ERICEYRA’S INTRODUCTION TO HIS HENRIQUEIDA.
A new epoch in Portuguese criticism seems to commence with the critical treatises of the Count da Ericeyra; for this writer studiously availed himself of the principles of French criticism, and his authority gave full effect to the example he set. But there was more of semblance than reality in Ericeyra’s appropriation of French criticism. He had too little feeling for the essence of poetry to be able to modify the idea of beauty according to French principles of correctness, without losing sight of the true foundation of that idea. With all his critical rules, therefore, he never rose above what may be termed the external apparatus of poetry. Within that apparatus his taste was altogether circumscribed. His general opinions on poetry are developed with sufficient clearness in the copious introduction to his Henriqueida,[399] and in the explanatory notes which he has attached to that epic composition. The introductory dissertation is written in good prose; but the observations which the author makes on the subject of epic poetry, partake more of prosaic than of poetic views. The subject with which the Count da Ericeyra’s critical essay commences is imitation; but, composing in the spirit of his own system, he first speaks of the celebrated poets whose works he had imitated, and afterwards of the imitation of nature. He speaks of Homer with emphasis; and yet at the same time acknowledges that he was acquainted with that poet only through Madame Dacier’s prose translation. Under these circumstances he reasonably enough speaks with still greater emphasis of Virgil, whose works he could read in the original. Of all human works, Virgil’s Æneid, in the opinion of Ericeyra, approaches nearest to perfection.[400] On the other hand, he says, that Ariosto’s Orlando Furioso, belongs more properly to the class of romantic tales of chivalry, than to epic poetry; but that it is nevertheless worthy of imitation on account of its pleasing narrative style and the “fertility of poetic genius,” which the Count acknowledges Ariosto to possess. Voltaire’s Henriade, however, which was then the newest epic production, is pronounced to be particularly distinguished for its “elevated and natural poetry.” Ericeyra takes this opportunity of more accurately defining his theory of perfection in epic poetry. It belongs, in his opinion, to a perfect epic action, that the hero of the poem should as much as possible be kept present in the scene of action. On epic machinery Ericeyra pronounces nearly the same judgment as Boileau, namely, that when a modern introduces into his poetry the Christian system of the ancient mythology, the pleasure to be derived from epic composition is destroyed. Even the Jerusalem Delivered, would be a tedious work, had not Tasso enlivened the “pious melancholy of the subject” by the introduction of magic and by other means. The example set by Camoens, who introduced into modern poetry all the mythological deities as allegorical characters, is recommended as highly worthy of imitation; but nevertheless Tasso’s plan is not to be altogether condemned. Ericeyra makes some very judicious observations on the epic treatment of real history. Lucan, he says, was the first who disfigured epic poetry by writing merely as a poetic historian; and he attributes the ill success of the Spaniards in epic poetry to their having always preferred Lucan to every other model. His remarks on the epic character are no less correct; and his opinions on language and style are such as might be expected from a man of sound and cultivated understanding. He praises the dramatic style of Corneille, Racine and Moliere. From these authors, he observes, a writer may learn how to express naturally the heroic and tender passions in their full force, and without the false glare which disfigures the works of many modern and also some ancient poets. Thus the Count da Ericeyra endeavoured to vindicate his own poem before the tribunal of the public. The most remarkable circumstance with respect to the whole treatise is the little value which the author attaches to poetic allegory. When it is recollected in what esteem allegory was held by the early Portuguese critics, Ericeyra’s treatise, though in other respects unimportant, and only interesting in its connection with the whole of Portuguese literature, will be recognised as at least a step gained in literary criticism.