PETRARCH THE AUTHOR 



any one else; but he did, and unfortunately the frag- 

 ment was severely criticised, especially in Florence. 

 Petrarch was greatly angered, and at the same time 

 discouraged. Vergerius, a late fourteenth (and early 

 fifteenth) century admirer and biographer of Petrarch, 

 says that, according to report, in the poet's last years, 

 whenever the Africa was mentioned, he was greatly 

 disturbed, and the expression of his face betrayed his 

 mental trouble. 



When he died, there was great anxiety to see the work. 

 Boccaccio wrote to Petrarch's son-in-law, begging him 

 to send a copy, which was sent, but arrived only after 

 Boccaccio's death. Coluccio Salutati, one of Petrarch's 

 most enthusiastic followers, read it in three nights and 

 was greatly disappointed. On the whole, the Africa 

 failed to justify expectations. I find it rather hard to 

 account for the lack of enthusiasm — that is, when we 

 bear in mind the other Latin epics of the time and the 

 later Renaissance. It is not the liveliest work in the 

 world, by any means, but it is readable. Its faults, of 

 course, are patent: the Romans are all good, the Car- 

 thaginians all bad; the hero is as pious as ^neas. Like 

 the early writers of Christian epic, who dared not 

 depart from the Bible, Petrarch closely follows history; 

 but this means the omission of much mythological 

 machinery, which makes so many Renaissance epics 

 almost unreadable. Again, though it lacks intrinsic 

 interest, it is historically important. It is the first 

 Renaissance epic built upon classic lines. Then, too, 



22 



