UNlVtRSiTY OF CALIFORNIA RiYERSIDE •(!|03 'uoiJiJOls El-.e 3(iiI]Ufl i'iin'Innri Ihiiin'rr.ilii The Theory of the Heroic Epic in Italian Criticism of the Sixteenth Century DISSEKTATIUN SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES OK THE JOHNS HOI'KINS UNIVERSITY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE RKQUIRFMENTS OF THE DECREE OF DOCTOR OF THILOSOrHY i RALPH COPLESTONE WILLIAMS 1917 uJl;r 3Jnl{un iliti^lumi llitiurniitii The Theory of the Heroic Epic in Italian Criticism of the Sixteenth Century DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THt BOARD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DECREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY RALPH COPLESTONE WILLIAMS 1917 \ BIBLIOGRAPHY CRITICAL WOUKS' 1522. Campiano, N. IJ., In Artcm Poclicam Primordia. Venetiis. 1527. ViDA, M. H., De Arte Poclica. Crcmoua. 1529. TitissiNO, G. G., Dc arte poclica, I-V. Vicenz.i. 1531. Parkhasius, J., In Q. Iloratii Flacci Arlem Poeticam CommetUaria. Kapoli. 1535. Dolce, L., Translation of Horace's Ars Poclica. Venice. 1536. Daniello, B., Delia poclica. Vinegia. 153G. Paccius (Pazzi), A., Aristotclis Poclica. Venetiis. 1548. Roboutelli, F., In Libnim Arislotelis dc Arte Poclica Explicaliones. Florentine. 1510. SK(iNi, H., Ucttoririi cl Poclica iVArixloklc. Firon/x;. 15.j(). ^[AI)U•s, v., et LoMRARDits, li., In Arixtotclis Lihrum dc Poclica Explannliows. Venetiis. 1550. M.NDius (Maggi), V., In Q. Iloratii Flacci de Arte Poelica Inter- prclatio. Venetiis. 1551. Muzio, G., DcWarte poclica. Vinegia. 1552. GniFOU, I., In Artcm Poclicam Iloratii Inlerpraetalio. 1553. Varchi, B., Lezzioni della poclica. Firenza. 1553. De Nohes, I., In Epistolam Q. Iloratii Flacci de Arte Poetica Inlcr- prelatio. N'enetiis. 1554. GiRALDi CiN'THio, G. B., Discorsi. Vinegia. 1554. PiGNA, G. B., / Romanzi. Vinegia. 1554. LioxARDi, A., Dialogi della invcntionc poclica. Venczia. 1554. LuisiNO, F., 7ji Libriim Q. Ilorntii Flacci dc Arte Poelica Commen' iarius. Venetii.s. 1555. Capriano, G. P., Delia vera poclica. Vinegia. 1555. Fabricius, G., Opera Q. Iloratii Flacci. Basileae. 1559. MiNTURSO, A. S., Dc Pacta libri kcx. Venetiis. 15G0. VicTouius (Vettori), P., Commcnlarii in primum Lihrum Aris- totclis dc Arte Poctarum. Florentiae. \ 1560. Parthenio, B., Della imilalione poelica. Vinegia. 1561. ScALiGEK, G. C., Poc^iccs Zi'fcci sepfew. Geneva. 1562. Tasso, B., Ragionamento della poexia. Vinegia. 1563. Trissino, G. G., Dc arte poclica, V and VI. Venezia. 1564. MiNTURNO, A. S., L'arle poclica. Venezia. 1565. Fabricius, G., De Re Poclica. Antwerp. 1570. Castelvetro, L., Poelica d'Aristotcle vidyarizzata el sposla. Vienna. ' For a more complcto Hut ot critical treatises in Italy in the slxtoeDth conlury. see my article in Modern Languaue Notet of Documber, 1020. iv BlBUOGRAPllY GENERAL DIDUOGRArHY BAVDiiIF.n, liibliogrniiliic lijoiitiiiisr, 1895 — Belloxi, Pmina epico. Vallardi Scries. Storia dei generi klleraria Ualiana. IUjtcher. S. II., Arislolle's Theory of Poetry and Pine Arl, London, 2d cd., 1808. B\^VATER, I., ArisMlc on Uie Arl of Poetry, Oxford, 1000. Canello, Storia delta letlcratura Ualiana net sec. XVI, Milano, 1880. Castelvetro, Opcrc varic critifhc, Milano, 1727. Charlton, II. B., Caslclrelro's Theory of Poetry, Manchester, 1913. CiiARK, J., A History of Epic Poetry, Edinburgh, 1900. Edner, J., licitrag zu einer Geschichtc dcr dramalisclien EinhcUen in Ilcdien, Erlangen, 1898. Egcer, IlcUcnisme en France, Paris, 1869. Flamini, II Cinqncccnto, Milano, 1903. FoFFANO, F., II pncma cnvallcrcsco. (Vallardi series.) Gayley and Scott, An Introdw.lion to the MeUtodsi aiul Materials of Literary Critiriimi, Boston, 1899. MoRSOLiN, Trissino, Fircnze, 1894. Plato, The RtpuMic, translated into English by B. Jowett, Oxford, 1888. Saintsdury, a History of Criticism, Edinburgh, 1900-1904, ii. Spingaiin, J. E., Literary Criticism in the lienai-ssaiico, New York, 1899. Symonds, J., Renaissance in Italy, London, 1889. ViLLKY, P., Les sources italiennes de la 'Deffcn-se el lUustralion de la langue fran^ise' de Joachim Du Bellay, Paris, 1908. INTRODUCTION The altcnlion of tlic writer was cnllcd to tlm subject of tlic Ihooiy of tlic lioroic epic tlnoiiKli liis interest in tracing llie relatioiisliip of ideas l)Ctween tlic I'Vench and tlic Italian critics of tiie sixtci'nth century. Everj'wlierc in llic writinKs of the Pii'-iadc the ItaiiiUis were put as literary authorities on (lie same footing a.s the ancients. Moi-eover, the Pl(''iade attempted and put into cITect the suhstitiition of (he ancient and Italian Kcmcs for the forms of the fifteenth century. It was the Pl^iadc tiiat established in France tiic epic, the tragedy, the ode, the satire, and the elegy — forms which had Ijcen discussed so considerably in Italy. It wa.s not as much in the borrowing of "genres," however, as in the actual appro- priation of ideas, that France was Ifaly's debtor. Recent investigation has shown conclusivel}' that often there is little more than a serv'ile copying.' Such consiilerations would lead one to conclude that the French attemi)ts to reproduce the heroic jioem and the discussions in France regarding the manner in which it should be reproduced were influenced by the example ond the precept of the Itolians.* It is manifest, then, that anyone undertaking to define the extent and the character of the influence on French writers of Italian ideas regarding the subject would have to examine, on tho one hand, the Italian poems which the French had before them as models, and on the other hand, the body of theoretical precepts which was accessible to the French. In view of the fact that the interest of the writers of the P16iadc in the epic was primarily theoretical, it is natural that the first step in such an investigation as I have mentioned should be the examination of the theory of the heroic epic a-s exjKJunded by Italian writers, and it is this examination that is attempted in the pre.sent dis.sertation. Accordingly, this study aims to be the first chapter in a history of the introduction and the assimilation in France of the Italian ideas concerning the epic. The task it undertakes ' Cf. on IhU fiucstion, Vlllcy. I.n lourcn HalirHiirt Jr In ' Deffrnir rl ttlutlralion rlt la Innoue fran^oitr' dr Joarhim du Brllay, PariH, lOOH; i'artliurlor. "QuelnuCfi sources ItAllcnncs do Ronsard." H'tur dr In Rrnnimnnee, VI (1005), i'2; Picot. /.r> /rancmi ilnt- olnt, cf. iny arllrlo in Modr.m Lanouai/e Not'H, "Italian Influoaco on RoDsard's Theory of llio Epic" (March, 1020). vi Ivruouuci'iuN is lliat of rollcctiiiK .•iiul .•miily/iiiK the availuliU" body of It;ili:iii oi)inioii on l\m matter tlmiiiK tlial peiiotl of tlic .sixteciilli cciitiirj' wliicli is early ciioukIi to allow of its cxcrcisiiiR infliiencc ujoth tlic ideas of the P16iade — that is, before 1572, the dale of the appearanee of Ronsard's Framinde, which re|)rcscntcd the cons\iinination and embodiment of tiic critical theories of the Pld'iade. TIic material examined consisted of commentaries and editions of Aristotle and Horace, various treatises on poetn,' of different degrees of originality, and lastly, the frapnentary expressions of opinion such as those contaiiied in letters and short essays. EPIC UNITY AS DISCUSSED BY SIXTEENTH-CENTURY CRITICS IN ITALY The subjcct-niatlcr of the epic was a much (hscusscd question. There was, in general, an intermingling of Aristotelian and Iloratian ideas regarding the choice of subject. The matters that were dis- cussed by most critics are as follows: (1) tlie kind of personages who are to be the jjrotagonists of tlie epic; (2) the character of the dceils of these personages, which form the subject of the poem: whether they should bo deeds of war or of both jieacc and war; whether virtuous or other tlian virtuous; (3) whether the subject of the poem siiould be fact or fiction, or both; (4) what are the especially suitable details which find their place naturally in the cpiftrLv' Tlierc arc two theories regarding the purpose of jioctry which enter into a discussion of the epic, two theories wiiich were doi)ated even before Aristotle's time in Greece — whether poetry was written to teach or to delight. The traditional theory was that poetry h.as a direct moral jjurposi; with didactic intent; Homer was considered \ not so much an inspired poet as a great teaclier. Aristotle formu- ' lated the other theoiy that i)oetry aims to produce in the hearer an emotional delight, a purely subjective pleasure, with a strictly aesthetic end. In mainliiining as he does throughout the Poetics that the end of i)oetry is a refined ])Ieasure, he separates himself from those wiio believed in a didactic i)urpose, but he does not altogether cast aside this latter viewiioint. As regards the delinea- tion of character, Aristotle is on the borderlanii between morals and aesthetics. The aesthetic representation of character he regards from an ethical viewpoint and the different types of character he reduces to moral categories; but he never permits the moral cITects of his art to supplant the artistic and pleasurable end. To the degree that the poet fails to produce the proper pleasure, to that degree does he fail in the accomphshment of his artistic purpose. ■ For a disctusioD of tbeae queations, see my article in tbe Romanic Reiitw, XII, 1,. March, 1021. 2 Ralph C. Williams To Plato, considering tiic influence of poetry in tlic formation of character, iileasuro was a word of base association. He saw, for instance, in the stories of tlie gods only reprehensible, immoral fictions, which were harmful in (heir efTects on the readers. Aris- totle, answering this contention, maintained that inasmuch as these had become traditional, they should be allowed their place in poetry. It should not be believed that, as a consequence of this idea, Aris- totle was indilTcrcnt to the moral content of a poem. On the con- trary', he stated clearly that the characters should be good, but wc can be sure that their goodness was not to serve as an example: he advocated that they be good because he realized that the desired pleasure could not be derived from a jwem which iiolds up low iileals of life and conduct. One is justified in concluding that Aristotle advocated that the personages in the c|)ic be depicted a.s of noble cliaiacter not primarily from any idea of didactic purpose in their portrayal as such, but in conformity with the unquestioned assum])- tion of his time that the chief distinction between the higher and the lower forms of art depended on tiie dilTcrcnt types of moral character represented by them. Accordingly, the epic, being one of the higher forms, would naturally require that the characters be of a lofty type of moral goodness. The didactic point of view is abandoned; he does not mention the ethical influence on the spec- tator, or the moral intention of the poet. I In a word, the question of morality enters into consideration, for Aristotle, only as implied in the aesthetic ideal. ^ This conception of Aristotle was not per- ceived by the sixteenth-century critics. Those who considered the question of nobility of character were of the opinion that if the heroic poem contained good men, it was that the goodness should furnish worthy examples for emulation, and therefore they thought they discerned an implied tendency toward a diilactic purpo.se.' The ideas of the critical writers of the sixteenth century in Italy on th(! question of unity in the epic have never been tabulated, although the dramatic unities, first i)romulgatcd by these writers, have been discussed at length. It is tiie purpose of this article to give, in chronological order, the various theories on the subject of ' For a inorp dolalloo my nrlicio rntitU^I "Tlio Purpoao of Poetry aa DisciisHod by bixl«ontU-Ooulury Orllica In Italy," Homanxe Arii, XII. I.Moi-cti. lu:.!!. El'ic Unity ix Sixtkkntii-Ckntuuy Italy 3 epic unity propounded by the critical writers in tlic iuilf-century from Vida (1527) to Ca.stclvotro (1570), a period in wliicli tlic ques- tion was variously treated until it reached in Castclvctro its final development in the idea of the three luiities. Inasmuch as in such an investit;ation one cannot for a moment lose sifjht of Aristotle's dictum on this question of unity, it would seem advantaReous to call to mind what he has to say. At the out- set it should be understood that the unities are deduced primarily from the practice of tragedy and were applied only secondarily to tlie epic. This is particularlj' true of what little is said regarding the unities of time and place in the epic, but Aristotle discusses the whole subject of unity chiefly with regard to tragedy, and much of what his followers have repeated is written with an eye to the example of tragic unity. In the Poetics, the question of unity receives a longer treatment than many of the other points discus.sed. By the rule of beauty a poetic creation mu.st have at the same time unity and i)lurality. If it is too small the whole is perceived but not the parts; if too large the parts are perceived but not the whole. On this principle a whole such as the Trojan War is too vast in its compass even for epic treatment; it cannot be grasped by the mind and incurs the risk of becoming a series of detached incidents. The Platonic idea of an organism evidently underlies Aristotle's rules concerning unity. It is especially evident in one pa.ssage: "The construction of its stories should be like that in a drama; they should be based on a single action, one that is a comjilcte whole in itself, with a beginning, middle, and end, so as to enable the work to produce its own proper pleasure, with all the organic unity of a living creature."' The unity of a plot does not consist in having one man as its subject; an infinity of things befalls that one man, some of which cannot be reduced to unity, and there are many actions of one man wliich cannot be made to fonn one action. Homer, in writing the Odyssey, did not make the poem cover all that befell his hero, but he represented one action with its several incidents so closely con- nected that the transposal or withdrawal of any one of them would have interfered with the continuity of the whole. The epic, being 'I. Bywatcr. AriilolU on Iht Arl o/ Pottry, Oxford. 1009, p. 71. 4 Ralph C. Williams in narr.itivc form, may (Icscribo a niimbpr of simultaneous incidents, and these, if germane to the subject, increase iiie body of the poem witliout dostroyinR its unity. The peneral law of unity laid down in till! Porlicn for an epic poem is almost the same as for traKcdy, but the ejiic, bein£ of wider compass, can admit many episodes which serve to fill in the pauses of the action, or to diversify the interest, or to embellish the narrative. The introduction of episodes, however, conduces to the result that there is le.ss unity in the imita- tion of epic poets, inasmuch as from one epic many tragic plots may be derived. It is an evifient fact, however, that if a single story were treated it would seem curt when briefly told, and thin and extenuated when prolonged to the usual epic length. On this point Professor Bywater tran.slatcs Ari.stotlc as follows: "In saying that there is less miity in an epic, I mean an epic made up of a ]ilurality of actions, in the same way as the Iliad and Odyssey have such parts, each one of them in itself of some magnitude; yet the structure of the two Homeric poems is as perfect as can be, and the action in them as nearly as po.ssible one action."' In some inferior epics, although there is a certain unity in the story, it is not of the right kind, as the action consists of a plurality of parts, each of them easily detached from the rest of the work. Several tragedies may be made from a single epic of this type, whereas the Iliad or the Odyssey docs not supply materials for more than one or two. This emphatic a.ssertion of the unity of action in the Homeric epic is not quite in harmony with statements made elsewhere in the Poclics. The story of the Iliad, for instance, is said to contain a plurality of actions.* This plurality of action is not, one can feel assured, condoned by Aristotle; on the contrary, to the extent that there is a plurality of action, to that same extent are the poems of Homer comparable to the "inferior epics." ' Cf. Bywater, oj>. cil., p. !)I. '"Ono HhniiUl also romcinhor what ha-s hetni R.aiil moro than once, and not wrilo a traKfXly un an opic body of Inoldont (i.e., with a pUir,'\Uty of Nlorit'-s in It) by attempting to iiraniati7,o, for InKt.inco, llio (intirn IxMiy of llio /iim/" (Ilywati-r. rliap. xviii, p. r>:t); and afraln (c)mi>. xxvi): "Wo mxist ronicniijor tliat tlioro in U'.s.s unity in tlio iiniUition of opic poKtH, OH ia proved l)y the fact tliat any one worl< of tlicirH supiiiioH inatlor for Noviral traKoic, I niran an o|>ic niado up of a plurality of octionH, in the sjinio way o.^ tlio Itiad and Odiimev have many such porta, oacb ono of tlioui in lt«oif of some moKnituUe" (Uywator, p. Ul). Eric Unitv IN' SixrioKNTii-CKNTuuy Italy 5 Homer did not attoinpt to treat tlie Trojan War in its entirety — tlionjih it was a whole willi a definite be^inninn and end — through a feolinp apparently that it was too long a story to be grasped in one view, or, if not that, too eoniplicated from the variety of inei- dcnt. As it is, he has seleetcd one section of tlic whole, bringing in many other matters as episodes, as, for example, the catalogue of the ships. The onl.v unity enjoined by Aristotle for the epic is the unity of action which we have just discussed. As cverj'one knows, the doctrine of the unity of time is based on one pa.ssagc in the Poetics where Aristotle states that the epic is of greater length than tragedy, "which is due to its having no fixed limit of time, whereas tragedy endeavors to keep as far as possible witliin a single circuit of the sun."'' As to the length of the epic, it must be po.ssiblc for the beginning and the end of the work to be comprehended in one view, a condition which will be fulfilled if the poem is shorter than the old epics, and about as long as the series of tragedies offered for one hearing. Aristotle is here speaking merely of the material length of the epic, and not of any unity of time. He is referring to the real length of the work itself, a length measured by the number of lines a poem would take up in a book, or the number of hours required for recitation. Aristotle never loses sight of the obvious fact that the epic (the Iliad, for instance) extends its length to several thousand lines, whereas a tragedy rarely exceeds some sixteen hundred lines. This tliffcrencc in Icngtii between the epic and the tragedy is, for Aristotle, the natural consequence of another kind of difference, i.e., the fact that the action in a Greek tragedy is as a rule kept within a limit of some twenty-four hours, whereas that of the epic may extend over weeks, months, or years. With lh\A tlilTercnce, tlicreforo, in the extent of tlio action, in tho quantum of matter to Ije included in the story, it is only natural that there should be a corresponding difference in the length of the e.xter- nal form in the two cases. Assuming this correspondence, Aristotle exT^lains the great length of an epic compared with a tragedy, as due to the length of time over which the epic action extends. In other words, he passes from the idea of the actual length, the actual • Ibid., p. 16. G Halpii C. Wilmams time icqviirod for (lie iccHalion, to tliaL of (lin iniajiiiiury time covered by the aetioii of the jioem, .ippareiitly witli llif tacit jussiimp- t.ioii tlmt llio two tliiiif^s .ire so closely coimccted that the one may serve to exi>laiii the other. It would Im^ al)sohitily wroiip; to deduc(% however, that Aristotle is anywhere making the time of the actual recitation of the epic coincide with the time of presentation of a series of tragedies acted in a single d.ay. The epic, then, must he a wliolc, but not too long a whole. This condition will be fulfilled if the epic is about the length of a trilogy, and thus considerably shorter than the Iliad and the Odijsscrj. He evidently thinks that an epic on the old Homeric scale of length woidd i)rovc too great a strain on the memory and attention of the literary public of hi.9 own time. The discussion of unity may be divided into two main topics: the fundamental and basic idea that the i^lot should deal with one action — an Aristotelian precept which is generally denominated the "unity of action"; and, secondly, the so-called unity of time, derived by critics from the first, and bearing such an intimate rela- tion to it that at times it becomes impossible to .sejiarate the two, although in this article an effort will be made to consider them singly. As a subdivision of the unity of action the question of the intro- duction of episodes will be treated. The word "ejiisode" is used by the sixteenth-century critics in its literal meaning, that is, a "coming in besides," a digression or incident outside the plot or main action (generally called the favola) but related to it, and forming with the plot the whole narration or storJ^ Trissino, in treating the question of the unity of action, inter- prets Aristotle more broadly than many sixteenth-century critics. Although in his dedication to Charles V preceding the Italia liberaia Tri.ssino .says that he intends to treat one and only one of the many actions of Justinian, he adds that he purposes to commence at the beginning of the war and finish at the end, or, *in other words, he considers the entire war as a unit, the treatment of which, he thinks, ftnds complete justification in Aristotelian rules. It will be remem- bered, however, that Aristotle commends Honier for not attempting to deal with the Trojan War in its entirety, and adds that Homer had refrained from so doing thro\igh a feeling, apparently, that the Epic Unity in Sixtkenth-Ckntuuy Italy 7 storj' was of too groat loiiKth to he K>"iispcd in one view. Trissino, although fully aware of Aristotle's dietnni on this suhjeet,' inter- prets this in such a way as to justify the st^loction of an entire war, provided that, by so doiii}?, the poem still remain of ordinary length and be not too complicated bj' variety of incident, and provided that the bcf;innin{; and the end can still be {^rasped in one view. The words of Aristotle seem, however, to be capable of the sinple inference that he considered any war as a subject too vast for a single poem. Roborlelli, in his coinnicntaiy on Aristotle, repeats the latter's doctrine regarding the organism by saying that the epic embraces a single, perfect, and complete action, and that, if it be complete in cveiy part like some animal, it is beautiful and affords pleasure. If an author constitutes n^my actions in the epic, he departs from its proper art, for it ought to be a single, simple action.' In apparent opjiosition to the latter statement, he asserts that a tragic action ought to be simple, but that the epic makes the nature of its action com])licated.' lie undoubtedly has in mind, however, the intro- duction of episodes and not any complexity of the plot i)roper, for he maintains^ that the epic, which is legitimately increased i)y cpisotles, is longer than tragedy because it includes more c|)isodes. He seems to use tiic word actio in the sei»sc that Minturno employs the word narralio or story, as is more evident in the following passage: "In the ej)ic many i)arts of the action are coini)lcted at the same time; episodes arc i)arts of the action, and eacli one has a perfect and comj)Ietc action in itself,"* yet the epic as a whole seems to be a single action. Some, ignorant of the reason {ralioncin) and tiie art (artificiiim) of (he heroic jioem, iiave followed all the deeds of one man which were either accomplished at one time or in the space of many years. The action in such a poem is not one but becomes manifold {7iiuUipUccin) and diverse.* Such a poem is not to be con- demned from the point of view of length of time, because, in his « Trlsaino, "Do aru> pootlca." la Tuttt U opert, Vorona, 1720, p. 113. > RobortolU, In liiirum Ariiloltlit dt arlt potlica RcUorica tl Poiliea d' AritlotiU IradolU diGrtco in linQua tulgart FioT$nliita. Firenze, 1640. p. 300. " G. Giruldl Cinlliio, Diicorti, Vinogla, 1654, p. 8. 'Ibid., p. 11. '/tid.. p. 14. \ ■«w Eric Unity in Sixtkicni'ii-Cicntuhy Italy 9 "All the poc'tic c'Oiii])osil.ioiis wliivli contiiin deeds of heroes arc not resi rioted within the bounds which Aristotle has imposed upon the poets who write poems of a single action."' Ciraltli contends that it is better to follow many actions than a single action, because it seems that this method is more adapted to the composition in the form of roinanzi, for this diversity of action carries with it a variety which is delightful, and furnishes ample opportunitj' for the introduction of episodes or pleasing digressions and events which could never fittingly happen in that manner of poetry which describes a single action.- Despite this greater freedom in choice of subject, he cautions the poet to keep in mind the harmonious arrangement of the matter. "And this disposition ought not to be alone con- sidered in the ]irinciiial jiarts, which are beginning, middle, and end, but in every smaller section of these parts. "^ lie adopts as an excellent simile that of the body, comparing it to a composition, as follows: "Just as a man's body is made of bones, nerves, flesh, and skin, so the compositions of good poets, who write romnnzi, ought to have parts in the body of the poem which correspond to the parts of the human body."* The sections should be joined to each other like part.s of the body, though in a manner difTerent from that of Homer and Virgil. The writers of romanzi, having taken the actions of many from the beginning, have not been able to continue one matter from canto to canto, on account of the fact that all of them are intimately connected. But it has been necessaiy for them, after .speaking of one of their characters, to pass to another, breaking ofT the narration of the first and entering into the deeds of the other, and with this order to continue until the end, "a thing which they have done with marvelous art."' An especially interesting pas.sage shows Giraldi's ideas regarding the nature of the episodes that may be treated. "There can be introduced into the compo.sitions," he says, "loves, unexpected events, wrongs, vices, olifenses, defences, deceits;, deeds of courtesy, justice, liberality, virtue, treachery, faith, loj^alty, etc., and such other episodes; and there can be introduced such variety and delight that the poem will become most pleasing."' ■ Ibid., p. 22. > Ibid., p. 25. • Ibid., p. 26. < Ibid., p. 10. • /bid, p. 41. • /61U, p. 43. 10 IJalimi ('. Wri.i.iAMS GiraKli docs not Ijcliovo tli;it the .story of a wliolo life would l)e a poor coinnosifion or laoking in pleasure or utility. "For we will- ingly read in prose the life of Tliennstoeles, Coriolanws, or Honnihis, and of other excellent men; why ou^ht it to be less pleasiuK and less profitable to read it composed in verse by a noble and wise poet? For he knows how the lives of heroes ought to be written in verse for an exam])]e to the world, like history."' As the Italian has its own forms of poetry dilTerent from tiiose of other tongues and other coimtries, the Tuscan poet ought not to be confined by the limits within which the Greeks and the Latins were constrained but ought to proceed along the paths which the best Italian poets have indicated, with the same authority which the Greeks and Latins had in their language. "And this is the reason that I have many times smiled at those who have wished to place the writers of romanzi under the laws of art given by jVristotle and Horace, not considering the fact that neither one nor the other knew this tongue, nor this manner of composing."' Giraldi, nevertheless, docs not lightly cast aside the precepts of the ancients. "I do not say this, however, because I blame the precepts which are necessary to good composition, as are those which Aristotle, Cicero, and the other ancients gave."' J'igna's ideas are somewhat similar to those of Giraldi, although it is interesting to see that there arc difTcrences between the two which one would not expect to find, in view of the fact that Pigna bewails loudly the appropriation of his ideas by his teacher. Pigiia, too, contends that romanzi arc different from tiie older epic, cliicfiy on account of the fact that where the Greek and Latin poets speak continuously the Italians interrupt the course of their poems from time to time.* He, too, although with less elaborateness, considers' the epic like an animal compo.scd of substance and extraneous things (acddenli), the accidcnli being tlio episodes which arc digressions placed outside the princijial action.' As in a good composition the members will be proportionate, so in a poor one they will be pro- longed where it is unnecessary.' He recognizes, however, that the > G. Giraldi Cinthio, Ducorti. Vinegia. 1554, p. 20. • Ibiil., p. 45. > Ibid., p. 75. • O. BattistA Pigna. / Romanii. Vlnogla, 1554, p. 14. • Ibid., p. 15. • Ibid., p. 42. ' Ibid., p. 0. Eric Unity in SiXTKr-NTii-CENTunv Italy 1 1 I'pif aotion is ossonlially ono action of one pcr.soii.' Ho diffcr.s from Ginildi in saying that, allliou^^li tlio roiiianzi are ailapUMl to depict many deeds of nianj' nion, tlicy devote themselves especially to one man who is oolebraled above all the others, and thus they agree with the ei)ics in tlepictiiif; a single person. But this is not the ca-se, he adds, when it is a question of takiiif!; a single fact, because the writers of romanzi treat as many actions as they deem suitable, nor do the romanzi agree with the epics in making one action supreme and the others subordinate.' Furthermore, Pigna, in direct opposi- tion to the statement of Giraldi Cinthio, a.sserts that Aristotle has been the guide in romanzi, although he did not speak of them.* He contends also that Ariosto followed classic models. "And although the love of Angelica could have been treated differently, nevertheless it was related in this manner following the example of the Iliad."* "And to show that he has followed the Greek and Latin poets equally, he took care to begin his poem with the lines of the Iliad and to conclude it according to the form of the Aeneid."^ Bernardo Tasso, writing to Benedetto Varchi under date of March 6, 1559,* reduces the whole question to the consideration of the effect produced. "If Aristotle were born in this age and should see the most pleasing poem of Ariosto's, knowing the force of custom and realizing that it furnishes so much delight, I do not luiow whether he would change his opinion and consent that a heroic poem could be made of many actions, giving it new rules and prescribing for it new laws with his wonderful learning and judgment." Capriano, disagreeing with Aristotle when he gives precedence to tragedy, declares that the fact that the epic includes an action of many years does not cause it to have less unity i)r to be less pleasing.^ Minturno, in the De Poela, repeats the Aristotelian precept that the epic plot should be one, complete, and perfect, and that the ■ Ibtd.. p. 25. ' Ibid. ' Ibid., p. 05. "Et comoin tutto II Duello uon mal da lui veduto, lume ne dlede easo Arlstotele, cosl qulvi ne Itomanzl 6 state la nostra guida, beuclid egU mal non no parUsse." < Ibid., p. 78. ' Ibid., p. 80. • Cf. Porcacclli. Letltre di XIII huomini iUuttrij, Veoetla, lfi76, pp. 444 B. ' Caprtano. DtUa itra poetica, Vlaegia, 1656, chap. Ir. 12 Uai.i'h C. Wiluams tclli ami Ciii-iilili, lie iisrs tlic illiistnition of llm OTOUiisin. "Is not (ho huinaii liody foiiiplcic ;»ii(l ono? I'.iit ils jKirts :iro liciid, arms, haiiils, lops, hihI foot, wliioli hy Uioinsclvos ;iro oomi)lo1o. .•iii.l oiii-."' Tlioroforo when .-i lioroio poom is oooupiod with oiio actifui I ho plot will l)o ono; :ii»«l, lioraiiso it will ho ]irolraolo(l to a trroat loimth, it is customary for s\ich a poom lo oinhraoo ovonts from which many liramatio plots ran ho formed. Althoiitih the licroie narrative is ]>orn\ittod to include many thin|;s, it oupht not, however, to he so pn)lon(;ed that it seems overhurdened, nor of such length that it cannot he eompletoly Rrasped.' Minturno does not share the opinion of such writers as Sojiiii, Madius, and Capriano. Although deolarinR that the plot will be one if the action is one, he continues Baying that if a writer observe the poems of the ancients he will discover that epic actions are perfect if within the period of one year/ Vcttori contends that Aristotle teaches that one epic can be rightly prolonged to the same time limit that is required for the representation of a number of tragedies, "so that if the spectators remain in the theatre for the space of eight hours paying attention to many tragedies which arc portrayed, to that same space of time the epic may be prolonged, for it may be supposed that men would hear with pleasure an epic poem recited for the same number of hours.'" He admonishes epic writers, therefore, that they should not give the epic a larger body than would be that of all those tragedies which are produced in one day, for although epic poems were not recited in the theater in the same manner as tragedy, yet, if they were read aloud, the recitation or reading of the epic poem would consume the same amount of time as that occupied in the action of the tragic plot, an idea which was later attacked by Castel- vetro. Vettori observes that when Aristotle asserts that the epic is extended to its proper length by means of episodes, he means that without episodes the epic would be insignificant, or, in other words, he wishes to signify that the length which is perceived in • Dt Poila. VonoUld, 1680, p. 147. » Ibid., p. 152. • im. ' ^l'"'- P- '3''- » P. VlcCbrius (Vcltorl), Commentarii in primum librum Aritlottlii dt ar(e paclarum. FloroQtlae, l&OO, p. 260. Epic Unity in Sixteenth-Century Italy 13 every epic work is contributed by the episodes and is not part of the argument; "for some ignorant person who could not distinguish episodes from the argument of llie poem thouglit that this prolixity arose from the argument."' Vettori is merely corroborating the assertions of Scgni, Giraldi, and others regarding the true nature antl use of the episodes. Scaliger seems to lay himself ojion to the criticism of Vottori as being one of the imperili who fail to distinguish episodes from the argument where he says that, inasmucli as several plots can be extracted from the Iliad and the Odyssey, they cease to be a com- plete organism with one plot. "Finally Aristotle laughs at those who think that either the Iliad or the Odyssey is a complete organism with one plot, for he says that one may draw several plots from either one, because there are many parts and many episodes. So it was that the ancients used to recite certain portions taken from the whole body, as, for instance, the battle and catalogue of the shiiis, the summoning of the spirits, those things which happened on Circe's i-sland, etc."' One should certainly not be ovcrhasly in condenming Scaliger as iiupcritus, but he is unquestionably open to the criticism of failing to state his thought clearly, and of failing to define his tenns. When Aristotle says that several plots can be composed from the poems of Homer he means tragic plots and not v\iu- plots (Scaliger implies the latter meaning by his use of the word fabulas) and consequently Aristotle does not "laugh at those who think that the Iliad or the Odyssey is a complete organisnt with one plot." It will be recalled that what Aristotle really said w;is tiiat "the Iliad and tlie Odyssey have many i)arts, each one of them in itself of some magnitude; yet the structure of the two Homeric jioems is as perfect as can be, and the action in them as nearly as possible one action,"^ and Aristotle rcconnncnds that tiiey be accepteil as models in so far as they arc one organism with one plot. Scaliger, however, recognizes the need of unity wiien he subscribes to the Aristotelian idea of the organism. The author shoulil divide his book into chapters, "all so related that they constitute an organic body." ' J bid., p. 173. ■ J. C. Scaliger, foclictt, MDXCIV. lib. i, cap. Y. • CI. Ilyuator, op. cil., p. Ul. 14 TJAi.pir C. Williams Iii.iRinucli as Trissiiio's Arte podica i.s little more (liaii a para- plira.'ic of Arisfollr, wo find almost all Mm i)r<'<'q)t.s of tlic Sta^irilc rcpoatotl with only sliRlit. variation. In the fiftli division, appear- ing in 150.3, for insfaneo,' Trissino says that, care ninst Ix' talccn in fonnin}! tlic i)lot, tliat it he one, coinijletc, and Krcat; and tliis "one" docs not mean that it includes all the deeds of a single man, a matter in which many are flcecived. Trissino gives as an example of this idea of unity tlic Decameron of Boeeaccio, thus interpreting in its broadest siRnifieance the idea of Aristotle that the plot should be based on a single action, so as to enable the work to produce its own pleasure. It is not many actions of one man, but a unity resulting from the eonccrtcfl action of many. Mintunio, in I'ArU; poetka, contends that the romanzi are not the poetry which Aristotle and Horace taught.' Tiierc arc those, he continues, who confess that the romanzi do not conform to the form and rule whicli Homer and Virgil followed, and yet obstinately defend this error, saying that because such compositions treat of the deeds of wandering knights they need not conform to Aristotelian laws but require the inclusion of diverse matters. The heroic poem imitates one memorable, perfect deed of one illustrious person; the romanzi have for their object the assembling of knights and ladies, and the treatment of matters of war and of peace. The romanzi describe diverse countries and various things which happened in all the time which the story covers. Homer, he agrees, did the same thing to a certain extent, but everything he described had its origin from one beginning and was directed to one end. Tliis is not the ca.se in the romanzi} However, he contends that Ariosto could have adhered to the same law of unity by treating the same subject- matter in a different way. If Ariosto was not content to treat only the affairs of lUiggiero as the most excellent of all knights, he should have compo.scd another story devoted only to his deeds, just as Homer had done, who praised Achilles in the Iliad and Ulysses in the Odyssey. He would not then have pretended in the title that he was writing of Orlando, and then in reality have described the ' Ct. Trissino. Tutte it opcrt, Verona, 1729, p. 07. > L'arte potlica, Napoli, MDCCXXV, p. 26. ' Ibid., p. 27. Epic Unity in Sixteenth-Century Italy 15 deeds of anotlier as tlic iniiiciijal eliaiaclor, nor would lie have assembled a great mass of ))ersoiis and tliiiif^s such that a whole poem would be required to describe some of them. Minturno docs not say this to detract from the worth of Ariosto as a poet but rather to excuse him for not knowinp; better than to follow the abuses of the Tomanzi to please the many.' The writers of romanzi interrupt frequcntlj' the course of the poem, going from one part to another, and taking up the thread again where they left off. The intcr- . ruption of the narrative, contends Minturno, interferes with the enjoyment of the reader; the interest is aroused by many incidents contributing to the same end. As a perfect and well-formed animal causes delight, so is the plot sufficiently complete which can cause pleasure to the minds of others.* It is manifest that Virgil and Homer have undertaken to treat a complete and perfect matter concerning things which hap- pened only within a year. Homer treats in the Iliad that which hapjiened in the tenth year of the Trojan War; in the Odyssey, the return of Ulysses to Ithaca. These authors treat many things which arc not part of the i)lot, but parts o>it.side of it; it is necessary, liowcvcr, that they be so connoctotl that, althougli they can be separated from it without detriment to it, nevertheless they should appear to be derived from it and to be directed to the same end.* "But, although it has this prerogative of being able to increase its length so inucli, the subject-matter of tlic plot cannot deal with things which happened in a longer space than a year."* For Castclvetro the dramatic vmity of action is only a conse- quence of the unities of time and place, and hence subordinate to them; and since, as we shall sec later, he is not inclined to restrict the epic as to time and place, so the Aristotelian unity of action is of relatively little importance to him. He has, in fact, a very broad and inclusive idea of the unity of action as applied to tlie epic. He repeats the Aristotelian precept that the plot should be one and contain a single action of one person, but he follows this statement with the assertion that the epic plot can relate not only one but many actions.' The epic, then, can have a great number of actions. > Ibid., p. 20. > /6id., p. 11. • Ibid., p. 13. • Ibid., p. 2S. • Castelvelro, Poeiica d'Aritlofte, Boailoa, MDLXXVI, p. 170. IG Uau'm C. Williams Tlic question to 1)0 dclcrniiiuMl, ronsociuonlly, is tlic meaning wliicli Ciustclvctro sivos to the word " action." Is lie here making " ad ion " synonymous witli "plot" as he does elsewhere,' or is he speaking literally of the deeds of the personaRcs which will he ineliidrd in one plot, as he does in another passage ?= The latter interpretation seems to accord more witii the {general statement of his iirinciiiles. He contends, for example, that there arc nuincroijs ways of uniting many difYerent actions and of making thorn heroine one action and one hody, as for instance, the method of adhering to a limited time or place, rciiwting many actions one hccause they hapi^cn at the same time or in the same place.' The mere fact that the actions occur at the same time, however, is not sufTicicnt. for coincidence of actions docs not necessarily entail any interrelationship of events. Those epic poets err who write of actions which happened at one time to one person or more, when there is no interdependence in the happenings.'' One can l)c rcasonahly sure, then, that when Castelvctro joins the words "plot" and "action" he means the main action, just as wc speak of it, and elsewhere he desires to signify the deeds of the personages. He repeats the idea already expressed hy RohortcUi, Giraldi, and Vcttori, that hcginmng, middle, and end can first he considered in a large whole, and can then he considered in some part of that whole, as if that part were another whole somewhat smaller.^ The Trojan War, which lasted ten years, would he considcnul a i)crfect j action, and the wrath of Achilles, which is a part of the aforesaid war, considered hy itself, would be regarded as another perfect action. The explanation of the matter lies in the fact that for Castelvctro the unity of action is not the result of any necessity hut is merely the effect of the desire on the part of the author to show . "Ma ci clol.bian.o rlcordarc cbo non si puO far traKodia cho sla lodovolo la ouolo lion hal.bia duo atlioiil. cid 6. duo favolo. quaiUunquo Tuna sla prlnc palo aura 2^o.°sor" • (p. .m); a,.- «>7. ' /<»<'•. P- &11- Eric Unity in Sixthentii-Centuky Italy 17 proatcr cxcolloncc' lie contcmls tliat Iloiiior did not adopt tlic unity of action as a result of the restriction in time and place, but that tlic real reason for the adherence to such a unity was that Honior considered tlie sinfiularity of action more beautiful.' Ciistcl- vctro declares, and with more than mild disapproval, that Aristotle can adduce no other reason or proof than the example of the tranicy poets and of Ilonicr for this sinRularity of action. Such examples, apparently, arc not convinciii}!; to Castolvctro. What is more, he proceeds to exjiound his theories of this broader unity of action in direct opposition to the teaching of Aristotle. He opposes abso- lutely the views of the Stagirite. "If we believe the words of Aristotle" — and there is a strong implication that Castclvctro docs not — "we sliould have to l)lamc Vida who composed the Crialiade, in whicli are related many miraculous actions of Christ, because like those poets blamed by Aristotle he narrated many actions of one person. And furthermore (that is, if we believe the words of Aristotle), wc should not be able to commend as a well-constructed plot that of the Iliad of Homer, for, although it contains a single action (or rather a part of an action, according to Aristotle, that is, a part of the Trojan War) it is not an action of a single person but of a people, because that war was made by common consent of the chiefs of the Greeks." "And so much the less should we be able to consider" (that is, if wc believe the words of Aristotle) as a well- constructed plot that which not only contains many actions of one person, or one action of many persons, but also many actions of many persons."' All this Castclvctro considers not only possible but proper to include in tlie epic plot. He sees in the practice and method of historians the example and justification of a similar pro- cedure by the poets, inasmuch as for him poetry is an imitation of historj' — rassomiglianza d'historia. If in history, he maintains,* one can narrate many actions of a single person, as Plutarch, Sue- tonius, and others have done, there is no doubt that one can narrate in poetrj' a single action of a whole peoj)le. After thus enlarging the number of the personages to include a whole nation engaged in one action, it is but a step for Castclvctro to justify the inclusion • Ibid., pp. 170 and 504. > Ibid., p. 179. > Ibid., p. 178. < Ibid. J 18 HaLPII C. WlLUAMS of the many actions of a people such as those treated by Liv>- and other historians. And if one concede as iiennissible many actions of one people, it is readily recognized that many actions of many people can be admitted into the narration of the heroic poem.' Such, then, is the latitude with which Castelvetro treats the unity of action. But ju.st as we shall see in his treatment of tiic unities of time and place, Castelvetro the radical becomes Castelvetro the conserva- tive by the added assertion that, after all, the poet displays in a marked manner his jutl^ment and industry- when he treats a plot comprising but a single action of a single person (a plot, that is, which at first sight would not appear capable of causing pleasure to the hearers) in such a way that he causes the readers as much delight as other poets can scarcely cause with many actions of many persons.' And although he would permit unusual freedom in the unity of action, his basic belief is summarized in the words already cited: "The epic ought to comprise one action of one person, not from necessity, but for a demonstration of the excellence of the poet."' It will be seen that he admits into the legitimate domain of the epic the romanzi of which Giraldi, Pigna, and Minturno had con- stituted a genre apart, although he did not entirely countenance the "improper digressions" in the Orlando Furioso* I Castelvetro deduced the dramatic unities of time and place from I the practice and the theorj' of the tragedy, and their application to the epic is of secondary' importance to him. Just as we have seen that he treats in a broad way the unity of action, so does he assert, regarding the unity of time, that the time of the action of the epic is not detennined, becau.sc the epic, narrating with words alone, can relate an action which happened during the course of many years and in diverse places, since the words may present to our minds things distant in time and place.' The epic, then, not having to confonn to the restricted limits of time and place, like tragedy, can relate an action which happened in many years, not in many days only, and in places far distant, not in one place only. 'Cutolvotro. op. cit., p. 170. >/6iil. 'Ibid. ' Ibid., i). 220. ' Ibid., p. 100. Epic Unity in Sixtkkntii-Ckntuky Italy 19 Castelvctro docs not agree with the coinincntators such as Vcttori, who boHcvc, first, that Aristotle incatit that tlic rcadiiiR or rcciiation (cotidilutioiic) of the epic shouhl last as long as the pres- entation of several trajicdies, wliich arc recited one after another in one day; and secondly, that the ci)ic should not be so long that it cannot be read in a day. Although Aristotle had placed the dis- cussion of the length of the presentation of tragedy outside the theory of poetry, Castelvctro includes the question in his treatise, and, identifying the time of the presentation with the time of the action of the tragedy, disagrees with the first rule regariling the epic, because many tragedies naturally ought not to be capable of being recited in one day, one after another, according to his idea, for each tragedy has its limits conformable to one turn of the sun. How then, ho asks, if each tragedy occupies a whole day, can several be recited in one day, one after the other ? Regarding the second rule, Castelvctro asks: "If the epic ought not to exceed one day in roa