The most credible authorities of the time tell us that he was innocent of these vices, and they add that he suffered for secret reasons of state. Some even among these writers seem to have been borne down by current opinion and doubt if he were not guilty, but they add that it was only the pretext for his punishment. Such is the opinion of Giammatteo Toscano who wrote indignant verses against the Genoese for the murder of Jacopo. Caporali declared Bonfadio innocent. Ottavio Cossi and Ghilini tell us that having offended in his writings some very exalted persons, he was accused of infamous ardours. It is probably true that he incurred the enmity of illustrious families whose names were blackened in his history; Zilioli confirms this theory when he says that Bonfadio’s history was _mortal_ to its author. Boccalini states the case with much greater clearness, blaming the pen of Bonfadio for having impeached the honour of great houses, adding that an historian should imitate vine-dressers and gardeners: that is to say, should speak only in the full maturity of events, when the great who had done evil are dead and their children incapable of vengeance. He enforces his theory by the example of Tacitus who preferred violating the laws of history to running risk of personal danger. In expressing these cowardly sentiments (an historian ought to tell the truth and to throw down his pen when that becomes impossible) Boccalini did not express his true opinions, and he was afterwards run through by the Spanish ambassador in Venice for writing freely against Spain. Laying aside as untenable the opinion of Marini and Cardano, we agree with those who deny that Bonfadio had fallen so low, and we find support in the testimony of Ortensio Landi, a contemporary of our author and a man of great talents, who fell into disgrace at Rome for evangelical opinions. He tells us that Bonfadio was condemned on false testimony; and this was the belief of the learned of that period. There is in fact nothing to support the theory that he was guilty except the assertions of writers of little reputation for truth in other matters, who were, indeed, only servile retailers of calumnies which their authors wished perpetuated beyond the tomb. The nature of the penalty, the secrecy of the trial and the position of the accused were calculated to impress the popular mind with the belief in a crime against nature--a crime which famous examples, especially that of Brunetto Latini, showed to be the vice of _literary men and public teachers of youth_. There is, besides, in man an instinct which finds guilt where the axe falls. The public and the historians forgot one fact, Bonfadio read his lectures in a church and his auditors were not young boys. He says that he had “many aged listeners and more merchants than Students.”