PETRARCH THE CRITIC AND READER 



judgments as this last criticism might come from men 

 who were in their own peculiar way students of elo- 

 quence, but, according to Petrarch, eloquence was in 

 their eyes an art unworthy of a scholar. 



At the same time, it cannot be said that his fight for 

 eloquence was a very arduous orte. Indeed, in the 

 opinion of jealous rivals, Petrarch's championship 

 threatened to jeopardize the cause, inasmuch as, 

 according to them, he surrendered himself so completely 

 to the art that he was unable to distinguish truth from 

 fiction — just the kind of accusation that the champions 

 of Greek rhetoric had had to endure in Rome. We need 

 not take such an allegation at its face value; still, we 

 can be quite certain that if Petrarch had not been such 

 a creative master himself, his critical influence would 

 have been far less notable. And it is quite important 

 to remember that, in the judgment of his contempora- 

 ries, he was eloquent in two languages. In his age, 

 there was as yet no really great humanist who confined 

 himself entirely to Latin. Considering how much has 

 been written on Dante's views as to the respective 

 merits of the vernacular and Latin, it seems expedient 

 to hear what Petrarch has to say on the subject, since 

 his opinion is of almost equal importance. Inasmuch 

 as he began his Hterary career as a writer of Italian 

 verse, it will be appropriate to start with his outgivings 

 about the vulgar tongue. 



Especially illuminating are two letters written to 

 Boccaccio: one, which we have discussed, in answer 



8i 



