It is, of course, to be observed that all this is strictly limited to _Ancient_ Poetry; indeed Patrizzi repeats the very words religiously in the title of every Book. [Sidenote: _The_ Deca Disputata.] To support his examination with a further one of modern or even Italian “vulgar” poetry does not seem to have occurred to him. Perhaps, indeed—since he refers, as has been said, in the very first line of his second part to _la lunga e faticosa istoria delle cose a poeti, a poemi, e a poetica spettanti_ as “condetta a fine” with a sort of sigh of relief—he may have thought that his readers would not stand it. But it is noteworthy that in this Decade he constantly cites Italian writers, and that the last forty pages of his Tenth Book consist of a _Trimerone_ of controversy with Tasso himself, amicable (they were actually friends), but by no means unanimated. The First Book of the _Disputata_ is given up to the cause of poetry, which Patrizzi, again in accordance with Bruno, decides to be Enthusiasm (_Furori_[127]), relying much on Plato, especially on the Tynnichus passage (_v. supra_, vol. i. p. 20), and even a little on Aristotle. The Second Book attacks, with a good deal of acerbity, and some wire-drawing, but also with learning, acuteness, and common-sense, the Aristotelian doctrine of Imitation, and the philosopher’s order and distribution of poetic kinds. The Third follows this up by an inquiry whether, in a general way, Poetry is Imitation at all; the Fourth by one whether the poet is an imitator. And the conclusion of the three, enforced with great dialectical skill, and with a real knowledge of Greek criticism,—that of Plato, Longinus, and the Rhetoricians, as well as Aristotle’s,—is that Poetry is _not_ Imitation, or at any rate that Imitation is not proper and peculiar to poets. In which point it will go hard but any catholic student of literature, however great his respect for Aristotle, must now “say ditto” to Patrizzi. ----- Footnote 127: It would be rather interesting to know whether the _Furor Poeticus_ of the second part of the _Return from Parnassus_ has anything to do with Patrizzi. There _need_ be no connection, of course; but the correspondence of England and Italy at this time in matters literary was so quick and intimate that there _might_ have been. Patrizzi’s book appeared in the probable year of Shakespeare’s going to London, and of the production of _Tamburlaine_. Bruno had then left England. -----