Note 147 — CABINET OF BIOGRAPHY. (continued 7)

A discussion has arisen concerning the cause of Camoens' banishment. Fario y Sousa, who lived near the time of Camoens, (he was born in 1590,) says that Barreto took offence at this second satire, and adds with great candour and good feeling: "There is not anything reprehensible in all my master's actions, except his having written these satires, for in doing so he lost sight of prudence, independence, and the bearing of a cavalier; as not any of these qualities belong to a satirist. Barreto, likewise, who was a man possessing a great mind, did not appear to advantage in revenging himself so sternly upon a man of such abilities, and in treating him with such rigour." The late biographer Sousa resents this account. He says, "the satire was falsely attributed to Camoens, since no spark of his genius appears,—nor is he found either before, or after that time, indulging in that species of composition." Southey warmly takes Faria's part, (whom he names one of the most upright and high-minded men that ever ended his days in honourable poverty) and blames Camoens. Adamson is inclined to side with Sousa. We must remember that Barreto was a cruel, arbitrary, and extortionate man: and the sense Camoens evinces of his banishment, makes us willing to believe that he was supported by a lofty sense of innocence. He calls his banishment an unjust decree, in the Lusiad,—and in more energetic language in another poem, he wishes that the remembrance of his exile might, in punishment of those by whom it was obtained, be sculptured in rock or adamant.