zaro, his two great masters. His Petrarchan mood is less sincere, for his spirit was less given to subtle analysis than to a quiet delight in the memory of his misfortunes. His few pictures of the heroic struggles of war are stilted and artificial. But within the limited confines of his special talent, the simple portrayal of human regret and sorrow, he has few equals in the world's literature.

With this subtle power to touch the heart of the world with a sense of his personal sorrow goes hand in hand an exquisite taste and a perfect form. Working in a medium which was new and strange, with no models to follow in the diction of his own Castilian speech, he created a Spanish lyric diction. For such a task he was happily equipped. His stout Castilian past gave him a poise and dignity; his close contact with Italy added to his instrument the qualities of elegance and polish. The result of these two influences is a style which is at once distinguished and supple, free from the rigidity of his own speech and also free from the extrav

agances of his Italian contemporaries. In the delicacy of his finish, in the purity and simplicity of his lines there is a quality like that of some exquisite plateresque carving.

There have been those who have sought to find in his work traces of that conscious effort for subtlety which led in time to the excesses of Góngora and his perverted school. Such a charge implies an ignorance of the poetry of the cancioneros and of the Italian poets of his time. Compared with Juan de Mena or Angelo di Costanzo, Garcilaso is classical in his purity and simplicity. Such he was considered to be by Lope de Vega, by Quevedo, and by all the other opponents of the school of culteranismo, who turn to him as a model of sound writing and good taste. This good taste is unfailing in his work; his feeling for the fitting expressing is never questionable. It is not the least of the tributes which are paid to his achievement that to-day his works seem more modern in their style and language than any of the works of the sixteenth century.

Not the least of his gifts, certainly the one which has insured him the unswerving admiration of his own people through the centuries, is his incomparable gift of song. Oviedo, it will be recalled, styled him a "gentil musico"; that power was translated into his work. Nowhere in Castilian can there be found such music, such variety of tone and color, such appealing melody. To have enriched the life of his nation with this gift is alone a warrant for his enduring fame. But Garcilaso is more than an object of national pride; he is a source of permanent delight for all the world whose speech is Spanish. And happily, this gift of song is not one that appeals merely to the trained mind; it still stirs all men who love the song of birds, the rustle of wind in the trees or the babbling of brooks. Thus Garcilaso's influence and popularity have been universal. We do not need to know the source of his themes to be stirred by the magic of his words. His art of song is spontaneous and eternal.

CHAPTER II

THE LETTERS

Of the three letters of Garcilaso which have come down to us as evidences of his prose, one is a brief official note sent to the Emperor concerning a military matter. The second is a short, friendly missive to Girolamo Seripando, interesting largely because of an unexplainable reference to certain enmities at the Court. The third letter, however, is considerably longer and offers a larger interest.

This letter, the first of Garcilaso's works to appear in print, is addressed to Doña Gerónima Palova de Almogavar and serves as a prologue to Boscán's translation of Il cortegiano of Baldassare Castiglione. It was Garcilaso, as Boscán tells us in bis own Prólogo, who first sent him a copy of the Italian work and it was he who, after the translation had been made at

the instigation of Doña Gerónima, insisted upon its immediate publication, even reading the final proof himself.

There are several reflections of the poet's opinions in this letter, which give us some glimpse of his literary tastes, as well as his general attitude toward life. Thus he remarks his satisfaction in having early appreciated the excellent qualities of Castiglione's work, adding a significant comment on the importance of a gentleman's avoiding all action which might tend to lower his reputation on the world. Of particular interest is his biting criticism of early Spanish literature. "Some misfortune has always been ours," he says, "for hardly anyone has written anything in our tongue which could not very well have been dispensed with." Plainly he was not familiar with Juan Ruiz; the Celestina he must have overlooked, or considered unworthy of a place in belles lettres. In all probability he is thinking primarily of the novelas caballerescas, for he adds, "though this would be hard to prove to those who always