[11] The following paragraphs, to the end of the chapter, are extracted and condensed from vol. iii. chap. v. of the Memorie.
[12] A magistracy composed of four patricians, who controlled the manners of the town in matters of lawless and indecent living.
[13] Messer Grande corresponded to the Bargello at Rome, and was the chief of catchpoles and constables.
[14] This chapter on Gozzi's contrarieties, which I have supplemented with a few passages from the incoherent notes at the end of the Memorie, has received undue attention from Paul de Musset and critics who adopt his untrustworthy version of Gozzi's autobiography. De Musset strove to base upon it a theory that Gozzi was the victim of his own fabulous sprites. See Introduction, vol. i. p. 23.
[15] Gozzi alludes to the Ragionamento Ingenuo prefixed to the first volume of Colombani's edition of his works.
[16] That is, the authors of the seventeenth century, during which an extravagant and affected style prevailed in Italy.
[17] These names require explanation. Granelli, coglioni, and testicoli are words for the same things, and have the secondary meaning of simpleton. Thus Arcigranellone is the Arch-big-simpleton. The crest of the Academy carries an allusion to the same things. Apropos of this not very edifying topic, it is worth mentioning that the canting arms of the noble Bergamasque family of Coglioni consisted of three granelli counterchanged upon a field party per fesse gules and argent. I cannot recall a parallel instance in heraldry.
[18] Calandrino was a famous fool and butt in the Decameron of Boccaccio.
[19] What follows in the text above might be largely illustrated. It is curious to find Casanova, for example, agreeing with Gozzi on a point of morality: "Une méchante philosophie," he says, "diminue trop le nombre de ce qu'on appelle préjugés" (vol. i. p. 97). Compare the ludicrous account of the rogue Squaldo-Nobili, who shared Casanova's prison in S. Mark, and who had purged himself of prejudice by reading La Sagesse de Charon (vol. iii. p. 70). While I am writing, an article by M. Emile de Laveleye on "How bad books may destroy States" (Pall Mall Gazette, June 9, 1888) falls into my hands with a pertinent passage, which I shall here extract:—
"The following are the terms in which, in an eighteenth century romance, Count Clitandre explains to the Marquise Cidalise all the services that philosophy has rendered to refined and elegant society. 'Thanks to philosophy,' he says, 'we have the happiness to have found the truth, and what does not this entail for us? Women have never been less prudish under pretext of duty, and there has never been so little affectation of virtue. A man and a woman please each other and a liaison is formed; they tire of it, and separate with as little ceremony as they commenced it; if they come again to regret the separation, their former relations may recommence, and with the same enthusiasm as the first time. These again cease; and all this takes place without any quarrellings or disputes! It is true that there has been no question whatever of love; but after all, what is love save a mere desire that people chose to exaggerate, a physical sentiment of which men, in their vanity, chose to make a virtue? Nowadays the desire alone exists, and if people, in their mutual relations, speak of love, it is not because they really believe in it, but because it is a politer way of obtaining what they reciprocally wish for. As there has been no question of love at the onset, there is no hatred at parting, and from the slight liking mutually inspired rests a mutual desire and readiness to oblige each other. I think, all things considered, that it is wise to sacrifice to so much pleasure a few old-fashioned prejudices which bring but little esteem and an infinite amount of worry to those who still make them their rule of conduct.'"