birth, or during his pontificate. Whether thefe departments should have been kept more feparate than we find them in this work, may admit of a question, but if the present arrangement fuited the convenience of the author, we are not fo faftidious as to difregard the convenience of one who has merited fo amply a high rank among modern critics, efpecially in the article of Italian poetry. We may, however, be permitted to remark that, if his chief object was the revival of literature and the arts, and he must acknowledge that to have been the chief expectation on the part of the public, we cannot conceal our difappointment in finding that he has devoted fo large a portion of the work to the political hiftory of the times. Of twenty-four chapters into which it is divided, feven only are employed on the history of literature. Our objection to this great difproportion is, in the first place, that the political events of the times do not appear to us fo interefting as to demand the pains and attention (fometimes to a degree of minutenefs) which the writer has beftowed upon them: and, in the fecond place, even his elegant and inftructive pen has not been able fo to connect them' with the fate of Leo, as to render them accompaniments of, indifpenfable neceflity. On thefe accounts we found, or fancied, that the avidity with which we fat down to perufe this fecond great production of the author of Lorenzo, was but ill repaid, until we reached alinoff the clofe of the work; and fatigued with intrigues and petty contefts, were invited to contemplate the more rational and placid progrefs of taste

and science.

Mr. Roscoe commences with an account of the birth of Leo, or Giovanni di Medici, the intrigues by which his father procured him ecclefiaftical preferment at the age of feven, and a cardinal's hat at the age of thirteen; his edu cation and preceptors, and fketches of the cardinals his compeers. In his next chapter, he takes a review of the flate of literature at Rome and other parts of Italy at this period, including notices and criticifms on Pomponius Lætus, Gallimachus Experiens, Paolo Cortefe, Serafino D'Aquila, Giovanni Pontano, Sanazzaro, Cariteo, the two Strozzi, Boiardo, Ariofto, Cieco, Cofmico, Mantuano, Da Vinci, &c. &c. The juft tafte the author difplays in appreciating the merits of thefe writers, renders this chapter particularly valuable to thofe who are interested in the early hiftory of Italian poetry. Many of the names, indeed, are obfcure, and their works little known to pofterity, but to the general hiftorian of literature, nothing is unimportant which fills up a chafm in the progrefs of refinement.

But

But from these topics we are called away by the acceffion of Alexander VI. to the papal chair, and the remainder of the volume is occupied in the political hiftory of Italy, the expedition of Charles VIII. of France against the kingdom of Naples, and the fubfequent tumults and conquefts until the death of Alexander VI. This pope, our readers need. not be told, has been univerfally reprefented by all hiftorians, particularly by Guicciardini, as a difgrace not only to the papal chair, but to human nature. Mr. Rofcoe, however, feems inclined to think that his errors have been over-charged, and as this part forms a 'very ingenious apology for a character which public opinion has uniformly condemned, we fhall extract it, leaving it to our readers to determine how far the deductions made from common report are in favour of Mr. Rofcoe's client.

"Were we to place implicit confidence in the Italian histo rians, no period of fociety has exhibited a character of darker deformity than that of Alexander VI. Inordinate in his ambition, infatiable in his avarice and his luft, inexorable in his cruelty, and boundless in his rapacity: almost every crime that can difgrace humanity is attributed to him without hesitation, by writers whofe works are publifhed under the fanction of the Roman church. He is alfo accufed of having introduced into his territories the deteftable practice of fearching for ftate offences by means of fecret informers: a fyftem fatal to the liberty and happinefs of every country that has fubmitted to fuch a degra, dation. As a pontiff he perverted his high office, by making his fpiritual power on every occafion fubfervient to his temporal interefts and he might have adopted as his emblem, that of the ancient Jupiter, which exhibits the lightning in the grafp of a ferocious eagle. His vices as an individual, although not fo injurious to the world, are reprefented as yet more difgufting: and the records of his court afford repeated inftances of depravity of morals, inexcufable in any station, but abominable in one of his high rank and facred office. Yet with all thefe lamentable defects, juftice requires that two particulars in his favour fhould be noticed. In the first place, whatever have been his crimes, there can be no doubt but they have been highly overcharged. That he was devoted to the aggrandizement of his family, and that he employed the authority of his elevated ftation to establish a permanent dominion in Italy, in the perfon of his fon, cannot be doubted: but when almost all the fovereigns of Europe, were attempting to gratify their ambition by means equally criminal, it feems unjust to brand the character of Alexander with any peculiar and extraordinary share of infamy in this refpect. Whilft Louis of France and Ferdinand of Spain confpired together, to feize upon and divide the kingdom of

A a 3

Naples,

Naples, by an example of treachery that never can be fufficiently execrated, Alexander might furely think himfelf juftified in fuppreffing the turbulent barons, who had for ages rent the dominions of the church with inteftine wars, and in fubjugating the petty fovereigns of Romagna, over whom he had an acknowledged fupremacy, and who had in general acquired their dominions by means as unjustifiable as thofe which he adopted against them. With refpect to the accufation fo generally believed, of a criminal intercourfe between him and his own daughter, which has caufed him to be regarded with a peculiar degree of horror and difguft, it might not be difficult to fhew its improbability, and to invalidate an imputation which difgraces human nature itself.

In the fecond place it may justly be obferved, that the vices of Alexander were in fome degree counterbalanced by many great qualities, which, in the confideration of his character, ought not to be paffed over in filence. Nor, if this were not the fact, would it be poffible to account for the peculiar good fortune, which attended him to the latest period of his life, or for the fingular circumftance recorded of him, that, during his whole pontificate, no popular tumult ever endangered his authority, or difturbed his repofe. Even by his fevereft adverfaries, he is allowed to have been a man of an elevated genius, of a wonderful memory, eloquent, vigilant, and dexterous in the ma 'nagement of all his concerns. The proper fupply of the city of Rome with all the neceffaries of life, was an object of his unceafing attention: and, during his pontificate, his dominions were exempt from that famine, which devaftated the reft of Italy. In his diet he was peculiarly temperate, and he accuf 'tomed himself to but little fleep. In thofe hours which he devoted to amufement, he feemed wholly to forget the affairs of tate but he never fuffered thofe amufements to diminish the vigour of his faculties, which remained unimpaired to the last. Though not addicted to the study of literature, Alexander was munificent towards its profeffors: to whom he not only granted liberal falaries, but, with a punctuality very uncommon among the princes of that period, he took care that these falaries were duly paid. That he fometimes attended the reprefentations of the comedies of Plautus, has been placed in the black catalogue of his defects: but if his mind had been more humanized by the cultivation of polite letters, he might, inftead of being degrade d almost below humanity, have ftood high in the scale of pofitive excellence. To the encouragement of the arts, he paid a more particular attention. The palace of the Vatican was enlarged by him, and many of the apartments were ornamented with the works of the moft eminent painters of the time: among whom may be particularized Torrigiano, Baldaffare Peruzzi, and Bernardino Pinturicchio. As an architect, his chief favourites

were

were Giuliano and Antonio da San-Gallo: nor does his choice in this refpect detract from his judgment. By their affiftance, the mole of Hadrian, now called the caftle of S. Angelo, was fortified in the manner in which it yet remains. In one circumstance his encouragement of the arts is connected with a fingular inftance of profanenefs, which it is furprifing has not hitherto been enumerated among his many offences. In a picture painted for him by Pinturicchio, the beautiful Julia Farnefe is represented in the facred character of the Virgin, whilft Alexander himself appears in the fame picture, as fupreme pontiff, paying to her the tribute of his adoration." Vol. I. p. 332.

This apology for the character of Pope Alexander VI. is followed by a curious article of the fame kind, entitled "A Differtation on the Character of Lucretia Borgia," daughter of the above-mentioned pontiff. This woman has ever been confidered as one of the moft infamous upon record, and why Mr. Roscoe fhould be fo anxious to vindicate a person about whom he can know no more than is upon record, we cannot conjecture. Hiftorians indeed, have had their female favourites as well as lefs grave gallants, and much ink has been fhed in defence of their tender paffion for a queen Mary, or a queen Elizabeth. Such is not likely to be Mr. Rofcoe's cafe: with all the pains he has taken to wipe off afperfions from his Lucretia, we are perfuaded he will remain in undisturbed poffeffion of the lady, and that the furprife of his friends will be the only anfwer given to his challenge.

We have read this differtation with much attention and we pronounce it an elegant and maflerly piece of declamation, but we fee no evidence brought to induce us to change our opinion of the lady. The point Mr. Roscoe chiefly labours is to difprove Lucretia's inceft with her father and brothers. Of this he fays we have no direct proof, to which we reply, we have all the proof that hiftory can admit: nay, her advocate acknowledges that the crime is afferted by contemporary hiftorians, efpecially Guicciardini, and allowed. by Gibbon, whom he calls "the difcriminating Gibbon," and who had no fmall skill in removing the "land-marks of hiftory." Nor does Mr. Rofcoe bring any contemporary hiftorian who, after noticing the accufation, refutes it. he advances confifts of the panegyrics of poets and hiftorians who paid their court to Lucretia in her latter days, when duchefs of Ferrara. Can we then affert, in confequence of fuch evidence to character" againft pofitive affirmation, that "the charges against Lucretia Borgia appear to be wholly

66

A a 4

unfup

unfupportable either by proof or probability?" Even granting for a moment that we have no proof, Mr. Roscoe himfelf affords reafon to think that a very high degree of probability remains. We appeal only to one teftimony which he admits, the evidence of Burchard to thofe abominable fcenes of lewdnefs which were tranfacted within the walls of the apoftolic palace, and which he feems to blame Burchard for recording with indifference. The nature of these fcenes is explained in a Latin note, p. 11. which we cannot translate, but which will amply juftify us in afferting that the circumftance of a father and daughter witneffing fuch fcenes affords the strongest probability that their paffions were accustomed to the worst fpecies of gratifications. It is, therefore, of very little confequence that Burchard does not give what Mr. R. feems to demand, a fpecific evidence of the fact in queftion, fince he clearly proves by this one tranfaction, a degree of criminal indulgence in a parent and child, examples of which can only be found among the moft depraved of human beings.

With refpect to the other accufations brought against this lady, Mr. R. afks, if fuch and fuch crimes had been committed, would fhe have been received into fuch and such connexions? The ftate of fociety at that diffolute period may be a fufficient anfwer, but this mode of interrogation furely is more declamatory than logical. We may ask in our turn, if Lucretia were modeft, chafte, pious, beautiful, accomplished, &c. &c. whence could arife the hoftility of the graveft contemporaries and hiftorians? where could a character of fuch excellence find an enemy? And if we admit fome part of the charges againft this lady, which Mr. Roscoe does, unlefs we miftake him, where are we to stop, at this diftance of time, and with what new helps fhall we determine our judgment?

But Mr. Rofcoe's attachment to this family does not end here: In Vol. 11. we have a laboured attempt to vindicate the well-known Cæfar Borgia, and by a fpecies of argument as illogical as the former. "If," fays this author, "we may confide in the narrative of Guicciardini, cruelty, rapine, injuftice and luft, are only particul r features in the compofition of this monfter: yet it is difficult to conceive, that a man fo totally unredeemed by a fingle virtue, fhould have been able to maintain himfelf at the head of a powerful army: to engage in fo eminent a degree the favour of the people conquered: to form alliances with the firft fovereigns of Europe: to deftroy or overturn the most powerful families of Italy:

and