Collected Works of Rafael Sabatini

by Rafael Sabatini

  “He was wounded at the third hour of night near the palace of the Duke of Valentinois, his brotherin-law, and the prince ran to the Pope, saying that he had been wounded and that he knew by whom; and his wife Lucrezia, the Pope’s daughter, who was in the room, fell into anguish. He was ill for thirty-three days, and his wife and sister, who is the wife of the Prince of Squillace, another son of the Pope’s, were with him and cooked for him in a saucepan for fear of his being poisoned, as the Duke of Valentinois so hated him. And the Pope had him guarded by sixteen men for fear that the duke should kill him. And when the Pope went to visit him Valentinois did not accompany him, save on one occasion, when he said that what had not been done at breakfast might be done at supper.... On August 17 he [Valentinois] entered the room where the prince was already risen from his bed, and, driving out the wife and sister, called in his man, named Michieli, and had the prince strangled; and that night he was buried.”

  Now the following points must arise to shake the student’s confidence

  in this narrative, and in Capello as an authority upon any of the other

  matters that he relates:

  (i) “He was wounded near the palace of the Duke of Valentinois.” This

  looks exceedingly like an attempt to pile up evidence against Cesare,

  and shows a disposition to resort to the invention of it. Whatever may

  not have been known about Alfonso’s death, it was known by everybody

  that he was wounded on the steps of St. Peter’s, and Capello himself,

  in his dispatches, had said so at the time. A suspicion that Capello’s

  whole relation is to serve the purpose of heaping odium upon Cesare at

  once arises and receives confirmation when we consider that, as we have

  already said, it is in this same relation that the fiction about Pedro

  Caldes finds place and that the guilt of the murder of the Duke of

  Gandia is definitely fixed upon Cesare.

  (ii) “He ran to the Pope [‘Corse dal Papa’] saying that he had been

  wounded, and that he knew by whom.” A man with a wound in his head

  which endangered his life for over a week would hardly be conscious on

  receiving it, nor is it to be supposed that, had he been conscious, his

  assailants would have departed. It cannot be doubted that they left him

  for dead. He was carried into the palace, and we know, from Burchard,

  that the Cardinal of Capua gave him absolution in articulo mortis, which

  abundantly shows his condition. It is unthinkable that he should have

  been able to “run to the Pope,” doubtful that he should have been able

  to speak; and, if he did, who was it reported his words to the Venetian

  ambassador? Capello wisely refrains from saying.

  (iii) Lucrezia and Sancia attempt to protect him from poison by

  cooking his food in his room. This is quite incredible. Even admitting

  the readiness to do so on the part of these princesses, where was the

  need, considering the presence of the doctor — admitted by Capello — sent

  from Naples and his hunchback assistant?

  (iv) “The Pope had him guarded by sixteen men for fear the duke should

  kill him.” Yet when, according to Capello, the duke comes on his

  murderous errand, attended only by Michieli (who has been generally

  assumed by writers to have been Don Michele da Corella, one of Cesare’s

  captains), where were these sixteen guards? Capello mentions the

  dismissal only of Lucrezia and Sancia.

  (v) “Valentinois...said that what had not been done at breakfast might

  be done at supper.” It will be observed that Capello never once

  considers it necessary to give his authorities for anything that he

  states. It becomes, perhaps, more particularly noteworthy than usual in

  the case of this reported speech of Cesare’s. He omits to say to whom

  Cesare addressed those sinister words, and who reported them to him.

  The statement is hardly one to be accepted without that very necessary

  mention of authorities, nor can we conceive Capello omitting them had he

  possessed them.

  It will be seen that it is scarcely necessary to go outside of Capello’s own relation for the purpose of traversing the statements contained in it, so far as the death of Alfonso of Aragon is concerned.

  It is, however, still to be considered that, if Alfonso knew who had attempted his life — as Capello states that he told the Pope — and knew that he was in hourly danger of death from Valentinois, it may surely be taken for granted that he would have imparted the information to the Neapolitan doctor sent him by his uncle, who must have had his confidence.

  We know that, after the prince’s death, the physician and his hunchback assistant were arrested, but subsequently released. They returned to Naples, and in Naples, if not elsewhere, the truth must have been known — definite and authentic facts from the lips of eye-witnesses, not mere matters of rumour, as was the case in Rome. It is to Neapolitan writings, then, that we must turn for the truth of this affair; and yet from Naples all that we find is a rumour — the echo of the Roman rumour— “They say,” writes the Venetian ambassador at the Court of King Federigo, “that he was killed by the Pope’s son.”

  A more mischievous document than Capello’s Relazione can seldom have found its way into the pages of history; it is the prime source of several of the unsubstantiated accusations against Cesare Borgia upon which subsequent writers have drawn — accepting without criticism — and from which they have formed their conclusions as to the duke’s character. Even in our own times we find the learned Gregorovius following Capello’s relation step by step, and dealing out this matter of the murder of the Duke of Biselli in his own paraphrases, as so much substantiated, unquestionable fact. We find in his Lucrezia Borgia the following statement: “The affair was no longer a mystery. Cesare himself publicly declared that he had killed the duke because his life had been attempted by the latter.”

  To say that Cesare “publicly declared that he had killed the duke” is to say a very daring thing, and is dangerously to improve upon Capello. If it is true that Cesare made this public declaration how does it happen that no one but Capello heard him? for in all other documents there is no more than offered us a rumour of how Alfonso died. Surely it is to be supposed that, had Cesare made any such declaration, the letters from the ambassadors would have rung with it. Yet they will offer you nothing but statements of what is being rumoured!

  Nor does Gregorovius confine himself to that in his sedulous following of Capello’s Relation. He serves up out of Capello the lying story of the murder of Pedro Caldes. “What,” he says of Cesare, to support his view that Cesare murdered Alfonso of Aragon, “could be beyond this terrible man who had poignarded the Spaniard Pedro Caldes...under the Pope’s very cloak, so that his blood spurted up into the Pope’s face?” This in his History of Rome. In his Lucrezia Borgia he almost improves upon it when he says that “The Venetian ambassador, Paolo Capello, reports how Cesare Borgia stabbed the chamberlain Perotto, etc., but Burchard makes no mention of the fact.” Of the fact of the stabbing, Burchard certainly makes no mention; but he does mention that the man was accidentally drowned, as has been considered. It is again — and more flagrantly than ever — a case of proving Cesare guilty of a crime of which there is no conclusive evidence by charging him with another, which — in this instance — there is actually evidence that he did not commit.

  But this is by the way.

  Burchard’s entries in his diary relating to the assault upon Alfonso of Aragon can no more escape the criticism of the thoughtful than can Capello’s relation. His forty horsemen, for instance, need explaining. Apart from the fact that this employment of forty horsemen would be an altogether amazing and incredible
way to set about the murder of a single man, it is to be considered that such a troop, drawn up in the square before St. Peter’s, must of necessity have attracted some attention. It was the first hour of the night, remember — according to Burchard — that is to say, at dusk. Presumably, too, those horsemen were waiting when the prince arrived. How then, did he — and why was he allowed — to pass them, only to be assailed in ascending the steps? Burchard, presumably, did not himself see these horsemen; certainly he cannot have seen them escorting the murderers to the Pertusa Gate. Therefore he must have had the matter reported to him. Naturally enough, had the horsemen existed, they must have been seen. How, then, does it happen that Capello did not hear of them? nor the Florentine ambassador, who says that the murderers were four, nor any one else apparently?

  To turn for a moment to the Florentine ambassador’s letters upon the subject, we find in this other Capello — Francesco Capello was his name — accounts which differ alike from Paolo Capello’s and from Burchard’ stories. But he is careful to say that he is simply repeating the rumours that are abroad, and cites several different versions that are current, adding that the truth of the affair is not known to anybody. His conclusions, however, particularly those given in cipher, point to Cesare Borgia as the perpetrator of the deed, and hint at some such motive of retaliation for an attempt upon his own life as that which is given by the ambassador of Venice.

  There is much mystery in the matter, despite Gregorovius’s assertion to the contrary — mystery which mere assertion will not dissipate. This conclusion, however, it is fair to draw: if, on Capello’s evidence, we are to accept it that Cesare Borgia is responsible for the death of Alfonso of Aragon, then, on the same evidence, we must accept the motive as well as the deed. We must accept as equally exact his thrice-repeated statement in letters to the Senate that the prince had planned Cesare’s death by posting crossbow-men to shoot him.(1)

  1 It is extremely significant that Capello’s Relazione contains no

  mention of Alfonso’s plot against Cesare’s life, a matter which, as we

  have seen, had figured so repeatedly in that ambassador’s dispatches

  from Rome at the time of the event. This omission is yet another proof

  of the malicious spirit by which the “relation” was inspired. The

  suppression of anything that might justify a deed attributed to Cesare

  reveals how much defamation and detraction were the aims of this

  Venetian.

  Either we must accept all, or we must reject all, that Capello tells us. If we reject all, then we are left utterly without information as to how Alfonso of Aragon died. If we accept all, then we find that it was as a measure of retaliation that Cesare compassed the death of his brother-in-law, which made it not a murder, but a private execution — justifiable under the circumstances of the provocation received and as the adjustment of these affairs was understood in the Cinquecento.

  CHAPTER VI. RIMINI AND PESARO

  In the autumn of 1500, fretting to take the field again, Cesare was occupied in raising and equipping an army — an occupation which received an added stimulus when, towards the end of August, Louis de Villeneuve, the French ambassador, arrived in Rome with the articles of agreement setting forth the terms upon which Louis XII was prepared further to assist Cesare in the resumption of his campaign. In these it was stipulated that, in return for such assistance, Cesare should engage himself, on his side, to aid the King of France in the conquest of Naples when the time for that expedition should be ripe. Further, Loius XII was induced to make representations to Venice to the end that the Republic should remove her protection from the Manfredi of Faenza and the Malatesta of Rimini.

  Venice being at the time in trouble with the Turk, and more anxious than ever to conciliate France and the Pope, was compelled to swallow her reluctance and submit with the best grace she could assume. Accordingly she dispatched her ambassadors to Rome to convey her obedience to the Pope’s Holiness, and formally to communicate the news that she withdrew her protection from the proscribed fiefs.

  Later in the year — in the month of October — the Senate was to confer upon Cesare Borgia the highest honour in her gift, the honour of which the Venetians were jealous above all else — the honour of Venetian citizenship, inscribing his name in the Golden Book, bestowing upon him a palace in Venice and conferring the other marks of distinction usual to the occasion. One is tempted to ask, Was it in consequence of Paolo Capello’s lurid Relation that the proud Republic considered him qualified for such an honour?

  To return, however, to the matter of the Republic’s removal of her shield from Rimini and Faenza, Alexander received the news of this with open joy and celebrated it with festivities in the Vatican, whilst from being angry with Venice and from declaring that the Republic need never again look to him for favour, he now veered round completely and assured the Venetian envoys, in a burst of gratitude, that he esteemed no Power in the world so highly. Cesare joined in his father’s expressions of gratitude and appreciation, and promised that Alexander should be succeeded in St. Peter’s Chair by such a Pope as should be pleasing to Venice, and that, if the cardinals but remained united, the Pontificate should go to none but a Venetian.

  Thus did Cesare, sincerely or otherwise, attempt to lessen the Republic’s chagrin to see him ride lance-on-thigh as conqueror into the dominions which she so long had coveted.

  France once more placed Yves d’Allègre at Cesare’s disposal, and with him went six hundred lances and six hundred Swiss foot. These swelled the forces which already Cesare had assembled into an army some ten thousand strong. The artillery was under the command of Vitellozzo Vitelli, whilst Bartolomeo da Capranica was appointed camp-master. Cesare’s banner was joined by a condotta under Paolo Orsini — besides whom there were several Roman gentlemen in the duke’s following, including most of those who had formed his guard of honour on the occasion of his visit to France, and who had since then continued to follow his fortunes. Achille Tiberti came to Rome with a condotta which he had levied in the Romagna of young men who had been moved by Cesare’s spreading fame to place their swords at his disposal. A member of the exiled Malvezzi family of Bologna headed a little troop of fellow-exiles which came to take service with the duke, whilst at Perugia a strong body of foot awaited him under Gianpaolo Baglioni.

  In addition to these condotte, numerous were the adventurers who came to offer Cesare their swords; indeed he must have possessed much of that personal magnetism which is the prime equipment of every born leader, for he stirred men to the point of wild enthusiasm in those days, and inspired other than warriors to bear arms for him. We see men of letters, such as Justolo, Calmeta, Sperulo, and others throwing down their quills to snatch up swords and follow him. Painters, and sculptors, too, are to be seen abandoning the ideals of art to pursue the ugly realities of war in this young condottiero’s train. Among these artists, bulks the great Pietro Torrigiani. The astounding pen of his brother-sculptor, Benvenuto Cellini, has left us a sharp portrait of this man, in which he speaks of his personal beauty and tells us that he had more the air of a great soldier than a sculptor (which must have been, we fancy, Cellini’s own case). Torrigiani lives in history chiefly for two pieces of work widely dissimilar in character — the erection of the tomb of Henry VII of England, and the breaking of the nose of Michelangelo Buonarroti in the course of a quarrel which he had with him in Florence when they were fellow-students under Masaccio. Of nothing that he ever did in life was he so proud — as we may gather from Cellini — as of having disfigured Michelangelo, and in that sentiment the naïve spirit of his age again peeps forth.

  We shall also see Leonardo da Vinci joining the duke’s army as engineer — but that not until some months later.

  Meanwhile his forces grew daily in Rome, and his time was consumed in organizing, equipping, and drilling these, to bring about that perfect unity for which his army was to be conspicuous in spite of the variety of French, Italian
, Spanish, and Swiss elements of which it was composed. So effectively were his troops armed and so excellent was the discipline prevailing among them, that their like had probably never before been seen in the peninsula, and they were to excite — as much else of Cesare’s work — the wonder and admiration of that great critic Macchiavelli.

  So much, however, was not to be achieved without money, and still more would be needed for the campaign ahead. For this the Church provided. Never had the coffers of the Holy See been fuller than at this moment. Additional funds accrued from what is almost universally spoken of as “the sale of twelve cardinals’ hats.”

  In that year — in September — twelve new cardinals were appointed, and upon each of those was levied, as a tax, a tithe of the first year’s revenues of the benefices upon which they entered. The only justifiable exception that can be taken to this lies in the number of cardinals elected at one time, which lends colour to the assumption that the sole aim of that election was to raise additional funds for Cesare’s campaign. Probably it was also Alexander’s aim further to strengthen his power with the Sacred College, so that he could depend upon a majority to ensure his will in all matters. But we are at the moment concerned with the matter of the levied tax.

  It has been dubbed “an atrocious act of simony;” but the reasoning that so construes it is none so clear. The cardinals’ hats carried with them vast benefices. These benefices were the property of the Church; they were in the gift and bestowal of the Pope, and in the bestowing of them the Pope levied a proportionate tax. Setting aside the argument that this tax was not an invention of Alexander’s, does such a proceeding really amount to a “sale” of benefices? A sale presupposes bargaining, a making of terms between two parties, an adjusting of a price to be paid. There is evidence of no such marketing of these benefices; indeed one cardinal, vowed to poverty, received his hat without the imposition of a tax, another was Cesare’s brother-in-law, Amanieu d’Albret, who had been promised the hat a year ago. It is further to be borne in mind that, four months earlier, the Pope had levied a similar decima, or tax, upon the entire College of Cardinals and every official in the service of the Holy See, for the purposes of the expedition against the Muslim, who was in arms against Christianity. Naturally that tax was not popular with luxurious, self-seeking, cinquecento prelates, who in the main cared entirely for their own prosperity and not at all for that of Christianity, and you may realize how, by levying it, Alexander laid himself open to harsh criticism.