[73]. Petrarch briefly relates the same story in _Rer. mem._, II, 2,
“De Ingenio.” He says, p. 411:
In what rank, indeed, will Titus Livy be placed, whose great
reputation for eloquence drew illustrious and admiring men from
the remotest corners of the globe all the way to Rome? This is
related by Pliny, and in later years it was repeated by St.
Jerome in the beginning of his preface to the book of Genesis,
placed thus at the beginning that no one might be excused for
being ignorant of it. How great must have been the excellence
of that work, when, over immense distances of land and sea,
men rushed to the mistress of the world, to that city which
held sway over conquered nations, not to accomplish any urgent
business transaction, not because of a desire to see the city
itself (and that, too, such as it must have been under Caesar
Augustus), but that they might see and hear that single one of
its inhabitants.
Pliny tells the story in _Ep._, ii, 3, 8; but Pliny the Younger was
an author unknown to Petrarch (P. de Nolhac, I, p. 129, n. 1, and p.
235, n. 3; Sabbadini, _Scoperte_, p. 26). The reference to St. Jerome
is _Ep._, 53, written to Paulinus _ca._ 394 A. D., which appears as
the first of the _Praefationes_ in the 1903 edition of the Vulgate,
p. xviii (by Valentinus Loch). Petrarch therefore must have had
the letter of St. Jerome in mind, or before him. In his own letter
to Livy, Petrarch mentions both Gaul and Spain. In Pliny there is
mention of Cadiz only. Both Gaul and Spain, however, are mentioned
by St. Jerome. Furthermore, the references to Livy’s being the one
great man in Rome at that time, and to the splendor of the city under
Augustus, are both traceable to St. Jerome, who, therefore, must have
been the source for both the passage in the _Rer. mem._, and for that
in this letter to Livy. The passage in St. Jerome reads as follows,
Vol. XXII, col. 541 (ed. Migne):
Ad T. Livium lacteo eloquentiae fonte manantem, de ultimis
Hispaniae Galliarumque finibus quosdam venisse nobiles legimus;
et quos ad contemplationem sui Roma non traxerat, unius hominis
fama perduxit. Habuit illa aetas inauditum omnibus saeculis
celebrandumque miraculum, ut urbem tantam ingressi, aliud extra
urbem quaererent.
Finally, that this passage from St. Jerome was the source used by
Petrarch is proved also by _Sen._, XVI (XV), 7 (_Op._, p. 958):
St. Jerome records having read that certain prominent men
undertook the long journey from the furthermost limits of Spain
and the two Gauls to Rome merely to see Livy. Do you for a
moment suppose that there was insufficient cause, not merely
for these few men, but indeed for the whole world to rush
thither, that they might see the man with their own eyes and
hear him with their own ears? I shall here omit styling him a
pure fountain of eloquence, as St. Jerome did (_Ep._, 53), or
an overflowing fountain of eloquence--an epithet which Valerius
used in speaking of his Pompeius [Val. Max., ii, 6, 8. The
_Pompeius_ referred to is No. 20 in Smith’s _Dict._ Fracassetti
goes entirely astray in the translation of this passage,
_Sen._, 2, p. 503]. Still, how commendable a desire was it to
see that man who, even if he had done nothing else in his life,
or if he could have added not a single thought to his work,
had already earned everlasting renown for completing unaided
and in 142 books, that stupendous work containing the entire
history of Rome from its very origins! Moreover, C. Caligula to
the contrary notwithstanding (Suet., _Cal._, 34), this work was
written throughout in a divine style and with extreme care. It
was a work approaching the miraculous. The life of a single man
would scarcely suffice even to transcribe this work, much less
to produce a similar one. How worthy a desire was it, then, to
behold the head which had conceived so much, and the hand which
had penned such noble words of such noble deeds! If T. Livy
were alive today, I believe that not merely a few, but very
many would set out on their pilgrimage to him. As for myself,
if my health were sounder (as it was but recently), if it were
as strong as my desires, and if the road were safe, I should
not consider it irksome to seek him, not merely at Rome, but as
far as India, setting out from this very city of Padua which
gave him birth and where I have now been staying for many years.
The letter from which the above is quoted bears the date Padua, May
12, 1373.
[74]. The extent of Petrarch’s acquaintance with Livy results even
more clearly from a passage in another of his works. It is short
enough to be quoted in full. In _Rer. mem._, I, 2, “De studio et
doctrina,” Petrarch, after giving examples of native-born Romans,
says, p. 397:
And now, in going beyond the walls of the city, we need not at
once leave the confines of Italy. With what ardor must T. Livy
of Padua have toiled, who, within the compass of 142 books,
wrote a complete history of Rome from the founding of the city
to the reign of Caesar Augustus, under whom he flourished?
This was a work remarkable for its mere bulk; and it was a
stupendous work particularly for this reason--that in composing
it he did not write hurriedly, nor (as the saying goes) did he
employ a confused and disordered style, as certain others do,
who slap down in writing every word that happens to be on the
tip of their tongue. On the contrary, the history of Livy is
couched in sentences of such great majesty and in words of such
dignity and propriety that it is practically a textbook for
choice and elegant diction.
But alas! Oh, lasting shame of our age! Scarcely a small
portion of this great and splendid work survives. Of the 14
decades into which it was subdivided--either by the author
himself, or (as I think more likely) by the indolent readers
of later generations--there are extant but three! These are
the first, the third, and the fourth. At the urgent request
of King Robert of Sicily (of sacred memory), I myself have
searched most diligently for the second decade, but up to this
moment I have searched in vain. I pray I may be proved to be a
false prophet. But unless customs change, I fear lest within
a short time that very fate overtake Livy which formerly it
was the intention of Gaius Caligula, most hateful of tyrants,
to bring upon him. For we read in Suetonius Tranquillus that
Caligula had been on the point of removing from all libraries
the history of T. Livy and the works and busts of the poet
Vergil. I fear then, that, although an emperor’s cruelty proved
insufficient, our own regardless inactivity may gradually
succeed in casting the veil of oblivion over the resplendent
genius of this man.
The reference to Suetonius is _Cal._, 34, which Petrarch quotes
almost verbatim, his words being: “quod T. Livii historiam, et
Virgilii poetae libros et imagines, parum abfuit, quin ab omnibus
bibliothecis amoveret.”
[75]. We are indebted to the excellent study of P. de Nolhac so often
cited (_Pétrarque et l’humanisme_) for exact information on this
point. The book missing from the manuscript of Livy which Petrarch
possessed was book xxxiii. On fol. 317, in commenting on the words
“Cynoscephalas, ubi debellatum erat cum Philippo” (Livy, xxxvi,
8), Petrarch wrote in the margin, “Sed quando hoc fuerat deficit
sine dubio, et ut puto unus liber.” Even book xl was not complete,
although Petrarch may not have been aware of the fact, since he
does not complain thereof. His manuscript ended with the words,
“conciliabulaque edixerunt” (chap. 37) which seemed to close the
book in a manner making complete sense (P. de Nolhac, II, p. 16).
Bacumker (_Quibus antiquis auctoribus Petrarca in conscribendis rerum
memorabilium libris usus sit_, p. 14), went so far as to say (in
1882) that Petrarch did not have books xxxi-xxxv. It is now certain
that Petrarch possessed the first and the third decades entire, and
books xxxi, xxxii, and xxxiv to xl, the last of which ended with
chap. 37--in all nearly twenty-nine books.
[76]. Petrarch here refers to the epitome of Florus. The
Codex in Petrarch’s possession contained the works of several
historians--Dictys, Florus, Livy, etc. (see P. de Nolhac, II, p. 15),
and had been bought by Petrarch at Avignon in 1351, after the death
of Soranzio (or Soranzo) Raimondo, to whom it had probably belonged
(_ibid._, p. 21). The date of the purchase almost compels us to adopt
1351 as the date of this letter (see n. [78]).
[77]. Between the years 1335 and 1344 there was found in the
monastery of Santa Giustina of Padua a sepulchral inscription bearing
the name of T. Livius. Without troubling themselves with further
investigations, the Benedictine monks who had made the discovery
jumped to the conclusion that the stone was that which had been
erected over the dead Roman historian. They consequently placed it in
the vestibule of their church, and over it placed a likeness of the
historian. Petrarch was stopping at the cloister opposite the church
of Santa Giustina; thus the phrase employed at the close of the
letter is clear.
In 1413 a leaden casket came to light in the same place. Inasmuch as
the monks had learned from those of the previous generation that Livy
had been buried there, they concluded (again without warrant) that
the casket must contain the remains of Livy, although (as Polentonus
says) there were not lacking, even at that time, those who denied
the fact. For a description of the great ado caused by this supposed
discovery, read the letter by Sicco Polentonus, quoted in the
introductory note to _Corpus inscriptionum latinarum_, V, 2865. The
inscription itself was believed to be that of Livy until the middle
of the seventeenth century (P. de Nolhac, II, p. 12, n. 3).
[78]. P. de Nolhac (II, p. 12, n. 3) says that the Paris manuscript
bears the date 1351 (cf. n. [76] above).