Appendix I. Some Remarks on the Life and Character of Rienzi.
The principal authority from which historians have taken their account of
the life and times of Rienzi is a very curious biography, by some unknown
contemporary; and this, which is in the Roman patois of the time, has been
rendered not quite unfamiliar to the French and English reader by the work
of Pere du Cerceau, called "Conjuration de Nicolas Gabrini, dit de Rienzi,"
(See for a specimen of the singular blunders of the Frenchman's work,
Appendix II.) which has at once pillaged and deformed the Roman biographer.
The biography I refer to was published (and the errors of the former
editions revised) by Muratori in his great collection; and has lately been
reprinted separately in an improved text, accompanied by notes of much
discrimination and scholastic taste, and a comment upon that celebrated
poem of Petrarch, "Spirito Gentil," which the majority of Italian critics
have concurred in considering addressed to Rienzi, in spite of the
ingenious arguments to the contrary by the Abbe de Sade.
This biography has been generally lauded for its rare impartiality. And
the author does, indeed, praise and blame alike with a most singular
appearance of stolid candour. The work, in truth, is one of those not
uncommon proofs, of which Boswell's "Johnson" is the most striking, that a
very valuable book may be written by a very silly man. The biographer of
Rienzi appears more like the historian of Rienzi's clothes, so minute is he
on all details of their colour and quality - so silent is he upon
everything that could throw light upon the motives of their wearer. In
fact, granting the writer every desire to be impartial, he is too foolish
to be so. It requires some cleverness to judge accurately of a very clever
man in very difficult circumstances; and the worthy biographer is utterly
incapable of giving us any clue to the actions of Rienzi - utterly unable
to explain the conduct of the man by the circumstances of the time. The
weakness of his vision causes him, therefore, often to squint. We must add
to his want of wisdom a want of truth, which the Herodotus-like simplicity
of his style frequently conceals. He describes things which had no witness
as precisely and distinctly as those which he himself had seen. For
instance, before the death of Rienzi, in those awful moments when the
Senator was alone, unheard, unseen, he coolly informs us of each motion,
and each thought of Rienzi's, with as much detail as if Rienzi had returned
from the grave to assist his narration. These obvious inventions have been
adopted by Gibbon and others with more good faith than the laws of evidence
would warrant. Still, however, to a patient and cautious reader the
biography may furnish a much better notion of Rienzi's character, than we
can glean from the historians who have borrowed from it piecemeal. Such a
reader will discard all the writer's reasonings, will think little of his
praise or blame, and regard only the facts he narrates, judging them true
or doubtful, according as the writer had the opportunities of being himself
the observer. Thus examining, the reader will find evidence sufficient of
Rienzi's genius and Rienzi's failings: Carefully distinguishing between
the period of his power as Tribune, and that of his power as Senator, he
will find the Tribune vain, haughty, fond of display; but, despite the
reasonings of the biographer, he will not recognise those faults in the
Senator. On the other hand, he will notice the difference between youth
and maturity - hope and experience; he will notice in the Tribune vast
ambition, great schemes, enterprising activity - which sober into less
gorgeous and more quiet colours in the portrait of the Senator. He will
find that in neither instance did Rienzi fall from his own faults - he will
find that the vulgar moral of ambition, blasted by its own excesses, is not
the true moral of the Roman's life; he will find that, both in his
abdication as Tribune, and his death as Senator, Rienzi fell from the vices
of the People. The Tribune was a victim to ignorant cowardice - the
Senator, a victim to ferocious avarice. It is this which modern historians
have failed to represent. Gibbon records rightly, that the Count of
Minorbino entered Rome with one hundred and fifty soldiers, and barricadoed
the quarter of the Colonna - that the bell of the Capitol sounded - that
Rienzi addressed the People - that they were silent and inactive - and that
Rienzi then abdicated the government. But for this he calls Rienzi
"pusillanimous." Is not that epithet to be applied to the People? Rienzi
invoked them to move against the Robber - the People refused to obey.
Rienzi wished to fight - the People refused to stir. It was not the cause
of Rienzi alone which demanded their exertions - it was the cause of the
People - theirs, not his, the shame, if one hundred and fifty foreign
soldiers mastered Rome, overthrew their liberties, and restored their
tyrants! Whatever Rienzi's sins, whatever his unpopularity, their freedom,
their laws, their republic, were at stake; and these they surrendered to
one hundred and fifty hirelings! This is the fact that damns them! But
Rienzi was not unpopular when he addressed and conjured them: they found
no fault with him. "The sighs and the groans of the People," says
Sismondi, justly, "replied to his," - they could weep, but they would not
fight. This strange apathy the modern historians have not accounted for,
yet the principal cause was obvious - Rienzi was excommunicated! (And this
curse I apprehend to have been the more effective in the instance of
Rienzi, from a fact that it would be interesting and easy to establish:
viz., that he owed his rise as much to religious as to civil causes. He
aimed evidently to be a religious Reformer. All his devices, ceremonies,
and watchwords, were of a religious character. The monks took part with
his enterprise, and joined in the revolution. His letters are full of
mystical fanaticism. His references to ancient heroes of Rome are always
mingled with invocations to her Christian Saints. The Bible, at that time
little read by the public civilians of Italy, is constantly in his hands,
and his addresses studded with texts. His very garments were adorned with
sacred and mysterious emblems. No doubt, the ceremony of his Knighthood,
which Gibbon ridicules as an act of mere vanity, was but another of his
religious extravagances; for he peculiarly dedicated his Knighthood to the
service of the Santo Spirito; and his bathing in the vase of Constantine
was quite of a piece, not with the vanity of the Tribune, but with the
extravagance of the Fanatic. In fact, they tried hard to prove him a
heretic; but he escaped a charge under the mild Innocent, which a century
or two before, or a century or two afterwards, would have sufficed to have
sent a dozen Rienzis to the stake. I have dwelt the more upon this point,
because, if it be shown that religious causes operated with those of
liberty, we throw a new light upon the whole of that most extraordinary
revolution, and its suddenness is infinitely less striking. The deep
impression Rienzi produced upon that populace was thus stamped with the
spirit of the religious enthusiast more than that of the classical
demagogue. And, as in the time of Cromwell, the desire for temporal
liberty was warmed and coloured by the presence of a holier and more
spiritual fervour: - "The Good Estate" (Buono Stato) of Rienzi reminds us a
little of the Good Cause of General Cromwell.) In stating the fact, these
writers have seemed to think that excommunication in Rome, in the
fourteenth century, produced no effect! - the effect it did produce I have
endeavoured in these pages to convey.
The causes of the second fall and final murder of Rienzi are equally
misstated by modern narrators. It was from no fault of his - no injustice,
no cruelty, no extravagance - it was not from the execution of Montreal,
nor that of Pandulfo di Guido - it was from a gabelle on wine and salt
that he fell. To preserve Rome from the tyrants it was necessary to
maintain an armed force; to pay the force a tax was necessary; the tax was
imposed - and the multitude joined with the tyrants, and their cry was,
"Perish the traitor who has made the gabelle!" This was their only charge
- this the only crime that their passions and their fury could cite against
him.
The faults of Rienzi are sufficiently visible, and I have not unsparingly
shewn them; but we must judge men, not according as they approach
perfection, but according as their good or bad qualities preponderate -
their talents or their weaknesses - the benefits they effected, the evil
they wrought. For a man who rose to so great a power, Rienzi's faults were
singularly few - crimes he committed none. He is almost the only man who
ever rose from the rank of a citizen to a power equal to that of monarchs
without a single act of violence or treachery. When in power, he was vain,
ostentatious, and imprudent, - always an enthusiast - often a fanatic; but
his very faults had greatness of soul, and his very fanaticism at once
supported his enthusiastic daring, and proved his earnest honesty. It is
evident that no heinous charge could be brought against him even by his
enemies, for all the accusations to which he was subjected, when
excommunicated, exiled, fallen, were for two offences which Petrarch
rightly deemed the proofs of his virtue and his glory: first, for
declaring Rome to be free; secondly, for pretending that the Romans had a
right of choice in the election of the Roman Emperor. (The charge of
heresy was dropped.) Stern, just, and inflexible, as he was when Tribune,
his fault was never that of wanton cruelty. The accusation against him,
made by the gentle Petrarch, indeed, was that he was not determined enough
- that he did not consummate the revolution by exterminating the patrician
tyrants. When Senator, he was, without sufficient ground, accused of
avarice in the otherwise just and necessary execution of Montreal.
(Gibbon, in mentioning the execution of Montreal, omits to state that
Montreal was more than suspected of conspiracy and treason to restore the
Colonna. Matthew Villani records it as a common belief that such truly was
the offence of the Provencal. The biographer of Rienzi gives additional
evidence of the fact. Gibbon's knowledge of this time was superficial. As
one instance of this, he strangely enough represents Montreal as the head
of the first Free Company that desolated Italy: he took that error from
the Pere du Cerceau.) It was natural enough that his enemies and the
vulgar should suppose that he executed a creditor to get rid of a debt; but
it was inexcusable in later, and wiser, and fairer writers to repeat so
grave a calumny, without at least adding the obvious suggestion, that the
avarice of Rienzi could have been much better gratified by sparing than by
destroying the life of one of the richest subjects in Europe. Montreal, we
may be quite sure, would have purchased his life at an immeasurably higher
price than the paltry sum lent to Rienzi by his brothers. And this is not
a probable hypothesis, but a certain fact, for we are expressly told that
Montreal, "knowing the Tribune was in want of money, offered Rienzi, that
if he would let him go, he, Montreal, would furnish him not only with
twenty thousand florins, (four times the amount of Rienzi's debt to him,)
but with as many soldiers and as much money as he pleased." This offer
Rienzi did not attend to. Would he have rejected it had avarice been his
motive? And what culpable injustice, to mention the vague calumny without
citing the practical contradiction! When Gibbon tells us, also, that "the
most virtuous citizen of Rome, meaning Pandulfo, or Pandolficcio di Guido,
(Matthew Villani speaks of him as a wise and good citizen, of great repute
among the People - and this, it seems, he really was.) was sacrificed to
his jealousy, he a little exaggerates the expression bestowed upon
Pandulfo, which is that of "virtuoso assai;" and that expression, too, used
by a man who styles the robber Montreal, "eccellente uomo - di quale fama
suono per tutta la Italia di virtude" ("An excellent man whose fame for
valour resounded throughout all Italy.") - (so good a moral critic was the
writer!) but he also altogether waves all mention of the probabilities that
are sufficiently apparent, of the scheming of Pandulfo to supplant Rienzi,
and to obtain the "Signoria del Popolo." Still, however, if the death of
Pandulfo may be considered a blot on the memory of Rienzi, it does not
appear that it was this which led to his own fate. The cry of the mob
surrounding his palace was not, "Perish him who executed Pandulfo," it was
- and this again and again must be carefully noted - it was nothing more
nor less than, "Perish him who has made the gabelle!"
Gibbon sneers at the military skill and courage of Rienzi. For this sneer
there is no cause. His first attempts, his first rise, attested
sufficiently his daring and brave spirit; in every danger he was present -
never shrinking from a foe so long as he was supported by the People. He
distinguished himself at Viterbo when in the camp of Albornoz, in several
feats of arms, ("Vita di Cola di Rienzi", lib. ii. cap. 14.) and his end
was that of a hero. So much for his courage; as to his military skill; it
would be excusable enough if Rienzi - the eloquent and gifted student,
called from the closet and the rostrum to assume the command of an army -
should have been deficient in the art of war; yet, somehow or other, upon
the whole, his arms prospered. He defeated the chivalry of Rome at her
gates; and if he did not, after his victory, march to Marino, for which his
biographer (In this the anonymous writer compares him gravely to Hannibal,
who knew how to conquer, but not how to use his conquest.) and Gibbon blame
him, the reason is sufficiently clear - "Volea pecunia per soldati" - he
wanted money for the soldiers! On his return as Senator, it must be
remembered that he had to besiege Palestrina, which was considered even by
the ancient Romans almost impregnable by position; but during the few weeks
he was in power, Palestrina yielded - all his open enemies were defeated -
the tyrants expelled - Rome free; and this without support from any party,
Papal or Popular, or, as Gibbon well expresses it, "suspected by the People
- abandoned by the Prince."
On regarding what Rienzi did, we must look to his means, to the
difficulties that surrounded him, to the scantiness of his resources. We
see a man without rank, wealth, or friends, raising himself to the head of
a popular government in the metropolis of the Church - in the City of the
Empire. We see him reject any title save that of a popular magistrate -
establish at one stroke a free constitution - a new code of law. We see
him first expel, then subdue, the fiercest aristocracy in Europe - conquer
the most stubborn banditti, rule impartially the most turbulent people,
embruted by the violence, and sunk in the corruption of centuries. We see
him restore trade - establish order - create civilization as by a miracle -
receive from crowned heads homage and congratulation - outwit, conciliate,
or awe, the wiliest priesthood of the Papal Diplomacy - and raise his
native city at once to sudden yet acknowledged eminence over every other
state, its superior in arts, wealth, and civilization; - we ask what errors
we are to weigh in the opposite balance, and we find an unnecessary
ostentation, a fanatical extravagance, and a certain insolent sternness.
But what are such offences - what the splendour of a banquet, or the
ceremony of Knighthood, or a few arrogant words, compared with the vices of
almost every prince who was his contemporary? This is the way to judge
character: we must compare men with men, and not with ideals of what men
should be. We look to the amazing benefits Rienzi conferred upon his
country. We ask his means, and see but his own abilities. His treasury
becomes impoverished - his enemies revolt - the Church takes advantage of
his weakness - he is excommunicated - the soldiers refuse to fight - the
People refuse to assist - the Barons ravage the country - the ways are
closed, the provisions are cut off from Rome. ("Allora le strade furo
chiuse, li massari de la terre non portavano grano, ogni die nasceva nuovo
rumore." - "Vita di Cola di Rienzi", lib. i. cap. 37.) A handful of
banditti enter the city - Rienzi proposes to resist them - the People
desert - he abdicates. Rapine, Famine, Massacre, ensue - they who deserted
regret, repent - yet he is still unassisted, alone - now an exile, now a
prisoner, his own genius saves him from every peril, and restores him to
greatness. He returns, the Pope's Legate refuses him arms - the People
refuse him money. He re-establishes law and order, expels the tyrants,
renounces his former faults (this, the second period of his power, has been
represented by Gibbon and others as that of his principal faults, and he is
evidently at this time no favourite with his contemporaneous biographer;
but looking to what he did, we find amazing dexterity, prudence, and energy
in the most difficult crisis, and none of his earlier faults. It is true,
that he does not shew the same brilliant extravagance which, I suspect,
dazzled his contemporaries, more than his sounder qualities; but we find
that in a few weeks he had conquered all his powerful enemies - that his
eloquence was as great as ever - his promptitude greater - his diligence
indefatigable - his foresight unslumbering. "He alone," says the
biographer, "carried on the affairs of Rome, but his officials were
slothful and cold." This too, tortured by a painful disease - already -
though yet young - broken and infirm. The only charges against him, as
Senator, were the deaths of Montreal and Pandulfo di Guido, the imposition
of the gabelle, and the renunciation of his former habits of rigid
abstinence, for indulgence in wine and feasting. Of the first charges, the
reader has already been enabled to form a judgment. To the last, alas! the
reader must extend indulgence, and for it he may find excuse. We must
compassionate even more than condemn the man to whom excitement has become
nature, and who resorts to the physical stimulus or the momentary Lethe,
when the mental exhilarations of hope, youth, and glory, begin to desert
him. His alleged intemperance, however, which the Romans (a peculiarly
sober people) might perhaps exaggerate, and for which he gave the excuse of
a thirst produced by disease contracted in the dungeon of Avignon -
evidently and confessedly did not in the least diminish his attention to
business, which, according to his biographer, was at that time greater than
ever.) - is prudent, wary, provident - reigns a few weeks - taxes the
People, in support of the People, and is torn to pieces! One day of the
rule that followed is sufficient to vindicate his reign and avenge his
memory - and for centuries afterwards, whenever that wretched and
degenerate populace dreamed of glory or sighed for justice, they recalled
the bright vision of their own victim, and deplored the fate of Cola di
Rienzi. That he was not a tyrant is clear in this - when he was dead, he
was bitterly regretted. The People never regret a tyrant! From the
unpopularity that springs from other faults there is often a re-action; but
there is no re-action in the populace towards their betrayor or oppressor.
A thousand biographies cannot decide upon the faults or merits of a ruler
like the one fact, whether he is beloved or hated ten years after he is
dead. But if the ruler has been murdered by the People, and is then
regretted by them, their repentance is his acquittal.
I have said that the moral of the Tribune's life, and of this fiction, is
not the stale and unprofitable moral that warns the ambition of an
individual: - More vast, more solemn, and more useful, it addresses itself
to nations. If I judge not erringly, it proclaims that, to be great and
free, a People must trust not to individuals but themselves - that there is
no sudden leap from servitude to liberty - that it is to institutions, not
to men, for they must look for reforms that last beyond the hour - that
their own passions are the real despots they should subdue, their own
reason the true regenerator of abuses. With a calm and a noble people, the
individual ambition of a citizen can never effect evil: - to be impatient
of chains, is not to be worthy of freedom - to murder a magistrate is not
to ameliorate the laws. (Rienzi was murdered because the Romans had been
in the habit of murdering whenever they were displeased. They had, very
shortly before, stoned one magistrate, and torn to pieces another. By the
same causes and the same career a People may be made to resemble the bravo
whose hand wanders to his knife at the smallest affront, and if today he
poniards the enemy who assaults him, tomorrow he strikes the friend who
would restrain.) The People write their own condemnation whenever they use
characters of blood; and theirs alone the madness and the crime, if they
crown a tyrant or butcher a victim.
