The Improvisation of Poetry, 1750 – 1850
A database of commentaries on improvisational performance
This is a critique of mediocre Italian improvisors who appropriate the work of established poets and present it to wealthy patrons. The author makes note that, while there are excellent improvisors, most will never demonstrate the talent of Homer.
A report of a lecture on improvisation delivered at the Royal Institution by the Marquis Moscati, who is himself an improviser. Moscati gives a historically and culturally wide-ranging account of extemporaneous poetry and performs his own improvisations on the topics of music and Poland.
The author describes the history of Italian improvisation, and mentions Metastasio’s talent for improvising.
The Classical scholar Welcker provides an extended analysis of the relationship between Italian improvisation and certain rhapsodists found in Homer (Demodokos, Phemos), stating that the two cannot be viewed as equivalent. While the rhapsodists practised a cultivated art, Welcker views improvisation as more of a skillful stunt and a fashionable pastime.
The author compares Cicconi’s talents with those of various other improvisatori, including Gianni, Sgricci, and Perfetti, noting however that it is Cicconi who first made the successful attempt to improvise an epic poem. The article continues with a description of Cicconi’s performance (on the subject of the destruction of Carthage), and a discussion of the merits and failings of improvisation more generally.
Reprinted from a literary journal that Suard co-edited in the 1760s, this comprehensive essay surveys forms of the word “improviser” in French and other languages, the nature of poetic improvisation and its history in Italy, and exponents of improvisation elsewhere in Europe. Foremost among these is Anna-Louisa Karsch, of whom the essay includes a brief biography.
Casanova recounts the mocking that the improvisatrice Corilla undeservedly suffered before and during her coronation at the Capitol. Casanova also describes having read several poems by Maria Fortuna, and then asking Ciaccheri whether the former improvised in the manner of Corilla. What follows is a record of Ciaccheri’s account of why he forbade Fortuna to improvise.
This series of pamphlets bringing information about minor forms of Italian literature to German readers includes frequent accounts, discussions, and translations of improvised poetry.
Fernow provides a detailed history of Italian improvisation, recounting that improvisation (in Latin) experienced a peak in popularity in the court of Pope Leo X, a lover of the art, and that in the course of the eighteenth century a renewal of popularity has brought improvisation to new heights, this time in Italian. The author gives biographies of the most famous improvisatori that he mentions.
A laudatory essay about the life and career of Gianni and the traits of improvised poetry. Improvisation is superior in imagery, written poetry in form. Gianni follows the mode and manner of Dante and Metastasio and at the same time he shows originality. Monti, on the other hand, lacks inspiration.
Mary Shelley describes Metastasio’s charming ability to improvise poetry, but quotes his letter saying that improvising made his health worse.
Metastasio describes his experience of improvising verses during his youth, along with his memories of his master Gravina and other renowned eighteenth-century improvisatori.