our subject, their great importance in the history of culture entitles them to a few words.
The chief causes of Petrarch's failure as a Latin poet are evident. In the infancy of vernacular literature it was not sufficiently understood that compositions in a dead language, however exquisite, must fail to bestow immortality. Nor could Petrarch himself be fully aware how impossible it was to write like a Roman poet in the new dawn of reviving classical studies. It took two centuries of culture to produce a Vida and a Sannazaro, and if their names are undying, the same can hardly be said of their Latin works. But there was a deeper reason. Petrarch attempted epic composition without epic inspiration. His genius was entirely lyric, and his poetry has little value except where it palpitates with lyrical feeling. When he writes on the misfortunes of his country, he is a poet even when writing in Latin; and his great Latin epic, the Africa, too often tame, notwithstanding its true natural feeling, sometimes, especially when near the end of the poem he speaks of himself, kindles into poetry. The Latin verses placed by Coleridge on the half-title of his own love-poems in Sibylline Leaves are almost as exquisite as the tenderest passages of the Canzoniere itself:[1]
"Quas humilis tenero stylus olim effudit in œvo,
Perlegis hic lacrymas, et quod pharetratus acuta
Ille puer puero fecit mihi cuspide vulnus.
- ↑ From the epistle to Barbatos, Coleridge says of the entire composition: "Had Petrarch lived a century later, and, retaining all his substantiality of head and heart, added to it the elegancies and manly politure of Fracastorius, Flaminius, Vida, and their co-rivals, this letter Would have been it classical gem" (Anima Poetæ, p. 263).
and the delight of the succeeding, and working on his contemporaries by that portion of his works which is least in account with posterity."
