SOURCE: Morgan, Leslie Z. Introduction to Lodovico Ariosto: Five Cantos, translated by Leslie Z. Morgan, pp. vii-xxv. New York: Garland Publishing, 1992.

[In the following excerpt, Morgan considers the relationship of Cinque Canti to Ariosto's more famous work, Orlando furioso.]

Orlando Furioso has been known to the English-speaking world for centuries. John Harington's first translation into English in 1591 has been followed by numerous others. Though the Cinque Canti, [Five Cantos,] is closely related to the Orlando Furioso, no one has so far seen fit to translate it into English. Its importance is not doubted by Italian scholars, who continue a lively debate on various aspects of the form, sources, date and meaning of the Cinque Canti in the interpretation of Ariosto's work.

1. THE TEXT

The first Italian edition of the Cinque Canti appeared posthumously in 1545, appended to the Orlando Furioso in a Minuzio edition. A Giolito edition appeared in 1548, again following the Orlando Furioso, with separate frontispiece and pagination. This edition contained all the text now known except two small parts. Both editions probably derived from a copy provided by Virginio, son of Lodovico Ariosto, after his father's death in 1533.

In 1546 Giunti published the first edition of the Cinque Canti alone; this is based on the preceding editions, and therefore, like the other sixteenth-century editions of the Cinque Canti, is of no importance in establishing the text.

In 1865, Antonio Cappelli found a manuscript¹ which contains the same text as the Giolito edition except that it is preceded by octave 45 of Canto 40 from the 1521 Orlando Furioso (octave 68 of Canto 46, 1532 edition). The manuscript is a copy of the autograph made between 1550 and 1560 by Giulio di Giammaria Ariosto. It confirms a lacuna and introduces significant variants.

The Minuzio, the Giolito and the T manuscript (called ‘T,’ for Taddei) form the basis of Segre's 1954 edition.

2. EXTERNAL HISTORY OF THE TEXT

Ariosto did not complete the Cinque Canti, and never himself published it, though he subjected it to a series of revisions. All three sources indicate lacunas in “Canto V” after octave 73, and in the first four lines of octave 75. Only the printed editions carry the label “Manca il fine” [The end is missing]. The printed editions are missing I, α, which is preceded by “Manca il principio del primo canto” [The beginning of the first canto is missing] in the Manuzio edition. The Manuzio edition also lacks “Canto I,” 8-20, 81-87, (where the lacuna is noted) as well as Canto III 55, 56, the last four verses of 65; and “Canto IV,” 58-73, for a total of 39 and one half octaves. Following Segre and using the Giolito edition as a base text, in T, the order of the octaves in “Canto III” is 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 53, 54, 59, 60, 61. The Manuzio edition reads 52, 53, 54, 59, 60, 57, 58, 61 (thus omitting 65 and 66 with no indication). Manuscript T has I α and β (Segre 1954B, 1184). The stanza labeled ‘α’ is the connecting stanza from the manuscript, missing in both printed codices; ‘β’ is the first of the Manuzio edition, missing from the Giolito edition.

The differences between the editions, by Segre's analysis, demonstrate the author's unsystematic corrections over a period of time. The actual linguistic variants do not interest us here, as we are following Segre's critical edition. His analysis, however, has been central to the establishment of 1526 as a linguistic date ante quem for the Cinque Canti. For further specifics, consult Segre's apparatus in “Studi sui Cinque Canti,” (1954C; 1966: 121-77) where he lists the specific variants and explains his choices.

3. CRITICAL ISSUES

Of greater interest to a reader of the Cinque Canti in translation is the chronological and literary history of the text. Before the discovery of manuscript T in the nineteenth century, the relationship between the Orlando Furioso and the Cinque Canti was unclear, although sixteenth-century critics sought to define it. Giambattista Pigna (1554) suggested that the Cinque Canti formed the beginning of a new poem; Giovan Battista Giraldi (1554) said that it was to be added to the Orlando Furioso; and Girolamo Ruscelli (1556) maintained that it followed the Orlando Furioso, continuing the action. Little new evidence was adduced for any of the positions until 1865, when Cappelli found manuscript T, which, as mentioned above, essentially follows the text of the Gioliti edition, but is preceded by octave 45 of Canto 40 (1521 edition of the Orlando Furioso), that is, octave 68 of Canto 46 of the 1532 edition. Thus the intended position of the Cinque Canti seemed clear:² thematically, the Cinque Canti belongs after the marriage of Ruggiero and Bradamante. The finale of the 1532 edition, Rodomonte's death, was added in that edition; it follows a reference to Maganzese wrath at Ruggiero's and Bradamante's union.

Two questions remain unanswered: when was the Cinque Canti written? And why was it not finished and included in the final Orlando Furioso? To the first question, several hypotheses for the dating of the Cinque Canti have been put forward; these can be summarized as early, middle and late in the development of the Orlando Furioso. The “late” hypothesis has been uniformly discarded. Since the third edition of the Orlando Furioso was published in 1532, and Ariosto died in 1533 of a lengthy illness, the possibility of Ariosto's having written any extensive additions after 1532 is minimal.

Ariosto mentioned “un poco di giunta all'Orlando” [a small addition to the Orlando] in his letter of October 15, 1519, to Equicola when discussing the Orlando Furioso, and some scholars have taken this to refer to the Cinque Canti (beginning with Gaspary, 1879:232). There are fragments other than the Cinque Canti, however, which postdate the letter; and two editions of the Orlando Furioso itself appear after that date, though the 1521 edition contains little that is new. Ariosto, while in the Garfagnana region as governor, complains of not feeling like writing and having little free time to do so. However, he wrote at least three of the Satire there (Goffis 1975:149), so it is possible that he could have also worked on the Cinque Canti. Segre, using stylistic and linguistic comparisons, arrives at the date of 1525-32 (1954C, 1966:170); later (1961; 1966: 30) specifying that Ariosto had abandoned his work by 1528, since the Cinque Canti precedes the Frammenti linguistically. This does not preclude an earlier version of the Cinque Canti from 1519 (the original date proposed by Dionisotti 1960:40), which would then have been reworked. Dionisotti (1961: 372) makes this point, and Segre graciously acknowledges it in a second article (1961; 1966:30).

Most critics seem to have acceded to Segre's convincing arguments that the text of the Cinque Canti as we now have it in fact dates to the 1520's (cf. Ceserani 1963, Caretti 1974); the date of the original composition, however, remains subject to discussion. In attempting to date the Cinque Canti, scholars have sought references to specific historical events within the text. This method is not without pitfalls, as will be evident from a quick summary of the historical references involved. Since most readers agree on the authenticity of linking octaves I α and β, we shall here examine first the evidence for an original date of composition, and then the points of agreement (or lack thereof) between the Furioso and Canti.

Four episodes in particular have enjoyed a great deal of critical attention in the attempt to clarify the chronology of the Cinque Canti. These are Ariosto's reference to the Garfagnana (II, 18); the embassy of Pope Leo III to Charlemagne (II, 52); the mention of the Genoese Doria and Adorno families (III, 71: 5-8); and the whale episode (IV: 34 ff).³

Did the passage about the Garfagnana in “Canto II,” 18, precede or follow Ariosto's stay there? Could his knowledge of the geography have come from other journeys? Cappelli uses this passage to date the Cinque Canti to Ariosto's governance of the Garfagnana, 1522-25. However, as Goffis (1975:149) points out, Ariosto could have written the passage any time after his stay there, as well as during his stay in office. Furthermore, knowledge of narrow paths does not have to be direct; as Dionisotti (1961:373) and Caretti (1976:122) note, Ariosto could also have known about them beforehand.

In “Canto II,” 52, why did Ariosto deliberately create the anachronism of sending the legate to Pope Leo, when in fact the Pope would have been Adrian I? Was it a political comment?⁴ The Cardinal of Santa Maria in Portico was a friend of Ariosto's, Bernardo Dovizio da Bibbiena, who went to France at the behest of Leo X to promote a crusade against the Turks. Segre (1954B:635) notes that Pulci, in his Morgante XXVIII, 98-100, has Leo III as Pope (but not in a war with Desiderio); there Leo calls on Charlemagne to rescue him. Barotti (1777; cit. in Goffis 1975:149) contends that Ariosto had to have written this before 1520, since he wished to please his friend Bibbiena, who died in that year (cf. Caretti 1976:122). Pulci, however, need not be the source, as Pulci also mentions Pope Adrian shortly before this passage; furthermore, Pulci says merely “Leone” with no specific number. Bibbiena was rumored to have been poisoned; therefore, a tribute after his death (and a concealed political commentary) might not be out of place. Dionisotti's political arguments would seem to suggest this also (1960: 3-15). Goffis takes up the discussion as well, pointing out that the inopportune praise of French politics after 1520 could be a deliberate anachronism (1975:152).

In III 71:5-8, Ariosto makes a brief aside, essentially accusing the Genoese Doria and Adorno families of piracy. According to Dionisotti (1960:23), followed by Caretti (1976:122), this sort of statement must precede Andrea Doria's rise to power in Genoa, and the return of exiled Antoniotto Adorno, subsequently named Doge (May 1522). The Fregosos, praised in the second Furioso, were their rivals and Ariosto's friends. Goffis (1975:153), however, cites an Ariostan letter of June 22, 1522 about a naval battle involving “A. Dorio”; according to him, this could have remained in Ariosto's mind, producing the reference. Thus 1522 would be a date before the composition of the poem. Goffis (1975:153) suggests that the reference to Doria and Adorno has a neutral quality; but in fact, it holds a negative cast, which ruins his argument.

The final possibility of dating based on internal evidence lies in the whale incident (IV, 34 ff). Cassio da Narni's La Morte del Danese, published in 1521 in Ferrara, contains an episode in which the hero is swallowed by a whale. It has been suggested that Ariosto drew this from Cassio (Foffano 1904; cited by Dionisotti 1960:25 ff.), since Cassio does not cite Ariosto. But Ariosto does not cite Cassio either. Cassio expresses his admiration for Ariosto elsewhere; and Lucian could be a common source for the two (Dionisotti 1960:29). Goffis (1975:153-54) responds that there is really nothing in common between the Cinque Canti and La Morte del Danese.⁵ He also notes that the importance of dating Ariosto and Cassio reciprocally pales beside the fact that Ariosto did not remove the passage when revising ten years later (to follow Segre's dating) when the Cinque Canti would clearly have been competing with or following the Morte del Danese. Thus the 1521 publication date does not assist in dating the Cinque Canti one way or the other. Whatever dates these historical references provide, whether they are post or ante quem is arguable.⁶ For any of these, either position might be taken; one must always recall that Ariosto is known to have reworked his own writings, and a single episode cannot date the entirety of the work.

Since the Cinque Canti was not published by the author, internal inconsistencies between it and the Furioso remain which might assist one in dating the Cinque Canti between various editions of the Furioso, and in clarifying its relationship to the Furioso. There are three inconsistencies between the two works, and one major agreement.

First, let us consider the roles of the Bulgarians. In Orlando Furioso Ruggiero is King of the Bulgarians (XLIV, 79 ff). However, the Ruggiero-Leone episode is new to the third Furioso (1532). The connecting strophe α essentially agrees with the 1521 edition, which is to be expected, since it has been established that the Cinque Canti precedes the 1532 edition. The Bulgarian army meets Charlemagne at Prague (V, 94). If we accept the position of the Cinque Canti according to the transitional octaves (see above, pp. vii-viii)—the final canto of the Orlando Furioso—Ruggiero would be King of the Bulgarians, certainly not fighting his lord Charlemagne. The final episode of the Orlando Furioso, when Ruggiero was King of the Bulgarians, was not present when the Cinque Canti was written if we follow Segre's argument, so the agreement or lack thereof would be moot.

The second inconsistency is in the Cinque Canti V, 80, where Anselm of Flanders is killed in the heat of battle. While there could, of course, be multiple Anselms, those characterized as being from Flanders are the only two referred to in the Orlando Furioso and Cinque Canti combined: in the Furioso XIV, 123, and here. Anselm is killed in both places. As Segre wryly remarks, “[this] seems then the Anselm of Flanders, killed in the Furioso XIV, CXXIII; he reappears here to die yet again!” (my translation; 1954B: 750) Whether this represents an oversight, or a case of the same name used without intending the same person, or a contrast in versions of the poem is unclear.

Ruggierino is missing from the Cinque Canti. According to Melissa in the Orlando Furioso III, 24-25, predicting the future to Bradamante, Ruggiero's son would help fight Desiderio. In the Cinque Canti, we find Ruggiero, the father, fighting Desiderio, but no son (Cerisola 1977:158). Nor is there any mention of Ruggiero's and Bradamante's offspring. In fact, the war takes place shortly after their wedding, as indicated by the initial connecting octaves of the Canti.

Finally, there is an agreement with the Orlando Furioso of possibly wide-scale reverberations. Most of “Canto Four” in the Cinque Canti treats Ruggiero and his adventures related to the whale. Among these adventures is his encounter with Astolfo, who confesses to his kidnapping of a married woman (Cynthia), the wife of a vassal. The stay in the whale represents his penance imposed by Alcina, who had warned him beforehand (IV, 65 ff) not to continue with his plans. While it is odd for Alcina to undertake a woman's revenge, the episode does fulfill the prophecy of the Orlando Furioso XXXIV, 86, where Astolfo is promised that he will again lose his intelligence because of a woman.

Are these inconsistencies really important? There remains the possibility that the Cinque Canti is truly the beginning of a new poem. Thus L. Rossi (1974) maintains, following pre-Cappelli critics. Though she analyzes the linking stanzas between the Furioso and the Canti, she suggests that they are a result of Ariosto's trying different ways of developing his ideas. All critics seem to agree that Ariosto revised the Cinque Canti; she remains, however, in a minority among modern critics in claiming that Ariosto planned an entirely new poem.⁷ The Cinque Canti as a second poem is a seductive idea: it allows for speculation of all kinds. However, if the final placement of the Cinque Canti in relation to the Orlando Furioso is unproved, the analysis becomes more complicated. If it was to have been part of the Furioso, it makes sense to examine the plot accords between the two; if not, there is less reason to do so.

Rossi's hypothesis of Ariosto's “testing” different plots and characters fits the situation of the Cinque Canti quite well. The parallels between certain passages in the Orlando Furioso and the Cinque Canti are striking, suggesting that Ariosto did in fact rework and re-use the same ideas. Among the similarities are the Ruggiero-Astolfo encounter, where Astolfo relates his misdeeds: one can compare it with “Canto VI” of the Furioso, where Astolfo speaks of his love for Alcina. The whale, probably deriving from Lucian, kidnaps Astolfo (rash enough to step away from his companions) in the Furioso VI, 35 ff. There the whale leads to an amorous stay with Alcina. Here, the whale has swallowed Astolfo, an earthly punishment for an earthly sin; the whale is more Biblical, almost Dantean, in function.

The introduction to “Canto IV,” where the Narrator accuses his female public of cruelty, is related to the introduction to “Canto XX” of the first Furioso, and the themes of the introductions to XXVII and XXIX, polemics about women. Throughout the Furioso the Narrator speaks to the women in his audience, deliberately manipulating those characters whom he represents as maligning or harming them; Rodomonte ultimately receives his promised punishment (Furioso, XXIX, 2); Marganorre receives his also (XXXVII, 118ff). The Narrator's attitudes toward women in the Cinque Canti are less personal; there are no references to his own love life as in the Furioso (cf. XXX, 3), though the female characters are similar to many in the Furioso.

As Fantuzzi-Guerrasi has pointed out (1974B:165ff) there are fewer women in the Cinque Canti than in the Furioso. The Cinque Canti are of “armi e audaci imprese” only (L. Rossi 1974:127). The women present do recall Furioso characters and episodes. Thus Bianca and Cynthia recall Drusilla and Isabella: Bianca prepares a deceptively pleasant reception for Penticone as Isabella deceptively prepared a solution of invulnerability for Rodomonte and as Drusilla arranged a deceptive wedding for Tanacro. Astolfo's planned kidnapping resembles those of Tanacro and Cilandro, Marganorre's sons. Within the Cinque Canti, the Bianca-Penticone and Cynthia-Astolfo episodes parallel each other (wronged woman-eager man) and others in the Furioso. Isabella and Fiordiligi share elements with these Cinque Canti women, who sacrifice their own lives and their husbands' political policies to save their honor.

These episodes and characters of the Canti recall the Furioso, suggesting that Ariosto tested ideas in different frameworks. Other fragments of Ariosto's work support the theory of reworking and re-elaborating similar plots and themes; i.e., the Scudo della Regina Elissa bears a strong resemblance to the Ullania episode of the Furioso (XXXII-XXXIII; XXXVII).⁸ But there are also differences between the Canti and the Furioso; those I shall treat in the next section.

Both historical references and the textual-thematic ties of the Cinque Canti with the Orlando Furioso thus leave the analyst with no proof for dating the Cinque Canti, specifically or in relation to the Orlando Furioso. While one of the four points of reference between the two suggests agreement with the 1521 edition, three do not. Certain historical events mentioned in the text of the Cinque Canti are related chronologically to the years 1520-22 (the Garfagnana passage; the Cardinal of Sta. Maria in Portico; the whale). Whether or not the Cinque Canti was originally drafted at that date is not proved, but the importance of those years is undeniable in Ariosto's ideation of the Cinque Canti.⁹

Many critics ask whether or not the Cinque Canti can be put on a literary-historical time line between the Orlando Furioso and the Gerusalemme Liberata. There are certainly many references to Pulci, whose work preceded the Orlando Furioso. Is the subject matter a return to Pulci's Morgante (Segre 1954A; 1966:108) or a beginning from it, later developed into another, special world of the Orlando Furioso?¹⁰ There are many classical and medieval sources involved in the Cinque Canti. Ariosto's description of Medea's forest might be the source for Tasso's Sàron since the Canti was in print when Tasso was writing. But linear development cannot be postulated. The Cinque Canti follows the ideas in the first edition of the Furioso: the same characters and related events are present. Beer (1987:143ff) suggests that the Cinque Canti is part of a popular current of Rinaldo stories. Gano and Rinaldo's rebellion was the subject of many late medieval epic-romances: in fact, “Il nucleo dell'ispirazione del frammento è popolare, più che nel Furioso” [The nucleus of the fragment's inspiration is popular, more so than in the Furioso] (L. Rossi 1974: 126). Perhaps the Canti is an offshoot of Pulci; this would explain a gap in Ariosto's poetic development, between his Latin verses and the fully developed Furioso. However, since the Canti is incomplete, it is difficult to judge. Inconsistencies in the composition of the Cinque Canti can plausibly support the possibility of its being either an earlier or later development in Ariosto's career. Cerisola (1977:178) points out that literary history must derive from the works themselves, which may not necessarily follow that “costruito sull'ascissa dei tempi astronomici” [constructed on the abscissa of astronomical time]. That is, literary history is not necessarily linear and sequential, though it is related to history.

4. STRUCTURAL ISSUES

The commentary on the Cinque Canti is deeply tied to the problems of dating its composition. On whom can one rely for accurate information about a text? The author?¹¹ His editors? Other contemporaries? Critics give conflicting information about the Cinque Canti; each proposed change in dating results in a ballet of critical writing attempting to justify previous interpretations in the light of any new findings.

The primary point of departure for most critics is the difference in mood between the Orlando Furioso and the Cinque Canti. Segre (1954B: 581-582) and following critics hypothesize that Ariosto was undergoing a personal and political crisis at the time of writing the Canti, parallel to changing politics in northern Italy. Those critics who favor an early date for the writing of the Cinque Canti tie this crisis to the end of Ariosto's service under Cardinal Ippolito; those who favor the “middle” period derive the crisis from Ariosto's much lamented frustrations in governing Garfagnana. All critics speak of the differences between the two works, the Cinque Canti and the Orlando Furioso, of a “concezione cupa e grandiosa” [a dark and grandiose idea] (Segre 1961; 1966: 31); “il gusto dell'orrido” [the taste for the horrible] (Ponte 1975:180); “la prospettiva ben più cupa dei Cinque Canti” [the much darker perspective of the Cinque Canti] (Rati 1986A: 27); there are innumerable statements in this vein.¹² The formal structure is the same: cantos divided into octaves. The differences in language (Segre 1954C; 1966) do not explain these impressions. Other elements can, however, be catalogued to a certain extent to explain the unique effect of the Cinque Canti: the plot structure and development differ; so too do the characters and themes.

The plot of the Cinque Canti begins like a classical epic: a council of supernatural beings puts into motion the action of the poem. The effect is like that of a new poem; a new war comes from a new council (cf. L. Rossi 1974:107). As Goffis has pointed out, the action of the Cinque Canti follows more closely that of a classical epic than does the Furioso: “Gano mette in moto tre trame stretamente associate, tre manovre convergenti anche militarmente, creando la molteplicità nell'unità” [Gano puts into motion three plots closely related, three maneuvers, converging even militarily, creating multiplicity in unity] (1975:162). The Cinque Canti's linearity does not resemble the Furioso's careful entrelacement, defined as interrupting and dividing sequences of narrative to link them at an associative level (Weaver 1977:384). Rather than jumping to illustrative novelle within the Cinque Canti, the Narrator leads his public step by step. The action seems to rush to a conclusion, suggesting that this, if a separate poem, would be much shorter than the Furioso, twelve cantos at most (Goffis 1975:162), with a single vision (Saccone 1983:61).

Sequential narration of events leads to different narratorial techniques. Among the techniques not greatly used in the Furioso is extended allegory. Suspicion and Envy fill a far greater proportion of the Cinque Canti than Logistilla's Garden, Silence and the Archangel Michael, Disdain and Rinaldo, fill in the Furioso. Though Envy and Suspicion remind us of Discord and Silence, and Envy even resembles the Furioso characters, Suspicion is quite different. He is not merely a personification: he is a “zombie”: the personification of Suspicion has been absorbed into a seemingly human (but in fact deathless) form. This amplification of Suspicion is too much for some critics who maintain that the passage is exaggerated and too long (e.g., L. Rossi 1974:135). He plays an essential role within the text, however, as Saccone points out when he pairs Suspicion with the whale as examples of “il vero inferno … qui sulla terra” [true Hell … here on Earth] (1974:145). Furthermore, the Cinque Canti contains allegory only of negative characters. The Furioso pairs Logistilla with Alcina, but there is no foil to Suspicion, Envy or Alcina in the Canti. Nor is there any direct satire as in the Furioso, where Silence has left the monastery (XIV, 76 ff), for example. Envy lives in splendid isolation with her minions, who torture humans, especially women (I, 51). Cavalluzzi attempts to tie these allegories to a biographical source in Ariosto's life, noting that Suspicion and Envy are the personifications of all that is wrong in the court (1984:173).

The Narrator is still present in the Cinque Canti. One of the most commented characters of the Furioso, he has there “an attitude of absolute control” (Durling 1965:144). In the Canti, one has that impression much less. At the end of “Canto I,” he says: “farò, per quanto è mio potere, / cose sentir maravigliose e vere” (I, 111:7-8) [I shall, as far as I can, tell of marvellous and true things]. The implication is that he is not able to do everything. In the Furioso, he also says he may not succeed, but because of external forces (“if she, who … and is even now eroding my last fragments of sanity, leaves me with enough to complete what I have undertaken.” (Waldman 1974:1)) In the Furioso, the Narrator also continually compares his own situation to that of his characters and the rest of humanity. In the Canti, the Narrator's personal involvement, his bringing in his own personal situations, occurs only in “Canto IV”: he speaks of being maligned by women numerous times (as, for example, in the Furioso XXX he speaks of his own suffering in love). However, we find only the one personal reference in all five cantos, versus sixteen in the forty-six of the Furioso. The Narrator in the Furioso switches effortlessly between the “threads” of his story; but in the Canti, he makes only two deliberate switches (II, 88 and IV, 89). The “weaving” motif is absent; the characters themselves lead into background information or switches of scene. Thus, the Narrator in the Cinque Canti is present but his persona is not as developed as a character as in the Furioso; which is, in part, a function of plot linearity. The Narrator seems nastier to some; Cavalluzzi (1984:177) suggests that in III he looks at the world and gives a pleased sneer about the villain mixed up with the story of war. This is, however, part and parcel of his role.

The Narrator, like the other characters in the Cinque Canti, plays his role as delineated in the Furioso. In the Cinque Canti there are multiple protagonists. If there are any heroes, says Caretti, they are Alcina and Gano (1976:127). They are clearly evil. Charlemagne represents “good,” and with him the Christian knights. But Charlemagne is weak, not the “good pastor” (II, 2 ff); he is easily led and subject to bad advisors. Alcina, his negative counterpart, is careful and able to use optimum allies. Her thought processes and Gano's are carefully recounted, with little value judgment expressed (though their deceptiveness and maneuvering are clearly demonstrated); Charlemagne's actions are outlined and condemned (cf. V, 4: “Did he then want another to see or hear for him and to stay, himself, the whole time with his eyes closed?”).

The other characters—Ruggiero, Rinaldo, Bradamante, Marfisa—are no more developed than in the Furioso. Though their actions differ from those in the Furioso—Bradamante who would leap into the arms of Ruggiero, showing open emotion, Marfisa who defends her sister-in-law in hand-to-hand combat—these are logical continuations from the action of the Furioso. Rinaldo, who, as Beer (1987:148) points out, is in some ways the most autobiographical of the Ariostan characters, shows further autobiographical traits in the Cinque Canti (V, 46); he wears the cape with the bees and legend that subsequently adorned the end of the 1532 Furioso: “pro bono malum.”

The realism of the Cinque Canti is also no greater than that of the Orlando Furioso, in spite of Saccone's (1959:199) suggestion. The comparisons made—Alcina like a buyer at the fair in Venice (I, 22 ff); Charlemagne like a wise father (I, 60)—do not make up for supernatural jaunts to the mouth of Hell or in a boat reconstituted from an image in the sand. The folksy clichés (e.g., “piangerà domani l'uom ch'oggi ride”) contrast with Medea's laws. The “marvelous” is definitely present. The narration may be more prosaic, lacking effective fusion of the marvelous with the natural (Binni (1968:304-05)); but this sounds like a latter-day Crocean analysis. Some scenes do partake of reality: Suspicion's castle could be in sixteenth-century Italy; Gano's and Astolfo's ambushes could take place on isolated spots. But the Consistorium of Sorceresses, the Bohemian forest and the swallowing of Ruggiero by the whale are fantastic, if more on the grotesque side than the carefree locus amoenus in which Ruggiero (and Astolfo) had found themselves in the Orlando Furioso. The ride in Gloricia's magic boat is occasion for political commentary about simony (I, 91), not for geographical explorations (cf. Furioso X, 71 ff). However, this would not seem to justify the comment that the Cinque Canti dispenses with the wonderful, the disinvoltura that forms the essence of the Furioso, with the unique exception of the whale (Zemplényi 1988:262). The marvelous is present, making the Cinque Canti clearly fictional; its uses are more negative than positive.

The brotherhood of knights exemplified by the “gran bontà de' cavallieri antiqui” (I, 22:1) is lacking in the Cinque Canti. “Diverso è il modo d'intendere la cavalleria rispetto al Furioso: finite le azioni di frivolezza orgogliosa, la cavalleria viene riportata nell'ambito della realtà storica …” [The way of understanding knighthood is different in respect to that of the Furioso: actions of proud frivolity [are] finished, knighthood is brought into the atmosphere of historical reality (Goffis 1975: 165)]. Christians and Pagans are no longer associated in action; nor do two rivals make peace in awaiting a future duel. Knights do not, as in the Furioso, attend to personal errands while Charlemagne is besieged. Orlando disobeys his orders as little as possible when saving Bradamante (III, 80 ff);¹³ but then, Orlando helps Baldovino, his half-brother, even though he does not truly approve of the action (II, 85). Assistance, mutual aid, not personal quarrels, prevail (Goffis 1975:167). It is true that the Christian knights attempt to help each other in the Canti, when not driven apart by Gano's machinations. But one can make the same assertion for the Furioso; there, the machinations go beyond a single plotter; for example, the Archangel Michael calls on Silence and Discord to assist in setting knights against each other; it is a divine rather than a maganzese plot. In the Canti, knighthood is a Christian concept and the Christian knights obey their vows to the king (with the exception of Gano).

Christianity in the Cinque Canti is clearly in the right; it is good, for example, in Ruggiero's “nuova Fé” [new Faith] (IV, 24:2). Ariosto's conviction behind his words is less clear. Ariosto undermines his own claim to participate in religious discourse in the whale episode by the manner in which he treats the characters. Astolfo and Ruggiero discourse at length in sermons and psalms, a major example of ostentatious religion, which Cerisola characterizes as “of the Pulcian type” (1977:177). However, Ruggiero and Astolfo leave their psalms quite quickly for food; and the narrator leaves them to eat and “to take a nap” when he wishes to change the subject. It has been suggested that the religious war, the background of the Furioso and of the traditional chanson de geste, is lost here. The Franks fight the Saxons, the Hungarians, the Greeks and Polish, the Russians and Silesians, etc. It is no longer Christian versus Pagan, but various groups against each other (Saccone 1974:137). However, we must remember that the war is waged to save the Pope, temporal representative of spiritual authority.¹⁴

Ariosto's seeming inconsistencies about many issues, including religion, in the Cinque Canti reflect Renaissance philosophical discussions about human choice and possibilities. Among those related to the Cinque Canti and the Furioso is the question of how much man can do from “umana virtù” and how much depends upon Fortune (Saccone (1974:139)). The difference between the role of Fortune in the Cinque Canti and in the Furioso has often been noted; God too seems to hold a different place. In the Canti, the characters seem less able to control their own actions; Charlemagne is predisposed to Gano; Gano is predisposed to evil, and assisted in his plots by the “erba” which supposedly helped Moses convince his people (III, 21:7 ff). Free will is overshadowed by destiny. Even when characters attempt to overcome their past and redeem themselves, they do not succeed: consider Medea (II, 107). The role of human ability, with its infinite possibilities in the Furioso, is not present in the Canti. Instead, the plot is foreordained, human choice and decisions are less important. Ariosto's, and his characters', hesitation in “taking control” could derive from loss of faith in Renaissance anthropocentric concepts (Cerisola 1977:175).

The classical tradition is not absent from the Cinque Canti even if Christian religion plays a prominent role. On the contrary, it has been noted that the Cinque Canti is more directly related to classical sources than the Furioso; Ariosto seems to quote directly in places (cf. the names of Aquitanian tribes). The source of Alcina's speech to Envy comes from the Aeneid VII (Proto 1899); Ovid provides the description of Envy's abode; Claudianus' In Rufinum (I, 25 ff) gives Alcina a speech via Alecto, one of the Furies. The whale in which Astolfo and Ruggiero meet arrives via Boiardo from Ovid and Vergil (Baldan 1982:357). The use of the sources frequently relates to the substance of the passage; Rufinus, like Gano, would betray the Empire because of envy and ambition. The study of Ariosto's sources has long been a fruitful one in Italian tradition and many critics have traced topoi in the Cinque Canti. These have been so heavily examined that we merely mention them here. Among the elements borrowed may be the form of the plot itself: the single action set in motion by the council of superhuman beings. Subsequent literary theory placed great importance on unity of action, which Ariosto did not follow in the Furioso.

Finally, returning to the atmosphere of the Cinque Canti, from which we began, we have noted a number of similarities and differences between the Orlando Furioso and the Cinque Canti. Does the Canti then differ enough to call it “l'apertura a un ‘meraviglioso’ tra mitologico e allegorico” [the opening towards a “marvelous” between mythological and allegorical] (Segre 1961; 1966:31), an anticipation of late Renaissance tendencies? Fontana claims that the Cinque Canti demonstrates a “declino nella vena del poeta” [decline in Ariosto's poetic vein] (1962:27). The pessimism of the Cinque Canti is attributed to Ariosto's disillusionment with life in court: if the latest date of the Canti is 1526, as Segre maintains, then this same pessimism would also be expected in the 1532 Furioso (Bonifazi 1985; Rossi 1974B: 143ff, etc.). But is literary “pessimism” in fact a function of socio-cultural factors? Cerisola (1977) attempts to point out that the very vein in which Ariosto writes in the Cinque Canti requires a certain oppressive tendency; the Doon de Mayence cycle is one of betrayal. Cerisola's point has not been taken. More recent critics still point to the pessimism and disagreements with Authority; Dalla Palma (1984:214) says “Le giunte di C [the third edition of the Furioso] danno in modo implicito, e più affine alla primitiva struttura del poema, quello che i Cinque Canti davano in modo troppo scoperto” [the additions to C give in an implicit manner (one more like the original structure of the poem) that which the Cinque Canti gave in a too obvious manner], which he goes on to amplify as a “vena de pessimismo” [vein of pessimism] to which la cortesia is the solution in the 1532 Furioso.

The Cinque Canti which Ariosto did not include in the Orlando Furioso, covering primarily Gano's betrayal at the behest of the Sorceresses, differs in style from the 46 cantos of the Furioso. The plot is continuous; the entrelacement typical of the Orlando Furioso is left aside to such an extent that, until the discovery of manuscript T, the position of the Cinque Canti in relation to the Orlando Furioso was unclear, and it is still not universally accepted. The Cinque Canti are so different from the Orlando Furioso that, though they contain points of intersection, they seem different poems. The Cinque Canti now exemplifies something of the way Ariosto's mind worked, both positively and negatively: the created and the discarded. It is like an unfinished canvas, which contains changes of mind and several revisions, like layers of paint, but is finally incomplete.

Notes

1. Cappelli, “Tre lettere inedite di Ludovico Ariosto con altre memorie intorno al medesimo,” in Atti e memoriali RR. Depp. st. patria provv. modensi e parmensi II (1865), 199-211. Ms. T is now in the Biblioteca Comunale, Ferrara, classified as Cl. I, 706.

2. Though of course the authenticity of the initial octave has been called into question, most recently by Capra (1974:278-79). All citations from the Orlando Furioso are from Debenedetti and Segre's edition (1960); all citations from the Cinque Canti are from Segre's (1954) edition. The translations of the Cinque Canti are my own.

3. A few other passages are mentioned relating to Ariosto's private life: I, 65 (Padoan 1976:13), are supposed to refer to Ariosto's feudal rights and his bitterness about them.

4. See Dionisotti 1960: 372 ff.

5. While Cassio da Narni's La Morte del Danese may not be “veramente raro” (Dionisotti 1960:25) there are few copies in this country. I have therefore not had the opportunity to consult it. Dionisotti 1960:26-29 prints most of the text involved, allowing some idea of the content; it would of course, be better to have seen the entire text.

6. Baldassari (1975:193-94) summarizes all the arguments, and emphasizes the importance and productivity of research into the sources to date the text.

7. As Rati (1986B:27) says about Ariosto's “gionta” to Boiardo, the Orlando Furioso, Ariosto's addition is actually a new poem. Thus one could interpret L. Rossi (1974) less literally (since she is not specific) and understand her comments to reflect on the self-containedness of the Cinque Canti, not the fact of Ariosto's intending them specifically to form a separate poem. This interpretation would fit in well with her discussion of experimentation (see note 8, below).

   Beer (1987:149) too suggests a second poem in the Cinque Canti, saying it could form a sort of diptych representing the period 1516-19. After 1526, the political situation had changed so much that Ariosto put it aside.

8. See L. Rossi 1974:108-110 for further development of this idea and discussion of other fragments in relation to the Orlando Furioso.

9. Recent criticism has concentrated on the “crisis” in Ariosto's work during the years 1517-24, due to the socio-political situation in Italy. His disillusionment reflected in the Satire and Letters would seems to be reflected in his epic poetry also. See Rati (1986A:26ff) and Ascoli (1987:9-11) as well as, of course, Bonifazi (1985:31-133) which specifically treats the relationship between the Letters and Furioso, in spite of Cerisola's (1977) lone voice saying the situation could be otherwise.

10. The relationship of the Furioso to the Orlando Innamorato is problematic. Ariosto never directly mentions Boiardo's work, though the Furioso clearly continues its plot. How the Cinque Canti relate to Boiardo, then, might seem to be of interest. But, as Ponte (1975:179) says, “i Cinque Canti non rivelano echi diretti del Boiardo, salvo forse in uno o due casi.” [the Cinque Canti do not reveal direct echoes of Boiardo, except in one or two cases]. But cf. note 7, above. Capra (1974) notes that the references to and descriptions of the Sorceresses, especially Morgana, Fallerina and Dragontina, are nearer those of the Orlando Innamorato, and uses this point to suggest an earlier date (1516) for the Cinque Canti. The validity of his argument is questionable. Cf. Goffis 1975:156.

11. Schogt (1988:52): “Even when the author has made a statement about the aim of his work readers may wonder whether such a statement is trustworthy … the problem of being unable to verify hypotheses about these intentions remains.” Schogt's comments, placed in a linguistic framework, greatly assisted my considerations in this translation. These comments in particular seem of value to anyone considering a literary translation!

12. Bacchelli says “nei Cinque Canti si offre una costernata visione del mondo dei grandi e dei potenti, e delle corti, diciamo anzi della politica e della storia umana, in cui il crudo e balioso pessimismo aristesco vien aduggiato dall'esperienza e dell'umiliazione italiana e della tragedia europea, e dal presentimento luttuoso dei prossimi rigori di stato.”

13. Not every critic interprets Orlando's actions in a positive way. Moretti (1977:30) sees it as an example of Orlando accepting “political realism,” pretending to act in one way to the public and in reality taking totally different action.

14. The classical epic was dedicated to the State and based on State religion; thus Aeneas brought his gods to Rome. The Old French epic (at least the geste du roi) glorifies Christianity and the King of France. The Chanson de Roland, which is not truly paradigmatic, is nonetheless a frequent touchstone for Romance epics; thus the expectation of Christian battle.

Bibliography

Ariosto, Ludovico. Opere minori. Ed. C. Segre. Milan/Naples: Riccardo Ricciardi Editore, 1954.

———. Orlando Furioso: secondo l'edizione del 1532 con le varianti delle edizioni del 1516 e del 1521. Ed. S. Debenedetti and C. Segre. Bologna: Commissione per i testi di lingua, 1960.

Ascoli, Albert Russell. Ariosto's Bitter Harmony: Crisis and Evasion in the Italian Renaissance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton U. Press, 1987.

Bacchelli, Riccardo. “Ariosto ‘solstiziale.’” Italianistica 3 (1974): 165-66.

———. La congiura di Don Giulio D'Este. Milan: Mondadori, 1958.

Baccino, Danilo, ed. Orlando Furioso: sunti-commento-analisi dei personaggi-curiosità ariostesche. 2 vols. Rome: Le Muse, 1970.

Baldan, Paolo. “Un orco folklorico del Boiardo tradito dall'Ariosto.” Il Ponte 38 (1982): 342-363.

Baldassari, Guido. “Tendenze e prospettive della critica ariostesca nell'ultimo trentennio (1946-1973).” Rassegna della letteratura italiana, 7th ser. 79 (1975): 183-201.

Bastiaensen, Michel. “La nave magica di Gloricia.” Italianistica 9 (1980): 234-50.

Beer, Marina. Romanzi di cavalleria: Il “Furioso” e il romanzo italiano del primo Cinquecento. Rome: Bulzoni, 1987.

Binni, Walter. Due studi critici: Ariosto e Tasso. Rome: Bulzoni, 1978.

———. Ludovico Ariosto. Turin: ERI, 1968.

Bonifazi, Neuro. Le lettere infedeli: Ariosto, Giordano, Leopardi, Manzoni. Rome: Officina Edizioni, 1985.

Bonollo, L. I “Cinque Canti” di L. Ariosto. Mantua: Baraldi e Fleischmann, 1901.

Borsellino, Nino. Ludovico Ariosto. Rome, Bari: Laterza, 1986.

Brand, Charles Peter. Ludovico Ariosto: A Preface to the “Orlando Furioso.” Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1974.

Bronzini, Giovanni. “L'Orlando Furioso e la tradizione dei cantari.” Convivium, ns 20 (1951): 74-86.

———. Tradizione di stile aedico dai cantari al “Furioso.” Florence: Olschki, 1966.

Calvino, Italo. “Piccola antologia di ottave.” Rassegna della letteratura italiana, 7th ser. 79, (1975): 6-9.

Cappelli, A. “Tre lettere inedite di Ludovico Ariosto con altre memorie intorno al medesimo.” Atti e memorie RR. Depp. st. patria provv. modensi e parmensi II (1865): 199-211.

Capra, Luciano. “Per la datazione dei Cinque Canti dell'Ariosto,” Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 151.474 (1974): 278-95.

Caretti, Lanfranco. “Ludovico Ariosto.” In Storia della letteratura italiana. 8 vols. General directors: Emilio Cecchi and Natalino Sapegno. Milan: Garzanti, 1966. 3:787-895.

———, ed. L. Ariosto: Cinque Canti. Venice: 1974.

———. “Storia dei Cinque Canti.” In Antichi e moderni. Studi di letteratura italiana. Turin: Einaudi, 1976. 121-131. Reprinted in Per l'Ariosto. Milan: Marzorati, 1976. 87-96. Also reprinted in Ariosto e Tasso. Turin: Einaudi, 1977³. 57-67. Originally the introduction to Cinque Canti, Venice: Corbo e Fiore, 1974.

Catalano, M. Vita di Ludovico Ariosto, v. I. Geneva: Olschki, 1930.

Cavalluzzi, Raffaele. “Rotti gli incanti e disprezzata l'arte' nel sistema della corte: sintomi della coscienza infelice.” Lavoro critico 33 (1984): 159-90.

Cerisola, Pier Luigi. “Il problema critico dei Cinque Canti.” In Studi sull'Ariosto, presentazione di Enzo Noè Girardi. Milan: Vita e Pensiero (Pubblicazioni dell'Università cattolica del Sacro Cuore), 1977. 147-86.

Ceserani, R. Review of Fontana, I «Cinque Canti» e la storia poetica del «Furioso». Giornale storico di letteratura italiana 140, 432: (1963): 617-624.

Colie, Rosalie L. The Resources of Kind: Genre-Theory in the Renaissance. Ed. B. K. Lewalski. Berkeley, CA: U. of California Press, 1973.

Contini, Gianfranco. “Come lavorava l'Ariosto.” 1937. In Esercizi di lettura sopra autori contemporani con un'appendice su testi non contemporani. Turin: Einaudi, 1974. 232-241.

Dalla Palma, Giuseppe. Le strutture narrative dell'«Orlando Furioso». Florence: Olschki, 1984.

De Lisio, Pasquale Alberto. “Il centenario ariostesco e i Cinque Canti (note sul Furioso e ‘dintorni’),” Misure critiche (Naples) 5 (1975): 103-110.

Dionisotti, Carlo. “Appunti sui Cinque Canti e sugli studi ariosteschi.” In Studi e problemi di critica testuale. Bologna: Commissione per i testi di lingua, 1961. 369-82.

———. “Per la data dei Cinque Canti,” Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 137.417 (1960): 1-40.

Durling, Robert M. The Figure of the Poet in the Renaissance Epic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press, 1965.

Fantuzzi Guarrasi, Nardina. “La donna nella vita e nelle opere dell'Ariosto.” Bollettino storico reggiano 7. 26 (1974A): 1-201. Drawings by Anna Cantoni.

———. “Le donne nei Cinque Canti.” Bollettino storico reggiano 7.28 (1974B): 164-171.

Fatini, G. Review of Rossi, “Saggio sui «Cinque Canti» di Ludovico Ariosto.” Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 85 (1925): 330-32.

———. Rev. of I Cinque Canti, ed. by A. Baldini. Lanciano 1915. Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 67 (1916): 417-431.

Firpo, Luigi. Introduzione. In Cinque Canti di un nuovo libro di M. Lodovico Ariosto. Ed. Luigi Firpo. Turin: UTET, 1964. 7-19.

Fontana, Pio. “La balena dei Cinque Canti e un problema di fonti e di cronologia.” Aevum 35 (1961): 511-18.

———. I “Cinque Canti” e la storia della poetica del “Furioso.” Pubblicazioni dell'Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, serie terza, no. 4. Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1962.

———. “Ancora sui Cinque Canti dell'Ariosto.” Italianistica 3 (1974): 593-605. Reprinted in Per l'Ariosto. Milan: Marzorati, 1976. 97-109.

Forti, Fiorenzo. “Bacchelli e il Rinascimento.” In Critica e storia letteraria. Studi offerti a Mario Fubini. 2 vols. Padua: Liviana, 1970. 2:626-43.

Frosini, Vittorio. “Pinocchio come satira politica.” In Intellecttuali e politici del Risorgimento. Catania: Bonanno, 1971. 147-88.

Gaspary, A. “Zu Ariosto's Cinque Canti.” ZfRP 3 (1879): 232-33.

Goffis, Cesare Federico. “I Cinque Canti di un nuovo libro di M. Ludovico Ariosto,” Rassegna della letteratura italiana, 7th ser. 79 (1975): 146-68. Published separately, Genoa: Tilgher, 1975.

Graves, Robert. The Greek Myths. 2 vols. 1960. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England; NY, NY: Penguin Books, 1977.

Hamilton, Edith. Mythology. 1942. NY: Mentor (New American Library), 1969.

Klopp, Charles D. “The Centaur and the Magpie: Ariosto and Machiavelli's Prince.” In Ariosto 1974 in America. Ed. Aldo Scaglione. Ravenna: Longo, 1976. 69-84.

Marsh, David. “Ruggiero and Leone: Revision and Resolution in Ariosto's Orlando Furioso.” MLN 96 (1981): 144-151.

McNeir, Waldo F. “Ariosto's Sospetto, Gascoigne's Suspicion, and Spenser's Malbecco.” In Festschrift für Walther Fischer. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1959. 34-48.

Migliorini, Bruno. “Sulla lingua dell'Ariosto.” Italica 3 (1946):152-160.

Moretti, W. L'ultimo Ariosto. Bologna: Pàtron, 1977.

Murrin, Michael. The Allegorical Epic: Essays on its Rise and Decline. Chicago, Ill.: U. of Chicago Press, 1980.

Negri, Renzo. “Pinocchio ariostesco.” Studi collodiani. Atti del I Convegno Internazionale. Pescia, 5-7 ottobre 1974. Bologna: Cassa di Risparmio di Pistoia e Pescia, 1976. 439-43.

Padoan, Giorgio. “L'Orlando Furioso e la crisi del Rinascimento.” In Ariosto 1974 in America. Ed. Aldo Scaglione. Ravenna: Longo, 1976. 1-29.

Ponte, Giovanni. “Boiardo e Ariosto.” Rassegna della letteratura italiana 8th ser.79 (1975): 169-182.

Proto, Enrico. “Per una fonte dei Cinque Canti.” Rassegna critica della letteratura italiana 4 (1899): 59-62.

———. Rev. of Bonollo, I «Cinque Canti» di L. Ariosto, Mantova 1901. Rassegna critica della letteratura italiana, 8 (1903): 165-172.

Rati, Giancarlo. “Ludovico Ariosto e la critica.” Cultura e scuola 25.97 (Jan-Mar 1986A): 23-35; 25.98 (Apr-June 1986B): 27-34.

Rossi, Giuseppe Adriano. “‘La Nascita di Lodovico Ariosto’: poemetto dell'abate Michele Baraldi.” In Lodovico Ariosto: il suo tempo la sua terra la sua gente. Estratto dal Bollettino storico reggiano 7 (1974): 73-90.

Rossi, Lea. Saggio sui “Cinque Canti” di Ludovico Ariosto. Reggio Emilia: Cooper. Lavor. Tip., 1923.

———. “Sui Cinque Canti di Lodovico Ariosto.” In Lodovico Ariosto: il suo tempo la sua terra la sua gente. Estratto dal Bollettino storico reggiano 7 (1974): 91-150.

Saccone, Eduardo. “Note ariostesche.” Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa 28 (1959): 193-242.

———. “Appunti per una definizione dei Cinque Canti.” In Il “soggetto” del ‘Furioso’ e altri saggi tra Quattro e Cinquecento. Naples: Liguori, 1974. 119-56.

———. “Prospettive sull'ultimo Ariosto.” MLN 98 (1983): 55-69.

Schogt, Henry G. Linguistics, Literary Analysis and Literary Translation. Toronto/Buffalo/London: U. of Toronto Press, 1988.

Segre, Cesare. “Appunti sulle fonti dei Cinque Canti.” Rassegna della letteratura italiana 58 (1954A): 413-20. Reprinted in Esperienze ariostesche. Pisa: Nistri-Lischi, 1966. 97-109.

———, ed. I Cinque Canti. In Ludovico Ariosto, Opere minori. Milan/Naples: Riccardo Ricciardi, 1954B. 581-754; 1182-1184.

———. “Storia interna dell'Orlando Furioso.” Terzo programma. Quaderni trimestrali 3 (1961): 140-48. Reprinted in Esperienze ariostesche. Pisa: Nistri-Lischi, 1966. 29-41.

———. “Studi sui Cinque Canti.” Studi di Filologia Italiana 12 (1954C): 23-75. Reprinted in Esperienze ariostesche Pisa: Nistri-Lischi, 1966. 121-177.

———. “What Bakhtin Left Unsaid: The Case of the Medieval Romance.” In Romance: Generic Transformation from Chrétien de Troyes to Cervantes. Ed. Kevin Brownlee and Marina Scordilis Brownlee. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1985. 23-46.

Seroni, Adriano. Introduzione. Opere, by Ludovico Ariosto, edited by Adriano Seroni. Milan: Mursia, 1970. ix-xviii.

———. “Favola, storia e realtà nell'Orlando Furioso.” Rinascita 28 Marzo 1975: 22-23.

Speroni, Charles. “More on the Sea-Monsters.” Italica 35 (1958): 21-24.

Tortoreto, Alessandro. “Ariosto e Tasso, confronto obbligato.” In Per l'Ariosto. Milan: Marzorati, 1976. 147-156.

Triolo, Alfred Angelo. “The Boiardo-Ariosto Tradition in Las Lágrimas de Angélica and Ariosto's Cinque Canti.” Italica 35 (1958): 11-20.

Waldman, Guido, trans. Ludovico Ariosto: Orlando Furioso. London/Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.

Weaver, Elissa B. “Lettura dell'intreccio dell'Orlando Furioso: il caso delle tre pazzie d'amore.” Strumenti critici 11 (1977): 384-406.

Zemplényi, Ferenc. “Krise im Wunderland. I Cinque Canti und der Uebergang von der Romanze zum Epos.” Acta Litteraria Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 26 (1984): 261-74.