« the enemies of life | main | Otranto follow-up »
The Castle of Otranto
23 Aug 06
Walpole, Horace. The Castle of Otranto: A Gothic Story. Ed. W. S. Lewis. London: Oxford UP, 1964.
Perhaps the most disappointing thing about The Castle of Otranto is that Walpole took credit for writing it after the success of the first edition (1764). The unsigned preface to the first edition presents itself as having been composed by the translator, identified on the title page as the fictional William Marshal, Gent. The supposed Italian author is identified as Onuphrio Muralto. The preface tells how the book came to be translated from the Italian, with commentary on the style and subject matter to the effect that the translator admits to being quite fond of the work regardless of the author’s defects. The translator also (and this is critical) claims, “[t]hough the machinery is invention, and the names of the actors imaginary, I cannot but believe that the groundwork of the story is founded on truth” (5).
The preface to the second edition (1765) is signed by the author. Why did he choose to come forward? Well, because the first edition was a great success, and I suppose he wanted the credit:
As diffidence of his own abilities, and the novelty of the attempt, were his sole inducements to assume that disguise, he flatters himself he shall appear excusable. He resigned his performance to the impartial judgement of the public; determined to let it perish in obscurity, if disapproved; nor meaning to avow such a trifle, unless better judges should pronounce that he might own it without a blush. (7)
If I may paraphrase, “having something of a public reputation, the author wouldn’t want his name attached to a book that, because he was not confident that it was either well written or appropriate for polite company, might sully that reputation. However, having discovered the book to be rather popular, the author wants to make damn sure people know who wrote it.” Or something along those lines. Sadly, it seems a poor aesthetic judgement. I was much more satisfied with the first, fictional preface, in so far as it was itself part of the work. The second disowns the first and to my mind lessens the work. I wonder if Walpole wasn’t an early example of Wharton’s mechanical reader/author whose primary criterion for literary value is sales.
As for the book itself? We’re certainly in the realm of the gothic. The setting is a medieval castle; the period, the 11th or 12th century. There’s a ghost, and some kind of immaterial giant who drops bits and pieces of his equipment here and there. And, of course, there is blood. Turns out (in case you haven’t read the book, it comes as no surprise) that the noble-seeming peasant character is, in fact, noble. Much like Earl William in Longsword, Earl of Salisbury, the peasant Theodore (whose true nobility is ultimately revealed) behaves with impeccable noblesse throughout. By the same token, the tyrant Manfred is revealed to be the grandson of a usurper, hence the inheritor of that sin. Naturally, his behaviour leaves a bit to be desired.
Otranto is not particularly well written, but it is enjoyable. My initial sense is that it doesn’t contain remarkable depth as a work of literature. It is, of course, widely recognized as the first novel in which the various thematic elements that make up the gothic are all present, and so I was a little disappointed to find in it little more than a diversion; but it’s always possible that I am the one not reading deeply enough.
Posted by pzed on August 23, 2006 at 12.58pm
Categories: gothic, scripture
Comments on "The Castle of Otranto"
Just once I’d like to see a noble peasant type who is, in fact, a peasant. Then I’d like to see him marry one of those insufferable Barbara Cartland heroines and whisk her off to a life of hard work and little sustenance. Not that this has anything to do with your essay. . .
Posted by jodi on August 23, 2006 at 7.00pm :: link
