It is different with the theory advanced by Carducci in the essay already mentioned.  The reputation of the great Italian critic would alone entitle any view he advanced to the most respectful consideration.  In the present case, however, there is more than this, for his essay is a monument of deep and loving scholarship, and whether we agree or not with its conclusions, it adds greatly to our knowledge of the subject.  Briefly and baldly stated, his contention is as follows.  The Arcadian drama was a creation of the literary and courtly circles of Ferrara, and so far as Italy is concerned the precursors of the Aminta are to be sought in Beccari’s Sacrifizio and Giraldi Cintio’s Egle alone, with a connecting link as it were supplied by the pastoral fragment of the latter author, first printed as an appendix to the essay in question.  Beyond these compositions no influence can be traced, except that of a study of the classics in general, and of Theocritus in particular.  It is certainly remarkable that the important texts mentioned above, as well as Argenti’s Sfortunato and the Aminta itself, should all alike have been written for and produced at the court of the Estensi at Ferrara.  The selection, however, I regard as somewhat arbitrary.  The Egle appears to lie entirely off the road of pastoral development, and I cannot help thinking that Carducci falls into the not unnatural error of exaggerating the importance of the interesting document he was the first to publish.  The primitive dramatic eclogue was not altogether unknown at Ferrara, nor do the pastoral shows elsewhere appear to have been always as remote from the courtly grace of the Arcadian tradition as the critic is at pains to demonstrate.  In view therefore of the practically unbroken line of formal development, and the consistency of artistic aim observable from Sannazzaro in the last quarter of the fifteenth to Guarini in the last quarter of the sixteenth century, I find it impossible to accept Carducci’s conclusions.

The advocates of the orthodox theory, however, must be prepared to meet and combat the objections which Carducci has raised, and which, in his opinion, necessitate the adoption of a different explanation.  The evolution of the pastoral drama from the eclogue he declares to be impossible, in the first place, on historical grounds.  This objection relates to the evidence as to a continuous development traceable in the accessible texts, and to it the account given in the following pages will—­or will not—­be found a sufficient answer.  In the second place, he declares it to be impossible on aesthetic grounds.  These are three in number, and may be briefly considered here. (a) ’Idealization cannot develop out of caricature.’  Here, I presume, he is using ‘caricature’ in its technical sense of what Aristotle calls ’imitation worse than nature,’ not merely for the resuit of an inadequate command over the medium of artistic [Greek: