A History of Literary Criticism in the Renaissance With special reference to the influence of Italy in the formation and development of modern classicism — Key Ideas to Explore

The Three-Part Framework

The book is organized into three discrete parts, each devoted to a single national tradition. The Italian section runs from Dante to Tasso, the French from Du Bellay to Boileau, and the English from Ascham to Milton. This structure allows Spingarn to treat each nation's critical evolution independently while still foregrounding Italy's formative role. The preface explicitly states that the sixteenth century is the main theme, with earlier and later material included only to explain causes or consequences. The result is a comparative history that never loses sight of its central argument: that modern classicism was largely shaped by Italian debates over Aristotle's Poetics.

Recurring Images of Authority and Rebellion

Throughout the excerpts, a pattern emerges of critics either defending or attacking Aristotle's authority. Spingarn presents Patrizzi's Della Poetica (1586) as the first modern work to attempt a philosophical study of literary history, deriving norms from the whole history of literature rather than from a few great works. The image of Aristotle as a dictator recurs: Patrizzi's second section is directed against the Poetics itself, which he calls obscure and inconsistent. Bruno's Eroici Furori (1585) intensifies this rebellion, calling pedants those who judge poets by Aristotle's rules. Bruno's dialogue has Tansillo declare that poetry is not born in rules; rules are derived from poetry. This image of the poet as originator of rules, not their subject, appears again in Fioretti's Proginnasmi Poetici (1620–1639).

Movement Between Historical and Controversial Modes

Spingarn highlights a structural feature in Patrizzi's work: it is divided into a historical section, La Deca Istoriale, and a controversial one, La Deca Disputata. This movement between historical survey and polemical argument mirrors the broader strategy of the book itself. Spingarn's own chapters often shift from recounting critical positions to weighing their validity. The excerpts show him moving from describing Patrizzi's method to quoting Bruno's dialogue, then noting the counter-attacks by Buonamici and Summo. This alternating rhythm—presenting a critic's ideas, then showing the opposition they provoked—gives the narrative a dialectical energy, as if the history of criticism were itself a series of debates.

The Role of the Footnote as Structural Marker

The footnotes in the excerpts serve not merely as citations but as structural signals. They cluster around key figures and works, creating a secondary layer of reference. For instance, footnote 308 provides the source for Bruno's dialogue, while 309 directs the reader to conflicting opinions from Tiraboschi and Hallam. This apparatus allows Spingarn to acknowledge scholarly disagreements without disrupting the main narrative. The footnotes also function as a map of the critical landscape: they cite De Sanctis, Bosanquet, Symonds, Baillet, and Foffano, indicating the breadth of secondary literature that underpins the study. The reader can trace the author's intellectual debts and the points of contention among earlier scholars.

Readers approaching this work should attend to the interplay between its three national sections and the recurring debates over Aristotle's authority. Spingarn's method is to let critics speak through quotation and paraphrase, then to position them within a larger argument about the rise of classicism. The footnotes reward careful scrutiny, as they often contain the key to understanding which sources the author trusts and which he questions. This is a scholarly history that expects its audience to follow both the main text and its critical apparatus.