Under such depressing circumstances, insubordination, the chief

evil of the French armies of those days, began to show itself, and

finally vented itself against the Marquis of Mantua, their general.

Pleading ill-health he resigned, to be succeeded by the Marquis of

Saluzzo. This led to the desertion of some Italian troops, insulted

at the treatment of their countryman. Thus, time was fighting for the

Spaniards; and when at last, recruited by the Orsini, whom he had

cleverly succeeded in conciliating, he felt strong enough to assume

the offensive, he met with but faint resistance. On the night of

December 28, the troops who guarded the river were overwhelmed and

the passage of the river effected. The French, surprised in their

scattered cantonments by the suddenness of the attack, were unable

to concentrate, and forced to retreat. In spite of numerous deeds

of valour, the retreat soon became a rout, and the remnants of the

army fell back in confusion on Gaëta. Here after one more struggle

they capitulated (January 1, 1504), on the condition that they should

retire unmolested, and that all prisoners in Spanish hands should be

released. The few remaining strongholds speedily surrendered, and the

Neapolitan kingdom was won for Ferdinand.

The victory of the Spaniards was due to their possession of Sicily,

whence they could draw support, and to the failure of the French to

retain the command of the sea, so that reinforcements could come

from Spain; to the exceptional inclemency of the winter, which seems

to have been more severely felt by the French than the Spaniards;

in great measure to the unpopularity of the French, the result of

their licence and overbearing conduct; largely to the quarrels of the

French generals; but, above all, to their inferiority when matched

against the ‘Great Captain.’ Cautious, where caution was necessary,

he refused to be drawn from his position till the right moment came;

but, when he saw his opportunity, struck with decision and rapidity.

Never despairing under the most gloomy circumstances, he was able

to communicate his fortitude, and impart his cheerfulness to his

soldiery. Gracious and conciliatory, he earned the love of his army,

yet knew how to be severe when discipline was threatened. A master

of diplomacy, as well as of war, he succeeded, as no other foreign

general had, in winning over enemies, and in settling the factions of

that most factious country, Italy. Courteous in manner, and splendid

in his style of life, he won the hearts of the giddy Neapolitans. Nor

was Gonzalvo de Cordova above learning from his foe. To the short

sword and buckler, the national weapons of the Spaniards, so effective

for attack at close quarters, he added the long German spear, whereby

their power of defence was materially increased. Indeed, he may be

said to have made the Spanish infantry, which, re-armed by him and

reduced to discipline, became for a time the most formidable force in

Europe.

§ 4. _Alexander VI. and Cæsar Borgia._

| Alexander VI. and the Romagna.

While the struggle between the French and Spaniards was being decided

in Naples, events of importance to Italy and Europe were happening in

the centre of the Peninsula. Need of French help in his designs on the

Romagna had been the motive of Alexander’s alliance with Louis XII.

at the date of the Milanese expedition. To the realisation of these

schemes he and his son now eagerly turned.

The Romagna, once the old Exarchate of Ravenna, a district of somewhat

indeterminate limits, lay on the eastern slopes of the Apennines,

stretching to the Adriatic on the east, while to the north it was

bounded by the territories of Venice, to the south by the march of

Ancona. This country is said to have been originally granted to the

Pope by Constantine. The gift was confirmed by Charles the Great, and

all claims to it were definitely surrendered by Rudolph of Hapsburg

in the thirteenth century. The Emperor, however, had granted but

an empty title. The country was in the hands of numerous families

who acknowledged indeed the nominal supremacy of Rome, but were

practically independent.[18]

The possession of these petty states had been long coveted by Milan,

Florence, and Venice. Venice indeed had already encroached on the

territory of Ferrara (1484), and under the new aspect of affairs

caused by the French invasion, the absorption of many of them by one

or other of these powers seemed inevitable. This Alexander hoped to

obviate by reasserting the papal supremacy, which had never been

formally denied, and by reducing the district to obedience.

The pretext for the overthrow of these principalities was that they

had not paid the yearly dues which they owed the Pope as his vicars,

and no sooner had the French entered Italy in the autumn of 1499, than

Cæsar proceeded to execute the papal decree of confiscation.

| The conquests of Cæsar in the Romagna. Nov.

| 1499-April 1501.

Louis XII., in pursuance of his promise, sent 300 lances under the

command of Ives d’Allègre, while 4000 Swiss infantry were hired as

mercenaries. With these forces Cæsar marched against Imola and Forli

(Nov. 9). The two cities did not make any resistance, but the castles

held out longer, especially that of Forli, which was defended by

the brave but masculine Caterina Sforza, and did not surrender till

January, 1500.

The return of Ludovico to Milan in February (cf. p. 38) necessitated

the recall of the French contingent, and Cæsar was forced to postpone

further hostilities until the ensuing September. Then, reinforced once

more by French assistance, and holding the title of Gonfalonier of the

Church, just bestowed upon him by his father, Cæsar speedily reduced

Pesaro and Rimini. Faenza, happy under the mild rule of the young

Astorre Manfredi, offered stout resistance, and did not fall till

April, 1501. In violation of the terms of capitulation the unfortunate

Astorre was sent to Rome, and in the following June was found drowned

in the Tiber. By whose order the deed was done, no one knew, but all

men not unnaturally suspected the hand of the Borgias.

| Cæsar created Duke of Romagna, April 1501. Admitted a

| member of the Venetian oligarchy.

| Louis XII. forbids Cæsar to attack Bologna and

| Florence.

Fortune now seemed to favour Cæsar. Created Duke of Romagna by

Alexander, he had been enrolled a member of the Venetian nobility by

that proud republic, which hoped thus to gain papal aid against the

Turk. He had in his pay the best of the Italian condottiers, and the

remaining cities of the Romagna were trembling. Dazzled by his rapid

successes, his views expanded. He now aspired not only to complete his

conquest of the Romagna, but to interfere in the affairs of Florence,

if not eventually to make himself master of all Tuscany. For a time,

however, his ambition was checked. Bologna and Florence were both

under French protection, and Louis ordered him to stay his hand. The

Pope became alarmed, and Cæsar was forced to content himself with a

sum of money paid by Florence, and an agreement to take him into her

service for three years. Leaving therefore his army to take Piombino,

which surrendered in September, he joined the French expedition

against Naples (July). In September he returned to find his sister

Lucrezia betrothed to Alfonso, the son of Ercole of Este.

| Lucrezia Borgia.

This beautiful woman[19] whose character has been the subject of

almost as much controversy as that of Mary Queen of Scots, and who has

been accused, probably unjustly, of the most unmentionable crimes,

seems rather to have been a person of colourless disposition who was

made the puppet of the schemes of her father and brother. She had

already been married twice. From her first husband, Giovanni Sforza,

Lord of Pesaro, she had been divorced to wed the Duke of Biseglia, an

illegitimate son of Alfonso II. of Naples (August 1498). At that date

the Pope desired an alliance with Naples, but two years afterwards the

papal policy had changed. The second invasion of Naples by Louis XII.

was about to take place, and the friendship of Naples was no longer

needed. Personal antipathies widened the breach, and in August 1500,

the Duke was murdered by Cæsar’s orders. Now, barely a year since the

foul deed, a new husband was found for this girl of twenty-one.

Alexander’s motives, as before, were political. The alliance of

Ferrara was valuable. It protected the Romagna from the North, and

threatened Bologna. The results were not so great as had been hoped,

but the marriage was a happier one than might have been expected;

and Lucrezia in her Ferrarese home found peace and a refuge from the

slander which had hitherto assailed her.

| Further successes of Cæsar.

Meanwhile the quarrel between France and Spain offered new

opportunities to Cæsar, since Louis needed papal support and was in

no position to thwart him overmuch. He had indeed to surrender Arezzo,

which had in June rebelled against Florence and called in Vitellozzo

Vitelli, one of Cæsar’s captains. But in January 1502, Fermo; in

June, Urbino; in July, Camerino had been occupied, while Pisa, which

still held out against Florence, offered to recognise him as its lord.

Finally in August, he obtained the leave of Louis to attack Bologna.

| The Conspiracy of Sinigaglia.

At this moment a revolt of his captains threatened to overwhelm him.

The rapid success of Cæsar had awakened the apprehensions of these

men. Once master of the Romagna, he would no longer need their help,

and might turn against them; indeed, his negotiations with Florence at

this time lead one to suspect that he had already made up his mind to

destroy them. The chief conspirators were Vitellozzo Vitelli of Città

di Castello, Oliverotto da Fermo, the Duke of Gravina and Paolo, both

Orsini, and Gian Paolo Baglioni of Perugia. These gained the adhesion

of Cardinal Orsini, Giovanni Bentivoglio of Bologna, and others. They

met at Magione (October 9, 1502), near Lake Thrasimene, where they

swore to be true to one another, and applied to Florence for aid. A

rebellion was stirred up in Urbino, from whence Cæsar’s troops were

driven, and another contingent of his was defeated at Fossombrone

(October 17).

A terrible retribution was, however, soon to fall upon the rebels.

Louis sent Cæsar aid. The opportune death of the wealthy Cardinal of

Modena, whether poisoned or no, enabled Alexander to appropriate his

possessions to Cæsar’s military needs. Florence feared the hostility

of Cæsar and would not help, and Venice, in spite of the exhortations

of Ferdinand to seize the opportunity of freeing Italy from the

tyrant, was too cautious to move.

| The Massacre of Sinigaglia. Dec. 31, 1502.

The confederates began to hesitate. They were unable to raise

any more troops, and were divided amongst themselves. Listening

therefore to the fair promises of Cæsar and the Pope, they made

their peace on October 28, abandoned the cause of Bologna, and, as

an earnest of their goodwill, marched against Sinigaglia. The town

surrendered, but the castle refused to yield to any one but the

Duke. Cæsar accordingly came to Sinigaglia (December 31), and,

beguiling his captains with gracious words, suddenly pounced upon

them. Oliverotto and Vitellozzo were strangled that night, the first

accusing Vitellozzo of tempting him to rebel; Vitellozzo imploring

Cæsar to obtain a plenary indulgence for him from the Pope. Paolo

Orsini and the Duke of Gravina were executed shortly after. Cardinal

Orsini was seized at Rome to die in prison, probably of poison.

| Further successes of Cæsar suddenly stopped by his

| illness, and the death of Alexander. Aug. 8, 1503.

The conspiracy put down, nothing seemed to stand in the way of the

papal ambition. Urbino was again reduced; Città di Castello and

Perugia submitted; most of the Orsini strongholds fell; and Alexander

was playing off Spain against France, in the hopes of gaining the

assistance of one or another in support of the still more magnificent

scheme of making Cæsar King of Tuscany, when father and son were

suddenly struck down by an illness, to which Alexander succumbed on

August 8. It was popularly believed that they had fallen victims to

a poisoned cup, which they had intended for one of the cardinals.

The story needs confirmation, but this and others of the kind are at

least an indication of the popular opinion, which thought no crime too

horrible, or too improbable, to be imputed to the Borgias.

| The election of Julius II. fatal to his cause. Nov. 1,

| 1503.

The fate of Cæsar now depended on the choice of the cardinals. If he

could secure the election of one who would support him, he might yet

hold his own. Of late Louis XII. had shown an inclination to desert

the Borgia alliance. Cæsar therefore from his sick-bed intrigued

to get one of the Spanish cardinals chosen, but in this he failed.

Louis had hoped to obtain the papal tiara for the Cardinal D’Amboise;

Giuliano della Rovere was determined to prevent the election of a

Spaniard, and hoped to succeed himself. Foiled in the first instance,

Giuliano concurred in the choice of an Italian cardinal, Piccolomini,

who, in memory of his famous uncle Pius II., took the name of Pius

III. But, in October, Pius died, and della Rovere, coming to terms

with Cæsar, secured the votes of the conclave by promises and bribes.

Machiavelli, who however exaggerates Cæsar’s influence in the College

of Cardinals, blames his shortsightedness, because, ‘if he could not

procure the election of his own nominee, he might have prevented

that of della Rovere.’ The new Pope, Julius II., had long been the

enemy of the Borgias. He had instigated Charles VIII. to invade

Italy, and urged him to summon a council to depose Alexander, and

although of late he had acquiesced in the inevitable, and affected

reconciliation, he was not the man to forget past injuries. Fear of

the designs of Venice on the Romagna caused him to support Cæsar for

a moment. But Julius was determined to win the Romagna for the Papacy,

not for the Borgia family, and no sooner did Cæsar attempt to act

independently than he ordered him to return to Rome (November 29).

Cæsar’s captains, however, refused to surrender the places which they

held without his consent, and Cæsar would not consent except at the

price of freedom. After long negotiation the agreement was concluded,

and Cæsar, free once more, set out for Naples to seek the aid of

Spain (April 1504).

| The end of Cæsar’s career.

Ferdinand was at first inclined to listen, till, convinced by the Pope

that Cæsar would only disturb the peace of Italy, he ordered his

arrest on May 26, 1504, as the Duke was on the point of sailing for

the Romagna. In violation of a safe-conduct given him by Gonzalvo, he

was shortly sent to Spain, where he remained a prisoner till November,

1506. Escaping at last, he found refuge with his brother-in-law, now

King of Navarre, to die in the succeeding March (1507), in a skirmish

with a rebel vassal of the King.

Thus, at the age of thirty-one, ended the career of the man whom

Machiavelli in his _Prince_ holds up as a pattern, in all but his

ill-fortune, to him who would attempt to form a united kingdom of

Italy. No doubt Cæsar had many of the qualities requisite for

success. Clever and versatile in conception, rapid and resolute in

action, and a master of diplomacy, he had in a high degree the quality

of ‘virtù,’ that compound of force and intellect, which we find

praised not only by Machiavelli, but by Commines and other writers of

the day, as the essential characteristic of the ruler.

We must, alas! allow that private morality is not always the

accompaniment of good statesmanship. Although Cæsar was absolutely

without scruple in his treatment of the petty princes of the Romagna,

it may be questioned whether the independence of these petty

principalities was worth preserving. Ruled by despots, no question of

political freedom was involved. With a few exceptions, such as that

of Urbino, they illustrated the evils without the advantages of the

larger tyrannies, and their history is one tangled tale of faction,

murder, and intrigue. The country too, it must be confessed, was well

governed under him, and his rule was not unpopular. But, when all is

said, we cannot believe that a kingdom founded by such cruelty, and

maintained by such villany and treachery, can really be a solid one.

That Machiavelli, dazzled by the temporary good fortune of Cæsar,

should boldly hold him up as a model to be copied, only makes one

realise the cynical despair of the Italians as to the possibility

of success in their country by any other means, and the depth of

degradation to which the people had fallen.[20] Nor, finally, do we

believe that the idea of thus founding a temporal dominion of the

Papacy was likely to succeed. Had Alexander lived longer, it might,

perhaps, have ended in the establishment of another petty kingdom in

Italy. But the state would have been founded in the interest of the

Borgia, not of the Papacy, and would have only added one more enemy

to the advance of the temporal dominion. If the papal authority in

the Romagna was to become a reality, it must be based on a firmer

foundation than that of papal nepotism. This Julius II. saw. Most of

the cities held or threatened by Cæsar fell at once into his hands,

with the exception of Rimini, Faenza, and Cesena, which were seized by

Venice, to be secured, however, by Julius in the war of the League of

Cambray. Meanwhile Perugia and Bologna were gained by Julius in 1506,

while the Duchy of Urbino fell to his nephew, Francesco della Rovere,

who was adopted by Guidobaldo, its late Duke. These territories

were incorporated into the papal dominions; the history of their

semi-independent princes came to an end, and Julius II., rather than

Alexander, established the papal dominion in the Romagna.

§ 5. _The League of Cambray._

The pretext for the invasion of Italy by France and Spain had been the

necessity of securing a base of operations for a crusade against the

Turk. This had been prevented by the quarrel of the robbers over their

spoil. They were now to prove by their attack on Venice--the only

power which had seriously attempted to check the Moslem advance--that

the idea, even if ever seriously entertained, had been definitely

abandoned.

| Jealousy against Venice, the result of her advance on

| the mainland.

The hostility with which that republic was viewed by the rest of

Italy dates from the beginning of the fifteenth century, when she

definitely began to aim at establishing a dominion on the Italian

mainland. A quarrel between Milan and the Carrara of Padua enabled her

to overthrow that family, to seize Padua, then, step by step, Vicenza

and Verona, and to advance to the Adige (1405). In 1427 and 1428, she

wrested Brescia and Bergamo from the hands of Filippo Maria Visconti,

Duke of Milan, and after his death secured Crema (1454). Meanwhile she

had acquired the district of Friuli from the Patriarch of Aquileia

(1420), and in 1441 had added Ravenna, hitherto an independent state

under the Polentani, to her conquests. In 1484, the peace of Bagnolo,

which closed the Ferrarese war, gave her Rovigo and the Polesine. In

1499, she gained Cremona and the Ghiara d’Adda from Louis XII., as

the price of her assistance against Ludovico. On the death of Cæsar

Borgia, she had occupied Faenza, Rimini, and Cesena; while in Apulia,

she held the four towns, Trani, Otranto, Gallipoli, Brindisi, which

she had acquired at the date of Charles VIII.’s expedition. Thus,

within the space of some hundred years, Venice had completely altered

her character. The island city had gained a large territory on the

mainland, which stretched to the neighbourhood of Milan, Florence, and

the Papal States. The change of policy has usually been attributed

to the advance of the Turk, which threatened her possessions in the

Ægean Sea, and on the coast of Greece. This no doubt was one of her

motives at a later date. But as her first advance on the mainland

occurred in 1405, some years before the Turk seriously menaced her, we

must look elsewhere for the primary cause. This is to be found in the

danger to be apprehended from the growing power of Milan. As long as

the plain of Lombardy and the approaches to the Alpine passes were in

the hands of petty princes, she could hope to purchase, or to extort,

an outlet for her commerce to the north; but, if these were to fall

into the hands of the powerful and aggressive Dukes of Milan, they

might be closed against her. An alternative route no doubt remained.

She might have threaded the Straits of Gibraltar and reached the north

of Europe by the Atlantic and the English Channel. But, though of late

a Flanders fleet had yearly sailed from Venice, this route was not

developed. It could, and probably would, have been closed by Spain.

Nor would such a policy have saved her from Milan, which, if she

became too powerful, might cut off her food supplies, surround her,

and drive her into the sea.

The attempt, then, to form a state in Lombardy appears to have been

inevitable; nor was it so selfish as her enemies declared it to be.

Her treatment of the cities under her rule was not only infinitely

superior to that of Milan, but compared most favourably with that

of Florence. She left them as much local autonomy as was compatible

with the maintenance of her supremacy; she did not tax them heavily.

It was the aim of Venice to secure the affection of her subjects,

and their loyalty in the days of her troubles, proved that she had

succeeded. With equal injustice the policy of Venice towards the Turk

has been denounced as faithless to the cause of Christianity. No

doubt, despairing of the aid of Europe, she was anxious to keep on

friendly terms with the Turk, and would, if possible, have avoided

war; but this policy was forced upon her by the refusal of European

states to sink their common jealousies and join heartily in a crusade.

Venice, after all, was the only power which seriously attempted to

check the advance of the Moslem, and the coalition against her is

the best proof of the hollowness of the cry of a crusade on the part

of her spoilers. But though the advance on the mainland seems to

have been inevitable, and is capable of justification, it was none

the less a fatal step. Had it been possible for Venice to conquer

Milan, and to have secured the whole of Lombardy before the date of

the French invasion, she might some day have become the capital of

a united Italy, and the history of the Peninsula might have been a

happier one. But for this her resources were not sufficient, nor is

it likely that the European powers would have acquiesced. Failing

this, her vain attempts to find a strategic frontier only added to her

enemies, and earned her the name of the most selfish and grasping of

the Italian states; while in her endeavour to protect her commerce by

friendly treaties with the Turk, she added to her crimes the charge of

treachery towards the cause of Christendom.

| The real faults of Venetian policy.

The real fault of Venice has not been so often noted by historians.

Her interests imperatively demanded that the foreigner should be

excluded from Italy. As long as the Peninsula was left to itself,

she was strong enough to hold her own; but she was no match for the

more powerful kingdoms of the north. Her vacillation at the date

of the expedition of Charles VIII. she had in part redressed by

forming the League of Venice and driving him from Italy, although her

occupation at that date of the Apulian towns eventually earned her

the hostility of Ferdinand. The good work was, however, again undone

by her foolish alliance with Louis XII. in his war against Milan. By

this short-sighted policy she earned with some justice the accusation

of territorial greed; irritated Maximilian, who did not relish being

excluded from Lombardy; and established on her western frontier the

ever-grasping power of France. Thus, by the close of the fifteenth

century, Venice had incurred the enmity not only of the petty Italian

states, but of the chief powers of Western Europe.

| European combinations leading to the League of

| Cambray.

Maximilian desired to recover Friuli; Louis XII. wished to extend

the frontiers of the Milanese; Florence feared that Venice might

cross the Apennines; Ferdinand was determined to recover the cities

in Apulia. Above all, Pope Julius was bent on humbling the proud

republic. Her acquisitions in the Romagna interfered with his darling

scheme of establishing the papal rule in that district. Between France

in Milan, and Spain in Naples, Julius might hope to hold the balance,

and to establish the temporal dominion of the Papacy, but Venice, or

indeed any strong Italian power, would strenuously oppose it. In this

Julius only followed the traditional policy of his predecessors in the

papal chair, that of inveterate hostility to the growth of a strong

native state in Italy. Moreover, the independent attitude of the

republic in matters of church government, illustrated at this moment

by her refusal to allow him to nominate to the vacant bishopric of

Vicenza, angered the haughty prelate. ‘They wish to treat me as their

chaplain,’ he said, ‘let them beware lest I make them humble fishermen

as they once were.’

Under these circumstances the sole hope for Venice lay in the mutual

jealousies of her enemies. From these she had profited hitherto,

but when they ceased her day of reckoning would come. Hence it is

necessary to treat in some detail the relations of the European powers

at the opening of the sixteenth century.

At the close of the Neapolitan war, the alliance between the houses of

Hapsburg and Spain, based on the marriage of the Archduke Philip, son

of Maximilian, with Joanna, the daughter of Ferdinand of Aragon and

Isabella of Castile, threatened to break up. By the deaths in 1497,

and 1500, of John, the eldest son, and of Michael of Portugal, the

grandson of the Spanish monarchs, Joanna became the heiress of Castile

and Aragon,[21] and, in the event of Isabella’s death, would become

Queen of Castile to the exclusion of her father. This at once aroused

the jealousy of Ferdinand against her husband the archduke. The

temporary division of Castile and Aragon would arrest the unification

of the Peninsula; while the prospect of Spain eventually falling to

the Hapsburg was equally distasteful to him.

| Treaty of Lyons, April 5, 1503; and of Blois, Sept.

| 22, 1504.

Ferdinand had accordingly rejected the treaty of Lyons (April 1503),

concluded between Philip and Louis XII. for the settlement of the

Neapolitan quarrel. By that treaty, it had been agreed that the

kingdom of Naples should one day fall to Claude, the infant daughter

of Louis XII., who had already, in 1501, been betrothed to Charles,

the young son of the archduke. Philip, abandoned by his father-in-law,

clung all the closer to the French alliance, and was supported by his

father, Maximilian, who hoped by this marriage treaty to realise his

most magnificent dreams. In September 1504, at Blois, Louis XII.,

influenced by his wife, Anne of Brittany, promised Milan, Genoa,

Asti, Brittany, and Blois, as Claude’s dower, to which Burgundy was

to be added in the event of his own death without male heirs. In the

following year, Maximilian actually proposed, with the approval of the

French Queen, that the Salic Law should be repealed, in order that

Claude might succeed her father on the French throne.

| Second Treaty of Blois. Oct. 12, 1505.

Thus there seemed a prospect that the young Charles would some day

unite the kingdoms of Castile, Aragon, France, the Milanese, and the

kingdom of Naples, with the hereditary dominions of the House of

Hapsburg. Had this ever come about, the rest of Germany must have

submitted, and the descendants of the poverty-stricken Frederick III.

would have found themselves masters of an empire over most of the

Teutonic and Latin races of the continent. But the day dream was not

to last. In November 1504, Isabella died, and Ferdinand, determined

to retain his hold as regent of Castile, made haste to conciliate

Louis XII. At Blois, in October 1505, he agreed to marry Germaine de

Foix, the niece of the French king. To her the French claims on Naples

were to be resigned, which, however, were to revert to Louis XII. in

default of her having issue by Ferdinand. Ferdinand further promised

to Louis a sum of money, and an amnesty to the French party in Naples.

In the June of the following year, 1506, Ferdinand was indeed obliged

to surrender the regency of Castile to Philip and Joanna; but in

September the Archduke Philip died at Burgos; the unfortunate Joanna

was declared to show signs of madness,[22] and Ferdinand, by the help

of Cardinal Ximenes, secured, though with difficulty, the government

of Castile. Thus the quarrel between Louis XII. and Ferdinand was

temporarily accommodated, and Ferdinand was secure in Spain and in

Naples.

Meanwhile, in France the national hostility to a foreigner had been

aroused. The Estates-General at Tours (May 1506) prayed the King to

abandon the intended match between Claude and Charles, and to marry

her to Francis of Angoulême, the heir-presumptive to the crown, who

was ‘entirely a Frenchman.’ Maximilian, irritated at the failure of

his schemes, now broke with Louis. In 1507, he summoned the Diet to

Constance, and passionately demanded help of the empire. ‘The King of

France,’ he said, ‘wishes to rob the Germans of the Imperial crown,

the highest dignity of the world and the glory of our nation.’ In

return for a promise to reorganise the Imperial Chamber, he received

a contingent from the Diet; he also took a body of Swiss mercenaries

into his pay. Crossing the Brenner, he reached Trent in February,

1508, and there, with the consent of the papal legate, declared

himself Emperor-elect.

| The League of Cambray. Dec. 10, 1508.

But as usual the pretensions of Maximilian outran his abilities to

a ludicrous extent. The Venetians, fearing his designs on Friuli,

refused him free passage, and enforced their refusal by arms. His

attempt on Vicenza failed. The Duke of Gueldres, stirred up by Louis

XII., threatened the Netherlands, and the would-be ruler of Western

Europe was forced to accept the terms of the insolent republic and

retire. Burning to revenge himself, he pocketed his pride, and at

Cambray, December 1508, came to terms with Louis XII. Peace was made

with the Duke of Gueldres, and Maximilian promised, in return for

money, the investiture of Milan to Louis XII. and his descendants.

Their quarrels thus accommodated, the King and Emperor agreed to

partition the Venetian territory. All princes who had any claims

on Venetian lands were asked to aid in checking her intolerable

selfishness and greed by recovering their lost possessions. Ferdinand

and the Pope shortly joined, the latter with some misgivings, and only

after Venice had refused to restore to him Rimini and Faenza; a number

of petty Italian princes followed suit, and Venice found herself

face to face with one of the most shameful of coalitions in history.

Ferdinand, however, was engaged in wars against the Moors of Africa.

The penniless Maximilian was not ready for a fresh campaign; and the

French, and papal troops, assisted by the Duke of Ferrara and other

Italians, alone took the field.

| Battle of Agnadello or Vaila. May 14, 1509.

The wisest policy for Venice would probably have been, as Pitigliano

urged, to avoid pitched battles, and to play a waiting game. If the

war were prolonged, the robbers would be sure to quarrel. But rasher

counsels prevailed. Neglecting the movement of the papal troops in the

Romagna, the Venetians turned against the French and attempted to stop

their attack at the frontier. As the two armies were manœuvring

in the valley of the Adda, it came about that the rear-guard of the

Venetian army, under Bartolomeo d’Alviano, came within striking

distance of the French advanced guard. Alviano, a condottier with more

valour than discretion, thought it more honourable to be beaten than

to retreat, and at once ordered the attack. The Venetian army was a

curious medley of Italian condottiers and peasants, Greek light horse

from the Peloponnese and the Ægean isles, and half-savage archers

from Crete. Nevertheless it fought well, more especially the Italian

infantry, composed of peasants from the Lombard plain and the slopes

of the Alps and Apennines. But it was exposed to the attack of the

whole French army, aided by a large body of Swiss. The van, under the

Count of Pitigliano, whether from jealousy, or because it was too

far distant, did not co-operate; and, after a desperate struggle,

the Venetian army turned and fled, leaving Alviano a prisoner, and

most of their infantry dead on the field. As is often the case with

mercenaries, the defeated army soon became a mob. The cities refused

refuge to the fugitives, and opened their gates to the victors. The

French met with no opposition till they reached Peschiera, which they

took by assault.

At Venice meanwhile, the Senate were debating their future policy

amidst the wildest consternation. Deciding to bow to the storm and

to abandon their subject cities, they authorised them to surrender.

Verona, Vicenza, and Padua forthwith sent their keys to Louis, and on

his chivalrous refusal to accept their submission, since they did not

fall to his share, they turned to Maximilian. In the Romagna, the Pope

occupied Ravenna, Rimini, and Faenza. The Duke of Ferrara entered the

Polesine; the Marquis of Mantua seized the territories of which Venice

had deprived him; and the Apulian towns surrendered to Ferdinand.

| Venice saved by the loyalty of her subject lands and

| the dissensions of her foes.

Venice had now lost all her acquisitions made during the fifteenth

century, and seemed doomed to be confined again to her lagoons; nay,

Maximilian even spoke of taking the city itself and dividing it into

four districts among the confederates. But the Emperor as usual

counted without his host. Neither Ferdinand nor Julius were willing

to press matters so far; they stayed their hand, while Louis, having

attained his object, withdrew to Milan, and then to France. In the

conquered territories, more especially in those claimed by Maximilian,

a reaction now took place in favour of the republic of St. Mark. The

nobles had easily deserted Venice, but now the lower classes in town

and country rose in her defence. The Senate regained courage. By a

majority of one vote it was decided to resume the offensive, and,

on July 17, Padua was re-taken. The law which forbade the Venetian

nobility to serve on the mainland was revoked, and one hundred and

seventy-six young nobles, headed by the sons of the Doge, Loredano,

marched to the defence of the recovered city. Maximilian at last

determined to come in person, and laid siege to Padua with a large

army composed not only of Germans, but of Spanish auxiliaries, and

reinforced by a French contingent. But the French and Germans were

not on the best of terms. The French knights, when ordered to storm

the breach on foot, demanded that they should be joined by the German

men-at-arms, and not be left to fight side by side with low-born

lansquenets, and the German knights refused to serve on foot at

all. At last Maximilian, passing as was his wont from overweening

confidence to blank despair, raised the siege, October 3, 1509, and

recrossed the Alps, to hear that Vicenza had also revolted, and

recalled the Venetian troops.

Unable to defeat the Venetians in open battle, or to take their

cities, Maximilian ordered their territories to be ravaged, and a

cruel war of pillage and of massacre went on in Friuli throughout

the winter of 1509-10. On one occasion, six thousand men, women, and

children were suffocated in a cave near Vicenza. Such cruelties could

only serve to convince the people of the superiority of the Venetian

rule.

Venice was now to be saved by the dissensions of her enemies. Julius

II. had hitherto been the most bitter of her foes, and had supported

the League not only by arms, but by excommunication. Yet he had always

declared that Venice had driven him to this step by her refusal to

recognise the just claims of the Papacy, spiritual and temporal. ‘But

for this,’ he had said, ‘we might have been united and found some way

to free Italy from the tyranny of the foreigner.’ Why should this not

now be done? The lands he claimed were in his possession, and Venice

was prepared to acknowledge his spiritual pretensions. Moreover,

the overwhelming predominance, which France had gained, might be

more dangerous to papal interests than the Venetian republic. Thus

by joining Venice there was an opportunity, not only of furthering

the papal cause, but also of realising that dream of every patriotic

Italian, the expulsion of the foreigner. Julius, however, did not

show his hand at once. It would be rash to do so until he could be

sure that Venice was strong enough to resist her foes; hence his long

refusal to listen to her prayers. When, at last, in February 1510, he

admitted the city to his peace, it was only on the severest terms.

Venice acknowledged the justice of the excommunication; renounced

her claims to tax her clergy, and to nominate to her bishoprics;

promised that clerics should be tried by ecclesiastical courts, and

declared the navigation of the Adriatic free to citizens of the Papal

States. The Council of Ten indeed entered a secret protest against

these concessions as having been extorted by force, and subsequently

repudiated them, but for the moment the Papacy had triumphed.

It was now the aim of Julius to drive the French and Germans from

Italy by the assistance of Venice, and of the Swiss, who had broken

with Louis. The Swiss alliance for the time failed him. Nevertheless

he met at first with transient success. The neutrality of Ferdinand

was secured by the investiture of Naples and Sicily, hitherto refused

by the Papacy (July 1510). Modena, belonging to the Duke of Ferrara,

and Mirandola, were conquered; the first by the nephew of the Pope,

the Duke of Urbino; the second by the warlike Julius himself, who,

rising from a bed of sickness, crossed the trenches on the ice, and

took the city by storm (January 1511). But here his success ended.

| The Holy League. Oct. 5, 1511.

On May 13, 1511, the French captured Bologna, aided by treachery

within the city, and in September, Louis summoned a general council

at Pisa, which had been at last reconquered by Florence two years

before. The council was a failure, for Europe was not prepared for

another schism. But it was evident that the French were not to be

easily driven from Milan. Julius, therefore, determined to be avenged

on France, now turned to Ferdinand. The wily Spaniard had long lost

interest in the League. Having regained the Apulian towns, he did

not care to see Venice further humbled, and dreaded the increase of

French power in Lombardy. Moreover, a quarrel in Italy would give him

a pretext for seizing Navarre, which he had long coveted. Ferdinand

accordingly gladly welcomed the offers of the Pope; and on October

5, 1511, the Holy League was formed between the Pope, Ferdinand, and

Venice. The ostensible object of the League was the protection of the

Church, the recovery of Bologna, and the restoration to Venice of her

territories. The real aim of the confederates was to drive the French

from Italy, while a further stipulation in the treaty, that the Pope

should confirm the Spaniards in any conquest made outside Italy,

pointed clearly to Navarre. The allies also gained the support of the

young Henry VIII. of England, who was anxious to revive his claims

to Guienne, and to strengthen his alliance with his father-in-law.

Against this formidable coalition, Louis was at first successful. The

French army was commanded by Gaston de Foix, the king’s nephew and

brother of Ferdinand’s wife. The young man--he was twenty-three, ‘a

great general without having served as a soldier’--who by the rapidity

of his movements earned in this campaign the title of the Thunderbolt

of Italy, first threw himself into Bologna (February 4), and forced

the army of the League, under Raymond de Cardona, viceroy of Naples,

to retire. Hearing of the revolt of Brescia, he hurried thither, took

the town by assault, mounting the ramparts with bare feet to improve

his hold on the steep slopes (February 18), and killed so many of the

defenders ‘that the horses could not put foot to the ground for the

corpses that covered it.’ Then, speeding back to Bologna, he forced

his enemies to retire, and, pressing on to Ravenna, attempted to take

the town by assault (April 19).

| Battle of Ravenna. Easter Day, 1512.

Cardona was anxious to avoid a pitched battle. Time, he knew, was on

his side, for Maximilian was on the point of joining the League; the

Swiss were preparing to pour down into the Milanese; and the projected

invasion of France by Henry VIII. would prevent Louis from sending

efficient reinforcements. He had accordingly retired to Faenza, but,

fearing that Ravenna would fall if not relieved, was forced to return.

Even then his tactics were defensive. His camp was protected on the

left flank by the river; in front, by some of the numerous ditches

which intersect the marshy country. Strengthening this further by his

artillery, and by waggons with scythe-like implements mounted on them,

he awaited the French attack.

The position of Cardona was indeed a strong one, but in numbers his

force was slightly inferior, and, if France was to win, the victory

must be won at once. Gaston, therefore, decided rightly to tempt

fortune once more, and on Easter Day at 8 A.M. he ordered the attack.

He had hoped to dislodge the enemy from their strong position by

means of his artillery, which had been brought to a condition of high

efficiency under the Duke of Ferrara. In this he was disappointed.

The fire of the Spaniards was nearly as effective as his own, and,

although the cavalry of the League suffered as severely as that of

the French, the Spanish infantry protected themselves by lying on the

ground, a movement which French ideas of military honour forbade.

After three hours’ furious cannonade, the impatience of the cavalry

of the League, and of the French and German infantry, could no longer

be restrained, and while the former charged the French cavalry, which

stood opposite to it, the latter attacked the Spanish foot. Thus

cavalry was opposed to cavalry, and infantry to infantry. In the

shock which followed, the French horse under Ives d’Allègre, after

half-an-hour’s struggle, carried all before them; but their foot, with

the German lansquenets, in spite of heroic efforts, found the position

too strong, and were already being driven back, when a detachment

of their horse, returning from the charge, took the infantry of the

League in flank. The French and German infantry now rallied, and

forcing their opponents back, finally drove them from their camp. The

battle was already won, when Gaston, attempting to check the retreat

of some two thousand Spanish footmen, rashly threw himself across

their path, followed by a handful of men-at-arms. Though unhorsed he

still fought on, ‘rivalling the feats of Roland at Roncesvalles,’ till

at last he fell pierced by wounds. Thus ended the most bloody battle

of the war, which had lasted from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M.

The graphic account, given by the biographer of Bayard, helps us best

to realise its peculiar character. The shock of the men-at-arms, the

thrust of pike and short sword, the arquebuses and ‘hacquebutes,’ or

mounted arquebuses, belong to the Middle Age, but the efficiency of

the guns reminds us that we are on the threshold of the sixteenth

century.

The victory lay with the French. Pedro Navarra, one of the best of

the Spanish generals, the young Marquis of Pescara, and the Cardinal

de Medici, legate of the Pope, soon to become Pope Leo X. himself,

were prisoners. ‘The Spanish loss was such that an hundred years

could not repair it,’ and Ravenna at once surrendered. Yet, never was

victory more dearly bought, or more useless. Though the Spanish troops

had suffered most, the losses amongst the officers were more severe

on the side of the French and Germans, and many a knight who had

distinguished himself in Italy had bit the dust. More serious still

was Gaston’s death. Had he lived, he might have pressed on to Rome,

and brought the Pope at once to terms. His death, however, caused

delay, and delay was ruinous. The cruelty of the French had made them

hated by the Italians; the richness of the booty, at Brescia and

Ravenna, demoralised the troops, and many returned to France.

| Maximilian and the Swiss join the Holy League.

| The French recross the Alps.

Maximilian had come to terms with the League just before the battle,

but too late to prevent his lansquenets from taking part and rendering

most efficient help to the French. Now, in hopes of securing the

Milanese for himself, or for his grandson Charles, he recalled his

troops and openly broke with France. Deprived of their support, the

French could hardly keep the field. It was, however, at the hands

of the Swiss that they were to be driven across the Alps. In the

previous wars, these mercenary mountaineers had been of the greatest

service to Louis; but the cantons had been alienated by his refusal to

increase the subsidy, and still more by his stopping their trade with

the Milanese, whence they drew their corn and wine and oil. A strong

anti-French party accordingly arose in Switzerland, headed by Mathias

Schinner, Bishop of the Valais, the implacable enemy of France, and,

in May 1512, a Swiss army poured down on Milan. La Palice, who, on the

death of Gaston, had succeeded to the command, felt too weak to resist

them with an army deprived of the German contingent, and demoralised

by its excesses. He accordingly withdrew to Pavia. Trivulzio, the

governor of Milan, followed him, and shortly afterwards the French

recrossed the Mont Cenis. With the exception of the castle of Milan,

and a few others, their conquests rapidly melted away. Genoa drove

out the French and elected Giano Fregoso as its doge. All the Romagna

returned to the obedience of the Pope. The Duke of Ferrara indeed

held out, but lost Reggio. Bologna was regained, and even Parma and

Piacenza seized, while Julius claimed all the territory south of the

Po.

| The Medici restored to Florence. Sept. 1, 1512.

In August 1512, representatives of the League met in congress at

Mantua. Florence first demanded their attention. Since the death

of Savonarola, the position of that republic had been most weak.

The constitution established in 1494 had not worked well. It was

too oligarchical to be popular, while the partisans of the exiled

Medici did all they could to discredit it. In 1502, to strengthen the

executive, the office of Gonfalonier had been made a life appointment,

and Piero Soderini had been elected; in 1506, at the suggestion of

Machiavelli, a militia had been formed. But these measures did not

mend matters much. The long struggle to regain Pisa, which was only

ended in 1509, exhausted the revenues of the state, and the intrigues

of the Medici grew more active. Clinging to the French alliance, the

city had refused the offers of the League; yet, in the pursuit of a

policy of feeble neutrality, had given no help to Louis XII., when

help might have saved him. Her turn was now to come. The confederates

demanded that Soderini should retire from office, and that the Medici

should be allowed to return as private citizens. The Florentines

agreed to admit the Medici, but, over-confident in their new-formed

militia, declined to depose Soderini. Accordingly, on August 12, 1512,

Raymond de Cardona attacked the town of Prato, which lay a few miles

to the north of Florence. The militia, although far more numerous

than their enemies, did not justify the confidence which had been

placed in them, and fled as soon as a breach was made; possibly there

was treachery within the walls. In any case, the Spaniards entered

the town without further opposition, and put it to the sack with

such brutality that the memories of it are said to have disturbed

the last moments of Giovanni, the future Pope, Leo X. This cruelty

at least did its work. Soderini, an amiable though weak man, whose

‘silly soul’ the indignant epitaph of Machiavelli sentences to the

limbo of infants, at once resigned rather than expose Florence to

further woes; and, on September 1, the Cardinal Giovanni entered

Florence. The Medici[23] returned nominally as private citizens, but

the constitution of 1494 was swept away, and the government, restored

as it had been under Lorenzo, was completely under their control.

Although the revolution was effected with moderation, the partisans of

the old government naturally lost office. Machiavelli, who had been

secretary to the Council of Ten (Dieci di Libertà e Pace), and who

had taken an active part in the diplomacy of the republic, was driven

from public life, and devoted himself to writing _The Prince_, and

_The Discourses_,[24] the former of which treatises has given him such

an unenviable notoriety. The city under its new rulers abandoned the

French alliance and joined the League.

| Milan granted to Maximilian Sforza. Dec. 29, 1512.

The confederates then turned to the question of Milan. Maximilian

was eager to secure this for his grandson Charles. But he was not

acceptable to the Pope, the Venetians, or the Swiss, or even to

Ferdinand. All dreaded the addition of the Milanese to the vast

possessions present and reversionary of the young prince. Finally,

it was agreed to recall Maximilian, the son of Ludovico il Moro, who

had since his father’s fall been brought up in the imperial court.

On the 29th of December, Maximilian received the keys from the Swiss

and entered the city. In return, ‘their puppet duke’ ceded to the

confederates the Val Maggia, Locarno, and Lugano; and to their allies,

the Rhætian League (later the canton of the Grisons), Chiavenna,

Bormio, and the Valtelline. This, added to the Val Leventina, acquired

1440, and to Bellinzona, granted by Louis XII. in 1503, gave the

Swiss, and their allies, complete command over four of the most

important passes of the Alps, the St. Gothard, the Splugen, the

Maloia, and the Bernina, and extended their territory to the Italian

lakes of Como, Lugano, and Maggiore.[25] Thus at the close of the year

1512, the Medici and the Sforza found themselves again in power as

they had been at the invasion of Charles VIII.

| Ferdinand conquers Spanish Navarre. July 1513.

Meanwhile France had been threatened by a joint attack on Guienne--on

the part of Ferdinand and Henry VIII. The English indeed landed

at Bayonne, but fortunately for Louis, the attention of Ferdinand

was called off to Navarre. That kingdom, which sat astride of the

Pyrenees, was at this moment under the rule of Catherine de Foix and

her husband, the Frenchman, John d’Albret. But her title had always

been disputed by the younger line, represented by Gaston de Foix,

the nephew of Louis XII. On his death at the battle of Ravenna, his

claims passed to his sister Germaine, wife of Ferdinand, and these

Ferdinand now proceeded to press. Catherine, the reigning queen,

no longer afraid of France, sought the alliance of Louis XII. This

gave Ferdinand the pretext he sought. He demanded a passage through

Navarre for his attack on France, and on being refused, invaded the

little kingdom. He was supported by a powerful faction, headed by the

Beaumonts. The timid John fled. ‘Wert thou queen and I king, the realm

would not be thus lost,’ said Catherine, but was forced to follow her

cowardly husband, and, by the end of July, Ferdinand occupied all

the territory on the Spanish side of the mountains. That portion of

the country which lay on the French slope of the Pyrenees, continued

an independent kingdom, to be absorbed into France in the sixteenth

century, by the accession of Henry of Navarre to the French crown. The

English, irritated at Ferdinand’s failure to co-operate with them,

and attacked by disease, due to the hot climate, the incessant rain,

and the heavy wine of the South in which they indulged too freely,

withdrew from Bayonne, and France was relieved from immediate danger

on that side.

| Break-up of the Holy League.

| Death of Julius II. Feb. 20, 1513.

At the beginning of the year 1513, it was pretty evident that the Holy

League would not last. The Venetians, finding that the Emperor was

coveting the share of their territory originally meted out to him by

the League of Cambray, were looking again to France. At this moment,

Julius II., one of the chief movers in that League, passed away. The

objects of this ‘fiery personality’ had been: first to conquer the

Romagna, and establish the papal dominion there on a sound footing;

secondly, if possible, to free Italy from the foreigner. Of these,

the first had been the dominant aim, and he had attained it. ‘For

good or for ill, Julius is the founder of the Papal States.’ We may

deplore the secularising influence of the temporal dominion on the

spiritual character of the Papacy, but at least the scheme of Julius

is infinitely preferable to that of Alexander VI. Alexander had tried

to establish his family; Julius won territories for the Papal See.

But in gaining this, his primary aim, he sacrificed his second. By

the League of Cambray, he finally destroyed the political life of

Italy, and called the foreigner to his aid; and, when, in the Holy

League, he attempted to undo the work, and to drive the French, the

chief instruments of his previous policy, across the Alps, he found

that he could only do so at the price of changing masters. In his

last days, indeed, he hoped to reconcile Maximilian by some small

concessions, and then, with the help of the Venetians and the Swiss,

to drive the Spaniards from the peninsula. But the dream was an idle

one. Julius had riveted the chains of Italian slavery, and done much

to advance the power of that formidable Austro-Spanish House which

was shortly to become so dangerous a menace to Europe, and to control

the destinies of Italy till our own day. None the less, the name of

Pope Julius will always live as the founder of the Papal States, as

the last representative of that great semi-political, semi-religious

Church, whose claims to universal supremacy over western Christendom

were on the point of being overthrown; as the patron of Bramante,

Michael Angelo, and Raphael, the authors of those supreme efforts of

Renaissance art, the Cathedral of St. Peter,[26] and the frescoes of

the Sistine Chapel, and of the Vatican.

| Election of Leo X. March 11, 1513.

Of all the schemes of Julius II., few had more influence on the

immediate history of Italy and of the Papacy than the restoration

of the Medici to Florence. He had been led to it by the obstinate

adherence of the republic to Louis XII. But the policy was a mistaken

one. The republic was weak and could not have had much influence,

whereas, under the Medici, allied as they were with Spain, Florence

was likely to become formidable again. Julius, however, could hardly

have foreseen that a family, which had only just been restored from

exile, would furnish his successor on the papal throne; for the

election of the young Cardinal Giovanni de’ Medici--he was only

thirty-eight--surprised every one.

Giovanni, the second son of Lorenzo the Magnificent, appointed a

cardinal before he was a man, had indeed shown himself a capable

politician by the leading part he had taken in the restoration of

his family to Florence. He was not, however, otherwise noteworthy,

and his election was due mainly to the desire of the young cardinals

for some rest after the political activity of the pontificates of

Alexander VI. and Julius II. This they hoped to gain by the election

of the pleasure-loving Medici, who represented the Renaissance in its

shallower aspects, loved magnificence, and dallied with literature and

art; but had no serious purpose in life beyond a desire to establish

his family at Florence, and, for the rest, to be ever on the winning

side.

| Treaty of Mechlin. April 5, 1513.

But though, by the death of Julius II., the Holy League was robbed

of its most earnest member, the change of Popes did not for the

moment improve the prospects of peace. On the one hand France and

Venice, united by common interest, formed an alliance; on the other,

the young Henry VIII. of England and his ambitious minister Wolsey,

anxious to win a place in European counsels, pined for a new league

of partition against France. This was signed at Mechlin, in April,

between Maximilian, Henry VIII., Leo. X., and Ferdinand; although the

last named was at the same moment making a secret treaty with the

French King.

| Battle of Novara. June 6, 1513.

Threatened thus on all sides, France seemed likely to be overwhelmed.

In Italy, her attempt to reconquer the Milanese, by the aid of the

Venetians, was foiled by the disastrous battle of Novara. Here the

Swiss, who looked upon Maximilian Sforza as their _protégé_, without

cavalry or artillery, decisively defeated a French army three times as

numerous as themselves, and well provided with both guns and horse.

| Battle of Guinnegate. Aug. 16.

| Flodden. Sept. 9.

Meanwhile Henry VIII., with the needy Maximilian in his pay, invaded

France; laid siege to Terouenne; put a French relieving force to

flight at Guinnegate with such ease, as to earn for the combat the

name of ‘the Battle of the Spurs’; and took Terouenne and Tournay. In

September, the Swiss actually invaded France and extorted a treaty

from Louis XII. In the same month, James IV. of Scotland, as he sought

to make a diversion in favour of his French ally, lost the flower of

the Scottish nobility, and his own life, on the field of Flodden.

| France once more saved by dissensions of her foes.

| Ferdinand, the Pope, and Henry VIII. are reconciled to

| France.

It looked as if France, the country which at first had gained most

from the partition of Venice, was likely to be partitioned herself.

But, as ever, the mutual jealousies of the European powers prevented

any lasting combination. Neither Ferdinand nor Leo X. wished to see

France too weak. Leo thought that his own interests and those of his

family would be best secured by balancing the powers of Spain and

France in Italy, and hoped to secure French assistance for his scheme

of establishing Giuliano his brother in Naples. He accordingly became

reconciled to the French King, and pardoned the French cardinals,

who had taken part in the schismatic council of Pisa (November,

1513). Ferdinand was above all things anxious to prevent the undue

aggrandisement of the House of Hapsburg. He had already made a secret

treaty with Louis, and he now intrigued to detach the Emperor from

the English alliance. Henry was determined not to be thus left in

the lurch. He was irritated at the treachery of Ferdinand, and the

incurable shiftiness of Maximilian, ‘the man of few pence,’ who would

do anything to gain a little money, and accordingly made his own peace

with Louis (August, 1514). It was agreed that his sister Mary, who had

just been betrothed to Charles, the grandson of Maximilian, should

marry the French King. The disparity in their ages was serious. The

bridegroom was a widower of fifty-two, and Mary was but sixteen. But

the scruples of the maiden were overcome by the promise that, if she

would this time sacrifice herself to her brother’s interests, she

should next time follow her own inclinations; and peace was concluded

between France and England. Thus France escaped from her danger, and

England, under the guidance of Wolsey, had secured for herself an

influential position in Europe.

Of the folly of Louis’ Italian policy, there cannot be a doubt.

His three capital errors are thus described by Machiavelli: ‘He

increased the power of the Church; he called the Spaniards into

Italy, a foreigner as puissant as himself; he ruined the power of the

Venetians, his best allies.’

The mutual jealousies of the other powers, indeed, saved France itself

from dismemberment. But her resources were terribly strained; Spain

had seized half of Navarre; Tournay had been lost to England; and the

attempt to hold Italy had only proved the truth of the adage that

‘Italy is the grave of the French.’

| Louis XII. succeeded by Francis I. Jan. 1515.

Had Louis lived, Europe might possibly have had peace. But the

unfortunate man succumbed in three months in his attempt to play the

bridegroom, ‘dining at eight when he was accustomed to dine at midday,

and retiring to bed at midnight when he was wont to sleep at six,’

and was succeeded by his ambitious cousin, Francis of Angoulême, who

had, in 1514, married the king’s daughter, Claude, heiress through her

mother to the Duchy of Brittany.

| Francis determines to invade Italy. His treaties with

| Venice, England, and Charles.

The young king, now in his twenty-first year, is thus described by

Sir Robert Wingfield, the ambassador of Henry VIII. at the court of

Maximilian: ‘He is mighty insatiable, always reading or talking of

such enterprises as whet and inflame himself and his hearers. His

common saying is, that his trust is, that by his valour and industry

the things which have been lost and lettyn by his ignoble predecessors

shall be recovered, and that the monarchy of Christendom shall

rest under the banner of France as it was wont to do.’ Encouraged

by his mother, Louise of Savoy, who was bent on the exaltation of

her ‘Cæsar,’ he was no sooner on the throne than he resolved to

plunge into Italy and wipe out the disgrace of Novara. In the spring

and summer, he renewed the treaties with Henry VIII. and Venice,

and concluded an alliance with the young Charles, who, although

only fifteen, had just been called to assume the government of

the Netherlands, and who, under the guidance of Croy, the Lord of

Chièvres, had adopted a conciliatory attitude towards France. Francis

also hoped to gain the support of Leo X. In February, he sanctioned

the marriage of Giuliano de’ Medici, the brother of the Pope, with

Philiberta of Savoy, sister of his mother Louise, and held out hopes

of some day establishing him in Naples.

| Counter-League against France.

| Francis crosses the Alps, Aug. 1515. Victory of

| Marignano, Sept. 13.

The fickle Pontiff, however, was as usual playing double, and in

the same month joined the counter-league against France, which was

composed of the Emperor, Ferdinand, Florence, the Duke of Milan,

and the Swiss. Had the allies been united it might have gone ill

for Francis, but they were bent on their own interests, and divided

their forces. Francis, finding that the outlet of the passes of

the Mont Cenis and Mont Genèvre were guarded by the Swiss, pushed

his way across the Alps by the Col de l’Argentière, a new and

difficult route, and reached Saluzzo unmolested. He then surprised

Prospero Colonna, who commanded the Milanese forces at Villafranca,

and completely turned the position of the Swiss at Susa. The Swiss

dropped back on Milan, and the French advanced to Marignano, a place

between Piacenza and Milan. Here, late on a September afternoon,

they were attacked by the Swiss. The intrepid mountaineers had been

stirred by the eloquence of Mathias Schinner, the Cardinal of Sion,

the life-long enemy of the French. With only a few Milanese cavalry

to support them, and scarcely any guns, they trusted to the weight of

their famous phalanx, and push of pike. The French they despised as

‘hares in armour.’ Disencumbered of their caps, and with bare feet to

give themselves firmer footing, they dashed upon the enemy, hoping to

repeat the exploit of Novara. But they underrated their opponents,

who were led by the flower of French chivalry, the Constable of

Bourbon, La Palice, the Chevalier Bayard, Robert de la Marck, the

son of the ‘devil of the Ardennes,’ himself dubbed ‘L’Aventureur,’

and the Milanese, Trivulzio, who had fought in seventeen pitched

battles. Pedro Navarra, the Spanish general of artillery, was also

there. He had been made prisoner at the battle of Ravenna, and since

the niggardly Ferdinand had refused to pay his ransom, he had taken

service with the French.

The struggle which ensued was declared by Trivulzio to be a battle of

giants, compared with which, all that he had ever been engaged in were

but child’s-play. When darkness came upon the combatants, they lay

down to sleep ‘within cast of a tennis ball of each other.’ With the

dawn the combat was renewed, and continued till midday. The Swiss had

divided their forces in an attempt on the rear-guard, when d’Alviano

attacked them in the rear with the Venetian contingents. This decided

the matter, and Francis, knighted on the battlefield by the Chevalier

Bayard, remained the master of the field. Yet though defeated, the

Swiss retreated in good order, bearing their wounded with them.

| Results of the victory.

The battle of Marignano gave Milan to the French. Maximilian Sforza

abdicated his dukedom, which he had held for three years, and died

some years after, a pensioner in France. By his victory, Francis

shattered the military prestige of the Swiss, who had of late deemed

themselves invincible, commanded the destinies of Lombardy, and

‘tamed and corrected princes.’ Never again did these mercenaries

exercise an independent influence in Italy. Thus Francis had attained

at one stroke the pinnacle of military glory, and, had he pressed

his advantage, might have reduced the Pope and regained the kingdom

of Naples. But for this he was not prepared, and, contrary to

expectation, the battle for a moment promoted the cause of peace.

Leo, eager to join the winning cause, hastened to come to terms. He

ceded Parma and Piacenza, while Francis promised to support Lorenzo

in Florence, and to sanction the papal attack on the Duchy of Urbino,

whence Francesco della Rovere, the Duke, was driven. A short time

afterwards, Francis gave Lorenzo a wife connected with the royal

family, Madeleine de la Tour d’Auvergne.

| The Concordat of Bologna. Aug. 1516.

Having thus settled their political affairs, Pope and King proceeded,

by the concordat of Bologna, to share between them the liberties

of the Gallican Church. The traditional privileges of the Church

of France had been confirmed and extended by Charles VII. in the

Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (1439). By it, the free election to

bishoprics and abbacies had been secured to the chapters; the papal

claims to first-fruits had been rejected, as well as the right to

nominate to benefices by way of ‘reservations’ and ‘expectancies’;

appeals to Rome had been restricted, and the superiority of General

Councils over the Pope had been declared. The independence thus gained

by the Church of France had been distasteful, not only to the Pope,

but to Louis XI. himself, who had attempted, though unsuccessfully,

to repeal the Pragmatic Sanction. Now Francis had his opportunity,

and was met half-way by Leo X. The Concordat of Bologna restrained

indeed the appeals to Rome, and declared papal ‘reservations’ and

‘expectative graces’ abolished. But it restored the first-fruits to

the Pope, omitted the assertion of the superiority of General Councils

over the Pope, and gave to the King the right of nomination to

bishoprics and archbishoprics, subject only to the papal confirmation

and institution. A few years later, the King gained the same privilege

with regard to the abbots of French monasteries. This serious attack

on the constitutional liberties of the Church of France met with

resolute opposition from the ‘Parlement’ and the University of Paris.

But the ‘Parlement,’ after an ineffectual resistance, was forced

to register it _de expressimo mandato regis_, the University was

overawed by royal threats, and the Concordat became the law of France.

Henceforth the French Church became the servant of King and Pope. The

power, which the crown obtained by control of these nominations, may

be estimated by remembering that in France at that time there existed

ten archbishoprics, eighty-three bishoprics, and five hundred and

twenty-seven abbacies. This right of nomination was almost exclusively

exercised in favour of men of noble birth. Hence the mischievous

distinction between the higher clergy who were nobles, and, for the

most part, courtiers, and the _curés_, who were not. Under these

circumstances, the position of the Church formed a counterpart to

the social condition of the country, with its sharp and disastrous

division between the noble and the _roturier_. On the other hand, the

right of veto enjoyed by the Pope on the royal nominations caused the

higher clergy and the aspirants for office to look to him. Thus the

Church of France, once the most independent of the European churches,

became one of the most servile and ultramontane, whilst its rulers

lost all touch with the middle classes.

| Death of Ferdinand the Catholic, Jan. 23, 1516.

| Charles, King of Spain.

Meanwhile, the triumph of Francis materially influenced the policy

of Ferdinand. Since the death of the Archduke Philip, the King of

Spain had been jealous of his grandson Charles. He feared lest he

might reclaim the regency of Castile, and disliked the prospect of

his eventually joining Austria, the Netherlands, and Spain under one

rule. His hostility even led him to entertain serious thoughts of

dividing his inheritance on his death between Charles and his brother

Ferdinand. Now, fearing that France might become too powerful, he

changed his will and bequeathed all to Charles. In January, 1516, the

wily old diplomatist, who had so adroitly schemed to establish his

undivided authority in Spain, and to balance the powers of Europe,

died, and Charles found himself, at the age of sixteen, the ruler of

Spain, the Netherlands, the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily, and the New

World.

| Charles makes Peace of Noyon with Francis, Aug. 13,

| 1516, which Maximilian accepts.

It was now the aim of Wolsey, who had gained his cardinal’s hat in

the previous year, to oppose the predominant power of France by an

alliance between Charles, Maximilian, the Pope, and the Swiss. But Leo

for the present preferred the French alliance, and Charles was not yet

prepared for a struggle with Francis. His position was by no means

secure; his succession in Spain was disliked by many of the Spaniards;

the Netherlands lay exposed to the attacks of the Duke of Gueldres,

and of Robert de la Marck, the Lord of Bouillon, both ever glad of a

pretext for war. Finally, with all his titles, he was sadly in need

of money. He was therefore in no position to contest the possession

of Milan, and, following the advice of Chièvres, he concluded the

Peace of Noyon with the victor of Marignano (August 13, 1516). Charles

was betrothed to Louise, the infant daughter of Francis; the French

retained Milan, but surrendered all claims to Naples; Charles promised

to restore Spanish Navarre to the line of Albret; Venice agreed to

offer 200,000 ducats to Maximilian for Brescia and Verona, but in the

event of his refusing, the two Kings might adopt what policy they

liked with regard to Venetian affairs.

| Henry VIII. makes Treaty of London, Oct. 1518. Europe

| for the moment at Peace.

The Peace of Noyon was a blow to Wolsey. In vain did he try to form an

alliance with Maximilian, the Venetians, and the Swiss. The Emperor

was ever ready with fantastic projects calculated to deceive the

simple Sir Robert Wingfield, Henry’s representative at his court,

who was an ambassador of the old generation, and did not fathom the

wiles of the new diplomacy. But Richard Pace, Wolsey’s special agent,

warned his master against the credulity of the good knight, whom

he humorously describes as ‘Summer will be green,’ and against the

shiftiness and money greed of Maximilian. Eventually, in December,

Maximilian accepted the terms of the treaty of Noyon, and surrendered

Brescia and Verona to Venice. Nor was Wolsey more successful with

the Swiss. In November, in return for gold, they made a ‘perpetual

peace’ with the French at Friburg. England seemed to be isolated once

more. But the desire of Francis to recover Tournay, which had been

seized by Henry VIII. in 1513, gave Wolsey an advantage, and by the

Treaty of London (October, 1518), Henry surrendered that town. The

alliance between the two countries was confirmed by the usual marriage

arrangements. The English princess Mary, a child of two, was betrothed

to the dauphin, who was not yet one year old. Thus England had at

least saved herself from isolation, and Europe was at peace.

The Pope, when he dissolved the Lateran Council in the March of the

preceding year, had declared that schism had been ended, that the

necessary reforms in the Church had been accomplished, and that he

had good hopes that Europe, now at peace, might unite against the

Turk. The powers of Europe openly professed their intention so to do;

indulgences were promised, and papal collectors attempted to raise

money. Yet Europe was on the threshold of a renewed struggle between

the Houses of Hapsburg and of Valois, which was to last with some

slight pauses for another eighty years; and already Luther had affixed

his famous ‘Theses’ to the church door at Wittenberg, which were to

lead to a schism such as Rome had never dreamt of.

| Effect of the Wars of the League of Cambray on the

| decline of Venice.

| Real causes of the decline of Venice.

| The old routes of commerce altered by discovery of

| route round the Cape.

The series of treaties just mentioned may be said to have closed

the desultory war which had commenced with the League of Cambray.

It is often said that the League ruined Venice, yet we find that

she still retained almost all her dominions on the mainland, with

the exception of the Apulian towns and a few districts surrendered

to the Pope, and that the Adda still remained her boundary on the

west. The long war had no doubt severely strained her resources and

her exhausted finances, but these might have been restored. We must

therefore look elsewhere for the causes of the decline of Venice. In

the first place, the condition of politics had changed. The great

monarchical states of Europe, more especially France and Spain, had

become consolidated. Venice could no longer hope to compete with them;

her resources on the mainland were not sufficient to cope with the

armies which these powerful nations could put into the field; and in

any case she must have contented herself with a subordinate position.

We must also remember the strain of the Turkish wars. Europe, ever

ready to accuse Venice of treachery to the cause of Christendom,

turned deaf ears to her earnest entreaties for assistance. Thus Venice

was left almost alone to face the Turk. During the struggle, which

continued with some few intermissions throughout the sixteenth and

seventeenth centuries, Venice slowly lost ground. She had to surrender

Cyprus in 1571, and Candia in 1669, after a desperate defence of

four-and-twenty years. The expenses of these wars, added to those

she had just incurred, would have been difficult to meet, even if

her trade had been left to her. But even this was slipping away. Her

wealth had depended chiefly on her commerce with the East and on

her carrying-trade between East and West. The old routes of Eastern

commerce had been mainly three. First, from Central Asia to the Black

Sea, and thence to the Mediterranean; secondly, by the Persian Gulf

and the Euphrates Valley, to the Levant; and lastly, to Cairo and

Alexandria from the Red Sea. Thence goods were shipped in Venetian

galleys to Venice, and were sent over the Alps, generally by the

Brenner Pass, to the Inn, the Danube, the Maine, and the Rhine, and

thence to Bruges, or were conveyed round by sea in the ‘Flanders

galleys.’ But at the beginning of the sixteenth century, the Eastern

routes to Venice became closed. The Turks, after their conquest of

Constantinople, in 1453, cut off her trade with the Levant, while the

advance of the Portuguese on India destroyed the trade through Egypt.

| Discoveries of the Portuguese.

The Genoese had been the pioneers of exploration on the western

coast of Africa. They had rediscovered the Canaries and the island

of Madeira, which had been known to the Carthaginians. But their

attention had been directed to the Mediterranean, their strength

exhausted in struggles with their Venetian rivals, and in the

fourteenth century the Portuguese had reoccupied these islands. The

great period of Portuguese discovery dates from the time of Prince

Henry the Navigator (1394-1460). This son of John I. of Portugal built

an observatory at Sagres, on Cape St. Vincent, the extreme south-west

promontory of Europe, and devoted himself to the scientific study of

geography, and to the encouragement of discovery. Other motives were

not wanting; the desire to avenge himself on the Moors, the hereditary

foes of his country, and greed for gold dust, and the profits of the

slave-trade, in which the Prince was the first to engage. In one

expedition no less than two hundred and sixteen negro slaves were

brought to Portugal, of whom one-fifth were assigned to Henry as his

share; ‘of which,’ says the chronicler, ‘he had great joy because of

their salvation, who otherwise would have been destined to perdition.’

Under his influence, the Portuguese planted colonies at Porto Santo

and Madeira, discovered the Azores, and the Cape de Verde Islands, and

began to creep down the western coast of Africa. In 1442, Prince Henry

obtained from Pope Martin V. a grant of all kingdoms and lordships

from Cape Bojador to India. The hopes of reaching India spurred him

on. In 1479, Ferdinand of Spain, still occupied at home with the Moors

of Granada, agreed not to interfere with the exclusive right of the

Portuguese to traffic and discovery on the western coast of Africa,

while claiming the Canary Islands. The agreement was confirmed by

the bull of Alexander VI., which gave to Portugal all newly found

lands east of a line one hundred--subsequently, in 1494, extended by

treaty to three hundred and seventy--leagues west of the Cape de Verde

Islands.

| Defeat of Egyptian fleet by Portuguese at Diu. Feb.

| 1509.

Eight years before this bull, Bartholomew Diaz rounded the Cape,

to which he gave the name of Stormy, but which his more sanguine

sovereign, John II. of Portugal, called the Cape of Good Hope. In

1498, Vasco da Gama, again sailing round the Cape, crossed the Eastern

Ocean, and set foot on the Malabar coast at Calicut. Shortly after,

Emmanuel, King of Portugal (1495-1521), assumed the title of ‘Lord

of the navigation, conquest, and commerce of Æthiopia, Persia,

Arabia, and India,’ and sent Almeyda to India with the title of

viceroy, although he did not yet possess a foot of territory there.

The Portuguese now pushed steadily up the western coast of India,

defeated the princes who opposed them, and began to monopolise the

trade. In 1505, the first Portuguese ships appeared at Antwerp,

offering eastern wares at a cheaper rate than they could be got at

Bruges, the market for the goods which came overland from Venice. This

advance seriously threatened the Venetian trade through Egypt, then

chiefly in the hands of Arabian and Moorish merchants. Accordingly,

in 1509, the Sultan of Cairo, in answer to an appeal from some of the

petty princes of the Malabar coast, despatched an expedition from

Suez against the Portuguese, which the Venetians, conscious that

their interests were involved, assisted. But in February 1509, three

months before the battle of Agnadello, the expedition was defeated by

Almeyda in the harbour of Diu. His successor Albuquerque fixed the

centre of the Portuguese rule at Goa, and occupied Ormuz, an important

port on the Persian Gulf. Henceforth the advance of the Portuguese

was unchecked. By the close of the sixteenth century not only did

they control the commerce of the coasts of Africa, Arabia, and the

western coast of India, but they had planted themselves at Ceylon and

in Bengal, had opened up a trade with China and Japan, and, above all,

had occupied the true ‘Spice Islands’ which cluster round Borneo and

Celebes (1546).

Thus the same spring witnessed the fall of the Venetian military

power in the battle of Agnadello, and the destruction of their trade

with the East. The caravans no longer came to Cairo. The eastern

goods were shipped round the Cape. The mediæval trade-routes were

revolutionised, and the carrying trade passed from the Venetians to

the Portuguese, shortly to be followed by the Dutch and English, while

Antwerp took the place of Bruges as the ‘entrepôt’ in the North.

Finally, the conquest of Egypt by Selim I. (1516) destroyed what

remained of the Egyptian trade. This loss of commerce prevented Venice

from recovering from her financial straits, and was the chief cause of

her decline.

The effect on the internal politics of the city was also fatal. The

nobility, who had hitherto enriched themselves by trade, either took

to banking, which could not last without the aliment of commerce, or

invested their savings in land, and became an idle class. Poverty

increased, and the aristocracy of Venice was weakened by internal

feuds. The rich monopolised the administration, while the less

fortunate, with a majority in the Great Council, were ever attempting

to overthrow their power by agitation, or by intrigues and plots,

often with foreigners. Thus Venice, which had long been the admiration

of Europe for the stability of her government, and the honour and

patriotism of her nobility, became the victim of selfishness,

corruption, and conspiracy. It is this which explains the growing

power of ‘The Ten.’ This executive committee, an excrescence on the

original constitution, first organised for temporary objects in

1310, assumed more and more the character of a committee of public

safety, and with the three inquisitors, created in 1539 to deal more

efficiently with treason, gave to the government a character of

mystery, suspicion, and cruelty, hitherto unknown. A loss of moral

tone accompanied this decline. As the wealth of the state decreased,

the extravagance, both public and private, grew. At no date were the

public pageants so magnificent, or the private luxury so unbridled. In

more vital questions of morality, though Venice had never maintained

a high standard, even for Italy, she now fell lower, and private

crime went almost unpunished. It would be absurd to attribute this

degradation entirely to the loss of her prestige and power, but

that it was increased thereby no one can doubt. Yet Venice still

survived. Protected by her impregnable position, and served by her

clever diplomatists, who resided at every court and carefully steered

the country through the mazes of European intrigue, she continued

the Queen of the Lagoons, if no longer of the Mediterranean, ‘The

admiredst citie of the world’ for her buildings, her blue lagoons, and

azure skies.

In the domain of art she had something still to give the world.

The sixteenth century is the age of Titian (1477-1576), Tintoret

(1512-1594), and Paolo Veronese (1532-1588), in whose works painting

reached its climax of technique, of elaborate and harmonious grouping,

and of gorgeous, if somewhat sensuous, colour; while to the Aldine

Press we owe some of the earliest triumphs of the art of printing.

In her struggle with the Papacy, in the later decades of the sixteenth

and the first of the seventeenth centuries, Venice showed the world

once more, as she had in days gone by, that though she accepted her

religion from Rome, she was determined and powerful enough to maintain

her independence in matters of church government.

Finally, in her long contests with the Turk, notably in the wars of

Cyprus (1570-1571), and of Candia (1645-1669), she displayed a heroism

which recalled the greatness of her past, and which, but for the

abominable selfishness of Europe, might have checked the advance of

that Power which could conquer, but knew not how to rule, or to

develop the resources of subject lands.

FOOTNOTES:

[2] Cf. Appendix i.

[3] ‘If he knows these five Latin words, _Qui nescit dissimulare

nescit regnare_, it will suffice,’ Louis XI. had said of his

son.

[4] Cf. Appendix iii.

[5] On this cf. p. 57.

[6] Cf. Appendix ii.

[7] Cf. Machiavelli, _Discorsi_, Book i. c. 12.

[8] Cf. Savonarola ‘on the Contempt of the World,’ given in Villari,

_Life of Savonarola_, vol. ii. App. and his Sermons, _passim_.

[9] For the question as to the true account of the interview, cf.

Creighton, _The Papacy_, Appendix vii.

[10] Savonarola, however, was no enemy to literature and art. Cf.

Villari ii. 133.

[11] The ‘taille’ was a tax levied on land and income. It was first

imposed by the Estates of Orleans, 1439. The nobles, clergy, the

officials of the sovereign courts, and other royal officials

were exempt. It therefore fell exclusively on the lower classes.

Cf. Appendix I., p. 456.

[12] Three other sons of Galeazzo Sforza, one legitimate, the

other two illegitimate, were also taken prisoners and died in

captivity.

[13] For the fate of the other children of Federigo, cf. Sismondi,

_Hist. des Rep. Italiennes_, ix. 295.

[14]

Ferdinand of Aragon = Isabella of Castile

+1516 | +1504

|

+---------------+------------------------+----------------+

| | | |

John = Margaret | | |

+1497 _d._ of | | |

Maximilian | | |

| | |

Joanna = Archduke Philip | |

+1555 | _s._ of Maximilian | |

| +1506 | |

| Mary = Emanuel |

| of Portugal |

| +1521 |

| |

Charles V. Catherine

(1) betrothed

to Prince

Arthur.

(2) Married

Henry VIII.

[15] For the position of these districts, see Map of Italy.

[16] Cf. especially, Le Combat singulier entre Bayard et Don Alonzo,

and Le Combat des treize contre treize, _La tresjoyeuse Histoire

des gestes du bon Chevalier_, c. xxii.-xxiii. Ed. Petitot, vol.

15.

[17] His son John d’Albret, king of Navarre in right of his wife, had

allied himself with Ferdinand, fearing the claims on Navarre of

the younger branch, then represented by Gaston de Foix, nephew

of Louis XII.

[18] The most important of these petty states in Alexander’s time

were the Duchy of Ferrara in the hands of Ercole, Marquis of Este.

Bologna, „ Giovanni Bentivoglio.

Imola and Forli, „ Caterina Sforza, niece of Ludovico

il Moro, and widow of Girolamo

Riario, nephew of Sixtus IV.

Rimini, „ Pandolfo Malatesta.

Faenza, „ Astorre Manfredi.

Pesaro, „ Giovanni Sforza, distant cousin of

Ludovico and first husband of

Lucrezia Borgia.

Camerino, „ Giulio Cæsare Varano.

Duchy of Urbino, „ Guidobaldo di Montefeltro.

Sinigaglia, „ Francesco Maria della Rovere, a

boy.

A few such as Ancona were still republics, but were weak and obscure.

[19] The best account of Lucrezia Borgia is to be found in

Gregorovius’ _Cæsar Borgia_, a work which has been translated

into French.

[20] For a review of Cæsar’s character, and of Machiavelli’s treatment of

him, cf. Creighton, vol. iv. 64; Burd, _Machiavelli_, introduction,

pp. 22, 28; Villari, _Machiavelli_, ii. 154; Symonds’ _Age of the

Despots_, p. 275.

[21]

Ferdinand of Aragon = Isabella of Castile

|

+-----------------------+-----+-------+

| | |

John Emanuel of Portugal = Isabella Joanna = Archduke Philip

+1497 | +1493

|

Michael

+1500

[22] On the question of Joanna’s madness, cf. authorities at page

104, note.

[23] The leaders of the Medici at this time were as follows:--

1. Giuliano, Duke of Nemours, and Cardinal Giovanni,

subsequently Leo X., both sons of Lorenzo.

2. Giulio, nephew of Lorenzo, subsequently Cardinal and then

Pope Clement VII.

3. Lorenzo, Duke of Urbino, son of Piero, grandson of Lorenzo.

[24] On the purpose of the _Prince_, cf. Burd, _Il Principe_,

Introduction. _Cambridge Modern History_, c. 6.

[25] Chiavenna, Bormio, and the Valtelline, were held till 1797. The

others since 1803 have formed the Swiss canton of Ticino.

[26] Bramante began St. Peter’s under Julius II., Michael Angelo

added the dome under Leo. X.

Europe in the Sixteenth Century, 1494-1598, Fifth Edition Period 4 (of 8), Periods of European History · 第 2 / 12 章