The second campaign of the Romagna had opened for Cesare as easily as
had the first. So far his conquest had been achieved by little more than
a processional display of his armed legions. Like another Joshua, he
reduced cities by the mere blare of his trumpets. At last, however,
he was to receive a check. Where grown men had fled cravenly at his
approach, it remained for a child to resist him at Faenza, as a woman
had resisted him at Forli.
His progress north from Pesaro was of necessity slow. He paused, as
we have seen, at Rimini, and he paused again, and for a rather longer
spell, at Forli, so that it was not until the second week of November
that Astorre Manfredi--the boy of sixteen who was to hold Faenza--caught
in the distance the flash of arms and the banners with the bull device
borne by the host which the Duke of Valentinois led against him.
At first it had been Astorre’s intent to follow the examples set him by
Malatesta and Sforza, and he had already gone so far as to remove his
valuables to Ravenna, whither he, too, meant to seek refuge. But he was
in better case than any of the tyrants so far deposed inasmuch as his
family, which had ruled Faenza for two hundred years, had not provoked
the hatred of its subjects, and these were now ready and willing to
stand loyally by their young lord. But loyalty alone can do little,
unless backed by the might of arms, against such a force as Cesare was
prepared to hurl upon Faenza. This Astorre realized, and for his own
and his subjects’ sake was preparing to depart, when, to his undoing,
support reached him from an unexpected quarter.
Bologna--whose ruler, Giovanni Bentivogli, was Astorre’s grandfather--in
common with Florence and Urbino, grew daily more and more alarmed at
the continual tramp of armed multitudes about her frontiers, and at the
steady growth in numbers and in capacity of this splendid army which
followed Casare--an army captained by such enemies of the Bentivogli as
the Baglioni, the Orsini, and the exiled Malvezzi.
Bentivogli had good grounds for his anxiety, not knowing how long he
might depend upon the protection of France, and well aware that, once
that protection was removed, there would be no barrier between Bologna
and Cesare’s manifest intentions concerning her.
Next to Cesare’s utter annihilation, to check his progress was the
desire dearest just then to the heart of Bentivogli, and with this end
in view he dispatched Count Guido Torella to Faenza, in mid-October,
with an offer to assist Astorre with men and money.
Astorre, who had succeeded Galeotto Manfredi in the tyranny of Faenza at
the age of three, had been and still continued under the tutelage of
the Council which really governed his territories. To this Council came
Count Torella with Bentivogli’s offer, adding the proposal that young
Astorre should be sent to Venice for his personal safety. But to this
the Council replied that it would be useless, if that course were
adopted, to attempt resistance, as the people could only be urged to it
by their affection for their young lord, and that, if he were removed
from their midst, they would insist upon surrender.
News of these negotiations reached Rome, and on October 24 Alexander
sent Bentivogli his commands to refrain, under pain of excommunication,
from interfering in the affairs of Faenza. Bentivogli made a feeble
attempt to mask his disobedience. The troops with which he intended to
assist his grandson were sent ostensibly to Castel Bolognese, but with
instructions to desert thence and make for Faenza. This they did, and
thus was Astorre strengthened by a thousand men, whilst the work of
preparing his city for resistance went briskly forward.
Meanwhile, ahead of Cesare Borgia, swept Vitellozzo Vitelli with his
horse into Astorre’s dominions. He descended upon the valley of the
Lamone, and commenced hostilities by the capture and occupation of
Brisghella on November 7. The other lesser strongholds and townships
offered no resistance to Cesare’s arms. Indeed they were induced into
ready rebellion against their lord by Dionigio di Naldo--the sometime
defender of Imola, who had now taken service with Cesare.
On November 10 Cesare himself halted his host beneath the walls of
Faenza and called upon the town to surrender. Being denied, he encamped
his army for the siege. He chose the eastern side of the town, between
the rivers Lamone and Marzano, and, that his artillery might have free
play, he caused several houses to be demolished.
In Faenza itself, meanwhile, the easy conquest of the valley had not
produced a good effect. Moreover, the defenders had cause to fear
treachery within their gates, for a paper had been picked up out of the
moat containing an offer of terms of surrender. It had been shot into
the castle attached to an arbalestbolt, and was intended for the
castellan Castagnini. This Castagnini was arrested, thrown into prison,
and his possessions confiscated, whilst the Council placed the citadel
in the hands of four of its own members together with Gianevangelista
Manfredi--Astorre’s half-brother, and a bastard of Galeotto’s. These
set about defending it against Cesare, who had now opened fire. The duke
caused the guns to be trained upon a certain bastion through which he
judged that a good assault might be delivered and an entrance gained.
Night and day was the bombardment of that bastion kept up, yet without
producing visible effect until the morning of the 20th, when suddenly
one of its towers collapsed thunderously into the moat.
Instantly, and without orders, the soldiers, all eager to be among the
first to enter, flung themselves forward in utter and fierce disorder to
storm the breach. Cesare, at breakfast--as he himself wrote to the Duke
of Urbino--sprang up at the great noise, and, surmising what was taking
place, dashed out to restrain his men. But the task was no easy one,
for, gathering excitement and the frenzy of combat as they ran, they had
already gained the edge of the ditch, and thither Cesare was forced to
follow them, using voice and hands to beat back again.
At last he succeeded in regaining control of them, and in compelling
them to make an orderly retreat, and curb their impatience until the
time for storming should have come, which was not yet. In the affair
Cesare had a narrow escape from a stone-shot fired from the castle,
whilst one of his officers--Onorio Savelli--was killed by a cannon-ball
from the duke’s own guns, whose men, unaware of what was taking place,
were continuing the bombardment.
Hitherto the army had been forced to endure foul weather--rain, fogs,
and wind; but there was worse come. Snow began to fall on the morning of
the 22nd. It grew to a storm, and the blizzard continued all that day,
which was a Sunday, all night, and all the following day, and lashed the
men pitilessly and blindingly. The army, already reduced by shortness of
victuals, was now in a miserable plight in its unsheltered camp, and the
defenders of Faenza, as if realizing this, made a sortie on the 23rd,
from which a fierce fight ensued, with severe loss to both sides. On the
25th the snow began again, whereupon the hitherto unconquerable Cesare,
defeated at last by the elements and seeing that his men could not
possibly continue to endure the situation, was compelled to strike camp
on the 26th and go into winter quarters, no doubt with immense chagrin
at leaving so much work unaccomplished.
So he converted the siege into a blockade, closing all roads that lead
to Faenza, with a view to shutting out supplies from the town; and he
distributed troops throughout the villages of the territory with orders
constantly to harass the garrison and allow it no rest.
He also sent an envoy with an offer of terms of surrender, but the
Council rejected it with the proud answer that its members “had agreed,
in general assembly, to defend the dominions of Manfredi to the death.”
Thereupon Cesare withdrew to Forli with 150 lances and 2,500 foot, and
here he affords a proof of his considerateness. The town had already
endured several occupations and the severities of being the seat of war
during the siege of the citadel. Cesare was determined that it should
feel the present occupation as little as possible; so he issued an order
to the inhabitants upon whom his soldiers were billeted to supply the
men only with bed, light, and fire. What more they required must be
paid for, and, to avoid disputes as to prices of victuals and other
necessaries, he ordered the Council to draw up a tariff, and issued an
edict forbidding his soldiers, under pain of death, from touching any
property of the townsfolk. Lest they should doubt his earnestness,
he hanged two of his soldiers on December 7--a Piedmontese and a
Gascon--and on the 13th a third, all from the windows of his own palace,
and all with a label hanging from their feet proclaiming that they had
been hanged for taking goods of others in spite of the ban of the Lord
Duke, etc.
He remained in Forli until the 23rd, when he departed to Cesena, which
was really his capital in Roomagna, and in the huge citadel of which
there was ample accommodation for the troops that accompanied him. In
Forli he left, as his lieutenants, the Bishop of Trani and Don Michele
da Corella--the “Michieli” of Capello’s Relation and the “Michelotto”
of so many Borgia fables. That this officer ruled the soldiers left with
him in Forli in accordance with the stern example set him by his master
we know from the chronicles of Bernardi.
In Cesena the duke occupied the splendid palace of Malatesta Novello,
which had been magnificently equipped for him, and there, on Christmas
Eve, he entertained the Council of the town and other important citizens
to a banquet worthy of the repuation for lavishness which he enjoyed. He
was very different in this from his father, whose table habits were of
the most sparing--to which, no doubt, his Holiness owed the wonderful,
almost youthful vigour which he still enjoyed in this his seventieth
year. It was notorious that ambassadors cared little for invitations to
the Pope’s table, where the meal never consisted of more than one dish.
On Christmas Day the duke attended Mass at the Church of San Giovanni
Evangelista with great pomp, arrayed in the ducal chlamys and followed
by his gentlemen. With these young patricians Cesare made merry during
the days that followed. The time was spent in games and joustings,
in all of which the duke showed himself freely, making display of his
physical perfections, fully aware, no doubt, of what a short cut these
afforded him to the hearts of the people, ever ready to worship physical
beauty, prowess, and address.
Yet business was not altogether neglected, for on January 4 he went
to Porto Cesenatico, and there published an edict against all who had
practised with the fuorusciti from his States, forbidding the offence
under pain of death and forfeiture of possessions.
He remained in winter quarters until the following April, from which,
however, it is not to be concluded that Faenza was allowed to be at
peace for that spell. The orders which he had left behind him, that the
town was constantly to be harassed, were by no means neglected. On the
night of January 21, by arrangement with some of the inhabitants of the
beleaguered city, the foot surrounding Faenza attempted to surprise the
garrison by a secret escalade. They were, however, discovered betimes in
the attempt and repulsed, some who had the mischance--as it happened--to
gain the battlements before the alarm was raised being taken and hanged.
The duke’s troops, however, consoled themselves by capturing Russi
and Solarolo, the last two strongholds in the valley that had held for
Astorre.
Meanwhile, Cesare and his merry young patricians spent the time as
agreeably as might be in Cesena during that carnival. The author of
the Diario Cesenate is moved by the duke’s pastimes to criticize him
severely as indulging in amusements unbecoming the dignity of his
station. He is particularly shocked to know that the duke should have
gone forth in disguise with a few companions to repair to carnival
festivities in the surrounding villages and there to wrestle with the
rustics. It is not difficult to imagine the discomfiture suffered by
many a village Hercules at the hands of this lithe young man, who could
behead a bull at a single stroke of a spadoon and break a horseshoe in
his fingers. The diary in question, you will have gathered, is that of
a pedant, prim and easily scandalized. So much being obvious, it is
noteworthy that Cesare’s conduct should have afforded him no subject
for graver strictures than these, Cesare being such a man as has been
represented, and the time being that of carnival when licence was
allowed full play.
The Pope accounted that the check endured by Cesare before Faenza was
due not so much to the foul weather by which his army had been beset as
to the assistance which Giovanni Bentivogli had rendered his grandson
Astorre, and bitter were the complaints of it which he addressed to
the King of France. Alarmed by this, and fearing that he might have
compromised himself and jeopardized the French protection by his action
in the matter, Bentivogli made haste to recall his troops, and did in
fact withdraw them from Faenza early in December, shortly after Cesare
had gone into winter quarters. Nevertheless, the Pope’s complaints
continued, Alexander in his secret, crafty heart no doubt rejoicing that
Bentivogli should have afforded him so sound a grievance. As Louis
XII desired, for several reasons, to stand well with Rome, he sent an
embassy to Bentivogli to express his regret and censure of the latter’s
intervention in the affairs of Faenza. He informed Bentivogli that the
Pope was demanding the return of Bologna to the States of the Church,
and, without expressing himself clearly as to his own view of the
matter, he advised Bentivogli to refrain from alliances with the
enemies of the Holy See and to secure Bologna to himself by some sound
arrangement. This showed Bentivogli in what danger he stood, and his
uneasiness was increased by the arrival at Modena of Yves d’Allègre,
sent by the King of France with a condotta of 500 horse for purposes
which were not avowed but which Bentivogli sorely feared might prove to
be hostile to himself.
At the beginning of February Cesare moved his quarters from Cesena to
Imola, and thence he sent his envoys to demand winter quarters for his
troops in Castel Bolognese. This flung Bentivogli into positive terror,
as he interpreted the request as a threat of invasion. Castel Bolognese
was too valuable a stronghold to be so lightly placed in the duke’s
hands. Thence Bentivogli might, in case of need, hold the duke in check,
the fortress commanding, as it did, the road from Imola to Faenza.
He had the good sense, however, to compromise the matter by returning
Cesare an offer of accommodation for his men with victuals, artillery,
etc., but without the concession of Castel Bolognese. With this Cesare
was forced to be content, there being no reasonable grounds upon which
he could decline so generous an offer. It was a cunning concession on
Bentivogli’s part, for, without strengthening the duke’s position, it
yet gave the latter what he ostensibly required, and left no cause for
grievance and no grounds upon which to molest Bologna. So much was this
the case that on February 26 the Pope wrote to Bentivogli expressing his
thanks at the assistance which he had thus given Cesare in the Faenza
emprise.
It was during this sojourn of Cesare’s at Imola that the abduction took
place of Dorotea Caracciolo, the young wife of Gianbattista Caracciolo,
a captain of foot in the Venetian service. The lady, who was attached to
the Duchess of Urbino, had been residing at the latter’s Court, and in
the previous December Caracciolo had begged leave of the Council of Ten
that he might himself go to Urbino for the purpose of escorting her to
Venice. The Council, however, had replied that he should send for her,
and this the captain had done. Near Cervia, on the confines of the
Venetian territory, towards evening of February 14, the lady’s escort
was set upon by ten wellarmed men, and rudely handled by them, some
being wounded and one at least killed, whilst the lady and a woman who
was with her were carried off.
The Podestá of Cervia reported to the Venetian Senate that the abductors
were Spaniards of the army of the Duke of Valentinois, and it was feared
in Venice--according to Sanuto--that the deed might be the work of
Cesare.
The matter contained in that Relation of Capello’s to the Senate must
by now have been widespread, and of a man who could perpetrate the
wickednesses therein divulged anything could be believed. Indeed, it
seems to have followed that, where any act of wickedness was brought to
light, at once men looked to see if Cesare might not be responsible,
nor looked close enough to make quite sure. To no other cause can it be
assigned that, in the stir which the Senate made, the name of Cesare
was at once suggested as that of the abductor, and this so broadly that
letters poured in upon him on all sides begging him to right this
cruel wrong. So much do you see assumed, upon no more evidence than
was contained in that letter from the Podestá of Cervia, which went no
further than to say that the abductors were “Spaniards of the Duke of
Valentinois’ army.” The envoy Manenti was dispatched at once to Cesare
by the Senate, and he went persuaded, it is clear, that Cesare Borgia
was the guilty person. He enlisted the support of Monsieur de Trans (the
French ambassador then on his way to Rome) and that of Yves d’Allègre,
and he took them with him to the Duke at Imola.
There, acting upon his strong suspicions, Manenti appears to have taken
a high tone, representing to the duke that he had done an unworthy
thing, and imploring him to restore the lady to her husband. Cesare’s
patience under the insolent assumption in justification of which Manenti
had not a single grain of evidence to advance, is--guilty or innocent--a
rare instance of self-control. He condescended to take oath that he had
not done this thing which they imputed to him. He admitted that he had
heard of the outrage, and he expressed the belief that it was the work
of one Diego Ramires--a captain of foot in his service. This Ramires, he
explained, had been in the employ of the Duke of Urbino, and in Urbino
had made the acquaintance and fallen enamoured of the lady; and he added
that the fellow had lately disappeared, but that already he had set on
foot a search for him, and that, once taken, he would make an example of
him.
In conclusion he begged that the Republic should not believe this thing
against him, assuring the envoy that he had not found the ladies of the
Romagna so difficult that he should be driven to employ such rude and
violent measures.
The French ambassador certainly appears to have attached implicit faith
to Cesare’s statement, and he privately informed Manenti that Ramires
was believed to be at Medola, and that the Republic might rest assured
that, if he were taken, exemplary justice would be done.
All this you will find recorded in Sanuto. After that his diary
entertains us with rumours which were reaching Venice, now that the
deed was the duke’s, now that the lady was with Ramires. Later the two
rumours are consolidated into one, in a report of the Podestá of Cervia
to the effect that “the lady is in the Castle of Forli with Ramires, and
that he took her there by order of the duke.” The Podestá says that a
man whom he sent to gather news had this story from one Benfaremo. But
he omits to say who and what is this Benfaremo, and what the source of
his information.
Matters remaining thus, and the affair appearing in danger of being
forgotten, Caracciolo goes before the Senate on March 16 and implores
permission to deal with it himself. This permission is denied him, the
Doge conceiving that the matter will best be dealt with by the Senate,
and Caracciolo is ordered back to his post at Gradisca. Thence he writes
to the Senate on March 30 that he is certain his wife is in the citadel
of Forli.
After this Sanuto does not mention the matter again until December of
1503--nearly three years later--when we gather that, under pressure
of constant letters from the husband, the Venetian ambassador at the
Vatican makes so vigorous a stir that the lady is at last delivered up,
and goes for the time being into a convent. But we are not told where or
how she is found, nor where the convent in which she seeks shelter. That
is Sanuto’s first important omission.
And now an odd light is thrown suddenly upon the whole affair, and
it begins to look as if the lady had been no unwilling victim of an
abduction, but, rather, a party to an elopement. She displays a positive
reluctance to return to her husband; she is afraid to do so--“in
fear for her very life”--and she implores the Senate to obtain from
Caracciolo some security for her, or else to grant her permission to
withdraw permanently to a convent.
The Senate summons the husband, and represents the case to him. He
assures the Senate that he has forgiven his wife, believing her to be
innocent. This, however, does not suffice to allay her uneasiness--or
her reluctance--for on January 4, 1504, Sanuto tells us that the Senate
has received a letter of thanks from her in which she relates her
misfortunes, and in which again she begs that her husband be compelled
to pledge security to treat her well (“darli buona vita”) or else that
she should be allowed to return to her mother. Of the nature of the
misfortunes which he tells us she related in her letter, Sanuto says
nothing. That is his second important omission.
The last mention of the subject in Sanuto relates to her restoration to
her husband. He tells us that Caracciolo received her with great joy;
but he is silent on the score of the lady’s emotions on that occasion.
There you have all that is known of Dorotea Caracciolo’s abduction,
which later writers--including Bembo in his Historiae--have positively
assigned to Cesare Borgia, drawing upon their imagination to fill up the
lacunae in the story so as to support their point of view.
Those lacunae, however, are invested with a certain eloquence which it
is well not to disregard. Admitting that the construing of silence into
evidence is a dangerous course, all fraught with pitfalls, yet it seems
permissible to pose the following questions:
If the revelation of the circumstances under which she was found, the
revelations contained in her letters to the Senate, and the revelations
which one imagines must have followed her return to her husband, confirm
past rumours and convict Cesare of the outrage, how does it happen that
Sanuto--who has never failed to record anything that could tell against
Cesare--should be silent on the matter? And how does it happen that so
many pens that busied themselves greedily with scandal that touched the
Borgias should be similarly silent? Is it unreasonable to infer that
those revelations did not incriminate him--that they gave the lie to all
the rumours that had been current? If that is not the inference, then
what is?
It is further noteworthy that on January 16--after Dorotea’s letter to
the Senate giving the details of her misfortunes, which details Sanuto
has suppressed--Diego Ramires, the real and known abductor, is still the
object of a hunt set afoot by some Venetians. Would that be the case had
her revelations shown Ramires to be no more than the duke’s instrument?
Possibly; but not probably. In such a case he would not have been worth
the trouble of pursuing.
Reasonably may it be objected: How, if Cesare was not guilty, does it
happen that he did not carry out his threat of doing exemplary justice
upon Ramires when taken--since Ramires obviously lay in his power for
years after the event? The answer to that you will find in the lady’s
reluctance to return to Caracciolo, and the tale it tells. It is not
in the least illogical to assume that, when Cesare threatened that
vengeance upon Ramires for the outrage which it was alleged had been
committed, he fully intended to execute it; but that, upon taking
Ramires, and upon discovering that here was no such outrage as had been
represented, but just the elopement of a couple of lovers, he found
there was nothing for him to avenge. Was it for Cesare Borgia to set up
as a protector and avenger of cuckolds? Rather would it be in keeping
with the feelings of his age and race to befriend the fugitive pair who
had planted the antlers upon the brow of the Venetian captain.
Lastly, Cesare’s attitude towards women may be worth considering, that
we may judge whether such an act as was imputed to him is consistent
with it. Women play no part whatever in his history. Not once shall
you find a woman’s influence swaying him; not once shall you see
him permitting dalliance to retard his advancement or jeopardize his
chances. With him, as with egotists of his type, governed by cold will
and cold intellect, the sentimental side of the relation of the sexes
has no place. With him one woman was as another woman; as he
craved women, so he took women, but with an almost contemptuous
undiscrimination. For all his needs concerning them the lupanaria
sufficed.
Is this mere speculation, think you? Is there no evidence to support
it, do you say? Consider, pray, in all its bearings the treatise on
pudendagra dedicated to a man of Cesare Borgia’s rank by the physician
Torella, written to meet his needs, and see what inference you draw
from that. Surely such an inference as will invest with the ring of
truth--expressing as it does his intimate nature, and confirming further
what has here been said--that answer of his to the Venetian envoy, “that
he had not found the ladies of Romagna so difficult that he should be
driven to such rude and violent measures.”