?Meter?s study of Heinsius? critical theories has three dominant themes. First there is the movement from a poetic based on inspiration to a poetic centred on Horace and Aristotle and stressing conscious technique - in classical terms, ?ars? rather than ?ingenium?. In the latter poetic, rules are necessary style is understood as rhetorical artifice, and imitation in the sense of following models is appropriate. Second, there is the pessimism of late Dutch Humanism. Lipsius found solace in Stoicism. Heinsius was more deeply influenced by Calvinism. His view of tragedy is bleak, almost medieval. Tragedy is not exemplary in the sense of warning its viewers away from this or that vice (?) It is, rather, a lesson in the vanity of human wishes and the inevitability of suffering. Catharsis is the result of having this lesson taught over and over again until it is accepted without perturbation (?). This can be called the ?Mithridatic? theory of catharsis. Meter traces it to Robortellos?s commentary on Aristotle (1548) rather than to Castelvetro?s (1571), where it is more explicitly developed. Third, there is the neoclassic theory that emerges from the texts themselves. This theory occupies most of Meter?s book. He explains it in patient, generally lucid denial, with frequent references to the commentaries of Robortello on the ?Poetics? and the ?Ars Poetica?. Since his discussion if often technical, readers are advised to keep a copy to the ?Poetics? handy.? (O.B. HARDISON in Renaissance Quarterly, 1986, pp.301-302).