Pastoral Poetry & Pastoral Drama Part 49

[357] I am perfectly aware of, and in writing the above have made every allowance for, three considerations which may be urged in explanation of the pa.s.sages in question. In the first place, it must be remembered that the age was an outspoken one, and used to giving free expression to thoughts and feelings which we are in the habit of pa.s.sing over in silence. Secondly, the age was unquestionably one of considerable licence, which must be held to have warranted somewhat direct speaking on the part of those who held to a stricter code of morals; and, moreover, it must be conceded that the Puritan failing of self-righteous protestation was as a rule combined with very genuine practice of the professed virtues.

Thirdly, there is the fact that the age of thirteen was at that time, by common consent, regarded as already mature womanhood. On one and all of these heads a good deal might be written, but it would only extend yet further a discussion which has already, it may be, exceeded reasonable limits.

[358] I ought, perhaps, to apologize for thus alluding to these poems as subsequent to _Comus_, seeing that criticism usually places them some years earlier. There is, however, no external evidence of any kind, and to me the internal evidence of style points strongly to a later date.

Possibly, since they are not fonnd in the Trinity MS., they were composed during Milton's travels, which would place them after _Lycidas_ even, somewhere about 1638 or 1639. One of the ablest of our living critics, himself a close and original student of Milton, writes in a private letter: 'I long ago heard a good critic say that _Comus_ seemed to him prentice work beside _L'Allegro_ and _Il Penseroso_; and these do seem to me, I must confess, the maturer poems.' The point was raised by F. Byse in the _Modern Language Quarterly_ for July, 1900, iii. p. 16.

[359] Conversations, IV and III, Shakespeare Society, 1842, pp. 4 and 2.

[360] Those who wish to pursue the subject further will find the necessary references in Sommer's _Erster Versuch uber die Englische Hirtendichtung_, and a full discussion in an elaborate 'Inquiry into the propriety of the rules prescribed for Pastoral Poetry,' prefixed to the edition of Ramsay's _Gentle Shepherd_, published at Edinburgh in 1808. Some judicious remarks will also be found in the Introduction to Chambers' _English Pastorals_, pp. xliv, &c.

[361] This limitation, it may be observed, does not necessarily apply to all literary forms. It may, I think, reasonably be maintained that the form of the drama, for instance, is essentially conditioned by the psychological relation of author to audience, through the medium of actual representation, and that this relation is equivalent to, or at least capable of forming the basis of, a theory of drama. I am aware that such an abstract view as this finds little favour with the majority of modern critics, but while myself doubtful as to its practical value, I do not see that it involves any critical absurdity.

[362] This impulse can certainly be traced in some of the eclogues, and still more markedly in the purely lyrical verse of a pastoral sort. But the cross influences are too complex to be recapitulated here.

[363] The influence of the Latin eclogue of the renaissance was undoubtedly also direct, but though widespread it was hardly vital, and its importance, as compared with that of the vernacular tradition, may be not inadequately measured by the relative importance of the chief exponents of either, Googe and Spenser.

[364] Especially the allusions to religions controversy. The romance was, of course, highly topical in Spain, but, waiving the rather debatable point of Sidney's allusive intentions, it never appears to have been generally so regarded in this country.

[365] Possibly I ought to add a fourth, the masques at court; but their influence in large measure duplicated that of the Italian drama, and cannot be distinguished from it.

[366] See Rossi, p. 175, note 1.

[367] Ferrara, Caraffo, 1588, p. 50. Rossi, 175^{1}. Carducci, 59.

[368] _Discorso_, Padova, Meieto, 1587; Rossi, 175^{1}.

[369] _Apologia contro l'autor del Verato_, Padova, Meietti, 1590.

[370] _Il Verato secondo_, Firenze, Giunti, 1593, pp. 206-7; Carducci, 59-60.

[371] I make no pretence at having myself examined all the texts mentioned in the following discussion. Many, indeed, are only to be found in out-of-the-way provincial libraries in Italy, and have, I believe, never been examined by any one but Carducci himself. The references in my notes equally testify my indebtedness to Rossi's monograph; indeed, my whole treatment of the subject is based on his work.

[372] I shall endeavour to note the various verse-forms employed, as the evidence is often of use in determining the question of development. It may, however, be very easily misleading if unduly pressed, as by Carducci.

In general, the _terza rima_ may be taken as pointing to the influence of Sannazzaro's _Arcadia; ottava rima_, courtly or rustic, to that of Poliziano's _Orfeo_ and _Giostra_ and Lorenzo de' Medici's _Nencia_ respectively; the _endecasillabi sciolti_, or blank verse, to that of the regular drama. Of the free measures, _endecasillabi e settinari_, of the later plays I shall have to speak more in detail hereafter.

[373] Edited from MS. by Felice Bariola, with other poems of Taccone's, Firenze, 1884, p. 14. Rossi, 166^{2}; Carducci, 28^{1}.

[374] Printed in the 'Opere dello elegante poeta Seraphino Aquilano,'

Venetia, Bindoni, 1516, sig. D5. Rossi, 167^{1}. For the date, Carducci, 29^{2}.

[375] Of these authors little or nothing appears to be known. Both pieces have come down to us in MS.; see Adolfo Bartoli, _Mss. italiani della n.a.z.ionale di Firenze_, Firenze, 1884, ii. pp. 138 and 163. Concerning the first, see further, _Poesie inedite di G. Del Carretto_, by A. G. Spinelli, Savona, pp. 10-15; concerning the second, R. Renier, in the _Giornale storico della letteratura italiana_, 1885, v. p. 236, note 1. Rossi, 167^{2},^{3}; Carducci, 30^{2}, 28^{3}.

[376] _Opere_, 1516, as cited, sig. E. Rossi, 167^{4}.

[377] In _Rime_, ed. P. Fanfani, 1876-8, ii. p. 225. Rossi, 168^{1}.

[378] Rossi, 169^{2}. Carducci, 26^{3}.

[379] See B. Croce, 'Napoli dal 1508 al 1512 (da un antico romanzo spagnuolo),' in _Archivio storico per le provincie napolitane_, anno xix, fasc. i, pp. 141 and 157. Carducci, 29^{1}.

[380] _Opera nova_, Venetia, Rusconi, 1508. In the old edition the pieces are merely termed 'commedie,' the designation 'pastorali' being due to the 'Arcadian,' G. M. Crescimbeni, whose _Istoria delia volgar poesia_ originally appeared in 1698. Carducci, 41^{1}.

[381] See Carducci, p. 35. Stiefel, being only aware of the edition of 1543, hoped to find in the piece a link between Casalio and Beccari. Among several female characters introduced is one 'la quale volentieri starebbe in mezzo di due amanti o mariti: il che,' pursues Carducci, 'e del tutto opposto all' idealita delia favola pastorale.' One would have thought that certain traits in the characters of Dafne and Corisca would have occurred to him. Bitter satire on women was indeed one of the most permanent features of pastoral comedy, as it had been of the Latin eclogue.

[382] See D'Ancona, 'II teatro mantovano nel secolo _XVI_,' in the _Giornale storico_, v. p. 19. Rossi, 170^{1}.

[383] See G. Campori, _Notizie sulla vita di L. Ariosto_, Modena, 1871, p.

68. Rossi, 172^{1}. No mention of these is made by Carducci, his thesis being that the _ecloga rappresentativa_ did not obtain at Ferrara, the home _par excellence_ of the Arcadian drama. Thus, on p. 54 he writes: 'Delie parecchie ecloghe pastorali e rusticali pa.s.sate in ra.s.segna fin qui non una ce n' e o scritta o rappresentata o stampata in Ferrara, non una d'origine ferrarese. In Ferrara entriamo cla.s.sicamente e signorilmente con l'_Egle_ [1545].'

[384] Rossi, 173^{1}. Carducci, 37.

[385] See L. Frati, 'Un' ecloga msticale del 1508,' in the _Giornale storico_, xx(1892), p. 186. Carducci, 27^{2}.

[386] See O. Guerrini, _Narrazione di Paolo Palliolo_, Bologna, Romagnoli, 1885, p. 96. Carducci, 31^{1}.

[387] See C. Mazzi, _La congrega dei Rozzi di Siena_, i. p. 139 and ii. p.

100. Carducci, 31^{2}. Also Rossi, 174^{3}; his suggestion of the possible ident.i.ty of the two last-mentioned pieces has been shown by later research to be inadmissible.

[388] A battle was fought at Tai, near Pieve di Cadore.

[389] The number of such pieces is very large. A list appended to the _a.s.setta_ in 1756 runs to 109 items. An exhaustive bibliography will be found in Mazzi's work. See also the useful collection by Giulio Ferrario, forming vol. x of the 'Teatro antico' in the 'Cla.s.sici italiani,' Milan, 1812. It is unfortunate that Symonds should have referred to Ferrario's list as evidence of the fertility of the pastoral drama, even though adding that the list is 'devoted solely to rural scenes of actual life,'

since he can hardly escape the charge of regarding the rustic compositions as part of the pastoral drama proper--a position to which they certainly have no claim.

[390] Not, of course, to be confused with the _sacra rappresentazione_ so called.

[391] See F. Flamini's edition of Tansillo's poems, Napoli, 1893. Rossi, 171^{1}; Carducci, 39^{2}.

[392] Used, for example, by Sannazzaro, in his _Farsa_. See his 'Opere volgari,' Padova, 1723, p. 422.

[393] See E. Percopo, 'M. Ant. Epicuro,' in the _Giornale storico_, 1888, xii. p. 1. Carducci, 39^{1}. The earliest edition with the later t.i.tle I have met with is one dated 1533, in my possession. The British Museum has none earlier than 1535.

[394] Siena, Mazochi, 1530. Carducci, 44^{3}.

[395] It continued to be occasionally reprinted till as late as 1612.

Carducci, 44.

[396] Venezia, Zoppino, 1538. Carducci, 43^{1}.

[397] It may have been a direct borrowing, for we know that Ta.s.so was acquainted with the plays of Epicuro, whom he imitated in his _Rinaldo_ (V. 25, &c.). The _Mirzia_ is printed in 'I drammi pastorali di A. Marsi,'

ed. I. Palmerini, Bologna, 1887-8. See also Percopo in the _Giornale_, as cited. Carducci, 62. The authors.h.i.+p is a little doubtful. Creizenach, ii.

365^{1}.

[398] Firenze, 1545. Carducci, 46^{1}.

[399] _Rime_, Venezia, Giolito, 1546. Carducci, 51^{1}.

[400] Vinegia, Bertacagno, 1553. Carducci, 53^{1}.

[401] _Egle_, s.l. et a. Rossi, 176^{1}; Carducci, 54.