Renaissance Poetic
1. The Reestablishment of the Classical Tradition
In concluding his authoritative study, _A History of Literary Criticism in
the Renaissance_, Spingarn asserts that before the sixteenth century,
"Poetic theory had been nourished upon the rhetorical and oratorical
treatises of Cicero, the moral treatises of Plutarch (especially those
upon the reading of poets and the education of youth), the _Institutions
Oratoriae_ of Quintilian, and the _De Legendis Gentilium Libris_ of Basil
the Great."[174] With the turn of the century, he goes on to say, a great
change was brought about by the publication of the classical critical
writings, especially the _Poetics_ of Aristotle. Then the mediaeval
criteria of _doctrina_ and _eloquentia_ were superseded by many new ones.
The development of Aristotelian poetic in the Italian renaissance is a
separate inquiry, which has been made extensively, and need not be gone
into here. The results which bear upon the present inquiry may be
summarized as follows:
The recovery of Aristotle's _Poetics_ brought about a complete change in
poetical theory, and stimulated in Italy a great body of critical writing
and discussion, the results of which did not reach England until almost a
hundred years later.
_The Poetics_ had been known to the middle ages only through a Latin
abridgment by Hermannus Allemanus. This was derived from a Hebrew
translation from the Arabic of Averroes, who, in turn, knew only a Syriac
translation of the Greek.[175] Although the _Poetics_ was not included in
the Aldine _Aristotle_ (1495-8), the Latin abstract by Hermannus was
printed with Alfarabi's commentary on the _Rhetoric_ for the first time at
Venice (1481). Valla published a Latin translation in 1498. The Greek text
was first published in the Aldine _Rhetores Graeci_ (1508)[176] badly
edited by Ducas. A Latin translation made by Pazzi in 1536 appears in the
Basel edition of Aristotle's _Opera_ (1538) with Filelfo's version of the
_Rhetorica ad Alexandrum_, falsely attributed to Aristotle, and George of
Trebizond's (Trapezuntius) translation of the _Rhetoric_. Robortelli
edited it in 1548. Segni translated it in 1549. It was edited again by
Maggi in 1550, by Vettori in 1560, by Castelvetro in 1570, and by
Piccolomini in 1575. It had inspired the _De Poeta_ (1559) of Minturno and
the _Poetics_ (1561) of Scaliger. But in England its critical theories
were ignored before Ascham, who cites them in the _Scholemaster_ (1570),
and never elucidated before Sidney's _Defense of Poesie_ (c. 1583, pub.
1595).
But with all the changes which were worked in the literary criticism of
the renaissance by the recovery of Aristotle's _Poetics_, renaissance
theories of poetry were nevertheless tinged with rhetoric. Vossler has
summarized renaissance theories of the nature of poetry as passing through
three stages: of theology, of oratory, and finally of rhetoric and
philology.[177] While the influence of Aristotle is most clearly seen in
the new emphasis on plot construction and characterization, the importance
the renaissance attached to style is in no small measure a survival of the
mediaeval tradition of classical rhetoric. Moreover, as Spingarn has
pointed out, there was a tendency in the renaissance for the classical
theories of poetry to be accepted as rules which must be followed by those
who would compose poetry. If a poet followed these rules and modeled his
poem on great poems of classical antiquity, some critics suggested, he
could not go far wrong. Thus one should follow the precepts of Aristotle
for theory, and imitate Virgil for epic and Seneca for tragedy. The
rhetorical character of these poetical models is significant. Both are
stylists, of a distinct literary flavor. Both recommended themselves to
the renaissance because they too were imitators of earlier literary
models.
Although with good taste as well as classical erudition Ascham preferred
Sophocles and Euripides to the oratorical and sententious Seneca, his view
was not shared by the renaissance. Scaliger, preoccupied as he was with
style, found his ideal of tragedy not in the plays of the great Greeks,
but in the closet dramas of the declamatory Spaniard. Seneca appealed to
the renaissance not only on account of his verbal dexterity and point, but
also on account of his moral maxims or _sententiae_. In England the two
greatest literary critics, Sidney and Jonson, followed Scaliger in this
high regard for Seneca. Sidney found only one tragedy in England,
_Gorbuduc_, modeled as it should be on his dramas. Its speeches are
stately, its phrases high sounding, and its moral lesson delightfully
taught.[178] And Jonson conceived the essentials of tragedy to be those
elements found in Seneca: "Truth of argument, dignity of person, gravity
and height of elocution, fullness and frequency of sentence."
The middle ages conceived of poetry as being compounded of profitable
subject-matter and beautiful style. The English renaissance never entirely
evacuated this position. Consequently the Aristotelian doctrine that the
essence of poetry is imitation was either entertained simultaneously, as
in Sidney, or interpreted to mean the same thing, as in Jonson. The
commoner renaissance idea of imitation is not that of Aristotle, but that
of Plutarch, whose speaking picture so often appears in the critical
treatises.
Robertelli thought poetic might be either in prose or in verse if it were
an imitation; Lucian, Apuleius, and Heliodorus were to him poets.[179]
Scaliger, on the other hand, insisted that a poet makes verses. Lucan is a
poet; Livy a historian.[180] Castelvetro probably came nearest to
Aristotle in asserting that Lucian and Boccaccio are poets though in
prose, although verse is a more fitting garment for poetry than is
prose.[181] Vossius anticipates Prickard's explanation of Aristotle by
defining poetry as the art of imitating actions in metrical language. To
him verse alone does not make poetry. Herodotus in verse would remain a
historian; but no prose work can be poetry.[182] These are only a few
examples typical of the general tendency which Spingarn has so thoroughly
studied.
2. Rhetorical Elements
This tendency to follow Aristotle in allowing that the vehicle of verse
was not characteristic of poetry tended to preclude any vital distinction
between rhetoric and poetic. The renaissance had inherited from the middle
ages the belief that poetry was composed of two parts: a profitable
subject matter _(doctrina)_ and style (_eloquentia_). If the definition
goes no further, then the only difference between the poet and the orator
lies in the Ciceronian dictum that the poet was more restricted in his use
of meter. Consequently, when Aristotle's theory that poems could be
written in either prose or verse was accepted, there remained no stylistic
difference at all. In fact, there is very little. But throughout the
middle ages this common focus on style had led to undue consideration of
style as ornament. In the renaissance this same tendency appears in
Guevara, for instance, and in Lyly. The Euphuistic style, as Morris Croll
has pointed out, is more largely than was formerly supposed to be the
case, derived from mediaeval rhetoric.[183]
In the theoretical treatises on poetry produced on the continent there is
frequent use of rhetorical terms. It was to be expected that scholars
whose education had been largely rhetorical should carry over the
vocabulary of rhetoric into what was on the rediscovery of the _Poetics_
practically a new science. The rhetorical influence is readily recognized
in Vida's preoccupation with the mechanics of poetry and in Scaliger's
over-analysis and extensive treatment of the rhetorical figures, the high,
low, and mean styles, the three elements (material, form, and execution)
of poetry. Lombardus makes poetry include oratory.[184] Maggi[185] and
Tifernas[186] echo Cicero that the poet and the orator are the nearest
neighbors, differing only in that the poet is slightly more restricted by
meter. J. Pontanus insists that epideictic prose and poetry have the same
material,[187] that poets should learn from the precepts of rhetoric to
discriminate in their choice of words.[188]
As an interpretation of classical doctrine this is not illegitimate; but
Pontanus runs into confusion by applying to the narrative of epic the
_narratio_ of classical rhetoric, which meant the lawyer's statement of
facts. Confusing the _narratio_ of oratory with narrative, Pontanus says:
There are three virtues of a narration, brevity, probability and
perspicuity. The epic poet should diligently strive to attain the second
and third, and may learn how to do it from the masters of rhetoric.[189]
Thus a poet should seek in an epic the same qualities which an orator is
supposed by classical rhetorics to strive for in the statement of facts of
his speech.[190] Furthermore, says Pontanus, one can write very good
poetry by paraphrasing orations in verse.[191] No wonder Luis Vives
complained in his _De Causis Corruptarum Artium_,
The moderns confound the arts by reason of their resemblance, and of two
that are very much opposed to each other make a single art. They call
rhetoric grammar, and grammar rhetoric, because both treat of language.
The poet they call orator, and the orator poet, because both put
eloquence and harmony into their discourses.[192]
From this brief summary, derived for the most part from the exhaustive
studies of Vossler and Spingarn, one may recognize some of the rhetorical
elements in the theories of poetry current in the Italian renaissance. The
Aristotelian studies of the Italian scholars very largely accomplished the
overthrow of the mediaeval theories of poetry and the re-establishment of
the sounder critical theories of classical antiquity. Their service to
subsequent criticism has been so great and their critical thinking on the
whole so sound that it may seem ungracious to call attention to a few
cases where they were unable to shake themselves entirely free from the
mediaeval tradition of classical rhetoric.