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,