CRISTO RAUL.ORG |
POPE LEO X
CHAPTER IV.
The War of
Urbino. —Conspiracy of Cardinal Petrucci —The Great Creation of Cardinals, July
1, 1517.
The good terms on which Leo apparently
stood with the old friend of his family, Duke Francesco Maria of Urbino, at the
beginning of his pontificate, received a rude shock when Giuliano de' Medici
fell ill and his young nephew Lorenzo was given supreme command of the Papal
troops. The Duke of Urbino might reasonably have been affronted at being passed
over; but, on the other hand, his subsequent conduct could not have failed to
exasperate the Pope. Regardless of his oath of fealty, and in spite of
admonitions and threats. Francesco Maria, being already in secret communication
with France, delayed at the most critical moment to send the assistance he was
bound to give to the Papal troops. Moreover, after the victory of Francis I,
the Duke of Urbino did all in his power to stir up the French King against the
Pope. When, in spite of his machinations, Leo and Francis I made friends, such
fear seized the Duke that he placed his only son for safety in the fortress of
San Leo, and raised a body of troops.
The fate of the Duke had been decided at
Bologna. In vain did Francis I appeal for mercy on his behalf. The Pope
maintained, amicably but firmly, that, Francesco Maria having forgotten his
duty as feudatory, there could be no question of his pardon. Were he to be left
unpunished, every petty baron in the States of the Church would do the same
thing or worse. After this the King made no further attempt to save his friend.
The deposition of the Duke was a foregone conclusion; and it was furthermore
decided that his Duchy should be given to Lorenzo de' Medici. This last
development did not emanate from the Pope, but from the ambitious Alfonsina Orsini, who was determined at any cost to see a
princely crown on her son's head. Unfortunately, Leo did not this time have the
strength of mind to resist the wishes of his sister-in-law, which he had shown
when that ambitious woman had hoped to secure for Lorenzo the usurped
principality of Piombino. The Pope now agreed to the
proposal, though he did not conceal the fact that he yielded unwillingly. Once,
however, he had given his consent, nothing would move him. Even the
representations of his brother made no impression on him. In vain did Giuliano
remind him that, in the years of their exile, the Medici had always found
hospitality at the court of Urbino. Intercession was useless, and before Leo
had left Florence at the end of January, 15 16, proceedings had been begun against
the Duke of Urbino. On the 1st of March Francesco Maria was summoned to
Rome, under the severest penalties if he disobeyed. If he did not put in an
appearance under eighteen days, he would have to give an account of a number of
grievous misdeeds. A considerable array of accusations were raised against him.
These included his refusal to join Lorenzo de' Medici in his expedition against
the French, although he had received the necessary pay for his troops; his
understanding with the enemy; and his participation in the murder of Cardinal Alidosi, and other incidents in the pontificate of Julius II.
The accusation about the murder of Alidosi was
undeniably a mere pretext, because Francesco Maria had been fully acquitted of
all participation in it by Cardinal Giovanni de' Medici himself. The same thing
cannot, however, be said of the other counts. The refused fealty and the
understanding with France were offences which called for punishment from a
legal point of view. Nevertheless, the whole action of the Pope, especially
when we consider the hospitality shown by the Duke of Urbino to the exiled
Medici, has something repulsive about it. The impression left on the mind is
that he cared less that justice should take its course, than that the Duchy
should become available for his nephew.
Francesco Maria did not dream of obeying
the summons to Rome, and set his hopes on mollifying the Pope through a third
party. With this object he sent to Rome the noble Duchess Elisabetta Gonzaga,
the widow of his predecessor. But her prayers and tears were of no avail; Leo
was not to be moved, and the only point gained by her intercession was the
suspension of his citation to Rome, during her absence in the Eternal City. But
on the nth of March the document was printed and published. The Duke might have
profited by the intercession of Giuliano de' Medici, had he not been too
grievously ill to take any active measures. Therefore things took their course
in Rome. The time given to the Duke for his personal vindication expired
without his putting in an appearance. On the 14th of March, a Papal Bull was
published which declared that Francesco Maria, on account of his repeated
breaches of fealty, was deprived of all his possessions in the States of the
Church.
A few days later, on the 17th of March
1516, the consumptive Giuliano de Medici breathed his last at Fiesole, at the
age of thirty-seven. His widow Filiberta returned
shortly after to her sister Louisa, the mother of Francis I, taking back with
her her costly trousseau. Her brief marriage had been
childless. Not only did the Pope grieve for Giuliano, but he was mourned
sincerely throughout Florence; for, says Vettori, he
was a truly good man, without strength, but with no evil in him; he was,
however, too generous. In him Francesco Maria lost his most powerful
intercessor, and his last hope now rested in Francis I. The Duke had every hope
that the French King would at last take up his cause, for the friendship
between Francis and the Pope, which had seemed to be so firmly established, now
showed signs of waning. The advantages which the victor had wrung from the
defenceless Leo under the cloak of great friendship, had been so great that it
was impossible that the amicable footing of the contracting parties should
continue for long. To the Pope the dominion of the French in Milan was in
itself hateful ; but the loss of Parma and Piacenza never ceased from galling
him in an especial manner. Had Francis I acted as a wise statesman, he would
have avoided the mortification connected with the sequestration of those
cities. Leo X had, however, to put up for a while with what he could not
prevent. The other arrangement, no less unpalatable to the Holy See, which
related to the cession to the Duke of Ferrara of Modena and Reggio, was,
however, so worded, that it was easy for an adroit diplomatist like Leo X not
particular in the means he employed, to prevent its being carried out, on some
pretext or other. Francis learned to his dismay how little dependence could be
placed on the Pope, when, in March, 1516, Maximilian crossed the Alps and
declared war on the French and Venetians. In presence of this danger, the
French King, relying on the Pope’s promise at Bologna, asked for the assistance
of 500 men for the defence of Milan, or the alternative of payment for 3000
Swiss mercenaries. Leo, always in want of money, rejected the last alternative;
but the troops which he promised instead were raised so slowly that Francis
suspected a secret understanding between the Pope and the Emperor. His distrust
was considerably increased by the mission to Maximilian of Cardinal Bibbiena,
well known for his hatred of France, and by the liberation from prison of Marc
Antonio Colonna, who, with a body of troops raised in the States of the Church,
had hastened to help the Imperial party against the Venetians.
But Francis did the Pope a wrong. There is
no doubt at all that the appearance south of the Alps of the Emperor with a
considerable force, was an event not at all desired by Rome. The Pope knew how
dangerous to the States of the Church were his far-reaching projects. What is more,
he knew that not long before this, Maximilian had in no measured terms
threatened Egidio Canisio, who had been appointed on
an extraordinary mission to him, with a sweeping reform of the Curia. The
Pope’s position as regarded the campaign of Maximilian, was the more difficult
because he had to reckon with both parties, with each of whom he had made
engagements. In order to keep on the safe side he tried, as he had often done
before, to avoid taking any decided step until the fortune of war had declared
itself for either side. It was fear, and his inveterate habit of veering from
one side to the other, which governed his ambiguous course of action. He rejected
all offers made to him by the enemies of France, but would not throw in his lot
with Francis I; he neither dared recall Colonna nor send the desired help to
the French King. When the Emperor’s expedition met with reverses, Bibbiena was
directed to stay at Rubiera, on the plea of illness,
to watch the development of affairs. As these turned out very favourably to the
French, the Pope sent through Lorenzo one month’s payment for the Swiss
mercenaries, which had been asked for some time before. Francis took the money,
but, in spite of the Pope’s excuses and professions of friendship conveyed to
him by Canossa, remained in the very worst of humours. Ever since May he had
been in a frame of mind hostile to the Papacy, giving evidence of designs on
Naples, and of intervention about the Duke of Urbino. Consequently Leo, on his side, took up a less friendly attitude
towards France.
Francis was soon to feel the effect of this
in a variety of ways; especially in Switzerland, where the Papal Nuncios
ventured to promote the Anglo-Imperial machinations. The Pope forbade any open
union with the enemies of France, yet he held out the possibility of such a
measure as a threat. This was sufficient to decide Francis I to leave the Duke
of Urbino to his fate.
At first Francesco Maria contemplated
resistance; but as soon as he understood that Lorenzo de’ Medici was advancing
on Urbino on three sides, at the head of an army of combined Papal and
Florentine troops, he fled to Pesaro, and thence to Mantua, to his
father-in-law, Francesco Gonzaga, to whom he had already sent his family.
Urbino and Pesaro surrendered at once, and Sinigaglia offered very slight resistance. Before long the fortresses of Pesaro and Maiuolo fell also, and only the fortress of San Leo held
out. In a few days nearly the whole Duchy had succumbed. Leo received the news
of this on the 4th and 5th of June, 1516. Even if there were not wanting those
who celebrated the event in Rome with rejoicings, there were many who justly
reproached the Pope for his ingratitude towards the fallen dynasty. The excuses
which Leo alleged were the outrages which he had suffered at the hands of the
Duke, and the justice of the punishment inflicted on him as an unfaithful
vassal and a soldier who had detained troops for whom he had received pay.
Above all, the Pope pleaded the impossibility of retaining in his States so
unfaithful a feudatory, who was certain at the very first opportunity to have
dealings with his enemies. Even Francesco Vettori, by
no means a Papal partisan, is of opinion that Leo could not by any means have
left the Duke's offence unpunished. But, on the other hand, the severity shown
on the occasion by the Pope cannot be overlooked, for it was not in keeping
with his great position of Supreme Head of the Church. To most contemporaries
the conduct of Leo X seemed hard and unjust, and as though actuated solely by
regard for the private interests of the house of Medici as was proved by the
fact of the crown of the dispossessed prince being at once given to the nephew
of the Pope.
Leo X had scarcely recovered from a serious
illness, when he learned the course events had taken. On the 18th of August,
1516, Lorenzo was invested with the title of Duke of Urbino, the revenues of
which, including Pesaro and Sinigaglia, amounted then
to only 25,000 ducats. He was at the same time declared Lord of Pesaro. All the
Cardinals signed the deed of investiture except Domenico Grimani,
who left Rome in a state of indignation.
The conquest of Urbino aggravated the
already strained relations between Leo X and Francis I. The French King had
been quite as unwilling as the Emperor to see Francesco Maria driven out of his
Duchy. Francis I’s dearest wish was not only to prevent any increase of a the
Pope’s power, but rather to see it weakened; yet now he had to look on and see
Leo putting difficulties in the way which threatened the foreign policy of
France. The fact was that the Pope was trying to keep the Catholic King from
forming an alliance with France, while at the same time the Papal Nuncio was
seeking to prejudice Switzerland against the same country. Prospero and Muzio Colonna, as well as Girolamo Morone,
from whom an attempt against Milan might be feared, considered it safer to
remain on Papal territory. Francis went so far as to believe that Leo was mixed
up in the negotiations which were being carried on between the Emperor, England,
and Switzerland, with the object of seizing Milan. On this account he
endeavoured to regain the friendship of the Medici Pope. In August he sent a
force to help him against the corsairs of Tunis, who were molesting the coasts
of the States of the Church, and who, at the end of April, had almost captured
the Pope, while he was hunting near the mouth of the Tiber.
In other ways also the French King sought
to curry favour with the Pope. But Leo detested the dominion of the French in
Italy for itself, and still more bitterly resented having been compelled to
give up Parma and Piacenza. No attentions on the part of Francis I could
compensate for this. Thus the relations remained strained on both sides. Leo
would not accede to the expressed desire of the French King for the recall of Filonardi; and the French Ambassador made no secret of his
displeasure. “I know not”, said he in September, “what more the Pope will do.
He controls Florence and Siena, and now he has taken possession of Urbino. He
had better not think of Ferrara, for I have orders from my King to demand of
him the cession to the Duke of Reggio and Modena. This is not the right moment
to speak of Naples”. The Neapolitan question was just then occupying the minds
of the Ambassadors both of France and Spain, who had met at Noyon, where the
following agreement was come , to on the 13th of August, 1516. Francis I and
Charles V concluded a peace in perpetuity, and a treaty for the mutual
protection of their states against all comers. The French King renounced his
claims on Naples in favour of his one-year-old daughter, Louise, whom Charles
promised to marry as soon as she was twelve years old. Till the accomplishment
of the marriage, Charles undertook the annual payment of 100,000 crowns, and
after that the payment of half that sum until a child should be born of the
marriage. A further stipulation which concerned the kingdom of Navarre was left
so vague that it could easily be broken; Francis I wished to keep such a way
open whereby to escape from the pledges he had made, for his object in signing
this agreement was to prevent Charles from joining the anti-French coalition
proposed by England. But neither did Charles give his definite adherence to
that upon which his Dutch advisers at Noyon had agreed, when the only thing
they considered was peace at any price with France. A six weeks’ limit had been
allowed for the ratification, which Charles had extended by another month, so
as to find time in the interim to negotiate with England. Henry VIII, who
regarded the treaty of Noyon as a serious check, left no means untried to win
Charles over. This he succeeded in doing, for the Noyon articles were not
favourable to the King of Spain. In London, whither Cardinal Schinner went in
person, a new treaty, of decidedly anti-French tendency, was prepared on the
29th of October. The contracting parties were Henry VIII and the Emperor
Maximilian. The ostensible object of their alliance was the mutual protection
of their states, the furtherance of universal peace, and the promotion of a
general war against the Turks. They bound themselves in perpetuity to guarantee
the safety of their actual and future possessions. The treaty was presented for
approbation to Charles of Spain as well as to the Pope, who, through his
Nuncio, had declared himself to be neutral. As regards the Pope, the deed ran
thus: “Under the conviction that this treaty, being a guarantee of universal
peace and the promotion of war against the Turks, must have the consent of the
Holy Father, he is included in it as its head and as the participator in all
its benefits, if he sanctions the articles and puts them in force by a
contribution pro rata; and if, moreover, he pronounces the ban of
excommunication against any aggressor, without absolution, except with the
consent of all contracting parties. He must come to a decision and ratify these
terms within six months”.
But this agreement, which was to be
ratified within two months, remained only on paper. The Emperor Maximilian at
the Brussels Convention gave his adherence to the Noyon Treaty on the 3rd of
December, 1516, and promised to evacuate Verona, which he did in January of the
following year. The Swiss, who had been expressly invited to accede to the
London Convention, made a peace in perpetuity with France on the 29th of
November, 1516.
To all appearances the alliance between
Francis I and the Emperor was cemented in the spring of the following year. On
the 11th of March, at a conference held at Cambrai, a League was made between
Maximilian and the Kings of France and Spain. In May and July not only was this
treaty ratified, but some secret clauses were added, the object of which was
nothing less than the division of Northern and Central Italy into kingdoms, to
be made into Imperial fiefs—Venice, west of Vicenza, with Modena, Milan,
Mantua, Montferrat, Piedmont, Asti, and Genoa, were to constitute the kingdom
of Lombardy, and to belong to Francis I; the eastern part of Venice, with
Padua, Treviso, Florence, Pisa, Leghorn, and Siena were to form the Italian
kingdom, and to be given either to King Charles or his brother Ferdinand. There is no doubt whatever that by the
atrocious Treaty of Cambrai, Francis I had no object but to entrap the Emperor,
and reduce Venice as well as the Pope to a state of pliancy and servitude.
Probably no one knew better than the French
King how much depended on the attitude taken by the Pope. On the 17th of May,
Bulls from Rome were prepared which, in accordance with the agreement of
Bologna, permitted Francis I to raise a crusade-tithe in his kingdom, including
Brittany. But it was only in August, after the negotiations about the Concordat
were concluded, that these Bulls were issued, having been rewritten at the King’s
request. Francis returned thanks to the Pope in a letter to which he added a
couple of autograph lines. In this letter he announced the conclusion of the
Treaty of Noyon. Leo did not allow the anxiety he felt at the alliance between
the French King and the young Hapsburg to be perceived, and sent his good
wishes to Francis I. Going on to remind him of the covenant between them, he
professed his readiness to recall his Swiss Nuncio. On the 6th of September he
thanked the King for his letter, assured him of his good wishes, and for
everything else referred him to his Nuncio, Canossa.
The Nuncios in Switzerland were at the same
time admonished to behave in such a way that the French King could in no way
take exception. Soon after this, Francis I received a privilege in respect of
Milan, in accordance with which no consistorial benefice should be conferred on
anyone obnoxious to the Crown. The imminence of the Turkish peril gave Leo the
opportunity, in October, of once more appealing urgently for help in that
quarter. The King in return professed his zeal in the cause of a Crusade, though
it must be confessed that he expressed himself in a somewhat ambiguous manner.
This annoyed the Pope; all the more because Francis expressed suspicion that
the Pope was not acting honestly by him. On the top of this came the pressure
put on him by Francis to hand over Modena and Reggio to the Duke of Ferrara.
The report that Leo wished to make Lorenzo Duke of Romagna did not facilitate
an agreement. “The Pope”, declared the French Ambassador, “is making himself
the master of the whole of Italy, and we shall have to go back across the
mountains”. Friction was increased by the complaint raised by Francis I that
Schinner had gone, by the consent of the Pope, to London to conclude the treaty
of October. At the same time the French King urged the Pope, through the
Nuncio, to beware of Charles and Maximilian, who, said he, wished to combine to
rob the Holy See of its temporal power. This warning had the effect of making
Leo X formally disavow Cardinal Schinner. On the 19th there was sent to the
Swiss an exhortation to make peace, which had an influence on the ratification
of the arrangement of the 24th of November. On the 25th the Papal chamberlain
Latino Benassao was sent on an extraordinary mission
to France, as the Pope could not agree with the representative of Francis at
Rome. Gossip was rife as to the object of this mission; though it really
treated of the cementing of a closer friendship with France by the marriage of
Lorenzo. Although the money collected in his country for a Crusade was now, as
he had long desired, at the free disposal of the King, an agreement was as far
off as ever. At the end of December, Leo X complained to the Venetian
Ambassador that the French King suspected him of desiring the possession of
Ferrara, and that this was the reason why the agreement was delayed. The
Ambassador observed on this occasion how anxious the idea of the Treaty of
Cambrai made the Pope. On the top of this came disturbing news about the
Turks. Thus did the year 1516 come to a
close, full of grave anxiety for the Pope; the new year brought with it the
alarming tidings of a menace to the scarcely won Duchy of Urbino.
Francesco Maria had not remained inactive
during his exile at Mantua, and had been turning in every direction for help.
It was easy for him to gain the friendship of Federigo Gonzaga, Lord of Bozzoli, who was as jealous as he of
Lorenzo de' Medici; but what was more important was that he could count on the
assistance of the French viceroy of Milan, Odet de
Foix, Lord of Lautrec, who hated the Pope both as an Italian and as a priest.
One very favourable feature in the undertaking of Francesco Maria, was that
just then a number of Spanish and German soldiers had been thrown out of
employment by the peace, and were seeking everywhere for a fresh engagement. Five
thousand of these now declared themselves ready to follow the discrowned Duke
into his former Duchy, the inhabitants of which desired his return, being
dissatisfied with the rule of Lorenzo and his exorbitant taxation. Francesco
Maria left Mantua on the 16th of January with his small but enterprising army,
and marched on Urbino. It was a bold venture, for he had neither money,
ordnance, nor provisions of war; however, it was soon to be seen that fortune
favoured him.
The news of the rising in Urbino was to
Rome like a flash of lightning in a cloudless sky. At the time the Pope was
deeply engaged in discussing the Turkish question with the Cardinals, and did
not dream of such a thing as a menace to Urbino. All were taken completely by
surprise; and the Duke was in the Romagna before it was known that he had
moved. The Pope was quite unprepared for war, because, owing to his lavish
generosity, added to his bad management, money, the one thing necessary, was
wanting to him. The Papal officers were discontented, because they did not
receive sufficient pay; they were, moreover, deeply in debt, for all men
followed the Pope’s example in lavishness. Therefore the war had to be J
started with borrowed money— a doubtful proceeding for any prince.
From the first the Pope had no doubt
whatever that France and Venice had a hand in the Duke’s attempt. Neither of
them, said he, on the 26th of January, 1517, to the Venetian Ambassador, had
any reason to support Francesco Maria against him. Two days later, however, the
Ambassador of the Republic was able to give him the assurance that his
Government would not assist any enemy of the Pope. The French also loudly
protested their innocence, but the Pope believed them so little that he had no
hesitation in expressing his distrust of Francis I, even in the letters in
which he begged for the help of Germany and Spain. Even in a letter to Francis
himself he expressed his distrust of his intentions.
The Pope’s position was desperate, for,
thanks to his habitual tactics, he was in a state of dangerous isolation. Not
only Francis, but Maximilian also owed him a grudge. Still angry at what he
considered the too friendly terms of Leo with France in the spring of 1516, the
Emperor wrote a very bitter letter to the Pope on the 20th of February, 1517.
Internal difficulties were added to those from outside. The Romagna was
discontented with the bad government of the Papal representative, Florence was
in a state of disturbance, and the troops were clamouring for pay. To all this
was added the anxiety about the Cambrai Congress, to prevent which Nicholas von
Schonberg was sent at the beginning of January. “The union of the three
sovereigns”, said the Pope to the Venetian Ambassador, “portends the division
of Italy, to your injury and our own”.
Lorenzo de' Medici, who left Rome on the
18th of January, was given the supreme command of the Papal troops; being
inexperienced in warfare, the Pope sent with him as advisers Renzo Orsini,
Giulio Vitelli, and Guido Rangoni. The Pope appealed
on all sides for assistance. At Forli, Faenza, and Ravenna the troops were in
want of the necessaries of life.
On the 4th of February it was stated in
Rome that Francesco Maria had reoccupied Urbino. The news was premature, but on
the 8th of February there was no longer room to doubt the loss of the capital
of the Duchy. In spite of the Papal prohibition, Alfonso of Ferrara had given
Francesco Maria a free passage through his state, which greatly incensed the
Pope, who had just pronounced an interdict on the dispossessed Duke. An
Ambassador to whom we owe this adds these words : “There is no money; Leo is
displeased with Renzo Orsini, and Renzo with him; the Romans are rejoicing over
the bad turn affairs have taken”. The whole Duchy of Urbino, with the exception
of the fortress of San Leo, followed the example of the capital. Only the towns
of Pesaro, Sinigaglia, Gradara,
and Mondaino, which did not belong to the Duchy,
remained to Lorenzo. On the 26th of March, 1517, he was wounded at the siege of Mondolfo. He left the theatre of war, and remained at
a distance, even after his recovery, in spite of the express command to return
sent to him by the Pope. Cardinal Bibbiena, who was sent to the army, vainly
tried to reduce to order the quarrelsome mercenaries. The Pope was beside
himself; he dreaded the idea of a revolution, and it seemed to him a disgrace
for the Church that a “petty duke” could dare so much. His anxiety was
increased by the growing danger from the Turks, as well as by the Treaty of
Cambrai. He knew well that a partition of Italy was contemplated by the parties
to that treaty, and that Maximilian coveted Florence. But on the top of all
this there came an event which might have frightened a less timid man—namely,
the discovery of a plot of Cardinal Petrucci against the Pope’s life.
Alfonso Petrucci was one of those very
worldly princes of the Church, whose only desire was to accumulate riches and
indulge in the enjoyment of life. He and the younger Cardinals, after they had
secured the election of Leo X, put forward such exorbitant claims that the
granting of them was an impossibility. Even later in his pontificate,
impoverished as he was by his lavish generosity, the Pope was not in a position
to satisfy the countless demands of those who had elected him Pope. Additional
cause of discontent was given to these Cardinals (many of whom regarded
themselves as sharers in the Papal power) by the setting aside of the election
capitulation, by the severity of Leo X to Cardinal Sanseverino,
and by the unfortunate war in Urbino.
Alfonso Petrucci had, moreover, a special
cause of anger with the Pope. In March, 1516, his brother, Borghese Petrucci,
was, with the co-operation of Leo, banished from the government of Siena, being
replaced by the Castellan of St. Angelo, Raffaello Petrucci; it was in vain that at the last moment Cardinal Petrucci tried by
force of arms to put a stop to this revolution, which was gravely detrimental
to his interests. Henceforward, his only thought was how to take vengeance on
the “ungrateful Pope”. Consumed by an insane hatred, he meditated an attack on
Leo, either when he was out hunting, or at some other convenient opportunity,
when he intended to murder him with his own hand. It was the difficulty and
danger of such a deed, says Guicciardini, which kept him from carrying out the
project, rather than the scandal which would have filled all Christendom with
horror, had a Cardinal stained his hands with the Pope’s blood.
During the war of Urbino, Petrucci
bethought him of another plan for the attainment of his object. He planned a
conspiracy, which was to break out as soon as he had succeeded in getting rid
of the Pope by means of poison. To obtain this immediate end he bribed Battista
da Vercelli to help him in his crime. This man, a doctor of some renown, was to
come from Florence to Rome, ostensibly to treat the Pope for fistula, and was
then to take his opportunity of administering poison. The plot, however,
failed; for, however highly the skill of Battista might be recommended, the
Pope was unwilling to trust himself to the hands of a perfect stranger. But
this check did not make Petrucci relinquish his plan, though the unexpected
obstruction made the hot-headed young man neglect all caution. He wished—so he
was heard to declare—to become the liberator of the despised and enslaved
College of Cardinals, and to be instrumental in raising to the supreme
pontificate one of the older Cardinals, who would be grateful to his electors.
These rash words caused Petrucci to fall under suspicion. He therefore left
Rome, where he was not safe, and retired to a place belonging to the Colonna in
Latium, without first taking leave of the Pope. He conspired so openly with his
brother, who was living in Naples, that the Pope thought it best to write to
him with his own hand, in March, 1517, warning him against trying to stir up a
revolution in Siena; otherwise his action might be construed into a conspiracy
against the Pope himself. In spite of this very distinct warning, Petrucci
continued his machinations, and through Lattanzio Petrucci indulged in very doubtful dealings with Francesco Maria della Rovere. This added to the suspicion in which the
Cardinal was held, and still more did the frequent correspondence which he
carried on with his secretary and steward, Marc Antonio Nino, who had remained
in Rome. In these letters the subject was revived of calling in Battista da
Vercelli to attend to the Pope's open wound.
Petrucci was staying then at Genazzano, and while he was there Nino wrote to him in
cipher, saying that Battista was as ready as ever to serve him, and hoped to
gain access to His Holiness by means of Serapica and
Giulio de' Bianchi, two of the Pope's confidential attendants. In order not to
arouse suspicion, Battista did not think it wise to visit the Cardinal in
person, but would as to that do exactly what Petrucci wished. This letter was
intercepted, and led to the discovery of the plot.
Prompt and decisive measures were taken against
the offenders. Petrucci’s confidant, Marc Antonio Nino, was torture. But
nothing was made known publicly, and even the best-informed diplomatists knew
nothing more than that Cardinal Petrucci was gravely implicated by Nino’s
admissions. Some suspected that the offence under consideration was an attempt
against Siena; while others suspected an understanding with Francesco Maria della Rovere, with whom Borghese Petrucci was staying.
Battista da Vercelli’s movements in Florence were constantly watched. Cardinal
Petrucci was promised the restoration of his rights in Siena, on condition that
he came in person to Rome. The Cardinal hesitated to do this, though he had no
suspicion that his correspondence with Nino had been discovered. All his fear
was on account of his intrigues with Francesco Maria della Rovere. But so far as those intrigues were concerned, Leo gave him a free
safe-conduct, assuring the Spanish Ambassador at the same time that he would
keep his word. Therefore Petrucci came to Rome on the 1 8th of May. On the
following day, hardly had he, in the company of his intimate friend, Cardinal Sauli, entered the Pope’s antechamber, before both of them
were arrested and taken to the Castle of St. Angelo.
In a Consistory called without delay, the
Pope informed the Cardinals of what had occurred, and of the introduction of
proceedings against Petrucci and Sauli. It was at the
same time decided that the minutes of the trial should be submitted for
judgment to a special commission composed of Cardinals Remolino, Accolti and Farnese, and that the final sentence
should be pronounced by the Cardinals. On the same day special Briefs were sent
to the more important princes, telling them that Cardinals Petrucci and Sauli had been arrested on the charge of a secret
conspiracy against the life of the Pope, and that on account of this crime a
judicial process would be instituted against them.
In Rome this event, which gives us a deeper
insight than can anything else into the intense corruption of the highest
ecclesiastical body, caused a great sensation. The wildest rumours floated
about the city, and it was said that other Cardinals had also been
arrested. The excitement increased when it was seen that the Vatican was
closely guarded and that troops had been brought into Rome.
Among the Ambassadors who had been informed
of the proceedings, the representative of Spain openly protested against the
arrest of Petrucci. He had, said he, gone surety for him, and this was the same
thing as if the King had done so. But Leo X replied that even the most
comprehensive safe-conduct could be no protection for one who had intended to
take his sovereign’s life by poison, unless this horrible crime had been
expressly mentioned. As Petrucci's safe-conduct only referred to his dealings with
Francesco Maria della Rovere, the Spanish Ambassador
soon withdrew his protest. But even among the Cardinals there were several who
were indignant with the Pope for confining Petrucci and Sauli in the lowest dungeon of St. Angelo, which went by the name of “Marocco”. Leo tried to conceal his alarm, and insisted on
no one visiting the prisoners ; nevertheless, at the express request of the
College of Cardinals, he allowed a servant to each of them.
The management of the judicial process
against the prisoners was confided to the procurator-fiscal, Mario de Perusco, a native of Rome, and auditor to the Governor of
the city. In the first instance the inquiry was confined to proving whether the
murder of the Pope had been actually intended. Word was sent to Florence to
arrest Battista da Vercelli and bring him to Rome ; other suspected persons,
including a servant of Petrucci’s named Pocointesta,
were also arrested. All these were put to the torture, but whether the rack was
applied to the Cardinals is uncertain.
Another Consistory was called on the 29th
of May. At this was made known the report of Cardinals Remolino, Accolti, and Farnese, to whom had been confided the
supervision of the proceedings. The sentence of these was that the accused
Cardinals should be kept under arrest as long as they were not cleared of the
accusations brought against them. When the Cardinals were assembled in the
Vatican, Paris de Grassis says that Leo sent for
Cardinal Accolti. “He remained for over an hour in
the Pope’s room”, says the Master of Ceremonies. “As we could not understand
what such a long interview portended, I looked through the key-hole, and saw
that there was a military guard in the Pope’s room. I suspected at once that some thing terrible was about to occur, but I held my
tongue. As I saw Cardinals Riario and Farnese enter
the Pope’s room with cheerful countenances, I concluded that he had sent for
them, probably to consult with them about the nomination of new Cardinals,
about which he had been speaking some days before. Hardly, however, had
Cardinal Riario entered the room, than the Pope, who
usually walked about between two attendants, taking slow, steady steps, hurried
out of the room quite swiftly, and seemingly in a state of confusion, shutting
the door behind him, so that the Cardinal was left alone with the guard.
Astonished at this, and at his apparent haste, I asked the Pope what it meant,
and whether he was going into the Consistory without his stole. He then asked
for his stole. He was pale and very much excited, and in a harsh tone told me
to dismiss the Consistory. I obeyed, but had no doubt left that Cardinal Riario had been arrested”.
The reason of Riario’s arrest soon transpired. Petrucci and Sauli had
confessed that he was their fellow-conspirator. Like many others, Paris de Grassis would not believe this, and came to the conclusion
that Leo was allowing himself to be influenced by feelings of personal revenge
connected with the memory of the Pazzi conspiracy;
but this surmise of the Master of Ceremonies, who was always prepossessed in
favour of Riario, was not confirmed by after events.
On the 4th of June Riario,
who till that date had been detained in honourable captivity in the Vatican,
was transferred to the Castle of St. Angelo. When the un fortunate man was told
that this was to be done, he became paralysed with fear, and had to be carried
to his prison. As the reason for this measure, Leo X explained in Consistory
that Riario would confess nothing. But in the dark
dungeon of St. Angelo he soon made a full confession. Another Consistory was
held on the 8th of June: and then the Pope disclosed to the agitated assembly
that, by the admission of the incarcerated Cardinals, two other members of the
Sacred College, present at the Consistory at that moment, were involved in the
conspiracy. Bitterly did Leo complain that those from whom he could have least
suspected such a thing, those into whose hands he trusted his life, could be
guilty of such a crime. But however pained he might be by the ingratitude of
those whom he had loaded with honours and benefactions, he declared himself
willing to forgive them, after the example of Him whose place he filled on
earth, provided they would confess their misdeed and ask for pardon. But as, in
spite of what he said, not one came forward, the Cardinals in Consistory
decided that each of them in turn should go up to the Pope and make their
avowal into his private ear. When it came to the turn of Cardinal Soderini to do this, he tried to avoid the occasion of
avowing his guilt. This obstinacy incensed Leo X, and he told him to his face
that he was one of the two culprits. Had he confessed his guilt, the Pope went
on, his words would have been those of mercy, but now justice must take its
course. On hearing this, Soderini, as well as Adriano Castellesi, threw themselves at the feet of the Pope,
and confessing their complicity in the plot, implored his mercy. This was at
once granted. The Consistory, however, imposed a fine on each of 12,500 ducats,
and commanded the culprits to keep secret what had occurred. Nevertheless, the
rumour of what had taken place spread like wildfire throughout Rome, taking
many a distorted form as it went about. After the long and painful Consistory,
the Pope received the Ambassadors of Germany, France, England, Spain, Portugal,
and Venice, and informed them that the Cardinals who had been mixed up in the
affair had been, with the exception of Petrucci, Sauli and Riario, pardoned. When the English Ambassador
asked him if he would not pardon all, he replied : “Those Cardinals whose guilt
has since become known, we have pardoned; but against those who are now
confined in the Castle, proceedings will be carried out in due accordance with
the criminal law”.
On the 1 6th of June Petrucci's servant, Pocointesta, was hanged in the prison of Tordi Nona, on the charge of attempting to stir up a revolt
in Siena. At first an attempt was made to keep secret the alarming discoveries
that came to light in the course of the examination of the prisoners, and even
the best informed of the Ambassadors could learn nothing for certain. According
to a cipher report of the Ferrarese Ambassador written on the 10th of June,
there was a rumour that either Farnese or Paris de Grassis was equally guilty. It was only on the 18th of June that it was learned that
the later accusations were limited to Soderini and
Adriano Castelles. These last were indeed allowed to
remain free, but, as mentioned already, each had to pay 12,500 ducats as the
price of his liberty. When, however, this fine was doubled, they feared that
they would no longer be safe in Rome. In the night of the 20th of June, Soderini sought refuge with the Colonna at Palestrina,
while at the same time Cardinal Adriano Castellesi,
who was by nature very timid, fled disguised to Tivoli, passing thence, as was
reported, to Naples.
Meanwhile the greatest anxiety was felt by
their friends concerning the incarcerated Cardinals, for the trial dragged on
week after week, and each day brought with it fresh surmises as to the result.
True to his nature, the Pope seemed for one moment inclined to allow justice to
give place to mercy. But Lorenzo de' Medici and his adherents urged that the
severest punishment should be inflicted, not only on the Cardinals, but on all
the other offenders. To gain this object Lorenzo arrived in Rome quite
unexpectedly on the 1 8th of June. Thirteen Cardinals present at that time in
the Curia were summoned to a Consistory on the 22nd of June. All those called
came, with the exception of Riario’s relative,
Leonardo Grosso della Rovere. In a long speech Leo X
informed the Cardinals of the result of the trial held on Petrucci, Sauli, and Riario. The accusation
was one of fourfold treason. First, as the Pope pointed out, was that of
binding themselves by oath, as Petrucci and Sauli had
done, during the lifetime of the lawful Supreme Pontiff, to make Riario Pope; to which arrangement Riario had consented. In order to remove Leo X and secure his death, Petrucci and Sauli had suborned Battista da Vercelli to poison the Pope,
under the pretext of treating him for fistula. In this plot also Riario was involved. Lastly, Petrucci as well as Sauli had held treasonable communication with Francesco
Maria della Rovere, and had thus incurred the
penalties imposed by the last Bull issued. Then the minutes of the process
instituted against the accused were read, as also were the confessions of the
imprisoned Cardinals. It had now to be decided whether the charge of
high-treason were proved, the penalty of such a crime being the loss of all
possessions as well as sentence of death. The Cardinals proceeded to put the
matter to the vote. All, with the exception of Grimani,
admitted that Petrucci, Sauli, and Riario were without doubt guilty of fourfold treason;
nevertheless, they begged the Pope to show mercy towards their brother
Cardinals. Then the fiscal-advocate, Justino de Carosis,
and after him the fiscalprocurator, Mario de Perusco, brought forward their motion, which was read by
Pietro Bembo. Their judgment was that all three of
the accused should be condemned to the loss of all their benefices and
possessions, then be degraded from their dignity of the cardinalate, and
finally handed over to the secular arm. At the conclusion of the Consistory the
Pope spoke about the flight of Adriano Castellesi,
which, he said, he had known about but would not prevent.
Only such well-weighed entries,
characterized by a truly diplomatic brevity and reserve, do we find in the ViceChancellor’s Consistorial Acts. But from other
impartial sources we learn that the Consistory was long and stormy. According
to the Venetian Ambassador it lasted for ten, and, according to Paris de Grassis, thirteen hours. It was not only the reading of the
minutes of the trial, filling several hundred pages, which took so much time;
but there were also loud and long discussions, of such a nature that those
outside could overhear the Pope disputing with the Cardinals, and they with one
another. There was one especially violent encounter of words between Leo X and
Cardinal Grimani.
The passing of the sentence took the Curia
by surprise. To many the clause which gave the offenders over to the secular
arm seemed too hard; for in this case it was equivalent to a sentence of death.
Nevertheless it was, according to the laws of that time, the usual sentence
passed on traitors, even when no attempt had been made by them against the life
of their sovereign.
On the 25th of June all the Ambassadors
then in Rome were invited to come before the Pope to hear the minutes of the
trial read. “This is what we understood”, reports the Venetian Ambassador, “by
the letters found on Petrucci’s secretary, the Cardinal’s schemes with Battista
da Vercelli for poisoning the Pope were discovered. Petrucci himself admitted
later that, in desperation at Siena being taken out of the hands of his family,
he desired to take the Pope’s life, and confided his plan to Cardinals Sauli and Riario”. To this the
Venetian Ambassador adds: “There is no doubt as to this; yet in conducting the
trial it was wrong that the accused should have been put into a position to
hear the testimony of others. When this was done in the case of Riario, who would not admit the truth of any of the
accusations against him, he said, on hearing the evidence of Petrucci and Sauli, that as they affirmed his connivance in the plot,
this statement must be retained in the minutes. Soderini affirmed that he had promised Riario the tiara."
Unfortunately this is all that the Ambassador says about the reading of the
minutes of the process, which took eight hours and a half. At the end of the
conference the Pope asked for Petrucci's red biretta, which was on the table in
front of him. “This”, said he, “is what
he staked. He was determined to go to all lengths”.
There is no doubt that Leo X believed in
the existence of a real conspiracy against his life. For some time he would not
venture to leave his well-guarded palace: and when at last, contrary to all
expectation, he attended Vespers in the Vatican Basilica on the vigil of SS.
Peter and Paul, he was surrounded by an armed guard; and all the streets round
St. Peter’s were held by troops. On the 27th of June Battista da Vercelli and
Marc Antonio Nino were hanged, drawn, and quartered. In accordance with the
horrible criminal custom of the day, they were both severely tortured on the
way to the place of execution, which was on this occasion the Piazza in front
of the bridge of St. Angelo. This barbarity was generally condemned.
The whole of Rome was waiting with anxiety
to learn the sentence passed on the incarcerated Cardinals. That Petrucci’s
fate was sealed was inferred by the division among others of his benefices; but
there seemed to be a prospect of pardon for the other two Cardinals. As,
unfortunately, the short epitome of the trial, given by the Venetian
Ambassador, is all that remains to us of the acts of the process, it is
difficult, and for the most part impossible, to form an estimate of the measure
of guilt or of the motives of each individual. There is, however, no doubt whatever
as to the existence of treasonable dealings with Francesco Maria della Rovere, or of the plot to poison Leo X.
There is no doubt that Petrucci was the
most guilty of the conspirators, and indeed the head of the whole plot; for
there is incontrovertible proof of his criminal machinations with Battista da
Vercelli. The sentence of death pronounced against him was carried out at once,
though the statements vary as to the mode of his execution, and whether he was
strangled or beheaded. There is also great uncertainty whether this young man,
twenty-seven years of age, who had cared for nothing but the frivolous
enjoyment of life, reconciled his soul to God before he died.
As regards Sauli, Riario, Soderini, and
Adriano Castellesi, there seems no doubt that they
gave ear more or less to Petrucci's criminal schemes, though how far each was
individually involved cannot be ascertained by the material at our disposal.
The historian Paolo Giovio, who is as a rule
well-informed, says as follows : “Even if those above named did not actually
confide the execution of the criminal scheme to the unstable and frivolous
Petrucci, there is no doubt that they incited him to it by their jests and
jibes. In their inmost hearts these men were devoured by hatred and ambition,
and wished that Petrucci might succeed in his project of removing the Pope,
either by open violence or by subtle poison”. From other sources also it seems
undeniable that at least Sauli and Riario had a more intimate knowledge of the murderous plot.
Their crime, therefore, consisted in not revealing, as they were bound to do,
the vengeful machinations of Petrucci, of which they were aware.
As to Adriano Castellesi,
he was unlike the others, and Giovio declares that he
did not wish for the Pope’s death from any feelings of hatred or ill-will, but
solely because his ambition led him to wish for the tiara for himself.
Ambition, as well as hatred of the Florentine who was so all-powerful in the
Curia, was an essential motive with Riario. Soderini could not forget the banishment from Florence of
his brother Pietro, although Leo X had at once invited him to Rome and had
restored to him his possessions. Next to Petrucci, there is no doubt, from the
incriminating character of the letters which were seized, that Sauli was very deeply involved. No satisfactory explanation
can be given why he allowed himself to be mixed up in the treasonable intrigue.
Few of the Cardinals had received so many benefits and favours from the Pope as
he. The black ingratitude with which Sauli repaid his
generosity pained the Pope deeply. “Even during the last three months”, said
Leo to the Venetian Ambassador, “we have conferred benefices on Sauli to the value of 6000 ducats”. In court circles the
opinion was held that it was these very marks of favour, and the Pope’s
partiality for Sauli, which had developed in him an
intolerable pride, and resentment because the Pope had given the see of
Marseilles to Giulio de' Medici instead of to himself.
Urgent appeals were sent in to the Pope
from many quarters on behalf of Sauli as well as of Riario. Genoa pleaded for Sauli,
as also did Cardinal Cibo, and, above all, the French
King. Many also interceded for Riario, among others
the Venetian Ambassador. His relatives wrote in his favour even to Henry VIII
of England. In his justification it was pleaded that his worst crime was
keeping back the incriminating confidences of Petrucci. It is, however,
undeniable that he had set his hopes on obtaining the tiara, and that his
confidential relations with Francesco Maria della Rovere had led him to join the mortal enemy of the Pope.
In spite of all this, there were special
reasons which induced the Pope to pardon and restore Riario.
There were, however, the strictest conditions laid down for his pardon. The
first of these was that he should expressly acknowledge that he had been
lawfully deposed, and that he owed his restoration solely to the mercy of His
Holiness. He had, moreover, to promise solemnly that he would be henceforward
the true servant of the Pope; that he would refrain from all hostility towards
him and his family, and have no dealings with any prince or Cardinal except
about his own private concerns. As a punishment he was to pay, in three
instalments, the enormous fine of 150,000 ducats. The first instalment of
50,000 ducats was to be advanced by Agostino Chigi,
and the necessary security must be offered either by bankers or friendly
officials of the Curia for the punctual payment at Christmas and Easter of the
remaining instalments. Furthermore, caution money of 1 50,000 ducats was
demanded for the observance of all matters connected with obedience and
fidelity, especially that which forbade him to ever leave his appointed
dwelling without the written permission of the Pope. As a further precaution,
the twelve Cardinals who had taken part in Riario’s deposition, as well as Cardinal Leonardo Grosso della Rovere, were bound to pledge themselves to see that Riario kept his promises; failing which he was to be regarded as deposed in perpetuity.
The same security was to be given by the Ambassadors of Germany, England,
France, Spain, Portugal, and Venice. Their security was to be ratified within
four months, and besides this they were to pledge themselves to make no further
appeals to the Pope in favour of Riario.
On the 17th of July, in the great hall of
St. Angelo, before the fiscal-procurator, Mario de Perusco, Riario promised to faithfully observe all these
conditions. On the 23rd, his nearest relatives promised to pay a fine of 75,000
ducats, should Riario leave the Vatican without the
express permission of the Pope. On the same day Agostino Chigi promised to pay the Pope 150,000 ducats on his behalf. On receiving this
promise, the Pope decreed thus in a Consistory held on July the 24th: “Riario shall be restored to his dignities, with the
exception of the title of S. Lorenzo in Damaso, and
without either active or passive right of voting”.
The news of the approaching liberation of Riario, who was universally respected and beloved, spread
rapidly through Rome. As the Master of Ceremonies, Paris de Grassis,
made his way to St. Angelo to announce the good news to the prisoner, the
streets were filled with a jubilant crowd. Riario was
conducted to the Vatican by the covered way, in which he was met by Cardinal
Giulio de' Medici. Having taken the oath required of him in the apartment of
Cardinal Trivulzio, Paris de Grassis conducted him to the Pope, around whom all the Cardinals were assembled. Riario kissed Leo’s foot, but the latter put out his hand
in a friendly manner and embraced him. Riario began
to speak, but apologized for not having been able to prepare his words. Then
breaking out into vehement expressions, he acknowledged his guilt, by which, he
said, he deserved not only degradation but death. He praised the mercy of the
Pope, which removed all fear of future punishment, and enabled him to live in
peace. “I have sinned”, said he; “I have sinned far more than I admitted in my
judicial confession”. “Honoured Lord”, replied the Pope, “what we have done by
you is in accordance with our duty, and for the honour of the Apostolic
See. We pardon you now for the sake of Christ, and restore you to your
former state. Let all that has passed be forgotten between us”.
It is not difficult to understand what it
was that moved Leo X to pardon and restore Riario.
For many years the Cardinal had held the dignity of Camerlengo of the Roman
Church and Dean of the Sacred College, a member of which he had been for forty
years. His riches and generosity had made him one of the most influential
personalities in Rome. Had the Pope refused pardon to such a man, he would
have drawn down hatred on himself from high and low. He would have also laid
himself open to the suspicion of being actuated by motives of private revenge;
for Riario had been a witness of the Pazzi conspiracy, in which Leo’s father had been wounded
and his uncle Giuliano killed. Though innocent, the Medici had arrested Riario, and only set him at liberty thanks to the energetic
measures taken by Sixtus IV on his behalf. These measures were still so fresh
in the memory of all concerned, that when Leo took proceedings against Riario for his complicity in Petrucci’s attempt, even the
Pope’s adherents suspected that a desire for revenge for the old offence was at
the bottom of the action taken by him. However, the joy with which his pardon was
greeted by his many adherents, the friendliness of the Pope towards him then
and afterwards, and even his full restoration which followed, when the right,
active and passive, of voting was restored to him, could not blind him to the
fact that his part in the Curia was played out. At the latter end of 1520 he
asked leave to retire to Naples. This was granted. However, the bewitching
beauty of his new abode could not make up to Riario for the loss of his position in the capital of the world. He who had been so
full of the enjoyment of life, who had always lived in regal splendour in the
most beautiful palace in Rome, fell into a state of melancholy, and died on the
7th of July, 1521, at the age of sixty-one. His body was brought to Rome and
laid to rest in a very simple tomb in the Church of the Santi Apostoli. He
required no special monument, for his magnificent palace of the Cancelleria, which he had to leave to the Apostolic
Chamber, will keep the memory of this unfortunate man alive till the most
remote ages.
A few days after the restoration of Riario there followed, with unexpected rapidity, that of Sauli, who was condemned to pay a fine of 25,000 ducats.
When the Pope went into Consistory on the 31st of July, he sent Paris de Grassis to fetch Sauli from the
Castle of St. Angelo. As a sign that his mission was genuine, he gave the
Master of Ceremonies his diamond ring to show to the gaoler. “When I received
this”, says Paris de Grassis, “I was astonished,
because only a few days before the Pope had told me that he meant to treat and
punish Sauli as his enemy”. Sauli,
however, was not allowed to appear before the Pope with his cappa, but clad as
a simple priest. He also had to pledge himself to remain in the Vatican, and to
confess his offence publicly in Consistory. In obedience to this command, he
accused himself of conspiring with Francesco Maria della Rovere against the Pope, and of sharing in Petrucci's scheme for poisoning Leo
X. He humbly prayed for pardon and absolution for this crime, and promised to
be for the future the most faithful servant of His Holiness. Leo X replied
shortly and irritably that he hoped that his thoughts agreed with his words,
but that he feared greatly that he would fall back into his old sins. After Sauli had again prayed for mercy and had promised fidelity
to the Pope, lie was reinstated in his dignity as Cardinal, though without the
right, active or passive, of voting. His benefices, so far as they had not been
already given away, were restored to him. The deeply humiliated Sauli enjoyed his life as little as did Riario.
He lived a retired life, and died on the 29th of March in the following year.
Leo had him buried with all honours in the Church of Santa Sabina.
Meanwhile Soderini,
for whom Francis I had interceded, had, by the Pope’s permission, gone from
Palestrina to Forli, where he possessed an estate; though he had to promise not
to leave the kingdom of Naples. The Pope was quite right not to trust him, and
it was not till after Leo’s death that he was able to return to Rome.
Cardinal Adriano Castellesi found a refuge in Venice, where he arrived on the 13th of July. His flight was
overhasty, for it gave Wolsey the opportunity of ruining him. Intercession was
made for him from many quarters, and probably an understanding might have been
arrived at, had it not been that Wolsey was bent on obtaining possession of the
unfortunate man’s benefices. For a long time Leo resisted the pressure put on
him by England. Castellesi was sent for to Rome; but
in spite of the safe-conduct offered, he would not go. This sealed his fate,
and on the 5th of July, 1518, he was deprived of his dignities, the reason
assigned being his complicity in Petrucci’s plot, as also his refusal to obey
the summons to Rome. The primary cause of these strong measures was the
pressure from England, but they were also attributable to the Pope’s fear of an
alliance between Adriano and Soderini, and ensuing
intrigues. Such an idea was, however, far from Adriano’s thoughts. He lived
quietly and devoted to study in the Palazzo Ca Bernardo, near the Grand Canal,
belonging to his friend Giacomo da Pesaro. There he remained until the death of
Leo X compelled him to go to Rome to attend the Conclave. But on his way
thither the unfortunate man disappeared, leaving no trace behind him. It was
supposed that he had been murdered by his servant.
After the proceedings consequent on
Petrucci’s conspiracy were ended, an unusual spirit of excitement continued to
prevail. It cannot be surprising that the names of other Cardinals, such for
instance as Luigi d'Aragona and Cornaro,
were mentioned as being connected with the plot; though, as it was proved, such
a surmise was quite incorrect.
Early in May the news spread about Rome
that it was Leo’s intention to create as many as twelve new Cardinals. On the
15th of June he announced this officially in Consistory. In fact the Pope
contemplated a complete renewal of the Sacred College. The recent occurrences
had shown the necessary consequences of the secularization of the Supreme
Senate of the Church, which had been initiated by Sixtus IV. The moment had
come for a radical reform of the College of Cardinals; but that Leo X did not
even yet fully grasp the gravity of the situation, is shown by the manner in
which he proceeded. Instead of raising quite blameless men to the purple by the
process of a severe selection, he chose several for the dignity solely because
they were rich, and would be able to help to defray the enormous and daily
growing expenses of the Urbino war.
When the news of all the horrible things
that had been occurring in Rome reached Germany, the strongest imaginable
spirit of hostility sprang up. The punishment of the criminals was condemned as
unjust, and the whole procedure against them construed into a scheme for making
money. Nor was it only in Germany that the Pope’s conduct was censured. In
Siena, Milan, Venice, and even in Rome, there were not wanting those who were
severe in their judgments. The canon, Sigismondo Tizio,
who was bitterly hostile to the Medici for other reasons also, wrote thus : “What
is the use of canonical laws, established by holy Popes, forbidding priests to
stain their hands with blood? for now Popes and Cardinals have become
antichrists and tyrants”.
Regardless of all these inimical opinions,
Leo X profited by the past occurrences to create a large number of Cardinals,
both as a means of subjecting the Sacred College to himself, and at the same
time of procuring money for the Urbino war. He forestalled the opposition of
the secular powers by paying the fullest attention to their wishes. Though the
College of Cardinals had been not little intimidated by all that had taken
place, it was not an easy matter to obtain their consent to the nominations on
the gigantic scale which was proposed. The proceeding was indeed unparalleled,
and gave great umbrage to many.
On the 26th of June there was held a stormy
Consistory. Those present refused to consent to the proposed nomination of
twenty-seven new Cardinals, except on the condition that the names of no more
than fifteen should be published at once. When, however, it came to making a
selection among the candidates, there was such a difference of opinion that the
settlement of the affair had to be postponed to another Consistory. But when it
came to the point the Cardinals yielded to the strong will of the Pope more
readily than could have been expected. On the 1st of July the great nomination
took place; only, instead of twenty-seven, thirty-one Cardinals were made. The
Sacred College gave its consent, not freely, but constrained by fear.
The unprecedented number of those
nominated, the publication of whom followed in open Consistory on the 3rd of
July made it necessary to create new titles for the Cardinals. On the 10th of
July, the Pope was in a position to announce that all the older Cardinals had
agreed to the abrogation of the decree of the election capitulation which
limited the total number of the members of the Sacred College to twenty-four.
The new Cardinals were men of very
different types, by the choice of whom Leo X wished to attain various objects.
In the case of some, such as Louis de Bourbon, brother of the Constable, of the
Portuguese Infant Alfonso, the Spaniard, Raymond de Vich,
and the Venetian, Francesco Pisani, politics were the sole reason of their
elevation. In the case of others the motive was to be found in their
relationship to the house of Medici, and their readiness to advance large sums
of money to the Pope. This was how it came about that men like Ponzetti, Armellini, and Passerini received the purple.
Ferdinando Ponzetti was born in Naples, though his family came from Florence. His portrait is known
to students of art in the altar-piece in the Chapel of St. Brigit in S. Maria della Pace, where Baldassare Peruzzi has represented him kneeling
before the Madonna. Ponzetti had made his fortune as
physician to Innocent VIII, and subsequently received distinguished offices in
the Curia. On the 23rd of October Leo appointed him his treasurer; and now, at
the age of eighty, he was raised to the purple. Not only was Ponzetti a physician of mark, but he was also versed in
classical literature, philosophy and theology, was very ready of speech, and
was well known as an author. But all his good qualities were marred by the
vilest avarice. He paid 30,000 ducats for his nomination.
Francesco Armellini’s reputation was even worse than his. His father was a poor merchant of Perugia,
but by his own shrewdness and financial talent in discovering new sources of
revenue, he made himself indispensable to the Pope; but at the same time he
made himself universally hated. Silvio Passerini was
not much better. This learned though self-opinionated man had been Datary since
January, 1514,1 and had served the Medici with the greatest fidelity on many
occasions. It was therefore easy for him to find favour with others. The list
of benefices bestowed on Silvio Passerini, as is
shown by the “Regest Leonis X”, is really shocking.
Among all the benefice-hunters of the court of Leo X, certainly Passerini took the first place.
Their kinship to the Pope was the sole
reason of the nominations of Giovanni Salviati,
Niccolò Ridolfi, and Luigi de' Rossi. The young and highly-gifted musician Ercole Rangoni, Bonifacio Ferreri, and Raffaello Petrucci
owed their elevation to personal considerations. The last mentioned, who had
formerly held the post of Governor of Siena, led an entirely secular life. His
covetousness made him hated ; but the two first named had the reputation of
being excellent men.
A most rare event in the history of the
Sacred College was the elevation to the purple on the same day of two members
of one family. These were Scaramuccia Trivulzoo to whom the success of the Lateran Council owed
so much, and his highly-gifted nephew Agostino. Still greater astonishment was
caused by the nomination of seven members of prominent Roman families with no
regard to party. By doing this Leo carried on the prudent policy of his
predecessors, who wished to remove all party feeling from the Court. Whatever
the motive, the Romans rejoiced and held high festival because of the honour
paid to their fellow-citizens. But Franciotto Orsini
and Pompeo Colonna were totally unfitted for their high dignity, being rather
condottieri than princes of the Church. Francesco Conti also lived a thoroughly
worldly life. But of the four remaining nothing but good can be said.
Alessandro Cesarini was remarkable for his culture, Andrea della Valle for his great prudence, while Paolo Cesi and
Domenico Jacobazzi were distinguished for their great
learning.
The Roman, Domenico de Cupis,
the Florentine, Niccolò Pandolfini, the Sienese,
Giovanni Piccolomini, the Genoese, Giambattista Pallavicini, and Lorenzo Campeggio, who belonged to a Bolognese family, were
all excellent men. Finally, there was the Dutchman, Adrian of Utrecht, who was
a man of sound learning, and a model of the priestly life, who had been
recommended by Charles V. With him are worthy to be ranked the Generals of the
Dominicans, the Franciscan Observantines, and the
hermits of St. Augustine, who received the cardinalate together on the 1st of
July, 1517. It is hard to say which of these religious holds the first place.
More will be said later about the learned
General of the Dominicans, Thomas de Vio (Cajetan). Cristoforo Numai, a native of Forli, had taken the Franciscan
habit early in life, and had then received the doctorate of theology in Paris.
Only a few days before the 1st of July, the confidence of his brethren had
placed him at the head of the most widespread of all religious orders. He was
completely taken by surprise by his elevation to the purple. The Master of
Ceremonies relates how the humble religious refused at first to believe the
news of his elevation, and would not believe it until several successive
messengers had been despatched to take him to the Vatican. When Numai at length appeared at the palace in his well-worn
habit, his complete ignorance of courtly etiquette aroused astonishment in the
ante-camera. “At last”, relates Paris de Grassis, “I
conducted him to the Pope, who had already left the Consistory”. His Holiness
embraced him and greeted him as Cardinal.
The General of the Augustinians, Egidio Canisio, known under the name of Egidius of Viterbo, was taken by surprise by the conferring of the dignity as
completely as was Numai. If ever a man deserved the
red hat it was this distinguished man, who combined a classical education and
general learning with a great capacity for business and a profound piety.
Egidio Canisio's versatility and mental activity were truly astounding. Not only had he made his
mark as a poet, orator, philosopher, and theologian, but also as an historian
and a student of oriental languages. It is a mystery how, with all this
intellectual work, he found the time to effect what he did by preaching and in
reforming his Order. On the top of all these occupations there came the various
and difficult diplomatic missions which were confided to him by both Julius II.
and Leo X. Ever since the classical discourse at the opening of the Lateran
Council, urging the reformation of the Church, his name has been famous. The
calling of such a man to the Supreme Senate of the Church does great credit to
Leo X; in this way he promoted the principle of true reform as well as its
execution.
If we consider the nominations of the 1st
of July, 1517, it must be admitted that many, if by no means all, the new
Cardinals were excellent and worthy men, who deserved well of the Church, and
by means of whom the Sacred College was for the first time, after long years,
restored to its regenerating influence. In this respect as also in the number
of nationalities represented, that creation of Cardinals showed a most decided
advance on any other in many ways it was
an important event. Not only was the secularization of the Sacred College to a
great extent checked, but the supremacy of the Papal authority over that of the
Cardinals was finally confirmed. Ever since the middle of the 14th Century, the
one endeavour of the Cardinals had been to cramp and circumscribe the power of
the Pope; though, in spite of all the election capitulations, the Papacy had
preserved its lawfully absolute power. All attempts to fetter the Pope by the
vote of the Sacred College had failed. The last great attempt made by the
Cardinals to oppose him—the Council of Pisa—had had just the contrary effect to
that which had been intended. The schismatic Cardinals had been compelled to
repudiate the Council; and, at the eleventh session of the Lateran Council,
held on the 19th of December, 1516, the Bull about the abolition of the
Pragmatic Sanction declared that to the Pope alone belonged the right and
authority to summon, prorogue, or dismiss a Council. The conspiracy of Petrucci
led to a nomination of Cardinals on a scale greater than any mentioned in the
annals of the Church. Ever after, the absolute supremacy of the Pope was so
firmly established that the Cardinals under Leo’s next successor but one, “even
in the days of the greatest misfortune, when party spirit prevailed most
violently”, ventured on no opposition to it.
Meanwhile the war in Urbino was going on,
and sympathy with Francesco Maria was growing in Tuscany and even in some of the
States of the Church. Fear and hope alternated at the Vatican; but the various
projects that were made vanished, as says an Ambassador, into smoke. There
was scarcely a town in the States of the Church which did not show dangerous
signs of excitement; at one time Siena, Perugia, and Citta di Castello were threatened with revolution. In June the Pope feared lest the
enemy might appear before the very gates of Rome. In all haste troops were
raised in the city, and the Vatican and its immediate surroundings were
provided with special guards. Urgent appeals for assistance were sent out by
the Pope on all sides, especially to Switzerland.
That the war, with its enormous expenses,
dragged on so long, was largely due to the attitude of the great powers, to
whose interest it was that the Pope should be kept in a state of embarrassment,
and compelled to seek for help. After his cause was lost, Francesco Maria
disclosed the true state of affairs by making it known that Francis I and
Charles V had not only sympathized with him, but had even persuaded him to
persevere with his undertaking. Quite in accordance with this policy were the
constant offers of assistance to Leo X, which those powers vied with each other
in making. But the troops promised, though always coming, never came, in spite
of moving remonstrances on the part of the Pope. The leaders of the mercenary
troops behaved in the same way ; in order to prolong their service and extort
from the Pope as much money as possible, they made it their chief duty to spare
the enemy and defer a settlement.
As early as February, 1517, Leo X had
turned to England to obtain from Henry VIII the money for his enormous war
expenses; but the English King refused to help until the Pope had joined his
League. Then Leo turned to France; but Francis I demanded security for his protégé,
the Duke of Ferrara, and the cession to him of Modena and Reggio. After long
negotiations, the Pope acceded to this demand, but his Brief contained provisos
which Francis would not accept.
Meanwhile the want of money in Rome
increased to such an extent that Leo declared his readiness to join the English
League; whereupon Henry VIII sent a subsidy of 50,000 ducats. The Papal
plenipotentiary in London prepared a deed of alliance in the beginning of July,
but Leo X, actuated by fear of France, still hesitated to take the decisive
step. However, he yielded at last, and on the 11th of August he published a
Brief which ratified the League between England, Spain, and the Emperor. He now
received a subsidy of 100,000 ducats, to raise which he consented to the
levying of a tithe on the English clergy.
Leo was told from so many quarters of the
French King’s secret support of Francesco Maria, that he could no longer doubt
the truth. The difference between him and Francis widened every day. Canossa,
who had for many years been Nuncio at the French court, was sacrificed to the
situation, for Leo X no longer trusted him, on account of the great favour in
which he was held by Francis I. His successor was the Bishop of Sebenico, Giovanni Staffileo, who
arrived at the French court in the middle of September, 1517.
At this moment the war of Urbino came to an
end after a duration of over eight months. Spain and France, the rival powers
in Italy, and very jealous of each other, undertook the office of mediation and
arrangement of terms. Leo X, who with good reason distrusted them both, found
himself pledged to pay all arrears to the soldiers of Francesco Maria, which
amounted to more than 100,000 ducats, as well as to the granting of a full
amnesty. The ex-Duke, who was absolved from all the ecclesiastical penalties
which hung over him, received permission to retire to Mantua, with all his
artillery, as well as with the famous library collected by Federigo of Montefeltro. When he took his departure, he held
out hopes to his subjects that he would come back in better days; for Francis I
had promised to help him to regain his Duchy, either when there was a vacancy
in the Holy See, or whenever he had come to a rupture with Leo X. It was
therefore an essentially insecure crown which Lorenzo de' Medici received with
the Duchy of Urbino. The only, thing gained was a suspension of arms, which
would no doubt last till the Pope’s death. This much was gained, but at what a
cost!
Guicciardini reckons that Leo’s war
expenses up to that time had reached the appalling sum of 800,000 ducats. The
statement made by Leo X to the Venetian and Swiss Ambassadors agrees with this.
If, as it may be, this calculation is placed at too high a
figure, there is no doubt that from that time dates the complete
ruin of the Papal finances.
Not less disastrous was the war in its
effect of promoting the spread of bandits in the States of the
Church. But worst of all was the injury to its moral power which the Holy See
had sustained, in that its occupant had again entered upon the disastrous
policy of Alexander VI, in spite of the noble example set by Julius II, and
regard less of the crying needs of both the Church and the world, which called
for something very different from the prosecution of such a war. The struggle
for the possession of the Duchy had a peculiarly injurious effect on the
endeavour made by the Pope to promote a Crusade, which by reason of it came to
an almost complete standstill.
The Pope's
endeavours to promote a Crusade, 1517-1518.
|
---|