// ppgen source panizzi-src.txt
// 20070224101148fagan
// projectID45e8d7fb18181
// KD Weeks, MWS, Adrian Mastronardi and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
// first edit: 11/13/2018
// source: https://archive.org/details/lifecorresponden01fagauoft
.dt The life and correspondence of Sir Anthony Panizzi Vol. 1 of 2, by Louis Fagan
.nr break-wrap-at “- —”
.gk
.de a:link { text-decoration: none; }
.de div.tnotes { padding-left:1em;padding-right:1em;background-color:#E3E4FA;border:1px solid silver; margin:1em 5% 0 5%; text-align: justify;}
.de .blackletter { font-family: “Old English Text MT”, Gothic, serif;}
.de .epubonly {visibility: hidden; display: none; }
.de @media handheld { .epubonly { visibility: visible; display: inline; } }
.de .htmlonly {visibility: visible; display: inline;}
.de @media handheld { .htmlonly { visibility: hidden; display: none; } }
.sr h |Fo|Fo̲̣|
.de div.box { margin: auto; border: 1px solid black; width: 60%; padding: 2em;}
.de .column-container { margin: auto; clear: both; }
.de .left { display: inline-block; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; width:49%; }
.de .right { display: inline-block; text-align: right; vertical-align: bottom; width:49%; }
.de .width100 { width: 95%; margin-top: 1em; }
.de .width49 { width: 49%; display: inline-block;}
.dm underline $1
.if t
==$1==
.if-
.if h
$1
.if-
.dm-
.de ins.correction { text-decoration:none; border-bottom: thin dotted gray; }
.de .quote { margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 1.0em; margin-bottom: 1.0em; }
.de .quote0 { margin-left: 0em; margin-top: 1.0em; margin-bottom: 1.0em; }
.de .linegroup .group { margin: 0em auto; }
.sr h |class='quote([a-z]+)_(\d+)_(\d)'|class='quote\3' style='font-size:\2%' lang='\1' xml:lang='\1'|
.sr t |\[oe\]|œ|
.sr h |text-align: left; text-indent: -1em;|text-align: justify; text-indent: -1em;|
.sr h |||
.sr h |||
.sr t ||=|
.sr t ||=|
.sr h |||
.sr t |||
.sr h |||
.sr t |||
// create errata table page references
.dm cref $1
.if t
$1
.if-
.if h
#$1:corr$1#
.if-
.dm-
// create markup
.dm corr_noid $1 $2
.if h
$2
.if-
.dm-
.dm corr $1 $2 $3
.if t
$3
.if-
.if h
$3$3
.if-
.dm-
.dm start_summary_ctr
.fs 90%
.in 1
.ce
.dm-
.dm start_summary
.fs 90%
.in 4
.ti -4
.dm-
.dm end_summary
.fs 100%
.in
.dm-
//Begin quote
.dm start_quote_lang $1 $2 $3
.if t
.in 2
.if-
.if h
.dv class='quote$1_$2_$3'
.if-
.dm-
.de .multiline {display: inline-block; text-align: left; vertical-align: bottom; padding:0;}
.de .xxxl { font-size: 275%; }
.de .mt { vertical-align: top; }
.de .mb { vertical-align: bottom; }
.dm multiline $1 $2 $3 $4
.if t
$1$2
$3$4
.if-
.if h
$1$2
$3$4
.if-
.dm-
//Begin quote
.dm start_quote
.if t
.in 2
.if-
.if h
.dv class='quote'
.if-
.dm-
//End Quote
.dm end_quote
.if h
.dv-
.if-
.if t
.in
.if-
.dm-
// Begin Poetry
.dm start_poem
.sp 1
.fs 95%
.nf b
.dm-
// End Poetry
.dm end_poem
.nf-
.fs 100%
.sp 1
.dm-
.pb
.pi
.dv class='tnotes'
.ce
Transcriber’s Note:
.if t
This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical
effects. Italics are delimited with the ‘_’ character as _italic_.
A carat ‘^’ is used to denote a superscripted characters. Where
multiple characters are subscripted, they are delimited by
curly braces (e.g. le 1^{er} Septembre).
.if-
Most footnotes were denoted with an asterisk, although several
notes to a single letter, beginning on p. #250#, are assigned
sequential numbers. All notes have been resequenced, from A to P,
and moved to directly follow the paragraphs where they are
referenced.
.if h
Illustrations have been moved slightly in the text
break. Note that they had no captions, expecting the
reader to identify the subjects from the context.
.if-
.if t
Illustrations have been moved slightly in the text
break. Note that they had no captions, expecting the
reader to identify the subjects from the context. In this
text the position of the illustration is indicated as
[Illustration: ]. There are decorative images
at each chapter break, and as footers at the end of
several chapters and appear simply as [Illustration].
.if-
Minor errors, attributable to the printer, have been corrected. Please
see the transcriber’s #note:endnote# at the end of this text
for details regarding the handling of any textual issues encountered
during its preparation.
.if h
.dv class='htmlonly'
Any corrections are indicated using an
highlight. Placing the cursor over the correction will produce the
original text in a small popup.
.il fn=cover.jpg w=60%
.dv-
.dv class='epubonly'
Any corrections are indicated as hyperlinks, which will navigate the
reader to the corresponding entry in the corrections table in the
note at the end of the text.
.dv-
.if-
.dv-
.bn 001.png
.h1
THE LIFE OF SIR ANTHONY PANIZZI, K.C.B.
.ce
VOL. I.
.bn 002.png
.bn 003.png
.ce
PUBLISHERS’ NOTE.
The third volume by Mr. Henry Stevens, mentioned
on the title-page, is in preparation, and will probably be
issued some time this year. It will be sold separately or
with the two volumes of Mr. Fagan, as purchasers may
desire.
.bn 004.png
.bn 005.png
.bn 006.png
.il fn=i_frontis.jpg w=405px ew=80% alt='Sir Anthony Panizzi'
.bn 007.png
.pn +1
.nf c
THE
LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE
OF
Sir ANTHONY PANIZZI KCB
LATE PRINCIPAL LIBRARIAN OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM
SENATOR OF ITALY ETC
By Louis Fagan
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PRINTS AND DRAWINGS BRITISH MUSEUM
In Two Volumes
.nf-
.il fn=i_title_deco.jpg w=75px ew=15%
.nf c
AUTHORISED AMERICAN EDITION
TO WHICH IS APPENDED A THIRD VOLUME CONTAINING
TWENTY YEARS PERSONAL AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REMINISCENCES OF
PANIZZI AND THE BRITISH MUSEUM
1845-1865
By Henry Stevens of Vermont Fsa Ma Etc
.nf-
.il fn=i_title.jpg w=250px ew=50%
.ca Bibliography\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ The Tree of Knowledge
.ce
Volume I
.ce
.pm multiline B 'OSTON: HOUGHTON MIFFLIN AND COMPANY' 'RIVERSIDE CAMBRIDGE & ASTOR PLACE NEW-YOR' K
.ce
MdcccLxxxi
.bn 008.png
.sp 4
.nf c
The Reminiscences Copyright 1881
by Henry Stevens of Vermont
All rights reserved
.nf-
.bn 009.png
.il fn=i_a_009a.jpg w=350px ew=70%
.nf c
THE
LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE
OF
SIR ANTHONY PANIZZI KCB
.nf-
.il fn=i_a_009b.jpg w=118px ew=20%
.bn 010.png
.bn 011.png
.il fn=i_a_011.jpg w=500px ew=90%
.nf c
ADVERTISEMENT
To the American Edition
.nf-
.nf r
Reform Club, Pall Mall, sw
London, 15th October, 1880
.nf-
My dear Sir,
.di dc_a_011.jpg 150 145 1.1
Well knowing that Sir Anthony Panizzi
entrusted most of his literary articles
and reviews to you for re-publication
in America under your editorship; and
aware that he gladly availed himself of
your co-operation in adding to the store of American history
and literature in the British Museum, I feel that your assistance
will be of great advantage in promoting an American
edition of my work.
The addition of your ‘Twenty years personal and bibliographical
Reminiscences of Panizzi and the British Museum’
cannot but add interest to the new edition, hence I heartily
.bn 012.png
.pn +1
coincide with and approve the suggestion, in full expectation
that your long experience and special opportunities will have
enabled you to throw still more light on the labours of a
life and the merits of an institution which cannot be too
well-known everywhere.
Trusting that our combined work will be as cordially received
in your country as Americans always were by Panizzi
at the British Museum,
.ll 68
.nf r
I remain, my dear Sir, yours very truly,
Louis Fagan
.nf-
.ll
.nf l
To Henry Stevens, Esquire of Vermont, F S A ETC
4, Trafalgar Square, Charing Cross, London.
.nf-
.sp 4
.il fn=i_a_012.jpg w=100px ew=15%
.bn 013.png
.pn +1
.h2
PREFACE.
.dc 0.4 0.4
The first chapter of these Volumes discloses the
reasons which induced me to undertake the
present Biography—a task amounting to a labour of
love, owing to the personal interest I have felt in it
from beginning to end. How far, however, I may
succeed in satisfying my Readers—fully conscious
as I am of my own demerits and the many defects to
be met with—I leave them to decide, trusting to
their kind indulgence not to be hypercritical in their
verdict on my faithful endeavour to perform my duty
both to them and to the subject of these memoirs.
Some delay has arisen in the completion of the
work, to be attributed to three causes: the interruption
occasioned by my official duties, the variety and
complicated nature of the subject, and the numerous
translations required for the full development of the
life I desired to treat with justice in every respect.
Grateful acknowledgments are due for the valuable
assistance received from Mr. Charles Cannon of
the Foreign Office, Mr. Richard Garnett of the
.bn 014.png
.pn +1
British Museum, Mr. C. E. Fagan and from Mr.
C. M. Tyndall, to whom I am deeply indebted.
Certainly in no less degree must I record, with
sincere thanks, the cheerful and graceful aid rendered
me by Madame Arditi, who has, throughout my
labours, proved a most encouraging and able coadjutrix.
The respectful expression of my gratitude to the
Duke D’Aumale and to the Right Honourable W. E.
Gladstone is an honourable duty, since to them as
well as to Mrs. Franklin, Sir Gilbert Lewis, Sir
James Lacaita, Mr. C. T. Newton, Mr. Andrew
Rutherfurd and the late Mr. Edward Ellice I am
indebted for the loan of letters, etc., without which
my work could never have attained the degree of
completeness of which it may fairly boast. Finally,
in the list should also be named those who have helped
me to present these volumes in their finished state—MM.
Durand, Pilotell, Sem and F. Gusman, to whose
courtesy I owe six of the portraits interspersed within
these pages.
To men of letters throughout the civilized world
I can scarcely doubt that a biography of one so well-known
in his particular and important sphere as was
the earnest worker of whom I have written should be
otherwise than acceptable. Nevertheless, it is with
some anxiety that I lay my venture before the public,
.bn 015.png
.pn +1
though trusting at the same time that no serious
drawback in the accomplishment of my labours may
prevent a just appreciation of them by all considerate
readers.
.ll 68
.rj
Louis Fagan.
.ll
.in 4
.nf l
2a, Granville Place,
Portman Square, W.
September, 1880.
.nf-
.in
.bn 016.png
.h2
CONTENTS.
.ta h:58 r:12
CHAPTER I.
Introduction—History of Brescello—Birth—Parentage—Education—Carbonaro—Piedmontese\
and Neapolitan Revolutions, 1820—“I\
Processi di Rubiera” | #3 to 38:Page_3#.
CHAPTER II.
Flight—Lugano—Arrival in London—Santa-Rosa—Sentence\
of Death—At Liverpool—Roscoe—Shepherd—Haywood—Linati—Pecchio—Letter\
to the Tax-Gatherer and Inspector of\
Finances—Miss Martin—Lectures | #39 to 62:Page_39#.
CHAPTER III.
Foscolo—At Holkham—First Article—Departure\
from Liverpool—Brougham—Miss Turner—London\
University—Botta—Lady Dacre—“Orlando\
Innamorato”—W. S. Rose—Keightley—Moore’s\
Verses—Correspondence with Mr.\
Grenville—Appointed to the British Museum | #63 to 101:Page_63#.
CHAPTER IV.
The British Museum—Appointment Discussed—First\
Duties—The Royal Society—Promotion—Cary—Hallam’s\
Letter—Official Residence | #102 to 141:Page_102#.
.bn 017.png
.pn +1
CHAPTER V.
Sir Henry Ellis—Parliamentary Committee, 1835-6—Keepership—Removal\
of the Library from\
Montague House—“Temporary Assistants”—Superintendence\
of Catalogue—Rev. R. Garnett—J.\
Winter Jones—Thomas Watts—J. H.\
Parry—Additions to Library, 1838, and Deficiencies—Annual\
Grant | #142 to 175:Page_142#.
CHAPTER VI.
Bridport Election—Desire to Visit Modena—Mazzini—Post\
Office Espionage—Biographer’s Personal\
Reminiscences—Portland Vase—Psalter, 1457—Interview\
with Francis IV.—Libri | #176 to 198:Page_176#.
CHAPTER VII.
Thiers—“Spanish Marriages”—Downfall of Lord\
Melbourne’s Administration—Corn Laws—Coolness\
between Panizzi and Thiers | #199 to 254:Page_199#.
CHAPTER VIII.
The Royal Commission, 1847-49 | #255 to 265:Page_255#.
CHAPTER IX.
Mr. Grenville—Bequest—A Portrait by Manzini—Chartist\
Demonstration—Copyright Act—Mr.\
Bohn | #266 to 293:Page_266#.
CHAPTER X.
Lord Vernon’s Dante—Sir G. Cornewall Lewis\
on Milton and Dante—“Chi era Francesco da\
Bologna?”—John Harris | #294 to 312:Page_294#.
.bn 018.png
.pn +1
CHAPTER XI.
Minor Incidents—Holland House—Sydney Smith—Ecclesiastical\
Commission Act (1836)—Joseph\
Parkes—Count d’Orsay—Lord Melbourne—Mrs.\
Norton—Dr. Hampden’s Case—Watt’s\
Portrait of Panizzi—Lord Holland—Sir T. D.\
Hardy’s Life of Lord Langdale | #313 to 329:Page_313#.
CHAPTER XII.
Panizzi and Austria—Policy of Lord Palmerston\
Discussed—Mr. E. Ellice—Scotch Sabbath—Mr.\
Gladstone on Tasso—Panizzi and Thomas\
Carlyle | #330 to 337:Page_330#.
CHAPTER XIII.
The New Reading-Room—Sir C. Barry’s Plans—Completion\
and Breakfast—Mr. Hosking’s Plans—Controversy—Bust\
by Baron Marochetti—Austria\
applies for Plans of Reading-Room | #338 to 390:Page_338#.
.ta-
.bn 019.png
.sp 4
.h2
ILLUSTRATIONS TO VOL. I.
.ta l:58 r:12
| Page
Sir A. Panizzi (an Etching), Frontispiece.|
Ariosto | #79:i079#
Banks (Sir Joseph) | #111:i111#
Brougham (Lord) | #72:i072#
Clarendon (Lord) | #200:i200#
Dante | #295:i295#
Ellice (The Right Hon. Edward) | #333:i333#
Ellis (Sir Henry) | #142:i142#
Foscolo (Ugo) | #64:i064#
“Francia” (F^o Raibolini) | #306:i306#
Grenville (The Right Hon. Thomas)| #266:i266#
Guizot (F. P. G.) | #223:i223#
Hallam (Henry) | #139:i139#
Haywood (Francis) | #54:i054#
Lewis (Sir G. Cornewall) | #302:i302#
Mazzini (Giuseppe) | #182:i182#
Rogers (Samuel) | #73:i073#
Roscoe (William) | #49:i049#
Sloane (Sir Hans) | #102:i102#
Smith (Sydney) | #314:i314#
Thiers (Adolphe) | #199:i199#
Vernon (Lord) | #297:i297#
.ta-
.hr 15%
.ta l:58 r:12
Aldus and Pickering’s Devices | #83:i083#
.ta-
.bn 020.png
.bn 021.png
.pn 3
.pb
.il fn=i_b_003.jpg w=500px ew=90%
.ce
THE LIFE OF SIR ANTHONY PANIZZI
.sp 4
.h2
CHAPTER I
.pm start_summary
Introduction; History of Brescello; Birth; Parentage; Education
Carbonaro; Piedmontese and Neapolitan Revolutions, 1820-1;
I Processi di Rubiera.
.pm end_summary
.sp 2
.di dc_t.jpg 142 141 1.1
The labour attached to the
biographer’s task depends on the
amount and quality of incident in
the career, as well as the peculiar
characteristics of the person whose
life is portrayed, provided there be a sufficiency of
salient points in these respects to have made him
conspicuous in the eyes of the world. It would
be difficult, both to writer and reader, to follow
the career of a conventional country gentleman or
clergyman, however diligently and conscientiously
either might have discharged the duties alloted to
him in his particular sphere. The life of the Curé
of Ars, however, although in reality as much hidden
from the public eye as that of the most ordinary
squire or parson, must ever be reckoned, if only for
the psychological study it presents, amongst the most
interesting and, from certain points of view, the
most instructive of biographies.
.bn 022.png
.pn +1
The subject of the following “Memoirs,” so far as
regards the two points above mentioned, would seem
to offer most favourable conditions for the pen of the
biographer; nevertheless, the writer confesses that
the very facility presented has caused difficulties to
spring up in his way. Though utterly a novice in
such work, an ardent longing has possessed him to
write of one with whom he lived for twenty years on
terms of the most intimate friendship, little, if at all,
inferior in warmth to consanguineous affection. He
has deemed it his duty, after duly weighing the many
communications received from his friend in hours of
confidential intercourse, and regarding them as illustrative
not only of the life of the man himself, but in
their wider sense as pertaining to contemporary history,
and elucidating the opinions of the great statesmen
and other notable individuals with whom the subject
of this memoir was in daily intercourse—to show
forth his life to the world, calling to aid personal
memories of the events recorded, original documents
in the writer’s own possession or those he could obtain
from others, besides information given orally by friends.
That life, chequered even at the outset by struggle
and adventure, devoted to incessant activity, and
bound up, as it were, with all the stirring public
events of the most active period of our age, being of
necessity gathered from documents so voluminous as
to constitute a veritable “embarras de richesses”—a
plethora of material—the mere task of condensation
and selection has proved a formidable one; whilst the
arrangement of facts following closely on one another
has presented at times considerable difficulty.
.bn 023.png
.pn +1
Other causes have stimulated the biographer in his
work, inasmuch as he himself was not unconcerned
in some of the more important and exciting events of
the life which he records. The struggles of oppressed
nationalities, the numerous revolutions and changes
of dynasty, the intrigues of politicians throughout
Europe, the face of which may be said to have been
changed during the middle of this century, the varied
events at home, and the vicissitudes of the country
which his friend had adopted for his own, and for
which he evinced unswerving affection and fidelity,
have supplied matter which must be treated at some
length in order to depict his life in its true light, and
to represent adequately the motive power which
prompted his ways and actions.
These matters may be but feebly and imperfectly
shadowed forth here, and scant justice may possibly
have been done to the varied details; nevertheless,
these pages will be recognised as an earnest endeavour
to sketch the life of a meritorious, able, and—it might
without exaggeration be added—in his way a great man.
Where events follow their forerunners with extreme
rapidity, where it is sometimes necessary to record
circumstances which are simultaneous, it requires
the greatest care and discrimination to avoid confusion,
and to present the subject clearly to the
reader’s mind. The utmost pains have been taken
in these volumes to maintain correct chronological
order: dates are almost always given, so that
no doubt shall arise and no uncertainty exist
as to the time of action. Should quotations
appear at any time too copious or prolix, the author
.bn 024.png
.pn +1
asks the indulgent reader to impute this to his idea
of the importance of perspicuity in dealing with an
intricate subject.
With these remarks we enter upon our arduous
but pleasant task, with a profoundly sincere hope
that from a life of so much energy and perseverance,
our readers may extract for themselves an example
worthy of admiration and imitation.
Men have not lived in vain when, either by indomitable
spirit they have left behind encouragement
for their fellow-men to enter as keenly as themselves
into the battle of life, or have proved in their own
persons how strict integrity and undeviating rectitude
finally bring their reward; and such an example, we
venture to declare, was the subject of this memoir.
In the territory of Modena, on the right bank of
the River Po, stands an ancient town formerly called
Brixellum or Brexillum, hodie Brescello. Father
Bardetti (Lingua dei primi abitatori d’Italia) informs
us that the name of “Brescello” is derived from the
remote Gallo-Germanic words Brig, a bridge, and
sella, to observe. With all due respect to the
learned father, to his skill in philology, and to his
knowledge of the Gallo-Germanic dialect, our
opinion is that the names Brixellum and Brescello are
simply the common diminutives of Brixia and Brescia
respectively, a town not one hundred miles from
Brescello.
However that may be, it is certain that Brescello is
a place of most respectable antiquity, for according
to Pliny the younger it was a Roman colony, founded
during the period of the Republic. It is equally
.bn 025.png
.pn +1
certain that Brescello has, from the time of its foundation,
undergone as many of the vicissitudes of fortune,
and suffered as much from the horrors of war, as
many towns of far greater size and importance in the
eyes of the world. A brief notice of its history will,
however, cause our readers to marvel, not so much at
the ruin and destruction which has fallen with such
persistent recurrence upon Brescello as at the almost
miraculous power possessed by this ph[oe]nix among
cities of straightway rising again from its own ashes.
The first event of local historical importance which
strikes us is the suicide (A.D. 69) of the Emperor Otho,
which took place while he was encamped here, on
receiving the news of the total defeat of his army by
Vitellius. A tomb erected in the town to the memory
of the unfortunate Emperor, for whom we have
always entertained a certain amount of sympathy,
possibly arising in a great measure from our contempt
of his rival, is mentioned by Plutarch as having been
seen by himself.
From A.D. 69 to A.D. 388 nothing is known of the
history of Brescello. This interval, however, seems
to have been one rather of obscurity than of quiet;
for the name next occurs in a letter of St. Ambrose,
of the last-mentioned date, wherein he speaks of the
place as amongst one of the many ruined cities, and
ranks it with the equally oppressed towns of Bologna,
Modena, Reggio, and Piacenza. It may be conjectured
that by the year 452 Brescello must have been
wholly rebuilt; for in a letter of Eusebius to Leo I.
(St. Leo), commencing “Ciprianus Episcopus Ecclesie
Brixellensis,” it is stated that the town not only gave
.bn 026.png
.pn +1
name to a see, but was the dwelling place of a
bishop.
In the troubled times of the Longobardi it was
destroyed by King Autharis, circa. A.D. 585, but
even then gave promise of future vitality; for again
it was rebuilt, and a monastery existed there in
the tenth century. In the year 1099, for the first
time, the Castle of Brescello comes to our knowledge,
with the addition of fortifications to the
town.
It is needless to follow the fortunes of Brescello
throughout the wars between the Cremonese and
Parmese, of the many horrors of which, and notably
those which occurred in the year 1121, it was the
scene. The following brief statement of facts will
probably supply as much of the history of this much-suffering
place as may be desired.
In 1247, while Frederick II. Emperor of Germany
was besieging Parma, his ally Ezzellino IV., the
Tyrant, took possession of Brescello and Guastalla, in
order to deprive the inhabitants of Parma of all means
of subsistence, and thus reduce them to submission
by famine. During this campaign the first-named
town was partially destroyed; but Frederick and
Ezzellino made up to a considerable extent for the
damage inflicted on the Brescellese by building for
them a bridge over the Po.
The Parmese, always the bitter foes of Frederick,
retook Brescello two years later—i.e., in the year
1249—and erected important fortifications, which,
however, were destroyed in 1251 by the Cremonese,
under the leadership of Uberto Pallavicino.
.bn 027.png
.pn +1
Peace was declared two years afterwards, and the
conquered town became a portion of Parmese territory.
A congress took place here between the Parmese
and the Cremonese in 1295, and in 1303 Giberto
of Correggio was made Lord of Brescello. This
nobleman at once fortified his new possession so
strongly that the Cremonese, after a most furious
attack, were obliged to beat a hasty retreat. A second
bridge was constructed during the same year, but it
was soon destroyed by the strong currents of the
river.
Twelve months had hardly elapsed when the
Cremonese, undaunted by their previous defeat, again
attacked Brescello, and this time with such success
that the town was set on fire and utterly destroyed;
only, however, to be rebuilt by the determined
citizens, who soon afterwards were under the dominion
of the Marquis Obizzo III., of Este, at whose
death, in 1352, the government of the town passed
into the hands of the Visconti, and continued so up
to 1421. In 1425 the Venetians took possession of
Brescello, and held it until 1432, when it was captured
by the Duke of Milan, who, in the years 1442-3, gave
it to Erasmo Trivulzio.
In 1479 Brescello passed into the possession of the
Duke Galeazzo Maria, Ercole I., and in 1512 and
1551 was under the yoke of foreign troops. In
1552, Ercole II., re-fortified the town with very
strong forts, which were, however, totally destroyed
in 1704 by Gallispani.
Here, on the 16th September, 1797, was born the
subject of our memoir, Antonio Genesio Maria
.bn 028.png
.pn +1
Panizzi; a great portion of whose chequered life
seemed, in its changes and chances, to reflect the
early fortunes of his birth-place.
The similarity in the unsettled state of both is
striking, and it is a source of gratification to watch,
how, in progress of time, Panizzi was enabled to surmount
misfortune, and, freed from private as well as
political trouble, to end his life in assured peace and
security. His father, Luigi Panizzi, was the son of
Dottor Antonio Panizzi, a lawyer. His mother, Caterina
Gruppi, was descended from a respectable line of
ancestors, many of whom had earned for themselves
honourable distinction chiefly in the profession of the
law.
At an early age Antonio Panizzi was sent to a
school of the better class at Reggio, where he was
placed under the care of the Abbate Fratuzzi, Professor
of Rhetoric and Director of the Lyceum, with
whom, as stated by a contemporary, Dr. Zatti, he
soon became a special favourite. Of this school
Panizzi seems always to have cherished happy
memories, and the author remembers hearing him
narrate a rather amusing incident of his school-days.
This anecdote is presented to our readers with
some apology, and with the recommendation, after
the manner of facetious novelists when about to introduce
a more than ordinarily racy chapter, to use their
own discretion as to its perusal.
It is the custom at schools in Italy, even at the
present day, for one of the pupils to be chosen to
serve at mass. For this office the Abbate Fratuzzi
on one occasion selected Panizzi. It so happened
.bn 029.png
.pn +1
that the priest was administering the sacrament to a
man, whose head was of conspicuous uncleanliness,
and was uttering the usual sentence, “Corpus Domini
nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam
æternam.” Young Antonio, interrupting the priest at
the word “custodiat,” murmured to himself “pediculos
tuos,” then looked at the priest, who omitting
the “animam,” in a great hurry concluded the sentence,
perhaps unconsciously, “in vitam æternam.
Amen.”
Surely never yet had man and his tormentors in
combination so rich a blessing invoked on them.
Having finished his first course of studies at the
Lyceum, early in the year 1814 Panizzi entered the
University of Parma, where he kept the terms necessary
to qualify him for the legal profession. In
August, 1818, he obtained the Baccalaureat, with the
title of “Dottor” Panizzi. The original certificate
conferring this degree was taken away from him
when subsequently he became involved in political
troubles; but a second fully certified copy was sent
to him on the 22nd of May, 1827, most probably at
his own request, for about this period there was a
possibility of his appointment to the chair of Italian
professor at the London University.
As every detail is important to our subject, it may
be mentioned here that, within a month of his obtaining
his degree, he was attacked so violently by
typhoid fever, that his life was for awhile despaired
of.
It was Panizzi’s good fortune at this time to stand
on the best possible terms with the ruler of his State,
.bn 030.png
.pn +1
Francis IV. Duke of Modena, who esteemed the
young man so highly as to appoint him, though still
a mere youth, to the office of Inspector of Public
Schools at Brescello. This office he seems to have
discharged with more than common industry and conscientiousness,
bestowing on every detail, whether of
management or expenditure, the most careful supervision.
For the favour with which the Duke regarded
him, he was indebted to an intimacy existing between
Francis IV. and the Advocate Cocchi, with whom
Panizzi acted as a sort of legal partner, and whom
he constantly assisted in the various causes before
the Tribunal at Reggio.
One who knew Panizzi about that time, thus describes
his personal appearance: tall, thin, and of dark complexion;
in temper somewhat hot and hasty, but of
calm and even judgment, which commanded respect
and caused him to be looked up to by all. He must
have been most diligent in his pursuit of knowledge,
losing no opportunity of study, for he is described as
constantly engaged in reading, even while walking
from his house to the office.
As regards his professional reputation, he may be
said to have certainly occupied more than an average
position, both as counsel and as a legal authority. His
powers of eloquence were of no mean order; they were
especially conspicuous in a law suit, in which he was
engaged for the defence, and was opposed by the celebrated
advocate Tizioni, well-known as a most formidable,
and (as was said) unscrupulous opponent.
It was about this period that the political condition
of Italy began to engage, and shortly afterwards to
.bn 031.png
.pn +1
absorb his attention; and, in this place, it will be best
to notice a charge, openly brought against Panizzi,
that he was a Carbonaro. The truth of this assertion
must be at once and freely admitted; for although no
one ever heard him confess it in England, nor is there
in his book “Processi di Rubiera,” of which more hereafter,
any allusion to his having been of the Association,
yet it is indisputable that he was not only a
Carbonaro, but one of the most active members of
that Society. We have it on the evidence of Doctor
Minzi (one of his greatest friends), that in the month
of January, 1821, he, Dr. Minzi, and an ex-captain of
the Napoleonic army were admitted by Panizzi as
members of the Society, that such admission took
place in Panizzi’s own bedroom, and that he himself
had then been a member since the month of March,
1820.
In this country all secret Societies are apt to be
regarded—to use the mildest term—with disfavour.
It is true that ridicule attaches to the general denunciation
of Freemasonry indulged in by the Roman
Catholic Church; for, except that the manner of
creating a Freemason, and the sacred signs by which
he may hereafter be known, are kept in darkness
from the profane world, the Institution itself is about
as much a secret society as a London club; there is,
however, unfortunately, in a portion of these realms
a dark and dangerous organisation,[A] unjustifiable, we
conceive, as regards its purpose, and unscrupulous as
to the means which it employs to carry out its designs.
.bn 032.png
.pn +1
From the condition of this conspiracy, and of
the country where it is carried on, we are doing an
injustice to other and widely different nations to
judge of the causes from which their societies spring
by the same standard; for, let us frankly and impartially
put ourselves in the place of some at least
of these, and we may possibly find a sort of exculpation
if not a justification even of the Carbonaro.
.fm rend=th
.fn A
“Ribbonism” a society organised in Ireland about 1820, to retaliate on
landlords any injuries done to their tenants, not scrupling even at assassination.
An Act was passed to suppress it, 16th June, 1871.
.fn-
.fm=rend=th
Where the law is so weak that justice cannot be
obtained at its hands, some other organisation will
naturally be resorted to for the protection of life and
property, and this organisation being beyond, and
therefore to a certain extent antagonistic to the law
as existing, or at least as administered at the time,
must, if it would be effectual, be secret. No peaceful
and well-conducted inhabitants of certain cities in
the Far West, have yet, to our knowledge been
heard to complain of the existence or action of that
most terrible of Vehmgerichte, the “Vigilance”
Committee. Where, on the other hand, despotism,
uncontrolled by law, exercises an uncertain and
galling tyranny, or being acquiesced in by the majority,
reduces sovereign and subjects to the lowest
moral and intellectual, and it might almost be added
physical level, whatever there is of life and spirit in a
nation will be forced into some plan of action for the
preservation both of itself and the country; and this
action will of necessity be secret.
Conditions such as these existing, as will be hereafter
seen, in Panizzi’s own country, may fairly be
alleged as an excuse—if excuse be needed—for his
complicity with Carbonarism.
.bn 033.png
.pn +1
It is not brought forward as a further justification,
but simply adduced as a fact, that such distinguished
and eminent men, as Silvio Pellico, and the Principe
della Cisterna, are known to have been deeply imbued
with Carbonarism, and the late Emperor
Napoleon III. was among the number of those accused
of taking an active interest in the doings of this
society.
Into the condition of Italy at the time of which we
are writing it is unnecessary to enter as yet. Suffice
it to say that the restraints upon personal liberty and
the despotic conduct of the ruling powers aroused the
spirit of Panizzi, and he longed to liberate his
country; ardent patriot as he was, it seemed to him
that freedom could only be secured by the expulsion,
in the first place, of certain persons whom he deemed
tyrants. With a view of bringing about this result,
he thought it necessary to belong to a sect, or secret
society, whose predominant ideas were—to free Italy,
to unite her several States, and to expel the
“stranger.”
In order that the reader may not be misled in any
way in judging of the early political principles of
Antonio Panizzi, it will be well to give in this place
a short account of the source whence Carbonarism
sprung, of its original purpose, and of the more
ambitious aims which it in aftertimes developed.
Let it be first of all clearly understood that the Carbonari
of 1820 had nothing in common with the Communists
of the present day.
The Italian society of Carbonari dates from the
period of the French Revolution (1790); it’s name was
.bn 034.png
.pn +1
derived from that of a similar association which had
existed in Germany from a very early period. The
necessity of affording aid to one another induced the
charcoal-burners who inhabited the vast forests of
Germany to unite against robbers and enemies.
By conventional signs, known only to themselves,
they claimed and afforded mutual assistance. The
criminal attempt of Conrad de Kauffungen (executed
14th July, 1455), to carry off the Saxon princes,
failed through the intervention of the charcoal-burners;
and, at a more recent period, a Duke of
Wurtemberg was compelled by them, under threat of
death, to abolish certain forest laws, considered offensive
and cruel. This association gradually acquired
more consistency, and spread itself all over Germany,
France, and the Netherlands—the oath its members
took being called “the faith of colliers or charcoal-burners.”
It is asserted that several members of the
French Parliaments were enrolled in its ranks in the
years 1770-1790, and it may be remarked, en
passant“$2”$3, that in France there had long existed, in the
department of the Jura, an association known as the
“Charbonniers” or “Bucherons,” and that amongst
its members it was known as “Le Bon Cusinage.”
This society was revived and brought into activity by the
Marquis de Champagne, in the reign of Napoleon I.
But it is Italy which claims our immediate attention,
and in treating of the rise and progress of Carbonarism
in that country a somewhat remarkable
personage must be introduced—no other, in fact,
than he to whom Carbonarism owed its existence.
This was one Maghella, a Genoese of low extraction,
.bn 035.png
.pn +1
who had risen from the position of clerk in a counting-house
to that of minister of police in the Ligurian
Republic. He was in high favour with Murat, who
had made his acquaintance during the French campaign
in Piedmont.
Shortly after Murat had succeeded Joseph Bonaparte
on the throne of Naples he sent for Maghella,
and in course of time made him minister of police.
It may be a matter of question whether or no the
king found in his newly appointed officer the best of
counsellors or the most faithful of friends. Maghella
was actuated by two feelings of equal intensity—hatred
of Napoleon and a desire for the independence
of Italy. With these views he took upon himself to
urge on Murat not only that he should refuse to join
in the campaign now (1812) projected by Bonaparte
against Russia, but should openly declare himself
against the Emperor. How Murat received this
advice, which, proffered from such a quarter to such
a man, appears to us now to betoken madness, there
is no record to show. As he shortly afterwards appeared
in the field as general of Napoleon’s cavalry,
his proper sphere, it is pretty plain that he did not
adopt it.
The unfortunate termination of the Russian expedition,
and the complete disaster which befel the French
army therein, gave fresh encouragement to Maghella
to carry out his patriotic schemes. Now, he conceived,
there was a golden opportunity for driving the
French troops out of Rome, Tuscany, and Genoa, and
for placing himself at the head of the insurrectionist
party. In this, as is well known, he signally failed.
.bn 036.png
.pn +1
That the occasion he took for the accomplishment of
his project was not, however, so ill-timed as might generally
have been supposed, is proved by the subsequent
revolution at Milan, which broke out on the 20th
April, 1814, and which showed that the government
of Eugène de Beauharnais was much less stable than
had been fondly imagined.
Although Maghella’s plans had thus failed, he still
had means at command to employ for the benefit of his
enslaved and distracted country. Of these the society
of Carbonari presented the readiest; and he accordingly
set himself to work to introduce the association
into Naples. In this he was successful, and a duly
constituted branch of the institution was established
there by his efforts; the object aimed at being stated,
in express terms, to be the liberation of Italy from a
foreign yoke. That qualification of character was
required for admission into the ranks of the Neapolitan
league appears from the following extract from their
rules:—“General doctrine of the order.” Article 4.
“Tried virtue and purity of morals, and not Pagan
qualities, render men worthy of belonging to the
Carbonari.” Although the ordinary Neapolitan
Carbonaro might possibly have failed to fulfil these
rather severe conditions, yet we do not believe, still
less is there any evidence to prove, that the Carbonari of
Naples in general were animated by any less worthy
motive than by a thoroughly sincere, if not very
enlightened, spirit of patriotism.
It cannot, however, be denied that whatever may
be said of these new Southern Members of the Society,
the men of Northern Italy, who in 1819 and subsequent
.bn 037.png
.pn +1
years joined in considerable numbers, were of a class
vastly superior, so far as regards social standing,
culture, and education, energy and decision of character,
to their confrères of the South—and amongst the
Northern Italian associates was Antonio Panizzi.
By 1820 Carbonarism had spread all over the
Peninsula; it could scarcely be called any longer a
secret society. There were head centres in almost
every town. It had reached a numerical strength far
above that of any other society, and it is hardly too
much to say that, by this time, it had made itself
respected as the expression of a national idea.
The system had, as will have been seen, now developed
itself into something very different from, and, to
the various rulers of divided Italy, far more formidable
than the innocent convention for mutual support and
defence of the German charcoal-burners. It is not,
therefore, under the circumstances, surprising that
certain people outside the pale of the society, though
we can hardly suppose them altogether ignorant of
its professed objects, should have come to regard it
with a vague and uneasy feeling of fear and aversion.
In the Lombardo-Venetian Kingdom, as it was then
styled, His Majesty the Emperor of Austria had, in
August, 1820, issued a decree against the Carbonari,
which, after accusing them of high treason, went on to
declare that “The precise object of the Carbonari is the
subversion and destruction of all governments.” Now,
with whatever danger to the Austrian Government
the organization might have been suspected to be
fraught, and it must be readily granted that there
were grounds for such suspicion, the foregoing universal
.bn 038.png
.pn +1
proposition presents a remarkable variation
from the truth. The aim of the Carbonari was, it is
true, to liberate their country from the yoke of the
foreigner, but there cannot be a doubt that it pointed
in an equally direct degree to the unification of Italy,
or at the least to a confederation of her several States
under Italian government or presidency.
Having thus endeavoured to trace the origin,
growth, and aim of Carbonarism, it behoves us to
consider how it affected the state of Naples, what was
the condition of that place at the time of its introduction,
and what were its immediate and subsequent
results. To do this it will now be necessary to recapitulate
the events of the memorable years 1820 and
1821.
Whilst the secret societies and the people united
in endeavouring to upset the existing state of affairs,
the government of Naples, utterly unconscious of
all danger, continued its arbitrary career. Such,
indeed, was its feeling of security, that it had the
amazing stupidity to imprison any person, who from
excess of zeal or mistaken patriotism gave intimation
of approaching danger. Danger there was, however,
and in 1820 the revolution broke out in Naples.
Two months afterwards a similar revolution, caused
by the obstinacy and arbitrary acts of Ferdinand
VII. of Spain, occurred at Cadiz. All Europe greeted
these movements with applause. The Neapolitans,
more eager and more active than the others, obtained
their political reforms at the cost of but little bloodshed,
and no public injury; had the revolution
presented itself with its usual accompaniments of risk
.bn 039.png
.pn +1
and disaster, the Carbonari, and, indeed, the Liberals,
would not have felt inclined to proceed. Never was
there greater excitement amongst the former, and
never did their numbers and strength increase so
rapidly.
Thus encouraged they made essay of their strength
on the ranks of the regular army, and were fortunate
enough to be able to add to their Society no inconsiderable
number of associates, both of the rank and
file, and of officers.
The Government was completely taken by surprise.
Calabria, Capitanata, and Salerno issued various proclamations,
whilst the army joined the Carbonari
against King Ferdinand I.
One morning five Carbonari, the most distinguished
of the sect, entered the royal palace, announcing that
they came in the name of the people, and that they desired
to speak with the King or some high authority of the
Court. Whereupon the Duke d’Ascoli presented
himself, and was informed by one of the delegates in
unmistakable words that tranquility could not be
preserved in the city unless the King granted the constitution
demanded. On the 6th of July, 1820,
Ferdinand was compelled to issue an edict “To the
Nation of the Two Sicilies,” in which he solemnly
promised to “publish the basis of the constitution
within eight days’ time.” New ministers were appointed,
and shortly afterwards a document appeared
stating that the King had resigned the royal authority
to his son. The people suspected this to be a stratagem,
and insisted on the establishment of the “Cortes” at
once. The Viceroy Francis was induced to publish a
.bn 040.png
.pn +1
decree declaring that the constitution of the Two
Sicilies should be the same as that adopted in Spain
in 1812. Thus the Government was constituted on its
new basis amid general approbation.
In Palermo, however, a rebellion had broken out
which forced the King to send 2,000 soldiers to reduce
the town to obedience. Emboldened by his success
over the Sicilian rebels, he now fancied himself safe,
and forthwith entered upon extreme measures. A
general disarmament of the civil population commenced,
death being the sentence of all found in secret
possession of arms. The liberal-minded monarch
further proceeded to prohibit or suspend the action
of all public schools, universities, and lyceums, and to
disband the militia.
Such was the wretched state of Naples, when premonitory
and alarming symptoms of disaffection
appeared in the north. On the 11th of January, 1821,
a band of young men, wearing the red cap of liberty,
appeared at the theatre of the Ardennes, in the district
of Novara, and raised a tumult. This ebullition
of enthusiasm was put down by the troops on guard
at Turin; but the revolutionary spirit was checked
only for the moment, and soon broke out again supported
by men of wealth and influence. In the month
of February, on the representation of the Austrian
Ministry, the revolutionary party was publicly accused
of conspiring to expel the Austrians from Italy. On
this charge, which might possibly be true enough,
many men of noble birth and of the highest social
position, were imprisoned in the citadel of Finistrello.
This was the signal for a general rising. Officers and
.bn 041.png
.pn +1
statesmen joined the revolutionists, and, according to
Santorre Santa-Rosa, even the heir-apparent, Charles
Albert, Prince of Carignano, was no stranger to the
intrigues that were going on.
On the morning of the 4th of March symptoms of
revolt appeared in some regiments stationed near
Vercelli; but they were speedily suppressed by the
soldiers who remained faithful to the royal cause.
On the 10th of March the Spanish constitution
was publicly proclaimed at Alessandria. As soon as
the news of this gain to the cause became known
throughout Italy, great were the rejoicings of the
Carbonari, and loud and frequent the shouts of “Viva
il Re! Viva La Costituzione!” A cavalry regiment
was raised and stationed on the heights of Carmagnuolo,
under the command of Captain Lisio, the
soldiers shouting, “Death to the Austrians!” Turin,
abandoned by its governor, was occupied amid the
acclamations of the people and many of the soldiers.
The King all this time was at his château of Moncaliere;
but on hearing of the events above described
at once hastened to the capital. His first impulse
was to put himself at the head of his troops and
attack Alessandria; but he was forced to relinquish
this enterprise owing to the unfaithfulness of his
soldiers. Thus baffled, he attempted, as a sort of
half measure, a proclamation of the French constitution.
But it was too late—the insurgents had gained
the upper hand. As a last resource, the King sent
the Prince of Carignano to the revolutionists in order
to ascertain their demands. The prince was received
with respect and military honours, accompanied by
.bn 042.png
.pn +1
shouts of “Viva la Costituzione di Spagna!” He
was told that war with Austria was desired. The
King, on hearing this, rather than give way, abdicated
in favour of his heir.
On the 13th the royal family left Turin and set out
for Nice, and a proclamation was issued that the
Prince of Carignano had been appointed regent of the
realm. He was soon afterwards installed in full
sovereignty, and the constitution of Spain proclaimed.
We may be permitted in closing this necessarily
very short sketch of the two revolutions, to quote a
passage from that most amusing but slightly erratic
writer, Lady Morgan, on the subject of the Piedmontese
Revolution:—“Had this revolution not been disturbed
by the unprincipled interference of foreign
nations it would have led to the happiest consequences.
What is to be said of a Government which reduces
the great majority of the people to a slavish insensibility
to national degradation, to a perfect indifference
to national honour?”
It may certainly be asked, on the other hand, how
a nation reduced to the state described by Lady Morgan
could be entrusted to work out for itself a revolution
which “would have led to the happiest consequences.”
But liberty in Italy, as elsewhere, must
have taken time to grow; even under the most
patriotic of leaders a nation does not become suddenly
ripe for the blessings of freedom. Nor can it be
doubted that by the spirit that moved in 1820-1822,
and which burst forth so brightly in aftertime, were
laid the first foundations of that structure of Italian
unity finally completed by politicians more skilled but
not more patriotic than the revolutionists.
.bn 043.png
.pn +1
How far Panizzi’s own country, Modena, was concerned
in the attempted work of liberation will be
best shown by a short notice of his book, the
“Processi di Rubiera.”
By this work, no doubt originally intended for the
world, but even then so sparingly circulated and subsequently
so rigidly suppressed by the writer that very
few persons have even seen it, the circumstances which
drove Panizzi into exile, though not detailed in all
their fulness, are illustrated and rendered intelligible.
A somewhat minute analysis is not therefore out of
place here, although, whether from indisposition to
thrust himself forward or from fear of compromising
others, the author’s name occurs but once or twice
in the body of the work, which therefore contributes
hardly anything to the elucidation of his own
biography. It has usually been referred to as “I
Processi di Rubiera,” Rubiera being the name of the
fortress situated between Reggio and Modena, where
the prosecution of Modenese political offenders was
conducted before a tribunal nominated ad hoc. The
title of the book, however, is “Dei Processi e delle
Sentenze contra gli imputati di Lesa-Maestà e di
aderenza alle Sette proscritte negli Stati di Modena;”
247 pages, besides the title, Madrid, 8°., 1823. The
imprint was a disguise; the publication, if the work
can be said to have been published, took place at
Lugano. The designation of the anonymous editor,
dating from Madrid, Feb. 2, 1823, and subscribing
himself, “Un membro della società landeburiana,” was
no doubt equally apocryphal, and may probably have
concealed Panizzi himself. The document is altogether
.bn 044.png
.pn +1
one of the most interesting productions of its
author, especially as an indication of the eminence
he might have attained in his chosen profession of
advocacy had his lot been cast in a free State. The
style borders on the oratorical, charged with fiery but
restrained indignation, while the vehemence of invective
is supported by legal acumen, and a thorough
acquaintance with the maxims of jurisprudence, to
which the writer continually appeals. His power of
recollection and mastery of incidents, whether public
or personal, appear extraordinary when it is considered
that, his papers having been seized at Cremona,
Panizzi himself must have depended to a very great
extent upon his memory. Yet the completeness of
the documents, which are all given in full, induce the
belief that he might somehow have preserved this part
of his materials, or have subsequently obtained it indirectly.
Some inaccuracies may well have crept unheeded
into the narrative under such circumstances,
and this may possibly account for his evident desire
to suppress the work. Years after, being questioned
on the subject by the biographer, he answered,
“Better say nothing about it.” It seems difficult to
assign any other reason, unless it might be an excessive
deference to the sentiment alluded to in the
preface, “che lo scoprire le turpitudini delta patria
sua, comecchè a ciascuna persona non istia bene, a
coloro poi che per capriccio di malvagia fortuna
furono fuori del seno di lei trabalzati, più specialmente
non convenga.” The tone of the production
can scarcely have been disapproved by his maturer
judgment. Though emphatic, it is always decorous,
.bn 045.png
.pn +1
whilst the literary effect is even impaired by a punctilious
adherence to constitutional fictions in criticizing
the acts of the sovereign. There is nothing capable
of being construed to the writer’s own disadvantage,
unless an adversary were sufficiently malicious or
prejudiced to discover an incentive to political assassination,
in his report of a matter of fact, that Modena
rejoiced at hearing the news that a tyrannical official
could persecute his fellow-townsmen no more. This
moderation of tone certainly cannot have arisen from
any vacillation on Panizzi’s part. He never altered
his opinion of the Modenese Government; and, even
if his mere opinion were disregarded, the documents
printed by him speak sufficiently for themselves. It
is fortunate that he did not succeed in entirely suppressing
so lamentable an illustration of the forlorn
condition of the Italy of his youth.
The book commences with a retrospective survey of
the then recent history of Italy, displaying remarkable
insight into personal character, and containing shrewd
remarks on State policy. This introduction may one
day be appealed to as a testimony that the true
founder of Italian independence and unity was neither
Charles Albert nor Victor Emmanuel, not Cavour,
nor Mazzini, nor Garibaldi, but Napoleon. Nothing,
certainly, could have been farther from the intention of
the rapacious conqueror, who, ere the ink was well
dry with which he had assured the citizens of the
Cisalpine Republic that their liberties would shortly
be secure, proceeded to confiscate them himself.
A contemporary writer mentions the project which
Bonaparte is known to have long entertained, for consolidating
.bn 046.png
.pn +1
Italy into one State, and adds: “While he
was Emperor of France he probably intended to administer
his new Government by a Viceroy, but since
his abdication we are satisfied from all we have seen
and heard of his conduct that he dreams of his Italian
kingdom for himself.”
It was, however, impossible for a revolutionary invader,
whose authority involved the negation of the
old order of things, to govern Italy without appealing
to Italian national sentiment. The various branches
of administration fell into the hands of natives. A
national army was formed which participated to the
full in the glories of the Empire, and Italy regained
something of that reputation for valour and conduct
which she had forfeited for three hundred years. The
Italian youth, no longer condemned by the jealousy
of their rulers to an existence of indolence and frivolity,
awoke to the perception that their immediate
progenitors had reversed the mission of their forefathers.
.pm start_poem
Excudent alii spirantia mollius æra, ...
Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento.
.pm end_poem
For themselves, if still subjects, they were no longer
slaves.
Napoleon, “nato,” in Panizzi’s pregnant phrase,
“per dar l’orma all’età sua”, prepared the way for the
love of liberty by reviving the love of glory. Looking
around them, the Italians beheld an enlightened code
of laws, impartial judges, religious toleration, education
fostered by the State, active industry, flourishing
finances, above all, a strictly national administration,
.bn 047.png
.pn +1
with every post accessible to desert. The instinctive
sagacity of the race taught them to be content with
so large a measure of good for the present, and to
reserve their aspirations for independence until their
beneficent master should bequeath his empire to his
son. That day never came. Bonaparte fell, execrated
by the many nations which he had pillaged and dismembered,
but cherished by the one he had trained to
national life, with a regard which is still a force in
European politics.
Six millions of Italians had, in Napoleon’s time at
least, been permitted to bear the Italian name. The
Congress of Vienna resolved them back into Lombards,
Piedmontese, and the people of Parma and
Modena. Modena was assigned to the Austrian
Archduke, descended on the female side from the
ancient house of Este, a petty tyrant of a peculiarly
exasperating type, timorous, suspicious, and hypocritical.
His first act was to abolish the Code Napoleon,
and replace it by the code promulgated by authority
in 1771. The motive for this retrograde proceeding
was apparent. The code Napoleon was lucid and
comprehensive; the obscurity and imperfection of the
“Codice Estense” left a margin of uncertainty, under
cover of which the maxims of the antiquated civil and
canon law would always be introduced when required.
The judge had thus the power of resorting to either
as he pleased, and his arbitrary decision might be the
most potent element in the proceedings. This was
plainly equivalent to a denial of justice to persons
charged with political offences. The remodelled
magistracy was filled with subservient functionaries;
.bn 048.png
.pn +1
but the real main-spring of the judicial administration
was Besini, the Chief of Police. Every act of the
Government betrayed the same tendency, especially
the oppressive system of taxation, introduced to replenish
the Duke’s private exchequer, and the restrictions
imposed upon higher education. Schools
and colleges were placed under the control of the
Jesuits; and scholarships established for the support
of poor students at the universities were suppressed,
the Duke declaring openly that people must not be
encouraged to aspire beyond their station. Every
person of liberality or culture became disaffected, and
as all open expression of discontent was prohibited,
secret societies began to permeate the entire duchy.
Matters were in this state when the sudden explosion
of the Neapolitan revolution turned the apprehensions
of the petty Italian Governments into an
actual panic. Austrian troops, hastily summoned to
repress the Liberal movement, passed through
Modena on their march. Some of these were Hungarians,
a nation sympathising with Italy. An address
was prepared and secretly circulated among
them, imploring them not to fight against the Neapolitans.
The jealousy of the Modenese Government
was roused to the highest pitch. Many arrests were
made, chiefly by means of espionage and the violation
of private correspondence; and on March 14th, 1821,
a special tribunal was constituted for the trial of
political offenders. It was the formal inauguration
of a reign of terror. “Avrà luogo,” says the decree,
“un processo e un giudizio statario—Statario, dal
latino statim, se mal non avviso,” is the sarcastic note
of the editor.
.bn 049.png
.pn +1
The etymology might seem borne out by the injunction
that the duration of the proceedings was in no
case to exceed eight days, and by the sinister regulation:
“Si terrà, pronto il carnefice, si potrà secondo
le circonstanze, eriggere il patibolo anche preventivamente,
e si disporrà per aver pronto un religioso
il quale assista coloro che fossero condannati.” The
priest and the executioner, however, were not immediately
called into requisition; and the Neapolitan
and Piedmontese revolutions having been promptly
extinguished, the tempest seemed about to pass off,
when suddenly, about the beginning of 1822, numerous
arrests were made of persons suspected of participation
in the meetings of secret societies. It was soon
reported that one of those implicated had denounced
his friends, and dark stories became current of the
tortures and privations by which the chief of the
police, Giulio Besini, sought to wring out confession.
By a decree of unheard of injustice and indecency,
this natural enemy of the accused was appointed
their judge, and charged to receive the depositions
he had himself extorted. The issue was eagerly
awaited, when, on the evening of May 14th, 1822,
Besini perished by an unknown hand. Besini was
taken home, surgeons sent for, and the blow declared
mortal. Quick as lightning the welcome news
spread through Modena, and the people heard with
joy that there was a man in the town who had been
bold enough to rid the land of a miscreant. With his
dying breath he denounced a certain Gaetano Ponzoni,
who, he said, had cause to be his enemy, “as if,”
observes Panizzi, “Ponzoni were the only such person
in the duchy.”
.bn 050.png
.pn +1
Upon the admonition of the attendant magistrate,
Solmi, Besini acknowledged that he could not positively
identify his assailant. Ponzoni was nevertheless
arrested, and Solmi’s humane interference cost him
his office. The special tribunal, hitherto dormant,
was called into activity for Ponzoni’s trial.
The course of the procedure gave earnest of what
was to follow. Parenti, Ponzoni’s advocate, was
allowed only three days to prepare his defence, and
denied an opportunity of examining the adverse witnesses,
a part even of the written depositions was
withheld from him, he was charitably admonished
not to occupy the time of the court with trivialities,
and referred to a secret Ducal decree conferring unlimited
powers on the tribunal, which could not be
shown to the advocate, because it contained very confidential
instructions intended for the court alone.
In spite of all these obstacles, Ponzoni’s innocence
was irrefragably established; but his judges, afraid to
acquit and ashamed to condemn, simply laid the proceedings
before the Duke, who left them unnoticed,
and when Panizzi wrote, Ponzoni was still in prison,
where he remained, though innocent, till the year
1831. The true assassin proved to be a certain
Morandi, who, when safe in London, openly avowed
having committed the deed.
This prosecution was but a preliminary to the indictment
of the unfortunate men who had languished
in captivity since the beginning of the year. About
the middle of June the commission appointed to try
them commenced its session at Fort Rubiera. Its
first task was to receive the confessions extorted from
.bn 051.png
.pn +1
the prisoners during their incarceration, and to elude
the numerous retractations of the accused. All these
avowals proved to have been obtained under Besini’s
management by fraud or force. Manzotti had been
chained to a wall in such a manner as to oblige him
to remain in an erect position until he subscribed to
what was required of him; Nizzoli’s signature was
affixed during the paroxysms of a fever fit, after he
had been chained so as not to be able to sit down for
forty days. Conti was entrapped by a forged confession
attributed to another prisoner; Alberici was
gained by allurements and flatteries; Caronzi was persuaded
by the prayers and tears of his wife, whose
honour was said to have been the price of a fallacious
promise of her husband’s deliverance, he being sentenced
to twenty years’ penal servitude, a term reduced
by the Duke to fifteen. Peretti, Maranesi, Farioli,
and others testified to similar deceits and cruelties
ineffectually employed against themselves; some, beguiled
by the inducement held out to them, remained
silent. The chief prosecutor, Vedriani, a man of
honour and integrity, called upon the tribunal to
acquaint the prisoners that such promises were illusory
and unauthorised. His colleague Fieri opposed
him; the question was referred to the Duke, who
denied having authorised Besini to hold out any expectations
of indulgence. Vedriani insisted that the
culprits should be apprised of this declaration; the
judges, fearful lest the unfortunate men should escape
from the snare into which they had fallen, peremptorily
negatived the demand. Vedriani indignantly
threw up his brief, and the last hope of justice
.bn 052.png
.pn +1
vanished with him. A more supple instrument was
found, and the prosecution proceeded as the Government
desired. The prisoners were debarred from
choosing their own advocates, and those selected were
only allowed to confer with them under restrictions.
The defenders nevertheless did their duty, and although
they could not, without subverting the entire
judicial fabric of Modena, as then understood, have
brought the judges to acknowledge the uselessness of
extorted confessions (the sole evidence against most of
the accused)—the illegality of the tribunal itself ab
initio, or, even granting its legality, the incompetence
of the tribunal to take cognisance of offences which it
had not been constituted to try—they deterred the court
from accepting the conclusions of the prosecutor Fieri.
This man had demanded the execution of forty-two
persons, at most only guilty of belonging to a secret
society, and accused of no overt offence against public
tranquility. The tribunal reduced the penalty to
various terms of imprisonment. The sentences, before
they were pronounced, had to be submitted to
the Duke for confirmation. Francis, enraged at their
lenity, summoned the President of the Commission
before him, the revised sentences assumed a very different
complexion, and all the three judges stultified
their previous decision by subscribing them “perchè
tale fù la Sovrana mente e volontà.” Nine of the
accused, some of whom had fortunately made their
escape, were condemned to death; the remainder to
the galleys or imprisonment for life, or for various
periods. A Ducal decree appeared after some delay
maintaining the punishment of death against those
.bn 053.png
.pn +1
who had escaped, pronouncing a virtual sentence of
imprisonment for life against those who had steadfastly
maintained their innocence, and extending
marked indulgence to those who had merited it by a
“sincere, prompt, and spontaneous confession,” in
other words, those who had been cajoled or intimidated
into betraying their associates. The latter part
of Panizzi’s publication is occupied with a legal demonstration
of the incompetence of a tribunal constituted
to try charges of high treason to deal with the
mere offence of belonging to a secret society. The
argument seems conclusive, but in fact the tribunal
had voluntarily branded itself with a deeper mark
than any that its assailant’s eloquence or ingenuity
could have affixed to it.
On a perusal of the sentences, which are given
“totidem verbis” in the appendix of the book, the
civilized reader remarks with astonishment that, on
the tribunal’s own showing, half the offences for which
it awards penalties are not proved at all. First, is
recited a series of facts considered to be established, by
far the greater part of which relate merely to the
presence of the inculpated person at the formal reception
of some new member into a secret society.
Then, in many instances, comes a second string of
accusations, confessedly not proved, but considered
possible “perchè si ha pure in processo qualche
indizio.” And sentence is equally awarded for both!
The reasons, for which the sentence on a priest,
Giuseppe Andreoli, was carried out, are worthy of
attention:—
1. Because he had committed a crime which was
punishable with death.
.bn 054.png
.pn +1
2. Because he had been the means of corrupting
the younger part of the community.
3. Because he had abused the situation of Professor
of Belles Lettres, at Correggio, in converting
it into an of Carbonarism.
4. Because he had confessed his crime too late,
and not within that time, which the Duke had fixed
upon as available for such confessions.
As to the latter, it is to be borne in mind, that he
confessed, simply on account of the Duke’s encouragement.
The sentence was confirmed on the 11th of
October, 1822, not because it was legally necessary,
but, indeed, for the personal gratification of Francis
IV; “Invocando il Santissimo nome di Gesù.”
At the period of the production of this work
Panizzi’s own process was in suspense. He mentions
it in a note, complaining of the delay, as intended to
discredit him in the eyes of the other Italian patriots.
His cousin, Francesco Panizzi, had, it appears, made
some sort of confession, and been treated with
suspicious lenity. If the Modenese Government had
any intention of forcing or enticing Antonio into the
like course of action with his cousin, it must have
been frustrated by his publication, which may
account for the impotent passion evinced in the subsequent
proceedings against him. The work would
be felt the more irritating from its sobriety of manner,
its moderation even in the midst of invective, and its
constant appeal to establish legal principle, as the
criterion of the whole question. While proclaiming
his fervent aspirations for the independence of his
country, the author incidentally disclaims any participation
.bn 055.png
.pn +1
in the proceedings of the Carbonari, and the
commission of any act tending to the overthrow of
the existing Government.
Such would be the natural attitude of a citizen like
Panizzi, and he may well have affiliated himself to
the secret society, as at that time the sole efficient
agent in the cause of Italian freedom.
It is, nevertheless, difficult to conceive a man of
his solid sense and practical sagacity, long acquiescing
in the mummery of a Carbonarist conclave, and submitting
to be known to the initiated as Thrasybulus
or Archimedes. He represents, however, all the more
faithfully, the indignation of the generous youth who
had grown up under the comparative liberty of
Napoleon’s sway, and who, on attaining maturity,
found themselves deprived by political changes in
other countries, of their birthright in their own; forbidden
to call or think themselves Italians; and with
every avenue in life closed against them, unless they
consented to become instruments of a cruel and senseless
despotism.
As this generation has passed away other aspects of
the Italian question have come into greater prominence;
the stately tree of Italian unity has covered the
soil in which it originally took root. Even more as
a picture of contemporary national feeling, than as an
exposure of the fraud and cruelty of an extinct
tyranny, is Panizzi’s youthful work, worthy of being
rescued from the oblivion to which he for so long
condemned it.
Deeply interesting as are these recollections of the
struggle for freedom in Italy, and intimately as they
.bn 056.png
.pn +1
are connected with the life of Panizzi, than whom no
stauncher advocate for the liberty of his country ever
existed, it must not be forgotten that the object we
have immediately in view is to refer to these exciting
events so far only as Panizzi himself was concerned
with them, and not to allow ourselves to be carried
away by our subject beyond the limits necessary to
elucidate the object we have at heart.
.il fn=i_b_389.jpg w=125px ew=15%
.bn 057.png
.pn +1
.pb
.il fn=i_b_039.jpg w=500px ew=90%
.sp 4
.h2 nobreak
CHAPTER II
.pm start_summary
Flight; Lugano; Arrival in London; Santa-Rosa; Sentence of
Death; Liverpool; Roscoe and Friends; Letter to the Tax-Gatherer
and Inspector of Finances; Miss Martin; Lectures.
.pm end_summary
.sp 2
.di dc_i.jpg 150 149 1.1
It is hardly possible for a native of a
free country to form a right conception
of the more than fatherly interest
formerly taken by the petty prince of
an Italian State in the welfare of his
subjects. So deeply impressed with this feeling was
Francis IV, Duke of Modena, Panizzi’s patron of
yore, that he was in the habit at this time (1821) of
sending regularly during the week one of his own
private carriages into Brescello for the express
purpose of bringing back two persons (whose names
were set down in his orders, but not divulged) whom
it was, doubtless, his intention to reclaim from evil
opinions, to save them from the dangers to which such
opinions might lead, and to hold them up as examples
of his paternal care, or, it is just possible, as a warning
to the remainder of his people. The Brescellese, either
from uneasiness of conscience or from a natural dislike
to all that was good, regarded both the duke’s intentions
and his carriage with aversion. Of all men the
least anxious for a seat in it were Panizzi and his
.bn 058.png
.pn +1
friend Dr. Minzi, whom, it may be remembered, he
had initiated into Carbonarism. It happened one day,
as these two friends were taking their afternoon stroll
along the Peggio road, that the ill-omened carriage
suddenly appeared in the distance. Their only
resource was to throw themselves into the ditch by
the roadside, and remain concealed as closely as possible
until the fatal vehicle had passed. This they
accordingly did, and, as good luck would have it,
escaped unnoticed. To return to Brescello was to
meet the carriage a second time in all probability, for
they suspected, and not without reason, that they
themselves were the two persons who were to
take a forced drive to Modena—a journey for
which, at present, they felt little inclination. It was
decided, therefore, as a temporary measure, to cross
the frontier, and both being nimble of foot and with
bodies well trained, as becomes all wise and prudent
men, by athletic exercise, they fled across country
with all possible speed for the Parmese territory.
Arrived on this hospitable soil, the story goes that
they threw themselves prone upon it, and actually (not
figuratively) kissed it, pouring forth their heartfelt
thanks to Providence for their deliverance from impending
evil. Their position was even now far from
enviable. It was impossible for them to remain on
Parmese ground, and they were fully aware that perils
as great as those from which they had just escaped
lay before them. Exhausted as they were, they held
a council on the road, in doubt whether to proceed or
return to Brescello. The conclusion at which they
arrived was that the better plan was to go back and
.bn 059.png
.pn +1
make careful inquiries in the neighbouring villages,
in order to ascertain who were the two persons for
whom the agents of the police were seeking. On that
very night, therefore, they returned, reaching Brescello
about daybreak, and learnt to their great satisfaction
that their names had never been mentioned. Here
they seemed to have secured repose; but, as it turned
out, of short duration, lasting only for the space of
two months; for on the 22nd of October in the same
year Panizzi received a slight message summoning him
to the police office, where he accordingly attended.
Hardly had he reached the door when he was arrested.
Throughout all his misfortunes he seems not to have
been without his share of good luck. The man who
arrested him proved to be a friend, and by the aid of
this kindly official he was enabled to jump out of a
window, and again make his way for the frontier.
It may not be uninteresting to mention here that
this man afterwards became an Austrian spy. Many
years later on, while Panizzi was on a journey to Italy,
and had arrived at the frontier, some one approached
the carriage and demanded his passport. It
was, of course, handed over. On returning it the
man said, “Buon viaggio, Signor Panizzi!” and he
recognised his friend of the Brescello police-office.
In the meantime, and before his arrest, the refugee,
whose good luck it must be confessed was mainly
owing to his sagacity and foresight, had taken care to
provide himself with a passport. This, strange to say,
he obtained duly endorsed, through a friend of Count
Munarini, then Minister of Foreign Affairs. In
addition to this passport, he had also armed himself
.bn 060.png
.pn +1
with another document, almost equally useful. This
was a pass, in the form usually given to labourers who
wished to absent themselves for the day. With these
papers in his possession he crossed the Po to Viadana,
and, setting out from thence in company with Minzi,
Zatti and Montani, arrived at Cremona, where he was
recognised by the Austrian police-agent Ticino, who
endeavoured to arrest his further progress. In this
attempt, however, he failed; Panizzi’s passport being
perfectly en règle. Nevertheless, he succeeded at the
instigation of a notorious spy named Antonioli in
robbing the fugitive of a portion of his luggage.
From Cremona he made his way as well as he could
to Switzerland, where he took up his quarters at
Lugano. Here he wrote his “Processi di Rubiera,”
and at first thought of settling in the place, as this was a
free town, near his own home. It may be as well to keep
the memory of wrongs before the world, and it is unfortunately
the way of unsuccessful men in general,
and of unsuccessful revolutionists in particular, not to
accept defeat philosophically, but after all hope
of success has departed, still to irritate those
whom they have failed to dispossess or overcome.
From this pardonable defect Panizzi was, as might be
expected, not more free than the rest of mankind.
His restless and energetic disposition would not allow
him to refrain from political controversy, and the
character of his writings so provoked the Austrians
that he was ordered to quit Lugano and proceed to.
Geneva. Thither he accordingly went, but not to
remain long; his objectionable reputation had preceded
him, and the representatives of Austria, France, and Sardinia
.bn 061.png
.pn +1
insisted on his expulsion. England was the only
country now open to himself and his brother exiles,
and thither they determined to journey by way of
France; but, as they were not certain that the French
authorities would allow refugees to pass through their
country, it was decided to send forward Signor Bezzi
(afterwards well-known in England as Mr. G. Aubrey
Bezzi, who died in Piedmont only a few months
before Panizzi) to exploiter the route. This gentleman’s
exploitation must be held to have fallen a little
short of complete success. At Gex, a small town in
France, in the Department of Ain, and about 11 miles
from Geneva, he was stopped, unceremoniously
stripped, and after being thoroughly searched and examined,
sent back. There was, however, a way to
England still left to the party, by the Rhine and the
Netherlands, and by this route they arrived in London
in May, 1823. It is painful to have to record that
the slenderness of their means obliged them to live in
a state bordering on actual destitution. The author
clearly recollects hearing Panizzi narrate that, in these
days of his indigence, fourteen-pence was all he allowed
himself for breakfast and dinner, and how
well he remembered spending one portion of an afternoon
in gazing through the windows of a cook-shop
watching with hungry eyes the more fortunate mortals
who were satisfying their appetites within; and this
reminiscence gained additional zest from the fact that
it was related at a .
London at this period was full of refugees, from
every country and of every grade, including presidents
of republics, generals, men of letters, lawyers, poets, etc.
.bn 062.png
.pn +1
At first these various celebrities enjoyed a considerable
amount of notoriety, no small part of which
was bestowed upon them by the newspaper writers,
who seemed for some time to be indefatigable in
drawing public notice to the exiles, and in relating
exciting anecdotes of this or that famous person
sojourning amongst them. In due course, however,
the novelty of the thing wore off, and readers, having
had a surfeit of such accounts, the newspapers
gradually ceased to stimulate their curiosity, and the
expatriated heroes were forgotten by the public at
large.
If, as the maxim is, a man may be known by the
society he keeps, Panizzi, who seems at most times to
have had peculiar good fortune in attracting to himself
men of worth, both privately and publicly, must
be allowed to have stood high in this respect.
His dearest friend at this period of his life in London
was the illustrious Piedmontese statesman, Santorre
Santa-Rosa, who, the life and soul of the great
patriotic movement then lately made to achieve the
freedom of his country, was born at Savigliano in Sardinia,
in September, 1783. He was the author of
the History of the Piedmontese Revolution, a work
which breathes the true spirit of national liberty, and
exhibits its writer as a most determined foe to anything
in the shape of foreign domination. Forced by
his Government to expatriate himself in 1821, Santa
Rosa went to Switzerland, but being, like Panizzi,
compelled by the Austrian and Sardinian Governments
to quit that country, he betook himself to
France, taking up his residence in Paris, where he
.bn 063.png
.pn +1
assumed the name of Conti, and became the bosom
friend of Victor Cousin. Early in October, 1822, he
arrived in England, on the merits and defects of which
country he makes the following quaint comment in
one of his letters to his brother exiles:—“Here I have
been received with sincerity and kindness. I also
admire the virtuous habits of the English, but cannot
get used to their mode of cooking.”
For ourselves, as true lovers of our country, we are too
well content with the eulogy at the beginning, to take
exception to the blame of one of our institutions implied
in the concluding part of the sentence.
In November, 1824, Santa-Rosa left England for
Napoli di Romania to fight for the cause of Greek
independence, and was killed in battle on the 19th
of May, 1825. His death was a sad blow to the band
of Italian patriots in London, but especially to Panizzi,
who had looked up to him as a father and a counsellor,
and had kept up a constant correspondence with him.
There are in our possession but two letters written by
Santa-Rosa to his friend, dated respectively the 5th
September and 13th November, 1823, from “The
Green Cottage, South Bank, St. John’s Wood,” a part
of the town much affected as a dwelling place by the
leading refugees. Conspicuous in these are the writer’s
affection for Panizzi and anxious care for his welfare;
nor are matters of mental instruction omitted, for we
find strong recommendations carefully to study the
political and literary history of Italy, and also “note
all the most important points of English habits.”
After Santa-Rosa, Panizzi’s chief friends, with whom
during his stay in town he spent a great portion
.bn 064.png
.pn +1
of his time, were the brothers Camillo and Filippo
Ugoni, both literary men of some note.
Shortly after Panizzi’s arrival in London he was
tried in his absence on the charge of Carbonarism, in
which it has been shown that he was deeply implicated.
Of this, as might have been expected, he was
found guilty on pretty clear evidence, and, in default
of appearance, was sentenced to death by the Government
of Modena.
Subjoined is a translation of the sentence:—
.pm start_quote
Invoking the name of God Most Holy, in the reign of
Francis IV. Duke of Modena, Reggio, and Mirandola, Archduke
of Austria, Prince Royal of Hungary and Bohemia.
The Special Tribunal, instituted by revered sovereign sign
manual of 28 July, 1823,
Having assembled at the Palace of Justice, and in the
chamber duly appointed for the purpose of trying the Doctor
of Laws, Antonio, son of Luigi Panizzi, native of and domiciled
at Brescello, province of Reggio, contumacious, and
CRIMINALLY ARRAIGNED:
1. For that he, being already enrolled in a prohibited sect,
took part with other persons known to the judicial authorities
in the reception into the sect of Carbonari of the appraiser
Francesco Panizzi, and Doctor Domenico Giglioli of Brescello,
in the afternoon of the 11th of March, 1821, in his own office
situated in his dwelling house at Brescello.
2. For that he in the evening of the next day, the 12th, did
with other persons likewise known to the judicial authorities
take part in the reception into the sect of Carbonari of the
apothecary Bartolomeo Panizzi of Brescello, which reception
took place in the office of the appraiser Francesco Panizzi,
situated in his dwelling house at Brescello.
Having referred to the documents drawn up by the acting
Director of Police, Doctor Pietro Curti, and to the further
.bn 065.png
.pn +1
documents before this Tribunal, and particularly to the charges
issued against the accused by the special inquisition on the 1st,
and the 19th of September last past;
Having referred to the inferences of the Procurator Fiscal of
this Tribunal, Advocate Felice Fieri;
Considering that the results of the legal proceedings taken
against the said contumacious Dr. Panizzi prove that he certainly
belonged to a proscribed sect, and moreover clearly
demonstrate that he was anxious to gain proselytes for the sect
of Carbonari, and to promote by every means the efforts of
the confederates, and the object at which they were aiming,
that is the overthrow and destruction of our present lawful
government;
Considering that the deposition of the appraiser Panizzi and
those of Giuseppe Alberici, of Dr. Giuseppe Minzi and of Dr.
Giov. Batt^a Cavandoli all of Brescello, show that the accused
Panizzi took part in the reception into the sect of Carbonari of
the said appraiser Panizzi and of Dr. Domenico Giglioli of
Brescello, which took place at his own house and exactly in
the office of the accused himself, in the afternoon of the first
Sunday in Lent, in the year 1821, that is on the 11th of
March in the said year, whilst amongst the said persons there
are some who assert that the accused himself acted there as
chief, and also instructed the aforesaid Giglioli and appraiser
Panizzi, the first of whom likewise confesses that his aggregation
to the sect, which he afterwards found to be that of the
Carbonari, and which was even indicated to him as such by
the accused Panizzi, took place with the participation of the
said accused and in the place above-mentioned;
Considering that in regard to the aggregation of the apothecary
Panizzi to the Carbonari sect with the participation of the
accused, there are the depositions of the former as well as of
the appraiser Panizzi and of Cavandoli, who were present
there with others, and that those depositions are corroborated
by the extrajudicial confession of the accused himself, made
to Nizzoli on the very evening of the event, that he had introduced
.bn 066.png
.pn +1
the said apothecary Panizzi into the Carbonari sect,
and made a Carbonaro of the said Panizzi, and subsequently
with regard to Giglioli that he too had been affiliated to the
Carbonari sect;
As the said Panizzi still persists in his contumacy, which in
terms of the law is equivalent to imputed confession, and considering
that all the formalities prescribed by T. 12, L. 4 of
the Cod. Est. have been observed;
Having referred to the same code §§ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7
of L. 5. T. 2.—§ 9. L. 4, 7, 15, and the sovereign edict 20
September, 1820;
The above-mentioned tribunal has condemned, and does
condemn, the contumacious Doctor of Laws, Antonio Panizzi,
to the punishment of
.ce
DEATH
to be executed on his effigy, to confiscation of his property,
and in the costs.
Modena, 6 October, 1823.
.in 30
.nf l
Giuseppe Cons^{re} Terni, President.
P^e Cavedoni, Judge.
C. Tassoni, Judge.
P. Pedreschi, Chancellor.
.nf-
.in
This sentence was promulgated by me in due form this 20 October, 1823.
.rj
Pedreschi, Chancellor.
.ti 0
A true copy.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Pedreschi, Chancellor.
.pm end_quote
These hair-breadth escapes may be very amusing
and pleasant to read about, but to the principal
person concerned, who was thoroughly capable of
appreciating the various positions and vicissitudes of
life, they must have conveyed anything but agreeable
impressions, or conduced to the ease of mind so acceptable
to mankind in general.
.bn 067.png
.pn +1
.il id=i049 fn=i_b_049.jpg w=175px ew=30% alt='William Roscoe'
Panizzi remained but a short time in London. The
celebrated Ugo Foscolo, to whom the Ugoni had
introduced him, had strongly advised him at once
to quit the metropolis and to try his fortunes at
Liverpool, where there was more likelihood of his
obtaining employment. Foscolo furnished him with
letters of introduction to William Roscoe, author
of the life of Leo X., and also
to other distinguished Liverpool
men. How he was received by
Roscoe, the following passage
in the biography of the latter
(Lond. 1833), vol. ii., p. 406,
will show:—“It was the good
fortune of Mr. Roscoe to retain,
even to the close of his life, that
power of attracting the friendship
of others which had been
from his youth one of his most
marked characteristics. Amongst these, the friends
of his age, there was no one who became more
sincerely attached to him, or for whom he himself
felt a higher degree of esteem and affection than
Mr. Panizzi, an Italian gentleman, who had been
compelled, in consequence of political persecutions, to
abandon Italy and to take refuge in England. Soon
after his arrival in this country he settled in Liverpool
as a teacher of the Italian language, where his
talents and worth soon won the regard of Mr. Roscoe.
To the kindness and attention of Mr. Panizzi,
which rather resembled that of a son than of a
stranger, he owed many happy hours.” Mr. Roscoe
died on June 30th, 1831.
.bn 068.png
.pn +1
At his death Panizzi received the following letter:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
Lodge-lane, 30th June, 1831.
.ll
So affectionately attached as you have been to my father, I
cannot let you learn the sad intelligence which this letter will
convey from anybody but one of his own family.
He was seized last week with a violent cold or influenza,
accompanied with fever. At first we thought him getting
over it, but on Monday night he was attacked with a shivering
fit, and being put to bed he never rose again. His strength
failed him rapidly, and this morning at 11 o’clock he breathed
his last quite peacefully.
It is a great consolation to know that he suffered no acute
pain, and his mind seemed perfectly composed.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c.,
H. Roscoe.
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
The centenary of William Roscoe’s birth was celebrated
at Liverpool on the 8th March, 1853, and
Panizzi was of course asked to attend.
In replying to the invitation he said:—“Feb. 19,
1853.... The veneration in which I, together
with all lovers of truth, of freedom, of independence,
of literature, and of the arts, hold the memory of that
illustrious man, and the grateful recollection of the
warm and affectionate regard with which I was
honoured by him, are inducements so powerful to
accept so kind an invitation as that which your letter
conveys, that nothing but the absolute impossibility of
leaving my duties here could restrain me from availing
myself of it.”
Before Panizzi left London he received from Italy
a most curious bill for money due from him; such a
bill as few men have ever received at any time,
and such as many men, Panizzi, probably, amongst
the number, would hardly consider the most unpleasant
.bn 069.png
.pn +1
of their kind. It was from the Inspector of Finances
and Tax-gatherer (Ispettore ed Esattore di Finanze)
at Reggio, who, having heard of Panizzi’s escape and
arrival in Switzerland, sent him an account of money
spent in preparing his accusation, sentence of death,
and even for the expenses of his execution, “in contumaciam.”
The actual sum demanded was 225
francs and 25 cents, including the usual fee for the
hangman.
In his then low state of spirits Panizzi hardly felt
equal to answering this amusing epistle in a befitting
manner, and accordingly postponed his reply until
after his arrival at Liverpool, whence he sent the
following humorous letter:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.nf r
(Translation.)\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Realm of Death,
Elysian Fields,
10th May, 1824.
.nf-
.ll
The soul of whilom Dr. Antonio Panizzi,
To the Inspector of Finances and Tax-gatherer of the Province
of Reggio (Satanic Domain).
The body animated by me before I was smitten by the
pointless stiletto of Terni, Cavedoni, and crew, and now living
at Liverpool, by the grace of God sound and so sprightly that
those who see it think that—spite of Modena’s Dukeling—I
have not yet forsaken it, has sent me in my abode here a letter
of yours, No. 14 of the 26th of March last past, requesting information
or reply. Now I, in compliance with the latter
solicitation, have to tell you that, mindful of the maxim
“mors omnia solvit,” I do not consider that since my departure
I have any longer either assets or liabilities in that miserable
world of yours; unless you mean to say that, notwithstanding
the Holy Alliance, I am still united to that body of mine at
Liverpool; which would be a deadly sin ipso facto et jure
incurring the penalty of higher excommunication, from which
.bn 070.png
.pn +1
none but a fashionable Jesuit could absolve me, for having had
the audacity to suggest a doubt of your most benign petty
masterling’s lawful authority to expel me from the world.
Nevertheless, as I and that aforesaid body of mine are
always upon such good terms with each other that we might
still pass for body and soul conjoined, and as the corporal
party through honourable industry can by my direction dispose
of a few pounds sterling without inconvenience, I beg
you to send to my body at Liverpool—for the post from your
diabolical State never comes to disturb my rest here—a detailed
account of the expenses and of the food which you tell
me ought to be paid for to the extra-crammed treasury of a
microscopical Duke who has been so over-weeningly fatuous as
to send me to dwell in this beatific place; and if your statement
be found correct, I will remit you in discharge thereof a
bill of exchange on some Capuchin bank payable at sight when
the Greek calends come. Only I warn you to give full particulars
of the food, for I have an idea that it was gobbled up
by the aforesaid fleshmongers Terni, Cavedoni, and crew;
knowing well that my body, seasonably advised by me, spared
the Treasury the trouble not only of providing the food to
be paid for afterwards, and for which you make a demand now,
but also of preparing a lodging generously offered gratis, only
rather too late. If I perceive by the item—Bottles—that
Terni bravely distinguished himself as a consummate hypocrite
in Austrian service ought to do, I will write to him,
begging him to pardon me for a letter which I addressed to
him, as if I had been on earth, telling him that he acted
against me like a hired assassin, and I will excuse him as a
“drunken murderer.”
Wishing you a death such as mine, I conclude without
further ceremony, both for the sake of following your example
and because such observances are not much affected in this
republic.
.ll 68
.rj
The soul of A. Panizzi
.ll
.pm end_quote
.bn 071.png
.pn +1
It must be acknowledged that this was rather a
substantial letter to emanate from the world of spirits,
and the imaginary separation of the soul from the
“sound and sprightly” body should certainly have
satisfied his extraordinary creditors and absolved him
from the debt.
Panizzi had now settled for the time in Liverpool,
where he kept up a constant correspondence with
absent friends. The two letters from Santa-Rosa,
dated 1823, too clearly prove that he was at this
time in a state of great poverty, and that he thought
of returning to London, a step, however, strongly
opposed by his friend.
The capricious nature of the English climate—it
was in the winter that he had arrived at Liverpool—seemed
to discourage and depress him, perhaps, more
than anything else; whilst the want of the most
ordinary comforts of life, even of proper food, told
severely upon his health. His income was chiefly
derived from giving lessons in the Italian language
and literature; some of his pupils lived far away from
the town, and he used to start on foot early in the
morning, give his lessons and return to Liverpool by
eleven o’clock. This was necessary, as other duties
required his attendance in the town at that hour;
and, when we consider that the journey had frequently
to be made through snow and rain, its
depressing influence on the spirits of the young
Italian, accustomed to the more genial climes of the
south, may be readily understood.
.il id=i054 fn=i_b_054_haywood.jpg w=225px ew=40% align=l alt='Francis Haywood'
His address at this date, December 1823, is not
known, but in the January following he lodged at
.bn 072.png
.pn +1
No. 6, King-street, Soho. He continued to extend
his acquaintance and was upon friendly terms with
the bankers, Mr. Ymes and Mr. Zwilchenbart. At
this period, too, he knew Mr. John Ewart, at whose
house he met Mr. Francis Haywood,
the translator of Kant’s
“Critick of Pure Reason.”
From these gentlemen, who,
as well as the Rev. William
Shepherd, author of the “Life
of Poggio Bracciolini,” were
among his earliest acquaintances
in Liverpool, he received
the greatest kindness. With
Mr. Haywood he soon became most intimate, and frequent
communications passed between them. Indeed,
if a day elapsed without a letter from Mr. Haywood,
Panizzi wrote, asking “why had he not written.”
Such were the friends, whom even in his early
career, when chances of success appeared at a hazy
distance, this young man was able to draw towards
him, and many more he secured in after life.
The necessity of close attention to his duties, and
the attractions of the hospitable society of English
friends, never led him to neglect his fellow exiles.
Amongst the latter was a certain Count Linati,
whose character and antecedents deserve some short
notice at our hands. Claudio Linati was born in
the Duchy of Parma, on the 1st of February, 1790.
He appears to have been at one time a man of wealth
and standing, but had become deeply involved in
the political complications of his country. On the
.bn 073.png
.pn +1
9th of April, 1824, he was tried in his absence for
conspiracy against his Government, and sentenced to
death in contumaciam by the Supreme Tribunal of
Parma. Having succeeded in making his escape,
he settled for a time in Spain, and subsequently in
France. He was a writer and artist of no mean
ability. In a letter to a mutual friend, Panizzi
describes Linati, as a man of turbulent spirit, on
whom nature had bestowed a robust constitution,
proof against all changes of climate; full of energy,
though without any decided aim, an adept at all
employments, and well versed in literature; a painter
and a poet, a writer of plays, too, both comic and tragic,
many of which he delighted to read to his friend.
The manners and customs of the countries in which
he lived were his constant study, though his views
of mankind in general partook of his own untutored
spirit. Speaking of Spain he says that priestly
anarchy predominates in that country, and calls
France “quel servilissimo versatile compassionevole
popoletto,” stigmatising the nation as “servile pecus”
for its submission to tyranny. Linati’s troubles were
many, and these it was his constant pleasure to
relate to his friend at Liverpool, in long letters
which Panizzi often answered by sharp criticisms,
perhaps provoked in part by the heavy postage which
he had to pay, and to which he did not scruple
to call attention. In one especial respect there was
great dissimilarity between the Count and Panizzi,
for whereas the former for some unknown reason
hated England and the English people, the latter
early evinced the strongest liking for both.
.bn 074.png
.pn +1
In December, 1823, he wrote to Linati, minutely
describing his position, and concluding his long letter
thus:—“In spite of all my sufferings and many
troubles occasioned by poverty, I had rather live in
England than in Italy.”
Upon this Linati wrote:—“Though your dear and
beloved England may in some measure have slackened
your chain, I will nevertheless tell you that I still
prefer the Duke d’Angoulême, open enemy as he is,
to that vile and infamous Sir William A’Court, who
has betrayed the rights of hospitality by supporting
a Government which, if unable to save itself, ought
at least to have saved others. I can make a distinction
between the generous people of England, whose
hearts beat with noble enthusiasm at the war-cry of
the liberal Spaniards, as well as the aspiration for
Greek independence and self-government. I am
delighted to learn that you are in the way of getting
an honest livelihood. A hazardous occupation is that
of teaching languages, particularly if you happen to
meet with a pretty ‘Brittanna,’ who, whilst she is
anxious to learn how to sing in Italian, may seem
still more anxious to master the language of Petrarch,
and suggest to her teacher that he might assist her in
conjugating the verb amare (to love).”
The biographer has at this point to deplore the
absence of some of Panizzi’s letters; not only because
of the interesting matter which they are sure to have
contained, but because curiosity must now remain
unsatisfied in regard to the particular impression
made on Panizzi’s mind by the suggestion in the last
paragraph of Linati’s letter.
.bn 075.png
.pn +1
As the Count was no longer allowed to reside in
France, the police ordered him to quit the country at
once; whereupon he emigrated to Brussels, and here
he found a letter from his Liverpool friend, enclosing
an order for 300 francs. This present, however, he
declined with thanks. The wretched state of the
Italians, cast into the streets of Paris penniless, after
several months of imprisonment, gave Panizzi and
Linati work enough to do. The former used his influence
with the Philhellenic Society in London, and
the latter secured the interest of Lord Byron, of whom
he happened to be an intimate friend.
In the summer of the following year it appears
that both intended to settle at New York. Panizzi,
however, in discussing this project, remarked that his
acquaintance, though showing him every mark of
kindness, never seemed to lose sight of the fact that
he was an Italian; from the Americans, who were “a
proud people,” there was a fortiori but scant
courtesy to be expected, and but little advancement
to be hoped for in their country. Linati’s answer
was:—“I do not agree with you in what you say
respecting the North Americans, for half the population
consists of adventurers, and the system of colonization
being so active, there will be no difficulties in
becoming a citizen, whereas in England you will
remain a ‘foreigner’ for ever.”
However, Linati went to Mexico, and from there
again indulged in his abuse of England in these words:—“I
cannot understand your sympathy with those
English tradesmen; for whilst living amongst them I
daily noticed cold and formal ceremonials, stupidity
.bn 076.png
.pn +1
provoked by drink, and the brutality of the ‘prize-ring,’
with its livid eyes and battered faces. Really,
and indeed, my dear friend, I am truly sorry that you
do not agree with me.”
Linati seems to have discovered that worse countries
existed than England; only a short interval had
elapsed before we find him leaving Mexico in disgust
and returning during the winter of 1827 to London,
where he is heard of no more until 1830. In that
year he was upon the committee for remodelling Italy.
It is certain, however, that in course of time he overcame
his antipathy to Mexico, for he afterwards
returned thither, and died at Tampico in the year
1832.
Count Giuseppe Pecchio was another of those distinguished
exiles in whose company Panizzi delighted.
Their long correspondence reveals a close intimacy.
Pecchio, better known in England as the author of
the “Semi-serious Observations of an Italian Exile
during his Residence in England,” was also one of
the victims of the ill-fated Piedmontese Revolution.
England was his first refuge, and, after being engaged
in various occupations, amongst others that of Italian
teacher at Nottingham, he married an English lady,
and, “post tot naufragia tutus,” took up his residence
at Brighton.
The book, published at Lugano in 1827, contains
amusing sketches of English life from a foreigner’s
point of view; and after perusing it one can safely
conclude that the Count was indebted for his inferences
rather to imagination than to memory—perhaps
to the two combined more than to actual facts.
.bn 077.png
.pn +1
While residing in London Pecchio contemplated
the production of a periodical, to which Panizzi was
to be the chief contributor, with Messrs. Haywood
and Roscoe as his supporters in addition to Silvia
Pellico, who was about to be set free on occasion
of the marriage of the Archduke Leopold, and whose
presence was expected in the metropolis. This
formed a strong company for the undertaking, to
which the promoters were justified in looking forward
with no little hope of success. The attempt to start
this periodical, however, proved futile, and not even a
number of it ever appeared.
On the 13th November, 1825, Pecchio wrote a
letter to Panizzi, for the purpose of introducing a
certain Miss E ****, telling him that he ought to
appear as a Narcissus to captivate the young lady.
Panizzi’s health, however, seemed at this time to fail
him, and this he attributed to the severity of the
winter season, which, as before stated, invariably
affected him in a remarkable decree.
Possibly this may have been one cause of his indisposition.
The Count, however, with some acuteness
in deciding on symptoms, remarks: “The loss of
one’s country is a wound which never heals; it is
one of those pains which slowly destroy our own
existence without our perceiving it.”
Sufficient space has, however, been allotted to
Panizzi’s friends, and it is now time to return to
Panizzi himself. His celebrity as a teacher of Italian
and lecturer on that language was established at Liverpool.
Before dilating upon his peculiar aptitude in
this direction we must mention one feature in his
.bn 078.png
.pn +1
character which will pre-eminently raise him in the
estimation of all discerning readers. Miss Martin, one
of his former pupils, knew him as a political exile in the
time of his penury; nevertheless, she well recollects and
bears witness to his most high-spirited disinterestedness
in pecuniary matters—in fact, his singular disregard
of money.
The lectures on the Italian language, at which
this lady was present, were delivered by him in the
years 1824 and 1825 in English; they had been inaugurated
by Mr. Roscoe, and were given at
the Royal Institution, Liverpool, where, strange to
say, no record of them has been kept.
The following anecdote related by Miss Martin
may serve to illustrate the earnestness of his addresses.
In reciting some of the lines of the “Gerusalemme
Liberata,” where the anxious Crusaders first
catch sight of the sacred city of Jerusalem:—
.pm start_poem
“Ecco apparir Gerusalem si vede,
Ecco additar Gerusalem si scorge;
Ecco da mille voci unitamente
Gerusalemme salutar si sente.—”
.pm end_poem
his eager eye glanced at the wall at the side
of the lecture-room with such realistic animation,
and with such power over his hearers, that some of
the audience turned to gaze on the vacant space as
though the veritable towers and walls of Jerusalem
had been thereon depicted.
These lectures were never published. The following
extracts, expressive of his personal feelings towards
his auditors may, even at this distance of
time, be not altogether devoid of interest.
.bn 079.png
.pn +1
The first quotation is from the first of the lectures,
written in the summer of 1824, and the second is from
the concluding lecture of the series, delivered three
years afterwards.
.pm start_quote
.ce
I.
If I dare to address you in your own language, it is
neither because I have a vast confidence in my limited knowledge
of it, nor because I am unaware how awkwardly a
foreigner is situated on such an occasion. But since you do
not honour me with your presence to ascertain how I am acquainted
with your language, but to hear what my opinion
is with respect to some poems written in my own, it is after
all of very little consequence whether my diction be so correct
and my pronunciation be pure, if I am but intelligible.
Having to speak of a foreign literature, I had still more
reason to expect that the audience would liberally overlook my
blunders; for the Italian quotations would remind those whose
keen sense of the beauties of their own tongue might perchance
dispose to pass a vigorous sentence on my English,
how difficult it is to speak a foreign language tolerably.
These reasons alone might perhaps have induced me to
trust to the liberality of an English public; but even without
them, and with far more confidence would I have presented
myself before you. Your kindness to me on former occasions,
to which I shall only allude as no language at any length
could do justice to it, would have been a sufficient encouragement
to me. It was in this same place that without any claim
to your favour, I met the most flattering reception. The
repeated proofs of benevolence which I have received from
you warrant me in expecting that you would continue to me
the same support. I know you so well that I am as certain
that you cannot be unkind, as I am conscious that I cannot be
ungrateful.
The Lectures which I purpose delivering will form an
appendix to those which you have already heard on Ariosto,
on whose poem I shall not lecture this time. I am sensible of
the disadvantage of such an omission.
.pm end_quote
.bn 080.png
.pn +1
.pm start_quote
.ce
II.
I feel it would be indiscretion were I to trespass any
longer upon your time, as I was inclined so to do on this last
occasion. I shall therefore conclude, offering you my sincerest
thanks for the kindness with which, sometimes even
in spite of the enraged elements, you have honoured this
course of lectures. I know full well that the subject must
have been so agreeable to a choice audience like that by
which I have been favoured, so as to be a powerful attraction
for them to attend. But I cannot and will not think that I
am indebted for your presence to the merits of the poems
I lectured upon rather than to your benevolence to me. I
have known Liverpool so long and so well, and have had so
many occasions of experiencing the hospitality of its inhabitants,
that my heart cannot allow me to think that you
came to hear me as you would have done a stranger. I am
not a stranger in this town to which the noblest of sentiments—gratitude—ties
me. I beg you will continue to
entertain for me the kind feelings which you have hitherto
done, being certain that I am fully sensible of their value,
and proud in thinking that you have not found—and I hope
you never will find me either unworthy of them, or not appreciating
them as fully as they deserve.
.pm end_quote
It is pleasing to trace in these words the grateful
heart of Panizzi, reflecting as they do the warmth of
his feelings, and acknowledging the kindness shown
him by Liverpool friends at a time when he sadly
needed sympathy and support; we now leave him,
through such aid, in better worldly circumstances
than he had but recently encountered.
.bn 081.png
.pn +1
.pb
.il fn=i_b_063.jpg w=500px ew=90%
.sp 4
.h2 nobreak
CHAPTER III
.pm start_summary
Foscolo; At Holkham; First Article; Departure from Liverpool;
Brougham; Miss Turner; London University; Botta; Lady Dacre;
‘Orlando Innamorato’; W. S. Rose; Keightley; Moore’s Verses;
Correspondence with Mr. Grenville; First Appointment.
.pm end_summary
.sp 2
.di dc_p.jpg 150 153 1.1
Panizzi being established in Liverpool
in 1826, it may be concluded (and, indeed,
in a letter to be presently quoted
he admits as much) that he was now
earning sufficient to satisfy his immediate
wants, and to enable him to enjoy a certain degree
of luxury. He resided at 93 Mount Pleasant, an eminence
overlooking the town, and celebrated in Roscoe’s
poem of the same name. From the invitations he
received, constantly dining out, it may be inferred he
moved in the best society and was leading a comfortable
life. Far otherwise was it with Ugo Foscolo, his
fellow-exile. For Foscolo, of whose celebrity in
England, as of the reverence paid to his name by the
youth of his native Italy, Giuseppe Mazzini writes so
warmly, was now living in London in a state bordering
on destitution.
“Stern and somewhat aggressive in temperament,”
says Mazzini, speaking of Foscolo, “his mind nourished
.bn 082.png
.pn +1
and fortified by severe study, little calculated for
laying new foundations,
but endowed
with mighty faculties
for destruction, he effectually
overthrew
(except for those who
bow down kindly before
precedents) a
whole edifice of errors
which barred the way
to the study of Dante.
In his different writings,
especially in his
“Discorso sul Testo,”
etc., etc., etc., he
cleared the ground for a better understanding of the
‘Commedia’ and the poet.”
.il id=i064 fn=i_b_064_foscolo.jpg w=225px ew=40% align=l alt='Ugo Foscolo'
This estimate of Foscolo’s character was founded
entirely on reading and reports, and seeing that the
two famous refugees had no personal knowledge of
each other—indeed had never met—must be taken as
an eulogium rather of the genius than the moral worth
of the great writer.
Though doubtless much might be said on this topic,
our space and the purpose of this memoir forbid our
dwelling at any length on the subject. For Foscolo’s
genius as writer and poet, Panizzi—as who would not,
even without his shrewd discernment?—ever entertained
the profoundest respect; but in a somewhat
important qualification, strict adherence to truth, he
detected a slight deficiency. However, he made
.bn 083.png
.pn +1
every allowance for this failing in a man of superior
endowments, and felt the deepest sympathy with one
of so great attainments reduced to such ignoble shifts.
It is but too true that Foscolo wrote his famous book,
“Discorso sul Testo, etc.,” and other of his last works
under the pressure of extreme poverty and in continual
dread of his creditors, which rendered his bodily sufferings
the more intolerable, and caused him alarm
lest want of bread should put a stop to his literary
labours.
It is unnecessary to give further details of Foscolo’s
life. They were better known to Panizzi than to any
one else, and he alone could have narrated the true
story of the experiences of his illustrious friend. The
biographers of the former have unaccountably and unpardonably
neglected to take due cognizance of the
intimacy which subsisted between the two.
The first letter, written by Panizzi to Foscolo from
Liverpool, and dated 25th February, 1826, is long and
most interesting. Herein he recalls to his friend’s
memory that it was just thirty months since he laid
the foundation of all that the writer possessed, and
proceeds in the following grateful strain: “Were it
possible for me to forget my own country, I could not
certainly forget Liverpool. If the misery of selling
articles and verbs were not such as to freeze one’s
blood, I might say that I live, yet I only vegetate;
even this is due to you.”
Of Foscolo’s “Discorso sul Testo” of Dante, Panizzi
always expressed the highest would
be impossible,” he writes of his friend’s magnum opus,
“to describe how much superior your work seems to me,
.bn 084.png
.pn +1
compared with those hitherto made known, not only
in Italy, but by any critic elsewhere. Being a great
admirer of Dante, in whom I find the greatest comfort
of my exile, I paid last month a visit to the
Bodleian, where I saw thirteen manuscripts of the
‘Divina Commedia.’ I have ready a minute description
of each, which I have written in the shape of a
letter, with the intention of sending it to the ‘Antologia,’
a paper more Italian in feeling, and less
slavish than the others; but if you would like to see
it, I shall most willingly send it to you. I may add
that not far from here there is another manuscript of
Dante, which, according to Mr. Roscoe, is well worth
consulting; I propose seeing it next Easter. Mr.
Coke, of Holkham, also possesses other MSS. and
has kindly offered to send them to my house, that I
may have an opportunity of studying them at
leisure.”
The splendid library at Holkham had been, in 1812,
carefully examined and catalogued by Mr. Roscoe,
who was immensely impressed with its value and importance.
“Such MSS. of Dante,” he writes to a friend,
“drawings of the old masters, treasures of European
history—you have no idea ... besides beautifully
illuminated MSS. on vellum of many of the
Latin classics, a most exquisite Boccaccio, a very fine
old Dante.”
In the catalogue the following note is written by
Roscoe: “For a transcript of this very difficult MS.
of Boccaccio, by Signor Antonio Panizzi, see the
illustrations in Vol. VIII. of this catalogue.”
.bn 085.png
.pn +1
Next, if not equal in value to the “Discorso sul
Testo,” in Panizzi’s estimation, was another work of
Foscolo’s. This was “La Commedia di Dante
Alighieri illustrata da Ugo Foscolo.” (London:
8vo., 1825). It may be mentioned that the preface
to the first vol. of a later edition (1842) of this book,
signed “un Italiano,” was written by Mazzini.
Panizzi reviewed “La Commedia” (it was his first attempt
at criticism in the English language) in the
Westminster Review (vol. 7, p. 153).
This will amply repay perusal. The sincerity of
the writer’s patriotism, and the manner in which it
serves to enhance his interest in the great poet of his
native country, will probably attract the reader’s
attention at the outset. The philological contest in
which Dante was engaged—his conclusions (set forth
in his “De Vulgari Eloquio”), on the true origin of
the Italian language, by which he so much disgusted
his Florentine compatriots,—his own life and greater
works,—the relations of the different powers by whose
influence Italy was chiefly affected,—the spiritual in
jeopardy of its existence in its own home, and externally
the temporal, on which it mainly relied for
support,—are all brought under notice, and skilfully
treated.
Reference has been made to the “Westminster
Review,” and as that periodical is easily accessible it
is unnecessary to destroy the reader’s interest by
extracting from the article in question.
Meanwhile Foscolo still continued his correspondence
with Panizzi, furnishing him with details of his
troubles. Serious differences seem to have arisen
.bn 086.png
.pn +1
between him and Mr. Pickering, the publisher of his
projected works, whose treatment of him he describes
as shameful. Neither is Mr. Brougham spared;
Foscolo had employed him to heal the breach between
Mr. Pickering and himself; and these are the
terms in which he mentions the services rendered:—“Brougham,
at first, offered to take the matter to
heart, but allowed it to drop, because I have no
money to carry on the suit. He has acted as a
lawyer, and wisely too; I shall also act wisely by
having nothing more to do with him.”
It is somewhat difficult to discover from these words
the exact part Brougham took in the matter. To substantiate
the charges brought by Foscolo against men
of acknowledged worth is against our inclination, nor
have we the opportunity of clearly knowing their
nature. In writing a memoir of Panizzi it is but just
to remark that, so far as the worthy publisher is concerned,
he entertained the highest opinion of Pickering
up to the last, as a man of taste, of great knowledge,
and of indisputable private worth. These
accusations, in all probability without foundation,
possibly created in their recipient’s mind his before-mentioned
suspicion of his friend’s entire trustworthiness,
a suspicion he almost publicly divulged in 1871,
when Foscolo’s remains were about to be removed from
Chiswick to a more honourable grave in Santa Croce,
Florence.
In the summer of the year 1826, Foscolo reached
the lowest depth of his poverty. Persecuted on all
sides by his creditors, he hid, or rather, as he wrote,
buried himself alive. “I send you my new address,
.bn 087.png
.pn +1
you are the only person who will be acquainted with
it, 19, Henrietta-street, Brunswick-square, let nobody
know it, now or ever, and if in town, I can offer you
a bed, and thus prevent your portmanteau from being
ransacked by some London hotel-keeper.” At this
period (painful to relate), he evidently meditated
suicide. “The virile act of voluntary death becomes
dreadful, when committed through poverty. I must,
in order to proceed with my work, take care of myself;
and have imitated you, in finding a few humble
families, to whom I give lessons at three shillings
each.” Of these lessons he could give no more than
six a week, having in hand another important work,
also on Dante, in which he requested the assistance
of Panizzi who possessed some valuable notes on the
subject. This aid was readily afforded. Panizzi,
however, who wished to serve his friend to the utmost
urged Foscolo to visit Liverpool; and, as a compensation
for his expenses, proposed that he should
deliver six lectures at the Royal Institution, on Tasso
and Ariosto, during the space of three weeks, and
receive for this £50. In the letter suggesting this
he says:—“I do not care for these lectures
myself; having so many friends I am obliged to give
away tickets to, in return for their dinners and tea-parties.
Come, and write, never mind the postage,
for I had sooner deprive myself of a good dinner than
one of your letters. Moreover I am not in want.”
As to the subject of giving lessons the writer
remarked: “How much better it is to sell articles,
nouns, and verbs than to stretch forth your hand and
ask for assistance from those generous, miserable,
.bn 088.png
.pn +1
proud rich people whose rude manners make one unwillingly
ungrateful. When I think that Macchiavelli
acted the pedagogo to live I may well be proud
of my present position. There will be no more of
this soon. Courage, my dear friend, the storm will
clear up before long, and the serene sky will also
return for you.”
It would appear by this letter that the political
atmosphere of Liverpool had affected Panizzi in a
manner that may seem strange to some of our readers.
That the little “nuances” of character, which he
notes as distinguishing the members of our different
political parties, may be discerned by a keen observer,
and the causes of their existence perceived, is not impossible;
they seem to have struck him very forcibly,
as a foreigner, in his short experience. Of the three
sections as they existed at that time (it would be
interesting to know his opinion of parties more
recently) he remarks not less strongly than naively:
“D—n the English Liberals! my experience (Roscoe
and Shepherd excepted) shows me that the Tories are
more polite than the Whigs, and much more so than
the Radicals.”
Poor Ugo Foscolo, who, for some reason, had been
unable to accept the invitation to Liverpool, and
whom misfortune seemed to have marked for her own,
died in London in penury on the 10th September,
1827. His death was at once announced to Panizzi
by Giulio Bossi. The few books he left behind were
purchased by some of his remaining friends; Panizzi
bought as many as his means allowed him, and these
he distributed among the most distinguished admirers
.bn 089.png
.pn +1
of the deceased, one of whom was Mr. Macaulay, who
acknowledged the presentation in the following
letter:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
October 4, 1827.
.ll
Your letter was acceptable to me as a mark of kind remembrance,
but it is quite unnecessary as an apology. I
assure you that I considered myself, and not you, as the
offending person on the occasion to which you refer. I hope,
however, that either here or in Liverpool we shall hereafter
enjoy many meetings without any such cross accident.
I have not yet found time to read your kind present, poor
Foscolo’s book. I hope soon to be able to study it, which I
shall do with additional interest on his account and on yours.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
T. B. Macaulay.
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
No doubt the untimely death of Foscolo under such
lamentable circumstances grieved his friend deeply;
but it must have been to him a consolation that he
had endeavoured to assuage the exile’s sufferings,
although, as has been stated, the generous offer was
not accepted. It is such sympathy for our fellow-man
which stamps the character, and imparts to it the true
ring of charity and worth.
The year 1828 may be said to have been the turning-point
in Panizzi’s career, for it was then his departure
from Liverpool took place. In that populous
town, by his own personal merits and ability,
he had won for himself, if not quite the traditional
golden opinions of all sorts of men, at least that well-deserved
meed of praise and respect to which all
aspire. To this a contemporary bears witness and
writes of him, “that he never abused a friend’s kindness,
but always availed himself of it in a becoming
.bn 090.png
.pn +1
manner, turning it to good account for himself, and at
the same time reflecting honour upon him who bestowed
it.”
.il id=i072 fn=i_b_072_brougham.jpg w=225px ew=40% align=l alt='Lord Brougham'
Conspicuous amongst
his friends was Mr.
Brougham, then one of the
most active members of the
Council for the new University
of London, now
known as University College.
At this college Panizzi
was asked to occupy
the chair of Italian Literature,
an offer made to him
solely through the influence of Brougham, with whom
he became intimate in the spring of 1827, when they
proceeded in company to Lancaster, to attend the
famous trial of the Wakefield family, for conspiracy
and the abduction of Miss Ellen Turner, who had been
a pupil of Panizzi. That, among all the vicissitudes
of his life, he had not forgotten his former cunning,
appears from the statement that he rendered important
assistance in this case, by his knowledge of law in
general, and particularly, as might be supposed, of
Roman law.
After serious and anxious consideration the offer of
this professorship was accepted, mainly at the instigation
of his learned friend, who strongly urged it upon
him. This determination was not arrived at without
much reluctance and regret; for, indeed, he was loth
to abandon his friends at Liverpool, which he now regarded
as his second home. His appointment bears
.bn 091.png
.pn +1
date, May, 1828, but it was not till the 1st of October
following that the college was formally opened.
Four days afterwards Brougham wrote to Lord
Grey “that the delight of all who have been admitted
to the university was perfect.... The professors and
all concerned are therefore in the highest spirits.”
Amongst those who felt Panizzi’s departure from
Liverpool most keenly was Roscoe, who, now in his sixty-fifth
year, had become thoroughly accustomed to his
frequent visits, and took the greatest delight in his conversation.
The old savant, however, spared no trouble
in giving him letters of introduction to friends,
amongst them one to Samuel Rogers.
.il id=i073 fn=i_b_073_rogers.jpg w=225px ew=40% alt='Samuel Rogers' align=l
“This is intended to
be delivered to you by
my highly-valued friend,
Signor Antonio Panizzi,
professor of the Italian
language in the London
University, who lived some
years in Liverpool, whence
he is now returning, after
visiting the numerous
friends whom he has made
during his residence here. He is probably already
known to you by his literary works, particularly his
edition of Bojardo and Ariosto, now publishing; in addition
to which I beg leave to add my testimony, not
only to his abilities as an elegant scholar, but to his experienced
worth as a sincere friend, and to his character
as a man. It is, therefore, with great satisfaction,
that I introduce him to your better acquaintance,
.bn 092.png
.pn +1
being convinced that it cannot fail of being productive
of pleasure and advantage to both.”
Panizzi, on his appointment as Professor, took up
his abode at No. 2, Gower Street, North, close to the
college, and delivered his first lecture in November,
1828. As was the case with his Liverpool lectures,
so with these. They do not seem to have been reported,
consequently no record remains. In 1837
he resigned the Professor’s chair.
The first of his London publications (“Extract from
Italian Prose Writers, for the use of Students in the
London University”) appeared in 1828, and was followed,
soon afterwards, by “An Elementary Italian
Grammar.” In addition to the compilation of these
works, he now began to contribute frequently to the
Reviews. The first of these contributions appeared in
the Foreign Review and Continental Miscellany; it was
a criticism of a work entitled “I Lombardi alia prima
Crociata. T. Grassi. Mil^o., 1826. 8vo.” This was
followed by another, a very interesting review
of the “Storia d’Italia dal 1789 al 1814, da Carlo
Botta. 8 vols. 1824. 12mo.” To this last the
critic extends at least as much justice as mercy, and
spares no pains to refute (which he does by the
clearest evidence) many of the statements put forward
in the work as historical facts. Of the author he
gives the following notice:—
“A Piedmontese physician, who, in 1794, after
two years’ imprisonment in Piedmont, for his warm
support of the principles of the French Revolution,
made his escape (Heaven knows how!) to France, and
was employed in his professional capacity in the
.bn 093.png
.pn +1
French army. When this army entered Piedmont,
Botta fought with it against the King and his
country. He went to Corfu in the capacity of army
physician. The King of Piedmont having been
obliged to abdicate, the French General, Joubert, appointed
a provisional government, which the historian,
of course, mentions with high eulogium, inasmuch
as of this very government Signor Botta was a worthy
member.”
As to his diction, the reviewer says:—“We wish
not to criticize minutely Signor Botta’s style.... The
Italian edition, however, we have read, and, save only
school-boy themes and college exercises, more coldness,
stiffness, and affectation is scarcely to be
found.”
Apart, however, from the historical blunders and
style of the work, another cause existed to call forth
the hostile criticism of Panizzi. This will appear from
the opening passage of the review, which runs thus:—“The
name of Carlo Botta has long been known as
that of an historian. While yet a member of the
legislative body, during the reign of Napoleon, he
published at Paris a ‘History of American Independence.’
Whether it so happened that his notions on
liberty have been since wonderfully revolutionized, or
his bitter vituperations of England and laudatory
tropes in favour of America, propitiated the then rancorous
hatred of the French towards this nation we
know not, but his work was eminently successful.”
Undoubtedly it was Botta’s ill-feeling towards
England, more than the demerits of the work itself,
which called for such severe and scathing comments.
.bn 094.png
.pn +1
The review was translated into Italian, and circulated
amongst Botta’s compatriots.
Other articles on various subjects appeared in the
same journal up to the year 1830.
The new college, though happily inaugurated, did
not attract so many students to the lessons in the
Italian language and literature as might have been
anticipated, and the expected emoluments of the Professor
fell proportionately short; nevertheless his
reputation as a sound scholar and acute critic increased
daily, and his circle of friends widely extended. Mr.
Brougham, who assiduously cultivated his society,
lost no opportunity of introducing him to the leading
literary personages of the period, and to the most prominent
members of the Liberal party. Among the
former was Lady Dacre, whose translations from
Petrarch were highly valued, yet not beyond their
merit, by some of the ablest critics of the time. To
her Panizzi was introduced in the following note from
Brougham:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
‘March 3, 1829.
.ll
“My dear Lady Dacre,—This will be presented to you by
Professor Panizzi, of whom my brother has already spoken to
you, and of whom it is quite impossible to say too much,
either as regards his accomplishments or his excellent amiable
qualities.
.ll 68
.rj
Yours, etc., etc., H. Brougham.”
.ll
.pm end_quote
The acquaintance thus formed ripened into a lasting
friendship. Of the frequent correspondence which
this led to the chief and most interesting examples
are the views exchanged on the interpretation of
various passages from Dante and Petrarch. Lady
.bn 095.png
.pn +1
Dacre, in fact, began very shortly to regard Panizzi as
her literary adviser; and some years later, on the publication
of her work, “Translations from the Italian”
(1836), makes the following grateful mention of him:—“I
have of late years been so fortunate as to make
the acquaintance of Mr. Panizzi, of the British
Museum, and to obtain also his approbation of these
English versions of his great national poet. It is by
his advice and that of other high authorities that I
now make this collection of my attempts.”
Lady Dacre’s letters are beyond measure charming.
The elegance of mind and purity of taste pervading
them, with the rare beauty of their tone and style,
must cause any one who may happen to have read
them, though knowing nothing before, nor having
even heard of Lady Dacre, to regret that the amiable
and accomplished translator of Petrarch is not more
extensively appreciated.
A passage from one of her earlier letters seems
worth extracting, as showing her estimate of the best
known English translator of Dante, although the
comments it calls for may lead to a slight digression
from the line of the narrative:—“As to Cary’s translation
of ‘La Divina Commedia,’ I still hold translating
Dante as an impossibility.... Cary does not
satisfy me, for, as he gave himself all the latitude of
blank verse, I cannot help thinking he might have
done more justice to the gems.”
With the opinion expressed in the first clause of
this extract few will disagree. Lady Dacre, indeed,
might have extended her sentence to other poets besides
Dante, and, it may be said, to poets in general
of any marked eminence.
.bn 096.png
.pn +1
Of these poets, or of any save those of the second or
third class, to which may be added certain of the
satirical and didactic category, it is not too much to
assert that nothing that could be called a sufficient translation
has yet been accomplished. By translation is here
meant not a mere rendering, however faithful and intelligent,
of the words, phrases, and plain meaning,
but a transfusion, by the translator’s own genius, of
the spirit of the original into the ordinary diction,
idioms and peculiarities of another language. Pope
and Dryden have, perhaps, arrived nearest this
result; but, too great themselves, they have so imbued
their greater originals with their own spirit—a
spirit in many respects differing widely from the classical,
that their versions may with more justice be
called paraphrases than translations. Still, if there
are degrees of impossibility, Dante is fully entitled to
a place in the first class of such impossibilities.
To Lady Dacre’s assertion, however, of the facility
which Cary ought to have derived from his use of
blank verse, exception may well be taken. Although
in some cases, as in translating Petrarch, it may be
difficult, and in others, as in rendering certain classic
metres, impossible, to reproduce in the alien language
the exact form of verse employed in the original (and
with the form of his verse, it must be observed, the
spirit of the poet is always indissolubly connected),
yet it is necessary to a good and true translation that
this course should be adopted wherever practicable.
Dante is a rhymed poet, and the system both of his
rhymes and of his verse is by no means uncommon in
English poetry; to none, it might be supposed, more
.bn 097.png
.pn +1
familiar than to Lady Dacre. For this reason alone
it would appear that if Dante, of all poets, is to be
clothed anew in English garb, the most fitting attire
for him would not be blank verse.
These remarks are merely by the way, our work is
not particularly concerned with poetry, but with
the life of Panizzi, who was then (1829) engaged
upon his “Orlando Innamorato di Bojardo:
Orlando Furioso di Ariosto:
with an Essay on the Romantic
Narrative Poetry of the
Italians; Memoirs, and Notes
by Antonio Panizzi.” 9 vols.
8vo. London, 1830-34.
.il id=i079 fn=i_b_079_ariosto.jpg w=225px ew=40% align=l alt='Ariosto'
The first volume of this
edition, dedicated to his benefactor
Roscoe, contains a dissertation
on Italian Romantic
Poetry, with analyses of the “Teseide” of Boccaccio,
the “Morgante” of Luigi Pulci, and the “Mambriano”
of Francesco Bello, besides other Italian
romantic epics. The second volume is prefaced by a
memoir of Bojardo, with an essay making him full
amends for the long usurpation of his fame by his
adaptor Berni. It also contains a life of Ariosto.
The corrupt text of the “Orlando Innamorato” is
restored, with great acumen (from a collation of rare
editions, principally contributed by the Right Hon.
Thomas Grenville and Earl Spencer), and, as well as
that of the “Furioso” (published later on, 1834), is
accompanied by long and learned notes in English,
“from an idea that they would prove more acceptable
.bn 098.png
.pn +1
to the English reader, who will gladly excuse
any errors, when he reflects that, had I not preferred
his language, he would not have enjoyed the beautiful
translations by Lady Dacre; W. S. Rose, Esq., and
W. Sotheby, Esq., which adorn this introductory
essay.”
The first part is well worthy the consideration of
such as are curious in tracing the windings of the
stream of civilization from its fountain head. In this,
with great ingenuity, the author describes the passions
and incidents of the most remarkable period in the
history of mediæval times—the age of chivalry—which
institution he attributes to Celtic sources. Chivalry
raised Europe from its barbarous condition. Every
institution, indeed, is of lowly origin. Love, naturally
a brutal appetite, only becomes refined by emulation
among men, advancing knowledge, and civilization.
Panizzi (p. 29) tells us that the Italians were indebted
to the popular songs sung in the north for their long
prose romances, giving, as an example of the most
popular and inspiriting of these songs, the Lays of
Roland and Charlemagne, sung by Taillefer, the Norman
standard-bearer who led the charge at the
battle of Hastings. “If,” Panizzi continues, at p. 34,
“the original destination of poetry were in every
nation of the world to celebrate the glorious actions
of heroes, one of the provinces of England, possessing
one of the most ancient languages extant, would seem
to have surpassed all other countries in the application
of the art. All the chivalrous fictions, since spread
throughout Europe, appear to have had their birth in
Wales.... So famous were their lays in France,
.bn 099.png
.pn +1
that the French trouvères were accustomed to cite the
British originals as vouchers for the truth of their
stories, while some of them were translated by Marie
de France. A glance at these translations will show
the lays to be of British origin.”
To this ingenious theory it is difficult, without considerable
further inquiry, to give so unqualified an
assent as the Editor of Bojardo appears to have done.
The subject, however, opens up a field of discussion
far too wide to be entered into in this biography.
Besides Panizzi’s valuable notes, his work is further
embellished with a selection from Lady Dacre’s translations
from Petrarch. The peculiar skill with which
this most elegant authoress could transfer to her own
language the graces of her Italian original will be best
presented to the reader by an example of her art:—
.pm start_poem
And Forisene was in her heart aware,
That love of her was Oliver’s sole care.
And because Love not willingly excuses
One who is loved, and loveth not again;
(For tyrannous were deem’d the rule he uses,
Should they who sue for pity sue in vain;
What gracious lord his faithful liege refuses?)
So when the gentle dame perceived the pain,
That well-nigh wrought to death her valiant knight,
Her melting heart began his love requite.
And from her eyes soft beamed the answering ray,
That Oliver’s soul-thrilling glance returns;
Love in these gleamy lightnings loves to play,
Till but one flame two youthful bosoms burns.
.pm end_poem
.hr 10%
.pm start_poem
Or Forisena intanto come astuta
Dell’ amor d’ Ulivier s’era avveduta.
.bn 100.png
.pn +1
E perchè amor malvolentier perdona
Ch’ e’ non sia alfin sempre amato chi ama,
E non saria sua legge giusta e buona,
Di non trovar merzè chi pur la chiama;
Nè giusto sire il suo servo abbandona:
Poi che s’accorse questa gentil dama,
Come per lei si moriva il Marchese,
Subito tutta del suo amor s’accese.
E cominciò con gli occhi a rimandare
Indietro a Ulivier gli ardenti dardi
Che amor sovente gli facea gettare
Acciò che solo un foco due cor ardi.
.pm end_poem
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):—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“Brighton, 29 April, 1830.
.ll
.ti 2
“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.
.bn 101.png
.pn +1
.il id=i083 fn=i_b_083a.jpg w=300px ew=60%
Compare this with Mr. Pickering’s.
.il fn=i_b_083b.jpg w=250px ew=50%
Anglus is not an adjective.
Why have we Arabic instead of Roman numerals? which
would have harmonized with the rest of the letterpress.
.ll 68
.nf r
Ever yours,
W. S. Rose.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
.fm rend=th
.fn 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.
.fn-
.fm rend=th
.bn 102.png
.pn +1
From Roscoe:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“Lodge Lane, May 1st, 1830.
.ll
“My dear Friend,
.ti 6
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.
.ll 68
.nf r
I am, with the sincerest esteem and attachment,
Ever faithfully yours,
W. Roscoe.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
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.)
.pm start_quote
“Dear Panizzi,
.ti 6
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
.bn 103.png
.pn +1
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,
.pm start_poem
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]
.pm end_poem
But of these things we shall have opportunities of talking
hereafter.
.ll 68
.nf r
Believe me ever, yours, &c., &c.,
T. B. Macaulay.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
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.”
.fm rend=th
.fn C
Epitaphium Damonis, line 125, sqq.
.fn-
.fm rend=th
.bn 104.png
.pn +1
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
.bn 105.png
.pn +1
style of literary criticism which is to grace this
journal under the new régime:—
.pm start_quote
“The present beautiful edition of these poems has been prepared
by a gentleman named Panizzi, one of those Italians who
have been obliged to fly their country for their political
opinions—a circumstance, by the way, as our readers must be
aware, no ways conclusive in proof of the moral dignity of the
exiled patriots’ souls. Anytus, we know, was one of the men
of the Piræus who delivered Athens from her Thirty Tyrants,
and yet Anytus was afterwards one of the accusers of Socrates!
To this a case somewhat parallel will presently appear. In his
own country Mr. Panizzi was, as we are assured, utterly unknown
as a man of letters; here, through the patronage of
the ex-Chancellor chiefly, he enjoys the barren honour of being
professor of Italian in the University of London, and the substantial
situation of one of the Under-Librarians of the British
Museum. He is also, we understand, engaged for a handsome
remuneration to catalogue the library of the Royal Society,—two
appointments which gave great offence to those narrow-minded
persons who think that charity should begin at home,
and that deserving Englishmen of letters, who have families to
support, and are able to write out the titles of books as well as
a foreigner, might have been found without any very anxious
search. Be this as it may, Mr. Panizzi, we believe, performs
the duties of his office in a most efficient manner, and he is not
ungrateful, but seems perfectly content with his lot, for while
his “co-mates and brothers in exile” are sighing after the
beautiful country they have lost, not a murmur or a sigh ever
escapes him. Mr. Panizzi writes and speaks English with
facility, as is proved by the present work, though what motive
but vanity could have induced him to employ it in preference
to his beautiful mother-language, we are unable to conceive;
for, surely, any one who is curious about the original text of the
Orlando Innamorato, must feel rather offended than otherwise
at being presented with English notes. This dexterity in
.bn 106.png
.pn +1
writing our language has also tempted Mr. Panizzi to become a
reviewer: and here it is that his character appears in a most
unpleasant light, and he becomes, as we have just hinted, a
kind of literary Anytus. In conversation and in writing he is
the incessant, and we may add virulent, assailant of the literary
reputation of his illustrious compatriot, Rossetti, whose Comment
on Dante, that extraordinary monument of erudition
and sagacity, he would fain make the world believe to be a
tissue of ignorance and absurdity. Nay, should any friend of
Mr. Panizzi’s even hint that he is disposed to regard Rossetti’s
system as well founded, his own works, if he has published
any, will be made to feel the wrath of the learned librarian.
But we leave the critic, and turn to the essayist and annotator.’”
.pm end_quote
On these strictures, just as fair as they are to the
point, with reference to his character as an author,
Panizzi pertinently remarks:—
.pm start_quote
“Did you choose an editor to start a magazine of calumnies,
or to continue a review of works? If the latter was your
object, can you say what the above slang has to do with the
Italian Romantic Poetry, and my edition of Bojardo and
Ariosto?... That I was utterly unknown in Italy as a man
of letters, when, scarcely twenty-five years of age, I fled the
country, is perfectly true; and, had I continued there, I doubt
not that I should have died without ever being known as such;
but the question propounded is, whether my edition of Bojardo
and Ariosto is good or bad? As the Reviewer says that ‘it has
everything to recommend it,’ is it discreditable to me that I
should have turned a man of letters, when driven into exile
with nothing in the world but my head, which I had the wit
to keep on my shoulders, although not without trouble?
.pm start_poem
‘Indignata malis mens est succumbere: seque
Præstitit invictam viribus usa suis.
*\ \ \ \ *\ \ \ \ *\ \ \ \ *\ \ \ \ *\ \ \ \ *
.bn 107.png
.pn +1
En ego cum patria caream gazisque domoque,
Raptaque sint, adimi quæ potuere mihi;
Ingenio tamen ipse meo comitorque fruorque.
Hostis in hoc potuit juris habere nihil.’”[D]
.pm end_poem
.pm end_quote
.fm rend=th
.fn D
Paraphrased:—
.pm start_poem
Uprising in unconquer’d strength, the soul
Scornfully braves the storms of fate.
*\ \ \ \ *\ \ \ \ *\ \ \ \ *\ \ \ \ *\ \ \ \ *
So I, bereft of fortune, house, and home—
Of all that could be torn away,
My talents still retain and can employ:
O’er these no foe has aught of power.
.pm end_poem
.fn-
What seems especially to have aroused Panizzi’s anger
(and herein may be remarked his sincere affection for
the land of his refuge and rest), was that he should be
called a “foreigner.” If to be domiciled in England
and naturalized by an act of her legislature makes a
man an Englishman, then was he an Englishman to
all the then necessary intents and purposes. “It is
true,” says he, “that I am not ungrateful; I love
my adoptive country as much as the one wherein
I was born, and being able to gain a very honourable
and independent subsistence, by making
use of those talents which Providence has been
pleased to bestow on me, no wonder that I do
not allow murmurs and sighs to escape me.” His
alleged disposition towards Rossetti, the foundation for
which he declares to have been derived from advantage
taken of certain private conversation, grossly misrepresented
by his reviewer, he thus vindicates from
a charge which he declares to be “utterly false.”
“I dissent from Mr. Rossetti’s views concerning
Dante; but I have a high opinion of his talents and
acquirements; I respect them too much to be virulent
.bn 108.png
.pn +1
when speaking of his works, which I do not incessantly
attack. The contrary assertion made by the
reviewer is a wilful and deliberate falsehood, charitably
invented and propagated to cause mischief and
strife between Mr. Rossetti and myself. I once stated
freely my reasons for differing from Mr. Rossetti’s
system concerning Dante; but I then said, that I knew
him to be a very clever man, and I added that his
writings on the subject do much honour to his ingenuity,
and his very mistakes indicate a lively
Is this the language of ‘a virulent assailant’?”
In treating another passage in the article our
author displays, as well he may, more of contempt
than anger. His reviewer, one Mr. Keightley,
drew a comparison between Panizzi’s literary merits
and his own—by no means in favour of the former, a
practice, though decidedly blameable, not so rare as
to call for lengthy notice here. A couple of sonnets
translated from Bojardo by this same Mr. Keightley
are actually inserted in the review. Examples are to
be found, both in early and late history, of an author
praising his own works anonymously, and if by means
of self-laudation he can smite his enemies secretly his
acuteness has been thought all the more deserving of
admiration.
To what motive can the savage tone and evident
personal rancour of this article be imputed? The
office of the critic has for a long time past been discharged
fairly enough; if not with an undue excess
of leniency and generosity, at least (from the critic’s
own point of view) with justice and honour. Politics,
and such other matters as may be taken to be the
.bn 109.png
.pn +1
common property of the public, have, it is true, been
known to infuse something of what might at first sight
be called acerbity into his style; but as he who in
fair and open fight, complaining of blows, would meet
with scant pity, so the “benighted Tory” or the
“reckless and destructive Radical,” or possibly the
propounder of some latest theory in literature, science,
or art, must put up smilingly with the rubs which it
may please his adverse judge to give him, remembering
always that the office of that judge is to suppress
the ignorant, to repress the arrogant, and
occasionally, though of course but very rarely, to
oppress those who are neither the one nor the other.
Still, that the gall of personal animosity should mix
itself with the ink and infect the pen of the reviewer
is plainly a thing so utterly monstrous as to
astonish us on hearing of its occurrence more than
once in an ordinary lifetime. There is, unfortunately,
too clear evidence that, not uninfluenced by some such
dark motive, the critic now under notice perpetrated
the article in question.
It seems that about two years before the review
appeared either Panizzi made Mr. Keightley’s acquaintance
or Mr. Keightley Panizzi’s.
The relations between the two—so long as they
lasted—seem to have been of an amicable kind.
Panizzi assisted his new acquaintance in the Italian
works on which he was engaged, and, although he
never appears to have been inclined to admit him to
any very intimate friendship, yet a good deal of intercourse
seems to have taken place between them,
especially in matters relating to the peculiar study
.bn 110.png
.pn +1
with which each was occupied. Panizzi, indeed,
acknowledges that the last time he met Mr. Keightley
the latter insisted upon his accepting a copy of his
works, and that he (Panizzi) “peremptorily objected”
to doing so. It maybe admitted that this was somewhat
discourteous, and perhaps hinc illæ lachrymæ. Be
that as it may, what must have been his astonishment
to receive, three months afterwards, the following
letter from his quondam friend, of whom during that
period he had quite lost sight:—
.pm start_quote
“Sir,
.ti 6
When next you stab a friend in the dark, if you wish
to be unknown, hide your hand a little better than you have
done in my case. But I have reason to suppose that you did
not desire concealment, as I find it was commonly known
that you were the author of the article in question. Indeed
no one who knew your style, &c., could doubt for a moment.
I never saw that article till last Saturday, and before I had
read the first column I named the writer of it. It is not safe
to attack one with whom you have been in the habit of conversing.
He has too many keys.
When I recollect that it was written at the very time I was
endeavouring to serve you, I must regard the action as a piece
of the basest treachery and darkest malignity that can be conceived.
I should not condescend to notice it, but that I
required to inform you that I know you, and that our
acquaintance is at an end. ‘I bide my time,’ and may yet
repay you, but not by a stab in the dark.
.ll 68
.nf r
I am, yours, &c., &c.,
Thomas Keightley.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
Following closely upon this letter came Mr.
Keightley’s article in the Foreign Quarterly. It may
be safe to conclude here—hoc ergo post propter hoc.
.bn 111.png
.pn +1
Panizzi, his temper already not unreasonably
ruffled by the letter, appears to have been terribly put
out by the Review. He winds up his own appeal to
the proprietors of the “Foreign Quarterly” with a
burst of indignation and menace, which, had it been
carried into execution might have brought him into
collision with the laws of his “adoptive country.”
Dreading and deprecating any such forcible expression
of his ire by the outraged author, Mr. W. S.
Rose sent him the poetical epistle which we subjoin.
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“Brighton, April 15, 1835.
.ll
.pm start_poem
“My Wife and I are certain you are better
Than you’re reported, reasoning from your letter;
In which you’ve blown your enemy to bits (I
Think) and deservedly, my dear Panizzi:
But do not in your honest rage outrun
The rule the ghostly king enjoined his son;
Tho’ you “speak daggers—use none”—this I know
You’d scarcely do—I mean don’t use your toe,
Or break his head, or pull him by the nose.
Always yours truly,
W. S. Rose.”
.pm end_poem
.pm end_quote
Panizzi himself seems to have possessed somewhat
of a poetic faculty, if we may judge by the sole specimen
extant of his skill in the art—a translation of
one of Moore’s songs, “Her last words at parting.”
In confirmation of this, it may be observed that the
canon before assumed in speaking of Lady Dacre on
Cary, namely, that the translator should conform to
the style of the verse in the original, has here been
overlooked. For this neglect there may be cogent
reasons. It would be difficult to adapt Moore’s
.bn 112.png
.pn +1
anapæstic lines to Italian verse in the same measure,
and, when adapted they would in all probability,
prove inelegant, and perhaps unnatural; even were
this not the case, liberties which would not be admissible
with an important poem, might very pardonably
be taken with the trifling composition of Moore.
The stanzas set out below are neatly turned, convey the idea of the original in elegant and
musical versification:—
.pm start_poem
L’ultime sue parole
Quando mi disse addio
Scordar giammai poss ’io?
Meco saranno ognor;
Qual melodioso accento
Che l’ alma ne consola
Benchè quel suon s’invola
Nè piu risuoni allor.
Venga l’avversa sorte,
M’ oltraggierà, ma invano;
Sempre il mio talismano
Sarà quel suon d’amor.
“Rammenta nell’ assenza,
Fra le ritorte e pene,
Un cor che ti vuol bene
Sol per te batte ancor.”
Da dolce fonte in oltra
Il pellegrino errante,
Per un sol breve istante
Gusta del suo sapor.
Ma si provede intanto
Dell’ acque ricche e care
Di quelle goccie rare
Che danno a lui valor.
.bn 113.png
.pn +1
Così al rigor del fato
Nell’ eremo della vita,
La fonte mia gradita
Sarà quel suon d’ amor.
“Rammenta nell’ assenza,
Fra le ritorte e pene,
Un cor che ti vuol bene
Per te sol batte ancor.”
.pm end_poem
This, however, is merely given as an instance of
versatility in a genius that was more fully developed
and more usefully employed, in illustrating and setting
forth, so far as such work is concerned, to the world
the poetry of others. The “Orlando Innamorato,”
&c., &c., was soon followed by the “Sonetti e Canzone
del Poeta Clarissimo, Matteo Maria Bojardo, Conte
di Scandiano. 4^o, Milano, 1835.” This remarkably
handsome volume, in beautiful type, and extremely
scarce, only 50 copies of it having been printed, is
inscribed “All onorevolissimo Signor Tommaso Grenville,
&c., &c.”
As in the case of the former work so in the execution
of this one, Mr. Grenville had kindly given his
aid by the loan of his two editions of Bojardo’s Sonnets
to the editor. The correspondence between the
two gives ample proof of the genuine love of his subject
for its own sake felt by Panizzi, and affords satisfactory
corroboration of the disinterestedness in money
matters, to which his old pupil, Miss Martin, of Liverpool,
has borne witness. Mr. Grenville was desirous that
the editor should receive some remuneration for his
labours. The manner in which this desire is declared,
and the offering with which the writer supports
.bn 114.png
.pn +1
it, cannot fail to receive its due meed of praise for
consummate delicacy and good feeling. We subjoin
a few extracts in evidence:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“B. M., Sept. 12, 1834.
.ll
“Dear Sir,
.ti 6
As this publication, or rather edition, is intended for you
I was anxious to obtain your approbation, well knowing besides
that if I were so fortunate as to obtain it I might hope not to
be reasonably found fault with by men of taste. To tell you
the truth I fancy the volume (as I almost see it printed,
pressed, and bound) as a very fine one. Do not laugh at my
conceit. I never did anything so much con amore. With
notes and all it will come to about 300 pages.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c.,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“Vale Royal, 15 Sept., 1834.
.ll
“Dear Sir,
.ti 6
I have always been truly sensible to the kindness with which
you have satisfied the occasional literary enquiries with which
you have allowed me to trouble you, and with which you have
taken so friendly an interest in the details of my small collection
of books, and in its gradual improvement, but to permit,
if I may use such a word, or to encourage you to incur the
expense of printing a work of 300 pages for me without any
intention of remunerating yourself by the sale of the work, is
what upon no consideration I ought or could be brought, as
far as I am concerned, to consent to. At the same time, I
cannot but be disposed most gratefully to accept your present,
and most anxiously to assist in promoting your literary labours,
so useful to all readers of taste and so creditable to the distinguished
editor. As an humble associate in so laudable an
undertaking, I trust you will have the goodness to accept me
as such, and have therefore taken the liberty of enclosing a small
advance, as you will see in the note to Coutts which accompanies
this. By your kind concurrence in this indispensable
.bn 115.png
.pn +1
course you will increase your claim upon my grateful acknowledgments
for your welcome present, and will thus relieve me
from difficulties otherwise insuperable. I cannot but add likewise
my earnest wish that you would be induced, after you
have indulged your liberality in your presents to your friends,
to give the work to the public, and to derive from it the profit
to which you are so justly entitled. Once more, dear Sir,
accept my grateful thanks for your intended present, which
will be a most valuable addition to my library.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c.,
Thomas Grenville.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“B. M., Sept. 17, 1834.
.ll
“Dear Sir,
.ti 6
I have just received the kind note with which you
have honoured me, and I cannot conceal how greatly mortified
I am at the indispensable condition, as you call it, on which
you will do me the honour of allowing me to dedicate to you
the edition of Bojardo’s Lyrical Poems. I assure you that if
you insist upon it, it will be a very great disappointment to
me. I have taken a liking to Bojardo’s poems because they
are, in my opinion, remarkably fine, because I owe him a
good deal (since it is through him that I have had the honor
of becoming acquainted with you more than would have been
likely to be the case had he not written the Innamorato) and
because he was born in my native province; and I, having
been in the habit of spending many of my younger days at
Scandiano, feel great pleasure in being occupied with the
works of a poet whose name is connected in my mind with so
many dear recollections. I intend printing a limited number
of copies of the lyrical poems, because few persons can appreciate
them, and still fewer will buy them; whilst the
present will be more acceptable if only a few copies of a book
not published for sale, be offered to an amateur.
It was this last circumstance which induced me to beg of
you to condescend to have the book inscribed to you: for as
it would be seen only by those who knew us both, or even
.bn 116.png
.pn +1
either of us, a dedication could not be considered but what it
really is intended to be, an expression of gratitude and respect
really felt and due. Were I to say that the thought of editing
a volume which was to be so inscribed did not render the
occupation still more agreeable than it would have been, I
should not state the fact; but I can truly say that the edition
will be proceeded with at all events even should you not allow
me to offer it to you—a determination which I hope you will
not take. You will see from this that you neither cause, permit,
nor encourage expense, and that consequently I cannot
consent to your bearing any.
With many and many thanks for your kindness, and in hope
that you will not deprive me of the anticipated pleasure of
inscribing my little volume to you. I have, &c.,
.ll 68
.rj
A. Panizzi.”
.ll
.pm end_quote
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“Vale Royal, 19th Sept., 1834.
.ll
“Dear Sir,
.ti 6
I had hoped to overcome the delicacy of your scruples in a
matter which appeared to me likely to press very unreasonably
upon you; but your letter expresses so strong a sense of mortification
and disappointment at the earnestness of my proposal,
that I can only say that I will leave the decision upon it
entirely to your own consideration and judgment.
\ \ \ \ \ * \ \ \ \ \ * \ \ \ \ \ * \ \ \ \ \ * \ \ \ \ \ * \ \ \ \ \ * \ \ \ \ \ *
I have only once more to repeat that my former letter had
no other object than that of doing what might be gratifying
to you, and that I wish you to do about it whatever is most
agreeable to yourself, and that you may be assured that in
all events I shall be highly honoured and gratified by your
inscribing the book to me.—I am, &c.,
.ll 68
.rj
Thomas Grenville.”
.ll
.pm end_quote
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“Brit. Mus., Sept. 22nd, 1834.
.ll
“Dear Sir,
.ti 6
Your letter of the 19th inst., which I have just had the
honour of receiving, by granting the request I made on my
.bn 117.png
.pn +1
own terms, and granting it in such a manner renders me still
more deeply indebted to you. **** I can fully enter
into the motives which dictated both your letters, and I see in
both of them a fresh proof of that delicate kindness to me
which I have so often experienced, which I appreciate to its
extent, and which I shall never forget.—Believe me, yours,
&c., &c.
.ll 68
.rj
A. Panizzi.”
.ll
.pm end_quote
In returning from our dissertation on Panizzi’s
works to his life, we bring the narrative back to
the date 1830-1831, it may be observed, when
Europe was in a state of revolution. In Italy
fresh disturbances indicated that the spirit of discontent
was unallayed—especially in Modena—where
Francis IV. continued his oppressive government;
while in Piedmont, a more earnest and conscientious
people founded an association under the name of
Giovine Italia; amongst them was the Genoese
Giuseppe Mazzini, who forwarded an address (1831)
to the King of Sardinia, praying for a Constitutional
Statute.
For this act Mazzini was forced into exile, and from
that time may be said to date the end of Carbonarism,
which, overpowered by the new scheme of not only
uniting Italy, but of establishing a Republican
form of government, seemed to have alienated those
that were left of the older patriots who had sacrificed
life and property ten years previously.
The King, Charles Felix, died, leaving behind him
the reputation of having ruled his kingdom after
the fashion most worthy of the “rois fainéants”,
and as an unworthy nephew of Emanuel Philibert
.bn 118.png
.pn +1
and Charles Emanuel. His death, by a strange
coincidence, happened on the very day, in the same
year that one of His Majesty’s most bitter enemies,
Antonio Panizzi, entered the Institution which afterwards
he so much honoured.
In England the death of George IV. (1830), and
the unpopularity of the Duke of Wellington, largely
contributed to the overthrow of the Tory party. In
France, too, the expulsion of Charles X. (in consequence
of his attempts on the constitution and the
press), had its influence on the masses in this country;
the elections greatly favoured the Whig party, and
Mr. Brougham, raised to the Peerage on the 22nd
of November, 1830, took the earliest opportunity, as an
ex-officio Trustee of the British Museum, to place his
Italian friend in that noble establishment, under the
title of Extra-Assistant Librarian.
On the 27th of April, 1831, his appointment was
signed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Howley,
and by the Lord Chancellor, Brougham; the House
of Commons having been dissolved, there was no
Speaker at the time. Panizzi had to give, according
to usage, two securities of £500 each, which were
promptly forthcoming in the persons of his two earliest
friends of Liverpool, Mr. Ewart and Mr. Haywood.
Thus far have we drawn from the materials at hand,
a sketch of that early career which was to lead to the
achievement of a lasting literary reputation, and the
exercise of an energetic faculty. We
have glanced at the struggles of the incipient jurisconsult,
the patriotic agitator, the outlaw, the homeless
fugitive, the indigent teacher, the literary aspirant,
.bn 119.png
.pn +1
and, in every vicissitude, the man of many
warmly-attached friends. We have traced his progress
until he attained the position wherein his
abilities had extended scope, wherein his influence
was to be beneficially felt, and his success consummated.
The record of his life to this period is of
itself the most valuable testimonial to his character
and conduct; but while we lay sufficient stress on his
own exertions, let us not forget to award the share of
honour due to Lord Brougham, who, discarding
national prejudice, recognised the capacity, and gave
ample sphere to the energy and genius of Antonio
Panizzi.
.il fn=i_b_389.jpg w=125px ew=15%
.bn 120.png
.pn +1
.pb
.il fn=i_b_102.jpg w=500px ew=90%
.sp 4
.h2 nobreak
CHAPTER IV
.pm start_summary
The British Museum; Appointment Discussed; First Duties; Royal
Society; Promotion; Cary; Hallam’s Letter; Official Residence.
.pm end_summary
.il id=i102 fn=i_b_102_sloane.jpg w=225px ew=40% align=r alt='Sir Hans Sloane'
.sp 2
.di dc_b_102.jpg 150 152 1.1
Not before the middle of the eighteenth
century had the grand idea of establishing
a National Museum been
entertained in England. The project
was suggested by the will of Sir Hans
Sloane, Bart., of Chelsea, who, during a long period
of eminent practice in physics,
had gathered together whatever
was within his reach of
rare and curious, not only in
England, but in other countries.
This great originator
of our National Collection
was born in 1660, and died
in 1753. The codicil of his will
bears date the 20th of July,
1749, and expresses a desire
that his collection might be
kept together and preserved in his Manor House.
By the said codicil the testator directs that his
trustees should make their humble application to His
Majesty, or to Parliament at the next session after his
.bn 121.png
.pn +1
own decease, offering the entire collection for the sum of
£20,000. This consisted of a numerous library of books,
and MSS., with drawings, prints, medals, and coins,
articles of virtu, cameos, precious stones, &c., &c.,
which he had himself collected at an outlay of £50,000.
His testamentary offer to the nation was accepted
by Parliament, and in 1753 an Act (26 George II., c.
20) was passed, which may be termed a Charter of
Foundation.
Trustees were appointed, the identical individuals
named by Sir Hans during his lifetime, who had been
consulted by competent persons, and strongly felt the
necessity of procuring the collection as a whole for
the use of the nation.
The attention of the legislature was not confined
simply to the collection of Sir Hans Sloane. The
Act which directed the purchase of his museum
also gave instructions for the purchase of the Harleian
collection of MSS., for which a sum of £10,000 was
granted. This Act also directed that the Cottonian
Library of MSS., which had been granted to the
Government for public uses by an Act of the 12th
and 13th, William III., should, with the addition of
the library of Major Arthur Edwards, form part of
the general collection.
It was ordered that these several collections should
be kept in their respective places of deposit until a
more convenient and durable repository, safer from
fire, and nearer to the chief places of public resort,
could be provided for the reception of them all.
To defray the expenses of these purchases, to procure
a fit repository for their preservation, and to
.bn 122.png
.pn +1
provide a fund for the permanent support of the
establishment when formed, the Act directed that
£100,000 should be raised by way of lottery, the net
produce of which, together with the several collections,
was to be vested in a corporate body selected
from the highest in the land so far as regards rank,
station, and literary attainments, upon whom it conferred
ample powers for the disposition, preservation,
and management of the Institution, which, it was determined,
should bear the name of The British Museum.
The sum really raised under this Act, partly in
consequence of benefits arising from unsold tickets,
amounted to £101,952. 7s. 6d.; but the expenses of
the lottery amounted to £6,200, and the cashier
of the bank received more than £550 in consideration
of his management of it, so that the net produce was
£95,194. 8s. 2d. Out of this the sum of £20,000
was paid to the executors of Sir Hans Sloane; £10,000
to the Earl and Countess of Oxford for the Harleian
MSS.; £10,250 to Lord Halifax for Montague House,
and £12,873 for its repairs, which had been estimated
at £3,800; £30,000 being set apart as a fund for the
payment of future salaries, taxes, and other expenses.
Some loss was also sustained by the difference of price
between the times of buying and selling stock, and
£4,660 were expended for furniture. The surplus
was applied to the gradual liquidation of numerous
and general expenses, including the removal of the
different collections.
The only buildings offered as general repositories
were Buckingham House, with the gardens and field,
for £30,000, and Montague House for £10,000.
.bn 123.png
.pn +1
The consideration of the former was waived, partly
from the exorbitant sum demanded for it, and partly
from the inconvenience of the situation. The latter
was finally fixed upon, and the agreement for its
possession was drawn up in the spring of 1754.
No offer of ground for building a repository was
made, except in Old Palace Yard, where it was at one
time proposed that the Museum should find a place
in the general plan which had been there recently designed
by Kent for the New Houses of Parliament.
Montague House was originally built about 1674,
by Ralph, Duke of Montague, after the style of a
French palace. It was erected from the design of
Robert Hooke, the celebrated mathematician, who
took so important a part in the re-building of London
after the great fire. Foreign artists were chiefly
engaged in its completion, and amongst them Verrio
superintended the decorations.
When finished it was considered a most magnificent
building; but on the 19th January, 1686, owing to
the negligence of a servant the house was burnt to
the ground. The large income of the owner was
again brought into requisition for the re-construction
of his palace; and, though executed by fresh artists,
the plan was the same, the new structure being raised
upon the foundation and remaining walls of the old one.
The architect now employed was Peter Puget, a
native of Marseilles, who was assisted by C. de la
Fosse, J. Rousseau, and J. B. Monnoyer, three artists
of great eminence.
The exclusive employment of French artists gave
rise to the popular, but improbable, tale that Montague
.bn 124.png
.pn +1
House was re-built at the expense of Louis
XIV., to whose Court the Duke had twice been
attached as Ambassador.
The second building was purchased as a repository
for the collections.
In 1755 the Harleian MSS. were removed into it,
and the following year the other collections were
added, and when all had been properly distributed
and arranged the British Museum was opened for
public inspection on the 15th of January, 1759.
The government of the Institution was vested in
trustees, to the end that, as the Act says: “A free
access to the collections may be given to all studious
and curious persons at such times, and in such manner,
and under such regulations for inspecting and consulting
the said collections, as by the said trustees, or
the major part of them, may be determined in any
general meeting assembled.”
The trustees are forty-eight in number. Twenty-three
are called official, being the holders for the time
being of certain high offices; by these the National
interests of Church and State, Law, Science, and Art
are presumed to be represented and protected. Of
these the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor,
and the Speaker of the House of Commons are
termed the Principal Trustees. Nine others are called
the Family Trustees, as representing the families of
Sloane, Cotton, Harley, etc., etc.; one is termed the
Royal Trustee, because nominated directly by the
Crown. The remaining fifteen are styled the Elected
Trustees, who are all chosen by the other twenty-three.
.bn 125.png
.pn +1
In accordance with the desire of Sir Hans Sloane,
the elected were chosen in the beginning from among
the adepts in learning and science, and this practice
continued until about 1791, when the vacancies began
to be filled almost exclusively by persons of rank
and fortune.
The chief officer of the British Museum is styled
the Principal Librarian, which is to a certain extent
a misnomer, as he has no more to do with the books
than with the other portions of the collection; he
derives his appointment from the Crown under sign
manual, and is entrusted with the care and custody
of the Museum, his duty being to see that all the
subordinate officers and servants perform their respective
duties properly.
The different departments are each managed by a
head called Keeper, and in most of them there is
also an Assistant-Keeper, besides assistants and
attendants.
The patronage of the Museum is vested in the three
Principal Trustees, of whom the Archbishop of
Canterbury takes precedence.
The hours for the opening of the Museum in 1759
were from 9 o’clock in the morning till 3 in the
afternoon, from Monday to Friday between the months
of September and April inclusive, and also at the
same hours on Tuesday in May, June, July, and
August, but on Monday and Friday only from 4
o’clock till 8 in the afternoon during these four
Persons desirous of inspecting the Museum were to
be admitted by printed tickets to be delivered by the
.bn 126.png
.pn +1
porter upon their application in writing. No more
than ten tickets were to be delivered out for each
hour; five of the persons producing such tickets
were to be attended by the Under-Librarian, and the
other five by the Assistant Librarian in each Department.
On the 30th of March, 1761, the hours of admission
were changed from nine to eleven and one, and the
number admitted at one time was increased to 15.
On the 9th of February, 1774, a Committee of the
House of Commons was appointed to consider a more
convenient method of admitting persons into the
Museum, and on the 11th of May the Committee suggested
that on certain days visitors should pay for
admission. This was adopted and the practice continued
for 36 years afterwards, when, in 1810, Mr. Planta, then
Principal Librarian, first took the step of having the
Museum opened three times a week from ten to four
o’clock, without tickets.
The first “Principal Librarian” was Dr. Gowin
Knight, a distinguished member of the College of
Physicians. He was appointed in 1756, and remained at
the Museum till 1772, when he was succeeded by Dr.
Matthew Maty, who was born in 1718, near Utrecht,
and was educated at the University of Leyden. In
1740 he published “Dissertatio philosophica inauguralis
de Usu,” and, later on, a work on the effects of
habit and custom upon the human frame. Coming to
England in 1741, he practised as a physician, and
soon became a man of reputation, but much of his
spare time was occupied in literary pursuits, and at
the death of Dr. Knight he was appointed Principal
.bn 127.png
.pn +1
Librarian, which post, however, he held only for four
years, as he died in 1776.
Dr. Charles Morton, a native of Westmoreland, born
in 1716, was his successor. He was the author of
several important works, and contributed largely to
the “Philosophical Transactions.” His death took
place on the 10th of February, 1799.
Joseph Planta next obtained the appointment, having
been engaged in 1773 as an Assistant Librarian. A native
of Switzerland,he was born on the 21st of February, 1744,
and educated at Utrecht, besides having been a student
at the University of Göttingen. From the date of his
appointment as Principal Librarian (1799) it may be
said that the affairs of the Museum began to improve;
chiefly devoting himself to the improvement of the
reading-room, in 1816 the number of visitors increased,
and, as already stated, he suggested the vast
improvement of throwing open the doors of the
British Museum freely three times a week. He died in
1827.
Sir Henry Ellis next occupied the position of Principal
Librarian, having been a servant of the Trustees
since 1800. He was born at Shoreditch, in London,
29th of November, 1777, but of him we shall have
occasion to speak more fully hereafter.
During this period the contents of the British
Museum were divided into three separate departments,
namely, Printed Books, Manuscripts, and
Natural History, and to the first of these we must
now draw the reader’s attention.
The department of Printed Books consisted at first
only of the library of Sir Hans Sloane, which is said
.bn 128.png
.pn +1
to have amounted to 50,000 volumes, and that of
Major Edwards; these were not, however, actually
transferred to the Museum till 1769. In 1757 His
Majesty George II., “fully impressed with a conviction
of the utility of this Institution,” by instrument
under the Great Seal, added the Library of Printed
Books and Manuscripts, which had been gradually
collected by the Sovereigns of these realms from
Henry VII. down to William III. Rich in the prevailing
literature of different periods, and including,
with others, the libraries of Archbishop Cranmer
and of Isaac Casaubon, this library also contains the
venerable Alexandrian Codex of the Bible. His
Majesty added to his gift the privilege which the
Royal Library had acquired in the reign of Anne, of
being supplied with a copy of every publication
entered at Stationers’ Hall.
The bulk of this Royal Collection consists of books
of English divinity, history, classics, &c., as well as of
Italian and Spanish works, many of the volumes remarkable
for being printed on vellum, or dedication
copies. The most valuable among them are the productions
of Vérard, the celebrated Paris printer (1480-1530),
who struck off, during the reign of Henry VII.,
a copy on vellum of every book he printed. Unfortunately,
part of this collection was dispersed.
In 1759, Mr. Salomon Da Costa presented 180
Hebrew books, which, as he states, “had been
gathered and bound for King Charles II.”
The department was further enriched, in 1762, by
a donation from George III. of a collection of pamphlets
and periodicals published in the convulsive
.bn 129.png
.pn +1
interval between the years 1640 and 1660. Chiefly
illustrative of the civil wars in the time of Charles I.,
they were collected by an eminent bookseller, George
Thomason; the whole comprises upwards of 30,000
articles, bound in about 2,000 volumes.
It is impossible to enumerate in detail all the additions
which have been since made by gift or purchase.
Dr. Thomas Birch’s library, bequeathed in 1766, is
rich in biography; two collections of books on musical
science were also presented—one by Sir John
Hawkins, in 1778, and the other by Dr. Charles
Burney.
.il id=i111 fn=i_b_111_banks.jpg w=225px ew=35% align=l alt='Sir Joseph Banks'
In 1780, 900 volumes of old English plays were
given to the Museum by Garrick. In 1786, numerous
classics from the library of Thomas Tyrwhitt, and a collection
of ceremonials, processions, and heraldry from
Mrs. Sophia Sarah Banks was added. These gifts
were supplemented in 1818, two years later, by the
library of Sir Joseph Banks,
consisting of about 16,000
volumes, particularly rich in
scientific journals, transactions
of societies, and books
on natural history, but which
were not actually transferred
to the Museum till 1827.
A collection of Italian history
and topography from Sir
Richard Colt-Hoare, Bart.,
was presented in 1825. This
gentleman printed only twelve copies of the catalogue
of his books, and wrote on the fly-leaf of the copy
.bn 130.png
.pn +1
which accompanied the presentation, “Anxious to
follow the liberal example of our gracious monarch,
George IV.; of Sir George Beaumont, Bart., of
Richard Payne-Knight, Esq. (though in a very humble
degree), I do give unto the British Museum THIS
my collection of topography, made during a residence
of five years abroad, and hoping that the more modern
publications may be added to it hereafter, A.D. 1825.
Richard Colt-Hoare. This catalogue contains 1,733
articles.”
The valuable library of the Rev. Clayton Mordaunt
Cracherode, consisting of 4,500 volumes, came into
the possession of the Museum in 1799; and lastly, in
1835, Major-General Hardwicke bequeathed to the
Trustees the deficient works on natural history which
formed part of his library, and which caused an
accession of 300 volumes.
Parliament also evinced its interest in the library,
and gave instructions for the following purchases:—
Mr. Francis Hargrave, an eminent barrister, had
formed an important collection of law books, which
was purchased in 1813 for £8,000, having been valued
by a bookseller at £2,247. 8s.
Dr. Burney’s library was likewise purchased in
1818, and was estimated at the value of 9,000
guineas. It contained a remarkable collection of
Greek classics, besides 700 volumes of newspapers,
&c., &c.
In 1769 a sum of £7,000 was paid for Major
Edwards’ library, and in 1804 the sum of £150 was
applied to the purchase of a collection of Bibles
belonging to Mr. Combe.
.bn 131.png
.pn +1
In 1807 classical works, with MS. notes by Dr.
Bentley, were also obtained by purchase.
£1,000 were spent in 1812 in the purchase of works
on English history and topography, and in 1815 books
on music, belonging to Dr. Burney, were acquired for
the sum of £253.
In the course of the same year a collection of books,
portraits, minerals, &c., belonging to Baron Moll, of
Munich, became national property for the consideration
of £4,777. 17s. 5d., and in 1818, the Ginguené
collection, consisting of 1,675 articles, chiefly on Italian
literature, besides 2,686 articles in Greek, Latin,
French, &c., &c., &c., became another addition for
£1,000.
Four separate collections of tracts, illustrating the
Revolutionary History of France, have been purchased
at different times by the Trustees. One was that
formed by the last President of the Parliament of
Brittany, at the commencement of the revolution; two
others extended generally throughout the period,
whilst the fourth was a collection of tracts and papers
published during the “Hundred Days” of the year
1815, and became the property of the Museum in
1823, the whole forming a library of revolutionary
history, which contains as complete an account of
those important days for France as does the already-mentioned
collection of tracts of the civil wars of
England.
Another and unrivalled feature of the Museum
history is its progressive collection of newspapers from
1588. But as, for the purposes of this biography, we
have stated enough of the condition of the Museum
.bn 132.png
.pn +1
at the time of Panizzi’s appointment, we shall say no
more on the subject except to add a few words on the
general collection at the British Museum, which may
not be devoid of interest at this point of our narrative.
Between 1805 and 1816 were added the choice
statues and antiques of Mr. Charles Townley, the
Lansdowne MSS., the Greville minerals, the Phigaleian
and the Elgin marbles. Whilst, however, treasures
upon treasures were accumulating in the Institution,
other good opportunities were allowed, through
apathy and ignorance, to be neglected, and amongst
the rarities thus lost were Dodwell’s Greek vases,
Belzoni’s alabaster sarcophagus, the Ægina marbles,
the Millingen vases, and, last but not least, the famous
collection of drawings by old masters acquired by the
energy of Sir Thomas Lawrence, which, by the terms
of his will, was offered to the nation for one-third of
its original cost.
To this neglect was added the sale of duplicate books,
which so much disheartened Lord Fitzwilliam (who
died in 1816, and who intended to bequeath his collection
to the British Museum), that he altered his
mind, and handed it over to the University of Cambridge.
In 1823 the library of George III. was presented
by George IV. to the nation, and ordered by Parliament
to be added to the Library of the British
Museum, but for ever to be kept separate from the
other books. Immediately after his accession George
III. began to purchase books, and for this purpose
gave Mr. Joseph Smith, Consul at Venice, £10,000 for
.bn 133.png
.pn +1
his collection, besides other money which he sent to
various continental agents.
This library contains selections of the rarest kind,
more especially works in the first stages of the art of
printing, and is rich in early additions of the classics,
in books by Caxton, in the history of the States of
Europe, in the Transactions of Academies, &c. At the
time of its formation the houses of the Jesuits were
undergoing suppression, and their libraries were on
sale. It was accumulated during more than half a
century at an expenditure of little less than £200,000.
In the preface to the catalogue it is stated that it
was compiled in accordance with a plan suggested by
Dr. Samuel Johnson. His Majesty’s Librarian was Sir
Frederick Barnard, who survived his royal master,
and continued to hold the appointment until the
library became national property. He died at the
age of 87 on the 27th of January, 1830.
Soon after the reception of the gift, a Select Committee
of the House of Commons reported (April 18,
1823) that a new fire-proof building ought to be
erected to preserve it from all risks, and accordingly the
present east wing of the Museum was built, at the cost
of £140,000, by Sir Robert Smirke. The upper floor,
though it has been used for the Natural History collection,
was intended for a picture gallery and for the
reception of MSS. The new building was completed
in 1826, but the library was not opened for two years
afterwards. The room is 300 feet in length, 55
feet in width in the centre, and 31 in height.
The presses are all glazed to preserve the books
from dust. In the centre of the room are four
.bn 134.png
.pn +1
columns of Aberdeen granite, each of a single
piece, surmounted by Corinthian capitals of Derbyshire
alabaster. Over the door are inscriptions, one
in Latin and the other in English, in these terms:—“This
Library, collected by King George III., was
given to the British Nation by his Most Gracious
Majesty George IV., in the third year of his reign,
A.D., MDCCCXXIII.” As to the reality of the gift to the
nation there is some doubt; for it appears that
George IV., having some pressing call for money, did
not decline a proposition for selling the library in
question to the Emperor of Russia. Mr. Heber, the
bibliographer and book collector, having ascertained
the facts, and that the books were in danger of leaving
for the Baltic, sought an interview with Lord Sidmouth,
the Home Secretary, and stated the case, observing—“What
a shame it would be that such a collection
should go out of the country!” to which Lord
Sidmouth replied, “It shall not;” and, as it proved
afterwards, the library was presented to the nation,
but on condition that the value should be paid, which
was done from the surplus of certain funds furnished
by France for the compensation of “losses by the
revolution.”
With this necessarily brief account of the rise and
progress of the British Museum, we return now to
the immediate subject of these memoirs.
In the previous chapter reference has been made
to Panizzi’s dislike to the appellation of “foreigner”
a dislike, which, indeed, he always entertained.
The act of naturalization took place scarcely one year
after he became a servant of the Trustees of the
.bn 135.png
.pn +1
British Museum. It bears the date of March 24th,
1832, and was, as might be expected, a source of
great satisfaction to him.
It has already been noticed that the National Institution
had previously enrolled amongst its increasing
staff other foreigners, who all held important, if
not responsible, appointments—viz., Dr. Maty, a
Dutchman, and the very first Under-Librarian of the
Department of Printed Books, afterwards Principal
Librarian; Dr. Solander, a Swede, and Joseph
Planta, a Swiss, besides Charles König, a
Of these, strange to say, not one was naturalized.
Panizzi was now an Englishman after his own
heart, and his subsequent political career will
amply testify to the pride he took in being so.
His suitability for the appointment and the
causes which led to his selection for so responsible
an office, will be best understood from the Archbishop
of Canterbury’s own statement before the Select
Committee on the British Museum, which sat in
1836; but on this subject more will be said hereafter.
His answer (No. 5,511) to a question put to him
was as follows:—
.pm start_quote
“Mr. Panizzi was entirely unknown to me, except by reputation;
I understood that he was a civilian who had come from
Italy, and that he was a man of great acquirements and talents,
peculiarly well suited for the British Museum; that was
represented to me by several persons who were not connected
with the Museum, and it was strongly pressed by several
Trustees of the Museum, who were of opinion that Mr.
Panizzi’s appointment would prove very advantageous for
the Institution; and considering the qualifications of that
.bn 136.png
.pn +1
gentleman, his knowledge of foreign languages, his eminent
ability and extensive attainments, I could not doubt the
propriety of acceding to their wishes.”
.pm end_quote
The news of his appointment was first communicated
to him on the 25th of April, 1831, by the
Right Hon. Thomas Grenville.
.pm start_quote
“I am just come from a meeting of the Trustees of the
Museum and have the satisfaction of telling you that your
name, when proposed to succeed to the vacant Assistant
Librarianship, was received with high testimony to you, universally
approved, and the Archbishop said he would lose no time in
signing the appointment, and in obtaining the Chancellor’s
concurrence.
The appointment was £200 per annum for five days in the
week, and £75 for extra attendance to Mr. Walter. I am
very glad of your success, and think that your appointment
will be of great value to the Museum.”
.pm end_quote
That the Trustees were satisfied with the performance
of Panizzi’s duties there can be no doubt, and
it will be interesting to record his earliest labours.
His first report is dated May 4th, 1831, in which it
is stated that he was engaged in transcribing a
catalogue of duplicates to be submitted to the Royal
Society for their selection. This duty was soon followed
by cataloguing an extraordinary collection of
tracts, illustrative of the history of the French
Revolution, and formerly the property of Mr. Croker.
That it was no easy task, and that it demanded special
attention, may be gathered from a letter which the
cataloguer addressed on the 18th of April, 1834, to Mr.
Baber, then his superior officer:—
.pm start_quote
“1st. As to the omission of the Christian name of the author,
when his family name is given.
2nd. As to the great proportion of anonymous tracts.
.bn 137.png
.pn +1
3rd. As to the number of works without any author’s name
or title whatever, or with so vague a title as to be of no use
for the purpose of cataloguing the work.”
.pm end_quote
He continues:—
.pm start_quote
“Much time is spent in searching for names or for authors,
and in glancing over tracts to see what is their subject, to
catalogue them properly, after a most tedious search proves
useless with respect to the first point, and no evidence remains
of the trouble and loss of time which it causes. I cannot
catalogue more than forty tracts each day.”
.pm end_quote
As it is a matter of importance that Panizzi’s
stormy connection with the Royal Society should be
fairly and impartially added to these memoirs, and as
we have now arrived at the period when, for the
proper elucidation of the facts thereto belonging, the
whole circumstances of the case should be thoroughly
weighed and dwelt upon, it will be necessary to devote
a few pages to a clear account of the proposal made
by that Society, of the obstacles that were placed in
Panizzi’s path, in his conscientious endeavours to fulfil
the obligations imposed on him, and of the untiring
zeal and patience he displayed in doing his duty
in the matter, and in opposing the force with which
it was attempted to crush the evidence of his superior
talent, and to trample under foot even the Society’s own
verbal agreements upon which, as coming from a body
of men beyond suspicion, Panizzi relied. The whole of
that opposition was successfully surmounted by his
undoubted genius.
Biographers generally have to undergo the tedium
of monotony in their faithful endeavours to reproduce
the lives of those whose careers they pen, and it is
only at certain epochs in the course of the lives of
.bn 138.png
.pn +1
consistent men that an opportunity is afforded for a
discursive chapter such as is now presented to our
readers. It deserves, however, due consideration, and
has its value as a proof of the forbearance, learning,
and perseverance of the man of whom we are writing;
whilst it, without doubt, throws somewhat into shade
the members of a very learned Society, who vainly
strove, first from want of knowledge of their own requirements,
and secondly from non-appreciation of him
with whom they had to deal, to undervalue true talent,
and, by their associative power, to make a show of
quashing not only Panizzi’s (subsequently proved) intelligence,
but also his right to acknowledgment for
the new light he threw upon their want of accuracy
and knowledge for the work which they had confided
to him, and for which they should—some, at least,
must—have known he was so eminently fitted.
The origin, progress, and dénoûment of this affair
cannot be brought within very small compass; but
attracting (as they did at the time) the notice of many
literary men, are worthy of some space in this volume.
It would be amusing to watch the progress of this
attempt to thwart Panizzi’s intentions for the development
of that which he so well understood, even were
it not also a necessary record of the heartburnings of,
and wrongs done to, one who, justly confident in his
own position, had to prove, step by step, willingly or
not, for his own defence, his superiority to those
whose business it was to direct him, and not to derive
from him their inspiration.
To proceed, then, as we have intimated above, in
reference to the connection of Panizzi with the Royal
.bn 139.png
.pn +1
Society; and to give our readers a clear conception of
that connection, it will be necessary to make considerable
quotations from his own letters and notes,
for which, considering their importance as indications
of his learning, and humility under adverse treatment,
it will scarcely be necessary for us to offer any
apology.
In the year (1832-33) the Royal Society, from the
incompetency of those who had taken the matter in
hand, found it advisable to engage the services of
some known and experienced cataloguer to revise a
work, which had been begun on their behalf by one
of the members, whose presumption and arrogance
cannot be better proved than in the mild unassuming
language of Panizzi himself:—
.pm start_quote
“So long ago as October, 1832, I happened to meet Dr.
Roget at dinner, who told me that the Catalogue of the Royal
Society, of which a sheet had been set up in type as a specimen,
had been found to require revision in passing through the
press, and that a Committee, on that very day, had requested
him to ask me whether I would undertake the task. I said
that I had no objection, and I received from him a proof of the
sheet in question. The same evening, on my return home,
glancing over it, I was astonished at the numberless errors by
which it was disfigured. The more I looked into it, the worse
did it appear, and I soon felt convinced that it was utterly incapable
of correction. I immediately wrote a note to Dr.
Roget, stating the conclusion to which I had come, and begging
to decline to have anything to do with a work which I felt
satisfied would be disgraceful to the Royal Society, and to any
person who should venture to meddle with it. Either in that
note, or verbally, shortly after, I mentioned to Dr. Roget that it
would be necessary for the Royal Society to have an entirely new
Catalogue, compiled in such a manner as would answer the expectations
.bn 140.png
.pn +1
which the public had a right to form; adding, that,
although I would never attempt to correct what had already
been done, I was ready to undertake a new compilation.
I had no idea when I so candidly expressed my opinion, that
I was making a powerful and unrelenting enemy in one of
the most influential officers of the Royal Society, who, as I
have learned since, had put together the titles of books which
were to form the Catalogue, and was so well satisfied with his
performance as to order a very large number of titles to be set
up in type; whatever, in fact, he included in classes, which he
called: Mathematics, Astronomy and Navigation, Mechanics,
Optics, Transactions, Tables and Journals. The Members of
the Catalogue Committee, on being informed of what had
passed between Dr. Roget and myself, perceived that my
opinion, as to the value of the work done, was correct, and it
was resolved that the compilation of a new Catalogue should be
intrusted to my care. Thus, not only all that had been done
was undone at once, but the time which had been lost, and,
what is more, the unwarrantable expense incurred by sending
so large a proportion of the ill-digested work to press, was
thrown away. Such is the origin of my connection with the
Royal Society.”
.pm end_quote
This is an extract from a letter dated 28th January,
1837, from Panizzi to his Royal Highness the Duke
of Sussex (then President of the Royal Society), a letter
wherein is fully set forth his whole conduct in the case,
and which, besides revealing the puerile and almost
unpardonable errors he detected in the titles brought
under his notice, is a wonderful certificate to the
patience, endurance, and acuteness of a gentleman
who was called upon to contend, single-handed, with
a corporate body, supported by a clique necessarily
jealous of its own distinction.
We shall now explain as clearly as possible the
course pursued by the Society, and the pains-taking,
.bn 141.png
.pn +1
much enduring way in which Panizzi met his opponents.
Let us, therefore, continue to extract from the
memorable letter to H.R.H. the Duke of Sussex, those
passages wherein are particularized the egregious
blunders of Panizzi’s predecessor in the work:—
.pm start_quote
“Authors’ names were not better treated than the subjects.
Bonaventura, the Christian name of Cavalieri, was taken for a
family name, and a cross reference put from it to Cavalieri; of
the three mathematical decades of Giovan Camillo Gloriosi, one
was put under Camillo, his second Christian name, and the
remainder under his family name Gloriosi. On entering a
collection, the word Collezione was taken for a surname, and
Nuova for a christian name, and thus the entry is to be found
“Collezione (N.)” I will not notice mere errors of the press,
of which the number is prodigious; but there are entries
which prove abundantly that the printer was not to be accused
of them. Cossali’s History of Algebra in Italy was printed
Nella Real Tipografia Parmense, and Parmense was gravely
inserted as the name of the place where the book was printed.
Da Cunha’s mathematical principles were translated into
French by D’Abreu after the author’s death, and have this
title: “Principes Mathématiques de feu J. A. Da Cunha.”
Anyone who has even merely heard of the “feu Lord Maire de
Londres” may easily guess, without much knowledge of
French, that feu here means late, i.e., deceased. The compiler
of this Catalogue, however, did not attach such a gloomy
meaning to this word; but philosophically conceived it to
signify fire, as is evident by his precaution in writing it with a
capital F, Feu; and by substituting the word Opuscules for the
correct one, Principes, the following entry was made:—
“Da Cunha (J. A.), Opuscules Mathématiques de Feu,
traduits littéralement du Portugais, par J. M. D’ Abreu. 8vo
Bordeaux, 1811.
The idea conveyed to a Frenchman by this title would not
be very clear, but it might possibly be understood that this is
.bn 142.png
.pn +1
an infamous book, deserving to be burnt. It is a fortunate
thing for feu Mr. Da Cunha, that this libel on his fair name
was not published in his own country (he was a Portuguese)
when he was living, and when the fashion was, not only to
burn books, but authors; else, so dangerous an insinuation by
the Royal Society of London might have exposed him to the
chance of paying dearly for their blunders and bad French.
If errors of so ludicrous a nature occur in the first sheet
which was so often revised, one may easily conceive in what
state that part of the catalogue was which was set up, but not
corrected. As a specimen I transcribe three entries in the
last slip, containing a list of names put down pêle-mêle, of
works said to be mathematical.
.pm start_quote_lang la 100 0
Litheosphorus, sive de lapide Bononiensi lucem in se conceptam
ab ambiente claro mox in tenebris mire conseruante
liber Fortunii Liceti Genuensis pridem in Pisano, nuper in
Patauino, nunc in Bononiensi Archigymnasio Philosophi
eminentis. 4to. Utini, 1646.
.pm end_quote
I suspected at one time, that the error arose from Litheosphorus
being mistaken for a star, and no attention being paid
to that explanation “sive de Lapide Bononiensi.” I am now
satisfied that my suspicion was unfounded, and that the blunder
is gravely, deliberately, and learnedly perpetrated; it is
not to be attributed to the mere ignorance, that lapis
stone, not a star, but to a very ingenious process of reasoning,
by which phosphorus was metamorphosed into a heavenly
body.
To demonstrate in “as correct and complete” a manner “as the
circumstances of the case will allow,” I beg to call Your Royal
Highness’s attention to another work by Liceti, which does
exist in the library of the Royal Society, and which was catalogued
in the following manner, in the specimen now under
consideration.
.pm start_quote_lang la 100 0
Licetus (Fort). De Lunæ sub obscurâ luce prope Conjunctiones
Libri III. 4to. Utini, 1641.
.pm end_quote
.bn 143.png
.pn +1
In my proofs it stands thus:
.pm start_quote_lang la 100 0
Licetus (Fortunius). De Lunæ subobscurâ luce prope
conjunctiones, et in eclipsibus observata. 4to. Utini, 1642.
.pm end_quote
Your Royal Highness may have heard of the Board of
Agriculture having sent for twelve copies of Miss Edgeworth’s
essay on Irish Bulls, for the use of that Institution, and
this ludicrous mistake was thought so exquisite, that no one
would have fancied it could possibly be equalled. But the
attempt at cataloguing drawn up by some learned astronomers,
the ornament and pride of the Royal Society, proves that
among the members of this famous Institution, there are some
who could leave the whole Board of Agriculture in the shade.
The work on star-fish, mistaken for a work on constellations,
not only is adorned with plates, showing that it treated of
aquatic not heavenly bodies, but on the very title-page there
is an oval engraving representing on the upper half the
heavens covered with stars, and the lower half, the sea with
star-fish; with the motto, sicut superius ita est inferius, which
was taken literally by the acute individual who made this
entry, and who very mathematically argued that the stars
below, must belong to the domain of astronomical science, if
they be, as the author declares, like those above. On the
recto of the following page a dedication of the work occurs to
Sir Hans Sloane, as President, and to the Fellows of the Royal
Society, which probably was either passed over unread by the
modest fellow who catalogued the book; or served to dazzle his
understanding with such passages as this: “fulgent sidera in
c[oe]lis, in orbe litterario illustris vestra Societas. Sideribus inscribere
stellas convenit.” But how could any one doubt that the
work was astronomical, when the writer provokingly begins his
preface: “C[oe]lorum spectare sidera decet juvatque Astronomos.”
It is true he continues: “Physicorum interest stellis marinis
visum intendere.” But this was probably taken for a figurative
speech; and with that bold decision by which great men
are distinguished, this work on so inferior a subject as star-fish,
dedicated to the Royal Society, was by the élite of that same
.bn 144.png
.pn +1
body declared to be a treatise on much higher bodies, on constellations,
and consequently classed among astronomical books,
whilst I, thinking marine stars to be animals, did not dare to
follow an example so splendidé mendax, and classed the work
among others on zoological subjects. What a difference, both
with respect to the length of the title and the classes in which
it was entered! Linckius would rise from his grave, were
he to see mis-classed a work, which, as he said, he had
dedicated to the resplendent constellations forming the Royal
Society of his days, just because it treated of stars! How
fortunate that the learned persons who are to render my Catalogue
correct and complete have it still in their power to appease
his indignant shade by re-classing the work among
astronomical treatises!
These few specimens will satisfy any one of the justice of
my assertion that it was impossible to correct such a work. I
am fully aware of the difficulties, nay, of the impossibility, of
compiling any catalogue which shall be free from errors of a
very grave description. No work requires more indulgence
than one of this sort; but the specimens which I have given
are such as cannot admit of excuse or palliation: they must at
once convince the most indulgent observer that those who committed
them were incapable, utterly incapable of performing
the task they had undertaken. After what we have seen, shall
we wonder that Newton’s Principia should be misplaced? We
cannot wonder; but by Your Royal Highness, who has the
honour to fill the chair once occupied by that immortal man,
and by those Fellows of the Royal Society who are not unworthy
of the distinction, something like sorrow must be felt,
when they see in the catalogue of their Library that work classed
among pure Mathematics, as if Mechanics had nothing to do
with it.”
.pm end_quote
How amusing are some of Panizzi’s remarks, and
how fully do they evince the supreme contempt he
must have felt for the ignorance displayed in the
sheets, which were submitted for his correction. It is
.bn 145.png
.pn +1
impossible not to help dwelling on and re-quoting such
a sentence as this: “It is a fortunate thing for feu
Mr. Da Cunha that this libel (the utter non-appreciation
of the word feu) on his fair name was not published
in his own country (he was a Portuguese) when
he was living, and when the fashion was not only to
burn books, but authors.” This must have been a
cutting but amusing hint for His Royal Highness,
and then we perceive the manly tone of Panizzi when
he added: “So dangerous an insinuation by the Royal
Society of London might have exposed him to the
chance of paying dearly for their blunders and bad
French.”
In October, 1833, the New Catalogue, entrusted to
Panizzi was commenced; not, however, left to his
own discretion, for cabined, cribbed, confined, he
was called on to follow a plan, concocted by the
Library Committee, of which he incidentally remarks:
“Heaven forbid that I should ever be supposed guilty of
having approved of it, or be suspected capable of
selecting such a plan, had I been at liberty to execute
the work as I pleased. I agreed to carry their plan
into execution on my own responsibility.”
The agreement entered into with the Council of the
Society was only a verbal one, and, by its terms, the
compiler of the Catalogue was to be paid according
to the number of titles written, and at certain stages
of his labour, the first instalment when the whole of
the titles were written, the second when they were
ready for the printer, and the third when the book
was completed. This agreement or contract was never
reduced to writing. Panizzi, it may be, was inexperienced
.bn 146.png
.pn +1
in a business point of view, but it is more
probable that he placed implicit confidence in the
understanding with the Council, through the Chairman
Mr. Lubbock.
As the work progressed, however, the members of
the Library Committee appear to have conceived that
they had a right to interfere with the execution of the
work. The compiler firmly resisted this, and it was
ultimately conceded that any proposals of the Committee
were to be regarded merely as suggestions.
In the course of a year Panizzi, having nearly completed
the writing of the titles on slips of paper,
applied for the first instalment of the remuneration in
proportion to the number he had written.
What must have been his mortification to find that
the Council would not accept his computation, but
referred his account to an underling, in consequence
of whose report they reduced the demand by one-third.
The consequent offer was rejected, and Panizzi’s
claim afterwards admitted by payment of the full
amount.
A similar difficulty or objection arose about the
second instalment, due in July, 1835; when, after the
Council had voted but one half the amount, they ultimately
granted the other, and the whole was paid.
When matters had progressed to the final stage, the
revision of the printer’s work for press, Panizzi had
again occasion to complain of the interference of the
Catalogue Committee, and of insufficient access to
the books.
The Council hereupon took the opinion of certain
then well-known bibliographers, which was unanimously
.bn 147.png
.pn +1
in favour of the compiler, nevertheless it was
resolved “that Panizzi he no longer employed in the
formation of the Catalogue.”
The Council had only paid a portion of the value
of the work in its possession, had refused arbitration,
and by their summary resolution thought to escape
further liability.
Not so thought Panizzi. He maintained his claim,
and the matter, after narrowly escaping the intervention
of the law, was settled satisfactorily through the
good offices of friends.
The summing up of his case, as expressed by himself,
in concluding his letter to the Duke of Sussex,
is worthy of reproduction here.
.pm start_quote
“It would be an empty boast were I to say that the pecuniary
loss which I must needs submit to is indifferent to me. It is
no such thing; yet I can conscientiously say, that I should
never have taken the trouble of writing on this subject, had the
pecuniary loss been the only consequence of the conduct of the
Council towards me. But, after the observations made by Your
Royal Highness, were I to submit without stating the whole
truth, I might be suspected guilty either of unwillingness or incapability
of fulfilling my contract, and that I could not brook.
I have offered over and over again to the Council, through the
secretaries, to refer our disputes to any two competent judges;
the consciousness of their being in the wrong has made the
Council shrink from this fair proposal. I can and will do no
more. If, however, Your Royal Highness considers it no more
than due to the character of the Royal Society, that the transactions
between the Council and myself should be thoroughly
and openly investigated, I will readily and cheerfully submit
them to the consideration of a tribunal so constituted. If, on
the contrary, Your Royal Highness be advised that no
further steps need be taken in the matter, I shall have my own
.bn 148.png
.pn +1
opinion of the conduct of the Council, and of the Society at
large, as well as the Public, will be at liberty to form their own.
They will perceive that a contract was entered into between
the Council of the Royal Society and myself for the performance
of a literary work: That the Council broke the terms of
that contract: That they refused to state by what right they
did so: That they would never answer my proposals of referring
to arbitration any point in which they thought I did not
act in accordance with our agreement: That, after the rudest
and most uncourteous proceeding, they stooped to having clandestine
access to private drawers containing the proofs of what
they owe to me, and have now the meanness not to pay their
debt, which, by their dishonest proceedings they are aware it
is out of my power legally to claim.”
.pm end_quote
Thus thwarted and impeded at every step, Panizzi
at last succeeded in once again proving that right can
contend successfully with might; and though years
have elapsed since this unseemly treatment at the
hands of a great and learned Society took place, it is
well that the occurrence should not pass into oblivion,
as it forms a conclusive proof of the determined astuteness
of the man, of his endurance of character, and of
his ability to judge of the weak points of his adversaries,
a foretaste of his prowess in many a subsequent
struggle in his oft-times arduous career.
Panizzi’s dealings with the Royal Society having
been thus satisfactorily disposed of, it will now be
necessary to return to the more matter-of-fact conduct
of this remarkably persevering man in his every-day
efforts to attain that position which he held steadily
in view—efforts which were finally crowned with
success.
At this time it was not an unusual thing, and
especially during the absence of the Keeper, for him
.bn 149.png
.pn +1
to spend some of his holidays, and evenings after
official hours, in the Library; and it is a well-known
fact that in the winter, when the Museum closed
early, he remained at his post working by candle-light,
which, however, was put a stop to on account of the
alleged possible danger of the practice.
About three years after his appointment, Panizzi
was, in a report written April 26th, 1834, proposed
by Mr. Baber to direct the General Catalogue then
contemplated, Mr. Baber’s scheme of Cataloguing the
books in the Library not having been adopted. Panizzi
and other of his colleagues were desired to prepare
titles for a new Catalogue. It appeared, by the end
of the year (1834), that he had written a larger
quantity of titles than any two of the other gentlemen,
which assiduity gained for him the approbation of the
Trustees. Panizzi’s own words before a Royal Commission
on the 20th of May, 1848, were in these
terms:—
.pm start_quote
“In 1835, without my knowing anything about it, the
Trustees found, from a return laid before them in the month of
January, that I had been so fortunate as to do my duty well,
and in a manner that satisfied them. Mr. Baber was called in
(I know this from himself), and he was asked, I believe, if I
recollect right, by the Bishop of London (Dr. Blomfield) how
it was that I had done so remarkably well; and as there was an
election going on, I remember the expression used (as Mr.
Baber reported to me) was, that I was ‘at the head of the poll,’
Mr. Baber told me, that he had the goodness to answer that I
was there, and that I would keep there. That led the Trustees
to consider how I was remunerated, and they found that my
remuneration was much lower than that of other people.”
.pm end_quote
In consequence of this the adequacy of the remuneration
in question was, on the 10th of January, 1835,
.bn 150.png
.pn +1
referred to the Sub-Committee of Finance for their consideration;
but at this meeting nothing material was
resolved on, except that the claim was admitted, and
the matter considered worthy of further deliberation.
Sir R. H. Inglis was added to the Finance Committee
for this purpose; but in June of the same year a
meeting took place, with Lord Farnborough in the
chair, when the following resolution was passed:—
.pm start_quote
“That it is the unanimous opinion of the Sub-Committee that
it would be desirable for the Trustees to mark, by an increased
remuneration to Mr. Panizzi to the amount of £75 a year, that
making up the sum that he would receive if he were an
Assistant Librarian, their sense of Mr. Panizzi’s value to the
Museum, and also of the particular service which, by his zeal
and knowledge, he has rendered in an eminent degree to the
advancement of the new Catalogue of the Printed Books.”
.pm end_quote
The members present, beside the Chairman, were
the Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord Ashburton, and the
Right Hon. Thomas Grenville.
Here, therefore, was strong admission of the inadequacy
of Panizzi’s remuneration at the time, and strong
special reasons were advanced to support that admission,
as well as the proposal for a more adequate
salary.
It was necessary for this resolution to be submitted
to the General Meeting on July 11th, 1835. Another
minute was then passed openly against the principle
affirmed six months previously; it ran:—
.pm start_quote
“The Trustees, having taken into their consideration the
Report of the Sub-Committee of June 20th, although entirely
concurring in the opinion expressed by the Sub-Committee as
to the zeal and ability with which Mr. Panizzi has discharged
the duties of his office, and desirous of evincing the sence which
they entertain of his services to the Museum, yet feel themselves
.bn 151.png
.pn +1
to be precluded, by the general principles upon which
the scale of remuneration to officers in similar stations and with
the same degrees of responsibility must of necessity be framed,
from adopting a rate of payment to Mr. Panizzi differing from
that which is fixed for the office which he at present holds in
the Museum.”
.pm end_quote
It might be interesting to inquire into the
motives of the Committee, in taking the adequacy
of the remuneration in question into their
consideration. Was the concession made to the office
or to the man who held it? But we need not pursue
this.
The minute of the General Meeting produced
an unprecedented event. Mr. Grenville, one of
the Committee present, when he saw what was
taking place, rose, left the room, and never attended
a meeting of the Trustees again. The increase
was not granted. To preserve the correctness of our
chronology, it is necessary to reserve an account of
Mr. Grenville till much later on. It is fair to state
that Lord Lansdowne and Lord Ashburton were not
present on this occasion; but the Board considered it
necessary to instruct the Secretary (then Mr. J. Forshall)
to forward to Mr. Grenville a copy of the minute
which he sent to Panizzi, with the following note:—
.pm start_quote
“I do not lose a moment in transmitting to you, for your
own custody, the minute made by the Trustees: it is at least
an honourable testimony of the sense which they entertain of
the value of your services in the British Museum, and as such
I send you the original minute as I received it, and I beg you
to keep it.—Yours, &c., &c., T. Grenville.”
.pm end_quote
In March, 1837, the Keeper, Mr. Baber, gave
notice that he intended to resign his post at midsummer.
.bn 152.png
.pn +1
Mr. Cary, the celebrated translator of
Dante, who was then an Assistant-Librarian, would
have been the natural successor; but on account of
his infirmities the Principal Trustees raised an objection
to such an appointment.
Now it is of great importance to us that these statements
should be made known, for much controversy,
angry discussion, amounting to personal vituperation,
and many letters ensued on the appointment of
Panizzi as Keeper of the Printed Books, which, notwithstanding,
took place on the 15th of July of the
same year.
Meetings were held against the “Foreigner;” and
one of the speakers made an open statement that
Panizzi had been seen in the streets of London selling
white mice: had it been a few years later, possibly
the distinctive title of organ-grinder would have been
added. The infirmities of Mr. Cary were well known,
and Panizzi, out of regard and in fairness to him,
never asked for the place, nor took any decided step
for the purpose of obtaining it. On the 13th of
March, 1837, he addressed a letter to the Archbishop
of Canterbury and the other Principal Trustees,
soliciting in general terms that if any appointment
was to take place they would bear his past services in
mind.
The letter was to the following effect:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“British Museum, March 13, 1837.
.ll
“My Lord Archbishop,
.ti 6
It is reported, that, in consequence of the new
arrangements which are going to be introduced into this establishment,
some vacancies are likely to occur in the offices of
.bn 153.png
.pn +1
the several departments. Having been so fortunate as to be
honoured with the approbation of the Trustees for (as they
were pleased to say in July, 1835), ‘the zeal and ability’ with
which I have (during a period of nearly six years), discharged
the duties of the office which I now hold in the British Museum,
I venture to beg of your Grace, and the other Principal
Trustees, to keep my humble services in view should any place
become vacant for which I should be deemed qualified. I take
the liberty of appealing to my past as an earnest of my future
conduct, should the Principal Trustees deem it expedient to
promote me to any higher situation than that which I now
hold, and in which I might humbly but warmly second the
views and wishes of the Trustees in extending the public
utility of this Institution.
In the hope that this application may receive the favourable
consideration of your Grace and the other Principal
Trustees,
.ll 68
.nf r
I have the honour to be, &c.,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
The letters to the Lord Chancellor and Speaker
were in the same terms.
It was a common opinion that Mr. Cary had been
ill-treated and passed over in favour of Panizzi. However,
Samuel Rogers, the poet, a friend of Cary’s,
after having strongly recommended the latter,
thought that, considering his ill-health it would
scarcely be acting fairly to the Principal Trustees, or
to the public to press his claims. Mr. Cary saw the
Speaker, who, in the course of conversation, said: “I
heard of a Mr. Panizzi, who is next: What do you
know of him?” What Cary’s answer was is not
known; but it is certain that, when the post was
declared vacant, the gentleman went to the Archbishop
of Canterbury on the 24th of June, 1837, and
.bn 154.png
.pn +1
again solicited the appointment, which, as might have
been expected, was withheld. Panizzi, having heard
of it directly from Gary, asked, in the presence of
Mr. Baber, whether he would object to his applying
for it, when he answered, “Not at all.” There and
then Panizzi sat down and wrote this letter to the
Archbishop:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“My Lord Archbishop,
.ll
Since I had the honour of addressing your Grace, Mr.
Baber has resigned the Keepership of the Printed Books in
this establishment. I hope your Grace will not deem it presumptuous
in me, to beg respectfully of your Grace and the
other Principal Trustees to take my case into consideration,
should they think it requisite to depart from the usual
system of regular promotion, on appointing his successor. I
venture to say this much, having been informed by Mr. Cary
of the conversation he has had the honour to have the morning
before last with your Grace, and beg to subscribe myself with
the greatest respect, &c., &c.
.ll 68
.rj
A. Panizzi.”
.ll
.pm end_quote
No sooner was the promotion made known than
the controversy began. It was a piece of favouritism,
to a Foreigner, and an injustice to Mr. Cary.
As to the first point, Panizzi was at the time personally
unknown to the Principal Trustees. Of this
there was sufficient evidence.
There was ample precedent for the appointment of
a Foreigner, and, if so, objections could not be made,
especially to a naturalized Foreigner, and there was
plenty of time for a better qualified person to come
forward, as quite four months elapsed between
Mr. Baber’s announced resignation and the appointment
of a successor. If there was a semblance of
injustice, it was because the claims of an individual
.bn 155.png
.pn +1
had been postponed to the necessities of the Institution.
Mr. Cary then thought fit to write the following
letter to the Lord Chancellor Cottenham, which
was published in the “Times” of July 18th, 1837.
“The following letter has been sent to the Lord
Chancellor by the Rev. H. F. Cary, the Translator of
Dante, who seems to have been treated with extraordinary
injustice:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
‘British Museum, July 17,
.ll
‘My Lord,
.ti 6
I cannot suffer the communication yesterday made to
me by our Secretary, of your having passed me by in the
nomination to the vacant office of Librarian, and appointed a
subordinate Officer over my head, to reach me without an immediate
remonstrance against this disposal of your patronage.
I have for the course of eleven years been constant in the discharge
of irksome duties in this establishment; and at a
moment when I was told to expect the reward never yet denied
in this place to such claims, I find it snatched from me by
yourself and the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the face
of a from the other Principal Trustee, the
Archbishop of Canterbury, the only one of the three who has
been in the habit of attending here, and making himself
acquainted with our proceedings. My repeated requests for a
personal interview with your Lordship were met by refusal,
and a desire to communicate whatever I had to say by letter.
Three letters which I addressed to you were met by silence.
In the last of these letters I endeavoured to answer the objections
which the Archbishop with his usual humanity and
consideration for the humblest of those who have any claim on
his attention, had apprised me of, as existing on the part of the
other Trustees. The objections were my age and the general
state of my health. My age, between 64 and 65 years, it was
plain, might rather ask for me that alleviation of labour which,
.bn 156.png
.pn +1
in this as in many other public offices is gained by promotion
to a superior place, than call for a continuance of the same
laborious employment. My health for the last four years has
been such as to allow me, with the interval of one fortnight
only, to attend closely through every day to the business of my
department. Before that time (and it was the only other instance
of ill-health since I have been here) I had a severe illness,
occasioned by domestic affliction, on account of which I
was permitted to pass six months on the Continent, and even
that time was not wholly lost to the Museum, as I availed myself
of the opportunity to inquire into the state and management
of the public Libraries in most of the principal
cities in Italy, where chiefly my time was spent. Lest
however, I should deceive myself as to the present state of
my health, I thought it right to consult three medical men
who best know the ailments I have been subject to. Their
opinions I immediately laid before the Archbishop, and copies
of them before yourself and the Speaker. They were unanimous
as to my fitness in point of health for the place I solicited.
On their testimonies and on his own previous knowledge of my
character and services, the Archbishop was pleased to declare
his determination to appoint me, with the understanding that
if at any future time infirmity should render me unfit for my
trust, I should resign.
You, my Lord, and the Speaker, have refused to concur in
the appointment, and have placed my subordinate officer, Mr.
Panizzi, a Foreigner, who has been here some years less than
myself, over me, and at the head of our national library.
Being convinced that when the nomination to offices in the
British Museum was intrusted by the country to men themselves
holding high offices in the State, it was on the implied
condition that they would either acquit themselves of their
duty by an attention to its internal management, or abstain
from active interference if they were conscious of having
given no such attention. I feel that I owe it not merely to
myself, but to my fellow-countrymen, to protest against your
.bn 157.png
.pn +1
present decision, to call publicly for an inquiry into the mode
in which my duty in the Museum has been performed, and
into the particulars of what I have done, which may be ascertained
by means of our monthly reports, and to demand for
what reason a person in an inferior station has been preferred
to me, in opposition to the only one of the three nominators
who regularly inspects the minutes of the establishment, and is
at all likely to have an intimate and accurate knowledge of its
concerns, and to be capable of forming a just judgment concerning
them.
.ll 68
.nf r
I am, &c.,
H. F. Cary.’”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
In justification of Panizzi, Hallam’s opinion of his
fitness for the post is given:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“Wimpole Street, July 6, 1837
.ll
My dear Sir,
.il id=i139 fn=i_b_139_hallam.jpg w=225px ew=40% alt='Henry Hallam' align=l
.ti 6
You first mentioned to me, about
two months since, the prospect of
attaining a higher station in the
Museum, in consequence of Mr.
Baber’s resignation, and seemed
rather desirous of testimonies to
your literary and general character.
The closer connection I have since
had with the Museum does not, I
think, make it improper for me to
say what I would then readily have
said had it appeared to me as requisite
at that time; but you are,
of course, perfectly aware that I am only to be considered as a
private person, who has had frequent opportunities of seeing
you in the Library. In the many conversations on literary
subjects we have had together, both there and on other occasions,
I have been struck with your extensive and very ready
knowledge of books, which has several times been of much
service to myself. Your zeal and activity in the Department
.bn 158.png
.pn +1
are so generally acknowledged that no testimony of mine can
be of much additional value, and the many private friends you
possess, among whom I reckon not a few of my own, bear
sufficient witness to the sincerity and integrity of your
character.
.ll 68
.nf r
I am, &c.,
Henry Hallam.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
Panizzi then wrote to the Archbishop:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“British Museum, July 19, 1837.
.ll
“I have just been informed by Mr. Forshall that your Grace
has been pleased to concur in my appointment of Under-Librarian,
and I must beg your Grace to accept my most
sincere and respectful thanks for so much kindness.
Your Grace will allow me to add that it will be the height
of my ambition to show myself not unworthy of the honourable
trust reposed on me, by a zealous discharge of the arduous duties
of my office to the utmost of my humble powers.
.ll 68
.nf r
I have, &c.,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
A fortnight had scarcely elapsed when a question
arose on the subject of an official residence, and this
involved a lengthy correspondence between Panizzi,
the Secretary (the Rev. J. Forshall), and Sir F.
Madden. The latter—who, from the outset, appears
to have regarded his colleague in an inimical spirit
(and no doubt the feeling was reciprocal)—evinced the
greatest eagerness to take possession of a certain one
of the lodgings which accompanied the appointments.
Further details would weary the reader; it will,
therefore, be only necessary to state that Panizzi was
unsuccessful on this occasion in obtaining the house
to which, according to his own account, he was
entitled.
.bn 159.png
.pn +1
The following letter, however, is worthy of perusal
as a specimen of his persuasive and straightforward
argument in the matter:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“British Museum, July 25th, 1837.
.ll
I should not trouble you again with respect to the question
now pending before the Trustees, as to the apartments to be
assigned to Sir Frederick Madden and myself, did it not seem
to me that the point of seniority is the one which will probably
influence their determination. I am well aware that the
Trustees are not bound to assign the best apartments to the
Senior Under-Librarian; but should they be pleased to make
seniority the ground of their decision, it is important that they
should have clearly before them facts and dates.
Mr. Baber resigned on the 24th of last June, and had his
successor been immediately appointed he might have been installed
in his office, and have had apartments assigned to him
before you had vacated the office to which Sir Frederick has
been promoted. The appointment of the successor to Mr. Baber,
although made after your place had become vacant, preceded,
nevertheless, that of your successor; and it seems to me that,
however short the interval between the two nominations, he
who was last elected cannot be senior with respect to the
other. The circumstance of Sir Frederick having been an
officer of this house for a longer period, appears not to affect the
case, since the point is as to the seniority of the two Under-Librarians
as such. I believe in the army or navy the point
would not bear discussion. Mr. Baber had been in this house
before Mr. König,and to give Mr. Baber seniority over Mr. König
on their both being promoted at the same time, the appointment
of the former gentleman was purposely dated earlier than that
of the latter, and then no one doubted Mr. Baber’s seniority.
It was not thought seniority would be given by the former
services of Mr. Baber, or else both appointments might have
been dated the same day, when they were actually agreed upon
by the Principal Trustees.
.ll 68
.rj
Yours, &c., &c., A. Panizzi.
.ll
The Rev. Jos^{h.} Forshall.
.pm end_quote
.bn 160.png
.pn +1
.pb
.il fn=i_b_142.jpg w=500px ew=90%
.h2 nobreak
CHAPTER V
.pm start_summary
Sir Henry Ellis; Parliamentary Committee, 1835-6; Keepership;
Removal of the Library from Montague House; Temporary
Assistants; Catalogue; Garnett; Winter Jones; Watts; Parry;
Additions and Deficiencies 1838; Annual Grant.
.pm end_summary
.il id=i142 fn=i_b_142_ellis.jpg w=225px ew=40% align=r alt='Henry Ellis'
.sp 2
.di dc_a.jpg 150 153 1.1
Allusion has already been made to
Sir Henry Ellis, who was, at the time
of which we write, Principal Librarian,
having held this appointment since
the 20th of December, 1827. In the
year 1800, Mr. Ellis had
entered the service of the
British Museum as a Temporary
Assistant; and Mr.
Edwards, in his work entitled
“Lives of the Founders
of the British Museum,”
observes that “had it never
fallen to the lot of Henry
Ellis to render to the public
any service at all, in the
way of administering and
improving the National Museum,”
he would still have earned an honourable
niche in our literary history. His contributions to
.bn 161.png
.pn +1
literature are, indeed, very unequal in their character.
Some of them are fragmentary; some might be
thought trivial. But very many of them have sterling
He died at the age of 92, on the 15th of January,
1869, having retired in 1856.
Between Panizzi and Sir Henry Ellis there was no
reciprocal feeling of friendship; indeed, at times, the
former expressed himself so strongly that we prefer
not to reproduce his remarks. The first apparently
inimical act was Panizzi’s decided objection to Sir
Henry’s Printed Catalogue of the Museum Library;
and we learn from a report, drawn up by Ellis, on
the 30th April, 1834, and which Panizzi delighted in
cutting up, that as soon as he (Ellis) was placed at
the head of the Printed Books Department, in 1806,
and Mr. Baber advanced to the post of Assistant-Keeper,
the preparation of a new Alphabetical Catalogue
of the Library was ordered by the Trustees, and
the work undertaken by the two Librarians jointly.
The former was answerable for the letters A to F,
with P, Q, and R, and the latter for the remaining
letters. It may be considered a bold statement, yet,
this report, instead of containing a correct account of
the whole undertaking, was full, from beginning to
end, of the most inexact assertions: and these are
clearly pointed out by Panizzi, in the shape of marginal
notes; he, indeed, seemed most constant in his
great delight of finding faults in the Printed Catalogue
itself. On one occasion, whilst in search of a book,
he came suddenly on an entry of a French translation
of one of Jeremy Bentham’s works, in which the
.bn 162.png
.pn +1
author’s name, having been translated in the title-page
of the book into French, was transferred in the
same form “Bentham (Jérôme)” into the Catalogue.
Panizzi’s comment on the entry was: “In propria
venit, et sui eum non receperunt,” a verse in the first
chapter of St. John, from the Vulgate, which he may,
probably, have learnt when a boy, acting as a server
at mass, under his master the Abbate Fratuzzi; it is
equally probable that he knew it in no other form.
The sentence is an exact translation from the Greek
[Greek: ei)s ta\ i)/dia ê~)lthe kai\ oi( i)/dioi au)to\n ou) pare/labon]
But the English version is not so; “He came unto his
own, and his own received him not.” Mr. Major, the
present Keeper of Maps, in the British Museum, was
at the time sitting in the same room with Panizzi,
and seeing him point out the mistake committed
by Sir Henry Ellis, in order to court enquiry exclaimed:
“How do you account, Sir, for the words
“in propria” being used instead of “ad suos” which
might have been the version, had the English translation,
the only one with which he was then acquainted
been correct. Panizzi was amazed at the
question, and turning round to his friend, exclaimed,
“Goodness, he knows all about it, I had never noticed
the difference.” It is, however, a pleasure to reflect
that no very serious results accrued from these disputes
between the antagonists, and this is to be attributed
to the circumstance that both were true
gentlemen, in the strict sense of the word, and both
men of education.
Whatever differences they may have had, they controlled
their feelings, and reined in their animosities,
.bn 163.png
.pn +1
guided by the polished hand of education, which, as
was instilled into our minds, in our schoolboy days,
.pm start_poem
“Emollit mores nee sinit esse feros.”
.pm end_poem
The whole case affords a fair example of the influence
of gentle blood and good breeding, as opposed to that
grossness of ignorance, the sure tendency of which is
to cause forgetfulness of our better nature, delivering
us bound into the power of unbridled passion, and
forcing the most trivial disagreements to issue in
petty spite and ill-feeling. Conduct unworthy of a
gentleman was the last thing that would be found on
either side in the case of Panizzi v. Ellis.
It is devoutly to be wished that this would happen
on every occasion where two men opposed in views
meet; but it has been our lot to see a very different
state of affairs, where the disputants were unequally
matched on the intrinsic points of education and
breeding.
But before dismissing the subject of quarrels (if
such a term is applicable to the jealousies and misunderstandings
of educated men), we must refer to the
strong antagonistic feeling evinced towards him,
whom, in very bad taste, his colleague, Sir F. Madden,
was wont to dub the “Foreigner;” whilst necessity
only compels the production of some evidence of this,
and makes us acknowledge our reluctance at laying-such
matters before our readers:—
.pm start_quote
“Sir,—I received yesterday a communication signed “F.
Madden,” aping all the forms of a diplomatic note, without any
of its courtesy. I forebore noticing the omission, too pointed
to be misunderstood, in a former note of yours. I am now
driven to notice it, lest my forbearance be mistaken for weakness.
.bn 164.png
.pn +1
If you think you have reason to be displeased with my
conduct, I shall be ready to account for it whenever you make
up your mind to ask me in a direct and proper manner to do
so. This I hope you will not shrink from doing, else it will
be evident that, although chary of asking an explanation, and
thereby incurring some responsibility, you chose the shelter of
official communication to depart safely under it from those
forms which I suppose you are aware the usages of society
prescribe among gentlemen. Such communications will in
future be returned. If, however, you will address me in the
manner which I have a right to expect, your communication
shall be duly attended to.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
A. Panizzi.
.nf-
.ll
Sir F. Madden, &c., &c., &c.”
.pm end_quote
Many other disagreements—amounting by the animosity
evinced, to something worthy of a worse name—we
gloss over. Mention must, however, be made of
the Rev. Josiah Forshall, Keeper of the MSS., afterwards
Secretary, with whom Panizzi more than once
came into collision.
Let us now leave this unpleasant topic, and proceed
to an account of the Select Committee on the British
Museum—more generally known as the Parliamentary
Commission of 1835-36—which forms a turning point
in the history of our Museum—not so much on
account of anything actually effected by it, as from
its marking the era when the national character of
the Institution, and its mission as an instrument of the
national culture, were first clearly recognised and
defined. They would, indeed, have been professedly
acknowledged at any period of its history; but the
circumstances under which the establishment originated,
and the manner in which it was managed and
.bn 165.png
.pn +1
supported, had invariably tended to impress upon it a
private and exclusive character. By the public it was
principally regarded as a show of curiosities, differing
from the Zoological Gardens in the same degree as
inanimate differ from living things. The literary and
scientific world recognised its value for students and
amateurs, but had little conception of its function as
a great educational agency. It could scarcely have
been otherwise. Sir Hans Sloane’s munificent bequest
had bestowed upon the public of his day that
which it had neither demanded nor required. The
measure of its immediate utility may be estimated by
the regulation that it should be inspected by parties
of not more than fourteen at one time, and always
accompanied by an official.
Panizzi’s part in the Committee of 1835-36 was not
prominent, though of considerable importance as
respected his peculiar Department. The investigation,
nevertheless, brought into the clearest relief the
three great ideas with which he entered upon his
official duties, and which, though acknowledged in
principle, he was left almost alone to maintain and
enforce, until they eventually became the accepted
principles of the Museum, thereby occasioning a total
metamorphosis in the spirit of the Institution, while
its administrative constitution remained unaltered.
These ideas may be thus defined:—
I. The Museum is not a show, but an Institution
for the diffusion of culture.
II. It is a Department of the Civil Service, and
should be conducted in the spirit of other public
Departments.
.bn 166.png
.pn +1
III. It should be managed with the utmost possible
liberality.
It may not be irrelevant if we attempt to show how
these points had been understood before Panizzi’s
time.
In a Minute dated February 27, 1809, Sir Joseph
Banks defined a Museum for exhibition as “a collection
framed for the purpose of administering
instruction in the form of amusement, and thus
endeavouring to awake latent curiosity.” He, therefore,
concluded that not only the anatomical paintings
in the custody of the Trustees should be transferred
to the College of Surgeons, but the Osteological Collection
also. He further thought that the specimens
preserved in spirits, when not capable of being stuffed,
should also be transferred to the same place, more
particularly as “the room where they are kept must
unavoidably smell strongly of spirits,” and “they are
very frequently designated by the opprobrious appellation
of hobgoblins.” It was clearly the view of
this representative of science upon the Board that the
Museum had no business with anything unadapted for
public exhibition.
With respect to the second point, it is certainly no
reproach to the governing body, or the officers of the
Museum, that at the period of its establishment very
little work should have been required from the latter.
This ensued almost as a matter of necessity from the
fact that the Museum was no national foundation,
planned with systematic forethought, but a mere lucky
windfall. Enough was done if its safe custody was
ensured; the extension it was capable of receiving
.bn 167.png
.pn +1
entered into nobody’s mind. The inevitable consequence
was that, while the standard of knowledge
and accomplishments among officers of the Museum
has at all times been high, the standard of official
efficiency was in its first days very low. So late as
1837 an honourable and respected officer could, without
conscious absurdity, urge as a plea for promotion
that he would thereby have less to do.
A conclusive criterion of the primitive conception
of an officer’s duty may be found in a Minute of June
21, 1759—the year of the opening of the British
Museum:—
“The Committee think proper to add that the requiring
the attendance of the officers during the whole
six hours that the Museum is kept open is not a
wanton or useless piece of severity, as the two vacant
hours (if it is not thought too great a burden upon
the officers) might very usefully be employed by
them in better ranging the several collections,
especially in the Department of Manuscripts, and
preparing Catalogues for publication, which last the
Committee think so necessary a work that till it is
performed the several collections can be but imperfectly
useful to the public.”
In point of fact, these “Librarians” were “ciceroni.”
In 1802, after forty-three years, three attendants were
appointed to relieve the “Under and Assistant
Librarians from the daily duty of showing the
Museum,” and their salaries were advanced. But it
does not appear, says the report of 1807, “that the
Under or Assistant-Librarians received any particular
injunctions to execute the several duties proposed for
.bn 168.png
.pn +1
them, nor does it appear by their subsequent conduct
that they understood themselves to be under any
specific obligation to do any specific duties of that description.”
“So that,” continues the report, “the
public has been, and is, at an annual expense of above
£2,000 a year for the mere purpose of showing the
house to strangers, and providing an attendant upon
the Reading Room.” This discovery led to considerable
reform; the Trustees, very naturally, “feeling
strong apprehensions that the munificence of Parliament
should be checked, if it should think fit to inquire
into the nature and extent of the duties now
executed by the officers of the Museum.”
Matters were much improved by 1835; but the
organisation of the Institution still bore evident traces
of its origin in private liberality, and of the misconceptions
which had so long prevailed as to its
functions.
It was the constant endeavour of Panizzi to divest
it of everything indicating affinity with private institutions,
and to impress it more and more with the
unique character of a national emporium of the world’s
treasures.
The third point which generally characterised
Panizzi’s administration was one to which the attention
of the Committee of 1835-36 was vigorously
directed, and in reference to which it was of considerable
service. The regulations for the admission of the
public were illiberal. Visitors were excluded at the
very times when they had most leisure to attend; but
when, as Sir Henry Ellis remarked, “the most mischievous
part of the population was abroad,” and in
.bn 169.png
.pn +1
holiday weeks the Museum should be closed, “because
the place otherwise would really become unwholesome.”
The Committee, however, came to a different conclusion,
and admitting that reforms were necessary, decided
that the Museum was to cease to be a private
establishment. But the immediate cause of the Commission
in question was the unreasonable complaint of
a discharged servant, a Mr. John Millard, employed
for some time as supernumerary in the Department of
MSS., who had lost his situation through inefficiency.
He possessed, it was said, some influence with Lord
Brougham, and Mr., afterwards Sir Benjamin Hawes,
M.P. for Lambeth, was induced to take up his case,
and obtain its investigation under cover of a general
inquiry into the administration of the Museum. The
Committee, as at first appointed, March 27, 1835, was
inconveniently numerous, and when re-appointed in
the following session its numbers were considerably
curtailed. Mr. Hawes, a man of no great refinement,
but of thorough business capacity, and an excellent
specimen of the not unfrequent type of popular M.P.,
who begins as a patriot and ends as a placeman, represented
the reforming element, together with Dr.
Bowring and some other members of a similar stamp,
who mostly disappeared after the first session. Lord
Stanley (the late Lord Derby) and Sir Robert Inglis
represented the interests of the Trustees. Sir Philip
Egerton, Mr. Ridley Colbome, and Mr. Bingham
Baring were also amongst the most prominent members,
Mr. Sotheron Estcourt being chairman.
The administrative organisation of the Museum at
the time was certainly better calculated to invite inquiry
.bn 170.png
.pn +1
than to sustain it. The offices of the Principal
Librarian and Secretary, instead of being united, as at
present—and of which more hereafter—were divided,
with very mischievous consequences as regarded the
authority of the former officer, and attended by all
the evils of divided responsibility. Sir H. Ellis was
an excellent antiquary and a most kind-hearted man,
but could never, under any circumstances, have been
more than the nominal head of the Museum.
The Secretary was, as has already been remarked,
the Rev. Josiah Forshall, and the government of the
Museum was in his hands. By a most preposterous
regulation, while the inferior officer, the Secretary,
always attended the meetings of the Trustees, the Principal
Librarian was never present unless summoned.
Mr. Forshall enjoyed the fullest confidence of the
Archbishop of Canterbury, in whose hands, by a tacit
understanding which had become traditional, almost
all administrative arrangements were left by the Principal
Trustees. He was entirely opposed to all innovation
tending to impart a more popular character to
the Institution; and was, in fine, as thoroughly the
representative of the principles on which the Museum
had hitherto been administered as Panizzi was of those
destined to supersede them.
Mr. Millard, the trivial cause of the Committee’s
great effect, did not occupy much of its attention. It
appeared that he had been removed for two causes,
either of which was in itself sufficient to justify the
act: he was incompetent, and his services had been
dispensed with. The inferior work on which he had
been engaged was discontinued; he was fit for nothing
.bn 171.png
.pn +1
else. He had been treated with great and, indeed,
with immoderate indulgence, having been allowed to
remain two years after his virtual dismissal, in order
“to give him an opportunity of finding another situation.”
His case, it appeared, had kept the amiable
Principal Librarian awake all night; the Keeper of
MSS. himself, strangely enough, had given him a testimonial
to the Windham Club. His patron endeavoured
to prove his efficiency; but on July 2nd Sir
Frederick Madden, then Assistant-Keeper of the MSS.
came down “with some instances of Mr. Millard’s
mistakes, and some questions which I should like to
put him.” For some sufficient reason the instances
were not adduced, the questions were not put, and no
more was heard of Mr. Millard. He had, however,
made an outlet for the long accumulating dissatisfaction
with the Museum management, and the Committee
found themselves arbiters in contentions
affecting every Department in the Institution. They
had to digest Mr. Forshall’s opinion that “men professionally
engaged in literary and scientific pursuits”
were unfit for the office of Trustee; and to reconcile
Sir Henry Ellis’s statement that literary and scientific
men looked up to a Trusteeship as the blue ribbon of
their calling, with his admission that not one of them
had ever obtained it. They had to enquire whether
Sir Henry had made an adequate examination of the
Baron de Joursanvault’s manuscripts, magnanimously
offered by that nobleman to the English nation for
100,000 francs and permission to import 500 pipes of
Beaune wine duty free. If he had not done so, was it
because the collection was shelved so high that Sir
.bn 172.png
.pn +1
Henry could not get at it without a ladder, and was it
really a fact that no ladder could be found in the
whole town of Pomard? Was it true, as asserted by
the Edinburgh Review, that cases of birds had been
transferred to the College of Surgeons and subsequently
repurchased by the Museum? Or was Sir Henry
Ellis’s conjecture admissible that certain green glass
bottles, of which the transfer was acknowledged, might
have been large enough and dirty enough to have been
mistaken by the person who wrote that review “for
packing cases?” How much of the Saurian collection
bought from Mr. T. Hawkins was plaster? Was
the Keeper of Geology justified in affirming that “the
principal ichthyosaurus could not be exhibited without
derogation from the character of the British
Museum,” and that if it were treated as it deserved
“the whole tail would disappear?”
Had the College of Surgeons been obliged to spend
£1,000 on Zoological Literature, in consequence of
the deficiencies of the British Museum Library?
It was admitted that the Museum possessed a fine
collection of “Megatherium, Chalicotherium, Anthrocotherium,
Anoplotherium, and Sus diluvianus” in plaster;
but did it possess genuine fragments of any of these
extinct quadrupeds? To be straightforward, were the
“saurian and chelonian reptiles” in a confused and
nameless state? Would the “intelligent visitor”
have naturally expected to find “the limited space
available for exhibition filled with twenty-eight cats
placed together? Had the larger mammalia been
mostly devoured by insects, with the exception of the
llama’s mouth, which had happily withstood their
.bn 173.png
.pn +1
ravages from consisting of plaster of Paris? The
brunt of the assault, it will be seen, was borne by the
Zoological Department, whose comparatively starved
and neglected condition rendered it a convenient basis
for attacks upon the general condition of the Museum,
the assailing party being well versed in the axiom of
fortification—that a fortress is no stronger than its
weakest point.
The Printed Book Department, the battle-ground of
subsequent years, attracted comparatively little attention
at the time. The public had not yet discovered
the value, either actual or potential, of such
a collection. The ideal of what a National Library
should be as yet only existed in Panizzi’s head. The
general standard was exceedingly low, nor could this
be a matter of surprise, when, as he himself pointed
out, the Museum Library, after all, contained 40,000
more volumes than any library in the modern world,
previous to the French Revolution.
With all the drawbacks of the Institution, its
management was liberality itself, compared to that
of even so splendid a library as the one at Vienna, with
its accommodation for 45 readers, bringing their own
pens and paper.
The acknowledged defects of the Museum Library,
in some degree, served to screen its unacknowledged
failings, for the Catalogue was so much behind hand
that it was difficult to be certain whether any specified
volume was to be found there or not. One important
accession had been obtained, the English newspapers
were now regularly deposited in the Library, and it
was to this that the recent increase of readers was
.bn 174.png
.pn +1
principally attributable. A late Trustee, Mr. Henry
Banks, had been an incubus on the establishment,
“It was extremely difficult to get any assent in his
part to any purchase that was of any amount.” Mr.
Baber had now more of his own way, yet when
asked, “Is there that general consultation and cordial
intercourse which is satisfactory to you as head of
your Department?” he answered, “Certainly not.”
His evidence related, in great measure, to the project
for a new Catalogue, which had hitherto attracted
but little attention outside the Museum. Mr.
Hawes did his utmost to extort an admission that a
Classed Catalogue would be desirable; but Mr.
Baber, an experienced bibliographer, maintained
firmly that such a Catalogue by itself was a delusion.
The alphabetical arrangement was the only safe one:
an index of subjects, however, might be a valuable appendage
to such a Catalogue. It was the one fault
of Mr. Baber’s evidence and of Panizzi’s that neither
of them said how invaluable. They were probably
afraid of countenancing the mischievous agitation for
a Classed Catalogue pure and simple, knowing that
years had already been wasted over an impracticable
plan of their colleague, the Rev. T. H. Horne.
Panizzi evidently felt much embarrassed between
loyalty to his chief, allegiance to the Trustees, and
his own strong sense of the deficiencies of the Library.
His evidence, under such circumstances, was a model
of tact and discretion. He implied rather than asserted,
and his testimony gains greatly in cogency
when read in the light of the reforms subsequently
effected by himself.
.bn 175.png
.pn +1
In the question of classed and alphabetical Catalogues,
Panizzi supported his chief, and took care to
acquaint the Committee, how much the latter, and
the Library, had been damaged by the compulsory
withdrawal of Mr. Baber’s first plan for a Catalogue
in favour of an alternative and inferior scheme. It
was not difficult to discover that Panizzi was by no
means satisfied with the administration of the Museum
as it stood; at the same time he came to the assistance
of the Trustees on a subject which had led to
much criticism, by pointing out the importance of
having men of rank and influence upon the Board,
as well as men merely distinguished by literary and
scientific eminence. Not his least important contribution
to the proceedings of the Committee was the
mass of information with respect to foreign Libraries
and Educational Institutions, published in the appendices
to its report, and mainly collected, directly
or indirectly, by himself, either personally or from
trustworthy witnesses, during his travels on the
continent. These papers embody a vast amount of
curious and interesting information from Vienna and
Gottingen down to San-Luis Potosi, where “se trata
de poner una biblioteca, y un museo, pero aun no se
verifica.”
The report of the Committee was issued on July 14th,
1836.
It was not an elaborate document, and contained
no reasons for its recommendations, most of which
were of a sensible and obvious kind. The deficiencies
and disarrangements of the Collections were attributed
with perfect justice to the inadequacy of the funds
.bn 176.png
.pn +1
and insufficiency of space. It was suggested that those
Trustees whose attendance was infrequent and uncertain
should receive a hint to retire, and that “for the
future” literary and scientific distinction should constitute
a ground of election for the Trust.
Many were the reforms adopted, to the great advantage
of the Institution. The principal benefit of the
Commission, nevertheless, consisted in the distinct
recognition for the first time of the national and
educational character of the Museum.
These observations must, however, be relinquished,
interesting as they are, or we might be wandering on
far beyond reasonable limits.
More might be said, and perhaps advantageously,
on these seemingly unimportant subjects—yet, oh!
how important to prove the steady progress of the
Museum, and that in no small degree owing to
Panizzi’s energy—but, as already said, we must restrain
ourselves; and having subjects of intrinsic
interest for the earnest peruser of this book to discuss,
our inclination must be foregone.
When Panizzi entered upon his new office as Keeper,
he was fully alive to the important duties which devolved
upon him, and was well aware of the arduous
and extraordinary task which he was called on to perform
simultaneously with the ordinary business of the
Department; he, therefore, resolved to keep the whole
under his own immediate superintendence so far as
was compatible with the regulations and wishes of the
authorities.
The Trustees having, in 1837, provided means for
removing the Library of Printed Books from Montague
.bn 177.png
.pn +1
House to the new building on the north side of the
Quadrangle, it was necessary to appoint a separate
staff of assistants, and these were known as “temporary
assistants.”
The operation of moving this mass of books, begun
on the 1st of January, 1838, was successfully performed
by efficient subordinates; but the labour and forethought
required for the proper re-arrangement of the
volumes and the alteration of the press-marks and references
in the catalogues were such as can only be
fully appreciated by those who have had some
experience in similar undertakings.
At this time the collection consisted of about
160,000 volumes, exclusive of the Royal Library. On
Panizzi was thrown, in addition to his other duties,
the responsibility of suggesting, examining, and
criticising every single article of furniture, fittings,
&c., which the Library itself and the Reading Room
required. The style of these, as well as the contrivances
then adopted in the Department of Printed
Books, were subsequently, so far as possible, copied in
other Departments of the Museum, having been found
equally economical and useful. The Trustees, under
these circumstances, offered to find a person who
should undertake the superintendence of the Catalogue—an
outlay which, however, they were not called
on to incur, Panizzi having twice declined the proffered
assistance. The opinion of the Trustees and that
of Panizzi, however, in regard to the amount of the
work necessarily to be carried out without delay will
be best gathered from the two following letters:—
.bn 178.png
.pn +1
.ce
The Rev. J. Forshall to Panizzi, December 27, 1838.
.pm start_quote
“Your letter of the 18th instant leads me, upon reading it
attentively, to explain to you that the Trustees did not intend,
in the communication to which your letter is a reply, to require
from you to undertake the printing of the New Alphabetical
Catalogue. They wished to ascertain whether, with the
other duties which fall to your office, you felt that you could
promise that vigorous and constant attention to the Catalogue
which seems necessary to ensure the proper execution of the
work. If you had felt that you could not, the Trustees would
in that case have endeavoured to obtain other superintendence.
The titles of the books in the King’s Library are to be incorporated
with the others.”
.pm end_quote
.ce
Panizzi to the Rev. J. Forshall, January 1, 1839.
.pm start_quote
“In answer to your letter of the 27th of last month, and in
addition to mine of the 18th, I beg to repeat that I am willing
to undertake the duties mentioned in your letter of the 17th,
and to endeavour to perform them to the best of my powers.
I promise to give to the superintendence of the Catalogue all
the attention of which I am capable; but it is not for me to
say whether it will ensure the proper execution of the work.
I feel it due to the Trustees, to the situation I have the honour
of holding, and to my own character, not to shrink from the
attempt.”
.pm end_quote
The removal of the books having been proceeded
with for six months, it was found on the 23rd of June,
that the collection contained, in round numbers,
165,000 volumes, of which 450 were extra folios, 15,000
folios, 23,000 4tos., 126,000 8vos., &c., &c. Up to that
day 47,000 volumes had been removed to the new
Library, and placed on the shelves destined for their
reception, and at the end of 1839, about 12,000 more
volumes remained still in Montague House.
A singular feature in the carrying out of this
laborious task, was that no interruption of the supply
.bn 179.png
.pn +1
of books to the readers took place. When Panizzi
informed the Trustees of his intentions, the Bishop of
London happening to be in the Committee Room, exclaimed,
“It is impossible.” There is probably no
precedent for this display of energy, and the magnitude
of the attempt can only be appreciated by persons
conversant with the daily use made of a Public
Library by students, whose pursuits would have been
totally interrupted had the method adopted absolutely
required the closing of the Reading Room. The attempt
was successful, and the works asked for by
readers were generally forthcoming, excepting those
actually in the course of removal and rearrangement,
amounting at no time, on an average, to more than
8,000 volumes, or about five per cent. of the whole
Library.
Mention has been made of the “efficient staff,”
this was composed of the following gentlemen:—The
Reverend Richard Garnett, Mr. John Winter
Jones, Mr. Edward Edwards, Mr. W. Brenchley Rye,
Mr. George Bullen, and last but not least, the late
Sergeant Parry.
The Rev. R. Garnett was appointed Assistant-Keeper
of the Printed Books, vice Cary, in 1838.
He was an excellent scholar, thoroughly versed in
German, Italian, French, and Spanish; had a good
knowledge of Anglo-Saxon, and was conversant with
several oriental languages. This gentleman died on
the 27th of September, 1850, the sad event being
announced to Panizzi by Mr. John Ridout, Panizzi’s
and Garnett’s medical attendant. This coincidence
deserves notice, for in reality it relates indirectly to
.bn 180.png
.pn +1
the appointment of Mr. Richard Garnett, the present
Superintendent of the Reading Room, so well-known
to all its frequenters.[E]
.fm rend=th
.fn E
Appointed 1st March, 1851.
.fn-
.fm rend=th
Panizzi wrote thus to Mr. Ridout:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“September 27th, 1850,
.ll
“Dear Sir,
.ti 6
I was certainly prepared for the melancholy tidings
brought by your note; I am, nevertheless, shocked at seeing
it. I did promise I would do what I could for Mr. Garnett’s
eldest boy, and shall keep my promise, and not without confident
hope of success.
When I saw him last Tuesday, Mr. Garnett requested me
to receive his salary (£100, due to-morrow) and pay it to his
bankers, he signing the receipt, which I was to send him to-morrow
morning, the pay day. All this now cannot be. It struck
me that at the first moment it might be convenient for Mrs.
Garnett to have a few pounds at once, and till she has time to
settle her affairs; but not knowing her enough, I dare not
make any offer of assistance. Can you help me in conveying
my humble and poor offer to her in a proper and unobtrusive
manner?
With many thanks to you, my dear Sir, for having made me
aware of this sad event without delay,
.ll 68
.nf r
I remain, &c., &c.,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
Mr. John Winter Jones had been in the Institution
since 1837, and besides ranking next to Panizzi, was
also his friend, and stood firmly by him through all
the vicissitudes of fortune which attended him; it
will hereafter be noticed that he, in 1856, succeeded
Panizzi as Keeper of the Printed Books, and finally
in 1866, as Principal Librarian.
.bn 181.png
.pn +1
Mr. Thomas Watts, the linguist, was another of
the “Temporary Assistants,” appointed in 1838, who
rose to the grade of Keeper of the Printed Books, in
succession to Mr. Jones, but did not live long to enjoy
his promotion, for he died three years afterwards, on
the 9th of September, 1869, aged 58.
In the autumn of the year 1835, Mr. Watts’ attention
was attracted to the publication of the Parliamentary
Commission of 1835-36, previously discussed.
He read the evidence with great interest, and ere long,
in 1836-37, wrote some valuable comments upon it,
which embodied several suggestions for the improvement
of the Museum service, some of which he had
the satisfaction of seeing carried out during his lifetime.
Judging from certain passages which occur in a letter
addressed to Panizzi by Mr. Watts, it might almost be
inferred that long afterwards some sort of ill-feeling existed
between the two. Panizzi, as already described,
was a strict disciplinarian, and as he seldom allowed
himself to be one minute behind-hand at his post, expected
from all those under him similar punctuality
in attendance, so that the Trustees might not lose any
of the time which was their just due. Now it seems
that Mr. Watts was accused by Panizzi of arriving
late at the Museum and of wasting his time, as proved
by the insufficient number of titles written by him for
the Catalogue. This Panizzi communicated to him
in the shape of a letter; which, after a few days,
Mr. Watts, naturally stung by the rebuke, answered
by an epistle of more than ordinary length, extending
.bn 182.png
.pn +1
almost to eight quarto pages, of small writing, and
beginning thus:—
.pm start_quote
“I have read repeatedly, with emotions of the greatest surprise
and pain, the letter from you which I found on my desk
on Wednesday morning. I have been for some days at a loss
how to reply; but I perceive that a reply of some kind is imperatively
needed.
The general impression which that letter conveys is that you
find me idle and inefficient in zeal and energy, and setting a
bad example. To hear such an accusation from any one would
surprise me. I know not how to describe the feeling with
which I hear it from you. You are the very first person to
whom I should have appealed for its refutation.... It
was at your recommendation that the Royal Commissioners[F] to
inquire into the affairs of the Museum expressed an opinion in
very strong terms that my salary should be doubled and my
position improved. You made use before them of these emphatic
words:—“Mr. Watts has always done his duty and done it
well.” ... How, sir, am I to account for so striking a
change in your opinion of me as your letter indicates?”
.pm end_quote
.fm rend=th
.fn F
Here he refers to a later “inquiry.”
.fn-
.fm rend=th
He seems to acknowledge that he had actually been
in the habit of coming late to his work; (it was known
that at times his health was not good) but promised
that in future he would do his utmost to please and
satisfy his chief in every possible manner.
In corroboration of the statement of Watts in the
first part of his letter, it may not be amiss to give in full
a report which Panizzi addressed to the Trustees about
that period:—
.pm start_quote
“Mr. Panizzi begs to submit to the Trustees the case of Mr.
Watts, a permanent assistant in this Department, who has been
absent from his duties for the space of forty-five days, owing to
a long illness. His salary is stopped during the time of absence,
.bn 183.png
.pn +1
even when caused by a misfortune to which, as in this
case, the very nature of his occupation in the Museum may
have contributed. Mr. Panizzi begs that this circumstance
and the value of the services of Mr. Watts, to which he has
often had occasion to render justice, may induce the Trustees
to direct Mr. Watts’ salary for the time of his absence to be
paid.”
.pm end_quote
This Report is an excellent proof of Panizzi’s consideration
for those under his supervision, and no
further confirmation that the fault found with Watts
arose from his strict sense of duty towards the Trustees,
and a fearless disregard of bringing on himself
the enmity of anyone for the simple discharge of that
duty, is required. Perhaps this is better explained in
his own words, in answer to Mr. Watts’ letter:—
.pm start_quote
“I have two principal duties to perform as the head of this
Department. The first is to complete the new Catalogue with
all possible despatch consistent with accuracy. Until that is
done I ought not and will not entertain any other scheme, however
plausible, which would inevitably interfere with the rapid
progress of that great work. It is for that end, and for that
only, that assistance is given to me so far as the Catalogue is
concerned, and neither friends nor enemies shall make me turn
from the path on which I am bound.”
.pm end_quote
The next distinguished “Temporary Assistant” to
be introduced to our readers was John Humffreys
Parry, the late Serjeant Parry, who has so recently
departed this life.
Mr. Parry was recommended on the 31st of January,
1839, to Panizzi by Mr. Forshall, through the following
letter:—
.pm start_quote
“The bearer, Mr. Humffreys Parry, is a gentleman of whose
friends and connections I can bear testimony as being of the
highest respectability. He is a young man of talent, intended
.bn 184.png
.pn +1
for the Bar, but left, from family circumstances, much to his
own resources. He would be glad to have employment upon
the new Catalogue. Examine him, and form your own judgment
as to his fitness.
Some private conduct of the young man’s has accidentally
come to my knowledge, which enables me to assure you that
he is a person of no common merit in many essential points of
character.”
.pm end_quote
Immediately afterwards, at an interview, Panizzi
gave him the appointment he sought, and on the 14th
of February, 1839, Mr. Parry thus addressed his new
chief:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“36, Lower-street, Islington.
.ll
“Sir,—Mr. Forshall has informed me that I am to receive
the appointment on the Alphabetical Catalogue at the Museum,
and having a few arrangements to make prior to commencing
my duties, I fear I shall not be able to attend before Monday
or Wednesday next. I think it right to apprise you of this,
as Mr. Edwards stated to me your wish that I should lose no
time, and I am anxious to comply with it.”
.pm end_quote
All those who knew the learned Serjeant in after
years fully appreciate the geniality of his disposition.
Panizzi soon became attached to him, and was not long
in discerning his superior qualities. He was a great
favourite with all. On one occasion, when all the
Assistants were mustered in solemn conclave, to discuss
a new rule for cataloguing, some one knocked at the
door, when Parry, without leaving time for Panizzi to
speak, imitated a person suffering from influenza, and
said “Cub id!” None but he would so have dared
to beard the lion in his den; but Panizzi joined in the
laughter created by the joke as heartily as the rest.
On another occasion Panizzi asked these gentlemen to
give their opinion on a portrait of himself. One of
.bn 185.png
.pn +1
them remarked that it looked rather dark, when Parry
said, “Oh, I have seen Mr. Panizzi look much blacker
than that!” One more instance of his ready wit
and we have done. Mr. Parry occasionally absented
himself from the Museum, until one afternoon Panizzi
sent for him and requested him to discontinue such
habits, when he received the following answer:—“I
am very sorry, sir, for I was just going to ask you to
let me go for the day.”[G]
.fm rend=th
.fn G
When he left the Museum, Panizzi introduced him to the late Mr. John
Forster in these terms:—“A very clever gentleman, now a barrister, Mr. J.
H. P., and formerly an assistant in this Library during the course of several
years, and who knows more about the Museum than any one I know, called
here yesterday, and told me that he was so vexed at the unfair and ignorant
attacks on this Institution that he meant to write something about it. He is
accustomed to write for the press, and his politics are excellent, and equalled
by his frank, honest character. It struck me that he would be the very man
to assist you.... If you see him you will like him.”
.fn-
.fm rend=th
The position and the pay of these “Temporary
Assistants,” most of whom in after years became men
of distinction, would certainly be considered inadequate
in the present day.
Previous to the year 1837, the Assistants were
temporarily engaged to perform such services as were
required in the several Departments; there being no
regular scale of remuneration, but a daily payment
fixed by the Trustees according to the aptness of the
individual for the particular service allotted to him.
The rate was 10s., 12s., and 15s., in one instance as
high as 20s. for each day whilst actually employed at
the Museum.
In 1837, the Trustees decided that the appointment
of these Assistants should be permanent, and fixed a
.bn 186.png
.pn +1
standing scale of remuneration; the members of this
class were known as “Permanent Assistants.”
In 1838, at the time of the removal of the Library,
the “Supernumerary or Temporary Assistants” were
engaged at the rate of £2. 12s. 6d. a week, or 8s. 9d. a
day, for every day actually employed. Their number
was increased from time to time, to provide the extra
labour required in preparing the new Catalogue, and
in the additional duties consequent upon the rapid
increase of the Library.
In 1847, a slight change for the better took place
in their status. In practice the promotion was from
the Supernumerary to the Permanent class of Assistants;
but there was no recognised claim to such
promotion on the part of the Supernumeraries. In
the year 1851, the distinction between the Permanent
and Supernumerary Assistants was abolished, these
Assistants, in all Departments, being considered as
forming one body, although divided into two classes.
In all these and subsequent changes, Panizzi was
always the one who strove to promote the welfare of
his subordinates.
Panizzi, Thomas Watts, J. Winter Jones, Edward
Edwards, and John H. Parry, formed a committee
for framing the rules for the new General Catalogue
of the whole Library; each of them was separately
to prepare, according to his own views, rules for the
compilation of the projected work. These were afterwards
discussed collectively, and when any difference
arose, it was settled by vote.
The rules so drawn up were sanctioned by the Trustees,
on the 13th of July, 1839, and printed on the 15th
.bn 187.png
.pn +1
July, 1841. They were acknowledged at the time and
still continue to be the most complete ever compiled,
although attempts have, at various periods, been made
to improve upon them: nor has the approbation
bestowed upon them been merely of a local character;
it has extended throughout Europe and America. The
work occupied several months, the busy staff often
being detained until late at night, on which occasions
Panizzi invited his colleagues to share refreshments
with him.
The above rules engaged Panizzi’s earnest attention,
and on the 18th of March, 1839, he sent in the following
report to the Trustees:—
.pm start_quote
“Mr. Panizzi has the honour to lay before the Trustees the
Rules, which, under all circumstances, he proposes as advisable to
be followed in the compilation of the Alphabetical Catalogue,
accompanied by a number of illustrations. Although he is well
aware that such rules must necessarily be affected by the haste
with which they have been compiled, he ventures to hope they
will be sufficiently intelligible to the Trustees, and enable them,
even in their present imperfect state, to judge of the principles
that Mr. Panizzi should wish to see observed. He is fully
aware that many cases may arise unprovided for, and that some
of these rules and principles may be liable to objections, which
may not perhaps appear in other plans, seemingly preferable,
but he trusts that what seems objectionable may, on mature
reflection, be found in fact less so. He cannot, at present, do
more than entreat the Trustees to take into their patient and
minute consideration every single part, as well as the whole of
the plan proposed, and then decide as they may think fit, bearing
in mind that, although these rules may, if strictly followed,
occasionally lead to what may appear absurd, the same objection,
to a perhaps greater extent may be urged against any
other plan, and far greater evils result from a deviation from a
principle than from its inflexible application.”
.pm end_quote
.bn 188.png
.pn +1
On the 16th of the same month, March, Mr.
Baber (Panizzi’s predecessor) happened to call at the
Museum, when the draft of these rules was submitted
to him, and with respect to them he expressed general
satisfaction.
America has been mentioned with special reason.
The first general Conference of Librarians was held
at New-York, September 15, 16, and 17, 1853, upon
an invitation, signed by Professor C. C. Jewett, “for
the purpose of conferring together upon the means of
advancing the prosperity and usefulness of Public
Libraries, and for the suggestion and discussion of
topics of importance to book collectors and readers.”
At this meeting the learned Professor made a statement
to the effect that the scholars of all nations demanded
of Great Britain that the Catalogue of the
Library of the British Museum should be thoroughly
and efficiently executed, and should be a work of
bibliographical authority.
Professor Jewett had made Panizzi’s acquaintance
on his visit to London several years before, with the
object of studying our Library, and sent to him a
special invitation to attend the Conference. However,
it was not accepted, and he wrote to Mr. Haywood
thus, July 21, 1853:—
.pm start_quote
“As to my going anywhere, I have to tell you of a dream,
which I should like to become a reality. There is going to
be a Congress of Librarians in the United States, which is to
open on the 15th of September next, and where all the great
questions connected with the management of a great Library
are to be discussed and uniform principles adopted. The
Americans have always been my friends, and the principles
which will prevail are mine. They wish me to go, and I
.bn 189.png
.pn +1
should like it amazingly; but the expense is too heavy. I will
try, if possible, to get help from the Trustees. Do you think
it possible, in case of my going, that if the packet is not full I
might have a cabin to myself?”
.pm end_quote
The grant for the purchase of Printed Books in
1838, being £1000 more than the preceding years, permitted
the purchase of some rare and valuable books.
For instance:—
The Translation of Montaigne’s Essays by Florio,
with an autograph of Shakespere.
A copy of Luther’s Translation of the Bible in
German, printed at Wittemberg, in 1559-61. (2 vols.
folio, on vellum.)
The first edition of the Pentateuch, in the original,
printed at Bologna, in 1482. (vellum, folio.)
The new Testament in German, printed at Augsburg,
in 1535. (2 8vo, on vellum.)
A richly illuminated Roman Missal, with the arms
of Savoy facing the title-page, richly emblazoned.
Printed in Paris, in 1517. (1 vol. folio, on vellum.)
The lives of Cornelius Nepos (1 vol. 4to, on vellum),
printed at Parma, at the Bodoni Press, in 1799; and
many others of equal importance.
In the year 1839 it must be noted that the Museum
acquired two Latin Bibles, with copious manuscript
notes, supposed to be by Melanchthon.
Besides these noteworthy and valuable purchases,
presents were also received, and deserve particular
mention. Two, especially, must not be omitted to be
named:—1st. The Resolutions and other papers of the
States General of Holland, from 1524 to 1798, with
indices, the whole contained in 389 vols. folio, presented
.bn 190.png
.pn +1
by H.M. the King of the Netherlands.
2nd. A copy of Cicero’s Orations, printed by Adam
Ambergau, in 1742. 1 vol. folio, handsomely bound,
presented by the Right Hon. Sir Arthur Paget,
G.C.B.
The work having progressed satisfactorily thus far,
it became necessary to inquire diligently into the many
deficiencies in the National Library, and to propose
means of supplying them. This was accordingly done
in a Report dated 1st of January, 1845. On the 16th
of December, the same year, it was forwarded to the
Treasury by direction of the Trustees, and in the
letter accompanying it the following passage
occurs:—
.pm start_quote
“The Trustees of the British Museum earnestly hope that Her
Majesty’s Government will take it into their grave deliberation
whether the time has not come when it may be desirable, and
on all grounds, literary, political, and economical, to enter at
once upon a more enlarged and comprehensive scale of expenditure
for the supply of Printed Books.
Without presuming to enter into other considerations, the
Trustees conceive themselves warranted in stating it as their
opinion that the present circumstances, as far as the British
Museum itself is concerned, are extremely favourable to the
entertaining of such a proposition.
The gentleman at the head of the Department is eminently
qualified for the trust reposed in him: he is fully sensible of
its importance, is ready to devote his whole time and thought
(as indeed he has hitherto done in a most praiseworthy and exemplary
manner) to make the Library in his charge as complete
in every department of literature as he can, and at the
same time accessible to the public on the easiest terms.”
.pm end_quote
The Report contains a sketch of the British
Museum, and of its arrangement, together with some
.bn 191.png
.pn +1
suggestions as to its future increase, utility, and importance.
It shows how and when the Library was
brought to the condition in which it was at the end
of the year 1842. The state of the Collection in its
several branches is examined, with regard to the
various classes of human knowledge, to the various
countries where the books were published, and to the
languages in which they are written. Means are suggested
by which the Collection ought to be increased
to proportions worthy of the nation; and, lastly, attention
is called to the effects which the proposed increase
would have with regard to its arrangements,
good order, and economy. This elaborate Report was
begun as early as 1843. After many delays, Panizzi
at last obtained consent, on the 4th of January, 1845,
to its being printed privately for the Trustees, to
whom individually it was ordered to be transmitted on
the 24th of May following.
It remained disregarded, however, until the autumn
of that year, when it was brought under the notice of
Mr. Goulburn, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and
Mr. Cardwell, Secretary of the Treasury. In consequence
of this step, a meeting of the Sub-Committee
on the Department of Printed Books was held on the
29th of November, 1845, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
being present, and it was resolved that application
should be made to the Treasury for the annual
grant of £10,000 for ten years to come, to supply the
deficiencies and exigencies shown by Panizzi to exist.
The answer of the Treasury was most favourable: it
was followed by a preliminary Parliamentary grant of
£10,000, which was but the prelude to many others.
.bn 192.png
.pn +1
The letter of the Trustees to the Lords of the Treasury,
their Lordships’ answer, and Panizzi’s report were
laid before the House of Commons by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, and ordered to be printed on the
27th of March, 1846.
From that year the collection of Printed Books increased
steadily and at a rate unexampled in any other
country. This influx of books, the necessity of Cataloguing,
placing, and binding them, to render them
available, and the difficulties created by want of space,
added enormously to the already onerous duties of the
Keeper.
Nor was this special grant otherwise than truly
necessary; in fact, it ran short of the sum requisite
for purchasing the rarest and best editions; the commonest
being consequently acquired, and this only
tended to increase the bulk, thus reducing it to the
level of an ordinary Library, instead of raising it to the
rank and splendour of a National Collection, worthy of
so great a country as England.
Interesting and important as is the subject of the
present chapter—viz, the gradual development of the
resources of the National Institution, and the energy
displayed by those whose duty it was to use every
endeavour to raise the Museum in grandeur and extent—no
great digression is admissible, inasmuch as there
is on our hands so great a press of matter that nothing
should induce us to lose the thread of our biography,
or forget that we have the life of Panizzi under treatment,
and the history of the British Museum only so
far as it bears on his doings and his labours on its
behalf.
.bn 193.png
.pn +1
Of these we have attempted to give a clear and
honest account. As Panizzi was one of those who felt
sincerely that “whatever is worth doing at all is worth
doing well,” and as he was blessed with ability and
decision of character to carry out whatever he had in
hand, it is pleasant to remark how thoroughly and
efficiently he applied his talents to the benefit of the
National Institution; and much as it would delight
us to expatiate further on the subject, we must deny
ourselves at present, as it is now incumbent on us to
enter into new channels in connection with his life.
.il fn=i_b_389.jpg w=125px ew=15%
.bn 194.png
.pn +1
.pb
.il fn=i_b_176.jpg w=500px ew=90%
.h2 nobreak
CHAPTER VI
.pm start_summary
Bridport Election; Desire to visit Modena; Mazzini; Post Office
Espionage; Biographer’s Personal Reminiscences; Portland Vase;
Psalter, 1457; Interview with Francis IV; Libri.
.pm end_summary
.sp 2
.di dc_i.jpg 150 149 1.0
In the honest endeavour to represent a
man as he really was, both in his inward
and his outward bearings, the
biographer has much difficulty to
encounter. It behoves him to reproduce
a life with special regard to dates, with no
matter likely to confuse a reader, or to press too
heavily on his understanding; but this biography
claims an especial degree of attention, inasmuch as
the principal person concerned, though actually absent
from his best-loved locale, was proving the interest
he took in affairs at home by his assiduous care of the
duties with which he was entrusted. Panizzi possessed
no more power of ubiquity than other men;
still such was his energy that only a close observer
could follow his movements, and his wonderful activity
often made him appear to be in many places at the
same time, and induced the belief that he was, at all
events, performing a dual character.
These observations are made simply to warn the
reader against mystification as to Panizzi’s movements,
.bn 195.png
.pn +1
related in the pages which follow—pages it is now
incumbent on us to pen—for whereas he has lately
been treated of more especially in his official capacity,
our position must be changed, and he must be regarded
from a political and personal point of view.
Indeed, the phases in which so remarkable a man may
be contemplated, are so varied that it requires consideration
whence to take our first observation.
However, having before us his own correspondence
(and what can be more corroborative of a man’s perspicuity
than his own written expressions on a subject?),
a letter bearing date October 1, 1841, clearly sets
forth the political tendencies of Panizzi. In reference
to the Bridport election, then on the tapis, he writes
in a spirit so rich in tone, so lively, sensible, and
witty, that nothing can induce us to debar our readers
from the enjoyment of his remarks. His manner
of defending Warburton’s “purity,” and his friend’s
innocence in being deceived by a “rascally attorney,”
are too good to be passed over, and not only shows
acute insight into the matter, but is a testimony to the
contempt he bore for underhand dealing, under any
circumstances, and in any sphere of life:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“B. M., October 1, 1841.
.ll
“Dear Haywood,
.ti 6
As to political news of importance I have none to
give you. From the newspapers you will have seen that
Graham is not a favourite with the Times, and it seems to me
that Peel is not likely to agree with all his colleagues. But
this is prophecy, and I wish to give you history—that of a
small political transaction, the Bridport election. I have it
from a friend who was once a colleague of Warburton, and who
is still très lié with him.
.bn 196.png
.pn +1
A Mr. Mitchell (or Maxwell?), a rich Radical, put himself
forward at the last general election with Warburton, but on
distinct interests, ready to win the election by money. He
wrote to an agent there, known as a good hand at this sort of
thing, and authorized him to carry the election and never mind
the expense. The agent, an attorney, carried it as ordered,
and spent £5,600. The successful candidate refused to pay
the odd £600. After all means had been resorted to to induce
him to pay, the rascally attorney threatened this fool, his client,
that if he did not pay he would turn King’s evidence, and tell
all the story, and give all the proofs of how the election was
carried, to the Tories; and not getting his money, he was as
good as his word, and a case was laid before Austin that left
no doubt both members would be unseated, for about 150 of
the bribed electors had voted for W. as well as for his colleague.
Moreover, although W. himself had kept clear of all
this, his agent having been requested a loan of £200 by the
agent of M., had lent them to him, and it could be proved that
the sum was spent in bribing voters for the Liberal candidates.
Some of the best of Warburton’s friends being strongly compromised,
and M. behaving very ill, and insisting upon keeping
his seat, Warburton, to save them, came to the agreement with
the Tories that he should retire and they desist from the petition
presented against him, but following up that against his
colleague M., who, there is no doubt, they say, will be unseated,
when Warburton will be allowed to succeed him without
opposition from the Tories. As soon as the petition is
tried, W. is to let people know in some public manner that
there is nothing against his purity.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c.,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
In the year 1842 it was Panizzi’s desire, after
twenty years’ absence, to visit his native country, and
the attempts he made to do so, and the ready assistance
which the English Government afforded him
.bn 197.png
.pn +1
may be easily estimated from the following official
letters:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
‘Foreign Office, June 14, 1842.
.ll
“Sir,
.ti 6
I am directed by the Earl of Aberdeen to acknowledge
the receipt of your letter of the 19th of April last, requesting
the assistance of Her Majesty’s Government to obtain
a promise from the Modenese Government that, in the event
of your visiting the Austrian dominions, they would not require
the Austrian authorities to deliver you over to those of
Modena; and I am to inform you, in reply, that the Modenese
Government have given to the Government of Her Majesty the
assurance that they will not demand your surrender from the
Austrian authorities, reserving, however, to themselves the
power of requiring your removal in the event of your forming
suspicious relations with Modenese subjects.
.ll 68
.nf r
I am, &c., &c.,
Canning.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“Foreign Office, July 19, 1842.
.ll
“Sir,
.ti 6
I am directed by the Earl of Aberdeen to inform you that
Prince Metternich has assured Her Majesty’s Ambassador at
Vienna that you are at liberty to prosecute your travels in the
Austrian empire without incurring the danger either of being
delivered up to the Modenese Government, or of meeting with
any molestation on the part of the Austrian authorities.
.ll 68
.nf r
I am, &c., &c.,
Canning.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
These documents sufficiently prove the opinion entertained
of Panizzi in this country, and the facilities
provided for the adoption of the course he had
planned for the attainment of the wish he had at
heart; but by a subsequent letter from the Foreign
Office, dated 26th October, 1842, we can conclusively
.bn 198.png
.pn +1
prove that he was unable to accomplish his object,
for in this official document we read that a “Note
Verbale” had been delivered to Her Majesty’s representative
at Vienna, to allow the applicant to prosecute
his travels under certain conditions—conditions
which the circumstances at that expiration of time
most probably made him feel unwilling to comply with.
The following is the letter in question:—
.pm start_quote
“With reference to Viscount Canning’s letter of the 19th of
July last, informing you that you were at liberty to prosecute
your travels in the Austrian dominions for the purpose of visiting
the great libraries of Austria, I am directed by the Earl of
Aberdeen to transmit to you a copy of a “Note Verbale,”
which has been delivered to Her Majesty’s Ambassador at
Vienna relative to the conditions under which you will be permitted
to enter the Austrian dominions.
.ll 68
.nf r
I am, &c., &c.,
H. U. Addington.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
In another letter, dated 3rd November, we find
that Panizzi’s wish to be unfettered by the “Note
Verbale” is unnoticed by the authorities of the
Foreign Office, and that, however much they might
feel disposed to use their influence in his favour, still,
entertaining due respect to foreign authority, they
declined to interfere again in the matter, and therefore
it must be concluded, having no further correspondence,
either on the part of the applicant or the
Foreign Office, that the opinion of the latter preponderated,
and that the anxious hope of the former
proved abortive.
From the year 1842 to 1844 there is little substantial
evidence of Panizzi’s private movements. Notwithstanding
.bn 199.png
.pn +1
his apparent activity, we know what he
had at heart, and how difficult he found it to obtain
success in the attainment of his wishes. In a letter
from no less a personage than Mr. Gladstone, dated
12th January, 1844, strong sympathy in the endeavour
to pass as a free man to Italy is
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“Whitehall.
.ll
“I have spoken to Lord Aberdeen on the subject of your
note. He has the subject in hand, and also at heart; he will
use every effort in his power to obtain you a free permission,
and he by no means despairs of success....”
.pm end_quote
That Panizzi waited, and waited in vain, for the
accomplishment of his purpose, is evident from a
second letter from the same distinguished gentleman,
dated 4th June, 1844, and what more valuable testimonial
could a man have than this? “I only wish
the Austrian Government knew you as well as we do—none
of these difficulties would occur.”
Less than two months afterwards Panizzi seems to
be ailing in health; so, at least, it must be inferred
from a letter dated British Museum, 6th of August,
1844, wherein he states that he is suffering from a
painful swelling in the right wrist, and where, also,
he repudiates the imputation of goutiness. The letter
is so characteristic, that, with very slight abbreviations,
we append it for the perusal of our readers:
.pm start_quote
“My dear Rutherfurd,
I am suffering from a painful swelling in the right
wrist, that leaves me hardly strength to hold the pen. Lord
Melbourne consoles me with assuring me that it is gout. I
don’t believe it, and I will not.... I am going to write an
article on the Post-Office, for Welch, and one on the Jesuits
.bn 200.png
.pn +1
and the French University, and another on Algiers. What
an industrious boy I am? About Algiers I have got such a
number of publications as would astonish you, of course I
mean about the French possessions in Algiers that I intend
writing, not about Barbarossa. I hope to take down two in
MS. with me, and shall expect you to read them before they
are printed, which will do me more good than the reading of
Arnaldo now printed will do to you.... I cannot write
more, Brougham came here the other day, shouting, laughing,
joking, and jumping like a boy, and pressing me to stay at his
place when I go north; but I don’t think I shall have time.
He is there now, comes back for the O’Connell business at the
end of the month, and goes back to Westmoreland till the 15th
or 20th of October.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c., &c.,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
.il id=i182 fn=i_b_182_mazzini.jpg w=250px ew=50% alt='Giuseppe Mazzini' align=l
This is an appropriate period of our history for the
introduction of the well-known Giuseppe Mazzini, or
the “Profeta,” as he
was commonly
called by his worshippers,
amongst
whom Panizzi is
certainly not to be
reckoned. It would
be superfluous to
enter into details
about this notable
character; his writings,
and perhaps it
may be added, his
private life also, are
already familiar to most of us.
.bn 201.png
.pn +1
Though Panizzi did not agree with Mazzini’s
violent views as to Republicanism, there is no doubt
that they were for some considerable time on intimate
terms. Besides being a politician and a patriot of the
most enthusiastic kind, Mazzini was also a literary man
of some note, and shared Panizzi’s intense admiration
for the works of Dante, and still more those of Ugo
Foscolo, as already related. Farini’s opinion of Mazzini
exactly tallied with Panizzi’s—that he was a man
of no common talent, remarkable for perseverance in
his plans, for resolution under suffering, and for private
virtues; but in the last crisis of the Italian
nation he had confounded patriotism with self-love,
or rather with selfish pride, and chosen to risk seeing
the temple of Italy burned down, because she would not
dedicate to him its high altar. Amongst our papers
are various letters in the handwriting of Mazzini, and
one especially noteworthy, written in 1840, wherein
he recommends a friend (as a reader) to the Reading
Room of the British Museum, and in this letter
occurs a sentence worthy of reproduction:—“I received
safely the papers I lent you. I perceive that
by the tone you do not agree with me. I trust soon
to be able to come and see you, and talk over my
future plans.”
That Panizzi, in after years, disagreed “in toto”
with his friend’s principles is notorious; but the
actual origin of their estrangement will for ever
remain a mystery. In November, 1844, an article
appeared in the “North British Review,” written by
Panizzi, and entitled “Post-Office Espionage.” The
opening of Mazzini’s letters at the Post-Office, and
.bn 202.png
.pn +1
their perusal by the authorities, formed the subject
of this treatise, and those revelations immediately
aroused John Bull to a pitch of honest indignation—“highly
creditable to the moral feeling and sound,
good sense of the nation.” We learn from this
article that Mazzini’s suspicions were first awakened
by observing that his letters were doubly stamped;
the stamp of 2 o’clock in the afternoon, for instance,
superseding that of 12 at noon. Having read in an
Austrian paper that the English authorities had
undertaken to watch the proceedings of the Italian
refugees in Great Britain, the idea struck Mazzini
that it was not improbable that recourse might be
had to opening his letters. This was communicated
to Panizzi, who strongly dissuaded Mazzini from
giving credence to such strange suspicions regarding
the English Government. He spurned this well-meant
counsel, posted letters directed to himself and to
others, in the presence of witnesses, and found that
whilst the other letters were regularly delivered, his
own were as frequently delayed; he sealed them with
wax, placing the impression in a particular position,
and then discovered that that position of the seal had
been changed. Another artifice was resorted to.
Grains of sand were enclosed in letters: they reached
other parties safely, but had disappeared from the
letters directed to himself. This, on the 14th of
June, 1844, induced Mr. T. S. Duncombe, Member for
Finsbury, to present a petition from four gentlemen,
living at No. 47, Devonshire Street, Queen Square,
alleging that their letters had been delayed and
opened by the authorities at the Post-Office. Sir
.bn 203.png
.pn +1
James Graham, the Home Secretary, did not deny
that he had issued his warrant for the adoption of
such a course, adding, moreover, that a power was
given by Statute to the Secretary of State to open
letters in transit through the Post-Office. This led
to some members of the Liberal side taking up the
subject with much warmth, and denouncing such
proceedings as despotic and perfectly unconstitutional.
Their own action was not altogether left
undefended by the Ministers. Mr. Duncombe, though
unsuccessful, showed no disposition to let the matter
rest here, and ultimately succeeded in the formation
of a Committee of both Houses, composed of some of
the most eminent amongst their respective members.
A report was printed, showing that the warrants of
the Secretary of State in previous cases were issued
only on peculiar emergencies. There was no other
result from this affair, except that a Bill was introduced
by Lord Radnor in the Upper House for the
abolition of the power complained of; it was not,
however, carried beyond the first reading.
The correspondence between Panizzi and Mazzini
was by no means frequent, and soon after this disgraceful
scandal we find him sending to Panizzi
proofs of the well-known printed letter addressed to
Sir James Graham, and asking his advice on the
matter.
So far has been traced the acquaintance of these
two men from documentary evidence; but the biographer
can bring forward personal reminiscences of
this extraordinary man. Often has he heard Panizzi
relate how, on a certain journey, whilst waiting for a
.bn 204.png
.pn +1
seat in the stage coach running between France and
Italy, one morning early, almost before daybreak, he,
on taking his seat, recognised close to him the figure of
a man, in blue spectacles, and carefully enveloped in
his long Italian cloak. It was no other than his
quondam friend Mazzini, who, finding his incognito
discovered, whispered “Per amor di Dio, Signor
Panizzi!!!” (For the love of God, Signor Panizzi!!!)
As might be expected, Panizzi assured him of his
perfect safety. The frontier was passed, after a most
scrutinizing search by the French and Piedmontese
authorities.
The biographer also remembers one afternoon,
about the year 1860, whilst walking down Fleet
Street, in the company of Panizzi, being desired to
look towards the left, on doing which, he perceived a
man of very dark complexion, in a shabby black
coat, with a silk kerchief wound round and round
his neck, without collar, waistcoat buttoned high,
and with downcast eyes, standing by the side of one
of the small archways of what was but recently
Temple Bar. Panizzi observed, “That is Mazzini.”
No bow, no sign of recognition passed between them.
That the subject of this memoir never afterwards
communicated with his compatriot would be a deviation
from the truth, for in April, 1864, when Garibaldi
visited London, on the day, or soon after, it was
publicly announced that the Italian hero intended to
leave England, the present writer was the bearer of a
note, penned by Panizzi, from whom he received instructions
to deliver it safely into the hands of
Mazzini. This occurrence took place early in the
.bn 205.png
.pn +1
morning; so early, indeed, that day had scarcely
dawned when he left his friend’s residence at the
British Museum, where he was then staying.
This is but a slight sketch of the connection between
Panizzi and Mazzini, from which it may be
gathered that no great warmth existed between the
two, for the latter was too impetuous to consort with
the former, who was imbued with common sense as
well as with patriotic motives in all his actions.
Let us now confine ourselves more immediately to
Panizzi himself, and whilst giving particulars of the
various occurrences at this period, the destruction of
the famous Portland Vase, must not be passed over.
On the 7th of February, 1845, Panizzi, at about a
quarter to four, when descending the staircase of the
Museum, leading from the room where the vase stood,
to the outer door, observed the perpetrator of this
singular piece of barbarity in the act of running away;
and he used to relate, with the greatest emotion, how
delighted he should have been to stop him (as he
might have done), had he known the man’s dastardly
conduct, and to have inflicted on the spot that
chastisement which the law was powerless to administer.
The suddenness and unexpectedness of
the deed probably saved the rascal from an immediate
attack; he had seized an ancient brick kept in the
room, and deliberately aimed it at the treasure, nor
would he, on being questioned at the time, give any
account of the motives which had prompted him
to commit so wilfully mean and base an act. His
name was William Lloyd, a native of Dublin. No
time was lost in conveying him to Bow Street, where
.bn 206.png
.pn +1
he was remanded by the sitting magistrate. The
utmost punishment the magistrate, Mr. Jardine, was
able to inflict—£3, or two months in default—was
absurdly inadequate (as true believers in art know
only too well) to so signal an offence. The money
was moreover paid very soon after by some perverse
sympathiser, and the offender was set free.[H]
So much then for the Portland Vase and its
ignominious and cruel fate: at the time of its occurrence
the affair caused a great stir.
In the month of June, 1845, Panizzi made an
application to the Trustees to grant him twelve weeks’
holidays, in lieu of the usual annual vacation; on the
very excusable plea that, for several years past, extra
official duties had obliged him to forego the greater
portion of his allowed and legitimate leave. He was
promptly, and with the consideration that all servants
of the Trustees have ever experienced on such special
and reasonable applications, whether for the sake of
their health or for visiting foreign countries, and thus
acquiring valuable knowledge—granted the twelve
weeks’ holidays.
.fm rend=th
.fn H
This world-renowned vase appears to have been a cinerary urn, as it was
filled with ashes, and the remains of bones were discovered within it. It
was enclosed in a marble sarcophagus, which was in a sepulchral vault at a
place called “Monte Grano.” According to some accounts, the time of the
discovery was at the close of the sixteenth century, whilst others assert
that it was dug up by order of Pope Urban VIII.(Barberini) between 1623
and 1624. The sarcophagus was placed at the entrance of the Museum
Capitolinum, and the vase in the Barberini Palace, where it remained for
more than a century. It was at last purchased by Mr. Bayers, who parted
with it to Sir William Hamilton. On the 10th of September, 1784, it was
exhibited at the Society of Antiquaries, London. The Duchess of Portland
subsequently purchased it, and from her it derived its title. It was deposited
in the British Museum in 1810 by His Grace the Duke of Portland. The
vase is still exhibited, the innumerable having been put together
by the late John Doubleday, an in the Museum.
.fn-
.fm rend=th
.bn 207.png
.pn +1
These commenced on the 30th of June, and we
append a letter from Panizzi to Lord Rutherfurd,
dated from Ischl on July 28th:—
.pm start_quote
“Here I am from Vienna on my way to Venice. I am
not going to the Modenese regions. You shall hear a great
deal about that and other matters on my return. Sir Robert
Gordon (Ambassador), though a Scotchman and a Tory, has
behaved with the very greatest kindness to me, and has acted
with great energy. I have done all he wished, which was in
every respect what I wished, and I believe him as pleased
with me as I am with him. Yesterday and to-day I have been
among the most beautiful scenery I ever saw in my life—even
including
.pm end_quote
The time, thus allowed, was not dedicated altogether
to private enjoyment, most probably quite the
reverse. Panizzi went abroad with the intention of
visiting the leading libraries of Germany, taking on
his way to Vienna, Stuttgart, where the famous
Psalter[I] of 1457 was said to be for sale. It
had been discovered in 1842 in the Library of the
Collegiatstift, at Eichstädt, in Bavaria, by the antiquarian,
J. Hess, through whose interest it was transferred,
in 1843, to Stuttgart in exchange for another
rare volume, the “Acta Sanctorum.” The Keeper
of the Printed Books was, as it may easily be
imagined, eager to purchase the volume, and on the
11th of June he wrote the following report:—“Mr.
Panizzi has the honour to report that a copy of the
.bn 208.png
.pn +1
First Psalter (1457) not long since discovered, and now
in the Royal Library of Stuttgart, may be obtained
for the British Museum, if what Mr. Panizzi has
heard may be relied upon. It is said that the
Government of Würtemberg might be disposed to
part with it to a Public Library, but to no one else.
Mr. Panizzi intends visiting Stuttgart partly for the
purpose of seeing this volume—the most important
by far, as well as the rarest of all early monuments of
typography.”
.fm rend=th
.fn I
The book is of great importance. It was printed in Mentz, by Fast and
Sch[oe]ffer. It is the first printed Psalter; the first book printed with a date;
and containing the first specimens of printing in colours, as shown in the
initial letters. A copy, bequeathed by Mr. Grenville, is now to be seen in
the King’s Library, British Museum.
.fn-
.fm rend=th
The recommendation of Panizzi was that the sum
of six hundred guineas should be offered, for, to use
his own words: “The copy now in the Royal Library
at Paris, wanting six leaves, sold by auction in 1817,
for 12,000 francs, or £480. It is made up of two
copies, and is otherwise objectionable. The funds of
the Royal Library at Paris being then low, Louis
XVIII. himself paid the above price, and presented
the volume to that institution.”
It is hardly necessary, though the volume did not
find its way to the British Museum, to say that the
Trustees did not hesitate a moment to sanction the
purchase for the sum recommended.
The main object, on this occasion, being that of
visiting his native place, Panizzi’s official position
must be temporarily ignored, and this point of view
kept in sight. On the 24th of June of the year 1845,
he received a friendly note from the Austrian Ambassador
in London, requesting him to call at the
Embassy, in order that he might submit to him a dispatch
from Prince Metternich, and another from the
Minister of Police, Count Sedlnitzky, stating that he
.bn 209.png
.pn +1
might with safety proceed to the Austrian Empire.
Early in July he arrived at Vienna, as has already
been noticed, and was there received with marked
attention by Her Majesty’s Ambassador. The Duke
of Modena was at the time on a visit to the Emperor
of Austria, and through Sir Robert Gordon, Panizzi
obtained an interview with Francis IV. Before the
meeting took place, Panizzi wrote to a near relative
of his, Signor Prospero Cugini, to the effect that the
Duke had accepted all he had heard of him with
unusual grace, expressing, at the same time, his
desire for an interview, and also, what must have
astonished Panizzi most, that he would have been
allowed to go unmolested to Brescello. His delight
can easily be imagined. On the 21st of July he had
the gratification of an interview with the Duke, who,
being now in his 66th year, was perhaps a little less
blood-thirsty than when Panizzi left him in the year
1821. Francis’s love for Jesuitism and his cunning
never seems to have abandoned him, even to the last;
he died in the following year. The meeting was all
that could be desired; and, as may be conceived, the
conversation turned at once on the political state of
Italy. On this subject Panizzi was too open-hearted,
even to the extent of forgetting the prudence which
should have permeated his words and actions; he
clearly and distinctly told the Duke that his mode of
Government was wholly hateful to his visitor, though
he had no feeling of enmity towards the Duke himself
personally, and that perhaps there remained even a
sense of gratitude. However, in spite of this, they
parted apparently good friends, and with the full
.bn 210.png
.pn +1
assurance that Panizzi was at perfect liberty to go to
Modena, or wherever he pleased.
His license was, however, based on false pretences;
no such liberty was in reality granted. Indeed, it
was never intended to be carried out, or if so, to be
under the most unpleasant restrictions. Our warrant
for this assertion is not only gathered from Panizzi’s
own words, but from incontrovertible and stern facts.
On the 7th of August Panizzi wrote from Venice to
Cugini:—
.pm start_quote
“I must not, and cannot, now enter into particulars of the
reasons which have determined me not to enter the Modenese
States. What I suffer on account of it, God knows! but I
had sooner die than accept such a vile promise as the one conceded
to me. You must have noticed how prudently I have
conducted myself, and how gratefully I should have accepted
such indulgence—an indulgence which I believed to have
been graciously given. In the word of honour of your Governors
I have no faith. I will not go to Modena, where I have
heard, a week ago, that there are orders against me, and which
have been issued by the Duke himself.”
.pm end_quote
He then proceeded to Mantua, where he arrived on
the 19th of August, and was met by some of his
relatives. From this place he addressed a note to the
Modenese authorities, demanding an explanation;
the answer sent was short and discourteous.
It was so pre-arranged long before Panizzi and his
former sovereign met; for on the 9th of July, eleven
days before the meeting, an order had already reached
Reggio to watch the visitor, to note his associates,
and to send a full account of all that transpired to
Modena.
.bn 211.png
.pn +1
He was, however, not to be baulked of his projected
visit to Parma, where he went by a circuitous
route, in order to avoid touching the soil of his native
State. Here he was met by all his old acquaintances,
not a few of whom travelled all the way from Brescello
to Parma to see him. The names of these
Brescellese were taken down, and sent to the Police
Office at Modena. On his return to London he wrote
to Lord Rutherfurd:—
.pm start_quote
“What kindness! what recollections! what a country!
But as to the Government, I do not wish it to be known that
I speak with disparagement of the Italian rulers, as I wish to
go there again. Nothing new here, except that Mons. Thiers
comes from Lisbon to Lord Ashburton’s, at the Grange, in ten
or twelve days.”
.pm end_quote
We must pause for a while to congratulate Panizzi
on his safe return, and to quote the good wishes of
Samuel Rogers and Dr. Shepherd on so auspicious an
occasion:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“19th October, 1845.
.ll
If you are in town will you do me the great favour to
breakfast with me on Tuesday next, at ten o’clock? If I hear
nothing I shall venture to hope, for I long to hear of your
travels.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours ever,
S. Rogers.”
.nf-
.ll
St. James’s Place.
.pm end_quote
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.nf r
“Gateacre,
October 20th, 1845.
.nf-
.ll
“My dear Panizzi,
A scamp of an attorney who thrust himself into some trifling
employment in Sir Francis Burdett’s celebrated contest for
Middlesex, on sending him his bill, after charging for a journey
to Acton and another to Ealing, &c., &c., &c., closed with
.bn 212.png
.pn +1
the following item:—‘To extraordinary mental anxiety on
your account, £500,’ After this precedent I have a good
mind to charge you a good round sum for mental anxiety on
your account, which I suffered when, some weeks ago, I
heard a vague report that you were on your way to Modena,
for I have such a horror of the petty Italian despots that I
could not persuade myself that you were safe when in the
power of the Duke. Lord Brougham, however, set my mind
at rest when I arrived at his Cumberland château, on the 23rd
ultimo, by informing me that he had, on his late visit to London,
learnt at the Museum that you were on your return to
England, having kept your neck out of the noose; and Mr.
Charles Preston, who called here yesterday, tells me that you
are well and hearty, and very busy in doing the hospitalities
to M. Thiers. By the bye, there is much truth in the critique
on Thiers’ great work in the last Quarterly, but the article is
written in a tone and spirit of which, as an Englishman, I am
ashamed.
Pray oblige me by giving me a full and particular account
of your interview with the Duke of Modena, and tell me how
far you penetrated into Lombardy. I presume you ran no
risk in the Austrian territories....
.ll 68
.nf r
Truly yours,
Wm. Shepherd.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
Before closing this interesting portion of our narrative,
a letter from Vienna, October 17th, must be
quoted; it will be read with interest:—
.pm start_quote
“I availed myself of a late conversation with Prince Metternich
to express to him your gratification and thanks for the
kindness and civility which you have met with during your recent
tour in Lombardy, in consequence of the recommendation from
the authorities here, and he appeared pleased that you had had
all facilities. I am convinced that, as the ice has been broken,
the same facilities would again be afforded to you should
business or pleasure induce you to return.—Yours, &c., &c.,
.ll 68
.rj
A. C. Magenis.”
.ll
.pm end_quote
.bn 213.png
.pn +1
A few facts relating to Signor Libri must not be
omitted. Inclination might lead us to suppress them,
but our duty as faithful recorders of truth points to
another direction. A biographer who has the heart
and the will to introduce into his narrative the events
of the life he is depicting, fearless of comment, is to
be commended; and as such we do not intend to pass
without notice the Libri case—a case which indeed,
next to Panizzi’s sentence of death, was the most
anxious event of his life.
Signor Libri, a man of extraordinary talents, especially
distinguished as a mathematician, was a Tuscan
by birth. He settled in Paris, and whilst there, in
addition to his political avocations, aided by his able
pen the Government of Louis-Philippe, and consequently
became the bosom friend of Mons. Guizot.
As a purchaser of books he contrived to amass a
collection of rare volumes, which he afterwards sold
publicly to much advantage. Shortly after the revolution
of 1848 rumours were afloat that he had been
the robber of Public Libraries.
It is not our intention to enter for one instant into
the merits of the case, or to make any statement bearing
on Signor Libri’s innocence or guilt. Certain it
is, that this most unpleasant affair gave rise to much
discussion at the time; and Panizzi has often been
heard to say that, had he not been known, as he was,
to be a man of strict truth and honesty, he himself
would never have dared to defend such an accusation
as had been set up against his friend. As already intimated,
we have no plea to offer except that of faithful
biographers for touching on so delicate a subject.
.bn 214.png
.pn +1
Panizzi was certainly not alone in his opinion; he was
supported by many others, and those men of distinction,
amongst them Guizot, Mérimée, and other personages
now living.
M. Guizot wrote thus to Panizzi on the subject:—
.pm start_quote_lang fr 90 1
.ll 68
.rj
“1 Décembre, 1849.
.ll
Je suis très occupé de M. Libri. Je trouve unique, scandaleusement
unique, qu’on ne lui communique pas toutes les
charges, qu’on ne lui donne pas toutes les facilités, et tous le
temps nécessaires pour y répondre. Quand les mauvaises
habitudes judiciaires viennent en aide au mauvais vouloir des
ennemis tout est déplorablement difficile.... Je
ferai tout ce qui sera en mon pouvoir pour que justice lui soit
rendue, et j’espère qu’en dernière analyse justice lui sera en
effet rendue.”
.pm end_quote
Enough has been said, however, on this painful
subject, and it is to be hoped our readers may take
the same lenient view of it as these notable individuals.
This chapter can scarcely be better brought to a
conclusion than by an original and characteristic letter
of Panizzi’s, which is added as a specimen of terse
writing, and as showing his detestation of intolerance
in religious matters, as well as for the spirit in which
it is worded, so full of undisguised feeling, and so
worthy of its open-hearted writer:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“B. M., 14th July, 1846.
.ll
“My dear Rutherfurd,
.ti 6
Many thanks for your letter of Sunday last, written, I
suppose, between Church time. Maitland, the editor of the
W. B., had already given me some insight, but very dim, into
the amalgamation which has taken place to oppose Macaulay
.bn 215.png
.pn +1
and Craig. As I have said a thousand times, the Britishers are
the devil and all when they mix up together their religion and
their politics, and if Lord John will not have His Satanic
Majesty about his ears, he will interfere with religion of all
sorts as little as he can, but let the gentlemen of each party
fight it out among themselves, and be damned. We say in
Italian that ‘chi lava la coda all’asino consuma l’acqua e il
sapone,’ and he throws away his pains who tries in England,
Scotland, and Ireland to conciliate religious sects. Look at
the abominable conduct of the dissenters against the Whigs in
general some years ago, at that of the Free Kirk people at
Glasgow against their unworthy Lord Rector, and, just now at
Plymouth, at that of dissenters against Ebrington. I saw him
last night, just after his return and arrival in town. He told
me that their conduct was abominable, and that at one time
they threatened serious mischief. The fellow who distinguished
himself was a man of the name of N *** who had
hitherto proposed Lord E. He had himself mismanaged some
Dock Bill, and wanted to throw the blame on Lord E., to
whom he had, however, between that occurrence and the election,
written in the most friendly terms, and asked a favour
from him to procure the promotion of a son of his who is in
the Excise. Wood tells me that Ebrington wrote to him
strongly, and that he answered a sort of cold, official letter—as
usual—which Ebrington sent to the father. This made
him angry, and it seems now the fellow denies having applied;
but Wood has got the letter addressed by N *** to Ebrington,
who is going to send it to Plymouth to expose that
wretch. Mr. Ellice wrote to me and told me he was going to
assist at your instabulation, or installation, as he called it. I
answered to Mrs. Ellice for him, but I have heard no more
from either. Everybody says here he ought to come back,
else he will be thought displeased and in a pet. Moreover, as
I wrote to Mrs. Ellice, Lord Grey told me—no doubt that I
should repeat it as I did—that he wanted to see Ellice. As I
am a man of peace, I should like them to meet. Dundas’s appointment
.bn 216.png
.pn +1
is not approved by the Bar, and will do harm. Not
that he is not, of course, highly respected, esteemed, and liked,
both for his talents and personal manners, but because—no
matter whether on account of bad health, or any other reason—business
has almost entirely left him, whereas Romilly makes
£5000 a year. Moreover, he has done nothing in the House,
at least for the party, and they think it wrong he should share
the honours and the spoil. I have not heard he has accepted,
but I suppose there is no doubt of it. His answer from York,
where he was, must have been here yesterday. There is some
screw loose about the sugar duties. The protectionists will
support Lord John, and you may depend on this—if he will
not insert in his second resolution, which I have not seen,
some abstract principle, which they say is in it now, about the
harm of protection in general. If those objectionable words
are kept in the resolution they will oppose him. Now, I
believe they ought to be kept in good humour as much as possible,
and certainly at the sacrifice of uncalled-for abstract propositions.
Lord Ponsonby is to go to Vienna, though he says
he does not. Now, I know he knows, and his nolo episcopari
sort of tone is all humbug. He wishes to go particularly; he
thinks there he may settle matters with the Papal Nuncio, and
be sent thence Ambassador to Rome—the aim of his ambition.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
A. Panizzi.
.nf-
.ll
Peel has cut his leg sadly in washing his feet, by the breaking
of the tub.”
.pm end_quote
The versatility of thought displayed in this letter,
the rapidity with which its author speeds from subject
to subject, and his clear and decided views, are
worthy of close observation.
.bn 217.png
.pn +1
.pb
.il fn=i_b_199.jpg w=500px ew=90%
.h2 nobreak
CHAPTER VII
.pm start_summary
Thiers; Spanish Marriages; Downfall of Lord Melbourne’s Administration;
Corn Laws; Coolness between Panizzi and Thiers.
.pm end_summary
.il id=i199 fn=i_b_199_thiers.jpg w=225px ew=40% align=l alt='Adolphe Thiers'
.sp 2
.di dc_a.jpg 150 153 1.1
Amongst the
eminent men
whose friendship
Panizzi
had the good
fortune to enjoy, not the
least was M. Adolpho Thiers,
who must ever be regarded
as one of the ablest and
most honourable, if not the
most successful of European statesmen. Thiers and
Panizzi first met about 1840. Frequent association
community of friends, similarity of tastes, and
especially the interest felt by both in political affairs,
soon united them in a friendship both intimate
and lasting, which bore its fruits in due season.
Thiers, writes Panizzi to Lord Rutherfurd, Oct. 30,
1845, has taken up all my time when here.
It was I who brought him and Lord Palmerston
together, and I have sent him away quite pleased
with the reception. We shall talk about it, and you
will be amused—if you answer my letters—with what
.bn 218.png
.pn +1
I shall tell you of him and from him, and about him.”
Certain communications from Lord Clarendon to
Panizzi contain acute and pertinent remarks on the
illustrious Frenchman. For ourselves, we have
always believed that an intimate feeling of Anglomisos
(to coin a word somewhat milder in significance than
Anglophobia) materially influenced Thiers. Himself
the very incarnation of the Gallic indoles, it is not to
be wondered at that he looked on the most prominent
and obnoxious traits of English character as antagonistic
and repulsive. Englishmen seemed to him the
collective impersonation of a Sabidius, or of a Dr.
Fell; but however much he might have disliked
the English as a race, he was ever ready, owing to
his candour and love of truth, to render full justice to
England as a nation, whilst the facility with which
he made intimate friends in this country is too well
known to require illustration in these pages. The
following letters are, however, suggestive:—
.il id=i200 fn=i_b_200_clarendon.jpg w=225px ew=40% align=l alt='Lord Clarendon'
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“Bowood, Oct. 12, 1845.
.ll
“My dear Panizzi,
.ti 6
I am exceedingly obliged
to you for your information in re
Thiers, whom I should have been
delighted to ask to The Grove, but
I fear there will be no chance of
catching him during his short
stay, as previous arrangements
will not permit of our inviting
him before the 25th. He really
flits about Europe like a flash of
lightning, and if he means to know
anything about this country and
its inhabitants he ought not to come only for a week at the
.bn 219.png
.pn +1
deadest time of the year, though to be sure that is only in harmony
with his usual system. Don’t you remember his famous
note to Ellice when he (E.) was Secretary of the Treasury?
‘Mon cher Ellice, je veux connaître à fond le systême financier
de l’Angleterre quand pourrez vous me donner cinq minutes?’
Lord Lansdowne has asked him to come here, and if he does
not I shall try and find him on Wednesday on my way through
London to join Lady C., whom I left at Gorhambury with her
father, who is still very ill. When we are re-established at
the Grove I need not say how much pleasure it will give her
and me to see you there. We heard from Charles that you
were well and prosperous, and had returned more devotedly
attached than ever to the Duke of Modena.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
Clarendon.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
‘Bowood, Oct. 14, 1845.
.ll
“My dear Panizzi,
.ti 6
We were all in great hopes that Thiers would have
come here to-day, but as he does not I must stay over tomorrow,
for it would really be grief to me that he left England
without my seeing him. It is quite a “bonne fortune” for
Thiers, and important, moreover, to the relation between the
two countries, that he should have fallen into your hands here,
for there is no one so capable of properly directing his enquiries
and opinions, and I am sure there is no born Englishman from
whom he would receive with confidence and belief the sort of
facts you will put before him. There is a great deal of avenir
in Thiers, and he is still destined to exercise much influence
upon the opinions of his countrymen, and if he could make
himself personally cognizant of the feelings of the English towards
France, and become sure that there is not among us a
germ even of hostility or jealousy with respect either to the
greatness or the prosperity of France, I think he might do
much to allay that spirit of hatred towards us which his own
works and a portion of the press under his control have already
done much to excite. It would be an undertaking worthy of
him, because it would tend to advance the best interests of
.bn 220.png
.pn +1
civilisation, to put Anglophobia out of fashion in France, but
for that he should be able to speak with authority and connaissance
de cause, and I will defy even his cleverness to know
this country, or to carry away any correct perceptions of it in
a transitory visit, such as he is making. For my own sake,
and being most desirous to show him any civility, I wish he
had come a little later.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
Clarendon.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
These letters cannot fail to be read with interest,
coming from so appreciative a man as Lord Clarendon,
pointing distinctly as they do to his intimate
friendship with Panizzi, and expressing his hopes
that Thiers would be cured of this “Anglo-phobia,”
or, to use our own modified term, “Anglo-misos,”
with his very true remark: “I’ll defy even his
cleverness to know this country, or to carry away any
correct perceptions of it in a transitory visit, such as
he is making.”
In politics, though Panizzi’s opinions (albeit somewhat
modified by lapse of time, and by his intercourse
with the greater English statesmen) were
probably still of a deeper revolutionary tinge than
his friend’s, the two men were in the main of one
mind. The prominent question of the day was that
tissue of petty chicanery commonly known as The
Spanish Marriages—a miserable intrigue—which
caused considerable commotion at the time, and in
due course produced consequences of a gravity out of
all proportion to its intrinsic importance.
To recapitulate, its history in this place, and at
this period, would be impertinent; with the aid of a
slight introduction, and a few connecting remarks,
.bn 221.png
.pn +1
enough of the nature of the transaction for the present
purposes may be gathered from the correspondence
of Thiers and Panizzi, as given below.
The affair seems to have come under serious diplomatic
notice about the beginning of 1842, when
Queen Isabella was in the twelfth year of her age.
For a rough sketch of its origin, let the following
suffice. M. Guizot, apprehensive that if a Prince of
other than French or Spanish blood were to share
the throne of Spain, France might be placed as it
were between two fires, and patriotically wishing to
make Spain, so far as possible, dependent upon his
own country, insisted on limiting Queen Isabella’s
choice of a husband to the descendants of the Bourbon
Philip V.; at the same time, however, disclaiming
any intention of including among the aspirants to
the Queen’s hand any son of the King of the French.
The candidates spoken of at the time were—1st.
Prince Leopold of Saxe-Cobourg, brother of the
Queen of Portugal, and by no means a stranger to
French blood, whose claim, if it can be so called,
though causing the greatest disquiet to M. Guizot,
was more a subject of conversation than reality. Indeed,
except for a kind of counter-intrigue of a suspicious
character, purporting to be in his favour, this
competitor, can hardly be said to have been in the
race. 2nd. Prince Metternich’s candidate, the Count
de Montemolin, son of Don Carlos, who, although
within M. Guizot’s conditions, had but little chance
of success from the beginning. The third candidature
was that of Count de Trapani, brother of the King
of Naples, whose chance, as it turned out, was about
.bn 222.png
.pn +1
equal to that of Count de Montemolin. To complete
the list followed Don Francisco d’Assise, Duke of
Cadiz, and his brother Don Enrique, Duke of Seville,
sons of the Infant Don Francisco de Paula.
The design of the French Minister was communicated
by M. Pageot, whom he sent for that purpose,
to Lord Aberdeen, then Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
The English Minister heard, with considerable astonishment,
and with no little indignation, the unwarrantable
proposal to restrict the Spanish Queen’s
selection of her consort. He replied, however, that
in a matter of a nature so entirely domestic it was
not the wish of this country to interfere. M. Pageot
thereupon endeavoured to obtain from the Foreign
Secretary an expression of a like disinclination to
intervene in case Queen Isabella were to fix her
choice on her cousin, the Duc d’Aumale. The
answer to this invidious hypothesis was that it was
based upon a very different footing, and involved the
question of the maintenance of the balance of power
in Europe, as settled by Treaty.
As a matter of fact, Mons. Guizot had thus expressed
himself to the Cabinet of England:—“We
thought fit to apprise you, as the Ministry of one of
the Great European Powers, of our intentions in regard
to a political matter, which you may possibly
consider of European interest, but in which we, on
the other hand, take leave to hold the interest of
France to be paramount to all others; and, inasmuch
as, in such matter, we, the Government of France,
have laid down a course of action, from which, so
far as lies in our power, we will suffer no departure.
.bn 223.png
.pn +1
We respectfully request you to give your adhesion to
our design, or, if that be impossible to you, at least
to remain impartial and inactive.”
Such a policy, subtly conceived, and springing from
outre-cuidance, might well arouse patriotic indignation,
and in no one would it be more likely to
awaken this spirit than in Lord Clarendon. His
lordship’s censure of Lord Aberdeen’s conduct, however,
expressed in the following letter to Panizzi,
seems, to say the least of it, a little severe:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“The Grove, December 23rd, 1845.
.ll
“My dear Panizzi,
.ti 6
I should have sincerely regretted if Palmerston had even
thought he had reason to complain of any one of his friends
during the late odious transaction; but I am particularly glad
that the matter should have been discussed between you and
him; for, as you well knew my opinions long before any
question of a change of Government, respecting his return to
the Foreign Office, and the groundless apprehensions which
Thiers entertained upon that subject, you had the opportunity,
as I am sure you had the good will, of removing any annoyance
which a parcel of stupid newspaper articles (written probably
for that purpose) respecting himself and me might have
occasioned last week. My firm belief is that energy such as
Palmerston’s is at this moment greatly needed at the Foreign
Office, and that it would tend, far more than the present system,
to an entente really cordial between us and France. I
have over and over again told Lord Aberdeen that his predilection
for Guizot, and consequent partisanship in France
was endangering the peaceful relations between the two countries;
because, on the one hand, it rendered hostility to England
a natural and necessary weapon of attack against Guizot,
and, on the other, this imposed on him the obligation to
“faire des niches à l’Angleterre,” in order to prove his independence
.bn 224.png
.pn +1
and keep his portefeuille. It was impossible for
Lord John to do without Palmerston, and equally so to expect
he would submit to take any other office than the Foreign at
the presumptuous dictation of that mauvais coucheur, Lord
Grey. With respect to Ellice, I believe that the “out of
doors” calumnies are groundless. He is as incapable of wilfully
concealing anything it was his duty to have communicated
as I feel I should be myself. I never saw more efficient
zeal than he manifested throughout the whole of the transactions;
and, as I was present when he heard from Lord John
of the objection raised by Lord Grey, and was witness to the
readiness with which he volunteered to go and bring him to
reason, it is impossible to suppose he was playing a double
part; but he ought to be made acquainted with these reports,
and I am sure he will have no difficulty in effectually disproving
them. The reason upon which the embryo Government
was broken up will, I am afraid, appear invalid and insufficient
to the public; but, for my own part, I cannot regret the result.
The undertaking was too vast for the slender means
upon which Lord John could rely for success; he could only
hope for a doubtful and unhearty support; but, having once
embarked in the struggle, he would have been held responsible
for all the consequences of failure. After a time, however,
I am sure that the country will be glad that the measure
should remain in the hands of the only man capable of carrying
it, and, deal with it as he may, he must advance Liberal
principles, and must break up his party.
.ll 68
.nf r
Ever yours truly,
Clarendon.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
These are strong denunciations, strongly expressed;
yet, no doubt, Lord Clarendon felt keenly that Lord
Aberdeen’s “predilection” for Guizot was “endangering
the peaceful relations” between England and
France, and his laudation of Lord Palmerston bears
equal proof of the sincerity of his impressions.
.bn 225.png
.pn +1
Be it said, with all submission, that we might
have gone further with Lord Aberdeen and fared
worse.
It is perfectly true that the vigour and decision of
character so conspicuous in Lord Palmerston was not
invariably to be found in Lord Aberdeen. Still, if
there was vigour, there was also a certain amount of
violence occasionally apparent in the policy of the
former. Granting fully that Lord Palmerston might,
by a more decided show of opposition than was
offered by his predecessor in office, have crushed the
Spanish Marriages plot in its inception, and granting
all that is said in Lord Clarendon’s letter as to
the effect likely to be produced by Lord Aberdeen’s
course of action (or inaction) on the “entente cordiale”
we may be allowed to suspect that, under
then existing circumstances, a peril of a different
kind, and a more serious, might have arisen from
direct interference on the part of the English Government;
and that the coldness between the two countries,
already caused by the audacity and double-dealing
of the King of the French and his minister,
might have been exchanged for a more acrid feeling,
possibly even subversive of the peace still subsisting
between England and France, and involving even the
peace of Europe.
It only remains to be noted here that the effect of
the underhand policy pursued all along by the French
Government was the simultaneous marriages of
Queen Isabella to Don Francisco d’Assise, and of her
sister, the Infanta Luisa Fernanda, to the Duke de
Montpensier, on the 10th of October, 1846. The
.bn 226.png
.pn +1
diplomatic correspondence on the subject ceased soon
after that event.
The following is the first letter written by Thiers
to Panizzi on the important question:—
.pm start_quote_lang fr 90 1
.ll 68
.rj
“Lille, le 26 Octobre, 1846.
.ll
“Mon cher Panizzi,—
.ti 6
Voilà bien longtemps que je ne vous ai donné
de mes nouvelles, et que je n’ai reçu des vôtres. Je n’ai pas
ordinairement grand’chose à vous dire; je suis occupé, vous
l’êtes, et c’est une explication suffisante d’un silence qui n’est et
ne sera jamais de l’oubli. Ce que vous aviez prévu est arrivé.
Les Whigs sont au pouvoir, et je souhaite qu’ils y restent.
Mais que vient-il donc d’arriver entre nos deux pays? Ce
nouvel incident m’afflige très-vivement, car je ne vois de
politique véritablement bonne que dans l’union de la France et
de l’Angleterre. Hors de là, il n’y a de triomphe que pour les
oppresseurs des peuples et de l’esprit humain. Peut-être, à
force de fautes, serons-nous obligés, les uns et les autres, de
nous appuyer sur des amis qui ne seront pas les meilleurs, mais
ce sera un malheur véritable. J’étais pour le maintien de
l’alliance même avec les Tories, à plus forte raison avec les
Whigs. Le jour où Lord Palmerston, parlant très-noblement
de la Pologne, a dit que si les traités de 1815 n’étaient pas
respectés sur le Danube ils cesseraient d’être respectables sur le
Rhin, il a fait ressortir toute l’utilité, toute la fécondité de
l’alliance de la France avec l’Angleterre sous les Whigs.
Pour moi, je déplore qu’on ait choisi ce moment pour se
brouiller. Je n’aime pas à faire des concessions aux dépens de
mon pays, mais le jour où un Ministre de l’Angleterre parle de
la sorte, et rompt si ouvertement avec la coalition Européenne,
ce jour-là je serais plus disposé à faire des concessions à aucun
autre. Mais rompre pour un mariage, quand l’Angleterre
n’insistait pas pour un Cobourg, me confond!
Cependant il faut savoir la vérité. Il circule les versions les
plus contradictoires. La Princesse de Lieven jette tout sur les
.bn 227.png
.pn +1
Whigs, et dit, dans son salon, que rien de pareil n’aurait eu
lieu avec Lord Aberdeen. M. Guizot fait dire que Lord Palmerston
a manqué aux engagements pris, et qu’il a, dès lors,
été délié de ceux qui avaient été contractés à Eu. Voyez
Lord Palmerston, puisque vous êtes lié avec lui; dites-lui de
vous communiquer à vous, et pour moi, la vérité pure. Il ne
faut me dire que des faits d’une exactitude incontestable.
Le danger de la situation, c’est que le ministère va jouer le
jeu odieux qu’il reprochait à l’opposition, et que pour ma part
je n’ai jamais voulu jouer, celui d’exciter le sentiment populaire
contre l’Angleterre. Si le Cabinet Britannique a eu des torts,
ce jeu sera facile. Il faut donc savoir exactement la vérité, et
dans ces choses-là il ne sert guère de la dissimuler, car elle ressort
bien vite des documents. Voici la question sur laquelle il
faut être exactement fixé.
Quels engagements avait-on pris réciproquement à Eu?
Etait-on bien convenu de renoncer à un Cobourg, et de ne
marier le Duc de Montpensier à l’infante qu’après que la reine
aurait eu des enfants?
Serait-il vrai que la diplomatie Anglaise agissait à Madrid
contrairement à ce double engagement? Que dès lors le
Cabinet Français aurait pu se croire dégagé?
Est-il vrai que M. Guizot aurait adressé à Lord Palmerston
une dépêche lui annonçant ses nouveaux projets, lui déclarant
qu’il se considérait comme libre, et que Lord Palmerston serait
demeuré plus d’un mois sans répondre?
Voilà des points sur lesquels il faut bien savoir la vérité.
Tâchez de savoir ce qu’il y a de vrai dans ce qui s’est passé
à Madrid.
Je désire avoir un historique complet et vrai de toute
l’affaire. Je désire savoir aussi comment l’Angleterre pose
aujourd’hui la question, et où gît la difficulté entre les deux
pays. Y a-t-il une solution raisonnable, également honorable
pour les deux Cabinets?
Comment les Tories prennent-ils la question? En font-ils
une affaire de parti contre les Whigs, ou bien une affaire du
.bn 228.png
.pn +1
pays, commune à tous? Enfin, quel est l’avenir de votre
politique intérieure? Lord John Russell se maintiendra-t-il?
Pour moi, je fais des v[oe]ux en faveur des Whigs. Je suis
révolutionnaire (dans le bon sens du mot) et je souhaite en tout
pays le succès de mes analogues. Adieu, et mille amitiés. Je
vous prie de m’écrire pas moins que vingt pages sur tout cela.
Comme je n’aime pas que l’on colporte mes lettres, je vous prie
de garder celle-ci pour vous et de me répondre par la poste, ou
à Lille jusqu’au 25 Octobre, ou à Paris si vous mettez votre
lettre à la boîte passé le 25. Je crois que la poste seule est
sûre. Adieu encore, et mille amitiés.
.ll 68
.nf r
A. Thiers.
Lille (Département Du Nord.)”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
To this Panizzi replied in a letter which, for its
detailed and lucid statement of facts, may really be
looked upon as a useful work of reference. Nor will
the reader, we imagine, be inclined to think the comments
of the writer on the doings of Guizot and of
his accomplice (for so we will venture to call him),
Count Bresson, French Minister at Madrid, one whit
too severe:—
.pm start_quote_lang fr 90 1
.ll 68
.rj
Nov., 1846.
.ll
Mon cher Monsieur et Ami,
.ti 6
Les pièces que vous trouverez ci-jointes ont été imprimées
pour être portées à la connaissance des légations
britanniques à l’étranger: j’ai eu le bonheur de m’en procurer
un exemplaire que j’ai le plaisir de vous envoyer, avec la
certitude que vous en ferez un usage réservé, et qu’elles vous
mettront à même de juger la conduite des deux Gouvernements
Français et Anglais; par la date de la dernière dépêche,
vous verrez que je ne pouvais pas vous les envoyer plus tôt.
J’ajouterai aux faits principaux, que vous trouverez consignés
d’une manière authentique dans ces pièces, le récit de
quelques autres circonstances, sinon tout à fait aussi importantes
.bn 229.png
.pn +1
à connaître, au moins très-intéressantes, et sur l’authenticité
desquelles vous pouvez également compter.
Ce fut en 1842 que le roi envoya vers le Gouvernement
Anglais le Maréchal Sébastiani, pour obtenir son consentement
au mariage de la Reine d’Espagne avec un descendant de
Philippe V. Le Roi tenait beaucoup à persuader à ce
Gouvernement que la France ne lui pardonnerait jamais de
permettre un mariage quelconque dont l’effet serait de faire
monter sur le trône d’Espagne tout autre que le descendant
d’un Bourbon de la branche Espagnole. Le Gouvernement
Anglais, dès lors, adopta la ligne de politique de laquelle il ne
s’est jamais écarté après: Il exprima son indifférence à ce
que la Reine choisît son époux parmi non-seulement les princes
issus de Philippe V., mais de toute autre maison qui aurait
été plus agréable à S. M. Catholique et à son peuple, excepté
seulement un Prince Français. En se limitant à un descendant
de Philippe V., le Roi excluait, par cela même, ses propres
enfants aussi bien que ceux des autres maisons princières; le
Gouvernement Anglais, au contraire, limitait ses objections
aux premiers seulement.
Pendant toutes les négociations qui eurent lieu, soit à l’égard
du Comte de Trapani que de Montemolin, la conduite de
l’Angleterre ne s’est jamais démentie.
Lors de la visite de la Reine d’Angleterre au Château d’Eu,
en 1845, S. M. Britannique aussi bien que Lord Aberdeen acceptèrent
la proposition formelle et absolue, qui leur fut faite
par le roi et son ministre de leur propre gré, à savoir: que la
Reine d’Espagne n’épouserait pas un enfant de France (est-ce
que cette phrase féodale vous fait frissonner), et que dans tout
cas le Duc de Montpensier n’épouserait pas l’Infante avant que
la Reine sa s[oe]ur n’eût mis au monde DES ENFANTS (au
pluriel). Ni la Reine Victoria ni Lord Aberdeen se lièrent plus
qu’ils ne l’étaient auparavant, soit à limiter le choix de la
Reine d’Espagne à un descendant de Philippe V., à qui le Roi
des Français tenait toujours, soit à admettre que l’Infante
épouserait—même après que la condition proposée par Louis
.bn 230.png
.pn +1
Philippe et son Ministre aurait été remplie—le Duc de
Montpensier, sans objection de la part de l’Angleterre. Lord
Aberdeen admettait implicitement que ce mariage serait l’objet
de négociations ultérieures, après que la Reine Isabelle eût eu
des enfants; il ajouta même en propres termes que cette condition
préalable diminuait les objections du Gouvernement
Anglais; ce qui veut dire que l’on en avait encore. Lord
Aberdeen fit part de ce qui s’était passé à Sir R. Peel, qui
approuva particulièrement la réserve que son collègue Ministre
des Affaires étrangères avait mise dans sa conduite. Je vous
dis cela pour vous mettre à même de juger de l’uniformité des
vues des hommes d’Etat de l’Angleterre sur cette question.
Il paraît que, peu de temps après, la Reine Christine s’étant
querellée avec Louis-Philippe ou bien en ayant fait mine, se
détermina à marier la Reine Isabelle avec le Prince de
Cobourg.
Je crois que Christine n’était que l’agent de Louis-Philippe,
qui voulait faire tomber le Gouvernement Anglais dans un
piége, pour avoir un prétexte de briser sa parole, alléguant que
le Gouvernement Anglais favorisait sous main le mariage de la
reine à un autre prince qu’un descendant de Philippe V.
Mais, de bonne foi ou non, le fait est que Christine mit sur le
tapis le mariage Cobourg. Les pièces ci-jointes entrent dans
des détails très-importants sur cet épisode. Le Gouvernement
Français fut averti, avec la plus grande franchise, de ce qui se
passait par Lord Aberdeen. M. Bulwer lui avait écrit que
Christine l’avait envoyé chercher et l’avait prié de lui
donner son avis sur la rédaction d’une lettre qu’elle le chargea
de vouloir bien envoyer au Prince de Cobourg alors à Lisbonne,
à qui elle allait proposer sa fille aînée en mariage. M.
Bulwer avait de bonne foi donné l’avis qu’on lui avait
demandé et s’était chargé de la lettre, comme ami et non pas
comme Ministre d’Angleterre. Non-seulement Lord Aberdeen
informa M. de Sainte-Aulaire sur-le-champ de ce qu’il venait
d’apprendre, non-seulement il donna des ordres positifs à M.
Bulwer, de se garder bien de toute démarche qui pouvait faire
.bn 231.png
.pn +1
croire que l’Angleterre avait la moindre préférence pour le
Prince de Cobourg, mais il désapprouva la conduite de M.
Bulwer dans cette occasion en termes si sévères que M. Bulwer
en fut blessé au point d’envoyer sa démission de Madrid, que
Lord Aberdeen ne crut pas à propos d’accepter.
M. Bresson se permit de reprocher aux ministres espagnols
(et, je crois, à Christine elle-même) leur conduite d’une
manière qu’on aurait eu droit d’attendre plutôt d’un caporal de
la vieille garde, que d’un représentant de Louis-Philippe; il
alla jusqu’à menacer le Gouvernement Espagnol d’une déclaration
de guerre, si la reine épousait autre qu’un prince approuvé
par Louis-Philippe. Ce pauvre Isturiz en informa en tremblant
Lord Aberdeen, qui répondit par une lettre de 25 Juin
dont on parle dans la dépêche de Lord Palmerston du 31
Octobre (p. 19). J’espère pouvoir vous en envoyer une copie.
Cependant, Isturiz lui-même était un des principaux agents
dans cette intrigue. A Madrid, des amis très-intimes de Christine
firent tout ce qui leur fut possible pour engager le Gouvernement
Anglais à se déclarer pour le Prince de Cobourg: on
offrit carte blanche à l’Angleterre pour qu’elle mit le prix
qu’elle jugerait convenable à la concession de son appui. A
peine le ministère actuel avait été formé à Londres, qu’Isturiz
s’adressa non officiellement à une de ses connaissances, qui en
fait part, pour le prier de faire tout ce qu’il pouvait pour ces
noces Cobourg, la conclusion desquelles, disait-il, dépendait
absolument de l’Angleterre; mais ni Lord Palmerston ni l’autre
ministre ne voulurent entendre parler de cela; on se déclara
toujours neutre et indifférent.
Dans la première page de la première dépêche de Lord Palmerston,
on parle d’une dépêche du 19 Juillet, à laquelle on
fait encore allusion, soit par M. Guizot (pag. 9), soit par Lord
Palmerston dans sa seconde dépêche (pag. 16), et dont MM.
Guizot et Bresson ont fait un usage indigne, comme vous
verrez par les pièces imprimées. Vous en recevrez, je me flatte,
une copie sous peu de jours. Afin que vous jugiez de l’étendue
de cette indignité et du peu de confiance que l’on peut placer
.bn 232.png
.pn +1
dans la parole de votre ministre des Affaires étrangères, il faut
que vous sachiez que la seconde partie de cette dépêche contenait
des observations sur la conduite illégale, inconstitutionnelle
et despotique du Gouvernement Espagnol. M. de Jarnac,
chargé d’affaires du roi des barricades, désapprouva ces observations,
et si M. Bresson n’a pas fait un usage public et officiel
d’un document si confidentiel, comme M. Guizot dit, il s’en est
au moins servi en cachette pour faire du tort à un Gouvernement
libéral qui avait confié la dépêche à l’honneur d’un
ministre ami, auprès du Gouvernement auquel cette dépêche ne
devait pas être connue. Qu’en dites-vous, révolutionnaire?
La dépêche de Lord Palmerston du 22 Septembre fut communiquée
à M. Guizot le 25 du même mois par Lord Normanby,
qui était prêt à en discuter la substance. En lui
annonçant les mariages de la Reine d’Espagne et de sa s[oe]ur
quelques jours auparavant, M. Guizot avait promis à Lord Normanby
que les mariages, quoique annoncés en même temps,
n’auraient pas lieu en même temps. Lord Normanby exprima
grand plaisir en apprenant cette détermination de votre
Gouvernement, et cela donnait quelque lueur d’espérance que
l’on pourrait encore l’entendre quant au mariage de l’Infante.
Il en fit part au Gouvernement Anglais, ayant pris d’abord la
précaution de faire lire sa dépêche à M. Guizot. Après avoir
lu la dépêche du 22 Septembre, M. Guizot observa à Lord
Normanby qu’une telle pièce méritait toute l’attention du
Gouvernement Français, et qu’il ne se sentait pas autorisé à en
discuter le contenu, avant que d’avoir pris les ordres du Roi.
Lord Normanby observa que, dans ce cas, il se flattait que le
départ du Duc de Montpensier, pour Madrid, serait ajourné.
M. Guizot répondit que les mariages étant irrévocablement
arrêtés pour le 10 Octobre, il fallait absolument que S. A. R.
partît le jour fixé. Les mariages! ajouta Lord Normanby,
‘vous voulez dire celui de la Reine!—Non, non, de la Reine et de
sa s[oe]ur,’ répliqua M. Guizot. Lord Normanby rappelle à M.
Guizot sa promesse que les mariages seraient annoncés, mais
n’auraient pas lieu en même temps. Le Ministre des Affaires
.bn 233.png
.pn +1
étrangères tâche d’abord d’oublier sa promesse; mais comme
cette pauvre ressource ne lui réussit pas, il conclut: ’D’ailleurs,
les deux mariages ne seront pas célébrés en même temps: la
reine sera mariée la première. Vous n’avez pas encore réussi
à chasser tous les Jésuites de France: c’est à vous, mon ami,
à leur faire quitter au moins l’Hôtel des Affaires étrangères, et à
envoyer leurs maximes après eux.
Le Marquis de Lansdowne, en lisant la dépêche de Lord
Normanby, qui rendait compte de ce tour de passe-passe de
M. Guizot, en fut si étonné, que le papier lui tomba des
mains: il pouvait à peine croire à ses propres yeux, lui qui
avait si fréquemment entendu M. Guizot sermonner sur la
bonne foi et la droiture en politique qui le possédaient, et
qui avait jusque là pris M. Guizot au sérieux.
Ce qui se passa, lorsque Lord Palmerston donna communication
de cette dépêche à M. de Jarnac, mérite toute votre
attention. Les Whigs entrèrent au ministère au commencement
de Juillet. Lord Palmerston eut à être réélu d’abord,
et ne fut proprement installé qu’après le milieu de ce mois.
Le 20 Juillet, M. de Jarnac eut sa première entrevue, pour
affaires, avec Lord Palmerston, qui lui dit que le Gouvernement
n’avait encore pu donner à la question du mariage de
la Reine d’Espagne toute l’attention qu’elle méritait:—que
cependant lui, Lord Palmerston, aussi bien que ceux de ses
collègues auxquels il en avait parlé, nommément Lord Lansdowne,
Lord Clarendon, et, avant tout, Lord John Russell,
étaient du même avis que Lord Aberdeen; que l’on ne verrait
pas de bon [oe]il le mariage de la Reine avec un fils du Roi
des Français; mais que, quant aux autres candidats, on était
indifférent. Lord Palmerston ajouta que le Comte de Jarnac
verrait toute la pensée du Gouvernement, autant que lui,
Lord Palmerston, pouvait en juger, en lisant la dépêche qu’il
allait lui communiquer, envoyée le jour précédent à M. Bulwer.
C’était la dépêche du 19 Juillet. Comme M. de Jarnac
commença par se plaindre de ce que l’on mettait sur la
même ligne le Prince de Cobourg et les Infants Don Enrique
.bn 234.png
.pn +1
et Don Francisco, Lord Palmerston observa, entre autres
choses, que le Prince de Cobourg pouvait être considéré
plutôt trop lié à la France qu’à l’Angleterre, et que s’il y
avait quelqu’un qui avait droit de s’opposer à ses noces avec
Isabelle II., ce serait bien l’Angleterre. M. de Jarnac tira
alors de sa poche une lettre tout à fait privée de M. Guizot,
qui le priait de tâcher de persuader au Gouvernement
Anglais de recommander les deux Princes Espagnols exclusivement.
Lord Palmerston dit que si l’on se déterminait à
donner la préférence à quelqu’un, ce serait toujours à Don
Enrique. M. de Jarnac se montra très-content de cela. M.
Guizot paraissait être dans les mêmes sentiments à Paris et
s’en exprima ainsi à Lord Normanby. C’est à cette lettre
écrite par lui à M. de Jarnac, lettre qui n’avait aucun
caractère officiel, qui ne fut pas considérée officielle, dont on
ne donna point de copie au Ministre Anglais, que M. Guizot
fait allusion, lorsqu’il dit (pag. 7) qu’au mois de Juillet il
avait proposé au Cabinet de Londres d’agir de concert, pour
se plaindre peu après que Lord Palmerston ne lui répondit
que plus d’un mois après à cette proposition. La proposition,
si c’en était une, était une proposition verbale, et M. de
Jarnac reçut de Lord Palmerston, au moment même qu’il la
fit, une réponse de la même nature, c’est-à-dire verbale. Ce
ne fut qu’après avoir été encore invité à joindre ses démarches
a celles du Gouvernement Français, près la Cour de
Madrid, en faveur des deux Infants, que Lord Palmerston
déclara, comme Lord Aberdeen avait fait précédemment, que
l’Angleterre considérait Don Enrique celui des princes qui
convenait à la Reine. La raison en était que M. Isturiz et
les Ministres Espagnols, aussi bien que les agents Français,
s’étaient beaucoup égayés sur le compte de Don Francisco en
le peignant impuissant, sans esprit et haï par la Reine, qui
s’en moquait. On alla même jusqu’à se vanter, de la part de
Marie-Christine et de ses confidents, que l’on avait tout fait
pour en dégoûter la Reine et que l’on avait réussi à souhait.
Est-ce que des hommes d’honneur pouvaient, après cela, le
.bn 235.png
.pn +1
recommander à la Reine comme un mari capable de la rendre
heureuse, elle et l’Espagne? Ce rôle était réservé à M.
Bresson: et il s’en est tiré en homme qui en était digne.
La Reine des Français fut chargée par le Roi de faire
agréer le mariage du Duc de Montpensier à la Reine Victoire:
mais elle n’y a pas réussi. S. M. Britannique en exprima
rondement son opinion à Louis Philippe, qui lui fit répondre
par la Reine des Belges. Les intrigants, qui ne manquent
pas plus dans ce pays-ci que dans les autres, tâchent de faire
leur mieux—et je crois avec quelque succès—pour faire
changer de direction à cette indignation qui du Roi paraît à
présent se tourner en partie contre M. Guizot.
Cette lettre, que j’espère vous comprendrez malgré mon
Français, vous sera remise par un ami auquel je puis me fier.
Ne vous fiez pas à votre poste. Répondez-moi s’il vous plaît,
que l’Ambassade d’Angleterre envoie votre lettre, pour moi,
sous convert, à Lord Normanby lui-même, qui n’a pas d’idée
du sujet de notre correspondance, mais qui, me connaissant
personnellement, voudra bien, je n’en doute pas, avoir la
bonté de me la faire parvenir.
Dites-moi bien franchement ce que vous pensez de tout
ceci, et soyez certain que je ne manquerai pas de vous faire
connaître ce que j’apprendrai d’important relativement à
cette malheureuse affaire.
.ll 68
.nf r
Adieu, mon cher ami; croyez-moi toujours.
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
The plot within a plot, in favour of Prince Leopold,
caused Guizot much alarm and discomfort.
The place of its origin he took to be Lisbon. It
was, he conceived, if not strongly backed by British
influence, at least virtually, though passively, supported
by the English Cabinet. In this respect, looking
on him as one who was likely to the
diplomacy of others by his own measure, and, moreover,
as being moved by the independent, and, it must
.bn 236.png
.pn +1
be confessed, imprudent line taken at the time by the
British Minister at Madrid, he need not be too harshly
judged.
Panizzi’s theory, however, as to Queen Christina’s part
in the affair, seems to go a little too far. To
suppose her to have been the direct agent of Louis-Philippe
in so ingenious a plot, and to be employed
simply in carrying out his designs, is to impute even
too much cunning and iniquity to the King of the
French (who, it must be borne in mind, afterwards
denied categorically any complicity in the matter),
and to give too little credit for independence of
character to the Queen Dowager. There are many
reasons why Christina, a born intrigante, at a distance
from Paris, and in her own country, finding
that she had, for a time at least, the game in her own
hands, should have been inclined to play it in her own
way, give it an independent turn, and, at the same
time, provide against chances of failure, without
laying herself open afterwards to the charge of
rashly deviating from the course which she had really
come to Spain to follow. It requires no great stretch
of imagination to conceive any amount of underhand
dealing on the part of the principal actors in the
Spanish Marriages; but we are disposed, after all,
to take for truth what Guizot himself says in his
“Mémoires,” of this episode of the intrigue, or that
which, considering his position, may be accepted as
pretty much the same thing, what he firmly believed
to be the truth. Of course his wrath may have been
simulated, and his joy at perceiving additional advantages
in the counterplot well concealed; but that
.bn 237.png
.pn +1
either he or his master directly instigated it, may well
be doubted.
Having received no answer from Thiers, who, as he
subsequently says, was very much engaged at the
time, Panizzi wrote again, in continuation of his
strictures on Guizot’s nefarious proceedings, in forcing
on the Montpensier marriage;—
.pm start_quote_lang fr 90 1
.ll 68
.rj
“Ce 14 Janvier, 1847.
.ll
“Mon cher Monsieur et Ami,
.ti 6
Vous êtes bien décidé à ne plus m’écrire, quoique
vous m’ayez solennellement promis de répondre à ma dernière
longue lettre. J’ai remis, d’un jour à l’autre, à vous écrire
moi-même, attendant toujours de voir paraître une lettre de
votre main à mon adresse; mais hier, en recevant le sixième
volume de votre Histoire, j’ai supposé que votre silence était
causé par vos travaux historiques; et, comme je n’ai pas un
beau volume à produire qui puisse excuser mon silence, je
vais le rompre. Ajoutez à cette raison, qui ne vaut pas
beaucoup, que je viens de recevoir quelques documents qui
méritent d’être passés à votre connaissance; je me hâte donc
de vous les communiquer.
Je vous écrivis dans le temps que le Gouvernement Espagnol,
effrayé des menaces insolentes de M. Bresson, fit
demander à Lord Aberdeen si l’Angleterre permettrait à
Louis-Philippe de forcer la Reine à épouser la personne qu’il
plairait au Roi des Français de dicter. Je vous envoie la
réponse de Lord Aberdeen au Duc de Sotomayor, Ministre
d’Espagne à Londres, datée le 22 Juin, 1846; par elle vous
pourrez juger des termes de la communication du Gouvernement
Espagnol au Cabinet de Londres.
Dans ma lettre, je vous promettais aussi de vous envoyer
copie d’une dépêche du 19 Juillet, 1846, adressée par Lord
Palmerston à M. Bulwer, communiquée confidentiellement
par le Premier à M. de Jarnac, et dont M. Guizot fit un usage
si indigne en la portant à la connaissance du Gouvernement
.bn 238.png
.pn +1
Espagnol, et en criant à l’anarchie et au sans-culottisme,
parce qu’on donnait des conseils modérés et favorables à une
liberté sage au Gouvernement imbécile et despotique que la
France (la France de Juillet!!!) soutient en Espagne. Vous
trouverez ci-joint un extrait de cette dépêche. Vous remarquerez
sans doute le passage dont on s’est servi comme
prétexte pour hâter le mariage du Duc de
C’est parce que Lord Palmerston annonçait un fait,—c’est-à-dire
que le Prince de Saxe-Cobourg était un des candidats
pour épouser la Reine d’Espagne, en déclarant en même
temps que l’Angleterre n’avait aucune préférence pour aucun
de ces candidats,—c’est parce que Lord Palmerston annonçait
ce fait, que l’on a cru devoir faire épouser à l’Infante le Duc
de Montpensier! et cela après que le mariage du Prince de
Saxe-Cobourg avec la Reine était devenu impossible, Sa
Majesté ayant déjà accepté la main de son cousin!
Lord Palmerston a fait offrir tout dernièrement au Gouvernement
Français, par Lord Normanby, une copie officielle de
ces deux dépêches (22 Juin et 19 Juillet, 1846), afin qu’elles
pussent être communiquées aux Chambres avec le reste de
la correspondance. On a refusé cette offre, avec la meilleure
grâce et de la manière la plus polie du monde.
Vouz trouverez ci-jointes les deux dernières dépêches sur
cette affaire par M. Guizot et Lord Palmerston. Celle du
dernier, très-récente, ne me parait pas trop ménager votre
successeur.
A présent que j’ai tenu ma parole et que j’ai fait ce que vous
m’avez demande, tenez la vôtre de votre côté, et écrivez-moi une
longue lettre, mais tout de suite, afin que je puisse faire connaître
à vos amis ici, au moment de la réunion du Parlement
(le 19) la marche que vous et vos amis comptez suivre. C’est
en répondant franchement à la confiance dont on vous donne
des preuves si fortes, que vous en inspirerez davantage. Je ne
puis pas toujours chercher à pénétrer ce que l’on pense, sans
avoir rien à dire en retour. Du reste, vous êtes le meilleur
juge de ce qu’il vous convient de faire.
.bn 239.png
.pn +1
Avez-vous vu M. Gréville? Il m’a dit qu’il irait vous voir
et vous saluer de ma part. J’apprends, par le Times du 12,
qu’on le suppose chargé d’une négociation non officielle pour
renouveler l’entente cordiale. La dernière lettre de Lord Palmerston
a été écrite après le départ de M. Gréville. M. Gréville
est allé à Paris pour complaire aux invitations très-urgentes de
Mme de Lieven. Comme le Times disait que M. Gréville
est ‘l’ami intime de M. Thiers,’ est-il allé à Paris pour vous
faire donner ‘l’accolade fraternelle’ à M. Guizot? Ecrivez-moi
ce que vous pensez de cela; dites-moi si vous avez beaucoup
causé avec M. Gréville de cette affaire et ce qu’il en
pense. Tout ceci m’intéresse beaucoup. C’est inutile de
répéter que vos lettres, comme les miennes, sont strictement
confidentielles. Rappelez-vous bien de n’envoyer votre
réponse que sous couverte directement à Lord Normanby.
Croyez-moi toujours.
.ll 68
.rj
A. Panizzi.”
.ll
.pm end_quote
Mons. Guizot, though successful in the end, was
unable to carry out his design for marrying the Queen
of Spain, after his own and his master’s mind, within
the space of a few weeks or months. Some years
elapsed ere the slow course of the Spanish Marriages
reached its climax. Meanwhile, a great political
incident had occurred in this country. In the
summer of 1846 Sir Robert Peel’s ministry had resigned.
Lord Palmerston had succeeded Lord Aberdeen
at the Foreign Office. The new Foreign
Minister continued, with respect to the Spanish intrigue,
his predecessor’s line of conduct throughout,
albeit his expressions of indignation at Guizot’s
duplicity may have been a little stronger and sterner
than Lord Aberdeen’s. For this, however, it must be
allowed that, as the affair progressed, there was
ample reason.
By this time the list of candidates for the Queen’s
.bn 240.png
.pn +1
hand had been considerably reduced. There remained
but two within the principle of the descendants
of Philip V., the Duke of Cadiz, and his
brother, Don Enrique, Duke of Seville. To the last
of these, Lord Palmerston, but simply as an outsider,
gave the preference, as the only Spanish Prince who
is fit, by his personal qualities, to be the Queen’s husband.
Don Enrique, however, was a little too
liberal and progressive in his principles to be accepted
by the opposite party. Finally, after a long course
of unseemly man[oe]uvring and double-dealing, the
marriage of Queen Isabella with Francis, Duke of
Cadiz, was brought about, and at the same time, by a
violation of good faith, such as blushing history has
seldom had to record, the Duke de Montpensier’s
marriage with the Infanta took place.
An excellent commentary on the various phases of
this wretched intrigue, and on the conduct of those
concerned in it, will be found in the subjoined correspondence
between Thiers and Panizzi. In answer
to the charges brought by the latter against Guizot,
Thiers replies with very summary treatment of the
French Minister, both politically and personally.
The sketch of Louis-Philippe’s character, in the first
quoted of these letters, is admirably drawn. The
policy, however, of the great monarch of the barricades,
made up of audacity and cunning, was on the
whole so skilfully conducted, though so little likely
to be enduring, as to our mind to justify a more significant
epithet than that of a mere umpire.
What, however, stands out most conspicuously in
this same letter is the sound, practical, and commonsense
.bn 241.png
.pn +1
view taken by Thiers of the claim to actual and
substantial importance of the Spanish Marriages;
his justification of the British Cabinet’s policy of non-interference
(and, with it, of Lord Aberdeen’s conduct)
in a matter in no wise vital to England; and
his far-sighted estimate of what might have been the
consequences to Europe had more serious measures
in opposition to the plot been adopted. It would
have been an evil day that had seen the four greatest
European powers ranged in two directly opposite, if
not, indeed, openly hostile camps; whereof England
and Prussia should have occupied the one, and France
and Austria the other. The Spanish Marriages
was a comedy, and decidedly unworthy of exaltation,
at least for the time being, to the rank of an European
tragedy.
.il id=i223 fn=i_b_223_guizot.jpg w=225px ew=40% align=l alt='F.P.G. Guizot'
.pm start_quote_lang fr 90 1
.ll 68
.rj
“Paris, le 12 Janvier, 1847.
.ll
“Mon cher Panizzi,
.ti 6
Je veux depuis longtemps vous
écrire, mais je suis enfoncé dans
mon travail d’impression qui ne
m’en laisse pas le temps. Je
quitte ce travail pour les discussions
de la Chambre, et je vous
donne les premiers moments de
cette diversion. Il n’y a rien
ici de nouveau, mais je n’en veux
pas moins vous dire quelques
mots de la situation. Auparavant,
voici mon avis sur les pièces que
j’ai lues.
Je trouve la conduite de M.
Guizot fort claire: il a manqué
de bonne foi; il a menti; il s’est
conduit là comme nous le voyons se conduire tous les
.bn 242.png
.pn +1
jours à la Chambre; mais ce qui est clair pour moi ne peut
le devenir pour le public qu’à grand renfort de preuves.
Il faut qu’on connaisse les dépêches de Lord Normanby, dans
lesquelles les mensonges de M. Guizot sont, à ce qu’on dit,
mis au grand jour de la manière la plus frappante. Ce n’est pas
tout que de prouver que M. Guizot a menti, il faut prouver
que le Cabinet Anglais a été sincère, et pour cela il faut que
les dèpêches à M. Bulwer et à M. de Sotomayor, prouvant
qu’on n’a pas poursuivi le mariage d’un Cobourg à Madrid,
soient connues. Je suis sûr que l’opinion publique en
France condamnera le Cabinet Français s’il est évident qu’il
s’est conduit d’une manière déloyale. L’événement de
Cracovie a déjà prouvé qu’il n’y avait que péril, fausse
politique, duperie pour les nations libres, ou aspirant à le
devenir, dans la brouille de la France avec l’Angleterre. Les
alliances avec les Cours du Nord sont rangées parmi les utopies,
ou les arrière-pensées contre-révolutionnaires. Si à cela on
ajoute la preuve que M. Guizot, outre la faute de rompre l’alliance
la veille de Cracovie, a commis celle d’agir déloyalement,
son compte sera fait et réglé devant le public. Pour moi, qui
souhaite hardiment la chute d’une politique égoïste et
contre-révolutionnaire, je serai enchanté de voir M. Guizot
disparaître de la scène politique. Je n’ai aucun intérêt personnel
ici, car le roi appellera M. Molé, et n’aura jamais recours
à moi que dans une extrémité périlleuse, laquelle n’est
heureusement pas probable; mais que ce soit M. Molé ou un
autre, je le soutiendrai s’il inaugure une politique moins
infidèle à la cause de la Revolution, et plus propre à nous
faire bien vivre avec l’Angleterre. Ce résultat peut sortir de
la crise actuelle, si on se conduit bien. Les agents de M.
Guizot disent ici et à Londres que ni le pays ni le Roi n’abandonneront
jamais M. Guizot. C’est une absurdité, débitée
par des gens à gages, mais dénuée de tout fondement. Le
pays applaudira à un changement de ministère. La Chambre
des Députés représente des intérêts privés, elle ne représente
pas des opinions. Le pays éclairé a le sentiment que la
.bn 243.png
.pn +1
politique actuelle est sans c[oe]ur et sans lumières. Quant au
Roi, il abandonnera M. Guizot plus difficilement qu’un autre,
car M. Guizot s’est complétement donné à lui, et soutient
son Gouvernement personnel avec le dévouement d’un homme
qui n’a plus d’autre rôle possible. Mais quand le Roi croira
la question aussi grave qu’elle l’est, il abandonnera M. Guizot.
Le Roi est un empirique en politique: l’une de ses idées
favorites, c’est que, moyennant qu’on sache attendre, surtout
dans les pays libres où tout est mobile, on a cause gagnée.
Il emploie cette recette comme les médecins voués à
l’eau chaude et à la saignée; il l’emploie pour toutes
les maladies. Il ne croit pas à la solidité des Whigs; il
croit que l’un de ces jours naîtra une question qui emportera
celle des mariages, et qu’il aura acquis une Infante sans
perdre M. Guizot. Le jour où il croira les choses plus
stables qu’on ne les lui peint de Londres, et où il craindra
sérieusement pour ses rapports avec l’Angleterre, il abandonnera
M. Guizot. Il ne tient à personne. Il a eu plus de
goût pour moi que pour personne, parce qu’il savait que je
détestais l’émeute, que je n’hésitais guère quand il fallait
agir, et que je croyais à la nécessité de la royauté d’Orléans.
Mais dès que j’ai contrarié ses penchants de prince illégitime
voulant se faire légitime par des platitudes, il m’a quitté sans
un regret. M. Guizot, au fond, ne lui inspire confiance que
sous un rapport: c’est une effronterie à mentir devant les
Chambres qui n’a pas été égalée dans le Gouvernement Représentatif,
effronterie appuyée d’un langage monotone mais
très-beau. Comme intelligence et dévouement, le Roi pense
de M. Guizot ce qu’il faut en penser. Quand il croira les
Whigs solides et la question sérieuse, il se décidera à un
changement de personnes, soyez-en certain. Mais il faut
mettre bien en évidence les faits et la mauvaise foi de M.
Guizot. Quant au traité d’Utrecht, c’est le moins opportun
de toutes les parties de la discussion. Outre que personne
en Europe ne juge le traité violé par un mariage qui ne crée
qu’une simple , ceci donne au Cabinet Anglais un
.bn 244.png
.pn +1
aspect de jalousie à l’égard de la France qui n’est pas
bon. Veillons bien à une chose, c’est à rapprocher les deux
peuples, autant que les deux Gouvernements. N’allons pas
leur créer des sujets de brouille qui au fond ne sont pas
sérieux: un prince de plus ou de moins sur le trône d’Espagne
ne fera rien quant aux influences. Le Duc de Montpensier,
ou le Prince de Cobourg, n’aurait pas, j’en suis sûr, en devenant
propre mari de la Reine, sensiblement changé la politique
ingouvernable de l’Espagne. C’est une folie que de prétendre
diriger l’Espagne. Pour moi, je n’y voudrais pas voir la
contre-révolution, parce que ce serait une tendance inévitablement
hostile, et antipathique d’une manière permanente;
mais sauf cela, je suis d’avis que tout moyen employé pour
dominer Madrid, à la distance de Paris ou de Londres, est une
folie, ou une duperie. Il ne faut done pas voir dans ce mariage,
collatéral, que d’ailleurs on ne peut pas défaire, une cause de
brouille permanente; autrement tout devient inarrangeable.
La France et l’Angleterre aux prises, tout est perdu pour la
bonne cause en Europe. Pour moi, j’ai à cet égard une conviction
inébranlable. Il y a eu un mauvais procédé, il faut
s’en plaindre en le prouvant bien, et ne pas pousser la querelle
au-delà. Prouver la mauvaise foi des uns, la bonne foi des
autres: voilà ce qu’il faut. Je suis sûr qu’il en résultera la
chute de la détestable politique qui nous gouverne.
Les ministériels disent ici que Lord Palmerston voulait
tellement un Cobourg qu’on avait promis au Duc de Riansares,
pour la Reine Christine, sept ou huit millions si l’affaire
réussissait. Ils disent aussi, pour rassurer la Chambre, que
Lord Palmerston est à bout de voie, et qu’il a envoyé ici M.
Charles Gréville pour négocier la paix. Tous ces bruits sortent
du salon de la Princesse de Lieven. M. Gréville, du
reste, a l’attitude la plus convenable, et jure ses grands dieux
qu’il n’a pas de mission. Vous voyez, mon cher ami, qu’on
ne se fait pas faute de mensonges. Pour moi, en voyant
l’état de l’Italie, de la Suisse, de l’Allemagne, je souhaite
ardemment que la cordialité renaisse entre la France et
.bn 245.png
.pn +1
l’Angleterre. Si les deux Cabinets restent longtemps en présence
l’un de l’autre, tels qu’ils sont, le Cabinet Anglais
prendra l’habitude de traiter les affaires à Berlin, le Cabinet
Français prendra l’habitude de les traiter à Vienne, car il n’y
a pas deux c[oe]urs qui s’entendent mieux au monde que celui
du Roi Louis-Philippe et du Prince de Metternich (remarquez
cependant que le second est dans son rôle); et quand on aura
vécu longtemps dans des relations différentes, l’alliance sera
définitivement rompue. Pour moi, je tiens que ce sera pour
l’Angleterre, autant que pour la France, le plus grand des
malheurs.
Adieu, mon cher ami; écrivez-moi de temps en temps.
Je vous tiendrai au courant de mon côté.
.ll 68
.rj
A. Thiers.”
.ll
.pm end_quote
In the next letter quoted, being the answer to the
first written by Panizzi, Thiers seems to have conceived
a more probable solution of the Queen’s
mother’s share in the Coburg counter-plot than his
correspondent. Her real motives and purposes must,
it is to be feared, be for ever relegated to the unreliable
realms of conjecture. It is amusing to read
Thiers’s account of how the evil influence of the intrigue
extended so far as to threaten—happily only
threaten—a rupture in the Liberal party in France.
The true moderation of Thiers, and his sound common
sense again shine forth conspicuously in the following
letter:—
.pm start_quote_lang fr 90 1
.ll 68
.rj
“Paris, le 17 Janvier, 1847.
.ll
“Mon cher Panizzi,
.ti 6
J’ai prévenu vos désirs, et je vous ai écrit ces
jours derniers une longue lettre sur tout ce qui intéresse en
ce moment les esprits politiques et les bons citoyens des deux
pays.
Je connaissais déjà les deux dernières pièces que vous m’avez
envoyées. Elles établissent clairement la vérité et ruinent
.bn 246.png
.pn +1
l’échafaudage de nos gens de Cour. Voici ce qui m’apparaît
de tout ceci.
La Reine Christine voulait un Prince de Cobourg et le
demandait ardemment.
La Cour des Tuileries voulait avant tout écarter un Prince
de Cobourg (dans un intérêt ministériel et électoral, car on
craignait l’effet de ce mariage sur l’opinion publique, fort
prévenue à cet égard) et désirait, sans l’oser faire, le mariage
du Duc de Montpensier avec l’Infante.
Le Cabinet Anglais ferait à la France l’abandon du Prince
de Cobourg, reconnaissant que ce choix mettrait en fausse
position la France, l’Espagne et l’Angleterre; mais il tendrait
vers l’Infant Don Henri, dans le désir de renverser les modérés
et d’amener les progressistes.
Voilà, selon moi, les v[oe]ux de chacun.
Il m’est démontré jusqu’à l’évidence que Lord Palmerston
n’a pas agi autrement que Lord Aberdeen, et que leur thème
à l’un et à l’autre a été celui-ci: La Reine d’Espagne est libre;
elle fera bien, dans l’intérêt de ses relations avec la France, de
choisir l’un des deux Princes Espagnols, et, entre les deux,
l’Infant Don Henri.
Lorsque la dépêche de Lord Palmerston, du 19 Juillet, a
été communiquée à M. Guizot, on l’a envoyée à Madrid, et on
a décidé la Reine Christine en faveur de l’Infant Don François,
par la crainte d’avoir l’Infant Don Henri et les Progressistes.
Je crois que c’est la Reine Christine qui a proposé le mariage
Montpensier, pour n’avoir pas l’Infant Don Henri comme gendre
de sa seconde fille. Ici, pour s’excuser, on prétend que la
Reine Christine a voulu que les deux mariages fussent liés
ensemble, et qu’on a été obligé de consentir au second pour
être assuré du premier. Mais personne ne sait au juste comment
les deux mariages ont été offerts et acceptés. Ce qui est
évident, c’est que la crainte de Don Henri a été employée
pour décider la Reine Christine. On a ensuite pris son parti
à l’improviste, et tandis que le 28 Août on promettait à Lord
Normanby l’action commune à Madrid, on lui annonçait, le
.bn 247.png
.pn +1
1^{er} Septembre, que tout était fini. On s’était mis dans une
position à ne sortir d’affaire que par des mensonges.
Voilà ce qui est clair pour moi. Le thème des engagements
d’Eu, auxquels on a manqué, parce que ces engagements,
tenus par Lord Aberdeen, ont été violés par Lord
Palmerston, est un thème absurde, mais dans lequel on persistera.
Jusqu’ici les pièces produites à Paris n’éclaircissent pas la
question. D’abord, peu de personnes les ont lues; très-peu,
parmi celles qui les ont lues, sont capables de les comprendre.
On s’en fie à ce que disent les hommes les plus
compétents. Or, les ministériels ont en cela l’avantage, car
ils affirment, et les opposants, n’ayant pas connaissance de
toutes les pièces, sont réduits à contester les affirmations des
ministériels, en disant que les pièces sont tronquées. Jusqu’ici
donc il ne fait pas jour encore. Le gros public ne lira
que les discours de M. Guizot, de Lord Palmerston, de M. de
Broglie, de Lord Aberdeen, de M. Thiers. Ce sont ces discours
qui feront son opinion; il faut même réduire la question
au vrai; Les deux personnages en action, M. Guizot et
Lord Palmerston, décideront l’opinion, plus que personne,
par leurs discours. Celui qui mettra le mieux les faits au
clair aura le plus d’influence: peut-être Lord Aberdeen,
comme arbitre entre les deux, sera-t-il aussi fort écouté.
Il se passe ici, dans l’opposition, un fait qui a peu d’importance
en lui-même, mais qui fournit beaucoup de bavardages.
Il y a dans tous les partis, mais surtout en France,
des seconds qui veulent être les premiers. Je suis fort, moi,
avec Odilon Barrot; à nous deux, nous décidons la conduite
de l’opposition. MM. Billaut et Dufaure, deux avocats fort
médiocres, le premier fort intrigant, le second morose et
insociable, fort mécontents de ne pas être les chefs, ayant le
désir de se rendre prochainement possibles au ministère, ont
profité de l’occasion pour faire une scission. L’alliance avec
l’Angleterre n’est malheureusement pas populaire. J’ai
depuis quinze ans beaucoup de peine à la soutenir. J’ai
.bn 248.png
.pn +1
amené l’opposition à l’accepter, et l’événement de Cracovie
m’a fort aidé, tout dernièrement, à fermer la bouche aux partisans
de l’alliance contre-révolutionnaire avec la Russie.
Mais c’est néanmoins une tâche laborieuse que d’amener les
esprits à l’Angleterre. MM. Billaut et Dufaure ont imaginé
de l’étendard d’une scission, en adoptant le thème suivant:
Résistance à l’Angleterre, approbation des mariages Espagnols,
etc.... Notez que ces deux messieurs, vulgaires et
ignorants comme des avocats de province, n’ayant jamais
regardé une carte, sachant à peine où coulent le Rhin ou
le Danube, seraient fort embarrassés de dire en quoi l’alliance
Anglaise est bonne ou mauvaise. Mais ils font de la
politique comme au barreau on fait de l’argumentation; ils
prennent une thèse ou une autre, suivant le besoin de la
plaidoirie qu’on leur paye, et puis ils partent de là, et parlent,
parlent.... Ils ont, de plus, trouvé un avantage dans
la thèse actuellement adoptée par eux, c’est de faire leur cour
aux Tuileries: et de se rendre agréables à celui qui fait et
défait les ministres. Du reste, ils espéraient amener grand
monde à eux, mais ils ne sont pas 15 sur 180 membres de
l’opposition. Ils n’en seront pas moins un grave sujet d’embarras
et donneront du c[oe]ur à nos ministres pour nous
accuser d’être livrés à l’Angleterre, quand nous plaiderons la
cause du bon sens et de la vraie politique.
Quant à moi, j’ai goût à braver les passions de cour et les
passions de rue; je me crois dans le vrai quand j’entends
crier contre moi les laquais de la royauté et les laquais de la
canaille, les uns disant que nous sommes les ennemis du Roi,
parce que nous blâmons des mariages imprudents; les autres
disant que nous sommes livrés a l’Angleterre, parce que nous
soutenons que la brouille de la France et de l’Angleterre est
le triomphe du despotisme en Europe. Je suis convaincu,
plus que jamais, de la nécessité de l’union des deux pays. Je
désire cette union sous tous les ministères Tories ou Whigs,
mais je la crois plus fructueuse sous les Whigs. Malheureusement
on nous rappellera 1840, et on nous dira que
.bn 249.png
.pn +1
nous avons mauvaise grâce de défendre les auteurs du traité
du 15 Juillet. Tout cela fait une position compliquée, difficile,
qui ne m’effraye pas, mais qui me dégoûterait de me
mêler des affaires, si ma dignité personnelle ne m’obligeait
pas à rester à mon poste.
Le ministère aura la majorité: cela n’est pas douteux. Il
ne pourra périr que par les événements. Le ministère
anglais, s’il dure, aura la plus grande influence sur le résultat.
Quand le Roi croira les choses stables en Angleterre et la
question sérieuse, il abandonnera M. Guizot. Mais comme
il faudra sacrifier dans M. Guizot son amour-propre et son
gouvernement personnel, il mettra plus de temps à céder que
de coutume. Je crains seulement que dans l’intervalle les
deux pays n’aient eu le temps de se brouiller.
Les ministres se vantent beaucoup, en effet, que M. Gréville
est venu leur porter des paroles de paix. J’ai vu M. Gréville,
il a dîné chez moi. Il a nié toute mission diplomatique, il
m’a paru tenir un bon langage, que je trouve cependant
nuancé de torysme. Voici le ton de ses discours: Lord
Palmerston a raison contre M. Guizot; mais il faut oublier le
passé et s’entendre. En somme, il parle comme parlent à
Paris les ministériels raisonnables, qui disent: M. Guizot a
eu tort, mais il faut n’y plus penser. Je trouve cela naturel,
préférable assurément à une rupture de la France et de
l’Angleterre; mais je voudrais voir tomber du même coup la
politique qui livre l’Italie, la Suisse, l’Allemagne à nos
ennemis, qui n’a d’entrailles que pour les intérêts de Cour, et
à qui tout sentiment élevé est étranger. Je ne suis pas,
quant à moi, très-lié avec M. Gréville. Je le trouve sensé,
aimable, gracieux pour moi; mais je ne parle avec lui de la
Princesse de Lieven que pour en dire des choses qui ne
tendent pas à me rapprocher de M. Guizot. Du reste, M.
Gréville vit chez Lord Normanby.
Je finis en vous disant qu’il faut démasquer les mensonges
de M. Guizot, mais ne pas tenir un langage qui sente la
jalousie contre la France. Avouer qu’on a voulu Don Henri,
.bn 250.png
.pn +1
et les progressistes en Espagne, est très-naturel, très-sincère
et très-bon. Je crois que c’est la vérité, et qu’un Ministre
Anglais peut en convenir. Je vous écris tout ceci pour vous
seul. Vous n’imaginez pas tout ce que débitent ici les
ministériels. Ils prétendent que je suis en correspondance
avec Lord Palmerston, à qui je n’ai jamais écrit de ma vie, et
qui ne m’a jamais écrit non plus.
Adieu, mon cher ami; au revoir après la bataille.
.ll 68
.rj
A. Thiers.”
.ll
.pm end_quote
In the preceding and in the following letters,
allusion is made to an act of political iniquity, on
which subject, as it happened in a remote corner of
Europe, and at a considerable distance of time, it
may not be amiss to refresh the reader’s memory. By
the Treaty of Vienna, it was stipulated that Cracow
should be for ever a free and independent town, under
the protection of the three powers—Russia, Prussia,
and Austria. In 1846 an insurrection broke out in
the town, and the insurgents set up a Provincial
Government. They were promptly defeated, and
Cracow again became subject to the three powers.
For a time things went on as before, but the ramifications
of the Spanish plot had extended a little further
than the plotters either intended that they should or
imagined that they could. Taking advantage of the
shattering by Guizot and his master of the entente
cordiale between England and France, the three
powers concerned with the protection of Cracow,
coolly proclaimed, without consulting their fellow
signatories to the Treaty, that, so far as regarded that
unfortunate town, the provisions of the Treaty were
annulled, and Cracow was forthwith annexed to
Austria as an integral part of the empire. Separate
.bn 251.png
.pn +1
protests against this act of spoliation, were, as a
matter of course, made by both France and England;
but, equally as a matter of course under the circumstances,
the protests were separate, and as such had
no influence on the action of the three confederates.
.pm start_quote_lang fr 90 1
“Mon cher Panizzi,
.ti 6
Je vous envoie quatre exemplaires du Moniteur,
car c’est par le Moniteur que je vous prie de faire connaître
mon discours. Il est indignement rendu dans les divers journaux.
Il n’a ni sens, ni clarté, dans les comptes-rendus inexacts
que les journaux en ont donnés. Envoyez donc ces
quatre Moniteurs, l’un à Lord Palmerston, les autres à qui
vous jugerez utile de les faire parvenir.
Il y a un mot que j’ai dit, et dont on voudra m’excuser. Le
texte vrai répondra à tout. J’ai dit que les Whigs étaient
détestés de l’Europe. Cela est vrai; c’est le motif qui doit
nous porter à nous unir les uns et les autres. J’ai dit cela
pour faire sentir à la France que les Whigs et nous étions des
frères en Jésus-Christ, c’est-à-dire en révolution. J’ai laissé
échapper un mot que j’ai repris: c’est que Lord Palmerston
était odieux à l’Europe, c’est-à-dire aux trois Cabinets signataires
de l’acte de Cracovie. Veillez à ce qu’on n’abuse pas
de ce mot.
Quant à moi, j’ai voulu, hier, rendre un service à l’alliance
des deux pays, a l’humanité, à la civilisation, que les Whigs,
unis aux Libéraux Français, peuvent seuls sauver. Je suis
épuisé de fatigue. Je ferai mon devoir jusqu’au bout. Mille
et mille amitiés.
.ll 68
.rj
A. Thiers.
.ll
Répondez-moi que vous avez reçu ce paquet. Pourriez-vous
faire que les journaux anglais traduisissent mon discours sur
le Moniteur. Je vais faire imprimer mon discours à part; je
vous en enverrai des exemplaires.”
.pm end_quote
In his next letter Thiers indulges in forebodings
which, though under the circumstances most reasonable,
.bn 252.png
.pn +1
were fortunately unfulfilled. The trickery of
Guizot revealed in his contrivance of the Spanish
Marriages, might well give rise to coolness between
England and France, but was, happily, not likely to
be the foundation of any deep feeling of rancune,
still less to be requited by a mauvais tour on the
part of the English Cabinet:—
.pm start_quote_lang fr 90 1
.ll 68
.rj
“Mon cher Panizzi,
.ll
.ti 6
Je vous écris quelques mots pour vous faire connaître
la situation et le changement qu’elle vient de subir. Les
discours de votre tribune ont produit ici un effet singulier. Le
sentiment de tout le monde c’est que tout est fini; on va jusqu’à
dire que vous n’aurez pas de discussion à votre tribune sur l’affaire
des mariages. Je vous prie de me dire ce qui en est, et
de me le dire par le retour du courrier. Nous passerions pour
des boute-feux, et, ce qui est pire, nous le serions, si la querelle
s’apaisant nous venions la ranimer. Quant à moi, je reprochais
surtout à nos ministres d’avoir rompu l’alliance avec
les Whigs, pour la misérable affaire des mariages. Si cette
sotte affaire ne nous a pas brouillés, ce dont je m’applaudis
fort, notre grief est sans valeur, et il serait ridicule d’attaquer
M. Guizot pour une telle chose. Nous aurions une sotte tournure
si nous venions faire grave une affaire qui ne l’est pas.
Je crains seulement une chose, c’est que la rancune reste au
fond, tandis que les termes se seront adoucis. M. Guizot
triomphera de la douceur du langage, qui l’autorise à dire
qu’il a su résister sans rompre avec l’Angleterre, et nous
payerons dans quelque temps, par un mauvais tour de votre
Cabinet, le prétendu triomphe des mariages! Ceci parait fort
probable. Quoi qu’il en soit, nous ne pouvons, nous, rallumer
un feu qui s’éteint. Pour moi, qui trouvais la situation
difficile, vu la tournure des choses, je serai charmé d’être dispensé
de me mêler à cette discussion. Ecrivez-moi, un mot qui
puisse m’arriver mercredi ou jeudi, avant l’ouverture de notre
.bn 253.png
.pn +1
discussion. Dites-moi surtout si, en effet, il n’y aura pas de
débat dans votre Parlement sur les affaires espagnoles.
.sp 1
.if t
.nf r
Tout à vous.
A. Thiers.”
Dimanche(1847.)
.nf-
.if-
.if h
.li
Tout à vous.
Dimanche(1847.)
A. Thiers.”
.li-
.if-
.pm end_quote
The concluding letter of Thiers on the great question
shows that, however open he may have been to
our charge (which may be unfounded) of a natural
abhorrence of the English, yet that such dislike was
by no means inconsistent with a full appreciation and
staunch recognition of the advantages to be derived
from their political co-operation. He appears, in this
letter, to attribute just a little too much importance
to Mr. Greville’s so-called mission. This was scarcely
a matter of sufficient consequence to excite the suspicion
of so experienced a statesman.
.pm start_quote_lang fr 90 1
.ll 68
.rj
“Paris, ce Dimanche, 7 Février, 1847.
.ll
“Mon cher Panizzi,
.ti 6
Voilà notre discussion sur les mariages espagnols terminée.
On a beaucoup attaqué l’Alliance Anglaise, mais je l’ai plus
vivement défendue; j’ai cherché surtout à la populariser en
lui donnant son véritable motif, la défense de la liberté du
peuple, et de l’indépendance des Etats Européens. Je crois
pouvoir dire que dans la Chambre des Députés l’immense
majorité comprend et souhaite l’Alliance Anglaise, et déplore
la conduite de M. Guizot. Son imprudent discours d’avant-hier
a confondu tout le monde; son attaque si rude contre
Lord Palmerston (imprudemment, coupablement), son démenti
de mauvais goût à Lord Normanby, ont généralement surpris.
De toutes parts on se demandait ce qu’il voulait, et par quels
motifs il était dirigé. Alors on est revenu sur l’origine même
du débat, et sur la faute qu’il avait commise, lorsque je lui
offrais de ne pas discuter, de vouloir lui-même une discussion.
Craignant en effet de jouer le rôle de boute-feu,
qui n’est et ne fut jamais le mien, j’avais précisé entre
.bn 254.png
.pn +1
lui et moi la situation.—Convenons, avais-je dit, que
nous nous tairons, pour ne pas provoquer entre la France
et l’Angleterre plus d’irritation qu’il n’y en a, et qu’il soit
clair que ni l’un ni l’autre ne recule.—Pas du tout: M.
Guizot n’a rien voulu admettre, et s’est obstiné à répondre
qu’il n’invoquait pas mon silence, et qu’il était prêt à discuter.
Alors j’ai été forcé d’ouvrir la lutte pour ne pas paraître
reculer. Aujourd’hui que tout le monde comprend la gravité
de ce qu’il a dit, on lui reproche son imprudente morgue, et
l’aveuglement avec lequel il s’est jeté dans le débat. On est
fort impatient de savoir comment tout cela va tourner chez
vous. Beaucoup de gens croyaient et disaient que M. Guizot
avait l’espérance de la retraite de Lord Palmerston, et d’une
désunion dans le Cabinet Whig; d’autres affirment (et je suis
sûr que ceux-ci ont raison) qu’il a voulu venger le Roi des
attaques dont il est l’objet en Angleterre, afin de se l’attacher.
Voici en effet ce qui est certain. Le Roi est devenu fort
douteux pour M. Guizot. M. Guizot lui-même, malgré sa
morgue, commence à douter de la solidité de l’appui royal.
Je suis certain de ce que je vous dis ici. Des confidences
très-sûrement informées ne m’ont laissé aucun doute à cet
égard. Avant-hier j’ai pu me convaincre d’un changement
notable par mes propres yeux. J’étais invité au spectacle de
la Cour avec 7 ou 800 personnes, par conséquent sans faveur
aucune; mais j’ai reçu un accueil qu’on ne m’avait pas fait
depuis bien des années, et c’est toujours ainsi quand on
commence à s’ébranler. Quoi qu’il en soit, il n’y a pas un
homme sage qui ne trouve insensé le langage de M. Guizot.
Je voulais, dans ma dernière, vous dire un mot de M.
Gréville. Je ne sais ce qu’il est venu faire ici, mais il a fini
par m’être très-suspect. Je l’ai un peu raillé le jour de son
départ, et il en était piqué. Il a passé sa vie chez Mme. de
Lieven, chez M. Guizot, et tenait ici le langage d’un pur
Guizotin. M. Guizot était, suivant lui, un personnage
inviolable, et il fallait n’en rien dire. Je lui ai dit: “Mon
cher Monsieur Gréville, vous êtes une éponge tombée dans
.bn 255.png
.pn +1
le liquide Lieven, et quand on vous presse, il n’en sort que ce
liquide. Prenez garde! ce n’est que du liquide de vieille
femme.”—Je crois franchement que M. Gréville n’est pas
bien sûr, et qu’il avait quelque commission particulière, je ne
sais pour qui, mais qui n’irait pas dans le sens des vieux
révolutionnaires comme vous et moi.
Je fais toujours des v[oe]ux pour que la coterie Européenne
dont M. Guizot est l’instrument, et qui a pour but de comprimer
Suisses, Allemands, Italiens, soit battue partout, à
Paris et à Londres. Mille et mille amitiés.
.ll 68
.rj
A. T.
.ll
J’espère que vous ne mettrez plus M. Gréville au nombre
de mes agents diplomatiques.
Avez-vous reçu un paquet affranchi de Moniteurs? Répondez-moi
bien vite et dites-moi ce qui en est d’un bruit répandu
ici par le Ministère et les Holland, que le Cabinet Whig
est divisé. Tout à vous.
Nos petits scissionnaires qui avaient fait un système pour la
circonstance, dirigé contre l’Angleterre, ont été battus à plate-couture;
ils sont couverts de ridicule.
Ecrivez-moi pour me dire quel jour vous aurez reçu cette
lettre.”
.pm end_quote
The affair of the Spanish Marriages, so far as relates
to the incidents of the plot itself, and the
manner in which it was worked out, has subsided into
a matter of no interest, and, save in the material
pages of history, has lapsed into oblivion. People
have even ceased to discuss the curious question
whether or no the marriage of the Duke de Montpensier
was a violation of the treaty of Utrecht. One
meagre pleasure, however, remains, to read of the
various minor difficulties which, in addition to the
vis inertiæ of the British Government and the
Coburg countermine, M. Guizot, in the course of his
machinations, was called upon to encounter.
.bn 256.png
.pn +1
Some of these he attributes to the peculiar temperament
of the people with whose domestic affairs
he was meddling:—
.pm start_quote_lang fr 90 1
“C’est le caractère,” says he, “des peuples du midi, surtout
des Espagnols, que le long régime du pouvoir absolu et
l’absence de la liberté politique n’ont point éteint en eux
l’ardeur des passions, le goût des émotions et des aventures, et
qu’ils déploient avec une audacieuse imprévoyance, dans les
intérêts, les incidents et les intrigues de leur vie personnelle,
la fécondité d’esprit et l’énergie dont ils n’ont pas appris à
trouver dans la vie publique l’emploi réfléchi et la satisfaction
mesurée.”
.pm end_quote
And again, writing to Bresson:—
.pm start_quote_lang fr 90 1
“Je ne connais pas l’Espagne, et je suis fort porté à croire
qu’elle ne resemble à aucun autre pays.”
.pm end_quote
Mons. Guizot was free from some of the more prominent
characteristics of his countrymen, and was by
nature formed for a cool and keen observer and discriminator.
Had he used his observation to the
fullest extent, he might have ascribed the peculiarities
of Spanish temper to some other, and more
original cause, than that to which he assigns them;
and, had he combined comparison with that observation,
might possibly have been led to the unpleasant
conclusion;—Simia quam similis turpissima bestia
nobis.
There is within these realms a people, in blood
closely akin to Frenchmen and Spaniards, to whom
certain noble qualities, attributed by M. Bresson to
the latter, might not unjustly be ascribed:—“La
jalousie, l’ambition, et la vengeance, m’écrivait-il (le 11
Mars, 1844) sont les principaux mobiles des hommes
qui figurent ici sur la scène politique. Je ne fais
.bn 257.png
.pn +1
exception pour aucun parti; haïr, se satisfaire et se
venger, ils ne voient rien au delà.”
In fact, the great Celtic race, in its several divisions,
is the same throughout the world—alike unpolitical
and ungovernable. Reform succeeds reform;
revolution, revolution; all is labour in vain, spent
only on forming material for fresh change. Not that
we should blame the race for declining to accept even
good government from any alien authority had it
either the wisdom or the power to construct for itself
a stable administration, or the foresight to submit to
the necessary control of the authority so created.
The Spanish Marriages affair, though of itself
the meanest and most miserable of plots, nevertheless
left results behind, the ultimate effect of which has,
perhaps, not even yet been felt. Nemesis, however,
was not long in overtaking the perpetrators of this
striking example of chicanery. The accomplishment
of the intrigue—the first overt act, the first great
achievement of the reactionary policy adopted by the
King of the French and his Minister, both at home
and abroad, and notably in the affairs of Italy, as well
as of Spain, was, it is no exaggeration to say, one of
the main causes of the downfall of the former, as it
was the direct cause of his falling despised and unregretted
of all.
Mons. Guizot records in his “Mémoires” (Vol. VIII.,
p. 571) a proceeding on the part of certain members
of the Liberal party which caused him much surprise,
but of which he accepts an explanation that
might probably not have been equally satisfactory to
everybody.
.bn 258.png
.pn +1
.pm start_quote_lang fr 90 1
“Le lendemain, 22 Février (1848), non pas l’opposition
toute entière, mais cinquante-deux de ses membres firent connaître
quels étaient les nouveaux et graves devoirs qu’ils se
proposaient de remplir; ils déposèrent, sur le Bureau de la
Chambre des Députés, une proposition pour la mise en accusation
du Ministère, à raison de sa politique, extérieure et
intérieure, dans tout le cours de son administration.”
.pm end_quote
It is beyond our present range to travel so far
into subsequent history, but mention must not be
altogether omitted of the intimate connection between
the Spanish Marriages and an event of far
greater importance than the Revolution of 1848, the
war between France and Germany in 1870-1, originating
in the vacancy on the Spanish throne.
Touching the Revolution of 1848, there is but one
letter of Thiers to Panizzi, and this bears more on
the immediate incidents of the abdication, and on the
culpable weakness of the King himself, than on the
causes that led to his dethronement.—
.pm start_quote_lang fr 90 1
.ll 68
.rj
“Paris, 20 Mars, 1848.
.ll
“Mon cher Panizzi,
.ti 6
Je vous remercie de votre aimable souvenir. J’ai
traversé, depuis que nous n’avons plus eu de communications,
d’affreuses vicissitudes. J’ai vu tomber la monarchie de 1830
par le sot entêtement de Louis-Philippe, et la folle imprévoyance
de ses ministres. Après avoir refusé au parti libéral
toute satisfaction raisonnable, après s’être réduit à la triste
nécessité de verser le sang pour défendre un odieux système,
on avait dans Paris 16,000 hommes de troupes, dispersés de
Vincennes à Chaillot, dont 4,000 seulement aux Tuileries
(point décisif).
Ceux-ci avaient dix cartouches par homme, et point de
vivres. Ce que je vous dis je l’ai vu de mes yeux. Le Roi
m’a appelé quand il n’était plus temps de le sauver, c’est-àdire
.bn 259.png
.pn +1
au milieu de la nuit qui a précédé sa chute. Je ne lui
ai pas dissimulé l’extrémité du péril, qui ne laissait presque
aucune espérance. Si dans ce moment il avait fait les concessions
nécessaires, peut-être aurions-nous pu arrêter l’insurrection;
mais il ne m’a accordé la dissolution de la Chambre des
Députés qu’à dix heures du matin (il m’avait appelé à trois
heures de la nuit) et il a été obligé d’abdiquer à onze heures.
Il a toujours fait toutes les choses trop tard, et quand elles ne
valaient plus rien. On dit que M. Guizot fait le fier à
Londres. Il a bien tort, car il a joint à un système absurdement
provocateur une imprévoyance fabuleuse dans les moyens
de défense.
Je suis resté par honneur auprès du Roi jusqu’à la dernière
minute. Je me suis retiré après, et j’ai failli être égorgé par
la populace, qui trois heures auparavant criait: vive Thiers!, à
tue-tête. Je suis depuis demeuré en repos, et j’y demeurerai
tant que je pourrai.
On me porte dans mon département; j’ai déjà refusé de
l’être dans plusieurs autres départements. Je crois que je serai
élu, sans en être certain, car ce nouveau suffrage universel
recèle un inconnu impénétrable.
Je me laisse porter par devoir, car je m’attends aux plus
affreuses scènes dans la future Assemblée.
Paris est matériellement tranquille, vous et Ellice pouvez
venir sans danger. Les étrangers ne courent aucun péril.
Nous essayerons de fonder une république raisonnable (si
mes amis et moi sommes élus), car nous sommes d’avis que la
monarchie est impossible aujourd’hui, et nous croirons avoir
beaucoup fait si nous pouvons donner au pays une République
bien constituée.
Le principal danger est dans les fausses idées inculquées
dans la tête des ouvriers. C’est là ce qui est le plus à craindre.
Si on parvient à leur faire entendre la raison, la France pourra
être sauvée.
.ll 68
.nf r
Tout à vous,
A. Thiers.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
.bn 260.png
.pn +1
Another letter from Thiers, though not written to
Panizzi, having some connection with this subject,
demands attention, inasmuch as it notices the state of
France a year after the Revolution, the unpatriotic
and disgraceful conduct of the Reds, and the
struggles and endurance of the Constitutional party,
ere peace and order could be re-established in the
country.
Amusing reference is herein made to his friend:—
.pm start_quote_lang fr 90 1
.ll 68
.rj
“Paris, 29 Juin, 1849.
.ll
“Mon cher Ami,
.ti 6
Voilà plus de huit ou dix jours que je cherche un
moment pour vous écrire sans parvenir à le trouver. Nous
avons eu de telles affaires depuis nos dernières communications,
que le temps m’a toujours manqué. Vous n’avez pas
idée des scènes qui ont précédé le 13 Juin. La violence des
montagnards dépassait tout ce qu’on peut imaginer. Je les
ai pris corps à corps dans la personne de Ledru-Rollin, et
c’est entre deux huissiers gardant la tribune que j’ai pu
parler. Poussés au pied du mur dans l’Assemblée, ils ont le
lendemain tenté leur folle insurrection, et ils se sont heureusement
perdus. Aujourd’hui nous sommes certains (pour
assez longtemps) de la tranquillité matérielle. Le désordre
ne peut pas l’emporter sur la force. C’est une grande conquête;
mais il faut assurer par les lois notre avenir. C’est
là une besogne des plus difficiles et des plus épineuses.
Notre Constitution est absurde, nos lois électorales désastreuses;
heureusement nous avons une bonne et sage majorité,
qui est disposée à se très-bien conduire. Il y a donc
des moyens de salut à travers beaucoup de chances de pertes.
En définitive, nous avons beaucoup gagné, et je crois que
d’ici à quelque temps nous n’agiterons plus l’Europe. C’est
quelque chose de pouvoir dire d’un malade qui vous est cher,
qu’il y a chez lui un mieux sensible.
Parlons de nos projets.
.bn 261.png
.pn +1
Malgré ce scélérat, ce montagnard, ce jésuite, ce rouge de
Panizzi, nous voulons partir en Juillet et être à Londres du 15
au 20. Nous y passerons deux ou trois jours, après quoi nous
partirons pour l’Ecosse. Notre motif c’est de ne pas avoir la
pluie, qui est odieuse partout, mais surtout dans le Nord.
Nous voulons voyager très-simplement, pour ne pas épuiser
notre bourse modeste; mais cependant, ces dames ne peuvent
se passer de deux femmes de chambre, et moi d’un valet de
chambre: ce qui fait trois domestiques. Quant aux toilettes,
le deuil nous dispense d’en porter beaucoup, sans quoi Mme.
Thiers me donnerait des soucis à cet égard.
Mais il faut, que ce projet vous convienne et réponde à vos
combinaisons personnelles. Si vous n’étiez pas disposé à alle,
dans votre domaine d’Ecosse à cette époque, du 20 juillet au
10 août, il ne faudrait pas vous déranger et nous le dire franchement.
Agissez avec nous en toute liberté. Il faut qu’il
soit bien entendu que si vous ne pouvez pas aller dans votre
cottage écossais, vous nous le disiez à l’avance, et que vous ne
changiez pour nous aucun de vos projets.
.ll 68
.nf r
Tout à vous de c[oe]ur.
A. Thiers.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
The remaining letters of Thiers to Panizzi, quoted
below, are of less importance, and briefer than those
which enter into their correspondence on the great
Spanish question; they chiefly consist of miscellaneous
matter, although politics have still a fair share of
space. We propose to place before the reader merely
those which touch upon personal and domestic
relations:—
.pm start_quote_lang fr 90 1
.ll 68
.rj
“Paris, Mai 1847.
.ll
“Mon cher Panizzi, dites-moi si vous pourriez vous charger
de la commission suivante.
On va vendre à Londres, en vente publique, une collection
d’une vingtaine de tableaux, fort beaux, et recueillis en Italie
par un Anglais trés bon connaisseur
.bn 262.png
.pn +1
Dévoré de la fatale passion des tableaux, j’en voudrais
acheter deux ou trois.
Allez-vous quelquefois dans les ventes publiques, ainsi que
nous le faisons à Paris?
Voudriez-vous acheter ces deux ou trois tableaux, pour
mon compte?
Je vous dirais les prix, qui peuvent monter à deux ou trois
mille francs en tout, et que vous tirerez sur moi par les
Rothschild. C’est dans les premiers jours de Juin que la
vente a lieu. Dans le cas où vous me diriez oui, je vous
enverrais les indications, c’est-à-dire le catalogue anglais, avec
le numéro des tableaux que je désire.
Nous venons de renvoyer trois ministres, pour apaiser la
Chambre qui n’est pas apaisée. Je crois, sauf la décision
souveraine des événements, que le ministère Guizot tire à sa
fin. Mille amitiés.
.ll 68
.rj
A. Thiers.”
.ll
.pm end_quote
.pm start_quote_lang fr 90 1
.ll 68
.rj
“17 Juin.
.ll
“Mille pardons, mon cher Panizzi, de toutes vos peines.
J’attends mes trois tableaux avec impatience. Les Rothschild
sont ce que vous dites. Mes trois mille francs, avec l’appoint,
sont prêts pour payer votre traite. Adieu, et mille tendresses.
Je vous aime vous savez combien.
.ll 68
.rj
A. Thiers.”
.ll
.pm end_quote
.pm start_quote_lang fr 90 1
.ll 68
.rj
“Paris, ce 25 Juin, 1847.
.ll
“Mon cher Panizzi,
.ti 6
J’ai reçu mes trois tableaux en bon état, sauf le cadre
du Murillo, légèrement endommagé. Les trois sont bien
ceux que j’avais désignés. Je soutiens qu’ils sont ravissants,
car j’ai la prétention de m’y connaître, et de plus, très-peu
chers. Le Peternof est le plus parfait de ce maître. J’attends
toujours votre traite pour la solder. Je ne l’ai pas encore
reçue. M. L *** est un malhonnête. Les rois de l’argent
sont ainsi faits. Je voudrais bien vous aller voir cet été, voir
Ellice et tutti quanti, mais je n’ai pas un moment à moi. Il
faut que j’aille voir mes électeurs, que je n’ai pas visités
.bn 263.png
.pn +1
depuis des années, que je traite trop cavalièrement, et qui
commencent à me bouder. Il faut, en outre, que j’aille
accompagner Mme. Thiers aux Pyrénées. Tout cela ne me
laissera pas le temps de respirer. Ce n’est pas tout: j’ai deux
volumes d’histoire à terminer! Voilà tous mes esclavages!
Plaignez-moi, et prenez en pitié la destinée humaine. Je
souris quand on parle liberté. Nous sommes esclaves de mille
lois, sans compter les lois physiques qui nous font graviter vers
le centre de la terre comme des pierres, qui nous empêchent
de voler comme des oiseaux, nager comme des poissons, en
nous réduisant, pour aller un peu plus vite, à étendre des
lames de fer sur la terre. Je suis morose, comme le latin
Lucrèce, en songeant à cette vie. Si quelque chose pouvait
me réjouir, ce serait l’abaissement croissant de ces ministres de
la contre-révolution. Ils sont comme un vaisseau qui a une
voie d’eau, et qu’on voit s’enfoncer de minute en minute.
Adieu, je vous aime.
.ll 68
.rj
A. Thiers.”
.ll
.pm end_quote
The first of these letters, relating to a political
question of the day, was written by Thiers on the
fall, for the second time, of Lord Melbourne’s administration,
and the consequent accession of Peel to
power.
It is amusing to recall how, on the previous overthrow
of the Government of Lord Melbourne, a certain
periodical, of Tory and Conservative proclivities, and
of undoubted ability and influence, confidently predicted
the eternal exclusion from power, thenceforth,
of the defeated Minister, and the impossibility of his
return. The fact that the succeeding Government of
Peel lasted but a few short months, by the end of
which time Melbourne was reinstated, was a proof of
the prophetical skill possessed by the writer in the
magazine. On the second occasion, however, Peel obtained
a somewhat firmer and more durable seat.
.bn 264.png
.pn +1
The just appreciation shown in this letter, not only
of the political bearing of events at the time, and of
the character of Peel himself, but generally of the
ordinary moderation in the tone of English politics,
is not invariably conspicuous in the comments usually
made on England by foreign critics.
The supposition or assertion of Monsieur Guizot’s
despair at the end of the letter was probably a parting
shot at a political rival.
.pm start_quote_lang fr 90 1
.ll 68
.rj
“Paris, 16 Décembre, (1845.)
.ll
“Mon cher Panizzi,
.ti 6
Voilà bien longtemps que je veux vous écrire,
sans en trouver le temps. D’abord, je vous prie de remercier
M. C. de ses oiseaux que j’ai mangés avec ma famille
et mes amis, et qui étaient excellents. Je ne veux
pas dire que j’ai mangé ma famille et mes amis, mais les
oiseaux. Enfin vous voilà prêts à manger les Tories,
je fais des v[oe]ux pour qu’il en soit ainsi. Il ne faut
pas renoncer à l’alliance, même avec les Tories, mais elle me
semble bien plus solide avec les Whigs, grâce à l’uniformité du
principe. Cependant j’ai peur que mes amis manquent de
résolution. S’ils laissent passer cette occasion de prendre le
pouvoir, je ne sais pas quand ils pourront le reprendre. C’est
une bonne fortune sans pareille pour battre le parti anti-réformiste.
S’ils laissent M. Peel reprendre son rôle de conservateur
demi-réformiste, il le continuera à son profit et gloire, et
il faut reconnaître qu’il conviendra fort à l’esprit moyen de
notre temps, justement défini juste-milieu par Louis-Philippe.
Dussent vos amis échouer au Parlement, à leur place je tenterais,
sauf à porter la question devant les électeurs. L’Angleterre
est un pays trop légal, pour qu’il y ait du danger à
convoquer le peuple électoral sur quelque question que ce soit.
Au surplus, je fais des v[oe]ux bien plus que je ne donne de conseils,
car on peut difficilement avoir un avis sur un pays qu
.bn 265.png
.pn +1
n’est pas le vôtre. On nous dit que Lord Clarendon doit être
ambassadeur ici; nous en serions tous enchantés. Ce serait le
meilleur moyen de faire fleurir l’alliance. On a parlé aussi
de Lord et Lady C ****. Celle-ci est une personne des plus
mal choisies pour Paris. Elle est remuante, bel esprit, brouillée
avec les trois quarts de la société de Paris pour ses impertinences,
et amie de la Princesse de Lieven uniquement. Je vous
prie de me garder le secret, en ne disant cela que là où cela
peut être utile. Je ne veux pas me brouiller avec cette redoutable
lady. A défaut de Clarendon, Lord Beauvale serait on
ne peut mieux venu. Mais en êtes-vous à faire des ambassadeurs?
je n’en sais rien. M. Guizot est au désespoir de la
chute des Tories. Mille tendresses.
.ll 68
.rj
A. T.”
.ll
.pm end_quote
The next letter, from which the date of the year
is absent, may be assumed, from the mention in it
of the grande entreprise of Peel, to refer to the
repeal of the Corn Laws, and in that case must have
been written in the year 1846.
This assumption appears to be fully borne out by
the further mention of Philippe-Guizot.
.pm start_quote_lang fr 90 1
.ll 68
.rj
“26 Mars.
.ll
“Mon cher Panizzi,
.ti 6
Je sais que vous avez approuvé mon dernier discours
Ad Philippum. Celui-ci a été fort mécontent, ce dont je me
soucie peu, car je ne veux ni le flatter ni le blesser. Je vais
à mon but qui est la vérité, et ne regarde ni à droite ni à
gauche. Nous attendons ici la fin de votre grande entreprise,
avec une extrême curiosité. On dit que M. Peel se retirera
après. Soit, si vos amis doivent arriver. On vous craint et
on vous déteste ici (vous veut dire Whigs), et on fait des
v[oe]ux ardents pour le maintien de M. Peel, et comme on
croit ce qu’on désire, on annonce volontiers le maintien de
M. Peel. On veut dire Philippe-Guizot.
.bn 266.png
.pn +1
Dites-moi ce qu’il en faut croire. On se flatte volontiers
que les Whigs arrivant, Lord Palmerston n’en sera pas.
Je vous adresse 50 exemplaires de mon discours que je
vous prie de distribuer, 25 en habit habillé, 25 en habit
négligé. Vous les distribuerez à votre gré. Je vous prie de
les faire arriver notamment à MM. Russell, Palmerston, Ellice,
Clarendon, Macaulay, Lansdowne, Lord Ashburton, Peel,
Aberdeen, Lady Harriette, etc. Vous suppléerez à ma
mémoire.
La belle Contessa Taverna est partie, nous laissant dans la
tristesse du c[oe]ur.
Adieu, et mille tendresses.
.ll 68
.rj
A. Thiers.”
.ll
“Je cherche une voie pour vous faire arriver mes 50 exemplaires.
Si je ne la trouve pas, vous feriez bien de me
l’indiquer courrier par courrier.”
.pm end_quote
In another epistle Thiers makes amusing allusion to
Panizzi’s patriotism, and suggests means of liberating
his country from tyranny and oppression which were
more desirable than practicable, and which, to say the
least, were not likely to come to pass just at that time,
even with the patriot’s most earnest aspirations.
Happily the Italians have succeeded in achieving
their own liberty, not only without the aid of foreign
support, but in the teeth of very formidable and
determined foreign opposition:—
.pm start_quote_lang fr 90 1
.ll 68
.rj
“9 Novembre, 1847.
.ll
“Mon cher Panizzi,
.ti 6
Je n’ai rien à ajouter à la lettre ci-jointe; je dis là
tout ce que je dirais ici, car je n’ai qu’une manière de penser
et de sentir. Je vous ajoute ces quelques mots pour vous
dire que vous ferez de ma lettre tout ce que vous voudrez:
si vous la trouvez de tout point convenable, et bonne à être
envoyée à Lord Clarendon, vous pouvez la lui envoyer; il
s’en servira comme il jugera à propos. J’ai bien le projet de
.bn 267.png
.pn +1
vous aller revoir, et le plus tôt possible. Adieu; embrassez
Ellice sur le front, comme s’il était jeune, joli et pur autant
que ses charmantes nièces. Adieu; n’excluez pas Cromwell
du Parlement, et faites décréter une expédition Britannique
contre les petits tyrans Italiens. La belle Comtesse Taverna
est malade, et seule à Paris; venez nous aider à la consoler.
.ll 68
.rj
A. T.”
.ll
.pm end_quote
Lastly, we add a letter to Rutherfurd, written
by Panizzi while staying at Lord Clarendon’s. This
letter seems to treat almost entirely of English politics,
and furnishes an excellent specimen of the acuteness
of the writer’s judgment on this subject, and, as
it contains references to Thiers, this has been thought
a not unfit place for its introduction. It is without
date, but the contents show it to have been written
early in January, 1846; and certain passages in it
may possibly, after such a lapse of time, require a few
words of explanation. In the previous year, it will be
remembered, the Government of Sir Robert Peel had
become involved in extreme difficulty, and an attempt
had been made by Lord John Russell to form a
ministry capable of settling the vexed question of the
Corn Laws. This attempt proved signally unsuccessful,
owing to an unhappy difference, which it is not
too much to designate as a quarrel, that had sprung
up between Lord Palmerston and Lord Grey. On the
conduct of the latter in the affair, Lord Macaulay had
written to a correspondent in Edinburgh a letter containing
severe animadversions, which he wished to be
strictly private.
Unfortunately, his correspondent, unaware, probably,
of the writer’s wishes, and taking upon himself
to think that so decided an expression of opinion on
.bn 268.png
.pn +1
the part of so important a person was the legitimate
property of the political world at large, sent the letter
for publication to a leading Edinburgh newspaper,
wherein it forthwith appeared, much to the disgust
of Macaulay, and the displeasure of all right-thinking
men. Panizzi’s remarks on this gentleman’s course
of action are such as to be fully permissible under
the circumstances:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.nf r
“The Grove,”
Sunday.
.nf-
.ll
.ti 2
“My Dear Rutherfurd,
I rejoice at the prospect of your being here early this
year, when we shall, I trust, spend many hours together, the
more so if I become a member of Brooke’s,[J] where the “Bear”[K]
took me to dinner one day, against all rules and principles,
and then said I ought to become a member, and put down my
name, and the good lord of this house[L] gladly seconded it, and
I suppose no one will object to me as far as I can guess.
As to the important part of your letter, respecting public
affairs and the late hubbub, I, first of all, agree with you
that, although things have not gone quite right, they are not so
bad as some thought (they don’t think so now, and will think
better of them every day, after the first week of the session).
It seems to me evident, whatever may be said by those whose
ambition or greediness warps the judgment, that the Whigs
ought not to have taken office if they could help it. It is
better that the world should see that it is they, out of office
and on principle, who help a government to carry their (I
mean the opposition’s) measures, than that they, the Whigs,
should be at the mercy of their opponents for going on at all.
Peel would have brought them about 25 members, and
.bn 269.png
.pn +1
with those, and great exertions and excitement, the Corn
Laws might have been repealed; but then would they not
have been in their enemies’ hands on all other questions, and
on the most trifling measure unpalatable to the Tories?
Would not Peel then have left them? And do you think
that he would not have made his peace with the Tories, and
be brought back by them and by those who would attribute,
though Tories, the carrying of the good measure repealing the
Corn Laws, to his support out of office, of his opponents?
For you must not forget there are many friends of Peel who
are against the Corn Laws; whereas there is not one Corn
Law friend who is a friend of the Whigs, and who would,
soon at all events, forgive them for repealing that Corn Law.
The Whigs who join the Tories on this question would, unquestionably,
have joined them in opposing Lord John’s
Government, now and for some time to come; then, had
you Whigs failed even in carrying the repeal of the Corn
Laws, and being obliged to resign reinfecta, you would have
been the object of universal hatred and contempt from both
friends and enemies. From the former for having done too
little, from the latter for having done too much, and shown
you are not either powerful friends or terrible enemies.
But out of office you are 250. You can set your enemies
by the ears; the public will see that it is you who command
the measures, though your opponents carry them through by
your patronage of them; and when once this, the greatest of
all changes, is completed by the leader of those who oppose it
most, the two great divisions or parties of Whigs and Tories
will be left in their natural position, without any extraneous
element to alter their essence; but the Whigs will be united,
with the Reform Bill fairly working in town and country, and
the Tories would be at sixes and sevens amongst themselves,
and with a leader who has insulted, deceived, and crushed
them.
But if it were to be wished that the Whigs had not undertaken
to form a Government, it were also desirable that they
.bn 270.png
.pn +1
should not have been obliged to give up on account of a
crotchety nobleman, who
.pm start_poem
“Mal del corpo intero
E della mente peggio,”
.pm end_poem
quarrels so easily with every one, and does not probably agree
with himself. It gives a despicable opinion of the power of a
party that cannot do or will not do without such a man, and
personal objections of not a grand and important public principle
that prevent two great men from agreeing together at all
conscientiously, are but sorry reasons to give for such a failure.
The discreet letter of our friend Tom is certainly to be
regretted; the discreet friend to whom he wrote it deserves to
be kicked for his breach of confidence. The less said the
sooner mended on that. Grey will be up, say his say,
Macaulay, I hope, will not answer him, and the matter will so
far end and be forgotten.
But other explanations will be necessary. I am surprised
you don’t know more of what really passed, as I should have
thought Lord John, being at Edinburgh, would have told
you all. But, perhaps, he does not like to say the whole;
and so recollect that I write in full confidence. You may
rely on the correctness of what I say, and, of course, use the
knowledge as a prudent man to shape your questions and
answers. Don’t compromise me, or say what you know,
because, even without my name being mentioned, your
authority would certainly be guessed. It so happens that I
have had occasion to hear much about all this, and it is known
that I have heard so much. Macaulay did not wait for
Lord Grey’s consent or conniving or declaration, but joined
the other at once.
Lord Grey told Ellice at Norwich that he objected to Palmerston
as Foreign Secretary, but Ellice was far from being
requested to inform Lord John of it. Yet, like a prudent
man, he wrote up: “Here at Norwich I find all smooth,
except as to the Foreign Department.” When they came to
town, Ellice was told the objection of Grey had been got
.bn 271.png
.pn +1
over; but on the Thursday night he learned that it was a
mistake, and I know how and from whom; you shall hear it
all when here. Yet he thought it might be arranged. Lord
Grey goes about reading in his defence a letter he wrote to
Lord John, to show that, in due time, he gave notice of his
objection; but two persons who have read the letter say it is
so full of generalities, that no one guessed to whom it pointed.
No one dreamed of Lord Palmerston being the object; but, as
he spoke as not having regard to person in the arrangements, it
was guessed that the hints were intended against replacing
Minto at the Admiralty. You will perceive that the Bear is
above all accusation; some may say that Lord John himself
may be found fault with, but then no one thought that Grey
would carry the matter so far, and it was expected that he
would yield, and that led to keeping his objection, or so it
was understood, in the back ground, not to give it more
importance that it might have. The only one to blame is
Grey, he ought either to have spoken out at once clearly
himself, or yielded as others have done, who were against
asking the Government at all, and yet yielded to the opinion
of the majority of their friends, and cheerfully joined them
in leading what they considered the most forlorn hope.
All the others I can safely assure you are perfectly friendly.
Lord John declares he will never have anything to do politically
with Grey, so say the others. Lord Palmerston is
entirely satisfied with the Bear’s conduct. If the foolish paragraphs
in the newspapers had caused him to feel any distrust
or jealousy of Lord Clarendon (which I doubt and hope not),
that has been totally and wholly removed, I am happy to say
by the writer of this enormous letter. (It is as long as a
sermon.) Lord Clarendon behaved above all praise, and Lord
Palmerston feels and avows it.
Thiers wrote to me a capital and most friendly letter, of
course not for me only, although most private. I took care
to communicate it to the proper quarters, and it has had a
good effect, and cemented the good understanding that I was
.bn 272.png
.pn +1
so happy in bringing about when Thiers was here (Lady
Holland who knew all about it took all the credit herself!!!),
and Palmerston’s explanations (do you think it will be a trifle
for him to get over?) and his colleagues—why did he resign?
Why does he come in with the same crew? Did they rebel?
Why do they submit? Sixteen members of the Cabinet bespeak
confusion. Are they to know what he is to do, or to obey
blindly? Some of the underlings turn restive. Lord Mahon,
for instance, I am told, will resign; if Peel were completely
free-trader even in corn. Come up, &c., &c.,
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours affectionately,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
.fm rend=th
.fn J
Proposed on the 17th December, 1845; elected 17th February, 1846;
resigned his membership 18th December, 1873.
.fn-
.fn K
The sobriquet of the Right Honourable E. Ellice.
.fn-
.fn L
Lord Clarendon.
.fn-
.fm rend=th
The correspondence between Panizzi and Thiers
extended no further than the letters set forth above.
Later on a feeling of coolness seems to have arisen
between the two, the real origin of which it is difficult
to determine; but if a conjecture may be hazarded,
it was possibly caused by the fact that Thiers declined
to extend his love for Panizzi—or, at least, any beneficial
effects of it—to Panizzi’s countrymen in general,
and thereby offended the ever ardent patriotism of his
friend. Be that as it may, the intimate relation,
which had so long subsisted between these once firm
allies gradually cooled; and during the last years of
their lives little or no communication passed between
them. Nevertheless, the letters given will be valuable
in the eyes of all admirers of the distinguished statesman
whose pen has so short a time since been stayed
for ever by the cold hand of death, and will serve as
invaluable evidence of his ideas on various subjects of
interest and importance.
.bn 273.png
.pn +1
.pb
.il fn=i_b_063.jpg w=500px ew=90%
.h2 nobreak
CHAPTER VIII
.pm start_summary_ctr
The Royal Commission, 1847-49.
.pm end_summary
.sp 2
.di dc_t.jpg 142 141 1.1
To return to the British Museum
the Royal Commission of 1847-49—which
differed widely from the Committee
of 1835-36. Before both Parliamentary
Committee and Royal Commission,
the Institution was on its trial, but the points
of attack were different. In 1835, the Natural History
Departments engrossed the principal attention, while
the Library escaped with comparatively slight notice,
for although its deficiencies were not less conspicuous
than those of the Natural History Department, the
public standard of completeness in the Library
was low. Panizzi had been Keeper eleven out of
the twelve years. There could hardly have been a
better proof of his administration than the elevated
ideal of a public Library which it had produced. He
was tried by a standard of his own, which but for
him would have had no existence. Many silent in
1836 were now clamorous for the realization of an
ideal which they owed to him, and the severity of
their attacks was in truth the best testimony to his
desert.
.bn 274.png
.pn +1
It soon appeared that Panizzi would be the lion of
the day, and that the proceedings of the Commission
would be chiefly important as they might result in confirming
or weakening his position with the public. It
was believed, indeed, that the dissatisfaction of
scientific men with the preponderance of literature
in the governing body had much to do with the
appointment of the Commission; and the ostensible
cause was undoubtedly a memorial addressed by
many persons of high eminence in science to the
Prime Minister on March 10th, 1847. The
centre of gravity, nevertheless, shifted very quickly.
The proceedings of the Commission, as regarded
the Library, were interesting from beginning to end;
elsewhere, though much that was curious and amusing
came to light, it would hardly be thought that
a nodus tali dignus vindice had been shown to
If such there were, it was in the Secretary’s Office,
where irregularities were admitted requiring correction,
and involving the examination of the whole
anomalous system by which, in a measure since
1828, and more particularly since the Committee of
1835, the Secretary had been allowed to usurp the
functions of the Principal Librarian. Everywhere else
the subjects calling for inquiry were comparatively
slight, such as misunderstandings between Sir
Fellows and Sir R. Westmacott respecting the arrangement
of the Xanthian marbles, or disagreements
between Dr. Gray and Mr. König respecting the
rightful custody of the Gilbertson fossils and the boundaries
of Zoology and Palæontology in general. The
Library was the real field of contention, and matters
.bn 275.png
.pn +1
relating to it occupy more than one half of the bulky
tome in which the evidence and recommendations of
the Committee were finally embodied (1850).
The Commission was originally appointed on June
17th, 1847, but was only enabled to hold three sittings
during the expiring session of that year.
It reassembled in 1848, amid the storms of Continental
revolution which inevitably occupied much of
the time and thoughts of its members; and it was
soon discovered, both that its numbers were too limited,
and that the quorum required by the Royal Letters of
appointment was too large to insure the indispensable
regularity of attendance. It having on one occasion
proved impossible to obtain a sufficient attendance,
the original Commission was revoked, and a new one
issued, increasing the number of Commissioners from
eleven to fourteen, and reducing the number necessary
for despatch of business from five to three (May
5, 1848).
The Commission, as thus finally constituted, was a
very strong one, presided over by so accomplished a
man of letters as Lord Ellesmere, and including,
among its more active members Lord Seymour (the
present Duke of Somerset), Lord Canning, Sir R.
Murchison, and the Lord Advocate, Mr. Andrew
Rutherfurd. Mr. John Payne Collier, at that time
Librarian to the Duke of Devonshire, officiated as
Secretary.
The first attention of the Commissioners was naturally
directed to the Principal Librarian’s and Secretary’s
Offices, and their inquiry soon brought out the extent
to which the functions of the former had come to be
.bn 276.png
.pn +1
discharged by the latter. “He has risen,” said the
report, “to be the most important officer in the establishment,
though without that responsibility which
attached to the Principal Librarian and the heads of
departments.” The importance which the Commissioners
rightly ascribed to this officer entirely depended
upon his preparation of the agenda to be
submitted to the Trustees, and his habitual attendance
at their meetings. The duties of his office were in
other respects so light, although they had been represented
to require the assistance of a subordinate,
who had actually been appointed (Mr. Fitzgerald,
subsequently Prime Minister in New Zealand), that
when Mr. Forshall was attacked with serious illness,
during the sittings of the Commissioners, Sir Henry
Ellis found himself able to discharge all the duties of
the Secretary in addition to his own. Of an endeavour
which had been made to find the Secretary occupation
in keeping a register of acquisitions, the Commissioners
were obliged to report that this document, as
prepared in his office, was “not only of no practical
use, but in some cases destructive of ”
Under these circumstances, the Commissioners very
quickly came to the conclusion that the false step
made in 1837 must be retraced, and the offices of
Principal Librarian and Secretary amalgamated—a
decision so obviously sound that it must probably
have been carried into effect, even if, shortly after the
close of their deliberations, Mr. Forshall’s infirmities
had not rendered his retirement absolutely inevitable.
The administration of the Secretary’s Office had a
strong bearing upon the questions relating to the
.bn 277.png
.pn +1
Department of Printed Books of which the Commissioners
had to take cognizance. Nothing had
more strongly excited public animadversion than the
delay in the preparation of the new printed Catalogue.
The Trustees, as was supposed, had directed that it
should be complete in print by the end of 1844. The
year 1848 had now come, and it had not progressed,
even in manuscript, beyond letter D. One volume, containing
letter A (or part of it), had been printed in 1841,
and there were no symptoms of a successor. Panizzi was
able to show convincingly how contradictory were the
instructions which the inexplicable carelessness of the
executive department had allowed to be attributed to
the Trustees. In the manuscript copy of their
minute of July 13, 1839, the application of the rules
of cataloguing was left to his discretion. In the copy
subsequently printed by direction of the Trustees,
this discretion was limited to titles already prepared.
In the former he was ordered to have the Catalogue
ready in press by December, 1844. In the latter he
was told that it must be ready for press. The latter,
it would appear, was what the Trustees really intended;
but no intimation of their wishes having
been conveyed to Panizzi, time, labour, and money
had been wasted in printing an imperfect volume,
which, it now appeared, need not have been printed
at all; whilst the supposed necessity for an alphabetical
method of cataloguing had prevented recourse
to the much more expeditious plan of taking the
books shelf by shelf. It further appeared that this
unfortunate minute need not necessarily have been
final. An opportunity for remonstrance had been
.bn 278.png
.pn +1
expressly reserved, but the portion of the document
referring to this point having been kept from
Panizzi’s knowledge, no action could be taken, so
that the Trustees and their Officer were committed
to an impracticable undertaking. The Commissioners
determined that “any delay which could
have been avoided was mainly ascribable to the desire
of the Trustees to hurry on printing.”
A still more important question was whether the
Catalogue ought to be printed at all. The opinion
of the literary witnesses unconnected with the Museum
was naturally strongly in favour of a printed Catalogue.
The opinion of Panizzi may be gathered from
the verbal replies he had already given to questions
put to him by the Library Committee of the Trustees
on March 6th, 1847.
.pm start_quote
“The Catalogue might be completed by the end of 1854 of
all the books which the Museum will contain up to that
period. It would take to 1860 to prepare such Catalogue in
such a state of revision as might be fit for the press. It would
occupy seventy volumes. It would require one year to correct
the press of two volumes. It would, therefore, require thirty-five
years to pass the catalogue through the press, and, when
completed in 1895, it would represent the state of the Library
in 1854.”
.pm end_quote
This estimate could not be impeached if its basis
were admitted—namely, that the system already
adopted in framing the Catalogue was to be adhered
to. Many men of letters, however, thought that the
plan of the Catalogue might be contracted with advantage,
but found it difficult to answer the argument
that the work already done must, in that case,
be thrown away. Mr. J. Payne Collier, the Secretary
.bn 279.png
.pn +1
to the Commission, apparently thought this sacrifice
immaterial. He had convinced himself that by short
entries, and a disregard of minor niceties, the rate of
cataloguing could be accelerated fourfold, and was,
perhaps, justified in considering that if so, the abandonment
of all that had been effected would be a
measure of economy. Unluckily for Mr. Collier, he
did not, like Panizzi’s other antagonists, confine himself
to abstract propositions, but rashly exhibited
himself in the light of an amateur cataloguer. He
catalogued twenty-five books in his own library, and
placed the titles in the hands of Panizzi, who transferred
them for examination to his principal Assistant,
Mr. Winter Jones. “They contain,” said Mr.
Jones, “almost every possible error which can be
committed in cataloguing books, and are open to
almost every possible objection which can be brought
against concise titles.”
As Mr. Collier had entered a play of Aristophanes
under Mitchell, and the works of Shakespeare under
Schlegel, as he had put an anonymous English book
under a writer to whom it was only attributed conjecturally,
and had catalogued a collection of plays in
such a manner as to suggest that it was a history of the
drama, the justice of Mr. Jones’ characterization could
not be disputed. The Commissioners were, doubtless,
justified in the unexpressed conclusion at which
they evidently arrived, that such blunders, committed
by a man of Mr. Collier’s attainments, must be attributable
to the fundamental errors of his system.
Mr. J. Bruce, Mr. G. L. Craik, and other advocates
of hasty work and concise catalogues, would have
.bn 280.png
.pn +1
fared no better at the hands of Mr. Winter Jones.
One of them, indeed, Mr. J. G. Cochrane, of the
London Library, had actually produced a Catalogue,
the unscientific character of which was pungently exposed
by Professor De Morgan, by far the most
bibliographically competent of all the witnesses,
and whose profound acquaintance with early mathematical
literature enabled him to demonstrate what
research, accuracy, and scholarship, the correct description
of such literature demands. Another
valuable witness was Mr. John Wilson Croker, whose
evidence was in general full of good sense, and who
brought forward the scheme (already independently
suggested by Mr. E. Roy of the Library) for keeping
up the Catalogue on movable slips pasted on the leaf,
and thus admitting of displacement when it became
necessary to insert new matter. This plan was subsequently
adopted, and proved adequate for all
practical purposes until recently, when, from the
enormous bulk of the Manuscript Catalogue, printing
has been adopted.
Several other matters of great, though minor, importance
were the subject of detailed explanation on
the part of Panizzi. He had to rebut the frequent
complaints made on account of deficiencies in the
Library. These proved to be utterly unfounded in
almost every specific instance alleged, with the
sole exception of the English books which had not
been duly delivered under the Copyright-Act, the enforcement
of which was at that time, as we shall
hereafter fully discuss, no part of the keeper’s duty,
and had been performed with little zeal by the Secretary.
.bn 281.png
.pn +1
As regarded the unquestionable deficiencies
of the Library in foreign literature, no one, it was admitted,
had exposed them so energetically as Panizzi
himself in the celebrated report of 1845, to which
reference has already been made. He had done
more than point them out; by personal influence
he had obtained the grant of £10,000 per annum
towards making them good. Not the least interesting
portion of his evidence related to the measures
adopted to this end in concert with intelligent
booksellers, such as Asher and Stevens. The
Grenville Library, however, had been by far the
most brilliant acquisition of his Keepership; and
this, as we shall soon show, was wholly due to
his private influence with Mr. Grenville. His
prescience of the ultimate destination of this magnificent
collection accounted for his apparent neglect of
several opportunities of acquiring books, for which he
had silently submitted to censure. There was nothing
in which Panizzi’s practical good sense was more
apparent than in the improvements introduced by
him into binding, whether as regards economy or
durability. The books bound before his time are in
very many instances tumbling to pieces, and not from
use, while not a single book bound under his direction
has required rebinding, except from excessive
wear and tear.
On the whole, it may be confidently affirmed that
no public officer whose conduct had been subjected to
scrutiny ever established a more triumphant justification
than Panizzi, and that investigation has seldom
brought to light more creditable facts, previously unknown,
.bn 282.png
.pn +1
or not properly appreciated. His detractors
were covered with confusion, and he appeared to the
world as the one man in the Museum endowed with
signal administrative talent, and as qualified, above
all other men, to be at the head of the Institution. The
Commissioners did not say this in so many words, but
their opinion was no mystery, and their report, in so
far as the Library was concerned, was in general but
the echo or endorsement of Panizzi’s views.
One most important recommendation they made,
which unfortunately was not acted upon—viz., the
provision of means for the compilation of an index of
subjects to the catalogue, to proceed pari passu with
the alphabetical titles of the latter. This would
have doubled the value of the Catalogue; but
thirty years have passed, and the Catalogue is
still destitute of this inestimable auxiliary. The
suggestion may still be carried into effect at any
moment, as regards accessions for the future; but
the lost ground will be regained with difficulty.
Of many other questions raised, the only really
important one, outside the Printed Book Department,
related to the Secretary’s Office, and here the Commissioners’
purpose was firm, and the reform they proposed
radical. The post of Secretary, as distinct from
that of Principal Librarian, was to be abolished altogether.
This return to the ancient practice of the
Museum had the advocacy of one of the most accomplished
and influential of the Trustees, Mr. W. R.
Hamilton; and the indisposition of Mr. Forshall
soon rendered it necessary, as well as expedient, to
carry it into effect. From that hour Panizzi was the real
ruler of the British Museum.
.bn 283.png
.pn +1
It may be remarked that the Trustees and their
officers alike appeared in a much more advantageous
light than before the Parliamentary Committee of
1835. The inquiries of that Committee had borne
fruit. The duties of the officers were understood and
discharged in a far more liberal spirit, and the Board
of Trustees had profited largely from the disposition
to elect its members out of regard to literary and
scientific eminence or proved administrative ability
rather than mere rank.
This tendency, happily for the Museum, has gone
on increasing to the present day.
We may now proceed to treat of that acquisition
of the Grenville Library which so greatly affected the
fortunes of the British Museum, and for which
Panizzi has mainly to be thanked. For this a new
chapter seems to be required.
.il fn=i_b_389.jpg w=125px ew=15%
.bn 284.png
.pn +1
.pb
.il fn=i_b_063.jpg w=500px ew=90%
.sp 4
.h2 nobreak
CHAPTER IX
.pm start_summary
Mr. Thomas Grenville; his Bequest; Portrait by Manzini;
Chartist Demonstration; Copyright Act; Mr. Bohn.
.pm end_summary
.il id=i266 fn=i_b_266_grenville.jpg w=225px ew=40% align=l
.sp 2
.di dc_t.jpg 150 146 1.1
The acquisition of the Grenville
Library, in 1847, made that year notable
for the British Museum. Before
describing the collection, or the
circumstances under which it was
bequeathed to the Nation, it will be well to recall
the liberality and discriminating judgment of the
high-minded donor, who brought it together at
so great a cost; and, therefore,
we append a short notice of
the Rt. Hon. Thomas Grenville,
the nation’s benefactor, who was
born on the 31st of December,
1755, and entered as a gentleman
commoner at Christ Church before
he was sixteen years old. On
the 10th of May, 1778, he joined
the army as an ensign in the Coldstream
Guards, but resigned in
the following year. His reasons for having taken
.bn 285.png
.pn +1
such a step were narrated by himself in Parliament
on the 11th of April, 1780. On the 26th
of October, 1779, he was returned to Parliament
as a member for Buckinghamshire, and enrolled himself
in the party of Fox, who in 1782 trusted him to
arrange the terms of the treaty drawn up for the
separation of Great Britain from her American colonies.
From this mission Mr. Grenville was suddenly recalled,
at the death of Lord Rockingham; but in
1794 Earl Spencer sent him as Minister Extraordinary
to the Court of Vienna. Four years afterwards he
was made a Privy Councillor, and subsequently was
despatched on an embassy to the court of Berlin, in
order to induce the King of Prussia to co-operate
with England against the continual attacks of the
French Republic. This mission, however, proved unsuccessful.
In 1800, he was appointed to a sinecure office, that
of Chief Justice in Eyre, South of Trent, which was
worth about £2,000 per annum. Other appointments
followed; when, in 1818, he retired simultaneously
from Parliament and from public life.
To describe his personal appearance, his features
were fine and regular, with blue eyes shadowed by
large eyebrows. In addition to quick perception, he
possessed a marvellous memory, ever ready with quotations
from his favourite authors.
In his old age he derived great pleasure from entertaining
a few intimate friends at dinner, and spending
the after hours at whist. Amongst those who frequented
his house on such occasions were, Lord
.bn 286.png
.pn +1
Ellesmere, Samuel Rogers, Hallam, Lord Macaulay,
Mr. Gladstone, Panizzi, and Sydney Smith, who with
reverent appreciation remarked to Panizzi, à propos of
the host’s dignity and cheerfulness, There, that is
the man from whom we all ought to learn how to
grow old.
The collection of this superb Library cost Mr.
Grenville much labour, and nothing could be more
admirable in its way than the persistence with which
he followed out the intentions he had formed. It was
a pursuit, indeed, which he began early in life.
A favourite recollection of his, which he was apt
to quote, was that while in the Guards there bid
against him at a sale a whole bench of Bishops, for
some scarce edition of the Bible; this was his first
essay, and similar success attended him in all his
subsequent dealings. At his death, 20,239 volumes
were counted, all in admirable condition and beautifully
bound. It was stated, at the time, that the
collection cost £54,000.
He had the habit of writing on a slip of paper,
which he placed on the fly-leaf of the volume, a short
sketch of how and when it was acquired; this was
done in the neatest and clearest manner.
Mr. Grenville did not collect books simply for
their rarity and curiosity, he knew well the worth of
those he purchased, and used them as books of reference,
as is proved by the notes which are to be found
in his own handwriting, even stating the number of
times he himself perused them; for instance, in the
edition of Dean Sherlock on Death, he wrote:—Read
thirteen times in 1846.
.bn 287.png
.pn +1
The acquaintance between Grenville and Panizzi
probably commenced as early as 1830, at which
period, it will be remembered, the latter was engaged
on his Bojardo and Ariosto.
The correspondence which passed at the time
of the dedication of the “Sonetti e Canzone di
Bojardo,” has been fully given, and the documents
and letters which follow will prove how much Mr.
Grenville became attached to his Italian friend, and
in what high estimation he held him.
The following “Memorandum” written by Panizzi
himself, bearing the date of November 3, 1845, is
given in full:—
“Yesterday being Sunday, I called, as I generally
do on such days, on the Right Hon. Thomas Grenville,
who has had an attack of cold, which produced
great cough and difficulty of breathing, somewhat
alarming. When I saw him last he was better, and
we played whist till nearly eleven o’clock. This was
on Friday last, the 31st of October.
“Yesterday I found him considerably better—I
may say well—reading a book of prayers, as he
usually does on Sundays. It was about three o’clock,
and he was alone. After the usual inquiries after his
health, &c., &c., he spoke nearly as follows:—
“‘I am glad, Mr. Panizzi, that we are alone, as I
have something to tell you, which I wish to be considered
strictly confidential, and that you will not
mention to any human being as long as I live. There
is nothing, perhaps, that renders secrecy strictly
necessary in what I am going to say; but it is as well
to keep it to ourselves, as it concerns nobody but me.
.bn 288.png
.pn +1
I have often perceived that you wished to know what
would become of my library after my death, and I
have often seen also that you wished it should go to the
British Museum. That wish is very natural as well
as very creditable to you; for, treated as you have
been by the Trustees, had you been a less zealous
officer, and not so thoroughly honest a man, you would
not so easily have forgiven their conduct towards you,
and felt so warm an interest in the welfare of that
Institution as you have.
“I have admired your conduct in that respect, and
been extremely pleased by it. I have not imitated
you for years I confess. The minute of which I gave
you the copy in Mr. Forshall’s handwriting, and which
conveys an ample and deserved acknowledgment of
your good services, was a disgraceful and unjust act
towards you, and insult to me. They reserved for me
to do what they never had done to any one else, and
they behaved ill to you to vex me, I believe ... (as I
dissented, he added). Well, well, may be they or
some one who had influence on them, counselled them
to punish you. I felt so much their conduct that, as
you know, I left the room when I saw what they
were bent upon doing, and never went again to their
meetings, and I felt very much inclined never to speak
again to Lord Farnborough, who, after having both
in private to me and at a Committee agreed with the
justice of doing what the Committee suggested, got
up at the general meeting which he and Mr. Forshall
had packed to move the rejection of the Committee’s
report. I then was more than ever determined to
leave my library to the Duke of Buckingham, to be
.bn 289.png
.pn +1
kept at Stowe as a heirloom. But your generous
conduct made me think that if you, who had been
much more injured than I was, forgave them, I
ought.
“I knew, moreover, that you would be delighted
to have my books, and I often thought that the
coming into your hands from mine was the very best
thing that could happen to them, as well as the most
pleasing to me. I was determined partly by these
considerations to alter my will, and still more so—or
rather much more so—by another circumstance.
“You know that I have enjoyed for a long series
of years a very good sinecure. Although, as I have
sometimes told you, my cousin, Lord Glastonbury,
left me a large fortune and made me rich, yet I could
not have formed such a library (which I think cost
me nearer £50,000 than £40,000) without my income
from the sinecure. I have, therefore, determined to
bleach my conscience, and to return to the Nation
what I got from it, when I could have done without—but
which would have been given to some one else
if I had given it up myself—by bequeathing my
library to the British Museum, and I have altered
my will accordingly. I shall direct that part of my
will to be printed, that my motives be understood,
and that no one should think that I take the library
from my nephew the Duke, to whom I have told
that I have left it to him, from any unkindness or
unfriendly feeling, which I certainly have not, as the
rest of my will will show. I could not in my Will
say anything about you, and the treatment you have
received from those you have served and serve so
.bn 290.png
.pn +1
well and so faithfully, but I thought it a proof of my
great friendship for you to inform you of what I have
done, and of my motives for so doing. But, although
I cannot say anything about it, the public and the
Trustees must be well aware that you have not taken
any mean or unfair advantage of my great regard for
you, my dear friend, to turn me from doing what I
had done. I hope the Trustees will be more just to
you in future; indeed, you tell me they are, and have
been lately, and am glad of it. I thought they would
not change; they must feel they have wronged you,
and I thought they would never like you in consequence.
Even my friend the Archbishop, one of the
very best and most amiable men living, was no doubt
influenced, perhaps unconsciously, by such feelings
when he made objections to your appointment to
succeed Mr. Baber. There is some one who has
great influence on the Archbishop, who is no friend
of yours. Take care, I know it. But I trust now
that you are better known you will be appreciated as
you
“This was the substance, and, as far as I recollect,
these were the very words of the communication
which was delivered uninterruptedly, with his usual
energy and clearness, and without appearing the least
fatigued, or being stopped by coughing or anything
else.
“I made the best acknowledgment I could for the
honourable proof of confidence he gave me. I told
him, strongly moved, almost to tears, that I hoped
the day would be far distant when the British
Museum should profit by his munificent gift; and
.bn 291.png
.pn +1
here we shook hands most heartily and warmly, and I
thanked him as well as I could for the affectionate
manner in which he had spoken of me and of my
conduct.
“He replied it was only justice. Then he added
that he left the whole unfettered; that he thought
we should have many duplicates among ours of his
books, but that he thought we ought to have them;
at the same time, he said, he did not care whether
the Trustees sold his duplicates. I said they never
did it. Very well, he answered. Then he went on
to say that he would desire his executors to express
a wish that the whole of his books should be kept
together, and that a catalogue of them all should be
published. But, he said, I shall not add these as
absolute conditions, only as my wish.
“We spoke of cataloguing, of how the books could
be kept together, &c., which I said could and should
be done, as was done for Sir J. Banks, Cracherode,
&c.; even without their desiring it. But the Dutch
Minister, was announced; we began to speak of indifferent
things; and presently I took leave and left
them together at about four o’clock.
.ll 68
.rj
“A. Panizzi.”
.ll
This document bears the following signature and
note:—
“This paper was received by me from Mr. Panizzi,
sealed up, on the 3rd of November, 1845, and opened
and read at his desire by me on the 18th of December,
1846.
.ll 68
.rj
W. R. Hamilton.”
.ll
Mr. Grenville died on the 17th of December,
1846; therefore, the above document was read by
.bn 292.png
.pn +1
Mr. Hamilton on the following day. The ”codicil”
made to his Will is dated 28th of October, 1845,
exactly a week before the incident narrated in the
above memorandum.
Space does not allow us to make public a long and
minute direction, given by Panizzi to his Assistant,
Mr. Rye, for the removal of this Library to the
British Museum; suffice it, therefore, to observe that
it enters into all the details respecting the handling
and removal of these treasures of typography.
The books now having safely reached the Museum,
Panizzi made the following official report respecting
them:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“Feb. 10, 1847.
.ll
“Mr. Panizzi has the honour to report that the
removal of the Library bequeathed to the Trustees
by the Right Hon. T. Grenville has been accomplished
in five days without any injury whatever to the books,
the number of which, counted one by one, and without
any regard to the number of works, is 20,239.
“About five hundred of them are, for want of room
on the shelves, lying on the floor of the galleries of
the room into which the books have been removed
from Hamilton-place. With respect to their preservation
from dust, Mr. Panizzi begs to suggest as the
most economical, as well as most expedient arrangement,
that, for the present, the doors of the presses
be lined, or rather covered, inside with green calico,
or some such cheap material.
“Mr. Panizzi begs to state that the removal of the
collection has been effected in so short a time by his
keeping at work the persons who assisted him considerably
.bn 293.png
.pn +1
after Museum time. He hopes that the
Trustees will, in consequence, approve of the remuneration
and gratuities which he has promised to the
servants of Mr. Grenville who assisted, as well as to
the attendants and workmen for their extra time and
exertions, as detailed in the accompanying statement
of expenses, which he begs the Trustees will order to
be paid.”
.pm end_quote
In vain did Panizzi urge the Trustees to provide
adequate room for the books; many of them lay for
nearly two years on the floor of the gallery, where
they had been originally placed, exposed to the dust,
and to injury in various forms. Lord Fortescue, on
one occasion, asked to see his uncle’s books, and was
not a little astonished to find them thus uncovered
and unprotected.
Much later, through the intervention of the Duke
of Cambridge, the collection was arranged as it now
stands, and the donor’s bust, the work of Conolly,
presented by Sir David Dundas, was removed from
the Committee-room, and placed in its present position;
this was accomplished in the month of October,
1850.
The catalogue, the great expectation and hope of
Mr. Grenville, now demands our special attention.
A report was, therefore, sent to the Trustees:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“February 11, 1847.
.ll
“When Mr. Grenville was pleased to inform Mr.
Panizzi that his collection would become the property
of the Trustees, he informed him also of his wishes,
which he would express, and which Mr. Panizzi took
on himself to say would be undoubtedly attended to
.bn 294.png
.pn +1
by the Trustees, as much as if they were conditions
attached to his bequest—
1st. That the whole of his collection should be
kept together and unbroken.
2nd. That the remainder of his catalogue should
be printed.
The Trustees are aware that there are two volumes
of the catalogue printed. It was compiled by Messrs.
Payne & Foss, who have the manuscript in slips of
the whole. It occurred to Mr. Panizzi that the
cheapest and shortest way of carrying the second
wish of Mr. Grenville into execution would be to
purchase the manuscript titles, and with this view
Mr. Panizzi had a conversation with Mr. Foss, who,
at his request, has made the proposal specified in the
accompanying letter.
Mr. Panizzi is of opinion that Mr. Foss’s terms
ought to be accepted, in which case the unprinted
part of Mr. Grenville’s catalogue might be sent to
press almost immediately, and the whole completed
in an uniform manner.
Mr. Panizzi thinks that it is very desirable to
accept this proposal for the sake of economy and
despatch. If the Trustees will allow him to treat
with Mr. Foss he thinks he, perhaps, might obtain
some slight modification of the terms now suggested.”
.pm end_quote
Panizzi showed the practical affection he had for
his friend by his presentations of rare and expensive
books from time to time; these were accompanied by
letters, and Mr. Grenville invariably attached them
to the volume.
.bn 295.png
.pn +1
The following is a specimen:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“B. M., May 2, 1845.
.ll
“My dear Sir,
.ti 6
I hope you will do me the honour of placing
in your library a Latin poem, by one Thomas Prati, printed
at Treviso about 1475, on the martyrdom said to have been
suffered in that year by one Simon or Symeon, at the
hands of the Jews of Trento. The event seems to have
created a great sensation at the time, and even at a much
later period its truth has been the subject of learned investigations.
It may be true that a boy was murdered at Trento in March
1475, but that he fell a sacrifice to the Jews hatred of our
religion, is as incredible as it is unproved. So late as about
a hundred years ago, a dissertation was inserted in the 48th
volume of Calagierò Raccolta d’opuscoli, page 409 (De cultu
Sancti Simonis—the martyr has been canonized and his life
and miracles are chronicled in the Acta Sanctorum Pueri
Tridentini et Martyris apud Venetos). That dissertation,
written to prove the truth of the story, seems to me conclusive
against it.
Several poems are said to have been written on this subject.
One of them in Italian stanzas, utterly worthless, by
one Fra Giovanni Padovano, was printed so late as 1690, at
Padua, and is in the British Museum. Federici (Tipografia
Trevigiana, p. 91) mentions four tracts printed by Celerio in
1480, on the martyrdom of Simon, but none written by
Prati. He moreover mentions two (p. 52) printed by Gherard
de Lysa, one of which would seem to be precisely like that
which I now offer to you, if we were to judge from the title
only, but the particulars into which he enters show, 1st, that
Federici never saw even the book which he describes; 2nd,
that whatever that book be, it is a different one from
this.
As you possess the very rare edition of Dante, published
by Tuppo at Naples, in the colophon of which Tuppo alludes
.bn 296.png
.pn +1
to the murder of Simon “non sono molti anni,” and as the
fact is said to have happened in 1475, according to all
authorities, it may be of some interest to you to possess an
uncommonly rare book, which may be of use in fixing at
about 1480 the date of your Dante, the very year when Tuppo
began to print separately from Reussinger.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
Immediately after Mr. Grenville’s death, a portrait
of him by an Italian artist (C. Manzini,) was offered
for sale. It is painted on ivory, representing him at
the age of 85, wearing a close-buttoned black coat,
and a plain white neckcloth. Panizzi was anxious
that this work of art should not fall into strange
hands; and consequently, together with other friends
of the venerable book-collector, started a raffle, the
tickets being sold only amongst a selected few. Samuel
Rogers was named as one of them, and this originated
the following correspondence:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.nf r
“August 29th,
St. James’s Palace.
.nf-
.ll
“My dear Mr. Panizzi,
.ti 6
When I recover what I have lost, I mean to subscribe
to everything and to everybody. But now, alas, I have
nothing to spare—I cannot even afford to give you a mutton
chop—and having poor enough of my own to support, I cannot
contribute to other people’s.
I shall be happy, however, to contribute my mite in this
instance, though not to raffle for the portrait, for to tell you
the truth, the portrait I do not care for; I had rather trust to
my recollections.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
S. Rogers.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
.bn 297.png
.pn +1
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“B. M., Monday,
.ll
“My dear Sir,
.ti 6
I am very sorry that I have expressed myself
so ill in the note which I took the liberty of addressing to
you to contribute to the support of other people’s poor, you
having, as you say, and as it is well known, poor enough of
your own to support. I never would have taken the liberty
of writing for that purpose; and whatever mite you may
contribute to any charity, it must be from the impulse of
your own kind, benevolent heart, and not at my request, as
I should never presume to make it.
The difficulty in asking subscribers for the raffle of the
portrait, was not as to who was to be left out, but as to who was
to be preferred, and it was as a mark of respect to you that
Mr. Gaskell and myself thought you entitled, above many
others, to be included amongst our chosen few. I was too
proud to leave to others to inform you of our scheme.
.ll 68
.rj
Yours, &c., A. Panizzi.”
.ll
.pm end_quote
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“Thursday.
.ll
“My dear Mr. Panizzi,
.ti 6
I have just opened your letter, when I am starting for
the railroad, and I cannot say how distressed I should be if
you could conceive for an instant that I thought you had acted
otherwise that from the purest and noblest motives.
With Mr. Manzini I am unacquainted, but most happy
should I be to render any service, though, perhaps, it may be
doubtful whether, in a common case, a copy, however exquisite,
is so valuable, when an original may be had from
Richmond at nearly the same price.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
S. Rogers.
.nf-
.ll
P. S.—Again, though in haste, I must say how unhappy I
am if I have given one whose friendship I so highly value any
uneasiness.”
.pm end_quote
This miniature is now in the National Portrait
Gallery.
.bn 298.png
.pn +1
The following is from Panizzi to Lord Rutherfurd
respecting his friend’s death:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“22nd December, 1847.
.ll
“You will have seen by the newspapers that poor Mr.
Grenville is no more, he had no reason to complain on leaving
this world, after so long and happy a life, which he had enjoyed
within ten years of his death, and from which he departed
before either bodily or mental infirmities had rendered it a
burden to him; but, I who have lost one of the best friends I
have had, whose kindness was uniform as it was excessive, I
have certainly good reason for sorrow. A man alone in the
world, a foreigner, without any other ties of affection or blood,
concentrates all his feelings in his friends, and to lose one of
them is a greater loss to him than it is to others, whose heart
is filled by other objects.”
.pm end_quote
The circumstances of the gift of Mr. Grenville to
the Museum having been fully considered, brief allusion
has here to be made to that which threatened to
become magnified into a national commotion, imperilling
the safety of our Public Institutions, and foremost
amongst their number, the British Museum.
The year 1848 was memorable for the Chartist
demonstration. The principles and intentions of the
agitators are well known; however, on the 10th of
April they proposed to hold a meeting of 200,000
men, who were to assemble at Kennington Common,
and to march thence in procession to Westminster,
and present a petition to Parliament. The Bank and
other Public Institutions were occupied by the Military,
organized by the Duke of Wellington; these
were strengthened by no less than 150,000 persons of
all ranks, voluntarily sworn to act as special constables,
and amongst the number Panizzi was enlisted
on the 8th of April.
.bn 299.png
.pn +1
The British Museum seems to have been one of the
places in danger of being attacked by the mob; it
was, therefore, considered prudent to take prompt
and decisive measures to protect it from any possible
assault. Though Sir Henry Ellis was the chief
officer of the Museum at the time, Panizzi may be
said to have taken the part of the real General, and
was most active in swearing in his subordinates,
some of whom had Chartist tendencies themselves, as,
possibly, he had himself; but the safety of the
Museum was paramount to all other considerations,
and, to an objector, he replied, What! not defend
the place from which you get your living!!
Mr. Cowtan in his “Memories of the British
Museum,” tells us “that all persons employed upon
the establishment, either in the various departments,
or as artizans at work upon the building, were sworn
in as ‘special constables,’ making in all 250. Major
Baron, of the Royal Engineers, was sent to suggest
the best means of barricading, and to place the force
at hand in the best positions for defending the
Museum, in case of an attack. The military force
consisted of fifty-seven rank and file, and two officers.
To this must be added twenty pensioners from Chelsea
College. Fifty muskets, with proportionate ammunition
were supplied, as well as cutlasses, and pikes for
from two to three hundred persons. Provisions for
three days were laid in, &c., &c.”
Scouts were sent out to bring authentic accounts,
but the same “Memories” also inform us that “one or
two, who, before the event took place, were loud in
their protestations of devotedness to the Museum,
.bn 300.png
.pn +1
and willingness to lay down their lives in its defence,
began to funk and to look unutterable things.”
The following letter to Sir H. Ellis, referring to
this subject, is well worthy of perusal:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“British Museum, Friday night, April 7th, 1848.
.ll
“My dear Sir,
.ti 6
I beg to enclose four lists of as many parties in my
department, consisting of eleven persons each, ready to be
sworn as special constables. The name at the head of each
party is that of the gentleman who will act as leader or foreman
to it. Any order which you will transmit to me for
them shall be attended to. At the same time allow me to
say that if anything very serious were to happen, we are not
prepared for it. To be prepared, for an attack in earnest,
should not the Museum be made a depôt for troops; the
usual military guard ought to be at least doubled. Supposing
the Riot Act read, and extreme measures unavoidable,
the Museum can be well defended by a well-directed fire of
musketry from the roof, which commands not only every
side of the building, but every approach to it, as well as
some most important points of the interior. I took Mr.
Hawkins over it this morning on purpose to show him
I should regret as much as any one that such mode of defence
should ever be forced upon us, but a danger is better
avoided by the determination and readiness to meet it with
proper energy. The measures taken by the Government
show that they do not think lightly of the state of affairs;
and always hoping for the best, as prudent men, we ought to
be ready for the worst. Permit me to suggest also for your
consideration that
1st. The gate by Mr. König’s house, on the west side of
the officer’s houses, as well as another gate, higher up, on the
same road, ought to be strengthened. The same ought to be
done with those on the roads to the north and east, right and
left of the reading-room entrance. The iron gate also to
.bn 301.png
.pn +1
Montagu Place ought to be strengthened, locked, and the key
kept by you; nor ought the opening under the new passage,
from your house to the Library, to be left unprotected.
2nd. All the doors in the basement, particularly those
opening on the yards and roads outside the building, ought
to be kept locked, and none opened, under any pretence, without
an officer’s order.
3rd. The two clerks of the works, the enginemen, and
the house carpenter, should be at hand throughout the day,
and have the fire-engines ready for use at a moment’s notice.
It would be as well to have a couple of men from Mr. Merryweather’s
with them.
4th. More police lanthorns, a dozen at least to be provided,
in case they might be required at night.
5th. No officer, attendant, or servant whatever, to leave
the Museum on Monday, except with your special leave.
.ll 68
.rj
Yours, &c., A. Panizzi.”
.ll
“P.S.—There are men in the house ready and able to use
firearms (if provided with them) should it be absolutely necessary.
We ought to provide them; as to the absolute necessity
of actually using them, it must depend on circumstances.”
.pm end_quote
On the 15th of April, the Trustees held a meeting,
and “acknowledged thankfully the human means
which have been employed in their service, in the
maintenance of the safety of the British Museum in
their charge, and to record, accordingly, their grateful
conviction of the intelligence, energy, zeal, and
union, which have been displayed by their Principal
Librarian, by the heads of departments” and by the
gentlemen engaged under them.”
Thus happily passed off what appeared to be at one
time a threatening position for the British Museum;
and it is a subject of hearty congratulation that the
.bn 302.png
.pn +1
would-be disturbers of the public peace were faint-hearted
and disorganized, or serious results might
have ensued, fraught with danger to human life, and
destruction to public buildings and their contents.
Had the Museum been really attacked, who can reckon
the loss to the Nation? No doubt the energetic
precautions taken had much to do with smothering
the fire which appeared at one time likely to
kindle; and for this there is much reason for us, of
the present day, to be thankful to those, who were
instrumental in protecting our National Institution.
Again our ground must be shifted; from threatening
without, turn we now to tumults within, viz., in
the literary world; it is our province to discuss a
matter—then, as now, unsettled, and, considering the
arguments, pro and con, adduced on its behalf, most
difficult of decision. Our subject is the Copyright
Act,—with which of course, in his sphere, as
custodian of our National gathering of the work of all
nations and all epochs, Panizzi was called upon to
have intimate acquaintance, as well as dealings, not
always or exhilarating. But—not to anticipate—we
proceed to give a slight sketch of the
objects and workings of this Act, as then in force,
the manner in which it affected the custodian, and
the code of strict integrity, regardless of consequence,
which he always followed.
From the days of Tudor rule to the present time,
the Copyright Act has periodically received the consideration
of Parliament; literary men regard as an
inalienable right of property products of their brain.
In so thinking it would certainly appear primâ facie
.bn 303.png
.pn +1
that their assumption is correct, but a little sound
reasoning will prove how capable of modification are
ideas hastily formed on this important subject. This
subject is now about to be briefly introduced to our
readers, not only as especially suitable to this biography,
but as of vital interest to all who are
members of the great society of letters, and especially
referring to Panizzi, on whom devolved the arduous
task of enforcing the powers conferred on him by
the Act, for the benefit of the British Nation and the
world at large.
It is out of the question to enter into minute
details of the working of this Act from its origin
until now, for there would be no difficulty in filling
a volume were particulars to be fully rendered.
Suffice it to say that the first obligation to give
copies of a work to any one was imposed by 14
Car. II., c. 33, s. 16, by which it was enacted,
“That every printer shall reserve three printed
copies, on the best and largest paper, of every book
new printed or reprinted by him with additions, and
shall, before any public venting of the said book,
bring them to the Master of the Company of Stationers,
and deliver them to him, one whereof
shall be delivered to the Keeper of His Majesty’s
Library, and the other two to be sent to the Vice-Chancellors
of the two Universities respectively for
the use of the public libraries of the said Universities.”
The Statute underwent additions and modifications
from this time, being at some periods allowed to
expire altogether, as it did on the 25th of April, 1694.
.bn 304.png
.pn +1
But, literary property being openly and frequently
pirated, a remedy was urged upon the Legislature as
necessary in the years 1703, 1706, and 1709. A bill
was introduced by Mr. Wortley, and finally passed in
the latter year. It is the 8 Anne, c. 21; the fifth
section of it enacting “That nine copies of each book
or ... “shall be delivered to the warehouse-keeper
of the Company of Stationers for the
time being,” ... “for the use of the Royal
Library, the Libraries of the Universities of Oxford
and Cambridge, the Libraries of the four Universities
of Scotland, the Library of Sion College in London,
and the Library commonly called the Library belonging
to the Faculty of Advocates at Edinburgh
respectively.”
To evade this Act, publishers entered only the
title of a part, or a volume of any work, as it was
generally understood that the claims could be enforced
only as to the part or volume entered, and that nine
copies of no other volume or part could be claimed;
and so, as the Act was practically eluded, enactment followed
enactment, until the 5 and 6 Victoria, c. 45, made
a very definite provision on the subject; not only
ordering the delivery at the British Museum of all
books, but particularizing the meaning of the word
book: “That in the construction of this Act, the
word Book shall be construed to mean and include
every volume, part or division of a volume, pamphlet,
sheet of letter-press, sheet of music, map, chart, or
plan separately published,” a penalty of £5., besides
the value of the copy, being the fine for non-compliance.
.bn 305.png
.pn +1
In May, 1850, the Trustees conferred on Panizzi,
by power of attorney, the unthankful duty of enforcing,
in their name, the provisions of the Copyright
Act. With his accustomed energy, with a firm sense of
duty, and with a zeal, in some instances almost amounting
to harshness, did he face the difficulties of the
situation. Were it simply to record the success
which attended his devotion to the interests of the
Institution he served so faithfully, we should have to
quote his own words. “The Trustees testified to
their sense of the value of my services in this matter
by awarding me £100 a year;” but, as must be admitted
on the testimony of documents now before us, in
his own handwriting, his zeal was rather excessive;
his battles with the publishers brought him odium,
and, at times, even personal vituperation, although he
himself undoubtedly intended to act with forbearance,
and with that courtesy which was one of his
chief characteristics. Did it ever occur to Panizzi
that the noblest literature, that of Greece and Rome,
knew no such law? that, even supposing it might be
necessary, in the nascent state of literature in the
sixteenth century, this more than protection may be
most injurious in more modern times, exactly as the
state protection of a given manufacture might primarily
be good, but, for a permanency, would be
unsound policy?
On April 20th, 1852, Panizzi wrote:—
.pm start_quote
“Mr. Panizzi cannot help feeling that, in deference to the
wish of the Trustees, he has proceeded with too much leniency
in the enforcement of the Act. Respectable publishers,
who cheerfully and punctually comply with its provisions, as
.bn 306.png
.pn +1
well as the readers who are disappointed in not finding English
publications in this library, seem to have a right to more
severe measures, not only towards refractory publishers
within the bills of mortality, but against those living in the
country against whom Mr. Panizzi will at last be forced to
employ the means which were some time ago approved of
by the Trustees for securing their right to books published
out of London.”
.pm end_quote
These words as they stand clearly show the real
state of Panizzi’s inward determination to persevere in
his object; and on the 14th of August, 1852, we find
a letter from the Principal Librarian, approving of
the steps he had “taken for the enforcement of
the Copyright Act in Scotland,” on the part of the
Trustees.
In the same year, a certain Mr. Davis, of Shelton,
forwarded a prospectus of a work entitled “Crania
Britannica,” with a request that, as the book was to
be “privately printed,” the Keeper of the Printed
Books should subscribe for a copy of the work.
Panizzi submitted the prospectus to the Trustees, who
declined the purchase, whereupon Panizzi communicated
this decision to Mr. Davis, and added:—“In
my opinion you are bound to send a copy of that
work to this Library in compliance with the Copyright
Act (5 and 6 Vic., cap. 45).
In September, 1852, in company with Mr. Henry
Stevens, the American book agent, Panizzi visited
Oxford, Dublin, and Cork, and rendered signal service
to the Library by his unsparing exertions to detect
defaulters, and uphold the interests of the
Museum. Amongst his remarks when in Dublin was
one that he “saw a number of important new works
.bn 307.png
.pn +1
exposed for sale of which he did not know the existence,
and even in the case of publications of no great
general importance, he noticed many which ought to
be in the National Collection.” Innumerable difficulties
met him in his task. At Derby, “There are,”
he says, “many works published, but the two principal
publishers having a house in London, it is this
house which, should it be necessary, will be held
responsible for the infringement of the Copyright
Act.” Of course, his presence was in all places which
he visited attended with dislike; and it seems hardly
fair that, whilst acting from the purest motives in
the public service, any obloquy of a personal nature
should have attached to him; yet, to say the least,
had not a sense of duty sustained him, his would have
been a most thankless errand.
Any attempt at times to preserve an incognito was
unavailing—a rather undesirable fact which he soon
discovered, as his person was well known. However,
on the 9th of October, 1852, a report from Panizzi
was read at a committee, when the thanks of the
Trustees were accorded to him for his exertions.
Many special cases of the actions which Panizzi
brought against publishers are worth recounting, but
as their details are necessarily very similar, and, as to
the general reader such repetitions would not be of
any interest, the biographer contents himself with
making special allusion to the most troublesome
opponent who ever entered the lists against Panizzi,
this was Mr. Bohn, the publisher, and bitter were
the denunciations hurled at Panizzi’s devoted head in
the course of the hearing of seventeen distinct
.bn 308.png
.pn +1
summonses before Mr. Jardine, the Magistrate, by
Mr. Ballantine, the counsel for Mr. Bohn. Harsh,
vexatious, tyrannical, were a few of the adjectives
which dropped from the lips of that
learned gentleman. Mr. Bodkin appeared for the
British Museum Authorities, and finally, Mr. Jardine,
with encomiums on the personal worth of both the
disputants, considered nominal penalties with costs
sufficient to meet the exigencies of the case.
On the 2nd of February, 1853, appeared in The
Times a letter from Panizzi, to which our readers are
referred, but which is too lengthy to give verbatim
here. In this letter he says:—“I knew that the
Act had been extensively evaded, and I felt that I
ought to endeavour to enforce it better,” and again,
“I determined to proceed with as much forbearance
as I should find consistent with a due performance of
my duty.” He then refers to the fact that “publishers
are bound to send their publications to the
Museum without receiving previous notice of their
omissions of so doing,” and addresses the warning in
the shape of a circular prepared by the Solicitors of
the Trustees as a proof of their courtesy to those who
considered themselves hardly dealt with. If publishers
refused to comply with the law, what alternative
had Panizzi but to enforce compliance? Was he
to purchase the books, or how was he to procure
them? He states, and states justly too, “I have no
right to spend public money in encouraging non-compliance
with the law.... All I get is
blame. If the books are not in the Library, I am
found fault with, and I am found fault with if I use
.bn 309.png
.pn +1
the only means I now have of procuring them.”
Then he cites the increase in the delivery of books,
&c., 13,934,[M] in 1852, against 9,871 in 1851,
which certainly shows that his labours were not only
necessary, but by no means bare of practical results.
.fm rend=th
.fn M
These would not be books proper; in fact, no more than a fifth; the
rest being parts of works, music, maps, &c. The number of books for 1879
being only about 8,000, not including music, maps, &c.
.fn-
.fm rend=th
In The Times of the same date (February 2, 1853,)
appeared a leading article extolling the way in which
Panizzi did his duty as a public servant; it notes the
peculiarity of the absence of Mr. Bohn’s name in
this long letter, although Panizzi must have had him
in his mind at the time he was writing; it deplores the
“ill-considered expressions” by which these gentlemen
appear to irritate one another, and winds up
with these words:—“It is a lamentable thing to see
two such men engaged in so petty and so discreditable
a warfare, the simple result of which will be to
damage both combatants in the opinion of all sober
and moderate men.” With this remark many will,
doubtless, agree, yet Panizzi’s exceptional position as
a champion, it may be said almost of the whole world
(for the whole world has access to this store of
knowledge), must not be forgotten. He himself
appears to have considered Mr. Jardine as
biassed in his views, for he stigmatized the Act as
strong, and its enactments harsh; but in whatever light
we view the controversy, it would seem to have been
carried on with much acerbity, and this is certainly
to be regretted in the case of two such antagonists.
On the 3rd of February, 1853, Panizzi wrote to
Mr. Haywood, alluding to the ungrateful return
.bn 310.png
.pn +1
made to him for his services. Having two months
before this seriously thought of returning his power of
attorney, when he was induced to retain it, he
says, “I am now bound, and have no wish to perform
that duty,” then he alludes to the gratuity of £200
given to Sir Henry Ellis, and continues, “To me
nothing has ever been given, and I will not go on,”
and with some pardonable self-laudation adds, “They
will soon see the difference in the number of books
which they will receive, between my fearless and
honest conduct, and that of anybody else whom they
may appoint.”
Further correspondence followed in The Times—a
letter from Panizzi on the 3rd of February, 1853, and
one from Mr. Bohn on the 8th of the same month.
These letters possess no special interest; the former
being Panizzi’s re-statement of his case, and the latter
Mr. Bohn’s rejoinder to the fresh insinuations, and his
own views on the subject.
On the 24th of February, 1853, Panizzi wrote to
Sir Henry Ellis, requesting that, whenever the subject
of the re-enforcement of the Copyright Act was
again brought before the Trustees, he would “respectfully
represent to them his strong wish of being excused
from performing a duty which, in conformity
with the arrangement of 1837, under which he holds
office, was expressly assigned to the Secretary.”
The great remedy for getting rid of all difficulties,
now-a-days, seems to be the taking up by Government
of important schemes, and the biographer has seen it
widely suggested:—“Let Government be the only
publisher, because alone having perfect means of
.bn 311.png
.pn +1
publicity—publishing for all alike (at their own expense)
and giving all alike an equal chance.”
The Law of Copyright is about to come again
under the consideration of Parliament, when, we
cannot tell, but it would have delighted him whose
“Memoirs” we write to have listened to, and advised
fresh suggestions on, a subject with which he was so
intimately acquainted, and where his disinterestedness
(so far as he himself was concerned) led to so
much mortification and such undeserved opprobrium.
.il fn=i_b_389.jpg w=125px ew=20%
.bn 312.png
.pn +1
.pb
.il fn=i_b_102.jpg w=500px ew=90%
.h2 nobreak
CHAPTER X
.pm start_summary
Lord Vernon’s Dante; Sir G. Cornewall Lewis on Milton and
Dante; Chi era Francesco da Bologna? John Harris.
.pm end_summary
.di dc_d.jpg 150 144 1.1
During 1848, Europe was greatly
disturbed by internal commotions,
calculated to unsettle thinking men,
and more especially those who
took an active interest in politics.
It is a matter for astonishment, therefore, that
Panizzi, whose share in such agitation was by no
means inconsiderable, should have found time and inclination
to devote himself to literary productions.
Nevertheless, indulging in the aspirations for freedom
which were then moving nations he yet was
able to dedicate much of his time to literature.
.tb
.il id=i295 fn=i_b_295_dante.jpg w=225px ew=40% align=l alt='Dante'
Indeed, it is almost incredible how he could, with
so much on his brain, have given himself up to
the editing of Dante. Of the great Italian poet
so much might be written that it would be but
irrelevant to this biography to leave the principal
mover in it, even temporarily, to dilate on so
exalted a subject. We must, therefore, merely observe
that Panizzi was deeply impressed with the
.bn 313.png
.pn +1
importance of Dante’s poetry, which excelled all
that had preceded it, and was
written in the lingua vulgare,
only that it might be understood
by the people, who delighted
in its inexhaustible
treasures. Five centuries have
elapsed since the great Florentine
wrote his Divina Commedia,
which has now become
the property and admiration
of the whole civilized world.
The editions of it are very numerous, but it is with
the first four we have now to deal.
The earliest is the Editio Princeps, of Foligno,
by Numeister, bearing date 1472. In the same year
were also printed one edition at Jesi, by Federico
Veronese, and another at Mantua, by Germanus,
Giorgio e Paolo. That at Naples was edited by
Giovanni Francesco del Tuppo, printed by Reussinger,
and appeared three years later.
An idea of the value and importance of the volume
edited by Panizzi, at the expense of Lord Vernon
(published by Messrs. T. and W. Boone, and printed
by Charles Whittingham), may be formed by the
mere fact that these first four editions are here
united in one, which, to the student, must prove an
invaluable boon, as he is thus enabled to perceive at
a glance the variations in the text.
These editions can only be found altogether at the
British Museum, though separate copies exist in
other libraries also.
.bn 314.png
.pn +1
In the year 1835, Mr. Grenville gave the sum of
£60 for the copy printed at Naples, and in 1842
he purchased for £42. 16s. 0d. the Mantua edition,
which two copies are now in the British Museum,
forming part of his munificent bequest to the Nation.
From Panizzi’s preface we learn that he gave £90
to Mr. Asher, of Berlin, for the Jesi Dante, in which
six pages were missing. Fac-similes were made by
John Harris, from a copy in the possession of Earl
Spencer. Later on, Mr. Winter Jones, at that
time Keeper of the Printed Books, purchased another
incomplete copy, from which he was enabled to replace
four more pages, thus rendering it all but
complete.
Two copies of the Foligno Edition are to be found
in the same Library—the most favoured possessor in
the world of early editions of Dante.
Lord Vernon could have no better opportunity of
reprinting them in London. In securing the assistance
of Panizzi, whose knowledge and precision
were of the utmost importance, he was most fortunate.
Moreover, the printing of the book in question
is highly creditable to British typography.
It is a folio of 800 pages, with a preface by the
Editor, and contains fac-similes of the originals. Lord
Vernon, being a corresponding member, dedicated it
to the Accademia della Crusca.
The preliminaries for this work, which was published
in 1858, were entered into just ten years before;
and a memorandum from Lord Vernon, dated October
23, 1848, is extant, in which he makes a proposal to
Panizzi that the sum of £50 should be paid to him
.bn 315.png
.pn +1
every six months, until the completion of the work—the
said payment to terminate in four years—the
whole sum amounting in the aggregate to £400.
In this transaction Mr. Pickering was consulted.
Panizzi lost no time, and was evidently eager to
begin a task so congenial to his taste; for barely a
week afterwards (to quote his own words) he wrote to
Lord Vernon, “I have set to work without a moment’s
delay, putting aside every other unofficial occupation.”
The question relating to the latter part of the following
letter of Lord Vernon, seems to have arisen
from a misunderstanding as to the use of the word his
for this; and will be best explained by giving his Lordship’s
letter, in addition to Panizzi’s very characteristic
reply:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“Florence, 21st Nov., 1848.
.ll
“My Dear Sir,
.ti 6
I am very happy to find that Mr. Pickering’s
proposal has met with your approval, as it did with mine.
As for myself, I can only congratulate
myself at having had
the good fortune to secure
your valuable assistance at any
price within my means.
.il id=i297 fn=i_b_297_vernon.jpg w=225px ew=40% alt='Lord Vernon' align=l
Respecting the correction
of the press, you are right in
supposing that it was intended
to apply not only to the part
which more immediately concerns
yourself, but to the whole
work. If, however, you think
that the revision of my part of
the work will be a great fatigue,
and take up too much of your
time, I am willing to omit this from the conditions above
.bn 316.png
.pn +1
stated. I must, however, in this case, beg of you to name
your own terms, in case it suited you to undertake it, or else
to find some one else in whose capacity and judgment you
have confidence, and who will have some discretion in his
demands upon my purse.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
Vernon.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“B. M., Nov. 30th, 1848.
.ll
“My dear Lord,
.ti 6
In thanking you for your kind expressions towards
me, I beg to add that I cannot allow you to incur any expense
whatever for correcting your own edition of the Inferno.
I consider it part of my duty, according to the terms of the
memorandum of the 23rd of October, as explained in my
to your Lordship on the 31st of the same month, to
correct the press of that Cantica; I am at your Lordship’s
orders, and ready to perform that duty to the best of my
abilities.
I suppose I shall hear from Mr. Pickering when I am
wanted in that respect. With reference to the text of the
first four editions, twelve cantos of the first (Foligno) are
prepared for collation with those of Mantua, Jesi, and Naples.
By midsummer I hope the greater part, if not the whole
of the first part of the poem, will be thus collated and ready
for press. The printing will proceed slowly, as I am to re-collate
the whole in type.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
As early as September, 1849, there was already
sufficient material for going to press; but though
Panizzi continually wrote to his Lordship urging the
necessity of beginning to print, a year elapsed without
any communication on the subject, and without
any progress with the work. From a letter in the
month of June, 1851, Lord Vernon appears to have
.bn 317.png
.pn +1
been somewhat discouraged; the booksellers not
having taken up the matter in so spirited a manner
as he anticipated, and Panizzi complaining, not without
reason, that the work seems to have come almost
to a stand still, consoled himself by addressing the
following letter to Mr. E. White, his Lordship’s
solicitor:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“British Museum, May 5th, 1852.
.ll
“Dear Sir,
.ti 6
It is not for me to suggest to his Lordship any course of
proceeding; as, however, I am not totally indifferent with
respect to the determination he may come to, I hope to be
forgiven for saying a very few words on the subject.
When I undertook to carry out Lord Vernon’s wishes
expressed in the memorandum handed to me by Mr. Pickering,
and confirmed by his Lordship’s subsequent letters, I was
not only moved by the pecuniary remuneration which Lord
Vernon was pleased to propose to me, I looked forward to the
time when the work should be published, from which I
expected some credit. I cannot, therefore, feel indifferent to
his Lordship’s determination as to publishing; nor can I
receive without some slight observation the sum which Lord
Vernon proposed to me as a remuneration for a certain work,
without fulfilling on my part the obligations I have incurred.
These I am most anxious to perform, but it is impossible for
me to do so if Lord Vernon does not order a printer to print
the manuscript which I have not failed to prepare as agreed,
and in a manner which his Lordship had fully approved of.
I am not less desirous to perform what I have undertaken,
than I am of receiving the remuneration which I was led to
expect for it; and it would be very painful to me if his Lordship
merely performed his part of the agreement without
enabling me to perform mine.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
.bn 318.png
.pn +1
Much to the editor’s delight, however, work was
resumed; and by the summer of 1854 Mr. Whittingham
had already sent in a bill for printing the
Inferno.
Such was the beauty of the work that it deeply
impressed Lord Vernon’s sensitive nature, and in the
following year he desired that the Purgatorio
should be forthwith proceeded with, but as the first
portion approached completion, his Lordship became
anxious as to the title of the book and its disposal, as
the following letter clearly testifies:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.nf r
“Nov. 4, 1856,
Hôtel Westminster,
Rue de la Paix, Paris.
.nf-
.ll
“Dear Mr. Panizzi,
.ti 6
What shall we call the union of four editions in
one? I cannot think of a word. You cannot call it “Tesseraglott,”
because it is one “glotte,” or language, though not
quite in one dialect. If I remember right, there is in Ugo
Foscolo’s edition rather a learned disquisition about the cause
of the difference in the texts of the early editions, viz., the
difference in the dialect of the early copyists, &c., &c., &c.
I was thinking of dedicating the book to the Crusca(of
which I am a most unworthy corresponding member), if you
see no objection to it. What plan would you recommend me
to pursue for the publication of this book, and of my own edition
of the “Inferno?” Had I better sell it to some bookseller
for a certain sum, or had I better let the bookseller sell
it on my account, receiving so much percent? Or had I
better sell it by auction, or had I better give it all away?
What bookseller to employ I know not, nor whether to
publish it in England, France, or Italy.
Then as to price (if a price it is to have). What might it
be? There will be 2 vols, folio—viz., one of the text with
.bn 319.png
.pn +1
my paraphrastic interpretation (I say this because it is not
exactly a paraphrase, inasmuch as no single word of the
original is omitted). 2nd. A volume also in folio of illustrative
matters; and 3rd, 1 vol. folio, the album Dantesco with explanatory
notes.
I say folio, but perhaps it is royal 4to., I do not know how
this may be, but they will all be the same size. I shall be
very thankful when it is off my hands.
If I had health I should do the “Purgatorio.” The
“Paradiso” is too philosophical and metaphysical and theological
for my poor simple head. It is a pity, however,
that the other two Cantiche should not be done, as it would
add considerably to the value of the book.
There is another way of publication—viz., subscription,
but I do not much like this.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
Vernon.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
This letter was followed not long afterwards by
another, in which Lord Vernon entered into details
regarding the sale and profits likely to accrue from it.
He was, evidently, still undecided as to the title of
the book, and urged Panizzi to suggest one.
As to the place of publication, his Lordship, with
a certain amount of reason, desired that it should be
in London; he very justly observes that:—“Being
done at the expense of an Englishman, printed in
England, on English paper, and from four editions,
which are found together only in the British Museum,
moreover, being the homage of an Englishman to
Italy’s greatest poet, to her literature, and to her
most celebrated Academies, it would appear with
better grace, as coming from London, than any
Italian city.”
.bn 320.png
.pn +1
By March, 1858, the book was completed, when
Lord Vernon expressed himself thus: “I hope to
hear in a short time that, like the Great Leviathan,
it has overcome all stops and hindrances, and been
fairly launched in the stream of literature.”
Some writers—and amongst them the subject of
our memoir—have looked upon Milton as an occasional
imitator of Dante. A propos of this theory
(which may best be studied in Professor Masson’s
biography of the great Puritan poet), we propose to
give, at some length, a correspondence on the subject
between Panizzi and Sir G. Cornewall Lewis. The
letters of the former are so full
of sound thought and such fair
specimens of his literary knowledge
that we append them,
together with Sir G. C. Lewis’s
reply, for the reader’s edification.
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.nf r
“British Museum,
January 22, 1856.
.nf-
.ll
My dear Sir George,
.il id=i302 fn=i_b_302_lewis.jpg w=225px ew=40% align=l alt='Sir G. Cornwall Lewis'
.ti 6
I have been looking
whether my memory had served
me right as to Milton having occasionally imitated Dante,
which I mentioned on Sunday, when we were speaking
of Dante being or not being known in England before the last
century. I have found several passages which I think bear
me out; for instance:—
.pm start_poem
‘Non ragioniam di lor, ma guarda, e passa.’
‘Therefore eternal silence be their doom.’—P. L. 6, 385.
.pm end_poem
But I don’t quote more, as in his prose works (vol. IV., p.
11, edit. of 1753) he actually quotes as his authority against
Rome Dante’s lines, c. 19, v. 115—
.bn 321.png
.pn +1
‘Ahi Costantin, di quanto, mal fu matre,’ and translates them
thus:—
.pm start_poem
‘Ah, Constantine! of how much ill was cause
Not thy conversion, but those rich demains
That the first wealthy Pope receiv’d of thee.’
.pm end_poem
and then he, moreover, refers to the twentieth Canto of the
Paradiso.
It is curious to see, not long after Milton—or, perhaps, at
the same time—Stillingfleet, in his Origines Sacræ (Book 2nd,
ch. 9, sec. 19, and ch. 10, sec. 5) quote Dante as an authority on
the truth of Christianity, but he gives the verses in a Latin
translation by F. S. (I have not looked to see who F. S. was.)
Spenser, too, has imitated Dante, I think. Tradubio, who
is turned into a tree and speaks, of Pier delle Vigne.
.pm start_poem
‘Uomini fummo, ed or siam fatti sterpi.’
‘But once a man, Tradubio, now a tree.’
.pm end_poem
Chaucer has often imitated Dante, whom he calls (Wife
of Bath’s Tale, v. 6708, in Tyrwhitt’s edit.) ‘the wise poet of
Florence—that highte Dante,’ of whom he translated immediately
after the lines:—
.pm start_poem
‘Rade volte discende per li rami,’ &c.
‘Full selde up riseth by his branches small,’ &c.;
.pm end_poem
and in the Monk’s Tale the whole of Ugolino’s Story is translated,
and he ends by referring to
.pm start_poem
‘The grete poete of Itaille—
That highte Dante ...’ as its author.
.pm end_poem
And now I end in haste.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“Kent House, Jan. 25, 1856.
.ll
“Dear Panizzi,
.ti 6
The imitation of Dante in Milton’s verse—‘Therefore
eternal silence be their doom’—seems to me doubtful.
The quotation of the celebrated passage ‘Ahi Costantin’
does not prove that Milton had read Dante—he might have
found this anti-papal citation in some controversial work.
.bn 322.png
.pn +1
I have no doubt that scattered references to particular
passages and particular expressions in a writer so sterling, and
once too well-known, can be found at all periods. But is there
any evidence that Milton’s contemporaries read Dante, and
understood and admired him, and were influenced by his
poetry in their compositions?
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
G. C. Lewis.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“B. M., Jan. 26, 1856.
.ll
“My dear Sir George,
.ti 6
Dante says:—
.pm start_poem
‘Fama di loro il mondo esser non lassa,
Misericordia e Giustizia gli sdegna.
Non ragioniam di lor, ma guarda, e passa.’
.pm end_poem
And Milton:—
.pm start_poem
‘Cancelled from Heaven and sacred memory,
Nameless in dark oblivion let them dwell;
\ \ * \ \ \ \ \ * \ \ \ \ \ * \ \ \ \ \ * \ \ \ \ \ * \ \ \ \ \ *
Therefore eternal silence be their doom.’
—P. L., 6. 380-5.
.pm end_poem
Take the whole, and it seems to me that the English is in
imitation of the Italian. But great poets, when they imitate,
they do so making the images their own; they don’t copy,
but they abridge, add, and alter so as to appear original, and
so does Milton. I find that he once translated one line
Dante, at the beginning of the Paradiso, c. 1, v. 12, says:
.pm start_poem
‘Sarà ora materia del mio canto,’
.pm end_poem
And Milton, P. L., 3. 413:—
.pm start_poem
‘Shall be the copious matter of my song.’
.pm end_poem
And compare also what he says of the sun in that book
(v. 586), with the very first lines of the Canto of Dante.
In his sonnet to Henry Lawes, Milton says:—
.pm start_poem
‘Dante shall give Fame leave to set thee higher
Than his Casella, whom he woo’d to sing,
Met in the milder shades of Purgatory.’
.pm end_poem
.bn 323.png
.pn +1
Now this alludes to Purg. c.2, v.106, and ‘the milder shades
of when compared to those of Hell, seem to show
that Milton had read both.
Add to this that Milton knew Italian thoroughly, that he had
passed some time at Florence, where Dante was never forgotten,
and that Galileo, and still more Dati, were intimate friends of
his. Now, Galileo and Dati were great admirers of Dante, and
placed him in the highest rank of poets.
I cannot, therefore, doubt that Milton was thoroughly conversant
with Dante’s poetry, and admired him. How far he
was influenced by his poetry in his compositions, would require
a long critical essay; the more difficult to draw up satisfactorily,
the more is the originality of a great poet like Milton
in appropriating other poet’s ideas.
.ll 68
.nf r
Believe me, &c.,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
Whatever may have been the ultimate settlement
of this friendly discussion, Panizzi’s estimate of Sir
George’s talents and abilities may be accurately
gathered from the next letter we quote, which asks
him to become a candidate for a vacant Trusteeship
of the British Museum.
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“British Museum, August 16, 1856.
.ll
“My dear Sir George,
.ti 6
The Dean of Westminster is dead: he was one
of our Trustees. We want as his successor an M.P. who will
help us when not in office, who is pretty safe of his seat, and
whose pursuits render him fit for the place. Now, without
any ceremony, you are the man we want, and I mean to do
what little I can to bring your name before the electors.
There can be no difficulty, as the Government necessarily get
elected whom they please. I want no answer from you, except
if you decidedly object: in which case I want you only to
write the word no. I hope, however, you will accept ‘la
candidature,’ as the French say. I think Cureton ought to
be elected Dean. He is one of the most eminent Oriental
.bn 324.png
.pn +1
scholars in the world, as you know—and certainly the most
eminent in England.
.ll 68
.nf r
Believe me, &c.,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
“P.S.—I know Lord Clarendon is staying with you.
Please show him this: I am sure he will see that it is done—I
mean for you.”
.pm end_quote
The hopes thus expressed were realized, as, on the
27th of February of the following year (1857), Sir
George C. Lewis was appointed one of the Trustees
of our famous Institution.
And here may be given an extract from a letter of
J. A. Carlyle (Thomas Carlyle’s brother), also on the
topic of Dante’s poems, which deserves recognition,
as a proof of the esteem in which Panizzi was universally
held, in especial by Englishmen.
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“20th December, 1848.
.ll
“I really wish you could find leisure to write something
expressly concerning the times in which Dante lived. You
could do it better than any other person, and it has now
become very necessary.”
.pm end_quote
.il .id=i306 fn=i_b_306_raibolini.jpg w=225px ew=40% alt='Francesco Raibolini' align=l
And now, let us proceed to
another publication. In the
year 1858 Panizzi issued, for
his friends, a charming little
work, beautifully printed, also
by Charles Whittingham.
Written in Italian, and dedicated
to H.R.H. the Duke
d’Aumale, only 250 copies were
printed, under the title of Chi
era Francesco da Bologna?—proving,
so far as the question
could be then proved, that the said Francesco
.bn 325.png
.pn +1
da Bologna was no other than the celebrated painter.
Francesco Raibolini, born about 1450, and commonly
called il Francia. The name of Francia
he derived from his master, a goldsmith, die, and
niello engraver. According to Vasari and a document
discovered by Calvi, his death took place on
the 6th of January, 1517.[N] Francesco Raibolini
was at once, in common with many of his compeers,
goldsmith and type-cutter, as well as a painter,
and to his skilful hands, Aldus, whose name they bear,
was indebted for his characters. From Panizzi, we
learn that, “at the end of the short Preface prefixed
by Aldus to his first edition of Virgil (1501), printed
in the cursive or secretarial characters manum mentientes,
afterwards generally known by the name of
Aldine, are the following three verses:—
.pm start_poem
In Grammatoglyptæ
Laudem.
“Qui graiis dedit Aldus, en latinis
Dat nunc grammata scalpta dædaleis
Francisci manibus Bononiensis,”
.pm end_poem
.pm start_quote
.ti 0
(Translation). In praise of the type-engraver. Aldus now
gives to the Latins, as he gave to the Greeks, letters graven by
the dædal hands of Francesco da Bologna.
.pm end_quote
Besides cutting types, Francesco used them too, for
he set up a press at his native town, Bologna, in
1516, and printed several works, now rare, as, for instance,
“Il Canzoniere” of Petrarch, “L’Arcadia di
Sannazaro” and “Gli Asolani” of Bembo, “Il Corbaccio”
and the “Epistolæ ad Familiares” of Cicero.
.fm rend=th
.fn N
The date as in the document in question is 1517. The old custom of
beginning the ecclesiastical and legal year on the 20th of March was never
established at Bologna.
.fn-
.fm rend=th
.bn 326.png
.pn +1
About 1503, Francesco quarrelled with Aldus, and
we find, in a letter prefixed to the edition of Petrarch,
that he bitterly complains of deriving no honour or
profits from the types he had himself cut. It is notorious
that Aldus freely gave out that he was not only
the inventor, but also the cutter; and, therefore, the
work by Panizzi, to say nothing of its beauty, is of
great importance, for it does justice to the real inventor,
and this discovery is due to the author of the
pamphlet, who, besides, enlightens us, in clear language,
respecting the distinguished Bolognese:—
“From the beginning of printing up to a time not
far distant from our own, the engravers of punches
for types were goldsmiths, die-sinkers, medallists,
niellists,—masters in their art. It will be found in
Zani that Fust and Sch[oe]ffer were goldsmiths, and so,
it is believed, was Guttenberg; while, in the opinion
of the said Zani, it was Giovanni Dunne, ‘a most excellent
goldsmith, who led the way in the formation
of metal types.’ ... Every one knows how distinguished
Francia was as a goldsmith, his first and
chief profession, and how frequently he signed his
paintings with the words, ‘Franciscus Francia aurifaber,’
or ‘aurifex,’ as if he gloried in the designation.
Vasari says, in the Life of Francia, that his
fine medals stood on a par with those of Caradosso;
but he says never a word of the Furnius conjured up
by Gaurico.”
“I had long suspected that this Francesco da
Bologna, was no other than the Bolognese Francesco
Raibolini, generally known as ‘Francia.’ Some
years ago, in running through a work of some note
.bn 327.png
.pn +1
in former times, I found that after mentioning various
ancient artists, exactly as Gaurico does, it went on to
speak of the modern ones thus:—‘I find amongst
the ancients one great omission of which the moderns
take notice, and that is with regard to engravers or
artists in silver, a kind of work known as niello. I
am acquainted with a man of the highest excellence,
and very famous in his art, his name is Francesco
da Bologna, otherwise Franza; he forms or engraves
on a diminutive orb or plate of silver, so many men
and animals, so many mountains, trees, and castles,
and in so many various shapes and positions that it is
wonderful to behold or describe.’”
“And here I might stop,” continues Panizzi, “were
it not that the direct testimony of Leonardi is corroborated
irrefragably by a very remarkable circumstance....
I think I may conclude by answering
the question which I have put to myself, thus:—Francesco
da Bologna was Francesco Raibolini,
called Francia, the worthy contemporary and compatriot
of Leonardo, Raphael, and Michel Angelo,
great as a painter, great as an engraver, great as a
medallist, great as a niellist, without equal as a type-cutter,
a shining ornament of illustrious and learned
Bologna.”
Conclusive as Panizzi’s argument appeared to be,
there were, of course, dissentients, and among them
was Count Giacomo Manzoni, who, in a jocular letter
to the late librarian of the Laurenziana (Florence)
Cav. Ferrucci, expressed his doubts. Panizzi, in a
tone of equal good humour, confuted the Count,
and issued a second edition in 1873, containing
.bn 328.png
.pn +1
his answer to Count Manzoni’s suggested objections.
The “bijou” work (or as Monsieur Brunet, the
celebrated bibliophile termed it, un véritable bijou
typographique), once out of the publisher’s hands, it
was circulated amongst Panizzi’s friends, and translated
by Mr. Charles Cannon. The laudatory letters,
replete with thanks, which followed were numerous,
but as an example of these, that from the already
mentioned Mons. Brunet must suffice:—
.pm start_quote_lang fr 90 1
.ll 68
.rj
“Paris, 30 Nov., 1858.
.ll
“Monsieur,
.ti 6
J’ai bien tardé à vous remercier du charmant
opuscule que M. Mérimée m’a fait l’honneur de me remettre de
votre part. C’est qu’avant de vous écrire je voulais avoir pris
connaissance de cette curieuse dissertation, et que malheureusement,
occupé sans relâche d’un travail in extremis, pour ma
nouvelle édition, il me reste bien peu de temps à donner à
mes plaisirs. C’en a été un véritable pour moi de vous lire et
d’admirer l’exactitude de vos fac-simile. Vos conjectures,
Monsieur, sur Francesco de Bologna, me paraissent bien
fondées: elles font connaître tout le mérite d’un artiste, que
jusqu’ici, on avait regardé seulement comme un habile
graveur de poinçons à l’usage des imprimeurs.
A l’égard de ces poinçons, permettez moi, Monsieur, de
faire ici une réserve en faveur de l’Alde l’ancien. Cet imprimeur,
à ce qu’il parait, les a achetés de Francesco, il en a fait
frapper les matrices nécessaires pour la fonte des caractères
cursifs dont il a fait un si fréquent usage à partir de 1501. Or,
avant de se livrer aux dépenses considérables où cela devait
l’entraîner, il a dû naturellement se réserver la propriété exclusive
des objects acquis par lui, alors s’il en agit ainsi, il a eu
raison de se plaindre de ce que l’artiste eut livré des caractères
semblables à Géronimo Soncino pour son Pétrarque de 1503,
.bn 329.png
.pn +1
et il était parfaitement dans son droit lorsqu’il sollicitait et
obtenait du Pape un exclusif pour ses nouveaux
caractères.
Je connaissais plusieurs des petites éditions données par
Francesco, en 1516, mais pas le Cicéron, et j’ignorais que cet
artiste n’eut exercé la Typographie, que moins d’une année.
J’aurais, j’en suis certain bien d’autres choses à apprendre de
vous, Monsieur, qui possédez de si grandes connaissances en ce
genre, mais, à mon grand regret, éloigné de vous pour
toujours, et occupé de terminer un travail que mon grand âge
m’avertit de limiter, je ne pourrai guère profiter des secours
que vous m’avez si obligemment offerts lorsque j’ai eu le plaisir
de vous voir.
.ll 68
.nf r
Agréez, &c., &c.,
Brunet.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
The fac-similes which are placed at the end of the
work were executed by John Harris, L’incomparabile
Harris, as Panizzi was in the habit of styling
him. As a fac-similist he stood alone. So correct
and so wonderful were his productions, that Panizzi
himself adopted the safe plan of writing, in pencil, on
the margin of them, “This is by J. H.—A. P.” He
eventually lost his sight, and died very poor. Some
of the leaves supplied by him are so perfectly done
that, after a few years, he himself experienced some
difficulty in distinguishing his own work from the
original. On one occasion a question arose as to the
completeness of a certain copy of a rare book in the
Museum Library; it was brought to light and carefully
examined by Panizzi, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Watts.
After a fruitless search, page by page, a consultation
ended in a summons to Harris himself to point out the
leaves that he had supplied. It was only after a very
close examination that the artist was able to detect his
.bn 330.png
.pn +1
own handiwork. This circumstance induced Panizzi to
to initial all such fac-similes. The reader is recommended
to examine a book in the National Library,—a
copy of Magna Charta, as a specimen of his
skill.
Mr. Grenville employed Harris largely. On one
occasion he supplied a few missing leaves to a rare
book, and after it was shown to connoisseurs, the
venerable gentleman presented him with the book.
So much for Panizzi’s literary abilities and his discernment
and success in this sphere of his many and
arduous labours, in which he exhibited the same
powers of mind and application as in all the varied
occupations of his busy life. Enough has, however,
been said to show how, amongst all his other multifarious
and unceasing occupations, he found time to
dedicate his mind to literature, and literature of a
class to demand the greatest application and labour
of the brain.
.il fn=i_b_389.jpg w=125px ew=20%
.bn 331.png
.pn +1
.pb
.il fn=i_b_199.jpg w=500px ew=90%
.h2 nobreak
CHAPTER XI
.pm start_summary
Minor Incidents; Holland House; Sydney Smith; Ecclesiastical
Commission Act (1836); Joseph Parkes; Count d’Orsay; Lord
Melbourne; Mrs. Norton; Dr. Hampden’s Case; Watts’ Portrait
of Panizzi; Lord Holland; Hardy’s Life of Lord Langdale.
.pm end_summary
.sp 2
.di dc_h.jpg 150 155 1.1
Hitherto our work has consisted for
the most part of details of important
facts: it may, therefore, be well for a
time to digress, and to string together
some of the minor incidents of Panizzi’s
life, without which this could scarcely claim to be a
faithful biography. To recount such small traits of
character may be deemed simply gossip; yet, on reflection,
it is not so, as it is thus that true light is
brought to bear on the man’s character, and, by these
details, an opportunity is given of judging disposition
and intentions, which could not otherwise have been
afforded. In presenting the following items, therefore,
to our readers, accompanied as our observations are by
original correspondence, we simply perform the duty
which should be fulfilled by every honest biographer.
In a life like Panizzi’s, much importance is attached to
what, at first, may appear insignificant, relating in a
great degree to the society of which he was a member.
.bn 332.png
.pn +1
.il id=i314 fn=i_b_314_smith.jpg w=225px ew=40% alt='Sydney Smith' align=l
The name of Holland House has long been notable
as the headquarters of one of the most delightful of
London coteries, not only for the celebrity in the
world of letters of its immediate frequenters, but also
for the eminence in political life of many more who
resorted thither. Whether or no the Church was
adequately represented in the person of that wittiest,
and most genial of ecclesiastics,
Sydney Smith, certain it is that
the society of the place would
have been greatly the loser by his
absence. Here Panizzi, who, in
proportion to the sterling worth
of his company, appears ever to
have been a welcome guest, very
soon after his arrival in London
established a footing; and at the
time of her marriage, in 1833, the
present Lady Holland found him already an habitué of
Holland House, in company with such distinguished
individuals as Lord Grey, Lansdowne, and Brougham,
Moore, Jeffrey, and Allen.
Speaking from personal knowledge of Panizzi, we
are inclined, in a great measure, to ascribe his remarkable
social successes to that innate and subtle
quality with which so few men comparatively are
endowed—perhaps happily so; for want of a better
term, let us call it personal influence. In this respect
he has always seemed to suggest to us a comparison
of him with the late Dr. Arnold. The latter was
apparently a man of great mental powers and amiable
.bn 333.png
.pn +1
disposition; still, in his own peculiar sphere, many of
his contemporaries may have equalled, and some even
surpassed him.
This may be true to a certain extent; but, considering
the talents which this great man possessed, it
seems almost absurd to remark that some of his own
pupils have attributed to him a deficiency of that sixth
sense which is generally regarded as the most judicious
controller and regulator of our actions—sense of
humour. With men of discernment and of note,
there is, however, always some distinguishing quality,—so
in the case of Arnold and Panizzi it happened
that, whereas the one was calculated to instil into those
with whom he came in contact awe, the other was
ever welcome, from the congeniality of his disposition.
Nor in saying this do we detract in the smallest degree
from the mental or moral worth of either. For this
quality of personal influence, although, like “reading
and writing,” it comes “by nature,” yet is nevertheless
dependent for continuous life and maintenance upon
genuine merit in its subject.
Like mates not always with like, and the characters
of Panizzi and Sydney Smith must have
differed very widely; yet, notwithstanding all divergences
of mental constitution, it was not long ere an
intimate friendship sprang up between them.
In the year 1836 the Ecclesiastical Commission Act,
for the supervision and re-adjustment of certain of the
revenues and sources of revenue of the English Church,
was passed. It must be conceded that this Commission
made a pretty clean sweep of not a few offices in
the Church hardly worthy the expense of retention,
.bn 334.png
.pn +1
as well as of others more venerable for antiquity than
valuable in point of usefulness; and for many years it
had to bear the brunt of accusations, not always made
by those who object to the most moderate reforms.
It is only lately, indeed, that we have ourselves listened
to some, who might long ago have been wearied of,
though truly they were not satiated with, their denunciations
of this, to them, wanton act of spoliation, this
invasion of the rights of the Church, &c., &c., &c.
On the side of the assailants, Sydney Smith put in
a very early appearance. His attack upon the arbitrary
power given to the Commission, and on the little
protection afforded to, and the little heed taken of,
the rights of the poorer clergy, lasted until 1840; in
which year a petition, presented by him, in July,
against it, was read in the House of Lords by the
Bishop of Rochester.
Sydney Smith was warmly rebuked, for that he, a
professedly consistent Whig, should have borne himself
with so much hostility towards the rulers of his party.
However, his correspondence on the subject during
these four years was extensive, and a letter written by
him to Panizzi, criticising the conduct of the Bishops,
is certainly worthy of reproduction:
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.nf r
“21 December, 1836.
Combe Florey.
.nf-
.ll
“My dear Panizzi,
.ti 6
Various Bishops, of whom the Archbishop of
Canterbury is at the head, on the Ecclesiastical Commission,
combine in recommending that the revenues of their various
churches should be seized, the patronage confiscated, and the
numbers abridged. Now, the Archbishop, at his consecration,
took a solemn oath that he would preserve the rights, revenues,
.bn 335.png
.pn +1
and property of his Cathedral; moreover, in the debates on
the Catholic question, the said Archbishop laid a great stress
upon the King’s oath at his Coronation, so did the Bishop of
London. I have no books here; would you do me the favour
to look into the debates on that subject, and extract any short
passage from the speeches of either of the prelates on the
sanctity and importance of this oath. You will find what
has been said, of course, in Hansard. I shall be much obliged
to you to do this for me.
.ll 68
.nf r
Ever yours truly,
Sydney Smith.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
Fortunately even the power of Sydney Smith’s
opposition failed to hinder the carrying out of a reform,
perhaps the least revolutionary that could have
been devised for the administration of the property
of the Church.
In the same proportion as diversity of topics enters
into a series of correspondence, will, as a rule, be the
amount of amusement to be derived by the public
from its perusal. But one more letter from Sydney
Smith to Panizzi is in our possession, and this, so far
as it goes, and in conjunction with the letter already
quoted, sufficiently fulfils the above condition. It
certainly treats of no grave question of ecclesiastical
or other politics, but is concerned with nothing mean
or unimportant, since it relates to an invitation to
dinner sent by the writer to the recipient, and is
eminently characteristic of its author:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“23 April, 1844,
.ll
“My dear Panizzi,
.ti 6
I wrote to you two or three times inviting you to
dinner for the 26th. Receiving no answer, I concluded you
were dead, and I invited your executors. News, however,
came that you were out of town. I should as soon have
.bn 336.png
.pn +1
thought of St. Paul’s or the Monument being out of town,
but as it was positively asserted, I have filled up your place.
I hope to be more fortunate on another occasion.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
Sydney Smith.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
During this part of his career—as indeed so long
as he could himself write—Panizzi’s general correspondence
was too voluminous to allow of much
selection; for the notes and explanations thereon,
when at hand or to be obtained, would inordinately
increase the bulk of this work. We, therefore, subjoin
but a few specimens, which mostly speak for
themselves:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.nf r
“Westminster,
Dec. 4, 1842.
.nf-
.ll
“Dear Panizzi,
.ti 6
What a d—— fellow you are; a man of taste and
accomplishment to write such a cursed illegible hand, that
only the devil himself could decipher you. The truth is that
when you spoke to me about your note, I really did not see
the point of its contents. I opened it in my office full of
angry Jew creditors of a client. I just ran through it, could
not decipher half, and seeing it was on literature, no business,
I interred it alive in a box—the mausoleum of my merely
private correspondence—waiting leisure to peruse it. It so
happened that I never opened the said box till to-night,
when I took up your body. Really an illegible handwriting
ought to be a statutory crime, and shall be when I get into
Parliament. I can’t now decipher two of your words till
daylight in the morning. The next time you send me an
illegible note I will return it to you, not prepaid, to be copied
by your secretary.
So good night, and I could not sleep without giving you
this cat-o’-nine-tails. I never was so put to it in my life as
when you accosted me in the club, for thought I to myself,
.bn 337.png
.pn +1
I will be hanged if I know the subject matter of his note;
what can I feign?
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours nevertheless truly,
J. P.”[O]
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
.fm rend=th
.fn O
Joseph Parkes, Lawyer and Politician, died 1865.
.fn-
.fm rend=th
The next is to the Editor of the Edinburgh
Review, and relates to certain articles written therein
by Panizzi:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.nf r
“Saturday, British Museum,
(1844).
.nf-
.ll
“My Dear Sir,
.ti 6
I direct to Edinburgh, as I suppose you either are or
will soon be back there. I am glad we agree about the
‘Jesuits.’ The ‘Post-Office’ article will be longer than I
thought; there is a great deal important unsaid that we must
say. The Jesuits shall follow; both by the middle of September
shall be ready.... There is no article on any subject
of immediate, striking, and now exciting interest. For instance
the ‘Post-Office Espionage’ is one of them; Algiers
and French ambition is another. The Jesuits is a third, and
that is why I chose them. Any article on Ireland, or sugar
and free trade, or the slave trade, or Puseyism, &c., &c.,
would be welcome to general readers. Puseyism, I know,
you have touched upon, but, with the Dublin Review on the
one hand and Newman’s publication on the other, you might
pay off these two inveterate enemies of yours most capitally.
Then, although I know your difficulties about it, as it is a
serious review, you want light, amusing articles, anecdotes of
shooting, fishing, and of old Highlanders and robbers (or gentlemen
who took what they wanted), travels, &c. As I put
down at random what, I think, may illustrate what I mean,
the number is, in fact, too good for this age of light reading;
we are impatient if we don’t get on in reading, as we do
travelling by steam.
.ll 68
.nf r
Ever yours truly,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
.bn 338.png
.pn +1
A letter from Count d’Orsay, on a curious fact in
natural history, will be read with interest. Panizzi’s
answer to this is not forthcoming, but it may be
doubted if he succeeded in conveying any very valuable
information to the Count’s mind on the subject:—
.pm start_quote_lang fr 90 1
.ll 68
.nf r
“Gore House,
Mardi.
.nf-
.ll
“Mon cher Panizzi,
.ti 6
Je suppose que vous avez un Buffon dans votre établissement,
qui pourra nous éclairer sur le sujet d’un animal presque
fabuleux, qui vient de jouer le rôle à Van Diemen Land, que
Racine fit jouer à celui, qui causa la mort d’Hippolyte.
“Miss X—— à reçu aujourd’hui une lettre de sa mère
annonçant que le même jour qu’elle écrivait, elle allait voir un
tigre marin qu’on avait tué avec une grande difficulté, et
qui avait poursuivi sur terre plusieurs personnes—c’était la
terreur des environs, on le nommait aussi Sea-Devil, il résista
à quatre coups de feu, et après un combat acharné on lui
ouvrit le crâne, d’un coup de hache. Ainsi donc comme la
poste est partie avant qu’on ai vu ce monstre nous sommes
très anxieux de savoir si vos naturallistes connaissent ce
personnage.
.ll 68
.nf r
Votre tout dévoué, &c.,
C. D’Orsay.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
The following, from Lord Melbourne to Panizzi,
conveys the notion that the former discovered the
beauties of Ovid’s Metamorphoses rather late in
life:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“South Street, Feb. 27, 1846.
.ll
“My dear Mr. Panizzi,
.ti 6
I have lately been looking at the Metamorphoses
of Ovid, a book in which I find much beautiful poetry and
more curious matters. Burman, in his note upon the title of
the poem (Vol. II. of his edition, p. 7) says that the poem was
founded upon an ancient Greek poem by the writer, of the
.bn 339.png
.pn +1
name of Parmenius Chius. What is Burman’s authority for
this Parmenius, and where are the traces of his poem? I do
not remember ever to have read his name, and I cannot find
it in the Index to Quinctilian, who, I thought, had mentioned
every poet of any eminence, Greek or Latin.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours faithfully,
Melbourne.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
A letter from the Hon. Mrs. Norton, on the subject
of Lord Melbourne’s friendship for Panizzi (to which
a second on the same subject is added), must be
quoted, though it is not without something of melancholy
interest:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.nf r
“Chesterfield Street,
(November, 1845) Friday evening.
.nf-
.ll
“Dear Mr. Panizzi,
.ti 6
I met Lord Melbourne at dinner to-day, and mentioned
to him having seen you and Mr. Thackeray. He
begged me to write, for him, to ask you if you would dine
with him on Monday, and Mr. Thackeray also. Will you let
me know, as soon as convenient, and will you, who are an old
friend of Lord Melbourne’s, explain anything that may seem
odd and blunt in his mode of inviting without introduction,
though indeed he persists very obstinately that Mr. Thackeray
is a clergyman, with whom he is, or ought to be, acquainted.
I said I did not think it clerical to write about the Bishop of
Bullocksmithy, and that I did not think Mr. Thackeray was a
clergyman at all. But this is not of importance in comparison
of his coming to dinner at half-past seven (punctual)
on Monday.
I wish you would now and then call on Lord Melbourne, as
since he is invalided he takes great pleasure in receiving
visits from his friends, and I think about four o’clock or a
little later (when there is no House of Lords) is a good
moment to find him. Poor Lady Holland’s death has deprived
him of a very near neighbour, where he could be (without
.bn 340.png
.pn +1
fatigue or form) in pleasant society. She had certainly a
very real regard for him.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
Caroline Norton.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
.pm start_quote
“Dear Mr. Panizzi,
.ti 6
If Mr. Thackeray will send his reply to Lord
Melbourne, it will save time and be more correct. It is only
in writing that he is glad sometimes to get a secretary (like
me), as his hand is rather crippled, and his writing a trouble
to perform, and when performed, very illegible.”
I assure you there is ‘no love lost’ in your preference for
him—as the moment I mentioned your name he began
praising you. The ‘green turf and flat stone’ is a receipt
for blotting out all dislikable qualities, and we will give Lady
H. the benefit of it. The charmed circle is gone! It was the
first peep of the great world I got in my girlhood, and what
the gap must be to those who are old enough to remember
all who composed that circle, we cannot judge, who only knew
it as the stars were dropping one by one away.
I am very sorry you cannot dine on Monday. I hope it
will be a pleasure deferred. Tell Mr. Thackeray the hour is
7.30, not nominally, as is usual in London invitations.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
Caroline Norton.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
It is hardly to be wondered at that Panizzi never
became so thoroughly indigenous as to understand
what must appear to a foreigner a greater puzzle
than even the constitution and politics of England—viz.,
the management and regulation of ecclesiastical
affairs. His opinion of the Hampden case, and of
the circumstances affecting it, cannot be the result
of any very profound reflection on the matter. As to
the trouble which, he feared, it might bring upon
Lord John Russell, it may be recollected that Lord
.bn 341.png
.pn +1
John succeeded, in one instance at least, in evading
it in a manner that did more credit to his decision
than to his good manners.
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“British Museum, Jan. 11, 1848.
.ll
“Dear Mrs. Rutherfurd,
.ti 6
... I have had nothing to do more
amusing of late than to see and hear all that has been said and
spoken about Hampden. I, a good Roman Catholic and
Apostolic man, did not care how much damaged all parties
were spiritually; and so I did not mind if Hampden
was proved an infidel, or all the Bishops for him, as well as
those against him, in the wrong. But at one time I feared
for the temporal effects of the quarrel, lest it might give Lord
John some trouble. It has ended admirably. A Bishop who
confesses that he condemned what he had not read; thirteen
Bishops and a Deacon opposed by a Deacon and thirteen heads
of houses at Oxford; part of the clergy sending addresses
against and part in favour of Dr. Hampden; a Dean who
swears he will not vote, and all the way allows his vote to be
recorded; a Canon who will not have Dr. Hampden because
he was condemned by the very Bishop who retracts three days
after his condemnation, and confesses his ignorance whilst he
exposes his knavery; yesterday half a Church hissing and the
other half cheering, when the sermon of some Apostle or other
is declared duly elected; the folly, which I hear will be persisted
in to-morrow, of apologizing to the Court of the Queen’s
Bench, calling on Lord Denman and others to prevent the
Archbishop of Canterbury from exercising a merely spiritual
rite—is not this charming? Could any one like me wish for
more fun?”
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
To continue our ramblings through the correspondence
in our hands, we insert a letter showing pretty
clearly in what esteem Panizzi was held, not only by
.bn 342.png
.pn +1
Lord and Lady Holland, but by others of the society
of their house:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“B. M., no date (? 1850.)
.ll
“My dear Haywood,
.ti 6
... I dined at Holland House on Saturday
last, and Watts (the painter) came after dinner. There is at
Holland House a famous portrait of Baretti by Sir Joshua
Reynolds. Lord and Lady Holland and some of the guests
having prepared all this without my knowledge beforehand,
surrounded me after dinner, made me look at Baretti’s portrait,
and then said that there should be a pendant to it, and that
my portrait, taken by Watts,[P] should be the thing. It was no
use saying more than I did—which was not a little to decline
the honour. The thing was a foregone conclusion; and so,
before Watts goes to Italy, which he is going to do almost immediately,
he is going to paint me. What will Gambardella
say when he hears it?
.ll 68
.nf r
Ever yours,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
.fm rend=th
.fn P
G. F. Watts, R.A.
.fn-
.fm rend=th
Gambardella was a Neapolitan artist, living at that
time in England. He painted a portrait of Panizzi,
which, according to Count d’Orsay, was very unsatisfactory.
Before quitting the subject of Panizzi’s connection
with Holland House, we should hardly be
justified in omitting all mention of an affair with
which he became accidentally connected, and which,
though itself of no great importance, was nevertheless
dashed with a slight admixture of unpleasantness. A
short time previously to 1850 the late Lord Holland
had compiled and edited two books on the life of his
father, which were afterwards published with the following
titles:—“Foreign Reminiscences, by Henry
Richard Lord Holland: Edited by his Son, Henry
.bn 343.png
.pn +1
Edward Lord Holland. (London, 1850).” And
“Memoirs of the ‘Whig Party During My Time,’ by
Henry Richard Lord Holland: Edited by his Son,
Henry Edward Lord Holland. (2 vols., London, 1852.)”
The first of these works the author had, we understand,
entrusted for revision and correction to the late
Nassau Senior. It was afterwards, for further
assurance, submitted to Panizzi, who, not altogether
content with Senior’s treatment of it, subjected it to a
closer revision. He performed the same office for
the second book, and finally prepared both for the
press.
.tb
It seems, however, that Lord John Russell, who
had been instrumental in collecting the greater portion
of the materials composing these volumes, had
felt some alarm as to certain matters being published
in them, and notably in the Reminiscences, which
might possibly reflect detrimentally on the character
of Lord Holland’s father, and he accordingly communicated
his apprehensions to the author, accompanied
by a gentle warning. This the latter regarded,
not altogether unreasonably, as one of those pieces of
gratuitous advice which nearly approach insults,
and ill brooked the suspicion of inability to guard his
own father’s reputation. A correspondence ensued,
into which Panizzi, as might be expected, was drawn,
and which was marked occasionally by a tinge of acrimony.
However, Lord Holland, after a number of
letters had passed from one party to the other, does
not appear to have easily got over his sense of wounded
feeling; and by a letter, not in our possession, but
.bn 344.png
.pn +1
evidently prompted by indignation, greatly provokes
Panizzi, of whose character evenness of temper was by
no means the strongest point, and who seems to have
been roused almost to hostility. Lord Holland, in
his final reply, demands, with some asperity, that the
subject be not recurred to, if their mutual friendship
is to continue.
“A soft answer turneth away wrath,” and it must
be owned that his Lordship’s reply, however far we
may suppose him to have been wrong on the main
question, is eminently that of a true gentleman:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.nf r
“April 17, 1851.
Naples.
.nf-
.ll
“My dear Pan,
.ti 6
I wrote to you from Palermo a letter, which you
will receive almost at the same time as this.
It will show you how very far I was from entertaining any
unkind feeling towards you.
On my arrival here yesterday I found a letter from you,
written in a very hostile tone. I can only repeat that I feel
great gratitude to you in all this business, that I am sure you
never meant in any way to be unfriendly towards me, and
that if I differed from you as to the propriety of your letter
to the Times, I am willing to suppose that you on the spot
might have better means of judging than I had....
Knowing how easily you take fire, I should have been more
guarded in writing to you; but I know also that hot as you
are, you easily cool, and that your indignation never really
interferes with your kind feelings for old friends.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours sincerely,
Holland.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
So ended satisfactorily this notable controversy.
Nor was this the only complication of the kind in
which the importance thrust on Panizzi served to
.bn 345.png
.pn +1
involve him. To none were his relations closer than
to the family of the late Lord Langdale, formerly
Master of the Rolls, who, it may be remembered, in
1850, refused the office of Lord Chancellor, offered
to him on the retirement of Lord Cottenham.
Panizzi’s acquaintance with Lord and Lady Langdale
speedily ripened into a warm intimacy, and of
their daughter, the Countess Teleki, he was the
especial favourite. On the death of his Lordship,
which happened on the 18th of April, 1851, Panizzi
wrote as follows to Lord Rutherfurd:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“April 24.
.ll
“Nothing but your own handwriting could have afforded
me any real pleasure in the deep grief I feel at the loss of both
the friends respecting whom you write. Lord Langdale’s I
feel most, as I was often with him, and as he has given me,
at all times, and at some particularly of a comparatively recent
date, such proof of affection and, what is more, of thorough
esteem and regard, as I shall never forget....
.ll 68
.nf r
Thine, ever di cuore,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
Panizzi’s intimacy with the Langdale family was,
notwithstanding this great loss, kept up as of old,
and to her last days Lady Langdale was a frequent
guest at his house. After her husband’s death, she,
laudably anxious to perpetuate the memory of so
worthy a man, committed the materials for his biography
to Mr. (afterwards Sir T. D.) Hardy. The
book was published in 1852, and it happened that,
as in the former case, Lord Holland had aroused the
fears of Lord John Russell, so in the present, for like
reasons, was the wrath of Lord Brougham evoked by
the “Memoirs of the Right Honourable Henry Lord
Langdale.”
.bn 346.png
.pn +1
It is really difficult to discover anything in Sir T.
D. Hardy’s book which could have stirred up the
s[oe]va indignatio in Lord Brougham, as expressed in
the subjoined letters, still less any aspersions on the
memory of Lord Langdale himself.
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“Scarborough, 31 July, 1852.
.ll
“Caro Signor Antonio,
.ti 6
As you interfered (most unadvisedly I think) respecting
that book of Hardy’s, probably at the request of the
family, I strongly recommend you to give Lady Langdale
advice which may prevent more harm being done. I had not
seen the book when I saw you. I have now seen it, though
I have not read the whole. I have read quite enough to show
me into what scrape Lady L. has gotten herself, by giving his
papers to a person who, with the best possible intentions I
have no doubt, is so ignorant of everything connected with
the subject, except records, that he has fallen into the grossest
mistakes.... There are one or two letters of Lord
Langdale himself of which both Lord Denman and I are
agreed in exceedingly lamenting the publication....
Now as I understand Mr. Hardy has more letters and is
going to publish another volume or two, it really would only
be an act of kindness to Lady Langdale and of justice to Lord
Langdale’s memory, to take care that some friend of the family,
who was also acquainted with Lord Langdale personally, and
with the history of their time, should superintend Mr. H’s
operations, and save him from falling into such mistakes.
It is impossible to doubt that he is well acquainted with
records, and what he has given on that subject is extremely
valuable. It is equally certain that Lord Langdale deserves
the highest praise, and nothing can be more just than to give
him the fullest credit, not only for what he did, but for what
he wished to do. If Mr. Hardy has attacked almost every one
else, that is his own affair, and I dare say no one will much complain
of being assailed when it was done in order to exalt (unnecessarily,
.bn 347.png
.pn +1
because he did not need it) so excellent and
useful a person as Lord Langdale....
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours truly,
H. Brougham.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
The charge brought by Lord Brougham in this
letter against Panizzi of being an accomplice in Sir
T. D. Hardy’s crime, was, in a subsequent letter from
his Lordship, repudiated by him.
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“Scarborough, 3 Aug., 1852.
.ll
“My dear Panizzi,
.ti 6
I never supposed you had interfered with the book
which you told me you knew nothing about, except that you
had ‘unadvisedly’ (because you knew nothing of it) urged
X—— to speak favourably of it, which I take for granted
you would not have done had you read it. I object entirely
to my name being used, either with Lord Langdale’s family
or with Mr. Hardy, because they will suppose that I am resenting
the ridiculous attacks upon myself, which I presume
there is no person so utterly ignorant as to consider worth
a moment’s notice, such as my having only talked about Law
Reform before I came into office, and never afterwards doing
anything of the kind—when this very book itself relates my
having proceeded with the County Courts Bills the moment I
came in, and many other things which the author’s gross
ignorance keeps him from knowing were my Bills. Therefore,
as regards myself, he is welcome to spit out all the well-known
spite of the Bentham people, whose ally, probably their
tool, he is as regards me. But what I do complain of, is his
having been suffered to publish Burdett’s letters.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours truly,
H. Brougham.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
Here we pause to pursue in the following chapter
our anecdotical mood, illustrating the reminiscences
with letters confirmatory of our various allusions—letters
which in themselves possess great value, if the
celebrity of their authors be borne in mind.
.bn 348.png
.pn +1
.pb
.il fn=i_b_142.jpg w=500px ew=90%
.h2 nobreak
CHAPTER XII
.pm start_summary
Panizzi and Austria; Policy of Palmerston; Mr Ellice; Scotch
Sabbath; Mr Gladstone on Tasso; Panizzi and Thomas Carlyle.
.pm end_summary
.sp 2
.di dc_p.jpg 150 153 1.1
Panizzi’s correspondence with the
sketches drawn from it and from that
of the society with which he was connected,
will now be continued, for from
these is to be derived his private opinion
on various subjects, and no doubt can possibly be
suggested as to this course furnishing irrefragable
proofs of his real sentiments. Miscellaneous as are
the matters of which these letters of Panizzi treat, it
is not surprising, considering the disturbed and eventful
state of this period, that a large proportion of
them relate to politics, to which he was so irrepressibly
addicted. The following to Mr Haywood and
Lord Rutherfurd, contain the comments of an acute
observer of the unsettled state of government and of
affairs in general in this country and in the East immediately
before and after the Crimean War. It is to be
wished that, in addition to skill and vigilance, the
credit of impartiality could also be ascribed to Panizzi.
The fact is, however, that, so deep was his dislike to
Austria (scarcely to be wondered at), that it strongly
.bn 349.png
.pn +1
tinctured his political views of affairs both at home and
abroad. It will be observed also that he was less of a
true prophet than a keen observer.
Herein, too, he gives his opinion of the policy of
Lord Palmerston and other statesmen, showing very
decided and biassed views of the course they would
probably adopt, and venturing on surmises which, as
events have proved, were not well grounded. They,
however, are valuable, not only as clear expositions of
his views on the subject, but as specimens of his open
and undisguised style of writing, without fear or
favour, when his own political ideas required elucidation:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“B. M., July 25, 1853.
.ll
“My dear Haywood,
.ti 6
Here there is nothing new. There will be no war, as the
Emperor of Russia will gain something. He never meant to
get all he asked, now, at once, and will make a merit of his
moderation. In five or six years hence we shall have another
row, and he will get something more—and so on till he will
get all he wishes. Time will come when England will repent
her supineness. You think that to keep at peace ‘coûte que
coûte’ is the high road to prosperity: I think it is ruin. I
am reminded of the debtor who will not look at the state of
his affairs boldly, and pay off: he goes on accumulating compound
interest, till at last he finds himself ruined past redemption.”
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“August 15, 1853.
.ll
“My dear Rutherfurd,
.ti 6
“... I agree with you as to the deplorable state
of affairs, both at home and abroad. The Government,
beaten regularly twice a day, is brought into contempt. Lord
.bn 350.png
.pn +1
Palmerston has fallen very much in public opinion; his
escapade last Christmas has done him very great harm. He
is considered by all his friends the very worst Home Secretary
that ever was. As to foreign affairs, things are bad.
The allied powers are at the feet of Austria, who will never
make war on Russia except the infamy is submitted to by
France and England guaranteeing Austria all her dominions.
I hope that England will not join in it, but I think France
will do it, and the guarantee of France is the important one.
Here Liberals are at a discount....”
.ll 68
.nf r
Ever thine,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“September 12, 1853.
.ll
“My dear Rutherfurd,
.ti 6
... I told Lord John, Lord Clarendon, Granville,
Lansdowne, and Palmerston, that Austria would never
make war against Russia, now they have allowed her to make
herself the mistress of the situation, as the French say, and to
seize two of her best provinces of her ally, who had by his
own individual exertions driven the enemies from it. That is
what they call backing their friends—Austria will take Russia’s
side if England and France mean to press her too hard, in
case they are victorious; should they be beaten, still worse.
Delay is everything to Russia, and that has been gained for
her by Austria, who sees that Turkey must fall to pieces, and
has meanwhile got a share of the inheritance of the dying man
before he dies.
.ll 68
.nf r
Ever yours,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
To the Right Honourable Edward Ellice (whose
name is familiar to all), who was an intimate friend
of Panizzi, and to whose son, the lately deceased
Mr. Edward Ellice, we are much indebted for the
documents placed at our disposal. We find a
.bn 351.png
.pn +1
letter on the same subject, written on the 4th of
December, 1854:—
.pm start_quote
.il id=i333 fn=i_b_333_ellice.jpg w=225px ew=40% alt='Edward Ellice' align=l
.ll 68
.rj
“My dear Ellice,
.ll
.ti 6
I see there is a so-called treaty
of alliance signed at Vienna. You will
see it is merely to say that next spring
Austria will take counsel with her
new allies as to the best mode of enforcing
what is not yet settled. She
now will more than ever embarrass
France and England, and prevent them
from making war in the only way that
such a war should be made. My
dear friend, I am as good an Englishman
as you are, so far as attachment
to this country goes, and I feel confident that the
Government are mistaken, and go to ruin the country as fast as
they can. All these delays and weaknesses give all the advantage
to the enemies of England, and Austria is among the
foremost ... and yet the greatest confidence is expressed in
her future conduct, because it is assumed that it is her interest
to join England and France; as if people acted always as they
ought, and as if it was quite clear that she has more to fear
from Russia and her system of government, and ultra-legitimist
principles, than from two revolutionary governments like
England and France. I have no patience with such reasoning.
.ll 68
.nf r
Ever yours,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
Here follows a terse little note, written in the true
Panizzi style. Whether the ass mentioned in his
comment on a piece of Scotch Sabbatarianism was, in
the common acceptation of the term, “hired,” may be
questioned. But we can testify, from our own personal
experience, to the peculiar tyranny exercised on
the unfortunate inhabitants of Glasgow, and which
.bn 352.png
.pn +1
falls most heavily on innocent sojourners in that
cheerful city:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“November 25, 1854.
.ll
“My dear Rutherfurd,
.ti 6
I see the cabs and omnibuses of Glasgow do not
ply on Sundays. Was not the donkey on which Jesus Christ
entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday a hired ass? And if he
went about on a hired donkey, why should not the Glasgow
people be allowed to ride in omnibuses or hired cabs on
Sundays?”
.pm end_quote
The next letter we shall quote is from Mr. Gladstone:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“Hawarden, December 17, 1855.
.ll
“My dear Panizzi,
.ti 6
I entirely feel, upon a recent deliberate re-perusal,
Tasso’s right to stand in the very restricted class of
the great epic writers. It is true that in that class he seems to
me to stand immediately below Homer, but I should boldly
say the same of Virgil.
His own life and fortunes are indeed deeply moving.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
W. E. Gladstone.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
With all due deference to so great an authority,
and fully agreeing with his estimate of Tasso, the
position assigned by Mr. Gladstone to Virgil is
scarcely doing justice to the chief of the Latin
poets. Panizzi, in a letter to Mr. Gladstone, says:—“I
shall be happy, you may be sure, to read what
you say on Tasso, who is, no doubt, greatly below
Homer, but not so much below Virgil as people
affect to say.”
It is true that Virgil laboured under one unfortunate
disadvantage; the language in which he
wrote is certainly less fitted, in point of simplicity
.bn 353.png
.pn +1
and sublimity, as a vehicle for epic poetry than the
Greek.
It will not detract from the miscellaneous character
of the information promised in this chapter to subjoin
a few extracts from a correspondence which took
place between Panizzi and Mr. Thomas Carlyle, who
was not one of those who were entirely satisfied with
the defective Reading-Room at the British Museum,
which preceded the present splendid building, soon
to be described. Full of sad experiences of the
manifold inconveniences of the former, he pardonably,
but erroneously, imagined that it might be
possible to obtain some more private and more comfortable
spot wherein to pursue his studies at the
Museum. In his endeavours to attain this end, however,
he was not altogether successful.
On the 11th of April, 1853, the eminent historian
addressed a letter to Panizzi, which he answered, we
fear, in terms somewhat too severe, so much so, that
we purposely avoid making public anything which
was simply the fruit of former quarrels; be that as
it may, the correspondence was submitted to the
Trustees four days afterwards, together with a report
in which Panizzi stated that he knew of no Private
Room, nor of any quieter corner in all the Library
for the purpose of study, than the Reading-Room;
but even if he did, he did not think that in a Public
Library, supported at the National expense for public
use, any person should enjoy advantages and facilities
denied to the generality. Better accommodation was,
undoubtedly, desirable for readers—for them all—but
not for any especial individual, leaving others to
.bn 354.png
.pn +1
fare as well or as ill as they might. On May 7th
the Trustees approved of Panizzi’s conduct.
Not altogether content with this decision, Mr.
Carlyle seems to have made an attempt to enlist on
his behalf the interest of Lady Ashburton, and,
through her, that of Lord Clarendon. The result of
this attempt will be gathered from the following
letter, addressed to the latter:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“August 10, 1853.
.ll
“I heartily wish it were in my power to do what
Lady Ashburton requests. The following statement
will show your Lordship how I am placed. Mr.
Carlyle wrote to me asking what Lady Ashburton
asks. I informed him that there was no Private-Room
whatever in the Library which could be assigned to
him, and that the quietest place for study was the
Reading-Room. I moreover pointed out to him how
invidious it would be in a public place to favour
anyone—however great his merits or strong my desire
to serve him.... I know that individual Trustees
have been applied to; I know that they have mentioned
the subject to their colleagues; and I have myself
submitted Mr. Carlyle’s letter and my answer to the
Trustees, who have approved of what I have done,
and who have declined to accede to similar applications.
Your Lordship, I am sure, will see that it is
impossible for me to depart from the rule under such
circumstances....”
.pm end_quote
Let us, however, say no more about this unpleasant
affair, and look upon it as another example of the
unbending, unswerving nature of Panizzi in all
matters of duty; for although he was, doubtless,
.bn 355.png
.pn +1
impressed with the great deserts of the applicant for
relief and especial accommodation, on this occasion he
saw no reason for laying himself open to a charge of
favouritism, or, under any pretence, being a party to
conceding to one reader, however great his merits,
that which would undoubtedly be denied to another.
.il fn=i_b_389.jpg w=125px ew=20%
.bn 356.png
.pn +1
.pb
.il fn=i_b_102.jpg w=500px ew=90%
.h2 nobreak
CHAPTER XIII
.pm start_quote
The New Reading-Room; Sir C. Barry’s Plans; Completion and
Breakfast; Mr Hosking’s Plans; Controversy; Bust by Baron
Marochetti; Austria Applies for Plans of Reading-Room.
.pm end_quote
.sp 2
It has been, and doubtless for some
centuries to come will be, a matter of
regret that the unrivalled collection
called the British Museum has not,
after the incalculable labour bestowed,
and the vast sums of money spent upon it, found a
home more worthy of its invaluable contents than the
present building. Of this huge pile—an irregular
oblong—but little appeals to the eye, less to the
power of discussion. The Eastern and Western
Wings still remain partially exposed to view in all
their normal hideousness of yellow brick, unadorned
by aught save a few meagre mouldings. The front,
being, of course, the most conspicuous part of the
structure, has been the object of attention, and has been
ornamented in a manner suiting it to the public gaze.
To effect this desirable, and certainly most legitimate
object, choice has strangely been made of a style
which, in itself most beautiful, is so hampered and
restricted by the straitest and severest rules as to
be almost incapable of adaptation to purposes of
.bn 357.png
.pn +1
modern utility, and a magnificent Ionic portico and
peristyle have been erected; the building, as a whole,
thus presenting a striking contrast to any other structure
to be found in the metropolis.
Confront the British Museum for one moment with
the Madeleine of Paris, and how great is the difference!
In the latter is seen the nearest approach to
true Grecian architecture, combined with admirable
proportions, and tasteful and correct ornamentation;
by admission of light from the roof, the unsightliness
of windows inserted in the walls is avoided, and, in
its entirety, the building fairly represents that which
it purports to be.
Let the visitor, however, enter, and he will find
himself somewhat disappointed; for, instead of seeing
a tolerably correct Greek temple, he will find a singularly
ineffective and mediocre Christian Church.
The profuseness of decoration, much of it foreign to
the style, the want of power in what should be the
central point of attraction, the general horizontal
character of the lines, throwing out the building in
an unnatural degree—all show the abortiveness of an
effort to lend the rigidity of ancient forms to the exigencies
of modern tastes.
Still, to compare the Madeleine, with all its faults,
to the British Museum, would be an insult to the
former; not that the classical façade of our own
building is without merit: the nobility and majesty of
the portico and colonnade cannot well be denied, and,
if built of white marble (supposing the brightness of
the marble could be preserved in this variable climate)
instead of their present dingy material, they would
.bn 358.png
.pn +1
have constituted, by their own merit, a most striking
and dignified object, whatever cavils might have
existed as to the reality of the purpose to which they
would have been applied.
A certain distance, however, is requisite for the
view, and this it is most difficult to obtain; on closer
inspection it will be seen that the imposing range of
pillars rather draws attention to, than serves to conceal,
the frightful sash windows which glare from
behind it, and whose light it obscures.
In the tympanum of the portico is a group of
sculptured figures by Sir R. Westmacott. To this
M. Edgar Vinet, in a notice of the British Museum
in the Journal des Débats, written in 1858 (30th of
December) alludes in the following words:—“Un
fronton récemment terminé, et dans lequel Sir Richard
Westmacott, ce qui se conçoit pour un sujet pareil, a
représenté, d’une manière un peu confuse, l’homme
passant de l’état sauvage, sans l’influence de la religion,
civilisation et au progrès.”
This cluster of sculpture is by no means happy, and
the kindly phrase of our critic, “une manière un peu
confuse,” might, with a little freedom and more truth,
be rendered by the English words, muddle, cram, and
confusion.
On either flank of the main building, and in advance
of it, is a block of official dwelling-houses,
which, as some may remember, called down much denunciation
at the time they were erected; they are,
however, so void of pretentiousness that they seem
hardly to deserve any very lavish outpouring of
righteous indignation. It is enough to say of them
that they would have been better away.
.bn 359.png
.pn +1
The British Museum is, however, more admirable
inside than out. Here, nevertheless, the Nemesis of
the style pursues the observer even more unrelentingly.
If some of the vast and dismal rooms be not
the very halls of Eblis, at least they are eminently
fitted for the depositories of the sarcophagi of those
who have descended thither. The beauty of their
contents may, it is true, engross the visitor’s attention
for a time, but he can hardly hope to remain long
free from the depression and melancholy with which
the surrounding air seems impregnated. The lighting
(and here, again, the blame must be exclusively
laid on the style adopted) is in many places most defective;
as to the mural decoration, it cannot be
better described than in the words of the already
quoted M. Vinet:—A l’exception de la salle de lecture,
vaste rotonde dont la coupole reluit d’or la,
décoration intérieure du Musée Britannique vous
étonne par sa simplicité; les murailles sont nues,
quelques méandres, peints à l’encaustique, entourent
des plafonds percés par un vitrage, par où passe une
lumière froide et grise: voilà tout ce que l’orgueilleuse
Albion a cru devoir accorder à l’embellissement intérieur
de son Musée: décoration conçue avec un tel
puritanisme qu’elle est restée au dessous des salles
d’attente des chemins de fer, comme ornementation et
comme goût. Une large cheminée de fonte, chauffée
à blanc huit mois de l’année, occupe le centre de chaque
pièce, et, par son prosaïsme forme le plus étrange contraste
avec les [oe]uvres élégantes, filles du soleil, qui
l’entourent.”
To the objection that those who thus flatly condemn
.bn 360.png
.pn +1
one form of architecture are bound to suggest
another more suitable, a ready, and by no means embarrassing
answer is forthcoming. The Pointed, the
most beautiful and ductile of all styles, may be left
out of consideration, as being hardly of sufficient congruity
to the relics of art stored in the National collection.
Moreover, to have attempted a Gothic structure
at the time when the present Museum was built,
might have afforded an instructive example of corruptio
optimi pessima, but, in all probability, would
have failed in point of utility, and would most certainly
have been an outrage on good taste.
It is hardly possible, however, to suppose that the
illustrious architect of the British Museum was not
as conversant with Roman as with Greek architecture,
or that he was wholly unacquainted with the Romano-Italian
works of Wren or Palladio.
As the Roman, unlike the Grecian, and still more
unlike the Pointed, does not mainly depend for its
beauty on the lines of its construction, the facility for
legitimately decorating a building of the shape of the
British Museum would have been far greater in the
first-named style. Who shall say that in a gallery of
the Roman type the statues of Roman Emperors, or
even the monuments of Assyrian Kings, are out of
place? or that the disjecta membra of a Greek frieze
or pediment would be incongruous with an architecture
so nearly akin to their own? At any rate, we
should have been able to view them with comfort,
which is scarcely the case at present; for the power
of lighting would have been increased tenfold. Opportunities,
too, of a more effective system of intramural
.bn 361.png
.pn +1
ornamentation would have been offered, and
many other minor advantages, conducive to beauty or
convenience, secured. Happily, in the latest addition
to the great building—an addition that owes alike its
origin, position, and form of construction to the enterprise
and genius of Panizzi—the ponderous and unsuccessful
imitation of the Greek style has been laid
aside, and a light and graceful form of the Italian
order adopted.
This little gem of architecture—this “Margarita”—is
the “New Reading-Room.”
The history and traditions of the Reading-Room
at the British Museum have been so faithfully and
minutely recorded by others that it would be unpardonable
to overcrowd our space in this work with too
full a description of them. Since the year 1758, a
Reading-Room has always been attached to the
Museum, and the original apartment was, by all
accounts, especially comfortable and even luxurious.
Though small, it seems to have been sufficiently large
to meet the requirements of those early days of its
existence. We read of this pleasant corner room in
“the basement story, with one oak table and twenty
chairs,” so small as to be fitted for only twenty readers,
yet it was seldom patronized to the extent of its full
capabilities. In one respect it must have been truly
paradisiacal, for it opened into a delightful garden in
which, as tradition has it, the presiding deity was
accustomed to walk, although not in the cool of the
evening. This gentleman, Dr. Templeman, afterwards
Secretary to the Society of Arts, seems, notwithstanding,
to have found his duties sufficiently onerous.
.bn 362.png
.pn +1
After eight months’ “he takes the opportunity
of reminding the Committee that he begs to be
relieved from the excessive attendance of six hours’
continuance each day, for it is more than he is able to
bear,” and on March 13, 1760, he records with a
chuckle “Last Tuesday, no company coming to the
Reading-Room, Dr. Templeman ventured to go away
about 2 o’clock.” Not above twenty readers were
admitted monthly during the first few months, and
when the novelty of the institution had worn off, even
this average declined to ten or twelve. It is true that
among these appear the names of Johnson, Gray, Hume
and Blackstone. Nor were the regulations patterns
of liberality. The statutes directed that notice should
he given in writing the day before to the officer in
attendance by each person “what book or manuscript
he will be desirous of perusing the following day;
which book or manuscript in such request will be
lodged in some convenient place in the said room, and
will from thence be delivered to him by the officer of
the said room.”
From the delightful garden with which it communicated,
and its almost rural surroundings; from the
illustrious names of those ornaments of the silver age
of our literature who frequented it, and in the
excellence of whose works one almost seems to discover
traces of quiet ease of study, such as this resort
must have afforded, it is with mingled feelings of
regret and envy that we turn to our own time and
lament that the world of readers and writers should
have arrived at such monstrous dimensions and such
unmanageable proportions.
.bn 363.png
.pn +1
One great improvement has recently been effected,
the electric light—the latest application of science to
the means of illuminating large buildings, has been,
through the energy of Mr. E. A. Bond, the present
Principal Librarian, most successfully introduced
into this department—gladdening the hearts of
students by increasing their hours of research, and
enabling them to seek, with its clear effulgence, the
information which they desire to possess.
Our contemplation of Panizzi’s majestic work has,
however, its dark shade. It reminds us sadly of the
bustling and feverish spirit which pervades our present,
literature; of the enormous trade of bookmaking
openly carried on amongst us, and of the
lack both of dignity and polish only too often conspicuous
in the best works of our best modern
authors.
The quiet ease and learned leisure gradually died
away, readers and authors of all classes rapidly increased;
insignificant as were their numbers compared
with the present multitude, it became incumbent
on the authorities to prepare something more
than the single and comfortable room with its garden;
and in the old House and in its last days, three rooms
were set apart for their accommodation.
To the first Reading-Room in the new building
but scant praise can be accorded. The appointments
of it were in no wise satisfactory, whilst the mode of
access was almost mean and decidedly incommodious.
Previously crowded, as a rule, it is on record that,
although constructed to hold only about 120 readers,
no less than 200 persons were frequently crammed
.bn 364.png
.pn +1
into it. A larger apartment was, therefore, urgently
called for; and, in 1838, the old room was closed,
another being opened in a different quarter of the
building. This, divided into two compartments, was
about one-third larger than its predecessor, and in its
size alone its superiority appears to have consisted.
It is true that, in many respects, its fittings were far
better, that a more convenient entrance was constructed,
and that more attention was paid to the
comfort, if not so much of the readers, at any rate
of certain of the attendant officials, who had before
this been wretchedly housed.
The lighting by means of windows many feet from
the ground was, in both rooms, lamentably deficient.
In neither had due care been taken to provide sufficient
ventilation. The admission of fresh air appears
to have been chiefly effected by the simple contrivance
of opening the windows, a practice not always
possible, and not unlikely, at certain seasons of the
year to be attended with as much danger as would
have been the retention of foul air. Readers who remained
in the stifling atmosphere of either room for
any length of time were known to complain of a
peculiar languor and headache, and the expressive
term Museum Megrims was invented to describe
the uneasy sensations of the too persistent student.
The following is an extract from a private letter,
written a short time since, in which, although the
writer confesses that his memory, at this distance of
time, is not as fresh as it might be, a fair description
is given of the second or intermediate Reading-Room,
as it was in the year 1846:—
.bn 365.png
.pn +1
.pm start_quote
“What I recollect about it is as follows. It was entered by
a sort of lane going down from Montague-place into what
must have been at one time a stable-yard. You then went up
a staircase into a long, lofty room.... I think there were
two great sort of chests of hot water pipes on each side of the
entrance from the staircase. The entrance divided the room
into two unequal parts, and I fancy that the smaller portion
was reserved for readers of MSS. The catalogue was in a
series of presses near the west wall, commencing about opposite
the entrance, and extending north. The rest of the floor of
the room was occupied by reading-tables. At the north end
was a thing like a buttery hatch. From this you got your
books, having previously given your docket describing them.
The walls of the room, for eight or ten feet from the floor, were
crowded with book-cases, except at the entrance and hatch,
and all accessible to readers in the room. I think the room
was lighted by windows above the book-cases, but, as far as I
can recollect, on the east side only. I think the other walls
above the book-cases resting on the floor of the reading room
were also covered with book-cases, but these not accessible
from the Reading-Room, but from galleries, &c., opening into the
other parts of the building. I recollect nothing about the ventilation,
but I know that after working some time, you found
your head very hot and heavy, and your feet cold. These
were the symptoms of the ‘Museum Megrims,’ about which
there was, shortly after my experience of the place, a deal of
chaff in the papers. I fully sympathized with it at the time.”
.pm end_quote
The Library of the British Museum continued to
increase in proportion to its rapid influx of readers;
and in 1849, the collection, excluding the masses
of MSS., pamphlets, and other unbound works,
amounted to no less than 435,000 volumes.[Q] What
a vast acquisition must this have been to the public,
.bn 366.png
.pn +1
whether to the student, the critic, or the occasional
lounger!
.fm rend=th
.fn Q
In 1880, 1,300,000 volumes.
.fn-
.fm rend=th
The power of exercising rights of ownership was,
however, by no means commensurate with the legal
title to the property: indeed, owing to lack of room
and other conveniences, such rights, in the case of
very many who would otherwise have taken advantage
of them, scarcely extended to liberty of inspecting
the outsides of the volumes; as to the insides,
they were literally closed books.
Such a state of affairs made a deep impression on
Panizzi, whose incessant anxiety for, and interest in
the Department over which he presided, added to his
repugnance to suffering so much of its contents to
lie idle and unprofitable, caused in him a ceaseless
feeling of regret. He saw and knew, only too well,
how alone reform was to take place—viz., by provision
of ample room, and by due attention too the
requirements of readers, at the same time securing
the necessary amount of space in the building for the
ever increasing additions to the Library.
From a very early period his attention had been
directed to the requirements of the Reading-Room,
and an important improvement in its service had been
introduced by him even before he became Keeper of
Printed Books. Before his time, the press-mark
denoting the place of a book in the Library was not
affixed to the Reading-room copy of the Catalogue,
and the reader simply indicated the books he wished
to see, which were then looked out in the Library
copy of the Catalogue by the attendants. This
system, which may have answered very well while the
.bn 367.png
.pn +1
daily average of visitors did not exceed thirty, became
entirely inadequate when they amounted to two hundred;
and Mr. Baber, at Panizzi’s suggestion, directed
that press-marks should be put to the Reading-Room
Catalogue, so that the readers might search it for themselves.
This innovation occasioned an immense saving
of time, but was naturally resented by many to whom
time was of less importance than trouble. Sir Harris
Nicolas, an excellent type of the really hard-working
reader, thought differently, and spontaneously addressed
a letter to Panizzi, congratulating him upon his reform.
This incident had an amusing sequel. Sir H. Nicolas
saw fit to assail Panizzi’s management in a series of
anonymous articles in the Spectator newspaper, and
among other points censured the very regulation of
which he had previously approved. A correspondence
ensued, in the course of which Panizzi cited the
material parts of Sir Harris’s former letter to himself
without marks of quotations, and Sir H. Nicolas mistaking
his own arguments for his antagonist’s, fell
foul of them in a fashion which gave Panizzi the opportunity
he sought of withdrawing from further controversy
with “a man endowed with so flexible a
judgment, and so treacherous a memory.”
The improvements introduced by Panizzi into the
internal arrangements of the Old Reading-Room were
nevertheless trivial in comparison with those which
he was destined to accomplish by the construction of
a new one.
In 1850, he submitted to the Trustees his first plan
for a new Reading-Room. As this, however, involved
the acquisition of land and the consequent erection of
.bn 368.png
.pn +1
new buildings, it was rejected on account of the delay
and expense which would inevitably follow. The
next plan of reform relating to the enlargement of the
capacities of the Museum in general was brought forward
by the Trustees themselves. This or a similar
scheme had long since been mooted, but was regularly
formulated for the first time in 1848. Their proposal
was to buy up the whole of one portion of the street,
on the east side of the Museum, to build on the site,
and to complete that part of the edifice which faced
Russell Square with a grand façade. This scheme,
the cost of which was calculated to amount to only
about a quarter of a million, did not receive the
favourable consideration of Government. There is
much reason to be thankful that the infliction of a
second grand façade has been spared us. The first
sketch for the New Reading-Room was drawn by
Panizzi himself on April 18, 1852, and shown to Mr.
on the same day.
On May 5 following, Panizzi sent in a report setting
forth at large, and in forcible terms, the discomfort
and inconvenience existing in his own Department of
the Institution, and recommending, as a remedy, the
construction of the new building in the inner quadrangle.
It will not be amiss to give this report in
extenso, as it will present something more than a
sketch of the work intended—omitting, of course, all
minor and unimportant details.
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“May 5th, 1852.
.ll
“Mr. Panizzi has the honour to submit the following
statement and suggestions to the Trustees, in the
hope that the pressing importance of the subject will
.bn 369.png
.pn +1
be deemed a sufficient apology for thus urging it once
more on their early and favourable consideration.”
“It is a known and admitted fact that there is no
more available space in which to arrange books in a
proper and suitable manner in the Printed Book Department;
that the collection is, therefore, falling,
and will continue to fall, into arrears, the consequences
of which are also too well known to be here further
insisted upon; that want of accommodation in the
Reading-Rooms, not only for readers, but for books of
reference and for catalogues, prevents many persons
from making use of the collection of printed books,
whilst actual readers pursue their researches and
studies amidst many and various discomforts, all owing
to the crowded state of those rooms.”
“Supposing that it were at once determined to
remove to suitable buildings, to be erected for the
purpose, some portion of any of the collections now
forming part of the British Museum, or that in order
to provide room for books an enlargement were forthwith
decided upon of the present Museum building,
as Mr. Panizzi had the honour to suggest long ago, it
is manifest that many years must elapse before the
advantages to be derived from either alternative would
be felt. The additions which would in the interval
be made to other collections would greatly curtail the
advantages ultimately proposed for the readers, and
for the department of Printed Books, both of which
would in the meanwhile continue to labour under the
present and eventual disadvantages already pointed
out. Under any circumstances, therefore, and whatever
be the determination adopted as to provision being
.bn 370.png
.pn +1
eventually made for the general wants of the British
Museum, the claims of the readers require the immediate
and special consideration of the Trustees.”
“With respect, moreover, to this important part of
the subject—the accommodation for readers—it seems
to Mr. Panizzi that none of the existing parts of the
British Museum offer such comforts, conveniences, and
advantages as appear to him absolutely required for a
proper Reading-room of such an institution—a circumstance
to which he particularly begs to direct the
attention of the Trustees. Having long held this
opinion, Mr. Panizzi suggested from the first, and
has often suggested since, whenever the question of
additions to the present building has been brought
under discussion, that a new Reading-Room should be
erected; and this suggestion he is more and more
convinced must be acted upon, even though portions
of the collections now contained in the British Museum
were removed from it, and the space which they
occupy were destined to receive printed books,—a
destination which, it may be incidentally remarked,
will be convenient only with respect to certain parts
of the building.”
“Mr. Panizzi thinks that the inconveniences now
felt can be completely remedied as well as all eventual
difficulties removed in a short time, and at a
comparatively small cost, by the erection of a suitable
building in the inner quadrangle, which is at present
useless.... The building now suggested consists
of an outer wall, not higher than the sill of the
windows of the quadrangle—about 18 feet. This
wall is intended only to protect the contents of the
.bn 371.png
.pn +1
building, not to support it. It ought to be supported
by iron columns, and proper iron frames and girders.
It would be for the Trustees to consider of what
material the rest of the building should consist, and
whether the whole or only parts of its roof should be
of glass; of course this may partly depend on the
quantity of light required.”
“All the partitions of the several portions (marked
on the plan accompanying the report), with the exception
of those intended to closets, washing-rooms,
&c., &c., from the rest of the building, should
be formed by book-cases of uniform size, holding
books on both sides.”
“Such fittings and furniture would then be of use
were it considered expedient at some future period to
remove the proposed building altogether, and provide
a Reading-Room elsewhere.”
“It is intended that a space of four feet should be
left between the outside of the areas of the building
now existing and the outer wall of the one suggested.
Neither the light, nor even the ventilation of the
rooms underground would be interfered with, at least
not to such an extent as to render it doubtful
whether a slight inconvenience possibly accruing to
the use of cellars ought to outweigh the manifest
advantages which must evidently result to the readers
and Library from the adoption of the proposed
scheme.”
“By the adoption of that scheme a Reading-Room
would be provided capable of containing upwards of
560 readers at one and the same time, all comfortably
seated. They might have at their free disposal
.bn 372.png
.pn +1
25,000 volumes of works of reference. The superintendence,
which is now peculiarly difficult (in consequence
of which mutilations and thefts have, of
late, become not uncommon), would then be as easy
and as effective as possible. The space assigned to
books will, on a moderate calculation, afford room
for 400,000 volumes. There will, moreover, be
ample accommodation for Officers, Assistants, Transcribers,
and Attendants, to carry on their various
duties in a more comfortable as well as more economical
manner than is now the case. Requisite
conveniences would also be provided for frequenters
of the Reading-Room. The whole building is
capable of being as well lighted, ventilated, and
warmed, as can possibly be wished.”
“Mr. Panizzi having but a very limited knowledge
of practical architecture, and of the cost of building,
cannot take upon himself to give an estimate of the
expense. He would, however, be greatly surprised if
the building now suggested, completely fitted up,
were to cost more than £50,000.”[R]
.pm end_quote
.fm rend=th
.fn R
It so happened that Mr. Charles Cannon, one of the Assistants in the
Library, knew how to draw a plan in the proper manner; Panizzi, therefore,
employed him to put the rough sketch into such a shape as to be clearly
understood by the Trustees. The plans were accordingly drawn and laid
before the Board without any assistance from outside the Museum. Panizzi,
in after time, used frequently to refer to this and some similar services
as of great advantage to him.
.fn-
.fm=rend=th
A few weeks after, Panizzi wrote to Lord Rutherfurd:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“May 27, 1852.
.ll
“I have submitted a plan of building in the Quadrangle
to the Trustees, which has taken with them all amazingly, and
will, no doubt, be executed, for even the architect is pleased
.bn 373.png
.pn +1
with it. He will have nothing on earth to do but carry into
execution my ideas; he has not been able to suggest one
single improvement. He tried yesterday to draw a plan
somewhat different from mine, but he was obliged to admit it
was a failure, and will have to execute purely and simply my
own plan. I shall save the country many and many thousand
pounds, and do wonders for readers and library.”
.pm end_quote
And in December of the same year, he addressed a
letter to Hallam, the answer to which we give:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“December 2, 1852.
.ll
“My dear Sir,
.ti 6
I have just received your valuable letter on the
proposed application to the Treasury for an addition to the
building at the Museum. Your plan appears to me the only
one which will meet the emergency, and also the only one
which, on the score of expense, the Government are at all
likely to entertain. But as the Trustees have already laid
both this and the proposed building to the east before the
Treasury, they cannot avoid giving them the
I much fear that it will not be possible for me to attend
with the rest of the deputation—that is, I am engaged at a
distance from London both next and the following week. I
will do, however, all I can to be present. But I do not suppose
the Treasury will have time before the adjournment of
Parliament.
You have, I dare say, called on the Trustees forming the
deputation. I will, however, and as you permit me, transmit
your letter to Mr. Macaulay. I think that Mr. Goulburn is as
likely to have weight as any one, but I am sure you have been
in communication with him.
I should not be surprised at the removal of Elgin and other
marbles to the new National Gallery, but, of course, that part
of the Museum could not be converted into a library without
much inconvenience and expense.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
H. Hallam.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
.bn 374.png
.pn +1
In June, 1852, there appeared in the Quarterly
Review, an interesting article on the British Museum,
from the pen of no less a personage than the Right
Honourable Wilson Croker himself. On the face of
this article the writer shows himself a thorough
advocate of the merits of the Reading-Room then in
existence. Denying the credibility, save in the case
of a few individuals of abnormally weak and susceptible
brains, of the traditional Museum headache,
to which so many, and amongst them Thomas Carlyle,
had from personal experience, borne witness; he proceeds
to charge the room with the very defects on
which the majority of its frequenters were in the
constant habit of dilating.
Amongst other works at the head of this article, is
one entitled Observations on the British Museum,
National Gallery and National Record Office, with
suggestions for their improvement, by James Fergusson.
London, 1849.
In this work Mr. Fergusson, anticipating Panizzi’s
purpose and choice of site, proposed to construct in
the inner quadrangle of the British Museum, a
Reading-Room about 175 feet by 105 feet. The
writer of the article gives Panizzi no credit for the
soundness of his scheme, and its adaptability to the
requirements of the occasion, but attributes his
recommendations simply to his zeal for the efficiency
of his Department, and wonders how Mr. Smirke
could have lent these ideas his professional concurrence.
With Mr. Fergusson’s project he disagrees as
likely to spoil the effect of the inner court, as touching
the grandeur and impressiveness in its naked
.bn 375.png
.pn +1
severity; in this he assumes that there is a peculiar
merit in the eyes of those who have seen it, though
it must be granted that, to the few who had done so,
this peculiar merit was not so clearly visible. He
proposes as an improvement to cover in the whole
court with a glass roof, after the fashion of the
original Crystal Palace of 1851, in Hyde Park, and
to use the grand room thus obtained as a receptacle
for antiquities, sculpture, etc., with other details of
improvement, which, as they were never carried out,
do not require to be particularized in these pages.
This was, in fact, the scheme submitted in 1853 to
the Trustees of the British Museum by Sir Charles
Barry. The report made by the Trustees respecting
this plan is, as may be supposed, too long to quote
verbatim, but is, substantially, as follows:—
That Sir C. Barry’s plan, so far as it related to
increased accommodation in the British Museum, was
absolutely impracticable.
That it betrayed great ignorance of the wants of
the Museum, and indifference as to the safe-keeping
of some of its most valuable contents.
That the large skylight covering the 75,200 square
feet of quadrangle would darken every window
therein, and, in many seasons, obscure the whole
space.
That the communications between Departments
would be more inconvenient than at present, and that
the new Reading-Room, proposed by Sir C. Barry,
would be deficient in light, air, and accommodation,
and be attended by increased expense and delay in
the procuring of books.
.bn 376.png
.pn +1
That the supervision of the Reading-Room would
be less effective, and risk of loss incurred.
That access to parts of the Library would have to
be through the Reading-Room; the Cataloguers
would be separated by a great distance from their
books, and the Catalogues themselves suspended
during the progress of the works.
That the Exhibition of Prints and Drawings would
be in like manner affected; that no additional space
is provided for printed books; and that general displacement
and confusion in this Department would be
the result of the scheme.
That Sir C. Barry’s statement—viz., that the space
of only one year is sufficient for the completion of the
work is without foundation.
That the plan of removal of the greater objects of
antiquity from their present site to Sir C. Barry’s new
hall would be attended with extraordinary labour and
expense, and that their position would be no more
conspicuous than before.
That mummies, metals, pottery, and objects having
delicacy of colour would run risk of injury.
That ventilation would be most difficult, and the
approach to the area highly objectionable.
Lastly, that the sudden fall of any large portion of
the enormous glass roof might destroy some most
valuable object or objects of art.
Thus the Trustees dismissed the project of Sir C.
Barry, and evinced an inclination to cling to their own
design, notwithstanding its rejection by the Government.
It was not long, however, before they saw the expediency
.bn 377.png
.pn +1
of adopting Panizzi’s views; and in a letter
to Lord Rutherfurd, the latter speaks hopefully, first
of his plan, and afterwards of his final anticipation of
the success of his scheme.
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“B. M., May 16, 1854.
.ll
“... Lord Aberdeen and also Mr. Gladstone, but
not Lord Lansdowne, have been to look at the model, and both
have agreed that the building should be raised as proposed.
The Trustees on Saturday were unanimously of opinion that
my suggestion was right, and have written for the Treasury’s
approbation, which, after what I mention just before, will, no
doubt, be given, and the thing done.”
.pm end_quote
The foundations of the New Reading-Room were
commenced in May, and the first brick was laid in
September, 1854.
In a work of such a peculiar nature and vast importance,
it would be impossible to avoid the constant
recurrence of obstacles and difficulties; and a third
letter from Panizzi to Lord Rutherfurd proves conclusively
that these were caused by circumstances
quite unconnected with the actual building operations.
This we subjoin:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“B. M., October 13th, 1854.
.ll
“... The building is going on tolerably. It will be
used as a source of great annoyance to me, particularly by our
friend X——, who is here for my sins. That building will
cause yet to us all—I mean the architect, builder, and myself—great
anxiety and trouble; numberless points are to be
settled, and they are knotty ones. Then I have to agree about
it with some Trustees, who evidently have no clear conception
of what it is to be, and make suggestions and objections which
they would not make if they understood what that building is,
and how it will be when finished.”
.pm end_quote
As time progressed, it became necessary to encounter
and settle the question of internal decoration—a
.bn 378.png
.pn +1
question, in all countries, of extreme delicacy and taste,
and, in our own climate, especially in the atmosphere
of London, most difficult of solution. The New
Reading-Room had no exterior, and those who have
seen the interior in its present finished state may
readily imagine how bald and unsatisfactory an appearance
it would have presented had even a less
lavish use been made of paint and gilding in its ornamentation.
From a letter of Mr. Smirke’s to Panizzi
it would appear that it required some effort to obtain
for the building the least amount of gilding necessary.
Here, moreover, the equally delicate question of
money arose, for Panizzi’s modest estimate of £50,000
had already been greatly exceeded in the mere construction
of the room, without any of its numerous
and much needed accessories.
That this was so, may be seen from Mr. Smirke’s.
letter:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“Leicester, October 29, 1856.
.ll
“My dear Sir,
.ti 6
... I shall not let the subject of gilding the dome drop
without an effort, and propose to submit it formally to the
Trustees at their next meeting. If four or five thousand
pounds were spent in gilding some of the mouldings of the
dome an effect would be produced that could hardly be imagined;
it would illuminate, as it were, the whole building, and
beautify it without detracting from its simplicity and grandeur.
The £100,000 which the building costs will have been entirely
spent in objects of utility; surely four or five thousand
pounds will be a small percentage on that sum for ornament.
In what public building in London has the ratio of ornament
to utility been as four-and-a-half to a hundred?
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
Sydney Smirke.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
.bn 379.png
.pn +1
Most happily the authorities entertained no parsimonious
ideas in the matter; and a letter from the
Secretary to the Treasury (the Right Honourable
James Wilson) displays a liberal and enlightened
view of the necessity of combining in the new room
beauty with utility, although his opinions as regards
the British Museum in general, may reasonably be
questioned.
This letter will also be read with interest; therefore,
although lengthy, no apology is needed for its
insertion:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.nf r
“Treasury Chambers,
June 3, 1856.
.nf-
.ll
“My dear Panizzi,
.ti 6
I have read your note of the 28th of May
with much interest. I have since sent you an official letter
sanctioning the gilding of the dome. That, however, need not
be considered to preclude the consideration of the painting of
the ceiling, should the Trustees be disposed to entertain it. As
the matter appears to me it is thus:—The British Museum is
certainly the best public building we have of modern times,
and is one of the few things we have to be proud of. The
Reading Hall will be one of the finest rooms and the Dome
one of the grandest structures of its kind, not to say in England,
but, so far as I know, in Europe. These circumstances
certainly point to the strong motive we should have to complete
it in the best style of which it is capable. Adverting to
the fact that the whole of the sides of that enormous circle will
be fitted up with dense rows of books, with a mass of gilded
and varied coloured backs, a plain white ceiling would be tame
and cold in the extreme, and I think the choice must lie
between rich gilding, or less gilding and painting. Against
the latter I think the plan of the interior of the dome is a
serious drawback, because, being fitted in compartments, any
.bn 380.png
.pn +1
grand subject to spread over the whole of the dome is impossible,
and if painting is resorted to at all, it will obviously be
necessary to confine it to some mode of filling the panels only,
and which, moreover, excepting the ovals, are of a bad shape;
for I think it is obvious that any style that may be adopted
should be rich, grave, and even severe, looking to the purpose
for which the building is intended.
.tb
However, it will remain for the Trustees, if they think right,
to consider this subject deliberately after they may be in possession
of any information or advice which they think proper
to seek. Expressing only my own private views at this stage,
I should on public grounds think that it would be well worth
consideration, in order to perfect so grand a work, whether an
additional sum of money should not be expended, thrown over
two or three years, if a great and decided effect can be attained
by painting in place of gilding.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
James Wilson.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
Notwithstanding the suggestions alluded to in this
letter, to the great credit of the architect’s taste and
judgment, the Dome was “fitted in compartments,”
and no opportunity was given for “any grand subject
to spread over the whole of the Dome.” Had this project
been seriously entertained, it is assuredly more than
doubtful whether an artist could have been found of
sufficient capacity to undertake it with any probability
of success.
There is no doubt whatever that the surface of the
Dome, arranged and coloured as it fortunately has
been, presents a far better effect than it would have
done had it been surrendered to any such decoration
as a grand subject painting extending over the whole
of it.
.bn 381.png
.pn +1
But à propos of decoration, Panizzi’s letter, written
just one year before, and addressed to a Trustee of the
British Museum, Mr. W. R. Hamilton, will also
testify to his judgment and taste in architecture:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“B. M., June 11, 1855.
.ll
“My dear Sir,
.ti 6
I had no idea that my objections to showing the
ribs in the interior of the cupola, and to the form of the
windows in it, would ever have become the subject of discussion.
I stated these objections to Mr. Smirke and Mr. Fielder,
and as the former was responsible, he was perfectly right in
persisting in his views if he thought me wrong; and had that
been done privately, I should have allowed the matter to pass
in silence. But as my objections have been formally canvassed
and summarily dismissed—as I am likely to get more blame
for the new building than I am fairly entitled to, and as I
believe my objections to have more in them than others allow.
I think it right to put on record these objections, being firmly
convinced that the time will come when the not having given
them more consideration will be a source of regret. If I write
to you, instead of making a report to the Trustees, it is
because I do not want to say officially more than I did on
Saturday last to the Board, because Mr. Smirke appealed to
you originally as a friend, and because your unwearied kindness
to me, makes me confident that you will, on the same
ground, forgive my relieving my mind to you by repeating my
objections.
1st.—As to the cupola: I object to its showing the ribs on
which it rests. I say that this is unprecedented, that it will have
a bad effect, that it renders it impossible ever to ornament it,
and that the oval frames which are introduced about half way,
in the spaces between the ribs are meaningless, not in keeping
with the building. Far from showing how they are constructed,
it is their being as if it were suspended in the air
that gives the cupolas their grace, and renders them striking
objects. From them comes the light as from the sky, of which
.bn 382.png
.pn +1
they represent the form as much as it is possible for mortals to
imitate nature.
To show the ribs in a cupola is the same as if we were to
show in their nakedness the beams and girders supporting a
floor or a roof.
It is an utter mistake to say that the ribs (costoloni) of St.
Peter’s are seen in the great temple itself. The cupola which
is seen inside is a second cupola, quite smooth, built on purpose
to conceal the supports and ribs of the outer cupola, and
these are seen only by persons who go to the top of that
superb building, ascending between the two cupolas, the outer
and inner one.
2nd.—As to the windows: Has any one ever seen such
windows in a building, the whole character and style of which
is so totally different from them in character and style? What
will the effect be after having passed through the magnificent
entrance of the Museum, to enter a room lighted not only by
arched windows, but by windows with such ornaments in their
upper portion, and then divided lengthways by a slender upright
into two very narrow and very long arches, the proportions
and frame of which are so peculiar, and so much at
variance with everything else in the whole Museum? All the
doors in the very room which is to be lighted by those windows
are of simple and rectangular form. Will not this discordance
produce a most disagreeable effect?
I feel, perhaps, too strongly on the subject, and I most sincerely
wish I may be mistaken, but I cannot, fearing strongly
that this building, which I cherished the hope would prove as
handsome as it will be useful, will thus be rendered subject to
animadversion. I write under this conviction—under this
conviction I spoke last Saturday to the Trustees. I shall
claim no merit on the success; I must disclaim the responsibility
of failure on these two points.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
.bn 383.png
.pn +1
Although, during the progress of the building,
Panizzi had frequent occasion to complain of the
short-comings of the workmen employed thereon, yet,
the new Reading-Room was entirely finished by the
end of April, 1857, in the laudably short space of
less than three years. Much credit was due to the
great energy of the contractor, Mr. Fielder, for whom
Panizzi entertained the highest esteem, and who was
untiring in his earnest endeavours in carrying out
the plans of the architect; and on the 2nd of May in
the same year, the building was duly opened, a grand
breakfast being given at the British Museum in
honour of the occasion: to this the Prince Consort
had been invited by Panizzi, and had accepted the
invitation, but was prevented from attending by an
unforeseen occurrence.
The following letter accounts for His Royal Highness’s
absence from the ceremony:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.nf r
“Piccadilly,
April 30th, 1857.
.nf-
.ll
“My dear Sir,
.ti 6
As the death of H.R.H. the Duchess of Gloucester
will inevitably prevent H.R.H. Prince Albert’s attending at
the opening of the Reading Room on Saturday next, you will
oblige me by stating whether or not the ceremony will still
take place or be postponed to a future day.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours faithfully,
Cadogan.”
.nf-
.ll
A. Panizzi, Esq.
.pm end_quote
The postponement of the opening of the Room
was, however, simply impossible, and amongst other
notabilities present were the following:—
The Archbishop of Canterbury (Sumner), Earl and
Countess of Clarendon, Earl Cawdor, Earl of Aberdeen,
.bn 384.png
.pn +1
the Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir
Charles and Lady Eastlake, Lady Cranworth, Baron
Marochetti, the Dean of St. Paul’s and Mrs. Milman,
Professor Owen, Lord Panmure, Lord and Lady John
Russell, Sir George and Lady Grey, Earl Spencer,
the Bishop of London and Mrs. Tait, and the Duke
of Somerset.
All the officers were also present, with the exception
of Sir Frederick Madden (Keeper of the MSS.),
but Mr. E. A. Bond, then Assistant-Keeper, represented
him. One of the letters replying to Panizzi’s
invitation to this breakfast may be given here, to
show the estimate formed by one whose judgment
may safely be respected, of the Librarian’s own share
in the building of the new Reading-Room:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.nf r
“24, Bedford Square,
21st April, 1857.
.nf-
.ll
“Dear Panizzi,
.ti 6
I shall have very great pleasure in witnessing
the Inauguration of the New Reading-Room, not only as an
observance marking an epoch in the advance of the Museum,
but as tending by new allurements of splendor and convenience
to increase the resort of every class of society to it, as well for
study as for investigations.
Without lessening the merits of Mr. Smirke and Mr. Fielder
in carrying out its plans, the contriver and real architect
throughout has been Antonio Panizzi.
Your exertions have brought increased prosperity to the
greatest of our Institutions.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours ever sincerely,
Henry Ellis.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
Another letter, by the same hand, bears testimony
to the success of the entertainment itself:—
.bn 385.png
.pn +1
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.nf r
“24, Bedford Square,
4th May, 1857.
.nf-
.ll
“Dear Panizzi,
.ti 6
I must not resist the pleasure I feel in expressing
to you my congratulations on the successful opening of
our new Reading-Room, on Saturday, although H.R.H. Prince
Albert, contrary to his own intention, was prevented by the
Duchess of Gloucester’s demise, from honouring it with his
presence.
You see I still venture to say our Reading-Room, for
although officially defunct, my heart and mind remain
attached to the welfare of the place, and with it a fancied
identity still hovering over me, and I must say not a little
encouraged by the prosperity and increasing magnificence of
the place I have so long loved.
Everybody who came on Saturday was delighted with your
kind reception, and nothing could be a more complete adaptation
to the circuit which surrounded it than your entertainment,
alike conspicuous for the abundance, and the refined
taste in the selection and preparation of its viands.
The ladies, I can assure you, were not a little pleased with
the compliment of the bouquets. The only regret I felt
myself was in the consideration of the fatigue you must have
undergone in your own exertions to prepare for making so
choice a company as you assembled, so completely pleased and
happy, not omitting your toil also in the reception; but in
both points I am quite sure you were thoroughly successful.
Accept my own thanks for your kindness to me personally
on this eventful occasion, and with my best wishes that you
may long live to continue your exertions for the benefit of the
Museum, and that you may be backed by the liberality of
successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, such as Sir George
Cornewall Lewis.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.
Henry Ellis.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
.bn 386.png
.pn +1
The reply to this conveys a graceful tribute to Sir
Henry Ellis’s own deserts:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“B. M., May 4th, 1857.
.ll
“My dear Sir Henry,
.ti 6
I assure you that I cannot find words to express
adequately the feelings with which I perused your most kind
letter; believe me, although I shall not say much, I feel
deeply your kindness.
This great institution which has grown under your eyes,
and increased from small beginnings to its present magnitude
by your paternal care and unremitting exertions for the
space of 56 years, must always occupy a high place in your
heart. I can only express the hope that I may not attempt
in vain to follow your footsteps in the responsible situation
which I fill, and that the comparison may not be so much to
my disadvantage, when in future times the results of your
administration are compared with mine.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
Whatever may have been Panizzi’s claim to be considered
the “Architect,” as well as the originator of
the design for the New Reading-Room, his reputation
for having performed so great a service was not
altogether unassailed. On the completion of his
important work, a vigorous attack, more formidable
perhaps in appearance than in reality, was directed
from a somewhat unexpected quarter against both
the originality of the plan and the bonâ fides of the
author. Hæc feci monimenta meum tulit alter
honorem, sic vos non vobis, etc. Such were the
words of William Hosking, Professor of Architecture,
King’s College, London.
.bn 387.png
.pn +1
This gentleman had, some years before, prepared a
design for additional buildings to the British Museum,
and these he proposed to place in the quadrangle, on
the site afterwards fixed on by Panizzi for his Reading-Room.
In 1848 Mr. Hosking submitted his plan
to Lord Ellesmere’s Museum Commission, and afterwards,
in 1849, to the Trustees.
Great though its merits may have been, it unfortunately
met with approbation from neither. Mr.
Hosking now made a charge against Panizzi of
having pirated not only his choice of the position,
but also the form of the building, which he alleges has
been colourably altered so as to pass for Panizzi’s own.
The earlier design appeared in the Builder of
June 22nd, 1850. We mention this in order that
the reader may have an opportunity of comparing it
with the latter and judge for himself as to which
possesses the greater merit and originality.
Mr. Hosking’s building, it must in justice be
allowed, would have been of itself extremely ornamental,
and, with equal justice, it may be said would
have been considerably less useful than ornamental.
Although the superiority of past ages has reduced
the art of the present day to imitation, combined, in
comparatively rare cases, with happy adaptation, it is,
nevertheless, doubtful how far any architect who
should make an actual copy of so well-known a
building as the Pantheon at Rome, and set it up in
one of the most conspicuous positions in London,
would be justified in so doing, or would merit popular
approbation, even though he acted with the same
“” as Mr. Hosking.
.bn 388.png
.pn +1
Not to enter, however, on this higher question, it
is obvious that there were valid reasons why the
Trustees should have rejected this scheme. They
may be excused for not, at first sight, perceiving the
necessity or utility of raising no less a structure than
the dome of the Pantheon over a portion of the
statuary of the British Museum. Another project in
Mr. Hosking’s plan (not mentioned in the extract
from the Builder), whereby he proposed to cut off a
portion of the King’s Library for a new Reading-Room,
was scarcely worthy of second consideration.
On the completion of Panizzi’s work Mr. Hosking,
probably wroth at his own ill success, and aggrieved
at the favour lavished on the other, proceeded to open
his attack on the alleged pirate, firing his first shot
direct at that individual:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.nf r
“Athenæum,
30th April, 1857.
.nf-
.ll
“Sir,
.ti 6
As the credit of suggesting the site and originating
the work recently built in the quadrangular court of
the British Museum is popularly assigned to you, whilst I
claim to have devised and made known the scheme in the first
instance, I hope you will hold me excused for asking you to
be so good as to give me the means of placing the matter
rightly before the public by informing me whether the project
to the same effect which I laid before Lord Ellesmere’s Commission
in 1848, and communicated to the Trustees of the
Museum in 1849, had been seen by you before you devised
the present work.
My plan, with an abstract of the description which accompanied
it, was, after the drawing which presented it came back
from the Trustees, published in the Builder, as you know; for
I sent you a copy of the print, and that was two years before
.bn 389.png
.pn +1
the scheme lately carried out was made known to the
public.
.ll 68
.nf r
I am, yours, &c.,
William Hosking.”
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
To this Panizzi lost no time in replying:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.nf r
“British Museum,
May 1st, 1857.
.nf-
.ll
“Sir,
.ti 6
I have to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of yesterday’s date requesting me to inform you whether
a certain project of yours of building in the inner quadrangle
of the Museum, and which, as you state, you laid before Lord
Ellesmere’s Commission in 1848, and communicated to the
Trustees in 1849 (as I have just now ascertained for the first
time) had been seen by me before I designed the present
work, that is the Reading-Room and Libraries recently built
on that site.
I beg in answer to state that I had never seen your project
or the scheme to which you allude before I suggested the
work which is now completed.
I saw, when published, in the Builder, a separately
printed copy of it which was sent to me, I suppose by you,
without any accompanying note or letter, long after the works
for carrying out my suggestion had been commenced.
The concluding part of your letter must mean, of course,
that that publication took place two years before the scheme
lately carried out had been made known, not that you sent me
the copy of your plan two years before my suggestion had
been made known to the public. It is desirable that there
should be no ambiguity on this point.
Permit me to add that the schemes for covering over, or
building in the quadrangle were numberless. My colleague,
Mr. Hawkins, had often suggested, long before 1850 a communication
by corridors across the quadrangle, from the front
entrance to the several departments, with a central building
for the Trustees’ Meeting-Room and officers standing round it.
.bn 390.png
.pn +1
You suggested a great Central Hall with one floor of 120
feet in diameter, two inscribing octagonal corridors presenting
niches to receive statues, and extensive wall surface fit to
receive reliefs and inscriptions with connecting galleries, etc.
The Hall was intended by you for the exhibition of the
finer and more important works of sculpture, besides a quadrilateral
hall to contain ample staircases, etc.
I, on the other hand, have suggested and have seen built
a circular Reading-Room, 140 feet in diameter, with amazing
shelf room for books of a totally novel construction. No
central hall, no quadrilateral hall nor ample staircases, no
space, niches, or wall-surface for the exhibition of works of
sculpture, statues, or inscriptions as you suggested. How
your scheme can be designated as being to the same effect as
mine, and how, had I seen it, it can take the merit of
originality from mine, others will say.
Yours was the scheme of an architect; thick walls, ample
staircases, etc. Mine the humble suggestion of a Librarian,
who wanted to find, at a small cost of time, space, and
money, ample room for books and comfortable accommodation
for readers, neither of which purposes you contemplated.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
William Hosking, Esq.
.pm end_quote
Mr. Hosking also attempted to extract information
as to the alleged piracy from the architect of the new
Reading-Room.
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“Athenæum, 30th April, 1857
.ll
“My dear Sir,
.ti 6
Will you be so kind as to tell me whether you ever
saw the drawing, or any copy of it, of my project for building
a modified copy of the Pantheon at Rome within the enclosed
quadrangle of the British Museum, before the scheme of the
analogous work recently executed under your directions at
the same place, and attributed to Mr. Panizzi, was communicated
to you?
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours &c., &c.,
William Hosking.”
.nf-
.ll
To Sydney Smirke, Esq.
.pm end_quote
.bn 391.png
.pn +1
How much success Mr. Hosking attained in this
attempt will be seen on a perusal of Mr. Smirke’s
answer:—
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“May 2, 1857.
.ll
“Dear Sir,
.ti 6
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of
yesterday. I recollect seeing your plans, or rather I had a
glance over them at a meeting of the Trustees, shortly after
you sent them.
When, long subsequently, Mr. Panizzi showed me his
sketch for a plan of a New Reading-Room, I confess it did
not remind me of yours, the purposes of the two plans and the
treatment and construction altogether were so different.
The idea of building over the quadrangle is of very early
date, it was certainly mooted in the Museum fifteen years ago.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
Sydney Smirke.
.nf-
.ll
.pm end_quote
It may as well be mentioned in this place, that as
Panizzi in his letter already quoted, disclaims originality
in choosing the position of his New Room, so
Mr. Hosking, in a subsequent letter, dated 4th of May,
1857, to Mr. Smirke, admits that “It is quite 15
years since Mr. Hawkins proposed to build corridors
across it (the quadrangle) to facilitate intercommunication.”
Neither of the opposing parties, however,
takes note of the fact that, as early as 1836-7,
Mr. Thomas Watts, the late Keeper of the Department
of Printed Books in the British Museum, had
actually suggested the construction of a Reading-Room
in the very spot of Panizzi’s selection.
He had written in the Mechanics Magazine for
March 11th, 1837, commenting upon the waste of
space occasioned by the empty quadrangle, “A Reading-Room,
of ample dimensions, might have stood in
.bn 392.png
.pn +1
the centre, and been surrounded on all four sides
by galleries for the books, communicating with each
other and lighted from the top.” A little further on,
however, he half retracts his own suggestion, remarking,
“So much has been expended on the great
quadrangle, that it might seem barbarous to propose
filling up the square, as ought to have been originally
done.” The grand conception of the cupola, by
which architectural effect was to be taken away only
to be restored with interest, had not dawned upon
him; and, in fact, the reverence expressed by so
many for the architecture of the inner court would
have been more intelligible, if the court had been
more accessible.
As regards originality, therefore, in this portion of
the respective designs there can be no possible
ground of discussion.
Still Mr. Hosking could not be convinced that, in
other points, his design was not feloniously used and
himself consequently wronged by Panizzi, and so
published a long pamphlet dwelling, amongst other
things, on the alleged fact that the latter must have
seen the copy of the Builder which he sent to him in
May, 1852.
To this allegation Panizzi gave a categorical denial;
but a short statement, dated May 18th, 1858, in
answer to the longer pamphlet, will show sufficiently
for our present purpose the line of attack adopted
by his opponent, and his own method of defence.
.pm start_quote
.nf c
Remarks on Mr. Hosking’s Claims to the Design of the British\
Museum New Building.
.nf-
1st.—Mr. Hosking having suggested “a modified copy of
.bn 393.png
.pn +1
the Pantheon,” a massive building for the exhibition of sculpture,
with no accommodation for readers or books, now claims
the merit of the structure which I suggested, and which has
been built, was intended, and is used, solely, for readers and for
books. His scheme included quadrilateral halls, central halls,
ample staircases, corridors, &c., all of the usual materials; the
building which I suggested and have seen carried out, is
original in plan, use of materials, arrangement, and construction.
Mr. Hosking says that it is not the plan of the Pantheon
that he claims, “but the application of its form, disposition,
and proportions;” and the plagiarism he alleges, is the application
of such his device, with certain of his combinations,
contrary to honour and good faith, not only on my part, but
also on that of the Trustees. It will be obvious to any one
who will inspect the building, that neither the form, nor the
disposition, nor the proportions of the Pantheon, have been
adopted in the new building at the Museum. There is no resemblance
whatever between the architectural features of the
two schemes. Mr. Hosking proposed a reduced Pantheon,—a
cupola 120 feet in height, and the same in diameter. The
cupola of the Reading-Room is 140 feet in diameter, and 106
feet in height. Are these two conceptions alike?
2nd.—Mr. Hosking says that I am a “pirate,” having taken
from his scheme my suggestions for building the Reading-Room
and surrounding Libraries; which suggestions I made
on the 5th of May, 1852. Instead of using hard words and
dealing in generalities, it would be better that Mr. Hosking
should declare specifically which of his suggestions have been
adopted in the new building. I affirm none, not even the
most trifling. Indeed such an appropriation was impossible,
as I am going to prove. Mr. Hosking states that, on the 14th
of June, 1852, he sent me a copy of that portion of the
Builder, dated June 22, 1850, in which his scheme of building
was set forth. I distinctly aver that I did not receive that
portion of the Builder on the 14th of June, 1852, nor in any
part of 1852 or 1853, and that I never knew of Mr. Hosking’s
.bn 394.png
.pn +1
plan till the latter part of 1854, when I did see, for the first
time, the extract from the Builder of the 22nd of June, 1850.
3rd.—Long after the works for the new building were
begun, I found in my study at the British Museum (not at
my private residence), a paper merely addressed to me, in
which was carelessly wrapped up a copy of what professed
to be an extract from that number of the Builder. I showed
it at once to Mr. Jones and to Mr. Fielder, as a document
just received, and wondering whence it came. I learned
then, for the first time, from Mr. Fielder, who Mr. Hosking
was.[S] The moment I received Mr. Hosking’s letter of the
30th of April, 1857, informing me that the extract from the
Builder had been sent by him, I showed it to both those
gentlemen, who recollected, immediately, my having shown
them that extract, as I have just stated. The works for the
new building were begun late in March, 1854, the contract
was made some time after: I became acquainted with Mr.
Fielder after the contract was made.
4th.—Mr. Hosking admits that I could not have received
his paper in May, 1852, when I put forward my “first
design,” but is positive that I had received it when I put
forward “the other, early in 1854.” My answer is, that I
never put forward any design whatever after May, 1852. I
have freely made suggestions to Mr. Smirke; he has most
unreservedly consulted me from May, 1852, to the present
day; but I have never made any other design than that
shown by the two plans of May, 1852, accompanying my
report of the 5th of that month, and printed by order of the
House of Commons on the 30th of that same month.
5th.—Mr. Hosking asserts that if the cupola rested merely
on its iron supports (which it does, in fact, as any one may
see) it would tumble down; and, as if to show that he has
not the most distant conception of what the Museum Reading-Room
ought to be, he actually proposes that the King’s
Library should be used as such.
.bn 395.png
.pn +1
6th.—If the new Reading-Room and Libraries at the British
Museum have any merit, they have, by universal consent,
that of being in every way adapted to their respective purposes.
The fittings, the tables, the warming, the lighting,
the peculiar system of ventilation applied, the multifarious,
minute arrangements adopted in order to economise space
and for the accommodation and comfort of readers, as well
as for the ready access to books, are certainly not less important
than the building of which they form an integral and
vital part, but upon none of which has Mr. Hosking put forth
his views. His suggestion of placing works of art in a room
120 feet in diameter, lighted from the top of a dome at a height
of 120 feet, speaks for itself.
7th.—On the publication of my plans by order of the House
of Commons, in June, 1852, they were much canvassed in the
public press, and severely animadverted upon in the Quarterly
Review. The possibility of their success was long denied, and
Mr. Hosking was silent. That success is now established, and
Mr. Hosking claims the merit as his own.
.ll 68
.rj
A. Panizzi.
.ll
B. M., May 18, 1858.
.pm end_quote
.fm rend=th
.fn S
The name of Mr. Hosking occurs repeatedly in the printed document
here referred to as that of the author of the plan therein put forth.
.fn-
.fm=rend=th
Previously to the issue of this statement, Panizzi
had asked for, and obtained, from the architect his
opinion on the dissimilarity between the two plans.
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.nf r
“Grosvenor Street,
April 8th, 1858.
.nf-
.ll
“Dear Sir,
.ti 6
I feel no hesitation in complying with your
request, and stating that the idea of a circular Reading-Room
with surrounding Library, and with the divisions formed wholly
of book-cases, was perfectly original and entirely your own,
and totally unlike the solid masonic structure devised by Mr.
Hosking for the exhibition of sculpture. The two plans
neither did, nor do, strike me as having any resemblance to
each other, and that is what I meant to express in my note of
last July. The architectural features of the present dome I
.bn 396.png
.pn +1
am answerable for, not you, and it is obviously as unlike the
Pantheon as any two domes can be. It was Michael Angelo’s
cupola of St. Peter which suggested the present lines of yours.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
Sydney Smirke.
.nf-
.pm end_quote
Neither Panizzi nor Hosking lacked supporters
amongst the numerous critics and judges who, as a
matter of course, came forward on such an occasion;
and a war, supported by newspapers on either side,
was vigorously carried on for upwards of a year. Into
the details of the controversy it would be tedious and
irrelevant to enter; but whoever will undertake impartially
to peruse the records of it (many of which
are still extant), will have neither doubt nor difficulty
in ascribing the victory to Panizzi.
But as “there is a river in Macedon and there is,
moreover, a river at Monmouth,” so it must be admitted
that there were, at least, three sterling points
of resemblance between the two designs. They are
as follows:—1st. That for each was chosen the same
plot of ground, but that the merit of originality in
such choice belongs to neither designer. 2nd. That
both buildings had domes, but these domes so dissimilar
that comparison is out of the question. 3rd
(and here lay the most striking point of resemblance),
That in design, purpose, execution, proportion, and
every other detail, Panizzi’s building differs “toto
c[oe]lo” from the structure devised by Hosking.
The whole story gives occasion for melancholy
reflection on the common and vulgar fortune of so
many great men, whose claims to invention or discovery
are constantly challenged by those of whose
.bn 397.png
.pn +1
existence they never heard until their own works
were perfected. There is reason to believe that the
claimants to the invention of the Archimedean screw,
are almost equal in number to those who have suggested
building in the inner quadrangle of the British
Museum.
The following is a description of the room:—
“The Reading-Room is circular. The entire
building does not occupy the whole quadrangle, there
being a clear interval of from 27 to 30 feet all round,
to give light and air to the surrounding buildings,
and as a guard against possible destruction by fire
from the outer parts of the Museum. The dome of
this Reading-Room is 140 feet in diameter, its height
being 106 feet. In this dimension of diameter it is
only inferior to the Pantheon of Rome by 2 feet; St.
Peters being only 139; Sta. Maria in Florence, 139;
the tomb of Mahomet, Bejapore, 135; St. Paul’s,
112; St. Sophia, Constantinople, 107; and the Church
at Darmstadt, 105. The new Reading-Room contains
1,250,000 cubic feet of space; its ‘suburbs,’ or surrounding
Libraries, 750,000. The building is constructed
principally of iron, with brick arches between
the main ribs, supported by 20 iron piers, having a
sectional area of 10 superficial feet to each, including
the brick casing, or 200 feet in all. This saving of
space by the use of iron is remarkable, the piers of
support on which our dome rests only thus occupying
200 feet, whereas the piers of the Pantheon of Rome
fill 7,477 feet of area, and those of the tomb of
Mahomet, 5,593. Upwards of 2,000 tons of iron
have been employed in the construction. The weight
.bn 398.png
.pn +1
of the materials used in the dome is about 4,200 tons
viz., upwards of 200 tons on each pier.”
It may be considered that we are open to the impeachment
of plagiarism, greater even than could be
ascribed to Panizzi, inasmuch as we have taken our
statistics from a penny book—that most accurate one
sold at the Museum at this very moderate price—and
having borrowed from this valuable little publication,
we can but claim as our excuse the worth of its contents,
and the consideration of those readers into
whose hands the small publication may never have
fallen.
A domed building possessing beauty of appearance
is by no means easy of construction, and some of the
most celebrated in the world are conspicuously deficient
in grace and elegance, especially as regards the
exterior.
Fortunately it has fallen to the lot of the new
Reading-Room to be concerned only with the most
manageable side of its dome—viz., the inside.
By this, as will be universally allowed, criticism is
disarmed. The proportions of the room are admirable,
and the lines of architecture full of grace and
beauty. The lighting is based on the most scientific
principles, and the dome itself (only inferior in dimensions
to one other in existence) maintains its own
appearance as to actual size, and is of grandeur
proportionate to its general lightness and elegance.
The spectator will, however, be most struck with
its style of internal decoration, a grand example of
success, when our attempts have hitherto been so
futile.
.bn 399.png
.pn +1
The fear of tampering with colour has ever been
one of our idiosyncrasies, and it may be observed in
this instance.
True, that in our uncertain climate and obscure
atmosphere, Nature herself lends but little aid in the
matter, either as regards instruction or example;
but the colouring of the Reading-Room may be pronounced
free from indifference or conventionality, and
to the freedom observable is added a boldness and
originality which must be seen to be truly estimated
at its proper value.
To give the reader, however, some general notion
of the manner in which the colouring has been managed,
we quote, without apology, one more passage
from the small brochure to which we have alluded:—
“In the decoration of the interior dome, light
colours and the purest gilding have been preferred.
The Great Room, therefore, has an illuminated and
elegant aspect. The decorative work may be shortly
described:—The inner surface of the dome is divided
into twenty compartments by moulded ribs, which are
gilded with leaf prepared from unalloyed gold, the
soffites being in ornamental patterns, and the edges
touching the adjoining margins fringed with a leaf-pattern
scolloped edge. Each compartment contains
a circular-headed window, twenty-seven feet high and
twelve feet wide, with three panels above, the central
one being medallion-shaped, the whole bordered with
gilt mouldings and lines, and the field of the panels
finished in encaustic azure blue, the surrounding margins
being of a warm cream colour. The details of
the windows are treated in like manner—the spandril
.bn 400.png
.pn +1
panels blue; the enriched column and pilaster caps,
the central flowers, the border moulding and lines
being gilded—the margins cream colour throughout.
The moulded rim of the lantern light, which is
painted and gilded to correspond, is 40 feet in diameter.
The sash is formed of gilt moulded ribs, radiating
from a central medallion, in which the Royal Monogram
is alternated with the Imperial Crown.
“The cornice, from which the dome springs, is
massive and almost wholly gilded, the frieze being
formed into panels bounded by lines terminating at
the ends with a gilt fret ornament. Each compartment
of the dome is marked by a bold enriched gilt
console, which forms at once the support of the main
rib and the base for a colossal marble statue, a series
of which it is proposed to place on the cornice.
“Between the cornice and the floor the space is
filled with the bookcases and galleries of access, the
cornice, standards, and railings of which are wholly
gilded, the panels of the soffites of the latter being
blue, having gilded ornaments therein.”
It will have been observed that the original draft
of Panizzi’s scheme proposed to provide space for a
larger number of readers than was ultimately found
advisable. The problem of accommodating readers
was, indeed, less momentous than that of accommodating
books; and any account of Panizzi’s edifice
would be most imperfect which did not take some
notice of his solution of this latter difficulty. As
already stated, the space in which the new Reading-Room
was to be erected was quadrangular, while the
room itself was to be circular. The quadrangle is
.bn 401.png
.pn +1
335 feet by 235; the diameter of the dome of the
Reading-Room, as ultimately constructed, was 140
feet. The circle thus inscribed in the quadrangle
left, consequently, ample space for the construction
of additional rooms. After deducting a clear space
of from 27 to 30 feet left, for the sake of air and
light, between the exterior of the new building and
the inner wall of the original Museum, the former
was still 258 feet by 184, equivalent to an area of
47,472 square feet. The amount of this space external
to the Reading-Room (about three-eighths of
the whole) was occupied:—1. By a circular gallery
in four tiers, including the basement storey, carried
entirely round the Reading-Room. 2. By four corridors
in three tiers, each forming a quadrangle
parallel with the interior walls of the original Museum
structure. 3. By four apartments of triangular shape,
filling up the spaces left vacant between the circle
and the quadrangle in which it was inscribed. Accommodation
was thus provided for about 1,200,000
books, or five times as many as the Museum had possessed
when Panizzi became Keeper. This result was
obtained by great economy of space, there being no
walls except the exterior wall, the partitions being
formed by the books themselves arranged fore-edge to
fore-edge, except against the external wall, the shelves
of double bookcases being divided longitudinally by
a wire lattice. These shelves are placed between
grooved uprights of galvanized iron, and upon metal
pins inserted into holes made for the purpose in the
wooden lining of the grooves. Sufficient space is left
between these rows of bookcases to admit of the passage
.bn 402.png
.pn +1
of two barrows, and the entire remaining space
is available for the storage of books. The roof is
glass, and the flooring of the galleries is formed of
open iron gratings to allow of the transmission of light
to the basement. The presses are everywhere of the
same dimensions, eight feet by three, so that each
gallery is eight feet high. The shelves are made of
zinc covered with leather, the multiplicity of perforations
in the wooden lining of the uprights allowing
of their being placed apart at any interval required,
and, thanks to Mr. Watts’s elastic system of numbering
the presses, the books destined to occupy them
were removed from their previous locality without the
alteration of a single press mark. They consisted,
for the most part, of acquisitions made since 1845,
the date when Panizzi’s quoted report on the deficiencies
of the Library was laid before the House of
Commons. The ground floor of the Reading-Room
was occupied by 20,000 volumes especially selected
to serve as a Reference Library. These were partly
chosen, and the whole were admirably catalogued by
Mr. Rye, then Second Assistant-Keeper, who also
drew the coloured ground plan of the Reading-Room,
and superintended the placing of the volumes.
Several picked Assistants worked extra time under
him for many days, and the task was only completed
just in time for the opening of the room. The galleries
were filled with periodicals, and all the books
above and below were bound, or, at least, gilt and
furbished, with an especial view to decorative effect.
It only remained to provide for the management of
the Room by the appointment of Mr. Watts as Superintendent.
.bn 403.png
.pn +1
“The readers,” wrote Mr. Winter Jones
in 1859, “have thus placed at their disposal, for six
hours every day, the services of a gentleman whose
intimate acquaintance with the Museum collections,
extensive knowledge of the literature of his own and
foreign countries, and acquirements as a linguist
rarely to be met with, render him peculiarly fitted to
carry out the chief object of the Trustees.”
This description, which has already been drawn out
to a length rather exceeding our original intentions,
but which the interest of the subject somewhat justifies,
may appropriately be concluded with a notice of
the last ornaments added to the Reading-Room:—
Here is a bust of Panizzi, by Baron Marochetti,
placed over the principal entrance; an admirable
likeness, but, whatever its merits, the position in
which it was to have been placed met at the time with
strenuous opposition on the ground of convenience
even from Panizzi himself.
.pm start_quote
.ll 68
.rj
“B. M., May 14th, 1856.
.ll
“My dear Sir Henry,
.ti 6
I had the curiosity to go and see where it was proposed
to place my bust, I need not say that the condescension
of the Trustees in permitting it to be exhibited anywhere is
as gratifying to me as the mark of regard which prompted my
fellow-labourers in the Printed-Book Department to subscribe
for that work; I am, therefore, much flattered by the suggestion
of the Building Committee, but my personal feelings
and gratification ought not to prevail over the public convenience,
and on this ground I earnestly beg of them to reconsider
that suggestion.
I confess I am astonished at Mr. Smirke not objecting to
the proposed site; he well knows that the corridor leading
.bn 404.png
.pn +1
from the hall to the New Reading-Room is not too wide as it
is, were it possible it ought to be wider—he knows that he is
obliged, and has agreed with me to make two recesses or
niches, one on each side, in which attendants may sit in that
corridor, out of the way of the readers going to and from;
lastly, he knows that that is the only place in the Library
open to the public, to the walls of which can be affixed large
maps, on rollers for ready use; the only objection to this
scheme being the narrowness of the corridor, and knowing
all this he leaves it to me to point out the inconvenience of
leaving such an useless obstruction as my bust placed there.
I again say that the public convenience and utility imperatively
require both the walls of the corridor to be
reserved for public use, and the thoroughfare to the Reading-Room
to be kept quite clear.
.ll 68
.nf r
Yours, &c., &c.,
A. Panizzi.”
.nf-
.ll
Sir Henry Ellis, &c., &c.
.pm end_quote
It is evident that the ultimate destination of the
bust had not been fixed upon up to the 7th of March,
when Mr. Smirke addressed the following letter to
Panizzi:—
.pm start_quote
“In the public corridor leading to the New Reading-Room
will be a wide, handsome folding door, over this, there is a
piece of blank wall which will form the termination of the
vista on approaching the Great Room; I want to put some
object there that the eye might dwell on with pleasure as you
advance along the corridor. What do you think of a circular
niche over the door with a Bust of the Queen in it?
Minerva’s head might do—but the Queen’s would be more in
accordance with the spirit of the times!”
.pm end_quote
A curious incident, with happier details than
the great cause of Hosking v. Panizzi, must not
be omitted from the history of the New Reading-Room.
It will be remembered that, in 1823,
the Duke of Modena had executed a well known
.bn 405.png
.pn +1
effigy of Panizzi; and it happened, in after
years, that this so-styled “Duchino” potentate’s
friend and ally, Austria (who would fain have
dealt with the great Carbonaro in a more effective
manner), struck with honest admiration of his
genius, as displayed in the New Reading-Room, after
failing to obtain actual possession of his head, judged
it expedient to take what advantage she could of
that head’s cerebral development. Accordingly, on
the completion of Panizzi’s work, she instructed her
Ambassador in this country (Count Apponyi) to apply
for information as to the plans, construction, &c., &c.,
of the New Room in the British Museum, with a
view to adapting them to the projected New Library
of the University of Vienna. The following correspondence
contains an even more valuable tribute to
Panizzi’s reputation than the honour already paid to
him by his adopted country:—
.pm start_quote_lang fr 90 1
.ll 68
.rj
“Londres, le 9 Juin, 1857.
.ll
“Monsieur le Comte,
.ti 0
L’admiration universelle qu’a excité la construction
et l’organisation de la nouvelle salle de lecture du
Musée Britannique à Londres a fait naître au Ministère
de l’Instruction Publique en Autriche le désir de connaître
plus à fond tout ce qui se rapporte à l’établissement de cette
salle dans le bût d’en tirer avantage pour la de
l’Université de Vienne qui va être nouvellement construite.
J’ai été en conséquence chargé, M. le Comte, d’avoir
recours à l’obligeante intervention de V. E., à l’effet d’obtenir,
de la manière la plus détaillée qu’il sera possible, les plans, et
descriptions relativement à la construction et aux arrangements
intérieurs de la dite salle, dont la perfection est digne de servir
de modèle à tous les établissements de ce genre.
.bn 406.png
.pn +1
J’espère qu’en vue du but que se propose le Gouvernement
Impérial, celui de S.M.B. ne se refusera pas à la demande que,
par l’entremise de V. E., je me permets de lui adresser.
.ll 68
.nf r
Veuillez, &c., &c.,
Apponyi.”
.nf-
.ll
(A Lord Clarendon.)
.pm end_quote
To this Panizzi, much amused and doubtless flattered,
as he should have been by the whole affair,
which he had communicated as a good joke to a few
of his very intimate friends, sent a courteous reply
with the required information.
The effect of the new Reading-Room in encouraging
study was speedily perceptible. During 1856 the
number of visitors had been 53,422. From its opening
to the public on May 18th, 1857, to the end of
the year they were 75,128. “The general success of
the New Room,” said the Edinburgh Review, “is, in
fact, alarming.” The remark proved just. The concourse
of readers went on increasing until, in 1862,
it was necessary to raise the limit of age from 18 to
21, a measure recommendable on other grounds. The
result proved how large a proportion of the visitors
were youths under age, who merely resorted to the
Reading-Room to get up their tasks. The average
daily attendance fell from between nearly 400 and
500 to about 360, and so continued until within the
last few years, when, from causes which do not fall
within the scope of a history of Panizzi’s administration,
the daily average again rose and is now about
450, or nearly treble that of the old Reading-Room.
Thus has been presented to our readers a short
history of the steps by which the present Reading-Room
became a realized fact, and the important part
.bn 407.png
.pn +1
which Panizzi played in its design, erection, ornamentation,
and gradual development—a Room, which
world-known will ever associate his name with itself
and its wonderful treasures, and will remain a noble
monument of his zeal for the welfare and grandeur of
an Institution so dearly loved.
.ce
END OF VOL. I.
.il fn=i_b_389.jpg w=125px ew=15%
.sp 8
S. STRAKER AND SONS, PRINTERS, LONDON AND REDHILL.
.hr 100%
.pb
.dv class='tnotes'
.ce
Transcriber’s Note
On p. #144#, there is a passage beginning “How do you account...”, the quotation
marks of which are somehow incorrect. Rather than speculate regarding
the intent, it is left as printed.
Errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected, and
are noted here. The references are to the page and line in the original.
.ta l:8 l:46 l:12 w=90%
| in converting it into an instrume[m/n]t of Carbonarism | Replaced.
| it was related at a bang[n/u]et. | Inverted,
| the highest admiration.[” /[ “]It would be impossible,” | Moved.
| indicate a lively imagination.[”] | Removed.
| are neatly turned, and [and ] convey | Redundant.
| of an energetic admin[i]strative faculty. | Inserted.
| during these four months[,/.] | Replaced.
| besides Charles König, a German[.] | Added.
| that lapis means a [a] stone| Redundant.
| a recommendati[e/o]n from the other Principal Trustee | Replaced.
| sterling value.[”] | Removed.
| (2 vols[.] 8vo, on vellum.) | Added.
| as a free man to Italy is evinced[.] | Added.
| the innumerable frag[e]ments | Removed.
| an Assi[s]tant in the Museum. | Inserted.
| even including Scotland.[’/”] | Replaced.
| who was likely to g[ua/au]ge the diplomacy | Transposed.