nnies, punish Vitelli and Baglioni for their
defection.

This was the natural result of the terms of Cesare's treaty with France
having become known; but the part of it which regarded the Orsini,
Vitelli, and Baglioni was purely provisional. Considering that these
condottieri were now at odds with Cesare, they might see fit to consider
themselves bound to Bentivogli by the Treaty of Villafontana, signed by
Vitelli and Orsini on the duke's behalf at the time of the capitulation
of Castel Bolognese. They might choose to disregard the fact that this
treaty had already been violated by Bentivogli himself, through the
non-fulfilment of the terms of it, and refuse to proceed against him
upon being so bidden by Valentinois.

It was for such a contingency as this that provision was made by the
clause concerning them in Cesare's treaty with Louis.

The Orsini were still in the duke's service, in command of troops levied
for him and paid by him, and considering that with them Cesare had no
quarrel, it is by no means clear why they should have gone over to the
alliance of the condottieri that was now forming against the duke. Join
it, however, they did. They, too, were in the Treaty of Villafontana;
but that they should consider themselves bound by it, would have
been--had they urged it--more in the nature of a pretext than a reason.
But they chose a pretext even more slender. They gave out that in Milan
Louis XII had told Cardinal Orsini that the Pope's intention was to
destroy the Orsini.

To accept such a statement as true, we should have to believe in a
disloyalty and a double-dealing on the part of Louis XII altogether
incredible. To what end should he, on the one side, engage to assist
Cesare with 300 lances to "oppress" the Orsini--if necessary, and among
others--whilst, on the other, he goes to Orsini with the story which
they attribute to him? What a mean, treacherous, unkingly figure must
he not cut as a consequence! He may have been--we know, indeed, that he
was--no more averse to double-dealing than any other Cinquecentist; but
he was probably as averse to being found out in a meanness and made
to look contemptible as any double-dealer of our own times. It is a
consideration worth digesting.

When word of the story put about by the Orsini was carried to the
Pope he strenuously denied the imputation, and informed the Venetian
ambassador that he had written to complain of this to the King of
France, and that, far f