New-York tribune., 1899-07-23


Professor Of History in Columbia University
Win he Collaboration Of Henry Winchesier
Rone, sometime Professor Of Latin in Swarth-
more College octave, PIP. X, 436 G F. Put
nam's Sons
The authors OF this book have produced
very useful and readable monograph on a man
who is after all. little more than name TO
thousands Of readers not special students Of his
time Il promises TO be, paradoxically, the more
useful because II is less 4 set biography Of
Pctrarch than study Of his place in the de-
veloprncnt OF modern scholarship NJ de Nolhac
IN his "Petrarque et rHumanisme," has written
perhaps the most fascinating book on the sub
Jet; but Professor Robinson and Professor Rolfe
are the first to give in popular English form the
data needed for an estimate of their hero's
uteralzinC influence at time when such
influence was sOrely wanted The Renaissance.
which means so many things, meant, first and
asst a way Of looking at life, letters and art
p,trarch, one Of its earliest forerunners was
such largely by virtue Of his outlook his gen
.--l turn Of mind If the intrinsic merits Of
Us works, even Of the "Canzoniere." are set
ASIDE there is stin left a noble residuum Of free
thought, one Of the first contributions toward
lie liberation Of mems minds from the ignorance
md prejudice Of the Middle Ages. His works
were not more important than was his point Of
view.
This element IN his history has 10 be olsen
caged with great care from a mass Of seeming
.cutradicuons. Among the latter We find one
hat is particularly suggestive Of the reaction
ary feeling from which Petrarch was essentially
free. Writing TO Boccaccio in protest against
ne current belief that he undervalued the work
Of Dante he afTirms that he delights in both the
thought and style Of that poet, but he adds:
It IS true that I have sometimes said to those
who wished 10 know precisely what I thought
ttst his style was unequal, for he rises 70
higher plane OF excellence in the Vernacular
than in poetry and prose" This passage shows
clearly his indispostion to share in the develop
nent Of Italian as literary instrument-one Of
The chief triumphs OF the Renaissance il the
Peninsula despite its classical tendencies. For
him, as our authors point out il a footnote
prose and verse could only be Latin His
hatred Of his mother tongue was deep rooted
and permanent he seems never 70 have quite
forgiven himself for the sonnets 10 Laura.
much because they were written in the vernacu-
lar as because OF their commemoraton OF a pos
sibly unworthy passion Italian was the Ian
euage Of taverns and the street When he heard
his own writings Dante's and Boccaccios, mur-
dered on the lips Of the uneducated, he recoied
VIII horror from the idea Of moulding the tamil
Jar speech Of his countrymen 70 the purposes q
high contemplation. His dstaste went to the
bottom. Not only his native language but the
lie II his native land repelled him. Among the
many subjects which interested me" he says in
q precious autobiographical fragment, i dwelt
especially upon antiquity, for our own age has
slwsvs. repeNed me, so that had il not been for
- I've of those dear to me 7 should have pre-
ferred to have been born in any other period
than our own. IN order TO forget my own time
have constantly striven TO place myself in
spirit In other ages"
Thus We perceive how easy i would be TO
identify Petrarch with the medieval pedants'
whose rlinistratons were still Of vast account
iu the Italy Of h:s day. Out Of his own mouth
he 8 convicted Of standing aloof from the great
task into which Dante and BOccacco. writing
their n.asterpieces in the language Of the people
had thrown themselves with unerring foresight
sDd splendid generosity How s the lndict-
rront against the usefulness OF his labors 70 he
removed BY recognizing that quality to which
our authors alude in explaining his passionate
love for Cicero and Virgil, his delight IL the
free play Of the mind among IDEAS that are
stimulating and beautiful" This delight, a2t|
described in the book before Us as the funda-
mental humanistic impulse was indeed. the
-. 70 that separated Petrarch from the deaden-
i,- traditions Of the monkish Tgime ard go:
I'm in the van Of modern letters. PERHAPS Z
,. 4ad co far ernulated his beloved Cicero as 70
t-,at Of familiar things in the body 4 ms CORE
e-~~54nce instead f dsdainfully relegatng all
81 matters 20 humble postscripts, the hCiaan-
ie.o lines in The portrait he UIco.scioHsiy
d-aws of himself nigh: have been strengthened
We have lost all thesc Dostscr.pts. which our
authors cay were presumably written IL Ita!-
- ,loor,;,c1y hoL0'7 him always in the