[183] It would have been more agreeable to the plan of this book to translate from the original accounts of Machiavelli, or Politiano, who was an eye–witness of the conspiracy; but their accounts are long and minute, not to say tedious, and would require much condensation; and we gladly avail ourselves of the brief and spirited narrative of Mr. Perceval.
[184] “Conspiring against one prince,” says Machiavelli, “is a doubtful and dangerous undertaking; but to conspire against two at the same time must be either downright folly or madness:” and he enforces his principle by the examples of the Pazzi and of Harmodius and Aristogiton. “Pelopidas,” he adds, “had ten tyrants instead of two to deal with:” it would be very dangerous, however, for any man to build on the success of this conspiracy, which, indeed, was almost miraculous, and is mentioned by all writers who speak of it, as not only a rare, but almost unexampled event.—Political Discourses, book iii. chap. 6.
[185] Machiavelli has drawn a shrewd caution to conspirators from the failure of the attack upon Lorenzo. “It is necessary, in undertakings of this kind, to make use of men that have been sufficiently hardened and tried, and to trust no others, how courageous soever they may be accounted: for no man can answer even for his own resolution, if he have not thoroughly proved it before; for the confusion he must naturally be in at such a time may either make him drop the dagger out of his hand, or say something which may have the same effect. Lucilla, sister to Commodus, having spirited up Quintianus to kill her brother, he waited for him as he came to the amphitheatre, and stepping up towards him with a drawn dagger in his hand, told him ‘the senate had sent him that:’ upon which he was immediately seized before he got near enough to stab him. Antonio de Volterra being fixed upon to kill Lorenzo de’ Medici, cried out, as he advanced to kill him, ‘Ha! traitor!’ which proved the preservation of Lorenzo, and the ruin of the conspiracy.”—Political Discourses, b. iii. 6.
[186] The family arms of the Medici were six golden balls (palle d’oro). They asserted that this bearing was derived from the impressions left on the shield of one of their ancestors by a gigantic Saracen, who wielded a mace with six iron globes hung from it. Their detractors said that they were the arms of an apothecary, from whom the family derived the name of Medici, and that the golden balls were nothing better than gilded pills.
[187] Herod. iii. 134.—The style of Herodotus is highly dramatic, and we by no means intend to say that such a conversation took place, though there are circumstances attendant on the narrative which may satisfactorily answer the natural question, how came it to be reported and known? But whether we believe it to be genuine or not, it embodies a plausible reason for an expedition which seems at variance with the character of Darius, and probably contains the grounds on which Herodotus accounted for it.
[188] They are said by Herodotus to have consisted of 700,000 men, horse and foot; the fleet of 600 ships.
[189] Some curious particulars remain concerning the Getæ, whom he encountered on his march. They believed in the immortality of the soul, as taught them by their lawgiver Zalmoxis, or as the name is otherwise read, Zamolxis, and in, a future state of happiness. Every fifth year they sent a messenger to inform Zalmoxis, whom they had deified, of their wants, in this manner. Choosing a man by lot, they first give him full instructions as to the purport of his embassy, and then certain men, taking him by the hands and feet, toss him in the air, others hold three spears placed so that he might fall upon them. If he die immediately, Zalmoxis is thought to be favourably disposed; if not, they call the messenger a scoundrel, and proceed to make trial of somebody else.
[190] The reader may compare the following passage of Froissart, chap. xviii. The English army were in pursuit of the Scots, then employed in ravaging Northumberland under the Earl of Douglas, who was strongly posted upon a hill side, with a deep and rocky river in his front. “And there were harauldis of armes sent to the Scottis gyvyng them knowledge if that they would come and passe the ryver to fight with them in the playne felde, they wolde draw backe fro the ryver, and gyve theym sufficient place to arraynge theyr batelles, eyther the same day, or els the next, as they wolde chuse them selfe, or els to lette them do lyke wyse, and they wolde come over to them. And whan the Scottis harde this they toke counsell among theymselfe: and anon they answered the harauldis, how they wolde do nother the one nor the other, and said, syrs, your kyng and his lordis se well how we be here in this realme, and have burnt and wasted the countrey as we have passed through, and if they be displeased therwith, lette them amend it whan they wyll, for here we wyll abide, as long as it shall please us.” Challenges of this sort were often given in the days of chivalry, and not unfrequently accepted.
[191] Herod. lib. iv. c. 83–142.
[192] This seems to be not a name, but a title of office, belonging to the commander–in–chief of the Parthian army, as the appellation Brennus is supposed to have denoted a similar office among the Gauls.