In the summer of 1502, Cesare Borgia captured Urbino and, for a short time until expelled by the French, held Arezzo and other towns in the Val di Chiano deemed essential to the security of Florence. To ensure Borgia’s neutrality toward Florence, Machiavelli was sent to his court in Imola. Concern about Cesare’s actions was heightened when a group of his condottieri met in Perugia on 9 October and agreed to challenge him openly. Throughout the remainder of the fall, while Cesare was engaged in negotiations with his rebellious captains, the Florentine Signoria sought information from Machiavelli on Cesare’s plans: was the Duke intending to attack his former allies with troops provided by other European powers, or would he conclude an agreement with them? In late December, Cesare was to trick his condottieri into meeting with him in Sinigaglia, where he captured and killed them.
In the first dispatch reproduced here, started on 31 October 1502, Machiavelli reports on a draft agreement that Cesare planned to submit to the rebels. After describing in detail conversations with Messer Agobito, one of Cesare’s key advisors who is described as a “friend,” on the morning of 1 November Machiavelli added a passage indicating that to “verify” this account he has just “talked to another [uno altro] who is also acquainted with this lord’s [Cesare’s] secrets.” Although Machiavelli is careful to name other informants, using a cipher to designate Agobito, his silence on the identity of this “other” person makes it impossible to know whether or not it was Leonardo.
Magnifici Domini Decemviris etc.,
Magnificent Lords, etc., through my last letters of the 29th and 30th, which I sent through Zerino, messenger for your Lordships, in reply to your letter of the 28th, you have been informed of what has been happening to me, and also of what I have been able to know, both from the mouth of the Duke, and from others, about Signor Paulo’s conduct and the agreements drawn up between the allies and this Lord. And since the Duke promised to have a copy given to me, I insisted on Messer Agabito giving it to me but finally he told me: “I want to tell you the truth: these agreements are not yet completely finalized, but a rough draft has been made, approved by both the Duke and Signor Paulo, with which Signor Paulo left. And as soon as the allies approve it, Signor Paulo will be able to approve it in the name of the Duke: and to this end Signor Paulo has been appointed fiduciary by the Duke. After Signor Paulo had left, while examining the agreements, it seemed to the Duke that one section was missing, that concerning the state and honor of the King of France; and he wanted that section to be created; and the Duke made me ride after Signor Paulo in order to tell him that he [the Duke] was not going to draw up any agreement without that section; and, when I reached him, he refused to accept it and then he said that he would take it to the others but that in his opinion they would not accept it. For this reason the Duke does not want any copy to be given away; and it has not been given either to the Chancellor of Ferrara or to any others.” Then Messer Agabito added: “These agreements will be accepted or not: if they are accepted, a window will be opened through which the Duke can escape at his pleasure; and if not, a door will be opened to him; but concerning these agreements, even children should laugh at them, since they were made by force with so much injury to the Duke and so much danger for him.” This speech made him [Messer Agabito] grow very fervent. And what I wrote to your Lordships concerning this matter was told me in secret; and if you put it together with what I wrote yesterday, you, Wise Lordships, will come to the conclusion that you will consider more proper; I only want to remind you that Messer Agabito belongs to the Colonna party and is a supporter of that faction.
Your Lordships, through the Postscriptum to your letter of the 28th, point out that the auxiliary troops that this Lord is expecting from France are not in sufficient number and have not yet arrived; for this reason you can suppose that this Lord, finding himself in a weak position and pressed by his enemies, will stipulate some agreement that will be unfavorable to him and dangerous for his neighbors. I believe that your Lordships have received reliable information from Milan and France as to the quality of the men that are in one place and the other; and yet I will tell you what I have seen here, so that your Lordships can have a better understanding of the events and consequently judge them more properly. One citizen of yours, Guglielmo di Niccolò di Piero di Bonaccorso, came back yesterday. As I wrote, he accompanied the French lancers that arrived, all of which he has quartered in the countryside around Faenza. He told me that these lancers consisted of five companies, that is Monti-son, Fois, Miolans, Dunais, and Marquis of Saluzo, and having inspected all the troops that were lined up, 7 lances were missing of the 250 that were supposed to be there but he now thinks that there are more of them than was necessary because they were joined by a few mercenary troops; and as I said, these troops are currently here. At the same time, yesterday a Spaniard, Pietro Guardaroba, who had been sent to France by this Lord, came back as well; and this Guglielmo, who along the road had a long talk with him, said to me that Pietro informed him of having arranged with His Majesty the King the arrival of three companies; and that at his departure from Milan the company of Monsignor [of Ciamonte] of Ligni had already left; and concerning the other two companies, Monsignor of Ciamonte had not decided yet which ones will arrive.
In my letter of the 9th, if you remember correctly, I wrote to your Lordships that, among other preparations organized by this Lord after the rebellion of the Orsinis, he had sent a son of the General of Milan in order to put together 1500 Swiss and to give accommodations to fifty or a hundred of the best soldiers among those who were already at the service of the Duke of Milan and to bring them under him; and the expenses necessary to transfer these people will be met by the General because of his wish to have his son elected cardinal. Guglielmo told me that the Swiss are already in Pavia and that the soldiers were almost drawn up.
Moreover he said that the son of Monsignor Le Pret is passing again through Italy with a hundred soldiers for his brother-in-law, which, if it was true, would be honorable in spite of its delay. And Guglielmo, who gave me this piece of information, is as far as I know a sensible and honest person.
As far as the Italian people are concerned, the conduct of the Count of Mirandola is ascertained: a few days ago he received money. It is said that he is still giving soldiers to Fracassa and that he received money from one of the Palavisini, his gentleman. The evidence for what I am saying rests in the fact that he is giving hospitality to any soldiers that have deserted their troops and that happen to go to his house; and two days ago a fellow, Piero Bolzano, arrived there with 40 crossbowmen on horses, after having escaped from Messer Giovanni Bentivogli, and as soon as he arrived he received money.
I cannot tell you anything else about what is happening here, because after the rebellion in Camerino I have not heard anything either from there or from Bologna. Neither did Protonotary Bentivogli come here as it had been ordered and as I wrote to you Lords. But if I had to tell you in brief what is happening here, I would say that one side is discussing peacefully, and the other is preparing for war [what is until here was written on 31st]. Your Lordships, who receive advice from any side, can judge better of what your enemies are doing or might do, and if this Lord will surrender to you or not, than if you had to form your opinion aided by a single thing.
[What is until here written on the 31st.] Today is November 1st: since I was eager to send the treaty to your Lordships and to verify what the friend had told me, according to what I wrote you above, I talked to another who is also acquainted with the Lord’s secrets; and while we were discussing the same question, he told me the same thing my friend had told me; neither could I draw any particular conclusion from this further conversation, other than that it concerns the honor of France; and again, he maintained that nothing had been mentioned about your Lordships. He underlined that in the agreements there was a section that stated that not all the Orsinis and the Vitellis were obliged to serve the Duke personally, but only one at a time; and while laughing he said: “look what agreements these are.” I will not consider this last piece of information as separate from the rest so as to see in it something different from what it actually is; and in order not to keep your Lordships waiting, I will send this letter through a messenger, Giovanni Antonio from Milan, who promised me to be there at the latest by tomorrow, and your Lordships will have him paid one florin in gold.
November 1, 1502, midnight., Imola
E. V. D.Your servant,
Niccolò Machiavelli
While I was concluding this letter Tommaso Spinelli arrived and informed me that he had left Protonotary Bentivogli at Castel Sampiero and that he will be here tomorrow morning.
Source: Niccolò Machiavelli, Legazioni. Commissarie. Scritti di Governo, ed. Fredi Chiapelli (Rome: Gius. Laterza & Figli, 1973), 2.260–264 (Archivio di Stato di Firenze, X di B., Cart. Resp. 119, cc 13r–14v, 21r–v). Translation by Francesca Roselli.
Writing for the Committee of Ten, responsible for Florentine policy, Marcellus instructs Machiavelli to seek a postponement of the agreement Cesare is negotiating with his rebellious condottieri and to keep them informed of any actions that might be directed against Florence.
Dear Sir, that man that you sent with your letter of the ist has served us very badly because he did not get here until this morning at dinner time; in spite of this, in order not to give a bad opinion of us in case he might come here again, we paid him as you had written us and we sent him back tonight so that he can arrive there tomorrow in the early morning: and we would be glad if he would serve you better than us, which thing he promised.
We do not need to write a long reply to your letter: here nothing new has happened, except that we are waiting for an Archdeacon of Celon, a Frenchman who had already been to Rome for the King, sent by the Pope and according to the information we have, on commission of His Majesty the King; the reason for it would not be other than to urge us to do what the Pope has been wishing for a long time. The Pope is shown to us, through Sir Alexandro, to wish more than ever that the agreement will not take place—a wish of which there are many indications—and he relies a lot on us. You will be able to use your friendship with this Lord to defer the agreement: although we rather wish that you express what we are telling you: that we cannot declare our intentions before having enough troops; that here we are engaged in gathering money and soldiers. Of these, we do not know yet how we will employ the people of Mantova; since he is in France and we have not received any news about his intentions; to certify to his Lordship always that this city is with him and that, with respect to his forces, he can have as great hopes as that of any other [city].
We do not know how to consider the agreement concluded between this Lord and the others since there are so many different opinions about both sides; but we urge you to keep us informed about any detail and to point out anything that could reveal the existence of preparations from one side or the other.
We also consider it proper for you to talk about that with the Duke, and to suggest to him that it is necessary that his Excellency support our good intentions and think, if not of anything else, at least that it does not cost anything either to his Excellency or the Pope to support us, since it be for the advantage of his Excellency. You should mention to him the Church tithes which will help this city to support so many expenses and that this city could not hope to obtain the same results if it had to do everything by itself.
Enclosed with this letter you will find a safe-conduct, of which we have already written to you. It will be valid one year and cannot be prolonged, according to our laws, with the exception of the city of Pisa because we are at war with it. You will communicate these two things to his Excellency, and will clarify them in the way you may judge more appropriate; we do not need to remind you of anything else in this letter, except of writing us conscientiously about anything that happens there.
Farewell
Ex Palatio Fiorentino, die III Novembris MDII
Decemviri Libertatis et Balie Reipublicae Florentinae
M<arcellus>
Source: Niccolò Machiavelli, Legazioni. Commissarie. Scritti di Governo, ed. Fredi Chiapelli (Rome: Gius. Laterza & Figli, 1973), 2.264–265 (BNF: CM III, 84; copy Archivio di Stato di Firenze, X di B., Cart. Miss. L.C. 26, cc. 169v–170r). Translation by Francesca Roselli.
Machiavelli reports that “one of the First Secretaries” of Cesare has promised him a copy of Cesare’s draft agreement with the condottieri as soon as it is available. After listing by name the French captains with whom he has met, Machiavelli remarks that he cannot report a crucial conversation between Cesare and the papal envoy Bentivogli because “the person that used to inform me of such things”—probably Agabito—left with Bentivogli; instead, Machiavelli reports a conversation with “one of those who is acquainted with this Lord’s [Cesare’s] business,” adding that he “had to be more careful in writing this letter.” In the last paragraph, Machiavelli describes the difficulty of dealing with Borgia, since “nobody talks to him except three or four of his ministers or some stranger who has important questions to deal with him” and his daily routines are highly unusual.
Magnificis Dominis Decemviris etc.,
Magnificent Lords,
I wrote to your Lordships my last news of the 31st of October and the ist of November; and I was able to know about the agreements and the reason why I had not received them. Even today I talked to one of the First Secretaries, who confirmed everything I wrote in my other letters; he says that he expects the Chevalier Orsino to come back and, depending on his report, the agreements will be made public or not. He promised me that the copy will be given to no other than me; and I will give a report of it to others. Other than this, I did not notice anything that could point to something to the contrary, nor did I hear anything concerning your Lordships, except I heard you condemned for not having done anything to put a stop to this Lord.
Concerning what is happening here, I wrote extensively in my letters all I know; and since I have not kept anything to myself, nor having anything new happened, I have nothing to write, except for repeating this to you: if words and documents point towards an agreement, nonetheless orders and preparations indicate war; and as I wrote in another letter, five companies of French soldiers have been quartered for four days in the countryside around Faenza, and yesterday their captains visited this Lord and conversed with him for a while; after they had left, I visited Monsignor of Montison, the supreme leader, in the name of your Lordships; he welcomed me very warmly and was ready to offer you help and wanted to know from me if at the moment he could do anything for your own benefit. I visited the Baron of Bierra, Monsignor Lo Grafis, and Monsignor of Borsu, lieutenants of Fois, Miolans, and Dunais; I introduced myself and they recognized me for having been on familiar terms with them. They were all pleased to see me and, according to what I noticed, they are your supporters and praise highly your Lordships: which thing is considerably positive. Your Lordships will give me directions about what I have to discuss with these Lords.
Today about 300 more Gascons arrived, while the Swiss are expected within four days. It is believed that at their arrival here what has to be accomplished will have a start.
In my last letter of November ist I wrote that Protonotary Bentivogli was supposed to arrive yesterday morning by virtue of safe-conduct; and he arrived at about seven p.m. He had dinner with the Duke and after that he remained with him for about half an hour, after which he left immediately for Bologna; neither could I receive information about their conversation because the person that used to inform me of such things left with him. By talking to one of those who is acquainted with this Lord’s business, I understood that he is to come back soon and that if Messer Giovanni is willing to support him against the Orsinis and the Vitellis, he should offer him every promise of peace and security; and about the way in which he could, with regard to the coalition, etc., he answered that he would arrange that the King of France would give him dispositions; and we discussed together about how this thing, if successfully conducted, would be favorable to the Duke, to your Lordships, and to Messer Giovanni and added that this Duke supported it warmly. In fact it was evident to him that it was safer for his state to keep Messer Giovanni in his position and establish a friendly relationship with him than to send him away and take possession of a land that would be impossible to keep and that with time would represent the beginning of his ruin. Moreover, he said that the Duke of Ferrara had never wanted to promise any help to this Lord, nor is he willing to offer him any if he does not come to an agreement with Bologna. I did everything that was in my power to strengthen his opinion concerning all this and I added to what he said whatever reasons I considered necessary. It seems certain to me that this agreement will be concluded both by the Duke and by the Duke of Ferrara; I inform your Lordships of this because I consider it as opportune and even though I had to be more careful in writing this letter, nonetheless I want to have your Lordships receive it and I will send it through my own messenger. I hope you will be grateful for the common benefit derived from it and will consequently honor me.
A man [Guiccardini] who is a citizen of yours and your commanding officer, currently an independent soldier for this Lord, told me that yesterday evening, at about five p.m., finding himself in the lodging of the Count Alexandro from Marciano, brother of Count Rinuccio, he saw this Lord passing by that place at that time and call Count Alexandro outside. He stayed with him for an hour; and left him afterwards, told him that the Duke had discussed many things with him, which, taken all together, showed that his Lordship had more a feeling of vengeance against those who put his state in danger than a wish or intention of peace.
The letter of your Lordships of November ist does not need other reply than what I wrote above; I did not try to talk to the Duke since I have nothing new to tell him and he would be annoyed if my report concerned things he already knows. You have to remember that nobody talks to him except three or four of his ministers or some stranger who has important questions to deal with him; and he does not leave his antechamber except from five or six in the morning on: and for this reason it is never possible to talk to him, except by private audience. And if he knows that one has only words for him, he does not grant him audience. I write you this so that your Lordships will not be surprised of my decision not to see him and also for the future, in case I should write you that I could not obtain an audience from him.
Farewell,
Ex Imola, die III November 1502
E. V. D Servitor
Nicolaus Machiavellus
Source: Niccolò Machiavelli, Legazioni. Commissarie. Scritti di Governo, ed. Fredi Chiapelli (Rome: Gius. Laterza & Figli, 1973), 2.266–268 (Archivio di Stato di Firenze, X di B., Cart. Resp. 119, cc 15r–16v). Translation by Francesca Roselli.
After Leonardo’s return to Florence in 1503, his first major commitment was the agreement to paint The Battle of Anghiari in the Grand Council Hall of the Palazzo Vecchio. The following documents, however, demonstrate conclusively that he played a critical role as a consulting engineer on the feasibility of the diversion of the Arno. Having drawn maps and plans for a diversion of the Arno for peaceful purposes in the 1490s, Leonardo was well qualified to assess the proposed military project, and since Leonardo is the only “expert” named, his judgment was presumably considered particularly important. But Leonardo had only recently arrived in Florence from Cesare’s court. How, then, was his expertise in this matter known to the Signoria? While we cannot know, conversations with Machiavelli while both were in Cesare’s court are at least one plausible explanation.
Because of the importance of the following documents, the translations are preceded by the original Italian text.
Report of Leonardo’s visit to the field:
Ex Castris, Franciscus Ghuiduccius, 24 Jul. 1503. Appresso fu qui hieri con una di V. Signoria Alexandro degli Albizi insieme con Leonardo da Vinci et certi altri, et veduto el disgno insieme con el ghovernatore, doppo molte discussioni et dubii conclusesi che l’opera fussi molto al proposito, o si veramente Arno volgersi qui, o restarvi con un canale, che almeno vieterebbe che le colline da nemici non potrebbono essere offese; come tucto referiranno loro a bocha V. S.
Ex Castris, Franciscus Ghuiduccius, 24 Jul. 1503. Yesterday one of your Signoria, Alexandro of the Albizi, was here together with Leonardo da Vinci and some others, who examined the plan in the presence of the Governor and, after many discussions and doubts, they concluded that the work was very appropriate, whether Arno turned there or remained with a channel; in any case it would provide that the hills could not be attacked by the enemies; they will tell you everything in person V. S.
Source: Leonardo da Vinci, Notebooks, ed. Jean-Paul Richter (New York: Dover, 1970), 2.229 note (Archivio di Stato di Firenzi, Lettere alla Balia; previously published by J. Gaye, Carteggio inedito d’Artisti [Florence, 1840], 2.62). Translation by Francesca Roselli.
The following entry in the accounts of Florence confirms Leonardo’s visit to the field.
Andata di Leonardo al Campo sotto Pisa. Spese extraordinarie dieno dare a di XXVI di Iuglio L. LVI sol, XIII per loro a Giovanni Piffero; e sono per tanti, asegnia avere spexi in vetture di sei chavalli a spese di vitto per andare chon Lionardo da Vinci a livellare Arno in quello di Pisa per levallo del lito suo.
Leonardo’s trip to the camp below Pisa.
Extra expenses, of the amount of 50.56 “soldi,” must be paid for the 26th of July, 13 of them to Giovanni Piffero. This money has been spent to provide six-horse coaches and to pay the board expenses for the expedition with Leonardo in the territory of Pisa to divert Arno from its course and take it away from Pisa.
Source: Leonardo da Vinci, Notebooks, ed. Jean-Paul Richter (New York: Dover, 1970), 2.229 note (Archivio di Stato di Firenze, Libro d’Entrata e Uscita di cassa de’ Magnifici Signori di liuglio e agosto 1503, 51 T; previously published by Milanesi, Archivio Storico Italiano, Serie III, Volume XVI). Translation by Francesca Roselli.
When Leonardo seemed to delay in starting to paint The Battle of Anghiari, the Gonfalonier Soderini was greatly upset. The formal agreement between Leonardo and the Signoria, co-signed by Machiavelli, is the only text explicitly linking the names of Machiavelli and Leonardo da Vinci. The cartoon—i.e., the preparatory drawing for the painting itself, made of sheets of paper stuck together—was ultimately completed and Leonardo began the painting itself on 6 June 1505. For the history of the painting and the controversy surrounding it, see Bramley, Leonardo, 336–349.
Item ditch Domini simul adunati etc. servatis etc. deliberaverunt etc. infrascriptas deliberationes infra vugari sermone descriptas videlicet: the Magnificent and Excellent Lordships, the Priors of Liberty and the Gonfalonier of Justice of the Florentine people, considering that: several months ago Leonardo of Sir Piero da Vinci, Florentine citizen, began to paint the Hall of the Great Council; that Leonardo had already painted a preliminary drawing of it on a cartoon and that he had received 35 large golden florins for this work; that these Lords wish that the work will be completed as soon as possible and that the above mentioned Leonardo will be given at different times a certain amount of money; nonetheless, the Magnificent Lords servatis etc. resolved that Leonardo will have to finish the entire cartoon completely by next February 1504, no exception or excuse accepted, and Leonardo shall be paid 15 large golden florins for each month, counting from the 20th of April. And in case Leonardo should not have finished the cartoon within that time, then the Magnificent Lords can compel him in whatever way they consider more opportune, to give back the entire amount of money earned for that work until that day, and to hand over, without compensation, that part of the cartoon which he has managed to finish; in the meanwhile Leonardo has promised to finish the cartoon.
It could be the case that Leonardo would consider it proper to begin painting on the wall of the hall the part he had drawn on the cartoon, in which case the Magnificent Lordships will be pleased to give him the wage they will consider as proper for each month of his work and on the day agreed between Leonardo and them. And since Leonardo is engaged in painting the wall, the Magnificent Lords will be pleased to extend the period of time allowed [to him to finish the cartoon], during which Leonardo is obliged to finish the cartoon in the way agreed between the Lords and Leonardo. And since it could also happen that Leonardo, during the time he is engaged in finishing the cartoon, should not have the opportunity to paint the wall but went on with the cartoon, according to the agreement subscribed, the Magnificent Lords will not be allowed to have the cartoon painted by anybody without Leonardo’s formal permission. On the contrary, they will let Leonardo finish the painting when it is possible for him and let him paint the wall any month they will agree upon, when it will be considered more opportune. Nonetheless, Leonardo will have to declare his acceptance of 35 large golden florins, and all the money he will receive in the future, as the advance on the money that the Magnificent Lords will declare as total reward for his work. Mandantes . . .
. . . Actum in palatio dictorum Dominorum presentibus Nicolao Domini Bernardi de Machiavellis Cancellario dictorum Dominorum, et Marco ser Ioannis de Romena cive florentino, testibus etc.
Source: Denis Fachard, Biagio Buonaccorsi: Sa Vie—Son Temps—Son Oeuvre (Bologna: Boni, 1976), 259–260 (Archivio di Stato di Firenze, Signori e Collegi, Deliberazioni fatte in forza di ordinaria autorita, 106, cc. 40v–41r). Translation by Francesca Roselli.
Although scholars have expressed various opinions concerning who was responsible for implementing the decision to divert the Arno, the texts demonstrate that Machiavelli wrote incessantly to the field, overseeing the project for the Ten of War; in the field, the leading engineer was Colombino. Since Leonardo was primarily engaged in working on The Battle of Anghiari at this time, it is not surprising that he did not play a central role. It may be, however, that Machiavelli consulted Leonardo between the letters of 20 and 21 September 1504.
In this memorandum, Machiavelli clearly designates Colombino as responsible for the completion of the work and suggests that it is necessary to stimulate him to action. As the result indicates, Machiavelli’s fears were well grounded.
Et chircha à casi di Colombino, li farai intendere che attende ad fare che la opera si tiri innanzi et che la riescha, perché non se li è manchare di remuneratione conveniente, così in suo premio come in suo honore.
With regard to Colombino, you will urge him to make the work proceed and come to an end, if he does not want to lose an opportune compensation, intended both as reward and as praise to his honor.
Source: Denis Fachard, Biagio Buonaccorsi: Sa Vie—Son Temps—Son Oeuvre (Bologna: Boni, 1976), 128 (Archivio di Stato di Firenze, X di B., Miss. 78, cc. 110r.–111r). Translation by Francesca Roselli.
Giuliano Lapi was one of the two General Commissioners in charge of the Florentine camp; Machiavelli, as Secretary to the Committee of Ten, was the presumed recipient of the letter. As Fachard points out, this letter shows that as of 10 September, “Colombino was not yet being held responsible for the slowness with which the project was advancing.”
. . . che Colombino non può essere in ogni lato egli, et so auanato harebeno rispiarmato questa opera se ce ne fussi suti 4, che qui ce ne è carestia di simili homini, poiché votre Signorie non gli vogiando mandare si farà el meglio si potrà, o manderò per epsi dove crederò ne sia, ché quando non facessino altro che etter gl’homini in sul lavoro innanzi iet indrieto dove fa bisogno, non farebbono poco . . .
. . . Colombino cannot be held responsible for everything, and I know how much time we would have saved if we had four of them, because we are in urgent need of such men, but since your Lordships do not want to send any more of them, we will do as much as we can. I will send the men we have where I believe it is needed, because even if they did not do anything more than place the workers where it is more necessary, this would already be an achievement.
Source: Denis Fachard, Biagio Buonaccorsi: Sa Vie—Son Temps—Son Oeuvre (Bologna: Boni, 1976), 142–143, note 34 (Archivio di Stato di Firenze, X di B., Resp. 79, c. 368r.-v). Translation by Francesca Roselli.
Machiavelli writes to the camp before Pisa, indicating his judgment of Colombino’s ability and character.
Colombino è huomo intendentissimo di cotesto mesteiro delle adque, ma è persona rimessa et che in tanta moltitudine di huomini et di faccende facilment pare che non comparischa; ma è necessario, conosciute le qualità sua, animarlo et non li torre quore. Diciamooti questo acciò che conoscendolo tu come noi, possa seondare la natura sua et metterli animo quando bisogna.
Colombino is an excellent expert on this hydraulic engineering but as a person he is so reserved that he does not stand out among such a multitude of men and preparations; anyway, after knowing his qualities, it is necessary to support him. We are telling you all this so that, by knowing him as well as we do, you can understand his natural inclination and encourage him when it is needed.
Source: Denis Fachard, Biagio Buonaccorsi: Sa Vie—Son Temps—Son Oeuvre (Bologna: Boni, 1976), 128 (Archivio di Stato di Firenze, X di B., Miss. 79, c. 119r-v). Translation by Francesca Roselli.
Informed of a change in the way the work is being conducted, Machiavelli clearly refers to a first plan (“primo disegno”) that “we” prefer. The plan he is criticizing corresponds to the design reproduced by Buonaccorsi in his Sunmario (reproduced in Figure 1.11); Machiavelli’s own preference corresponds with Leonardo’s drawing (Figure 1.6). Since Machiavelli often speaks in his own name in correspondence when referring to his private opinion, we (“noi”) seems to refer either to a preference of the Committeee of Ten—which would not be likely to be consulted on technical matters—or to Machiavelli and someone else informed about the project (which, under the circumstances, could easily be Leonardo). Given Soderini’s controversies with Leonardo, represented by the decision of 4 May 1504 and the stories reported by Vasari among others, Machiavelli may well have preferred not to name Leonardo as the source of his technical advice. Fachard leaves the question in doubt: “Machiavelli makes a personal judgment on the new project designed by Giovan Berardi, which corresponds exactly to the map reproduced by Buonaccorsi, and refers to a design that had previously been executed—but is this enough to conclude that it is a question of Leonardo’s design?” (p. 143). While Fachard is obviously correct that we cannot be certain, he does not consider the parallel evidence of other contacts between Machiavelli and Leonardo—not to mention the map of the Madrid Codex (Fig. 1.6), which is the only other plan of the diversion that has survived.
Per questa tua ultima di hieri intendiamo quello che tu ci di’ del fosso: et se questo di dopo mille promesse di di e’ sarà sboccato, ci fia grato; quanto che no, sanze starne in altra speranza, crederreno ad ogni modo che voi habbiate facto et facciate el possibile. Et perché tu di’ che costi si era pensato di sboccare el secondo fosso in quel modo che si sarà sboccato questo primo, et dipoi recare in isola que terreno che fra l’una et l’altra bocca del fosso si era disegnato votare secondo el disegno facto quando era costi Giovan Berardi, havendo in questo caso ad dire l’opinione nostra, ci piaceva più quel primo disegno che questo ultimo, perché entrando Arno per due vie, et l’una et l’altra non molto largha, non crediamo che gli entri con quello impeto che farebbe quando se gli facessi una scarsella secondo el primo modo. Oltre ad di questo, se venissi accidente veruno che disordinassi la pescaia che si fa, sarebbe più facile assai a’ Pisani el remettere Arno nel corso suo quando havessino ad riturare solum dua boche, et pichole, che se li havessino ad fare una tura di quella lughaeza che sarebbe lo spatio fra la bocca dell’uno et l’laltro fosso quando e’ fusti necto; pure quando le difficultà dell’operae o altre cagioni che non s’intendono vi forzassino ad pigliare questo ultimo partito che tu scrivi, ce ne rimettereno ad voi, et ad noi basterà solo havervene replicato l’opinione nostra.
Your letter of yesterday informed us about the ditch; if today, after so many promises, its mouth will be widened, this will please us; if not, without hoping any longer, we will nevertheless believe that you have done or are doing everything possible. As for what you are saying about its being considered to widen the mouth of the second ditch in the same way as the first, and afterwards to create an island of that part of the land between the two mouths of the ditch which was to be emptied according to the plan made when Giovanni Berardi was there, our opinion concerning this is that we preferred the first plan to this last one; because if the Arno flows through two ways, neither of them very wide, we believe that it would not flow with the same force as it would have if you were to make a little inlet as in the first plan. Moreover, if for any reason the weir thus created should be ruined, it would be much easier for the Pisans to direct the Arno back to its own course when they had to fill up only two small mouths, than if they had to fill up the space between the opening of the one and the other ditch; anyway, if the difficulties of the work or other unforeseen circumstances should force you to undertake this last project you wrote me about, we will trust your decision, and we will be content with having let you know our opinion.
Source: Denis Fachard, Biagio Buonaccorsi: Sa Vie—Son Temps—Son Oeuvre (Bologna: Boni, 1976), 143–44, note 42 (Archivio di Stato di Firenze, X di B., Miss. 78, cc. 134v–135r). Translation by Francesca Roselli.
Just a day after writing that the decision of which plan to implement should be made in the field, Machiavelli seemingly realizes that there is a serious problem of the depth of the diversionary canal as compared to the Arno itself; he insists on a definite preference (“noi desiderremo intendere”) and a specific action (“giudicheremo che fussi bene rimediarvi”). The collapse of the walls leading to the failure and abandonment of the project confirms Machiavelli’s fears. The letters of 20 and 21 September not only reveal that Machiavelli followed the technical details of the project with care, but they also could be read to suggest that he informally consulted with a specialist between the two letters; if so, that specialist would probably have been Leonardo.
Facci dubitare questa vostra dilatione che ’l fondo del fosso non sia più alto che ’l fondo d’Arno; il che quando fussi farebbe cattivi effecti et secondo noi non si verrebbbe al fine del desiderio nostro. Et in questo caso sarebbe bene da desiderare di sboccarlo con una piena, et da pensare che sboccandolo con l’acque basse e’ non facessi molto effecto. Et però noi desiderremo intendere questa basseza come la è, et se el fondo d’Arno è più basso o più alto dels fondo del fosso, et se el fondo del fosso fussi più alto del fondo d’Arno, giudicheremo che fussi bene rimediarvi.
Your delay makes us fear that the bed of the ditch is shallower than the bed of the Arno; this would have negative effects and in our opinion it would not direct the project to the end we wish. In this case it would be good to widen it with a flood, since we think that low waters would not have the same effect. Anyway we would like to know if the bed of the Arno is shallower or deeper than that of the ditch, and in case the bed of the ditch is shallower, we would think it proper to make up for it.
Source: Denis Fachard, Biagio Buonaccorsi: Sa Vie—Son Temps—Son Oeuvre (Bologna: Boni, 1976), 142, note 32 (Archivio di Stato di Firenze, X di B., Miss. 78, cc. 139r–v). Translation by Francesca Roselli.
Two weeks after Lapi’s letter exonerating Colombino for the delays, his colleague Tossinghi makes the architect’s shortcomings explicit.
. . . et perché loro [i lavoratori] hanno poca fede che questa opera si possi ridurre alla perfectione che vostre Signorie desiderano, ne stanno di mala vogiia, et a Giuliano et a me pare che questo maestro Colombino cominci a invilire di poter dar perfectione a questa opera, dandone cagione a’ tempi et all’opere chattive che si sono venute . . .
. . . and since the workers do not seem to believe that this work can be carried out as carefully as your Lordships wish, they are working with a bad disposition. It seems to Giuliano and me that Master Colombino is beginning to doubt that he can carry out this project, laying the blame on the weather and the unfavorable circumstances that accompanied the work . . .
Source: Denis Fachard, Biagio Buonaccorsi: Sa Vie—Son Temps—Son Oeuvre (Bologna: Boni, 1976), 143, note 34 (Archivio di Stato di Firenze, X di B., Resp. 79, c. 418 r-v). Translation by Francesca Roselli.
Machiavelli’s assistant, Biagio Buonaccorsi, wrote a detailed account of the failed diversion of the Arno. Two versions of the text have been found.
This manuscript version is presumed to be contemporary with the events, and probably written to provide the basis of a report to the Committee of Ten; pasted onto the text is Buonaccorsi’s sketch of the actual diversion (Figure 1.11). In this document, Colombino is explicitly named as the architect responsible for the project.
At this time it was considered taking the Arno River away from the Pisans in order to conduct it into the Stagno, for it was shown with good reasons that besides depriving the Pisans of their source of life, those who were undertaking this project were to benefit our town immensely; therefore, the decision to undertake the project being taken, the camp was set up at Riglione after having cut the forage, and a Maestro d’Acque, Colombino, was summoned, who was asked to state what was necessary to complete the undertaking. He asked for two thousand laborers a day equipped with the wood necessary to construct a weir in order to retain the river and divert it into two big ditches through which the Arno was to flow, planned to go all the way to the Stagno; and he promised that the undertaking could be carried out with thirty or forty thousand works, and so, provided with such a hope, the project was undertaken on 20 August, with two thousand works, which were to be paid each a carlino a day, and according to the design which will be shown at the bottom of the page. And the undertaking was not completed because it required too much time and money, and if Maestro Colombino had promised to finish the whole undertaking with thirty or thirty-five thousand works, eighty thousand works were not even enough to bring it half way, nor was the expected fall for waters achieved, because with the river in flood the waters entered strongly through the ditch but as the Arno went back to its regular flow the flood-waters began to subside. The Maestro having completed the first two projected ditches, and the weir begun but not finished, the Arno, being narrowed on account of the weir, was having its bed dug out by the faster waters to a level much lower than that of the ditch, so that the waters were entering the ditch only when the river was in flood. The Maestro maintained that the river itself would have corrected the anomaly once the weir was finished, because the sediment produced continually by the waters would have raised its bed, but in actuality the waters never went through except under flood conditions, and as soon as they diminished they flowed back. This undertaking came to cost seven thousand ducats or more, because in addition to the salary for the workers and other things, it was necessary to keep a thousand soldiers in that place to protect the workers from the attack of the Pisans. And the work was begun at the tower of the Fagiano, which tower was ruined to provide brushwood and other kinds of timber for the weir. The only benefit which was to ensue from this work was that the nearby hills came to be protected by the ditches against the Pisans’ raids; furthermore, it came to flood the whole plain of Vettola all the way to S. Pietro in Grado, making farming impossible. Two other Maestri d’Acque were called in from Lombardy and they too stated that the river had a fifteen braccia slope, but as the reason for it was understood through experience, it was decided to abandon the project. The greater of the two ditches was thirty braccia wide and seven deep, the second twenty braccia wide and as deep as the other.
Source: Denis Fachard, Biagio Buonaccorsi: Sa Vie—Son Temps—Son Oeuvre (Bologna: Boni, 1976), 127–128 and, for the sketch, Plate III, facing p. 158. Translation by Francesca Roselli.
Buonaccorsi’s Diario de’ successi piu importanti seguiti in Italia, & partricolarmente in Fiorenze dall’anno 1498 insino all’anno 1512 was published posthumously in Florence in 1568; on the work as a history, see Fachard, Biagio Buonaccorsi, chapter 5. Of particular importance is the replacement of specific mention of Colombino by the general phrase “maestri d’acque,” thereby avoiding charges of personal responsibility for the failure.
At this time it was considered taking the Arno River away from the Pisans in order to conduct it into the Stagno, for it was shown with good reasons that besides depriving the Pisans of their source of life, it was to benefit our town, and finally, the decision to undertake the project being taken, the camp was set at Riglione, and Maestri d’Acque were summoned. They explained that the undertaking required two thousand works a day [an opera is the labourer considered for the work he can carry out in a day] equipped with the wood necessary to construct a weir in order to retain the river and divert it into two big ditches all the way to the Stagno; and they promised that the undertaking could be carried out with thirty or forty thousand works, and so with such a hope the project was undertaken on August 20, with two thousand works, which were to be paid each a carlino a day. This undertaking took much more time and money, and to no profit, for, in spite of the estimated cost, eighty thousand works were not even enough to bring it half way, nor was the expected fall for the waters achieved, because with the river in flood the waters entered strongly through the ditch but as the Arno went back to its regular flow the flood-waters began to subside. The maestri having completed the first two projected ditches, and the weir begun but not finished, the Arno, being narrowed on account of the weir, was having its bed dug out by the faster waters to a level much lower than that of the ditch, so that the waters were entering the ditch only when the river was in flood. The Maestri maintained that the river itself would have corrected the anomaly once the weir was finished, because the sediment produced continually by the waters would have raised its bed. But in actuality the waters never went through except under flood conditions, and as soon as they diminished they flowed back. This undertaking came to cost seven thousand ducats, or more, because in addition to the salary for the workers, it was necessary to keep a thousand soldiers to protect the workers from the attacks of the Pisans. And the work was begun at the tower of the Fagiano, which was ruined to provide the building material for the weir. A benefit which was to ensue from this work was that the nearby hills came to be protected by the ditches against the enemy’s raids; furthermore, it came to flood the whole plain of the Vettola all the way to S. Pietro in Frado, making farming impossible. Two other Maestri d’Acque were called in from Lombardy and they too stated that the river had a fifteen braccia slope, but as the reason for it was understood through experience, it was decided to abandon the project altogether and to damage the Pisans in some other way, above all by preventing them from leaving the town. The greater of the two ditches was thirty braccia wide and seven deep, the second was twenty braccia wide and as deep as the other.
Figure 1.11. Biagio Buonaccorsi, Plan of the Diversion of the Arno (1504). Courtesy of Biblioteca Riccardiana, Firenze—Ricc. 1920. cc. 83v.–84 r.
Source: Carlo Pedretti, Literary Works of Leonardo da Vinci (Berkeley, Calif,: University of California, 1977), 2.177–178 (Italian), pp. 178–179 (translation).