Aristotelian

even though he wished to lambast blind, narrow, and unreasonable Aristotelians.

want poetry job

is

about

He

history in poetry but

to be of the highest rank because of history.”

mind

to keep in its

“we admit

said that

the suitable

(

we do not The poet’s

convenevole ) without worrying

historical truth or falsehood. If history

is

convenevole

,

it is

poetry.

Agostino Michele’s place in literary history pleader of a special cause a battle

among

—the defense of prose

literati at

had Paolo Beni

as ally.

likewise that of a

is

as a literary instrument,

the end of the sixteenth century in It

Aristotelian fashion against Patrizi that the difference historian

and the poet

argued, “relates

its

is

27

would be expected

With

identification of history

reveals that to the

this

to say

and do according

argument he intended to

forestall

an

with prose and of poetry with verse. His logic

orthodox Aristotelian of

of poetry consists in

making universalized

painting fact with colored ornaments. For true things even

between the

not in the writing of verses. “Poetry,” he

matters in universal, which consists in saying those

things that those persons to verisimilitude.”

which he

served his purpose to argue in orthodox

when they

his

century the artfulness

imitations of fact, not in

him the

are not verisimilar”

historian “narrates

and does not need to

concern himself with the unity of action. In holding

this latter tenet,

Michele was a Speronian. The concern with the maintaining of a balance between digressions or episodes and the main action, which creates all

pertain to history, nor do

from

a poet’s expression of his

pleasing effects in poetry, does not at

the exaggerations of truth resulting 26

Gabriele Zinano, Discorso della tragedia (Reggio, 1590), pp. 11-13, 22.

27

Michele, op.

cit ., p. 29.

187

The Age emotions in

his

of Criticism

act of praising or blaming. Michele

special indebtedness to the demonstration

the second

book of

his

between poetry and Faustino

Summo

acknowledged

made by Ludovicus ,

history.

seconded both Michele and Zinano and

based poetic universality on the verisimilar and necessary. that poets and historians

and the other

Vives, in

Corruption of the Arts of the polarity existing

in prose

do not

differ

like

He

them

affirmed

because one composes in verses

but because the historian describes events

as

they really happened and the poet in the manner in which they should

have happened. So poetry

is

more philosophic than

history,

former being more concerned with universal and the particulars.

which

is

.

.

.

By

universal

suitable to each thing.”

we mean

latter

“the

with

only saying or doing that

With Zinano he proclaimed

that a poet

should invent his fable in order to achieve the proper universality

The

critical speculation in the sixteenth

between poetry and

28 .

century on the differences

history, although acquiring special impetus

from

was caused primarily by Aristotle’s prowas because of Aristotle that the differentiation involved the problem of universality and particularity. Castelvetro’s principal importance was in describing a type of universality based on the theories of Castelvetro,

nouncements, and

it

general significance of action rather than of stock character. 28

Summo,

Discorsi poetici, pp. 41-42.

13

The Grandeur

FEW

of Generality

would have

of the literary theorists of sixteenth-century Italy

disagreed with Paolo Beni

when he

said that the poet

the typical in presenting particulars to his readers

1 .

must emphasize

From

Aristotle as

well as from Plato they learned to believe that arts and sciences are

compilations of universal, so that knowledge applies only to univer-

humanly produced abstraction from particulars, but even nominalist philosophers found no value in particulars as such. Many of the writers of the late Renaissance were sal. In nominalist

theory a universal

is

a

aware of the necessity of giving the airy nothings of our minds

fully

“ a local habitation and a name”; but Beni this is

would have assumed

done by the invention of particulars that emphasize the

that

typical.

Robortelli spoke for his century when, in describing the similarity of

poetry and philosophy, he made use of dicta Platonists of

all

common among

the

time. Porphyry, he indicated, had called attention to

Plato’s belief that

one must be

silent

when

faced with particulars and

individual events, “for, since they are innumerable, there

is

no knowl-

edge of them.” And, Robortelli added, Ammonius, the interpreter of

Porphyry, said that philosophers can do nothing with

infinite

par-

knowledge must concern sempiternal fixities that remain the same state. The scientist, according to Robortelli, does not

ticulars, since

ever in

want to know about all horses but only about the species “horse,” which is general. Poetry, like philosophy or science, is a kind of discourse that does not concern particulars but universals all

of Robortelli’s contemporaries

'Beni, In Aristotelis poeticam mentarii, p. 281.

com-

were unwilling 3

2 .

Since almost

to think that poetry

Robortelli, In librum Aristotelis de

arte poetica explicationes, p. 91.

189

The Age

of Criticism

had nothing to do with knowledge, they were forced by the sequence of their

own

make

thinking to

less

than adequate

room

for the par-

ticularity of poetic effects. It

a

would seem

to follow

from

making poetry

Robortelli’s statement

kind of discourse concerning universal, not particulars, that the poet

should not “number the streaks of the tulip”; he should not descend to

an exact depiction of the particular. to infer

It

would be

a mistake,

from the weight of evidence already presented

however,

that

all

six-

teenth-century writers agreed with the idea Johnson was to express

two

from metaphysical problems of univer-

centuries later. In turning

sality

we

and particularity to rhetorical problems,

the land changes.

When

with the metaphysical poets for

was speaking

generality,” he

find that the lay of

Johnson, in the Life of Cowley, found fault failing to achieve “the

tradition that the Renaissance writers

grandeur of

and according to

in rhetorical terms

a

were largely instrumental in was

creating, but in the sixteenth century “the grandeur of generality”

an effect to be striven for by the creators of Virgilian epics and the phrase did not necessarily apply to other forms of poetry. Generality,

they indicated, belonged to sublime poetry and not necessarily to other aesthetic categories.

Pigna, in his treatise on romances (1554),

made some

concessions to

the need for details but revealed a taste for the sublime in poetry. said that “if the historian rejects lose gravity

how much more

ities.”

who

should the poet,

and not to truth, teach himself to avoid 3

But Pigna admitted that

oricians call enargeia,

The

it

particularities

do have

by means of which an

Latin language, he

said,

this

by nature

effects of the Italian

low language

was

a

and

as a result

a place in

orator describes a situation

has so

much

its reality.

majesty in

it

that

it.

But Pigna thought that the

because the Italians

as a

much

because

it

people loved amplitude

turned to the writing of romances in which there was

more concern with

detail

than in heroic poems.

language to be the hallmark of enargeia since evident and difficult things plain. Pigna, op.

poetry

effect that the rhet-

language were different, not so

as

particular-

kind of detailing, and in consequence the

chief Latin writers usually avoided

8

little

seems to be right before us and convinces us of

cannot well handle

it

looks to perfection

these very

all

on some occasions so that poetry can achieve the so that

He

minute circumstances in order not to

cit.,

190

pp. 50-51.

it

He found

figurative

makes occult things

Grandeur of Generality much the same thing, for much space on small details

he remarked that poets

Giraldi Cinthio said

should not spend

unworthy of

since these are

a heroic style.

He

or minute descriptions

Homer on

claimed that

occasion was guilty of overdetailing but Virgil never. His advice was to

follow Virgil years

4 .

This was the opposite of what Speroni was to say a few

later.

In notes that he

made

to an abstract of the

arguments in Castelvetro’s

Poetic a with the apparent intention of publishing a rejoinder

proper occasion should vetro to

mean

and the one claimed that attribute

arise,

that the poet

the

if

Tasso revealed that he interpreted Castel-

who

universalizes

who particularizes less dramatic. “Homer in particularizing paid

of poetry in general, that

to

is,

is

being more dramatic

In response, Tasso proattention to imitating.

.

.

what .

an

is

Virgil in

what is an attribute of epic poetry, that Tasso made clear here and elsewhere that his

universalizing paid attention to to the magnificent.”

is,

5

term “magnificent” should be equated with “the sublime.” Especially

noteworthy

in this

remark of Tasso’s

the recognition, so rarely re-

is

corded by other writers of the cinquecento, that the theory of poetry as imitation implied, in general, a

tion. Patrizi

considerable stress on particulariza-

argued that only in the sense of enargeia could Aristotle’s

theory of mimesis be taken seriously, and

if this

notion

is

coupled with

Pigna’s concessions to particularity for the sake of greater enargeia

,

it

becomes evident that the usual defender of Aristotle must have secretly held open a larger

room

for particularization in poetry than he took

the pains to describe.

The

identification of the nonspecific

development

with universality reached

in Alessandro Guarini at the

home

an argument in which certain chickens came logical vengeance. Guarini a

kind of poem.

Now

full

very end of the century in

was defending the

to roost

with

a

validity of the sonnet as

the critics of the sixteenth century were often

unable to account for the inclusion of lyric poetry within the category of poetry

if

poetry was imitation, for they recognized that even

speaker’s voice could be discerned in a sonnet such a

if

a

poem could not

very well hold the mirror up to a concrete world of any great complexity. Instead, the lyric poet usually

4

Giraldi Cinthio, “Discorsi intorno

comporre de p. 62.

i

al

romanzi,” in Discorsi,

See also Vida, Art of Poetry, ed.

made

by Albert

general statements even

S.

Cook (New York,

1924),

p. 89. 5

Tasso, Estratti della poetica del Ca-

stelvetro, in

Opere, XII,

364.

The Age

of Criticism

though he used highly concrete images

ornaments for

as

munications. Alessandro Guarini argued that the sonnet was a

poetry superior to heroic poetry and drama on the basis of concentration of general statements. That

is

poem must

He

tions fecundly

held that the

use thousands of verses to present a single action to

“whereas the sonnet with

us,

this greater

to say that he thought of

general statement, not unplausibly, as universality. epic

comform of

his

its

very small number vaunts

and more philosophically, and

this

all its

ac-

means with greater

nobility, since it deals with them more generally; indeed, you must remember, Signori accademici, that Aristotle wrote in his Poetics that poetry is a more philosophic thing than history, since history is aimed at particulars

heroic

poem

and poetry

at universal;

and what

we

have said about the

should also be said about both tragedy and comedy, to

which the sonnet is not was clearly based on a

at all inferior in dignity.” 6 Guarini’s

taste for the

argument

“grandeur of generality,” but by

disregarding the necessity of imitating a particular world he was led to

an unattached meaning for universality that failed to discriminate

between poetry and kinds of writing more obviously making use of general statements.

Guarini attempted to establish

orthodox Aristotelian doctrine, planations

would

his thesis

as if the

justify the unusual.

by surrounding

it

with more

propinquity of the usual ex-

But he

also

extended the usual

idea of poetic imitation so that he could think of imitation in lyric

poetry

as the imitation

of passions and not of actions.

He made

a special

point of refuting an assertion that a writer describing passions was a

purveyor of

historical truth,

not of poetic universality.

the Philosopher, having stated in his Poetics that

it

is

He

said:

not the

“For office

of the poet to recount things that have actually happened but those that could

happen

verisimilarly,

added

it is

to be granted that

if

some-

is not kept from some accidents to happen in reality in quite the same way in which they would be verisimilarly feigned by poets, whose office therefore is to treat them in their own

one undertakes to write about true happenings he

being a poet, since

it

is

possible for

fashion.” If a historian needs to portray a pitiable story, he should

narrate

it

simply and in a historian’s manner.

The

poet should, to the

contrary, pay particular attention to his ordering, ornamentation, diction,

and manner.

And

Guarini added that

if

a distinction of this kind

could be made between a historian and a tragic poet, 6

A. Guarini, op. 192

cit.,

I,

344.

it

could also

Grandeur of Generality made between narrate some fact be

action that

with it

figures,

with

way

and

a lyric poet: if a lyric

that had really

true,

is

in such a

a historian

he should do

poet “were to

happened or were to celebrate some it

with ornament of

artful arrangement,

his

own

kind,

and in short would transform

own form it would no longer seem verisimilar fable.” The conclusion then should

that in losing

to be a true thing but a

its

be that the poet “expresses for us true passions of the mind and

them not

describes

precisely as they are experienced or felt but as

verisimilar that an extraordinarily impassioned

it is

mind would experience

7

or feel them.”

Presumably Guarini did not notice a defense of lyric

his inconsistency in shifting

poetry based upon the sublime generality of

actions to a defense of

it

its

from ideal

based upon the universality of verisimilar

passions in parallelism with verisimilar actions. Less clearly than with

Pigna, Giraldi Cinthio, and Tasso can his appreciation of the nobility

of general statement be called merely a matter of style, for he connected his talk If

we

about universality too closely with Aristotle’s phrases.

Speroni between

we

made by Sperone

turn time back to look at the comparisons

Homer and

Virgil,

we

find ideas similar to those

have already encountered in Pigna and Tasso. But where these

writers had only brief

comments

to make, Speroni mulled the matter

over at length and on several occasions. Speroni’s dialogues on Virgil, several drafts or fragments of w~hich 1580,

were products of

his old age,

satisfactory completion. In his later

were written between 1563 and and none was ever brought to Speroni was more garrulous

life,

than trenchant, but up to the time of his death at 88, his flinty mind constantly struck sparks. Although his dialogues on Virgil, like his dialogues on history, are a wild disorder of inconsistent ideas, and

easy to be impatient with the old man, his suggest the

existence of large

islands

sallies

and

it is

tentative probings

or subcontinents

of

critical

doctrine of his time never entirely mapped. Speroni’s distinctions between history and poetry rested that the historian should state his action briefly, in

form, whereas the poet should be considered either action

—that

summary

of

is,

as the presenter

—or

it

as the

ments for the action. In derivative of rhetorical 7

Ibid.,

of the action

on the

summary

belief

narrative

as the imitator of

itself

and not

an

a brief

maker of concrete adornments and embellishwith this distinction, which is primarily a theory even though it owes much to the

line

pp. 348-353.

i93

The Age

of Criticism

Aristotelian theorv of poetry as imitation, Speroni felt forced to con-

Homer, was primarily a historian, whole campaign of Aeneas method of stating his action briefly, in summary

clude that Virgil, in comparison with

both because he took for

and because

in Italy

his

his action the

should be considered historical rather than poetic.

narrative form,

Poetic qualities are those that

come from amplitude

8 .

Speroni’s indiscriminate confusion of amplitude considered as

It is

imitation of concrete actions with amplitude considered as floridity of

ornamentation that

but the confusion apparently bothered Speroni he

properly copious with things (that

said, are

modem

mind,

Homer and

Ovid,

particularly disconcerting to the

is

little. is,

with the

copious only with words

tion imitated), but Virgil

is

master at creating beautiful

lines,

9 .

details of ac-

Virgil

is

the

but he did not construct a good action

and presented brief and sententious orations, “showing in that more of the historian than of the poet,

whose function

avoid brevity of utterance, because breyity allegria as

is

Speroni

full

of floridity and

10 .

“In short,

said:

not

to delight.” Poets

but does not imitate either

prolixity. Virgil narrates well

wars or fortunes well

is

it is

I

haye considered that the orations and

narrations of Virgil and his poetic descriptions are very noble, but he

does not imitate as he should, nor

is

he florid and ornate

as

he ought

more like a historian than a poet. He was studious of with which the poet should not be concerned if he wishes to

and he

to be;

brevity,

is

delight his readers, because breyity cannot be ornate and consequently

not delightful.

is

If

ornamentation demands amplification, with which

breyity cannot coexist, brevity cannot coexist with ornamentation,

which

is all

superabundance, and brevity

much

sary or as

rather than more. This

derives the notion that a

it

is

poem ought

is

a

rather less than the neces-

most notable

to

fact,

and from

be of only one action, not

only because an imitation ought to have only one thing imitated but also because, if

a

poem

poetry consists of redundant and superfluous ornament,

should have to

grow

more than one make his poem

to infinite size

were the poet

to undertake

to imitate

action poetically and provided that he should

want

perfect. Therefore, even in that aspect that

to

pedants praise, he [Virgil] merits blame, that

poem 8

in

making one

out of material comprising the Iliad and the Odyssey.

Speroni, “Dialogi sopra Virgilio,” in

Opere,

is,

II,

e

"Ibid., p. 435*

194

The poet

Speroni, “Sopra Virgilio,” in Opere,

IV, 574.

201.

single

Grandeur of Generality cannot do that and

ornament and amplify

it.

So the Virgilian

11

is

very beautiful but not poetic.”

is

carrying premises derived from Aristotle's theory of poetrv

brevity'

This

still

Our problem

as imitation to their full final implications.

in

compre-

hending their ultimate meaning can come in large measure bv attribut-

which they were written (after 1560) two decades earlier when the ideas contained in Aristotle’s Poetics impinged suddenly upon a theory' of poetry worked up out of findings in rhetorical texts. Speroni (with Tomitano) was ing these words to the time in

and not to

a time

the culminator of the fifteenth-century Humanists’ drift toward defin-

ing poetry as

eloquence.

Tomitano most

fully

defined

poetry

as

eloquence, using Speroni as his spokesman, but Speroni himself was the

writer

who most

elaborated the connection between eloquence and

the particularity of ornament.

expressing in the

with

his ideas

The

sixties, seventies,

ideas that Speroni got

and

eighties

about poetrv that were

less

around to

were not inconsistent

developed in

his dialogues

of 1540 and in Tomitano’s Ragionamenti of 1545, even respecting their

And

use of Aristotelian theorems.

important to realize that in an

it is

age of Virgil worshipers (and Speroni was one also) Speroni could nevertheless hold out for a concept of poetrv based

of detail rather than

upon

Homer and

Capriano, likewise a Virgil lover, had

is

a superfluous

that Virgil's restraint

a

is

better blending of nature and art. 12

Capriano, and Tasso was like that of

contained the richness of his

the fullness

the “grandeur of generality” of Pigna,

Giraldi Cinthio, and Tasso.

claimed in 1555 that there

upon

moment

exuberance of nature

more

tasteful

The stance of Xeo classicism;

compromise, Pigna,

in

a

Giraldi,

that of Speroni

in time, rather than, as Toftanin

used to maintain, looked ahead to the marinists and the metaphysicals. 13

Homer

delights us as he should,

Speroni

said,

by adorning and

amplifying his material, and

his poetry abounds with epithets. V irgil, on the other hand, delights with the depiction of marvels. The effects of Homer’s kind of writing are delight, joy, and hilarity'; of Virgil's

kind, stupor and melancholy

n Ibid.,

—

effects

Paduan rhetoric its own place We must be mindful that it was’ in an attack upon a metaphysical poet (Cowley) that Johnson made his most spirited defense of “the grandeur at giving

p. 439.

“Capriano, op.

belonging to the historian and

cit., sig.

“Giuseppe Toffanin,

11

C3V. cinquecento

(Milano, 1950), pp. m-112. I do not mean to deny here a connection between the spirit of Speroni and that of the seventeenth century;

I

in history.

of generality”

aim instead 195

The Age

of Criticism

not to the poet, for the effect of history comes from the thing

from

rather than

itself

ornamentation. Speroni compared the effect of

its

Virgil’s poetry to that of the

Colosseum or the pyramids and likened

Homer’s poetry

to that of the Corinthian style of archi-

the effect of

tecture or to the beauty of the

He

Laocoon

statue or the Apollo Belvedere.

which

explained that the grandeur of the Colosseum,

rough

stones,

objected,

is

can be admired without ornament. All of

more

made of can be

interesting than ultimately satisfying, and Speroni

must have realized that

here were inconclusive, for he

his speculations

added: “I do not deny that the marvelous

way

is

this, it

than the florid object

delightful, but in another

is

Brevity in Virgil, he

is.”

overwhelms

felt,

so

his

theory

the reader that he cannot feel happiness.

The

dire schism

between Speroni’s

his

concluding:

“Surely

this

perhaps

less

in

Homer’s], but style

it

is

taste

work

of

poetic.” Virgil he

He

but not in invention and disposition.

orator

who was very good

in proving, if

the other

Can we

two

it

is

moving or

at

supposed proving

is

at

and

Virgil’s

is

“as

seen

is

greater

is

[than

found noblest

would be

in

also an

portraying character but not

demanded by the

art

and

are outside the art.”

say,

Speroni asked, that in Virgil an Asiatic style of poetry

supplanted the Attic style of Homer, comparable to what happened in oratory? His speculation was that “just as the Asiatics quite outside of art

and proof proliferated in matters pertaining to movement, to figures

of speech, and to the character left aside the imitation

traits

of the speaker, so the Asiatic poet

of the fable, which

is

the soul of a poem, and

gave himself over to imitating things extra fabulam, which things he

however, imitate well and exactly.

did,

paints

shall give

I

an example: Titian

and has neither invention nor principal fable in

nevertheless, in his figures and images imitates very well, as

when

which

his painting;

are extra fabulam he

he creates a resemblance between a char-

acter and a particular person; and in the persons introduced without real cause into his paintings

face,

he will imitate very well a foot, a

leg, a

an emotion, or a movement. But such things do not pertain to

the fable of the picture. also.” 14

And

it

is

perhaps true that Virgil did

this

Probably Speroni meant by the fablelessness of Titian’s paint-

ing the lack of overriding meanings rather than pictorial composition.

His analogy was

at

best an insecure

one,

however

Speroni’s whole analysis of the difference between 14

Speroni, “Sopra Virgilio,” in

196

Opere IV, ,

574.

revealing.

Homer and

But

Virgil

Grandeur of Generality was expressive rather than definitive. His diction throughout was cautionary, full of words like “perhaps” and “it-may-be-that.” He said also that in Virgil the verses,

which constituted

his

over the truly poetic element in the Aeneid, in that gilt paint

of

might cover up the defects of

Homer “whose

poem but

verses

major

much

a statue.

effort,

cover

the same

This

way

not true

is

do not seem to be mere ornamentation of

to be naturally

born and developed with

it.”

his

15

Castelvetro said several things in line with the ideas of Speroni in the course of classifying kinds of narrative.

could be divided into two

classes,

He

said that narratives

universalized and particularized.

Universalized narrative deals with classes of beings, with species, or

with wholes; particularized narratives give us individuals or examples, he stated that the Aeneid

is

units.

a generalized narrative,

the Iliad and Odyssey are particularized ones.

The

As and

special effects of

universalized narrative, Castelvetro held, are grandeur and magnifi-

cence, and defects can easily be hidden in this kind of narrative. Particularized narrative

discerned in indistinct

it.

is

low and humble, and defects can

be

easily

Universalized narrative can be compared to small and

painting.

While bad

painters should

recognize their in-

adequacies and paint small, great painters such as Michelangelo paint larger than life size. Consequently,

proof of

his

Homer’s particularized narrative

is

great genius. Virgil, to the contrary, hid himself in

which he could produce with less labor 16 The following passage from Castelvetro likewise parallels passages in Speroni: “For since the poet imitates more fully in narrating the

the universalized form

.

particularized material of the action than the universalized, that only the particularized material of the action trast

is

it

follows

imitable, in con-

to the universalized, which can be said to be nonimitable. For

these reasons

it

seems

we

can conclude that Homer,

who

often intro-

duces characters speaking and attributes long speeches to them and

consequently uses the particularized material of the action,

and consequently

a

is

an imitator

poet but that Virgil, in rarely introducing speaking

by assigning, much more than Homer, only brief speeches them and by using material of action that is universalized, is not

characters or to

an imitator and consequently not a poet.” It is

17

with these ideas of Speroni and Castelvetro in mind that

we

should turn to the sixty-ninth chapter of the third book of Jacopo ™lbid., pp. 575-578. M Bongiorno, op. cit., pp. 100- 101.

17

Castelvetro, Poetica d’Aristotele, p.

545.

197

The Age

of Criticism

Mazzoni’s Della difesa della Comedia di Dante (1587), for the three put together, even though they do not very closely agree, give us insight into

one of the important aspects of literary speculation

in the

Renaissance. Like Speroni, Mazzoni culled from the classical rhetorical tradition the necessary distinctions

between the summary brevity of

oratory and the particularization to be expected in poetry. This distinction he introduced as part of a discussion of the differences

between

Attic and Asiatic oratorical styles in antiquity. Mazzoni held that by

manipulating

many on

we

this polarity in oratorical styles

can come to resolve

confusions that exist in poetic theory. For the source of his ideas

this score

made

he

specific reference to the Epistles of Pliny the

Younger.

The

Attic orator, Mazzoni said, considers vain and redundant the

largess

and expansiveness of the Asiatic orator. The

Asiatics, to the

contrary, are particularly concerned that an expression be carried

“with

live

force into the

memory

home

which cannot be done with-

of men,”

out lingering upon the exposition of a concept. But the important tinction for

Mazzoni was whether

a

writer or speaker wished to

he wanted to act

function as orator or as poet.

If

follow the rules of

they were

his trade as

dis-

laid

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, according to

as orator,

he should

down by Longinus

whom

or by

the four virtues of

oratory were clarity, magnificence, brevity, and probability (a simplification of the seven virtues or Ideas of

Hermogenes), so that

oratorical narration the Attic style should be

But Mazzoni maintained that brevity has place of brevity is

less

place in poetry: “But in

[poetry] should possess another virtue

it

in

generally preferable.

perhaps entirely contrary to brevity. This virtue

is

— one which

particularization,

by means of which

the poet should reveal and explain his concept

minutely, since in this

way

resemblance to

One

difference

of nomenclature.

he will put

his stress

on imitating and bearing

that he has occasion to deal with.”

all

is

clear

To

18

between Mazzoni’s and Speroni’s distribution

Speroni, Virgil

was an

Asiatic poet because he

indulged in elaborate attention to ornamental detail that was irrelevant or even inimical to successful imitation of an action, and

an Atticist because

his particularizations

were those needed

the imitation of an action. According to Mazzoni, in the Asiatic

all

to express

poets use language

manner, for they must not be frugal with particulars

they are to achieve imitations of concrete 18

Homer was

Mazzoni, Della

difesa,

I,

971-974.

reality,

if

or at least of universal

Grandeur of Generality terms of concrete actions. Mazzoni nowhere speaks of the

reality in

“grandeur of generality.”

He

however, face

did,

at considerable length

by

the question of whether or not narration (conducted

narrator) in an epic

poem could be properly

being especially important in this connection because

thought of

as

the poet as

called imitation, the point if

imitation

were

applying only to stage presentations the need for par-

poetry would apply only to the presence of the actors on

ticulars in

the stage, to details of stage effects, and not necessarily to the poetry.

This particular argument has most pertinence to Mazzoni’s theories of imitation and less to his ideas about universal and particulars.

need say only that he reviewed

between

icastic

and fantastic imitation and engaged

on an assemblage of

citations

from both Plato and

the kinds and degrees of imitation. reality,

making of

much charged with Some of the deeper as

Mazzoni’s

the imagined image of concrete

It is

(even though not untraditional)

Mazzoni believed that poetry should be

he had to dispose of the notion that an existing,

poet entirely turns

away from

Let us say

way

that,

“Now

any true exemplar,

it

since the fantastic

although previously in the beginning of the third that the idol

is

idols bear relations to

can be,

the idol of

seems that the fantastic poet

without any correspondence to

now

we must know

(as

it

seems Plato be-

some true exemplar, the

poet forms idols and simulacra of the truth. this

this position,

which is the imitation of which does not exist; that

representing an idol of the true in the

exemplary truth, nevertheless, supposing all

fantastic imitation

defend

represent the idol and the simulacrum of the true.

book we have proved lieved) that

direct explana-

idol,

cannot be of a fantasy,

that has already been shown. So

cannot in any

how

To

presupposes an exemplar in the true world:

the fantastic poet does not have

way

more

And

in order to

this

is

when

the facts about this or that

the kind of truth about

fantastic

understand

that truth can be considered (as the

logicians say) either in the concrete or in the abstract. It

the concrete

of his

and of the nature of poetic

rather than a portrait of real-life happenings.

it

aspects

theory are better revealed here in relation to

critical

something

His imitation

these idols or images, and the narrative poet

doctrine of particulars and universal than in his

is,

a poet.

this task as the dramatic.

tions of the place of imagination in poetry

imitation.

in close reasoning

Aristotle concerning

according to Mazzoni, that makes the poet

consists in the is

Here we

his interpretations of Plato’s distinctions

which the

man

icastic

is

taken in

are considered.

poet makes 199

idols.

And The

The Age

of Criticism

other kind of truth taken in the abstract the deed of this or that

And

man but

is

found when

kind of truth the idol of which

this is that

we

consider not

the nature of vice and virtue in

made by

is

itself.

the fantastic

19

poet.”

In spite of the unusualness of Mazzoni’s analysis for his time, nothing

could be plainer than

from

The

this as a justification of the liberation of the

poet

actual fact provided that he remain true to general concepts.

between Mazzoni and Tasso

chief difference

Mazzoni’s greater character. It

Taking

hero.

stress

on

hints

to be found in

universality of action rather than static

the vice or virtue that

is

is

not the image of the

static,

is

from Dion Chrysostom

20 ,

Mazzoni outlined

a

con-

cept of universalized action based upon poetic justice with citations of the case of Pandarus the perjurer dying

wound

and the glutton Antinoos by a

member

reason that

we

have

how

it

that

is

we

it

according to

in the gullet, “since

in the abstract,

that resembles the truth of

poetics and history at the place

history recounts things as they .

tongue

And

here

it

forms

in the con-

in the abstract.

.

.

.

can understand the difference that Aristotle wished to

make between to be done.

in the

he [the fantastic poet], paying attention to the nature

crete an idol of this

wound

a

peccant ought to be punished.

and the due punishment of that vice

From

by

.

.

And

thus

it

where he

were done and the poetic

can be seen

how

as

affirms that

they ought

the fantastic poet repre-

what is true universally.” 21 But although Mazzoni took full account of

sents the idol of

his reasonings, the

by

backbone of

the classical rhetoricians.

owes

Few

Mazzoni the

strated better than

to the rhetoricians, even

Aristotle and Plato in

was provided for him theorists have ever demon-

his explanation

literary

modern

poetic theory

their statements

about poetry

real debt that

though

have to be pieced and patched together from snippets did

it.

It is

just as

Mazzoni

necessary to return to the rhetorical concept of enargeia

for Mazzoni’s further elaboration of the need for particularization in

poetry. His argument again runs that

if

narrative poetry

is

imitation

by particularization. “The final reason,” Mazzoni said, “by means of which we can conclude that poetic recounting is imitation is based on particularization, which is in our judgment the proper instrument for the poetic. And by virtue of this instrument the poet

it is

19

20

imitation

by

Ibid., p. 684.

Dionis

Vrusaensis

Chrysostomum quae 200

quern

vocant

extant omnia

,

ed.

21

de Arnim (Berlin, 1896), II, 121. Mazzoni, Della difesa, I, 685-686.

J.

Grandeur of Generality ought to explicate minutely and represent distinctly that he undertakes to treat before our eyes.”

important though minor rhetoricians

all

the things

Mazzoni turned

to such

Aquila and Rutilius for the

as

partitioning of the principle of enargeia into

its

subclasses 22 while ,

basing his understanding of enargeia generally on Hermogenes. varieties

of enargeia are

The

and merismos.

char act erismos

diatyposis ,

Aquila made diatyposis apply to the external appearance and discernible objective characteristics and habits of the personae of a story, but

Mazzoni wished to extend the principle of particularization involved to the surrounding scene as well. Characterismos, according to Rutilius, applies to the manifestation of internal traits of character. Rutilius said:

“Just as a painter describes figures with colors, so the orator in this

manner

figures forth either the vices or the virtues of those of

he speaks.” Merismos

is

a

whom

formal description in which partitively

all

But

al-

aspects of a situation are given their unique characteristics.

though these three figures of thought had been defined for the orator’s use,

Mazzoni was at pains to show that according to Hermogenes the which comprises them all constitutes poetic imitation (*ai to

enargeia

/xeyt (jtov 7roL7]cr€0) 444

277-

274-275,

284, 285, 299, 401, 413, 425-428

Bacon, Sir Francis, 5, 303, 315, 361 Bacon, Roger, 422 Baker, Courtland D., 421-424

34 1

305, 307, 332,

364, 369 373 > 37 8 Francesco, 55-58, 65, 79-80,

342 , 347 355 * 358 :

294

206, 256 119,

168, 304,

Basil,

254 Batteux, Charles, 248 Battista, Giuseppe, 220

Beauty, 141, 152, 194, 317, 326, 341-348, 407, 432 Bees and silkworms, 449-451 Being, 440 Bellini, Giovanni, 106

Bembo,

Pietro, 92-93, 96, 325, 342, 350 Beni, Paolo, 7, 12, 20-24, 26, 29, 65, 80, 84-85, 88, 91, 104, 111-117, 132, 134, 136-137, 146-147, 155-158, 164, 185-186,

Caietano, see Gaietanus Camillo, Giulio (Delminio), 168 Campana, Francesco, 210

Campanella, Tommaso, 6, 307, 343 Campbell, L. B., 214 Canace and Macareo, 233 Canzoni, 27, 59, no-in Capponi, Orazio, 54, 78, 424 Capriano, G. P., 34-35, 70-71, 82,

284-290,

Cary, Henry, 372, 379

298-299, 401, 413, 428-430, 437, 458-459 Bergson, Henri, 281

Cassiodorus, 378 Castelvetro, Ludovico,

189,

244,

Bernard,

258,

281,

274-275,

Bernard of Chartres, 361

142,

209,

210,

299,

402, 423

Blackmore, Sir Richard, 59 Blank verse, 92, no Boccaccio, Giovanni, 45, 89-90, 97, 101, 104,

1

93, 95,

16, 180, 209, 259, 261, 269,

368 Boccalini, Traiano, 459 Bocchi, Francesco, 453-455 Bodin, Jean, 147

Body,

181,

148,

235, 351, 412, 450

Brevity, 196, 198, 202

,

464

*

*

167,

177-188,

*

Cataphoric ecstasy, 386

88,

92,

traits, 134, 136,

146,

11,

108, 230, 233, 300

Cavalcanti, Guido, 98-99, 345 Celestial spheres, 407

Chaldeans, 418 Character, 148, 200; 156,

Brocardo, Antonio, 231 Brooks, Cleanth, 130 Browning, Robert, 41 Bruno, Giordano, 6, 18-19, 3°7> 43 8 441, 455 456 *

157,

154,

219-220, 234, 236, 242, 244, 247, 274, 277-282, 288, 306, 349, 350“ 2 o353 355 376* 4 01 * 4 II 4 I 3 * 4 * 7 4 426, 429, 448-451 Castravilla, Ridolfo, 356 Cataleptic fantasy, 364 207,

Catullus, 122, 376 Cavalcanti, Bartolommeo,

*

72,

146-150,

197,

205-300 Catholic Church, 408 Cato, 59

Boethius, 29, 53, 90, 95 Bonciani, Francesco, 88, 97-98, 259, 294, 2 99 394 38,

37-

Catharsis,

312, 343, 345, 363, 415, 426

Bongiorno, Andrew,

11, 16, 18-19,

43, 52, 67, 71, 73, 75, 78, 82-83, 85-90, 95-104, 107-109, 1 1 3, 122, 131-132, 141-

St., 17

Bernays, Jacob, 256 Berni, Francesco, 27 Beroaldo, Filippo, 122,

132,

138-139, 147, 161, 195, 300, 402, 405 Caro, Annibale, 106

275

Characterismos, 122, 201 153, 446 Charlton, H. B., 18-19, 132, 150, 235-236 Charron, Pierre, 388 Chimeras, 393

Charlemagne,

hid ex Christian influences, 21, 55, 153, 156, 208, 209, 220, 223, 235, 242, 263, 272, 335, " . . 373 . 382, 399 4QL 4 l6 , 4 21

343 347 430, 432, 434, 436-437. 44°

Chrysippas, 366-367 Fathers, 421 Cicero, 6, 7, 31-32, 4 °. 53

Demons, 68, 7 2 " 73 .

.

79

.

16, 122, 13

266-267, 271, 285, 332, 364,

261,

375, 402, 410, 417 Civil faculty, 265

1

8,

137,

135,

13,

262-265,

255,

35, 40, 60,

30,

27,

180,

173,

278,

2 73.

97,

in,

185, 245, 249,

280,

282,

285,

287, 289-295, 298-299, 434; in prose, 88, 90, 94,

Common

105-106,

no-in,

sense, 319,

1

14 327-328, 332, 335,

340 Conceits, poetic, 360, 368-370, 376-377 Concreteness, 4, 12, 36, 53, 117

Concrete universal, 13 1, 337 Contemplation, 79, 347 Cook, Albert S., 19 Copernican universe, 436 Corneille, Pierre, 236, 275, 285, 288, 300

Corybantes, 286, 418 Cosimo de’ Medici, 335 Council of Trent, 408, 436, 447

Counter Reform,

325-326, 376-377, 382, 384, 416

Dennis, John, 446 Denores, Jason, 80, 107, 109, 155, 157, 244-246, 268,

207,

170,

298 Descartes,

Rene,

273,

275,

306-307,

303-304,

5,

294,

312, 388

Clairvoyance, 325, 384 Cogitative faculty, 320, 340 Coleridge, S. T., 348, 360, 388, 391, 395396 Columella, 68 Comanino, Don Gregorio, 394

Comedy,

410, 415, 417,

Demosthenes, 90

1, 145, 174, 205, 93, 101, 108, 209, 214, 220, 226, 229, 230, 238, 240,

255,

182, 202

419-420

Church

1

Demetrius Phalereus, 122, Demigorgons, 384 Democritus, 104, 381, 406,

223, 307, 408, 436, 447

Cremonini, Cesare, 108 Croce, Benedetto, 88, 206, 218 Cyprian, 106

Description, 28, 81,

202;

imitation,

as

121

Dewey, John, Dialectic,

8,

Dialogues,

396 184

12,

31, 61, 68, 88, 90, 93, 95,

97-103, 105, 108, no, Diatyposis, 122, 201

1

13,

1

16,

403

Dilthey, Wilhelm, 209, 214

Diodorus Siculus, Diogenes Laertius, Dion Chrysostom,

12

367, 378, 451 200, 260, 429

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 89-90,

112,

198

Dionysius the Areopagite, 263, 286, 394, 395-396

Dithyrambic, 60, 63,

10,

37,

44, 49,

51-52, 55,

430

Dolce, Ludovico, 69-70, 82, 409 Donatus, 5, 7, 433 Dramatic poetry, 15, 23-64, 95, 118, 191r 9 2 199 438 .

.

Dreams,

119, 324-325, 332, 337, 340, 350,

-

355 359

.

368, 370, 375-389

Dryden, John, hi, 220, 223, DuBos, J. B., 16, 248, 295

Duns

275, 282

Scotus, 163, 307, 385

Eclogues,

Dance, imitation

in,

44,

56

27, 62 Ecstasy, 325, 347, 369, 386, 416

Daniello, Bernardino, 211

Effigy, 14, 16, 68, 353, 395

Dante,

Egyptians, 418

27, 29, 66-67, 74-76, 80, 85-86, 92,

97, 121, 123, 125, 209, 223, 224, 255, 303, 307 . 335 . 347 . 350 . 35 2 . 355 ~ 3 8 9 . 4° 2 .

4 2 4 435 45 2 David, 286, 294, 429, 430 Da Vinci, Leonardo, 27 .

.

Decorum,

115,

1

3 1,

135, 152, 233

Dejob, Charles, 408

De

Barba, Pompeo, 342-344 Delight, 141, 156, 181, 194-195, 231, 254, 257 2 96, 298. 333 337 443 Della Casa, Giovanni, 108, 254, 256, 259, la

.

2 94 .

.

347

.

.

45 2 -454

Della Volpe, Galvano, 218, 224, 432

Eikonopoioi 20 ,

Elegies, 27, 35, 53, 59, 92 Eliot, T. S., 4

Elledge, Scott, 333

Eloquence, 67-68, 195, Else, Gerald F., 256 Empedocles, 17-18, 20, 93,

316, 331, 435, 442 62, 65-80, 84, 89,

10 1 , 181, 387, 427

Empusas, 384 Enargeia, 10-n, 15-16,

18, 20, 22, 25, 29-

3°, 57-58, 63, 84, 121-122,

1

3 1,

134, 183,

190-191, 200, 202, 297, 332, 352, 358

Enchantments, 350

465

Index Entertainment, poetry as, 125 Enthusiasm, 286, 294, 416-417, 420, 422, 4 2 5> 4 2 9 Ephesius, see Michael of Ephesus Ephraltes, 384 Epic poetry, 10, 15, 27-31, 35, 42, 50-51, 60, 84, 89,

95,97,111,

152,

173,

154,

180,

1

14,

185,

1

16, 137, 144,

190-191,

199,

262-263, 280, 282, 293, 299, 391, 394, 423, 438, 441, 450

Epictetus, 364-365 Epicureans, 260-261, 381-382

Epigram, 59, 62, no, 450 Episodes, 179 Epithalamion, 62 Equicola, Mario, 147, 213, 402, 434-436 Erastus, 116

Floridity, 194 Florio, John, 427 Formalists, 244, 355

Fracastoro, Girolamo, 304,

315-329,

306,

18, 68,

72-73, 79,

335-336,

341,

Frachetta, Girolamo, 88, 98, 345-346 Frenzy, 325, 332 Freud, Sigmund, 207, 219, 228-229, 325, 357, 377, 39b Fulgentius, 367, 370 Furor, 286, 326, 398-459

Fusco, Antonio, 18 Gabriele, Trifon, 70, 160 Gaietanus Thienensis, 336, 338 Gale, Thomas, 264

Erizzo, Sebastiano, 409 Etherial vehicle, 363

Galen, 306, 340, 362-363, 387, 418

Ethos, 264-273

Garin, Eugenio, 425

Euripides, 422 Eustathius, 91, 381 Eustratius, 168 Evangelists, 395 Evidentia, see Enargeia

Gelli,

Example, 138, 142, 144-158, 199, 276-278, 283; proof by, 68, 147, 323

Exemplum,

28 Exercise, 451

Experience, 165, 228, 338 Expression, 86 Expressionism, 3 Expressive poems, 40 Fable, 10, 12, 16, 19, 32-33, 42, 45, 47-48, 56-58, 72, 74, 92, 97, 115-116, 139, 149, 160,

175,

183,

193,

196, 249, 257, 296,

298, 382; false speech as, 84 Fables, 75, 172, 314, 386, 457 Fancy, 350-351, 391-392, 395 Fantastic imitation, 14-16, 24-25, 34, 51, 77, 1 18, 120-125, l 7 *99> 202, 350-351,

^

359,

363, 381, 404-406

Galileo,

307

6,

Giovan

Battista,

335-339, 341

Generality, 333 Genii, 384 Genius, 326, 409, 414-415, 4*9, 4 2 4, 4 2 8, 430, 438, 443-454, 458-459

Genova, Marc Antonio,

32-33,

Genres, 62, 137, 438 Giacomini, Lorenzo,

103,

88,

331

244,

246,

251-261, 269, 299, 451 Gilbert, Allan H., 24, 88, 211, 226-227, 271, 327, 394-395, 401 Gildon, Charles, 446

Giojosi dances, 27 Giotto, 149 Giraldi Cinthio, G. 106,

108,

292,

353, 444-445

132,

B.,

191,

n,

193,

19, 88, 92-93,

196, 201,

212,

Giusquino, 106 Gladitorial games, 233, 245, 248-249, 269 God, 344; as imitator, 21; as magnet,

beauty of, 431-432; dreams created by, 325; grace of, 421, 424; ir-

422;

353, 390-39 1 , 395 Fantastics, 332

radiations from, 322; light from, 378;

Fantasy, 78, 120, 123-124, 199, 249-250, 302-396, 435 Farquhar, George, 446 Festus, 285

of, 322;

Ficino, Marsilio, 306, 343, 346, 401-402, 407, 424-425, 43i, 434 Figures, 368

Finder, poet Fine art, 4 First fantasy,

as,

176

323

Flaminio, M. Antonio, 325 Florentine Academy, 335, 339, 342, 451

466

nature imitates, 440; our knowledge Providence of, 383; reason of, 214; revealed in nature, 444

Gonzaga, Scipione, 150-151 Gorgias, 201

Grammar,

325

Grandeur,

152, 189-202

Gualandi, Adouardo, 103 Guarini, Alessandro, 19-20, 58-60, 132191, 192, 452 Guarini, G. B., 54-55, 59, 106, 108, 235,

244,

246,

259,

263, 265,

277-278, 288, 294, 299

268-273, 275,

Index Guastavini, Giulio, 132, 176, 306, 393 Gudeman, Alfred, 88, 401 Guidiccioni, Giovanni, 346 Gulick, C. B., 216

277-278,

273,

283,

294,

299,

325-326,

4~5

Humors,

258,

253,

268,

264,

259,

269,

325, 418, 425-426, 432

Hymns,

62, 277 Hypocritics, 184

Habit, 380, 451, 455 Hallucination, 358, 366, 384

Hypotyposis, 20

Harmony,

Iamblichus, 258, 264, 277, 280, 287, 347,

91

Harvey, Sir Paul, 309 Harvey, William, 306

42 7 Icastic imitation, 14-16, 24-25, 34, 51, 77, 1 18, 123, 199, 200, 202, 350-353, 390-

Hathaway, Baxter, 220, 223, 252 Hebrews, 285, 418, 430 Hegel, Georg W. F., 6, 206, 337 Heightened reality, 144- 145

39 1 395 Icons, 13, 353 Idea, 138-139, 142, 144-145, 148, 150-151, ,

Heinsius, Daniel, 220 Heliodorus, 90, 116

157-158,

Gandavo, see Henry of

Henricus a

Ghent Henry of Ghent,

Idol,

366 Heraclides Ponticus, 73, 429 Heraclitus, 417 Hermes Trismegistus, 285

Hermogenes,

10,

112, 12

Herodotus, 90, 183 Heroic poetry, 27, 156,

190,

249,

192, 262, 292, 392, 396,

15

1,

434

96

120,

395 Hippocrates, 262, 340 History: and poetry, 16, 17, 22, 24, 33, 43, 45, 50, 60, 62-63, 90, 93, 109-110, 1 13, 122-124, 129-202, 219, 273, 295; 1, 178, 182; characters from, 392; in fable, 390; in poetry, 396 Homeopathy, 210, 222, 253-254, 259,

art of, 13

261-264, 270, 277-278, 294

Homer,

10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 24, 27, 29, 38,

42, 46, 55, 66, 70, 73, 89, 90, 93, 101, ii2, 113, 121, 135, 146, 150, 152, 154, i55» *5 6 » *7°. J 74, i9*» i93> 195* i97> 199, 201, 217, 275, 353, 381, 394, 415,

4 r 7» 4i9. 4M, 435, 44i, 452, 455, 457

Horace,

5, 6, 13, 16, 55, 70,

72-73, 79, 91, 153, 174, 205,

101, 122, 13 1, 135, 212, 226, 266, 267, 332, 376, 382, 393, 402, 409, 410, 415, 419, 426, 429, 433, 444, 447, 448, 450, 45i Housman, A. E., 238

98,

Hudson,

W.

Humanists,

198,

185,

322,

342,

44-48,

25,

51,

77-78,

72,

18-

1

14,

16, 47,

321,

330,

121-122, 199, 201-202,

336-339,

332,

343-344,

353; 375, 390 Imagination, 11-12, 57, 63, 85, 199, 301-

396 92, 98, 115-116,

22, 70, 72, 79,

Hesy chius,

14,

Image,

Heseltine, J. B., 309

Hesiod,

182,

125, 199, 202, 249, 381, 390, 394-395

145, 198, 201

1,

162,

344, 354, 392, 447 Idealization, 150, 17

H., 282

147, 209, 224, 316, 329, 347,

389, 401, 416, 447-449

Humanity, 276

Hume, David, 219 Humoral psychology,

Imitation, 1-125, 191-217, 331, 349, 353, 356, 359, 376-377, 389, 39i, 440, 444449; of history, 351; of other poets, 416, 444, 448-449, 455-456 Ingegneri, Angelo, 294-295 Inquisition, 232, 402

Inspiration, 347, 352, 369, 398-459 Instinct, 324 Intellect, 311-314, 318, 322-323, 327-328,

333-338, 340, 345, 347, 354, 358371-373, 378, 384, 385, 424, 435, 454; active, 322-323, 336, 338, 345; created, 382; passive, 323, 373; pos330, 360,

sible, 344-345, 357 Intentions, 324; secondary,

Invention,

8,

174,

176-177,

182,

185-186,

308,

316-317,

326,

340,

358, 363-368, 375, 386, 415, 426, 428, 449, 457 Isidore of Seville, 422

134,

189,

196,

349-353,

356-

390-39 1

4 12

,

Isocrates, 90, 451

James, Henry, 179 Jarrell, Randall, 357 Jean de Jandun, 336 Jerome, 378 Jests, 443 Job, 59

Johnson, Samuel, 205, 268, 269-270,

380

19, 33, 51, 71, 98, 117,

129,

190,

Josephus, 285

467

195,

202

,

Index Jowett, Benjamin, 312

Marmi, 384

Judgment,

Martial, 95 Martianus Capella, 95

340, 428, 445 Jung, C. C., 396

Kant, Immanuel, 6 Kelso, Ruth, 317 Kroll,

v

Marvelous,

141,

151,

credible,

124,

390

195, 257, 388, 450;

Marvels, 30, 308, 353, 367, 391-392 Masini, Filippo, 88, 103, 346-348, 407-408,

W., 214

416, 422, 433

Masks, 16, 36, 44 Mathematics, 320, 331 Maximus of Tyre, 79, 152, 435 Mazzeo, Joseph A., 360, 369, 394 Mazzoni, Giacopo, 6, 7, 12-13, 16,

Lambinus, 10 La Motte, Houdar de, 1 1 Langer, Susanne K., 396 Lapini, Frosino, 207, 220, 237, 293 Lattantio, 367, 370 Lessing,

G.

E., 257, 300

Light, 333, 347, 378, 395, 419, 423, 432,

132,

446 Linus, 405 Lionardi, Alessandro,

32-33,

81,

132,

no

12

1,

*

Lucian, 108,

70, 71, 76, 93, 31, 45, 93, 97,

325, 417, 425-429, 455, 457

Menzini, Benedetto, 259

101, 351

100-101, 104-105,

Lucretius, 20, 65-80, 93, 101, 252, 257, 147,

306,

Merismos Metaphor, ,

as furor, 415,

121

4J5, 455 Luisino, Francesco,

393, 410,

122, 201

283,

312,

Migne, J. P., 394 Mill, John Stuart, 6

Luther, Martin, 447 Lyric poetry, 8, 35, 44, 53, 62,

Mimes, 84,

86,

Macrobius, 375, 384

132,

26,

29,

35,

61,

100-

209, 211, 214-228, 239-

246, 251-252, 264, 267, 271, 283, 287289, 292, 299, 339, 355

Magnetism, 422 Maker, poet as, 175 Malebranche, Nicolas, Manilius, 72

Marenzio, Luca, 106 Marino, G. B., 459

468

no

Mimesis, see Imitation

Mind, 311-312, 322, 333, 345, 380, 426 Minturno, Antonio, 19, 35-37, 43, 47,

274,

no

174,

382,

53, 70, 82, 88, 93-94, 132, 172-173, 207, 220, 225, 227, 229-230, 234-235, 247,

Machiavelli, Niccolo, 211

101,

380,

Milton, John, 144, 232, 256

no-in, 114-115, 191, 193, 423; imitation in, 15, 19, 35, 47, 55, 58, 60

Maggi, Vincenzo,

357-359,

450 Metaphysics, 184, 190 Metrics, 184 Michael of Ephesus, 418 Michelangelo, 197, 455 Michele, Agostino, 88, 91, 103, 105-112, 1 15, 133, 186-188, 298

451 Lustration, 205, 372, 418, 421, 425 Lutatio, 367

Madrigals, 59,

198-

Menander, 273

198, 201, 329, 332

435

Lucan,

176,

321, 328, 330, 333, 336, 338-340, 345, 358, 37i, 395, 424, 454

221, 292

Love, 341-348, 422, 432; 1

162-163,

Memory,

Lorenzo the Magnificent, 341 43

157,

304, 306, 315, 333, 349-350, 353, 355385, 386-390, 394, 396, 424

Melancholy,

Lombardi, Bartolomeo, Longfellow, H. W., 36 10,

155,

Medici, Cosimo de’, 335 Medicine, 254, 283, 325

Logic, 184, 304, 325

Longinus,

147,

202, 244, 246, 258-259, 263-270, 277, 288,

146-147, 300, 402 Lioncelli dances, 27

Locke, John, 5 Lodoici, Giacopo,

20,

23-26, 35, 41, 47, 50-54, 60, 65-66, 7578, 85, 88, 103, 107-108, in, 118-125,

388, 427

293,

353,

446-450 Mirror theory,

5,

408,

422-423,

435-436,

17, 28, 35, 40, 68, 76,

117, 119, 138, 144, 146, 191, 343,

447 Mithradatic principle, 207, 214-229, 234, 237-239, 244-245, 249-251, 267, 269-270, 288, 293, 299 Mocenigo, Alvise, 229-234

257,

261,

Moderns, see Ancients and Moderns Monsters, 393 Montagna, Bartolomeo, 27 Montaigne, Michel de, 325, 343, 359, 427

Index Moral

attraction, 135; ideals, 138; sense,

248; utility, 245

197,

Morpheus, 387 Moving, 333 Muratori, L. A., 147, 41 Muses, 407, 410, 412, 416, 424-425, 429, 432-435 27,

35,

209-210, 222,

56, 60, 67,

231, 251, 253, 255, 258, 261, 277, 286, 290, 294, 405, 448; of the spheres, 431-

436

Muzio, Girolamo,

12, 107, 132, 134,

136,

71, 97

sympathy,

220,

255,

284, 299, 426-427, 455 114, 116, 134, 139, 150, 161, 166, 195, 249, 322, 326-327, 331, 380,

imitates

387, 415, 419, 430, 437-459;

God,

21; verse

Navagero, Andrea,

from, 71

317, 405

Necessity, 16, 167-170, 175, 218 Neoclassicism, 40, 80, 129, 13 1, 145, 164, 195, 223, 236, 238, 257, 278, 282, 355, y

443, 446, 451, 457

Neoplatonism,

Painting, 197, 320, 333, 448; and poetry, 13, 14-16, 27, 30, 44, 49-50, 56-57, 6061, 67, 81, 84, 86, no, 121-122, 142, 145,

97,

306,

315,

323,

343, 346-347, 356, 360, 379, 384, 396, 414, 416, 419, 422, 428, 432, 437

Nicander, 72 Nominalism, 159, 163, 189, 441 Novella 12, 66, 88, 90, 94, 97, 294 Novelty, 152

Particulars,

27, 59, 62,

no

Passions,

31, 214,

249

393

Orators and oratory,

17, 93, 135, 160, 167,

198, 201, 231,

264, 310,

333, 4°5, 4 1 ®, 4 2 3» 426, 43, 433* 43^,

442-443, 445, 458 Orlando, 106

17,

129-202,

312,

317,

336,

59-60,

154,

159,

205-300,

192,

Pathos, 264-273

Francesco, 6, 8, 9-20, 35, 43-45, 48-49, 51, 58, 60, 72-74, 79, 88-91, 99, 107, 109-110, 125, 13 1, 132, 147, 150,

Patrizi,

251, 258,

298-299,

167,

182,

187,

191,

306,

330,

353,

392, 400, 409, 413-420,

423-426,

429, 44i. 455-457

431,

433-434.

43 6

»

438,

St., 347, 395 Pausanias, 418, 429 Pazzi, Andrea de’, 29, 209 Pellegrino, Camillo, 75, 88, 99-102, 133,

154. 39 1 . 452

Perino del Vaga, 148 Peripatetic school, 26, 48, 61, 155, 224, 260,

322-323, 335, 341, 360, 362,

Orlando,

132, 176, 306, 393

139, 209, 214, 238, 252, 262, 294, 335,

338, 196,

196, 231,

Peter of Auvergne, 208, 261-262 Petrarch, 27, 36, 43, 47, 53, 59, 92, 103,

68, 320, 335, 340, 356, 365, 368,

184,

168,

352, 361, 366, 387, 418, 430, 435 Pastoral, 90, in, 268, 434

Pescetti,

theater, 107

One and Many,

173,

160,

384-385 Persona, 8, 22, 63

Objective correlative, 352, 376

Opinion,

157,

344-345. 35 1 , 39 2 -393. 446, 453 Pascal, Blaise, 5

241,

Olympic

153,

Paul, 304,

341,

Ode,

148,

279-280,

Nature, 68, 385,

Padelford, F. M., 20, 69, 132, 410 Padoane dances, 27

Partenio, Bernardino, 70, 82, 434 Particularity, 12, 129-202, 228, 333 Particularization, imitation as, 42-43, 51, 118-125 Particularized narrative, 39

Narrative, 15, 118, 193, 197, 262; imitation in pure, 49; in poet’s own person, 51; modes, 23-64; poetry, 13, 21, 122

382,

Ottava rima, 92, 414 Ovid, 41, *122, 194, 382, 402, 429, 445

Parrhasius, 12

Mythologists, 61, 104, 105 Mythology, 46

Natural

427, 435

Palma, 106 Palmerin, 116

Myth, 379, 382 Mythologia 72

,

192-195,

115,

344, 351, 440

4°4 Mystical illumination, 421 Mystic’s furor, 415, 431

Mythos

62, 71, 77, 92,

199, 447, 453

Orpheus, 387, 405, 407, 417, Orphic conventicles, 205

Mormons, 384

Music,

Ornament,

341-348,

379, 4 r 4, 43

r

,

349,

352,

356,

375-376,

445, 447, 449

Petronius Arbiter, 95 Phantasms, 322, 325, 338-345, 377, 384, 39i, 393

Phantaso, 387

469

366-367,

Index Phavorinus, 120, 395 Philanthropy, 275-276, 283 Philo Judaeus, 362, 364 Philoponus, Johannes, 50, 307, 335, 373 Philosopher’s method, 312 Philosophic doctrine in ppetry, 8, 19, 34 Philosophy, 189; and poetry, 4, 322

Protagoras, 424 Protestantism, 447

Philostratus, 122

Psychoanalysis, 206

Phobeter, 387 Physiology, 327, 338 Piccolomini, Alessandro, 52, 61, 79, 83-

Psychology, 205, 236, 250, 255, 270, 277,

84, 100-101, 106, 109, 132, 160-161, 164,

207,

209, 220, 223, 239-240,

243,

252, 264, 266, 288, 339, 355, 358 Pigna, Giovan Battista, 11, 30-31,

190-191,

247, 169,

Pleasure, 43, 207, 213, 218, 231, 236-237, 243-244, 250, 253-254, 257, 260, 273, 278-280, 282-283, 286, 288, 297, 313, 314, 322, 334, 351, 417, 430; of imitating, 58, 331

10,

1

7,

78,

134,

175,

180-181, 257,

295 Plotinus, 50, 347, 432, 440 Plutarch, 7, 13, 21, 61-63, 79, 95,

122,

220, 238, 264, 267, 293, 332, 366, 367, 381, 395, 418, 419, 429 Poet: as creator, 449; narrating in person, 55

own

Poikilia, 31, 217-218, 260, 432, 436

Polyclitus, 456

Polygnotus,

174,

157 Pietro, 6, 170, 314, 316, 338 1,

Malatesta, 176,

50,

88,

79,

132,

108, 209

154-155,

179

Praise and blame, 52-53, 114, 134, 136137, 167, 338 Primaleones, 116

Probability,

Proclus,

7,

16,

295-296, 302-396, 455; asso-

ciational, 120, 308, 388, 392; behavioristic, 396; Gestalt, 396; see also Hu-

moral psychology Public and private, 173-174 Purgation, see Catharsis 286 Puritans,

7,

334

Pyrrhonism, 125, 386 Pythagoras and Pythagoreans,

91, 209,

Quintilian,

6,

22-23, 79,

101,

13

Racine, J. B., 156 Rapin, Rene, 220 Rational: arts, 8; being, 382;

205,

entities,

380; existence, 382; soul, 347 Rationalists, 290, 360, 437, 449-451, 455 Realism, 3, 17, 298, 350, 353, 377, 390-

377,

Realists,

163, 440-441 Reality, 159-166, 342, 357, 359, 368, 377, 380, 382, 391, 416; of dreams, 382-384 Reason, 159-160, 164, 183, 240, 257, 270-

280-281,

292-295,

289,

313,

271,

276,

323,

325 . 333 , 334 336 , 339, 364, 369,

418, 444, 447, 457 Recreation, 389 Relativism, 456 Representation, 457

Rhetoric,

24, 73, 97, 155, 214-218, 232,

415, 421, 423,

407,

430-433;

8, 92,

190,

193,

297,

307, 310,

195,

13 1, 134, 147, 182, 184, 198, 200, 205, 212, 282,

324,

331-332, 338,

325,

341, 358, 423, 433

Rhetoriqueurs, 309 Rhodigino, Celio, 366, 378

furor of, 431 Proportion, 7, 21, 62, 91, 142

Rhythm, 29 Ricci, Bartolomeo, 212, 443-444

Prose, 71, 187, 298; in comedy, 66; fiction as poetry, 8, 17, 66, 87-117; imitations, 85; in poetry, 10, 17

Riccoboni, Antonio, 61,

Prosopopoeia,

1,

264, 266, 267, 333, 358, 375, 445, 450

Reynolds, Edward, 210

167-170

249, 260-261, 264-265, 267, 286, 43i, 432 Profit and delight, 205, 249, 289

Prophecy,

the

396

12

Pomponazzi, Pontano, Giovanni, 72, 75, Pope, Alexander, 448, 456 Pordenone, 106 Porphyry, 73, 189, 346, 347 Porta,

283, 292,

Dionysius

210, 251, 280, 286, 407, 427, 434, 436

Pleasures of imagination, 314, 334 Pliny the Younger, 122, 198, 367 Plot,

Prudential lesson, 289

Pseudo- Academics, 386 Pseudo-Dionysius, see Areopagite

Purification, 205, 208, 263, 268, 270, 285-

195

193,

Prudence, 277, 281, 324, 454

24, 55,

470

96

244, 288-289, 294

Richards, I. A., 396 Richardson, Samuel, 41

107,

157,

168,

Index Robortelli, Francesco, io, 19, 26, 28-29, 61, 65, 81, 91, ioo-ioi, 108, 1 1 3, 132, 145-147, 158, 169, 176, 189, 207, 211-226, 234, 238-241, 244, 246, 251-253, 260-261, 264-266, 269, 287-288, 142,

209,

306,

292, 299,

340-343, 353, 355,

329,

410, 414

Romances, 3 5 *,

16,

Romantic

116,

28, 88, 92,

39 I_ 39 2 ’ 44

M

critics,

190, 314,

47 350,

17,

412;

move-

ment, 6, 15, 129, 309, 353 Ronsard, Pierre, 392 Rosine dances, 27 Rossky, William, 334 Rostagni, Augusto, 427

Rowe, Nicholas,

347,

362, 364, 366,

219-220,

248,

Servius, 356, 367, 370 Sestina, 59

Shaftesbury, Earl of, 248 Shakespeare, William, 4, 40, 144, 214, 300, 332, 446 Shaw, George Bernard, 4 Sidney, Sir Philip, 132, 142, 326

no

7,

351 21,

120,

124, 390, 395

me

flere, 2 66, 332, 352,

Sallust,

169

Salviati, Salviati,

Francesco Lionardo,

132,

163,

de’, 106

75,

88,

174, 176,

Sannazaro, Jacopo,

99-102,

104,

177, 391-393

89, 90, 93, 95

Rome,

Solon, 234 Somnus, 387 Sonnet, 59, no-111, 192, 414, 450 Soothsayers, 433 Sophistic, 8

13

Satires, 62, 293

Sophocles, 106, 146, 300, 441

Savio, Giovanni, 294-295 Scaliger, J. C., 18, 20, 69-70, 88, 101, no,

Sophron, mimes

132, 176, 274, 410, J.

130, 147, 163, 208, 304, 307, 310, 324, 333, 363, 371, 380, 388-

390 , 394 Science, 4, 160, 165, 183, 249, 291, 451452; and poetry, 45, 62, 65-80, 90, 207 Scientific concepts in poetry, 4, 8,

19,

34 Scientific rationalism, 6, 9, 401, 424 Scotus, see Duns Scotus

132,

80, 84, 88, 96-97,

138-140,

143,

of, 61, 88, 90, 94-95, 103,

12

3 1 1-3 12, 331, 340, 343-344, 3 6 3, 39 5 , 416, 432; vegetable, animal, rational, 27 Species, see Appearance

161-163,

Specters,

318 Spencer, Herbert, 323 Speroni, Sperone, 31-33, 67-69, 88, 9193,

108,

132, 191,

146-147,

157,

159,

187,

220,

229-234, 238, 245, 247, 299, 306, 327, 333, 339, 341, 403-404,

193,

439-442, 445

Spingardo dances, 27 Spingarn, Spirit,

J. E.,

312,

319,

206, 235

321, 327, 343-344,

123-

416 Splandian, 116 Stage presentation,

244,

Statius, 95,

246, 248, 253, 287, 293, 299, 354, 406-

407, 431

Stoicism 238,

Segni, Bernardo, 288

13,

367, 445 and Stoics,

241,

255,

59,

260-261,

85,

268,

214,

Senses,

Sublimity,

190-191

47 1

220,

270-271,

Seneca, 212, 214 249-250, 270, 313, 321, 325,

3 82 ,

27, 41

284-285, 287, 341, 3 6 4-3 6 7, 382 Strabo, 90, 285, 418-419, 429 Strowski, Fortunat, 214

Self-love, 237, 242, 256, 272, 279 165,

166,

196-198, 207, 212,

170,

310-316,

Scripture, 153, 157, 294, 429 Sculpture, 13, 44, 49, 56, 60, 440, 448, 456; and poetry, 67, 12 1, 149 Secondary intention, 380 Segni, Agnolo, 35, 43-48, 50, 53-54, 58, 124,

1

Soul,

450 von, 6

Scholasticism,

60, 65, 72, 76,

426

Skeptics, 386 Smith, J. A., 385 Socrates, 68, 266, 297 Socratic dialogues, 88, 90, 94-95

Saints’ lives, 62

W.

123

Situation, 4 Si vis

Schelling, F.

257

Similitudinary imitation, 38-41, Simonides, 13 Simplicius, 74, 263, 373 Simulacra, 381

Rutilius, 201

Sapienza, at

Sentences, 115 Sentimentalism, Serenus, 72

Similitude,

Rufo, Cristoforo, 176

154,

345,

378, 384, 435

Silius Italicus,

130

Rules, 437-439, 456 Ruscelli, Girolamo, 106,

331-336, 340,

Index Subnotion,

3

Tragedy,

19-321

Suidas, 90-91, 94, 1 19-124, 362, 367, 373, 378, 380, 418, 425 Summo, Faustino, 79, 85, 88, 91, 104, 1 1 1116, 132, 147, 186, 188, 244, 259, 274278,

361

Symbol, 432 Symbolic imitation, Sympatheia 281

7

Talentoni, Giovanni, 433 Tamburini, G. M., 378 Tasso, Bernardo, 152, 421-422

Tasso, Torquato,

12-13,

19,

39,

48-51,

169-172,

174,

176,

182,

191,

258-259, 262, 275, 294, 297, 299, 306, 315, 350, 353, 390396, 409, 423, 433, 45 0 -453 Tassoni, Alessandro, 132 Tate, Allen, 179 200,

244,

Teglia, Francesco del, 259 Telesio, Antonio, 106

-2

1

2,

273

193,

178, 317, 320, 334, 354,

Universal,

17,

129-202,

312,

317, ~

326,

poetry

Valerius Flaccus, 445 Valerius Maximus, 267 Valla, Giorgio, 28, 108, 209 Varchi, Benedetto, 32, 69, 81-82, 88, 93, 107,

no,

132,

140,

220,

223,

225,

300,

Thaumathesia, 368

228,

335-337* 344-345* 35 1 * 39 2 393* 44d, 453* 45 6 Utility, 236, 289 Ut pictura poesis, see Painting, and 322,

Thales, 210

147,

306,

160,

165, 207,

339-341, 343,

389, 445-446, 448

Themistius, 338, 364, 385, 418 Themistocles, 454 Theocritus, 27

Varro, 72, 458 Vecchi, 106

G. M., 409 Verino, Francesco, 338 Verino Secondo, II, see Vieri, Francesco

Verdizotti,

71, 360, 377, 387, 394

Theopompus,

111,

242

Terza rima, 92

Theology,

187,

133, 157, 167-171, 432 Universality, 104, 129-202, 218 Universalized action, 42

73-75, 79, 81-84, 88, 99, 102, 106, 123-125, 132, 140-147, 150-157* 108,

173,

185,

Unity,

5 5,

Terence,

lg o,

391, 393, 416, 431, 447

erasa, 323 Tacitus, 22

195,

1 1

Tropes, 7 Truth, 159-166,

Tabula

163,

173*

Triumphs, 62

Synesius, 75, 381 Syrianus, 73

193,

154*

205-300, 434, 441, 450; in prose, 8, 88, 92, 105-106, 1 14 Tragicomedy, 62, 111, 268, 272-273, 294-

2

,

16 1,

27, 30, 35, 40, 50, 60, 97,

152,

295 Trilling, Lionel, 207, 228-229 » Trissino, G. G., 26-28, 70, 82, 88, 92, 108, 132, 134, 136, 138-139, 172, 201,

300, 413, 424s 428-429

281,

Swift, Jonathan,

137,

145

Theophrastus, 210, 429 Theorematical dreams, 384 Thomas Aquinas, 147, 163, 208, 261-262,

de’

Verisimilitude,

50,

114,

175,

178,

182,

Timocles, 216, 261, 267

37 6 ~377* 3 8 4-3 8 5 Verse, 71, 109, 184, 187; and prose, 871 17; as essential element in poetry, 66

Timothy, 286

Vettori, Pier,

3°7*

3 2 4*

33^,

3 82 *

394

Tintoretto, 106 Titian, 27, 106, 196 Toffanin, Giuseppe, 195, 223, 306, 409, 432, 436, 447

^

Tomeo, Niccolo Leonico, 195, 306, 310-316, 339* 34i* 404* 44 2 -443 166,

Tommaso

da Messina, 449

Tonnelat, E., 300 Topothesia, 367 Trabalza, Ciro, 315

472

324,

88, 91, 96,

333,

106,

317,

132,

351,

7, 26, 35, 61,

158,

161,

168,

88-89, 94, 101, 173, 176, 288,

592-293* 299* 355* 365

Vida, Girolamo, 191 Vieri, Francesco de’, 344-345 Vinci, Leonardo da, 27

210, 299

Tomitano, Bernardino, 67-68,

218,

336,

Viperano, G. A., 147 Virgil, 22, 24, 29, 30, 32, 33, 42, 55, 59, 68, 69, 70, 72, 76, 90, 93, 101, 184,

141,

156,

170,

173,

193,

195,

197,

199, 210, 229,

174,

1

12, 122,

190,

191,

275, 282,

286, 317, 356, 364, 367, 394, 403, 406, 416, 430, 433, 435, 441, 442, 445, 452

hid ex Virtues and vices,

134, 136, 148, 153, 200,

219, 232, 236, 276-277, 292, 354

Vision,

1

19,

Wit,

352, 357, 404, 412, 433, 437, 449, 451-454, 457, 459

347, 352, 355, 357-359, 364,

368-371, 373, 375, 377, 387 Vives, Ludovicus, 187 Voice, 47, 191; narration in poet’s

Xenarchus, mimes 1

own,

Xenocrates, 210

65 Volaterrano, Raffaello, 108 Voltaire, 111

Xenophon,

Walker, D. P., 343, 363 Weinberg, Bernard, 216-217, 219

Zabarella,

4, 8, 33, 51,

330,

333,

339,

347>

357*

14,

145, 154,

3 2 4"

360, 377

170, 403

Zeno, 367, 378 Zeuxis, 141, 145, 15 1, 345 Zinano, Gabriele, 131-132, 2 99,

130, 337

Giacomo,

5,

157

Zanta, Leontine, 214

3^4*3 65,

37 2 -373, 385, 393

William of Occam, 163 Wimsatt, William K., Jr.,

68,

Yeats, William Butler,

Will, 79, 81, 83, 85, 120, 313-3 3 2 7,

of, 61, 88, 94-95, 103,

12

1

86- 1 88, 295-

409.

Zoppio, Hieronymo,

54, 78, 108, 113, 376