Note 196 — Chapter VII
Robert Harrison translation
When Muratori, in vol. xxiii. of the Scriptores rer. Ital., printed the Commentariolus de bello Volaterrano, a. 1472, by Antonio Ivano (Hyvaniss) of Sarzana, then Chancellor of Volterra, he remarks with his usual insight how cautiously one must proceed in employing this apologetic official account, evidently ordered in Florence, of a man not well spoken of. (Ivano came to Florence in March, 1473, as ambassador from Sarzana; see Gaye, Carteggio inedito, vol. i. p. 251. There is a description by him of the ruins of Luni.) The anonymous ‘Cronachetta Volterrana’ already quoted, which M. Tabarrini gives in the Arch. Stor. Ital., App. vol. iii., is also favourable to the Florentines. Machiavelli and G. M. Bruto, who copied from him, have an account not only insufficient but incorrect, in respect to the causes which led to the quarrel; Alamanno Rinuccini, as above, s. cxx., has only short notices of the war; Scipione Ammirato has no desire of agreeing with Machiavelli. How Raffael Maffei (Volterranus) regarded the matter is shown by his ‘Comment. Urb.’ and the whole of his proceedings towards the Medici. Stan. Gatteschi has in his translation of Bruto (vol. ii. p. 90, seq.) investigated the origin of the whole conflict with the help of documents. The name of Lorenzo de’ Medici is not to be found in the contract which mentions the members of the trading company, but in the contemporary ‘Ricordi’ of Zaccharia Zucchi (see Fabroni, as above, vol. ii. p. 62). Francesco Guicciardini (Stor. Fior. chap, iii.), who had the traditions of his own house at his disposal, although he remarks that the fact was unknown to him, also speaks of Lorenzo’s selfish intentions in the affair, and how he oppressed the Volterrans, because he feared a diminution of their general respect if he did not succeed in his purpose. Louis XI.’s letter to the Florentines of June 3O, wherein he complains of the silence of the Republic about the Volterran affairs, is in Desjardins, as above, p. 157; the letter from the Signori of July 1, p. 58; and the answer to the first of July 30, p. 160.