Horace Walpole was the youngest son of Sir Robert Walpole, the great statesman, who died Earl of Orford.  He was born in 1717, the year in which his father resigned office, remaining in opposition for almost three years before his return to a long tenure of power.  Horace Walpole was educated at Eton, where he formed a school friendship with Thomas Gray, who was but a few months older.  In 1739 Gray was travelling-companion with Walpole in France and Italy until they differed and parted; but the friendship was afterwards renewed, and remained firm to the end.  Horace Walpole went from Eton to King’s College, Cambridge, and entered Parliament in 1741, the year before his father’s final resignation and acceptance of an earldom.  His way of life was made easy to him.  As Usher of the Exchequer, Comptroller of the Pipe, and Clerk of the Estreats in the Exchequer, he received nearly two thousand a year for doing nothing, lived with his father, and amused himself.
Horace Walpole idled, and amused himself with the small life of the fashionable world to which he was proud of belonging, though he had a quick eye for its vanities.  He had social wit, and liked to put it to small uses.  But he was not an empty idler, and there were seasons when he could become a sharp judge of himself.  “I am sensible,” he wrote to his most intimate friend, “I am sensible of having more follies and weaknesses and fewer real good qualities than most men.  I sometimes reflect on this, though, I own, too seldom.  I always want to begin acting like a man, and a sensible one, which I think I might be if I would.”  He had deep home affections, and, under many polite affectations, plenty of good sense.
Horace Walpole’s father died in 1745.  The eldest son, who succeeded to the earldom, died in 1751, and left a son, George, who was for a time insane, and lived until 1791.  As George left no child, the title and estates passed to Horace Walpole, then seventy-four years old, and the only uncle who survived.  Horace Walpole thus became Earl of Orford, during the last six years of his life.  As to the title, he said that he felt himself being called names in his old age.  He died unmarried, in the year 1797, at the age of eighty.
He had turned his house at Strawberry Hill, by the Thames, near Twickenham, into a Gothic villa—eighteenth-century Gothic—and amused himself by spending freely upon its adornment with such things as were then fashionable as objects of taste.  But he delighted also in his flowers and his trellises of roses, and the quiet Thames.  When confined by gout to his London house in Arlington Street, flowers from Strawberry Hill and a bird were necessary consolations.  He set up also at Strawberry Hill a private printing press, at which he printed his friend Gray’s poems, also in 1758 his own “Catalogue of the Royal and Noble Authors of England,” and five volumes of “Anecdotes of Painting in England,” between 1762 and 1771.
Horace Walpole produced The Castle of Otranto in 1765, at the mature age of forty-eight.  It was suggested by a dream from which he said he waked one morning, and of which “all I could recover was, that I had thought myself in an ancient castle (a very natural dream for a head like mine, filled with Gothic story), and that on the uppermost banister of a great staircase I saw a gigantic hand in armour.  In the evening I sat down and began to write, without knowing in the least what I intended to say or relate.”  So began the tale which professed to be translated by “William Marshal, gentleman, from the Italian of Onuphro Muralto, canon of the Church of St. Nicholas, at Otranto.”  It was written in two months.  Walpole’s friend Gray reported to him that at Cambridge the book made “some of them cry a little, and all in general afraid to go to bed o’ nights.”  The Castle of Otranto was, in its own way, an early sign of the reaction towards romance in the latter part of the last century.  This gives it interest.  But it has had many followers, and the hardy modern reader, when he read’s Gray’s note from Cambridge, needs to be reminded of its date.
H. M.

The following work was found in the library of an ancient Catholic family in the north of England.  It was printed at Naples, in the black letter, in the year 1529.  How much sooner it was written does not appear.  The principal incidents are such as were believed in the darkest ages of Christianity; but the language and conduct have nothing that savours of barbarism.  The style is the purest Italian.
If the story was written near the time when it is supposed to have happened, it must have been between 1095, the era of the first Crusade, and 1243, the date of the last, or not long afterwards.  There is no other circumstance in the work that can lead us to guess at the period in which the scene is laid: the names of the actors are evidently fictitious, and probably disguised on purpose: yet the Spanish names of the domestics seem to indicate that this work was not composed until the establishment of the Arragonian Kings in Naples had made Spanish appellations familiar in that country.  The beauty of the diction, and the zeal of the author (moderated, however, by singular judgment) concur to make me think that the date of the composition was little antecedent to that of the impression.  Letters were then in their most flourishing state in Italy, and contributed to dispel the empire of superstition, at that time so forcibly attacked by the reformers.  It is not unlikely that an artful priest might endeavour to turn their own arms on the innovators, and might avail himself of his abilities as an author to confirm the populace in their ancient errors and superstitions.  If this was his view, he has certainly acted with signal address.  Such a work as the following would enslave a hundred vulgar minds beyond half the books of controversy that have been written from the days of Luther to the present hour.
This solution of the author’s motives is, however, offered as a mere conjecture.  Whatever his views were, or whatever effects the execution of them might have, his work can only be laid before the public at present as a matter of entertainment.  Even as such, some apology for it is necessary.  Miracles, visions, necromancy, dreams, and other preternatural events, are exploded now even from romances.  That was not the case when our author wrote; much less when the story itself is supposed to have happened.  Belief in every kind of prodigy was so established in those dark ages, that an author would not be faithful to the manners of the times, who should omit all mention of them.  He is not bound to believe them himself, but he must represent his actors as believing them.
If this air of the miraculous is excused, the reader will find nothing else unworthy of his perusal.  Allow the possibility of the facts, and all the actors comport themselves as persons would do in their situation.  There is no bombast, no similes, flowers, digressions, or unnecessary descriptions.  Everything tends directly to the catastrophe.  Never is the reader’s attention relaxed.  The rules of the drama are almost observed throughout the conduct of the piece.  The characters are well drawn, and still better maintained.  Terror, the author’s principal engine, prevents the story from ever languishing; and it is so often contrasted by pity, that the mind is kept up in a constant vicissitude of interesting passions.
Some persons may perhaps think the characters of the domestics too little serious for the general cast of the story; but besides their opposition to the principal personages, the art of the author is very observable in his conduct of the subalterns.  They discover many passages essential to the story, which could not be well brought to light but by their naïveté and simplicity.  In particular, the womanish terror and foibles of Bianca, in the last chapter, conduce essentially towards advancing the catastrophe.
It is natural for a translator to be prejudiced in favour of his adopted work.  More impartial readers may not be so much struck with the beauties of this piece as I was.  Yet I am not blind to my author’s defects.  I could wish he had grounded his plan on a more useful moral than this: that “the sins of fathers are visited on their children to the third and fourth generation.”  I doubt whether, in his time, any more than at present, ambition curbed its appetite of dominion from the dread of so remote a punishment.  And yet this moral is weakened by that less direct insinuation, that even such anathema may be diverted by devotion to St. Nicholas.  Here the interest of the Monk plainly gets the better of the judgment of the author.  However, with all its faults, I have no doubt but the English reader will be pleased with a sight of this performance.  The piety that reigns throughout, the lessons of virtue that are inculcated, and the rigid purity of the sentiments, exempt this work from the censure to which romances are but too liable.  Should it meet with the success I hope for, I may be encouraged to reprint the original Italian, though it will tend to depreciate my own labour.  Our language falls far short of the charms of the Italian, both for variety and harmony.  The latter is peculiarly excellent for simple narrative.  It is difficult in English to relate without falling too low or rising too high; a fault obviously occasioned by the little care taken to speak pure language in common conversation.  Every Italian or Frenchman of any rank piques himself on speaking his own tongue correctly and with choice.  I cannot flatter myself with having done justice to my author in this respect: his style is as elegant as his conduct of the passions is masterly.  It is a pity that he did not apply his talents to what they were evidently proper for—the theatre.
I will detain the reader no longer, but to make one short remark.  Though 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.  The scene is undoubtedly laid in some real castle.  The author seems frequently, without design, to describe particular parts.  “The chamber,” says he, “on the right hand;” “the door on the left hand;” “the distance from the chapel to Conrad’s apartment:” these and other passages are strong presumptions that the author had some certain building in his eye.  Curious persons, who have leisure to employ in such researches, may possibly discover in the Italian writers the foundation on which our author has built.  If a catastrophe, at all resembling that which he describes, is believed to have given rise to this work, it will contribute to interest the reader, and will make the “Castle of Otranto” a still more moving story.

The gentle maid, whose hapless tale
   These melancholy pages speak;
Say, gracious lady, shall she fail
   To draw the tear adown thy cheek?

No; never was thy pitying breast
   Insensible to human woes;
Tender, tho’ firm, it melts distrest
   For weaknesses it never knows.

Oh! guard the marvels I relate
Of fell ambition scourg’d by fate,
   From reason’s peevish blame.
Blest with thy smile, my dauntless sail
I dare expand to Fancy’s gale,
   For sure thy smiles are Fame.

H. W.