Goldoni's instinct led him by an irresistible bias to the stage. He vainly attempted to form himself for the more lucrative profession of the law. During his youth he studied at a college in Pavia, but was expelled for giving free vent to his literary propensities in satire. He practised as an advocate at the Venetian bar, practised at Pisa in the same capacity, acted as Genoese Consul at Venice. Still though he courted Themis, his real predilections drew him toward Thalia. The first piece which revealed his leading talent was a comedy in outline; _Il Gondoliere Veneziano_, represented at Milan in 1733. In the next year he produced a painfully bad tragedy at Verona ent.i.tled _Belisario_. Several pieces of a mixed character, between comedy and tragedy, followed. Yet he had not taken to the theatre as a profession; and it was not until the year 1746, when he joined the comic company of Medebac, at Leghorn, in the capacity of their paid playwright, that he entered definitely upon the career of author for the stage.

During the years when Goldoni was thus wavering between law and literature, he attempted many kinds of dramatic composition--operettas for music, tragedies, tragi-comedies, farces, _scenari_ for improvised comedies, and comedies of which the dialogue was partly written. His facile talent adapted itself to every style in turn. All this while he recognised that his strength lay neither in the direction of poetry nor in that of serious drama. Nature had bestowed on him a genius for comedy; and he felt born to educate Italian taste in that species. We have already seen how deeply he deplored the degeneration of the _Commedia dell' Arte_; and yet some of his pieces had been performed by the best improvisatory actors then alive, Sacchi the famous Truffaldino, and Darbes the no less celebrated Pantalone.

While scribbling Harlequinades, Goldoni never lost sight of the reform he had long meditated; and this was to subst.i.tute written comedies of character, in the style of Moliere and the ancients, for the old comedies _all' improvviso_. But he saw the necessity of proceeding cautiously. On the one hand, he had to consider the adherents of the elder style. On the other hand, he was forced to humour the comedians, who were jealous of changes which increased their dependence upon professional playwrights.[61] Accordingly, he advanced with circ.u.mspection. In the _Momolo Cortesan_, which he composed for the Pantalone of Sacchi's company (a certain Golinetti), only the leading part was written. The rest was left to improvisation. Nevertheless, this piece was constructed on different principles from those which governed the _Commedia dell' Arte_. It aimed at being a comedy of character; and thus Goldoni hoped by gradual steps to wean his actors from their bad old ways. Copying his mistress Nature, he saw that nothing could be done _per saltum_. It was necessary to prepare transitions, and to pa.s.s through the development of imperfect species to the exhibition of the type he had in view. This seems to have been the principle on which he acted. But Goldoni was so pliable and easy-going, so apt to take the cue from casual suggestions offered to his versatile ability, that he frequently lost sight of this leading principle. His Muse wore Harlequin's robe of many colours, and a.s.sumed the mask while waiting to effect the meditated revolution. This indecision at the commencement of his career exposed him to Gozzi's piratical attacks, and exercised, I think, a prejudicial influence over his subsequent career as playwright. But it was not in the character of the man to act otherwise. He could not divest himself of ready sympathy, fluency, and genial adaptability to the circ.u.mstances in which he was placed from time to time. Some natures are destined to achieve their ends by condescension. Goldoni's was essentially a nature of this kind. And the fact remains that, amid all his excursions into regions alien from his purpose, he kept one aim in view and finally achieved it. What survives of solid in his work, is the select series of plays produced upon the lines of the reform he calculated.

It was at Pisa in 1746 that the _Capocomico_ Medebac induced Goldoni to join his troupe. The proposal was that a theatre at Venice should be hired for five or six years, and that Goldoni should dedicate his whole talents to the composition of plays. Sufficiently good pecuniary offers were made; for it seems that each comedy was paid at the rate of thirty sequins, or about 12 sterling. Goldoni accepted. Then travelling with his new partners by the road through Modena, he reached Venice in July 1747. His first venture, with a play called _Tognetto_ or _Tonino bela grazia_, was a failure. A couple of pathetic pieces which followed, won more favour with the public. Darbes, whom Goldoni learned to appreciate and use with excellent effect, seconded his efforts admirably; and in 1748 circ.u.mstances seemed propitious for attempting the long-cherished scheme of a revolution in the theatre. Accordingly he wrote the _Vedova Scaltra_, which is distinctly a comedy of character. It was performed during the carnival season of 1749, and was received with intelligent sympathy by the Venetians. This induced Goldoni to pursue the course he had begun. _La Putta Onorata_ obtained a similar success, and met with emphatic approval from the gondolier cla.s.s, whose sentiments and manners had been studied in its composition. Goldoni's novelties had by this time roused the jealousy of rivals and the opposition of Conservatives.

A parody of the _Vedova Scaltra_ appeared at the theatre of S. Samuele.

This was clever enough, and scurrilous enough, to attract attention.

Goldoni received a check in mid-career, which became serious when the Carnival of 1749 closed with the total failure of a new piece from his pen, _L'Erede Fortunata_. Upon this occasion, stung to the quick, and piqued in his self-esteem, with the sense of his own inexhaustible and facile forces rendering the hazard light, Goldoni publicly declared his intention of producing sixteen new comedies within the next twelve calendar months.

He kept his promise, but at a considerable cost both to his position as playwright and his health. With the general public, the man's indomitable pluck, his good-humour, and the variety of subjects treated in his famous sixteen plays, created an indescribable enthusiasm. The end of the Carnival, 1750, brought well-earned laurels to Goldoni, together with the good-will of the fickle mult.i.tude. But unforgiving enemies, the supporters of the old drama, the literary purists, and the Conservatives who could not stomach sentimental comedies, were watching him with Argus eyes. In the heat of volcanic combustion, he had thrown up cinders and rubbish along with several felicitous and brilliant works of art. The worst of his performances were remembered and scored up against him by critics like Carlo Gozzi. The best were confounded in one plausible condemnation.

[Ill.u.s.tration: TARTAGLIA (1620)

_Ill.u.s.trating the Italian Commedia dell' Arte, or Impromptu Comedy_]

From this point forward for the next six years Goldoni met with no formidable opposition, except from a rival playwright. The man in question was the Abbe Chiari, a relic of the seventeenth century, pompous and bombastic in style, a blatant member of the Arcadian Academy, a b.a.s.t.a.r.d brother of Pindar in the matter of mixed metaphors and wild Icarian flights, a prolific scribbler of melodramatic pieces in rhymed Martellian verses,[62] and, after all his qualifications are summed up, a mere pretentious windbag. Chiari caught the public ear.

Venice divided itself into factions for Chiari and Goldoni. On a smaller scale, the Bononcini and Handel conflicts of London, the Gluck and Piccini riots of Paris, were repeated. The most damaging feature of this contest for Goldoni, was that Chiari, less gifted with originality, aped each of his new inventions. Against Goldoni's _Pamela Nubile_ Chiari brought out a _Pamela Maritata_, against his _Avventuriere Onorato_ an _Avventuriere alla Moda_, against his _Padre per Amore_ an _Inganno Amoroso_, against his _Moliere_ a _Moliere marito geloso_, against his _Terenzio_ a _Plauto_, against his _Sposa Persiana_ a _Schiava Chinese_, against his _Filosofo Inglese_ a _Filosofo Veneziano_, against his _Scozzese_ a _Bella Pellegrina_. In spite of their mutual hostility, this game of battledore and shuttlec.o.c.k between Chiari and Goldoni enabled the literary Conservatives to regard both playwrights as flying under one flag. But before the Granelleschi opened fire in earnest, Venetian society continued for five years to be pretty equally divided in its sympathies. The best judges sided with Goldoni, while Chiari's glaring faults, which pa.s.sed for brilliant qualities with the vulgar, won him numerous admirers. Carlo Gozzi has described this state of contention:[63]

"I partigiani ogni giorno crescevano, Chi vuole _Originale_ et chi _Saccheggio_; Tutto il paese a romore mettevano, Sicche la cosa non e da motteggio.

Nelle case i fratelli contendevano, Le mogli co' mariti facean peggio, In ogni loco acerba e la tenzone, Tutto e scompiglio, tutto e dissensione."

IV.

The Granelleschi, in their zeal for sound literature, were justly enraged against the ranting, arrogant, bombastic Chiari. Although the more discreet Academicians, men like Gasparo Gozzi, recognised Goldoni's merits, they resented his slovenly and slipshod style. Carlo Gozzi, less tolerant and far more satirical than his elder brother, confounded both poets in a common loathing. This was obviously unfair to Goldoni, who, whatever his faults of diction may have been, ranked immeasurably higher than the Abbe. But Goldoni was guilty of an unpardonable sin in Gozzi's eyes. He had declared war against the _Commedia dell' Arte_, for which Gozzi entertained the partiality of one who was himself an excellent impromptu actor. The other reasons of this bitter hatred are sufficiently explained in those chapters of the Memoirs which describe the beginning of his career as playwright.

At last Gozzi thought the time had come for striking a decisive blow.[64] The Granelleschi professed sincere admiration for an obscure burlesque Florentine poet of the fifteenth century called Burchiello.

Taking some of this man's enigmatical sentences for prophecies, Gozzi compiled a sort of comic almanac, in which the various woes impending over Venice in the year 1756 were described. It was ent.i.tled _La Tartana degl' Influssi per l'anno bisestile_ 1756,[65] and was modelled upon an almanac for country-folk, published at Treviso under the name of a certain Schieson.[66] For each quarter of the year a _capitolo_ in _terza rima_ was written, and a prophecy in octave stanzas was dedicated to each month. Although the _Tartana_ contained satires upon society in general, a considerable part was directed specially against Chiari and Goldoni. The introductory address to the readers strikes the keynote.

The month of February deals with comedies, the month of November with Martellian verses, and the month of December invokes the speedy return of Sacchi and his company of masks from Portugal. Finally, in the sonnet addressed to the bookseller at the end of the book, the two poets are mentioned by name. Gozzi declared himself an implacable enemy of the plays in vogue, an opponent of rhymed verses imitating the French Alexandrine measure, and a zealous adherent of the old _Commedia dell'

Arte_. The prophecy with regard to Sacchi's company was speedily fulfilled; for the earthquake of Lisbon happening in 1755, they were obliged to quit the scene of that lugubrious disaster. Soon after their return to Venice, Gozzi appears to have courted their friendship. This we gather from the _Canto Ditirambico de'Partigiani del Sacchi Truffaldino_ which he published in 1761.[67]

Irritated by the _Tartana degli Influssi_, Goldoni, who usually kept silence under literary attacks, took up the pen and wrote as follows:[68]--

"Ho veduta stampata una Tartana Piena di versi rancidi sciapiti, Versi da spaventare una befana, Versi dal saggio imitator conditi Con sale acuto della maladicenza, Piena di falsi sentimenti arditi; Ma conceder si pu questa licenza A chi in collera va colla fortuna, Che per lui non ha molta compiacenza.

Chi dice mal senza ragione alcuna, Chi non prova gli a.s.sunti e gli argomenti, Fa come il can che abbaia alla luna."

I have transcribed these verses for several reasons; first, that my readers may judge for themselves of Goldoni's poetical style; secondly, because the last six lines profoundly irritated Gozzi; and thirdly, because they engaged him in the production of his first semi-dramatic pasquinade upon their author.

We need not describe the battle of sonnets, squibs, and pamphlets which raged after the appearance of Gozzi's _Tartana_. The Granelleschi were now committed to crush their antagonists; and they spared no pains to do so. Men of birth and parts condescended to the filthiest ribaldry and the most savage personalities. On the whole, it must be allowed that the Granelleschi displayed superior wit and style. Gozzi, in particular, showed real powers for burlesque satire in his _Marfisa Bizzarra_; and some of his occasional pieces are composed with a terseness and directness worthy of the cla.s.sical age of Florentine literature. Goldoni replied from time to time, but feebly. In a poem ent.i.tled _La Tavola Rotonda_, he described his formidable antagonist as:[69]

"Un Lombardo che affetta esser cruscante Col riso in bocca e col veleno in petto."

This seems to me a fair, if somewhat pungent, description of Carlo Gozzi, who, in spite of his theoretical purism, rarely succeeded in writing with correctness or distinction, and who veiled a really caustic temper under the mask of Democritean philosophy. Touching upon the charges brought against himself of being neither a scholar nor a poet, Goldoni admits their truth with frankness:[70]

"Pur troppo io so che buon scrittor non sono E che ai fonti miglior non ho bevuto; Qual mi detta il mio stil scrivo e ragiono, E talor per fortuna ho anch' io piaciuto; Ma guai a me se il fiorentin frullone A sceverare i scritti miei si pone."

Strong in the unwavering appreciation of the public, and confident in his own powers, Goldoni could afford to make this concession to his antagonist. But it argued a generous and modest mind, different in quality from Gozzi's.

Meanwhile Gozzi took up the glove of defiance thrown down by Goldoni in his _Tavola Rotonda_. A sonnet referring to that poem contains these lines:[71]

"Ma acci s'abbia a decidere S'io dissi il ver, sto facendo un comento, Che provera l'a.s.sunto e l'argomento."

This _Comento_ led Gozzi eventually to the production of his _Fiabe_.

But a step or two remained to be taken before Gozzi resolved to meet Goldoni on his own ground, the theatre.

He began by circulating a satirical piece ent.i.tled _Il Teatro Comico all' Osteria del Pellegrino tra le mani degli Accademici Granelleschi_, or "The Comic Theatre at the Inn of the Pilgrim, rough-handled by the Granelleschi." Gozzi's Memoirs contain a sufficient description of this satire, which still exists in MS. at the Marcian Library. They also explain why he withdrew it from publication at the request of his friend Fa.r.s.etti and Goldoni's patron Count Widman. Therefore it is not necessary to discuss it here in detail: yet the meaning of the t.i.tle may be pointed out. Goldoni had already produced a comedy, called _Il Teatro Comico_, setting forth his views regarding the reform of the drama.[72]

Gozzi, alluding to this play, undertakes to expose the faults of Goldoni's own theatrical writings. The satire is conceived in the broad spirit of Aristophanic or Rabelaisian humour, and is really a masterpiece in its kind. We feel for the first time that Gozzi has found his proper sphere by the breadth of handling, the free play of humour, and the precision of touch, which reveal an inborn dramatic faculty. The unmasking of the vociferous four-faced monster which caricatured Goldoni, is eminently fit for scenical effect. While reading, we seem to be present at a new act in Jonson's _Poetaster_. The four mouths of the four-faced mask represent the four kinds of dramas written by Goldoni--his early harlequinades and _scenari_, his domestic comedy of the pathetic species, his heroic and Oriental melodramas, and his transcripts from Venetian life. A fifth mouth, the mouth in the belly, _la veridica bocca dell' epa_, as Gozzi terms it, utters Goldoni's personal aims and views, as Gozzi chose brutally to interpret them. This truthful witness confesses that all the four mouths of the masked head were subservient to its carnal needs. _Quis expedivit psittaco suum_ ?a??e?... _Magister artis ingenique largitor, Venter negatas artifex sequi voces._ "Who taught the parrot his word of welcome? That master of art and liberal dispenser of genius, the belly." That motto from the prologue to Persius' book of satires might be inscribed on the t.i.tle-page of Gozzi's pasquinade. The blow inflicted, in a literal and metaphorical sense, below the belt, was unworthy of a gentleman. It betrayed Gozzi's critical insensibility to Goldoni's actual merits. It exhibited his aristocratic contempt for professional literature, combined with his comedian's readiness to take advantage of a powerful opponent. But it also revealed a literary athlete capable of striking home, and whose method of attack was certain to be formidable.

Goldoni bowed beneath the storm, and used his influence to withhold the sanguinary satire from further publicity. At this point Gozzi showed the courtesy which might have been expected from a man of his quality. He dropped the point of his weapon at his antagonist's request, and prepared himself to meet the playwright on his own ground. In fairness to Gozzi, it is necessary to observe that this resolution indicated no small amount of chivalry and courage. Goldoni was the idol of the public. He kept continually pointing to the concourse which crowded the Venetian theatres when a new piece from his pen was advertised. Gozzi was unpractised in play-writing, a man in his fortieth year, and the dramatic card on which he staked his luck might well be considered hazardous. What that card was we shall presently discover.

Chiari, involved in the same warfare with the Granelleschi, had hitherto preserved a discreet silence. Now he defied them to produce a play.

Gasparo Gozzi answered with a sonnet, which betrays his personal leaning toward Goldoni. Then Chiari resolved to make common cause with his old rival on the stage. This shows how the dropping fire of the Academicians had told upon their opponents. The Abbe addressed Goldoni as _degnissimo comico vate, poeta amico_, most worthy master of comedy, my good poet friend. Goldoni reciprocated the compliment with _vate sublime, vate immortale_, sublime, immortal bard. Not without a touch of concealed irony, he compared himself to Chiari in this lyric flight:[73]

"Si, tu sei l'aquila, Io la formica; Tu voli all' apice Senza fatica, Mia Musa ai cardini Salir non sa."

We trace in these verses Goldoni's perfect clarity of vision regarding his own powers, and his good-humoured indulgence of other people's foibles. He recognised the practical advantage of an alliance with Chiari. At the same time he disclaimed all honours for himself, and gently ridiculed his new ally's pretensions.

Chiari had defied the Granelleschi to produce a comedy. Goldoni had taken up his stand upon the popularity of his own plays. Carlo Gozzi conceived the bold idea of writing a fantastic drama upon the old lines of the _Commedia dell' Arte_, which should fill the theatre of his adoption and restore Sacchi's company to favour. If he succeeded, both Chiari and Goldoni would be hit with the same stone. This was the real origin of the celebrated _Fiabe Teatrali_. But before engaging in the attempt, Gozzi looked about for a suitable subject. Nothing, he calculated, would floor his antagonists more thoroughly than the exhibition of a dramatised nursery tale by impromptu actors. Therefore, in the spirit of a burlesque duellist, in the true spirit of Don Quixote, he composed his _Amore delle Tre Melarancie_.

These facts about the genesis of Gozzi's _Fiabe_ need to be insisted on, since French and German critics have distorted the truth. They regard Gozzi as a romantic playwright, gifted with innate genius for a peculiar species of dramatic art. According to this theory, the _Fiabe_ were produced in order to manifest an ideal existing in their author's brain.

Minute attention to Gozzi's Memoirs, his explanatory Essays (Opere, vols. i. and iv.), and the preface appended to each _Fiaba_, shows, on the contrary, that he began to write the _Fiabe_ with the simple object of answering a certain challenge in the most humorous way he could devise. He continued them with a didactic purpose. His keen sagacity and profound knowledge of the Venetian public led him possibly to antic.i.p.ate success. Yet he knew that the attempt was perilous; and he made it, without obeying preconceived principles, without yielding to any imperative instinct, but solely with the view of giving Chiari and Goldoni a sound thrashing.

If it is worth while studying Gozzi and the _Fiabe_ at all, this point has so much importance that I may be permitted to resume the history of his literary conflict with the two poets. Gozzi opened fire with the _Tartana_ in 1756. Goldoni retorted that he had only made himself ridiculous; unless he proved both his a.s.sumption and his argument, he was nothing better than a dog barking at the moon. Gozzi then declared that he was already engaged in the production of a commentary. This circulated in MS. under the form of a satire called the _Teatro Comico_.

Meanwhile Goldoni parried all attacks by pointing to his popularity, and Chiari openly defied the Granelleschi to write a comedy, instead of condemning the plays in vogue. Finally Gozzi, who had become intimately acquainted with the actors in Sacchi's company, resolved to write a _scenario_, which should rehabilitate the _Commedia dell' Arte_, parody both Chiari and Goldoni, attract the public in crowds, and prove that a mere fairy tale, treated with romantic gusto, was capable of arousing no less interest than the works of professional playwrights following new-fangled models. The _Amore delle Tre Melarancie_, produced at the end of January in 1761, rather more than four years after the appearance of the _Tartana_, was the result.

It is mistaken to suppose that Gozzi was animated by the enthusiasm of a literary innovator. The _Fiabe_, in spite of their fantastic form, were the work of an aristocratical Conservative, bent on striking a shrewd blow for the _Commedia dell' Arte_, which he considered to be the special glory of the Italian race. In this respect, we might call Gozzi the Venetian Aristophanes.[74] The _Fiabe_ were his "Clouds," and "Birds," and "Wasps." Goldoni and Chiari were his Euripides and Agathon; perverters of the good old comedy by vulgar realism, false pathos, and meretricious rhetoric. Rousseau, Voltaire, Helvetius, the French _philosophes_, were his Socrates and Sophists. His art was the expression, not of creative instinct evoking a new type of drama merely for its beauty and romance, but of a militant, sarcastic mind, imbued with the ironical literature of the sixteenth century. Gozzi had little in common with Shakespeare. Truffaldino is no twin-brother of King Lear's fool, nor is Brigh.e.l.la cousin to the grave-digger in _Hamlet_.

These personages belong to the family of masks, whose pedigree dates from immemorial antiquity in Italy. The element of fable, as Gozzi repeatedly informs us, was first adopted by him out of sheer bravado to maintain a certain thesis, viz., that whole nations could be made to laugh and cry over puerilities, when handled with the judgment of a master. Gozzi's true ancestors in art were the Florentine burlesque poets, notably Luigi Pulci. The blending of magic, phantasy, broad comedy and serious tragic interest in the _Fiabe_ allies them to the _Morgante Maggiore_ far more closely than to Marlowe's _Doctor Faustus_. In them, therefore, we observe the curious literary phenomenon of what at first sight appears to be spontaneous romantic art, but what is really the result of satirical and didactic intention. The preface to _L'Augellino Belverde_, in which Gozzi takes leave of the _Fiabe_, clearly explains the case.[75] "I addressed myself to the task of arousing great popular enthusiasm by a _tour de force_ of fancy; and at the same time I wished to cut short the series of my dramatic pieces, from which I derived no profit, and the burden of producing which was beginning to weigh heavily upon me. Besides, it seemed to me that I had fully achieved the end I had proposed to myself from the outset, in the indulgence of the purest capricious and poetical punctilio." _Punctilio_ was the parent of the _Fiabe_.

At this point I shall introduce a translation of _L'Amore delle Tre Melarancie_. There are several reasons for doing so. First, although it only exists For us in the _compte rendu_ of the author, and is therefore a description rather than a literal _scenario_, a very good idea can be gained from it of the directions given by a poet to extempore actors.

Secondly, it shows the four Venetian masks, Pantalone, Tartaglia, Truffaldino, and Brigh.e.l.la, in action, together with the _servetta_ Smeraldina. Thirdly, it is interesting for the light thrown upon Gozzi's controversy with the two poets in the critical observations he has interspersed. These I shall enclose in brackets, so that the _scenario_ of the play may be distinguished from extraneous matter.

V.

A REFLECTIVE a.n.a.lYSIS

OF THE FABLE ENt.i.tLED

THE LOVE OF THE THREE ORANGES.

_A Dramatic Representation divided into Three Acts._[76]

PROLOGUE.

(_A boy comes forward and makes this announcement._)

Your faithful servants, the old company Of players, feel sore shent and full of shame; Behind the scenes they stand with downcast eye And hang-dog faces, dreading words of blame; They blush to hear the folk say: "We are dry!