[1] Fam., xiii., 6. This letter was probably written in 1352.
[2] This refers to an account of the refusal to grant Petrarch a papal secretaryship because of his too elegant Latin. See above, p. [118].
[3] The Latin—Nam et ego totus in motu, et multa circumstrepunt, simulque hic et alibi, atque ita nusquam, sum—forcibly expresses what is often supposed to be a quite modern experience.
[4] I.e. Avignon.
[5] Namely, by Emperor Charles IV. and Pope Clement VI. Cf. Papencordt, Rienzi, 254, n. 1.
[6] In the portion of the letter here omitted Petrarch laments Rienzo's inconstancy and want of insight, and dwells upon the fact that he is accused not of having deserted a noble cause but of having dared to contemplate a free republic. The same sentiments are expressed in the letter which follows this.
[7] Howes' version of Sat., i., 4, 42.
[8] The letter closes with a last illustration of the prevailing ignorance. A highly talented and well-educated man (vir litterarum multarum et excelsi ingenii) of Avignon gravely asked Petrarch if a certain person, who could make a public speech and write a letter with some ease, might not properly be called a poet.
The treatment of Rienzo by the papal officials at Avignon seemed to Petrarch an insult to the Roman people; and he determined, shortly after the prisoner's arrival, to appeal to those who had once shared in the Tribune's fleeting glory. Petrarch's interest in the case may very well be ascribed, in part at least, to his former friendship for Rienzo; his letter is, however, chiefly important as illustrating his political ideas and his highly fantastic conception of the Roman Empire.