Magic in Boiardo and Ariosto

Magic in Boiardo and Ariosto

Studies in Italian Culture Literature in History Aldo Scaglione General Editor

Advisory Board Peter Bondanella Indiana University Giuseppe Mazzotta Yale University Paolo Cherchi University of Chicago

Vol. 25

PETER LANG New York  Washington, D.C./Baltimore • Boston • Bern Frankfurt am Main • Berlin • Brussels • Vienna • Oxford

Julia M. Kisacky

Magic in Boiardo and Ariosto

PETER LANG New York • Washington, D.C./Baltimore • Boston • Bern Frankfurt am Main • Berlin • Brussels • Vienna • Oxford

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Kisacky, Julia M. Magic in Boiardo and Ariosto / Julia M. Kisacky. p. cm. — (Studies in Italian culture—Literature in history; vol. 25) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Boiardo, Matteo Maria, 1440– or 41–1494. Orlando innamorato. 2. Ariosto, Lodovico, 1474–1533. Orlando furioso. 3. Magic in literature. 4. Roland (Legendary character)—Romances—History and criticism. 5. Romances, Italian—History and criticism. I. Title. II. Series. PQ4614.K57 851’.209—dc21 98-30521 ISBN 0-8204-4252-6 ISSN 1043-5794

Die Deutsche Bibliothek-CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

Kisacky, Julia M.: Magic in Boiardo and Ariosto / Julia M. Kisacky. −New York; Washington, D.C./Baltimore; Boston; Bern; Frankfurt am Main; Berlin; Brussels; Vienna; Oxford: Lang. (Studies in Italian culture; Vol. 25) ISBN 0-8204-4252-6

The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council of Library Resources.

© 2000 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York All rights reserved. Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm, xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited. Printed in the United States of America

 Contents

Introduction

1

Chapter One

Boiardo’s Marvelous Artifacts

Chapter Two

Boiardo’s Monsters and Mages Supernatural Creatures Practitioners of Magic

Chapter Three Ariosto’s Marvelous Artifacts Magic Artifacts Prophetic Works of Art

7 33 33 41 55 55 82

Chapter Four

Ariosto’s Supernatural Creatures Animals and Monsters Villains

89 89 101

Chapter Five

Ariosto’s Practitioners of Magic Fays Sorcerers Miracle-Workers

105 105 113 124

Conclusion

137

Notes

141

Bibliography

155

Index

183

 Acknowledgements

This work started out as my dissertation, and I wish to thank my readers at Rutgers University: Guido Guarino, David Marsh, Adolf Snaidas, and especially my adviser, Laura Sanguineti W hite. Many thanks also to Mrs. Carol Feinberg for her help during my years in graduate school. I owe a great deal to my colleagues Bruce and Jessica Watson, and Alden Smith, for their encouragement of my scholarly endeavors. Special thanks go to D. Thomas Hanks, for his advice about the manuscript. I gratefully acknowledge the support of Baylor University. In revising this study I have used material I read at the Biblioteca ariostea in Ferrara in the summer of 1998 with the help of a grant from the University Research Council. I also thank Dean Wallace Daniel of the College of Arts and Sciences for his generous support of the publication of this book. I thank the publishers for permission to use the following material: parts of Chapters One and Two have appeared in different form in “Magic and Enchanted Armaments: Moral Considerations in Boiardo and Ariosto,” Forum Italicum 30 (1996); and “Chaos and Order: Magical and Antimagical Books in Boiardo and Ariosto,” Romance Languages Annual 8 (1996). Part of my article, “Conversion and Subversion in Boiardo’s Orlando innamorato , ” Romance Languages Annual 10 (1998) appears in somewhat different form in Chapter Two. I thank Charles Ross for permission to use his translation of the Orlando innamorato (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989); and the publisher for permission to use Guido Waldman’s translation of the Orlando furioso (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983).

 Introduction

The concept of magic has existed since prehistoric times, and throughout recorded history. People’s ideas about magic have varied from time to time and from place to place, from Egyptian funeral ceremonies, to Greek enchantresses, to Roman tales of wicked witches, to the summoning of demons in medieval chivalric literature, and more. This book is my attempt at a global study of the element of magic in t wo Italian Renaissance epic poems, Matteo Maria Boiardo’s Orlando innamorato , and Ludovico Ariosto’s Orlando furioso . In both of these works, magic is a crucial and pervasive element. The long and illustrious history of the topos of magic in literature offers many possible influences on Boiardo’s and Ariosto’s treatment of it. Classical epics from Homer on had made use of magic, and throughout the medieval romance tradition magic became increasingly important. 1 As learned court poets, Boiardo and Ariosto were well-acquainted with Latin poetry, and had some familiarity with Greek literature. As expected of good Humanists, both poets borrowed from the Classical tradition, with, however, each poet adapting his sources to his own needs in his individual manner. Many critics have held a negative view of Boiardo’s relation to his sources. According to Reichenbach, Boiardo was always “infedelissimo” to his sources because he always added his own touch. 2 For Bruscagli, Boiardo’s literary references shed some light on his text, but his radical destructuring of the references gives the impression that his world lacks a literary memory; centaurs may be present, but without their Classical history.3 Boiardo’s siren may recall the Classical tradition, but in essence she is very different from Homer’s singers.4 Looney suggests that Boiardo’s intended audience was a decisive factor in this de-emphasis of his allusions: “Boiardo . . . was uncomfortable . . . with making his classicism too apparent in the Innamorato , his one poem most designed for public

2

Introduction



consumption.”5 In contrast, Zampese sees Boiardo as “un letterato colto e sensibile, capace di valersi in modo originale delle proprie fonti,” and emphasizes his “consapevole organizzazione di materiali selezionati con fini significativi.” 6 Il mondo del Boiardo si appoggia largamente sulla memoria letteraria; ma il rapporto del poeta con la tradizione non è improntata . . . a criteri di aderente fedeltà. . . . il Boiardo at tua sui propri materiali quegli interventi che gli dettano le esigenze di un gusto personale, spesso volto a creare effetti di dismisura e di comicità; ma è anche vero che la rielaborazione della fonte è assai frequentemente operata attraverso una consapevole contaminazione con altri e diversi reperti letterari, capaci di modificare il tono e il significato della struttura principale 7

Ariosto’s Classical references are apt to be more true to the originals, yet still they will be changed in some way to suit his purpose. For example, Medoro is the counterpart of the Virgilian Euryalus, but it is Dardinello who dies Euryalus’ death.8 Both the Innamorato and the Furioso are set in the world of medieval chivalric romance, and Pio Rajna has shown the debt, as far as plot goes, of the Furioso to preceding exemplars of this genre. 9 The topoi of love and adventure had gradually through the years crept into the lives of Charlemagne’s knights, until Boiardo achieved an inseparable fusion of the Carolingian and Arthurian cycles in his poetic world. 10 Although his characters have the names and outward appearances of Charlemagne’s knights, their main interests are love and adventure, themes characteristic of the Arthurian cycle. The two worlds have truly been merged, so that Merlin’s artifacts can be found scattered here and there for wandering knights to find. An obvious example is the fountain of disamore , originally intended as a magical remedy for Tristan, which ends up complicating the life of Ranaldo. Other influences on the poets’ treatment of magic may have included the contemporary practice of “low” magic, e.g. fortune-telling and con juring with devils, and the “high” magic of Renaissance Hermeticism, which sought to reveal the cosmos’ veiled meanings. As to the former, it is unclear whether or not Boiardo believed in magic in real life. At the time, astrology was highly fashionable, and Boiardo was respectful of the belief, even equating the presence of astrologers with civilization ( OI 2.22.32). His most important astrologer character, the king of Garamanta, is as knowledgeable as he portrays himself, but Boiardo also refers to a deceitful astrologer in the intaglio of Alexander the Great in the first ca nto of Book 2. Ariosto, on the other hand, make s mocking references to the credulity of contemporaries who trust in “le magiche sciocchezze.” In OF

Introduction

3



7.73 and 33.5 he explicitly denies the existence of magic in contemporary times. In the Negromante , Ariosto portrays the title character as a self-seeking fake whose chance of success depends wholly on his ability to deceive his gullible victims about his supposedly immense magical powers. Iachelino ultimately fails because of the machinations of the clever servant Temolo who reveals his plots. Neither Boiardo nor Ariosto was strongly influenced by the teachings of Hermeticism. Their mages are certainly not the higher beings that Pico della Mirandola described in De hominis dignitate ; rather, they are as fallible as the knights and ladies who lack magical abilities. Neither are the poets bound by Pico’s distinction between good magic, concerned with divine matters, and evil magic involving demons. 11 In both poems the Christian mages employ demons, including Melissa who makes them serve God’s cause. The Ferrarese poets’ situations at the Este court also influenced their works. The medieval romance genre was especially valued at the Este court. The Po valley and Veneto areas had been a center of interest in the romances since the twelfth century, and the fashion had developed of naming children after characters from the Arthurian and Carolingian romances,12 a fashion which lasted even up to the days of Meliaduse, the brother of Leonello and Borso. Duke Borso claimed to derive greater pleasure from a French romance new to his library than from the acquisition of a new city. 13 With so much audience demand it is not surprising that after a brief period of Florentine predominance the center of chivalric poetry shifted to Ferrara. Due to the unusually strong control exercised by the Este family, Ferrara did not develop into a comune as most northern Italian cities did. It remained a signoria, and consequently the attitude about chivalry was different from that found elsewhere. The Este rulers consciously used traditional chivalric teachings as propaganda to promote loyalty among their vassals.14 Even by Boiardo’s era the system of chivalry could not be seen as closely related to reality. Yet in Ferrara chivalric ideals could still be revered, unlike the more mocking attitude of the bourgeois Florentines typified by Pulci. Boiardo truly venerated the knightly ideals, as shown for example in his sonnet 44 “Ocio amoroso e cura giovenile.” Reichenbach praises his “capacità di esprimere il mondo cavalleresco ch’era l’anima della sua anima.”15 This sincere participation on the poet’s part did not, however, protect his characters from being placed in comical situations due to their quests for love and adventure. Nor did Boiardo’s recognition

4

Introduction



of true chivalric values at the court in Ferrara16 preclude glimpses of less lovely aspects of court life gleaned from his own experience. 17 Ariosto’s attitude is more complex and contradictory; he values some of the chivalric ideals, such as fede , but portrays them in a more modern and more problematized manner, in shades of gray rather than black and white. With the increasing removal of chivalry from its origins it could only seem more and more antiquated and detached from reality, contributing to Ariosto’s ironic attitude toward it. This irony, which to Francesco De Sanctis indicated a corrosive intent,18 seems less harsh to other critics. 19 The Este lords’ personal foibles as patrons directly affected their poets, who were functionaries of the court as well as artists. The Este promoted an image of themselves as protectors of the arts, but they expected to receive practical services from their poets and not just “opera d’inchiostro.”20 Boiardo’s duties as governor of Modena and Reggio probably contributed to the drastically reduced speed of composition of Book 3 of the Innamorato .21 Ariosto’s sufferings due to the demands and ingratitude of Cardinal Ippolito are well known from his first Satire. Later, with Alfonso as his patron, his situation was somewhat improved. Leaving aside the complicated question of genre, both the Innamorato and the Furioso have the romance tendency to be open-ended, to go on indefinitely.22 Boiardo pays as much attention to “minor” episodes as he does to main lines of the plot. Each episode becomes the focus until it is concluded, and then the characters seek another adventure (and there are always other adventures, whether magical, martial, or romantic). Besides reflecting the knightly spirit of adventure and prolonging the diletto of the audience, these diversions obviously defer the conclusion of the poem. The Innamorato gives the impression that Boiardo did not know how to bring his story to a close, and that its ending was more imposed on him than by him.23 Antonio Franceschetti argues that the poem’s “disorganicità formale” is intentional, pointing to other masterpieces of the Quattrocento, such as the Stanze and the Morgante , which share the Innamorato ’s lack of formal organization, yet nevertheless contain their essential message; later the prevalence of the rule of classical harmony will make this impossible.24 Ariosto, on the other hand, planned out the Furioso with the determination of bringing the poem to a definite conclusion, and firmly squelched the temptation to go on. 25 With exceptional control of his huge mass of material he managed the feat, overcoming the tendency toward deferral of the ending and bringing together the wildly divergent paths of the apparently unruly characters. In the Furioso this struggle against an ending is reflected notably by the mage Atlante’s struggle against fate. 26

Introduction

5



On the structural level, we shall see that the element of magic serves a number of different purposes in the two poems. An important use of magic is to advance or, far more often, delay the advancement of the plot; here enter Atlante and the enchantresses in their gardens. At times magic is used as a plot device to set up humorous situations, as when Boiardo gives the magic lance to Astolfo. Magic is sometimes used as an equivalent to psychological motivation, notably in Ariosto’s Discordia episode. In the Furioso magic helps to reveal man’s preference for illusion over reality, particularly in the episodes of Atlante’s castles. Magic serves as a test of human virtù; Boiardo, in the more optimistic early Renaissance, shows human ability victorious over magical adversity far more often than does Ariosto, who is likelier to predicate magic as necessary to counter magic. Both authors from time to time make magic the occasion for allegory. In both poems magic is associated with the chaotic aspect of life, with the irrational, as contrasted more or less strongly with order and reason. However, as we shall see, although both authors praise and privilege reason, neither utterly condemns the irrational.

Chapter One

 Boiardo’s Marvelous Artifacts

One practically cannot discuss at length either Ariosto or Boiardo without at least mentioning the other. While the two poets’ works are significantly different, they positively invite comparison, due naturally to Ariosto’s decision to continue the story left unfinished by Boiardo. In this chapter I shall examine the treatment of magic found in Ariosto’s immediate predecessor, trying to show some of the differences as well as similarities of these two poems, where settings and characters have the same names, but are portrayed by two different authors. I shall not limit my treatment of Boiardo to this chapter; where it seems fruitful I shall consider parallel episodes in the later chapters. The first three sections deal with magical and enchanted weapons and armor, first in general, then in particular (Balisarda, the magic lance). The fourth section concerns the magic ring, with its two distinct powers of disenchantment and invisibility. Next I study the magic waters of love and disamore , together with the pilotless boat that carries Ranaldo off to adventure. The chapter closes with a discussion of magic books.

i. Armaments In the chivalric poems of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, magical artifacts abound, and it is not surprising that some of the more pervasive magical artifacts are weapons and armor. Considering the necessity of such accoutrements to the knightly heroes, it is easy to understand why it became standard for the most important knights, and even some lesser ones, to have marvelous weapons and armor. Marvelous armaments fall into two categories, identified and described by Daniela Delcorno Branca. 1 First are magic weapons proper, which actually possess supernatural powers, such as Astolfo’s golden lance and, in the Furioso , Ruggiero’s magic shield. Their magical propert ies provide

8




clearcut and usually overwhelming advantages to their wielders, and their use is traditionally considered unchivalrous. The more numerous enchanted (“fatato”) weapons have no special powers. Noting the sometime equivalence of the adjective “fino,” often applied to these weapons, with “fatato,” Delcorno Branca concludes that this is just a type of superlative which emphasizes the extraordinary quality of the weapon, rather than denoting any magic properties. 2 Thus enchanted armaments differ from their non-magical equivalents only in their greater prestige. Enchanted armaments include the various “magic” swords and helmets to which knights have recourse in battle after battle. Enchanted swords are among the most prized and famous objects in the epic and romance traditions. The most renowned and favorite legendary knights have enchanted swords: Orlando, Rinaldo, Oliviero, Ugiero, Charlemagne himself, and of course King Arthur. A knight’s weapons are more than just tools of the trade. In Zatti’s words, “Nella letteratura cavalleresca l’identità del cavaliere si concepisce come somma di attributi. . . . gli oggetti di cui è detentore sono prolungamenti del suo io.”3 Thus while enchanted weapons have the added cachet of magic, a weapon’s trophy value is of primary importance to the knightly characters.4 The desirability of enchanted weapons to knights comes not from their magic per se , but from their prestige, i.e. primarily from the fame of their former and present wielders. Again in Zatti’s words, “La natura dell’oggetto appare . . . del tutto secondaria rispetto alla mediazione maturata attraverso il confronto con un antagonista . . . a sanzionare l’eccellenza dell’obbiettivo è sufficiente il prestigio del suo detentore . . .”5 Some examples: Ranaldo’s helmet is frequently called the “elmo di Mambrino,” and it is often reiterated that Orlando won his helmet and Durindana from Almonte in Aspromonte. Neither Ferraù nor Orlando truly has need of a helmet, for they are themselves enchanted, “fatati,” invulnerable except in one place, “e l’uno e l’altro andò, più per ornato / che per bisogno, alle sue imprese armato” ( OF 12.50; “they each went about their business armed more for show than from necessity” 6).7 Thus Ferraù wants Orlando’s helmet only to be able to say that he took it from Orlando, the greatest French paladin, while Orlando value s it mainly as a reminder of his own victory over Almonte. A telling example of the secondary value of the weapon’s enchantment is the single time in either poem that Durindana is explicitly called magical.8 To the fay who guards Hector’s armor, Durindana’s enchantment is only an appositive, wholly beside the point:


9

 [the fay] disse:—Cavallier, questa giornata Tal tesoro hai, che il simil non si vede. Or se conviene agiongervi la spata, E ciò mi giurarai su la tua fede: Che Durindana, lo incantato brando , Torai per forza de arme al conte Orlando. E sin che tale impresa non sia vinta, Giamai non posarà la tua persona, Nulla altra spada portarai più cinta, Né adornarai tua testa di corona; L’aquila bianca a quel scudo dipinta, Nella alta enchiesta mai non la abandona, Ché quella arma gentile e quella insegna Sopra ad ogni altra de trïomfi è degna.— (OI 3.2.35–36; emphasis mine) 9 [the fay] told him, “Cavalier, on this day you’ve won A prize such as no man has known. It’s up to you to add the sword. On your faith you must swear to me That you’ll win magic Durindana From Count Orlando in a duel. “Till that adventure’s been achieved, Never permit yourself to rest, Gird yourself with no other sword, And set no crown upon your head. As you pursue your lofty quest, Never abandon the white eagle Shown on this noble shield. This crest, These arms deserve—as none do—triumphs!”

The emphasis is all on the sword’s illustrious history and on the necessity of wresting it in glorious combat from its present bearer, Orlando. The author can personalize these armaments, as Boiardo does for his Rodamonte, whose dragonskin armor reflects the character’s ferocity. He has inherited this armor from his ancestor Nimrod, builder of the biblical Tower of Babel in hubristic defiance of God’s will and one of the giants who warred against Jove. Nor does Rodamonte care about God’s (or Macone’s) will; he worships only his own strength: Se egli è alcun dio nel cel, ch’io nol so cer to, Là stassi ad alto, e di qua giù non cura: Omo non è che l’abbia visto esperto, Ma la vil gente crede per paura.

10


 Io de mia fede vi ragiono aperto Che solo il mio bon brando e l’armatura E la maza ch’io porto, e ’l de strier mio E l’animo ch’io ho, sono il mio dio. (OI 2.3.22) “If there’s a God, which I don’t know, His care’s above, not here below. There’s no one who has w itnessed him, But craven men believe from fear. I’ll tell you my faith openly: It’s just my armor, my good sword, My horse, the club I carry, and The heart I have—I’m my own god.

In that Rodamonte’s armor was inherited from a biblical character it shows another function of magical weapons: that of linking different narrative traditions. Other examples are Mandricardo’s armor (later Ruggiero’s), which originally belonged to the Trojan Hector; and Gradasso’s armor, previously the property of the biblical Samson. The illustrious heroes of the past would not have valued these armaments so much if they had not been of exceptional quality. In the tradition, indestructible armor makes it possible for knights to participate again and again in the (formulaic) fiercest battle ever, which they would not survive except for their enchanted helmet or armor. Boiardo, more sincerely attached to the chivalric tradition than Ariosto, made much greater use of such traditional turns of phrase and metaphors. 10 Not only is each new duel a superlative, but each fair maiden is introduced as the most beautiful. The use of such conventional language and situations is rare in Ariosto’s poem. It is only natural for a knight to desire the finest armaments available, both from a practical point of view as a warrior and, of much greater concern to the knight of romance, for the sake of his personal reputat ion. Thus enchanted armaments not only protect the knight in battle, but also engender battles against other knights who aspire to win this prestigious item for themselves. As early as his fifth octave, Boiardo reveals Gradasso’s desire for Durindana. Late in the poem, Boiardo complicates the theme, progressing from straightforward duels to a three-way argument among Mandricardo and Rugiero (over Hector’s insignia) and Mandricardo and Gradasso (over Durindana). Ariosto takes this motif to an even greater extreme in the highly amusing Discordia episode in the Saracen camp, where no fewer than six eminent knights are embroiled in squabbles over


11



arms, women, and horses. Accordingly, it is not only characters who move around a lot in the poem. Enchanted weapons pass from hand to hand, either won in combat or lost through chance. Mandricardo wins Hector’s arms in a series of magical trials, while Astolfo, who chanced upon the magic lance, loses it in combat to Agricane and then chances upon it again later. Orlando takes Balisarda from Falerina, only to be robbed of it by Brunello, who gives it to Rugiero, who will lose it during his shipwreck in the Furioso until Orlando returns it to him. And so on. Ariosto likewise takes this convention to great and comical lengths. Marfisa disrupts Norandino’s tourney in order to reclaim her enchanted armor, which she had left behind in the Innamorato .11 Ferraù is presented in Canto 1 of the Furioso as he seeks the magic helmet he had borrowed from Argalia in the Innamorato . With the arrival of Angelica his attention is diverted and she becomes the object of his desire until chance returns him to the riverbank and the helmet again occupies his thoughts. The ghost of Argalia bids him take in valorous combat either Orlando’s or Rinaldo’s helmet, but instead it is through chance that he eventually acquires Orlando’s helmet.

ii. Balisarda and the Morality of Magic One result of the implicit distinction between overtly magic weapons and merely enchanted ones is the possible resolution of the conflict between the poet’s desire to present his favored characters with prestigious possessions, and his concern over giving them obviously unfair advantages. In the earlier chivalric tradition magical weaponry ensured the wielder’s victory regardless of his merit, and therefore was a sign of félonie .12 The use of enchanted weapons, however, never posed moral difficulties for knights, because they are not truly different in kind from normal nonmagical weapons. The essential honor of Orlando, Arthur, etc. is unquestioned, regardless of their enchanted swords. In the Innamorato and the Furioso , no matter how impressive enchanted armaments may be, they do not give automatic victory, nor do they make their bearers completely safe. Argalia in the Innamorato , and Mandricardo and Gradasso in the Furioso are all killed despite their enchanted armor. Departing from the tradition of condemnation, Boiardo and Ariosto provide for the possibility of knights’ using magic armaments and yet retaining their good reputations. Magic is an abundant source of meraviglia and diletto in the two poems, and its use is not limited to villains. Never-

12




theless, the poets’ treatment of the subject shows that something remains not perfectly acceptable about the use of magic. Boiardo does not bring this kind of moral question to the foreground, accenting instead the marvelous qualities and inhabitants of his fabulous world. Direct references to moral quandaries regarding knights’ use of magic are exceedingly rare in the Innamorato , totalling only four. Argalia is embarrassed not because he wears enchanted armor, but because he is mortally wounded despite its protection ( OI 1.3.63 and 1.28.4). Later, when Orlando wishes to insult Ranaldo, one of his accusations is that Ranaldo has secretly benefited from Malagise’s magic aid ( OI 1.27.21, and again in 1.28.4); it may be untrue, but it is an area where Ranaldo’s honor can be impugned. Despite Boiardo’s reticence in discussing the morality of magic, upon examination one finds that in the Innamorato anything with truly magical powers, no matter how delightful and marvelous, leads to chaotic effects. 13 Ariosto’s treatment of the morality of magic varies from case to case. He portrays sorcerers good, evil, and indifferent. There is no hint of disapproval of Astolfo or Bradamante for using the golden lance or other magic devices. Yet in two important episodes (those of the shield and the harquebus, of which I shall speak at length in Chapter Three) he openly condemns magic weapons, precisely for the traditional reason: they bring unfair advantages to a knight. Both poets’ treatment of the sword Balisarda reveals qualms about the morality of knights’ use of magic. Balisarda, when introduced in the Innamorato , is clearly magical rather than enchanted. Whereas enchanted swords cannot pierce enchanted armor, Falerina creates Balisarda with the special ability to cut through magical substances, including Orlando’s skin: E con incanti [Falerina] fabrica una spata Che tagliar possa ogni cosa affatata. (OI 2.4.6) There she still hides, to fabricate A sword, with herb juice, charms, and roots, Whose edge enchantments can’t withstand.

Orlando finds it indispensable in defeating the magical dangers of Falerina’s garden and Morgana’s ensorcelled guardian Aridano. Thus the circumstances of its creation suggest that it could function as one of the more important magical artifacts. Yet once Orlando takes it from Falerina’s garden its unique magical power is de-emphasized. The sword remains


13



valued for its fine qualities, and from time to time the poets refer to its wondrous origin (much as they do for other enchanted armaments, out of considerations of the weapon’s prestige). Nevertheless, in neither the Innamorato nor the Furioso is Balisarda used as a magical tool to disrupt enchantments as is, for instance, Angelica’s ring. The duel between Orlando and Rugiero in Book 2 Canto 31 provides an illustrative example. Enthusiastic readers could be expected to remember that Rugiero is using Balisarda, and that Falerina had intended this sword to be the vehicle of Orlando’s death; this would make it inconvenient for Boiardo to ignore the matter. And indeed, when the combatant s’ swords are compared, the poet specifically recalls Balisarda’s origin: De le due spade ogniuna era più fina: Sapeti ben qual era Durindana, E qual tagliare avesse Balisarda, Che fatasone e l’arme non riguarda. Per far perire il conte questo brando Fu nel giardin de Orgagna fabricato: Come Brunello il ladro il tolse a Orlando, E come Rugier l’ebbe, è già contato, Più non bisogna andarlo ramentando; Ma seguendo l’assalto incominciato, Dico che un sì crudele e sì perverso Non fu veduto mai ne l’universo. (OI 2.31.28–29) Both of them used the finest swords: Balisard had an edge that spells And armor could not stop, and you Know Durindana’s temper well. To kill the Count this sword had been Forged in the garden of Orgagna. Brunello stole it from Orlando, And then Rugiero took possession— No need to tell you how again. To turn back to th is new assault, I say, a duel so cruel and foul Was not seen in this world till now.

This is a perfect opportunity for Boiardo to give Orlando, the knight with enchanted invulnerable skin, a dramatic and unprecedented wound in battle, due to Balisarda’s special magic. Yet the matter-of-fact tone of these introductory octaves already warns against the expectation of any

14




extraordinar y results from the duel. If the poet had intended to exploit the possibilities of mayhem, he could easily have gone straight from the threat to Orlando (octave 29, vv. 1–2) to the narration of the battle. As it is, however, the stately parenthetical delay of vv. 3–8 gradually diminishes the hint of actual peril. Paradoxically, the superlative of vv. 7–8 serves not to produce anticipation of a sensational battle, but to recall other “fiercest” battles where no one was harmed; can the reader truly expect something different this time? From the very start the two swords are explicitly given parity (“De le due spade ogniuna era più fina”), and in fact, by the time their duel is interrupted the two knights have achieved exactly equivalent results. Fragments of armor fly everywhere; Rugiero shatters Orlando’s helmet, but, “Come a Dio piacque,” narrowly misses his flesh; Orlando shatters Rugiero’s shield, narrowly missing his flesh, “Ché il celo aiuta ogni persona franca.” Thus, Balisarda ends up not substantially different from other knights’ enchanted blades. Falerina’s sword’s uniqueness has become, in effect, an illusion; it has not quite disappeared from view, but in practice it has been eliminated. The same is true in the Furioso . Here and there (36.55 and 46.120) it is remembered that Balisarda is magical. Yet although the sword was originally created to pierce Orlando’s enchanted skin and anything else, magical or not, it proves completely ineffective against t he sea monster. Balisarda, while retaining its high quality and prestige, has been surreptitiously changed by the poets from a magical blade to an enchanted one in order to make it a more appropriate weapon for Ruggiero. It seems clear that both poets wished to achieve a delicate balance in regard to the heroic ancestor of the Este. In order to be able to stand as a peer of the foremost knights, Ruggiero must wield a noteworthy blade. On the other hand, the poets do not wish to burden Ruggiero with excessive magical advantages which would interfere with the demonstration of his personal virtù. Hence, once out of the perilous magical context of Falerina’s garden, Balisarda is quietly, without any fanfare, deprived of its now disadvantageous magic power. Later, Ariosto brings this aspect of Ruggiero’s characterization closer to the surface in the form of the moral dilemma of the magic shield.

iii. The Lance It may be morally troublesome for Rugiero to use magic, but the English knight Astolfo is a different matter. His character in the Innamorato is unforgettably linked to the magic golden lance. One of the major magic


15



artifacts of both the Orlando innamorato and the Orlando furioso , the magic lance finds its literary source in the Tavola ritonda.14 There, Tristano’s perfect knighthood is exalted by his final refusal and destruction of the magic weapons. 15 In contrast, for Boiardo the use of the magic lance does not adversely affect a knight’s honor. First Argalia and then Astolfo employ the lance’s magic with no hint of condemnation from the narrator. In the Innamorato , the lance was originally a weapon aimed at Charlemagne’s Christians by Galafrone. First of all, Galafrone’s and Argalia’s willingness to use magic unfairly nevertheless does not bring them success for long. The plan of the king of Cathay, although starting smoothly with Astolfo’s defeat, has barely been set in motion when it goes awry. As early as the end of the first Canto Argalia is so overcome by rage at Feraguto that he forgets the lance when he leaves the scene of battle. From one point of view this suggests that Argalia is a valorous knight with enough confidence in his own abilities that he does not psychologically depend on his magical accoutrements. His forgetfulness is even more understandable if Argalia did not know of the lance’s special power. Galafrone may not have informed his son of its particulars, since nowhere is there an indication that Argalia is aware of it. When Argalia’s magical accoutrements are introduced in 1.1.38–39 the special abilities of Rabicano and the ring are specified, but the lance is only described by its rich beaut y. It is not even explicitly called magical, as are Argalia’s sword and armor. Much later Ariosto, an attentive reader of the Innamorato , states that no one knew it was magical “eccetto quel re solo / che far la fece e la donò al figliuolo” (OF 45.65; “Apart from King Galafron, who had had the lance made for his son, nobody knew of its powers or that it was made by sorcery”).16 Perhaps this is why Argalia is so uncaring as to leave it behind. However, it is a bad sign for Argalia as this sort of loss of self-control usually leads to defeat in both the Innamorato and the Furioso . Thus Boiardo prepares the scene for one of his strokes of genius, the lance’s accidental transferral to Astolfo. The knight’s ignorance of the lance’s magical property of unhorsing whomever it strikes is a continuing source of humor in the Innamorato , since everyone familiar with Astolfo is astonished when he wins. The English knight’s bizarre personality further ensures comical scenes. The strength of Boiardo’s Astolfo lies in his cortesia rather than his warrior’s skills. In this way, Boiardo overturns the natural order by giving the magic lance to the weakest of knights. Astolfo himself does not ex-

16




pect to defeat Grandonio in Charlemagne’s tourney, and all the onlookers share his opinion: Né già se crede quel franco barone Aver vittoria contra del pagano, Ma sol con pura e bona intenzïone Di far il suo dover per Carlo Mano. Stava molto atto sopra dello arcione E somigliava a cavallier soprano; Ma color tutti che l’han cognosciuto, Diceano:—Oh Dio! deh mandaci altro aiuto!— (OI 1.2.66) That baron bold does not believe He will defeat the Saracen, But his pure, good intention is To do his duty for King Charle s. He waited sprightly in the saddle, Just like a mighty cavalier, But everyone who recognized Astolf yelled, “God, send someone else!”

At first he can hardly believe his victory, but vanity quickly causes him to assume that it stemmed from his own skill. T his first of his victories will be followed by many more, to the astonishment of all who knew him before. After his hot-headed participation in a brawl, he is imprisoned by Charlemagne and forgotten by all until 1.7.37 when during Gradasso’s siege of Paris the prisons are opened. It is in this episode that Astolfo reaches the apex of his glory in the Innamorato . The desperate and pragmatic captive Charlemagne has already agreed to surrender Baiardo and Durindana to Gradasso when Astolfo disrupts this plan. Having taken the leadership of Paris in the absence of the other knights, he imprisons Carlo’s messenger and challenges Gradasso to duel with him for Baiardo. The arrival of this news in Gradasso’s camp shows further in what variety of esteem the duke of England is held; some think of him as “un buffone” or “un paccio” while Gradasso relates that Altri m’ha detto poi che sei segnore Leggiadro, largo, nobile e cortese, E che sei de ardir pieno e di valore. (OI 1.7.53) “Some others told me you’re a lord, A courtly, gallant gentleman, Courteous, noble, fair, and free.


17



He is obviously outmatched by the formidable Gradasso—as the narrator himself admits, Astolfo “[f]orza non ha, ma l’animo non manca” ( OI 1.7.55; “He has no strength, but he has heart”)—and so it is clearly the magic lance which unhorses the incredulous Gradasso at the first touch. This is a perfect example of a lesser knight defeating a superior fighter solely through the use of magic; yet the outcome is entirely humorous rather than a moral condemnation of Astolfo, since not even he realizes that his victory was not the result of his own skill. His subsequent joking deception of Gradasso’s Christian prisoners makes this episode unforgettable. Desirous of finding his cousins Ranaldo and Orlando, Astolfo takes the magic lance to the East. His defeat of Brandimarte in Book 1 Canto 9 allows Astolfo to display his cortesia by waiving his victor’s right to accompany his opponent’s lady. After unhorsing Sacripante with dispatch, Astolfo travels with Brandimarte and Fiordelisa to Dragontina’s palace. He narrowly escapes the amnesiac Orlando with his life. The chief paladin is too formidable even for the cocksure Astolfo to face. In the Innamorato (and the Furioso ) even truly magical items are not invincible. The golden lance wins countless battles for Astolfo but, intended for use in tourneys rather than in war, it does not ensure success against opponents who depart from the rules of jousting. At the tourney in Paris, Astolfo is unhorsed by a surprise attack launched by the treacherous Anselmo, and later he is wounded by Trufaldino who strikes from the side. Astolfo’s most serious defeat occurs in Book 1 Canto 10 at the siege of Albraca. His overconfidence in attacking the enemy army alone leads to his defeat by three knights who attack together, and the lance passes into the hands of Agricane. It is not clear whether the asta used by Agricane in 1.10.49 is the magic lance; the king of the Tartars is a great warrior, so, in the absence of the narrator’s clarification, how could an observer distinguish the effects of the lance from his personal skill? In any case Agricane does not possess it for long before his final duel with Orlando, and the lance soon returns to its proper owner, Astolfo: Ora ascoltati che bella ventura Li mandò avanti Dio del cel quel giorno Ché proprio nella strata se incontrava In un che l’arme e sua lancia portava. Quelle arme che valeano un gran tesoro Un Tartaro le t iene in sua balìa, E il suo bel scudo, e quella la ncia d’oro Che primamente fu dello Argalia. Il duca Astolfo, senza altro dimoro, Per terra a gran furor quello abattia,

18


 Fuor delle spalle sei palmi passato; Smontò alla terra ed ebbel disarmato. Esso fu armato ed ha sua lancia presa, ... (OI 1.19.30–32; emphasis mine) Now hear what great adventure God In heaven sent to him that day: Right in his path, he came across A soldier with his lance and armor. His armor, worth a fortune, was In the possession of a Tartar: His fine shield and that lance of gold That Argalìa once had owned. Astolfo, with no more delay, Angrily knocked the soldier down And pierced his shoulders six palms through, Dismounted, and disarmed the man. He dressed, took up his lance once more

As with his original acquisition of the magic lance, it is by good fortune that Astolfo now regains it. 17 The anonymous Tartar is apparently not even a knight and his primary interest would seem to be the monetary value of the weaponry. Thus he is no match for the English duke. Astolfo may be unskilled compared to his peers but he is still a nobleman and knight, and thus infinitely superior to a common soldier. The narrator tells us that after his error in losing the lance to Agicane, Astolfo learned better, “[g]overnandosi poi con più ragione” ( OI 1.10.26; “he changed his ways—/ Some—and was almost well-behaved”). Boiardo may be ironic here, since Astolfo’s subsequent behavior is foolish. As Manodante’s prisoner he endangers Brandimar te when he reveals Orlando’s deception, and on meeting Alcina he goes imprudently forward while his companions hang back suspiciously; his capture by the enchantress in 2.13.64 takes the magic lance out of play for the rest of the poem. But the stage is set for Ariosto’s characterization of a wiser Astolfo. When the magic lance reappears in Canto 8 of the Furioso , it belongs to an Astolfo who has learned from his experiences.

iv. The Ring The magic ring is of course one of the most important magical artifacts of both poems. It has two magical functions: that of rendering the bearer


19



invisible, and that of nullifying spells. This spell-breaking, anti-magical power is crucial at times to advance the plot, by demolishing magical prisons that trap knights, while the power of invisibility turns out to be mainly a protection for women. 18 Despite its importance, and characteristic of the majority of incidents of magic, the ring is presented without what Guido Almansi would call a “grido di meraviglia.”19 Most of the time in the Innamorato and the Furioso magical artifacts or events are presented in a matter-of-fact tone: Il meraviglioso entra spesso in scena nel Furioso nel suo travestimento più curioso e insolito, cioè come cosa normale, ineccepibile e logica . . . In particolare la prima comparsa di un personaggio o di un avvenimento mirabilmente incredibile o soprannaturale viene presentato al lettore in un tono che non è iron ic o . . . né stuporosamente meravigliato: bensì in un tono pacato e discorsivo, equanimamente teso a raccontare un fatto; un tono privo di accentuazione . . . . . . . I l c ontenuto è soprannaturale . . . ma la voce non è soprannatur ale . . . 20

The two stanzas which present the gifts of Galafrone to Argalia are characteristic of this tactic: Al giovenetto avea dato un destrieri Negro quanto un carbon quando egli è spento, Tanto nel corso veloce e leggieri, Che già più volte avea passato il vento; Scudo, corazza ed elmo col cimieri, E spada fatta per incantamento; Ma sopra a tutto una lancia dorata, D’alta ricchezza e pregio fabricata. Or con queste arme il suo patre il mandò, Stimando che per quelle il sia invincibile, Et oltra a questo uno anel li donò Di una virtù grandissima, incredibile, Avengaché costui non lo adoprò; Ma sua virtù facea l’omo invisibile, Se al manco lato in bocca se por tava: Portato in dito, ogni incanto guastava. (OI 1.1.38–39) He’d given his young son a horse— One blacker than a snuffed-out coal, That ran with so much speed and so Much grace, it beat the wind, also A crested helmet, shield, cuirass, And sword, all made by magic spells, But more important, a gold lance Of precious workmanship most rich.

20


 His father sent him with these arms Convinced he’d be invincible. He gave him, too, a powerful ring Whose virtues were incredible. Held on the left side of his mouth, It made a man invisible; Worn on his finger, it broke spells. Argalia never used that ring.

All of these items are stated to be unusual, but the matter-of-fact tone belies their truly marvelous qualities. The ring stands out only for the crescendo of octave 39 v. 4, where the juxtaposed superlatives are emphasized by the pause between them, and the choppy rhythm contributes to the sense of rising excitement. Yet this crescendo is immediately curtailed by the parenthetical information of v. 5, where the tone of everyday narration returns. In the end, one has the impression that the ring is just one more facet of the beauties of Boiardo’s poetic world, and does not stand out from the rest. On the level of the plot, however, the ring will stand out. It will prove crucial to advancing the plot in both poems, with its spell-breaking power demolishing magical prisons that trap many knights. In the Innamorato this is the ring’s function in the two extended adventures in which it is used: namely the destruction of Dragontina’s garden, where Orlando and other important knights are imprisoned in Book 1 between Cantos 6 and 14, and the extraction of Rugiero from Atalante’s palace at the monte di Carena. Angelica takes the ring to Dragontina’s garden in the hope that the knights she frees will help her defeat the siege of Albraca, which itself is an important center of narration. Dragontina’s downfall begins slowly. She is unaware of the approaching threat because Angelica uses the ring’s power of invisibility when she enters the garden. First the princess frees Orlando from the fay’s spell of forgetfulness by putting the ring on his finger; this takes two stanzas (OI 1.14.43–44). Then he frees another prisoner over a stanza and a half. They proceed to liberate the rest until in an accelerating chain reaction the palace, the bridge, the river, and Dragontina herself all disappear in the course of two verses: Sparve il palagio, e mai non fo veduto; Lei sparve, e il ponte, e il fiume con tempesta (OI 1.14.47) Her palace disappears from vie w, Her bridge, her stream—she vanished too!


21



The bewildered knights suddenly find themselves in the middle of a forest. This effect goes beyond Angelica’s or the knights’ intentions; in the crescendo of excitement the ring seems to expand its function so that it dispels the magic surroundings and their creator without needing to touch them. Guido Di Pino sees the vanishing of Dragontina’s palace as a clear prefiguration of that of Atlante’s palace of illusions in the Furioso : Ma dove la forte schematicità boiardesca sottolinea la rapida e stupefacente totalità del prodigio, la mente dell’Ariosto svolge la logica del probabile umano, dando ai gesti del mago . . . la coordinazione e la misura delle naturali operazioni di un uomo . . . Nel testo dell’Innamorato . . . scolpiscono l ’energia e la dimensione del prodi gi o . . . N elle ottave dell’Ariosto l’evento straordinario non lascia, come nel passo dell’Innamorato , un vincolo di dramma (“con tempesta”); il castello sparisce senza suono . . . 21

In general Ariosto pays more attention to the “scientific” side of magic palaces, ensuring that there is a cause, such as magical inscriptions and knots, for each effect. This scientific attitude is connected with his firm principles of coherence and verisimilitude. 22 After Angelica’s return to Albraca with her new knightly supporters in Canto 15, the ring is not mentioned until Book 2 Canto 3 when the king of Garamanta proclaims it will be necessary in order to extract Rugiero from the protective Atalante’s garden. The need to obtain the ring allows Boiardo to create another of his most memorable characters, Brunello, and to narrate Marfisa’s equally memorable 15-cantos-long chase of the master thief. The episode at the monte di Carena is not as cataclysmic as the destruction of Dragontina’s garden. Although Atalante’s fortress had been created by magic, (“Da gli spirti de inferno tutto quanto / Fu in un sol giorno fatto per incanto”; OI 2.3.27; “Hell’s spirits by enchantment built / The whole thing in a single day”) the ring does no more than reveal its location by breaking Atalante’s spell of concealment ( OI 2.16. 18–19). The sudden revival of interest in the ring in Book 2 has additional purposes. After the movement of knights to the East in Book 1, Brunello’s theft of the ring signals the start of the general, though gradual and often interrupted, return of characters to the West. Agramante’s need for the ring also serves to underscore the importance of Rugiero, destined ancestor of the Este, since Agramante must go to such extravagant lengths in the quest to obtain the young knight for his army. Not only must a master thief be located and dispatched abroad, but search parties must be sent into the mountains, and a tournament fought to lure the new Achilles

22




down from his safe home. From Canto 3 when Rugiero’s necessity to the war effort is prophesied, the reader must wait until Canto 16 for his entrance, by which time the young knight has received quite a buildup. Although the ring passes through many hands in the course of the two poems it is associated primarily with Angelica, who holds it at the start of the Innamorato and at her exit from the Furioso . As has been pointed out, Ariosto’s Angelica is different from Boiardo’s heroine. 23 Boiardo’s Angelica takes an active role in events, while for much of the Furioso Angelica does nothing but react and flee from danger. When the ring’s magic nullifies Malagise’s sleep spell, Boiardo’s enterprising princess has the daring and physical strength to detain him, and t he presence of mind to recognize him for a “nigromante.” Later, she is prepared to use the ring to pass unseen through the enemy soldiers who have occupied the city of Albraca, but in this case it turns out to be unnecessary because “a questi la fatica e la vittoria / li avea col sonno tolto ogni memoria” ( OI 1.14.24; “victory, fatigue, and sleep / Reduced their perspicacity”). She coolly uses it to escape the tower full of prospective victims of Orgagna and to enter Dragontina’s garden. She is fully aware that with the ring she is safe (although she forgets it momentarily under the threat of immediate violence in the confusion of a battle, OI 1.15.18). Ariosto’s Angelica is a helpless victim for ten cantos, until she recovers the magic ring from Ruggiero. Even then, she needs time to readjust to the idea of being safe, and she subsequently lacks the intrepidity of Boiardo’s character. Despite these differences between the two versions of Angelica, her chaotic effect on men and their projects remains. Valeria Finucci’s reading of Angelica in the Furioso as bringing male failure wherever she goes 24 is valid in the Innamorato as well. Galafrone plans to use her beauty to lure Christian knights into captivity. Malagise’s superior knowledge allows him to recognize her, but her beauty weakens his resolution to end her threat by a speedy assassination. The one time the ring’s anti-magical power leads to disorderly effects is when it cancels the Christian mage’s sleep spells, protecting Angelica and allowing her to capture him. To please her, Ranaldo is kidnapped, leading to a serious defeat for Charlemagne’s army. At Albraca, and later when they return to Europe, Ranaldo and Orlando fight over her, neglecting the Saracen threat. Charlemagne’s proposal not to award her to the less valiant fighter leads Orlando, the greatest Christian champion, to pray for disaster to befall his own army (OI 2.29.37). The ring’s power of invisibility may not directly cause chaotic effects, but it protects Angelica with her innate propensity to distract knights. She


23



plans to escape invisibly from Albraca to seek more supporters, and actually does so at the tribute tower. Alhough the ring’s spell-breaking power releases Dragontina’s captives, Angelica’s charisma continues to lead them astray from their duty in order to serve her purposes.

v. The Magic Waters and the Boat Another magical object with which Angelica is associated is the river of amore and the nearby fountain of disamore . On one level Boiardo introduced these marvelous waters in order to set up the humorous situation of Angelica’s ardent courtship of the reluctant Ranaldo. In the opening cantos of the Innamorato the haughty princess of Cathay remains aloof from all of her admirers, including Ranaldo. In Franceschetti’s view, it is to avoid the monotony of having all the knights in love that Boiardo creates the fountain of Merlin, thus by magical intervention excepting Ranaldo from the general rule of overpowering love. 25 Jo Ann Cavallo sees the magically aloof Ranaldo as the Innamorato ’s sole representative of the anti-eros tradition of the Grail quest literature. 26 His coldness to women is especially ironic because of Ranaldo’s traditional reputation as a womanizer. Love is the natural condition of characters in the world of the Innamorato . The marvelous river of love acts “per la sua natura” and a human origin of its power is explicitly denied ( OI 1.3.38). The magically inspired loves are treated no differently than “natural” loves. 27 This magical emotion has the same chaotic effects that non-magically-i nspired love has had since the beginning of the poem; i.e. it tends to promote dispersal and disorder. The enamored Angelica continues to serve her father’s plan by taking Ranaldo far from the performance of his duty, and later the newly-besotted Ranaldo falls immediately into battle against his own noble cousin. The natural magic of the river can only be countered by the manmade magic of Merlin’s fountain, situated in convenient proximity to it. Merlin constructed the anti-magical fountain in order to free the noble knight Tristan of his self-destructive love. A work of man’s intellect, the fountain tends to increase orderliness by cancelling out amorous insanity. After drinking from it, the errant Ranaldo remembers his duty and returns to serve Carlo and protect France. After Angelica has drunk from it she no longer has reason to maintain her disruptive presence in Europe. Merlin’s original plan to counter the natural order failed, but the fountain endures to complicate matters in the Innamorato and to resolve them in the Furioso .

24




Strangely, Merlin did not follow up on his plan by ensuring Tristan’s cure at the fountain. Tristan’s arrival was left to chance; it is chance that brings Ranaldo to Merlin’s fountain in Book 1 Canto 3; and it is Orlando’s luck (“fortuna o sua ventura,” i.e., chance again) that brings Angelica to it in 2.20.44. By contrast, the river’s enchantment of Angelica and Ranaldo is, in each case, divinely ordained by the god Amore as a punishment ( OI 1.3.40 and 2.15.55). On the authority of Pasithea herself, the power of this god is known to be irresistible; “Non si trova contrasto a quel segnore” (OI 2.15.53; “That lord has never been opposed”). Thus it is surprising not that Angelica fails to free herself with spells, but that even the legendary Merlin’s magic can nullify the river’s effects. The decree of Amore is cruelly just; in turn Angelica and Ranaldo suffer the torments of unrequited love that they had inflicted on others, and that are so knowingly described by Boiardo. Despite its connotations of intellect and rationality, the narrator does not truly prefer Merlin’s fountain. With the Renaissance taste for paradoxes he condemns now one, now the other water, revealing a deep ambivalence about love. The river of love is on the one hand an “unda maledetta” and on the other a “rivera zoiosa.” Merlin’s fountain is a “velenoso tosco,” an “acqua strana,” yet the river of love is “una acqua che è megliore assai: / Meglior di vista e de effetto peggiore” ( OI 2.15.26; “a river of delight: / Good to see , but of bad effect”). Boiardo admits willingly the life-giving effects of love: . . . c e rto chi nel fior de’ soi primi anni sanza caldo de amore il tempo passa, se in vista è vivo, vivo è sanza core. (Amorum libri 1 v v. 12–14) 28 . . . I kn ow that he whose flowering youth is passed away without the warmth of love may seem to live, but lives w ithout a heart.

Nor do the pains of love dissuade him from its value: Chi così vise, al mondo vise assai, se ben nel fior de gli anni il suo fin colse, ché più che assai quel campa che ben vive. Passata zoglia non se lassa mai; ma chi pòte ben vivere, e non vòlse, par che anzi tempo la sua vita arive. (Amorum libri 44 vv. 9–14)


25

 Whoever lived like this lived very well, even though he met his end while in his prime, for who lives well lives more than any other. A past joy is a joy that’s never lost; but one who could live well and yet refuses, would seem to steer life’s craft to shore too soon.

In the Innamorato the ennobling effect of love is proclaimed in the famous proem to Book 2 Canto 4: 29 Amor primo trovò le rime e’ versi, I suoni, i canti et ogni melo dia; E genti istrane e populi dispersi Congionse Amore in dolce compagnia. Il diletto e il piacer serian sumersi, Dove Amor non avesse signoria; Odio crudele e dispietata guerra, Se Amor non fusse, avrian tutta la terra. Lui pone l’avarizia e l’ira in bando, E il core accresce alle animose imprese, Né tante prove più mai fece Orlando, Quante nel tempo che de amor se accese. (OI 2.4.2–3) Love found my earliest rhymes and lines, All sounds, all songs, all cadences. Love linked in cordial company Dwellers in distant boundaries. Delight and pleasure would be lost If Love were not the sovereign lord; Ungentle hate and heartle ss war, If Love were not, would rule the world. Love outlaws avarice and wrath; Love lets t he heart confront bold tasks. Orlando wrought more wonders in That season when Love kindled him.

Rational order is not the supreme value for Boiardo; there is room in his world for joyous passion, though it is best tempered with reason. 30 When the Innamorato is interrupted, Ranaldo and Angelica have resumed their original attitudes toward one another. Ranaldo has rejoined the majority of knights in a love which will tend to lead him away from his duty to king and country, and toward glorious adventures and his indi-

26




vidual fulfillment. Merlin’s fountain can even be seen in a negative light because it had earlier prevented this journey. 31 But at the end Ranaldo is reinserted into the natural (dis)order. Rational order is more desirable in the world of the Furioso . Rinaldo’s final visit to Merlin’s fountain is not left to chance; rather he is guided to it by the psychological-allegorical figure of Disdain, come explicitly to release Rinaldo from “il giogo indegno” of an “amor sì folle.” Rinaldo is left free to return to his chivalric duties, as societal values reassert themselves. The early effects of the magic waters lead to Ranaldo’s voyages in the magic boat in Book 1 of the Innamorato . The motif of the pilotless boat evokes romance wanderings in search of adventure. 32 In the Arthurian tradition the boats were sent either by God to take the knight on his religious quest, or by a sorceress for her own, usually evil, purpose. In Renaissance romance these boats embody “the operations of Fortune as Aventure , with chance at the rudder, or in charge of the weather.” 33 Boiardo’s boat certainly takes Ranaldo willy-nilly toward adventure, but its course is guided by a human intelligence. In a passage modeled after the Aeneid ,34 Malagise sends the boat to kidnap Ranaldo after the paladin refused to help regain his cousin’s magic book by sleeping with Angelica. The illusions of the vengeful Malagise’s demons lure Ranaldo onto the boat in such a way as not only to take him from his warrior’s duty, but also to leave his knightly peers and enemies believing him a coward. With amazing speed the pilotless boat takes Ranaldo to the lovely Palazzo Zoioso, to a fate which any other Boiardan knight (and most Ariostan knights) would gladly embrace, but which Ranaldo flees in horror. His comical refusal of Angelica’s favors is, of course, due solely to the effect of Merlin’s fountain. The infuriated Malagise then directs the boat to convey Ranaldo to the deadly danger of Crudel Rocca. The many delightful adventures he will face on the way back to Europe are no less important to Boiardo than the fate of the paladins in France. 35

vi. Books Books in the poems are not the poets’ only vehicles, or even their main vehicles, for references to literature and art. 36 The vast majority of books that appear in the two poems have to do with magic. 37 These marvelous books are of two types: the books used by sorcerers (e.g. Malagise, Atlante) in the casting of spells, and the how-to books that guide knights (e.g. Orlando, Astolfo) in overcoming magical dangers. The former type theoretically record spells to be used whenever the sorcerer judges them to be


27



appropriate; in practice these spells tend to be reduced to one, that of controlling demons. The how-to books contain detailed information on specific dangers that the knight may encounter, and practical instructions for achieving victory. The chaotic effects generally associated with magic adhere strongly to the spell books; they promote the dispersal or entrapment of characters. The how-to books, on the other hand, have an antimagical nature and consequently promote the orderly advancement of the plot. In the two poems the spell books of the sorcerers are so strongly associated with demons that Negri is prompted to remark: “dai libri nel Furioso non usciranno altro che diavolerie” (22). The diabolic connection is certainly not original with Boiardo, but belongs to medieval tradition. 38 Demons from the spell books provide information, transportation, and illusions. Interestingly, Christian sorcerers employ demons at least as often as pagans. Malagise employs demons on at least four occasions ( OI 1.1.36– 43; 1.5.23–25 and 32–47; 2.22.45–59), whereas Angelica commands demons only with the help of Malagise’s spell book. 39 Atalante is connected to demons only once in the Innamorato (2.3.27). Although dealing with devils would logically raise suspicions of the sorcerers’ characters and motives, their fraternization with the spiritual enemy does not seem to affect their religious convictions. While Malagise may be of little help to the Christian camp, he is no renegade; and Merlin’s and Melissa’s use of demons in the Furioso does not preclude their effective suppor t of God’s plan. Rather, both Boiardo and Ariosto portray demons as less menacing than comic. Spell books are also associated with the failure in some manner of the sorcerer who uses them. Both poets employ a pattern of magnification (the sorcerer has amazing powers with his book) then deflation (some misfortune befalls him without his book), which implies that the sorcerer is overly reliant on the spell book’s powers. Although there are many practitioners of magic in the Innamorato , only Malagise owns a spell book. This fact singles him out; but is he privileged by the possession of a book, symbol of learning? Clearly, the fays do not need such books because magic comes naturally to them. As a corollary, the human Malagise’s use of the book shows that magic does not come naturally to him, but is an object of study and the application of intellect. Yet, strangely, none of the other human sorcerers uses spell books, not even Atalante. While the book would seem to be a powerful tool, we shall see that it fosters dependence, so that without it Malagise is

28




powerless, and that its use actually portends failure. The more powerful form of magic in the Innamorato is not Malagise’s traditional bookish demonic magic, but the fabulous “natural” magic exemplified by the river of love and the various enchantresses. At first, the opening canto of the poem is promising for Malagise; he shows perspicacity superior to all the other men when he is able to resist Angelica’s charms and recognize that she is not who she claims to be. With his book he summons demons who provide information; thus Malagise is the only one to determine the true identity and purpose of the Cathayan travelers. Again with the help of demons he is transported effortlessly to the Cathayan camp. Reading less than a page of his book, he puts to sleep the giant guards, with the intention of killing Angelica. At this point Malagise’s plans begin to go awry, as he evidences human frailty. He joins all the other men in succumbing to Angelica’s beauty and decides to rape her. He takes what seem to him to be elaborate precautions, reading the entire book to make certain she wil l continue to sleep. Relying solely on the book’s power, Malagise forgets or disregards the demons’ warning about the magic ring, which nullifies all of his spells. Someone with less implicit confidence in the book’s invincibility would have taken to heart this warning, and would have taken steps to locate the ring and to counter its effects. Sorcerers are not known for physical prowess; the surprised Malagise is easily captured. When Angelica takes his book she takes his power, and effortlessly turns it against him. While according to the demons Angelica “sapea tutte le incantazïone,” the spells in the captured book certainly seem to increase her power. She is now able to command the demons to transport first Malagise and later herself to Cathay. Malagise’s failed attempt at the quick and orderly defeat of the antiChristian plot results instead in the strengthening of the Cathayan threat. Angelica becomes even more powerful than before, while the Christians are left unsuspecting of the danger. Moreover, Malagise’s spell book contributes to the dispersal of various characters, directly with the imprisonment of Malagise and Angelica’s return to Cathay, and indirectly with Orlando’s departure from France in search of her, and the consequent departures of other knights in search of him. Much-touted the book’s magic may be, but it proves powerless to overcome the natural magic of the river of love (“ché amor vince ogni cosa”; OI 1.5.17; “because Love conquers all!”) that has affected Angelica. Therefore she proposes to trade the book back to Malagise in exchange for his promise to bring Ranaldo to her. Yet in Malagise’s hands the spell book


29



has no less harmful effects. Astonished and angered at Ranaldo’s refusal to see Angelica even briefly, Malagise uses his spell book to send his unwilling cousin from Europe to the Palazzo Zoioso. He is willing to kidnap Ranaldo despite easily foreseeable dire consequences for the Christians, resulting from the fact that Ranaldo is in command of Charlemagne’s army in Spain at the time. Ranaldo’s unexplained disappearance leads directly to the paladin’s dishonor in the eyes of the pagan enemies, to the alliance of the separate pagan forces of Marsilio and Gradasso, to their invasion of France, and to the siege of Paris. Moreover, Malagise subsequently plots to kill his cousin at Crudel Rocca when Ranaldo persists in rejecting Angelica. Much later (OI 2.22.44–61) comes the episode of Malagise’s wellintentioned ambush of two pagan knights. This episode follows the same pattern of magnification and deflation. Malagise’s power would seem to be overwhelming when as soon as he opens his book the forest is full of demons: “Più de ducento ne è per ogni foglia.” However, this suggestion of puissance is quickly belied by the comic description of the demon Scarapino, which paints a picture not of formidable satanic malevolence, but of a mischievous imp who enjoys the good life: Era un demonio questo Scarapino, Che dello inferno è proprio la tristizia: Minuto il giottarello e piccolino, Ma bene è grosso e grande di malizia; Alla taverna, dove è miglior vino, O del gioco e bagascie la divizia, Nel fumo dello arosto fa dimora, E qua tentando ciascadun lavora. (OI 2.22.46) This Scarapino was a demon From the inferno—and a mean one. He’s tiny, but he’s gluttonous And portly, fat with wickedness. In taverns where the wine is best, Where whores and gamblers congregate, He lives, in fumes from roasting meat, And plies his trade, which is temptation.

Though the pagans number only two, they are the famous knights Feraguto and Rodamonte, and with their martial virtù they rout the hordes of demons as easily as they would a human mob. Malagise’s abortive ambush of the pagan knights results again in his own capture, and this time that of his brother as well. They will have to await rescue in the Furioso .

30




Thus in the Innamorato Malagise’s spell book highlights his lack of power. Two of his three spells fail, leading both times to his capture by pagan enemies and to his removal from the Christian arena of duty. In fact, the only time he achieves his goal is when he fails in his duty by vengefully removing Ranaldo from the Christian center to the exotic lands of adventure. Each time Malagise’s spell book is mentioned, he fails in some way; the only time his efforts are beneficial, when he instructs Angelica on how to rescue Ranaldo from the monster of Crudel Rocca, the book is not mentioned at all. It is possible that this pattern of failure reflects a lack on Malagise’s part, since Angelica is able to use the book without her efforts backfiring. There is some lexical support for this idea; while Angelica has the book it is always called “libro,” but in Malagise’s hands it is referred to only once as “libro,” once as “quaderno,” and four times as “libretto,” suggesting that it is less powerful for him. In contrast to the spell books, the how-to books have anti-magical functions. Consequently, they promote the orderly advancement of the plot, specifically by breaking up blocks in the plot. In the Innamorato the three how-to books are each designed to help Orlando overcome a deadly peril: the palmer’s book for the Sphinx, Morgana’s book for her trial of the horn, and the lady messenger’s book for Falerina’s garden. While in the first episode the paladin succeeds on his own, the other times the books help him put an end to dangers that threaten many characters, even to the point where he is credited with saving the world. The use of how-to books consistently raises the question of reading ability. How much do the knights learn from what they read? Boiardo’s Orlando has notable failures as a reader. When Orlando rescues the son of a palmer, the gift of the father’s gratitude is a book Che è de virtù mirabile e soprana, Perché ogni dubbioso ragionare Su queste carte si dichiara e spiana. 40 (OI 1.5.67) Its power is miraculous, Since every question, every doubt, Is mentioned and explained in here.

The utility of a book, however, is only as great as the perspicacity of its reader. Orlando thinks to check the book only after he has bloodily defeated the Sphinx, remarking comically


31

 . . . Io fui ben smemorato! Senza battaglia potea satisfare. Ma così piacque a Dio che avesse andare. (OI 1.5.76) . . . “Well, I forgot: I could have answered and not fought. But God desired it otherwise.”

The palmer presented his gift to a knight so strong that he had never needed such help, and was accustomed to solving problems with immediate action. This is the most obvious of the times when Orlando shows his inability as a reader. 41 Here he even attributes his own failing to God’s will. With the punch line delivered, the palmer’s book fades into oblivion as Orlando is confronted by his next battle. However, the lesson of the palmer’s book was not completely in vain, for when later Orlando receives how-to books he makes some use of them. In Cantos 24 and 25 of Book 1 he faces Morgana’s trials with the help of the official rule book, and in Book 2 Cantos 4 and 5 he destroys Falerina’s garden with the guidance of a book. These books are more limited in scope, concerning solely the immediate adventure. The trials of Morgana (in her capacity as the source of all wealth) are proposed to Orlando by her wandering maid, and Orlando chooses to undergo them mostly out of a knightly desire to prove his valor, although the stated reward for victory is a “cosa tanto aventurata” that it will content him for the rest of his life. Although the maid explains the outline of the test, after summoning each new trial with the magic horn Orlando must read the book’s instructions to succeed. Apparently the book itself forms part of the test; the hero must be quick to assimilate the instructions before the monster is upon him. Orlando’s glorious victory, however, has no reward beyond the honor of it, because the “cavallier perfetto,” the only one who could complete the trials, disdains the hunt of the magic stag/worldly wealth. Not only did he refuse the chase when he and Brandimarte encountered the deer in Canto 22, but he persists even now when he would be assured of catching it. It is several cantos later that the reader learns the true significance of the trial of the horn, i.e. that Orlando’s victory broke the spell that Morgana had intended for the ruination of the world ( OI 2.7.42). Thus the maid’s presentation of the trial had appealed strongly to the knight’s sense of chivalry and adventure, to draw him into the deadly contest, but the unchivalric reward, wealth, was the only thing the Fata del Tesoro had to offer, perhaps as a final attempt to corrupt the victorious knight.

32




The book which Orlando brings into Falerina’s garden contains a map of the garden and descriptions of its inhabitants. It was given to him by a nameless lady messenger whom he had met outside the garden the day before, who told him the necessary conditions to defeat the guardian of the first gate (chastity and entering at sunrise). Berni identifies the lady as prudence and the book as reasoned judgement.42 Unfortunately, Orlando does not make immediate use of these virtues, for by the time he enters the garden he has forgotten the book. He depends on a fortuitous inscription on a fountain to find his way to Falerina’s palace, and he only remembers the book when his prisoner refuses to tell him how to escape the garden. Thenceforth the book guides him in the defeat of each monster, until he reaches the giant guardian of the northern gate. According to the book this giant cannot be defeated, neither by strength, daring, one’s own wisdom, nor the advice of others. Orlando’s response is a characteristic “Chi può durare, al fin vince ogni cosa” ( OI 2.4.65; ““One who can last can conquer all!””) and he wins this time by his own cleverness as well as his strength. While he succeeds in exiting from the garden in defiance of the book’s dictum, he must refer to it again in order to learn how to destroy the garden completely. In contrast to the narrator’s protestations of faith in the trustworthiness and authority of the author Turpin, Boiardo gives concrete evidence that writers are fallible, too, in this case by underestimating human virtù. Interestingly, Fiordelisa has a copy of this guidebook, enabling her to describe the garden to Ranaldo in 1.17.39–45, long before Orlando goes there. However, Fiordelisa convinces Ranaldo to defer the adventure of Falerina’s garden until after fulfil ling his commitment to free Dragontina’s prisoners, so this book ends up never being used. Thus the how-to books provide solutions to problems if the reader pays proper attention. Boiardo’s Orlando is by no means a sophisticated or attentive reader, but he can progress. 43 His laughable forgetfulness in the case of the palmer’s book is followed by an impressive display of quick-witted reading ability combined with combat skill during Morgana’s trial. In Falerina’s garden he backslides at first, forgetting to use the guidebook, but goes on to an excellent critical reading. Not only does he follow the book’s instructions effectively; in the end he revises its inaccurate, defeatist conclusion. Boiardo may at times poke fun at Orlando, but the paladin also has his moments of triumph. Orlando’s completion of Morgana’s trial helps to reestablish his position as a perfect knight, at least in matters of war.

Chapter Two

 Boiardo’s Monsters and Mages

Supernatural Creatures The world of the Orlando innamorato contains a plethora of widely varied supernatural creatures, most naturally-occurring, but including some intentionally enchanted (e.g. Aridano). In this chapter I deal first with marvelous steeds, whether horses or other, so necessary to knights. The second section concerns monsters, which range from a normal-seeming dog, to Boiardo’s versions of mythological creatures, to colorful inventions of his own. Next come the omnipresent Boiardan giants. The last section treats the mythological villains Medusa and the Naiads of the Riviera del Riso.

i. Marvelous Steeds Horses are at least as important to a knight as armaments, as the derivation of the word cavalier/cavaliere shows. A good horse is vital in battle, and improves its rider’s reputation. Thus, like magic weaponry, horses become objects of desire in the Innamorato and the Furioso , and serve as pretexts for combat. Gradasso invades France in quest of a particular horse and sword. Two of the disputes among the Saracens in the period of discord (OI 3.6.39–53), between Rugiero and Sacripante and Rugiero and Rodamonte, are over the ownership of the horse Frontino (previously called Frontalatte). According to Giamatti, for Boiardo horses represent the natural passions which must be restrained by reason in order to avoid chaos. 1 Not surprisingly, then, horses are not always helpful in battle. Baiardo in particular tends to frustrate his various riders because he has a mind of his own. During the siege of Albraca, Orlando is enraged by Baiardo’s refusal to fight Ranaldo ( OI 1.26.26–42).

34

Boiardo’s Monsters and Mages



Marvelous horses are not as common as magic weapons, though Boiardo provides more numerous enchanted steeds than does Ariosto. Baiardo is inherited already magically intelligent from the tradition, but Boiardo invents Rabicano to be the fastest of all. The progeny of an enchanted fiery mare and the wind itself, Rabicano’s elemental nature is tamed for Argalia’s benefit by means of a magic book ( OI 1.13.4–5). Aquilante and Grifone’s horses are enchanted by the brothers’ fay protectors, but lack any special magical characteristics. For a brief period two pagan kings ride into battle on unusual steeds: the giant Alfrera rides a giraffe and Urnasso a unicorn. These experiments are not successful; the giraffe is only slightly effective in frightening Feraguto’s (apparently non-magical) horse ( OI 1.4.56) and later its sluggishness causes Alfrera’s disgrace (OI 1.7.22), while the unicorn succeeds in goring a Christian knight ( OI 1.7.1) only to make the fatal mistake of attacking Baiardo ( OI 1.7.10–11). Fiordespina’s destrier, her gift to Bradiamante, runs away with the lady knight, giving her a foretaste of Ruggiero’s experience on the hippogriff. 2 The destrier is special for its speed and willfulness; its headlong course can only be halted by telling it, “Sta!” For this reason Giamatt i has likened the destrier to the poem itself, 3 because of its romance open-endedness. The flying horse of the Riviera del Riso makes a brief (only five octaves long) but memorable appearance and may have influenced Ariosto’s creation of the hippogriff. While Rugiero had been distracted from his goal by the seemingly courteous request of a beautiful woman (a weakness on which Ariosto will later capitalize), Gradasso is diverted by a beautiful horse, reminiscent of his earlier quest for Baiardo.

ii. Monsters It is in the category of supernatural creatures that Boiardo’s poetic world is most different from Ariosto’s. The world of the Innamorato is fabulous through and through. Marvelous animals, monsters, and villains abound every where that knights go. Orlando rescue s a palmer’s son from a giant that guards the path to the Sphinx; a mere three octaves later he fights the giant Zambardo, and is then rescued from the giant’s chain by an anthropophagous giant cyclops. Ranaldo finds a giant and two griffins guarding Rabicano and the tomb of Albarosa. The monster of Crudel Rocca waits for victims to be brought to it, while the centaur, the Lestrigioni, and the blind ogre haunt the wilds in search of theirs. The marvelous permeates this world even into much humbler manifestations, such as the


35



gold-eating fishes (OI 1.25.6–7), the pagan king Stracciaberra of Lucinorco with his protruding boar’s teeth ( OI 1.6.64), and the surprisingly fast healing of Gradasso ( OI 1.7.27); none of the preceding incidents resorts to explicit magic or is seen as out of the ordinary. Nor are such prodigies limited to the epoch of Charlemagne. The narrator’s descript ions of Theseus, Circe, Hector, etc. portray life in classical times as substantially similar to the poem’s present. Agramante’s carvings of Alexander the Great are a good example ( OI 2.1.21–30). Alexander rides his horned steed Bucephalus, fights a giant pagan king, daringly slays the menacing basilisk, and travels in the sky and under the sea. The reappearance of Samson’s, Hector’s, and Nimrod’s armor also suggests that they were adventurers of the same sort as the Carolingian characters. Boiardo provides numerous examples of supernatural creatures that form part of a series of trials for the adventurer. Morgana’s test brings Orlando into conflict with two supernatural bulls and a dragon, and victory brings him a magic dog and deer. The dangers in Falerina’s garden are weird magical creatures: another dragon and another bull, a Siren, a venomous bird, an ass, a Fauna, and a giant or three.4 Mandricardo in his efforts to win Hector’s armor must also fight grains that turn into beasts, flowers that turn into birds, and a ten-tailed snake. This category is completely absent from the Furioso . Besides being much more numerous, Boiardo’s magical creatures are also more multiform and multicolored than Ariosto’s. Ariosto is thrifty with physical descriptions. The hippogriff has a griffin’s (i.e. an eagle’s) front legs, wings and head, and otherwise resembles a horse; its wings are of a strange color, not described ( OF 4.5). The formless mass of the sea monster, presumably the same color as the sea, includes some details only in regard to its head, which has ears, and protuberant eyes and teeth. By contrast, Boiardo delights in colorful descriptions of his weirder creations. The pelt of Morgana’s iron-horned bulls shimmers from green to black to yellow to red, while Falerina’s bull has one horn of iron and one of fire. Morgana’s venomous, fire-breathing dragon has shining green and gold scales, multicolored wings, and three tongues. Falerina’s venomous bird has the head of a blonde queen, even to the crown; gold and purple neck feathers; torso and larger feathers of every color; wings with peacock eyes; and a green and gold and red tail; her large strong talons are not so decorative, but reveal her dangerous nature. The wings of Amor and the three Graces are red, white, and gold, and each feather has

36




not a peacock’s eye but a gracious and beautiful lady’s eye. One of the strangest creatures in the whole poem is Falerina’s golden-scaled ass with prehensile ears and sword-like tail. Many of Boiardo’s marvelous creatures are derived from Classical mythology, such as the centaur, the Lestrigioni, the Sphinx, Medusa, the Siren (in mermaid form), and the Naiads. Boiardo’s attitude toward his sources ensures, however, that these are not the same creatures as in Classical literature; they are what Bruscagli has called “radicali destrutturazioni” of the originals.5 For example, on the physical level the traditional Greek sphinx with her woman’s face and bust, lion’s body and bird’s wings is extensively modified by the addition of wolf’s teeth, bear’s arms, serpentine tail, and peacock-plumed wings. Similarly, Ariosto, although generally more outwardly faithful to Classical sources, shows his independence by adding a serpent’s tail to the traditional harpy.

iii. Giants Boiardo’s supernatural creatures include some with the intelligence and approximate shape of human beings. In the Innamorato one cannot ignore the multitudes of giants. If there is a treasure or a castle that needs guards, the odds are they will be giants. If an errant knight encounters brigands, the leader at least is likely to be a giant. Any pagan army will include a few giant kings. Rodamonte and his father Ulïeno are giants due to their descent from Nimrod, one of the giants who warred against Jove. Gradasso is introduced as a giant, though the reader tends to reduce him eventually to normal stature when the narrator does not insist on his height; as Franceschetti comments, one cannot tell whether Gradasso is a giant physically or psychologically.6 Although a giant’s height is logically his most noticeable characteristic, some royal giants are introduced by name well before their giant status is mentioned. For example, King Radamanto of Comano is not identified as a giant until five cantos after his first appearance in battle. This delay suggests the unremarkable quality of giants; not only are they fairly common, their presence is taken for granted. While villainous pagan giants abound, good Christian giants are rare. The Innamorato contains only two examples: Duke Aigualdo, who is introduced as he is being cut down by Rugiero, and the converted knight Uggieri il Danese. Moreover, giant status is not at tributed directly to them; Aigualdo is “grande e sì diverso” and “nacque de gigante” ( OI 3.4.19; “huge and monstrous” and “of giants born”), and Uggieri “par proprio un


37



gigante” (OI 2.1.51; “he’s like a giant”). Uggieri’s son Dudone, born into the Christian faith, is only almost a giant ( OI 2.10.13). Disproportionate size, an expression of chaotic dismisura, belongs properly to villains. Some giants have additional special characteristics to make them stand out, such as the cyclopean giant killed by Orlando ( OI 1.6.24–35), and Balisardo with his magic shape-changing ability. Most of Boiardo’s giants are named, no matter how brief or unimportant their role; we even learn the names of Angelica’s four giant guards at the start of their final battle with Feraguto (OI 1.1.75). Giants are so ubiquitous that they even appear as mere reported victims of a more dangerous monster ( OI 3.3.29).

iv. Mythological Villains Boiardo’s version of Medusa appears in Fiordelisa’s tale of Iroldo, Prasildo, and Tisbina (Book 1 Canto 12). When Prasildo despairs of his suit for Tisbina and decides to kill himself, Tisbina and her lover Iroldo compassionately plan to send him on a mission to Medusa’s garden. Offering him Tisbina’s love if he succeeds in bringing her a golden bough, they expect him to forget his love for her, either over the course of the journey or when he faces Medusa. On the advice of an aged palmer, Prasildo shows Medusa her own reflection. She flees, and he is able to return successfully to Tisbina and, before long, to marry her. Altered from the myth, Boiardo’s Medusa threatens not to turn men to stone but to bring forgetfulness, like Dragontina and the Naiads of the Riviera del Riso. All these enchantresses of oblivion provide a pleasant situation for their victims, which however “petrifies” them into stasis. Medieval writers allegorized the mythical Medusa and her power of petrifaction as the effect of mad love.7 Cavallo likens Medusa’s threat to Prasildo to Dragontina’s effect on Orlando, i.e. “a loss of identit y and a plunge into unconsciousness accompanying irrational love. Furthermore, both enchantresses represent, albeit in a more extreme form, the knights’ erotic subjection to the earthly women Tisbina and Angelica.” 8 Thus, Boiardo would seem to condemn Prasildo’s self-destructive love for Tisbina; the knight has allowed passion, furore (OI 1.12.9), dismisura ( OI 1.12.10), to overcome his reason. But Prasildo routs Medusa. To conquer Medusa is to conquer one’s self, one’s own erotic fascination. 9 Yet after his return, his love has not changed substantially. Prasildo is still willing to die for Tisbina, either in her service (OI 1.12.64) or from grief at her death (OI 1.12.69). Nor is he so overcome by passion that he wants her against her will. He now dis-

38




plays the courtesy that his love had multiplied from the beginning ( OI 1.12.12). Prasildo’s courteous refusal of Tisbina’s reluctant favors, showing rational restraint, wins her goodwill, and with the departure of his rival Iroldo he marrie s the lady. Nor is his love so overpowering as to keep him at home when friendship for Iroldo calls him to travel. Perhaps Prasildo’s love was not so mad after all. Or rather, it was a necessary madness, the bitter that must come with the sweet, because for Boiardo love is painful but still worthwhile. It is always two-faced, like his representation of Medusa herself, whose frightful reflection does not resemble her lovely face: Come [Medusa] se vide, fu gran meraviglia, Ché esser credette quel che già non era; E la sua faccia candida e vermiglia Parve di serpe terribile e fera. (OI 1.12.39) “What marvel when she saw herself! Since what she thought was there was not. It seemed her fair and rosy face Was filled with frightening, fierce snakes.

The narrator had insisted on Medusa’s beauty: “la sua faccia bella” ( OI 1.12.31), “sua beltade” (OI 1.12.35); he refers to her as “donzella” ( OI 1.12.31, 34) or “dama” (OI 1.12.34, 35, 38). Yet this snaky horror seems to be her true reflection nonetheless, as the Gorgon, hitherto so charming, becomes: “Quella Medusa, falsa incantatrice, / . . . de la sua figura sbigotita” (OI 1.12.40; “the false / Enchantress—that Medusa . . . In fear on glimpsing her reflection”). The Naiads provide another pleasant prison of forgetfulness for Orlando and other knights. Orlando is lured to the Riviera del Riso by Atalante’s illusions in order to keep the paladin from battling Rugiero during the African invasion of France. 10 Orlando finds the stream near that same forest of Ardena ( OI 2.31.43) that contains the magic waters of love and hate, a forest previously located near Paris, but now moved to southern France. Seeing in the water a crystal palace with lovely ladies dancing, Orlando jumps in to join them and “per letizia” immediately begins to forget “Perché fosse qua gionto e di qual loco” ( OI 2.31.47; “Where he was from and why he’d come”). Inasmuch as the Naiads hold their captives by means of love, the episode continues Boiardo’s commentary on this complex emotion. Orlando is “libero e disciolto, / Preso de amore al dolce incantamento” ( OI 3.7.9;


39



“unchained and free, / Captured by love’s sweet magic charm”). The front of the Naiad sentry’s sign invites adventurers and lovers to enter their realm, while the unseen message on the back foretells the knights’ entrapment by their own unrestrained passions ( OI 3.7.12–14). Fiordelisa, in guiding the rescue party, stresses the importance of reason, of selfcontrol: “Vince ogni cosa la animositate, / Ma condurla con senno è di mestiero” (OI 3.7.16; “Courage will conquer everything, / But wisdom has to be its guide”). The sign’s double message applies obviously to the knights, but the Naiads themselves are motivated by love of a sort: “De’ cavallier sovente se inamorano, / Ché star senza uomo a ogni dama rencresce” ( OI 3.7.7; “And [they] often fall in love with knights. / A woman grieves without a man”). It is possible the narrator shows them a jot of sympathy here, lonely for a man like every woman, and they certainly cannot be accused in traditional fashion of being cruel ice women, tormenting their suitors by rebuffing all advances (NB the sensual dance of OI 3.7.29). Nonetheless, this verse might also suggest the possessive nature of their love. They do keep the knights as prisoners (however happy and willing), and seek to acquire more. Upon Orlando’s arrival, “Solo a guardarlo aveano ogni lor cura” ( OI 3.7.9; they “Care only to admire him”); “guardare” signifies that they admire him, as Ross translates it, but it also bears the more sinister suggestion that they watch over or guard him. The next stanza is somewhat ambiguous, but provides more evidence for their possessiveness: Però di fuora, in cerco alla rivera, Per arte avean formato un bosco grande, .... Poi for del bosco se agirava un muro. Questa cinta era fabricata intorno Di marmi bianchi, rossi, azurri e gialli, Et avea in cima un veroncello adorno Con colonnette di ambre e de cristalli. (OI 3.7.10–11) Spreading around the stream there was A giant grove, made by their magic, .... A garden wall wound round this wood. The garden wall was formed of marble, Yellow and red and white a nd blue,

40


 Surmounted by a balcony With pillars made of glass and amber.

At the very least, we know from the rescuers’ experience that the Naiads’ wall and wood are by no means intended to keep anyone out, but to keep them in. I think these verses are even more telling. This “bosco grande” and the colored marble wall with balcony and columns are a remarkable sight, yet despite the pluperfect (“avean formato”), Orlando saw no sign of them when he entered the “boschetto” of the Riviera del Riso ( OI 2.31.44). It would seem that the Naiads created the wall, and enlarged and enchanted the wood in order to “guardare” the count. The initial “[p]erò” makes no sense as an adversative, but as a variant of “perciò” it supports my interpretation. Into this realm ruled by desire come Orlando’s would-be rescuers, Rugiero, Gradasso, Brandimarte, and Fiordelisa. Rugiero and Gradasso are quickly ensnared by the laurel nymph and the flying horse, but the exemplary married couple persevere. Some of the temptations that Brandimarte faces (“Or bei palagi, or monti de tesoro”) attempt to play on his weakness for wealth, demonstrated earlier when he had left his friends to chase the gold-antlered stag ( OI 1.22.57–61). He resists these various enchantments “Ché Fiordelisa sempre lo consiglia” ( OI 3.7.30; “Since Fiordelisa counsels him”). In this episode Fiordelisa in fact demonstrates an unprecedented expertise in magic; her only earlier indication of any knowledge in this area was her possession of a copy (unused) of the guidebook to Falerina’s garden. Did she learn all about the Riviera del Riso from the African soothsayer who had informed the lovers of Orlando’s captivity (OI 3.6.56)? In any case, it is she who provides the remedy to the Naiads’ enchantments: . . . essa già composti avea per arte Quattro cerchielli i n forma di corona Con fiori et erbe acolte in strane parte, Per liberar de incanti ogni persona (OI 3.7.33) Earlier, wit h her skill, she’d made Four garlands in the shape of crowns— Flowers and herbs picked in strange lands To free them from that magic.

These crowns made by magic, employed by Brandimarte with Fiordelisa’s sage advice, fulfill their anti-magical function of freeing the captured knights from the Riviera del Riso. Then, naturally, they set off on their next ad-


41



venture; Gradasso and Rugiero follow the mysterious dwarf, and Brandimarte, Fiordelisa, and Orlando head for the siege of Paris.

Practitioners of Magic The spell-casters of the Innamorato display a wide range of power, from the weak but villainous kidnapper of Fiordelisa to Morgana, who unites the individual powers of a fay with allegorical powers over all wealth (as the Fata del Tesoro) and over chance (as Fortuna). The attitudes of practitioners of magic toward Christian knights also vary from hostility (e.g. Falerina, Balisardo), to benevolence (the white and black fays who protect Grifone and Aquilante), to neutrality (Febosilla, and the fay with Hector’s armor). The first section deals with fays, ladies who belong to a supernatural, non-human race. The second section concerns sorcerers and sorceresses, human beings who practice magic.

i. Fays Boiardo is credited with the important step of introducing fays into the Italian epic.11 “The marvelous of Boiardo and Ariosto gave new life to the giants and fairies of the original Celtic lore.” 12 Yet of the three most important fays in the Innamorato , Dragontina, Falerina, and Morgana, only one is explicitly a fay in the poem. It is on Ariosto’s authority that Dragontina and Falerina are known as fays. 13 However, this is not a large step for Ariosto to take, for, as enchantresses, they fit easily into the category. 14 They are important precursors of Ariosto’s Alcina, as by capturing knights with their enchantments they block the advancement of the plot. Murrin sees these three enchantresses as presiding over false Elysia with different emphases on the same themes: in Dragontina’s garden the psychological condition of the victim; in Falerina’s the deranged psychology of the victimizer and her political state; in Morgana’s “the kingdom of metals and of Death itself.”15 In their gardens their victims are held in various states of unproductive stasis: Dragontina uses forgetfulness; Morgana, simple captivity; and Falerina, the final solution of death. Each of these episodes is open to allegorical interpretation. A drink from Dragontina’s river of forgetfulness causes her victims to lose the knowledge of their identities, 16 and replaces it with obedience to herself. Ross points out how fitting this punishment is for Orlando; “When . . . the sight of Angelica causes Orlando to forget his duties as a Christian knight, he soon finds himself in Dragontina’s garden, having literally dr unk a cup of forgetfulness and blindly serving his mistress.”17 Cavallo sees the

42




pictures of Circe, which so fascinate Orlando, as an unheeded warning to him against Angelica, equated with the Aeaean witch. 18 Dragontina’s drink itself is not seen as unpleasant, revealing the seductiveness of the thought of escape from the pains and onerous duties of life, and an acknowledgement of the peril of succumbing to it. 19 Orlando forgets his own circumstances, and Angelica and “lo infinito amore / Che tanto ha travagliata la sua vita” ( OI 1.6.46; “The boundless love that changed his life”), and his emperor; in short, his conflict between love and duty vanishes. When Brandimarte is captured, the narrator even goes so far as to praise the drink: Dolce bevanda e felice liquore, Che puote alcun della sua mente trare! Or sciolto è Brandimarte dello amore Che in tanta doglia lo facea penare. Non ha speranza più, non ha t imore Di perder lo do, o vergogna acquistare; Sol Dragontina ha nel pensier presente, E de altra cosa non cura nïente. (OI 1.10.6) A sweet, a blissful liquor that Which eases men from memory! Thus Brandimart forgets the love That made him suffer so much pain. His hopes are gone; he has no fear Of losing praise or gaining shame. His single thought is Dragontina. Nothing else occupies his mind.

Yet it is not primarily Brandimarte, who is lucky in love, to feel such benefits; verses 3 and 4 are far more applicable to Orlando. In this state of ignorant bliss, Dragontina’s captives pass the time peacefully in seemingly orderly courtly pursuits, such as singing and noble conversation (much as the prisoners in Atlante’s steel palace will do), but the underlying wrongness is revealed when Dragontina is defied. Under the fay’s spell Orlando can, against the proper order of things, be turned against his own blood relations, as in his murderous attack on his cousin Astolfo. Grifone and Aquilante dwell together in the garden without recognizing each other; even the bond of twin brothers has been broken. When Dragontina’s spell is negated by Angelica’s magic ring, there follows the joyous reunion of kinsmen who had been unknowingly imprisoned together, as the bonds of family are reestablished:


43

 Prima fôr presi i figli de Olivieri, L’uno Aquilante, e l’altro fo Grifone; Il conte avante non li cognoscia: Non dimandati se allegrezza avia. Grande allegrezza ferno i duo germani, Poi che se fo l’un l’altro cognosciuto. (OI 1.14.46–47) First to be freed were Olivieri’s Sons, Aquilante and Grifone, Whom the Count had not previously Distinguished. Don’t ask if he’s happy. The brothers, too, are overjoyed After they recognize each other.

It seems likely that Ariosto had this episode in mind when he imprisoned Bradamante and Ruggiero together in the palace of illusions, and certainly Circe is the main model for Alcina. Unlike Dragontina, Falerina 20 is talked about long before she comes onstage in the poem. She is first described in Book 1, Canto 17, sixteen cantos before she appears in Book 2. Boiardo may have had her in mind as early as Book 1, Canto 8 when Marchino’s widow narrates the king of Orgagna’s part in Marchino’s downfall. Falerina’s deleterious effects on the outside world are felt from Canto 14 of Book 1, when Angelica meets Fiordelisa in the tribute tower, where victims are captured to, as the reader learns later, feed Falerina’s dragon. She has ruined not only outlanders but also her own kingdom with her predations. Falerina’s own actions lead to her downfall, in that her transgressions have isolated her from any supporters and made her many enemies, such as the lady messenger who helps Orlando.21 Likewise, her garden contains the seeds of its own destruction. Orlando uses the Siren’s blood against the bull, the Fauna’s net against the giants, and Balisarda against all of the monsters, turning Falerina’s creations against each other. Although he fights magic with magic here, his most significant achievements (exiting the garden and destroying it) are due to his using his head; even such potent tools as the guidebook and Balisarda would not have brought him victory if he had not used them wisely. It is at this point, with her cause lost, that Falerina seems to experience a change of heart. Weeping for the destruction of her garden, she begs Orlando to have pity on her wretched plight, admits that her crimes de-

44




serve death, and thereafter speaks quite humbly and helpfully to Orlando. She makes three statements that contradict the plot elsewhere in the poem. Reichenbach explains these contradictions as due to Boiardo’s forgetfulness of details. 22 However, I believe that Falerina’s change of heart is false, and hence that the plot contradictions are self-serving lies on her part. It is notable that Falerina’s change of heart is not a religious conversion. Unlike Agricane, Brandimarte, and Fiordelisa, Falerina is not baptized and never commits herself to Christianity and its precepts. 23 Thus her conversion is not necessarily sincere. Furthermore, Falerina has strong motives for lying, namely self-preservation and revenge. There is no doubt that she is vindictive in the extreme. The reason she gives for her willingness to murder more people than there are leaves on a tree is her quest for revenge on Origille and Arïante for their unspecified offense. 24 When magical foresight tells her that Orlando will without a doubt destroy her garden, she makes a magic sword to kill him. Falerina knows with certainty that she cannot prevent his victory; thus her purpose must be revenge. When Orlando captures the enchantress, she determinedly remains silent, refusing, despite his threats of death and torment, and subsequently his entreaties, to help him escape from the garden. Though she trembles in fear, she still takes delight in his frustration ( OI 2.4.31). Yet once the garden that has cost seven months of her labor and the lives of hordes of victims is undone, she breaks down. My hypothesis that this change of heart is insincere would resolve the three plot contradictions at this point in the text ( OI 2.5.16–23). On Falerina’s part, they are self-serving lies. On the narrator’s part, they are deliberate signals. The narrator made these inconsistencies noticeable to the reader precisely in order to draw attention to Falerina’s untruthfulness, and consequently to cast doubt on her change of heart. During the passage in question, Falerina’s speech is somewhat incoherent, as if she were frantically extemporizing. The enchantress’s first contradictory statement is that neither of her two targets ever fell into her clutches. However, it is still fresh in the reader’s mind that Orlando rescued Origille from guards escorting her to the dragon just before he arrived at the garden. In my opinion, this lament of Falerina’s rings true. It is quite possible that she did not learn the identitie s of her myriad victims. If she did care to discover their names, it may have been her practice to wait until they arrived at the garden where she could see them. Nevertheless, the reader, having noticed this inconsistency, begins to pay closer attention.


45



Falerina’s second questionable claim is that when Angelica escaped from the tribute tower, the princess also freed the other ladies imprisoned there. Yet, the reader remembers that Angelica escaped alone ( OI 1.14.37– 38). This misstatement is the least purposeful of the three on the literal level. Is Falerina so distressed that she still thinks she can inspire Orlando’s pity for her tribulations? Even in her agitation she quickly realizes that this lie will not serve her purpose. Although this lie is an error on Falerina’s part, it is another deliberate move by Boiardo. This contradiction is not intended for Orlando, since neither Falerina nor the reader can know whether Orlando ever heard the true account from Angelica. Rather, Boiardo intended such an obvious untruth to further alert the reader’s suspicions of Falerina. The enchantress’s first two contradictory statements are not useful to her purpose; she quickly abandons those lines of thought, but they have already served the narrator’s purpose of encouraging a more attentive reading. Finally, 25 her claim that she magically created the tribute tower to capture victims for her dragon seems to contradict the account given when Angelica was captured, where the narrator informed us that the deceitful old man captured women as tribute to the king of Orgagna ( OI 1.14.29). This is not necessarily a contradiction, if one posits a long-standing collaboration between Falerina and the absent king of Orgagna. Such a collaboration is never confirmed or denied by the narrator. In any case, this is the crucial point of her speech. Now she can claim that if Orlando kills her, all the current prisoners in the tower will die with her, due to her magical connection to the tower. Although Orlando had threatened Falerina, the narrator now reassures us that the paladin would never actually kill a woman. Rather, Orlando is relieved at learning a reason to relax this stance. He is deceived, 26 and agrees to escort her to free the prisoners. Thus begins the second stage of Falerina’s vengeful plan. Whether or not Falerina created the tower, she must know a safe route to it. After all, her not-very-formidable guards have been transporting prisoners from it for a long time. Yet she and Orlando soon arrive at Morgana’s lake, where lurks Aridano, whom Falerina clearly considers a match for Orlando. If she cannot kill Orlando with her magic sword, she will take the risk of leading him to battle Aridano, who is magically six times more powerful than any opponent. But how does one convince a knight of romance to go into deadly danger? By telling him where that danger lies, of course. The seemingly reformed Falerina applies reverse psychology by urging Orlando to flee with her at once, and extolling Aridano’s strength. She explains that the lake is Morgana’s attempt at revenge on the knight who won the trials of

46




the horn in Book 1. Whether or not she knows Orlando is that knight, she thus appeals to the paladin’s vanity and sense of responsibility. Also, her apparent fear for her own safety draws a protective response from the knight. The count naturally reacts by declaring his intention to fight Aridano (OI 2.7.48). She continues to plead with him to flee, declaring that even Orlando and all of Charlemagne’s court could not prevail here. She must know Orlando’s identity from her magical foresight, but she feigns ignorance in order to use his vanity against him. She must be as surprised as the reader when “Il franco conte a quel dolce parlare / A poco a poco si venìa piegando, / E destinava dietro ritornare” ( OI 2.7.50; “Her words were gentle, and the Count / Was yielding to them bit by bit, / Almost deciding to turn back”). The fight takes place after all, because Orlando catches sight of his kinsman Ranaldo’s armor hung up as a trophy. Falerina waits until Orlando and Aridano have both been submerged in the lake, previously an indication of Aridano’s victory, before she flees. She makes as certain as possible of his death, before abandoning him to his fate. It would doubtless gall her if she learned that, ironically, Orlando is able to kill Aridano using her magic sword. With Falerina’s successful masquerade and escape, Boiardo subverts the apparent triumph of justice. The enchantress remains free to oppose knights in subsequent adventures. Her return must however await a different poet. Ariosto does not take Falerina’s change of heart any more seriously than I do. In the Cinque canti (1.24–25) Falerina appears in the fays’ council, where Ariosto portrays her as thirsting for revenge against Orlando. She joins the other fays in voicing her grievances and petitioning Demogorgone for vengeance. Like Falerina, Morgana is malevolent and vengeful. As the Fata del Tesoro she represents the corrupting force of wealth, capable even of separating Brandimarte, a paragon of devoted friendship, from Orlando, as the former pursues the gold-antlered stag. When Orlando foils her attempt to destroy the world by means of the trials of the magic horn, her desire for revenge establishes two loci of blocks to the plot, where many characters are imprisoned: Morgana’s lake itself and the Isole Lontane. She no more limits the victims of her vengefulness than Falerina did. The guardian of Morgana’s lake, Aridano, is a baseborn villainous giant on whom she bestows magical strength so that “ricercando il mondo tutto quanto, / Non serà cavallier di tanto ardire, / Qual non convenga a quel ponte perire” (OI 2.7.44; “if all the world were searched, / No cavalier— however bold— / Could overcome her fatal bridge”).


47



In this highly allegorical episode, 27 Orlando must continue to use his wits if he is to have any chance of success. Arguably his bypassing of the disappearing bridge shows brawn rather than brains, but he thinks his way to obtaining the shining gem to light his path, without which he would surely have died wandering in the darkness. Later, showing a prudent distrust of Morgana/Ventura (learned from painful experience), he keeps hold of her while he uses her key to free her prisoners, averting the potential disaster. Yet his procedure is not flawless; when he is trying to leave Morgana’s underground realm, he allows fortune to lead him on the downward path, and he ignores two warnings to seize Morgana’s forelock while he can. In the central moment of the episode Boiardo presents the most transparent allegory in the poem when a penitent Orlando pursues the fleeing Morgana/Ventura, whose forelock he had failed to grasp when he had the chance. Although Morgana’s song states that a missed opportunity never returns, Orlando’s humanistic virtù eventually allows him to capture the fay. The primacy of virtue over adversity is reiterated in the passage: Ogni cosa virtute vince al fine: Chi segue vince, pur che abbia vir tute (OI 2.8.55) . . . ogni cosa vince l’omo forte (OI 2.8.63) “Strength conquers all things in the end. He who persists, if he’s strong, wins. . . . strong men conquer everything

As Cavallo states, here a crucial aspect of virtù is persistence.28 Orlando tried twice unsuccessfully before he was able to bypass the bridge and take possession of the shining gem, and he must suffer with “pacïenza” an arduous chase, terrible weather, and the outrages of Penitence before he can catch Ventura. Orlando mistakenly accedes to Morgana’s appeal to courtly love by leaving her reluctant favorite Zilïante in her clutches. 29 This error results in the imprisonment of many knights by Manodante, and eventually in Orlando’s consequent need to return to Morgana’s lake to free the handsome prince. He arrives to the bizarre sight of a lady, whom he does not recognize as Morgana, grieving over a dead dragon. Enchantresse s’ spells seldom go awry without outside interference, but that is what happened

48




here when Morgana tried to transform Zilïante into a dragon to guard her lake. This is highly fortunate for Orlando, since the fay’s distraction by her revived lover allows the paladin to capture her instantly. He has learned (temporarily at least) not to hesitate to seize an opportunity, and shows great prudence in demanding Morgana’s promise of safety. Other fays in the Innamorato provide relatively brief distractions. Alcina kidnaps Astolfo, preventing his return to France, and the white and black fays distract Grifone and Aquilante with the same purpose. Silvanella, having died from hopeless love, leaves behind a vengeful enchantment to snare passersby into a similar fate. In a possible prefiguration of Merlin and Melissa’s roles in the Furioso , Febosilla’s encomiastic balcony suggests that, unlike the Innamorato ’s other fays, who are concerned almost exclusively with their own interests, she may be a partisan of the Christian teleology that leads to the glory of the Este family. Once freed from snake form by Brandimarte, she enchants his armor in gratitude. The fay with Hector’s armor gives the newly-introduced Mandricardo a chance to prove his valor, though he succeeds largely thanks to luck; his victory frees her numerous prisoners.

ii. Sorcerers Malagise is the sole Christian sorcerer in Boiardo’s poem, but we have already seen that he is by no means a privileged character. 30 While he is formally on the side of right, his reliance on his spell book gets him into trouble and his demonic magic proves ineffective against either pagan magic or pagan valor, and actually deleterious to the Christian war effort. Furthermore, while the knights’ use of magic weapons does not carry the traditional slur of félonie , Malagise is used twice to cast doubts on Ranaldo’s integrity (OI 1.27.21 when the enraged Orlando accuses Ranaldo of taking credit for a victory won by Malagise’s magic; and OI 1.28.4 when the still enraged Orlando suggests that Ranaldo is too cowardly to fight him without Malagise’s help). Malagise’s nemesis Angelica starts out as a sorceress herself, as the demons inform Malagise that she “sapea tutte le incantazïone” ( OI 1.1.37; “was . . . Adept at every magic spell”). Despite this buildup, we soon have reason to doubt her magical abilities, which before long are reduced to possession of the magic ring. Her mission from her father Galafrone is to act as bait for Christian knights, and then to bring the captives to him by means of magic ( OI 1.1.40). How she planned to do so is not clear, for despite the demons’ exaltation of her power, she performs magical transportations only with the aid of Malagise’s captured book ( OI 1.1.51–53


49



when she imprisons Malagise; OI 1.2.12–14 when she returns to Cathay) or of Malagise himself ( OI 1.9.10–22 when she rescues Ranaldo). It is not her personal powers that save her from Malagise, but the ring’s spellbreaking power. Her knowledge of all incantations, her tenure of the magic ring, and the power of Malagise’s book all fail her when she wishes to remedy her enchanted love. In order to rescue Ranaldo from Crudel Rocca, she needs Malagise’s help and must follow his plan. She depends on the ring of invisibility when she sneaks out of Albraca and the tribute tower, and it is the ring’s magic that defeats Dragontina and releases her prisoners. For all her intrepid behavior, her terror in the midst of battle causes her to forget the ring’s protection. By the end of Book 1 the princess of Cathay has lost any semblance of magical abilities. Even before Brunello steals her ring, Angelica’s only personal magic is her “Suave guardatura et affatata” (OI 1.27.60; “Her silky glances fascinate”). This natural feminine “enchantment” suffices to sow disorder among the male characters, as it had since her first stupendous appearance at Charlemagne’s feast of Pentecost. Malagise is not the only sorcerer in the Innamorato who attempts to rape a beautiful lady, and suffers for it. Another such case occurs in the aftermath of Fiordelisa’s joyous, sensual reunion with Brandimarte at Albraca, when she is kidnapped by an anonymous Muslim palmer. The first characteristic of this “vecchio maledetto” is his wickedness, but he is also an expert on herbs and the virtues of stones, and “[p]er arte move un monte de legiero / E ferma un fiume” ( OI 1.20.2; “That palmer’s art could stop a stream / Or move a mountain—easily”). This magnification of the sorcerer’s power is as usual the prelude to his comic weakness. When Brandimarte and Fiordelisa’s lovemaking interrupts his prayers, he is so fascinated that he drops his book (the Koran?). Overcome by lust, he determines to kidnap Fiordelisa using a soporific root, but he is afraid even to approach the sleeping knight. Now the narrator emphasizes the palmer’s age: Poi che fu al prato quel vecchio canuto, E vide Brandimarte nella faccia, Ch’era un cavallier grande e ben membruto, Tirossi adietro quel vecchio tre braccia, E già se pente de e sser giù venuto, Né per gran tema sa quel che si faccia; .... Né si attentava de spirare il fiato, Perché non aggia i l cavallier sentito. ....

50


 Subitamente se la [Fiordelisa] prese in braccio. Salisce al bosco, e guarda ad ora ad ora Se il cavallier se leva a darli impaccio; Con la radice non l’avea tocco esso, Né pur li basta il cor de girli apresso. (OI 1.20.5–7) After the old man reached the field And saw the face of Brandimart, A sturdy baron, stout of limb, He fell back three arms’ length from him. Now he regrets his coming down— Afraid, unsure what can be done. .... He did not dare exhale for fear That sleeping Brandimart would hear .... He picked her up at once, and wit h her Climbed through the forest, checking whether The cavalier rose in pursuit. He had not touched him with the root: He was too timid to approach.

The palmer fears pursuit so much that he carries the lady away for more than an hour until they reach a cave. Ironically, the open woods, where Fiordelisa had called in vain for help, was safer for the palmer than his perceived sanctuary, which harbors the fierce lion that kills and eats him. Much more formidable than the palmer is Balisardo, who is unique in that he is the only giant who is a sorcerer. He forms part of Morgana’s attempt at vengeance on Orlando, in that he captures knights for King Manodante who seeks to exchange Orlando for Zilïante. In fact, he is introduced immediately after Orlando frees Morgana’s prisoners, and interrupts equally the dutiful voyage of Ranaldo, Dudone, Iroldo, and Prasildo to France to support Charlemagne, and Orlando’s amorous quest for Angelica. When Balisardo volunteered for the job, he claimed he would capture Orlando with magic, but in reality he uses a variety of methods, of which magic is not the most effective. He retains enough of the habits of giants to seek physical battle first, and is formidable enough to capture Iroldo and Prasildo this way. If he cannot defeat a knight by physical means, he then resorts to magical transformations, metamorphosing into ever more frightful shapes. This magical ability, central to the interest of the charac-


51



ter, is marvelous enough to occasion the nar rator’s protestation of inability to describe something so wondrous—yet in none of the narrated battles is this tactic successful. Dudone, Ranaldo, Orlando, and Brandimarte are not inconvenienced by their opponent’s shape-shifting, and virtù overcomes magic once again when they reduce him to flight. Unfortunately, Balisardo still has something up his sleeve; he leads each of his opponents into a snare set up on Manodante’s ship, and ingegno defeats even knightly valor. The narrator dwells on the humiliation of the knights as they are imprisoned by the extremely contemptible crewmen, “tal gente . . . morta di fame, nuda e pedocchiosa” ( OI 2.11.35; “such men as these— / . . . naked, full of lice, / Half-starved”). It is only through Brandimarte’s virtue of friendship that Balisardo is defeated, the prisoners are freed, and Manodante’s kingdom is converted to Christianity. The last major sorcerer of the Innamorato is Rugiero’s protector, Atalante, whose paternal love for Rugiero makes him a sympathetic and very human character. His foreknowledge of Rugiero’s prowess led him to give Rugiero rigorous physical training from early childhood, including a special diet and hunting exercises of increasing difficulty, in order to prepare him for his adventures. Atalante also predicted and praised t he wondrous virtue of Rugiero’s descendants among the Este. Nevertheless, when the time comes for Rugiero to set out on his destined path, Atalante’s paternal affection has grown so strong that he can no longer bear the thought of the cost of it all: Rugiero’s early death and Africa’s loss of his glorious descendants. Thus begins the sorcerer’s struggle against destiny that will play such an important role in the Furioso . In Boiardo’s poem this struggle, consisting mostly of emotional attempts at persuasion, is not nearly so epic as it will become for Ariosto. First the sorcerer hides Rugiero from Agramante’s searchers, necessitating Brunello’s quest for the magic ring. When the garden on the monte di Carena is revealed, Atalante pleads tearfully with Rugiero not to leave him. When neither this nor warnings to Rugiero about his fated death can deter the young knight from participating in Agramante’s tourney, Atalante tries to accept fate: Biastemava le stelle tutte quante, Dicendo:—Il celo e la fortuna vôle Che la fè di Macone e Trivigante Perda costui, che è tra’ baroni un sole, Che a tradimento fia occiso con p ene; Or sia così, dapoi che esser conviene. — (OI 2.16.53; emphasis mine)

52


 He curses every single star. He says, “The heavens, fortune wish Macone’s faith and Trivigant’s To lose the sun of barons. He Will be betrayed and die in grief. Well, let it happen. It must be. ”

However the rage accompanying this resolution already indicates that Atalante will not be able to hold to it. Indeed the sight of Rugiero’s wound (from the treacherous Bardulasto) shocks the sorcerer like a knife to the heart and he resumes his struggle against destiny. He tries to dissuade the unarmed Rugiero from rescuing Brunello, and finally he tries to dissuade Agramante himself from leading Rugiero to France. In his speech to the king, Atalante makes a religio-political appeal rather than a personal one, emphasizing the glory of Rugiero’s descendants who will be lost to Africa. While Rugiero’s death is the primary tragedy for Boiardo’s Atalante, he is also concerned by the loss of his progeny. This religious aspect is discounted by Ariosto’s Atlante, who focuses on the personal loss. The sorcerer’s appeal is ineffective because considerations of the good of his subjects are alien to Agramante, and are no counterweight to prospects of personal glory. Atalante still does not give up, but accompanies Rugiero to France to watch over him, at one point breaking up a perilous duel with Orlando by sending the paladin off chasing illusions. These illusions (by chance or by design?) lead Orlando to the vicinity of the Riviera del Riso and another forgetful imprisonment, this time with the Naiads. We have seen that in the fabulous world of the Innamorato the principal function of magic is to provide delightful adventures, adventures which are at least as important as the main plot thread of duty and religion. Magic is not seen as negative in the poem—but neither is it completely positive, since it always distracts the characters from their dutie s. Magical marvels contribute to the joy of life, and provide opportunities for knights to display their prowess. They also bring chaos, imprisonment, death, and destruction; allowing them free rein would lead to the destruction of civilisation. For Boccassini, Circe’s metamorphosis into a white doe ( OI 1.6.52) reveals “the underlying feebleness of the all-powerful magician, now turned into the most vulnerable and fearful of animals.” 31 Magical menaces are destined to be defeated by valiant knights, but in Boiardo’s poetic world new opponents will always replace the old and cause more damage before they are defeated in turn. Only those marvelous artifacts with anti-magical powers (i.e. the ring’s spell-breaking power and Merlin’s


53



fountain of disamore ) aid in defeating magical dangers, have orderly, procivilisation, pro-rationality effects, and support the progress of the epic (sub)plot of the poem.

Chapter Three

 Ariosto’s Marvelous Artifacts

Magic Artifacts Having introduced marvelous armaments in Chapter One, I begin here with Ariosto’s treatment of the magic lance, and proceed to his development of the theme of the morality of magic, which he explores in relation to the magic shield and the harquebus. The third section deals with the magic ring, and the fourth with the magic waters of love and disamore . The next two sections concern artifacts not inherited from Boiardo: the goblet which reveals adultery, and the magic horn that induce s panic. The first part of the chapter concludes with a discussion of the magic books of the Furioso .

i. The Lance The magic lance, in the Innamorato a source of humor, becomes in the Furioso a sign of providential protection. 1 This shift accompanies the modification of the character of Astolfo. The frivolous Boiardan minor character achieves wisdom and central importance to the plot of the Furioso . The lance is, however, only one of the signs of heavenly favor given to Astolfo; these include Logistilla’s gifts, his sea voyage with the personifications of two cardinal virtues, and later the entire passage of his trip to the moon. Moreover he proves worthy of these gifts by making good use of them. Unlike Ruggiero, who loses control of the hippogriff soon after Logistilla’s lessons, and who completely abandons the shield, Astolfo employs his magical equipment appropriately and supplements it with the use of his wits (e.g., against Orrilo). The wisdom gained through his experiences w ith Alcina makes him a receptive student to Logistilla, and helps him keep his head through the rest of the poem.

56

Ariosto’s Marvelous Artifacts



Still, Astolfo does not retain this particular sign of providential favor for very long. The magic lance first appears in the Furioso in Canto 8 when Melissa finds it in Alcina’s palace and returns it to the English knight along with his long-awaited liberty. He uses it in only one fight, when Marfisa disrupts the tourney in Damascus (Canto 18). Lances are designed particularly for the chivalric kind of battle; thus while he had used Logistilla’s other gifts against Caligorante and Orrilo, here in this highly chivalric context the lance is most appropriate. The entire episode has the atmosphere of chivalry. When Astolfo and Sansonetto had encountered Marfisa, she intended a knightly challenge, but when she recognized him she instead greeted her old comrade-in-arms affectionately. Together the three decided to seek glory in the tourney. Thus Astolfo unhorses Grifone and Aquilante (among others) for the suitably chivalric reason of defending his knightly travelling companion. With his new aura of Ariostan dignity and respectability replacing his Boiardan ineptness, it is no longer surprising when Astolfo wins a fight, so the lance’s magic remains unsuspected. After destroying Atlante’s palace of illusions and “Volendosene andar per l’aria a volo” (OF 23.15; “Aiming to fly through the air”) on the hippogriff, considerations of weight lead him to give the lance to his cousin Bradamante for safekeeping. Her unexpected arrival exactly answers Astolfo’s need, in an explicitly providential manner (“parvegli che Dio gli la mandasse”; OF 23.11; “Her arrival truly seemed to him a godsend”). God and the poet know that in Astolfo’s forthcoming adventures on the moon he will have no need of the lance, while Bradamante’s jealousy will before long spur her into a series of duels in which the foremother of the Este will need the protection of Providence. The chivalric context of these duels will make the lance’s use appropriate. Bradamante, the destined ancestress of the Este, is another central character of the Furioso . In the debate about Bradamante’s skill in battle, I take the position that, while she may not be among the very best fighters, she is at least a competent warrior. 2 She easily unhorses Sacripante in Canto 1. She is reputed to be a better fighter than her twin brother Ricciardetto, and as good as any of the paladins ( OF 36.13–14). Late in the poem, her expressed desire to marry only someone who can defeat her at swordplay is taken as a clear indication of her preference for Ruggiero; the assumption is that she would be able to defeat Leone (and Leone shares this opinion of their respective fighting skills). It is no surprise to anyone who knows of her when she wins a battle. Thus the magic of the lance, camouflaged by her own martial skill, is not truly noticeable to the reader until her battle against Marfisa, and remains unsuspected by the characters.


57



The flurry of jousts in her period of jealous “madness” begins at the rocca di Tristano when she humbles the three knights who accompany Ullania, then Rodomonte at his tower, and three pagan kings at Agramante’s camp at Arles. This series of duels against notable Saracens climaxes with the unexpected opportunity to humiliate her suspected rival Marfisa. The previous duels did not unduly strain the reader’s credulity; the three northern kings, and Serpentino, Grandonio, and Ferraù gave her no more difficulty than Sacripante in Canto 1, whom she defeated easily without the help of magic. Such an easy triumph against the ferocious Rodomonte was somewhat surprising but not completely incredible, given that their joust consisted of only one pass. Yet Marfisa is one of the ablest and most renowned of fighters, capable of holding her own in prolonged duels against the greatest of knights. Moreover, as the reader is soon to learn, she is the long-lost twin sister of Ruggiero and shares his illustrious ancestry—all the more reason for her to be exceptionally formidable. The insulting ease with which Bradamante knocks her down again and again is not believable within the world of the poem except for the intervention of the magic lance, as the narrator feels the need to explain: Ben che possente Bradamante fosse, non però sì a Marfisa era di sopra, che l’avesse ogni colpo riversata; ma tal virtù ne l’asta era incantata. ( OF 36.23) Bradamant was no weakling, true, but she was not so superior to Marfisa t hat she could have knocked her down at each stroke—this was the virtue residing in the magic lance.

Bradamante’s ferocity against her supposed rival Marfisa contrasts strongly with her customary courtesy. As recently as the end of the previous canto Bradamante had displayed exceptional courte sy to the Saracen kings, followed by the poet’s praise of courtesy as a sign of the cor gentil in the proem to Canto 36. Yet jealousy drives her to such lengths that at one point during the battle against Marfisa the furious Bradamante repeats Argalia’s error, losing her presence of mind (“non ha mente di nuovo a ferire / con l’asta”; OF 36.47; “she never thought to strike her again with the lance”) and abandoning the golden lance in order to come to closer grips with Marfisa. Without her providential magical advantage the duel quickly degenerates into an undignified fistfight between apparent equals. After Atlante’s revelations from his tomb, Bradamante returns to more characteristic behavior and she and Marfisa become staunch friends.

58




Bradamante uses the lance in two battles in the remainder of the poem, first against the misrule of Marganorre (Canto 36), and then against the Saracens (Canto 39). In both of these episodes Bradamante and Marfisa fight together, displaying their contrasting styles. Ruggiero and Marfisa are free to slaughter the servants of Marganorre, as is usual on such occasions. The lance’s magic, however, having been intended to win jousts rather than to be used in war, ensures that Bradamante’s blows will be bloodless. The disparity is even clearer in Canto 39: Marfisa cacciò l’asta per lo petto al primo che scontrò, due braccia dietro: poi trasse il brando, e i n men che non l’ho detto, spezzò quattro elmi, che sembrar di vetro. Bradamante non fe’ minore effetto; ma l’asta d’or tenne diverso metro: tutti quei che toccò, per terra mise; duo tanti fur, né però alcuno uccise. ( OF 39.12)3 Marfisa drove her lance through the chest of her first opponent, and it emerged a yard through his back. Then she drew her sword and shat tered four helmets like glass in less time than I have told it. Bradamant proved no less effective, though her golden lance worked on another principle: all whom it touched it floored— tw ice as many, they were—but it slew none of them.

Prodigious feats of strength and ferocity, such as Marfisa’s here, are characteristic of and admired in the great knights of epic poetry. The masses of common soldiers exist to be scorned for their cowardice and to be slaughtered in droves as proof of the aristocratic knight s’ prowess. 4 To give only one other example, Orlando kills seven of Cimosco’s soldiers with one blow of his lance. In contrast, Bradamante tends to show mercy toward her enemies. She spares first Brunello, despite Melissa’s having urged her to kill him, and then Atlante, although he had kept Ruggiero prisoner. Of course, she too is capable of killing her enemy, as Pinabello’s fate demonstrates. In this case, however, even though the cowardly and treacherous Pinabello might well be considered deserving of death—it is God’s justice that leads him to her ( OF 22.71)—Bradamante is punished for her blind rage by a long, tormented separation from her beloved, in a state of madness analogous to, though less severe than, Orlando’s. While the Boiardan precedent necessitated that Bradamante be a warrior, Ariosto wished to emphasize the more orthodox feminine virtues of gentleness and mercy in the ancestress of the Este. Thus the magic lance, besides being God’s protection of her in her period of weakness, allows her to excel in battle without killing.


59



The golden lance is last mentioned in Canto 45 when Ariosto reiterates that no one knew the lance was magical: Anzi Astolfo e la donna, che portata l’aveano poi, credean che non l’incanto, ma la propria possanza fosse stata, che dato loro in giostra avesse il vanto; e che con ogni altra asta ch’incontrata fosse da lor, farebbono altretanto. ( OF 45.66) Indeed Astolfo and Bradamant, to whom it succeeded, both believed that if triumph always attended their jousting it was not due to any magic but simply to their own prowess: they would achieve the same results, they reckoned, with any other lance they chanced to use.

The characters believe their accomplishments are due to their own prowess but, as St. John has already made clear to Astolfo, all the time it was God’s will (or magic, or Fortune, or Providence, or the poet’s design). This is another instance of “ecco il giudicio uman come spesso erra!” According to the theories of chivalry, God makes the righteous knight strongest. The Ariostan God achieves the same result by means of a magic weapon. He even preserves the secret of its power so that the knights need have no moral reservations, despite the fact that the lance is designed for use in chivalric contexts where knights must be most careful to follow the rules. The characters’ total ignorance of the lance’s magic power makes its use acceptable. It is perfectly legitimate for a knight to employ a lance in a chivalric context, and the chivalric strictures are not harmed when no one at all realizes they have been violated.

ii. The Shield, the Harquebus, and the Morality of Magic As we have seen, Boiardo keeps the question of the permissibility of the use of magic in the background. In contrast, in two important episodes Ariosto dwells precisely on this dilemma. The magic shield first appears in the hands of Atlante, who uses it to capture Ruggiero and numerous others for imprisonment in the steel palace. When its owner uncovers it, the shield’s irresistible power puts to sleep anyone who sees its blinding light. After his defeat at the steel castle, Atlante leaves the shield on the hippogriff’s gear, so in Canto 4 Ruggiero obtains the shield by accident when he “catches” the hippogriff. Still controlled by Atlante, the hippogriff carries Ruggiero off to Alcina’s island. There he finds Astolfo, whom Alcina transformed into a myrtle when she

60




tired of him. Astolfo warns Ruggiero about Alcina’s treachery, and directs the young knight toward the good fay Logistilla. After this warning, Ruggiero believes he intends to avoid Alcina, but Momigliano has detailed the subtle process by which Ruggiero is seduced from the moment of his arrival on the island. 5 The sensual beauties of the island slip under his guard and sap his will to resist; consequently his efforts to avoid Alcina are only half-hearted. Ruggiero’s first opportunity to use the shield occurs when a crowd of monsters attack him as he attempts to follow the path toward Logistilla. He refrains from employing the shield’s magic out of concerns for his honor: Se di scoprire avesse avuto aviso lo scudo che già fu del negromante (io dico quel ch’abbarbagliava il viso, quel ch’all’arcione avea lasciato Atlante), subito avria quel brutto stuol conquiso e fattosel cader cieco davante; e forse ben, che disprezzò quel modo, perché virtude usar volse, e non frodo. ( OF 6.67) Had he thought of bringing out the shield of Atlas—the shield of the blinding light, which the magician had left suspended from the saddle—he would have overcome the ugly mob in a trice, and made them all fall down in a dazzle. It could be that he would not stoop to using it, preferring to rely on valour rather tha n on guile.

Ruggiero’s concerns for the rules of chivalry are not shared by his opponents.6 Whereas the narrator states explicitly that Ruggiero could have defeated the monsters easily and quickly, instead he allows them to stop his progress toward virtue and Logistilla. Then, because they are lovely ladies, he allows the two servants of Alcina to persuade him to turn back toward Alcina’s realm. Thus his refusal to use the magic shield has left him vulnerable to the unchivalric forces of evil. Alcina’s island itself has put him in the proper frame of mind to be seduced. The monsters outnumbered him and, being obviously ugly and evil, allowed him a clearcut enemy to fight valiantly. But he is left open to the deception of the two beautiful ladies who gain his trust with their apparent helpfulness; he is affected by their beauty and cannot believe it could hide evil intentions. Finally, Alcina uses spells to deceive him as to her age and beauty. His knightly honor has been turned against him. 7 When he is fleeing from Alcina’s realm Ruggiero chooses to take along the shield. Already, following Melissa’s advice, he has begun using deception himself to keep Alcina unsuspecting of his changed perceptions:


61

 Ma come l’avisò Melissa, stette senza mutare il solito sembiante , fin che l’arme sue, più dì neglette, si fu vestito dal capo alle piante; e per non farle ad Alcina suspette, finse provar s’in esse era aiutante, finse provar se gli era fatto grosso, dopo alcun dì che non l’ha avute indosso. (OF 7.75; emphasis mine) But, as Melissa advised him, he betrayed no change in his face until he had resumed his armour, from head to foot, which for so many days he had neglected. And, so as to avert Alcina’s suspicions, he pretended to try it on just to see how easily he could manage it—he pretended to see if he could still squeeze into it after so many days since he last wore it.

The poet’s repetition of the phrase “finse provar,” placed in a noticeable position and preceded by pauses, ensures that the reader cannot miss the point. Ruggiero has learned from Melissa the permissibility of using fraud against evil, which was vindicated in the proem to Canto 4. Ruggiero escapes from the palace, but is delayed by Alcina’s huntsman and his three animals. It is surprising that a cavallier soprano could be delayed by a mere villano ; usually the knights make short work of such antagonists. Yet at this point Ruggiero considers an unarmed servant and a dog too ignoble a target for his sword. Where before he had thought it dishonorable to use magic at all, even against the crowd of monsters, now it seems a preferable alternative. Since danger and dishonor will result if he waits too long, he decides that it is “meglio e più breve” to use the shield. Afterward he is pleased that he has used it to avoid two dishonorable alternatives: “Lieto Ruggier li lascia in preda al sonno” ( OF 8.11; “Ruggiero was glad to leave them all a prey to sleep”). He has progressed to the point where he is willing to use magic or frode against dishonorable enemies.8 The shield is used once more during Ruggiero’s escape, when he reaches the strait where Logistilla’s pilot had been waiting for him. The two set sail for the good fay’s realm, when they see Alcina and her navy approaching in a last attempt to recapture Ruggiero. The pilot, who is “saggio e di lunga esperienza dotto” (OF 10.44; “a wise and experienced man”), first urges Ruggiero to employ the shield against Alcina’s fleet to avoid death or shameful captivity, and then uncovers it himself. The pilot’s initiative leads to the decisive ruin of Alcina’s reign with the destruction of her fleet. Ariosto does not say why Ruggiero hesitated to use the shield; it seems that he still requires help to follow the path to virtue.

62




During the episode of Alcina and Logistilla, which is concerned with Ruggiero’s education, his teachers do not disdain the use of “dishonorable” methods.9 Melissa and the pilot encourage him to use magic and frode . Logistilla also has a positive view of magic; she teaches Ruggiero to control the hippogriff and later gives the magic horn and book to Astolfo. Seemingly dishonorable methods are not to be refused in the struggle against evil; what matters is how one uses these tools. The narrator himself supports this attitude. When Ruggiero refuses to use the shield against Alcina’s monsters, the narrator with characteristic irony judges it “forse ben, che disprezzò quel modo” ( OF 6.67; emphasis mine; “it is well perhaps that he refused / The aid of fraud” 10). In truth, Ruggiero’s disdain of this powerful weapon is imprudent and leads him into a degrading imprisonment. The poet is much more positive when Ruggiero decides to use the shield against the sea monster: “Prese nuovo consiglio, e fu il migliore , / di vincer con altre arme il mostro crudo” ( OF 10.107; emphasis mine; “He hit on a new and better plan: to overcome the cruel monster with other weapons”). Despite his teachers’ encouragement it seems that Ruggiero is still reluctant to use magic. In his battle against the sea monster, Ruggiero employs the shield only after he finds that all his efforts with his conventional weapons are unavailing against the thick hide of the leviathan. He is literally swamped until he decides to uncover the shield; the effortless and immediate victory it provides him contrasts sharply with his earlier strenuous but ineffective exertions. It is doubtful that without the shield he would have been able to rescue Angelica. After Logistilla’s lessons he is prepared to use the shield, but still only as a last resort. The next and final time Ruggiero uses the shield is in Canto 22. Ruggiero and Bradamante are delayed in their quest to rescue her twin brother by four knights serving Bradamante’s enemy Pinabello. The treacherous Maganzese had captured Sansonetto, Guidon Selvaggio, Grifone, and Aquilante, and extorted their oaths to collect a shameful toll from all passersby. Once again chivalry is used against the chivalrous, for the knights are bound by their oaths to conduct themselves reprehensibly, even to attack three against one if the first one of them loses the joust. During the battle, Grifone and Aquilante accidentally rip the shield’s cover and all the onlookers are overcome by its light. Ruggiero had not intended to use the shield’s magic; he was using it in the joust as a conventional shield. The narrator told us so during the encounter with Sansonetto ( OF 22.67–68), and he reminds us of it just before the accidental uncovering. It is here that the poet emphasizes that Ruggiero uses the shield only as a last resort:

Ariosto’s Mar velous Ar tifacts

63

                   Ruggier viene, copert co perto o da lo scudo . . . ... a cui Ruggier per l’ultimo soccorso nei più gravi perigli avea ricorso. Ben che sol tre fiate bisognolli, e certo in gran perigli, usarne il lume: le prime due, quando dai regni molli si trasse a più lodevole lode vole costume; la terza, quando i denti mal satolli lasciò de l’orca alle marine spume, ... Fuor che queste tre volte, tutto ’l resto lo tenea sotto un velo in modo ascoso, ch’a discoprirlo esser potea ben presto, che del suo aiuto fosse bisognoso. ( OF 22.81–83) 22.81–83) Ruggiero . . . was pro Ruggiero protect tected ed by the the shie shield ld . . . . Rug Ruggie gie ro fell back back on itit as as a last resort in i n moments of extreme peril. / In fact there had been only three occasions when the peril was that dire: the first two were when he was escaping from the soft dominion of Alcina to return return to a more praiseworthy life. The th ird occasion was when when he left left the orc in in the foaming foaming seas se as . . . . Apa rt from these these three three times he had always kept the shield hidden under a veil in such a way that he could quickly lay it bare if he needed to.

These “mere” three uses of the shield are deceptive, since they are a majority of Ruggiero’s battles to this point. He has refrained from using the shield twice: against Alcina’s monsters, when it was such a mistake; and against the illusionary giant who lured him into the palace of illusions, catching him h im by surprise and immediately fleeing so that the shield might not have been efficacious anyway. Craig believes that by now the shield has become a “hidden psychological crutch,” since de spite his professed reluctance to use it he keeps it within easy reach. 11 Yet one of those three times it was not Ruggiero who uncovered the shield, but Logistilla’s pilot, and the other two times he tried traditional methods before resorting to magic. He was not dissatisfied with the results the previous times, but this final accidental use of the shield seems shameful to him. How is th is time different? differe nt? The answer a nswer is that this th is joust has the trappings of chivalry. ch ivalry. Alcina’s huntsman belonged to a lower class and Ruggiero wanted to avoid the indignity of fighting him. Ruggiero tried honorable weapons against the sea monster, monster, a foe which greatly overpowered him—but when these t hese proved ineffective there was no reason not to use magic in order to rescue An-

64


                  

gelica. The four knights, however, are Ruggiero’s peers. They uphold an “usanza fella” fella” but they the y do it with w ith the appearance of chivalry, and the code co de demands Ruggiero meet them fairly. Ruggiero ought to apply his antipodean teachers’ moral lessons, once he returns to the active life of a knight. However, However, it is no accident that t hat the first sight which greets Ruggiero upon his return to Europe is the review of troops outside London, reminding him that he is back in the land of chivalry and reviving his sense of punctilio. Outside Pinabello’s castle, Ruggiero adheres scrupulously to the code although he faces four valiant and highly-skilled knights who reluctantly humiliate innocent passersby, and are even e ven forced unchivalrously to attack three against one. Ruggiero’s “inglorious” victory allows him to leave without hurting any innocents, and in time to save Ricciardetto. Yet Ruggiero’s main concern after his accidental victory is that his reputation, upon which chivalry placed such emphasis, will suffer ( OF 22.90). 22.90). Ruggiero’ss subsequent abandonment of the shield Ruggiero’ sh ield has been interpreted interp reted variously. Santoro believes this decision is natural in a knight endowed with virtù as opposed to the fortuna upon which Astolfo depends.12 Wiggins, who considers magical paraphernalia to be the knight’s just advantage over evil, sees this abandonment as a suicidal action brought on by Ruggiero’s Ruggiero’s preoccupation with wit h his knightly appearance app earance as opposed to essence at this period in his career. career.13 Baillet attributes Ruggiero’s feeling of shame to his knowledge that it is time to take his destiny in hand without outside out side help. help.14 Lazzaro sees magic and illusion as no longer necessary to Ruggiero once he has accepted his destiny after being liberated from the palace of illusions. 15 Craig points out that Ruggiero’s seemingly final solution to the problem may not be definitive after all: In a symbolic act of expiation and a nd renunciation renunciation he throws the shield into a deep well, his shame sinking with it . . . Through the ritualistic act and prayer-like language the hidden h idden shame is linked to the hidden shield, sh ield, now forever covered. covered. Or is it? Equally characteristic of Ariosto we find the finality of the image, so insisted upon, dissolving before our eyes as rumors of the shield’s existence engender a lengthy quest to uncover it, as if it were the Grail or the Sepulcher, Sepulcher, rather than a profane object. Its resurfacing remains a perpetual, threatening possibility, adding a certain nightmare quality familiar to anyone who hopes to bury a secret shame.16

Wh ile it is certainly While cer tainly imprudent within wit hin the t he world of the poem for Ruggiero to cast away the shield, such a grand gesture of chivalric punctilio was doubtless pleasing to Ariosto’s Ariosto’s intended audience. I believe that from this t his point on, Ariosto felt that, for purposes of encomium, it was time to


65

                  

showcase the virtù and irreproachable honor of the forefather of the Este. Similarly, Bacchelli sees see s the reason for Ruggiero to to be such a stickler st ickler as due to political considerations involving the public image of the Este: La politica di Ercole vecchio si era attirata la taccia di fedifraga e infida e sleale, sicchè la vetusta leggenda dell’infamante discendenza dai traditori della stirpe maganzese, era potuta diventare diventare argomento di satira polit ica e popolare contro di l ui . . . . che il risentimento risentimento dei suoi figli, e specialmente specialmente d’Ippolito, d’Ippolito, per il disdoro patito dalla Casa per la prudenza di Ercole, fosse vivace, si può desumere de sumere,, oltre che dalla storia, dal Furioso , in quanto il capostipite c apostipite degli Estensi, Ruggiero, vi è raffigurato, raffigurat o, industriosament i ndustriosamente, e, ostinatamente, ost inatamente, come un eroe del punto d’onore d’onore e 17 dello scrupolo scr upolo in fatto fat to di lealtà e fedeltà. fedeltà.

As the progenitor of the poet’s patrons, Ruggiero must be concerned with the chivalric code of honor and he must give evidence of his own virtù rather than succeeding purely by the lucky chance of possessing a powerful magic weapon. Though T hough Ruggiero has been taught that it is right to use deceit against against evil, ev il, he does doe s not perceive the four four knights as unchivunch ivalrous and believes he has defeated them unfairly and dishonorably. While he can see that it is appropriate to use the shield against monsters, it provides too great an advantage against his knightly peers. Ruggiero remains possessed posses sed of the unfair advantage of his winged w inged steed, about which he has no moral qualms. But the t he poet too watches over Ruggiero’s Ruggiero’s honor, honor, and the hippogriff’s hippogr iff’s e scape shortly shor tly afterward leaves Ruggiero innocent of this other unfair advantage as well. Ruggiero’s Ruggiero ’s other magic weapons belong to the category categor y of enchanted encha nted weapons. Balisarda and later Hector’s armor allow him to display his prowess, for they have no overt magical ability. Ruggiero’s use of these armaments does doe s not adversely affect his honor. honor. Nor does the t he fact that he uses them in the final battle against Rodomonte guarantee him victory. As Hauvette points out, enchanted armor does not save Gradasso or Mandricardo. 18 Ruggiero wins in the t he end because he he keeps his head, while Rodomonte succumbs to rage. The real-world relevance of moral qualms like those experienced by Ruggiero with regard to the magic shield sh ield is brought home to to the reader in the equally well-known parallel episode of Orlando’s and the narrator’s condemnation of the harquebus. Following Pool, I count the harquebus as a magical weapon because the Carolingian characters can ca n only see it as the product of black magic, rather than technology: E introducendolo [l’archibugio] con efficacissimo anacronismo nel mondo cavalleresco l’Ariosto traspone l’arma dal piano della scienza e della tecnica a

66


                   quello della magia e cosí ne coglie la natura diabolica d’ordigno che colpisce a tradimento tradiment o e uccide senza pietà: non come lo scudo d’Atlante, che solo abbaglia, o la lancia fatata, che solo disarciona; né c’è anello incantato che ne vanifichi l’effetto micidiale.19

Specifically, Orlando attributes its origin to a hellish plot by Beelzebub (OF 9.91). 9.91). Continuing the interm i ntermingling ingling of time periods, reali reality ty and fiction, and a nd magic and science, the narrator himself claims that its reappearance in the Renaissance is due to the spells of a necromancer inspired once again by the devil ( OF 11.22–23). 11.22–23). Orlando’s prodigious strength, skill, and courage during the fight with Cimosco and his soldiers contrast strikingly with their ineptness, cowardice, and treachery, prompting Calvino to see this as an encounter between the glorious past and the gloomy present. 20 Without guns such villani cannot stand against a true knight. Whether through Cimosco’s hurryy or bloodlust or fear hurr fear or by divine will, wil l, he misses his shot and is lost. Orlando scorns to make use of the harquebus himself, for he “sempre atto at to stimò d’animo molle / gir con vantaggio in qualsivoglia qu alsivoglia impre impre sa sa”” ( OF 9.89; “had always regarded it as cowardly to undertake any enterprise from a position of advantage”). In contrast to Ruggiero, Orlando shows no hesitation at all in the disposal of the gun, and he throws it not into a mere well but into the depths of the sea, where no questing quest ing knights knight s could find it. Cannon in the sixteenth century had shown themselves to Ariosto as destructive of societal values, allowing the despised foot soldiers to take their toll of the aristocratic horsemen, as it killed Olimpia’s brothers and father. Yet the narrator’s condemnation is not solely class-related, but is given in moral terms in the famous octave: Come trovasti, trovasti, o scelerata e brutta br utta invenzion, mai loco in uman core? Perr te la militar gloria è distrut ta, Pe per te il mestier me stier de l’arme è senza onore; onore; per te è il valore e la virtù ridutta, che spesso par del buono il rio r io migliore: non più la gagliardia, non più l’ardire per te può in campo al paragon venire. venire. (OF 11.26) 11.26)21 Wicked, ugly invention, how did you find a place in human hearts? You have destroyed military glory, and dishonoured the profession of arms; valour and martial skill are now discredited, so that often the miscreant will appear a better man than the valiant. Because of you no longer may boldness and courage go into the field to match their t heir strength. strength.


67



Here the anaphora makes the condemnation more effective; the repeated monosyllables slow the pace of the verses, imposing a solemn rhythm. Through painful experience Ariosto had a realistic view of the horrors of contemporary warfare which he could compare to the idealistic vision of the chivalric tradition. Orlando’s condemnation of the harquebus is the poet’s condemnation of the bloody contemporary war which did not even have “la consolante illusione di far rivivere le antiche virtù cavalleresche.” 22 Yet the moral condemnation of guns appears only in the third edition of the Furioso ; the earlier versions of the poem contained positive references to guns, which Ariosto chose to retain in the final edition. 23 Throughout the poem the narrator praises the military accomplishments of his patrons, which were based on artillery. Twice ( OF 25.14 and 27.24) he admiringly compares the strength of heroic knights, namely Ruggiero and Marfisa, to the power of firearms. This may be out of patriotism and loyalty to the Este, in that he believed that if such power ful weapons must exist, then they ought to belong to the elite and specifically to his own lords.24 No matter why he makes this exception, as Chesney says, it shows the complexity of real-world morality. 25 The distinction between enchanted weapons and magic ones helps to illuminate Ruggiero’s and Orlando’s behavior. Enchanted armaments, because they have no overt magical function of their own, depend on the knightly skill of their wielder, and thus are not deleterious to knightly honor. Magical weapons, by nullifying the effect of personal valor, are almost unavoidably subversive of chivalry. The golden lance is the only truly magic weapon that can pass in a chivalric setting, because its power is unknown; Astolfo’s and Bradamante’s use of it in ignorance cannot be condemned. Moreover, its magic is camouflaged by the knights’ own skill. The two weapons recognized as magic in the Furioso , the shield and the harquebus, are decisively rejected by honorable knights as inherently inimical to chivalric values. This treatment supports an analogy with the traditional view of magic weapons as employed solely by the weak, cowardly, and villainous to gain an undeserved advantage. This is, in fact, Delcorno Branca’s conclusion: Ariosto firmly maintains the traditional condemnation of magic weapons. 26 However, the question of the morality of the use of magic in the Furioso has further complexities. Sometimes there is no hint of doubt about magic’s acceptability. The narrator openly approves the shield’s use on Alcina’s isle and against the sea monster, for example. Moreover, Astolfo’s constant use of magical tools allows him to accomplish a great deal, including a trip to the heavens. Although the magic horn in particular ought to generate moral difficultie s, since it functions as a weapon, Astolfo’s use of

68




it is taken for granted. Unreproached by herself or the narrator, Bradamante is able to seek Ruggiero safely in the midst of the Saracen army due to the ring’s magic power of invisibility (OF 7.35). Merlin, Melissa, and Logistilla, characters with claims to wisdom and authority, foster the use of magic. The use of magic is acceptable in the Furioso solely outside of the chivalric context. Only when used against other knights, instead of against monsters or unruly mobs, is there a problem. Once Ruggiero returns both physically and psychologically to the world of chivalry, he eschews the use of magic. Astolfo and Bradamante, whose concerns in life extend beyond the chivalric, are more flexible in their attitude toward magic. Astolfo’s particular predilection toward magic has several contributing factors. Besides the fact that many of his adventures are against unchivalric opponents in unchivalric places, the English knight is not an ancestor of the Este; thus he is allowed to be more pragmatic than punctilious. Further, Astolfo was traditionally an eccentric, even before Boiardo’s portrayal of him.27 The cases in the Furioso of the approved use of magic demonstrate that, while magic has no legitimate place in the chivalric world of jousts against knightly opponents, in the wider unchivalric world magic may be the only means of defeating evil or amoral opponents who have their own unfair advantages. Ariosto may find chivalry attractive in some ways, but he portrays clearly its fragility, its impracticality, its limits against those who do not share its code of honor. 28 To survive in the real world, and for good to triumph in the real world, people may sometimes need to employ less than strictly honorable methods, whether in the form of a magic weapon or the deceit that Melissa trie s to teach. From an overview, what matters is the use to which magic is put.

iii. The Ring The magic ring, so important in the Innamorato , continues to enjoy prominence in Ariosto’s poem. In the Furioso the ring’s power of invisibility remains linked to women, especially Angelica; in both poems it allows her to travel safely despite the dangers a woman alone could expect to face. While il Bibbiena in his prologue 29 to the Calandria might revel in the prospect of invisibly spying on people, neither Boiardo nor Ariosto has a male character become invisible. More prominently, Ariosto continues Boiardo’s practice of employing the ring’s crucial spell-breaking power to remove blocks to the advancement of the plot by releasing the prisoners of magic in the episodes of Atlante’s steel palace, the destruction of Alcina’s garden, and Angelica’s visit to the palace of illusions.


69



With some parallels to Boiardo’s introduction of Rugiero, in OF 3.69– 74 the ring is again said to be indispensable to the removal of Ruggiero from his guardian Atlante’s pleasant prison, this time a steel palace in Europe. Once again a sorcerer, this time Melissa, tells the quester, this time Bradamante, the location and powers of the ring. Its anti-magical protection against spells is the only hope of any would-be rescuer. Following Melissa’s advice, Bradamante uses deceit to wrest it from Brunello and, since she is then unaffected by Atlante’s spells, to lure him close enough to capture him. Bradamante’s elation at her success is quickly ended when Ruggiero is carried off by the hippogriff to Atlante’s next pleasant prison, Alcina’s island. Once again the ring will be necessary to rescue him, so Bradamante willingly gives it to Melissa. Once again using magic to counter magic, Melissa gives the ring to Ruggiero, breaking the spell of his love for Alcina and allowing him to see through the fay’s illusion of youth and beauty. Melissa goes about this through a rather roundabout process, in which her speech and the ring’s effects alternate to bring Ruggiero step by step to despise Alcina. Melissa having taken the form of Atlante to deliver a paternal lecture about neglect of duties, Ruggiero is already ashamed of himself (“si stava vergognoso”; OF 7.65; “Ruggiero stood shamefaced and silent”) before she gives him the ring. It then makes him return to himself, freeing him of his magically-induced love, and deepens his humiliation. Next Melissa reminds him of Bradamante’s love and how much he owes her, bringing Ruggiero to hate Alcina. Finally he comes to feel contempt and aversion for the fay when he sees her true form with the ring; like a rotten fruit “l’odia, sprezza, n’ha schivo, e getta v ia” (OF 7.71; “he throws this one away in loathing and revulsion”). Now that Ruggiero has realized what harm befell him for taking Alcina at face value, he is willing to follow Melissa’s advice and deceive Alcina in order to flee. Having made plans for his own escape, Ruggiero remembers his fellow prisoner Astolfo and returns the ring to Melissa so that she may free the English knight with it. She takes this opportunity to free the other transformed ex-lovers as well. The next person to use the ring is Angelica. Ariosto’s Angelica has been deprived of the ring’s protection for some time. Being who she is in the Furioso , i.e. the object of almost everyone’s desire, Angelica is often in danger of rape. Her adventures in the poem are a series of narrow escapes, such that they have been called an “épopée burlesque sur les dépucelages manqués.”30 Even in the Innamorato the ring’s first action was to protect her from Malagise’s rape attempt by nullifying his sleep spells.

70




In the Furioso Angelica spends the first ten cantos fleeing dangers, hoping to return home. In Canto 11, when Ruggiero is preparing to ravish her, she recognizes the ring that he had given her. Through her mind rush her adventures from the Innamorato : Questo è l’annel ch’ella portò già in Francia la prima volta che fe’ quel camino col fratel s uo . . . ... Con questo fe’ gl’incanti uscire in ciancia di Malagigi al petron di Merlino; con questo Orlando ed altri una matina tolse di servitù di Dragontina; con questo uscì invisibil de la torre dove l’avea richiusa un vecchio rio. ... Brunel sin nel giron lel venne a torre; ch’Agramante d’averlo ebbe disio. (OF 11.4–5) This was the ring she took with her to France the first time she made the journey with her brother. . . . With this ring she neutralized the spells Maugis cast on her at Merlin’s tomb. With it she helped Orlando and others to e scape one morning from Dragontina; / with this ring she made herself invisible and escaped from the dungeon where a wicked old man had imprisoned her. . . . Brunello found his way into her castle and stole the ring from her, for Agramant wanted it.

Re-empowered by the ring, these memories of her more intrepid days inspire her to take a more active role. In the famous proem to Canto 8, Ariosto likens the magic ring to reason. Although in the Renaissance there are no true magicians (“l’arti . . . a l n ostro tempo ignote”; OF 7.73; “arts unknown in our day”), there are still ”enchanters“ who hide behind false appearances; and their victims must use reason instead of a magic ring to see the truth ( OF 8.1–2). Ariosto’s use of allegory is discontinuous, 31 however, and the ring does not continue to represent reason. In the proem to Canto 11 the metaphor shifts to the bit of reason, which reins in the wild horse of passion. The textual bit is that of the hippogriff, so recently given to Ruggiero by Logistilla. Failing, for whatever reason, 32 to apply his antipodean teachers’ lessons, Ruggiero loses his self-control, the hippogriff, the magic ring, and his dignity all at once. At this point the ring comes to represent Fortune:


71

 Brunel . . . le l venne a torre; ... Da indi in qua sempre Fortuna a sdegno ebbe costei, fin che le tolse il regno. ( OF 11.5) Brunello . . . stole the ring from her . . . . Ever since that moment Fortune had frowned upon her until she lost her kingdom.

At this turning point in her adventures Angelica grasps Fortune firmly by the forelock, escaping from Ruggiero. She is able to do so because the ring’s spell-breaking power had protected her from the soporific magic of Ruggiero’s shield in his battle against the sea monster. Most often, however, it is the power of invisibility that she relies on. Although indifferent to all the men she knows, she allows them to desire her until in Canto 12 she realizes that the ring permits her to dispense with their desire and help, allowing her to be herself. 33 Thus she enters the palace of illusions in order to find a knight to accompany and protect her on her voyage home but, fleeing the three who rush at her, changes her mind. She has realized (or remembered from her Boiardan incarnation) that she can easily and reliably vanish from the threat of danger. This realization leads to Angelica’s first laugh in the Furioso (12.36) as she watches her confused pursuers, now unable to harm her. Her relief even leads her to play a trick on them, to take an independent, frivolous action contrary to her previous, solely survival-oriented behavior. Thus Angelica also uses the ring to break up a block in the plot, but only to a limited extent. She frees only three knights from the palace of illusions (and even that was more than she intended). The task of destroying the palace and freeing all the people within is left for Astolfo. The only other character to become invisible is Bradamante. She searches for Ruggiero throughout the enemy camp . . . senza impedimento ... mercé all’annel che fuor d’ogni uman uso la fa sparir quando l’è in bocca chiuso. ( OF 7.35) This was not difficult . . . thanks to the ring which, against all human experience, made her vanish when she put it in her mouth.

A skilled warrior, Bradamante employs the power of invisibility less for her own safety than because combat would impede her urgent search for her beloved.

72




To Ariosto’s Angelica, however, practically the whole world is as dangerous as an enemy camp, hence her particular need for the ring. Made careless in the happiness of her love for Medoro, she casts aside her customary policy of invisibility, leaving clues wherever she goes. Once again, traveling brings the traditional dangers in the encounter with the mad Orlando (Canto 29). Shocked from her idyllic sense of security by his onrush, and with Medoro unable to defend her, she must frantically reclaim the protection of invisibility. We have seen that in both the Innamorato and the Furioso the ring’s spell-breaking power is used by both men and women characters, but usually for the benefit of men. The magical prisons of the two poems primarily trap male knights; the ring is needed three times to propel Ruggiero, in particular, toward his proud destiny as ancestor of the Este. One time in each poem the ring’s spell-breaking power protects Angelica from rape. But most often this anti-magical power promotes the orderly forward flow of the narrative toward the eventual victory of the Christian knights, the golden age of Renaissance Ferrara, and Ariosto’s reaffirmation of Renaissance society’s values. 34 In contrast, the power of invisibility is important essentially to women; the men who briefly possess the ring have no need to hide. Not even the unwarlike thief Brunello becomes invisible to escape the vengeful and formidable Marfisa in the Innamorato (though Melissa fears that he might do so to escape Bradamante; OF 3.74). Nor does Brunello ever consider using invisibility in his thefts, although this is the first impulse of il Bibbiena, according to the prologue to the Calandria.35 Bibbiena’s second impulse, to use invisibility to facilitate his voyeuristic observation of Florentine women, is a length to which epic knights need not go. As primarily sub jects of desire, the poems’ male characters have nothing to fear from the gaze of others. Bradamante’s socially approved desire to marry Ruggiero necessitates her visibility to his gaze. Though she finds invisibility useful at one point, she is by no means reluctant to part with the ring. Angelica’s desire to remain untouched by all her admirers demands her disappearance from their view. For the sake of her own independence, she clings with determination to the magic ring.

iv. The Magic Waters Considering Ariosto’s emphasis on rational order, it is natural that in the world of the Furioso the magic waters are of less importance than in the Innamorato , and that Merlin’s rationality-promoting fountain is preferred.


73



Through most of the Furioso the magic waters are mentioned little, no more than to recall their effects on Angelica and Rinaldo. After the first canto, the plot is not greatly affected by the continuing legacy of the waters; Angelica’s rejection of Rinaldo is stronger than but similar to her rejection of all the other knights, while Rinaldo’s love for the princess does not prevent his pursuing other quests throughout most of the poem. It is not until late in the poem (Canto 42) that Merlin’s fountain is encountered, and the river of love does not appear at all; its role is performed by the personified Amor (e.g. OF 19.19 and 19.28). Omitting any mention of the artificial origin of the fountain of disamore , Ariosto makes no lexical distinction between the two waters (“due fontane” OF 1.78; “due fonti” OF 42.35; “in quel . . . rivo; . . . ne l’altro” OF 42.37). Hate is just as natural as love in the world of the Furioso . In bringing his many plot threads to a harmonious conclusion, Ariosto must cure the lord of Montalbano of his desire to wander in search of Angelica.36 Motivated by his old love of Angelica, Rinaldo once again leaves Carlo on a pretext, intending to go al l the way to Cathay. Yet even before the start of his voyage he becomes divided between love, fierce regret for lost opportunities, and “gelosa rabbia” at Medoro. While Orlando had gone mad because Angelica loved someone (anyone) else, Rinaldo is greatly disturbed also by the social condition of Medoro: Ha sempre in mente, e mai non se ne par te, come esser puote ch’un povero fante abbia del cor di lei spinto da parte merito e amor d’ogni altro primo amante. Con tal pensier che ’l cor gli straccia e parte, Rinaldo se ne va verso Levante ( OF 42.45) What he could never escape was the thought of how a poor simple soldier could have displaced in her breast the entire merits, the full ardour of all her previous suitors. His heart torn by thoughts such as these, Rinaldo journe yed Eastwards

Here the repetition of the rhyme “parte” reflects the obsessive circling of Rinaldo’s thoughts. Characteristically, the landscape comes to reflect the character’s state of mind,37 in this case isolated, dark, and threatening: Poi che fu dentro a molte miglia andato il paladin pel bosco aventuroso, da ville e da castella allontanato, ove aspro era più il luogo e periglioso, tutto in un tratto vide il ciel turbato, sparito il sol tra nuvoli nascoso,

74


 ed uscir fuor d’una caverna oscura un strano mostro in feminil figura. ( OF 42.46) The venturesome paladin had penetrated several miles into the woods, far from all human habitation, where the going was roughest and most dangerous, when all at once he saw the sky lower, the sun disappear, and out from a dark cave there issued a strange monster in the shape of a woma n.

This monster is of course the personification of Jealousy, who emerges from the dark cavern of Rinaldo’s own mind to externalize his conflict. She torments the terrified knight until he is rescued by the personification of Disdain, with his symbols of the broken yoke of passion, the red flames of anger, and the yellow shield of defense against passion. 38 In a brief passage of ascent reminiscent of Dante, but accenting the psychological rather than the spiritual, the mysterious knight consiglia il paladin che se ne vada per quella via che s’alza verso il monte. Quel s’appiglia al consiglio ed alla strada; e senza dietro mai volger la fronte, non cessa, che di vista se gli tolle, ben che molto aspro era a salir quel colle. (OF 42.57)39 advised the paladin to be off, taking the road which climbed uphill. Rinaldo did as bidden and without a backward glance rode hard t ill he was lost to sight, though the hil l was a steep one to climb.

Thus Rinaldo’s final visit to Merlin’s fountain is not left to chance as in Boiardo’s poem. Rather he is guided to it by Disdain, who has come explicitly to release the paladin from “il giogo indegno” of an “amor sì folle.” Or in other terms, Rinaldo’s disdain for Angelica’s chosen husband has turned into disdain for the princess herself and ended his passion for her. In this episode it is particularly clear that the supernatural forces in the Furioso admit of a perfectly natural explanation. 40 Now that his dispersive love is over, Rinaldo is left free to return to his chivalric dut ies. He has been reinserted into the chivalric order.

v. The Goblet Immediately after his adventure with the “gelide acque,” the lord of Montalbano encounters another lesser magical artifact. In Cantos 42 and 43 of the Furioso he undergoes the temptation of the magic goblet. This


75



episode forms part of Ariosto’s commentary on jealousy and fidelity in this section of the poem. In the Boccaccian stories of the Mantuan knight and the judge, Ariosto condemns excessive jealousy and harsh judgments of human weakness. Rajna found precedents for Ariosto’s goblet in the earlier chivalric literature, particularly in a cup sent, but never delivered, by Morgan le Fay to King Arthur with the intention of proving Guinevere an adulteress, a cup which would have wet the faithless wife rather than the hapless husband.41 Because Ariosto’s goblet spills over the husband instead, it does not punish the wife for adultery, but makes a mockery of the presumption of the husband. Rinaldo is induced to accompany the Mantuan knight by curiosity; “di vedere e d’udire ebbe / sempre aventure un desiderio innato” ( OF 42.72; “he had an innate urge to witness or hear of any new adventure”). Upon entering the palace of art he views the statues of Renaissance poets and the ladies they celebrate. These numerous virtuous ladies would seem to provide a corrective contrast to the forthcoming passage about the untrustworthiness of women, but they are not very effective. Rinaldo pays them little attention, being anxious to learn about the surprise that awaits him. Santoro has shown in detail how at first the Mantuan knight seems to speak from the position of an objective moralist, when in actuality his speech reflects the dark and suspicious attitude of the betrayed. 42 The revelation of the ten-year duration of his private testings of his guests proves him to be “in fondo un altro campione della generale ‘pazzia’, un maniaco malinconico, bisognoso di trovare nella sciagura altrui conforto come in una droga.”43 Rinaldo resists his first impulse to drink, thinks, and decides to pass up this opportunity, calling it folly to search for something he wouldn’t want to find. I agree with Wiggins that Rinaldo’s refusal to drink was made easy for him by his lack of passion for Clarice, 44 and that his “ignorance is bliss” argument is not the worthiest of reasons. 45 But I must also agree with the general critical approval of his prudence. E.g., for Zatti, Rinaldo’s untraditional refusal of the test shows an advantageous recognition of the dangers of the quest for knowledge: La verità di cui tutti vanno in cerca . . . non la si possiede, o, una volta posseduta si rivela il contrario di ciò che si credeva; e qualche volta sarebbe meglio non cercarla affatto, con la saggia prudenza di chi, come Rinaldo, vuol salvare le proprie illusioni per un necessario esercizio di sopravvivenza. 46

76




Perhaps Rinaldo’s decision is also influenced by acknowledgement of his own lack of fidelity; beyond his pursuit of Angelica in the Furioso , in the tradition he was “facile ad innamorarsi, . . . seduttore incorreggibile di belle fanciulle.” 47 A truly faithful lover, such as Brandimarte, might refuse to drink because it shows more trust not to spy on one’s wife. On this point the Mantuan knight failed: “Ciascun marito, a mio giudizio, deve / sempre spiar se la sua donna l’ama” (OF 42.100; “Every husband, in my view, should always watch to see if his wife loves him”). Such insatiable distrust is not only a recipe for marital discord; it is the avarice, “ingorda / fame d’avere,” which Ariosto condemns in the proem to Canto 43, here an avarice for control of another person. In the tale of the goblet’s origin, we learn that it was given in the first place to the young Mantuan knight in order to persuade him to commit adultery, the very failing which it reveals. From the start Melissa intended to break up his peaceful marriage: “modo trovò da por mia pace in rissa” (OF 43.24; “she found a means to disturb my peace”). The goblet obviously generates disharmony between people, in confirming the suspicions of jealous husbands and in bringing distrust to those who had never before doubted. Rather than punishing adultery, as it might appear at first, it punishes the presumption of suspicious husbands who demand absolute certainty of absolute virtue from human, imperfect people. Thus the Mantuan knight suffers through the years afterwards, while his former wife lives happily ever after. While at first Rinaldo inculpates only women— “ ogni donna è molle”— later he admits that men are capable of performing even more serious crimes for payment ( OF 43.48). The judge’s tale shows that men share the human frailty of desire for wealth. The happy ending of the judge’s tale may be simplistic, but it points toward the solution; peace and concord between the sexes are possible when each party recognizes that no human being is perfect and forgives the other’s errors. 48 Obsessed by women’s weakness, the Mantuan knight has blinded himself to the fact that not all people are faithless. Disguised as his wife’s suitor, he persuaded her to commit adultery for the sake of jewels provided by Melissa. But he himself had refused Melissa’s sexual advances, though she offered him great gifts ( OF 43.22). Would the lovestruck Melissa have offered him less than the rubies, diamonds, and emeralds that overcame his wife’s scruples? Different people have different failings; his wife’s was for wealth, and his own was for an impossible absolute. In other parts of the Furioso , Ariosto provides more examples of characters who remain true to their vows, such as Bradamante, Brandimarte, and Fiordiligi.


77



Ariosto’s position is one of moderation: faithfulness is desirable, but obsessive jealousy is foolhardy, wrong, and destructive of happiness and harmony. Despite his personal experience with jealousy, he looked on the human weaknesses we all share with resignation and indulgence. 49 Rinaldo’s decision to forgo testing his wife’s fidelity shows, if not on the character’s part then at least on the poet’s, a “coscienza della relatività e della fallibilità della natura, del limite posto dall’esperienza ai principi e ai valori assoluti e astratti.” 50

vi. The Horn In the Furioso Astolfo, rather than being associated primarily with the magic lance as in the Innamorato , has to do with a variety of magic artifacts. Besides the lance, the magic book, and the hippogriff, he is the sole user of the magic horn that panics all who hear it. As we have seen, unlike Ruggiero, Astolfo has no moral reservations about using magic. From the time he departs from Logistilla’s realm until his encounter with St. John he uses magic in all of his battles. (Thereafter he employs Godgiven miraculous advantages.) While Ariosto’s Astolfo is not a humorously inept fighter like Boiardo’s, he is still not notable for his swordplay. His successes and effectiveness in the Furioso are due instead to his use of magic and to his own intelligence—or, as St. John informs him, to the will of God. He uses the horn extensively. With it he chases away nameless robbers and wild beasts in his early solitary travels. When warned about Caligorante, he already hopes “più nel suon che ne la spada” ( OF 15.48; “placing greater reliance on his horn than on his sword”). His confidence in the horn leads him to argue for a landing on Alessandreta, against the ship’s more prudent passengers. It is the only weapon he truly feels he needs when he is lightening the load for the hippogriff. Caligorante, the people of Alessandreta, the inhabitants of the palace of illusions, and the harpies all are effortlessly defeated by its magic. The only time it fails him is when he finds it to be of no use against the smoke in the Inferno. The only times he refrains from using it are against Orrilo (killed according to the advice of Logistilla’s book) and during the brawl at Norandino’s tournament (where he uses the magic lance instead). With all his magical accoutrements he seldom has great need for ratiocination, but he is capable of thinking even under pressure, as when he defeats Orrilo. He plans ahead, although not elaborately, how to defeat Caligorante and Orrilo. He recognizes the magic of the palace of illusions, which no other prisoner there was able to do, even Bradamante

78




who had been warned of the truth. Sometimes all Astolfo needs to figure out is how best to use his magical weapon, as when he has the Senapo’s people protect their ears before chasing away the harpies with the horn. In this he has learned from the experience on Alessandreta when he inadvertently frightened away his companions as well as his enemies. Astolfo takes to an extreme the knightly characteristic of seeking out adventure and battle, because his numerous magical tools add to his traditional self-confidence. Thus, despite the bystanders’ warnings, he heads straight down the dangerous paths to Caligorante and Orrilo, and is the strongest proponent of a landing on Alessandreta. In a knight not renowned for martial skill his actions might seem rash. Yet if he becomes dependent on his magical equipment, it is not important, because the homo fortunatus51 will always have some recourse available in an emergency. His willingness to use magic is probably one reason why the poet makes him travel abroad and fight mostly against unknightly opponents. It would not be seemly (or as good a story) for Agramante’s invaders to be effortlessly routed by magic, with no great feats of swordplay and valor. While the magical contributions to the eventual Christian victory may be vital, they nevertheless must leave the foreground to the knights. Even Astolfo feels the influence of the rules of chivalry to some extent. During the brawl in Damascus he uses the (unbeknown to him) magic lance, appropriate to the context of the tourney, rather than the horn. In Alessandreta he fights beside his companions with a sword against overwhelming numbers, but only until he realizes that conventional weapons will achieve nothing but defeat: “Io vo’ veder, poi che non giova spada , / s’io so col corno assicurar la strada” ( OF 20.87; emphasis mine; “ As our swords are getting us nowhere , let us see if I can’t clear our path with my horn”). When Astolfo inadvertently uses the horn against his knightly companions, in a fashion similar to Ruggiero’s accidental victory against the four knights, it is not Astolfo who is ashamed of the dishonor. Instead, Marfisa and the others are embarrassed at not having resisted the irresistible. In contrast to the extreme reaction of Ruggiero, who forever abandons the shield, Astolfo sees it as merely a pardonable mistake. He learns a practical consideration from the experience, and does better subsequently. The horn would seem to have a very chaotic power, particularly considering the lengthy description of the pandemonium it causes on Alessandreta. Yet in Astolfo’s hands it serves as a powerful tool to advance the plot. The horn leaves the forces of disorder in disarray, while the heroes are freed to pursue the poet’s plan. The horn propels the five knights from Alessandreta, and the multitude of prisoners from the pal-


79



ace of illusions, onward to their destinies. And how delightful it is that, rather than straightforwardly rescuing trapped characters, it humorously drives them in panic out of their blocked situations. Such strong measures may be needed in a world where people prefer entrapping illusion to truth.

vii. Books Ariosto continues the division of magic books into two types: the spell books used by sorcerers, and how-to books, represented in the Furioso by Logistilla’s gift to Astolfo. Ariosto provides four exemplars of spell books (those owned by the wicked hermit, Melissa, Malagigi, and Atlante). The lecherous hermit uses his spell book to separate Rinaldo and Sacripante from Angelica (Canto 2), specifically by sending a disguised demon to give them false information. Since the hermit is only a minor sorcerer, it is probable that he uses the book again later when he maddens Angelica’s horse. The results of his spells are not purely chaotic, but mixed. In preserving Angelica’s freedom, he contributes to the continuing dispersal of her questing suitors and of those characters who set out in search of them. Furthermore, he strengthens the rivalry and enmity between Rinaldo and Orlando. Nevertheless, the much more direct and immediate result of the hermit’s deception is Rinaldo’s return to Charlemagne and his ultimately successful quest for reinforcements. Surely this happy outcome was unplanned by the hermit. In the Furioso the chaotic can also act to the detriment of the pagans, whether by random chance or (as St. John would claim) by God’s will. All of the hermit’s spells succeed, from the deception of the knights to the kidnapping of Angelica. However, his most memorable scene is that of his physical impotence with Angelica. The sense of menace when Angelica lies helpless before the vecchio rapace is dissipated by the series of double entendres, and the hermit’s lasting impression is unquestionably comical. Ariosto pursues Boiardo’s characterization of the fallible Malagigi. The most famous example follows the familiar pattern of magnification and deflation. Malagigi, newly liberated from the Saracens, is explicitly bereft of his book: Malagigi, che sa d’ogni malia quel che ne sappia alcun mago eccellente, ancor che ’l libro suo seco non sia, con che fermare il sole era possente, pur la scongiurazione onde solia

80


 commandare ai demoni aveva a mente: tosto in cor po al ronzino un ne costringe di Doralice, ed in furor lo spinge. (OF 26.128) Maugis equalled the best sorcerers in his knowledge of spells, and although he did not have his book w ith which he had power to stop the sun, he did recollect his formula for commanding demons. Quickly he constrained one to enter Doralice’s palfrey and goad him into a frenzy.

Ariosto’s Malagigi is not completely powerless without his book, unlike Boiardo’s Malagise. His hurried spell removes the immediate danger to his friends by distracting Doralice’s suitors. While his power with his book is magnified out of proportion to his accomplishments in the Innamorato (“con che fermare il sole era possente”), it appears at first that he has done well without it. This appearance is brief, as the reader learns only a few octaves later: “Parve, e non fu però buono il consiglio / di Malagigi”( OF 27.2; “Maugis’ plan seemed a good one, but it was not”). The demon works slyly against him, leading Rodomonte and Mandricardo, followed soon after by Ruggiero and Marfisa, back to aid in the siege of Paris. Near the end of the poem, Malagigi has his book again, or a replacement, with which he summons demons to discover the whereabouts of Angelica for the sake of the enamored Rinaldo. Although Malagigi attempts to dissuade his cousin from following her, in this way he contributes once again to Rinaldo’s departure from the realm of his epic duty. Atlante uses a spell book in the episode of the steel palace. Instead of summoning demons with the book, he casts illusions to make himself appear to be a fierce and robust knight, and his weapons never strike where they appear to be. Thus he is able to imprison many knights, including the valorous Ruggiero and Gradasso. Because she is protected by the magic ring, Bradamante is able to defeat Atlante. It is almost as if it is the very association of spell books with failure that leads Ariosto to give one to Atlante, who had none in Boiardo’s poem. As soon as Atlante sets aside “il libro che facea tutta la guerra,” Bradamante captures him and forces him to free the prisoners in the steel palace. The loss of the book changes Atlante from a uomo feroce into un debol vecchio , helpless against her youthful vigor. Yet he is not completely helpless, for without his book he manages to escape almost immediately and to continue to block the plot for quite a while. Atlante’s book is not mentioned again, but he does not miss it at all. In fact, his later spells are far more seductive and difficult to escape. He becomes more effective without his book. When Melissa uses her spell book, the narrator seems at first unsure of the provenance of the spirits she has summoned (“non so se da l’inferno


81



o da qual sede”; OF 3.20; “whether summoned forth from hell or from some other place I know not”), but ends up calling them demons. Melissa employs them as actors in her illusionary pageant of Bradamante’s Estensi descendants. Having previously summoned and prepared the demons in their roles, Melissa starts the pageant by opening her book, presumably to keep better control of the demons, and she dismisses them by closing her book. Melissa is exceptional; her spells do not fail, nor do they promote chaos. A powerful force for order, Melissa bends all of her effor ts toward the convergence of certain characters, namely Bradamante and Ruggiero. Melissa has chosen a difficult task and suffers a number of setbacks before she achieves her goal; nevertheless, she is so capable and has such firm control of herself and her powers that her spells never backfire. Her success depends, however, more on her personality than on her spell book. For one thing, she is able to control the demons before she opens her book at the start of the pageant. Also, as in Atlante’s case, no further mention is made of Melissa’s book in all her later appearances, and her effectiveness is by no means reduced. Her later spells are more impressive and more important to the plot. Logistilla’s anti-magical book is one of her gifts to Astolfo in Canto 15. Ariosto, thoughtful of his adventurer, humorously acknowledges and evades the difficulties inherent in reading a book that contains counterspells to all dangerous magic by including an index in it for easy reference. Baillet finds that Ariosto’s general attempt to rationalize his material is supported by humor: C’est particulièrement vrai pour le livre anti-magie d’Astolphe, dans lequel chaque manifestation du surnaturel se trouve soigneusement classée, et donc soumise, en quelque sorte, aux lois d’une organisation rationnelle du monde. 52

Logistilla explicitly intends this book to help Astolfo avoid inescapable magical prisons: e per schivar che non sia più ridutto per arte maga, onde non possa uscire, un bello ed ut il libro gli avea dato ( OF 15.13) to prevent his falling victim to magic spells a second time, she gave him a fine, useful book

Not surprisingly, Astolfo finds in it the secrets to defeating Orrilo and destroying Atlante’s palace of illusions, both of which are important blocks to the advancement of the plot.

82




Magic books in the Furioso modify somewhat the pattern established in the Innamorato . Three of the spell books, belonging to the Christian sorcerers, retain the traditional connection with demons (which, like Boiardo, Ariosto does not take seriously 53). Three of them (excepting Melissa’s) promote chaotic effects. And three of them (again excepting Melissa’s) highlight the sorcerer’s failure. All four of these sorcerers employ demons at other points in the poem either without their books or without mention of their books; it would seem that, for Ariosto’s characters, the books are helpful tools but not indispensable. With Melissa, Ariosto allows for the possibility that an individual with exceptional self-discipline might actually master the unruly powers of magic. As in the Innamorato , Logistilla’s how-to book, in its anti-magical quality, promotes the orderly advancement of the plot.

Prophetic Works of Art One of the traditional topoi of the genre was the ”prophetic“ work of art which, while not itself magical, was connected to magic through the supposed prophetic knowledge of the artist. The medieval romance authors used such prophecies to bring a “soffio di attualità” to their works.54 That is, by discussing famous people of the poets’ era, these works of art serve to link the “history” of the poems with the “present” of the Renaissance. Thus the prophetic work of art is particularly well suited to the purpose of encomium, and both Boiardo and Ariosto take advantage of this possibility. Yet the two poets have quite different results, illuminating their different attitudes toward encomium. Boiardo makes only limited use of the technique, while Ariosto employs it fairly extensively, praising the Este but not neglecting famous foreigners. Unlike Boiardo’s depictions of Damocles, Circe, Alexander the Great, etc., where he uses works of art to portray the legendary past, in the Furioso ecphrastic passages are always encomiastic. Of Boiardo’s two prophetic works of art, the first is Febosilla’s loggia. The characters who observe this loggia are Brandimarte and Fiordelisa, after the knight has defeated the magical guardians to gain entrance. The two lovers admire the beauty of the loggia “vaga per oro e per color adorno.” The four walls show military and religious scenes of the glory of the Este family, making plain their multitude of virtues. W hile the identities of the Este lords would be perfectly clear to the Renaissance audience, Brandimarte and Fiordelisa are given no explication of the pictures beyond two inscriptions: the name of one Este lord and the unknown art ist’s lamentation of inability to do justice to the figure of Alfonso d’Este.


83



Moreover, as Brandimarte is gazing at the paintings, Doristella arrives and Come fo gionta, disse:—Che fai tu, Perdendo il tempo a tal cosa guardare, E non attende a quel che monta più? ( OI 2.25.57) “What are you doing here?” she asked, “Wasting time staring at that thing? Don’t you know what you have to do?

Zampese notes a Boiardan technique in encomiastic passages: “a siglare questi scomodi impegni cortigiani egli applichi un garbato correttivo ironico.”55 Regarding Febosilla’s balcony: La smaccata adulazione credo sia uno scherzo che il comes Boiardo può permettersi nei confronti del suo principe; tanto che subito lo corregge con un’apparentemente involontaria gaffe , nobilitata dal modello virgiliano 56

Ariosto is not on such easy terms with his Este lords; such open denigration of an encomiastic work of art would be inconceivable in the Furioso . Boiardo’s other prophetic work of art is the Cumaean Sybil’s pavilion, mentioned as a wedding gift to Brandimarte and Fiordelisa in OI 2.27.39 and described in OI 2.27.50–60. Through her foreknowledge, the Sybil was able to portray the twelve Alfonsos of the House of Aragon, linked by marriage to the Este. By chance the pavilion ends up in the hands of Dolistone, Fiordelisa’s father. Once again these pictures are not understood by the characters in the poem. This time Brandimarte does not even linger over them, but rushes off to his next battle. The Furioso contains four prophetic works of art: Merlin’s fountain with the sculpted scene about avarice, the paintings at the rocca di Tristano, the statues in the palace of art, and Cassandra’s canopy. These are not of course the only encomiastic passages in the poem; Melissa’s illusions in Merlin’s tomb form only one of the significant encomia not connected to a concrete work of art. Contemporary matters constitute a significant portion of the poem. 57 The amount of praise has prompted criticisms and defences from various readers. 58 The poet’s sincerity in these passages has also been challenged and defended. 59 The avarice fountain was created by Merlin, but not directly; in terms reflecting the Renaissance attitude toward art, we learn that he had the fountain sculpted by the “lavor divino” of “buoni artefici.” His motivations are unknown, both for its construction and its situation in nature, in a

84




meadow shaded by a mountain, just the spot for a pleasant picnic for Ruggiero, Marfisa, Ricciardetto, Aldigier, Malagigi, and Viviano. How might medieval knights comprehend this prophetic, allegorical scene? “In Ariosto, ecphrastic description is closely linked to the need for interpretation,” 60 and fortuitously there is an expert on hand. When Malagigi is prevailed upon to explain the scenes to the group, he uses predominantly indicative tenses; and when the narrator takes up the description he continues to use the indicative, implying that the ecphrasis is trustwor thy. The knights can easily become involved in the art, both at the surface level of slaying a monster and at the allegorical level of prizing liberality, a chivalric vir tue. Merlin also created the paintings at the rocca di Tristano, in order to fulfill the commission of the French king, but here he commanded the paintings done by demons. Unlike the locus amoenus of the avarice fountain, these paintings are housed in a castle, where the custom commemorates and perpetuates the discourtesy for which a jealous prince was punished. Depicting French battle s in Italy, they are explained by the lord of the castle to Bradamante and Ullania, along with the other inhabitants of the castle. His discourse also seems highly trustworthy; he employs mostly indicative tenses, including plentiful repetitions of “vedete,” which reinforce his narrative with the evidence of the characters’ senses. Even in the octaves about the generations-long oral tradition which preserved the understanding of the paintings, where doubt could creep in, all the indicative verbs give the impression of reliability. Oddly, the viewers, although for the most part French, do not react to all the scenes of defeat with displeasure; particularly Bradamante is so fascinated by the paintings that she delays her dinner, stays up late, and, most surprising of all, is distracted from her jealousy of Ruggiero. This could be because art’s purpose is to delight, so that an unhappy story told in a beautiful way does not disturb everyday life. 61 It is also possible that Bradamante sympathizes with the Italians on account of her Estensi descendants. The statues in the palace of the Mantuan knight were presumably created by the demons who built the palace itself at the bidding of the sorcerer who sought to keep his daughter chaste. In a fine display of injustice, the sorcerer blamed the child’s mother for accepting the money that he had offered, and put a great deal of effort into preventing his daughter from doing the same thing. The examples of virtuous women were intended to inspire (or shame) the girl to proper behavior, yet they were ineffective. Moreover, ironically, for ten years they become the scene of the trials of the magic goblet, all of which accuse women of infidelity. As Farrell has said so well, “The artistic creations are impressive aesthetically, none more so than the palace of art, but it is assigned negative


85



connotations of coldness, rigidity and sterility due to an excess of artifice.”62 This time the description of the art is pervaded with indications of doubtfulness. The artist was diligent and learned and the workmanship is subtle, as opposed to the divine work of the avarice fountain. The use of the subjunctive suggests that appearances may be deceiving: Fermava il piè ciascuno di quest i segni sopra due belle imagini più basse, che con la bocca aperta facean segni che ’l canto e l’armonia lor dilettasse; e quell’atto in che son, par che disegni che l’opra e studio lor tutto lodasse le belle donne che sugli omeri hanno, se fosser quei di cu’ in sembianza stanno. (OF 42.81) The feet of each one of these statues rested on a pair of beaut iful carved figures depicted open-mouthed, as though happily indulging in melodious song. Their appearance, as they sang, seemed to convey a total dedication to their task of praising the fair ladies poised upon t heir shoulders—they resembled their models to the life.

Do the poets enjoy praising their ladies? Do these statues accurately represent the people whom they portray? The ”lunghe ed amplissime scritture“ of the next octave could imply prolixity as well as enthusiasm. Too, Ariosto acknowledges that the poets do not labor thinking exclusively of the lady, but at least partly for their own fame: “mostravano ancor poco lontano / i propri loro [names] in note non oscure.” There is also the fact that only poets, who on St. John’s authority are suspect, hold up the elaborate structure of the fountain; and the fact that the narrator only quotes the inscriptions, detaching himself from what they say. 63 Of the four works of art, these statues elicit the least enthusiasm in the spectator. The knights desire to know the people in the scenes of the avarice fountain, and urge Malagigi to explain it. At first sight of the paintings in the rocca di Tristano Bradamante is captivated. But the Mantuan palace seems to leave Rinaldo cold: Entrò Rinaldo, e voltò gli occhi in giro, e vide loco il qual si vede raro ( OF 42.73) Mirò Rinaldo a lume di doppieri le donne ad una ad una e i cavallieri. ( OF 42.82) Rinaldo went in and looked about him. The place he saw was a n unusual sight Rinaldo examined the knights and ladies one by one by candlelight.

86




Rinaldo expresses no opinion of the art. The end of the ecphrasis finds him already chatting with his host; clearly he had lost interest even before the descriptive passage ended. Most venerable of all the works of art is Ruggiero and Bradamante’s wedding pavilion, woven almost two thousand years previously by Cassandra of Troy. The fact that she made it with her own hands as an affectionate gift for her brother to commemorate his greatest descendant, and that the newlyweds are related to them, give this creation the greatest personal appeal. Yet among all the wedding guests who view it, only Melissa and through her Bradamante fully understand its import. Hector’s descendant himself has only a little more knowledge of its relevance than the crowd, from youthful memories of Atlante’s words. The pavilion is viewed in the context of a joyous wedding party, a splendid expression of chivalric ideals as the world returns to a state of harmony after the resolution of the upsets of the war and Orlando’s madness. The praise of Ippolito d’Este links this golden moment of Charlemagne’s Paris with the Golden Age of Renaissance Ferrara. 64 While the canopy’s extravagant praise of Ippolito d’Este is subtly undermined, 65 this does not detract from the positive assessment of the pavilion itself. Fichter has called it a symbol of empire, in which love is an element for Ariosto.66 Ascoli sees Cassandra as a poet figure who “embodies the poet’s mute and resigned protest of his readers’ inability to hear and believe him.” 67 Farrell sees the pavilion as of far greater significance than the other works of art. In linking the historical past with the literary past and with the present, it is the ultimate reconciliation of history and fiction in the Furioso .68 Moreover: . . . it does more than this. It represents what is to my mind Ariosto’s ideal art form: lasting, yet not rigid like the marble structures, prophetic, yet human, capable of depicting many scenes at once, imitating action and speech, colorful, bright and gay. To adorn the happy conclusion of h is poem, Ariosto has chosen the opus which most nearly reflects the qualitie s of his own epic: its variety, color, movement and, in the end, its essential gaiety. And, of course, the embroidered canopy is closest in artistic form to the woven tapestry the poet has explicitly chosen as an image of his work. 69

We have seen that Boiardo’s encomia are much less elaborate than Ariosto’s, much briefer, and in the narrator’s view less significant. Their appearance late in the poem is indicative of an increasing classical influence on Boiardo, according to Reichenbach. 70 Larivaille explains Boiardo’s unexpected shift in emphasis from entertainment to encomium as a response to the “esigenze celebrative e propagandistiche della dinastia


87



estense.” 71 Structurally, the two works of art are bunched closely together, just before and just after the wedding of Brandimarte and Fiordelisa. It is notable that the works of art are associated with these two lovers, who are favored characters of the poet but who are not ancestors of the Este. They derive no benefit (beyond a brief aesthetic enjoyment) from their soon-interrupted viewings of the unexplained works of art; they do not even recognize that they depict the future. Within the world of the poem these works of art are among the unexplained phenomena which provide a short-term bella avventura without any apparent deeper purpose. Ariosto’s encomia cover a wider range of subjects than the Este family (who are certainly not deprived of praise). His method is more systematic. He provides pretexts for the creation of two of the works of art; Merlin made the paintings at the rocca di Tristano at the request of a former king of France, and Cassandra’s pavilion was a gift to please her brother. All four of the works of art are viewed by (supposed) blood relatives of the Este: Ruggiero and Bradamante, and his sister and her kin. They are admired at length and at leisure. The curiosity of (at least some of) the observers is satisfied by an expert. Only Rinaldo does not learn the particulars about the poets and their ladies, as he is at the time more anxious to learn about the magic goblet. Presumably, Ariosto’s intended audience would have shown more interest and pleasure in the encomiastic passages than does the lord of Montalbano.

Chapter Four

 Ariosto’s Supernatural Creatures

Animals and Monsters The supernatural creatures of the Furioso are less pervasive than those of the Innamorato , but no less important. In the first part of this chapter I discuss Ariosto’s supernatural horses, then the sea monster that menaces Ebuda, and lastly the allegorical monsters that Ruggiero encounters on Alcina’s island.

i. Horses In the Furioso there are only two supernatural horses, Baiardo and Rabicano, both inherited from Boiardo, and in addition that “natural” marvelous steed, the hippogriff. Magical qualities do not automatically give a horse superiority. More than once Ariosto claims that the two best horses are Baiardo and Brigliadoro, Orlando’s non-magical steed (e.g. OF 9.60 and 23.26). Along with Ruggiero’s non-magical Frontino, these four would win all of the horse shows in Charlemagne’s era. Beyond an excellent warhorse’s required characteristics of strength, agility, speed, and endurance, Baiardo’s special quality is his human-level intelligence. Chiampi finds Baiardo to be the only character in Canto 1 explicitly endowed with intelligence, memory, and the moral virtue of fidelity.1 On the other hand, Petersen points out that “proprio perché in possesso di ‘intellet to umano’ è indotto in errore.”2 In the first two cantos Baiardo is the cause of several humorous scenes as he outmaneuvers humans. The reader’s first view of Rinaldo in the poem finds him in the strange position of a horseman running on foot. His situation begins to seem ridiculous when we learn that he is chasing his horse, and even more so when he addresses Baiardo in the language of a pastoral lover: “Ferma, Baiardo mio, deh, ferma il piede! / che l’esser senza te troppo mi

90

Ariosto’s Supernatural Creatures



nuoce” (OF 1.32; “‘Stop, Bayard, oh stop! I cannot endure to be without you.’”). In fact, Baiardo is helpfully leading Rinaldo to his beloved Angelica. When Baiardo reaches Angelica, what ensues is practically a love scene between the horse and the princess, who ironically feels more benevolence toward him than toward all of her suitors: Indi [Baiardo] va mansueto alla donzella, con umile sembiante e ge sto umano, come intorno al padrone il can saltella, che sia duo giorni o tre stato lontano. Baiardo ancora avea memoria d’ella, ch’in Albracca il servia già di sua mano nel tempo che da lei tanto era amato Rinaldo, allor crudele, allor ingrato. Con la sinistra man prende la briglia, con l’altra tocca e palpa il collo e ’l petto: quel destrier, ch’avea ingegno a maraviglia, a lei, come un agnel, si fa suggetto. ( OF 1.75–76) Then he meekly approached the damsel; he was almost human in h is gesture of humility, like a dog da ncing around his master who has just returned after a few days’ absence. Bayard still remembered her, for she had tended him in Albracca in the days when she was so enamoured of Rinaldo, who was so cruel to her then, so unresponding to her love. / She took his reins in her left hand, and with the other hand she caressed his neck and chest. The horse, who was of remarkable intelligence, submitted to her as meekly as a lamb.

Once Rinaldo arrives, Ariosto gives us one of his excellent humorous scenes of frustration as Sacripante finds that an unwilling horse is worse than none: A piedi è l’un, l’altro a cavallo: or quale credete ch’abbia il Saracin vantaggio? Né ve n’ha però alcun; che così vale forse ancor men ch’uno inesperto paggio; che ’l destrier per istinto naturale non volea fare al suo signore oltraggio: né con man né con spron potea il Circasso farlo a voluntà sua muover mai passo. Quando crede cacciarlo, egli s’arresta; e se tener lo vuole, o corre o trotta: poi sotto il pet to si caccia la testa, giuoca di schiene, e mena calci in frotta. (OF 2.6–7)


91

 The one was on foot, the other mounted; what an advantage for t he Saracen, you will say. But no, he had none: mounted, he fared no better than some novice page, for the horse instinctively avoided doing any hurt to his master. With wrist and spur the Saracen might strive, but the steed would move not a step to his bidding. / When he wanted to urge him forward, the horse stood fast; if he would rein him in, he broke away at a trot or a canter; then he dropped his head and bucked violently, lashing out with his hind legs.

At the very beginning of the poem Baiardo, as an uncontrolled horse, has made fools of knightly lovers. Baiardo’s next extended adventure is in Cantos 31 and 33. Gradasso and Rinaldo have met to renew the duel which was prevented in the Innamorato . In the Furioso Rinaldo’s duels tend to be interrupted in full swing, and this one is no exception. As in his duels against Ferraù and Sacripante, the combatants cease fighting when the object of their desire disappears. Baiardo is chased away into the woods by a monster, a giant beaked bat. Unusually for Ariosto, with his guiding principles of coherence and verisimilitude even for fantastic events, 3 this monster never appeared before or after this one scene. Its presence remains substantially unexplained, as the narrator casts doubts on its nature: Forse era vero augel, ma non so dove o quando un altro ne sia stato tale. Non ho veduto mai, né letto altrove, fuor ch’in Turpin, d’un sì fatto animale: questo rispetto a credere mi muove, che l’augel fosse un diavolo infernale che Malagigi in quella forma trasse, acciò che la battaglia disturbasse. Rinaldo il credette anco, e gran parole e sconce poi con Malagigi n’ebbe. Egli già confessar non glielo vuole; e perché tor di colpa si vorrebbe, giura pel lume che dà lume al sole, che di questo imputato esser non debbe. (OF 33.85–86) It may have been a real bird, but I don’t know where or when there ever was another like it; I have never seen such a beast, nor ever read of one—except in the pages of Turpin. This leads me to believe that the bird was an infernal spirit raised in that shape by Maugis in order to interrupt the battle. / Rinaldo believed as much, and later gave Maugis a piece of his mind. His cousin, however, would not confess to it but, to clear himself, swore by the Light which light s the sun that this was not to be imputed to him.

92




This moment of uncertainty from the usually omniscient narrator and the reference to the supposed source, Turpin, point up the absolutely fictitious nature of the monster, and the complete control of the poet over his literary world. If the responsibility for this monster’s intervention truly were Malagigi’s, it would be an example of miscalculation, since Baiardo ends up in Gradasso’s hands. Ironically, Rinaldo, the paragon of prudence in the poem, now suffers a disadvantage owing to a fine example of prudent reasoning on Gradasso’s part; he will betray the pact he made with Rinaldo to bring the horse back to the site of their duel. Since Gradasso has already obtained Durindana, the acquisition of Baiardo fulfills his desires and he begins his homeward journey. Baiardo has been so affrighted by the monster that he does not resist Gradasso, and thus is h is steed during the battle at Lipadusa. There we learn that his loyalty is personal rather than religious, as he gives the king of Sericana an initial advantage against the Christian knights ( OF 41.69). The other supernatural horse is Boiardo’s creation, Rabicano. Magically conceived of fire and air, Rabicano needs no pasturage, for he survives on air alone. In the Furioso he carries Ruggiero briefly, then Astolfo and Bradamante. He does not have a large part in the poem, with his distinction as the fastest steed of all being taken over by the hippogriff. The hippogriff is so rich an invention that it has given rise to a variety of interpretations: to Marinelli it represents the flesh; 4 to Giamatti one’s intellective part. 5 Farrell, Wise, Hauvette, and Welles, 6 while using different terminology, all agree that it symbolizes the type of creative imagination used by the poet. This interpretation seems likeliest over the course of the poem, considering the hippogriff’s literary links to Pegasus, a symbol of poetic inspiration, and the rider’s overview of the world similar to that of the poet. Yet Ariosto’s allegories shift meanings; just as the magic ring does not always represent reason, when Ruggiero loses the hippogriff it seems to stand for libidinous passion. In any case the vital point is the rider’s (in)ability to control the winged steed. The hippogriff, in Ariosto’s characteristic fashion, is introduced not as the marvelous creature that it is, but in a tone that suggests it is unexceptional and normal.7 Pinabello relates: “e ritrovai presso a Rodonna armato / un che frenava un gran destriero alato” (OF 2.37; “and near Rodonna I came upon an armed man reining in a great winged steed”). Pinabello’s use of the verb “ritrovai” makes it sound as if this were a casual encounter.8 Next Pinabello characterizes Atlante as a thief, rather than as a sorcerer or as the knight with the remarkable steed, for instance. Struck


93



principally by the loss of his lady, Pinabello pays more attention to the hippogriff’s rider than to the flying horse itself. In the following similes, it is Atlante, not the hippogriff, who is compared to a falcon and a kite: come falcon che per ferir discende, cala e poggia in uno atimo, e tra v ia getta le mani, e lei smarrita prende. ... Così il rapace nibio furar suole il misero pulcin presso alla chioccia, che di sua inavvertenza poi si duole, e invan gli grida, e invan dietro gli croccia. Io non posso seguir un uom che vole . . . (OF 2.38–39; emphasis mine) like a falcon dropping on his prey he was down and away in an instant, reaching out and grasping her as he went. . . . Thus the rapacious kite will carry off a luckless chick from its mother’s side, and she too late laments her inattention, and in vain runs crying and clucking after it. I could not pursue a man on the wing . . .

Atlante is portrayed here as a man who flies; Pinabello has barely noticed the hippogriff, although one would expect a multi-colored winged steed to be eye-catching. In his account of the battle with Gradasso and Ruggiero, Pinabello continue s to attribute the power of flight to the rider rather than to the steed: “ad alto il negromante batte l’ale” ( OF 2.49; “to such a height did the magician wing his way”). This insistence on the actions of the rider make plain his mastery of the hippogriff; it is just an extension of his will. Soon the reader will be able to contrast Ruggiero’s complete inability to control the winged steed. The “grido di meraviglia” at such an exceptional sight is postponed until the hippogriff’s second appearance: Ecco all’orecchie un gran rumor lor viene. Disse la donna:—O gloriosa Madre, o Re del ciel, che cosa sarà questa?— E dove era il rumor si trovò presta. E vede l’oste e tut ta la famiglia, e chi a finestre e chi fuor ne la via, tener levati al ciel gli occhi e le ciglia, come l’ecclisse o la cometa sia.9 Vede la donna un’alta maraviglia, che di leggier creduta non saria:

94


 vede passar un gran destriero alato, che porta in aria un cavalliero armato. Grandi eran l’ale e di color diverso, e vi sedea nel mezzo un cavalliero, di ferro armato luminoso e terso; e vêr ponente avea dritto il sentiero. ( OF 4.3–5) Suddenly a great din reached their ears. ‘Glorious Mother!’ cried the damsel, ‘God in Heaven, what can this be?’ And where the noise was, there, in a moment, was she. / Here she found the innkeeper with all his family and many others at their windows and yet more out in the street, all looking up at the sky as though there were a comet or eclipse. She witnessed a prodigious sight, one which would not be readily believed: a great winged horse was passing through the sky, with an armed man mounted upon him. / Broad were his wings and of unusual hue; and between them sat a horseman clad in bright polished armour. He was holding his course straight to the Westward . . .

“Il tono emotivo subentra quando il fatto ‘meraviglioso’ avviene per la seconda volta, perché il fatto sovrannaturale è già naturalizzato e normalizzato dalla frequenza e dall’uso.” 10 Since the amazement of Bradamante and the other onlookers is undistracted by any recent kidnapping, they are able to give more of a description of the fliers. They see what one would expect to see from afar: not only that the steed has wings, but that the wings are large and colorful; and that the knight’s armor shines in the sun. The full description of the hippogriff must wait until Bradamante gets close to it during the battle: Non è finto il destrier, ma naturale, ch’una giumenta generò d’un grifo: simile al padre avea la piuma e l’ale, li piedi anteriori, il capo e i l grifo; in tutte l’altre membra parea quale era la madre, e chiamasi ippogrifo ( OF 4.18) The horse was no figment—he was real, begotten by a gryphon out of a mare. He had his father’s wings and feathers, his forefeet, his head and beak; in al l else he took after his mother. He was known as a hippogr yph

Various critics have remarked on how the narrator’s insistence here on the naturalness of the hippogriff actually emphasizes its completely fictitious nature.11 Just like the knights and ladies, the loves and battles and adventures, it is an artistic creation of the poet. Yet within the world of the poem it is more lasting than Atlante’s illusions to which it is here being compared.


95



After the steel palace vanishes, the hippogriff carries off Ruggiero, which recalls a Boiardan precedent. In the same way, the flying horse had carried off Rugiero’s companion Gradasso in the Riviera del Riso episode (OI 3.7.24–28). Gradasso, not realizing the trap, was so charmed by the horse’s beauty and its rich harness that he jumped on. After a frightening ride, he was dumped into the river and, enchanted, joined the Naiads’ party. Brandimarte, following Fiordelisa’s instructions, rescued the prisoners there by placing on their heads circular crowns of flowers and herbs that Fiordelisa “già composti avea per arte / . . . / Per liberar de incanti ogni persona” ( OI 3.7.33; “Earlier, with her skill, she’d made / . . . / To free them from that magic”). And Così la fatason fu manifesta Subitamente a tutti quattro loro; E le dame lasciarno e ogni dilet to, Uscendo fuor del fiume a lor dispetto. ( OI 3.7.35) And the spell was made manifest Instantly to all four of them. They left those damsels, those delights, And that stream which they now despised.

There are numerous parallels here with the situation in the Furioso , though Ariosto elaborates the adventure at much greater length. Ruggiero too falls into Atlante’s trap by mounting the hippogriff, which is still under the sorcerer’s control. Ariosto adds the telling details of the general chase of the hippogriff by all the released knights, and the hippogriff’s tantalizing of them by fleeing only so far. Although Ruggiero hides it well, he too finds the ride frightening ( OF 6.17). Soon he falls under Alcina’s spell and joins the fay’s revels. He is rescued by a sorceress who places the magic ring on his finger, immediately annulling the spell. He too leaves against the will of his partner in the revels, Alcina. Control of the hippogriff is the vital consideration. Th is point is brought up in the relation of the hippogriff’s capture: [Atlante] Quivi per forza lo tirò d’incanto; e poi che l’ebbe, ad altro non attese , e con studio e fatica operò tanto , ch’a sella e briglia il cavalcò in un mese: così ch’in terra e in aria e in ogni canto lo facea volteggiar senza contese . (OF 4.19; emphasis mine)

96


 Thence he [Atlante] abducted him by virtue of spells and, once possessed of him, devoted all his attention, all his skill and care to such effect that within a month he could ride him like a saddle-horse: he could make him wheel and turn obediently wherever he was, be it on the ground or in the air.

Even though Atlante has easily summoned the hippogriff by magic, he must still go through the arduous process of mastering it. Ruggiero made the mistake of thinking that capturing the hippogriff meant that he could control it; the reader learns that instead of obeying the one who holds its reins, it obeys the one who learns to ride it. When Ruggiero is preparing to escape from Alcina, Melissa takes care to advise him to ride Rabicano instead of the hippogriff because it is “troppo sfrenato.” E gli diede intenzion che ’l dì seguente gli lo trarrebbe fuor di quello stato, là dove ad agio poi sarebbe istrutto come frenarlo e farlo gir per tutto. (OF 7.78) And she gave him to hope that the next day she would take out the hippogr yph and help Ruggiero to learn little by little how to control him and make him go anywhere.

Already Melissa tells him that the first lesson must be to restrain the hippogriff, and only then to direct its flight. The school of course is Logistilla’s palace, where, in contrast to Ruggiero’s wearisome progress, Melissa and Astolfo fly directly and easily. Melissa has no difficult y controlling the hippogriff, and Astolfo is privileged to take the fast and easy route with her. Logistilla attempts to teach Ruggiero how to control the hippogriff. The first thing to do is to make a new bit for him: Logistilla “vuol che se gli faccia un morso” ( OF 10.66; “orders the construction of a bit”12). The self-disciplined Melissa was able to use the physical bit made by Atlante, but Ruggiero needs a new one, i.e. since mastery of the h ippogriff is selfmastery, he needs to learn the necessary discipline. Yet the verb here is both passive and subjunctive, leaving the questions: Who makes the bit? Ruggiero, Logistilla, or someone else? Implying that Ruggiero did not make his own bit, the poet is already laying the foundations for Ruggiero’s later failure. (It is not until much later that the reader learns for certain who made the bit: “Logistilla fe’ il lavoro / del freno”; OF 22.24; “Logistilla had subsequently elaborated a bridle for this beast”). Does the bit actually get made to specifications? Very soon, by the end of the same canto, we learn that Ruggiero’s control over himself is only superficial. The speed


97



with which Ruggiero learns to control the hippogriff is also suspect; it took Atlante himself close to a month to master the steed. In confirmation of Ruggiero’s loss of self-control with Angelica, the reader sees that his control over the hippogriff is no greater, as it immediately slips its bit and flies away. Ruggiero has been a poor student. The hippogriff returns to Atlante, the one who had truly mastered it, and is found by Astolfo after the destruction of the palace of illusions. Astolfo “ben vide e notò” during Ruggiero’s lessons, so well in fact that he is able to make a bit for the flying steed. This is actually a creative act, since he knows that not just any bit will do: e gli fece, levando da più morsi una cosa ed un’altra, un che lo resse; che dei destrier ch’in fuga erano corsi, quivi attaccate eran le briglie spesse. ( OF 22.28) he contrived, out of a number of bridles, one that would control him: t he sturdy bridles of the horses which had fled were hung up there.

Having learned Logistilla’s lessons well, he stays in control of the hippogriff for the rest of the poem. The hippogriff is connected symbolically to the poet’s wide-ranging vision from above and to his creative imagination. The ones who truly master the hippogriff are creative; Atlante raises two palaces and a tomb, and Astolfo turns stones and branches into horses and ships. Atlante, however, limits his vision to what affects Ruggiero. Astolfo is the one who travels the farthest and highest, and sees the most on the hippogriff, most nearly sharing the omniscient poet’s panoramic view. Ruggiero had ambitions regarding the opportunities for vision. On leaving Logistilla’s palace, he had decided to circle the world as the sun does. This was a very bold plan, the accomplishment of which would have made Ruggiero similar to the divine. 13 However, the voyage is subtly undercut from the beginning. Supposedly, Ruggiero wishes wholeheartedly to return to Europe and Bradamante—but this desire is overcome by the pleasure of traveling the world ( OF 10.72). In fact, despite the hippogriff’s great speed ( OF 6.18), he spends “giorni e mesi in questa via” (OF 10.73; “Days and months went by”). It is clear that he is not truly in a hurry to see his betrothed, and that this voyage is one of his many deferrals of his destined marriage. Is it nevertheless a spiritual voyage of discovery? The poet makes certain to point out that “ogni sera all’albergo se ne gìa, / schivando a suo poter d’alloggiar male” ( OF 10.73; “every

98




evening he put up at some hostelry, avoiding poor accommodation as best he could”). It seems that Ruggiero’s attitude is more that of a tourist than of an explorer. 14 Indeed, having come so far and seen so much, when there remains only a brief distance to complete the solar circle, Ruggiero abandons his so-much-desired voyage in order to take Angelica to the nearest trysting place ( OF 10.113). The nature of the hippogriff’s bit gives insight into Ariosto’s conception of artistic creativity. Logistilla thinks of it as one “con che [Ruggiero] lo volga e gli raffreni il corso” ( OF 10.66; “wherewith Ruggiero could turn him in flight and rein him in”). Astolfo makes one “che lo resse” ( OF 22.28). Thus it is easy to set the hippogriff in motion; the difficulty lies in directing its course, slowing or stopping it at will. In the same way the poet must manage his creative impulses, directing characters and events in their interactions. Ariosto must have felt the onrush of his poem, the urge to make it go on indefinitely; and with firm self-control he brought the adventures to an end, the poem to a close, and released the hippogriff to fly free.15 Horses in general and the hippogriff in particular are chaotic forces when unleashed. Baiardo makes fools of knights, the hippogriff takes Ruggiero far from his destiny, Doralice’s horse leads Rodomonte and Mandricardo to the support of Agramante. Yet when properly bridled and controlled, they are absolutely necessary to the chivalric order. A cavalier is defined by his possession of a horse.

ii. The Sea Monster One of the marine flock of Proteus, the sea monster carries out the god’s prolonged revenge on the people of Ebuda. As Giamatti has written, in the Furioso Proteus is a lawbreaker whose actions lead to a collapse of law and society on Ebuda such that the Ebudans themselves degenerate from civilization to barbarism. 16 The sea monster comes to represent the criminal lust that led Proteus to rape the daughter of the king of Ebuda. The execution of the god’s blameless victim results in the perpetual reenactment of this crime as the sea monster consumes beautiful women through the years. Embracing their punishment by instituting an unjust law of their own, the islanders cooperate in the breakdown of their own society and threaten other societies as they resort to piracy to find sacrifices for the sea monster. These offenses against civilization eventually lead to their own destruction by the victims of their piracy. The sea monster is practically a force of nature, with all the power of the ocean, which for Ariosto is so often unpredictable and dangerous.


99



The monster’s first appearance strongly contrasts with the statuesque, artistic and immobile beauty of Angelica chained to the rock. Four times it is called measureless ( OF 10.94, 100, 109; 11.44), a key word to the Renaissance admirers of proportion and balance. It is also wild ( OF 10.102) and formless: Altro non so che s’assimigli a questa, ch’una gran massa che s’aggiri e torca; né forma ha d’animal, se non la testa ( OF 10.101) a beast I can only describe as a great coiling, twisting mass, quite unlike an animal in shape, except for its head

It is so huge and powerful that it can set the elements in confusion, making the sky like the ocean (OF 10.106). Against Orlando the sea monster appears as an extension of the ocean: Ma muggiar [Orlando] sente in questo la marina, ... gonfiansi l’onde; ed ecco il mostro appare, che sotto il pet to ha quasi ascoso il mare. (OF 11.34) Now it was that he heard the sea groan, . . . the waves swelled up and forth emerged the monster, breasting half the sea.

The poet chooses a verb (“muggiar”) applicable to an animal or to the sea itself; the monster is as yet indistinguishable from its element. In the moment the monster appears, it has already hidden the sea beneath it—the result is that the swelling waves seem to metamorphose directly into the huge monster. The magic shield allows Ruggiero to rescue the princess, rendering the monster insensible. Yet even when it is helpless, he is unable to slay it because he is unable to control his own lust for Angelica. His weakness for feminine beauty leads him to the madness of repeating Proteus’s crime. Obsessed with Angelica, Orlando has no sexual interest in Olimpia, and so is able to win a decisive victory. He plans his strategy in advance, and remains self-possessed (“in sé raccolto” OF 11.35) while he carries it out. Against the menacing and chaotic power of the sea monster, Orlando employs opposing symbols of stability and order, useful for mastering the waves: a dinghy, a hawser, and an anchor.17 The death of the sea monster is accompanied by the destruction of the barbaric society that had fostered it and a final happy marriage, supportive of societal values, for the wayward Olimpia.

100




iii. Allegorical Monsters Soon after Ruggiero’s arrival on Alcina’s island, he encounters a crowd of monsters that block his path toward Logistilla. They represent vices which he must overcome to reach the realm of virtue. The monsters are: monkey-headed (flatterers); cat-headed (deceivers); goat-footed fauns (libidinous); centaurs (violent); impudent youths; old fools; nude, strangely-dressed riders of galloping horses (sinners from excess) or oxen (sinners from lack) or centaurs (ministers of violence) or ostriches (cowards) or eagles or cranes (prideful); those with a horn (braggarts) or a cup (gluttons); females; males; hermaphrodites (sinners against nature); those who carry criminals’ tools (swindlers and thieves); their captain (Sloth); 18 and a cynocephalus (slanderer).19 It seems unlikely that Ariosto means to suggest that Ruggiero possesses these vices, even though he is unable to defeat them. The young knight is simply unable to prevail against their overwhelming numbers. The two ladies who arrive mounted on unicorns (a symbol of purity) 20 are identified, but only tentatively, by the narrator: “tal saria / Beltà, s’avesse corpo, e Leggiadria” (OF 6.69; “They could have passed for Beauty (had she a body) and Grace”). Although the monsters’ symbolism seems straightforward, here the process of allegorization becomes doubtful. With the use of the conditional, the poet suggests that these are not truly Beauty and Gracefulness—an identification that would be problematic, considering the Neoplatonic link between beauty and good—while these ladies have more sinister intentions. Lulling his suspicions, they request that he fight the giantess Erifilla (Avarice), the mother and leader of the monstrous vices, who rides a huge wolf (Greed). Ruggiero recognizes her as Avarice when he proclaims: la cagion ch’io vesto piastra e maglia, non è per guadagnar ter ra né argento, ma sol per farne beneficio altrui ( OF 6.80) if I wear plastron and coat of mail, it is not to win myself land or silver, but simply to serve and prosper others

Despite his correct interpretation of Erifilla’s nature, he lets the two ladies’ beauty deceive him. They prevent him from killing Erifilla, and lead him off to Alcina. The final solution to Avarice must await the valorous nobles of the Cinquecento, as we learn in the episode of the fountain of Avarice (OF 26.30–53).


101



The harpies perform their traditional task of starving a king, but now at the command of God: Classical monsters in a Christian setting. Their punishment of il Senapo serves to introduce Astolfo’s religious adventures, in preparation for his divine mission to cure Orlando. The mood cannot remain solemn for too long; Astolfo is able to drive away these divine agents in a comical manner, with the magic horn. They lead him to Hell, and, after his brief visit, he blocks up the entrance with a hedge of sticks so that the harpies will be unable to exit—at least until God sends them again in the form of the foreign invaders of Renaissance Italy, forse to punish Italian sins (OF 34.1–3).

Villains In contrast to Boiardo’s fabulous world, the Furioso contains a paucity of supernatural villains waiting to pounce on unsuspecting characters and provide adventures for valiant knights. In contrast to Boiardo’s omnipresent giants, the Furioso’s minor giants are reduced to one allegorical, one pagan, and one historical: Erifilla/Avarice (OF 6.78); Marbalusto the king of Oran, who is not even a full giant (“quasi era gigante,” OF 14.17; “esser gigante accenna,” OF 14.108); and an anonymous giant defeated by Tristan (OF 32.84). The three villains with extended episodes— Caligorante, Orrilo, and the blind ogre—were all inherited from Boiardo. Yet Ariosto makes them his own, treating them in a fashion different from Boiardo’s. With Caligorante Ariosto had the freest hand, for this villain appeared in the Innamorato only as a nameless giant captured by an unknown knight (OI 3.3.21). Ariosto creates Caligorante to oppose Astolfo not long after the knight’s disembarkation in the Middle East. The fortunate paladin receives a detailed warning about Caligorante from a traveling hermit. In a bloody prefiguring of Rodomonte’s more chivalric trophies (OF 29.34), the cannibalistic giant decorates his house with human skins to commemorate his more valorous victims. Yet he does not meet them in battle, but customarily hides a net in the sand and “con tai gridi i peregrin minaccia, / che spaventati dentro ve li caccia” ( OF 15.44; “He threatens travellers with such yells that he drives them terrified onto the net”). Forewarned as to Caligorante’s habitual strategy, Astolfo can prepare to counter it. In an ironic reversal, it is the giant who is so terrified by the sound of the magic horn that he runs into his own net. While Caligorante belongs to the world of fables, Ariosto does not let the occasion pass to make a Classical reference. The net, the narrator relates, has a long and illustrious history since its fabrication by Vulcan. In

102




a passage showing scant veneration of the Olympians, we learn that it was designed for the humiliation of gods, stolen by Mercury and long treasured in an Egyptian temple, until it was stolen again and reduced to Caligorante’s bloody purposes. Both here and when Proteus and the other marine deities fled from Orlando, Ariosto shows his mastery over the Greek gods; “the gods [are] his slaves—rhetorical figures which he has pulled from his bag of literary tricks.” 21 Astolfo leaves the net in better hands but in no more reverent a fashion; he gives it to Sansonetto, along with Caligorante, in exchange for a sword belt and spurs that may have belonged to St. George. Astolfo is all set to kill Caligorante when he reflects on the ingloriousness of the deed. Realizing that Caligorante, “ch’era tornato uman più che donzella” (OF 15.60; “the giant had become gentler than a maiden”), could be useful, he decides not to waste his great strength and instead makes him a servant. Not that he incautiously trusts the giant’s apparent reversal; he maintains the prudent precaution of having him guarded at night (OF 15.77). This reasoning is characteristic of Astolfo’s pragmatic approach to his magical equipment; in contrast to Ruggiero’s scruples, the English knight uses whatever tool will serve his purpose. Free, the giant was an enemy of civilization and promoter of disorder, but with his dangerous ferocity muted by the fear of death, his great strength ends up serving law and order. Orilo was introduced in the Innamorato 22 specifically to block the advancement of the plot. That is, the white and black fays hoped to prevent or at least delay the fated deaths of their protégés, Grifone and Aquilante, much as Atlante desired for Ruggiero. Fighting the unkillable Orilo, the two knights reached an impasse that held them safely in limbo from the third canto of the third book of the Innamorato all the way to Canto 15 of the Furioso —in other words, for one day. Ariosto adds to the presentation of Orrilo the suggestion that, rather than simply sending the knights against an opportune opponent, the fays may actually control the villain: . . . a lla rocca Orril fece ritorno, poi ch’alla bianca e alla sorella bruna piacque di differir l’aspra battaglia ( OF 15.74) Orrilo retired to his lair—for the white fair y and her sister in black were pleased to defer the grim battle


103



The fays provide pleasant hospitalit y to the three knights, who agree that Astolfo may undertake the battle alone the following day. Thanks to Logistilla’s book, Astolfo knows Orrilo’s secret weakness: severing a certain one of his hairs will kill him. Acting as an agent of Providence, Astolfo is able promptly to remove the obstacle to the plot provided by Orrilo. The disgruntled fays are unable to prevent Grifone and Aquilante from deciding to return immediately to France, the site of their fated and imminent deaths ( OF 15.91). Yet the brothers themselves now take up the deferral of their destiny, as in the very next octave the three knights decide to take a roundabout route, where their course will be diverted by Orrigille for a time. The blind ogre of the Furioso is significantly changed from that of the Innamorato . In his study of this monster, Baldan notes that Ariosto makes significant changes in the ogre’s physical appearance—including an enlarged nose, the elimination of the throat-crop, and the replacement of horizontal bulk with greater height—as one sign of his ideological differences from the earlier author. 23 Furthermore, in his retelling of Lucina’s adventure, Ariosto, primarily concerned with bringing the ogre closer to the Classical Polyphemus, makes such changes to the plot that it can hardly be called the same episode. In the Innamorato Lucina alone is captured, and the ogre lives alone and eats only human flesh. In Ariosto’s version of the tale an entire shipful of people are captured with Lucina, the more cultured ogre is married and keeps women captives, and he herds sheep for when there are no people around to eat. 24 The previously absent Norandino emerges to take the spotlight as a Ulyssean hero. Permeated with Classical references, the relation of the tale of Norandino’s adventures takes place amid the festive atmosphere of Damascus, which strongly contrasts with the concurrent battle of Paris. The happy reunion of the devoted lovers, Norandino and Lucina, also contrasts with the illfated love of Grifone for the treacherous Orrigille. All three of these villains are in varying degrees harmful to and contemptuous of human society, as witnessed by the common thread of cannibalism. Caligorante is the farthest-removed, both literally and figuratively, from society. He lives in uninhabited lands in a “solitaria casa [. . .] / d’umanitade e di commercio priva” ( OF 15.49; “the lone house, a place devoid of humanity or normal human commerce”), flaunting his grisly decorations, and interested in people only as prey. While he ends up serving society, it is in the lowly position of a beast of burden.

Chapter Five

 Ariosto’s Practitioners of Magic

Fays The fays of the Furioso are not numerous, but two of them are vitally important. Following the Boiardan example of Morgana/Ventura, Ariosto allegorizes Alcina and Logistilla to further the education of Ruggiero. My third section deals with the fays who have minor roles in the poem: the black and white fays, and Manto.

i. Alcina Although the Alcina-Logistilla episode contains the most extensive passage of traditional allegory in the Furioso , it is discontinuous and unstable. Ariosto presents the characters of the sequence “as clear and distinct conventional symbols, and then he proceeds to blur the outlines so that allegorical meaning emerges obliquely and problematically.” 1 In her most obvious allegorical significance Alcina represents lust and, like her literary predecessors Circe, 2 Omphale, and Dido, the triumph of passion over reason; like them she entices the hero from his glorious active life to inglorious and hedonistic self-indulgence. Yet in the presence of Alcina herself, the allegory fades into the background and the fay’s seduction of Ruggiero seems wholly natural while her use of spells is temporarily forgotten. The poet himself briefly indulges in the pleasure of the moment with his description of the fay’s well-proportioned beauty. In the end Alcina’s paradise turns out to be false, but this does not cancel out the idyllic memory of it. Various critics have shown how the process of Ruggiero’s seduction begins well before his meeting with Alcina, from the moment he arrives on the island.3 When Ruggiero arrives no place could seem pleasanter or safer than Alcina’s realm, a great relief from his fearsome, three-thou-

106

Ariosto’s Practitioners of Magic



sand-mile non-stop ride on the hippogriff. On this beautiful island the most timid of wild animals are unafraid: Tra le purpuree rose e i bianchi gigli, che tiepida aura freschi ognora serba, sicuri si vedean lepri e conigli, e cervi con la fronte alta e superba, senza temer ch’alcun gli uccida o pigli, pascano o stiansi rominando l’erba; saltano i daini e i capri isnelli e destri, che sono in copia in quei luoghi campestri. (OF 6.22) Hares and rabbits were to be espied hopping among the deep-red roses and white lilie s which a temperate breeze kept ever fresh; and deer, holding high their splendid heads, roamed about, stooping to crop the grass, quite unafraid that any might slay or capture them. Fawns and nimble goats skipped deftly—many was their number in these rustic parts.

Later we learn that this peacefulness is deceptive, because in fact the animals are hunted as one of the courtly pastimes of Alcina’s subjects. However the tranquil atmosphere has its effect, for Ruggiero comes to share their sense of security, and their vulnerability, as he removes his armor. His peaceful mood is interrupted by a myrtle tree’s unexpected speech. Ruggiero is, naturally, astonished to learn that the English knight Astolfo has been transformed into a tree. As an allegorical episode, Ruggiero’s adventures on the island ought to teach him something, and Astolfo is the first of his three teachers. Astolfo’s lesson is, according to Giamatti, an ironic sense of life, that is, the self-regarding vision necessary to survive. 4 In other words, Ruggiero should be on guard against people who would use fraud or deception against him. Astolfo warns Ruggiero about Alcina’s customs, including her practice of deception. The English knight relates the specifics of his own capture by Alcina; how she lured him away from his friends onto the whale “con allegra faccia / con modi graziosi e riverenti” (OF 6.39; “With a cheerful smile she came to meet us, and showed easy courtesy”), how in the period of their love she seemed “sì bella e sì cortese” (OF 6.46), and the ignominious end of his ascendancy with his concurrent discovery of the truth. From this narration Ruggiero should learn that the evil and ugly may seem to be good and beautiful, and therefore one must look for the truth beneath the surface. Yet, as Astolfo expects, this detailed warning ends up unavailing and disregarded. Furthermore, Ruggiero is even more vulnerable to Alcina after this admonition. 5


107



Why is Ruggiero so apt to delay his destined marriage to Bradamante, which is so desirable from the points of view of love, duty, and glory? I believe the answer is that he knows enough about his destiny to be willing to put it off. From the Innamorato and the Furioso it is clear that Ruggiero knows the outlines of his fate; that he will die of treachery as a Christian (OI 2.16.35 and 41; 2.21.53–55; OF 36.64). Boiardo’s Rugiero willingly accepts this tragic destiny as inevitable, choosing glory over a long life (OI .16.36–37). Ariosto’s Ruggiero also places honor before the lesser consideration of his life—at least, he believes so. In actuality, his hidden sense of self-preservation motivates him to delay his conversion and death as long as he can rationalize his actions as honorable. Thus, even when Atlante ceases to try to protect him, Ruggiero himself continues to delay until the threat of drowning gives him impetus to convert. If Ruggiero can convince himself that honor demands he break his own solemn vow to abandon the treacherous Agramante ( OF 40.64–68), then how much easier it is to let himself be deceived and fall into the sensual at tractions of Alcina, so lovingly described by Astolfo. Leaving Astolfo, Ruggiero sets out in his half-hearted attempt to reach Logistilla’s domain, ostensibly “disposto e fermo usar ogni opra, / che non gli avesse imperio Alcina sopra” ( OF 6.57; “he was firmly disposed to do whatever was necessary to avoid falling into Alcina’s power”). Yet when he is hard pressed by Alcina’s monstrous border guards, he still refuses to use the magic shield for fear of dishonor. He is at the point of preferring to die rather than be captured by “sì vil gente” when he is taken, unaware and without a struggle, by the two beautiful women. The ugly border guards, symbols of vices, were what he could expect as servants of evil, but the beautiful women with their unicorns symbolic of purity deceive him. He trusts them to be as good as they are beautiful, even though they take him directly to Alcina’s city, where he had refused to go at the border guards’ bidding. As McLucas puts it, “Ruggiero fails to reflect that his gentle helpers have rescued him from their own army, and are thus no better than the vile band; rather, he responds in knightly fashion to their appea l . . .”6 Here Ruggiero shows the same willingness to be deceived by outward appearances as he did when he (and the fallible narrator) took the walls of the city to be gold, despite Astolfo’s warning to look beneath the surface. Ruggiero’s subsequent battle against Erifilla is merely another deception, leading him to believe he has accomplished a chivalric service for Alcina which can win her gratitude and benevolence. When Ruggiero finally meets Alcina, the use of allegory fades into the background and the fay appears as a character rather than as a per sonifi-

108




cation of a vice. Nor is her use of spells stressed. It is only after Ruggiero has marveled at her physical beauty for six octaves of description that magic is mentioned: La bella donna che cotanto amava, novellamente gli è dal cor partita; che per incanto Alcina gli lo lava d’ogni antica amorosa sua ferita; e di sé sola e del suo amor lo grava, e in quello essa riman sola sculpita; sì che scusar il buon Ruggier si deve, se si mostrò quivi incostante e lieve. ( OF 7.18) Intensely though he loved fair Bradamant, she was here and now wre sted from his heart, for by magic Alcina erased all trace of the pangs with which up til l now his soul was smitten. She alone became the unique burden of h is love, she alone was now engraved upon his heart. Good Ruggiero must be forgiven, then, for this show of inconstancy.

Even here, Ariosto’s lexical choice of “incanto” simultaneously de-emphasizes magic while making it explicit. Enchantment can be used to describe an effect dependent not on magical ability but on personal charm, as in the exordium of Canto 8. Ruggiero’s allurement is accomplished in terms of a straightforward sensual seduction. Or, as Momigliano put it, “il fascino è—insomma—più umano che sovrannaturale.”7 It is only when the helpful sorceress Melissa seeks to disillusion Ruggiero that Alcina’s spells come to the foreground. Even so Melissa is able to begin the process of eroding Alcina’s influence with merely a stern lecture. Just before Melissa comes to the island, the reader learns that Alcina’s love has been magically induced by Atlante ( OF 7.44). Consequently, the danger of which Astolfo warned, Alcina’s fickleness, evaporates; the fay will never tire of Ruggiero and will never transform him into something less than human. It now seems that Ruggiero’s idyllic existence could last his whole life long. Yet the description of Ruggiero as Melissa finds him shows that there is a cost to this paradise, and that Alcina has already transformed him into less than he was. Or in other words, he has taken the opportunity provided by Alcina to turn himself into a beast. 8 Lust is seen as its own punishment, depriving the hero of the initiative necessary to attain eternal glory. 9 Seen with the magic ring, Alcina is suddenly metamorphosed into an ugliness as exceptional as was her illusionary beauty, an ugliness more befitting her allegorical significance as vice. Yet even when her evil has


109



been recognized she continues to be seen as a person more than a moral figure. Ariosto makes certain to mention her pain and desperation at the departure of her beloved Ruggiero. Her magically-induced love drives her even to the extent of leaving her stronghold unguarded to pursue him. Befitting a real woman scorned, her motivations for pursuing Ruggiero are love and vengeance for her wounded pride ( OF 10.48–49). The narrator even sympathizes with her for three octaves in her defeat and despairing wish for death ( OF 10.54–56), until his abrupt change of tone to callous disregard. There are indications from the beginning that Alcina’s paradise is false. Even leaving out Astolfo’s explicit warning, the narrator presents Alcina’s realm in such a way as to leave doubts about its reality. There is the famous case of the golden walls of her city: Lontan si vide una muraglia lunga che gira intorno, e gran paese serra; e par che la sua altezza al ciel s’aggiunga, e d’oro sia da l’alta cima a terra. Alcun dal mio parer qui si dilunga, e dice ch’ell’è alchìmia: e forse ch’erra; ed anco forse meglio di me intende: a me par oro, poi che sì risplende. ( OF 6.59) Off in the distance stood a wall which curved away, embracing a vast stretch of land; it was so high, its top seemed to merge with t he heavens, and it looked as if it were solid gold from summit to foot. (There are some who par t company with me here and maintain that it is an effect of alchemy; they may know better than I, but, again, they may be quite mistaken. To me it looks like gold, the way it gleams.)

In this episode concerned with the difference between essence and appearance, this octave is filled with indications of doubtfulness: three forms of parere , two verbs in the subjunctive, and the mention of other possibilities. This is not the voice of the omniscient narrator, but the fallible narrator’s echo of Ruggiero’s conclusion. The view of the palace from up close elicits the following remark: “O vero o falso ch’all’occhio risponda, / non è cosa più bella o più gioconda” ( OF 6.71; “Whether they presented a true or false image to the eye, there was nothing like them for grace and felicity”). Once again the accent is on the surface appearance and leaves strong doubts about the reality of the objects (and, in fact, Alcina’s works vanish like illusions when Melissa destroys the fay’s images, seals, knots, rhombs and spirals).

110




Ruggiero willingly participates in his deception out of the same desire for illusion manifested by the prisoners of Atlante’s steel castle who regretted their freedom from it. He allows himself to be led to Alcina despite being warned, and when he meets Alcina he joins in creating his own illusion of a virtuous Alcina maligned by the envious Astolfo. But eventually Melissa points out to him that in this paradise of guiltless pleasure there can be no accomplishment s, no progress. In Donato’s words, “Alcina represents desire’s fixation upon a singular object and its incapacity to detach itself from it; essentially it is a moment of stasis.” 10 Or in Giamatti’s words, “a life based on illusion . . . is . . . a futile and empty existence.””1 Yet even Melissa’s reprimand and the revelation of Alcina’s true form cannot cancel out the dreamlike pleasure of the time spent with her, when she fulfilled all of her lover’s desires. Astolfo himself, who has gained such great wisdom from his hard experience with Alcina, thinks of the period of his favor as a good time (“perché l’avuto ben vo rimembrando”; OF 6.49; “Why must I recollect the good that was”). Rejected and reviled, defeated, powerless, despairing—nevertheless Alcina cannot die. Ariosto knows that desires are an ineradicable part of being human. 12

ii. Logistilla After a struggle and with help, Ruggiero eventually reaches the realm of Alcina’s half sister, Logistilla, the rightful ruler of the island. The good fay of reason and virtue acts in the Furioso for a much briefer and less memorable time than her illegitimate, usurping half sister. Much less developed as a character than Alcina, Logistilla’s allegorical import takes precedence over her characterization. She is described only morally, not physically; the reader’s image of her is more abstract than concrete. The reader first learns of her as the rightful ruler of the whole island, whose kingdom has been usurped by her evil half sisters Alcina and Morgana. This division of the island enacts the internal division of the individual, with the passions running wild and practically driving out the reasoning faculty.13 The evil sisters have already captured more than one hundred of her castles and she remains beset, much as the narrator occasionally gives the impression of his own embattled sanity. The virtuous Logistilla’s realm of reason is superior to Alcina’s domain. Alcina’s works based on magical trickery can be dispelled easily and without leaving a trace, but Logistilla’s garden is the result of hard work, which is more durable. Alcina, who blinds people to the truth, has walls that seem to be gold, while Logistilla’s gemmed walls are more valuable


111



than if they were diamonds, because they provide the clear vision of selfknowledge. Alcina’s eternal springtime was illusionary (“par ch’ognor rida il grazioso aprile”; OF 6.74; “soft April, presenting a serene and merry face, seemed constantly to smile”), while Logistilla’s is real ( OF 10.63). Yet there are indications that Logistilla’s answer is not the definitive solution to human problems either. Alcina’s garden is full of people, lascivious women and courtiers, but though the beauty of Logistilla’s gardens is praised, no one is portrayed enjoying it. The pleasures of the good fay’s gardens seem to be solitary ones. Logistilla can truly stop the seasons in a lasting way, but it is still not natural: ma quivi era perpetua la verdura, perpetua la beltà de’ fiori eterni: non che benignità de la Natura sì temperatamente li governi; ma Logistilla con suo studio e cura, senza bisogno de’ moti superni (quel che agli altri impossibile parea), sua primavera ognor ferma tenea. ( OF 10.63) Here, though, every thing remained verdant green; the flowers bloomed in perpetual radiance, not through any beneficent working of Nature, but through t he studious care of Logistilla: w ith no need to depend upon the climate (impossible though this would seem to anyone else), she maintained perennial spring in her garden.

Not only the restriction of the natural change of seasons but the fact that they are hanging gardens removes them from the sphere of the natural. A perpetual springtime is not possible in real life, and such trees and flowers as she cultivates do not grow elsewhere than in her gardens. Here reason controls nature and the result is beautiful, but not so beautiful that the knights wish to remain. Logistilla’s lessons are not religious, but secular; it is the cardinal virtues who live in her realm, not the theological ones. Her le ssons are selfknowledge, revealed by the gems in the walls, and self-restraint, exemplified by bridling the hippogriff. Yet the study and care, the constant hard work that she must devote to her gardens contrasts with her expeditious teaching of Ruggiero, who apparently masters the hippogriff/himself very quickly and easily, only to fail as soon as he returns to Europe. The love of Logistilla/virtue is supposed to result in the contentment of every desire at the mere sight of her, but very soon, within a few days, all the knights wish to leave. They were glad to stay with Alcina until she tired of them,

112




but they find Logistilla’s realm less desirable than their old homes. It seems likely that, as Welles suggests, the mirrored walls make them uncomfortable by constantly reminding them of their shortcomings. 14 In Ariosto’s view, people are not ready for a life of reason and self-control, not to work toward it and not even to accept it when it is offered to them. Such absolute control and lack of spontaneity is not appropriate to humans, who need quests and challenges and passions to make life worthwhile; Alcina cannot die. The knights find it far easier to depart from the self-restrained rule of reason than from unrestrained self-indulgence. Logistilla’s most lasting effect through the course of the poem is the result of her influence on Astolfo. The English knight is her best student, retaining a contemplative detachment 15 that serves him well, freeing him until the Cinque canti from the passions that distract everyone else. It is due to her teachings that he is able eventually to ride the hippogriff to the terrestrial paradise. Moreover, his use of her magical gifts brings her back to mind periodically. Through Astolfo, Logistilla contributes to the eventual triumph of the forces of good. Alcina is a proponent of disorder, favoring passion over reason, distracting knights from their duties, and hindering progress toward the poet’s desired outcome. Logistilla is definitely a creature of order and as such supports the advancement of the plot both by returning the knights to the real world and through her magical gifts to Astolfo. Nevertheless it is clear that for Ariosto reason and order are not perfectly synonymous with good. It is possible to have too much of a good thing. While reason ought to be in control, the passions also have their place and make life worthwhile.

iii. Minor Fays Like Atlante, the white and black fays have knowledge of the future and compassion for certain knights, specifically Grifone and Aquilante. Since the two knights’ birth, the white fay has protected Grifone and the black fay has protected Aquilante. In order to prevent their protégés’ return to France, where they are fated to die, the fays initiate the battle against Orrilo, “con speme di tenerli tanto a bada, / che la trista influenza se ne vada” (OF 15.89; “in the hope of delaying them here long enough to avoid the pernicious effects”). However, they are less powerful and persistent than Atlante. When the agent of destiny, Astolfo, kills Orrilo, they are unable to do anything but regret the failure of their plan. The last fay of the Furioso appears in the judge’s tale in Canto 43. In Manto Ariosto links the Classical world with the world of romance. Taking advantage of the association of fays with serpents, 16 Ariosto turns the


113



Theban seeress and supposed founder of Mantova into a fay by recalling her descent from the dragon’s teeth sown by Cadmus. It is because of his own descent from the dragon’s teeth that Adonio protects the fay in serpentine form from the villano . Seven years later his courteous deed is rewarded, as out of considerations of both kinship and gratitude Manto aids Adonio’s amorous pursuit of Argia. The adultery that Manto promotes would seem to be an element of social disorder, but the fay thereafter saves Argia’s life and helps her reattain marital harmony: Manto’s reciprocity seems par t of a larger system than cour tly duty and reward: although she aids and abets adultery, she does so not out of injured vanity and spite, like Melissa, but out of a tenacious sense of gratitude. Her assistance final ly works in favor of the marriage-bond, while mo difying its strictly patriarchal structure.17

The end result is a stable marriage: “Così a pace e concordia ritornaro, / e sempre poi fu l’uno all’altro caro” ( OF 43.143; “So they reverted to peace and harmony and cherished each other ever after”).

Sorcerers Sorcerers, like the other characters, vary in their abilities and intentions. They range from charlatans like Alfeo to major magicians like Atlante, from a lascivious hermit to those dedicated to furthering God’s will (Merlin and Melissa). Although Renaissance Hermetic thought would attribute a higher level of existence to the magus, along with h is mastery of nature, the human sorcerers of the Furioso are by no means essentially superior to other human beings. Indeed most of the sorcerers employ demons, the type of magic condemned by Ficino and Pico; however this does not depend on which side they support, and has little relevance to their moral state. Malagigi and Melissa are on the right side, God and the poet’s side, notwithstanding their use of “black” magic. Sorcerers remain all too human and fallible, and in general are not more successful in their plans than knights and ladies. My first section concerns Atlante and his struggle to protect Ruggiero. Then I discuss Merlin and Melissa, the two promoters of the fateful union of Ruggiero and Bradamante, followed by the minor sorcerers.

i. Atlante As we learned in the Innamorato , Atlante raised Ruggiero, loves him, and wants for him both his glorious destiny and, unfortunately incompatible, a long life. Ariosto gives full play to Atlante’s conflicting desires,

114




maintaining him as a sympathetic and very human character, substantially true to Boiardo’s precedent. At various places the poet reiterates much of the Boiardan background of Atlante’s drama. The sorcerer had always wanted Ruggiero to have the glory that his magical foreknowledge predicted. He provided the child Ruggiero with rigorous physical training to prepare him for his future glorious martial deeds. During her impersonation of Atlante, Melissa recalls some details of this training from the Innamorato : Di medolle già d’orsi e di leoni ti porsi io dunque li primi alimenti; t’ho per caverne ed orridi burroni fanciullo avezzo a strangolar serpenti, pantere e tigri disarmar d’ungioni ed a vivi cingial trar spesso i denti ( OF 7.57) Early I fed you on the marrow of bears and lions; I accustomed you as a child to strangle snakes in grottoes and wild ravines, to disarm the clawing panthers and tigers and draw the tusks off live boars

Deepening the characterization of the sorcerer, Ariosto adds a personal admiration for feats of arms ( OF 4.22), absent from Boiardo’s Atalante. Since the time of Ruggiero’s childhood Atlante also foresaw the wondrousness of Ruggiero’s descendants among the Este. Besides the disguised Melissa’s impassioned speech in Canto 7, we know this from Ruggiero’s memories of his tutor: . . . g li torna a mente che fra i nipoti suoi gli solea Atlante commendar questo Ippolito sovente. ( OF 46.99) he still recalled how frequently Atlas had commended this Hippoly tus among his descendants.

Nevertheless, when Ruggiero is grown and the time has come for him to achieve his destiny, Atlante’s paternal affection causes him to oppose the goals for which he had prepared Ruggiero. The sticking point is solely Ruggiero’s early death. Ariosto focuses Atlante’s attention on this personal aspect of the tragedy, leaving aside Africa’s loss of the knight’s progeny, which had been of additional concern to Boiardo’s Atalante. Atlante’s struggles to avert Ruggiero’s fate are understandable, but misguided. He is so blinded by superchio amore that he comes to value the merely physical good above the spiritual. He sacrifices considerations


115



of honor and virtue in a futile attempt to protect Ruggiero from inevitable death, ignoring the fact that a life without risk or spiritual values is incomplete. Yet his own early teachings stressing honor and accomplishment win in the end. Incidents of absolute good or evil are few in Ariosto’s poem. Atlante’s magical traps are blind alleys or dead ends that delay the rightful progression of the plot; nevertheless, they are not completely negative. Many of the characters trapped in them prefer them to the outside world. In the steel palace Atlante takes care to provide his captives with every pleasure except freedom. When the castle vanishes, the poet suggests that only the women prisoners regret their newfound liberty: Le donne e i cavallier si trovar fuora de le superbe stanze alla campagna: e furon di lor molte a chi ne dolse; che tal franchezza un gran piacer lor tolse. (OF 4.39; emphasis mine) The knights and ladies; some of these ( I mean The ladies) from superb apartments to The countryside transferred, in no small measure Were disappointed by such loss of pleasure.18

The Alcina episode, however, shows that men share this human weakness of a desire for a paradise of escape from duty. Even Astolfo, who has learned better and despises the fay, remembers his time with Alcina as being good. The palace of illusions is an even more powerful and subtle trap. It is no longer a pleasant experience, but one “con passione e con fatica molta, / ma temperata pur d’alta speranza” ( OF 12.16; “in desperation but with hope renewed”). Unlike the steel palace, inescapable to anyone lacking the power of flight, and Alcina’s realm, where the fay and her guards restrained her subjects, the prisoners can walk out the door of the palace of illusions any time they choose. It is the hope of acquiring the object of their desire that keeps them running around in their futile chase. Seeking to protect Ruggiero from the personal chaos of death, Atlante first creates in the steel palace a trap that seems like a bastion of order and culture in the midst of a hostile universe: Sei giorni me n’andai matina e sera per balze e per pendici orride e strane, dove non via, dove sentier non era,

116


 dove né segno di vestigie umane; poi giunse in una valle inculta e fiera, di ripe cinta e spaventose tane, che nel mezzo s’un sasso avea un castello forte e ben posto, a maraviglia bello. ( OF 2.41) ‘For six days I travelled, morning and evening, amid weird jagged crags and outcrops, with never a beaten path nor any sign of human traces. T hen I came to a stark, grim valley hemmed in with cliffs and horrid caves and in the middle, on a rock, there rose a mighty castle, well seated and of remarkable beauty.

Outside the steel palace are many dangers and frightful sights which the castle’s strength and inaccessible location keep at bay. Inside, the inhabitants spend their time on civilized and courtly pursuits, such as music, games, fine food, and clothing. This haven of culture, however, turns out to be quite fragile, vanishing into nothingness with the victory of the harsh outside world. The prisoners are released, gladly or unwillingly, back into the chaos of real life. Atlante’s second snare, Alcina’s realm, once again has the trappings of chivalric order, but chaotic elements have crept in. Alcina rules queenlike over her obedient subjects, amid general prosperity, with everyone pursuing courtly activities like dancing, games, merrymaking, singing, hawking, hunting, and courtship. It is the excess of this last, counter to the tenets of courtly love, which has caused a breakdown in morality and manners, causing the lascive donzelle to seem less beautiful than they could be. The destruction of this realm is more difficult, since Melissa must break many spells while Alcina is distracted by Ruggiero’s flight, but no less complete. With his most powerful trap, the palace of illusions, Atlante creates a reflection of the chaos of life. The entrapped knights endlessly follow the circular motion of the quests that they had followed outside. 19 Their eternally frustrated search is inescapable because they are propelled by the hope of attaining their dearest desire. As in life, they cannot forsake the quest because they cannot forsake the desire which is so much a part of life. Despite Melissa’s warning, Bradamante cannot deny her emotions in order to kill the illusionary Ruggiero or even to realize that she is caught in an enchantment. Yet even this citadel cannot endure forever against the pressure of reality and the poet’s will. Appropriately enough, Astolfo, Fortune’s favorite, arrives at the castle as the result of a fortuna at sea. Only Astolfo, who has most nearly escaped from passions, can see clearly enough to recognize the trap and resolve this dilemma. Making use of that other basic human emotion, fear, Astolfo clears the palace and at his leisure reduces it to smoke and fog.


117



This third defeat leads to Atlante’s death in despair from heartbreak. Although he gives up his struggle and surrenders to the inevitability of fate, he neither regrets his past actions nor stops caring for Ruggiero. The sorcerer’s ghost attributes his final surrender to Ruggiero’s desire to attain his glorious destiny (“né ostare al fin potendo alla tua voglia”; OF 36.64; “unable in the end to oppose your will”). He finally accepts Ruggiero’s decision and abandons his own futile quest, realizing that his own desire is unattainable. Speaking from his tomb, his words are as truthful and as helpful as those of Merlin. Finally Atlante comes to serve the will of Providence, setting the stage for Marfisa’s conversion and ending Bradamante’s jealous madness so that she will reconcile with Ruggiero.

ii. Merlin and Melissa The Arthurian sorcerer Merlin appears only briefly in the Furioso , but his presence is felt again and again due to his influence on Melissa and to his remaining works of art. All that remains of Merlin in Charlemagne’s day is a living spirit and a living voice, speaking from his tomb. He is a poet figure; Ariosto may well have expected and desired to achieve this sor t of immortality, wherein his voice still puts forth his message long after his body has died. Merlin has an element of the chaotic in his background (in the form of his demon father), but he subordinates his powers to the will of God, seeking to promote the divine order. His prophetic knowledge prepares him and Melissa when the voler divino sends Bradamante to his cave for the revelation of God’s plan and help in fulfilling it. Merlin gives Bradamante information about the future and encouragement to help Ruggiero, but leaves the practical advice to Melissa. Neither alive nor dead, Merlin is unable to act during the poem, but in the past he was an important creator. Furthermore, his creations are not the easily-dispelled constructions of most sorcerers, but are durable works of art that last through centuries. His fountain of disamore is still there to cure Rinaldo’s madness in Canto 42. The fountain of avarice and the paintings at the Rocca di Tristano, through Merlin’s prophetic ability, serve to link the poem’s story with history. Merlin’s most powerful influence on the actions of the poem is through his agent Melissa. Being alive, she is still capable of acting and also of making mistakes. Melissa has been characterized as a passionless figure interested only in duty.20 It is true that she is not passionate about a lover, a horse, a magical item, or any of the usual objects of desire. However, the encouragement of Ruggiero and Bradamante’s marriage is not a dut y

118




imposed on her, but a project she freely undertakes. Since she is not obligated in any way to help the lovers, she must feel strongly about the matter in order to devote so much time and effort to it. In fact, . . . avea sommo desire che Bradamante con Ruggier di stretto nodo s’avesse in matrimonio a unire ( OF 46.20) Melissa . . . was most anxious to see Bradamant and Ruggiero united in the bonds of matrimony.

Melissa has fallen in love not with an individual but with the glory of the Estensi. When she learned about them from Merlin’s predictions, she changed her own plans in order to meet Bradamante, and she persists in her new project when she realizes how much help the two will need. She has been prudent enough (or fortunate enough) to desire an event decreed by God and the poet, and so she emerges as the most successful sorcerer of the poem. Melissa is very goal-directed. She gives her constant attention to the lovers’ affairs: . . . que lla maga che sempre vicino tenuto a Bradamante avea il pensiero ( OF 7.38) . . . d’ ambi il bene e il male avea sì a petto, che d’ora in ora ne volea sentire. Per questo spirti avea sempre per via, che, quando andava l’un, l’altro venìa. ( OF 46.20) the enchantress who had ever followed Bradamant in her thoughts She was so concerned with the fortunes of both that she wanted hourly news of them; therefore she always kept in touch with them by means of spirit-messengers: as one spirit returned another was dispatched.

Melissa is not only willing to use deceit or fraude , but is firmly convinced of its necessity in some cases. In this, she acts in accordance with the pronouncements of Ariosto, given in the magnificent exordium of Canto 4: Quantunque il simular sia le più volte ripreso, e dia di mala mente indici, si truova pur in molte cose e molte aver fatti evidenti benefici,


119

 e danni e biasmi e mort i aver già tolte; che non conversiam sempre con gli amici in questa assai più oscura che serena vita mortal, tutta d’invidia piena. ( OF 4.1) DECEIT is normally held in low esteem, pointing as it does to an evi l disposition; there are, nonetheless, countless instances when it has reaped obvious benefits and deflected all manner of harm and ill report and mortal perils. For our conversation is not always with friends in this earthly life, dogged as it is by envy, and compounded of shadow far more than of light.

Deceit is an important survival skill in the world of the Furioso and Melissa tries to teach it to Bradamante and Ruggiero. Melissa is ruthless in the pursuit of her goal. In her own period of amorous madness she was willing to break up the Mantuan knight’s happy marriage for her own selfish desires, and twice she urges Bradamante to kill. It seems clear that this is not such a desirable characteristic, however, since the noble Bradamante refuses to learn this lesson. She spares Brunello’s and Atlante’s lives at the steel palace out of considerations of honor and mercy, and is understandably unable to strike the image of her beloved Ruggiero. Since Melissa is so focused on her goal, she tends to emphasize the eventual good and discount the cost of achieving it. She advises Bradamante regarding the Estensi conspirators: “Statti col dolce in bocca, e non ti doglia / ch’amareggiare al fin non te la voglia” ( OF 3.62; “leave with a sweet taste in your mouth, and do not complain if I refuse to turn it to bitterness”). This quotation applies also to her most important omission: she passes over the fact that Ruggiero will die young after fulfilling his destiny.21 While her reticence may seem (and be) an indication of cold calculation, it is less a matter of deliberate deception and more that she concentrates on the sweet instead of the bitter. Moreover, in the end her omission does not matter; the lovers are not left unaware of the situation. Ruggiero knew and accepted his fate in the Innamorato , while Bradamante learns of it from Atlante at the steel palace. Since both of them continue on their chosen course, both must believe that the goal is worth the price. In an extension of her willingness to use dubious means toward her ends, Melissa employs demons, showing that it is possible to harness evil in the service of good (as Astolfo also does with Caligorante). Whether she directs demons in a pageant, or rides them as steeds, or sends them to fetch a family heirloom, Melissa remains in complete control (unlike Malagigi) so that they cannot counteract her wishes. She brings these creatures of chaos and evil into line with the divine order.

120




Despite Melissa’s self control and calculating nature, she is not immune to the gentler emotions. While she probably looks back on her love for the Mantuan knight as an error, she feels affection for Bradamante (“non senza alquanto lagrimare, / si dipartì l’una da l’altra donna”; OF 3.75; “the two women took leave of each other, not without tears”). She truly desires what she considers to be best for Ruggiero: a virtuous, honorable, and glorious mortal life, and the immortality provided by fame and descendants. Melissa is human and fallible. During her period of amorous madness she let her passions lead her from the path of reason and righteousness, but learned better thereafter. She is not necessarily the most powerful of sorcerers. For instance, she needs the ring in order to break Alcina’s spells. Nor does she confront Alcina or Atlante in a straightforward test of power; rather, she undermines their enchantments at their weak points. Her foresight is not perfect. She promises to bring Ruggiero back from Alcina’s island to Bradamante in only a few days, when in the end Ruggiero takes months to return to Europe. And she is mistaken when she warns that Bradamante will remain forever without Ruggiero if she fails to slay the illusion of him. She does not allow for the fact that God has more agents than just herself. Yet she accomplishes a great deal. It is due to her advice that Bradamante is able to destroy the steel palace. It is her actions alone that break Alcina’s power, that interrupt the potentially disastrous duel between Ruggiero and Rinaldo, and that save Ruggiero from suicidal despair. After many setbacks, Melissa is the only sorcerer to achieve her goal, because she chose a goal desired by both God and Ariosto.

iii. Minor Sorcerers Malagigi may be on the side of the angels, but he is certainly one of the more fallible characters in the Furioso , as he was in the Innamorato . The first reference to him in the poem ( OF 11.4) recalls his defeat by Angelica at the start of the Innamorato . At his first appearance he and his brother Viviano are in need of rescue from their pagan captors. At this point readers of the Innamorato will remember that the two got into this fix because Malagise had believed his horde of demons could prevail against the knightly virtù of Rodamonte and Feraguto. In the Furioso , Malagigi’s attempts to help the Christian forces are still plagued by failure and uncertainty. The best known example is that of Doralice’s horse in Canto 26. Under pressure Malagigi succeeds in pro-


121



tecting his cousin Ricciardetto from Rodomonte by sending a demon to drive off Doralice’s horse. Unfortunately, the sorcerer’s lack of forethought allows the treacherous demon to turn the situation to the disadvantage of the Christians, leading to a defeat in bat tle for Charlemagne. Later, when Rinaldo leads reinforcements, including Malagigi, to Charlemagne, the indefinite “alcun” and the prevalence of the subjunctive show that Malagigi’s helpful participation is doubtful: Istima alcun che Malagigi parte ne la vittoria avesse de la notte; non che di sangue le campagne sparte fosser per lui, né per lui teste rotte: ma che gl’infernali angeli per arte facesse uscir da le tartaree grotte, e con tante bandiere e tante lance, ch’insieme più non ne porrian due France; e che facesse udir tanti metalli, tanti tamburi e tanti varii suoni, tanti anitriri in voce di cavalli, tanti gridi e tumulti di pedoni, che risonare e piani e monti e valli dovean de le longique regioni: ed ai Mori con questo un timor diede, che li fece voltare in fuga il piede. (OF 31.86–87) It has been suggested that Maugis had a share in that night’s victory, not that he sprinkled the land with blood or smashed any skulls, but that by magic spells he coaxed the infernal angels from the caverns of hell, with so many lances and banners that two Frances could not have assembled so many; / and that he provoked such an uproar of trumpets and drums and assorted noises, such wh innying of horses, such cries and clamour of footsoldiers that the plains, mountains, and valleys must have re-echoed for miles around. With this he gave the Moors such a fright that he routed them.

Certainly one need not look as far as a supernatural explanation for the frightening vision of banners, lances, and enemy soldiers, and the confused uproar; one would expect these factors in a surprise night attack. Moreover the pagans’ flight had already been explained in much more definite terms: Non fu sì ardito tra il popul pagano, a cui non s’arricciassero le chiome, quando sentì Rinaldo e Montalbano

122


 sonar per l’aria, il formidato nome. Fugge col campo d’Africa l’ispano, né perde tempo a caricar le some; ch’aspettar quella furia più non vuole, ch’aver provata anco si piagne e duole. ( OF 31.54) Not one in the pagan host was so brave that his hair did not stand on end when he heard the grim watchwords ‘Rinaldo’ and ‘Montauban’ ring out. Africans and Spaniards turned tail without stopping to load their baggage: still smarting from having earlier sampled his fury, they were in no hurr y to renew the experience.

Sometimes Malagigi’s activities are purely a matter of speculation. When Rinaldo’s duel with Gradasso is interrupted by a flying monster, the only explanation the paladin can think of is to blame Malagigi—who firmly denies his involvement. Yet earlier Malagigi had felt the desire to interfere: E più degli altri il frate di Viviano stava di questa pugna in dubbio e in tema, ed anco volentier vi porria mano per farla rimaner d’effetto scema: ma non vorria che quel da Montalbano seco venisse a inimicizia e strema; ch’anco avea di quell’altra seco sdegno, che gli turbò, quando il levò sul legno. (OF 31.108) Who was more anxious and dubious than any of them about this combat was Maugis; gladly would he have interfered to make it miscarry, but he did not want to antagonize Rinaldo any furt her—he had still not forgiven him for breaking up the earlier fight by spiriting him onto the boat.

The reader’s suspicions remain unanswered. Rinaldo also attributes his rescue from Jealousy by Disdain to Malagigi’s intervention. Once again Malagigi’s responsibility is possible, since the sorcerer had tried to dissuade Rinaldo from his love for Angelica; Malagigi’s spells might summon or simulate the effects of Disdain, and lead Rinaldo to the fountain of disamore . But Malagigi’s participation is unconfirmed, and, moreover, unlikely; Malagigi has never before demonstrated this sort of psychological subtlety. Ariosto is not satisfied to make all of Malagigi’s magical efforts problematic; he even allows the sorcerer to display his lack of knightly prowess. Not surprisingly, these are occasions of some humor at his expense. Mandricardo defeats Malagigi with humiliating ease when the sorcerer imprudently seeks to joust with him:


123

 Vien Malagigi, e ponsi in aventura di vendicare il suo fratello avaccio; ma poi d’andargli appresso ebbe tal fretta, che gli fe’ compagnia più che vendetta. ( OF 26.74) Up came Maugis, now, to wreak prompt vengeance for h is brother, but he was so hasty in his closing that he afforded Vivian company sooner than revenge.

Nor does Malagigi learn from this experience, for later he is eager to joust with Guidon Selvaggio, and is saved from another defeat only by Rinaldo’s impatience. Boiardo had been slightly kinder to Malagise, not giving him foolish pretensions of knightly skill at arms, and his humiliating capture by Angelica at least did not occur in public. Malagigi’s only privileged moments are encomiastic. Unlike Boiardo, Ariosto endows Malagigi with magical foreknowledge in order to explain Merlin’s fountain of avarice in Canto 26, and to glorify Ferrara when Rinaldo passes through the site in Canto 43. Yet even in these two passages Malagigi’s privilege is not absolute. Malagigi did not create the fountain, only share his expert knowledge. The Ferrara passage is very brief, and Malagigi is present only in memory. His magical knowledge can also have a dispersive effect, as when his information leads Rinaldo away from France in search of Angelica. Malagigi’s heart is in the right place, but his ineffectiveness makes him as often harmful as helpful to his own side. His lack of care allows the demon to lead Doralice’s horse to the benefit of the pagans, and he directs Rinaldo toward Cathay when the paladin is still needed in Europe. If Malagigi sent the winged monster in Canto 33, then it is another mistake and he is responsible for Gradasso’s acquisition of Baiardo and thus this pagan’s initial advantage at Lipadusa. Malagigi does not contribute to the orderly advance of the plot. Another minor sorcerer is the hermit, or rather the cauto negromante , who encounters Angelica in the second canto. He gives an initial impression of trustworthiness. The poet emphasizes this appearance, first when Angelica meets him, and later, with more comic effect, when the pirates discover them: [Angelica] scontrò un erem it a . . . ... devoto e venerabile d’aspetto . ... e parea, più ch’alcun fosse mai stato, di coscienza scrupulosa e schiva. ( OF 2.12–13)

124


 e di quante mai fur belle e leggiadre [the pirates] trovaro il fiore in braccio al santo padre . (OF 8.61; emphases mine) [Angelica] came upon a hermit . . . he looked devout and venerable. . . . he looked a man of the tenderest, most delicate conscience. So they [the pirates] came upon this, the flower of feminine beauty and grace, lying clasped in the venerable father’s arms.

As so often in the Furioso appearances are deceiving. Fortunately for Angelica, there are some things that not even magic can accomplish. Although the hermit’s magic allows him to kidnap her and put her to sleep, he remains impotent to rape her. When the hermit summoned a demon to mislead Rinaldo and Sacripante, it was clear that he was not one of the righteous. The sorcerers Melissa and Malagigi can freely employ demons for the sake of Christianity, but interaction with infernal spirits is inappropriate for a religious Christian hermit. To a certain extent, this hermit contributes to the chaotic dispersal of characters at the beginning of the poem. His demon sends Rinaldo and Sacripante on a wild goose chase, and he takes Angelica to where she will be kidnapped by the pirates of Ebuda. This dispersive effect is somewhat mitigated, by chance, because the demon directs Rinaldo back to Paris, where Charlemagne will assign him the important mission of fetching reinforcements from England. Other minor sorcerers show the danger of “magical” knowledge. The so-called necromancer who rediscovered guns has caused tremendous suffering and tragedy and is assigned a place in hell by the poet. Either through error or because he is a fraud to start with, Alfeo’s astrology fails him, predicting a peaceful death for him rather than the one Cloridano gives him. The astrologer consulted by Anselmo in the judge’s tale has accurate information, but contributes nothing beyond a preliminary and unnecessary confirmation of Anselmo’s suspicions; Anselmo would not have acted any differently without the astrologer’s knowledge.

Miracle-Workers Miracles are different in concept from magic in that they are the result of the direct intervention of God in human affairs. Religious miracles are characteristic of the Carolingian epic cycle as opposed to the magic of sorcerers and supernatural creatures typical of the Arthurian cycle. Yet in the world of the Furioso miracles are not always privileged over enchant-


125



ment. Indeed “[m]iracles are treated in the same spirit as magic.” 22 The workers of miracles, favored by the grace of God, remain human and imperfect—even the archangel Michael; and, in this case, even the miracles are less a cause for wonderment and faith than doubt and skepticism. From a discussion of Michael and the personifications, I proceed to study the saintly hermit who converts Ruggiero, and the chapter concludes with St. John’s teachings to Astolfo on the moon.

i. Michael et al. The Michael episode begins when God Himself, in response to the prayers of Carlo and the Parisians, is portrayed giving the orders for the first set of miracles to the archangel. The Bontà ineffabile is treated with dignified language, but along with the angels is anthropomorphized 23 into a courtly image. This heavenly sovereign and His courtiers lack any mystical transcendence. As soon as the focus shifts from God to Michael, Ariosto’s restraint from humor begins to relax. The angel has not even left God’s side when he is disrespectfully termed “il benedetto augel” ( OF 14.77). During his descent to earth the reader learns that omniscient God could have better prepared the confused angel by telling him Silence’s location. Michael’s naiveté is revealed when he seeks Silence in the cloister. The verses “Ma da la opinion sua ritrovosse / tosto ingannato” ( OF 14.80; “he had only to land in the cloister to be cured of his delusion”) recall that constant of the world of the Furioso : “ecco il giudicio uman come spesso erra!” By this test the angel is as human as any of the knights in the forest. The passage may have started out as the miraculous intervention of God, but at this point the already ironic treatment of Michael gives way to fullfledged anti-clerical satire. Michael’s further appearances continue to show him in an ironic and unfavorable light, as he overconfidently relaxes his vigilance until the Christians are defeated in battle in Canto 27 against God’s stated intentions. The comparison of Michael with a forgetful servant who rushes to repair the damages before the master should notice, and his undignified beating of Discord, show even more blatantly the fallibility of the supposedly supernatural angel. Michael’s ineffectiveness casts doubts back on God, who chose him for this mission. 24 The personifications with whom Michael deals, Discord, Fraud, and Silence, remain abstractions and have been criticized as frozen, 25 although Ariosto attempts to render them more concrete by giving details of their

126




physical appearance.26 This lifelessness results partly from the constant contrast of the abstract personifications with the verisimilar emotions and motivations of the human characters. As De Sanctis notes, despite the apparatus of supernatural forces, everything in the Furioso admits of a natural explanation.27 Discord’s first project in Canto 18 shows the superfluity of the personifications; the quarrel between Rodomonte and Mandricardo had already been prepared, and would have developed quite naturally without the intervention of the personifications. As the quarrels multiply in the same natural fashion at the fountain of avarice, the reader has plenty of time to forget about Discord’s supposed participation; the poet’s after-the-fact reminder of her influence does nothing but highlight her artificiality. Likewise, the return of Discord in Canto 27 coincides with the aftermath of the pagan victory, which the disputants had previously agreed would signal the end of their truces. Thus in this episode the supernatural powers of both angels and personifications are shown to be anything but miraculous. It is all Michael can do to accomplish what seemed to be a simple task, and the God who sent him does not have Ariosto’s omnipotence in the world of the poem. The influence of Michael and of the personifications is so undetectable as to remain discounted by the reader, and is never noticed by the characters: Michel mosse le squadre coraggiose, e fe’ lor breve un gran tratto di via; sì che in un dì a Parigi le condusse, né alcun s’avide che miracol fusse . (OF 14.96; emphasis mine) Here Michael moved the brave squadrons and so curtailed their route that a single day’s journey brought them to Paris, without any of them realizing the miracle which had been wrought .

The one time that God appears in the poem, His orders lead to unintended results, and remain completely unnoticed by the humans involved.

ii. The

Santissimo Eremita

God obtains more impressive results elsewhere in the poem without supernatural intermediaries, as in the case of Ruggiero’s long-awaited conversion. However, even this action—ut terly necessary to the plot, foretold and desired since Ruggiero’s introduction in the Innamorato , and the source of so much future glory to Ferrara—is not without a few pinpricks of imperfection.


127



The hero is in the process of sailing to rejoin Agramante in Africa with the seven Saracen kings whom he has rescued, when their ship is caught in a ferocious storm. The poet attributes to this storm the moral vices of perfidy and treachery: “Ne l’oscurar del giorno fece il vento / chiara la sua perfidia e ’l tradimento” ( OF 41.8; “It was at dusk that the wind revealed its perfidy”). The description of the storm is full of negative judgements: “orribil procella,” “furor,” “fortuna fella,” “rabbia,” “crudele e spaventoso assalto,” “il fiero vento” (twice), “il crudo vento e la tempesta ria.” The poet elaborates at length on the terror and desperation of the unfortunate sailors as their efforts are overwhelmed by the fury of the elements. Prayers do not help them: Allor s’udì con dolorosi pianti chiamar soccorso dal cele ste regno: ma quelle voci andaro poco inanti, che venne il mar pien d’ira e di disdegno (OF 41.20) Anguished cries to heaven for help could now be heard, but the voices did not endure for long: the seething waters surged in spitefully

It is when Ruggiero is attempting to swim to shore that the self-important idea comes to him, as to many a drowning man, that this storm is aimed at him specifically for his sins; namely, that it is God’s vengeance for his failure to convert as he had promised Bradamante and Rinaldo. And it turns out that this thought is not unreasonably conceited for Ruggiero, the man of destiny. His frantic vow to become a Christian if he should survive is immediately and miraculously followed by renewed vigor: “Miracol fu, che sentì al fin del voto / crescersi forza e agevolarsi il nuoto” (OF 41.49; “By a miracle, as he made his vow he felt an increase of strength and swam more buoyantly”). The hermit who greets him on the island confirms the knight’s conjecture that God brought him there for that very purpose. Therefore the storm, which had seemed perfidious from the sailors’ point of view, was a necessary, if harsh, means to further God’s providential plan. This hermit is indeed the holy man he appears to be, not a deceptive necromancer. For forty years of “vita solitaria e santa” he has served God with prayers, an abstemious diet, and (as the reader learns later) by performing miracles. He is an appropriate character to teach Ruggiero about the Christian faith and to baptize him. Atlante and the other sorcerers in the poem must study the stars to learn about the future, while the hermit, like Merlin, receives his fore-

128




knowledge unasked in a vision from God. This miraculous vision, however, does not differ in kind or content from magical foreknowledge. Like Melissa, the hermit does not tell everything he knows, only “quel che narrar conviensi.” Presumably he leaves out information similar to what Melissa omitted: the details of Ruggiero’s death and vengeance. However holy the hermit may be, he does not escape untouched by Ariosto’s humor. Like Merlin and Melissa, the hermit is eager to follow God’s will, in this case to instruct Ruggiero in Christianity. He is so eager that he greets Ruggiero, who has just climbed out of the stormy sea and might be expected to be distracted and fatigued, with a torrent of words without apparent pause. (Or is it the effect of solitude that makes him so loquacious?) He is already giving lessons as the two walk back to his cell. Once Ruggiero has rested a bit the lessons continue at a more leisurely pace—which is still fast enough that the knight learns all the great mysteries of the Christian religion in his brief stay. This speed is not to be trusted; Ruggiero learned Logistilla’s lessons with similar dispatch, but not very thoroughly. Nevertheless, while Ruggiero may not truly be an expert on his new religion, he undoubtedly has what knowledge is necessary to him. The continuation of the hermit’s episode in Canto 43 allows him to make further contributions to the cause. The survivors of Lipadusa decide to seek out the hermit when they learn of his reputation from their ship’s pilot: Disse ch’era di là poco lontano in un solingo scoglio uno eremita, a cui ricorso mai non s’era invano, o fosse per consiglio o per aita; e facea alcuno effetto soprumano, dar lume a ciechi, e tornar morti a vita, fermare il vento ad un segno di croce, e far tranquillo il mar quando è più atroce (OF 43.187) not far from there, he said, there lived a hermit on an isolated rock. No one ever had recourse to him in voin, [sic] be it for advice or assistance. He could achieve miracles: he could give sight to the blind, raise the dead to life, stop the wind with a sign of the cross, calm the sea at its angriest.

While this octave treats of the hermit’s amazing deeds, the tone could not be more even and placid. Thus the poet transforms these magnificent miracles into ordinary if uncommon occurrences. It is the second incidence of the marvelous, following the pattern noted by Almansi, 28 that is


129



accompanied by a “grido di meraviglia,” although this is less impressive than the previously mentioned feats: Né d’unguento trovandosi provisto, né d’altra umana medicina istrutto, andò alla chiesa, ed orò al Salvatore; ed indi uscì con gran baldanza fuore: e in nome de le eterne tre Persone, Padre e Figliuolo e Spirto Santo, diede ad Olivier la sua benedizione. Oh virtù che dà Cristo a chi gli crede! Cacciò dal cavalliero ogni passione, e ritornolli a sanitade il piede, più fermo e più espedito che mai fosse (OF 43.191–92) He possessed no ointments or other medicines in common use, but he went into his oratory and prayed to Our Saviour. Thence he emerged in buoyant confidence / to give Oliver his blessing in the name of the three Eternal Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Oh, the power Christ gives to those who believe in Him! He cured the knight of all pain and so restored his foot that it was even sounder than before.

The enjambement contributes to the suspense and prepares the exclamation of marvel. Even so, the use of exclamation, which the reader has long since recognized as suspect in the Furioso , leaves doubts. Of course these doubts are not in the minds of the characters, for Sobrino is so impressed by this miraculous healing that he too decides to convert and thereby receives a healing himself. Ruggiero’s faith and devotion also grow, due to his witnessing these miracles (apparently the few days since his own miraculous survival have sufficed for its impression to fade). The hermit takes the opportunity to give to his visitors an ascetic sermon on the proper relative merits of this life and the next: Fra quei guerrieri il vecchiarel devoto sta dolcemente, e li conforta ed ora a voler, schivi di pantano e loto, mondi passar per questa morta gora c’ha nome vita, che sì piace a’ sciocchi; ed alla via del ciel sempre aver gli occhi. (OF 43.195) The devout old hermit was a gentle presence among those warriors; he prayed and encouraged them to avoid contamination but to aim to pass unspotted through

130


 this mortal vale known as life, in which fools so delight, but to keep their eyes steadfastly on the paths to heaven.

Yet in the very next octave the hermit gives up his virtuous forty-year diet of fruit and water to share the knights’ savory meal of meat and good wine; it is more difficult to resist and despise the snares of this world when they are right in front of you.

iii. Astolfo’s Voyage and St. John Astolfo has traveled on the hippogriff from the site of Atlante’s palace of illusions through France, Spain, and northern Africa with no other goal than sightseeing, when his religious voyage begins in Prester John’s realm of Ethiopia. Since the knight’s improbable arrival on a winged horse fulfills a prophecy of salvation, the blind emperor could be excused for taking him for a supernatural personage, were it not for his impious suggestions. Astolfo’s humility in response to Prester John’s extravagant and sacrilegious offers shows that though he has mastered Logistilla’s secular teaching, he knows its limits. Even at this early point, before St. John confirms it, he is willing to believe that God has guided him. Comparing Astolfo’s restraint here with his vanity and braggadocio in the earlier tradition helps to point out why Astolfo is chosen to take the voyage to the moon and to cure Orlando. The English knight has learned from his past mistakes and from Logistilla, and throughout the poem he proves resistant to all forms of insanity, keeping his head and firmly bridling his passions (so firmly that it is not always evident that he has any). His mental balance and flexibility have led to his successes against evil and to his removal of a series of obstacles to God’s plan. Although his lucido intervallo will end in the Cinque canti with his fall back to the common level of humanity, in the Furioso he travels highest of all the characters. Astolfo’s voyages give insights into Ariosto’s views on fame, Ippolito d’Este, and literature. Fame was in general highly valued in the Renaissance inasmuch as it provided a sort of immortality. Unfortunately, lasting fame is not easy to achieve. Fame is the very first item on the list of the contents of the lunar valley, where already time is the culprit: “Molta fama è là su, che, come tarlo, / il tempo al lungo andar qua giù divora” ( OF 34.74; “there is many a reputation up there which, little by little, time has consumed down here like a moth”). The situation is elaborated a little later with the allegory of Time and the Fates. Time casts famous names into the river of oblivion, from which crows, vultures, etc. (flatterers,


131



poetasters), can rescue them only briefly. The secure placement of one’s name in the temple of immortality is possible but dependent on the efforts of swans (great poets), who are few. Thus the only way to enduring fame is through literature. Astolfo’s observation of the three Fates provides an opportunity for encomium, which Ariosto duly takes when Astolfo views the life’s thread of Cardinal Ippolito d’Este. Yet this praise is rather cold. Farrell notes its brevity and many terms of artifice, concluding that St. John is forced to praise Ippolito when he would rather not. 29 Quint finds the passage’s literary model (Seneca’s praise of Nero) to be an indication by Ariosto that it contains similarly wildly untrue flattery.30 Furthermore, the praise of Ippolito is embedded in a context that, to say it mildly, casts doubt on its validity. It follows not long after a disillusioned vision of courtly obsequiousness in the valley of lost things: Ami d’oro e d’argento appresso vede in una massa, ch’erano quei doni che si fan con speranza di mercede ai re, agli avari principi, ai patroni. Vede in ghirlande ascosi lacci; e chiede, ed ode che son tutte adulazioni. Di cicale scoppiate imagine hanno versi ch’in laude dei signor si fanno. ( OF 34.77) Next he saw a heap of gold and silver hooks: gifts made in hope of reward to kings, to greedy princes, to patrons. He asked about garlands he saw which concealed a noose: all flattery, he was told, verses written in praise of patrons wore the guise of exploded crickets.

All three parts of this octave are relevant to the Orlando furioso (with the possible exception of verse 5’s hidden snares of sinister ulterior motives; Ariosto does not hide his all-but-abandoned hopes of tangible reward, which seem more reasonable than sinister). At the beginning of the poem Ariosto dedicated it as a gift to his patron Ippolito ( OF 1.3), and many of the encomiastic passages could easily be characterized as adulatory. That the poet was not properly rewarded for his efforts to immortalize the cardinal is made clear in the first Satire: Non vuol che laude sua da me composta per opra degna di mercé si pona; di mercé degno è l’ir correndo in posta. (97–99) S’io l’ho con laude ne’ miei versi messo, dice ch’io l’ho fatto a piacere e in ocio; più grato fòra essergli stato appresso. (106–08)

132


 He does not consider his praises, composed by me, as work worthy of a ny thanks, but to be a galloping postman is worth a reward. If I have praised him in my verses, he says I have done so to please myself and at my leisure; better if I had been at hand to wait upon him. 31

Shortly after the praise of Ippolito comes St. John’s cheerful admission that poets will lie about their patrons for gain. The denunciation of foolish lords who undervalue poetry in OF 35.23–24 corresponds much too closely to the true situation to be ignored. 32 When St. John begins to name names, he includes Aeneas, one of Ruggiero’s literary models, and Hector, Ruggiero’s ancestor (and hence, theoretically, Ippolito’s) as being far less than their poets have claimed. 33 The subsequent reference to Seneca’s ungrateful patron Nero ( OF 35.26), besides supporting Quint’s interpretation, suggests a parallel with Ippolito’s situation in posterity; they will be remembered as undeserving of the extravagant praise of their poets, since neither one “gli scrittor sapea tenersi amici.” And perhaps the shade of Ippolito would agree with Lidia that even infamy is better than obscurity. St. John’s speech about literature is one of the most problematic passages in the poem, giving rise to debates as to how seriously one should take it. The saint’s inculpation of writers, including himself, casts doubt on the trustworthiness and authority of all texts, putting even the Bible on the level of fiction. As various critics have written, this does not necessarily mean that Scripture is false or that Ariosto believed it to be false. Santoro exempts St. John from doubt, seeing him as a model of absolutely true poetry projected toward the eternal, in opposition to that poetry by and for humans. 34 Or, God could have put the truth in the Bible whether or not his human agents were trustworthy, or the human authors could have written it in good faith no matter what Ariosto’s character said. Ariosto implicated his own poem in the charge of lying, so the reader cannot trust him as an absolute authority either. Ariosto (and St. John too; see the “saggio riso” in OF 35.30) knew that readers would not simply follow the saint’s advice to believe the opposite of every thing ever written; all texts cannot possibly be lies, 35 and the exact opposite of the truth at that. If even the personification of Fraud can tell the truth ( OF 14.88–90), then there is still hope for literature. Ariosto’s goal was more likely to encourage the reader to “sift and consider.”36 Religion continues to be non-transcendent even in the otherworldly realms, sanctioning the equivalence of the divine miraculous with the mundane magical. Astolfo, despite his elevated status and proper rever-


133



ence for the divine, is not primarily concerned with religious matters; he is content to concentrate on worldly virtue and knightly deeds. His visit to hell is motivated not by any desire for spiritual enlightenment, but by the same keen interest in exploration that has brought the knight to Africa in the first place. The language is the same when he discovers the hippogriff and later when he decides to see hell and the earthly paradise: . . . per cercar la terra e il mar, secondo ch’avea desir, quel ch’a cercar gli resta, e girar tutto in pochi giorni il mondo, troppo venìa questo ippogrifo a sesta. ( OF 22.26) Astolfo si pensò d’entrarvi dentro, e veder quei c’hanno perduto il giorno, e penetrar la terra fin al centro e le bolge infernal cercare intorno. ( OF 34.5) Poi monta il volatore, e in aria s’alza per giunger di quel monte in su la cima, che non lontan con la superna balza dal cerchio de la luna esser si stima. Tanto è il desir che di veder lo ’ncalza, ch’al cielo aspira, e la terra non stima. ( OF 34.48) No piece of fortune could have made Astolfo happier than this, for the hippogr yph was the very thing for him if he wanted to explore land and sea as he did—those he had yet to visit—and girdle the earth in a few days. He decided to go in and look at those who had lost the light of day, and penetrate to the heart of the place and inspect the ravine s of hell. Then he mounted his flying horse and rose into the air to reach the summit of the mountain, for it was generally believed that the orb of the moon stood not far from its h ighest peak. His urge to explore directed his aspirat ions heavenwards, spurning the earth.

The knight lowers Satan and the other infernal beings to the level of evil magicians and monsters, such as he is accustomed to putting to flight with one blast of the magic horn ( OF 34.5). The garden of the earthly paradise appeals to the five senses, so much so that Astolfo can excuse Adam and Eve for tasting the forbidden fruit. Yet it has less moral significance than Logistilla’s garden, cultivated with hard work and containing the gems of self-knowledge. The moon itself, as Quint has shown, is not the repository of higher meaning, as it ought to be. 37 In order to teach, the significance of the lunar allegories should be clear to the viewer. However, the allegories of

134




the lunar junkpile, based on Alberti’s Somnium,38 would be incomprehensible, not only to Astolfo but also to the reader, without the saint’s explanation. But Ariosto’s fiction, as it seems to collapse hierarchical distinction between a physically identical eart h and moon, assigns anteriority to neither the earthly nor the lunar signs. The two sets of signs are interchangeable—one is the diversa faccia of the other—and mutually interdependent as well; neither can be read without the other. The play of reference, where earthly sign A points to lunar sign B, which merely points back to A, is a closed circle which never opens onto significance beyond it self. Moreover, the interplay of the two sign systems is demonstrably the product of Ariosto’s text; the text, in the person of the Evangelist, must spell out their relationship. 39

The references to Alberti’s Somnium may already have been uninterpretable to the contemporary readers of the Furioso , since Alberti’s Intercoenales were already hard to find at the end of the Quattrocento.40 The second set of lunar allegories is clearer, but ends up questioning the validity of Scripture rather than encouraging faith. Once returned to earth, St. John’s instructions are of a completely practical nature, and Astolfo carries them out not with the sense of a spiritual mission, but in the same pragmatic atmosphere in which he would have obeyed Carlo’s commands—or in the same way that Bradamante follows the sorceress Melissa’s instructions to destroy Atlante’s steel palace. St. John gives Astolfo the means to work miracles. Yet the miraculous transformation of stones into horse s and leaves into ships is no more marvelous than the construction of a palace from wax and knots. Elijah’s chariot receives far less attention than the hippogriff. According to St. John, the hippogriff and the magical horn came to Astolfo from God, putting them on the same level as the miraculous. The results of some miracles are lasting, like those of some spells: Prester John’s sight, Orlando’s sanity, and Oliviero’s health are restored, and Merlin’s encomiastic works of art endure through the centuries. But the more dramatic miracles, the horse s and ships, vanish as completely as the magic palaces when their usefulness is ended. Magical and miraculous captives are both freed: the hippogriff from its bridle and the south wind from its wineskin. Miracles lack only the chaotic aspect of magic. The workers of miracles may be as fallible as sorcerers, but the miracle itself cannot backfire like a spell. Unlike magic, miracles cannot be countered by outside forces, but will vanish only when the time is right. Miracles must function in accordance with the decrees of the ultimate authority, which in the Furioso is not the character God but Ariosto. The Providence which directs the


135



multitude of events and characters through so many vicissitudes to the happy (if impermanent) conclusion ”is a transparent disguise for the poet who arbitrates its meaning.“ 41 In his role of Providence, Ariosto, like Astolfo, makes use of miracles, but does not disdain magical tools when they are available.

 Conclusion

The topos of magic permeates both the Innamorato and the Furioso . Inherited from the Classical, Arthurian, and popular traditions, magic takes many forms and serves various purposes in the poems. Boiardo’s fabulous poetic world is completely inconceivable without magic, without enchantresses, monsters, and giants to test the heroes at every turn. This world is rich not only in the “ordinary” magic, such as giants and weapons, but also in magical phenomena which provoke meraviglia, such as the vividly-described monsters which briefly seize the poet’s attention. Even in Ariosto’s more rational, Classicizing world, magic is an impor tant structural component and necessary to the poem’s unity. Magic is one of the vital threads in the tapestry of the Furioso , as indispensable as women or horses or knights. Without the shield or the horn the complex plot would be unraveled as surely as if Angelica were removed. Magic in the two poems acts as a vehicle for the Renaissance dialectic between fortuna and virtù. Magic is not all-powerful in the two poems; it is subject to the vagaries of fortune, and can be overcome by human efforts, whether intellectual or physical, or by opposing magic. A magical trial may be won strictly by virtù (e.g. Morgana’s trials of the horn and Orlando’s killing of the sea monster) or strictly by opposing magic without need for valor (e.g. Dragontina’s defeat by Angelica’s ring and Ruggiero’s victory over the sea monster). Boiardo, in the more optimistic early Renaissance, tends to emphasize human abilities; the simple fact that he presents magical trials intended to test a knight’s prowess points to his faith that human persistence and skill can overcome seemingly overwhelming adversities. In the Furioso this theme emerges in Orlando’s victories against the harquebus and the sea monster, and in the need for control in relation to the hippogriff and other steeds. Yet in both poems it often requires a combination of factors to achieve victory. The magical Balisarda is as necessary to Orlando’s destruction of Falerina’s garden as is the

138

Conclusion



anti-magical book, which the knight only possessed due to the lucky chance of meeting the lady messenger; yet he must wield the sword with skill and temper the book’s defeatism with his wits before he can complete his victory. Bradamante needs a certain amount of physical strength to capture Atlante, but she could never have gotten close enough without the ring’s anti-magical protection, her own acting ability, and Melissa’s magically-gained knowledge and advice. In general Ariosto’s characters have less chance to win through sheer force of character and arms than Boiardo’s, and more need of supplemental aid, magical or otherwise. The contrast of magic with virtù derives from magic’s association with the chaotic, with chance, and with the irrational. As such it is often the cause of delays in the advancement of the plot toward a conclusion. In the Innamorato magic artifacts, barring enchanted armaments which lack overt magical powers, have dispersive and obstructive effects—unless they have an anti-magical function (such as Merlin’s fountain of disamore , the ring’s spell-breaking power, the how-to books). Ariosto’s magic artifacts tend to follow this precedent, with, however, important exceptions. The effects of the lance, the shield, and the horn are beneficial to Providence’s plan. These examples show that it is possible to harness the chaotic to the service of order. Controlled by Atlante, the shield contributes to the imprisonment of knights at the steel palace, but used by Ruggiero, even reluctantly, it furthers the advancement of the plot. If Ruggiero had determined to keep control and employ it w isely, who knows what he could have accomplished? Yet the detachment from ordinar y life that Astolfo finds necessar y to control magic would have been inappropriate for the founder of the Este dynasty. The lance partakes less of the chaotic than other magic artifacts, since it conveys a Providential protection to two privileged characters who in the main use it wisely. The horn, a gift of Logistilla/Reason, is borne only by the wise Astolfo and used for God’s purposes. St. John later suggests that Astolfo received it by Divine will; thus there are good reasons why its effects are helpful. It is a powerful image of chaos under control. Supernatural creatures have the same tendency to obstruct the plot. In both poems horses carry the theme of the need for control, in order to curb their natural tendency to run away with their riders. Magical monsters and villains both hinder the knight’s progress and give him a chance to prove his valor. It is in this category that the differences between Boiardo and Ariosto show up most clearly. Even considering nothing else, Boiardo’s supernatural creatures are vastly more numerous. From magic steeds to marvel-

Conclusion

139



ous bulls, from giants to Orilo, the world of the Innamorato constantly produces new marvels that briefly take over the character’s, the narrator’s, and the reader’s attention. While some of them appear in allegorical episodes, the majority of them have mainly the purpose of the meraviglia and diletto of the single episode. By contrast, Ariosto’s supernatural creatures are few and most of them were inherited from Boiardo. This does not preclude his invention of the poetically powerful hippogriff and sea monster, each of which serves multiple purposes. Ariosto’s magic has a more intellectual flavor; his world has plenty of practit ioners of magic and objects magically constructed, but lacks the lively magic of Boiardo’s world, which naturally produces magic in abundance. In the Innamorato all the practitioners of magic hinder the plot, even the Christian sorcerer Malagise. By imprisonment or by death or by displacement, the sorcerers delay and distract knights. Ariosto, on the other hand, presents some sorcerers as powerful forces for order, as well as those who perform the traditional delaying tactics. Magic, the chaotic, can be used for good purposes, just as Melissa teaches that deception can be. However, like the knight with his horse, the sorcerer must practice control—the control that Logistilla tries to teach Ruggiero, the control necessary to master oneself and magic. Otherwise the slippery force of magic will treacherously turn against the sorcerer, as it does for Malagigi. In Ariosto’s world control may be extremely difficult and rare, but it is possible, at least for a “lucido intervallo.” This contrast of order and chaos is not a clear black and white, good and evil, positive vs. negative opposition for either author. In Boiardo’s poem the disruptive effect of magic is not seen as strongly negative, since his march toward an eventual conclusion is much less committed than Ariosto’s. Duty has less urgency in Boiardo’s world; the adventures that temporarily distract the characters from their goals are just as important as the adventures necessary to achieve those goals. Magic is a source of meraviglia, diletto , and avventura, which help make life worthwhile. Misura is superior to dismisura, but, as Boiardo’s treatment of the magic waters shows, rational order is not paramount. The dispersive motifs of love, adventure, and magic are necessary parts of a life lived fully, as necessary as duty and reason. In the Furioso the association of magic with chance and chaos is contrasted much more strongly with a positive concept of order, reason, harmony, Providence. For Ariosto delays are more significant since everything is being orchestrated toward a definite and harmonious conclusion. Delaying the advancement of the plot is tantamount to wandering from

140

Conclusion



God’s and the poet’s well-defined plan. Still, Ariosto’s ideal is not so simplistic, static, and oppressive as the complete subjugation of the irrational, but rather a harmony with variety. 1 He knows that Alcina cannot die, that people have a need for quests and risks and the irrational. God himself decrees that the hippogriff should be freed, because Ariosto knows that one cannot dictate to one’s fantasy or inspiration, only rein it in. Privileged moments can be achieved, but only briefly. Despite the triumph of civilization and harmony at the end of the poem, it is clearly only a “lucido intervallo.” Conflict will return as soon as the Cinque canti. Ruggiero will be treacherously killed only for the cycle to repeat, when Bradamante and Marfisa restore a temporary harmony by avenging him, until eventually the golden age of Cinquecento Ferrara will arrive, only to be plagued by contemporary “barbari.”

 Notes

Introduction 1

Delcorno Branca, Il Romanzo 39; and Pettinelli, L’immaginario 53.

2

L’ Orlando 85–86.

3

Stagioni 52.

4

De Rachewiltz 196–97.

5

Compromising 18.

6

48 and 52.

7

Zampese 268.

8

Saccone, “Cloridano” 83.

9

Le fonti dell’Orlando furioso .

10

Rajna, Le fonti 24.

11

Welles 19.

12

Delcorno Branca, Il romanzo 2.

13

Bacchelli 36–37.

14

Davis 102. Also Robinson 118.

15

L’ Orlando 271.

16

Scaglione, Knights 265.

17

For example, OI 2.21.37–38.

18

Storia 2: 30. Bellamy agrees (“Alcina’s” 63).

19

Gardner, The King 271; Tomalin, The Fortunes 94. Scaglione points out that ironic treatment was already a characteristic of preceding chivalric literature; Knights 269. For Zatt i, Ariosto’s irony “è uno strumento conoscitivo” ( Il Furioso 11).

142

Notes

 20

Piromalli, La cultura 80.

21

Griffiths 28.

22

Parker identifies endlessness as an important characteristic of the romance in Inescapable Romance . Quint agrees: “[A] romance narrative . . . is open-ended and potentially endless” (“The Boat” 179).

23

Giamatti, Earthly 52–62. Also di Tommaso, “Boiardo/Ariosto” 84.

24

“Str ut tura” 282.

25

That he felt such a temptation is shown by the existence of the Cinque canti.

26

Quint, “Figure.”

Chapter One 1

L’ Orlando furioso, ch. 3.

2

L’ Orlando furioso 84. Henri Hauvette sees magic armaments as representing the character’s superlative strength and endurance (223).

3

Il Furioso 69.

4

Delcorno Branca, L’ Orlando furioso 58.

5

Il Furioso 79.

6

Quotat ions of the Furioso are taken from the Garzanti edition. I use Guido Waldman’s translation, except where otherwise noted.

7

Curiously, this significant advantage is not seen as unfair.

8

While for the purposes of my analysis I hold to this distinction in terms between “magic” and “enchanted,” the poets themselves did not. Although they were aware of the essential difference of the two types of magic weapons, they used fatato , incantato , and magico as synonyms.

9

My quotations of the Innamorato are taken from the bilingual edition translated by Ross, which uses the Italian text edited by Aldo Scaglione.

10

According to Antonio Franceschetti, Boiardo adhered for the most part to the traditional tone because he intended to conform to t he tradition, not to reject or parody it; L’ Orlando innamorato 34. Pettinelli believes he used traditional stylistic and lexical forms because he was most concerned with the smooth flow of the narration; Immaginario 128.

11

This abandonment causes an interesting concatenation of events in the Innamorato . When Marfisa again felt the need of armor she took Brandimarte’s, whereupon he took the armor of the dead Agricane, which was then enchanted for him by the grateful fay Febosilla.

Notes

143

 12

Delcorno Branca, L’ Orlando furioso 89.

13

Except those objects which have anti-magical effects, as I will discuss below.

14

Reichenbach, L’ Orlando innamorato 18.

15

Delcorno Branca, “Il cavaliere” 356.

16

Admittedly, Ariosto may not always be a trustworthy interpreter of Boiardo. In “Denying Closure” Cavallo argues that Ariosto begins h is plot before the events in the Innamorato ’s Book 3. Franceschetti studies some of Ariosto’s modifications of Boiardo’s tale in “Il Boiardo”, concluding at one point t hat Ariosto “non si fa scrupolo di rovesciare totalmente i valori celebrati nel mondo dell’ Innamorato ” (120).

17

Following Mario Santoro’s thesis, this is one of the instances where Ariosto recognizes the homo fortunatus , the man successful solely through the favor of fortune, in h is treatment of the character of Astolfo ( Letture 179).

18

In fact, in both poems the treatment of the ring follows the same gender differential; the spell-breaking power may be used by either gender, but usually for the benefit of men, while the power of invisibility is used exclusively by women for their own convenience and safety. See my Chapter 2.

19

179.

20

Almansi 178. Although his article is about Ariosto, he extends his thesis to include Boiardo on page 192.

21

132–3.

22

Baldan, “Un orco folklorico” 343. Roger Baillet also speaks of Ariosto’s efforts to rationalize the material (306–7).

23

For example, Valeria Finucci, The Lady Vanishes 110; and Mario Santoro, “L’Angelica del Furioso ” 4–7.

24

112.

25

L’ Orlando 61.

26

Boiardo’s 74–78.

27

France schet ti, L’ Orlando 144; and Saccone, Il ‘soggetto’ 101. Reichenbach, however, disagrees, seeing the characters as not deeply affected by the magically inspired emotions, which lack the psychological content of their natural feelings (L’ Orlando 107–8). For Ponte this magical love or hate is not prepared psychologically (“troppo subitaneo è il mutamento”), and the episode of t he waters is an aesthetic failure; “Le fontane” 390.

28

Translations of the Amorum libri are taken from the bilingual edition translated by di Tommaso.

144

Notes

 29

Cavallo sees this exaltation of love as ironic and as negated by the adventure it introduces, where Orlando’s success in destroying Falerina’s garden is due to his resisting seduction attempts ( Boiardo’s 17).

30

Other critics have a more pessimistic understanding of Boiardo’s view of love. For example, Giamatti sees Boiardo’s final attitude as a recognition of the futility of trying to check human passions, which must in any case exist in order to animate life ( Exile 62). Cavallo’s reading emphasizes the destructive effects of allowing passion to overcome reason ( Boiardo’s 121–22).

31

Welles 106.

32

“[T]he boat of romance, in its purest form, has no other destination than the adventure at hand. . . . the boat’s travels describe a romance narrative that is open-ended and potentially endless.” Quint, “The Boat” 179.

33

Nohrnberg 45.

34

Quint reads Boiardo’s episode as a reference to Cleopatra’s flight from Actium (Epic 30–36). Looney argues that Boiardo’s imitation of Vergil is “an occasion for his own meditation on the generic implications of different narrative structures” (Compromising 79–90).

35

In fact, Cavallo sees them as important opportunities for Boiardo to demonstrate through Ranaldo the superior morality of the Grail knight’s caritas , compared to the various forms of eros which he encounters ( Boiardo’s Ch. 5–8).

36

Literature and art are of course important topics in the poems. Cavallo sees one of the major points of the Innamorato as a discussion of “the tenets and possibilities of the humanist idea of character formation through didactic literature” (Boiardo’s 3). Likewise, Ascoli recognizes that “interpretive reading itself is a, if not the , theme of the Renaissance and of t he Furioso ” (44). For studies of literary/artistic allusions in the Furioso , see Ascoli (especially Ch. 3), Giamatti “Sfrenatura”, Donato, and Marcus.

37

Indeed, ignoring references to Turpin, Donato remarks that “in every instance where a book is mentioned in the Orlando Furioso , it is either in a theological context or in the domain of negative theology of which necromancy partakes. . . . Not once . . . is the book as book associated with literature in general or [Ariosto’s] own enterprise in par ticular” (57–58).

38

Comparetti details how this medieval concept of the magician’s spell book led, once Vergil’s reputation as a magician was established, to several legends that would have the Latin poet learning the black arts from a book (316–18 and 352– 53).

39

Angelica employs demons explicitly in OI 1.1.51–53 when she captures Malagise’s spell book. It is implied that she uses them for speedy and surreptitious departures in 1.4.12 and 1.5.13. Boiardo does not clarify whether she or Malagise summons the demon on which she rides to Ranaldo’s rescue in 1.9.10–22; I believe it is Malagise, since at this point he has regained his spel l book, and it is his plan that she follows.

Notes

145

 40

Rinaldi identifies this book with the Gospel (539).

41

Throughout her book, Boiardo’s, Cavallo points out examples of Orlando’s failure to read and learn from the warnings provided to him. She sees Ranaldo as an ideal reader, especially in her Ch. 7.

42

Cavallo, Boiardo’s 91. Franceschetti, however, argues against any transcendant symbolism for the lady messenger, who is an element of the poem’s “dimensione fiabesca e favolosa, magica ed incantata” (“L’allegoria” 181).

43

While I differ with Cavallo about some details, I agree with and am indebted to her description of Orlando’s pattern of irregular progress in Boiardo’s Ch. 9–13, especially pp. 108–13.

Chapter Two 1

Exile 52–62.

2

Interestingly, in light of Giamatti’s thesis, just before the horse ran away with her, Bradiamante had, in an extremely courteous manner, given control of herself to Fiordespina (“il corpo insieme e l’anima vi dono”; OI 3.9.12; “My body and my soul are yours”).

3

Exile 62. For Boiardo’s at titude toward closure, see also di Tommaso, “Boiardo/ Ariosto.”

4

For the allegorical meanings of Falerina’s garden and its inhabitants, see Michael Murrin, Allegorical Ch. 3; and Cavallo, Boiardo’s Ch. 10.

5

Stagioni 52.

6

L’ Orlando 212.

7

Mazzotta 163–64 and 284–85.

8

Boiardo’s 65.

9

Haddad, “Ovid’s Medusa” 216–17.

10

I find unlikely Cavallo’s assertion that Atalante created the stream ( Boiardo’s 123). There is no need for such a hypothe sis, when similar magical marvels pervade the world of the Innamorato . It seems more probable that Atalante merely lured Orlando to a pre-existing danger. Presumably the Naiads lived in the stream since the days of ancient Greece.

11

DeSanctis, La poesia cavalleresca 72; and Hutchinson iii.

12

Scaglione, Knights 265.

13

Cinque canti 1.24–25.

14

Murrin points to Falerina’s connection with snakes as support for her being a fay (Allegorical 64).

146

Notes

 15

Allegorical 57.

16

Boccassini interprets this magical alienation as analogous to that caused by love (38–46).

17

“Angelica” 21.

18

Boiardo’s 42–9.

19

See Davis 96 regarding forgetfulness in the Riviera del Riso episode.

20

For allegorical interpretations of Falerina, see Murrin, Allegorical Ch. 3 and Cavallo, Boiardo’s Ch. 10. Sherberg sees her as a figure of fortune, since Orlando grabs her by the hair in OI 2.4.28 (“Promotion” 233).

21

Murrin, Allegorical 83–84.

22

Matteo 147–48.

23

Cavallo sees the enchantress’s change of heart as sincere, in keeping with the episode’s Christian symbolism (95); and she sees the converted Falerina as a counterpoint to the deceitful Origille (97).

24

Cavallo believes it was a love triangle, with Arïante betraying Falerina for Origille (92).

25

This lie, which I treat as her last, is presented in two parts. The first part, her claim to have created the tribute tower ( OI 2.5.18), occurs before her other two untruths, while the second part elaborating on the tower’s significance comes afterward. Thus this crucial lie frames the other two. She has a plan for her argument, but in her agitation goes off on ta ngents.

26

Is Orlando truly deceived by Falerina? Two points in the text suggest that he may have seen through the enchantress’s duplicity. Both of these points occur when Falerina is warning Orlando about the formidable Aridano. First, in OI 2.7.48 Orlando smiles in reaction to Falerina’s statement that there is no hope for the two of them once Aridano spots them. This smile may be one of smug selfconfidence, or it could be a knowing smile caused by Falerina’s overacting. Two octaves later Orlando acquiesces to Falerina’s urging that they leave before encountering Aridano, an act uncharacteristic of one of Boiardo’s adventurous knights. Is Orlando playing cat and mouse with Falerina? Such a supposition is wildly at odds with the commonly held critical v iew of Boiardo’s Orlando as far from introspective and easily fooled by women. Nevertheless it would tie in with Cavallo’s argument that Orlando learned to follow Reason in Falerina’s garden and applies this new understanding in Morgana’s realm ( Boiardo’s Ch. 10–11).

27

See Ross, “Angelica” and Cavallo, Boiardo’s Ch. 11 for allegorical interpretations of the episode.

28

Boiardo’s 103.

29

Cavallo, Boiardo’s 108–12.

Notes

147

 30

Previously Malagigi had been a more privileged character. Pasotti traces the character’s decline from his high point in t he medieval cantari through his humiliations in the ’500.

31

43.

Chapter Three 1

Marinelli, Ariosto and Boiardo 39.

2

For doubts about Bradamante’s war skills, see Tomalin, “Bradamante”; Feinstein, “Bradamante” 51; and Finucci, The Lady Vanishes 236. For the opposite opinion, see Robinson 170.

3

Note how, stylistically, this octave reflects its content. The four lines about Marfisa have a choppy rhythm, due to the three caesuras and the strong final accents of the three verbs (cacciò, scontrò, spezzò). Harsh consonant sounds prevail. The lines about Bradamante flow much more smoothly and sound much gentler.

4

See, for example, Pampaloni, “La guerra” especially pp. 633–35.

5

Momigliano 26. See also Giamatti, The Earthly Paradise 151–155; and LazzaroFerri 48–49.

6

See for example Brand, Ludovico Ariosto 100–101; Wiggins, Figures 151–53; and Giamatti, The Earthly Paradise 151.

7

For chivalric strictures being used against knights, see Francesco Masciandaro. For this particular case, see Giamatti, The Earthly Paradise 151.

8

Here I am indebted to Wiggins, especially Figures Ch. 4.

9

See Ascoli’s Ch. 3 for a thorough discussion of the Alcina and Logistilla episode as educational, and for a suggestion of why Ruggiero fails to apply his new lessons.

10

Reynolds’s translation.

11

Craig 25.

12

Santoro, Letture 188.

13

Wiggins, Figures 152.

14

Baillet 517.

15

Lazzaro 116.

16

26.

17

Bacchelli 588.

18

224.

148

Notes

 19

Pool 53.

20

39.

21

Delcorno Branca finds that these bitter observations about the present do not cancel out but rather accentuate the symbolic value of Orlando’s magnanimous gesture (“Cavaliere” 381–2).

22

Delcorno Branca, Orlando 103.

23

Henderson 125.

24

Baillet 376.

25

Chesney 42.

26

Orla ndo 94–103.

27

Pettinelli, L’immaginario 45–46.

28

Zatti puts this in terms of an unresolved conflict of the ideal and the real. Ariosto celebrates chivalric values—in their defeat; and he recognizes the usefulness of pragmatism—but treats it ironically (104–5).

29

17–21.

30

Baillet 480.

31

Javitch, “Rescuing” 92.

32

Ascoli believes the lessons were inadequate (201–2). Marinelli attributes it to Ruggiero’s lack of Christian religious instruction in Ariosto 144. Peter DeSa Wiggins believes that Ariosto has encouraged the readers’ il lusion that wisdom can control desire and now bursts the bubble: “A young man’s wisdom is no match for a pretty girl in the nude”; Satires xxviii.

33

Finucci, The Lady Vanishes 120.

34

Finucci, The Lady Vanishes 16.

35

17.

36

A desire which, it has been pointed out, for Ariosto’s Rinaldo is not overwhelming; Wiggins, Figures 36.

37

Betti, “Annotazioni” 343.

38

Turchi 1142.

39

In comical contrast to Dante, at the end of the episode Rinaldo remains uncertain whether the figure of Disdain was a demon sent by Malagigi to help him, or an angel sent by God. For more about this episode’s relation to Dante, see JohnsonHaddad, “The Writer” 16–21.

40

De Sanctis, Poesia 104. Marsh, too, sees Sdegno as a n external sign of Rinaldo’s own spiritual healing (“Ruggiero” 148).

Notes

149

 41

Fonti 573–75. This is not Ariosto’s only source, however; Martinez points out Biblical references in the passage (99).

42

“La prova” 13.

43

Santoro, “Prova” 11.

44

Figures 36.

45

Figures 35. Martinez too finds that “Rinaldo’s refusal of the cup looks more and more like a failure to acknowledge the extent of human fallibility: not so much that of Clarice, as his own” (109).

46

Il Furioso 55–58.

47

Pettinelli, L’Immaginario 30.

48

A conclusion shared by Martinez: in the judge’s tale Ariosto “demolishes expectations of perfectibility and offers a model for the restoration of the spousal bond based on acknowledged mutual fallibilit y” (88).

49

Croce 34.

50

Santoro, Letture 132.

51

Santoro, Letture Ch. 4. While I agree that Astolfo is favored by fortune in the Furioso (as well as in the Innamorato ) I find that he is not completely lacking in virtù; he does use his w its and make plans, as well as rely on luck.

52

311.

53

Baillet 311.

54

Delcorno Branca, Il romanzo 11.

55

237.

56

Zampese 238.

57

About one twelfth of it, according to Baillet 31. See his pp. 29–34 for a mathematical breakdown of the poem by subjects.

58

Gardner called the “adulation . . . a blot up on the beauty of the poem and upon the character of the author” in The King 287. Lee resents “his admirable rhetorical flourishes about his patrons . . . they ring false, dreadfully false and studied” (2: 104). Brand admits that they leave the modern reader cold, but argues in Ludovico 114 that their classical allusions pleased the Cinquecento audience. Robinson distinguishes between encomia of the Este in general, which are well integrated into the narrative, and encomia of individuals, wh ich are sycophantic, bathetic, and fatuous (132–33).

59

Farrell in her Ch. 4 finds that he subtly sabotages the overt praise textually and with irony. Croce believed they were serious celebrations with a vein of joking (38). Mario Marti sees them as not hypocritical, though not always successful (1: 344). According to Fichter, the idealized portrait of the Este was not nece ssarily

1 50

N o te s

                   subverted by irony (88). Brand asserts that the encomia are not ironic, because Ariosto was a loyal subject and could not risk offending even if he wanted to (Ludovico 151). 151). Padoan finds insincere the praise of Carlo V and Spain in particular (28). 60

John Jo hnso sonn-Ha Hadd ddad ad,, “W “Wri ritter er”” 58 58..

61

Welles 122. 122. She She referre referred d this interpr interpreta etation tion to to the avar avarice ice foun fountain tain,, but since since the the monster is slain it seems to me that the t he knights would not find it a n unhappy story story in any case.

62

123.

63

Far rel l 116.

64

Gr iffi n 74.

65

Throug Thr ough h ironic ironic langua language ge (Farre (Farrellll 121) and throu through gh overst overstat ateme ement nt (Ficht (Fichter er 105). 105).

66

Fichter 105.

67

391.

68

122.

69

124.

70

Orlando 100. L’ Orlando

71

12.

Chapter Four 1

“Angelica’s Fl Flight” 5. 5.

2

202.

3

Baldan 343.

4

163. Ariosto 163.

5

63. Exile 63.

6

Farr arrell ell 73; 73; Wis Wise e 44; 44; Hau Hauve vette tte 237 237;; and and Well Welles es 136. 136.

7

Alma nsi 178.

8

Alma nsi 179.

9

Note Not e how how the the polysy polysynde ndeto ton n contri contribut butes es to to the sen sense se of of excite excitemen ment. t.

10

Alma nsi 179.

11

For examp For example, le, Chesn Chesney ey 90. When When insistin insisting g on the hippog hippogriff riff’s ’s real reality ity,, Ariost Ariosto o uses the style of the t he discredited discredited medieval minstrels minstrels (Zatt i, Il Furioso Furioso 189).

N ote s

15 1

                   12

Rey eyn nol old ds’s tr tran anssla lati tion on..

13

Forr the Fo the sign signifi ificanc cance e of of the the sola solarr circl circle, e, see see Asc Ascoli oli 85– 85–98. 98.

14

Although my Although my interpre interpretation tation is is diff differe erent nt from from he hers, rs, for for my my analysis analysis of the the poet’ poet’ss sabotage of Ruggiero’s Ruggiero’s journey I am indebted i ndebted to Wise 47.

15

For the For the diffi difficul culty ty of concl conclud uding ing a ro roman mance, ce, see Pa Park rker er,, Inescapable Romance 34–36; and Quint, “Figure” 87.

16

Giamat t i, Exile 142–44. 142–44.

17

Balducci 318.

18

The pre preced ceding ing interpr interpreta etations tions ar are those those of Lanfran Lanfranco co Care Caretti, tti, in his “Comm “Comment ento o dell’Orlando furioso ” in Ariosto, Opere minori 874.

19

Turch i 134.

20

Turch i 135.

21

Che sne y 69.

22

Egan read readss Boiard Boiardo’ o’ss Orilo as a humo humoro rous us refu refutatio tation n of Pico Pico della Miran Mirandol dola’ a’ss unrealistic unre alistic phi philosophy losophy..

23

Balda n 343–47.

24

Baldan (348 Baldan (348–50 –50)) shows shows that that even even the the introdu introduction ction of of the the ogre’ ogre’ss wife wife is not not a pure pure victory of the t he popular tradition tradition over the Classical.

Chapter Five 1

Kennedy 67.

2

Yarn arnall all points points out that that this tradition traditional al read reading ing of Cir Circe ce as passi passion/ on/lus lustt over overcom com-ing the hero’s reason reason depends on a serious misreading of Homer’s tale, starting start ing with the t he Odyssey ’s ’s earliest allegorizers (Ch. 3–5).

3

See Momi Momigli gliano ano 26–31 26–31;; Lazzar Lazzaro o 62–65; 62–65; Lazz Lazzaro aro-F -Ferri erri 48–4 48–49; 9; and Pool 37. 37.

4

Giamat t i, Earthly 147. 147.

5

Lazz La zzar aroo-F Ferr errii 49–5 49–50; 0; and and Momi Momigl glia iano no 27. 27.

6

McLucas 44.

7

Momiglia no 38.

8

Farrellll 36. Giam Farre Giamatti atti agrees agrees that: that: “Its “Its danger danger lay lay not not in what what itit did did to to you, you, but in what it allowed you to do to yourself” ( Earthly 164). 164).

9

Molinaro 265.

10

Donato 47.

1 52

N o te s

                   11

Giamat t i, Earthly 155. 155.

12

Quint, “Epic” 19 19.

13

See Mar inel li, Ariosto 145; 145; and Quint, “Epic” 18 for inter pretations of the three parts.

14

Wel le s 170.

15

The Th e ter erm m is fr from om Wig iggi gin ns, Figures 150.

16

H u t c h i n so n 2 7 .

17

Mar ti ti nez 110.

18

Rey eyn nol old ds’s tr tran anssla lati tion on..

19

Donato Donat o 47. 47. Quint Quint in in “Figu “Figure re”” sees sees it as a repr epresen esentati tation on not not of of the Furioso but but of the Innamorato .

20

De Sa nct is, Poesia 123.

21

Melissa Meliss a does at at one point point pr pred edict ict to to Bradam Bradamant ante e that Rugg Ruggier iero o will be murder murdered, ed, though not at what age, and w ill later be avenged by his son ( OF 3.24). 3.24).

22

Re ynolds 2: 19.

23

Pool 80.

24

Gree Gr eene ne 12 121; 1; and Ha Hadd ddad ad,, “Writ “Writer er”” 113 113–1 –14. 4.

25

Momiglia no no 306.

26

Bail let 320.

27

De Sa nct is, Poesia 104.

28

Alma nsi 179.

29

Far rel l 88–89.

30

Quin Qu int, t, “As Asttol olffo’s” 40 404– 4–06 06..

31

Quotati tion onss fr from th the Satire are taken from the bilingual edition translated by Wiggins.

32

It seems seems re relev levant ant also also that that the the sin for for which which Ariost Ariosto o puts the the damne damned d in hell hell is ingratitude, although the emphasis is placed on ingratitude in love. Ingratitude is also pointed out by the mot to of the poem, “Pro bono malum”, and the accompanying picture of the ungrateful peasant.

33

Quin Qu intt, “As “Asttol olffo’s” 403 403..

34

L’anello , 131.

35

Unless, as Unless, as Wiggi Wiggins ns prop proposes oses,, Ariost Ariosto o intends intends to to say say that that no one can can repr represent esent reality completely accurately ( Figures 157). Carroll criticizes St. John’s overly

Notes

153

 literal interpretation, and vindicates the verifiability of historical truth, as opposed to fictional tales, t hrough judicious comparison of texts (190–94). 36

Durling 149. Although I agree with him on this point, I am not so sure that Ariosto did not doubt the Bible. The text doe s not make clear Ariosto’s true beliefs on this point.

37

Quint, “Astolfo’s” 398.

38

Mar tel li 163–70.

39

Quint, “Astolfo’s” 400.

40

Mar telli 169.

41

Quint, “Astolfo’s” 407. See also Durling 130; Marinelli, Ariosto 198; and Marinelli, “Redemptive” 505–26.

Conclusion 1

Carroll discusses this unity in multiplicity as a Stoic conception of the cosmos, especially in her Chapters One and Two.



Bibliography

I. Primary Sources Alberti, Leon Battista. “The Dream.” Dinner Pieces. Trans. David Marsh. Binghamton: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1987. Ariosto, Ludovico. Cinque Canti/Five Cantos. Trans. Alexander Sheers and David Quint. Berkeley: U of California P, 1996. . Orlando furioso . 2 vols. Milano: Garzanti, 1982.



. Orlando furioso . Trans. Barbara Reynolds. London: Penguin, 1975.



. Orlando furioso . Trans. Guido Waldman. New York: Oxford UP, 1983.



. Opere minori. Ed. Cesare Segre. Milano: Ricciardi, 1954.



. The Satires of Ludovico Ariosto: A Renaissance Autobiography . Trans. Peter DeSa Wiggins. Athens, Ohio: Ohio UP, 1976.



Boiardo, Matteo Maria. Amorum Libri. Trans. Andrea di Tommaso. Binghamton: MRTS, 1993. . Opere volgari. Ed. Pier Vincenzo Mengaldo. Bari: Laterza, 1962.



. Orlando innamorato . Trans. Charles Stanley Ross. Berkeley: U of California P, 1989.



Dovizi, Bernardo [il Bibbiena]. La Calandria. Ed. Paolo Fossati. Torino: Einaudi, 1967. . La Calandria. Commedie del Cinquecento . Ed. Nino Borsellino. Vol. 2. Milano: Feltrinelli, 1967. 16–90.



156

Bibliography



Erasmus, Desiderius. The Praise of Folly . Trans. Clarence H. Miller. New Haven: Yale UP, 1979. Malory, Thomas. Le Morte d’Arthur . Ed. Ernest Rhys. 2 vols. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1912. Pico della Mirandola, G[iovanni]. De hominis dignitate . De hominis dignitate, Heptaplus, De ente et uno e scritti vari . Ed. Eugenio Garin. Firenze: Vallecchi, 1942. 101–65. Tasso, Torquato. Discourses on the Heroic Poem . Trans. Mariella Cavalchini and Irene Samuel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1973.

II. Secondary Sources Agnello, Nino. “Il viaggio di Rinaldo in Italia nell’ Orlando furioso .” Ausonia 32 (1977): 25–29. Albertazzi, Adolfo. “La novella di Fiordiligi.” Parvenze e sembianze . Bologna: Zanichelli, 1892. 201–24. Alexandre, Denise. “Tre figure boiardesche di eroe saraceno: Ferraguto, Agricane, Rodamonte.” Annali d’italianistica 1 (1983): 129–43. Alexandre-Gras, Denise. L’heroïsme chevaleresque dans le Roland Amoureux de Boiardo . Saint-Etienne: U de Saint-Etienne, 1988. Almansi, Guido. “Tattica del meraviglioso ariostesco.” Ludovico Ariosto: lingua, stile e tradizione . Ed. Cesare Segre. Milano: Feltrinelli, 1976. 175–93. Anceschi, Giuseppe. Editor’s notes. Orlando innamorato . By Matteo Maria Boiardo. Milano: Garzanti, 1986. , ed. Il Boiardo e la critica contemporanea: Atti del Convegno di Studi su Matteo Maria Boiardo . Firenze: Olschki, 1970.



Andrews, Richard. “The Canto as a Unit in Ariosto: Orlando furioso , XXIV.” The Italianist 3 (1983): 9–29. Ascoli, Albert Russell. Ariosto’s Bitter Harmony: Crisis and Evasion in the Italian Renaissance . Princeton: Princeton UP, 1987. Bacchelli, Riccardo. La congiura di don Giulio d’Este e altri scritti ariosteschi. Tutte le opere di Riccardo Bacchelli, vol. xv. Verona: Mondadori, 1958.

Bibliography

157



Baillet, Roger. Le monde poétique de l’Arioste . Lyon: L’Hermès, 1977. Baldan, Paolo. “Marfisa: Nascita e carriera di una regina amazzone.” L’intrigo e l’avventura (Tra Ligurio e Orlando) . Alessandria: Orso, 1990. 72–83. . “Mondo popolare e mondo aristocratico nel Boiardo epico.” Miscellanea di studi in onore di Vittore Branca. Firenze: Olschki, 1983.



. “Un orco folklorico del Boiardo tradito dall’Ariosto.” Il ponte 38 (1982): 342–63.



Balducci, Marino Alberto. “Il destino di Olimpia e il motivo della ’donna abbandonata’.” Italica 70 (1993): 303–28. Barberi Squarotti, Giorgio. “Ludovico Ariosto.” Il Rinascimento, la letteratura. Ed. Walter Moretti. Storia di Ferrara Series 7. Ferrara: Librit, 1994. 297–378. . “Nei dintorni del Furioso .” Fine dell’idillio: Da Dante a Marino . Genova: Il melangolo, 1978. 105–16.



Barilli, Renato. “Il Boiardo e l’Ariosto nel giudizio del Rajna.” Il Boiardo e la critica contemporanea: Atti del Convegno di Studi su Matteo Maria Boiardo . Ed. Giuseppe Anceschi. Firenze: Olschki, 1970. 61–72. Baron, Hans. The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance: Civic Humanism and Republican Liberty in an Age of Classicism and Tyranny . Princeton: Princeton UP, 1966. Bart, Alda Rossebastiano. “Alle fonti del Boiardo: il “fier baiser” nell’Orlando innamorato .” Studi e problemi di critica testuale 25 (1982): 19–23. Bastiaensen, Michel. “La nave magica di Gloricia.” Italianistica 9 (1980): 234–50. Battaglia, Roberto. “Il realismo dell’Ariosto.” I metodi attuali della critica in Italia. Eds. Maria Corti and Cesare Segre. Torino: ERI, 1970. 47–52. Battera, Francesca. “A proposito di Marchino e Stella: Orlando Orlando innamorato , I VIII.” Studi e problemi di critica testuale 50 (1995): 95–134.

158

Bibliography



Beer, Marina. “Alcune osservazioni sulla novella nell’ Orlando innamorato .” Tipografie e romanzi in val Padana fra Quattro e Cinquecento . Eds. Riccardo Bruscagli and Amedeo Quondam. Ferrara: Franco Cosimo Panini, 1992. 143–60. . Romanzi di cavalleria: Il Furioso e il romanzo italiano del primo Cinquecento . Roma: Bulzoni, 1987.



Bellamy, Elizabeth. “Allegory and the Female Body in Ariosto.” Colloquium on the Politics of the Body in Italian Literature and Culture, Philadelphia, 22 Oct. 1993. Bellamy, Elizabeth J. “Alcina’s Revenge: Reassessing Irony and Allegory in the Orlando furioso .” Annali d’italianistica 12 (1994): 61–74. . “From Virgil to Tasso: The Epic Topos as an Uncanny Return.” Desire in the Renaissance: Psychoanalysis and Literature . Eds. Valeria Finucci & Regina Schwartz. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1994. 207–32.



Benson, Pamela Joseph. “A Defense of the Excellence of Bradamante.” Quaderni d’Italianistica 4 (1983): 135–53. . “An Unrecognized Defender of Women in the Orlando furioso .” Italica 57 (1980): 268–70.



Benvenuti, Antonia. “Tradizioni letterarie e gusto tardogotico nel Canzoniere di M. M. Boiardo.” Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 137 (1960): 533–92. Betti, Franco. “Annotazioni sul paesaggio nell’ Orlando furioso .” Italica 45 (1968): 329–44. . “‘Woman-Made-Angel’ and Otherwise in Italian Poetry of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.” Studi filologici e letterari in memoria di Danilo Aguzzi-Barbagli. Ed. Daniela Boccassini. Stony Brook: Forum Italicum, 1997. 173–88.



Bigi, Emilio. “Ariosto, Ludovico.” Dizionario critico della letteratura italiana. 1974. . La poesia del Boiardo . Firenze: Sansoni, 1941.



Binni, Walter. Metodo e poesia di Ludovico Ariosto . Messina: D’Anna, 1947. Blasucci, Luigi. Studi su Dante e Ariosto . Milano: Ricciardi, 1969.

Bibliography

159



Blum, Cinzia Sartini. “Pillars of Virtue, Yokes of Oppression: The Ambivalent Foundation of Philogynist Discourse in Ariosto’s Orlando furioso .” Forum Italicum 28 (1994): 3–21. . “The Shifting Role of Magic in Ariosto’s Il Negromante .” Quaderni d’italianistica 14 (1993): 221–38.



Boccassini, Daniela. “Love, Magic, and Storytelling in Boiardo’s Orlando innamorato : the Dragontina Episode.” Studi filologici e letterari in memoria di Danilo Aguzzi-Barbagli. Ed. Daniela Boccassini. Stony Brook: Forum Italicum, 1997. 35–58. Bonadeo, Alfredo. “L’avventura di Rinaldo.” PMLA 81 (1966): 199–206. . “Il lamento di Sacripante.” Italica 41 (1964): 355–83.



. “Note sulla pazzia di Orlando.” Forum Italicum 4 (1970): 39–57.



. “Olimpia.” Italica 45 (1968): 47–58.



Bosco, Umberto. “Il senso del limite.” Saggi sul rinascimento italiano . Firenze: LeMonnier, 1970. 18–32. Branca, Vittore. “Ludovico non della tranquillità.” Veltro 19 (1975): 75– 81. Brand, C. P. “L’entrelacement nell’ Orlando furioso .” Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 154 (1977): 509–32. . Ludovico Ariosto: A Preface to the Orlando furioso. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1974.



Bregoli-Russo, Mauda. “L’astrologia, l’ Innamorato del Boiardo e il Milione di Marco Polo.” Studi e problemi di critica testuale 30 (1985): 41–49. . “Boccaccio tra le fonti dell’Orlando Orlando innamorato ?” Studi e problemi di critica testuale 26 (1983): 21–27.



. “Rassegna della critica boiardesca: 1972–1983.” Annali d’Italianistica 1 (1983): 159–173.



. “Rassegna della critica boiardesca: 1983–1994.” Annali d’italianistica 12 (1994): 267–97.



. “Un riscontro francese nell’ Orlando innamorato del Boiardo: Il fier baiser.” Studi e problemi di critica testuale 23 (1981): 97– 105.



160

Bibliography



Brucker, Gene A. “Sorcery in Renaissance Florence.” Studies in the Renaissance 10 (1963): 7–24. Bruscagli, Riccardo. Stagioni della civiltà estense . Pisa: Nistri-Lischi, 1983. . “‘Ventura’ e ‘inchiesta’ fra Boiardo e Ariosto.” Ludovico Ariosto: lingua, stile e tradizione . Ed. Cesare Segre. Milano: Feltrinelli, 1976. 107–36.



Bryce, Judith. “Gender and Myth in the Orlando furioso .” Italian Studies 47 (1992): 41–50. Burckhardt, Jacob. The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy . New York: Random House, 1954. Burke, Peter. The Italian Renaissance: Culture and Society in Italy . Cambridge: Polity, 1986. Calvino, Italo. “Ariosto geometrico.” Per l’Ariosto . Milano: Marzorati, 1976. 167–68. . Orlando furioso di Ludovico Ariosto raccontato da Italo Calvino . Torino: Einaudi, 1970.



Capasso, Aldo. Tre saggi sulla poesia italiana del Rinascimento (Boiardo, Lorenzo, Ariosto) . Genova: Emiliano degli Orfini, 1939. Capra, Luciano. “Luoghi ideologici nell’Ariosto.” Giornale filologico ferrarese 9 (1986): 81–87. Caretti, Lanfranco. Ariosto e Tasso . Torino: Einaudi, 1961. . Introduzione. Opere minori. By Ludovico Ariosto. Ed. Cesare Segre. Milano: Ricciardi, 1954. ix–xxi.



. “Ludovico Ariosto.” Storia della letteratura italiana. Eds. Emilio Cecchi and Natalino Sapegno. Vol. 3. Milano: Garzanti, 1966. 787– 895.



. “Storia dei Cinque canti.” Per l’Ariosto . Milano: Marzorati, 1976. 87–96.



Carne-Ross, D. S. “The One and the Many: A Reading of Orlando furioso , Cantos 1 and 8.” Arion 5 (1966): 195–234. Carroll, Clare. The Orlando furioso: A Stoic Comedy . Tempe: MRTS, 1997.

Bibliography

161



Casadei, Alberto. “I ‘Cinque canti’ o l’ultima eredità di Boiardo.” Italianistica 21 (1992): 739–48. . “L’esordio del canto xlvi del Furioso : Strategia compositiva e varianti storico-culturali.” Italianistica 15 (1986): 53–93.



. “Riusi (e rifiuti) del modello dell’ Innamorato tra il 1520 e il 1530.” Italianistica 24 (1995): 87–100.



Cavallo, Jo Ann. Boiardo’s Orlando innamorato: An Ethics of Desire . Teaneck: Fairleigh Dickinson UP, 1993. . “Courtly Love and Christian Chivalry: a Renaissance Contrast in Boiardo’s Orlando innamorato .” Selecta 9 (1988): 62–67.



. “Denying Closure: Ariosto’s Rewriting of the Orlando Innamorato .” Fortune and Romance: Boiardo in America . Eds. Jo Ann Cavallo and Charles Ross. Tempe: MRTS, 1998. 97–134.

 

. “From Alexander to Hector: History and Epic in Boiardo’s Orlando innamorato .” Italian Culture 16 (1998): 11–26.



. “The Ironic Narrator in Boiardo’s Orlando innamorato .” Italian Culture 9 (1991): 139–52.



. “A Note on Dante in Boiardo.” Lectura Dantis 8 (Spring 1991): 100–07.



. “The Role of the Woman in the Orlando innamorato .” Carte italiane 8 (1986–87): 31–36.



Cavallo, Jo Ann and Charles Ross. Introduction. Fortune and Romance: Boiardo in America. Eds. Jo Ann Cavallo and Charles Ross. Tempe: MRTS, 1998. 1–14. Cerlini, Aldo. “Una dama e una strega dell’Ariosto.” Lares July–Dec. 1954: 64–86. Ceserani, Remo. “L’impresa delle api e dei serpenti.” MLN 103 (1988): 172–86. Chesney, Elizabeth A. The Countervoyage of Rabelais and Ariosto . Durham: Duke UP, 1982. Chiampi, James. “Angelica’s Flight and the Reduction of the Quest in the Orlando furioso .” Canadian Journal of Italian Studies 4 (1980/ 81): 1–25.

162

Bibliography



. “Between Voice and Writing: Ariosto’s Irony According to Saint John” Italica 60 (1983): 340–50.



. “The Pathos of Stasis: Alcina’s Garden in the Orlando furioso .” Forum Italicum 16 (1982): 241–58.



Ciccuto, Marcello. “Cultura figurativa boiardesca tra l’ Innamorato e i Tarocchi.” Schifanoia 17/18 (1997): 29–38. Comparetti, Domenico. Vergil in the Middle Ages. Trans. E.F.M. Benecke. 2nd ed. 1908. Hamden, CT: Archon, 1966. Contini, Gianfranco. Letteratura italiana del Quattrocento . Firenze: Sansoni, 1976. Cook, Patrick J. “The Epic Chronotope from Ariosto to Spenser.” Annali d’italianistica 12 (1994): 115–141. Coulianu, Ioan P. Eros and Magic in the Renaissance . Trans. Margaret Cook. Chicago and London: U of Chicago P, 1987. Craig, Cynthia C. “Enchantment and Disenchantment: A Study of Magic in the Orlando furioso and the Gerusalemme liberata.” Comitatus 19 (1988): 20–45. Croce, Benedetto. Ariosto, Shakespeare e Corneille . Bari: Laterza, 1968. D’Amico, Jack. “Poetic and Theatrical Perspectives in Ariosto’s Il negromante and Jonson’s The Alchemist .” Italica 66 (1989): 312– 22. Davis, Elizabeth Hunt. “Between Poetic Truth and Historical Falsehood: Fictions of Chivalry in Boiardo’s Orlando innamorato .” Diss. Bryn Mawr C, 1988. De Blasi, Giorgio. “L’Ariosto e le passioni.” Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 129 (1952): 318–62; 130 (1953): 178–203. Delcorno Branca, Daniela. “Il cavaliere dalle armi incantate: Circolazione di un modello narrativo arturiano.” Giornale storico della letteratura italiana CLIX (1982): 353–82. . L’ Orlando furioso e il romanzo cavalleresco medievale . Firenze: Olschki, 1973.



. Il romanzo cavalleresco medievale . Firenze: Sansoni, 1974.



Bibliography

163



de Rachewiltz, Siegfried. De Sirenibus: An Inquiry into Sirens from Homer to Shakespeare . Diss. Harvard U, 1983. New York: Garland, 1987. De Robertis, Domenico. “L’esperienza poetica del Quattrocento.” Storia della letteratura italiana. Eds. Emilio Cecchi and Natalino Sapegno. Vol. 3. Milano: Garzanti, 1966. 357–784. . “Esperienze di un lettore dell’ Innamorato .” Il Boiardo e la critica contemporanea: Atti del Convegno di Studi su Matteo Maria Boiardo . Ed. Giuseppe Anceschi. Firenze: Olschki, 1970. 197– 220.



De Sanctis, Francesco. La poesia cavalleresca e scritti vari. Bari: Laterza, 1954. . Storia della letteratura italiana. 2 vols. Napoli: Morano, 1936.



Dionisotti, Carlo. “Fortuna e sfortuna del Boiardo nel Cinquecento.” Il Boiardo e la critica contemporanea: Atti del Convegno di Studi su Matteo Maria Boiardo . Ed. Giuseppe Anceschi. Firenze: Olschki, 1970. 221–41. Di Pino, Guido. “Bivalenza dell’ottava ariostesca.” Per l’Ariosto . Milano: Marzorati, 1976. 125–45. Disertori, Beppino. “Le magie del Boiardo interpretate da Capasso.” Cristallo: Rassegna di varia umanità 28 (1986): 85–96. di Tommaso, Andrea. “Boiardo/Ariosto: Textual Relations and Poetic Integrity.” Stanford Italian Review 4 (1984): 73–91. . Introduction. Amorum Libri. By Matteo Maria Boiardo. Trans. Andrea di Tommaso. Binghamton: MRTS, 1993. 1–26.



. Structure and Ideology in Boiardo’s Orlando innamorato. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1972.



Doglio, Maria Luisa. “Lettere del Boiardo e epistolari del Quattrocento.” Il Boiardo e la critica contemporanea: Atti del Convegno di Studi su Matteo Maria Boiardo . Ed. Giuseppe Anceschi. Firenze: Olschki, 1970. 243–64. Donato, Eugenio. “‘Per selve e boscherecci labirinti’: Desire and Narrative in Ariosto’s Orlando furioso .” Literary Theory/Renaissance

164

Bibliography



Texts. Eds. Patricia Parker and David Quint. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1986. 33–62.

Dorigatti, Marco. “Il boiardismo del primo Furioso .” Tipografie e romanzi in val Padana fra Quattro e Cinquecento . Eds. Riccardo Bruscagli & Amedeo Quondam. Ferrara: Franco Cosimo Panini, 1992. 161– 74. Dotti, Ugo. Ariosto e il poema cavalleresco . Milano: Nuova Accademia, 1964. Durling, Robert M. The Figure of the Poet in Renaissance Epic . Cambridge: Harvard, 1965. Egan, Kathleen Crozier. “On the Indignity of Man: The Quarrel between Boiardo and Pico della Mirandola.” Fortune and Romance: Boiardo in America. Eds. Jo Ann Cavallo and Charles Ross. Tempe: MRTS, 1998. 237–57. Eriksen, Roy. “God Enthroned: Expansion and Continuity in Ariosto, Tasso, and Milton.” Milton in Italy: Contexts, Images, Contradictions. Ed. Mario A. Di Cesare. Binghamton: MRTS, 1991. 405– 25. Farnetti, Monica. “Prestigio e crisi del vescovo Turpino.” Schifanoia 17/ 18 (1997): 49–62. Farrell, Mary MacLennan II. “Mentors and Magi in Ariosto and Rabelais.” Diss. Yale U, 1976. Feinstein, Wiley. “Bradamante in Love: Some Postfeminist Considerations on Ariosto.” Forum Italicum 22 (1988): 48–59. Ferroni, Giulio. “Da Bradamante a Ricciardetto. Interferenze testuali e scambi di sesso.” La parola ritrovata. Eds. Costanzo Di Girolamo and Ivano Paccagnella. Palermo: Sellerio, 1982. 137–59. Fichter, Andrew. Poets Historical: Dynastic Epic in the Renaissance . New Haven: Yale UP, 1982. Fido, Franco. “I desideri e la morte: prolessi narrative del Furioso .” Studies in the Italian Renaissance Essays in Memory of Arnolfo B. Ferruolo . Eds. Gian Paolo Biasin and Albert N. Mancini and Nicholas J. Perella. Napoli: Società editrice napoletana, 1985. 135–43.

Bibliography

165



Finucci, Valeria. “The Female Masquerade: Ariosto and the Game of Desire.” Desire in the Renaissance: Psychoanalysis and Literature . Eds. Valeria Finucci & Regina Schwartz. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1994. 61–88. . The Lady Vanishes: Subjectivity and Representation in Castiglione and Ariosto . Stanford: Stanford UP, 1992.



Fiorato, Adelin Charles. “La “gallica face” nell’ Orlando furioso .” La corte di Ferrara & il suo mecenatismo 1441–1598/The Court of Ferrara & its Patronage . Eds. Marianne Pade, Lene Waage Petersen and Daniela Quarta. Ferrara: Panini, 1990. 159–76. Flint, Valerie I. J. The Rise of Magic in Early Medieval Europe . Princeton: Princeton UP, 1991. Fontana, Pio. “Ancora sui Cinque canti dell’Ariosto.” Per l’Ariosto . Milano: Marzorati, 1976. 97–109. Forti, Fiorenzo. “Boiardo, Matteo Maria.” Dizionario biografico degli italiani. 1969. Foscolo, Ugo. “Sui poemi narrativi e romanzeschi italiani.” Prose . Vol. 2. Firenze: Salani, 1926. 543–631. Fragnito, Gigliola. “Intorno alla ‘religione’ dell’Ariosto: i dubbi del Bembo e le credenze ereticali del fratello Galasso.” Lettere italiane 44 (1992): 208–39. Franceschetti, Antonio. “L’allegoria nell’ Orlando innamorato del Boiardo e del Berni.” La corte di Ferrara & il suo mecenatismo 1441– 1598/The Court of Ferrara & its Patronage . Eds. Marianne Pade, Lene Waage Petersen and Daniela Quarta. Ferrara: Panini, 1990. 177–88. . “Il Boiardo e l’avvio del Furioso .” Da Dante al Manzoni. Eds. Bianca Maria Da Rif and Claudio Griggio. Vol. 1. Firenze: Olschki, 1991. 111–30. 2 vols.



. L’ Orlando innamorato e le sue componenti tematiche e strutturali. Firenze: Olschki, 1975.



. “Struttura e compiutezza dell’Orlando innamorato .” Il Boiardo e la critica contemporanea: Atti del Convegno di Studi su Matteo



166

Bibliography



Maria Boiardo . Ed. Giuseppe Anceschi. Firenze: Olschki, 1970. 281–94.

. “Turpino e il suo libro nell’ Orlando innamorato .” Esperienze letterarie 21 (1996): 3–20.



Friedman, John Block. The Monstrous Races in Medieval Art and Thought . Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1981. Garber, Marjorie. Introduction. Cannibals, Witches, and Divorce: Estranging the Renaissance . Ed. Marjorie Garber. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1987. vii–xii. Gardner, Edmund. The Arthurian Legend in Italian Literature . Dutton: New York, 1930. . Dukes and Poets in Ferrara. New York: Haskell House, 1968.



. The King of Court Poets. London: Constable, 1906.



Garin, Eugenio. Astrology in the Renaissance: The Zodiac of Life . Trans. Carolyn Jackson and June Allen, revised by Clare Robertson. New York: Penguin, 1983. . Medioevo e rinascimento . Roma: Laterza, 1976.



. Science and Civic Life in the Italian Renaissance . Trans. Peter Munz. Garden City, NY: Anchor-Doubleday, 1969.



Getto, Giovanni. “La corte estense luogo d’incontro di una civiltà letteraria.” Letteratura e critica nel tempo . Marzorati: Milano, 1968. 325– 57. Giamatti, A. Bartlett. The Earthly Paradise and the Renaissance Epic . Princeton: Princeton UP, 1966. . Exile and Change in Renaissance Literature . New Haven: Yale UP, 1984.



. “Sfrenatura: Restraint and Release in the Orlando furioso .” Ariosto 1974 in America: Atti del congresso ariostesco . Ed. Aldo Scaglione. Ravenna: Longo, 1976. 31–39.



Gilbert, Allan. “The Sea-Monster in Ariosto’s Cinque canti and in Pinocchio .” Italica 35 (1956): 260–63. Gnerro, Mark L. “Cinquecento Theory and the ’Obscure’ Muses of Ariosto and Tasso.” Romanic Review 78 (1987): 525–32.

Bibliography

167



Gragnolati, Manuele. “Love, Lust, and Avarice: Leodilla Between Dante and Ovid.” Fortune and Romance: Boiardo in America. Eds. Jo Ann Cavallo and Charles Ross. Tempe: MRTS, 1998. 151–73. Grassi, Ernesto, and Maristella Lorch. Folly and Insanity in Renaissance Literature . Binghamton: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1986. Green, D[ennis] H[oward]. Irony in the Medieval Romance . New York: Cambridge UP, 1979. Greene, Thomas M. The Descent from Heaven: A Study in Epic Continuity . New Haven: Yale UP, 1963. Griffin, Robert. Ludovico Ariosto . New York: Twayne, 1974. Griffiths, C. E. J. “Orlando innamorato , Book III: An Appreciation.” Italian Studies 36 (1981): 27–40. Gundersheimer, Werner L. Ferrara: The Style of a Renaissance Despotism. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1973. . “Io ben comprendo la vergogna: The Faces of Shame in the Orlando Innamorato .” Fortune and Romance: Boiardo in America. Eds. Jo Ann Cavallo and Charles Ross. Tempe: MRTS, 1998. 137–50.



Günsberg, Maggie. “‘Donna liberata’? The Portrayal of Women in the Italian Renaissance Epic.” The Italianist 7 (1987): 7–35. Gusmano, Arianna. “Tipologie del duello nell’ Orlando furioso .” Schifanoia 3 (1987): 85–102. Haddad, Miranda Johnson. “Ovid’s Medusa in Dante and Ariosto: The Poetics of Self-Confrontation.” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 19 (1989): 211–25. Haddad, Miranda S. Johnson. “The Writer as Reader: A Study of Intertextual Influence in the Works of Dante, Ariosto and Spenser.” Diss. Yale U, 1987. Hanning, Robert W. “Sources of Illusion: Plot Elements and Their Thematic Uses in Ariosto’s Ginevra Episode.” Forum Italicum 5 (1971): 514–35. Hauvette, Henri. L’Arioste et la poésie chevaleresque à Ferrare au début du XVI e siècle. 2d ed. Paris: Champion, 1927.

168

Bibliography



Henderson, Dave. “Power Unparalleled: Gunpowder Weapons and the Early Furioso .” Schifanoia 13/14 (1992): 109–31. Hoffman, Katherine. “The Court in the Work of Art: Patronage and Poetic Autonomy in the Orlando furioso , Canto 42.” Quaderni d’italianistica 13 (1992): 113–24. Honnacker, Hans. “L’origine troiana della casa d’Este fornita nell’ Orlando Furioso di Ludovico Ariosto, nelle edizioni del 1516 e del 1521: una genealogia fra leggenda e storia.” Schifanoia 17/18 (1997): 125–33. Huizinga, Johan. The Waning of the Middle Ages. London: Arnold, 1924. Hutchinson, Mary Anne. “The Devil’s Gateway: The Evil Enchantress in Ariosto, Tasso, and Milton.” Diss. Syracuse U, 1975. Internoscia, Donato. “Are there Two Melissas, Both Enchantresses, in the Furioso ?” Italica 25 (1948): 217–26. Javitch, Daniel. “ Cantus Interruptus in the Orlando furioso .” MLN 95 (1980): 66–80. . “The Imitation of Imitations in Orlando furioso .” Renaissance Quarterly . 38 (1985): 215–39.



. “Narrative Discontinuity in the Orlando furioso and its Sixteenth Century Critics.” MLN 103 (1988): 50–74.



. “The Orlando furioso and Ovid’s Revision of the Aeneid .” MLN 99 (1984): 1023–36.



. Proclaiming a Classic: The Canonization of Orlando furioso. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1991.



. “Rescuing Ovid from the Allegorizers: The Liberation of Angelica, Furioso X.” Ariosto 1974 in America: Atti del congresso ariostesco . Ed. Aldo Scaglione. Ravenna: Longo, 1976. 85–98.



Jenni, Adolfo. “Raziocinio dell’Ariosto.” Rivista di cultura classica e medioevale 7 (1965): 577–85. Johnson-Haddad, Miranda. “Gelosia: Ariosto Reads Dante.” Stanford Italian Review 11 (1992): 187–201.

Bibliography

169



. “‘Like the moon it renews itself’: The Female Body as Text in Dante, Ariosto, and Tasso.” Stanford Italian Review 11 (1992): 203–15.



Kelly, Joan. Women, History & Theory: The Essays of Joan Kelly . Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1984. Kelso, Ruth. Doctrine for the Lady of the Renaissance . Urbana: U of Illianois P, 1978. (1st ed. 1956) Kennedy, William J. “Ariosto’s Ironic Allegory.” MLN 88 (1973): 44–67. Kisacky, Julia M. “Conversion and Subversion in Boiardo’s Orlando innamorato .” Romance Languages Annual 10 (forthcoming). . “Views of Human Nature: Anthropophagy in Boiardo and Ariosto.” Romance Languages Annual 9 (1997): 211–6.



Klopp, Charles D. “The Centaur and the Magpie: Ariosto and Machiavelli’s Prince.” Ariosto 1974 in America: Atti del congresso ariostesco. Ed. Aldo Scaglione. Ravenna: Longo, 1976. 69–84. La Monica, Stefano. “Realtà storica e immaginario bellico ariostesco.” La rassegna della letteratura italiana 89 (1985): 326–58. Lansing, Richard. “Ariosto’s Orlando furioso and the Language of Paradox.” Italiana 6 (1994): 82–90. Larivaille, Paul. “Poeta, principe, pubblico dall’ Orlando innamorato all’Orlando furioso .” La corte di Ferrara & il suo mecenatismo 1441–1598/The Court of Ferrara & its Patronage . Eds. Marianne Pade, Lene Waage Petersen and Daniela Quarta. Ferrara: Panini, 1990. 9–32. Lazzaro, Nancy Lee. “Magia meccanica e realtà magica nell’Ariosto.” Diss. UCLA, 1980. Lazzaro-Ferri, Nancy. “Magia e illusione nell’elaborazione di due passi centrali del Furioso .” Quaderni d’Italianistica 5 (1984): 39–55. Lee, Vernon [Violet Paget]. Euphorion. London, 1884. 2 vols. Limentani, Alberto. “Avvento d’Angelica: Appunti sul I o canto dell’Orlando innamorato .” Symposium in honorem Prof. M. de Riquer. Barcelona: Crema, 1985. 137–60.

170

Bibliography



Looney, Dennis. “Ariosto’s Ferrara: A National Identity between Fact and Fiction.” Yearbook of Comparative and General Literature 39 (1990): 25–34. . Compromising the Classics: Romance Epic Narrative in the Italian Renaissance . Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1996.



. “The Misshapen Beast: The Furioso ’s Serpentine Narrative.” Countercurrents: On the Primacy of Texts in Literary Criticism. Ed. Raymond Adolph Prier. Albany: State U of New York P, 1992. 73–97.



. “Ovidian Influence on the Narrative of the Orlando furioso .” Diss. Chapel Hill, 1987.



Lorch, Maristella De Panizza. “Adventure as a Metaphor for Life in Boiardo’s Orlando innamorato .” Annali d’italianistica 1 (1983): 98–106. Luck, Georg. Arcana Mundi: Magic and the Occult in the Greek and Roman Worlds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1985. Maclean, Ian. The Renaissance Notion of Woman: A Study in the Fortunes of Scholasticism and Medieval Science in European Intellectual Life . Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1980. Manca, Joseph. “Boiardo and the Visual Arts in Ferrara: Comparisons and Convergences.” Fortune and Romance: Boiardo in America. Eds. Jo Ann Cavallo and Charles Ross. Tempe: MRTS, 1998. 260– 70. Marangoni, Marco. “L’apprendimento di uno sguardo: Bradamante alla ricerca di Ruggiero.” Schifanoia 17/18 (1997): 39–47. Marconi, Emo. “Teatralità dell’Ariosto.” Per l’Ariosto . Milano: Marzorati, 1976. 63–85. Marcus, Millicent. “Angelica’s Loveknots: The Poetics of Requited Desire in Orlando furioso 19 and 23.” Philological Quarterly 72 (1993): 33–51. Marinelli, Peter V. Ariosto and Boiardo: The Origins of Orlando furioso. Columbia: U of Missouri P, 1987. . “Redemptive Laughter: Comedy in the Italian Romances.” Genre 9 (1976/77): 505–26.



Bibliography

171



. “Shaping the Ore: Image and Design in Canto I of Orlando furioso .” MLN 103 (1988): 31–49.



Marsh, David. “Horatian Influence and Imitation in Ariosto’s Satires.” Comparative Literature 27 (1975): 307–26. . Introduction. Dinner Pieces. By Leon Battista Alberti. Trans. David Marsh. Binghamton: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1987.



. “Ruggiero and Leone: Revision and Resolution in Ariosto’s Orlando furioso .” MLN 96 (1981): 144–51.



Martelli, Mario. “Una delle Intercenali di Leon Battista Alberti fonte sconosciuta del Furioso .” La Bibliofilia 66 (1964): 163–70. Marti, Mario. “Ludovico Ariosto.” Letteratura italiana: I maggiori. Vol. 1. Milano: Marzorati, 1956. 307–406. Martinez, Ronald L. “De-Cephalizing Rinaldo: The Money of Tyranny in Niccolò da Correggio’s Fabula de Cefalo and in Orlando furioso 42–43.” Annali d’italianistica 12 (1994): 87–114. Masciandaro, Francesco. “Folly in the Orlando furioso : A Reading of the Gabrina Episode.” Forum Italicum 14 (1980): 56–77. Masciandaro, Franco. “Ariosto and the myth of Narcissus: Notes on Orlando’s Folly.” Studi filologici e letterari in memoria di Danilo Aguzzi-Barbagli. Ed. Daniela Boccassini. Stony Brook: Forum Italicum, 1997. 147–58. Matarrese, Tina. “La similitudine nell’ Orlando innamorato : il gioco della variazione.” Schifanoia 17/18 (1997): 7–27. Mazzotta, Giuseppe. Dante, Poet of the Desert: History and Allegory in the Divine Comedy . Princeton: Princeton UP, 1979. . “Power and Play: Machiavelli and Ariosto.” The Western Pennsylvania Symposium on World Literatures: Selected Proceedings: 1974–1991. Ed. Carla E. Lucente. Greensburg: Eadmer, 1992. 151–70.



McLucas, John C. “Amazon, Sorceress, and Queen: Women and War in the Aristocratic Literature of Sixteenth-Century Italy.” The Italianist 8 (1988): 33–55.

172

Bibliography



McMichaels, John. “Double Vision: Boccaccio’s Filocolo in Boiardo’s Orlando Innamorato .” Fortune and Romance: Boiardo in America. Eds. Jo Ann Cavallo and Charles Ross. Tempe: MRTS, 1998. 193–203. Medici, Mario. “Appunti sulla paratassi e ipotassi nell’ Orlando innamorato .” Il Boiardo e la critica contemporanea: Atti del Convegno di Studi su Matteo Maria Boiardo . Ed. Giuseppe Anceschi. Firenze: Olschki, 1970. 307–17. Mengaldo, Pier Vincenzo. La lingua del Boiardo lirico . Firenze: Olschki, 1963. Migiel, Marilyn. “Secrets of a Sorceress: Tasso’s Armida.” Quaderni d’italianistica 8 (1987): 149–66. and Juliana Schiesari, eds. Refiguring Woman: Perspectives on Gender and the Italian Renaissance . Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1991.



Mirollo, James V. “On the Significant Acoustics of Ariosto’s Noisy Poem.” MLN 103 (1988): 87–112. Molinaro, Julius A. “Ariosto and the Seven Deadly Sins.” Forum Italicum 3 (1969): 252–69. Momigliano, Attilio. Saggio su l’ Orlando furioso. 2d ed. revised. Bari: Laterza, 1932. Monorchio, Giuseppe. “Tradizioni legali del duello giudiziario nell’episodio di Rinaldo e Ginevra nell’ Orlando furioso .” Quaderni d’italianistica 9 (1988): 171–98. Montagnani, Cristina. “Fra mito e magia: Le ambages dei cavalieri boiardeschi.” Rivista di letteratura italiana 8 (1990): 261–85. Monteverdi, Angelo. “Lipadusa e Roncisvalle.” Lettere italiane 13 (1961): 401–9. Moran, Sue E. “The Arthurian Presence in Boiardo’s Orlando innamorato .” Mid-Hudson Language Studies 5 (1982): 31–38. Moretti, Walter. “L’ideale ariostesco di un’Europa pacificata e unita e la sua crisi nel terzo Furioso .” The Renaissance in Ferrara and its European Horizons/Il Rinascimento a Ferrara e i suoi orizzonti europei. Eds. June Salmons and Walter Moretti. Cardiff: U of Wales P and Ravenna: Girasole, 1984. 223–44.

Bibliography

173



. “Una novella boccaccesca dell’ Orlando innamorato .” Il Boiardo e la critica contemporanea: Atti del Convegno di Studi su Matteo Maria Boiardo . Ed. Giuseppe Anceschi. Firenze: Olschki, 1970. 329–37.



. “Gli ultimi canti del Furioso : Il viaggio dell’Ariosto nel mondo dell’‘Avarizia.’” Studi in onore di Lanfranco Caretti. Ed. Walter Moretti. Modena: Mucchi, 1987. 25–44.



Murrin, Michael. “Agramante’s War.” Annali d’italianistica 1 (1983): 107–28. . The Allegorical Epic: Essays in Its Rise and Decline . Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1980.



. History and Warfare in Renaissance Epic . Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1994.



. “The Siege of Paris.” MLN 103 (1988): 134–53.



. “Trade and Fortune: Morgana and Manodante.” Fortune and Romance: Boiardo in America . Eds. Jo Ann Cavallo and Charles Ross. Tempe: MRTS, 1998. 77–95.



Murtaugh, Kristen Olson. Ariosto and the Classical Simile . Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1980. Musacchio, Enrico. “L’emergere del protagonista nel racconto rinascimentale del viaggio.” Studi filologici e letterari in memoria di Danilo Aguzzi-Barbagli. Ed. Daniela Boccassini. Stony Brook: Forum Italicum, 1997. 59–71. Musitelli, Sergio, ed. Denaro sempre denaro . Segrate (Mi): Theorema, 1992. Negri, Renzo. Interpretazione dell’ Orlando furioso. Milano: Marzorati, 1971. . “Ipotesi sull’Orlando furioso .” Per l’Ariosto . Milano: Marzorati, 1976. 45–62.



Nohrnberg, James. “Orlando’s Opportunity: Chance, Luck, Fortune, Occasion, Boats, and Blows in Boiardo’s Orlando Innamorato .” Fortune and Romance: Boiardo in America . Eds. Jo Ann Cavallo and Charles Ross. Tempe: MRTS, 1998. 31–75.

174

Bibliography



Ordine, Nuccio. “Vittoria Colonna nell’ Orlando furioso .” Studi e problemi di critica testuale 42 (1991): 55–92. Orgel, Stephen. “Shakespeare and the Cannibals.” Cannibals, Witches, and Divorce: Estranging the Renaissance . Ed. Marjorie Garber. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1987. 40–66. Padoan, Giorgio. “L’Orlando furioso e la crisi del Rinascimento.” Ariosto 1974 in America: Atti del congresso ariostesco . Ed. Aldo Scaglione. Ravenna: Longo, 1976. 1–29. Pampaloni, Leonzio. “La guerra nel Furioso .” Belfagor 26 (1971): 627– 52. . “Per una analisi narrativa del Furioso .” Belfagor 26 (1971): 133–50.



Paolini, Paolo. “Situazione della critica ariostesca.” Per l’Ariosto . Milano: Marzorati, 1976. 3–22. Paparelli, Gioacchino. ”L’Ariosto lirico e satirico.“ Per l’Ariosto . Milano: Marzorati, 1976. 23–43. Parker, Patricia A. Inescapable Romance: Studies in the Poetics of a Mode . Princeton: Princeton UP, 1979. . “Suspended Instruments: Lyric and Power in the Bower of Bliss.” Cannibals, Witches, and Divorce: Estranging the Renaissance . Ed. Marjorie Garber. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1987. 21–39.



Pasotti, Orietta. “Dai cantari ai poemi cavallereschi: Prestigio e crisi del mago Malagigi.” Rassegna della letteratura italiana 95 (1991): 39–48. Pater, Walter. The Renaissance . New York: Mentor, 1959. Petersen, Lene Waage. “Il Poeta creatore del Principe: Ironia e interpretazione in Orlando furioso .” La corte di Ferrara & il suo mecenatismo 1441–1598/The Court of Ferrara & its Patronage . Eds. Marianne Pade, Lene Waage Petersen and Daniela Quarta. Ferrara: Panini, 1990. 195–211. Pettinelli, Rosanna Alhaique. “Di alcune fonti del Boiardo.” Il Boiardo e la critica contemporanea: Atti del Convegno di Studi su Matteo Maria Boiardo . Ed. Giuseppe Anceschi. Firenze: Olschki, 1970. 1–10.

Bibliography

175



. “Figure femminili nella tradizione cavalleresca tra Quattro e Cinquecento.” Italianistica 21 (1992): 727–38.



. L’immaginario cavalleresco nel Rinascimento ferrarese . Roma: Bonacci, 1983.



Piromalli, Antonio. La cultura a Ferrara al tempo di Ludovico Ariosto . Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1953. “Società ferrarese e mondo morale dal Pistoia all’Ariosto.” Per l’Ariosto . Milano: Marzorati, 1976. 111–23.

.

Pirotti, Umberto. “L’Ariosto e la cavalleria.” Studi e problemi di critica testuale 26 (1983): 79–115. Ponte, Giovanni. “Boiardo e Ariosto.” La rassegna della letteratura italiana 79 (1975): 169–82. . “Le fontane d’Ardenna nell’ Orlando innamorato .” Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 129 (1952): 382–92.



. “L’Orlando innamorato nella civiltà letteraria del Quattrocento.” Il Boiardo e la critica contemporanea: Atti del Convegno di Studi su Matteo Maria Boiardo . Ed. Giuseppe Anceschi. Firenze: Olschki, 1970. 407–25.



. La personalità e l’opera del Boiardo . Genova: Tilgher, 1972.



Pool, Franco. Interpretazione dell’ Orlando furioso. Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1968. Porter, I. A. “A Non-Performance of Il negromante .” Italica 59 (1982): 316–29. Praloran, Marco. “Maraviglioso artificio” Tecniche narrative e rappresentative nell’ Orlando innamorato. Lucca: Pacini Fazzi, 1990. . “Matteo Maria Boiardo.” Il Rinascimento, la letteratura. Ed. Walter Moretti. Storia di Ferrara Series 7. Ferrara: Librit, 1994. 215–64.



Quinones, Ricardo J. The Renaissance Discovery of Time . Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1972. Quint, David. “Astolfo’s Voyage to the Moon.” Yale Italian Studies O.S. I (1977): 398–408.

176

Bibliography



. “The Boat of Romance and Renaissance Epic.” Romance: Generic Transformations from Chrétien de Troyes to Cervantes . Eds. Kevin Brownlee and Marina Scordilis Brownlee. Hanover: UP of New England, 1985. 178–202.



. “The Death of Brandimarte and the Ending of the Orlando furioso .” Annali d’italianistica 12 (1994): 75–85.



. “Epic and Empire.” Comparative Literature 41 (1989): 1–32.



. Epic and Empire: Politics and Generic Form from Virgil to Milton. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1993.



. “The Figure of Atlante: Ariosto and Boiardo’s Poem.” MLN 94 (1979): 77–91.



. “La fortuna di Morgana: dal Boiardo al Marino.” Tipografi e romanzi in val Padana fra Quattro e Cinquecento . Eds. Riccardo Bruscagli and Amedeo Quondam. Ferrara: Franco Cosimo Panini, 1992.



. Introduction. Cinque Canti/Five Cantos. By Ludovico Ariosto. Trans. Alexander Sheers and David Quint. Berkeley: U of California P, 1996. 1–44.



. Origin and Originality in Renaissance Literature: Versions of the Source . New Haven: Yale UP, 1983.



Radcliffe-Umstead, Douglas. “The Sorcerer in Italian Renaissance Comedy.” Comparative Critical Approaches to Renaissance Comedy . Eds. Donald Beecher and Massimo Ciavolella. Ottawa: Dovehouse, 1986. 73–98. Rajna, Pio. Le fonti dell’ Orlando furioso. 2d ed. Firenze: Sansoni, 1900. . Le origini dell’epopea francese . Firenze: Sansoni, 1956.



Ramat, Raffaello. Per la storia dello stile rinascimentale . Messina: D’Anna, 1953. Reichenbach, Giulio. Matteo Maria Boiardo . Bologna: Zanichelli, 1929. . L’ Orlando innamorato di M. M. Boiardo . Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1936.



Resta, G. “Il sogno di Orlando.” I metodi attuali della critica in Italia. Eds. Maria Corti and Cesare Segre. Torino: ERI, 1970. 144–53.

Bibliography

177



Reynolds, Barbara. Introduction. Orlando furioso . By Ludovico Ariosto. Trans. Barbara Reynolds. New York: Penguin, 1975. Vol. 1 11–97 and vol. 2 7–21. Rinaldi, Rinaldo. “‘Sono ora in terra, on sono al ciel levato?’: Il programma dell’Orlando innamorato .” Lettere italiane 46 (1994): 529–64. Robinson, Lillian S. Monstrous Regiment: The Lady Knight in Sixteenth-Century Epic . New York: Garland, 1985. Roche, Thomas P., Jr. “Ariosto’s Marfisa: Or, Camilla Domesticated.” MLN 103 (1988): 113–33. Rodini, Robert J. “Selected Bibliography of Ariosto Criticism, 1980–87.” MLN 103 (1988): 187–203. . “Selected Bibliography of Ariosto Criticism: 1986–1993.” Annali d’italianistica 12 (1994): 299–317.



Rodini, Robert J., and Salvatore Di Maria. Ludovico Ariosto: An Annotated Bibliography of Criticism, 1956–1980 . Columbia: U of Missouri P, 1984. Ross, Charles S. “Angelica and the Fata Morgana: Boiardo’s Allegory of Love.” MLN 96 (1981): 12–22. . “Ariosto’s Fable of Power: Bradamante at the Rocca di Tristano.” Italica 68 (1991): 155–75.



. “The Court of Ferrara and Boiardo’s Orlando innamorato .” The Medieval Court in Europe . Edward R. Haymes, ed. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1986. 213–28.



“Damsel in Distress? Origille’s Subjectivity.” Fortune and Romance: Boiardo in America . Eds. Jo Ann Cavallo and Charles Ross. Tempe: MRTS, 1998. 175–90.

.

. “False Fame in Paradise Regained : The Siege of Albraca.” Milton in Italy: Contexts, Images, Contradictions. Ed. Mario A. Di Cesare. Binghamton: MRTS, 1991. 381–403.



. Introduction. Orlando innamorato . By Matteo Maria Boiardo. Trans. Charles Stanley Ross. Berkeley: U of California P, 1989. 1–29.



. “Justifying Violence: Boiardo’s Castle Cruel.” Philological Quarterly 73 (1994): 31–51.



178

Bibliography



. “Poetics at the Court of Leonello d’Este. Virgil, the Marvelous, and Feltrino Boiardo in the Competing Discourses of Angelo Decembrio’s ‘De politia literaria.’” La corte di Ferrara & il suo mecenatismo 1441–1598/The Court of Ferrara & its Patronage . Eds. Marianne Pade, Lene Waage Petersen and Daniela Quarta. Ferrara: Panini, 1990. 55–69.



Ruggieri, Ruggero M. L’umanesimo cavalleresco italiano . Napoli: Conte, 1977. Ruggiero, Guido. Binding Passions: Tales of Magic, Marriage, and Power at the End of the Renaissance . New York: Oxford UP, 1993. Rupprecht, Carol Schreier. “The Martial Maid and the Challenge of Androgyny: (Notes on an Unbefriended Archetype).” Spring: An Annual of Archetypal Psychology and Jungian Thought (1974): 269– 93. Russo, Luigi. L’ Orlando innamorato di M. Maria Boiardo . Pisa: Libreria Goliardica, 1952. Saccone, Eduardo. “Cloridano e Medoro, con alcuni argomenti per una lettura del primo Furioso .” MLN 83 (1968): 67–99. . “Figures of Silence in the Orlando furioso .” MLN 107 (1992): 36–45.



. Il ’soggetto’ del Furioso e altri saggi tra quattro e cinquecento . Napoli: Liguori, 1974.



. “Wood, Garden, locus amoenus in Ariosto’s Orlando Furioso .” MLN 112 (1997): 1–20.



Sampietro, Luigi. “L’Astolfo di Matteo Maria Boiardo.” Forum Italicum 14 (1980): 143–61. Sangirardi, Giuseppe. “Forme e strategie della similitudine nell’ Orlando furioso .” Schifanoia 13/14 (1992): 71–107. Santoro, Mario. L’anello di Angelica: Nuovi saggi ariosteschi . Napoli: Federico & Ardia, 1983. . “L’Angelica del Furioso : fuga dalla storia.” Esperienze letterarie 3 (1978): 3–28.



. Fortuna, ragione e prudenza nella civiltà letteraria del Cinquecento . Napoli: Liguori, 1967.



Bibliography

179



. Letture ariostesche . Napoli: Liguori, 1973.



. “La prova del ‘nappo’ e la cognizione ariostesca del reale.” Esperienze letterarie 1 (1976): 5–24.



Sarkissian, John. “Allusions to Classical Satire in Ariosto’s First and Third Satire .” ACTA 9 (1985): 107–20. Scaglione, Aldo D. “ Amori e dolori in the Orlando innamorato .” Italica 73 (1996): 1–10. ed. Ariosto 1974 in America: Atti del congresso ariostesco . Ravenna: Longo, 1976.

,

. “Chivalric and Idyllic Poetry in the Italian Renaissance.” Italica 33 (1956): 252–60.



. Knights at Court: Courtliness, Chivalry, & Courtesy from Ottonian Germany to the Italian Renaissance . Berkeley: U of California P, 1991.



Scarsella, Alessandro. “Su una lettera del Boiardo.” Lettere italiane 46 (1994): 106–08. Schiesari, Juliana. “The Domestication of Woman in Orlando furioso 42 and 43, or A Snake is Being Beaten.” Stanford Italian Review 10 (1991): 123–43. Segre, Cesare. “Da uno specchio all’altro: la luna e la Terra nell’ Orlando furioso .” Schifanoia 3 (1987): 9–16. . Esperienze ariostesche . Pisa: Nistri-Lischi, 1966.



ed. Ludovico Ariosto: lingua, stile e tradizione . Milano: Feltrinelli, 1976.

,

“Nel mondo della luna ovvero L.B. Alberti e L. Ariosto.” Rivista di cultura classica e medioevale 7 (1965): 1025–33.



. “Struttura dialogica delle Satire ariostesche.” Ariosto 1974 in America: Atti del congresso ariostesco . Ed. Aldo Scaglione. Ravenna: Longo, 1976. 41–54.



Serra, Luciano. “La sublimazione del grottesco: Brunello.” Il Boiardo e la critica contemporanea: Atti del Convegno di Studi su Matteo Maria Boiardo . Ed. Giuseppe Anceschi. Firenze: Olschki, 1970. 489–97.

180

Bibliography



Seznec, Jean. The Survival of the Pagan Gods. Trans. Barbara F. Sessions. New York: Pantheon, 1953. Shapiro, Marianne. The Poetics of Ariosto . Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1988. . “Revelation and the Vials of Sanity in the Orlando furioso .” Romance Notes 22 (1982): 329–34.



Shemek, Deanna. “Circular Definitions: Configuring Gender in Italian Renaissance Festival.” Renaissance Quarterly 48 (1995): 1–40. . “Of Women, Knights, Arms, and Love: The Querelle des Femmes in Ariosto’s Poem.” MLN 104 (1989): 68–97.



. “That Elusive Object of Desire: Angelica in the Orlando furioso .” Annali d’Italianistica 7 (1989): 116–41.



Sherberg, Michael. “Matteo Maria Boiardo and the Cantari di Rinaldo .” Quaderni d’italianistica 7 (1986): 165–81. “The Promotion of Literacy in the Orlando Innamorato .” Fortune and Romance: Boiardo in America. Eds. Jo Ann Cavallo and Charles Ross. Tempe: MRTS, 1998. 221–35.

.

Sinicropi, Giovanni. “La struttura della parodia; ovvero: Bradamante in Arli.” Strumenti critici 45 (1981): 232–51. Sitterson, Joseph C., Jr. “Allusive and Elusive Meanings: Reading Ariosto’s Vergilian Ending.” Renaissance Quarterly 45 (1992): 1–19. Sorrentino, Richard F. “Bella Istoria, Vera Istoria, and Boiardo’s Competent Reader.” Fortune and Romance: Boiardo in America. Eds. Jo Ann Cavallo and Charles Ross. Tempe: MRTS, 1998. 205–20. Speroni, Charles. “More on the Sea-Monsters.” Italica 35 (1957): 21– 24. Staebler, Mark. Selections from Boiardo’s Orlando Innamorato. New York: Peter Lang, 1989. Symonds, John Addington. Renaissance in Italy . New York: Cerf and Klopfer, 1935. vol. 2. Tempera, Mariangela. “‘Forged Beauty’: L’incantatrice dall’epica italiana a Spenser.” The Renaissance in Ferrara and its European Horizons/Il Rinascimento a Ferrara e i suoi orizzonti europei. Eds.

Bibliography

181



June Salmons and Walter Moretti. Cardiff: U of Wales P and Ravenna: Girasole, 1984. 293–308. Tognoli, Rita. “Teatro e teatralità nel Furioso .” Lettere italiane 44 (1992): 432–39. Tomalin, Margaret. “Bradamante and Marfisa: An Analysis of the ‘Guerriere’ of the Orlando furioso .” Modern Language Review 71 (1976): 540–52. . The Fortunes of the Warrior Heroine in Italian Literature . Ravenna: Longo, 1982.



Tomlinson, Gary. Music in Renaissance Magic: Toward a Historiography of Others . Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1993. Turchi, Marcello. Editor’s notes. Orlando furioso . By Ludovico Ariosto. Milano: Garzanti, 1974. Tylus, Jane. “The Curse of Babel: The Orlando furioso and Epic (Mis)Appropriation.” MLN 103 (1988): 154–71. Vallone, Aldo. “Ariosto e la magia.” Modi e testimonianze di cultura e di stile . Palermo: Palumbo, 1963. 35–52. “Pomponazzi, Ariosto e la magia.” Italica 26 (1949): 198–204.

.

Vinaver, Eugène. The Rise of Romance . Oxford: Clarendon, 1971. Visani, Oriana. “La tecnica dell’esordio nel poema cavalleresco dai cantari all’Ariosto.” Schifanoia 3 (1987): 45–84. Vitullo, Juliann. “Contained Conflict: Wild Men and Warrior Women in the Early Italian Epic.” Annali d’italianistica 12 (1994): 39–59. Walker, D. P. Spiritual and Demonic Magic from Ficino to Campanella . London: Warburg Institute, 1958. Weaver, Elissa. “Orlando imperterrito, intimidito, dignitoso, rozzo e la varietà del verziere di Matteo Maria Boiardo.” Annali d’Italianistica 1 (1983): 144–49. Welles, Elizabeth Bassett. “Magic in the Renaissance Epic Pulci, Boiardo, Ariosto, Tasso.” Diss. Yale U, 1970. Wiggins, Peter DeSa. “A Defense of the Satires.” Ariosto 1974 in America: Atti del congresso ariostesco . Ed. Aldo Scaglione. Ravenna: Longo, 1976. 55–68.

182

Bibliography



. Figures in Ariosto’s Tapestry . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1986.



. “The Furioso ’s Third Protagonist.” MLN 98 (1983): 30–54.



Wise, Valerie Merriam. “Ruggiero and the Hippogriff: The Ambiguities of Vision.” Quaderni d’Italianistica 2 (1981): 39–53. Wittkower, Rudolf. “Chance, Time and Virtue.” Journal of the Warburg Institute 1 (1937–38): 313–21. Yarnall, Judith. Transformations of Circe: The History of an Enchantress. Urbana and Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1994. Yates, Frances A. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1964. Zampese, Cristina. Or si fa rossa or pallida la luna: La cultura classica nell’ Orlando innamorato. Lucca: Pacini Fazzi, 1994. Zatti, Sergio. “I Cinque canti: La crisi dell’autorità.” Studi italiani 4 (1992): 23–40. . “Il cosmo, la corte, il poema: Il sistema delle ’corrispondenze’ nel Furioso .” Italianistica 18 (1989): 367–93.



. Il Furioso fra epos e romanzo . Lucca: Pacini Fazzi, 1990.



. “L’inchiesta, e alcune considerazioni sulla forma del Furioso .” MLN 103 (1988): 1–30.



. L’uniforme cristiano e il multiforme pagano: Saggio sulla Gerusalemme Liberata. Milano: Il Saggiatore, 1983.



Zoric´, Mate. L’Ariosto, gli Schiavoni e l’assedio di Belgrado . Quaderni del Giornale filologico ferrarese Series 11. Ferrara: Giornale filologico ferrarese, 1988.

 Index

A

adventure, function of magic, 52 Agramante, king, 21, 127 Agricane, king of Tartars, 17 Alberti’s Somnium , 134 Albraca, siege of, 17, 20, 33 Alcina (fay), 41, 48, 55, 69, 95, 96, 105–110 island of, 60, 67, 100, 105–106, 116 Alessandreta, use of magic horn on, 77, 78 alleg orical monsters, 100–101 allegory, magic as, 5 Almansi, Guido, 19, 128 Amore, god of love, 24 amore , river of, 23, 24, 28 Angelica and Baiardo, 90 character of, 22–23 and Circe, 42 Falerina’s tower, escape from, 45 and magic ring, 13, 20, 21–23, 42, 49, 69, 70, 72 and Malagise, 22, 28, 48, 49 Ranaldo, enamored of, 23, 24, 28 and Rinaldo, 73 anti-magic books, 27, 30 Logistil la’s how-to-book, 81, 82 magic ring, 12, 19–23, 42, 49, 52–53, 72, 138 appearance, in Alci na’s paradise, 109

Ardena, forest of, 38 Argalia magic golden lance, 15, 19 magic helmet, 11, 19 magic ring, 20 Aridano (giant), 33, 45, 46 Ariosto, Ludovico Bible, view of, 132, 153n.36 creative control and hippogr iff, 98 encomium, use of, 82, 86, 87 ecphrastic description, 84 at Este court, 1, 3, 4 fame, view of, 130–131 guns, condemnation/praise of, 66, 67 jealousy, condemnation of, 75 magical c reatures, use of, 34–35, 139 magical weapons, use of, 59, 67 and moderation, 77 Olympians, use of, 102 plot advancement, 130–140 rational or der, 26, 70, 112 reactive Angelica, 22 armament s, 7–11 Arthurian tradition, 2, 3, 26, 124, 137 arti llery, and Estes, 67 Ascoli, Albert Russell, 86 Astolfo (duke of Engla nd), 97, 101, 102, 103, 106, 110 Alcina’s garden, 106 Logistil la’s student, 112, 130

184

Index

 magic horn, 77–78 magic lance, 7, 11, 12, 14–18, 55–56, 67, 68 voyages of, 130–135 astrology, 2 Atalante (sorcerer, Orlando innamorato ) , 38, 51, 114 and demons, 27 fortress, 21 Atlante (sorcerer, Orlando furioso ), 52, 56, 113–117 and hippogriff, 95, 96 and magic shield, 59 spell book, 80 avarice fountain, Merlin’s, 83, 123 B

Bacchelli, Riccardo, 65 Baiardo, Rinaldo’s magical hor se, 16, 33, 34, 89, 90, 123 Baillet, Roger, 64, 81 Baldan, Paolo, 103 Balisarda (magic sword), 11, 12–13, 14, 44, 65 Balisardo (giant/sorcerer), 50 Beelzebub, and invention of cannon, 66 blind ogre, 103 Boccassini, Daniela, 52 Boiardo, Matteo Maria Angelica, enterprising, 22 and duty, 139 encomium, use of, 82, 86–87 at Este court, 1, 3, 4 fays, introduction of into Italian epic, 41 magical creatures, use of, 34–35, 138–139 passion tempered by reason, 25 Bradamante (lady knight and ancestress), 62, 69 foremother of Estes, 56, 84, 87 magic lance, jousts with, 57, 58, 67 magic ring, use of, 68, 71, 77 and Melissa, 117–120

Brandimarte (knight), 17, 31, 40, 42, 49, 82, 83, 87 bridle, for hippogriff, 96, 98 Brigliadoro, Orlando’s non-magical horse, 89 Brunello, 21 Bruscagli, Riccardo, 1, 36 Bucephalus, Alexander’s horse, 35 C

Calandria (il Bibbiena), 68, 72 Caligorante, 101, 102, 119 Calvino, Italo, 66 cannon, 66, 67 caritas , Ranaldo, 144n.35 Carolingian tradition, 2, 3, 35, 124, 137 Cassandra, weaver of wedding canopy, 86 “cavallier per fetto,” Orlando as, 31, 32 Cavallo, Jo Ann, 37, 47 chaotic force and chance, 138 horses as, 98 Charlemagne, 2, 22, 121 Chiampi, James, 89 chivalry and control, 98, 137 ideals/values, court of Ferrara, 3, 4 lance, use of, 56, 59, 67 use of against the ch ivalrous, 62 Circe and Alcina, 105 and Angelica, 42 transformation, 52 classical harmony, rule of, 4 Classical tradition, 1, 36, 112–113, 137 condemnation, tradition of, 11 cortesia , 15 Craig, Cynthia, C., 63 creativity, hippogr iff’s bit, 98 Crudel Rocca, 26, 29, 30, 34, 49 Cumaean Sybil’s pavilion, 83

I n de x

18 5

                   D

Dante, 74 deceit, use of against evil, 61, 118– 119 De hominis dignitate , 3 d’Este, Ippolito, Cardinal, 4, 86, 130, 131 Delcorno Branca, Daniela, 7, 8, 67 demons, 27, 28, 124 De Sanctis, Francesco, 4 diletto , 11 Di Pino, Guido, 21 disamore , fountain of, 2, 23, 24, 53, 73, 117, 122, 138 Discord, personification, 125, 126 Disdain, personification, 26, 74, 122 dismisura , villainous property, 37 disorganicità formale , 4 distraction, function of magic, 52 distrust, and marital discord, 76 Doralice, horse of, 120–121 Dovizi, Bernardo (il Bibbiena), 68 dragon, Falerina’s, 43 Dragontina (fay), 37, 41, 42 garden/palace of, 20, 21 Duke Aigualdo, Christian Christian giant, 36 Durindana, Orlando’s sword, 8–9, 10, 16, 92 E

Ebuda, Proteus’ revenge against, 98 enchanted (“fatato”) weapons, 8 encomium, 82, 83, 149n.58, 123, 131 Erifilla (Avarice), 100, 101, 107 Estes. See also d’Este, d’Este, Ippolito, Cardinal court of, 3, 4 encomiums to, 82, 149–150n.59, 131 praise by Atlante, 114 F

Falerina (fay) change of heart, 44, 46 creator creat or of Balisarda, 12

garden of, 13, 22, 30, 32, 35, 40, 41, 145n.4, 43 golden-scaled ass, 36 false Elysia, 41 fame, Aristo’s Aristo’s view of, 130–131 Farrell, Mary MacLennan, 84–85, 92, 131 Fata del Tesoro, 31, 41, 46 fatati, hero, 8 fatato , weapons, 8, 142n.8 fays, 41–48, 105–113 and spell books, 27 Febosilla (fay), 48 loggia of, 82 fede , chivalric ideal, 4 félonie , 11 Feraguto, 29 Ferrara, 126 as a signoria , 3 linked wit h Charlemagne’s Paris, 86 Fichter, Andrew, 86 Finucci, Valeria, 22 Fiordelisa (lady), 32, 40, 49, 82, 83, 87 flying horse. See hippogriff hippogriff foreknowledge, 127–128 forgetfulness in Dragontina’s garden, 37, 41 of Naiads’ captives, 38–39 fortuna, 137 fortune, magic ring as, 70–71 Franceschetti, Antonio, 4, 142n.10, 36 fraud (deceit), use of against evil, 61, 118–119 Fraud, personification, 125 Frontino, Ruggiero’s Ruggiero’s horse, 33, 89 G

Galafrone (Saracen king), 22 father of Angelica, 48 gifts to son Argalia, 15, 19–20 Garamanta, king of, 21 garland crowns, anti-magic of, 40 Giamatti, A. Barlett, 33, 34, 92, 98, 106

1 86

I n de x

                   giants, 36–37, 101 giraffe, 34 God, appearance in poem, 125, 126 Gradasso (Saracen), (Saracen), 16, 17, 29, 40, 122 armor, 10 and Baiardo, 92 as giant, 36 healing of, 35 and hippogriff, 95 Grandonio (Saracen), duel duel w ith Astolfo, 16 Grifone and Aquilante (twin knights), 42, 43, 48, 102, 112 guns, condemnation of, 66, 67 H

Haauvette, Henri, 65, 92 Haauvette, harpies, 101 harquebus (cannon), 12, 65 Hector, armor, 10, 11, 35, 65 hell, Astolfo’s visit to, 133 helmet, Orlando’s, 8, 11 hermetic thought, and sorcerers, 113 Hermeticism, 2, 3 hermit holy man, 127–130 minor sorcerer, 123–124 spells of, 79 “high” magic, 2 hippogriff (flying horse), 34, 35, 55, 56, 59, 65, 69, 70, 111 Astolfo’s ride, 130 description of, 94 Ruggiero’s ride, 92–98 Homer,, magic i n, 1 Homer homo fortunatus , Astolfo as, 78, 149n. 51, 116 horses, enchanted, 33–34, 89–98 how-to-books, guides for knights, 26, 27, 30, 79, 138 I

impossible absolute, 76 “infedelissimo,” Boiardo’s Boiardo’s sources, 1 infidelity, and magic goblet, 75, 76, 84

invisibilit y, and gender, gender, 19, 143n.18, 68, 72 irony,, ch ivalric literature, 4, 141n.19 irony Isole Lontane, 46 J

Jealousy, personificat ion, 74, 122 Jealousy, judge jud ge’s ’s tal t ale, e, an and d p er fec fecti tibi bi lilitt y, 76, 149n.48 L

lady messenger’s book for Falerina’s garden, 30, 32, 40 lance, magic golden, 17–18, 55–59, 67, 138 landscape, and character’ character’ss state of mind, 73 Larivaille, Paul, 86 last resor t, Ruggiero’s Ruggiero’s use of magic shield, 62 Lazzaro, Nancy Lee, 64 Lestrigioni, the, 34, 36 Lipadusa, 128 literature,, St. John’s speech about, literature 132 Logistil la (good fay of reason), reason), 55, 60, 62, 96, 97, 103, 110– 112 garden of, 112–111 love, possessive nature of, 39 “low” magic, 2 Lucina, and blind ogre, 103 lust, own punishment, 108 M

magic and miracles, 134–135 structural purposes, 5 use of against dishonorable enemies, 61 magic books, 26–32, 79–82 magic goblet, 74–77 magic horn, 67, 77–79, 101 magic ring, 13, 19–23, 42, 49, 52– 53, 68, 108 magic swords, 8

I n de x

18 7

                   magic waters, 23–26, 72–74 Malagigi (sorcerer Orlando furioso ), ), 79–80, 84, 85, 92 ineptness of, 120–124 Malagise (sorcerer Orlando ) , 21, 26 innamorato ), and Angelica, 22, 28, 48, 49, 69 spell book of, 27, 28, 29, 30 Mandricardo’s armor, 10, 11 Manto, 112–113 Mantuan knight, 75, 76, 120 Marbalusto, Marbalust o, king of Ora n, 101 Marfisa, (Ruggiero’s (Ruggiero’s tw in), 21, 56, 58 joust jo ust w it ith h Bra B radam daman ante te,, 57 57 Marganorre, misrule of, 58 Marinelli, Peter V., 92 McLucas, John C., 107 Medoro, Angelica’s love for, 72 Medusa, 37, 38 Melissa (sorceress), 56, 60, 62, 68, 69, 76, 78, 96, 108, 110 anti-spell book, 80, 81 influence of Merlin on, 117 and marriage of Ruggiero and Bradamante, 118–120 meraviglia , 11 Merlin, 2, 52, 84, 117–120 fountain of, 23, 24, 73, 83, 117, 138 Michael, archangel, 125 miracles and magic, 134–135 miracle-workers, miracle-work ers, 124–125 mirrored walls, of Logistilla’s garden, 112 Momigliano, Attilio, 108 monsters, 34–36, 100–101 moon, Astolfo’s voyage to, 130 morality, of magic, 11–14 Morgan le Fay, 75, 76 Morgana (fay), 41, 46, 47, 48, 110 test, 31, 35 trials, 30, 31, 32 Morgana/Ventura, 47, 105 Murrin, Michael, 41 myrtle tree, Astolfo’s Astolfo’s transformation, 106

N

Naiads, 38, 39, 40, 95 narrator support of magic use, 62 sympathy for Alcina, 109 Negromante , 3 Nimrod, 9, 35, 36 Norandino, and blind ogre, 103 O

Orgagna, Falerina’s garden, 13, 22 Orlando Astolfo, Astolf o, at tack on, 17, 42 in Dragontina’s garden, 20, 41 in Falerina’s garden, 43 and guns, 66 and Morgana’s trials, 31, 32 as reader, 31, 145n.41, 32 in the Riviera del Riso, 38 and sea monster, 99 Orlando/Rinaldo rivalry, 79 Orlando/Rugiero duel, 13–14 Orlando furioso magic waters in, 72 openendedness openendedn ess of, 4, 142n.22 supernatural creatures creatures i n, 35 Orlando innamorato magic waters in, 72 openendedness openendedn ess of, 4, 142n.22 supernatural creatures creatures in, 34–35 Orrilo, 77, 81, 101, 102, 112 P–Q

palace of illusions, 116 Angelica’s use of magic ring in, 71 Astolfo’s use of magic horn in, 77, 78–79 Palazzo Zoioso, 26, 29 palmer’s book for the Sphinx, 30, 31 Paris siege of, 29 tourney, 16, 17 passion, triumph over reason, 105, 151n.2 Pegasus, hippogriff’s li nks to, 92 petrification, mad love and, 37

188

Index

 Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni, 3 pilotless boat, 26 Pinabello, 92, 93 plot advancement, and magic, 5 Polyphemus, 103 Pool, Franco, 65 Prasildo, and Medusa, 37 Prester John, 130, 134 “prophetic” work of ar t, 82 Proteus, 98 psychological motivation, magic as, 5 punctilio, 64 Quint, David, 131, 132, 133–134 R

Rabicano, magical horse, 34, 89, 92, 96 radicali destrutturazioni , 36 Rajna, Pio, 2, 75 Ranaldo ( Orlando innamorato ) 2, 7, 12, 22, 26, 32, 46 anti-eros tradition Grail quests, 23, 144n.35 enamored of Angelica, 24 and Malagise, 48 rape, Angelica’s narrow escapes from, 69 reason in Logistilla’s garden, 110–111 and magic, 5 Reichenbach, Giulio, 1, 44, 86 Ricciardetto, Bradamante’s twin, 56, 64 Rinaldo ( Orlando furioso) , Lord of Montalbano, 8, 11, 26, 41, 87, 122 and Baiardo, 89–90 and Merlin’s fountain, 73, 74 Rinaldo/Gradasso, duel, 91 Riviera del Riso, 37, 38, 52, 95. See also Naiads flying horse of, 34, 40. See also hippogriff rocca di Tristano, paint ings, 83, 84 Rodamonte, king of Sarza, 29, 36 armor of, 9–10

Ruggiero (knight and ancestor, Orlando furioso ) , 7, 43, 55, 69 and Alcina, 105–110 armor of, 10 Atlante, raised by, 113 Bradamante’s preference for, 56 and Bradamante’s wedding pavilion, 86 conversion to Christianity, 126– 130 desti ny, knowledge of, 107, 119 Este ancestor, 65, 72, 87 and hippogriff, 95, 97 magic ring, use of, 69, 95 and magic shield, 59, 60–65, 99, 107 and monsters of Alcina’s island, 100 Rugiero (knight and ancestor, Orlando innamorato ) , 10, 14, 20, 33, 34, 36, 40, 41, 69 Atalante’s paternal love for, 51, 52, 114 Balisarda, using, 11, 13 Este ancestor, 21–22 S

santissimo eremita , 127–130 Santoro, Mario, 64, 75 Scarapino, demon, 29 sea monster description of, 99 Ruggiero’s bat tle against, 62 self-discipline, and control of hippogriff, 96–97 Seneca, praise of Nero, 131, 132 shape-shifting, 51 shield, magic, 12, 59, 67, 107 Silence, personification, 125 Silvanella (fay), 48 sorcerers, 48–53, 113–124 and spell books, 27 spell books, 26, 27, 30, 79 spell-breaking, 72. See also antimagic

Magic in Boiardo and Ariosto

Recommend Documents