James Dennistoun

Italian militia—The Camerino disputes—Death of Clement VII.—Marriage of Prince Guidobaldo—Proposed Turkish crusade under the Duke—His death and character.

THREE nearly contemporary events had lately combined to extinguish the nationality of Italy, and those liberties which, shared in ample or more sparing measure by her many states, had till now crowned her military glories with intellectual renown. In the sack of Rome the power of the Keys had been shaken, the prestige of the papal city had passed away. The defence of Florence was the last effort of patriotism, and with it fell communal independence. The coronation of Charles V. laid upon the Peninsula an iron yoke of foreign despotism, which rendered her virtually a province of Spain. A necessary consequence of this sad change will be to limit the field of our investigation, and to restrict what remains of our work to the ducal family and their hereditary domains, which for the future were little more than an appanage of the Spanish monarchy. The Lords of Urbino had hitherto been prominent among the captains of adventure, and bore a part wherever engagements were offered, or hard blows to be had. But the condottiere system being now superseded, a new mode of warfare and machinery of defence became indispensable. Knight-service and the romance of war were swept away by artillery; the imposing battaglia of men-at-arms proved powerless when confronted by battalions of steady infantry, or out-manoeuvred by the dashing cavalry of Dalmatia. This lesson, first taught by the Swiss in their fastnesses, had been practically demonstrated to the Italians in every great action from the Taro to the recent Lombard campaigns, and had been adopted by most of their leaders. It now, however, became necessary to apply it in another sense, and, seeing that captains were no longer to be hired with their respective followings of efficient soldiery, to organise a militia of its own for the defence of such state, upon principles which Machiavelli was among the first to recognise and explain.

Before that system came into general use, the Italian infantry was notoriously incompetent to cope with transalpine levies, as Francesco Maria had bitterly experienced in the war of 1523-27. He therefore, in 1533, instituted a militia of his mountaineers, under the name of the Feltrian legion, which before his death numbered five thousand men, in four regiments, commanded by as many colonels. The object was to make them good soldiers without ceasing to be citizens; to maintain in readiness at small expense a military population, who were not men of war by profession. For this purpose lists were annually taken of all males from eighteen to twenty-five, learned professions and infamous persons being exempted, and to them arms were given. They were drilled and instructed in the necessary evolutions, and a proportion of them were called into active service when needed. On these occasions they were well paid; but, when kept on the reserve, their small stipend was rendered more attractive by a variety of political immunities and fiscal exemptions, including the exclusive privilege of bearing arms. The practical result was this,—the able-bodied population were, on the one hand, brought into a sort of direct dependence on the executive, and, on the other, were taught that the safety of the commonwealth was entrusted to their swords and sinews. It is scarcely necessary to add that this system has been generally adopted, and that on it are still based the military institutions of most continental nations.

In December, 1532, the Emperor returned to Italy, and was met near Vicenza by Francesco Maria, who welcomed him in his own name, and in that of the Signory. Dispensing with complimentary formalities, Charles received him at once to easy intercourse, and, requesting his continued attendance, spent much time in conversing with him on the art of war. At Bologna another congress was held by the Pontiff and the Emperor, in which were discussed the affairs of Italy, the proposed general council, and the matrimonial speculations of Clement for advancement of his house. The marriage of Alessandro de' Medici, now created Duke of Florence, was arranged with Margaret of Austria, natural daughter of Charles; but the hand of Caterina de' Medici, which the latter wished to be given to Francesco Sforza, was reserved by her ambitious uncle for a French prince. Charles left Bologna on the 28th of February, 1533, and embarked at Genoa for Spain, after giving some hope to Francesco Maria of a satisfactory settlement of his claims upon Sora. Clement in ten days after set out for Rome. The estrangement between these potentates, which at this meeting began to chill their intercourse, was greatly widened by the voyage of his Holiness in the following autumn to Marseilles, where he celebrated the nuptials of Caterina with Henry, second son and successor of Francis I. At this second congress of Bologna, Titian met the Emperor by special command; and it was perhaps on that occasion that he had commissions for portraits of the Duke and Duchess of Urbino, which now ornament the Uffizi gallery. The former is engraved as a frontispiece for this volume; of the latter we have lately spoken: both will demand further notice in our fifty-fourth chapter, and in the last No. of the Appendix.

In April the Duchess Leonora gave birth to a son at Mantua, who was named after Julius II., and was destined to holy orders. His father had at the same time a severe fit of gout; and, on his return home, the painful duty devolved upon him of providing against the visitation of a scarcity which then lamentably affected Italy. The close of the year found him a suitor with the Pope in the affair of Camerino, which we shall now briefly explain.

The small state of that name in the March of Ancona had been ruled for nearly three hundred years by the Varana family, some of whom we have occasionally mentioned in these Memoirs. Exaggerating the domestic atrocities, then too frequent among Italians of their rank, they became revoltingly notorious, in 1433-4, for a complicated fratricide. Bernardo, Lord of Camerino, jealous of his brothers Giovanni and Pier-Gentile, the offspring of his father's second marriage, had them put to death by the agency of his own sons. Ere many months passed, his subjects, loathing the foul deed, suddenly rose against its authors. With sweeping vengeance they slew him, his brother german Gentil Pandolfo, and his six sons, dashing the heads of the little ones against the wall. The succession was thus opened to Giulio Cesare, son of Giovanni, who, in 1451, married the only daughter of Sigismondo Pandolfo, despot of Rimini.[*30] He lived to see the usurpations of Cesare Borgia, and, falling into the hands of Michelotto on the capture of La Pergola, the old man perished by the bowstring of that monster in 1502, along with his eldest son Venanzio, and two natural children. Venanzio had, in 1497, married Maria, the only sister of Duke Francesco Maria, of whom we have already had to tell a tale of scandal, and left one son Sigismondo. He was born in 1499, and escaped the fate of his father and uncles, from having been sent in infancy to Urbino. There he was educated; and we have seen him defending S. Leo, when scarcely beyond boyhood. After years of imprisonment and exile, his uncle Francesco Maria made an ineffectual attempt, on the death of Leo X., to vindicate his hereditary fief, from the usurpation of his paternal uncle, Giovanni Maria, its de facto lord. Sigismondo sought consolation for his hard fortunes in low debauchery, until he fell in 1522 by the hand of assassins, at the supposed instigation of his usurping uncle, who, in 1527, had absolution of the foul deed, and to whose career we must now turn.[31]

Giovanni Maria, second son of Giulio Cesare Count of Camerino, was sent to Venice on Borgia's approach, and so avoided the fate of his family. On the death of Alexander VI., being then in his twenty-second year, he made a descent upon La Marca, and possessed himself of his father's seigneury, in defiance of his infant nephew's title to it. His authority was recognised by the Holy See, at a time when the hereditary principle was loose, and a strong hand constituted the best claim. He found a warm supporter in Leo X., through sympathy of their common hatred for the della Rovere race, and received from him the lordship of Sinigaglia and prefecture of Rome, on the deprivation of Francesco Maria, along with the additional dignity of Duke of Camerino. After the death of Leo, Sigismondo for a few months made good his authority at Camerino, until supplanted by the usurper, whose title was conveniently completed by his nephew's murder; whereupon he became de jure its sovereign, and continued in undisturbed possession of his ill-gotten honours.

On the death of Duke Giovanni Maria, in August 1527, the male heir of the fief was Ercole Varana, whose eldest son, Matteo, had been destined by the Duke's will to become husband of his infant daughter Giulia, then but four years old. This arrangement was, however, resolutely opposed by his widow, Caterina CibÒ,[*32] niece of Leo X.; and ere any steps could be taken to carry it into effect, the town was sacked by Sciarra Colonna, who, with his son-in-law, Rodolfo Varana, a bastard of its last lord, drove Caterina and her child into the citadel. Forgetting the double feud of Francesco Maria with her husband and her Medicean relations, she in her extremity besought his aid, offering to plight her daughter's hand to his son, Prince Guidobaldo. The proposal found him ingloriously inactive in Umbria, during the negotiations for release of Clement from S. Angelo, and, readily accepting it, he sent troops to relieve the suppliant lady, who continued for several years to administer the state in name of Giulia, with the passive countenance of her cousin the Pontiff. But the jealousy which rankled in the breast of his Holiness against the della Rovere princes, fretted at an arrangement so conducive to their aggrandisement, and at the first congress of Bologna he sought to break it off. The Duke's answer, as reported by Leonardi, was, that he would risk life and state rather than withdraw from the engagement, and that, if driven to defensive measures, the Pope should in the end bear the expenses of the war. With the recent and costly failure of Leo against Urbino in their recollection, the consistory would lend no sanction to the inclinations of their head, and so the matter rested until the return of Clement from France. Francesco Maria then formally applied for the papal sanction to a union of his son with the heiress of Camerino, but was put off on account of her tender age.

Meanwhile there occurred an incident characteristic of these lawless times. Like the other Italian commonwealths, Camerino had its exiles, expelled by faction or political convulsions, and Matteo, having rallied a body of these, surprised the city on the 13th of October, 1534, and seized the Duchess-Regent in her palace. His object being the abduction of Giulia, who had escaped into the fortress, he hurried her mother, in her dressing-gown, to its gates, and commanded her to summon the castellan to surrender. She, however, with extraordinary hardihood and self-possession, ordered him to fire upon the assailants; whereupon their leader drew his sword and threatened her with instant death. The heroic dame, after ejaculating a brief prayer, bared her neck and told him to strike; but Matteo, quailing before her daring spirit, and apprehensive of the infuriated populace, hastily withdrew, carrying her prisoner. He was speedily attacked by the citizens en masse, and the officer in charge of Caterina was glad to secure his own pardon by restoring her to liberty. A new inducement thus arose for placing the heiress in the hands of one competent to protect her; yet the redoubled instances made with the Pope for completion of her marriage were met by continued temporising, until the opportunity passed from his grasp.

On or about the 25th of September, 1534, Clement closed his life. Guicciardini, his countryman and protÉgÉ, tells us that he died hated by his court and suspected by princes, leaving a reputation rather odious than pleasing, and accounted severe, greedy, faithless, and illiberal. Muratori reviews his character more at length:—"He was a pontiff not destitute of political capacity; circumspect and dignified; dexterous in business, including dissimulation of every sort, and regarded by all his contemporaries as a man of double-dealing. Nature and experience had amply endowed him with many qualities befitting a temporal sovereign; but it would be less easy to detect in him those virtues becoming the Vicar of Christ, or to discover, amid the religious tempests of his times, what benefits he conferred upon the Church, what abuses or disorders he checked, though from him took its origin and pretext that terrible schism which yet dissevers so many nations from the true Church. He misapplied the papacy, its powers and resources, to instigate and maintain wars, which, besides many other mischiefs, brought upon Rome a dreadful sack, and upon his own dignity a shocking degradation. Still more did he turn these to despoil his native Florence of her freedom, and to aggrandise his own family rather by princely marriages than by honourable and discreet advancement. He died detested by the court for his avarice and close-fistedness, and still more loathed by the Roman people, who imputed to his policy all the miseries that befell their far-famed city." His versatile conduct has been fully exposed in these pages:

Finally, with him there originated national funded debt, that system which has so extensively affected the political, military, financial, commercial and monetary relations of the whole civilised world. Yet, though the results of his disastrous pontificate justified as they dictated these very sweeping charges, the testimony of the Venetian ambassadors, who describe the earlier portion of his reign, is much more favourable, at least to his motives. Whilst they represent him as timidly slow in adopting his measures, and as wavering and undecided in following them out, they commend his piety, his willingness to promote reforms, his conscientious observance of justice, the regularity of his habits, and the simplicity of his tastes. Possessing neither the liberality nor the epicurean propensities of his uncle, the contrast was unfavourable to his popularity; and those who had shared with Leo the pastimes of music and the chase sneered at discussions on engineering and hydraulics, which occupied the leisure of Clement.

As soon as the Pontiff's death was known to Francesco Maria, he sent his son to complete his nuptials at Camerino; but, within two hours after his arrival there, a courier brought from the Sacred College a protest against the marriage of the heiress during the vacancy of the Holy See.[33] This impediment was suggested by Cardinal Farnese in anticipation of his election, which took place as Paul III. on the 12th of October, the very day on which the bridal ceremony was completed. To balance this act of questionable fidelity to the See, the Duke, by well-timed movements, repressed attempts to assert the independence of Perugia and Rimini, and re-establish their hereditary seigneurs. But such zeal served him little with the new Pontiff, who at once made the Camerino succession a personal question, with a view to confer that state upon his own natural son. One of his earliest acts was accordingly to visit the contumacy of Caterina, her daughter, and son-in-law, with a stern monitory and summons to Rome, their disobedience of which was followed by excommunication, and by a movement of the pontifical troops to blockade Camerino.

Francesco Maria now interposed all his influence, backed by the imperial and the Venetian ambassadors, to induce Paul to a recognition of Giulia as heiress under the investiture given to her father, with remainder apparently to heirs general. Having vainly exhausted the expedients of diplomacy in this cause, he protested that the blame should not rest upon him of hostilities rendered necessary in his son's defence, and, sending provisions to Camerino, he marched at the head of ten thousand men to his support. At Sassoferrata he was met by a deputation of the citizens, laden with presents, who declared that though their walls were the Pope's, their hearts and substance were at his disposal. At Matelica he found his son and the ladies, before whom he passed his army in review, and marched home again without once encountering the papal troops under Gian Battista Savello. In fact, it was a war of the pen rather than the sword, for at every step he renewed notarial protests of duty and obedience to the Church, and regularly paid the excise, as well as the price of all the stores which he took up for the use of the Varana party. Apprehending that, if too far provoked, he would be supported by the Venetian arms and by the Emperor, the Pontiff now suspended martial measures, and pressed the point of law on the Roman courts.

Thus relieved from immediate anxiety in this matter, the Duke of Urbino resolved to pay a visit of compliment to Charles V. at Naples. After reaching the Adriatic frontier of that kingdom, he dismissed the strong escort which had guarded him through the ecclesiastical state, and proceeded with a small suite. The Emperor received him with much courtesy, and sought his counsel in the invasion of Provence, which he was preparing. Francesco Maria would gladly have referred the Camerino affair to his arbitration, but this being rejected by the Nuncio, he obtained simply the imperial mediation, which proved unavailing. He on this occasion presented Charles with two swords of tried temper, and a finger-ring containing a repeating watch, the latter made at Pesaro. In returning he took the route by Benevento to the Adriatic, and halting for the night at the convent of Sta. Maria degl'Eremiti, near Troia, he allowed some of his attendants to examine into a curious tradition which then obtained general credit. It was said that Diomed arriving here with a company of attendants, he and most of them died within a few days, and were duly interred; but that their souls were transmigrated into a species of bird elsewhere unknown, which ever since had haunted the marshy grounds. These were seen but rarely of an evening, and towards morning uttered sounds like human lamentations. They flew on the approach of any one not of Greek birth, but allowed persons of that nation to visit their haunts familiarly. Three of the Duke's suite having volunteered to watch, they all heard mournful voices about three hours before dawn, a phenomenon which the narrator makes no attempt to explain.[34] Having crossed to survey the Venetian possessions at Zara, the Duke returned home in 1536, on board two galleys of the Republic. The rest of that year was chiefly spent by him at his post in Lombardy, protecting the Venetian mainland during the passage of some imperial levies; but his charge was no longer an important one, as the long contests for Milan had been finally set at rest in the autumn of 1535, by the death of Duke Francesco Sforza, after naming Charles V. heir of his state.

Apulia and the Venetian possessions in the Levant being menaced in the following year by Sultan Solyman, a general confederation was effected for the defence of Italy and its dependencies, at the head of which were the Pope and the Emperor. The Duke of Urbino as captain-general undertook to raise five thousand men for this armament, but, the danger suddenly passing away, distracted counsels prevailed among the allies. Finally, on the 31st of January, 1538, a new league was patched up, to carry into effect a suggestion of Francesco Maria, by diverting the war into the Infidel's territory. Considering, however, his impending difficulties with Paul III., the Duke obtained a joint guarantee of the contracting powers for maintenance in his state, in confirmation of papal brieves to the same effect dated in the preceding November. About the same time his services to the Republic were acknowledged by the present of a palace in the street of Sta. Fosca, valued at 16,000 ducats.

The views of the allies and their captain-general for this enterprise were vast, comprehending the siege of Constantinople and an invasion of Egypt: and the latter was indefatigable in his endeavours to put the armament upon a footing equal to such extensive designs, both as to its numbers and material. The enterprise was invested with the sacred character of a religious war; but whilst Francesco Maria concentrated upon it the energies of a mind in its prime, and the exertions of a frame renovated by new specifics against his hereditary enemy the gout, the hand of death was upon him. Returned to Venice from a comprehensive survey of her defences in Dalmatia and Istria, he was attacked by sudden illness on the 20th of September. Foreseeing its fatal termination, he had himself taken by sea to Pesaro, which he reached on the 8th of October. Next day he showed himself on horseback to his people, but feeling unequal to the exertion he took to bed, and gradually lost strength. On Monday, the 21st, a fit deprived him of speech, yet he continued sensible until near daybreak of the 22nd, when he expired in religious penitence, after receiving the sacraments.

All authorities agree in attributing his death to poison, but neither Leoni nor Baldi hint at the person whose "envy" dictated that base vengeance.[*35] Giovio speaks positively as to detection having followed upon a searching inquiry, and points at those interested in the Camerino question as authors of the crime. Sardi and Tondini charge it upon Luigi Gonzaga, Count of Sabionetta, surnamed Rodomonte, the nephew of Francesco da Bozzolo, a condottiere who commanded Bourbon's cavalry at the assault of Rome, and who facilitated Clement's flight some months thereafter. This assertion, which is adopted by various writers, receives some confirmation from a story in the gossiping MS. we have already quoted, that Gonzaga, having accused Gian Giacomo Leonardi, a doctor of laws at Pesaro, of instigating the murder, was challenged by the latter, who thereby gained the favour of Duke Guidobaldo II., and with it the countship of Monte l'Abbate, near Pesaro.[36] On the other hand, this Rodomonte is stated in Les Genealogies des Maisons Souveraines to have died in 1528.

Whoever may have been author of the foul deed, it is agreed that the perpetrator was the Duke's Mantuan barber, who is generally said to have dropped a poisoned lotion into his ear. Baldi only mentions that he did it "in a new way," and gives no account of the medical examination of the body which, he asserts, took place. In an old chronicle of Sinigaglia, Guidobaldo is stated to have had the barber torn to pieces with pincers, and quartered in the streets of Pesaro.[37]

After a cast in plaster had been taken from his features, the body was dressed in a quilted doublet and hose of black satin, under his inlaid armour, over which was the ducal tunic, and, above all, the mantle of crimson satin embroidered in gold, which he had worn as Prefect at the coronation of Charles V. Next evening it was borne, with torches, by the principal courtiers, to the great hall, and there placed upon an elevated catafalque of black and gold, on which were arranged his ducal helmet, three magnificent head pieces, and as many silver batons of command; five standards which he had captured being set round with other trophies. It was watched all night, and lay in state till the following evening, when it was coffined in the dress just described. The same night it was taken on a litter to Urbino by torchlight, escorted by a vast following on horseback and on foot, under soaking rain. At the confines of the respective territories it was delivered over to the authorities and clergy of that city, preceded by mutes and mourners of various grades; among whom was led the Duke's favourite jennet, covered with black velvet, his ducal mail and morion being carried by a page in deep weeds. Reaching the city at sunrise, the procession was joined by the chief magistrates, nobility, clergy, and citizens, and so arrived, through tearful crowds, at the church of Sta. Chiara, again to lie in state until evening, when it was stripped of its armour, and there committed to the dust at the left horn of the altar. It was subsequently deposited, by his grandson Francesco Maria II., in a tomb raised over the spot by Bartolomeo Ammanati, from the design of Girolamo Genga, which was eventually removed as inconveniently cumbering the church. The following epitaph, written by desire of the widowed Duchess, and ascribed to the pen of Bembo, is panelled into the wall:—

"To Duke Francesco Maria, endowed with the most comprehensive capacity for war and peace. His hereditary states, thrice lost by violence, he thrice by valour regained, and ruled them, when reconquered, with moderation; he commanded the Ecclesiastical, the Florentine, and the Venetian forces; finally, he was chosen general-in-chief for the Turkish war, but was cut off ere it opened. Leonora, his most devoted wife, placed this to her most meritorious lord, and to herself."

One more ceremonial was wanting to complete the measure of respectful duty to the deceased sovereign. On the 13th [or 22nd] of November, his obsequies were celebrated in the cathedral of Urbino. The church decorations, the catafalque, the vast concourse of clergy, of deputations, and of people of all classes, were such as the mournful solemnity required, and the sincere grief of his subjects dictated. The function was conducted by Federigo Fregoso, Archbishop of Salerno, whom we have formerly known at the court of Duke Guidobaldo I., and the funeral oration was spoken by Maestro Benedetto Milesio. Another, by Lorenzo Contarini, was pronounced at Venice, where the Signory ordered a celebration of his obsequies with unwonted splendour, besides voting him an equestrian statue in bronze. This was never executed, but another statue of him, made by Bandini for his grandson, the last Duke of Urbino, was presented to the Republic under touching circumstances, which we shall detail in the fifty-fourth chapter of this work.

The life of Francesco Maria affords a remarkable instance of the extremes of fortune. He was deprived of parental care at an early age, when it was peculiarly desirable as a restraint upon his naturally fiery temper. Soon after, he was hurried from his hereditary state, and compelled to seek safety in France. In the outset of manhood, his ungoverned passion involved him in the stigma of a sacrilegious murder. Twice was he deprived of the influential sovereignty to which he had attained, and recovered it only after years of exile, and at a ruinous pecuniary sacrifice. The lustre of a brilliant position, and of a distinguished military career, was veiled by his utter failure to save or rescue Rome. Finally, he was snatched from life just as a new and nobler field was opening for his martial glories. Reversing the picture, we find a youth of ardent temperament, born to princely sway, and becoming at eighteen the heir of one uncle in an important duchy, and the favourite of another, who, by virtue of his triple tiara, conferred upon him yet a third state. A military hero ere he escaped from his teens, his renown ever extended with his age. Thirty years after his star had set, a Venetian ambassador called him the light and splendour of Italy; and notwithstanding some palpable blunders, he is still ranked with the first commanders of his native land. He died when his fame was at its height, and transmitted unquestioned to his son, that sovereignty which thrice had been wrested from him.

It is from posthumous influences that his reputation has suffered most severely; and the three standard historians of his times, in Italy, England, and France, have meted him sparing justice. Without questioning the value of Guicciardini's narrative as the fullest exposition of the age in which he lived, and the most graphic portraiture of many of its features and incidents, we must demur to the "fearless impartiality" too hastily allowed him in modern times. True, he was not, like Machiavelli, a practised intriguer, acute to detect perverted purpose, or prone to assume its existence; nor did he, like Giovio, employ the iron stylus of vengeance, or the golden pen of flattery, as passion might prompt or venality dictate. But, born a Florentine, and favoured by the Medici, he was the partisan of that house in the closet as in the field; and no one thus shackled could write impartially of Francesco Maria della Rovere. Roscoe, with similar predilections, though far less biased, had no inducement to become champion of a sovereign whom Leo X. had twice expelled; whilst Sismondi, enamoured of nominal republics, is ever ready to echo taunts or calumnies pointed at an Italian prince. The examination of many less popular historians, and of numerous unpublished contemporary authorities, has, we trust, enabled us to place this Duke's character and conduct in a more true light, without extenuating the manifest errors of either.

Though small in person, Francesco Maria was active and well formed, with a manly air, a quick eye, and an engaging presence. His manner and address were mild and pleasing, and his conversation was seasoned with lively jests. He was strict in religious observances, an enemy to blasphemous language, and intolerant of those insults to female honour with which war was then lamentably fraught. In the regulation of his army, as in the government of his state, justice was his ruling principle. Of his unhappy violence of temper we have already had too much reason to speak; it was the bane of his life, the blot on his fame. Yet he was generous and forgiving, as he proved by putting his personal enemy Guicciardini on his guard against the designs of San Severino, Count of Caiazzo, who, having suffered from the Florentine's captious allegations, had resolved to assassinate him.[38]

A soldier by education, taste, and long habit, his character should be judged by a military standard; and perhaps the best tribute to his glory consisted in the public rejoicings ordered by Sultan Solyman on hearing of his untimely death. In following the narrative of his campaigns, we have unsparingly pointed out the faults which seemed to cramp his success. They were obviously systematic, arising from an excess of that caution, which his natural prudence and foresight prompted, and which the examples of Fabius Maximus and Prospero Colonna in some degree authorised. Yet we must not overlook an important element of consideration, in the quality of troops under his command from 1523 to 1528. His want of confidence in them was avowed, and in more than one instance it was justified, when their steadiness was put to the test. Nor was he less fettered by the faulty organisation of that army, made up of various contingents under their respective leaders, without a responsible commanding officer, and in which civilians were allowed a veto fatal to unity of action. The verdict of his contemporaries may, however, be admitted as conclusive upon his military reputation. Ruscelli tells us that he was, by common consent, called the father and founder of the art of war, as practised in the sixteenth century; and the opinion of the only dissentient, Guicciardini, a private enemy and no soldier, is amply balanced by that of Giovanni de' Medici, who ranked him in skilful tactics, and in the arts of command, as well as in foresight and activity, equal to the ablest generals. The testimony of Charles V. has been already given; and we are assured that after a public disputation in Padua, sustained by men of the greatest learning, he was voted a match to any hero of antiquity, in judgment, experience, ingenuity, and military talent. Promis, with assuredly no friendly leaning, admits his great skill in military architecture, stating that he was often consulted by the principal engineers of Italy, and especially by Sanmichele, upon the fortifications of Corfu, regarding which that author attributes to him a Report to the Signory of Rome, now in the Ambrosian Library of Milan.[39] His opinion as to the defences of their lagoons, and principal garrisons on terra-firma, was, on various occasions, requested by that Republic, and during his command in Lombardy the towns of Lodi, Crema, Bergamo, Martinengo, and Orcinovo were all strengthened after his designs. Tartagli and Contriotto acknowledged their obligations to his suggestions; but Promis denies him the invention of baloards, as we have already seen, when writing of Francesco di Giorgio. The school of military engineering formed under his eye, during almost continual campaigns, numbered many distinguished professors of that art, among whom were Pietro Luigi Escriva, Gianbattista Bellucci, NicolÒ Tartaglia, Girolamo Genga, Gian Giacomo Leonardi, and Jacopo Fusto Castriotto, the last three of whom were natives of his state.

But let us hear the evidence of contemporaries as to his character. Urbano Urbani, then his private secretary, thus describes him on succeeding to the dukedom:—"He was naturally low in stature, but well-proportioned, and of fine complexion. The short distance from his heart to his brain rendered his disposition choleric. Ever in movement, he was impatient of repose. Thoughtful, his ideas and discourse tended to lofty themes. Ready of hand, he dexterously managed, on horseback or afoot, the arms then in use. Of high courage, he invariably bent his mind to objects conducive to his honour and renown, especially in war. He was just, honest, averse to swearing, liberal, incorruptible, and no boaster. He loathed incontinence, and youthful excesses. In his household he was fond of splendour, and he generally entertained, in his almost regal court, a large attendance of distinguished gentlemen, such as Ottaviano Fregoso, Ludovico Pio, Gaspare Pallavicino, Giuliano de' Medici, Pietro Bembo, Baldassare Castiglione, Cesare Gonzaga (all of whom had been attached to his uncle Guidobaldo), Ambrogio Landriano, Febo da Cevi and his brother Gherardino, Filippino Doria, Benedetto Giraldi, and others conspicuous in arms, letters, or music; among whom Baldi names also Matteo della Branca, Carlo Gabrielli, Father Andreoni, Troiano and Gentile Carbonani, Count Gentile Ubaldini."[40]

Had his lot been cast in less turbulent times, it would have been his pride to maintain about him this goodly company, although he pretended not to his predecessor's literary tastes, and, if we may credit Sanuto, was unable to follow an oration delivered in Latin, on his arrival at Venice, in 1524. Yet, he was not indifferent to letters when connected with the engrossing occupation of his mind; and it was his habit, when time permitted, to have passages of ancient history read to him during several hours a day. This relaxation was varied by discussions arising out of these prelections, which he generally directed to military points, drawing out the opinions of his officers in attendance. Hence probably were suggested the Military Discourses, published in his name, of which we have already spoken; and various memorials of his conversation are preserved in a manuscript, which has supplied us with the anecdotes formerly quoted.[41] These were selected as illustrative of manners, from notes apparently made by a bystander; the others are almost exclusively upon military tactics and fortification, in which he was quite an adept.

Leonardi[42] confirms what we have stated of his character, dwelling much on his tendency to practical views. The sketch of Cristofero Centenelli must close these remarks:—"Though considered somewhat overbearing and hasty, he was at all times just. Even in youth, he was singularly self-denying of personal indulgences: guarding himself from the temptations of luxury and indolence, he sought daily occupation in the practice of arms, athletic sports, and equestrian exercises. He was liberal and magnificent, but grave and magnanimous; kind and affable to his friends, equitable and compassionate to his subjects. His courage was fiery and indomitable; of cold and heat, fatigue, watching, and privation, he was most enduring. He combined, to a rare degree, boldness in the field with prudence in the council-room, avoiding equally their extremes of temerity and timidity. To great skill in military discipline, he united uncommon perspicacity in discovering the snares of seeming friends or of open foes: astute with enemies, he was guarded with all. His eloquence commanded general admiration by its studied brevity, expressing the clearest views in fewest words."[43]

The Duke's constant and dutiful affection to his predecessor's widow deserves special notice. While she lived she shared his home, in prosperity or adversity, in sovereignty or in exile; and he occasionally availed himself of her prudence and popularity in the administration of the state during his absences. An interesting memorial of this filial affection is afforded by the following letter, which seems to have been written by Duchess Elisabetta.

The widowed Duchess Leonora remained at Pesaro, stricken with grief, from which she slowly recovered to find a solace in her children. By her husband's will she had 28,000 scudi, besides the life-rent of his Neapolitan fiefs at Sora, which were left in remainder to their younger son Giulio. To each of the daughters were provided 20,000 scudi. She died at Gubbio, in 1543. Her devoted affection to her husband was accompanied by much sterling worth of character; but she was especially distinguished for that equanimity of temper which marks the expression of her admirable portrait in the Florence Gallery.

The children of Francesco Maria were these:—