the very early writers, it was probably written, if not before, about the time of Pulci; and the beginning of all the cantos have the same strange allusions to scripture doctrine and story, as the Morgante. As to the performance itself, it may be classed with the greater part of the numerous publications of the same nature, but will always retain a value from the consideration that it might have been the principal source of the Orlandos Inamorato and Furioso.

With respect to the separate merits of Boyardo and Ariosto, Le Sage, in the preface to his translation, gives the following character of the two poets.

"These authors have given a free scope to their imagination, which in both was equally noble and lively : if Boyardo has the merit of invention, Ariosto, in return, has every advantage of style and manner, and the copy is doubtless greatly superior to the original. Ariosto is far more polished, his diction is chaster, and he possesses all the elegance of language: his verses are strong and sonorous; his descriptions are admirable and often sublime. On the contrary, Boyardo, is always grovelling and feeble: Ariosto, whether serious or pleasant, is every where entertaining, and preserves a degree of majesty even in his pleasantry: he is the only author who has found out the art of blending the serious with the comic, and the heroic with the familiar: by which means he is truly original, and such an original as no one has yet successfully imitated."

I shall not enter upon the comparative merits of Tasso and Ariosto: the Italians, in general, give the preference to the Orlando, and other nations allot the first place to the Jerusalem, which undoubtedly has the advantage

with respect to unity of design, regularity of disposition, and dignity of subject: these poems are of so different a nature, that they will not admit of a comparison. Mirabaud, the French translator of the Jerusalem, observes, that this matter cannot be more judiciously discussed, than in the words of Horatio Ariosto, nephew to Ludovico, who, however biassed to give the palm to his uncle, has delivered himself in the following manner.

"We cannot easily enter upon a comparison of these two poets, who have not the least resemblance to each other: the style of the one is throughout serious and elevated, that of the other is often simple and full of pleasantry. Tasso has observed the precepts of Aristotle; Ariosto has taken no guide but nature; Tasso, by subjecting himself to the unity of action, has deprived his poem of a considerable advantage derived from the multiplicity of events; whereas Ariosto, being freed from such restraint, has filled his with a number of incidents that are very delightful to the reader: these great poets have nevertheless both attained the same end, that of pleasing; but they have attained it by different .means."

Girafolo tells us, that from the first publication of his poem in 1515, to the year 1532, when he gave an edition, with his last corrections and improvements, enlarged to the number of XLVI cantos, Ariosto was continually revising and altering it, occasionally applying to the first wits in Italy for their opinion and advice, such as Bemba, Melzo, Novagero, and others mentioned in his concluding book; and that, like Apelles, he subImitted his work to the criticisms of all that would examine it.

Ariosto has been called by some a comic poet; but it should seem that such an opinion must be formed for want of due attention to the several parts of his work, which is undoubtedly serious upon the whole, though occasionally diversified with many sallies of humour. But should we, on this account, deny Ariosto the essentials of Epic poetry, we must, with equal justice, refuse the tragic laurel to our own Shakespeare, because his plays are not pure tragedies. Our bard in his dramatic representation, has drawn his whole picture from the natural world, where events are blended, and where not only the moral characters are varied, but where the same character is seen with very different aspect at different times*.

But whatever liberties we may allow an author like Ariosto, with respect to mixture of character or style, yet proverbial and ludicrous expressions, or vulgar images, immediately mixed with subjects of pathos, or elevation, must be ever disgusting. On this occasion the author of the Essay on the Genius and Writings of Pope, makes some excellent remarks, which he is led to, from some passages of this kind introduced by Mr.. Pope in his Temple of Fame.

"Strokes of pleasantry and humour, and satirical reflections on the foibles of common life, are surely too familiar, and unsuited to a grave and majestic poem †. Such incongruities offend propriety, though I know ingenious persons have endeavoured to excuse them, by saying that they add a variety of imagery to the piece.

*See Dr. Johnson's Preface to Shakespeare.

+ What is here said of an entire poem may equally be applied to any part of a poem that comes under this description.

This precept is even defended by a passage from Horace :

Et sermone opus est, modo tristi, sæpe jocoso,
Defendente vicem modò rhetoris atque poëtæ,
Interdum urbani, parcentis viribus, atque
Extenuantis eas consultó *--------

Sat. Lib. 1. Sat. 10. v. 11.

“But this judicious remark is, I apprehend, confined to ethic and perceptive kinds of writing, which stand in need of being enlivened with lighter images and sportive thoughts, and where strictures on common life may more gracefully be inserted. But in the higher kinds of poetry, they appear as unnatural and out of place, as one of the burlesque scenes of Hemskirke would do in a solemn landscape of Poussin.

"On the revival of literature the first writers seemed not to have observed any SELECTION in their thoughts and images. Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio, Ariosto, make very sudden transitions from the sublime to the ridiculous. Chaucer, in his Temple of Mars, among many pictures, has brought in a strange line:

The coke is scalded for all his long ladell.

Again,

As Esop's dogs contending for the bone t.

Now change from grave to gay with ready art,
Now play the orator's or poet's part:

In raillery assume a gayer air,

Discreetly hide your strength, your vigour spare.

+ Dryden has turned the first line thus:

FRANCIS.

And the cook caught within the raging fire he made.

But he has retained the second line.

"No writer has more religiously observed the decorum here recommended than Virgil *."

If we examine the poems of Boyardo and Ariosto, we shall find that the second, with respect to the epic part, the wars of Charlemain and Agramant, is not defective in point of unity, as it sets forth one great action, the invasion of France by the Saracens, and concludes with the victory of the Christians by the death or defeat of all the Pagan leaders, although this great action is broken and interrupted, from time to time, by an infinity of episodes and romantic adventures, artfully connected with each other and interwoven with the general fable. But Boyardo has no pretence to unity in any part of his vast and heterogeneous composition, which, beside the lesser incidents, consists of three distinct great actions: the Invasion of France by Gradasso, for the conquest of Durindana and Boyardo: the Siege of Albracca by Agrican king of Tartary, and the other enemies of Galaphron, and his daughter Angelica: and the invasion of France by Agramant to revenge the death of Troyano.

But, notwithstanding Ariosto has undoubtedly a better claim to unity of action, and regularity of design, than his predecessor; yet it is very plain that he never intended to write a regular epic poem, but that he adopted the fashionable mode of that time. As an instance of the taste then prevalent for the wild and desultory narratives of romance, it is said, that when Bernardo Tasso conceived the design of composing a poem from the Amadis de Gaul, he had at first reduced it to the plan of

Essay on the Genius and Writings of Pope, vol. i. p. 419.