amor sovente gli facea gettare
Acciò che solo un foco due cor ardi.
When the work was published, copies were presented by the author to his most intimate friends, and he received, amongst others, the following letters of acknowledgment:—
From Mr. W. S. Rose[B] (whose ire at Pickering’s device is not altogether unjustifiable):—
“Brighton, 29 April, 1830.
“Dear Panizzi,
I have seen nothing to quarrel with in your book, but will read it again, and with a more exceptious disposition.
If Pickering be not squeezed to death in his own press, his nose at least ought to be rubbed in his own frontispieces (I mean title-pages) while the ink is still wet, … as an appropriate punishment. I do not blame him for his imitation, but for his bad imitation, of Aldus. His symbol and disposition of words are not offensive.
Compare this with Mr. Pickering’s.
Anglus is not an adjective.
Why have we Arabic instead of Roman numerals? which would have harmonized with the rest of the letterpress.
Ever yours,
W. S. Rose.”
B. Wm. Stewart Rose was born in 1775. He resided in Italy for two years, during which time he acquired the most accurate knowledge of the language and literature of the country. In 1823 he began a condensed translation in prose and verse of Bojardo’s Orlando Innamorato and Ariosto’s Orlando Furioso. He died in 1843.
From Roscoe:—
“Lodge Lane, May 1st, 1830.
“My dear Friend,
I have just received a copy of the first volume of your edition of the great works of Bojardo and of Ariosto, and feel myself greatly obliged by the honour you have done me by dedicating them to me; an honour to which I have no pretensions but in the partiality of your friendship, which renders such a memorial of it truly valuable.
I flatter myself that through the blessing of Providence I may yet be favoured with such a state of health as may enable me to enjoy the perusal of this introductory volume, from which I anticipate great pleasure.
I am, with the sincerest esteem and attachment,
Ever faithfully yours,
W. Roscoe.”
And from Macaulay, dated “Calcutta, 1st January, 1835.” (This letter has reference not only to Panizzi’s “Orlando Innamorato,” but to another work of his, shortly to be mentioned, that is, the edition of Bojardo.)
“Dear Panizzi,
Many thanks for your kind and welcome present. It was acceptable to me on account of its intrinsic interest, and still more acceptable as a proof that I am kindly remembered by one by whom I should be sorry to be forgotten.
In two years or little more I shall be on my return to England. There, or, as I would rather hope, in your own beautiful country, we shall meet, and talk over that fine literature which you have done so much to illustrate. I have never given up my intention of writing a review of your edition of Bojardo. I never found time to read the poem through in England. But here I have had that pleasure, and have been exceedingly gratified both by the text and the notes. I read Berni’s Rifacimento long ago. But I like Bojardo better.
At present my official duties take up a great and increasing portion of my time.
The hours before breakfast are still my own. But I give them to ancient literature.
It is but little that I have lately been able to spare to Italian, yet I feel all that Milton has so beautifully expressed,
Quamquam etiam vestri nunquam meminisse pigebit,
Pastores Tusci, Musis operata juventus;
Hic Charis, atque Lepos; et Tuscus, tu quoque, Damon,
Antiqua genus unde petis Lucumonis ab urbe.
O, ego quantus eram, gelidi cum stratus ad Arni
Murmura, populeumque nemus, qua mollior herba,
Carpere nunc violas, nunc summas carpere myrtos,
Et potui Lycidæ certantem audire Menalcam![C]
But of these things we shall have opportunities of talking hereafter.
Believe me ever, yours, &c., &c.,
T. B. Macaulay.”
Macaulay, no doubt, intended to bestow on Panizzi’s book something more than a mere acknowledgment of its presentation. In a letter addressed to Macvey Napier, dated 29 April, 1830, he says:—“There are two subjects on which I think of writing for the next number (of the ‘Edinburgh Review’). ‘The Romantic Poetry of the Italians’ is one of them. A book on the subject has just been published by my friend Panizzi, Professor in the London University, which will afford a good opportunity. I have long had this project in my head.”
C. Epitaphium Damonis, line 125, sqq.
On the 16th October, 1830, he, however, writes again, saying, “My article on the Italian Poets must be postponed till the spring.” And again on the 8th October, 1838, writing from London, to Napier, “I think of writing an article on Panizzi’s edition of Bojardo, with some remarks on the romantic poetry of the Italians generally. This I can do as well, indeed better, on my journey than in London. I will try to send it off by the middle of December, or earlier.”
The intention, however, thus twice, at all events, expressed, was never carried into effect, and an essay which would probably have taken its place with the best of Macaulay’s has been lost to the world.
From what has been said it will seem that the book received due appreciation from some, at least, of those well capable of judging of its value.
This short notice of its reception would be incomplete were all account omitted of a curious but somewhat unpleasant episode in the history of the work in question, to touch upon which it is necessary to anticipate a little the course of events. The fons et origo mali is best told in Panizzi’s own words, which are taken from a letter dated 27th March, 1835, and addressed to the proprietors of The Foreign Quarterly Review:—
“In the last number of The Foreign Quarterly Review (called XXIX., but in fact No. 1 by your editor) (Vol. XV., p. 48), there is a lucubration on Italian Romantic Poetry, in the shape of an article on the Orlando Innamorato and Furioso, edited by me, in which occurs the following passage, intended, I suppose, as a sample of the courteous and gentlemanly style of literary criticism which is to grace this journal under the new régime:—
“The
