SOURCE: Kress, D. A. “Critics and Critiques.” In The Orlando Legend in Nineteenth-Century French Literature, pp. 63-83. New York: Peter Lang, 1996.

[In the following essay, Kress surveys the changing critical reception of Orlando furioso among nineteenth-century French critics.]

By tracing the ideas presented within the many critical assessments of the Orlando furioso produced during the nineteenth century, an excellent overview of the evolving perceptions towards Ariosto may be attained. Although present-day critics have not totally ignored this area of Ariosto studies, much remains to be accomplished. In general, research has focused on the early years of the century, in particular upon the contributions of La Harpe, Simonde de Sismondi, Madame de Staël, and Ginguené. Carlo Cordié,¹ Charles Dédéyan,² and Isabella Bassani-Nardi³ provide an excellent overview of the work of these critics.

During the early years of the century Ariosto's reputation as a writer remained beyond question. The masterpiece of “le Divin Arioste” seldom elicited anything but praise and an entire generation of young writers saw his work as a non-classical source of inspiration. However, judgments of his poem, at least in the work of French critics, became increasingly negative as the century progressed. This is due, in large measure, to the public's growing indignation with what came to be considered an overt and distasteful sexual imagery present in the work. Critics, clearly influenced by public opinion, registered ever-sharper criticism of Ariosto on this score. A second concern of nineteenth-century French criticism centers upon the question of whether or not the Orlando furioso belongs to the genre of the epic poem. Early critics tend to concur that Ariosto rivals the best epic poets; later critics disagree. A third area of interest to nineteenth-century critics is the labyrinthine structure of the poem. Much criticized, especially by early critics often steeped in classical ideals, the structure of the poem gained increasing acceptance over the course of the century. Finally, the rediscovery of the Chanson de Roland prompted a critical reappraisal of Ariosto's achievements.

In general, the Orlando furioso enjoyed almost universal acclaim during the early years of the century. The article “Arioste” in the Nouveau Dictionnaire historique of 1804 summarizes admirably the opinion of the times:

Si l'on veut mettre sans préjugé, dit un très bel esprit, l'Odyssée d'Homère avec le Roland de l'Arioste, dans la balance, l'Italien l'emporte à tous égards. Tous deux ayant le même défaut, l'intempérance de l'imagination et le romanesque incroyable: l'Arioste a racheté ce défaut par ses allégories si vraies, par des satires si fines, par une connaissance si approfondie du coeur humain, par les grâces du comique qui succèdent sans cesse à des traits terribles; enfin par des beautés si innombrables en tout genre, qu'il a trouvé le secret de faire un monstre admirable. Le grand talent de l'Arioste est cette facilité de passer tour-à-tour du terrible au tendre, et du plaisant au sublime. Il va et revient de ses descriptions effrayantes aux peintures les plus voluptueuses, et de ses peintures à la morale la plus sage.⁴

Accordingly, Ariosto is viewed as Homer's superior on all counts and the Orlando compares more than favorably with the masterpiece of epic poetry, the Odyssey. In some ways, such pronouncements seem to prefigure the Romantic credo as outlined by Hugo a quarter of a century later; Ariosto's ability to pass with ease from the comic to the sublime and from the terrible to the tender is considered his greatest achievement.

Among the rare voices raised against Ariosto's poem was that of Chateaubriand.⁵ His disdain for the work is scarcely concealed in those passages where he speaks of the poet's work. Nowhere does he state his preference more clearly than in his chapter on Tasso in the Mémoires d'outre-tombe. Tasso is clearly the superior writer:

il fait oublier l'Arioste; l'étranger quitte les os du chantre de Roland au Musée, et court chercher la loge du chantre de Renaud à Sainte-Anne. Le sérieux convient à la tombe: on abandonne l'homme qui a ri pour l'homme qui a pleuré.⁶

Even though he never fully explains why he judges Ariosto inferior to Tasso, it is possible to conjecture. Chateaubriand appreciates the pathos of Tasso rather than the light hearted banter of Ariosto. Then too, Tasso is a more obviously “christian” poet than Ariosto and the author of the Génie du Christianisme could hardly cherish interpolated scenes such as that of Fiammetta and her lover. Possibly, the comparisons that were made linking Napoleon to Charlemagne forever tainted Chateaubriand's perception of the work.

Madame de Staël points out that the poems of Boiardo and Ariosto were influenced by a sense of the fantastic that is prevalent in Arabic literature and that many of the images and events that enrich the work of Ariosto and Tasso were drawn from Arabic stories that made their way into Italy by way of Spain.⁷ Staël expresses unreserved appreciation for Ariosto, stating that he is “perhaps the greatest modern poet.”⁸ The quality Staël admires the most in Ariosto is his ability to heap ridicule on his characters' beliefs by means of exaggerated seriousness: “rien ne devoit plaire davantage aux Italiens, que ce ridicule piquant jeté sur toutes les idées sérieuses et exaltées de la chevalerie.”⁹ Clearly, when she states that Ariosto and Tasso were the inventors of a new subject of poetry, she means that it was these writers who first successfully incorporated the marvelous deeds and extraordinary events found in Arabic and Persian stories into their work.¹⁰ After Ariosto and Tasso, according to Staël, poetry in Italy suffered a decline.¹¹

Pierre-Louis Ginguené's Histoire littéraire d'Italie was perhaps the first modern literary history. Ginguené was a republican, born in 1748; he died in 1816, leaving the eighth and ninth chapters of his work to be completed by Salfi.¹² Ginguené is the first to claim that the Orlando was written to gain the favor of the d'Este family who regarded Ruggiero as a common ancestor.¹³ From this Ginguené draws the conclusion that the loves and deeds of Roger and Bradamante are the real subject of the Orlando and that Orlando's madness is only a major subplot.¹⁴

Ariosto's greatest gift, according to Ginguené, is his narrative ability. Comparing Tasso and Ariosto, Ginguené states:

Dans le siècle que nous parcourons, le Tasse est non-seulement le premier poëte héroïque, mais il n'a point de second; l'Arioste, au contraire, est bien le premier des poëtes romanciers, et le premier à une grande distance de tous les autres, mais après son Roland furieux, on peut lire le Roland amoureux, du Berni l'Amadis et peut-être quelques autres encore.¹⁵

Ginguené outlines many of the points that will concern later critics. His assertion that Ruggiero is the true hero of the poem receives much scrutiny; many critics use this argument to claim that Ariosto is merely a court poet who sells his work for the pleasure of his patron. Ginguené's contention that Ariosto is the undisputed master of narrative technique also draws the attention of later critics.

Like Madame de Staël and Ginguené, La Harpe expresses deep admiration for Ariosto's achievements. Above all La Harpe appreciates the poet's style and narrative technique: “[l'Arioste] a fait oublier le Boiardo et le Pulci en immortalisant leurs fictions, qu'il embellissait des charmes de son style.”¹⁶ When La Harpe compares the Orlando furioso to La Pucelle, he finds Ariosto's poem to be vastly superior: Voltaire never awakens the reader's curiosity as does Ariosto.¹⁷ However, when he compares Ariosto's Giocondo with La Fontaine's Joconde, he agrees with Boileau that La Fontaine improves upon the original: “La Fontaine l'emporte par ces traits de naturel et de naïveté.”¹⁸ Like other critics of the period, La Harpe recognizes the variety of registers found in Ariosto's work; when a scene is touching, he reveals the pathos of the moment and does not spoil it with misplaced gaiety.¹⁹

La Harpe rarely discusses specific episodes and when he does, the comments are confined to generalizations. The three episodes he does mention include Jocondo's adventure, examined above, and two scenes which he deems worthy of Homer: the Saracen attack on the city of Paris and a description of a storm.²⁰

When one considers the scope of La Harpe's Cours de littérature, it is surprising that the critic fails to discuss Ariosto's contributions at greater length. Indeed, at one point, he states that he intends to examine the Italian poet,²¹ but this study was never forthcoming. One might wonder if La Harpe really read Ariosto's poem.

Sismondi's De la littérature du midi de l'europe first appeared in Paris in 1817 and enjoyed an excellent reputation as one of the best critical and literary histories of the period. Sismondi's work deserves consideration in some detail as it resumes and comments upon much of the critical thought of the day, helping to shape public opinion of the work. Indeed, the period of this critic's greatest influence coincides perfectly with the most turbulent era in the Orlando's history.

Sismondi carefully presents an abbreviated history of the poet's life which is edited to show how events affected his literary productions and quickly enters into a critical assessment of the Orlando. He suggests that the poet had no intention of writing an epic poem and for this reason chose to write in Italian rather than in Latin; Ariosto knew the classical rules but chose to create new ones for his work.²² Choosing to abandon unity of action, the poet begins his work in the middle of a battle and fails to give any exposition, as if he assumed that everyone would have read the work of his predecessors.²³ Sismondi points out that the principal characters of the work make their entry at different times in such a way that even near the end of the poem there are new characters who appear.²⁴ This is a peculiarity of Ariosto, who seems to attach himself to each of his characters as if that individual had become the main hero of the work:

lorsqu'il l'a conduit dans une situation embarrassante, et qu'il a suffisamment excité l'anxiété de ses lecteurs, il l'abandonne en plaisantant, pour passer à d'autres personnages, ou à une autre partie de la fable qui est sans rapport avec la premièré.²⁵

In general, Sismondi believes that this lack of unity in the Orlando is a defect which interferes with the total appreciation of the book and which can cause the reader to lose interest in the story.²⁶

While Sismondi criticizes certain aspects of Ariosto's masterpiece, he does praise the work on several counts. The unswerving valor of the heroes and heroines gives an uplifting example to the reader:

malgré la disproportion de toutes les causes avec tous les effets, malgré la petite raillerie qui semble accompagner toutes les descriptions de batailles, l'Arioste sait toujours exciter je ne sais quel enthousiasme de bravoure, quelle ivresse des combats qui fait désirer à chaque lecteur d'être chevalier.²⁷

Sismondi also discovers the world created by Ariosto to possess aesthetic value because it is a poetic vision where the vulgar aspects of life are left behind, a world where love and honor form the only laws, where the pain and sorrow caused by vanity or inequality of rank or riches have no place; the reader finds a happy distraction from the cares of his everyday world. Sismondi states: “la différence de la vie chevaleresque à la vie réelle est telle, qu'on ne peut jamais faire à l'une la moindre application des leçons puisées dans l'autre.”²⁸ Since instruction is not the goal of the work, the Orlando should be savored for its own beauty. While Sismondi acknowledges that Ariosto was not the creator of the troubadour style, he maintains the Orlando to be the highest achievement in the literature of chivalry.²⁹

The third edition of Sismondi's work appeared in 1829 and contained a rebuttal to Ginguené's argument that the real hero of the work was Roger and not Roland. He clearly states that the hero of the Orlando is the character who bears that name and rails at Ginguené: “on pourrait encore s'étonner cependant que si le but entier du poème est une flatterie pour la maison d'Este, l'auteur l'eût tellement dissimulée, qu'on ne l'eût reconnue que trois cents ans après sa mort et lorsque la maison d'Este était éteinte.”³⁰ While such conflicting views have a limited importance today, they do serve to show the interest generated by the work during the nineteenth century.

The remainder of Sismondi's study seems to be of lesser interest. There is, however, a brief discussion of Ariosto's use of magic and the supernatural, a eulogy of the many lovers who people the pages of the Orlando and who became material for later poets, and much praise of Ariosto's versification.³¹

Sismondi's study sets the stage for much of Ariosto criticism during the following century. He initiates the discussion of the Orlando as epic poetry; he addresses the question of the poem's structure; he praises the poem for its contribution to troubadour literature and the cult of chivalry. While critics throughout the century continue to examine the epic and non-epic qualities of the work as well as to discuss its structure, interest in the Orlando as a proponent of the cult of chivalry vanished along with Napoleon's dreams of empire. The single issue not touched upon by Sismondi and which was to become extraordinarily important in the following years was the questionable morality expressed in various episodes of the poem. This is hardly surprising; such issues provoked little alarm among critics educated in the eighteenth century.

Certainly, the contagion of excessive moralizing that swept through France after the July Revolution did little to enhance Ariosto's reputation. Such posturing on the part of “moral” journalists provoked the wrath of many, including Gautier, who, as early as 1834 had decried their hypocrisy in the preface to Mademoiselle de Maupin:

Cette grande affectation de morale qui règne maintenant serait fort risible, si elle n'était fort ennuyeuse.—Chaque feuilleton devient une chaire; chaque journaliste, un prédicateur; il n'y manque que la tonsure et le petit collet. Le temps est à la pluie et à l'homélie; on se défend de l'une et de l'autre en ne sortant qu'en voiture et en relisant Pantagruel entre sa bouteille et sa pipe.³²

One can imagine the chagrin of Gautier who wrote an entire novel about Madelaine de Maupin, whose adventures the author compares to those of Ariosto's Bradamante.³³ Indeed, if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then Gautier, whose admiration of Ariosto is well documented, found much material for his novel within the pages of Ariosto.

For Gautier Ariosto's creation must have admirably fulfilled the criterium that art should not have a utilitarian function. His admiration finds expression not only in the preface to Mademoiselle de Maupin, but also throughout the Histoire du romantisme. In his account of the “Bataille d'Hernani,” where his group battled the “hydre du perruquinisme,” Gauutier describes the young writers as warriors of Romanticism, mounted not upon a classic steed such as Pegasus, but upon Ariosto's hippogryph.³⁴ The links with the Orlando furioso do not end here; discussing Hugo's play, Gautier identifies Hernani's horn with that of Roland.³⁵ While this is a possible reference to the Chanson de Roland, given the date of the Histoire du romantisme, it seems more likely that Gautier had in mind Ariosto's work. Gautier continues by comparing the young writers of the period to Napoleonic soldiers who were answering the “cor d'Hernani.”³⁶ Indeed, such comparisons with Napoleon and his armies were frequent and intentional, even when inaccurate:

Dans l'armée Romantique comme dans l'armée d'Italie, tout le monde était jeune. Les soldats pour la plupart n'avaient pas atteint leur majorité, et le plus vieux de la bande était le général en chef, âgé de vingt-huit ans. C'était l'âge de Bonaparte et de Victor Hugo à cette date.³⁷

These parallels illustrate not only the importance of Ariosto during the formative period of Romanticism, but also demonstrate how the Orlando furioso was admired by Gautier on account of its images of chivalry which had come to be identified with the warriors of the Empire.³⁸ The other issues that concerned the critics of the times never tempted Gautier; he never wished to force the Orlando into a mould cast for epic poetry, nor did the non-classical structure of the poem disturb him in the least. These, in fact, were the very elements of freedom that drew him to Ariosto's writings.

Victor Tourneur first published his study on Ariosto in 1844 in Brussels and it is of interest because it summarizes the concerns of literary critics of the period.³⁹ Because of its proximity in time to the reappearance of the Chanson de Roland, one would expect the author to take into account the publication of a work of such importance; however, if Tourneur knew of the Chanson, he chose to maintain a strict silence on that score. Because Tourneur fails to mention this event, his study must be considered among those works which date from the early part of the century.

Tourneur addresses many of the issues which were judged to be pertinent by his contemporaries. He examines the poem and judges it to be an “épopée moderne” and compares Ariosto's work with that of Dante.⁴⁰ Tourneur also enters into a more detailed analysis of the geography and mythology of the Orlando than did any of his contemporaries.⁴¹

Perhaps the most important question examined by Tourneur centers on the issue of whether or not the Orlando fulfills the requirements of epic poetry. If the first requirement for such poetry is unity of action, it must be determined if the Orlando possesses such unity. Seemingly Ariosto's work would not meet this requirement because the multitude of episodes strung together tells a myriad of differing tales. Tourneur, however, sees one principle that unifies the whole:

l'unité d'action se résume et se concentre dans la chevalerie toute seule. C'est là l'action et le noeud de l'épopée tout entière, car la passion chevaleresque s'étend d'un bout de l'univers à l'autre; elle anime Gardasse, Sacripant, les fils de Trojan et d'Agricane, aussi bien que Charlemagne, Roland, Roger, Dudon, Brandimart et tous les autres paladins.⁴²

In a continuation of this argument, Tourneur explores Ginguené's claim that the true hero of the work is Ruggiero and the real goal of the poet is to heap adulation upon the d'Este family. His conclusion seems to contain a contradiction; intrinsically Ginguené may be correct, he admits, but he goes on to say that such was not Ariosto's intention.⁴³

A second requirement for epic poetry is that there must be an objective goal. Tourneur maintains that “le poème épique doit avoir, quand il est sérieux, une fin objective, et tendre à procurer le plaisir de l'imagination par les sentiments et les idées.”⁴⁴ His statement, “quand il est sérieux” implies that, in this critic's opinion, epic poetry need not always be serious. Indeed, Tourneur suggests that the Orlando should be considered a burlesque of epic poetry and that, far from being a weakness, it is through this rare combination of the serious and the comic that Ariosto achieves his eminence.⁴⁵

With Tourneur opens the period of bitter and escalating attacks on the dubious morality expressed in the Orlando furioso. The importance of this issue must not be understimated because it underscores how the public had come to understand the poet; no longer amusing, Ariosto was taken all too seriously and his bawdy humor found fewer and fewer enthusiasts among the average citizens of France.

A new avenue of Ariosto criticism opened with the publication of the Chanson de Roland in 1837. From this moment onward Ariosto would suffer comparison with an ancient production of French origin. Still, for some time Ariosto's renown retained for him a privileged position among writers who had sung the exploits of the heroes of old France. An example of this may be found as late as 1846. Indeed, in the Biographie universelle, Ariosto's poem is compared favorably with the Chanson de Roland; the article cites La Chronique de Turpin, Le reali di Francia, and the Chanson de Roland, and, in a clearly dated conclusion, maintains that “de tous les poèmes dont Roland est le héros, le plus célèbre, ou du moins le seul qui soit encore lu aujourd'hui, c'est l'Orlando furioso de l'Arioste, qui a clos par un chef-d'oeuvre cette longue série de chants, de ballades, de romans, et de poèmes.”⁴⁶

The year 1846 provided a new study on Ariosto within the pages of Edouard Mennechet's Etudes sur les littératures modernes.⁴⁷ This work contains a chapter on the literary productions of Michelangelo, Ariosto, and Tasso. After a brief discussion of the merits of Michelangelo's poetical achievements, Mennechet quickly examines the Morgante maggiore of Pulci, who, he claims, drew his characters from Turpin and Adenez.⁴⁸ Mennechet also examines Boiardo's Orlando innamorato and suggests that his most important contribution was his invention of names and characters.⁴⁹ Sacripante, Agramante, Mandricard, and Rodomonte were all creations of Boiardo, according to Mennechet,⁵⁰ and these same personages were later to figure importantly in the Orlando. The critic relates the following anecdote about Boiardo, who obviously attached great importance to the names of his characters: “pendant une partie de chasse, comme il cherchait un nom pour un héros maure, celui de Rodomont lui vint à la pensée: aussitôt il rentra chez lui au galop, et dans sa joie fit sonner les cloches et tirer le canon, comme s'il eût remporté la plus brillante victoire.”⁵¹

Mennechet points out that it was in Ariosto's poem that these characters found their immortality rather than in the works of Pulci or Boiardo, and the critic gives numerous examples to illustrate the immediate and complete triumph of the poem.⁵²

While Mennechet outlines a rather truncated version of the poem where he seems to heavily weight the story of Angelica and Orlando, he shows correctly how the work is composed of “une action qui embrasse mille actions diverses” and points out how the poet draws upon historical facts which he elaborates and into which are woven elements of magic.⁵³ He concludes that the poem is, in fact, a study of the codes of chivalry:

Les noms de Charlemagne et de ses paladins semblent indiquer que les événements de ce poème ont un caractère historique et qu'ils se rapportent à la guerre que ce roi fit aux Sarrasins d'Espagne, guerre dans laquelle périt Roland, en l'année 778, à la fameuse bataille de Roncevaux. Mais l'Arioste fait assiéger Paris par les Sarrasins; Agramont et Rodomont y entrent même en vainqueurs. L'histoire ne fut donc jamais plus complètement dénaturée que dans le Roland furieux: tout y est fiction, fable, mensonge, et par cela même tout y est poétique. C'est la chevalerie, et non l'histoire qui est l'âme de ce poème.⁵⁴

Mennechet then compares the Orlando with epic poems such as the Iliad and the Aeneid and suggests that Ariosto's work lacks any “grande action héroïque, fortement conçue, qui pénètre l'âme d'émotions profondes et durables.”⁵⁵ For Mennechet, these characteristics of epic poetry seem to be lacking in Ariosto's Orlando, which wavers between the double themes of love and honor without fixing upon one principal subject or hero.⁵⁶ By contrasting the Iliad with the Orlando, Mennechet concludes that Ariosto's creation is something other than an epic poem:

Dans l'Iliade, la colère d'Achille est bien réellement le sujet du poème: elle le remplit tout entier, soit qu'il se retire dans sa tente pour punir Agamemnon de l'outrage qu'il a reçu, soit qu'il se lance dans la mêlée pour venger la mort de son ami Patrocle. Mais dans le poème de l'Arioste la démence de Roland n'est qu'un épisode, qui ne commence qu'au vingt-troisième chant, et qu'on pourrait supprimer tout entier sans que le poème en souffrît beaucoup.⁵⁷

Mennechet recognizes that the multiple episodes are an intentional device used to create striking effects. According to the critic, the poet thus achieves a kind of beauty previously unknown.⁵⁸ Mennechet claims that each canto begins with a moral whose truth is demonstrated by the story that follows.⁵⁹

Mennechet thus addresses some of the important issues of the period in his chapter on Ariosto. When he maintains that there is no one hero or subject, he is echoing the views of many critics who debated the relative importance of Roland and Roger. In his discussion of whether or not the work is an epic poem, he shows himself to be abreast of the critical issues concerning Ariosto raised around the middle of the century when the question was much debated. It is in his appreciation and recognition of the newness of Ariosto's achievements that Mennechet seems in advance of other critics of the first half of the century. Until this moment, the meandering stories of the poem were often considered a weakness on account of their seeming lack of unity and Ariosto was forgiven only because of the greatness of his verse.

The questions that Mennechet fails to examine are at least as important as the areas explored in his study. He avoids any discussion of the various translations of the period and there is no mention of the Chanson de Roland, whose rediscovery must be considered of prime importance in the literary history of Ariosto's Orlando.

The first edition of Henri Prat's literary history of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries appeared in 1853; the second edition was published nearly a quarter-century later.⁶⁰ A comparison of these two editions helps to show exactly how public appreciation of the Chanson de Roland had continued to grow while appreciation of the Roland furieux seems to falter. In 1853 Prat had either been unaware of the Chanson or he had judged it to be of such little consequence that he chose not to mention it in his literary history. This lacuna is rectified in the 1877 edition where the author introduces a major chapter on the Chanson and doubles his “appréciation des romans de chevalerie.”⁶¹ This inclusion is important because it underscores a fundamental shift in the way these works were perceived both by serious scholars and by the public at large. Unfortunately, in the 1877 edition, Prat fails to take into account the ramifications of the 1837 discovery in his chapter on Ariosto; there is not a single mention of the Chanson de Roland in this chapter even though its reappearance marked a turning point in Ariosto studies. The chapter on Ariosto would have been acceptable, if somewhat dated, in 1853; in 1877 it is intolerably lacking. Generally Prat repeats other critics and avoids registering his own ideas. He seems to follow Tourneur in that he calls the work a “poème burlesque”⁶² and he carefully avoids describing the work as an epic, using instead the words “livre,”⁶³ “fable,”⁶⁴ “poème,”⁶⁵ or “ouvrage.”⁶⁶

He repeats Ginguené's argument concerning Ruggiero, “dont le ciel a décidé le mariage avec Bradamante pour en faire la tige de la maison d'Este.”⁶⁷ Like Ginguené, Prat deplores what he considers to be flattery unworthy of a poet: “c'est donc une oeuvre de courtisan qu'il a faite, et nous le regrettons.”⁶⁸

Prat's critical abilities flounder in his study of Ariosto and his ideas seem to be appropriated from other critics. Failing to add a new perspective, his pronouncements are puerile: “nous nous sommes passionnés pour ces grands coups de lance.”⁶⁹ Frequently he lapses into long citations of various episodes of the work.

The issue of the Orlando furioso as epic poetry seems to have been resolved in 1860 by Victor Cherbuliez in his article, “Philosophie du beau.”⁷⁰ Comparing Homer and Ariosto, he concludes that the Orlando, is, indeed, an epic poem of the first order. The critic cites Aristotle's definition of epic poetry; an epic poem is “une fable qui fait un ensemble dramatique, dont toutes les parties se rapportent à une action unique et complète, ayant commencement, milieu et fin, formant en un mot un tout comme l'est un être vivant.”⁷¹ Cherbuliez shows how all Ariosto's characters, while retaining an intense individuality, are swept away by “la situation générale dans laquelle ils se trouvent.”⁷² The unifying element, according to this critic, resides in the tremendous ebb and flow generated by the clash of two distinct and hostile cultures.⁷³ Nonetheless, Charlemagne remains at the center of the poem, uniting the characters who have been so widely dispersed by fate and passion.⁷⁴ In opposition to the notion of “devoir,” personified by Charlemagne, is passion, a centrifugal force which casts Ariosto's knights from their true path.⁷⁵ According to Cherbuliez, the true enemy of Charlemagne is none other than Angelica, who, representing passion, leads astray the paladins of France; she is a chimera who vanishes at their approach as she strives to destroy the unity of the Christian armies.⁷⁶ According to Cherbuliez, the countless episodes that form the fabric of this gigantic struggle do not merely interrupt the narrative, but reflect accurately the nature of feudal existence: “le régime féodal chanté par les trouvères assurait plus d'importance personnelle à l'individu, augmentait sa liberté d'action, affranchissait ses passions de toute gêne incommode.”⁷⁷ The reader should not be shocked by the myriad digressions that fill the pages of the Orlando; such digressions are imposed upon the author by the very nature of the subject.⁷⁸

Cherbuliez's study closes the quarrel which centered upon the question of the Orlando furioso as an epic poem. Later critics either avoid the subject or repeat this critic's arguments. Concerning Ariosto's eroticism, Cherbuliez says little, although it is clear that he finds no reason to rank the Orlando as erotic literature.⁷⁹ In general, the study offers many new interpretations of a work the author clearly admires. Cherbuliez's disdain for Ariosto's detractors is scarcely concealed; such clear and open hostility to critics who hold a differing opinion constitutes the greatest weakness of the article.

No author of the stature of Ariosto could escape Lamartine's scrutiny in his Cours familier. Indeed, he published in 1860 a rather lengthy study of the Italian poet.⁸⁰ Lamartine establishes from the first sentence the tone of his essay: “sortons un moment de l'art sérieux pour donner quelques heures d'attention à l'art du badinage.”⁸¹ In general, Lamartine considers the Orlando to be a product of the second childhood of Italian literature, which had passed beyond the decadence of its old age to produce works of inestimable value.⁸²

Lamartine's approach to his study of Ariosto differs greatly from that of other critics. He maintains a personal, even informal, tone while relating his visit to Ariosto's house in Ferrara,⁸³ but adopts a more serious style for his biography of the poet and his review of the literature of the period.⁸⁴

The observations which conclude the first section of the study give insight into what Lamartine considered to be the special domain of the Orlando. Admitting that for many years he had held Ariosto in disdain, Lamartine closes with the statement that the Orlando inspires pleasure only to the very young or to the very old:

Nous ne conseillerons donc jamais à un homme dans la maturité active de la vie de lire l'Arioste; à l'âge où les passions sont sérieuses, on ne comprendrait pas ce badinage avec l'héroïsme ou l'amour. Le livre, quoique délicieux, tomberait des mains. Il faut le lire avant l'âge des passions: c'est ainsi que nous l'avons lu la première fois nous-même, avant notre vingtième printemps; c'est ainsi que nous le relisons aujourd'hui après notre soixantième hiver.⁸⁵

Lamartine's study comprises some one hundred and fifty pages and holds promise for one who wishes to trace the progress of the Orlando throughout the century. The first five chapters, outlined above, form a kind of introduction and the remaining chapters resemble more a nostalgic flight of fancy than a critical inquiry into Ariosto's accomplishments. In these chapters Lamartine simply relates his voyage to Italy when he was a young man of nineteen.⁸⁶ He tells of his hostess, the countess Helena, whom he compares to “Genèvre,”⁸⁷ her young daughter Thérésina, in whom he sees an “Angélique,”⁸⁸ and he describes the old canonico and a professor who frequently accompanied the group during their many pastoral outings. To be sure, Lamartine uses the two gentlemen as foils for his own ideas on Ariosto. The professor, a caricature, has but one mania—the Orlando furioso. He carries it with him everywhere: “il en avait une édition dans toutes ses poches”⁸⁹ and feigns surprise that the young Lamartine is ignorant of one of Italy's great poets.⁹⁰ The canonico claims the work to be unfit reading for the young because “il y a trop d'amourettes”⁹¹ but agrees to mark the sections that he considers to be worthwhile reading for the young.⁹² He delivers much the same message as many of the critics of the nineteenth century who object to what they consider Ariosto's failure to be circumspect in regards to morality and religion. The professor, on the other hand, seems to represent the blind and unquestioning admiration of intellectuals who are out of touch with public morals.

Much of Lamartine's study is little more than a retelling of various episodes of the Orlando peppered with critical observations which are, at times, contradictory. For instance, at one point Lamartine calls Ruggiero the real hero of the poem;⁹³ later the critic describes Orlando in exactly the same terms.⁹⁴ Like the old abbot who forbids the young poet to read the history of Ricciardetto, Lamartine clearly objects to the more sexually provocative scenes: “le chant qui contient l'histoire de Joconde […] devrait être déchiré de toute édition populaire de l'Arioste.”⁹⁵ One cannot expect to find the stories of Alcina, or la Gioconda in this modified paraphrase of Ariosto. Such episodes obviously inspired a sense of disgust in the poet who sought always to sing of a more noble love. On the other hand, Lamartine presents at length the episodes of Ginevra, of Ruggiero and Bradamante, and of Medoro and Angelica and Orlando's ensuing madness. He dwells upon the scenes of tender, uplifting examples of love and skims through the remainder of what he considers an “épopée.”⁹⁶

The informality of Lamartine's study is disarming. Sometimes he simply paraphrases the events of the Orlando; sometimes he translates Ariosto's verse into prose with the exactitude of a scrupulous poet. Given the relatively large volume of verse translated from the Orlando, this area of Lamartine studies seems not to have received the attention that one might expect. That Lamartine, bard of the nineteenth century, should translate lengthy passages from Ariosto is not as surprising as it might seem; many episodes in Ariosto that give examples of pure and tender harmony between two lovers would draw the attention of Lamartine most effectively.

By the year 1868 the Chanson de Roland's conquest of the public was complete. Studies such as that of Karl Hillebrand still included chapters devoted to Ariosto, but tended to examine more narrow aspects of his work.⁹⁷ The declining fortunes of the Italian poet can be seen in the fact that Hillebrand consecrates a full chapter of twenty pages to Ariosto's theater,⁹⁸ and yet, he chooses to bury his rather meager analysis of the Orlando within another chapter, “Les poèmes italiens.”⁹⁹ Since this chapter immediately follows another entitled “L'épopée nationale,”¹⁰⁰ an extended study of the Chanson de Roland, there can be little doubt in the reader's mind as to the relative importance Hillebrand attaches to these works. Today the importance of the Chanson de Roland is well established, but studies such as that of Hillebrand serve to show that this has not always been the case. Indeed, an analysis of such studies shows that although the Chanson de Roland was rediscovered in 1837, the history of its rediscovery, in fact, endures throughout the nineteenth century and parallels the eclipse of the Orlando furioso in France.

Hillebrand claims that the glory of nineteenth-century French criticism was that it defined the nature of epic poetry.¹⁰¹ The national poem of France, according to this critic, was the Chanson de Roland, which “tout collégien français de quatorze ans devrait savoir par coeur […] comme tout Spartiate pouvait réciter son Iliade.”¹⁰² In contrast, Hillebrand fails to include Ariosto's Orlando among the most important works dealing with Charlemagne and by this silence relegates the work to a position of lesser importance. Certainly, at an earlier date, it would have been impossible to conceive of any literary discussion of Ariosto in France taking such an abbreviated form.

In some ways Hillebrand seems to perceive Ariosto with less bias and more clear-sightedness than did critics in the early years of the century. For instance, he recognizes that “l'Arioste rit de l'idéal chevaleresque auquel il ne veut pas croire, parce qu'il n'en trouve plus chez les chevaliers élégants et corrompus de Ferrare.”¹⁰³ How different from the young, naive soldiers who marched under Napoleon and the critics who saw in Ariosto's poem the epitome of all that was chivalrous! Still, if Hillebrand sees in Ariosto a work whose stature does not reach the level of a national epic, he does draw a parallel between Renaissance Italy and the years of the Directory; in the words of this critic, Ariosto's chivalry is best embodied by the “classes élevées sorties de la grande révolution de la Renaissance que Castiglione nous a peintes et qui, si elles n'avaient eu l'art de la beauté, ressembleraient aux hautes classes du Directoire.”¹⁰⁴

Hillebrand gives no biographical information about the Italian poet, nor does he enter any of the literary quarrels that had characterized Ariosto studies during the first half of the century. Arguments over whom Ariosto intended to be the real hero of the book seem to have lost relevancy by this date and the debate over whether or not the Orlando deserved to be counted as an epic poem seems incapable of arousing the critic's interest. Ariosto's great work had become almost ancillary to the Chanson de Roland; having begun the century as the most brilliant of the works that celebrated Roland, Ariosto's masterpiece had become almost an appendage to the Carolingian cycle.

Armand de Tréverret, a professor of literature at the Faculté des Lettres de Bordeaux, contributed a lengthy work on Ariosto in 1879.¹⁰⁵ Tréverret's study, however, shows little critical acumen. Indeed, in a work that adds nothing to a critical understanding of the Orlando, the critic contents himself with retelling the story: “nous reconterons et nous citerons beaucoup.”¹⁰⁶ Perhaps the most informative chapter offered by Tréverret is his “Vie de l'Arioste,” twenty-six well-written pages devoted to Ariosto's literary development.¹⁰⁷ Of the nearly two hundred pages devoted to Ariosto's work, the critic allots less than a dozen to an analysis of the poem. Here, Tréverret parrots other critics, adds no personal observations and concludes: “laissons enfin les froides dissertations critiques et résumons le Roland furieux.”¹⁰⁸ The remainder of the study is, in fact, little more than a summary of various episodes of the poem.

Marc Monnier, one of the last to translate Ariosto in the nineteenth century, contributed a study of the poet in 1882.¹⁰⁹ Monnier begins his analysis with an overview of Ariosto's work in Latin written near the beginning of his career.¹¹⁰ He quickly passes to a brief examination of the early plays in Italian.¹¹¹ The critic maintains that all of these early works must be considered nothing more than formative studies for the young poet.¹¹² Monnier then traces a broad sketch of the poet's life as well as a brief synopsis of his literary fortunes until the nineteenth century.¹¹³ Entering upon the subject of the Orlando furioso, Monnier examines the debt owed by Ariosto to his predecessors, Berni, Boiardo, and Pulci, and shows how the Italian poets derived their work from French chansons de geste.¹¹⁴

Monnier reacts strongly to critics who assign a moral or political role to the Orlando furioso, claiming that Ariosto remained perfectly disinterested in all such notions.¹¹⁵ The observation is just; however, an author's indifference to political or moral questions does little to change the fact that a book can be interpreted in innumerable ways, according to the changing filter of time and culture. Ariosto's single goal, Monnier maintains, is to “dépeindre et représenter le monde chevaleresque: il chante les dames et les chevaliers.”¹¹⁶ On this score, then, Monnier agrees with the concensus of critical thought. He denies that the unity of the work lies in the war between Charlemagne and Agramonte; rather, any application of the concept of unity to the Orlando is an absurd attempt on the part of critics who are striving to force Ariosto's poem into a classical mould.¹¹⁷ On the contrary, the vital characteristic of this world, according to Monnier, is freedom:

Le trait essentiel de ce monde est précisément l'initiative individuelle, le manque de sérieux, d'ordre, de persistance dans une action unique et principale, si bien que les actions sont appelées des aventures et que les chevaliers se disent errants. Se détacher du centre et aller au hasard, voilà la continuelle occupation de ces preux sans discipline. Organiser ce monde d'après “les préceptes du genre,” ce serait vouloir le fausser.¹¹⁸

One can readily imagine from the tone of the above that Monnier feels little sympathy for critics who wish to force the Orlando into a mould of classical unities; Monnier agrees with Cherbuliez: if Ariosto's poem is not constructed along the lines of the Iliad, it is because the very nature of the subject excludes such a treatment.¹¹⁹

As can be seen, Monnier continues to address many of the same issues that had attracted other critics of the century. The sole question not addressed by the critic is the accusation that Ariosto's masterpiece fails to observe a proper respect for morality. This is due, perhaps, to the fact that Monnier might have felt that such topics held little interest for Ariosto and so examination of such issues had no place in a discussion of his work.

Léon de Monge published his Etudes morales et littéraires in 1889.¹²⁰ As the title indicates, this study focuses almost exclusively on the moral aspects of the works the author has chosen to include. Numerous errors of fact and a clearly partisan, condescending attitude seriously mar Monge's effort; for instance, the author goes so far as to claim that Ariosto's Orlando and all the other works in a similar vein were nothing more than “un remaniement vulgaire et plat de la Chanson de Roland.”¹²¹

Monge's cynicism is evident in his condemnation of Ariosto's motives for writing his masterpiece. Money and material gain represented chivalry for the poet, the critic claims: “le luxe, l'or versé à pleines mains dans les festins, les tournois et les fêtes galantes, mais surtout dans les présents faits aux poètes; c'est pour l'Arioste, la vertu chevaleresque par excellence.”¹²² In fact, Monge declares that Ariosto went much further than the conventions of the time required of writers who sought to please their benefactors. According to Monge, Ariosto did not satisfy these requirements by simply amusing his protectors: “il les flattait, les célébrait, les encensait; il leur promettait une gloire immortelle, pour les pousser à se montrer envers lui de plus en plus généreux.”¹²³ If one accepts this point of view and if one agrees, as does Monge, that Ruggiero is the founder of the house of Este,¹²⁴ then it is easy to see why Monge asserts that this paladin is the true hero of the poem.¹²⁵

This critic's assessment of the forms of love described by Ariosto is hardly more generous. Monge maintains that, in this work, to take a woman by force is no crime, unless the attacker is old and ugly.¹²⁶ Accordingly, Monge argues that, in Ariosto, pleasure represents the only good; as for love, Ariosto ridicules it along with everything else.¹²⁷

Perhaps the critic reserves his strongest attack for Ariosto's treatment of religion. First, he questions the sincerity of the poet's religious convictions.¹²⁸ Next, he derides the parodies of miracles and the joking attitude towards baptism found in the Orlando.¹²⁹ The laughing tone of the entire episode of St. John and Astolfo seems to be especially offensive to Monge.¹³⁰ In general, these judgments are unfair, but they must not be discounted because they represent a view held by a certain public. Such objections, even if they are invalid, help to show the evolution of the Orlando's reputation throughout the century.

A rapid view of nineteenth-century French criticism reveals an erosion of Ariosto's status on several levels. Certainly the meandering story line served to confuse readers; unless one has the leisure to complete the work in a relatively short period of time, it is almost impossible to grasp and remember the myriad threads of the various stories. While critics toward the end of the century seem to register greater tolerance and appreciation of the convoluted story line presented by the Orlando, the same is probably untrue of the general public which had come to favor tightly-knit construction over complicated structures. Related to this question is the issue of the Orlando furioso as an epic poem; on this subject critics split into two camps. Critics who declined to see a work of epic poetry in the Orlando objected to the complexity of the interpolated episodes which, they claim, destory the unity of the work; Marc Monnier's study offers the strongest affirmation of this position. On the other hand, many critics, Victor Cherbuliez, for example, find a unity within the chaos created by Ariosto; Charlemagne's conquests in the name of Christendom become an almost invisible center around which all action turns.

Then too, Ariosto's masterpiece provoked an ever-increasing attack from critics inclined to judge a work on account of its moral examples rather than its literary merits. Gautier had decried this approach to Ariosto as early as 1831 and yet the denunciations of the licentious elements of the Orlando grew ever more bitter and strident. The judgments of Monge, who sees no redeeming qualities in the poem, represent the most extreme expression of this view. Such appraisals did little to recommend the Orlando to new readers. Indeed, the sanitized translations of the poem that appeared over the course of the century underscore the power and influence of these harsh and unfair judgments. In turn, the inevitable flaws engendered by these truncated versions of the Orlando further injured Ariosto's reputation in France. Perhaps the strongest indication of the declining fortunes of Ariosto in France is expressed in the inevitable critical comparisons to the Chanson de Roland. At long last France had discovered her own national epic, which enjoyed a continuing ascendancy; appreciation of the Orlando furioso took an inverse course. While the Chanson de Roland became mandatory reading in the schools, many critics heaped scorn upon the licentious images drawn by Ariosto.

Nineteenth-century French criticism of the Orlando remained unaware of the special role played by Ariosto in the development of French literature. Critics tended to examine the poem as a magnificent Italian creation and praised or condemned the work without considering the fact that, in France, “Ariosto” had become “l'Arioste”¹³¹ and the Roland furieux had become a native son who exerted a tremendous influence on the literature. To some extent this has been rectified by twentieth-century critics; however, studies of Ariosto's presence in the literature of nineteenth-century France will continue to uncover works inspired by the poet of Ferrara.

Notes

1. Carlo Cordié, “L'Ariosto nella critica della Staël, del Ginguené e del Sismondi,” Italianistica, September-December 1974: 660-676.

2. Dédéyan, “La fortune” 431-442.

3. Bassani-Nardi, “La fortuna” 1-9.

4. “Arioste,” Nouveau Dictionnaire historique, éd. L. M. Chaudon et F. A. Delandine, huitième éd. 13 vols. (Lyon: Bruyset ainé, 1804) 1: 392-394.

5. Dédéyan studies Chateaubriand's attitude toward Ariosto in “La fortune” 442-444.

6. Chateaubriand, Mémoires d'outre-tombe, éd. Maurice Levaillant et Georges Moulinier, édition nouvelle, 2 vols. (Paris: Gallimard, 1951) 2: 810.

7. Madame de Staël, De la littérature considérée dans ses rapports avec les institutions sociales, éd. Paul Van Tieghem, 2 vols. (Genève: Librairie Droz, 1959) 1: 168.

8. Madame de Staël 1: 168.

9. Madame de Staël 1: 168.

10. Madame de Staël 2: 219.

11. Madame de Staël 1: 159.

12. P.-L. Ginguené, Histoire littéraire d'Italie, 9 vols. (Paris: Chez Michaud Frères, 1811-1819) 4: 343-521. All quotations in this study are from the second edition. See P.-L. Ginguené, Histoire littéraire d'Italie, deuxième éd., 9 vols. (Paris: L.-G. Michaud, 1824) 4: 386-523.

13. Ginguené 4: 386.

14. Ginguené 4: 387.

15. Ginguené 4: 524.

16. La Harpe, Lycée, ou cours de littérature, ancienne et moderne, 16 vols. (Paris: Emler Frères, 1829) 5: 23.

17. La Harpe, Lycée 8: 182.

18. La Harpe, Lycée 7: 35-36.

19. La Harpe, Lycée 8: 182.

20. La Harpe, Lycée 1: 132.

21. La Harpe, Lycée 5: 24.

22. Sismondi 2: 64.

23. Sismondi 2: 64-65.

24. Sismondi 2: 65.

25. Sismondi 2: 65-66.

26. Sismondi 2: 67.

27. Sismondi 2: 68.

28. Sismondi 2: 69.

29. Sismondi 2: 70.

30. Sismondi 2: 67.

31. Sismondi 2: 72-74.

32. Gautier, “Préface,” Mademoiselle de Maupin, éd. Genevièvre Van den Bogaert, (Paris: «GF», Flammarion, 1966) 26.

33. Gautier, “Préface,” Mademoiselle de Maupin 56.

34. Gautier, Histoire du romantisme (Genève: Slatkine Reprints, 1978) 6.

35. Gautier, Histoire du romantisme 119-120.

36. Gautier, Histoire du romantisme 1.

37. Gautier, Histoire du romantisme 11.

38. For more on this subject, see the chapter “Ariosto and Empire.”

39. M. V. Tourneur, “Etude sur l'Arioste,” Académie nationale de Reims. travaux 1 (1844): 313.

    L'abbé Victor Tourneur was an arch-priest and vicar of Sedan. He was a member of the Academy of Reims. He was born in Reims in 1818. See “Tourneur, (l'abbé Victor),” Catalogue général de la librairie française, éd. Otto Lorenz, Daniel Jordell, et Henri Stein, 34 vols. (Paris: Otto Lorenz, 1867-1954) 4: 520-521.

40. Tourneur 313-316.

41. Tourneur 316-318.

42. Tourneur 319.

43. Tourneur 325.

44. Tourneur 322.

45. Tourneur 323-324.

46. “Roland,” Biographie universelle ancienne et moderne, éd. L.-G. Michaud, nouvelle éd., 45 vols. (Paris: Madame C. Desplaces, 1854-65) 36 (1856): 351.

47. Edouard Mennechet, “Michel-Ange, l'Arioste, le Tasse,” in Etudes sur les littératures modernes (Paris: Ancien Bureau du Plutarque Français, 1846) 426-465.

    Edouard Mennechet was born in Nantes in 1794; he died in Paris in 1845. He was an “ancien secrétaire de la chambre du roi, [et] lecteur de Louis XVIII et de Charles X.” See “Mennechet, (Edouard),” La Littérature française contemporaine, éd. Félix Bourquelot et Alfred Maury, 6 vols. (Paris: Delaroque Ainé, 1854) 5: 365.

48. Mennechet 430.

49. Mennechet 430.

50. Mennechet 430-431.

51. Mennechet 430-431.

52. Mennechet 433.

53. Mennechet 435.

54. Mennechet 437.

55. Mennechet 439.

56. Mennechet 439.

57. Mennechet 442.

58. Mennechet 443.

59. Mennechet 443.

60. Henri Prat, “L'Arioste” in Etudes littéraires: XIV^e et XV^e siècles (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1853) 350-371. Reprinted in 1877 by Plon. Unless otherwise noted, all references are to the 1877 edition.

    Born in Lyon in 1814, Henri Prat became a professor in Paris. Other works by Prat include Etudes historiques: Révolution française, 1867, and the Correspondence inédite de la comtesse de Sabran et du chevalier de Boufflers, edited with E. de Mangnier. See “Prat, (Henri),” Catalogue général de la librairie française, éd. Otto Lorenz, Daniel Jordell, et Henri Stein, 34 vols. (Paris: Otto Lorenz, 1867-1945) 6: 428.

61. Prat ii.

62. Prat 411.

63. Prat 418.

64. Prat 413.

65. Prat 421.

66. Prat 419.

67. Prat 415.

68. Prat 415.

69. Prat 416.

70. Victor Cherbuliez, “Philosophie du beau,” Revue germanique 3 (1860): 575-608.

    Victor Cherbuliez was born in Geneva in 1829. He was an active novelist and poet and was a member of the Academy Française until his death in 1899. He collaborated on the Revue de Paris and L'Artiste, penned the Lettres de Ferragus for the Figaro, and founded La Cloche. See René Dumesnil, Le Réalisme et le Naturalisme (Paris: Del Duca-de Gigord, [1955]) 49.

71. Cherbuliez 580.

72. Cherbuliez 589.

73. Cherbuliez 589.

74. Cherbuliez 594.

75. Cherbuliez 594.

76. Cherbuliez 594-595.

77. Cherbuliez 592.

78. Cherbuliez 593.

79. Cherbuliez 596.

80. Lamartine, “L'Arioste,” Cours familier de littérature, 28 vols. (Paris: Chez l'auteur, 1856-1869) 10 (1860): 5-150.

81. Lamartine 10: 5.

82. Lamartine 10: 7-8.

83. Lamartine 10: 8-11.

84. Lamartine 10: 11-16.

85. Lamartine 10: 21.

86. Lamartine 10: 22.

87. Lamartine 10: 79.

88. Lamartine 10: 79.

89. Lamartine 10: 33.

90. Lamartine 10: 35.

91. Lamartine 10: 35.

92. Lamartine 10: 42.

93. Lamartine 10: 83.

94. Lamartine 10: 114.

95. Lamartine 10: 125.

96. Lamartine 10: 142.

97. Karl Hillebrand was born in Giessen in the grand duchy of Hesse in 1830. He was a professor of the Faculté des lettres de Douai. His writings include La Prusse contemporaine et ses institutions, 1867, and De la réforme de l'enseignement supérieure, 1868. See “Hillebrand, (Karl),” Catalogue général de la librairie française, éd. Otto Lorenz, Daniel Jordell et Henri Stein, 34 vols. (Paris: O. Lorenz, 1867-1945) 5: 648.

98. K. Hillebrand, “l'Arioste et son théâtre,” in Etudes italiennes (Paris: A. Franck, 1868) 264-286.

99. Hillebrand 134-142.

100. Hillebrand 66-95.

101. Hillebrand 66.

102. Hillebrand 72.

103. Hillebrand 134.

104. Hillebrand 140.

105. A. de Tréverret, “L'Arioste,” L'Italie au XVI^e siècle (Paris: Hachette, 1879) 1-184. Armand de Tréverret was a professor of foreign literature on the Faculté des Lettres de Bordeaux. He was born in Paris in 1836. See “Tréverret, (Armand de),” Catalogue général de la librairie française, éd. Otto Lorenz, Daniel Jordell, et Henri Stein, 34 vols. (Paris: Otto Lorenz, 1867-1945) 10: 676.

106. Tréverret vi.

107. Tréverret 1-26.

108. Tréverret 83.

109. Marc Monnier, “Ludovic Arioste d'après les biographes et les critiques récents,” Bibliothèque universelle, 87.15 (1882): 193-222 and 496-524. Reprinted in Histoire de la littérature moderne: la Renaissance de Dante à Luther, (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1884) 369-428. All references in the present work are to the 1884 reprint.

110. Monnier 369-373.

111. Monnier 373-382.

112. Monnier 382.

113. Monnier 382-394.

114. Monnier 401-409.

115. Monnier 413.

116. Monnier 415.

117. Monnier 415.

118. Monnier 415.

119. Monnier 425.

120. Léon de Monge. “Roland furieux,” Etudes morales et littéraires: Epopées et romans chevaleresques, 2 vols. (Louvain: Peeters, 1889) 2: 210-240.

     Léon de Monge was the viscount of Francoeur. Born in Dinant, Belgium in 1834, he became a professor at the university of Louvain. See “Monge, (Léon de),” Catalogue général de la librairie française, éd. Otto Lorenz, Daniel Jordell, et Henri Stein, 34 vols. (Paris: Otto Lorenz, 1867-1945) 12: 736.

121. Monge 2: 203.

122. Monge 2: 215.

123. Monge 2: 215.

124. Monge 2: 218.

125. Monge 2: 218.

126. Monge 2: 219.

127. Monge 2: 228.

128. Monge 2: 226.

129. Monge 2: 226.

130. Monge 2: 226.

131. The addition of the article to the poet's name seems to have occurred during the second half of the sixteenth century. The earliest example I have found is in a work by Estienne Forcatel, Autre [épigramme], traduict de l'Arioste, 1548. By 1600 the incorporation of the article was generally accepted.

Works Consulted

Bassani-Nardi, Isabella. “La fortuna dell'Ariosto in Francia nell'ottocento e nel novecento.” Bollettino storico reggiano 8.30 (1975): 1-18.

Chateaubriand. Mémoires d'outre-tombe. Ed. Maurice Levaillant et Georges Moulinier. Nouvelle éd. 2 vols. Paris: Gallimard, 1951.

Cherbuliez, Victor. “Philosophie du beau. Etude sur le système esthétique de M. Th. Vischer. Quatrième et dernier article. Homère et l'Arioste.” Revue germanique III (1860): 575-608.

Cordié, Carlo. “L'Ariosto nella critica della Staël, del Ginguené e del Sismondi (1800-1812).” Italianistica 3.3 (1974): 172-178.

Dédéyan, Charles. “L'Arioste en France au XIX^e siècle.” Notiziario culturale italiano 15. 3 (1974): 49-58.

———. La fortune de l'Arioste en France du XIX^e siècle à nos jours.” Ludovico Ariosto. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1975. 423-487.

Gautier, Théophile. Histoire du romantisme. Paris: Slatkine Reprints, 1978.

———. Mademoiselle de Maupin, éd. Geneviève Van den Bogaert. Paris: «GF», Flammarion, 1966.

Ginguené, Pierre-Louis. Histoire littéraire d'Italie. Deuxième éd. 9 vols. Paris: L.-G. Michaud, 1824.

Hillebrand, K. Etudes italiennes. Paris: Librairie A. Franck, 1868.

La Harpe, Jean-François. Oeuvres de La Harpe. 16 vols. Genève: Slatkine Reprints, 1968.

Lamartine, A. de. “L'Arioste.” Cours familier de littérature 10 (1860): 5-150.

Mennechet, Edouard. “Michel-Ange, l'Arioste, le Tasse.” Etudes sur les littératures modernes. Paris: Ancien Bureau du Plutarque Français, 1846. 426-465.

Monge, Léon de. “Roland furieux.” Etudes morales et littéraires: épopées et romans chevaleresques. Vol. 2. Louvain: Peeters, 1889. 210-240. 2 vols.

Monnier, Marc. “L'Arioste.” Histoire générale de la littérature moderne: la Renaissance de Dante à Luther. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1884. 369-428.

Prat, Henri. “L'Arioste.” Etudes littéraires: XIV^e et XV^e siècles. Paris: Plon, 1877. 411-433.

Sismondi, Léonard Simonde de. De la littérature du midi de l'europe. Troisième éd. 4 vols. Paris: Treuttel et Würtz, 1829.

Tourneur, M. V. “Etude sur l'Arioste.” Académie nationale de Reims: travaux. 1 (1844): 313-325.

Tréverret, A. de. L'Italie au XVI^e siècle: études littéraires, morales et politiques. Paris: Hachette, 1879.

Reference Work

“Arioste, Louis l'.” Nouveau Dictionnaire historique. Ed. L. M. Chaudon et F. A. Delandine. Huitième éd. Vol. 1. Lyon: Bruyset ainé, 1804. 392-394. 13 vols.