[109]. The man who taught Petrarch the elements of Greek was Bernardo
Barlaamo, theologian, mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher.
This learned Italian monk was born at Seminara, Calabria Ulteriore,
and entered the Roman Catholic monastery of St. Basil. From Calabria
he journeyed to Aetolia, afterward studied at Thessalonica (at
that time a center of learning), and finally (1327 or 1328) went
to Constantinople, the better to learn Greek and thus be able to
read Aristotle in the original. He at once became a member of the
Greek church, and in 1331 was appointed Abbot of the Convent of
St. Salvator at Constantinople. He was protected by Andronicus
III (Palaeologus, 1328-41), who in 1339 sent him to Avignon on a
diplomatic mission to Pope Benedict XII, endeavoring to bring about
the union of the two churches in common cause against the Turks.
In this mission Barlaamo was unsuccessful. Returning to Greece, he
attacked the Hesychasts (or Quietists) of Mt. Athos, and became
involved with Gregory Palamas (afterward archbishop of Thessalonica)
on the question of the light which had been manifested to the
disciples on Mt. Tabor at the Transfiguration. At a synod held at
Constantinople in 1341, the Hesychasts defended themselves so ably
that Barlaamo was condemned. Since his protector was now dead, he was
compelled to flee into Italy.
He at once re-entered the Roman church and was made librarian by King
Robert. In 1342 he revisited Avignon on a second mission, and it is
on this occasion that he must have made the acquaintance of Petrarch
(P. de Nolhac, II, p. 136), who during the summer of 1342 received
from him daily instruction in Greek--whether at Avignon or at
Vaucluse is not clear. At the end of the summer Petrarch had made but
small progress. Still he added his recommendation to those of others
when Pope Clement VI nominated Barlaamo bishop of Gerace, a town in
Calabria sixty miles northeast of Reggio. He was consecrated bishop
at Avignon on October 2, 1342, and thereafter left for Gerace, dying
in that town six years later, in 1348.
In conclusion, then, the first seeds of Greek in the West were
sown by a learned, ambitious Calabrian monk, who (to use a modern
expression) went abroad to complete his education, committed apostasy
to further his ambition, repeating the act fourteen years later
when defeated in a religious controversy; a man who, though born in
Italy, was more Greek than Roman (to the extent of almost forgetting
his Latin), who never had entertained the remotest idea of being a
teacher of Greek, and who cared very little for the humble pupil
offered him by chance at Avignon--the enthusiastic poet and scholar
who had received the Laurel Crown at Rome the year before, and who
was destined to become known to future generations as the “first
modern scholar.”
[110]. A reference to the translation of the _Odyssey_ made by
Livius Andronicus, and to the _Epitome_ of the _Iliad_, which is now
attributed to Silius Italicus, but which in the Middle Ages was known
as the _Homerus Latinus_ and later as the _Pindarus Thebanus_ (see n.
[113]).
[111]. The allusion is to Leonzio Pilato, who claimed to be a pupil
of Barlaamo. The place of his birth is uncertain, owing to the
peculiar character of the man. He was never content with his actual
position and surroundings. In consequence, when in Italy he disdained
and reviled the Italians and things Italian, and declared himself
a native of Thessalonica--as if (comments Petrarch) it were more
honorable to be of Greek than of Italian origin. Similarly, when
in Greece he could not find anyone or anything praiseworthy in the
Eastern Empire and in Byzantium, but boasted of his Calabrian origin.
The probability is that he was born in Calabria. The date is unknown.
Authorities differ as the to year when Leonzio became acquainted with
Petrarch (see n. [114]). Accordingly, the long-bearded adventurer is
said to have met Petrarch at Padua during the winter of 1358-59. The
poet immediately grasped the opportunity of having him translate some
passages from the manuscript of Homer which had been sent to him by
Sigero in 1354 (P. de Nolhac, II, p. 156). In March, 1359, Petrarch
received a visit at Milan from Boccaccio, and may have introduced
Leonzio to him (Koerting, _Boccaccio_, p. 261). Doubtless Petrarch
told him of his recent acquaintance (P. de Nolhac, _ibid._, p. 157),
and showed him the specimen translations from the _Iliad_ which had
been made in the winter just passed (_ibid._, p. 173, and n. [112]
below). Leonzio, it appears, had in the meantime roved to Venice,
where the anxious Boccaccio overtook him (Koerting, _op. cit._, p.
260). Shortly afterward Leonzio declared his intention of leaving
for Avignon in search of fortune. But so desirous was Boccaccio of
learning Greek, and so eager, therefore, to have him near at hand,
that he prevailed upon the Calabrian to visit Florence, which city
they reached together in the early part of 1360; for in August of
that year Leonzio had already been some time at Florence (Koerting,
_ibid._). There Boccaccio gave him lodging at his own home, and
exerted all his influence to have him appointed professor at the
Studio Fiorentino. His efforts were crowned with success, for the
Republic decided to pay Leonzio an annual stipend in return for his
services, which were to consist in giving public lectures on the
works of Homer. Thus was established the first chair of Greek in the
West, and Leonzio Pilato, adventurer though he was, has the honor
of being the first professor of the Greek language and literature
in a western university. He held the newly established chair of
Greek from 1360 to 1363. During three years, from the summer of
1359 to November, 1361 (Koerting, _op. cit._, p. 262), the author
of the _Decameron_ and the other two Florentine friends of Homer
alluded to by Petrarch took private lessons of Leonzio with great
eagerness, and we can readily picture them in Boccaccio’s library,
sitting at the feet of the Calabrian and drinking “the muddy stream
of pseudo-learning and lies that flowed from this man’s lips, with
insatiable avidity” (J. A. Symonds, _The Revival of Learning_, p. 67,
ed. 1898).
It goes without saying that Petrarch was kept duly informed by
Boccaccio of affairs at Florence. The question of translating Homer
was of course uppermost in the minds of both these early humanists,
and it was broached the moment Pilato became established at the
university. Strange to relate, a good manuscript of Homer was not to
be had at Florence, and even Leonzio does not seem to have had one in
his possession. Boccaccio, however, had been told that there was such
a manuscript for sale at Padua, and so wrote to Petrarch requesting
him to procure it. Petrarch promised to do so, adding that if the
Paduan volume slipped through their hands, he would be happy to place
at Leonzio’s disposal the copy sent to him in 1354 by Sigero. And
here it is best to listen to the words of Petrarch himself on the
subject. In a letter dated at Milan, August 18, 1360 (_Var._, 25),
he says:
I now come to the last point--namely, that if (as you seem to
think) I have bought the copy of Homer which was for sale at
Padua, I should please to lend it to you. You reason that I
possess another copy of old, and that you would entrust the new
copy to our Leonzio to have him translate it from the Greek
into Latin for the benefit of yourself and our other studious
fellow-countrymen. I examined that copy, but did not give it a
second thought because it was clearly inferior to mine. It may
still be easily obtained through him who made me acquainted
with that same Leonzio. Leonzio’s letters will surely have
great weight with him, and I shall write to him also. If the
Paduan volume slips through our hands (which, however, I do not
think likely) then mine will be at your service. I have always
been very eager for translations of all the Greek authors,
but of that one author in particular. Had Fate smiled more
kindly upon me when I entered upon the student’s career, and
had not death so untimely overtaken my illustrious teacher, I
should today, perhaps, have something more than a rudimentary
knowledge of Greek. You may count upon me in your undertaking.
Indeed, I grieve and am indignant at the loss of that ancient
translation (the work of Cicero, as far as we can judge), the
beginning of which Horace inserted in his poem on the _Ars
Poetica_ (vss. 141, 142). I can scarcely endure this neglect
of the more truly precious things when I observe the eager
pursuit of our age for those things that are low and base. But
what am I to do? I must needs endure it. If proper care and
diligence on the part of foreigners can in any way make amends
for our own disregard, may the Muses and Apollo prosper their
undertakings. Believe me, I could receive no more valuable nor
acceptable merchandise either from the Chinese, or the Arabs,
or from the shores of the Red Sea. Do not be shocked--I know
what I am saying. I am fully aware that the nominative case I
employed for the expression “acceptable merchandise” (“merx
gratior”) is not in common use with our grammarians. In the
ancient writers, however, it is common. I do not mean merely
those earlier authors, in whose footsteps the ignorant ones of
today hesitate to follow. I have in mind those authors who are
very near to us in time, but who in learning and intellect are
vastly our superiors, men from whose merits the vain chattering
and the blind pride of our age have not yet dared to detract.
It is in these authors, I say, that the nominative case is
found; and since the name occurs to me, I shall add that it is
to be found in Horace. Let us, therefore, bring it again into
good repute, if we can, and let us dare to recall from unworthy
exile a word which has been banished from the domains of that
tongue to the study of which we devote all our energies.
I should like to clear my conscience on one point, lest at
some future day I may repent of having kept silent. You tell
me that the translation will be a prose one and that it will
also be very literal. If this be so, pray give due attention to
the following passage from St. Jerome. I shall quote his exact
words, because he had an intimate knowledge of both Latin and
Greek, and was especially skilled in the art of translation.
In the preamble to his Latin version of the _De temporibus_ (a
work by Eusebius of Caesarea), St. Jerome says; “If there is
anyone who does not believe that the grace of the original is
lost in translation, let him endeavor to translate Homer into
Latin literally. I shall say more: let him translate Homer into
the prose of his own vernacular, and he will recognize that
the order of the words has rendered his translation ridiculous
and that he has made the most eloquent and vigorous of poets
of none effect.” I have ventured to give you this warning
now, that no labor nor time may be wasted. And yet, I greatly
desire the thing done, no matter how. So ardently do I long to
become acquainted with noble works that, as in the case of a
famishing man, I do not insist on the art of a _chef_. I await
therefrom with great expectations food for the soul. Some time
ago Leonzio himself made for me a short translation, into Latin
prose, of the beginning of Homer, which gave me a taste of the
character of the whole work. The lines gave me pleasure even
though they were proof of St. Jerome’s assertion. After all,
you see, they retained their hidden power to please; like unto
certain rich foods which should be served in gelatine, but
in which the efforts of the cook have not been crowned with
success. The form may have been destroyed, but the taste and
the odor do not perish.
Let Leonzio therefore persevere in his undertaking, and with
the help of God may he restore to us Homer, who, as far as we
are concerned, is a lost author. As regards the other Greek
authors, may Heaven assist him in his labors. Both of you ask
that I send you the volume of Plato which I managed to rescue
from the fire of my transalpine retreat. Your zeal is most
commendable and you will receive the volume in good time. You
may rely upon it, no obstacle to your noble undertakings will
ever be interposed by me. Be very careful, however, of one
thing: do not commit the serious error of gathering within
the covers of one and the same volume these two great princes
of Greek thought. The weight of two such intellects would be
too great for human shoulders to bear. Let Leonzio commence
his task with the help of God; and of the two authors he has
chosen to translate, let him begin with him who wrote so many
centuries earlier. Farewell.
The Paduan volume must after all have gotten into Boccaccio’s hands,
for we know that Petrarch retained his own copy while Leonzio was
engaged on the translation. Furthermore, from the date of the present
letter addressed to Homer, October 9, 1360, we gather that Leonzio
must have begun his task at least as early as October, 1360. From
this date to 1363 he was occupied in translating both the _Iliad_
and the _Odyssey_, a translation which Fracassetti (Vol. 4, pp. 96,
97) and P. de Nolhac (II, pp. 161-63) argue was made at Petrarch’s
expense. As to its merits it may be said that, like the one of
Livius Andronicus, it was roughly made and was almost verbatim. The
charlatan professor, it appears, knew but little of either Greek or
Latin; and only on the score of relative knowledge and ignorance can
we explain the implicit confidence placed in him by Boccaccio and by
Petrarch. (For the opening lines of the _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_ as
translated by Leonzio, with references, consult Voigt, II, p. 111, n.
4, and J. A. Symonds, _Revival_, p. 68, ed. 1898.)
[112]. We have already seen that when Leonzio Pilato met Petrarch at
Padua in the winter of 1358-59, the latter had him translate several
portions of Homer (see n. [111], par. 2). It is to this translation
that Petrarch here alludes (P. de Nolhac, II, p. 157, n. 2), for
there is no evidence that Pilato sent him any specimens of the
translations done at Florence (cf. Voigt, II, p. 111). Consequently,
this too must be the allusion in the sentence occurring shortly
below, “The Greek flavor has recently been enjoyed by me from a Latin
flagon,” and in the passage from _Var._ 25 (quoted in n. [111]),
“Some time ago Leonzio himself made for me a short translation, into
Latin prose, of the beginning of Homer, which gave me a taste of the
character of the whole work.”
Further proof is offered by the marginal notes which Petrarch made
to the text of Pilato’s translation which Boccaccio sent him.
Frequently he states that elsewhere a different rendering is made of
the original, and even gives the variant. From a study of these P.
de Nolhac concludes (II, pp. 171-74) that the variants derive from
the translation made by Pilato at Padua in the winter of 1358-59; and
that this earlier translation included, perhaps, only the first five
books of the _Iliad_. This last fact serves to explain completely
the expression used by Petrarch in the present letter, “praeter enim
aliquot tuorum principia librorum” (Vol. III, p. 293).
[113]. Before Leonzio completed his translation (which was neither
poetical nor Latin: Voigt, II, p. 191), Petrarch and other mediaeval
students were obliged to content themselves with the _Periochae_ of
the _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_ which are attributed to Ausonius, and
with a poor _Epitome_ of the _Iliad_ which was known as the _Homerus
Latinus_ or _Pindarus Thebanus_ (P. de Nolhac, II, p. 131). It is
because of the existence of this that some maintain that Leonzio’s
was not the first Latin translation of modern times. A mere glance,
however, will convince anyone that this _Homerus_ (published in 1881
by Baehrens under the title “Italici Ilias Latina,” in _Poetae latini
minores_, Vol. III, pp. 7-59 inclusive), is not a real translation
and does not correspond to the real Homer.
The poem consists of 1,070 hexameters, which were written while
Nero was still ruling. It was quoted as early as Lactantius (died
325 A. D.), and was at first referred to by the simple designation
_Homerus_ or _Homerus Latinus_. The worthy monks of the Middle Ages,
having read that Homer was a Greek, later felt it incumbent upon them
to assign an author to this Latin version, and by some mysterious
process they hit upon the “philosopher” Pindarus of Thebes. From the
thirteenth century on, the name _Pindarus_ prevailed.
In 1880 Fr. Buecheler observed that ll. 1-8 and 1063-70 of the
_Ilias Latina_ formed acrostics, reading respectively “Italicus”
and “Scripsit” (_Rh.M._, XXXV, p. 391). Hence he deduced that
the _Epitome_ was composed by Silius Italicus, the author of the
_Punica_, who died in 101 A. D. This conclusion is practically
accepted by Teuffel, who says (par. 320, nn. 7 and 8) that the
_Ilias_ is probably an early work of Silius Italicus. Baehrens (_op.
cit._) is more guarded, saying that it was written by a “certain
Italicus” (“confecit ... Italicus quidam”), adding farther down on
the same page (p. 3) that Buecheler’s conclusion is not quite right
(“minus recte”), simply because it has been proved that the _Ilias_
was written under Nero, if not earlier. But since Nero died in 68 A.
D., and Italicus in 101 A. D. (at the age of 75), it does not seem
improbable that the _Ilias_ does after all represent an early work,
perhaps even exercise, of Silius Italicus.
It is a sign of keen and clear judgment on the part of Petrarch,
to call into question both here and elsewhere (cf. _Fam._, X, 4),
in spite of his ignorance of the original, the real merits and
the authenticity of the _Homerus Latinus_, in an age when it was
universally accepted as a good and faithful translation from the
Greek.
[114]. It seems à propos briefly to relate here Leonzio’s career
subsequent to the professorship at Florence and to the translation of
Homer. Upon invitation of Niccoló Acciaiuoli, a Florentine who then
held the post of grand seneschal at the court of Naples, Boccaccio
had paid a visit to that city in 1361 (Koerting, _Bocc._, p. 262),
taking Leonzio as his traveling companion. Leaving in the beginning
of the summer of 1363, the two paid Petrarch a visit at Venice; and
it is from this visit that some would date the beginning of Leonzio’s
personal acquaintance with Petrarch (Frac., 4, p. 97). Boccaccio
spent the months of June, July, and August, 1363, at Venice with his
dearly beloved friend, but was then obliged to return to the city on
the Arno. He wished Leonzio to accompany him as before; but such was
the inconstancy of that gloomy Calabrian that he absolutely refused
to do so, declaring his intention of returning to Constantinople.
In a letter to Boccaccio dated at Venice, March 1, 1365 (_Sen._,
III, 6), Petrarch acquaints him with Leonzio’s departure from Venice
in the spring of 1364 (Koerting, _Petrarca_, p. 475), saying that
he had presented the departing guest with a copy of Terence (in
whose comedies Leonzio seemed to take such great delight) and had
begged him to purchase for him in the East the works of Sophocles,
Euripides, and of other classic Greek authors (_Sen._, VI, 1).
Petrarch adds that, prior to leaving, Leonzio had heaped vile abuse
upon Italy and the Italians, but that he had no sooner touched the
eastern shores of the Adriatic than, with characteristic fickleness,
he had sent a long letter casting imprecations upon Greece and
Constantinople. In _Seniles_ V, 3 (of December 10, 1366, Koerting,
_Bocc._, p. 263, n. 2) Petrarch declares his firm resolve of never
recalling Leonzio and of disregarding entirely all his prayers and
entreaties. This letter shows bitter feeling against Leonzio, wherein
Petrarch is goaded by the thought of the former’s unfeeling and
uncalled-for departure. The last letter pertaining to Leonzio’s life
(_Sen._, VI, 1, of January 25 or 27, 1367, P. de Nolhac II, pp. 164,
165, and Koerting, _Bocc._, p. 263, n. 2) is one full of compassion,
for it gives an account of his death toward the end of 1366--how,
during a storm at sea, Leonzio, like Ulysses, had strapped himself to
the mast, and had been struck dead by a thunderbolt.
[115]. See above, n. [112].
[116]. Sen., _Contr._, iii, _praef._, 8: “Ciceronem eloquentia sua
in carminibus destituit; Vergilium illa felicitas ingenii [sui]
oratione soluta reliquit.” Comparing with Frac., Vol. III, pp. 293,
294, it will be seen that Petrarch has adapted the above words to his
construction.
[117]. For the poetical efforts of Cicero consult C. F. W. Mueller
(Teubner, 1898), Vol. III, Pt. IV, pp. 350-405, “Fragmenta Poematum.”
As to Vergil, we gather that he must have written letters to Augustus
from the words of Donatus (_Vita Verg._, XII, 46, p. 61R). Macrobius
(I, 24, 11) gives a five-line quotation from a letter of the poet to
the emperor. In fact, comparing the contents of this quotation with
the statement in Donatus, it seems that the five lines are from the
very letter referred to by the biographer.
[118]. St. Jerome, _Chron._, II, _praef._ 2, end, in Migne, Vol.
XXVII, coll. 223, 224. Petrarch quotes the same passage, and à propos
of the same subject, in _Var._ 25. Consult n. [111] above, in which
a lengthy extract from that letter is given. The present letter to
Homer (_Fam._, XXIV, 12) is dated October 9, 1360; _Var._ 25 to
Boccaccio is dated August 18, 1360. If, then, the _aliquando_ of the
present letter alludes to _Var._ 25, it will be evident that the
interval elapsed was but a short one.
[119]. The translation by Leonzio Pilato was made into Latin prose.
The reference here, however, must be to the preliminary translation
made at Padua in the winter of 1358-59 (cf. nn. [111] and [112]). In
_Var._ 25 Petrarch employs the same figure.
[120]. _Fam._, XXIV, 10 (to Horace) and XXIV, 11 (to Vergil) are
in the form of poetic epistles. In 1359 (cf. _Fam._, XX, 7, note)
Petrarch separated all those letters which he did not destroy into
two groups: the prose epistles, which he dedicated to Socrates
(_Fam._, _praefatio_, I, pp. 15, 16, and _Fam._, XXIV, 13), and the
poetic epistles, which he dedicated to Barbato da Sulmona (_praef._,
_loc. cit._, and _Fam._, XXII, 3). The appearance in this collection,
therefore, of the poetic epistles to Horace and to Vergil, must be
due to their subject-matter, for they very naturally fall among those
letters written “veteribus illustribus viris” (Vol. III, p. 306).
[121]. Apparently, Petrarch had received a letter purporting to be
from the shade of Homer. The author of it is unknown. If it came from
Florence, then of course it must have emanated from the circle of his
Florentine friends. However, in Vol. 5, pp. 197, 198, Fracassetti,
commenting upon the words, “Tua illa Bononia quam suspiras ... unum
habet” (Vol. III, p. 301), but reading “qua suspiras,” translates,
“That Bologna of yours whence you send such laments,” and hazards
the suggestion that the letter to which this of Petrarch is a reply
came from Bologna and not from Florence. We may go a step farther.
Since Homeric scholars in Italy were so scarce at the time, and since
Petrarch states that Bologna could boast of but one--Pietro di Muglio
or de Muglo (cf. n. [139])--it would seem (if Fracassetti be right)
that Pietro di Bologna was responsible for the pseudo-Homer letter.
As Messrs. Robinson and Rolfe perhaps justly remark of that letter
(_Petrarch_, p. 253, n. 2): “It must have been even more interesting
than this reply, in its unconscious revelation of mediaeval
limitations.”
[122]. In this instance Petrarch is carried away by his subject, and
addresses his (to us unknown) correspondent as if he were the real
Homer and a Greek. Compare what has been said on this subject in the
preceding note.
[123]. The reference is to _Rem. utr. fort._, I, 64, entitled
_De aviariis avibusque loquacibus_--a most ridiculous place in
which to find mention of the bard of Smyrna. On p. 193 one of the
interlocutors says, “I own a most eloquent magpie.” To which the
other replies that it is absurd to apply such a term to a magpie,
adding, “But if the magpie forthwith forget a word, either because
the word is a difficult one or because of its own weak memory, it
may even die of grief. Hence we must now consider less marvelous the
death of the poet Homer, if indeed the current report be true”--“si
tamen illa (mors) etiam vera est.” The _De remediis_ was begun in
1358 (Frac., I, p. 1, n. 1) and finished in 1366 (Torraca, I, Pt.
II, p. 231). Since the date of the Homer letter is October 9, 1360,
it results that at least the first sixty-four chapters of Book I of
the _De remediis_ were written before this date. We see, too, that
by this slight reference to Homer, Petrarch did give some currency
to the report that Homer died of grief, and did add to it a note of
uncertainty.
The story of Homer’s death, as Petrarch and other mediaeval men knew
it, must have been the one they found in Valerius Maximus; and though
Petrarch does not actually cite him as his source, this clearly
results from the references to Sophocles and to Philemon shortly
following. Valerius, then, says (ix, 12, _ext._ 3):
The cause of Homer’s death too is said to have been an uncommon
one. Having landed at the island of Ios, certain fishermen
asked him a riddle which he was unable to read, in consequence
of which Homer is believed to have died of grief.
The legend in its more complete form (unknown to Petrarch) is derived
from the so-called _Lives_ compiled from the minor poems falsely
attributed to Homer. It runs as follows. On his way to Thebes, Homer
landed at Ios, where he saw some young fishermen on the shore with
their nets. In answer to his question as to what they had caught,
the young fishermen propounded to him this riddle: “What we caught
we left, what we caught not we bring.” Homer was unable to read this
riddle; and remembering an oracle which had foretold that he would
die “through chagrin at his inability to read the riddle of the
fishermen,” he wrote an epitaph for himself and died of vexation and
grief on the third day thereafter (cf. _New International Encycl._,
and the _Brit._).
If Petrarch questioned the credibility of the shorter and simpler
version of Valerius, what would he have said of this fuller legend,
elaborated as it was with so many undignified frills?
[124]. Val. Max., ix, 12, _ext._ 5:
When Sophocles was already in extreme old age, he submitted one
of his tragedies in competition at the games. For a long time
he was very anxious concerning (as he thought) the doubtful
decision of the judges. But his great joy when he was at last
unanimously declared victor, brought about his death.
Cf. Pliny, _N. H._, VII, 53, 180.
[125]. Fully to realize Petrarch’s state of mind, it is necessary to
quote substantial portions of his two sources for these statements.
The first statement is again founded on Val. Max., ix, 12, _ext._ 6:
The strain of excessive laughter took off Philemon. Some
figs had been prepared for him, but had been left in open
view. Seeing a young ass eating them, Philemon summoned a boy
to drive him away. The boy, however, answered the summons
leisurely, arriving when all the figs had already been
devoured. Whereupon Philemon said, “Since you have been so
slow in coming, now give the ass some wine.” And forthwith he
began to roar at his own witty remark, panting hard until the
irregular breathing in his aged throat choked him.
The second version, which Petrarch considers “more serious and more
credible,” is that of Apuleius, _Florida_, xvi:
For these praiseworthy qualities he (Philemon) was for a long
time well known as a writer of comedies. It happened one day
that he was giving a public reading of part of a play which he
had recently written. When he had reached the third act ... a
sudden rainstorm arose ... which compelled the gathering and
the reading to be postponed. Upon being urgently pressed by
several, Philemon promised that he would finish the reading on
the very next day. And so on the following day a large throng
of very eager men gathered in the theater.... But when they had
sat waiting longer than seemed reasonable, and when Philemon
did not put in an appearance, several of the more eager were
sent to summon him, and found him dead in his bed.... Returning
thence they reported to the expectant audience that the poet
Philemon, whom they were so eagerly attending, to hear him
complete the reading of his latest play, had already, and at
his own home, brought a real drama to a close.
In his manuscript of the _Florida_, Petrarch wrote the following
marginal note to this passage: “This version of the death of Philemon
is somewhat nobler than the one related by Valerius and, indeed,
by myself; for in a certain letter of mine I followed both him and
the current opinion.” P. de Nolhac says that he has not been able
to find the letter referred to by Petrarch (II, p. 102, and n. 4).
The present epistle to Homer was written in 1360; and it may well be
that the letter referred to was destroyed in the general holocaust
of 1359, when Petrarch sorted his correspondence into the two
collections (cf. above, n. [120]). Moreover, it was just like the
careful Petrarch to destroy a wrong version when he had once learned
the true one.
[126]. On the general similarity between the _Odyssey_ and the
_Aeneid_, Petrarch says (_Rer. mem._, III, 3, “De sapienter dictis
vel factis,” p. 456):
Homer describes his Ulysses (in whom he means to give the type
of a wise and brave man) as wandering over lands and seas, and
in his poem makes him encircle nearly the entire world. Our
poet has followed this example; he too carries his Aeneas over
the different countries of the earth. Both poets have done so
designedly; for wisdom can hardly be gained without experience
nor can experience be had by one who does not see and observe
many things. And, finally, it is hard to understand how one can
see many things if he stirs not abroad, but sticks close to one
little corner of this earth.
Petrarch enters upon a more general discussion of the two poets,
quoting from Macrobius and others, in _Rer. mem._, II, 2, “De
ingenio,” p. 413:
Among the Greeks Homer reigns supreme in the intellectual
world. Of this dictum not I, but Pliny is the author, who
ascribes to him a richer, broader, and boundless glory [cf.
Pliny, _N. H._, ii, 6; xxv, 2 (5)]. It is perfectly clear
that with the aid of his divine genius Homer has solved
a large number of philosophical problems in a far better
and more decisive fashion than the professed philosophers
themselves. Macrobius with great assurance pronounces Homer
the fountain-head and source of all divine inspiration [Comm.
in Somn. Scip., ii, 10, 11]. And rightly so. For although
tradition has it that Homer was physically blind, his soul was
so clear and luminous that Tullius says of him in the Tusculans
[v, 114]: “His verses are as a painting, not poetry. What
country, what coast, what part of Greece, what manner of battle
and array of soldiers, what army, what fleet, what motions
of men and of beasts have not been depicted by him with such
skill as to make it possible for us to see what he himself did
not see?” But why should I discourse on his eloquence, since
in the oft-cited books of the _Saturnalia_ there is drawn an
extensive and undecided parallel between our poet and the Greek
[book v entire]? In the course of a thousand and one arguments,
now this one is proved superior, now that one, and shortly
they are shown to be equal [_Sat._, v, 12, 1]. In consequence
these arguments leave the reader doubtful of the issue--an
uncertainty admirably expressed by the satirist in these verses
[Juvenal, xi, 180, 181, ed. Fried., translated by Gifford, II,
p. 161]:
“Great Homer shall his deep-ton’d thunder roll,
And mighty Maro elevate the soul;
Maro, who, warm’d with all the poet’s fire,
Disputes the palm of victory with his sire.”
[127]. Horace, _Sat._, i, 5, 41, 42.
[128]. Macrobius gives us an example of the accusation generally made
in antiquity against Vergil--_Sat._, v, 3, 16:
Continue prithee, said Avienus, to trace all that he [Vergil]
borrowed from Homer. For what can be sweeter than to hear
two pre-eminent poets voicing the same thoughts? These three
things are held to be equally impossible: to steal either the
lightning of Jove, or the club of Hercules, or the verses of
Homer, and for the reason that, even if it were possible,
it would seem unbecoming for any other than Jove to hurl
the lightning, any other than Hercules to excel in physical
strength, any other than Homer to sing the verses he sang.
Still, this author [Vergil] has opportunely embodied in his
poem that which the earlier bard had sung, making it appear
that it is his own.
The retort referred to is not to be found in the _Saturnalia_ (a slip
on Petrarch’s part), but in St. Jerome, who says (_Praefatio lib.
hebr. quaest. in Genesim_, Migne, Vol. XXIII, col. 983):
Also the bard of Mantua was criticised by his rivals in this
way [_sc._, as Terence by Luscius Lanuvinus]. For, having
used, unchanged, certain verses of Homer, he was called a mere
compiler of the earlier poets. To which he replied that it
was a sign of great power to wrest the club from the hands of
Hercules--“magnarum esse virium clavam Herculi extorquere de
manu.”
With this compare Frac., III, p. 298. St. Jerome himself, however,
must have been quoting from the life by Donatus, and in so doing gave
a different turn to the reply. Donatus says (_Vita Verg._, XVI, 64,
p. 66R) that Vergil replied: “Why did not they too attempt the same
thefts? They would discover that it is easier to steal the club of
Hercules than to pilfer a verse from Homer.”
Petrarch’s purpose is to emphasize how vigorous a poet Vergil is, and
how worthy of following in Homer’s footsteps. Hence he does not have
recourse to the more ancient defense which was ready to his hand in
Macrobius, _Sat._, VI, 3, 1, to the effect that it was the earlier
Roman poets who stole from Homer, and that Vergil borrowed from these
earlier pilferers belonging to his own race. Such line of argument
would have made Vergil the second thief, but it would not have made
his verses the best stolen.
[129]. Lucan, _Pharsalia_, ix, 980-86 (tr. by Edw. Ridley, p. 299,
vss. 1157-66):
O sacred task of poets, toil supreme,
Which rescuing all things from allotted fate
Dost give eternity to mortal men!
Grudge not the glory, Caesar, of such fame.
For if the Latian Muse may promise aught,
Long as the heroes of the Trojan time
Shall live upon the page of Smyrna’s bard,
So long shall future races read of thee
In this my poem; and Pharsalia’s song
Live unforgotten in the age to come.
[130]. Horace, _Ars Poetica_, 396-401, and _Carm._, iv. 9, vss. 5, 6.
[131]. Theocritus in _Ecl._, iv, 1, and vi, 1; Hesiod in _Georg._,
ii, 176.
[132]. Statius, _Theb._, xii, 816, 817.
[133]. In Petrarch’s days the _Appendix Vergiliana_ was known as the
_Ludi Iuveniles_, and included what is now published by Baehrens in
the _Poetae latini minores_, Vol. II. Judging from the statement of
the present letter, Petrarch was acquainted with these _Ludi_, or
with some of them at least. Boccaccio was the first to add the eighty
_Priapea_ to his codex of the _Ludi_ (Sabbadini, p. 32). Sabbadini,
p. 24 and n. 5, gives proof that Petrarch knew the _Culex_ and the
_Rosae_, and on p. 31 adds that he was furthermore acquainted with
some of the _Catalecta_, without giving proof.
In this letter to Homer, Petrarch states that the former’s name is
mentioned in the _Ludi_. The total number of references to Homer
in the _Appendix Vergiliana_ is four: _Ciris_, 65; in the epigram
closing the _Catalecta_, vs. 2; _Priapea_, 68, 4, and 80, 5. In the
_Rendiconti del R. Ist. Lomb._ (1906, p. 386), Sabbadini remarks at
this point: “A quali e a quanti dei tre componimenti alludesse il
Petrarca, non ci é dato indovinare, ma ciascuno dei tre era a quei
tempi una cospicua novitá.” Personally we should be inclined to favor
the _Ciris_ and the _Catalecta_, and, indeed, to give the latter
reference in support of the statement of Sabbadini on p. 31. But
until further proof is found, all discussion on this point is merely
idle speculation.
[134]. Donatus, in speaking of Vergil, says (p. 65R): “Vergil never
lacked detractors; and no wonder: even Homer had his.”
[135]. This, of course, is a reference to some statement occurring in
the pseudo-Homer letter which Petrarch had received.
[136]. See above, n. [130].
[137]. Petrarch’s words are: “cum verissime dicat hebraeus Sapiens
quod ‘_stultorum infinitus est numerus_’” (III, p. 301). From the
manner of Petrarch’s quoting, and from the fact that Fracassetti
italicizes the words in single quotation marks, it would be inferred
that the citation is from the Bible. But an exhaustive search through
the Concordances of both Cruden and Young has failed to reveal such
a passage, though sentiments on the subject of folly and fools are
quite numerous. It may be, of course, that Petrarch epitomized, or
rather formulated a deduction of his own from the books of Proverbs
and Ecclesiastes.
[138]. Concerning the nationality of Leonzio Pilato consult what has
been said above in n. 3, par. 1.
[139]. It is generally agreed that of the three scholars said to
be at Florence, Boccaccio must be one. The other two cannot be
identified with certainty, but they are to be chosen from among
Nelli, Salutati, and Bruni; of no one of whom, however, do we know as
a fact that he was acquainted with Greek. It is for this reason that
Tedaldo della Casa, who studied Greek under Leonzio Pilato, has, with
greater probability, been suggested as one of the three Florentines
(Baldelli). Petrarch himself has been thought of by De Sade as the
fourth, but (it seems) on insufficient grounds. The fifth Florentine
is without doubt Zanobi de Strada, who in 1359 was appointed
apostolic secretary by Innocent VI, and who in consequence abandoned
Naples and Italy for Avignon, the Babylon across the Alps.
The scholar at Bologna, too, can be named: Pietro di Muglio or de
Muglo (cf. n. [121]). The Veronese humanists are Guglielmo da Pastrengo
and Rinaldo da Villafranca. The Mantuan, according to De Sade and
Tiraboschi, is Andrea (surnamed) Mantovano; and the one from Perugia,
finally, has been variously identified with Paolo Perugino (Baldelli)
and Muzio da Perugia (De Sade and Tiraboschi). Fracassetti (Vol. 5,
p. 197) has omitted all mention of the humanist at Sulmona, who very
probably is to be identified with Marco Barbato da Sulmona. (Consult
Frac., _loc. cit._, who gives some cross-references to his own notes;
and Voigt.)
[140]. Cf. n. [109].
[141]. This note of despair was wrung from Petrarch by his dismay
at the existent state of affairs and by his own high ideals of
scholarship. That it eventually proved to be an utterly false
prophecy was due mainly to the vigorous impulse which he himself gave
to the cause of humanism.
[142]. Cf. n. [123].
[143]. The famous words from the epitaph of Ennius (Cic., _Tusc._, i,
34), which Petrarch has here adapted to his purpose by the insertion
of the bracketed words, “(Nam) volito vivus (docta) per ora virum”
(Frac., III, p. 303).
[144]. Petrarch had owned a Greek Homer as early as 1354, when his
friend Niccoló Sigero sent him a copy from Constantinople (cf. n. [111],
par. 2). _Fam._, XVIII, 2, describes Petrarch’s joy at its reception,
and also his sorrow at not being able to understand a word of it,
which clearly proves that the first modern scholar had not made
much progress after a summer’s instruction from the first teacher
of Greek in the western world (see n. [109]). In Latin, Petrarch had
the _Periochae_ which are attributed to Ausonius and the _Homerus
Latinus_ or _Pindarus Thebanus_ (for which see n. [113]).
[145]. Fond hopes was Petrarch nourishing, and vain! We must remember
that when Leonzio Pilato finished his translation of Homer in
1363, there was but one copy of it, and that that copy remained at
Florence. We can well imagine Petrarch’s eagerness to peruse it. His
first inquiry is made in _Seniles_, III, 6 (of March 1, 1365), by
which letter he requests that some portion at least of the _Odyssey_
be forwarded to him, continuing that he is quite content to wait for
the rest. From _Seniles_ V, 1 (Padua, December 14, 1365, Koerting,
_Bocc._, p. 263, n. 2), we learn that when Boccaccio received this
pressing note, the _Iliad_ had already been transcribed; and so he
hastened to make with his own hand a transcription of that passage
in the _Odyssey_ describing the descent of Ulysses to Hades. In the
same letter Petrarch expresses satisfaction at hearing that this is
at last on its way to him. Through some mishap, however, the precious
package had not yet reached its destination at Venice by the 25th or
27th of January, 1367 (_Sen._, VI, 1; Koerting, _op. cit._; P. de
Nolhac, II, p. 165). The joy of Petrarch, when he at last grasped
the translation of Homer with his own hands and beheld it among the
books on his own shelves, is simply expressed in the closing words
of _Seniles_ VI, 2 (undated, but later than VI, 1). To conclude, the
translation, which was begun by Leonzio in the latter half of 1360
(the date of _Fam._, XXIV, 12), did not reach him who was the most
eager for it till seven years later.