model, and epic as the supreme genre. Giangiorgio
TRISSINO’s Poetica (parts 1–4, 1529; 5–6, essentially a
translation of the Poetics, 1563) is perhaps the most im-
portant early vernacular treatise, with extensive treatment
of prosody and rhyme and examples drawn from Italian
poetry to illustrate points. La poetica (1536) by Ber-
nardino Daniello of Lucca (c. 1500–65), a disciple of
Bembo, is the earliest work to take up the question of
verisimilitude. CINTHIO’s two theoretical discourses on
drama and romance comment on many critical issues and
are notable for a certain originality. Though influenced by
Aristotle, he prefers the Roman and Senecan to the Greek
model in tragedy and defends Ariosto and the romance (as
a legitimate and distinct type of narrative). The dialogue
Naugerius (1555) by Girolamo Fracastoro (1498–1553)
takes into account the theories of Plato, Aristotle, and Ho-
race. Julius Caesar SCALIGER(Poetices libri septem, 1561)
emphasizes the didactic and moral purpose of art, which
is held to be superior to nature, ranks Virgil above Homer,
and gives clear definition to the genres. The work of
Minturno (De poeta, 1559; Arte poetica, 1563) is the most
comprehensive of Renaissance poetics in its coverage of
mimetic theory, the rules of decorum, and the definition of
genres (adding lyric to the traditional ones of drama and
narrative); as such, it influenced TASSO, RONSARD, Sir
Philip SIDNEY, and later neoclassicism. The Della rhetorica
(1562) of Francesco PATRIZIpresents a Platonic view op-
posed to the dominant Aristotelianism.
In France critical theorizing began with the poets of
the PLÉIADE, whose ideals were definitively stated in DU
BELLAY’s Défense et illustration de la langue française
(1549). It was much indebted to SPERONI’s Delle lingue
(1542), which followed Bembo in arguing for the imita-
tion of classical models as a means of improving the ver-
nacular. De Bellay’s manifesto greatly enhanced the
prestige of French—a suitable vehicle, he argued, for the
most exalted subjects—and promoted the influence of
Greek, Latin, and Italian forms of French verse. The ex-
cesses (especially in diction) and artificiality that eventu-
ally resulted were successfully countered by François de
MALHERBE, who laid the foundations for French neoclassi-
cism.
Although BACONand ASCHAMin England expressed
misgivings about the use of the vernacular in preference to
Latin, the ENGLISH LANGUAGEwas both unified and solidly
established in literary use in the 16th century and conse-
quently one dimension of critical debate, so important in
Italy and France, was minimized. More common than crit-
ical treatises in Elizabethan England were practical guides
to writing or versifying, such as, for example, George Gas-
coigne’s Certayne Notes of Instruction Concerning the Mak-
ing of Verse or Rhyme in English (1575) and Thomas
Puttenham’s Arte of English Poesie (1589). The outstand-
ing work of apologetics, reflecting a number of the princi-
pal themes of Renaissance criticism, was Sidney’s Defence
of Poesie (1595). Probably written in the early 1580s, this
treatise contains a list, significant in its brevity, of English
literary works considered by Sidney as worthy of critical
attention in that they possessed “poeticall sinnewes”:
Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde, The Mirror for Magistrates,
SURREY’s lyrics, and SPENSER’s Shepheardes Calender.
Further reading: Paul Oskar Kristeller, Renaissance
Thought and the Arts (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univer-
sity Press, 1980).criticism, textual As defined by the scholar poet A. E.
Housman, “the science of discovering error in texts and
the art of removing it.” In as much as it is a matter of the
application of common sense to emend slips of the key-
board, we practice it every day when we try to read a
newspaper or email. In as much as it is a matter of the ap-
plication of a set of rules (all of which are firmly based on
common sense) to facilitate the restoration of a classical or
biblical text, it is the product of a gradual but erratic de-
velopment at the hands of scholars from the time of the
Alexandrians (third century BCE) to the present.
The Alexandrians, notably Callimachus, Aristophanes
of Byzantium, and Aristarchus, were concerned to ensure
the survival of all extant Greek literature in its purest (i.e.
most accurate) form. This involved the acquisition and
collation (comparison) of the oldest and best manuscripts
by means of which a “critical” edition, approximating as
closely as possible to the author’s own words, could be
produced for the benefit of future readers. Their prime
legacy to subsequent generations of textual critics was fi-
delity to tradition, and this remained the aim of the best
scriptoria (centers of copying) throughout antiquity and
for most of the Middle Ages.
During the 14th century scribal practices began to
change. Less attention was given to the tradition, far more
to the exercise of subjective “correction” of texts to make
them conform with arbitrary notions of authenticity or
readability. Motives varied from bowdlerization to med-
dling for its own sake, but most alterations that were de-
liberately introduced were the result of downright
stupidity.
Happily there were exceptions. Demetrius Triclinius,
for example, a schoolmaster in Thessalonica in the first
quarter of the 14th century, made a notable contribution
to the transmission of Greek tragedy and was personally
responsible for the survival of about half of the plays of
Euripides that we know today. In the West the Italian
scholar and poet PETRARCHmade similar contributions to
the transmissions of Livy and Propertius.
In the 15th century, as the humanist tradition grew,
and with it the fashion for collecting books and in partic-
ular the literature of the ancients, the pressure mounted
on scribes to make more and more copies. The sudden
proliferation of poor-quality texts was inevitable, but
scholarly standards continued to be upheld in some quar-ccrriittiicciissmm,, tteexxttuuaall 1 12277