Appendix II.
A Word Upon the Work by Pere du Cerceau and Pere Brumoy, Entitled
"Conjuration de Nicolas Gabrini, Dit de Rienzi, Tyran de Rome."
Shortly after the Romance of "Rienzi" first appeared, a translation of the
biography compiled by Cerceau and Brumoy was published by Mr. Whittaker.
The translator, in a short and courteous advertisement, observes, "That it
has always been considered as a work of authority; and even Gibbon appears
to have relied on it without further research: (Here, however, he does
injustice to Gibbon.)...that, "as a record of facts, therefore, the work
will, it is presumed, be acceptable to the public." The translator has
fulfilled his duty with accuracy, elegance, and spirit, - and he must
forgive me, if, in justice to History and Rienzi, I point out a very few
from amongst a great many reasons, why the joint labour of the two worthy
Jesuits cannot be considered either a work of authority, or a record of
facts. The translator observes in his preface, "that the general outline
(of Du Cerceau's work) was probably furnished by an Italian life written by
a contemporary of Rienzi." The fact, however, is, that Du Cerceau's book
is little more than a wretched paraphrase of that very Italian life
mentioned by the translator, - full of blunders, from ignorance of the
peculiar and antiquated dialect in which the original is written, and of
assumptions by the Jesuit himself, which rest upon no authority whatever.
I will first shew, in support of this assertion, what the Italians
themselves think of the work of Fathers Brumoy and Du Cerceau. The Signor
Zefirino Re, who had proved himself singularly and minutely acquainted with
the history of that time, and whose notes to the "Life of Rienzi" are
characterized by acknowledged acuteness and research, thus describes the
manner in which the two Jesuits compounded this valuable "record of facts."
"Father Du Cerceau for his work made use of a French translation of the
life by the Italian contemporary printed in Bracciano, 1624, executed by
Father Sanadon, another Jesuit, from whom he received the MS. This proves
that Du Cerceau knew little of our 'volgar lingua' of the fourteenth
century. But the errors into which he has run shew, that even that little
was unknown to his guide, and still less to Father Brumoy, (however learned
and reputed the latter might be in French literature,) who, after the death
of Du Cerceau, supplied the deficiencies in the first pages of the author's
MS., which were, I know not how, lost; and in this part are found the more
striking errors in the work, which shall be noticed in the proper place; in
the meantime, one specimen will suffice. In the third chapter, book i.,
Cola, addressing the Romans, says, 'Che lo giubileo si approssima, che se
la gente, la quale verra al giubileo, li trova sproveduti di annona, le
pietre (per metatesi sta scritto le preite) ne porteranno da Roma per
rabbia di fame, e le pietre non basteranno a tanta moltitudine. Il
francese traduce. Le jubile approche, et vous n'avez ni provisions, ni
vivres; les etrangers...trouvent votre ville denue de tout. Ne comptez
point sur les secours des gens d'Eglise; ils sortiront de la ville, s'ils
n'y trouvent de quoi subsister: et d'ailleurs pourroient-ils suffire a la
multitude innombrable, que se trouvera dans vos murs?'" (The English
translator could not fail to adopt the Frenchman's ludicrous mistake.)
"Buon Dio!" exclaims the learned Zefirino, "Buon Dio! le pietre prese per
tanta gente di chiesa!" (See Preface to Zefirino Re's edition of the "Life
of Rienzi," page 9, note on Du Cerceau.)
Another blunder little less extraordinary occurs in Chapter vi., in which
the ordinances of Rienzi's Buono Stato are recited.
It is set forth as the third ordinance: - "Che nulla case di Roma sia data
per terra per alcuna cagione, ma vada in commune;" which simply means, that
the houses of delinquents should in no instance be razed, but added to the
community or confiscated. This law being intended partly to meet the
barbarous violences with which the excesses and quarrels of the Barons had
half dismantled Rome, and principally to repeal some old penal laws by
which the houses of a certain class of offenders might be destroyed; but
the French translator construes it, "Que nulle maison de Rome ne saroit
donnee en propre, pour quelque raison que ce put etre; mais que les revenus
en appartiendroient au public!" (The English translator makes this law
unintelligible: - "That no family of Rome shall appropriate to their own
use what they think fit, but that the revenues shall appertain to the
public"!!! - the revenues of what?)
But enough of the blunders arising from ignorance. - I must now be
permitted to set before the reader a few of the graver offences of wilful
assumption and preposterous invention.
When Rienzi condemned some of the Barons to death, the Pere thus writes; I
take the recent translation published by Mr. Whittaker: -
"The next day the Tribune, resolving more than ever to rid himself of his
prisoners, ordered tapestries of two colours, red and white, to be laid
over the place whereon he held his councils, and which he had made choice
of to be the theatre of this bloody tragedy, as the extraordinary tapestry
seemed to declare. He afterwards sent a cordelier to every one of the
prisoners to administer the sacraments, and then ordered the Capitol bell
to be tolled. At that fatal sound and the sight of the confessors, the
Lords no longer doubted of sentence of death being passed upon them. They
all confessed except the old Colonna, and many received the communion. In
the meanwhile the people, naturally prompt to attend, when their first
impetuosity had time to calm, could not without pity behold the dismal
preparations which were making. The sight of the bloody colour in the
tapestry shocked them. On this first impression they joined in opinion in
relation to so many illustrious heads now going to be sacrificed, and
lamented more their unhappy catastrophe, as no crime had been proved upon
them to render them worthy of such barbarous treatment. Above all, the
unfortunate Stephen Colonna, whose birth, age, and affable behaviour,
commanded respect, excited a particular compassion. An universal silence
and sorrow reigned among them. Those who were nearest Rienzi discovered an
alteration. They took the opportunity of imploring his mercy towards the
prisoners in terms the most affecting and moving."
Will it be believed, that in the original from which the Pere Du Cerceau
borrows or rather imagines this touching recital, there is not a single
syllable about the pity of the people, nor their shock at the bloody
colours of the tapestry, nor their particular compassion for the
unfortunate Stephen Colonna? - in fine, the People are not even mentioned
at all. All that is said is, "Some Roman citizens, (alcuni cittadini
Romani,) considering the judgment Rienzi was about to make, interposed with
soft and caressing words, and at last changed the opinion of the Tribune;"
all the rest is the pure fiction of the ingenious Frenchman! Again, Du
Cerceau, describing the appearance of the Barons at this fatal moment,
says, "Notwithstanding the grief and despair visible in their countenances,
they shewed a noble indignation, generally attendant on innocence in the
hour of death." What says the authority from which alone, except his own,
the good Father could take his account? Why, not a word about this noble
indignation, or this parade of innocence! The original says simply, that
"the Barons were so frozen with terror that they were unable to speak,"
(diventaso si gelati che non poteano favellare;) "that the greater part
humbled themselves," (e prese penitenza e comunione;) that when Rienzi
addressed them "all the Barons (come dannati) stood in sadness." (See
"Vita di Cola di Rienzi", lib. i. cap. 29.) Du Cerceau then proceeds to
state, that "although he (Rienzi) was grieved at heart to behold his
victims snatched from him, he endeavoured to make a merit of it in the eyes
of the People." There is not a word of this in the original!
So when Rienzi, on a latter occasion, placed the Prefect John di Vico in
prison, this Jesuit says, "To put a gloss upon this action before the eyes
of the people, Rienzi gave out that the Governor, John di Vico, keeping a
correspondence with the conspirators, came with no other view than to
betray the Romans." And if this scribbler, who pretends to have consulted
the Vatican MSS., had looked at the most ordinary authorities, he would
have seen that John di Vico did come with that view. (See for Di Vico's
secret correspondence with the Barons, La Cron. Bologn. page 406; and La
Cron. Est. page 444.)
Again, in the battle between the Barons and the Romans at the gates, Du
Cerceau thus describes the conduct of the Tribune: - "The Tribune, amidst
his troops, knew so little of what had passed, that seeing at a distance
one of his standards fall, he looked upon all as lost, and, casting up his
eyes to heaven full of despair, cried out, "O God, will you then forsake
me?' But no sooner was he informed of the entire defeat of his enemies,
than his dread and cowardice even turned to boldness and arrogance."
Now in the original all that is said of this is, "That it is true that the
standard of the Tribune fell - the Tribune astonished, (or if you please,
dismayed, sbigottio,) stood with his eyes raised to heaven, and could find
no other words than, "O God hast thou betrayed me?'" This evinced,
perhaps, alarm or consternation at the fall of his standard - a
consternation natural, not to a coward, but a fanatic, at such an event.
But not a word is said about Rienzi's cowardice in the action itself; it is
not stated when the accident happened - nothing bears out the implication
that the Tribune was remote from the contest, and knew little of what
passed. And if this ignorant Frenchman had consulted any other
contemporaneous historian whatever, he would have found it asserted by them
all, that the fight was conducted with great valour, both by the Roman
populace and their leader on the one side, and the Barons on the other. -
G. Vill. lib. xii. cap. 105; Cron. Sen. tom. xv. Murat. page 119; Cron.
Est. page 444. Yet Gibbon rests his own sarcasm on the Tribune's courage
solely on the baseless exaggeration of this Pere Du Cerceau.
So little, indeed, did this French pretender know of the history of the
time and place he treats of, that he imagines the Stephen Colonna who was
killed in the battle above-mentioned was the old Stephen Colonna, and is
very pathetic about his "venerable appearance," &c. This error, with
regard to a man so eminent as Stephen Colonna the elder, is inexcusable:
for, had the priest turned over the other pages of the very collection in
which he found the biography he deforms, he would have learned that old
Stephen Colonna was alive some time after that battle. - (Cron. Sen. Murat.
tom. xv. page 121.)
Again, just before Rienzi's expulsion from the office of Tribune, Du
Cerceau, translating in his headlong way the old biographer's account of
the causes of Rienzi's loss of popularity, says, "He shut himself up in his
palace, and his presence was known only by the rigorous punishments which
he caused his agents to inflict upon the innocent." Not a word of this in
the original!
Again, after the expulsion, Du Cerceau says, that the Barons seized upon
the "immense riches" he had amassed, - the words in the original are,
"grandi ornamenti," which are very different things from immense riches.
But the most remarkable sins of commission are in this person's account of
the second rise and fall of Rienzi under the title of Senator. Of this I
shall give but one instance: -
"The Senator, who perceived it, became only the more cruel. His jealousies
produced only fresh murders. In the continual dread he was in, that the
general discontent would terminate in some secret attempt upon his person,
he determined to intimidate the most enterprising, by sacrificing sometimes
one, sometimes another, and chiefly those whose riches rendered them the
more guilty in his eyes. Numbers were sent every day to the Capitol
prison. Happy were those who could get off with the confiscation of their
estates."
Of these grave charges there is not a syllable in the original! And so
much for the work of Pere Cerceau and Pere Brumoy, by virtue of which,
historians have written of the life and times of Rienzi, and upon the
figments of which, the most remarkable man in an age crowded with great
characters is judged by the general reader!
I must be pardoned for this criticism, which might not have been necessary,
had not the work to which it relates, in the English translation quoted
from, (a translation that has no faults but those of the French original,)
been actually received as an historical and indisputable authority, and
opposed with a triumphant air to some passages in my own narrative which
were literally taken from the authentic records of the time.
