THE work before us is rather intended to defend than to illustrate Mr. Roscoe's Life of Lorenzo de Medici, published about twenty-five years ago. The revolutions which have taken place in the political creed and literature of the Italians within that period, if they have not established new canons of political orthodoxy and literary excellence, have, at least, so far modified the old, that opinions, held sacred at the commencement of the nineteenth century, have not only been since called into question by writers of considerable eminence, but absolutely discarded as vestiges of the old school, which received all their opinions, encumbered with the trammels and imposing dogmas of consecrated authority. Mr. Roscoe's Life of Lorenzo de Medici has not escaped these writers with impunity; and not only the fidelity of his statements, as a biographer, but the correctness of his opinions, as a scholar and a critic, have been controverted and denied. Mr. Roscoe is a professed admirer of the celebrated character whose life he has written; and as the spirit of admiration seems to form no very prominent feature in the writers of the present day, he has accordingly been told, that he has not confined his praise of Lorenzo within "the modesty of nature," or, in other words, that neither his public nor literary character entitled him to that high rank which his biographer assigns him. Appearances, we must confess, would seem to be against Mr. Roscoe, were we to form our judgment from the manner in which he opens his own defence; for he tells us, that since the publication of his Life of Lorenzo," considerable ad

ditions have been made to the political and literary history of Italy, many original and valuable documents have been produced, and the labours of several distinguished writers, as well here as abroad, have given a greater interest to the subject. Under these circumstances the history of the Life of Lorenzo has occasionally been the object of reference, and of criticism; and whilst the merits and the talents of that distinguished individual have, on the one hand, been more fully illustrated, attempts have been made on the other, to depreciate his character; and doubts have been thrown out as to his being entitled to the high rank, which he has so long held in the general estimation."

Mr. Roscoe then admits that the me rits and talents of Lorenzo have been more fully illustrated by the additions, which have been made to the political and literary history of Italy, by the many original and valuable documents which have been produced, and by the labours of several distinguished wri ters. If so, the just inference is, that his merits and talents can be more fairly appreciated after the discovery of such documents, and the exercise of such talents, than before the former facilitated the researches of the biographer, or the latter were called forth into life and application. What avail the discovery of

26

original documents," and the labours of" distinguished writers," if they do not enable us to form a clearer and more correct judgment of the subject to which they are applied? If they do not, we are. obliged to conclude that the more the materials of information are multiplied, and the more talent is exer-

cised in communicating to the world the substance of these materials, the more apt we are to be deceived. With this conclusion we cannot agree, and therefore we confess we are setting out with a degree of prejudice against Mr. Roscoe's defence. We shall, however, discharge ourselves of the duty imposed upon us, as critics, to the utmost of our ability: if the subject appear to us in a proper light, we shall do Mr. Roscoe justice; but justice to him by no means implies an attack upon those to whom he stands opposed. We respect the talents which have been employed upon both sides; and if we permitted our judgment to yield for a moment to the influence of our feelings, we fear our partiality for Mr. Roscoe, not only as a countryman, but as an amiable, unaffected writer, would incline us to espouse his cause; if not so warmly as some of our contemporaries, at least more so than the laws of distributive justice would either sanction or endure. Amiability of manner, however, is not at variance with truth: on the contrary, they are generally found to accompany each other, and it would be doing Mr. Roscoe an injustice, even to insinuate that he has ever attempted to conceal what he knew to be true, or mislead his readers by what he knew to be erroneous. There are few writers, however, who can completely triumph over their feelings; and consequently there are few who are not subject to prejudices of which they are not aware.

There are two points at issue between Mr. Roscoe and his opponents: the one regards the literary, the other the moral and political character of Lorenzo de Medici. Both appear to Mr. Roscoe, and neither to his competitors, of the first order. The object of the work before us is, as may easily be perceived, to defend the character of Lorenzo, as painted by Mr. Roscoe, or to use his own words, to demonstrate that he has a just claim to the elevated station which he has so long maintained; and to defend the fidelity and accuracy of his English biographer against the censures of some foreign writers, the effects of which have extended to this country."

One of these points we think Mr. Roscoe has satisfactorily proved in his own favor. Whether he has succeeded in demonstrating the literary and poetical pre-eminence of Lorenzo, may ad

mit of some doubt; but it appears to us that he has vindicated his moral character in the most triumphant manner. When we say his moral character, we necessarily include his conduct as a statesman and a citizen, and the measures which resulted from his political opinions. If Mr. Roscoe has succeeded in rescuing the character of Lorenzo from the slightest stain, we think he has done all that his duty, as a biographer, required; and that the illustrations before us should have aimed at nothing more. Mr. Roscoe indeed was at liberty to illustrate the poetic character of Lorenzo, incidentally: he might assist his readers, in the best manner he could, to form a correct judgment in determining the rank which he should hold among the Italian poets, but we doubt whether he was justified in sitting down to determine the matter himself, to prove that his opinions of Lorenzo's merits are right, and that those who have questioned them, have done him an injustice; because the world will neither take his opinion nor theirs in de ciding on the poetical excellence of Lorenzo. His works have been collected and published; and Mr. Roscoe himself has given numerous extracts. With these documents before our eyes, we cannot dispute the right of any critic to comment as he pleases on the poetry, because he cannot mislead the public mind, even if his commentaries be erro

neous.

While the originals are forthcoming, they will always speak for themselves; and in general it is the collision of opinion that exists among critics, that ultimately enables us to form a correct judgment of the real merits of an Author. Mr. Roscoe, therefore, appears in our opinion, to have blended the question regarding Lorenzo's po etical talents, more than he ought to have done, with that of his moral and political character. The sources and documents, through which we are made acquainted with the mere character of an individual, are not always placed within the reach of the public; and even if they were, the public cannot always compare them with each other, in order to discover from the comparison the real character of the person in question. If it happen, therefore, that an individual, who had access to these sources and documents, should be accused of concealing or perverting the information contained in them, he

is undoubtedly bound to disprove the accusation or submit to the charge. The moment we prove that a historian or biographer has perverted a fact, we prove a culpability which could not arise from an error of judgment, and therefore we degrade the author from the high rank which he has arrogated to himself, namely, that of being an honest man; but if we merely prove that he is mistaken in his opinion of literary or poetical talents, we continue to respect the man as much as ever, because we always distinguish between fallibility of judgment and culpability of intention. Mr. Roscoe, however, seems more anxious to defend the poetical than the moral or political character of Lorenzo; and to think, that unless he succeed in defending the former, he cannot escape censure with regard to the opinions which he has advanced regarding the latter. With all due deference to Mr. Roscoe's talents, we cannot agree with him in this opinion. We admire, in common with all elegant judges of taste and literature, his life of Lorenzo de Medici: we believe that the selections which he has made from his poetry, many of which he has himself elegantly translated, entitle their celebrated author to a high place in our esteem; but when we are told, that he "possessed a genius more original and versatile, perhaps than any of his countrymen," and that "some of of his productions stand unrivalled amongst those of his countrymen to the present day," we pause in our judgment, and begin to apprehend that Mr. Roscoe's attachment to the Mecenas of the 16th century has led him into an opinion, which his better judgment would have easily corrected. We cannot therefore help acknowledging, that the comment, which Professor Pozetti makes upon this passage, appears to us well founded and just. "Either I greatly deceive myself," he says, the verses of Lorenzo, although in themselves estimable, are not adorned with such exquisite beauties, as to allow us to assent with our author, that some of them may bear a comparison with the most celebrated productions of the present day." Mr. Roscoe in defending this passage, has obviously given up the poetical pre-eminence of Lorenzo without justifying himself. He tells

us,

66

or

"that it was not so much his intention to place the productions of Lorenzo

de Medici in a direct comparison with the modern poets of Italy, as to state that there were some particular departments of poetry, in which he had not been excelled by any of his countrymen, from his own times to the present." That this might have been Mr. Roscoe's intention, we will not deny; but that it was his intention, we have no authority for believing. In the passage hefore us, we are told, indeed, that he led the way in some particular species of poetry, but we are not told, that it was in these particular species he stands unrivalled. On the contrary, we are obliged to conclude, that it was not; for after telling us that he led the way in some species of poetry, Mr. Roscoe immediately adds, "and some of his productions stand unrivalled," &c. The productions following the conjunction are therefore distinguished from the species going before, instead of being identified with them; and this distinction is so clearly expressed, that every reader understands the passage in this sense. If the species in which he led the way were those in which he stands unrivalled, instead of "his productions," he ought to have writen these productions or species. Mr. Roscoe's defence, therefore, appears to us very defective, not only because he wishes us to understand the passage before us in a sense different from what it will bear, but because he charges the Italian translator with not having "expressed the meaning with his usual accuracy;" for it is certain that every English reader will understand it as the translator did, and consequently Pozetti was led into no mistake with regard to its import by the Italian translation. Indeed, if any doubt could remain of the sense of this passage, the two first lines would remove it, as we are there told, that he "possessed a genius more original and versatile perIf haps, than any of his countrymen.' then we should even have suspected, and it is impossible to see how we could, that the productions in which he stood unrivalled were some particular species, untouched by his predecessors, and invented by himself, our suspicions would be removed the moment we reflected that he ranked before all his countrymen in the "originality" and "versatility" of his genius, because it is to these two qualities of intellect we ascribe whatever is most excellent in

the creations of the mind. If then we should ever grant that Mr. Roscoe has succeeded in proving that he merely intended to compare some particular species of Lorenzo's poems with those of his predecessors, and that he did not consider him equal to them in the other walks of poetry, how are we to reconcile this admission with that originality and versatility of genius in which he thinks him superior to all his countrymen? Must it not have been from the general pre-eminence of his works that he concluded him possessed of these high attributes of genius, for he could not be justified in concluding it from his excellence in one or two particular species of poetry, especially when they were not of the highest order. It appears, therefore. to us, that Mr. Roscoe's present opinion of Lorenzo's poetical merits, is somewhat different from that which he entertained twenty-five years ago, when he published his life of Lorenzo. And it appears also to us, that he changed his first opinion with considerable reluctance; for if he be sincere in admitting the superiority of the modern Italian poets, the Alficri, the Bondi, the Cesarotti. &c. over his favourite Lorenzo, why has he devoted so considerable a portion of his "illustrations," to prove what Pozetti, Pignotti, Sismondi, and all his opponents admit, namely, that Lorenzo De Medici, though not a poet of the first order, possessed, notwithstanding, a fine imagination, that his thoughts were bold, natural, and occasionally sublime; that he had attempted all kinds of poetry, and shewed in every one the flexibility of his talents, and the riches of his imagination; and that, in a word, he excelled the entire swarm of cold versifiers, who poured out their productions in the succeeding century, and who in so many volumes have collected only

are allowed him by the critics, whose judgment Mr. Roscoe disputes, he could not possess higher merits, unless he absolutely ranked with Petrarch and Dante. It is therefore difficult to discover what Mr. Roscoe aims at in his long disquisitions on Lorenzo's poetical talents. He admits he is not qualified to rank with these poets, and yet he is not satisfied with the praises conferred upon him by Pozetti, Pignotti, and Sismondi: he disputes their opinion, though they have placed Lorenzo as near Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio as it was possible to place him, unless they elevated him to an absolute equality. Mr. Roscoe then seems not to be sincere in admitting that it was not his intention to rank Lorenzo with these poets. From the whole spirit of his defence, and the numerous authorities which he has quoted, we are always impressed with an idea that if he be not the first, at least he ranks in the first class of Italian poets, and when he is obliged to come directly to the point, and say yes or no, when he is obliged to acknowledge the superiority of Petrarch, &c. over his favourite poet, he does it in such a manner that he would seem thankful to us for not believing him, because it is an avowal unmercifully forced from him. He would seem, when he sat down to write this defence of his former opinions, to have argued with himself thus:-If I positively maintain that Lorenzo was not inferior to Petrarch and Dante, not only the Italian critics, but public feeling will be against me. The fame of these poets is established by the sanction of universal suffrage. They are admired in every country in Europe, and their names are always associated with poetic recollections, whereas Lorenzo's name is frequently mentioned without reviving these associations. I must therefore abandon this position, but then I will bring forward such a mass of au

who have bestowed unqualified praise on Lorenzo's poetry, and defend the defects which have been ascribed to him by such force of argument, that my readers will believe of themselves, what I wish, but fear to assert, namely, that Lorenzo ranks as high, if not higher than any of the ancient or modern Italian poets. We do not say that Mr. Roscoe argued thus with himself; but we say that if he had thus argued, he

could not have adopted a different mode of conducting his defence than that which he has pursued. Though Lorenzo Pignotti, one of the most celebrated writers which Italy has lately produced, whether we consider him as a prose writer or a poet, speaks in the warmest strain of Lorenzo's poetical merits, Mr. Roscoe cannot endure that he should point out his defects. Accordingly he endeavours to prove that they were not defects, and in doing so, he evidently eludes the force of Pignotti's observations by understanding them in a wrong sense. After describing the charms and beauty of Lorenzo's poetry, Pignotti adds:

But to these poems of Lorenzo, some important accompaniments are wanting there are facility of style, and that poetic colouring which, united with facility, produces that harmony which delights the ear, and at the same time expresses the sentiment clearly without becoming vulgar. Great poets have shewn that the commonest things may be covered by a poetical varnish, and this is of such importance, that for the sake of it, we frequently bear with low and trifling sentiments, as rude and Plebeian persons obtain admission into good company by a fine dress. It is not that Lorenzo is altogether deprived of this style, but it is not frequent with him. There is often a harshness, often a want of harmony, of clearness, and generally of felicity of expression. He is a painter whose figures are not correctly drawn. The outlines are too sharp, and the colouring not sufficiently natural."

With these opinions of Pignotti, Mr. Roscoe cannot agree. He admits indeed, that Lorenzo wants that delicacy and polish of style of which Pignotti speaks, but he does not admit that delicacy and polish of style are necessary accompaniments of poetry.

"I can by no means assent," he says, "to the rules set up by Pignotti for deeiding on the merits of poetical composition or admit that the essence of poetry consists, as he conceives, in varnishing over weak, insipid, and trivial thoughts, with elevated language and graceful expression." This description, it may be observed, falls greatly short of what might be expected as a description of genuine and elevated poetry, the essence of which must consist in the strength and novelty of the thought, and in the

Our limits do not permit us to enter into this controversy at any length, but it does not require many words to shew that Mr. Roscoe has the worst of it. He does not admit, he says, with Pignotti, that "the essence of poetry consists in varnishing over weak, insipid, and trivial thoughts." Indeed we believe the simplest judge of poetry would dissent along with him, and we should feel greatly surprised if any writer should place" the essence of poetry" in such a varnish. Pignotti by no means asserts any thing of the kind. He does not attempt to describe in what the "essence" of poetry consists; but merely says that "poetical colouring" is an important "accompaniment" of poetry." And this, we think, Mr. Roscoe will have some difficulty in disproving. So far from making poetry consist in

66

varnishing insipid thoughts," he merely says that the "commonest things" may be covered by a poetical varnish. To this he attaches considerable importance, but when he comes to speak of trifling thoughts, he merely says, that such a varnish enables us to endure them. Mr. Roscoe then has not done him justice, in saying that he makes the essence of poetry consist in varnishing over weak, insipid, and trivial thoughts, for to this he attaches little importance: it is to common things, and not to common thoughts, that he thinks this poetic colouring can be applied to advantage. If Mr. Roscoe think there is no difference between common things and common thoughts, he will find himself undeceived by experience, the test of truth. The commonest things in nature may become the subject, not only of highly poetic but of sublime description, because it is not the thing described, but the manner of describing it, that constitutes its poetry. "A great artist," says Lord Byron," will make a block of stone as