hat the cardinal had been ill for only two days, and
that his illness had been attended by violent sickness. This--and the
reticence of it--was no doubt intended to arouse the suspicion that the
cardinal had been poisoned. Giustiniani adds that Michieli's house was
stripped that very night by the Pope, who profited thereby to the extent
of some 150,000 ducats, besides plate and other valuables; and this was
intended to show an indecent eagerness on the Pope's part to possess
himself of that which by the cardinal's death he inherited, whereas, in
truth, the measure would be one of wise precaution against the customary
danger of pillage by the mob.
But in March of the year 1504, under the pontificate of Julius
II (Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere) a subdeacon, named Asquino de
Colloredo, was arrested for defaming the dead cardinal ("interfector
bone memorie Cardinalis S. Angeli").(1) What other suspicions were
entertained against him, what other revelations it was hoped to extract
from him, cannot be said; but Asquino was put to the question, to
the usual accompaniment of the torture of the cord, and under this he
confessed that he had poisoned Cardinal Michieli, constrained to it
by Pope Alexander VI and the Duke of Valentinois, against his will and
without reward ("verumtamen non voluisse et pecunias non habuisse").
1 Burchard's Diarium, March 6, 1504.
Now if Asquino defamed the memory of Cardinal Michieli it seems to
follow naturally that he had hated the cardinal; and, if we know that he
hated him, we need not marvel that, out of that hatred, he poisoned him.
But something must have been suspected as a motive for his arrest
in addition to the slanders he was uttering, otherwise how came
the questions put to him to be directed so as to wring from him the
confession that he had poisoned the cardinal? If you choose to believe
his further statement that he was constrained to it by Pope Alexander
and the Duke of Valentinois, you are, of course, at liberty to do so.
But you will do well first to determine precisely what degree of credit
such a man might be worth when seeking to extenuate a fault admitted
under pressure of the torture--and offering the extenuation likeliest to
gain him the favour of the della Rovere Pope, whose life's task--as we
shall see--was the defamation of the hated Borgias. You will also do
well closely to examine the last part of his confession--that he was
constrained to it "against his wi
|