[*54] Oddantonio seems to have strongly disliked Federigo, his father's natural son. He would not suffer him to live at Urbino. The Duke was to have married Cecilia Gonzaga, but preferred at the last moment Isotta d'Este, thinking she would be more likely to give him an heir and so exclude Federigo. See Tarducci, Cecilia Gonzaga ed Oddantonio di Montefeltro (Mantova, 1897). Violante, Federigo's half-sister, renounced her part of the heritage of her father in documents preserved in Arch. Centrale di Firenze (Carte d'Urbino, Cartapecore Laiche, Nos. 180 and 209), printed by Madiai in Le Marche, vol. III., pp. 125-32.
[55] Lazzerini, in his Memorie Storiche dei Conti di Urbino, has discussed without exhausting them in fifty folio pages. The magnificent work by Count Pompeo Litta is marred by adopting the theory of an Ubaldini descent for Duke Federigo. See his notice of Emilia Pio da Carpi, wife of Count Antonio di Montefeltro.
[56] The merit of another, and apparently an original conjecture, belongs to Sismondi, who makes him the adulterous son of Bernardino, by one of Guidantonio's wives. For this there is no authority whatever; indeed, this historian, by confounding Guidantonio with his son, and omitting Oddantonio entirely, has utterly confused the family and history of Urbino. We have formerly set down Aura as daughter of Guidantonio, on authority of a licence from Nicholas V. for Federigo, his wife, and his sister Aura, to choose a confessor, quoted by Gallo Galli, and also in the MS. of Muzio (Vat. Urb. MSS., No. 1011), which is much fuller than the printed edition. Thus also Giovanni Sanzi, father of the painter Raffaele, in his rhyming chronicle of Federigo's life, which we shall frequently have to quote (Vat. Ottobon. MSS., No. 1305), and shall examine in our twenty-fifth chapter, says of him,—
|
"But others call this admirable flower Grandson of Guidantonio, being child Of that count's daughter, whose exalted name Is dear to virtue, Bernardino's wife Of th' Ubaldini." |
[*57] Federigo was born in Gubbio, where he remained for two years, and on 2 December, 1437, was there solemnly betrothed to Gentile Brancaleoni. On the question of the birth of Federigo, see Reposati, op. cit., tom. I., p. 136, and Ugolini, op. cit., tom. I., p. 221. I take this opportunity of referring the reader behind all the later lives of Federigo to what is probably the first, the codex Vatic. Urbin. 1010. It is a codex cartaceo in folio bound in parchment measuring 0·32 × 0·21 of 107 pages. It is written by many hands, and is rich in marginal notes probably by Bernardino Baldi. It is entitled, Commentarj della vita et gesti dell'invittessimo Federico duca d'Urbino raccolti et scritti da Pierantonio Paltroni da Urbino. Guido Zaccagnini has written a commentary on this MS. in Le Marche, fasc. I., ann. IV., pp. 8-33 (Fano, 1904). Cf. also Madiai, F. da M. nella Relaz. coi Parenti in Le Marche (Fano, 1903), vol. III., pp. 114 et seq.; G. Zannoni, Federico II., di Montefeltro e G.A. Compano, in Atti della R. Accademia delle Scienze di Torino. See also F. Madiai, Pierantonio Paltroni e B. Baldi biografi di Federico da Montefeltro, in Le Marche, fasc. V.-VI., ann. II. (Fano, 1902).
[*58] Lucca was never absorbed. It is true she was sold to Florence, but the City of the Lily could never get her. Cf. Ammirato, Muratori, Sismondi.
[59] It consisted of a tight pantaloon, fantastically party-coloured, and a device distinguishing it from similar clubs. The members associated together for festive and social purposes, which were freely indulged in at the election or marriage of a brother of the hose, and they wore mourning for four days on the death of any one of their number.
[*60] On Vittorino da Feltre, see Rosmini, V. da Feltre (1845), and Prof. Woodward, V. da Feltre.
[*61] Guidantonio entertained many potentates in Gubbio, among them, on September 24, Pope Martin V., who was housed in the Palazzo Beni. Cf. Lucarelli, Memorie e Guida di Gubbio (Capi, 1888). The Emperor was received with great magnificence not in the autumn of 1432, but in August, 1433. Cf. Guerriero, op. cit. (supra, [note 1], [p. 22]); R. Reposati, op. cit., vol. I., p. 141.
[*62] It is instructive to notice that the Emperor also conferred knighthood a few days later in Rimini on Sigismondo Malatesta and his brother Novello. Sigismondo was born in 1417, and was christened Gismondo. Cf. Clementini and Battaglini. The Emperor, in knighting him, bade him take his own name. Thus Gismondo became Sigismondo. This becomes of great importance later to his history. The family badge of the Malatesti was the elephant (complete); the elephant's head échancré was the family crest. Neither was ever a charge in the arms of the family. But for a century before Sigismondo's time the rulers of Rimini had been in the habit of placing an initial or monogram in the second and third quarters of the family arms. The first known date of this use by Sigismondo of SI is 1445, and this has caused it to be confused by all writers on the subject with the name of Isotta his mistress, later his third wife, whom he met about this time. The SI, say they, stands for Sigismondo-Isotta. It does not; it stands for Sigismondo, as I think I have shown. Of course, I am sure Sigismondo was only too delighted to find that his monogram embraced the initial letter of his Love. There is good evidence to show that this was the popular belief after Polissenas's death in 1449; but that is very different indeed from any assertion that he actually placed the "I" in the family coat for love of Isotta. If such a prince could do such a thing, I will believe with John Addington Symonds that he murdered a wife whom he never married. I may end this long note with a word or two on the use of the plural Malatesti. There are many excellent authorities for it, among them Clementini, Battaglini, and d'Annunzio, to say nothing of Villani and the chroniclers of Rimini. It is indeed a question for a pedant. However, the form, to be just, is Florentine, and arose in this manner, maybe. The Florentine family name was primarily a genitive. Rainiero, the son, called himself Rainiero Rainiero; Rainiero, son of Rainiero; Rainierus, Rainieri. The Latin genitive being the same as the nominative plural, all the family became Rainieri. This, however, presupposes a nominative singular in us. Were the nominative in a, the system would not work: Malatesta—Malatestae. In order to twist it into Florentine shape it was necessary to insert the preposition de, thus: Malatesta—de Malatestis, and then to drop the final s. This sounds excellent enough; but what if the plural is as natural after all as an English plural would be in its place: Smith—the Smiths; Rainiero—i Rainieri; Malatesta—i Malatesti?