Faria e Sousa is the author of three treatises; the first, “On the sonnet;” the second, “On the erroneous notions of the moderns concerning poetry;” and the third, “On pastoral poetry.” These works must not be overlooked in the history of the literary taste of Portugal, since theoretical prolusions of this kind by poetic writers, supplied the place of a detailed art of poetry in Portuguese literature. All these treatises are written in the Spanish language.[274] The first, which is entitled _Discurso de los Sonetos_, is in itself insignificant. It merely contains a few scanty notices on the history of sonnet poetry, and some trifling observations hastily thrown together on the appropriateness of the sonnet metre in Spanish and Portuguese poetry. But towards the close of the treatise Faria e Sousa advances a very wide principle, which is exceedingly convenient for him in its application to his peculiar style of composition. One certainly must not, he says, grant absolution for excrescences and licences in poetry, from the notion that elegant language is of less importance than bold and beautiful ideas; but it is not to be forgotten “that a great man may sometimes do what he pleases, and that it is a great crime to call him to account for so doing, more particularly when those by whom he is called to account are pigmies in knowledge and judgment.”[275] That Faria e Sousa ranked himself in the class of great men is a circumstance which admits of no doubt. In his second treatise (_Contra la opinion moderna acerca lo que es poesia_) he has more clearly explained the nature of the ideas which in his opinion are more to be esteemed in poetry than elegant words. In the first place he applies the just principle that language does not make a poet in so loose and perverted a manner as to imply that correct versification is but of little importance. He then reasons again on a just principle most inconsistently, concerning the essence of poetry. He first observes that the essence of poetry as little consists in fine phrases and even in grand ideas, as in deep knowledge or in polished verse, (_versos muy peinados_). He next makes this assertion,--“the only things required in poetry are invention, imagery, pathos, and a display of every kind of knowledge.”[276] Considered in this point of view, he admits Marino to be far inferior to Homer, Virgil, Ovid, Dante, Ariosto, and similar poets. But then Torquato Tasso is scarcely a poet worth naming; for in Tasso’s poetry there is but little learning, little invention, and a common style of composition. Tasso is in his opinion a second Lucan, and nothing more; a historian indeed, but no poet. Finally, he complains that allegory, which he regards as particularly necessary to the beauty of a great poem, is totally wanting in Tasso’s Jerusalem Delivered. Faria e Sousa seems to have picked up in Italy the opinions which form the groundwork of his vituperation of Tasso and his Jerusalem. Having ceased to rail