In 1494, the Lord of Sinigaglia signalised himself by a feat worthy the freebooting practice of his times. Zizim, or Gem, son of Mahomet II., had right by his father's will to half the Turkish empire, but was expelled by his brother Bajazet, in 1482.[*218] Having fled to Rhodes, and placed himself under the protection of the Grand Master, Bajazet offered the latter a pension of 40,000 (or as some say 450,000) golden ducats, on condition of his being retained in safe custody. From Rhodes he was removed to France, and, in 1489, was brought to Rome, where, though received with much distinction by Innocent VIII., he found himself virtually a prisoner, or hostage. Bajazet, after failure of an attempt to have him assassinated, agreed to pay that Pontiff and his successor, the same yearly subsidy of 40,000 ducats for his custody and entertainment, besides supplying the Holy See with various important Christian relics from Palestine. In 1494, the Sultan's usual annual pension having been remitted to Rome through one Giorgio Bucciardo, accompanied by costly presents for Alexander VI., the envoy, on leaving Ancona, where he had disembarked, was set upon and plundered by Giovanni della Rovere. After appropriating most of the treasure, to extinguish alleged arrears of pay from the Holy See to himself and his troops, the Prefect sanctified the deed by dedicating the residue to pious works, employing the rich oriental stuffs for church ornaments. Soon after, there were circulated in Rome, certified copies of a correspondence between Alexander and the Sultan, with the oral instructions of his Holiness, which Bucciardo had been induced to divulge, and which throws a curious colour on this chapter of diplomacy.[219] [Footnote *218: The best contemporary account of Djem is that of GUGLIELMO CAOURSIN, _Obsidimis Rhodii Urbis Descriptio_ (Ulm, 1496). Cf. BURCHARD (ed. Thuasne), I., p. 528. The amount seems to have been 45,000 ducats. See especially HEIDENHEIMER, _Korrespondenz Bajazet II.'s mit Alexander VI._, in _Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte_, vol. V., p. 511 _et seq._ As usual, Creighton's account, _op. cit._, vol. IV., is most excellent, written with the pen of a statesman. Heidenheimer maintains the authenticity of the letters, and Creighton agrees with him. "If the letters were forged, the forgery was the work of Giovanni della Rovere," but there is no good ground for questioning their genuineness.] [Footnote 219: These papers have been printed in Bossi's Italian translation of ROSCOE'S _Leo X._, vol. IV., p. 220; but our extracts were made from a MS. in Vat. Ottobon, Lib. No. 2206, f. 17.]