ist."

The decision of Chapelain is not unjust; though I did not know that
Ariosto's language was purer than Tasso's.

Dr. Cocchi, the great Italian critic, compared "Ariosto's poem to the
richer kind of harlequin's habit, made up of pieces of the very best
silk, and of the liveliest colours. The parts of it are, many of them,
_more beautiful_ than in Tasso's poem, but the whole in Tasso is without
comparison more of a piece and better made." The critic was extricating
himself as safely as he could out of this critical dilemma; for the
disputes were then so violent, that I think one of the disputants took
to his bed, and was said to have died of Ariosto and Tasso.

It is the conceit of an Italian to give the name of _April_ to
_Ariosto_, because it is the season of _flowers_; and that of
_September_ to _Tasso_, which is that of _fruits_. Tiraboschi
judiciously observes that no comparison ought to be made between these
great rivals. It is comparing "Ovid's Metamorphoses" with "Virgil's
AEneid;" they are quite different things. In his characters of the two
poets, he distinguishes between a romantic poem and a regular epic.
Their designs required distinct perfections. But an English reader is
not enabled by the wretched versions of Hoole to echo the verse of La
Fontaine, "JE CHERIS L'Arioste et J'ESTIME le Tasse."

Boileau, some time before his death, was asked by a critic if he had
repented of his celebrated decision concerning the merits of Tasso,
which some Italians had compared with those of Virgil? Boileau had
hurled his bolts at these violators of classical majesty. It is supposed
that he was ignorant of the Italian language, but some expressions in
his answer may induce us to think that he was not.

"I have so little changed my opinion, that, on a _re-perusal_ lately of
Tasso, I was sorry that I had not more amply explained myself on this
subject in some of my reflections on 'Longinus.' I should have begun by
acknowledging that Tasso had a sublime genius, of great compass, with
happy dispositions for the higher poetry. But when I came to the use he
made of his talents, I should have shown that judicious discernment
rarely prevailed in his works. That in the greater portion of his
narrations he attached himself to the agreeable, oftener than to the
just. That his descriptions are almost always overcharged with
superfluous ornaments. That in painting the strongest passions, and in
the midst of the agitations they